- From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
- Date: 01 Aug 2002 21:32:48 -0400
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Time: 10:00:00 Fri Aug 2 2002 in America/New York which is equivalent to 15:00:00 Fri Aug 2 2002 in Europe/London Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332 irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore 1: Volunteer scribe 2: Roll Call 3: Review Agenda 4: Next telecon Aug 9 2002 5: Review minutes of 2002-07-26 teleconference hmm.... no minutes seem to be available but I find http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-actions 6: Status of Action Items Proposed Closed Items ACTION: ericm Chase minutes of last telecon context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc#T14-09-09 Propose http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc is accepted as the official minutes ACTION: gk release new doc on Tuesday context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc#T14-58-22 See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0177.html ACTION: jjc to produce test cases to reflect decision re nodeID context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-51-08 See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0187.html ACTION: jjc update test case in light of rdf:ID decision context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-23-10 See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0187.html ACTION: ericm Solicit reviews re gk's new document context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-53 See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0006.html Open Items ACTION: 2002-05-31#4 bwm add "see also" links between rdfms-containers other approaches and rdfms-seq-representation in the issues list document ACTION: danbri to circulate LBase document before Wednesday context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc#T14-10-46 ACTION: jang update test cases in light of bugs</dd> context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-34-20 ACTION: eric Look into why jang gets dropped on rdf-comments list and fix problem context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-35-21 ACTION: bwm to identify applications needed and get a schedule for them context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-54-10 ACTION: bwm have a good holiday context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-20 ACTION: daveb update syntax in light of rdf:ID decision context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-23-41 ACTION: daveb update syntax doc to reflect decision re nodeID context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-51-04 ACTION: daveB to update rdfms-names-use to reflect rdf:nodeID context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-51-52 ACTION ericm Review gk's new document context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-00-48 ACTION: danbri Review gk's new document context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-01-24 ACTION: jos Partial review of gk's document (emphasis on section 2.3) context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-02 ACTION: danbri Partial review of gk's document (emphasis on section 2.3) context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-13 ACTION: frank Partial review of gk's document (emphasis on section 2.3) context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T15-04-03 7) New Document A new draft of 'Resource Description Framework (RDF): Overview and Abstract Data Model' is now availiable See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0177.html Last week we had people sign up to review this, I'd like to vote on a go for first working draft. 8) Datatypes This is the bottleneck that is keeping us from completing our work; I'd like to spend the majority of time on this call to figure this out. Some ready-reference notes/context: a) My analysis digging through the working group and interest group posts on this issue is right in line with Graham's [[ Looking at the various responses to the survey, it seems to me that there isn't a clear community consensus about what is desired or needed. ]] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0002.html More to the point, I think Graham further summed up my views beter than I could articulate these ... [[ Following the lead of others [1,2] I'm thinking it's time to reduce the problem to something we can agree on. Agreeing with Jeremy, I think nobody has problems with the local typing idiom. Maybe the global datatyping idiom, however seductive, is just a Bad Idea? I'm ready to throw in the towel on that bit. I think it's better not to try and specify it than to specify it badly. #g -- [1] Jeremy's messages: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0170.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0185.html (latter part, what is URI for "Valentines day MT"?) [2] Guha's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0199.html ]] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0002.html b) Patrick has sent regrets, but has a clear position on this - [[ If there is a vote regarding tidy/untidy literals this Friday, please accept this as my vote in favor of unitidy literals and against tidy literals. ]] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0001.html c) Interesting thread from danbri http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0003.html ------------------------------------------------------------ This agenda *really wanted to be* produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant -- eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/ semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 21:33:07 UTC