Agenda for 2003-08-22 RDFCore telecon (1hr)

(copied to the emergency list as I'm unsure how fast our mail hubs are yet)


Time:
10:00:00 Fri Aug 22 2003 in America/New York duration 60 minutes 

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Aug 22 2003 in Europe/London

Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332
irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore 

1. Selection of scribe 

   JJC to scribe (minutes may be late due to uk bank holiday)
   
   Scribe for next week?

Please could the minutes conform to:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0216.html

2: Roll Call
  Possible regrets from Eric Miller

3: Review Agenda

4: Next telecon 29 Aug 2003 1000 Boston Time (60 mins? 90 mins?)

5: Minutes of 15 Aug 2003 telecon 

See: 
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0215.html

6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

20030711#4      danc    to get a test case for pfps-09 into OWL test
                        case doc

20030815#3 jjc chase an HP endorsement of the impl report
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0239.html

20030815#9 jjc to draft implementation report response to \
	I18N objection

20030815#6 jjc incorporate XMLLiteral text into concepts
20030815#12 jjc modify concepts wrt whitespace/xsd resolution
both done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0218.html


7: Misc Actions - Status 

20030425#10     em      carry xmlsch WG's offer of help wrt xmlsch-12
                        to semantic web coordination group

20030815#1 danbri to fold PatH's words for reification into schema

20030815#2 danbri summarise rubyrdf for em

20030815#4 path incorporate the XMLLiteral text from message 0185 \
	into semantics

20030815#5 daveb incorporate XMLLiteral text into syntax	


ACTION 20030815#7 jjc review syntax changes

ACTION 20030815#5 daveb incorporate XMLLiteral text into syntax

ACTION 20030815#6  jang review test cases in light of XMLLiteral

20030815#10 jang ensure test cases affected by WS processing \
	are marked with a note in the TC document

20030815#11 daveb note in syntax to be changed wrt whitespace

20030815#13 jjc inform XMLSCHEMA WG wrt whitespace resolution
20030815#14 jjc inform PFPS wrt whitespace/xsd resolution

20030815#15 path to write to PFPS to characterise the outstanding \
	objection wrt semantics design so that it can be captured correctly.

8: Administrivia - emergency mailing list

  http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfcore-in-exile/2003-August/000000.html
  We lost 2+ days of email discussion time this week (no actual messages 
  believed lost). It appears the mail virus problems are under control now, 
  but just in case, we have mailto:rdfcore-in-exile@vapours.rdfweb.org should
  this happen again. Please always copy the main RDF Core list address.

9: OWL is in Candidate Recommendation

   OWL FAQ: http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owlfaq
   http://www.w3.org/News/2003#item138
   http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-features-20030818/	
   [[
	This CR period will extend until at least 20 September 2003. After that 
	date, when and if the exit criteria are met, the group intends to request 
	Proposed Recommendation status.
   ]]

   Exit criteria: 
   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/impls#exit
   these include...

	"finish resolving dependency on RDF Core specs, esp. RDF Semantics"


9: (CR) request draft - i18n dissenting opinion text

 We have a draft from jjc - does this capture the issue/problem to our 
 satisfaction?

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0244.html
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/att-0244/i18n-part.html
 Dissenting Opinion: xml:lang and rdf:parseType="Literal"

 Jeremy's doc describes current situation and design space the WG explored.

	[[
	The only serious other contender, in my opinion, is the wrapper hack in 
	syntax, possibly only when the xml:lang is anything other than "". I think 
	we should have that specified as the alternative design and go to CR asking 
	for implementor feedback between those two designs, using the 'at risk' 
	phaseolgy. While that does not seem to be precisely what the process 
	document has in mind, that is what OWL have done.
	]]

review from Patrick
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0236.html

Any further comments? Can we endorse this text?


10: Document Status 
  
(see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/ for links to pubrules checker)

  - Primer
   revised http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0207.html

  - Concepts
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0218.html

  - Syntax
   editor's draft: 
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0216.html

  - Semantics
    'ready to go'
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0245.html

  - Schema
   --reification text updated?
   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/

  - Test Cases 
	Test case outstanding actions, JanG, Mon 18th:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0211.html

  - Implementation Report, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance
 
11: French translation - review sought

 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/combined-ns-translation.rdf.fr

 We have RDF schema text for rdf: and rdfs: terms
 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/combined-ns-translation.rdf.fr
 (by Max Froumentin and DanB)

 We could publish this along with docs, could do with review from 
 French-speaking RDFCore member(s).


12: Treatment of XSD types

  thread spun off http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0231.html
  
	[[
	Hopefully for Pat to just confirm that I didn't imagine it when I
	thought I heard him say that this is now the treatment of XSD types: ie,
	that their denotation is a pair of (typename, value).
	]] --Jan  

	[[
	xsd:integer is still a subclass of xsd:decimal (which may or may not be
	true with intentional semantics, regardless of the datatype L2V
	definition); or rather, the value space of one is a subset of the value
	space of the other (in which case nothing needs doing), or:

	xsd:integer's value space is not a subset of the value space of
	xsd:decimal after all, in which case I add another "What?!?" to the
	list, but that's a problem to raise with the xml schema people.
	]] -- JanG

	[[
	Yup; when Pat said, "none of the XSD datatypes intersect", he meant,
	with the value space for XML Literal, not each other. Sorry if I gave
	anyone heartaches over their cornflakes.
	]]
	JanG, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0241.html

Is this resolved / closed / understood now? Any affect on specs?

13: Publication / next steps?

   Proceed with CR vs LC2 ...

   (perspective from Brian sought...)

Received on Friday, 22 August 2003 22:31:31 UTC