W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2003

Minutes for RDFCore telecon: 2003-08-29

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 15:36:10 +0100 (BST)
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0309011507350.22152-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>



swebscrape:N3:python: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/scripts/minutes2n3.py
date: 2003-08-29

Roll call:

  Dave Beckett
  Dan Brickley
  Mike Dean
  Jan Grant (scribe)
  Graham Klyne
  Brian McBride (chair)
  Eric Miller
  Patrick Stickler


  Jeremy Carroll, Frank Manola, Jos de Roo

Review agenda:
  Eric: notes that additional action iterms that were logged last week
  have been extracted.

Next telecon: 05 Sep 2003 1000 Boston Time

Minutes of last telecon:

 additional actions:


Confirm status of completed actions:
all Done.

Misc actions:
Formally WITHDRAWN: 20030815#2 danbri summarise rubyrdf for em

Item 8: I18N update

  DanBri: JJC's I18N text is technically accurate; feel that more
	information is required on the reasons for rejecting the
	wrapper solution.

ACTION: 2003-08-29#1 daveb track down LC comments on wrapper solution \
	for XMLLiteral

  [ DaveB pointed these out:
	wrapper comment 1:

	wrapper comment 2) (reagle, LC)

ACTION: 2003-08-29#2 jang check for/create if nec the xsd:string-entails- \
	plain literal test case.

Item 9: outstanding comments

PFPS on normalisation:

  DaveB: this is the same comment in essence as a previous one,
	I've replied extensively. We don't check our OWN datatype, let
	alone XSD types.

pfps comment on sectin 6.4 of concepts

ACTION: 2003-08-29#3 gk check CONCEPTS 6.4 wrt details of URI and "%"

pfps on semantics
  (Skipped in PatH's absence)

Item 10: xmlsch-02

  We recently decided to fudge this, but this has had adverse comment
  from pfps

  and extensive discussion, see thread beginning ...

  GK: we should back off specifying the behaviour in the case of errors.
  The WG was essentially against "fudging" the interpretations of XSD
  literals wrt whitespace processing. Discussion omved to email.

Item 11: next steps

  There was general concern that the WG should publish _something_ now.
  Various members felt that the consideration of "_just_ a WD" was not
  helpful; that publishing a WD should not be viewed as a retrograde
  step; that that NOT publishing anything was more harmful.

  Danbri: we shold feed back to the W3C that our [the W3C's] process
	punishes WGs for publishing specs.

  Danbri PROPOSED: to publish (with date of publication 5 September)
	new (plain) WDs (subject to PatH's agreement wrt semantics).

  Seconded: PatS. 0 against; HP abstained. Jos was absent,
	but for the record he was recorded as a likely abstention.

ACTION: 2003-08-29#4 danbri update \
	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/templates/lc2-stod for WD

  Note to editors that pubrule checker is linked from here:

ACTION: 2003-08-29#5 gk to liase with JJC on removal of WS "fudge" \
	from concepts

ACTION: 2003-08-29#6 jang remove xmlsch-02 test cases.

With the decision to publish, all editors need pubrule-ready documents
by NOON EST on Wednesday, Sept 3

ACTION: 2003-08-29#7 (all editors) update cross-references to 5 Sept \

The meeting closed.

jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
perl -e 's?ck?t??print:perl==pants if $_="Just Another Perl Hacker\n"'
Received on Monday, 1 September 2003 14:55:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:07 UTC