This electronic file is the source.
Meeting participants were LB, CW, SR, AC, CT (in part), DO, DP, MD, JC.
LR had sent apologies.
- Reports on several oustanding actions remained forthcoming,
and several of those actioned had been unable to join
the call. SR was asked to move remaining relevant points to
the TRAC system for monitoring.
move outstanding outstanding action items to TRAC 2007-03-25 - LB confirmed that he had discussed the issues with LR
as requested at the last call and that a new draft, mostly
derived from JW’s work of last year, was now in place which
removed
biblItem and introducedrelatedItem , as reported to the list. - DP reported that she and Conal had completed the ODD
but not yet tested it. It was available for comment on the wiki
at
; after the call, CT reported that he was still working on it. - The workgroup seemed to have stagnated, with no
further progress after recent comments from MD and DP. CW
had received no response to his last mail to MgGilvray. DO
volunteered to also approach him informally if CW would like to
try again.
write to PB WG Chair requesting an update and explaining that proposals were unlikely to get into P5 1.0 2007-03-25 - CW reported this as done
- SR, CW, DO reported that this was now in place as planned.
MD reported the main recommendations from the meeting,
as previously posted to the list. There was a need for more
examples still, particularly for places. The meeting had
decided against recommending a general “event” element. CW
asked what had happened to the idea of an “assert” element:
the group has decided against this, particularly given the
global availability of
JC was thanked for the draft, which was generally agreed
to be on the right track. It raised several key issues which needed wider
debate than was possible on the call, and it was hoped that all
Council members would follow CT’s example in posting their views on
the topic to the list as soon as possible, with a view to enabling JC
to produce a revised draft in time for discussion in Berlin. It
was agreed that the proposals were not yet ready for circulation
beyond Council.
There had been a rather poor
response to the call for volunteers. Council discussed a number of
ways of addressing this, and agreed that (a) the tasks to be done for
the first milestone needed to be made more specific and (b) the
allocation of individuals to tasks needed to be made centrally. SR
agreed to do the latter task, and in conjunction with LB would draft a
statement of the former. This would go beyond just “identify and fix
references to DTDs” to include identification of sections or passages
in the chapter that were either unclear or outdated. Outcomes from the
task might include creation of new tickets for more detailed action as
well as actual editing. The goal was to give council a list of new
proposed revisions/issues for triage in Berlin.
Council members should be available from the morning of Weds 25
April to that of Sat 28th; it was expected that LR would be posting
more information about the event on the 25th in due course. CW would
prepare a detailed agenda for discussion and resolution at the
meeting. It was noted that after Berlin we would not be able to make
any further technical decisions influencing the content of the 1.0
version. To complement the issues raised by the Council’s review , LB
said that he and SB would produce a list of outstanding issues in
advance of the meeting.