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

Minutes of telecon 2001-06-15

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:19:06 +0100
Message-ID: <3B31F449.1392B134@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
There has been some confusion over the production of the minutes for last
weeks telecon.  Graham has sent me notes below, which are incomplete.

Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 RDFcore teleconference minutes:  15 June 2001

Present:
  Ron Daniel
  Bill de'hora
  Jos de Roo
  Jan Grant
  Martyn Horner
  Graham Klyne
  Frank Manola
  Stephen Petschulat
  Pat Hayes
  Brian McBride (chair)
  Segey Melnik

Regrets:
  Mike ?
  Art Barstow
  Dave Beckett
  Frank B
  Dan Conolly


1. Review agenda:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0222.html
No AOB.


2. Review previous minutes:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0109.html

Corrections:
Ron D present, Ora not present, Guha on IRC
The WG decided to allow partial representation of containers

Minutes approved with corrections noted


3. Review status of actions:

Eric has organized a test case repository

Jan has renumbered [the original documents?]

Brian has done syntax stuff [to do with containers?]

[Another action complete: missed detail]

Brian is liaising with Guha [about what?]

Martyn: test cases too rigid for current state of work

FrankM:  write-up of reification issues is done
frank's reification test cases:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0228.html

Eric: xml:base action closed

Ora's action on aboutEach - still open

Brian has created set of test cases matching simplified version of container
proposal
brian on containers. test cases:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0216.html
Aaron has looked through these;  Jan has taken cursory pass;
Also Jos ... problem with case 4 (not getting reified?  reason?)
DanBri: "this is a production where the rdf:ID names the resource pointed to,
not the reified statement"
Reason:  production in which rdf:id names object resource, not statement


4. Discussion of repeated ordinal container-membership properties (rdf:_n, etc):

Brian to rephrase the proposal so that it doesn't put higher-level validation
requirements on a parser
ACTION: Brian
        (action w.r.t test case 2) [?]

Jos:  raises problem with anonymous nodes  [Scribe: not quite sure what the
problem is]
Test case includes single element -- empty <rdf:li/>.  Take this to email.
Need volunteer to review container test cases;  Jan volunteers.
ACTION: Jan


5. Aaron's comments:  skipped for this meeting


6. Jan on xml:base

Would like to have some way to attach base URI to RDF documents ... xml:base may
not be the right way to do this (yet).  We may need to leave this for now, and
revisit later

Proposal from Ron, response from Danbri.  Danbri was probably too enthuisastic
for using xml:base, but is less so in light of Ron's comments

Need a clearer line on interaction with xml:base when RDF is mixed in non-RDF
XML documents

Ron:  maybe this is defined w.r.t. RDF processing, rather than document URI

Maybe the RDF spec should be revised to not say relative URIs are w.r.t.
document URI, but some compatibly-derived base URI?

Remember backward compatibilty is an issue
DanBri: [[At the same time, since the web is growing rapidly, it is the
responsibility of this group to not let near-term deployment considerations
grossly increase the future costs (to implementors, authors, users, etc.) of new
features.]] (from our charter, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter)

GK:  is it enought to preserve b/w compatibility for documents that don't use
xml:base?

AGREED:  ron's proposal to not add xml:base to current syntax, but need to
address issue of RDF embedded in some other document that does have xml:base

Call for volunteer:  write up resolution for latter case -- Jan volunteers
ACTION: Jan - write up interpretation of RDF embedded in documents with xml:Base


7. Partitioning the problem space:

Good consensus for separating model and surface syntax (XML serialization)
issues
Should focus on XML for surface syntax
Sergey: need to focus more on the "model"
Brian: ready to move onto deeper issues, but need some structure to order the
debate;  hence partitioning the problem
AGREED:  General agreement to separate model/syntax

Frank:  think some of schema should be drawn in...
Brian: also separate out some vocabulary?

DanBri: of rdf schema: [[This specification describes how to use RDF to describe
RDF vocabularies. The specification also defines a basic vocabulary for this
purpose, as well as an extensibility mechanism to anticipate future additions to
RDF. ]] (from the abstract)

Pat:  the semantics for the minimal core will not be the same as that for the
added vocabulary

Brian to write up a description of a proposed partitioning of the problem
space.  They we can discuss how to approach the problem based on partitioning of
work based on the structure proposed by brian
ACTION: Brian


8. Discussion of F2F, and preparations

Eric:  also suggest that face-to-face will be an opportunity to move forward. 
It will sooner than we expect!
ACTION: everybody -- jot down notes of what we want to get from the face-to-face
meeting


9. Close

Date of next meeting:  same time, next week
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 09:20:59 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:14 EDT