- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:28:44 +0000
- To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Brian, don't we *need* an agendum to ratify the last meeting's decisions, in light of the query-quorum discussion, per: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0068.html Maybe you intended this to be item 6, but I suggest an indication that decisions are to be ratified is included; i.e. that this is not just a cursory confirmation of reasonable accuracy (or not) of the minutes. #g -- At 19:38 13/03/2003 +0000, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com wrote: >Time: >10:00:00 Fri Mar 14 2003 in America/New York duration 120 minutes > >which is equivalent to >15:00:00 Fri Mar 14 2003 in Europe/London > >Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332 >irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore > >1: Volunteer Scribe > > >2: Roll Call > > >3: Review Agenda > > >4: Next telecon 21 Mar 2003 1100 Boston Time >We have a telecon scheduled for 18 Mar 2003, but: > > o I have another meeting I have to attend at that time > o Turnout at this weeks extra telecon was poor > o my request for another chair has met with no response > >I propose therefore to cancel the extra telecon next Tuesday. > >Volunteer Scribe > > > >5: Minutes of 28 Feb 2003 telecon > >See: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0053.html > > >6: Minutes of 11 Mar 2003 telecon > >See: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0068.html > > >7: Confirm Status of Completed Actions > >ACTION: 2002-11-01#16 danbri >team contact for publishinging LBase note > >ACTION: 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 > >ACTION: 2003-02-28#1 em >schedule tuesday teleconference for rdfcore (11th and 18th) > >ACTION: 2002-02-28#2 gk >respond to Vassillis > >see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0063.html > >ACTION: 2002-02-28#3 bwm >help respond to Karsten(sp?) question wrt collections > >see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html > >see: > http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T15-49-17 > >see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0507.html > >ACTION: 2002-02-28#4 gk >follow up on the concepts implication on pfps-15 > >see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0061.html > >ACTION: 2003-02-28#6 gk > review concepts for use of term [[namespace]] > >see: > http://lhttp//www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-27-27) > >see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0062.html > >ACTION: 2003-02-28#7 daveB >review syntax for use of term [[namespace]] > >see: > http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-27-14 > >see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0056.html > >ACTION: 2003-02-28#8 danbri >review schema for use of term [[namespace]] > >see: > http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-27-01 > >see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0241.html > >ACTION: 2003-02-28#9 bwm >with patH review semantics for use of term [[namespace]] > >see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0094.html > >ACTION: 2002-02-28#11 danc >danc to convey resolution of danc-01 issue to PatH > >see: > http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-39-19 > >see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0095.html > >ACTION: 2003-03-11#1 jjc >Make a proposal that abstract syntax contains canonicalized XML with comments > >see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0074.html > >ACTION: 2003-03-11#15 bwm > Re-post boilerplate for response to comments > >see: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0096.html > >ACTION: 2003-03-11#3 bwm >Move issue rdfms-assertion to postponed > >see: > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion > > > >8: 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 > > >9: Status on Incoming Last Call Comments >Editors please note the editorial comments from the xml schema WG. >These have not been recorded in the comments list as they can >presumably be dealt with at editors discretion. > >Otherwise, is the LCC comments list uptodate? VDL (aka schema)? > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#microschedule > > >10: Issue pfps-17,18,19,20,21 >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-17 >... and similar > >17 is dealt with: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0503.html > >and pfps has indicated that the resolution is satisfactory and for the >other docs. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0505.html > >Propose: > > o throughout the docs > - the term [xml namespace] be used to refer to xml namespaces > - the term [vocabulary] be used to refer to collections of names > (RDF URI References] > o the editors update their docs accordingly > o bwm responds to pfps for all these issues > > > >11: Issues macgregor-01, macgregor-02 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#macgregor-01 > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#macgregor-02 > >These are now moot as indicated by suggested by jjc in > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0040.html > >Propose these are closed on the grounds the offending text has been removed. > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >12: Issues reagle-01, reagle-02 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-01 > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-02 > >Proposal from Jeremy: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0074.html > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >13: Issue williams-01 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#williams-01 > >Graham's proposal: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0059.html > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >14: Issue pfps-03 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-03 > >Pat's message: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0069.html > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >15: Issue pfps-04,pfps-05,pfps-06,pfps-07,pfps-10 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04 > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05 > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-06 > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-07 > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-10 > >Pat's message: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0069.html > >Propose: > > Accept these comments and refer pfps to the updated editors draft. > >Note: I intend to have a category of pending responses where a commentor >reserves judgement on the resolution of a comment. > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >16: Issue pfps-08 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-08 > >Pat's message: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0069.html > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >17: Issue qu-01 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-01 > >Propose: > > Reject: When we discussed this we decided to allow rdf:_nnn >to be applied to resources other than containers, noting that the >original schema WG had omitted such a constraint. > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >18: Issue qu-02 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-02 > >Jeremy's Proposal: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0071.html > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >19: Issue xmlsch-08 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-08 > >Dave's Proposal: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0077.html > >[[Summary: closed. explanation, no action]] > >i.e. we respond agreeing that there are good reasons why its different, >indicating sensitivity to possible confusion and indicating the steps >we have taken to minimise such confusion. > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >20: Issue xmlsch-09 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-09 > >Dave's Proposal: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0077.html > >[[Summary: closed. explanation, no action]] > >Jeremy's Followup: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0079.html > >[[ wouldn't be surprised >if the text could do with editorial polish on this point.]] > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >21: Issue xmlsch-10 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-10 > >Dave's Proposal: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0077.html > >[[closed. we don't have to do this, out of charter ??]] > >Jeremy's Followup: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0079.html > > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >22: Issue xmlsch-11 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-11 > >Dave's Proposal: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0077.html > >[[closed. explanation, no changes]] > >Jeremy's Followup: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0079.html > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >23: Issue xmlsch-12 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-12 > >Dave's Proposal: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0077.html > >Jeremy's Followup: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0079.html > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > >24: Issue horrocks-01 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horrocks-01 > >See: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0081.html > > > > >See: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ > > > >------------------------------------------------------------ >This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant, running on Jena 2 ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 06:12:40 UTC