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

Re: Draft Minutes of 2001-05-11 Teleconference

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 14:28:44 +0100
Message-ID: <3B03D20C.AD2B373F@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Was Dan Connolly actually present on the teleconference?

Brian


Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> Corrections to me please.
> 
> Dave
> 
>     -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> RDF Core WG Minutes 11 May 2001
> 
> This page summarizes the telecon for the RDF Core Working Group held from 1400
> to 1500 UTC on 11 May 2001. These minutes were prepared by Dave Beckett, but
> have not yet been reviewed by the other participants.
> 
> Meeting IRC Log
> 
> Participants
> 
>    * Dave Beckett
>    * Stephen Petschulat
>    * Art Barstow
>    * Jan Grant
>    * Brian McBride, chairing
>    * Martyn Horner
>    * Jos De Roo
>    * Aaron Swartz
>    * Ora Lassila
>    * Dan Connolly
>    * Frank Manola
>    * Frank Boumphrey
>    * R.V. Guha (joined at +45mins)
> 
> Regrets received from Dan Brickley, Mike Dean, Bill de Hora.
> 
> Agenda
> 
> Brian McBride added issue from XML Base discussion on www-rdf-interest this
> week to the end of the agenda
> 
> Review Minutes of Previous Meeting
> 
> The previous minutes of 27 April 2001 were accepted.
> 
> Review of Actions
> 
>    * RDF feature usage to Guha.
>      Brian asked people to follow this up and send more feedback
>      ACTION(all): Send feedback to Guha about use of RDF features.
>    * Container problem
>      Dan Brickley and Ora Lassilla - circulated comments to the list, already
>      on agenda
>    * Hosting the Face-2-Face meeting
>      Brian noted Rael Dornfest offered in the previous meeting to host in
>      Sebastopol, quite close to the Stanford SW meeting at end July. Ora
>      Lassilla said Nokia couldn't host then but offered Burlington nr Boston
>      for future F2F meetings.
> 
> Issues Progress
> 
> The RDF Model and Syntax spec is unclear about when rdf: prefix is needed
> 
> Issue #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
> 
> Dave Beckett asked Art Barstow if he was happier with the revised wording Dave
> proposed and Art agreed that the list of results were acceptable.
> 
> Art asked about the second issue Dave introduced and after discussion it was
> agreed that the proposed answer 1) was the best alternative, especially since
> the current grammar forbids unprefixed attributes. Jan grant noted M+S grammar
> productions 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 need updating amongst others and Dave was asked to
> add test cases of how the proposed change would work.
> 
> ACTION Dave Beckett: Update the proposed changes for this issue and add test
> cases to demonstrate how they worked.
> 
> Containers
> 
> Issues #rdf-container-syntax-ambiguity and #rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema
> 
> Dan Brickley had sent a message to www-archive, that not everyone had seen.
> Ora said he would like to revise it and post to rdfcore list when ready and
> would like feedback then, so that the issue can be discussed.
> 
> Ora noted that it was intended that containers would be considered to be moved
> out of the core data model.
> 
> ACTION Ora Lassilla/Dan Brickley: send analysis to rdfcore-wg list
> 
> ACTION All: Respond to Ora/Dan's notes when they appear.
> 
> General editorial comments.
> 
> Issue #rdfms-editorial
> 
> ACTION Ora Lassilla: Carried over (Dan Brickley and Guha previously recorded
> to help)
> 
> The interpretation of empty property elements is unclear
> 
> Issue #rdfms-empty-property-elements
> 
> Jan Grant summarised his analysis but basically the answer is, it is an empty
> literal, and although some people suggested an anonymous resource, that is a
> bit broken. Consensus on this.
> 
> RESOLVED: The answer is an empty literal (wordsmithing needed on M+S text)
> 
> ACTION Jan Grant: reword and send a new message with test cases, including one
> with just an ID attribute.
> 
> What mime type should RDF Schema and other RDF documents have?
> 
> Issue #mime-types-for-rdf-docs
> 
> Aaron Swartz outlined the document got a favourable response apart from the
> interaction with fragments and assertions. Not everyone was still happy with
> this and since it made statements about what RDF meant, maybe not good in a
> mime types doc? Brian asked if there was urgency for this since it wasn't
> clear if this could be published and amended easily (unsure of IETF mime type
> process). Agreed to postponed it until further work done on fixing various
> things that it depends on.
> 
> Not ID and resource attributes
> 
> Issue #rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr
> 
> Dave Beckett note that the existing analysis had a flaw and would need
> revising, would do for next meeting.
> 
> ACTION Dave Beckett: Revise analysis and post to list
> 
> MUST a parser created bags of reified statements for all Description elements?
> 
> Issue #rdfms-reification-required
> 
> Skipped, Guha not present. Later on Guha arrived and said he will have
> something before the next meeting.
> 
> ACTION Guha: Present analaysis to list for discussion.
> 
> What is a resource and how does it relate to other concepts such as URI and
> entity?
> 
> Issue #rdfms-resource-semantics
> 
> Long discussion after Martyn Horner's posting to the list (just before
> meeting) defining three terms - URI, Entity and Resource. Martyn presented the
> ideas and after discussion, request for more formalisms from Jos De Roo,
> Martyn a good goal but a part of the things we want to do is expressing
> ambiguity. Frank [which one?] said formalisms are good but need to be
> expressed from strong ideas.
> 
> Discussion of binding resources and URIs, various views were expressed that
> were not consistent. Ora noted that original RDF M+S people punted this issue.
> Some discussion of Resource=URI but need to have more discussion on-list. Dan
> Connolly emphasised the need for using test cases to base the discussion - see
> also his comments to the list on 8 May and 11 May.
> 
> Digression into test cases and Brian, Jos, Dave resolved strongly to use
> these. Jos wondered about data for testing and correct results of, say,
> parsing but Dave responded that there was at present no canonical triple dump
> syntax so this wasn't yet possible.
> 
> RESOLVED: Make all test cases / results public on the web.
> 
> ACTION Brian McBride: Link test cases, results etc. from issues list
> 
> The RDF community needs a precise terminology to enable it to discuss issues.
> 
> Issue #rdf-terminologicus
> 
> Discussed in previous issue.
> 
> XML Base
> 
> Brian outlined XML Base is now a candidate recommendation and there had been
> discussion this week on www-rdf-interest about this including replies by Aaron
> and Dave. He asked does this have an impact on RDF? A discussion followed
> which seemed to indicate it would break old parsers if used in new RDF/XML.
> Brian said his working model on backward compatibility was that what we end up
> with might not go through existing parsers and it was better that existing
> parsers failed on new syntax. Dave disagreed and wanted the existing syntax to
> continue to work. Jan Grant offered to do an analysis and summarise it to the
> list.
> 
> ACTION Jan Grant: Do an analysis of the impact of XML Base and summarise to
> list.
> 
> Next Teleconference
> 
> There will be a teleconference at the same time next week - 1400 to 1500 UTC
> on 18 May 2001.
> 
> Links
> 
>    * Agenda
>    * IRC Log
>    * RDF Issues
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 09:29:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:48 EDT