- From: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:28:44 GMT
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Time: 10:00:00 Fri Feb 28 2003 in America/New York duration 120 minutes which is equivalent to 15:00:00 Fri Feb 28 2003 in Europe/London Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332 irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore 1: This weeks scribe is Eric 2: Roll Call 3: Review Agenda 4: Next telecon 11 Mar 2003 1100 Boston Time Volunteer Scribe 5: Minutes of 14 Feb 2003 telecon See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0130.html 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions ACTION: 2002-12-13#13 em fix up liaison with DC architecture group for LC see: review coordination ACTION: 2003-01-10#15 all please chase your AC rep to ensure they fill out and return the process forms ACTION: 2003-01-17#6 ericM publish the last call WDs and Lbase Note ACTION: 2003-01-24#1 jjc Send msg to I18N asking for relevant LC review see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0113.html ACTION: 2003-01-24#2 bwm Send msg to XML Schema WG asking for relevant LC review see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0084.html ACTION: 2003-01-24#3 bwm Send msg to uri@w3.org asking for relevant LC review see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0147.html ACTION: 2003-01-24#4 em Send msg to David of XMLP asking for relevant LC review ACTION: 2003-01-24#5 danbri Send msg to SVG asking for relevant LC review ACTION: 2003-01-24#6 danbri Send msg to XHTML WG asking for relevant LC review ACTION: 2003-01-24#7 danbri Send msg to RDF IG about LC ACTION: 2003-01-24#8 patrickS Send msg to UAProf asking for relevant LC review see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0081.html ACTION: 2003-01-24#9 patrickS Send msg to Open EBook Forum asking for relevant LC review see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0082.html ACTION: 2003-01-24#10 danbri remind RSS people to send their comments to www-rdf-comments ACTION: 2002-01-24#11 bwm send announcement to chairs list see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0176.html ACTION: 2003-01-24#12 jjc Send msg to XML C14N WG asking for relevant LC review see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0114.html ACTION: 2003-01-24#13 bwm Send msg to RDF interest asking for relevant LC review see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2003Jan/0161.html ACTION: 2003-02-07#1 bwm Put together a schedule for handling LC comments see: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#microschedule ACTION: 2003-02-14#6 bwm update schedule page to reflect the current plan; seek feedback from the missing editors at today see: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#microschedule 7: XML Schema 1.1 Requirements 2003-02-14#1 daveB respond immediately to XML Schema 1.1 with a date for " we'll get back to you" 2003-02-14#2 daveB liase with jjc to work up a response on the XML Schema 1.1 requirements See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0163.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0078.html 8: RDF in HTML 2003-02-14#3 em set up a discussion between RDFCore and (x)HTML with the objective to understand each other on the subject of RDF in HTML See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0103.html 9: Status on Last Call Comments A co-chair would like to email a sweeper message to all contributers to rdf comments in the last n time periods saying - [[we think we have all comments either dealt with as editorial or captured in the lcc comments doc. please check and make sure any comments you have are properly recorded.]] I don't think we are ready to do this yet. When can we? Comments solicited from specific WG's: only XMLP seems to have responded yet. See: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#microschedule 10: Handling last call comments What order do we want to do these in? See: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ 11: Issue pfps-17,18,19,20,21 Proposal, (after a suggestion by Patrick, incorporating comment by Frank) That the term 'namespace' be used when referring specifically to an XML namespace, and that the term 'vocabulary' be used when referring to a set of URIREF's such as defined by RDF and RDFS. See: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-17 12: Social Meaning The social meaning issue is on the agenda to be discussed at the tech plenary. From a process point of view, such discussion is informal and may or may not result in a suggestion being brought back to the WG for formal consideration. This agenda item is specifically - to allow time for those who will not be present to comment prior to the tech plenary discussion See: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ ------------------------------------------------------------ This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant, running on Jena 2
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 19:28:57 UTC