Re: Minutes from Nov 3 Telcon

Hi Ivan:
The question was whether the Schema needs to be in the same file as the spec.
David was a bit surprised when the reference took him to another document.
Michael said the Schema needs to be machine readable so it's better in another document.

Another question was that if we add a translation table capability to the spec will we
require another Last call?
All the best, Ashok

On 11/4/2011 2:00 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> I am sorry I could not participate, but I had problems with this late night participation...
>
> I am not sure I fully understand the question related to me in the minutes, but I try to guess: would http://www.w3.org/ns/r2rml.html published as a W3C Rec, ie, in /TR?
>
> Usually, working groups do not do that. Apart from the fact that there are editorial issues (well, pains:-) attached to such a move, there is also a practical one. I know we are 100% perfect people but, believe it or not, there may be errata in the future...:-) Experience tells that many of those errata are editorial, and may also involve also slight RDF(a) error in the schema (misspelled URI-s, wrong comments, that sort of things). Because machines may read the .rdf or .ttl files derived from the .html file, time for change is important here. If these documents are in /TR, there is no way of changing those, whereas if they are elsewhere, it can be changed through some sort of a controlled errata mechanism (that we will have to set up when the time comes). AFAIK, the only group that did put a schema under /TR was SKOS, and we had several issues with it afterwards.
>
> So, my advise would be (if that was really the question, that is:-): let /ns/r2rml.html where it is, make it as perfect as we humanly can, but if later some error appears (of course, errors that do not change the core spec in /TR) than updating it becomes easier.
>
> Ivan
>
> On Nov 3, 2011, at 21:20 , ashok malhotra wrote:
>
>> Are at http://www.w3.org/2011/11/03-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
>>
>> We spent most of the time discussing comments from David
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Oct/0022.html
>> We resolved most of the issues David raised by wording changes in the spec.
>> There are also 3 Actions re. wording changes.
>>
>> In addition, there is an action to ask Ivan about whether the Schema is normative and
>> whether it needs to be in a separate spec.  There is also an action on Richard to create a new issue.
>>
>> After that we discussed other LC comments.  I have updated the wiki with the
>> resolutions.   We should start with LC comment 5 on Tuesday.  We also need to start addressing
>> the postponed issues.
>>
>> We did not discuss any DM comments
>> -- 
>> All the best, Ashok
>>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 4 November 2011 14:05:05 UTC