[sc34wg3] Kyoto agenda

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Steve Pepper
>
> In addition to who will attend, we need to consider what documents  
> we will have available and our priorities in terms of new ballots.

Yes. Here we have to make some choices, I think. I could prepare new  
drafts of two of GTM, TMDM->TMRM, and TMQL, but I'm not sure I could  
do all three. So the question is which to give priority to.

> I think it is paramount that TMRM, TMQL, and TMCL go to FCD  
> immediately
> after Kyoto. They should have gone to ballot in September, so we've  
> already lost three months. We are expecting new and complete drafts  
> of all of these in a week or so in order to meet the Kyoto deadline.

This seems to indicate that a draft of GTM maybe should wait, or at  
least get the lowest priority.

> (There will be no change to TMRM itself, only to the annex on the  
> TMDM Formal Semantics, formerly known as the TMDM mapping. TMCL will  
> hopefully have been fleshed out and its syntax simplified. TMQL will  
> just have minor tweaks as discussed in Leipzig.)

TMQL changes will be basically what's listed as settled at
   http://www.ontopia.net/tmwiki/topic.jsp?id=tmql

> However, without the editors we can't spend a lot of time on any of  
> these. It should be just enough to bring the WG up to speed and  
> allow for any minor adjustments that need to be made before  
> balloting. Since Lars Marius will be there, the Formal Semantics  
> should be gone over in more detail.

We can certianly do the TMDM->TMRM mapping in detail. We may be able  
to do some useful things on TMQL as well. It depends on how far my  
preparations progress over the next couple of days.

> National body comments on the CD ballots for CTM and the Dublin Core  
> TR will be ready for consideration, so time should be set aside for  
> both of these with a view to taking them to the next level as soon  
> as possible.
> [...]

I agree with all the rest of this, but will spare you the five "Yes"-es.

--Lars M.