W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-08-02 (rdf doc, datatypes)

From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Date: 01 Aug 2002 21:32:48 -0400
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1028251969.28000.26501.camel@birch>

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


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

release new doc on Tuesday
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc#T14-58-22


ACTION: jjc 
to produce test cases to reflect decision re nodeID
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-51-08


ACTION: jjc 
update test case in light of rdf:ID decision
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-23-10


ACTION: ericm 
Solicit reviews re gk's new document 
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/26-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-53


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

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


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:


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
isn't a clear community consensus about what is desired or 
]] -

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
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.


[1] Jeremy's messages:
(latter part, what is URI for "Valentines day MT"?)

[2] Guha's message:
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0002.html


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
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0001.html


Interesting thread from danbri


This agenda *really wanted to be* produced by Jema, the Jena WG

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:14 UTC