ERT WG

Pointer Methods in RDF

SAZ: CI, any news about it?

CI: work in progress
... hopefully something avalaible for the next week

EARL 1.0 Guide

SAZ: CV, news about Guide?

CV: quite busy with BenToWeb
... some issues raised with the content class

hopefully an updated version for the 11th

Update from TSD TF

SAZ: issue from TSD TF about test cases metadata expressed as XML instead of RDF
... the need of a TCDL is something this WG has discussed before
... CV, could this be something you can participate after EARL (and probably BTW) work?

CV: not clear know

CI: it's something we already need but must come after EARL
... not sure about CTIC interest

SAZ: at this stage there is no critical mass

EARL 1.0 Schema comments

SAZ: not been here next week and maybe the need after
... would like to have meeting for the rest of the group anyway with JK as temporal chair

no objections

<scribe> ACTION: CV to send new comments about EARL schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/05/02-er-minutes.html#action01]

<shadi> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues

SAZ: several are just editorial
... let's have a light walk through

quick review discussion...

<shadi> RESOLUTION: mark the following issues as editorial: 1-3; 5-6; 15-18; 24-28;

SAZ: the way we're using OWL (mixing RDF and OWL) is not valid
... two options OWL or RDF
... RDF seems more sensible know
... min cardinalities are restrictions but not rules restrictions (the use we do know), they are more ontological restrictions
... any further comment should be send to the list ASAP

JK: if we decide to create an XML schema, are still consuming tools required to be able to understand RDF?

SAZ: know we are asuming RDF is the only normative representation
... EARL is a simple vocabulary and it may have a one to one mapping with XML

JK: it's not one to one

SAZ: would like to see pros and cons
... something to discuss on the mailing list

HTTP Vocabulary in RDF comments

SAZ: JK, something to remark?

JK: comments about inconsistence of the schema
... there are no predefined response codes for extensions
... why don't have literal values for some properties

SAZ: HTTP in RDF is not in the REC track
... something to discuss