W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Priorities for F2F (completion of ACTION: 2001-06-22#4)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:09:05 +0100
Message-ID: <3B4C25C1.4D9B31E3@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
CC: RDFCore WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sergey,

Thanks for completing the action.  Now how does this affect our work plan?

It is clear from the responses that there is a preference for prioritizing 
our technical discussions on the model and abstract syntax.  Whilst these 
should be our priority, those who wish to, can still make progress with other
issues.

We should review the issue list and give priority to those which affect the
model and abstract syntax.

The list of currently active issues is:

     http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/rdfms-identity-anon-resources
     http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/rdfms-graph
     http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/rdfms-xmllang
     http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/rdfms-literals-as-resources
     http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure

     http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/rdfs-domain-and-range
     http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/rdfs-domain-unconstrained
     http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr
    
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about
     http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/rdf-terminologicus

The first grouping has the potential to affect the abstract syntax,
depending on how they are resolved.  That was my reason for activating them,
and these should therefore have high priority, until we can at least
determine that the resolution will not affect the abstract syntax.

Are there other issues which should belong in that group?  For example,
Sergey has raised the question of whether namespaces are part of the model.

On the question of literals as resources, I've looked through the recent
email traffic and the logs and minutes of last Friday's discussion.  I'd
like to test support for this position:

  o the WG agrees that URI's can be assigned to denote literals.

  o it is not a priority for the WG to define a URI scheme for literals
    at this time.

  o those who are interested in designing such a scheme are encouraged
    to do so in www-rdf-interest.

  o a specific representation for literals remains a part of n-triples
    and the abstract syntax.

We also have a host of semantic questions regarding the model, and
they are all highly inter-related.  How best to tackle those?
Here is a suggestion.

We cannot tackle them piecemeal, one at a time, they are too inter-
related for that.  In agreement with Frank Manola's
recent comments about discussing issues in the light of a specific
text, how about we begin with a strawman model theory
and discuss the issues in the light of that.  Maybe one of our
logician's, Pat - you've mentioned model theory several times - could
produce a strawman.

Would this be a good way forward with the technical discussions?

Brian

Sergey Melnik wrote:
> 
> This is a summary of the ACTION: 2001-06-22#4 / Priorities for F2F.
> 
> A total of five contributions were received from Graham, Jos, Pat,
> Art, and myself.
> 
> The following priority ordering was consistent with all postings:
> 
>   1. model / abstract syntax
> 
>     - formal definition, semantics, prose for developers
>     - what exactly is an RDF expression
>     - what undocumented RDF assumptions are there
>     - reification, ...
> 
>   2. serialization syntax(es)
> 
>   3. RDF Schema
> 
> An additional major issue that was raised in several postings is that
> of scope/roadmap. It comprises a number of fundamental questions like
> 
>   - what we expect to produce and how
>   - whether RDF is an assertional language or a programming language
>   - which formal methods should we use to define semantics and
> serialization
>     syntaxes
>   - extensibility path, ...
> 
> Logically, the scope/roadmap issue belongs as the very first one, but
> seems to be hard to resolve upfront.
> 
> Finally, Art suggested to "open mic" potential topics/issues during F2F.
> 
> --sergey
> 
> References:
> 
> Graham:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0417.html
> Sergey:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0418.html
> Jos:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0436.html
> Pat:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0447.html
> Art:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0551.html
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 06:11:29 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:08 EDT