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

f2f suggestions

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:58:32 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIEBMCEAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

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.

  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.

Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 04:59:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:13 UTC