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: JUN-01-01-#5: Eric: investigate a test case repository for the WG. The repository must facilitat WG members adding and modifying test cases. --DONE. 2001-06-08#1: Jan: Consolidate, renumber and repost test cases. --DONE. 2001-06-08#3: Brian McBride: pick up on the container syntax issues now the model details have been clarified. --DONE. 2001-06-08#4: Brian McBride to write up this third proposed interpretation (not-id-and-about) --DONE. A4: Guha: re #rdfms-reification-required: Present analaysis to list for discussion. Brian is liaising with Guha. --CONTINUES. JUN-01-01-#1: Martyn: create test cases rdfms-resource-semantics Martyn feels that the test cases are too rigid a tool to apply to the current state of this work. --CONTINUES. JUN-01-01-#2: FrankM: create tests case for reification. --DONE. Test cases at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0228.html JUN-01-01-#9: Ora: send a note to the WG that describes how aboutEach is being used and how it was implemented --CONTINUES. 2001-06-08#5: Eric: to talk to the XLM Processing Workshop about RDF requirements from XML:Base --DONE. Additional notes and comments: 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: Update comment in: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test002.rdf Jos: raises problem with anonymous nodes [Scribe: not quite sure what the problem is] Test case includes single element -- empty . Take this to email. Need volunteer to review container test cases; Jan volunteers. ACTION: Jan: Review test cases in: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/ 5. Aaron's comments ISSUE: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about Aaron Swartz (10 mins) http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/Overview.html#rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about Skipped due to Aaron's absence. 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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0118.html response from DanBri: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0178.html 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