- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:44:57 +0100
- To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Agenda ====== 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: http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfcore-in-exile/2003-August/000004.html Transcript: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-08-22 date: 2003-08-22 Scribe ====== 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 =========================== http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0215.html 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. APPROVED completed actions ================= 20030711#4 danc to get a test case for pfps-09 into OWL testcase doc continued ALL OTHERS DONE. Misc actions ============ 20030815#1 danbri to fold PatH's words for reification into schema DONE 20030815#4 path incorporate the XMLLiteral text from message 0185 into semantics DONE 20030815#5 daveb incorporate XMLLiteral text into syntax DONE All others continued [scribe note: the scribe could not keep up at this point so defaulted to continuing all he wasn't sure about.] Administrivia ============= 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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0244.html 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 rebuttal. 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 http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfcore-in-exile/2003-August/000007.html 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 interest. 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 participation - the documents could advance directly from a second last call to PR In particular, EM referred to http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr#last-call http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr#return-to-wg 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 community 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 ADJOURNED -- swebscrape:N3:python: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/scripts/minutes2n3.py
Received on Saturday, 23 August 2003 00:17:51 UTC