RE: Minutes of RDF DAWG telcon 2004-05-25 for review

Hi all,
No feedback or corrections on last week's minutes? It's hard to believe I
did such a perfect job of it. In fact, I know I didn't. I didn't catch the
name of whoever offered to scribe tomorrow. Can somebody let me know so I
can amend the formal record?

Thanks,
Howard

> From: Howard Katz [mailto:howardk@fatdog.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:38 PM
> To: RDF Data Access Working Group
> Subject: Minutes of RDF DAWG telcon 2004-05-25 for review
>
> Minutes of RDF DAWG telcon 2004-05-25 for review
>
> RDF Data Access WG telcon
> 2004-05-25 14:30 UTC
>
> Agenda
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0447.html
>
> IRC log
> not currently available online. attached.
>
>
> AGENDUM: 1. Convene, take roll, review record, agenda
>
> Present: Dan Connolly, Howard Katz, Kevin Wilkinson, Janne
> Saarela, Andy Seaborne, Kendall  Clark, Yoshio Fukushige, Daniel
> Krech, Farrukh Najmi, Jean-Francois Baget, Eric  Prud'hommeaux,
> Tim Berners-Lee, Bryan Thompson
>
> Next meeting: 2004-06-01 15:30 UTC
> scribe: [HOWARD: somebody volunteered for this. Who?]
>
>
> Minutes of RDF DAWG telcon 2004-05-11 for review
> From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
> Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 20:42:21 +0100
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0385.html
>
> as amended 12 May 2004 16:39:14 -0500 in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0386.html
>
> [ACCEPTED as a true record of our last meeting]
>
>
> ACTION DanC: inform the TAG of the conflict between sec13.9 of the HTTP
> spec and TAG's recommendation on issue 7
>
> [DONE, pointer not yet available due to problems with the archive]
>
>
> AGENDUM: 2. Use Cases & Requirements Draft
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases
>   v 1.89++
>
> ACTION AndyS, DanielK, BryanT: Review UseCases as of 2004-05-14
> preparing to report to the DAWG at 2004-05-25 telcon.
>
> Andy:
> "I would be happy to publish this version[1.74] as our working
> document." [1]
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0414.html
> Bryan:
> "Excellent work!  I would vote to release this version (per-or post any
> editorial changes based on final comments) as our first working
> draft." [2]
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004AprJun/0461.htm
>
> DanC: we seem to have lots of support for publishing
> Kendall: doc has been stable for a week, in good shape quality-wise
> DanC: Bryan's review [2] was thorough
>
> Bryan: I would vote this document up
> Kendall: title has been changed as per DanC's request
> EricP: is available through Saturday to handle publishing mechanics
> Kendall: proposes finishing by Thursday
> EricP: regrets for June 1
> DanC: will try to finish by 31may but no bets, CVS still having
> difficulties
>
> PROPOSED to publish
>   "DAWG Use Cases and Requirements"
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases
>   as a W3C Working Draft
>   (after light editorial fixes agreed by Kendal
>   and DanC|EricP such as spelling out DAWG in
>   the title, plus elaborated
>   Status Of This Document and any other changes
>   required by W3C publishing rules).
>
> Kendall: title has been changed
>
> [RESOLVED: to publish]
>
> Yoshio: will discussion continue on document issues after publication?
> DanC: certainly. best way to initiate discussion is to submit
> proposed text.
> DanC: primary purpose of this version is to invite outside
> feedback. Those with substantive  suggestions are invited to join
> the wg. we'll need to get more careful on last call.
>
> DanC: who's subscribed to the comments list?
> EricP: currently just Kendall
> DanC: we're obliged to respond to comments. If substantive, the
> entire wg should discuss  them.
> Kendall: if comments are minor, I'll handle them, otherwise pass
> them on the group
> DanC: be polite to commenters. Say thank you!
> DanC: people are invited to subscribe, but it's not required.
> EricP: confirms that people can subscribe by mailing
> public-rdf-dawg-comments-request w/  Subject: subscribe
>
> AGENDUM: 3. Additional Use Cases
>
> Kendall: queries what to do with Nick Gibbons new uc
> DanC: let's take up after publication of the uc doc
>
> ACTION DaveB: write up this educational metadata UC
> [continues]
>
> ACTION: Kendall: consider the larger comments from Brian and
> Yoshio post-publication
>
> AGENDUM: 4. Requirements
>
> [NOTA: <Zakim> says 'agendum 4. "Requirements" taken up [from DanC_]"'
> HOWARD doesn't know what this means]
>
> AGENDUM: Have any proposals achieved consensus recently?
>
> Andy felt Human Readable Syntax had done so
> DanC requested deferral as one main proponent not present
>
> AGENDUM: Refine requirements by evaluating designs?
>
> DanC called for volunteers. should require 1-2 weeks, you should
> not be an author of the design you review. Three at bats:
>
> ACTION: AndyS to review SeRQL
> ACTION: Bryan Thompson to review joseki
> ACTION: EricP to review RDQL
>
> Kendall: recently spammed language survey can be borrowed from
>
> AGENDUM: 5. Test materials
>
> ACTION SteveH: to draft and maintain a list of test sketch cases,
> including x < y, x < 18.
> [some progress made; continues]
>
> AndyS: happy we are publishing!
> Kendall: yes
>
> Adjourned
>
> Next meeting 2004-06-01 14:30 UTC
>
>

Received on Monday, 31 May 2004 17:50:20 UTC