Draft Minutes of RDFCore telecon 20030822


The agenda was sent to the RDFCore mailing list, but due to a widespread 
email worm, has not yet appeared in the archive.  It may be found at:




date: 2003-08-22


bwm scribes.  JanG volunteers for next week.

Roll call

   Dave Beckett
   Dan Brickley (chair)
   Mike Dean (part time)
   Jan Grant
   Pat Hayes
   Frank Manola
   Brian McBride (scribe)
   Eric Miller
   Patrick Stickler

Regrets: Graham Klyne, Jos deRoos

Review agenda
   AOB xmlsch-02 added
   AOB objection to pfps-05 added

Next telecon

   29 Aug 2003 10:00 Boston time. JanG to scribe.

Minutes of 15th Aug telecon

Modified to note that no formal decision was made to go to CR as next 
step, though the "feeling of the meeting" was that was the next step.


completed actions

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


Misc actions

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

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

20030815#5 daveb incorporate XMLLiteral text into syntax

All others continued

[scribe note: the scribe could not keep up at this point so defaulted to 
  continuing all he wasn't sure about.]


Danbri has set up an emergency list for email to the group to enable 
comms whilst W3C mail servers are clogged by the recent email worm.  The 
created the membership list as best he could.  It should no longer be 
needed, but has been left in place in case.

Owl Now CR

Congratulations to the webont folks.

Response to I18N Objection on XMLLiteral

JJC drafted text:


Reviewed closely by PatrickS.  EM considered it helpful.  DaveB suggests 
adding that we got negative feedback on the use of a wrapper.  bwm 
concerned that claims about limitations imposed by ex-c18n were 
overstated.  EM stated that the chairs must be comfortable with the 

ACTION: bwm email comment about ex-c18N claim

ACTION: danbri to review the proposed rebuttal

Docment Status

primer - ready to go
concepts - chair beleives it is ready to go
syntax - ready to go
semantics - ready to go
schema - uptodate on technical content
        - process for handling last call comments to be completed
testcases - done except for test concerning equivalence
             between datatypes

The test case issue was discussed in


After discussion it was decided that no change was needed for the test 
in question.

ACTION PatH check whether pfps is now satisfied on pfps-06.

(scribe note - in light of later decisions, this might be premature).

French Translation Review

Danbri asked for competent French speakers to check the French 
translation of RDF Schema comments.  None forthcoming, will ask on RDF 

Publication: Next Steps

EM has written a draft request to advance to CR.  However, he raised a 
number of concerns about whether this was the appropriate next step:

   - the WG agrees it has made substantive changes to the documents
   - the Director may choose to ask that they be given a second last call
   - the Director is now on holiday and progress is likely to require his
   - the documents could advance directly from a second last call to PR

In particular, EM referred to


It was noted that a second last call could generate new issues, e.g. 
from I18N.

bwm noted that there seemed to be some wiggle room in the process 
document.  The WG could request advancement to CR despite the 
substantive changes.  The director then decides whether to advance the 
documents or send them back to the WG.  EM was unsure what criteria the 
Director applied in making such a decision.

Arguments that could be made to support advancement include:

   - the WG has done due dilligence in getting review from the developer 

It was noted that since it has not gone through a TR process, it may not 
have reached all the community, especially those who might be most 
concerned about I18N issues.

BWM noted that pfps has requested a complete review the modified documents.

EM suggested the question is where to put our effort.  Is it better to 
put effort into creating a case for moving forward without another last 
call, or to just do another last call.

BWM noted that jjc was not present and was known to have strong views 
that the next step should be CR.

EM noted that if there are unresolved issues, they can still appear at 
CR or even PR, and it is better to get them in a LC.

Danbri asked if the editors had the energy for another last call:

DaveB:  yes
Frank:  yes
JanG:   yes
Danbri: yes

bwm's employer wishes him to spend less time on RDFCore.

The chairs indicated they "are minded" that the next step should be a 
second last call.  The late agenda and the absence of jjc prevented a 
formal decision.

ACTION: bwm contact I18N to ask whether they have other issues we \
should deal with before a second last call

ACTION: bwm send email about xmlsch-03

ACTION: em circulate a target publication date



Received on Saturday, 23 August 2003 00:17:51 UTC