See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 20 September 2011
<scribe> scribenick: mhausenblas
PROPOSAL: Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: Accept the minutes of last meeting http://www.w3.org/2011/09/13-RDB2RDF-minutes.html
<trackbot> ACTION-140 -- Boris Villazón-Terrazas to produce an RDF Schema representation of the R2RML vocabulary terms. -- due 2011-09-20 -- OPEN
Boris: I sent the stuff to Ivan
Michael: Ivan is on travel, so it might take a couple of days
<trackbot> ACTION-140 Produce an RDF Schema representation of the R2RML vocabulary terms. closed
<scribe> ACTION: Boris to create RDFa representation of R2RML vocab [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/20-RDB2RDF-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Create RDFa representation of R2RML vocab [on Boris Villazón-Terrazas - due 2011-09-27].
<trackbot> ACTION-156 -- Boris Villazón-Terrazas to update term map diagram with rr:constant -- due 2011-09-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> ACTION-156 Update term map diagram with rr:constant closed
Michael: comments will come in
... the LC docs are now online via http://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/
... and http://www.w3.org/TR/rdb-direct-mapping/
<Ashok> Congratulations to the WG!
<Zakim> ericP, you wanted to describe the low-ball approach of just using the mailing list
<Ashok> Thanks to the editors and others for all the hard work!
Eric: one way to do this is to
track stuff in the mailing list
... some will do one issue per mail, other may not
Ashok: So, we don't have to create issues for the comments
Eric: no, esp. not for simple editorial stuff, rest has to be discussed
Michael: I'd like to provide appropriate, in-time responses
Eric: Agreed, within a couple of
days is fine
... I suggest that the one of the Editors of the respective document gets back to the person who provides feedback within three days
Richard: I roughly agree with
... for editorial issues, we try to fix is, for others Editors raise and issue
Ashok: Separate product
Richard: we can reuse R2RML and DM
<ericP> lots of comments will be from folks who either have not noticed answer in the spec (at least in the view of the editors).
<ericP> in these cases, the solution is often answering the comment by quoting from the spec.
<ericP> these sometimes result in editorial clarifications in the document.
<Ashok> Yes, there will be many minor comments based on misunderstandings
<cygri> Souri: cvs up -d
Richard: I had a look at the
... thanks for making improvements
... I noted some troublesome things
... how to handle it?
<ericP> juansequeda, Marcelo, the xmlspec xslt would have to be tweaked a lot to produce valid HTML.
<ericP> i think the xmlspec-ness has been useful, but for minor changes, i think we're fine just working with an HTML version copied from the pub'd doc.
<ericP> y'all down with that?
Richard: seems multiple predicate map have gone
Michael: I guess it boils down to the question: should WG members write LC comments via http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/ or not?
Eric: not a clear process here
<Souri> The second WD seems to have it as a single PredicateMap, single ObjectMap per PredicateObjectMap: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-r2rml-20110324/#TriplesMapClass_predicateObjectMap_Property
Ashok: People from the WG should also use the official route via public-rdb2rdf-comments
<ericP> well, that reflects a natural tention between perfection and immediacy
PROPOSAL: For all LC comments that come on via via public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3 till 1 Nov, one of the doc Editor reacts within (ideally) three days, creating issues in the tracker for non-editorial issues. The same procedure applies for WG members.
<ericP> sparql, first and foremost
<Souri> In DAWG, if I remember correctly, comments from WG members did not go into the public comments list
RESOLUTION: For all LC comments that come on via via public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3 till 1 Nov, one of the doc Editor reacts within (ideally) three days, creating issues in the tracker for non-editorial issues. The same procedure applies for WG members
Michael: let's do outreach
<Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask about slides
<Ashok> Good suggestion re. slide set
Richard: are there slide set?
... Good point, let's collect slide sets a the above Wiki location
<ericP> there are some relevent slides starting around http://www.w3.org/2011/Talks/0628-kcap-egp/#(5)
Michael: next week myself and Richard will be on travel, regrets in advance
Ashok: I can chair, next week, yes
Michael: I think we should focus
implementations and TC
... see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Implementations
... I'll prepare the agenda in advance
trackbot, end telecon
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/memberss/members/ Succeeded: s/publick/public/ Found ScribeNick: mhausenblas Inferring Scribes: mhausenblas Default Present: Ashok_Malhotra, boris, mhausenblas, EricP, +1.562.686.aaaa, Marcelo, cygri, seema, Souri, juansequeda, MacTed, nunolopes Present: Ashok_Malhotra boris mhausenblas EricP +1.562.686.aaaa Marcelo cygri seema Souri juansequeda MacTed nunolopes Ashok Boris Eric Michael Richard Seema Juan Regrets: Dave Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-wg/2011Sep/0056.html Found Date: 20 Sep 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/09/20-RDB2RDF-minutes.html People with action items: boris[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]