- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:58:32 +0100
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
The chair asked for stuff for the f2f. Here's my take. A. We clearly need to close as many of the remaining issues as possible. B. Review of Datatypes WD - we should publish a datatypes WD straight after the f2f. C. Document structure - we should review whether the current arrangement of material to documents is the one we wish to take to last call and rec. D. Document review - maybe not suitable for f2f. - we should have a more detailed review of the documents than we have had to date. e.g. on the syntax we could work through the rules one-by-one to check that it is clear what they do, rather than merely check that what they say is what we agreed. E. reassessment of closed issues I think we have got to a point where we have basically finished. Many issues interrelated, and we closed some issues earlier and others later. I think it would be good to take stock, and to see whether it is clear that we have made any mistakes. Some issues I think got postponed because we believed we were not making any changes; but actually we have made more changes than we might have done. Some things we did not think about addressing might have obvious fixes that we should, with hindsight, do. Issues in my mind include: - rdfms-syntax-incomplete - should a literal's structure be represented in the graph (e.g. xml:lang) The difficulty is how to refresh our minds about closed issues without letting everything cave in. A possible mechanism might be to allow people to propose concrete changes, with five minutes to explain, and then a straw poll to determine whether we want to discuss it. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 04:59:30 UTC