Re: agenda: RDF Data Access 24 Aug (in progress)

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:07:33AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> 1. Convene, take roll, review record, agenda
> 
>   RDF Data Access Working Group
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
>   Tuesday 2004-08-24 14:30 UTC
>   Zakim Bridge +1.617.761.6200, conference 7333 ("RDFD")
>   http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#s_1343
>   supplementary chat: irc://irc.w3.org:6665/dawg
>        log to appear: http://www.w3.org/2004/08/24-dawg-irc
> 
> Scribe: EricP
> 
> roll call; cf http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/#who
> 
> PROPOSED: to accept
>  Minutes of RDF DAWG telecon 2004-08-17 for review
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0285.html
> ammended per
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0287.html
> as a true record.
> 
> 
> (I'm off to a family thing for most of this morning, and I haven't
> prepared an agend in detail yet. So rather than being late, I'm
> sending what I have now. The rest of the agenda will be based on
> last week's record, recent mail, and such. You're more than welcome
> to suggest items for discussion.)

Andy and I were trying to balance different examples of provenance in
the BRQL spec. It seems that several people want it, but we havent
decided what *it* is or of it's a requirement. Is it worth throwing
some chat time at this?

2004-08-23T15:11:36Z <AndyS> I have a poss. simpler example for SOURCE based on 
                     ratings of web pages.
2004-08-23T15:12:38Z <ericP> grepping failed
2004-08-23T15:13:16Z <AndyS> Two docs: one says  "<x> :quality good" . the 
                     other says "<x> :quality bad."
2004-08-23T15:13:26Z <ericP> i've exhanged email with him, but apparently 
                     [Ss]tonebreaker appeared in none of his email addr, name 
                     field, or sig.
2004-08-23T15:13:28Z <AndyS> Need to know who says what about what.
2004-08-23T15:13:41Z <AndyS> (where is this in UC&R?)
2004-08-23T15:14:02Z <ericP> (SOURCE? i don't think it's there.)
2004-08-23T15:14:38Z <ericP> is that more compelling that who get's to make 
                     important assertions about money?
2004-08-23T15:14:43Z <AndyS> Its not.  There is a simple solution here ... :-)
2004-08-23T15:14:53Z <ericP> strike it?
2004-08-23T15:15:11Z <AndyS> We need someone (else) to get it in UC&R.
2004-08-23T15:15:26Z <ericP> i've sent my use case to the list.
2004-08-23T15:15:38Z <ericP> they're kinda sleepy now.
2004-08-23T15:15:42Z <ericP> (we, i guess)
2004-08-23T15:15:47Z <AndyS> Could leave it empty for now.  I thought there had
                     been discussion but if there is on UC&R section its tricky.
2004-08-23T15:16:10Z <ericP> is the lang defined by UC&R reqs right now?
2004-08-23T15:16:33Z <ericP> seems fine to me if it is, but i don't know that 
                     we're constrained that way right now.
2004-08-23T15:18:50Z <ericP> at bristol, what was the motivation to put it in 
                     BRQL? folks thought it was a soon to be done deal?
2004-08-23T15:20:31Z <ericP> maybe paint it grey to indicate that it's up in 
                     the air?
2004-08-23T15:20:36Z <ericP> or just comment it out?
2004-08-23T15:21:25Z <AndyS> At the moment, I'm inclided to put 
                     dicussion/holding text in an issue doc.  Keep the spec the
                     decided/hard proposed bit.
2004-08-23T15:21:54Z <AndyS> Several people have wanted SOURCE - it needs to 
                     get into UC&R.  Agenda item for tomorrow?
-- 
-eric

office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
                        Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
                        5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
                        JAPAN
        +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +1.857.222.5741 (does not work in Asia)

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.