See also: IRC log
RESOLUTION: issue #1 accepted
<CarlosI> SAZ: any comments about issue #2?
RESOLUTION: issue #2
... issue #3-#7 accepted
... in issue #8 use TestCriterion
<scribe> ACTION: SAZ ask for feedback on issue #8 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-er-minutes.html#action01]
RESOLUTION: put issue #9 on hold
for after Last Call
... in issue #10 add some indication in the assertor class
[discussion on "mixed" vs "unknown" as values for testing mode]
RR: "mixed" is misleading, i expect to find more information about the combination used in the mixed
CI: agree that "unkown" is imprecise because it *is* known to someone, prefer "notAvailable" or "undisclosed"
RESOLUTION: change value name "mixed" not "notAvailable"
<scribe> ACTION: SAZ ask for feedback on "notAvailbale" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-er-minutes.html#action02]
SAZ: given the changes above and the recent discussion, any objections to publishing EARL 1.0 Schema as Last Call?
CI: somewhar concerned about changing names of
classes, people expect stable specs at LC stage
... but think we should go to LC, seems stable enough for now
CI: not sure we meet requirement F04. do we
... we do not support "compacting" test results, we decided it is out of scope
... is this what is meant by aggregation?
SAZ: it says "suppor" as opposed to "provide"
CI: but that is a given since D01 says EARL
will be an RDF Schema
... also in F01, what is the framework?
SAZ: seems that the issue is repitition of defining EARL as RDF
CI: not providing anything particular beyond RDF, so doesn't make sense to state it
SAZ: seems that the issue is more in the poorly defined requirements, rather than not meeting specific requirements that people are requesting
RESOLUTION: publish EARL 1.0 Schema as a Last Call Working Draft
SAZ: did not receive any comments on it during
the last week, on the other hand it is only a Working Draft and does not need
the same level of stability
... only to show the world where we are at
CI: was focusing on EARL Schema, did not get to
... am OK with publishing it now and reviewing later, it is only a WD
... may be good to add a contributions section, got quite some feedback on it from different folks
... maybe more comments later
<scribe> ACTION: add an acknowledgments section [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/14-er-minutes.html#action03]
CI: the sooner we publish it, the sooner we get feedback on it
RESOLUTION: publish HTTP Vocbulary in RDF and an updated Working Draft
SAZ: no meeting next week (CSUN)
... anticipate publication next week
... please keep the comments coming!