Session Start: Fri Jun 15 15:00:30 2001 [15:00] *** Now talking in #rdfcore [15:00] * em waves to the scribe [15:01] Regrets: Art B, Dave B, Frank B, Dan C [15:01] Present: [15:01] Ron Daniel [15:01] Bill de'hora [15:01] Jos [15:01] Jan Grant [15:01] Martyn Horner [15:02] GK [15:02] Frank Manola [15:02] Stephen P [15:03] Regrets: Mike [15:03] Pat Hayes (present) [15:03] +danbri +ericm [15:03] + brian [15:04] agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0222.html [15:04] Review agenda -- no AOB [15:04] Previous minutes: Ron Daniel was there [15:04] Previews minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0109.html [15:04] previous minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0109.html [15:04] :) [15:05] s/iews/ious/ [15:05] Corrections: Rin present, Ora not present, Guha on IRC [15:05] Corrections: Ron D present, Ora not present, Guha on IRC [15:05] OK for partial representation by IRC [15:06] ' The WG decided to allow partial representation of containers' [15:07] + Dan Bri [15:07] Minutes approved with corrections noted [15:07] ACtions: [15:08] Eric has organized test case repository [15:08] Jan has renumbered ... [15:08] Brian has done syntax atuff... [15:08] One other done [15:08] Review status of actions: [15:08] Brian liaising with Guha [15:10] Martyn: test cases too rigid for current state of work [15:10] FrankM: write-up of reification issues is done; no test cases yet [15:10] frank's reification test cases: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0228.html [15:11] Eric: xml:base action closed [15:12] Ora's action on aboutEach - still open [15:13] --- [15:13] Brian has created set of test cases matching simplified version of container proposal [15:13] brian on containers. test cases: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0216.html [15:14] Aaron has looked through these; Jan has taken cursory pass; [15:14] Also Jos ... problem with case 4 (not getting reified? reason?) [15:16] "this is a production where the rdf:ID names the resource pointed to, not the reified statement" [15:16] *** sergey has joined #rdfcore [15:16] Reason: production in which rdf:id names object resource, not statement [15:16] Sergey: are you on the teleconference?? [15:17] *** DanC_ has joined #rdfcore [15:17] Yep, I'm here! [15:17] + Sergey [15:17] DanC: are you on the teleconference? [15:18] no. [15:18] DanC has sent regrets [15:18] *** Ron has joined #rdfcore [15:21] Discussion of repeated ordinal container-membership properties (rdf:_n, etc) [15:22] * DanC_ em re 1st ftf when it comes up: (a) I'll only be there the 1st day, (b) I'm willing to present XPath, c14n, XML Schema, esp. as applied to RDF. [15:23] (oops... that was intended as a /msg to em) [15:23] :) acked [15:23] Brian to take action to rephrase the propoisal so that it doesn't put higher-level validation requirements on a parser [15:24] ACTION: Brian [15:26] Jos: raises problem with anonymous nodes ... not quite sure what the problem is [15:28] Test case includes single element -- empty . Take this to email. [15:28] Need volunteer to review container test cases; Jan will do. [15:28] ACTION: Jan [15:29] ACTION: Brian (p[revious action w.r.t test case 2) [15:31] Aaron's comments: skipped for this meeting [15:31] Jan on xml:base [15:32] 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 [15:32] Proposal from Ron, response from Danbri. [15:33] Danbri was probably too enthuisastic for using xml:base, but is less so in light of Ron's comments [15:34] Need a clearer line on interaction with xml:base when RDF is mixed in non-RDF XML documents [15:35] Ron: maybe this is defined w.r.t. RDF processing, rather than document URI [15:36] Maybe the RDF spec should be revised to not say relative URIs are w.r.t. document URI, but some compatibly-derived base URI? [15:37] Remember backward compatibilty is an issue [15:37] GK: is it enought to preserve b/w compatibility for documents that don't use xml:base? [15:39] 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 [15:39] [[At the same time, since the web is growing rapidly, it is the responsibility of this group to not let near-term deployment [15:39] Call for volunteer: write up resolution for latter case -- Jan volunteers [15:39] considerations grossly increase the future costs (to implementors, authors, users, etc.) of new features. [15:39] ]] [15:39] (from our charter, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter) [15:40] ACTION: Jan - write up interpretation of RDF embedded in documents with xml:Base [15:41] Partitioning the problem space [15:43] Good consensus for separating model and surface syntax (XML serialization) issues [15:46] Should focus on XML for surface syntax [15:46] Sergey: need to focus more on the "model" [15:49] Brian: ready to move onto deeper issues, but need some structure to order the debate; hence partitioning the problem [15:50] General agreement to separate model/syntax [15:50] Frank: think some of schema should be drawn in... [15:51] Brian: also separate out some vocabulary? [15:51] rdf schema: [[This specification describes how to use RDF to describe RDF vocabularies. The specification [15:51] also defines a basic vocabulary for this purpose, as well as an extensibility mechanism to [15:51] anticipate future additions to RDF. [15:51] ]] [15:51] (from the abstract) [15:52] Pat: the semantics for the minimal core will not be the same as that for the added vocabulary [15:54] Brian to write up a description of a proposed partitioning of the problem space. They we can discuss how to approach the problem [15:54] ACTION: Brian [15:57] Eric: also suggest that face-to-face will be an opportunity to move forward. It will sooner than we expect! [15:57] ... based on partitioning of work based on the structure proposed by brian [15:58] ACTION: everybody -- jot down notes of what we want to get from the face-to-face meeting [15:58] *** AaronSw has joined #rdfcore [15:58] oh dear... my sincerest apologies for missing the telecon [15:59] Hi Aaron [15:59] [off] aaron needs a better alarm clock [16:00] * spetschu plans on attending f2f [16:01] * gk-scribe GK will attent F2F if travel budget can be approved [16:02] (Meeting is running over... some discussion of F2F goals and plans) [16:02] +Aaron [16:03] Date of next meeting: same time, next week [16:03] *** sergey has left #rdfcore [16:03] Meeting closed +1:08 from start. [16:08] *** spetschu has left #rdfcore [16:10] *** AaronSw has left #rdfcore Session Close: Fri Jun 15 17:46:58 2001