Meeting minutes.  October 31.  

Attendees: 	
Mike Dean, Pat Hayes, Deb McGuiness, Ian S, Frank van Harmelen, Jeff Heflin, Lynn Stein
Stephen Decker, Ora Lassila, Tim Burners-Lee, Dan C, (no Dan), (no Jim) (no Tom)

Announcements: 
Welcome Stefan Decker and Ian Horrocks
Tom’s last day - contacting webmaster@daml.org will get to the right person.  
DAML homework assignments due ... about 8 turned in right now.  
Mike D volunteered to summarize homework stuff

Is RDF appropriate as the basis for daml ont? 
Mike: other alternatives?
Tim:Jim said...DAML will by declaration be based on RDF
Ian: when we say RDF do we mean RDF schema?  
Answer ... both?
Mike: Jim seemed to believe that RDF is what we should base this on, instead of imbedded html
Important to sepearate RDF in XML syntax and the abstract idea of RDF
Already decided that for collections they are using an RDF extension
Some things will be feedback to rdf and some will be for daml to do.  
Based on rdf: extend the model, or actually base our language in rdf.   -- one answer, will have to extend it
maybe both will be used ...

DAML class is what RDF means by class ... but what does RDF mean by class?
One good thing about using RDF (not extending) is that tools made for RDF can be used for DAML
Bottom line: more discussion is needed.  
Emails will be sent to RDF login list to allow larger discussion.

Should we focus most of our discussion on specific proposals? 
Sounded good to one.  

Is the existing spec the correct and sensible starting point.  Either yes or no but heres another option. 
Action: Mike, provide URL’s from meeting.  

When things are put on the agenda and talked about, they should be on the public forum!  Someone won’t 
participate if this is not a public discussion.  Division between discussion and decision.  

Point: Should the committee be changed to be more of an interest group.  Jim is the final decision maker ... but 
suggestions are good.   

Peter’s proposal: run this as a W3C interest group.  How public is a W3C interest group.   - any one who is a 
W3C member can join any interest group.  
 - non members can join if the group is ok.  
 - no time commitment. 
 - never chartered to get any work done.  Working groups are, include time commitment.  
 - 8 week process to get to W3C.  

Peter was concerned that we are getting “looks” because we seem to be W3C, although we dont follow any of 
their rules ... etc.  On the agenda for next week!

Potential problem with being tied to an outside group (ie Darpa) ??

Too early to push this as a formal W3C thing.  
Emails can be ignored.  Screaming in a telecon can’t. 

Next week: talk about homework submissions, charter, W3C relation, etc.