Re: Minutes: 2002-09-20

I would like the meeting record to reflect that the chair asked who 
intended to formally dissent depending on the outcome.  If the decision was 
tidy, Nokia intended to dissent.  If the decision was untidy, W3C intended 
to dissent.

I also see from the irc log

   http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-09-20.html#T14-24-48

[[
  [14:24:48] DanC
pls let the record show that we haven't heard from adobe, and that danbri 
doesn't think we can conclude much about their implementation.
[14:25:09] danb_lap
Yes, JJC pls ack that for the minutes.
[14:25:52] jjcscribe
jack
]]

Brian

At 19:04 24/09/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>Not our most successful meeting ...
>
>
>SUMMARY
>=======
>
>DECISION (by 6 votes to 5) An rdf:descripton element containing a property
>element of <age>10</age> is untidy.
>[Scribe note, aside:
>However, see
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0237.html
>"I believe we have to try again to find a consensus.  "]
>
>ACTION 2002-09-20#1 jjc Produce test case domain and range.
>ACTION 2002-09-20#2 gk Post references to his previous actions on
>"assertion"
>REQUEST: jan (from danc) please do datatype test case (literal to bnode)
>
>------------
>
>AGENDA
>=======
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0182.html
>
>TRANSCRIPT
>==========
>http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-09-20.txt
>
>
>1: Scribes
>Jeremy this week; Graham next week (hopefully).
>
>
>2: Roll Call
>
>Present:
>
>FrankM,  Steve, PatrickS, PatH, Graham, AaronSw, Mike_Dean, Jeremy.
>Bwm, DaveB, JanG, DanBri, DanC, Sergey
>
>Regrets:
>Jos, EricM
>
>3: Review Agenda
>
>No change.
>
>4: Next telecon 27th Sept 2002
>
>
>5: Minutes of 2002-09-13 telecon
>
>See:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0178.html
>
>Approved.
>
>6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions
>
>ACTION: 2002-09-13#7 bwm
>contact DaveB and request update n-triples depends on completion of
>2002-09-06#4) to reflect datatype concensus
>
>see:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0125.html
>
>ACTION: 2002-09-13#9 bwm
>request space at the tech plenary for RDF meeting
>
>===
>
>Both confirmed.
>Note: action 2002-09-13#7 is now 2002-09-13#7a and assigned to DaveB.
>
>
>7: Review of namespaces last call
>2002-09-13#1  jjc  will send comments re namespace last call to appropriate
>                    group
>2002-09-06#1  bwm  get feedback to namespaces WG
>
>
>See:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0058.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0068.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0091.html
>
>==
>The action is complete:
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2002Sep/0011.html
>
>DanC raised the issue of a namespace as a collection of names.
>It was determined that RDF makes no use of this concept, and so whether it
>is a good concept or not is moot.
>
>
>
>8: Semantics of untyped Literals
>The WG should choose between value based and string based semantics
>
>
>See:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0157.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0161.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0160.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0164.html
>
>
>===
>
>More tedious discussion, repeating the tedious discussion that we have had
>for nearly a year now.
>As usual many strong opinions, a few waverers and a complete split down the
>middle at each straw poll.
>DanBri said a few things I hadn't heard before: perhaps seeing M&S as tidy
>(see
>http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/fig9.gif ) and Schema as
>untidy, but Schema never got to Rec.
>
>If you weren't there you didn't miss much really.
>
>After two completely split straw polls (U5-T4 and U7-T5) we then had a
>formal vote.
>
>Question: where you have an rdf:descipriton element containing a property
>element of <age>10</age> is that tidy or untidy?
>
>The vote was:
>
>Tidy:
>ILRT (Jan, DaveB), W3C (Dan & Dan), Steve, PatH, Aaron
>
>Untidy:
>Frank, PatrickS, Jeremy, Graham, Mike, Sergey.
>
>
>i.e.
>DECISION (by 6 votes to 5) An rdf:descripton element containing a property
>element of <age>10</age> is untidy.
>[Scribe note, aside:
>However, see
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0237.html
>"I believe we have to try again to find a consensus.  "]
>
>DanC and DanBri for W3C recorded outstanding dissent.
>
>
>
>9: Abstract Syntax for Literals
>
>2002-09-06#4 jjc review material thus far on specifics of
>rdfs:Datatype, rdfs:Literal and the abstract syntax of literals and
>produce a proposal for wording in the Abs. Syntax document.
>
>2002-09-13#8 jjc update the abstract data model in concepts doc to
>reflect the pair denoting a datatype literal
>
>Where are we on this.  Do all literals have an xml lang component? Are
>untyped literals specifically named?
>
>
>
>See:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0123.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0127.html
>
>===
>
>Lively discussion.
>Pat and Patrick speak in favour of lang tag on typed literals.
>Jeremy to get a move on with action.
>
>
>10: Proposed technical changes to RDFS model theory
>
>
>See:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0169.html
>
>ACTION 2002-09-20#1 jjc Produce test case domain and range.
>
>11: Frank's new assertion text
>2002-08-23#7  FrankM  Propose alternative text for the concepts and abstract
>                  model document to rectify concerns with conflicting use of
>                  "assertion".
>
>
>See:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0226.html
>
>http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-08-05/Overview.htm#section-Soc
>ial
>
>ACTION 2002-09-20#2 gk Post references to his previous actions on
>"assertion"
>
>Meeting closes.
>
>
>After hours:
>
>REQUEST: jan (from danc) please do datatype test case (literal to bnode)

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 04:25:47 UTC