May 29, 2001

Attendees:
Peter
Lynn
Mike
Frank
Pat
Ian
Stefan
Dan C.

Announcements: 
Thanks to Deb for chairing the last few weeks

Minutes from the 15th are approved

Agenda:
Would be useful to clarify where we are going. 

Collecting suggestions for the rdf-core working group
  Two messages (see agenda) that raise issues.
  	  
  Range expressions are on the rdf issues list:
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-domain-and-range

  There were some issues that specific people brought up, but these
  were about all we came up as a group ...

  Others?

  Rather than saying that something we have noticed is required, we 
  could say that this is something we had some problems with

  Datatypes are on the rdf issues list: 
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes

  Want to raise an issue about the lack of finite lists?
  General response:  Yes
  (http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation)

  Is reification on the list?  
  Mike: yes.  
  Dan  C: yes, but  not what  we are  talking about  ... what  was our
  specific  position  ...  just  that  it is  confusing  /  wrong  and
  shouldn't be in the spec?

  Perhaps by another name it would be innocuous?  Discussion of what
  reification really means ... or what we all see it to mean.

  Are you treating quoting and reification as synonymous?  No.

  Is quoting a good example of reification in the way you use it?
  Yes.
  
  Mike: If RDF didn't includ reification would we define something
  similar?  No

  Concise statement to make to RDF about reification?  Doesn't sound
  like it.

  Will take this discussion out of the telecon and into email. 

  We have no dependency on reification ... we wouldn't hardly notice
  if it disapeared.

FAQ deferred until next week.  

Rules proposal: 

  Pat: Should the rules be decideable?  Misunderstanding ... mountain
  out of a mole hill ... no one is really worried about them being
  decideable.

  No actions in the rules. (agreement)