RDFCore 2004-01-16 telecon minutes ================================== date: 20040116 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2004Jan/0053.html Transcript: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/16-rdfcore-irc swebscrape:N3:python: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/scripts/minutes2n3.py date: 2004-01-16 item 1: scribe danbri scribing item 2: roll call Present: Pat Hayes Dan Brickley (scribe) Brian McBride (chair) Dave Beckett Jeremy Carroll Eric Miller Dan Connolly Mike Dean (from 15:20 UTC) Graham Klyne (from 15:38 UTC) Regrets: Graham (partial attendance) Minutes of 2003-12-05 telecon in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Dec/0015.html APPROVED scribe note: these were of Dec 5th not 12th as described during meeting and in the agenda. RDFCore WG did not meet on 2004-12-12. item 3: Review Agenda Accepted. No AOB proposed. (subsequently, Eric Miller proposed "testimonials for rdfcore" for AOB) item 4: Next telecon (the meeting noted error in agenda; next meeting isn't last october) RESOLVED: next RDFCore meeting 2004-01-30 (friday 30th January) item 5: Minutes of 12 Dec 2003 telecon Minutes of 2003-12-05 telecon in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Dec/0015.html APPROVED scribe note: these were of Dec 5th not 12th as described during meeting and in the agenda. RDFCore WG did not meet on 2004-12-12. brian: now we're meeting less regularly, propose we circulate minutes as usual, look for two to check, if nobody says they're flawed, I'll send a 'these are approved'. chair to record the "approved" decision in mail to the WG. See agenda for detail. item 6: Confirm status of completed actions 2003-12-05#1 bwm to review that the changes to primer 2003-12-05 are ok 2003-12-05#2 daveb make the syntax changes recorded in minutes 2003-12-05 2003-12-05#3 daveb make the N-Triples document quotes change. ...all completed. 7: Approving minutes of this meeting brian: now we're meeting less regularly, propose we circulate minutes as usual, look for two to check, if nobody says they're flawed, I'll send a 'these are approved'. chair to record the "approved" decision in mail to the WG. From agenda: [[ Given that there may be significant gaps between telecons in future, the chair proposes to approve the minutes of telecons by email. Draft minutes will be circulated by email as normal. A chair will call for review of the minutes. The minutes will be approved subject to positive review and no objections being sent within three days of publication of the draft. ]] 8: AC Review Status a brief exchange regarding the AC's review of RDFCore PR: bwm: anything to say about AC Review status danc: i've seen nothing that worries me jjc: yesterday in webont you mentioned some names (of orgs/ACs) that hadn't yet expressed support... danc: list is smaller for rdfcore, and suggestive of bugs in wg membership list jjc: i'm onto the HP vote... ericm: i expect a bunch of last minute submissions 9: Proposed minor Changes to Primer Document frank: I sent http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2004Jan/0067.html with updated list of corrections to be made. ...the primer doc w/ the fixes applied is correct ...needs a slight mod to its list of corrections, which are in this msg. ...all changes listed w/ exception of the 3rd one. bwm: DanC, is this form of proposal appropriate? ...as in the agenda, ie. "the WG recommends to the Director to make the change" danc: yes bwm: anyone reviewed them? dave: yes bwm: also Graham looked bwm: anyone got a problem with approving these danc: 2 is good; more is better. cost of change now is high. ...i'd like the wg to be have more eyes on this bwm: I've also looked pat: I looked too, happy bwm: so proposal is, per the agenda w/ the ammendement in 0067.html above (dropping change 3) RESOLVED: (none against, none abstained) per agenda w/ the amendment in 0067.html above (ie. dropping change 3). The accepted-with-modifications Proposal (copied from Agenda) was as follows: [[ PROPOSAL: The RDFCore WG recommends to the director that the minor editorial fixes described in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2004Jan/0029.html should be included in the version of the RDFCore Primer which is published as a rec. The PR document with the fixes applied can be found at: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-primer-20030117/ md5: b52ef70329d35310c92e51454167e076 This references an updated figure: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-primer-20030117/vehicleClassesJa n12.png md5: 51a880f6d04c60561bef948c473c54e0 An htmldiff between the PR version and the updated version can be found at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jan/0040.html ]] ACTION 20040116#finalprimer ericm to convey our recommendation regarding Primer edits to the Director. 10: Proposed Expository Changes to the Semantics document From agenda: [[ I interpret Pat as proposing: PROPOSAL: The RDFCore recommends to the director that expository improvements should be made to the RDF semantics document before it is published as a rec. An updated version of the PR document can be found at: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/ md5 2dcd2292776e8274b6e8b288dd7022fb [[Pat this is the ed-be version you prefer - would be good to confirm I uploaded it correctly]] An htmldiff between this version and the PR document can be found at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Jan/0053.html [The checksum difference is caused by updating the CVS revision number within the doc as a diff will verify] ]] pat: these are largely typose, minor grammar fixes etc. also change suggested by Herman re def of d-interpretation doesn't affect things mathematically but improves a 'slightly undefined' definition. His larger changes _have not been made_ (after considerable discussion) ...there is a more recent version with a few more typos and changelog fixes ...tiny bug fixes jjc: i have a pref for the one I reviewed pat: I offer this last one just in case typos worth fixing jjc: i'm easy; either one acceptable. DanC: I would like Patel-Schneider's opinion on PatH's proposal be entered into the record danc: could separate editorials from math fixes ...have you showed pfps those bytes you're proposing to change pat: yes, they're ok with them ...herman and peter approved them...see mail earlier today jjc: of the versions mentioned, we should probably go w/ the one herman reviewed pat: yes danc: lets approve the stuff that's reviewed, then consider the later fix bwm: danc, i'd like you to review peter and herman's responses http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2004Jan/0057.html dave: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2004Jan/0063.html (danc reads from pfps's...) danc: hermans from 16jan 13:29, "changes are acceptable... although..." ...now reads peters peter, "do not make the document any worse"(!) ...would like a changelog entry [Mike Dean joins the call] bwm: we've established that peter says 'these don't make the doc worse'; Herman has approved. JJc has reviewed and OK'd. GK also. bwm puts the question: that we sohould make the change per the agenda ayes: lots; no objections. ILRT abstains. RESOLVED: to propose to the Director that we make the changes to the Semantics doc outlined in today's agenda. bwm: actions arising to follow discussion of detail. pat: typos etc, including 'PPP' instead of 'P' jjc: ah, these fixes were already approved pat: in that case, only additional improvements beyond those we just agreed are w.r.t. detail of how this is captured in the change log. ...wording, links to archive, etc. DanC: suggestion ...these dont seem like they need WG approval jjc: am happy to review any final changelog from pat if appropriate/useful pat refers to http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_2004bcc.html daveb: md5sum aeaed168ca67fd1e7b69ebc182727317 danc: how about brian, pat, eric, myself meet directly afterwards to decide detail jjc: which version exactly do i review? pat: bcc pat: oh wait. Sorry. bc. DanC (in IRC): (detail = get http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/ to be exactly right by playing cvs-tiddlywinks) pat: er, actually bcc jjc: I am happy w/ bcc including its changelog bwm: getting WG outside critical path... ...ericm w/ help from danc, me, pat to review any minor typo corrections and get that implemented jjc: wording of any decision, should include changelog ACTION 20040116#finalsem ericm review last minute typo corrections, update changelog as appropriate, and convey WGs recommendation to Director (w.r.t. Semantics spec) 11: Review of TAG's Web Architecture Document * skipping as neither JanG nor Graham here 12: Mime-types doc: bwm: Propose action Graham to investigate most effective means to publish. Graham has indicated willingness to accept such an action: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2004Jan/0051.html bwm: gk suggests there might be a more lightweight process within IETF to getting mimetypes published danc: reading this... ...wg put mimetypes to sleep until PR; we're now in PR. ...more lightweight than what? bwm: don't know danc: do whatever, I have no good advice bwm: action is only to investigate proposing action on gk to investigate most appropriate means of publishing the mimetypes doc within IETF (Graham Klyne joins the call during item 13 below; was in IRC from around now) ACTION 20040116#mime gk to investigate most appropriate means of publishing the mimetypes doc within IETF 13: Docs at end of RDF and RDFS schema URIs Status? Plans? danbri: I had an action pre-xmas to update the docs at the namespaces, which amounts to repartitioning the 2 or 3 rdf/xml docs we have (rdfs, rdf, fr transltion, seealso page etc). danc: i'm a little bit suprised we don't have images of what should appear there in the specs danbri: it is split between several files. rdfs never got to rec i'd like to know when to do it? sooner or timed w/ REC? danc/ericm: sooner is better ACTION 20040116#newnsdocs danbri get rdf + rdfs ns docs updated asap, on behalf of w3c webmaster role danc: we can make changes we believe timbl would approve to ericm: drop dead date for ns updates in Jan30. AOB on testamonials: ericm: I'd like testamonicals esp from WG member's orgs to accompany the rec ...for those that are interested, pls let me know, esp if I need to help. (DanC talked through detail of how testamonials work, giving example of CCPP http://www.w3.org/2004/01/ccpp-testimonial) ericm: jan30th drop dead date for these ...final text to w3t-pr@w3.org cc: em@w3.org 14: TechPlenary Update http://www.w3.org/2003/08/allgroupoverview.html ericm: TP, in France, early March. ericm: SW related meetings are SW Best PRactices f2f kickoff SW IG too (...which is renaming of the RDF IG) gk: BPWG is a proposed WG ericm: encourage folk interested in Best Practices or IG to follow link above and register danbri: Graham: is WG participation needed for the best practices session participation? by time this comes around, I may not be in any WGs danc: welcome on weds and IG meeting ...the BP WG meeting is for WG members; talk to chair re possible observer status. dave: when is the WG meant to start? that day? danc: pretty much, yup. jjc: at webont meeting, noted that getting the funding to attend easier when there's an agenda danbri: ack'd. 15: Other things that need doing? bwm: ...re topics we ducked, postponed eg. writing a schema for xml schema datatypes ...would we take it on, vs leave to a future best practices wg? pat: yes, ...interesting thing to do, and should be done. gk: when you talk about a datatype schema, the few rdf terms to do w/ datatypes, or picking up all of the xsd types? bwm: the latter danbri: noting that the WG wraps up in may/june, to set some context for discussion of bits of work such as datatypes schema bwm: I'm hoping this life after rec will be a lightweight task for those involved pat: conducted by email bwm: I'd expect so next meeting? ericm: lets continue w/ usual expectation, cancel if not needed resolved: next meeting on 30th ADJOURNED. See end of http://www.w3.org/2004/01/16-rdfcore-irc for some notes during followup non-meeting discussion on document version/edit details.