- 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