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

Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-11-16

From: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:54:46 GMT
Message-ID: <4141125.1005843304971.JavaMail.bwm@MCBRIDE-B-4>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Time:
10:00:00 Fri Nov 16 2001 in America/New York

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Nov 16 2001 in Europe/London
00:00:00 Sat Nov 17 2001 in Asia/Seoul

Phone: +1 630 536 3003 room #3003
irc: irc.openprojects.net #rdfcore

1: Allocate scribe


2: Roll Call


3: Review Agenda


4: Next telecon - 10am Boston time, 30th Nov 2001
As 22nd is Thanksgiving holiday in the US, propose not to have a telecon next week.


5: Review Minutes of 2001-11-09 

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0294.html


6: Volume of mail traffic
There has been a noticable increase in the volume of mail traffic to the
point where some WG members are feeling somewhat overwhelmed.  Is this 
a widespread problem?  What can we do about it?


7: Status of 2001-10-19#2 JanG  produce proposal on Entailment tests and test Manifest for 26/10/2001 


8: Status of 2001-10-19#3  Jos Create test cases for model issues resolved at f2f 


9: 
Status of 2001-08-02#9 2001-08-02#25  2001-08-02#26 2001-08-02#27 
2001-08-02#28 2001-08-02#29 2001-08-02#30 2001-08-02#31 2001-08-02#32
2001-08-02#32 2001-08-02#17 2001-08-02#19 Danbri Fold agreed changes into RDF Schema WD 


10: Primer status


11: Model Theory WD status


12: Issue: rdf-equivalent-representations
Propose:

  o The WG agrees that:

      - the graph model which is the basis for the model theory
      - the n-Triples representation of an RDF graph
      - the diagrams of graphs used in documents such as the RDF Model
        and Syntax document

     are currently all equivalent

  o The WG resolves to maintain that equivalence.

  o The WG notes that the RDF/XML syntax as currently defined is unable
    to represent an arbritary RDF graph.  In particular, the RDF/XML syntax
    cannot fully represent a bNode which is the object of more than one
    statement.

  o The WG believes that extending the RDF/XML syntax so that it can respresent
    all RDF graphs is beyond the scope of its current charter and resolves
    to postpone consideration of this issue.

  o The WG actions the editor of the RDF Syntax WD to include in that
    document a clear statement of the RDF graph structures that RDF/XML is
    unable to represent.


See:
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-equivalent-representations
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0425.html


13: Issue: rdfms-assertion
Propose:

  The WG resolves that
    o the RDF model theory defines the semantics of RDF
    o it is beyond the scope of this WG to decide on how the laws
      of different countries should apply to statements made in RDF.
    o this issue be closed.

See:
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html


14: Issue rdfms-boolean-valued-properties
Propose:

  o The WG notes that rdf:type can be used in place of the rdf:is suggested
    in this issue.  Thus, to say that a resource is a chocolateLover,
    the class ChocolateLover can be defined, and the resource declared to
    be a member of that class using rdf:type.  rdf:isNot can be represented
    by declaring the resource to be a member of the class of
    NotAChocolateLover, again using rdf:type.

  o The WG resolves to close this issue on the grounds that current definition
    is adequate.


See:
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-boolean-valued-properties
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0426.html


15: Issue #rdfms-rdf-names-use
Propose the WG

  o resolves that the use of rdf:Description except as the name of a
    description element is an error
  o resolves that the use of rdf:ID, rdf:about, rdf:resource, rdf:bagID,
    rdf:parseType except as reserved names as specified in the grammar
    is an error
  o resolves that the use of rdf:Bag, rdf:Alt and rdf:Seq except as typed
    nodes is an error
  o resolves that the use of rdf:li as a typed node is an error
  o resolves that the use of a container membership property (rdf:_nnn) as a
    typed node is an error
  o resolves that test case 
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test005.rdf
    be obsoleted
  o resolves that  a copy of that test case be created as an error test case
  o actions DaveB to create test cases for the above cases
  o actions DaveB to identify any similar cases to those above and create
    test cases to cover them also


See:
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0417.html


16: Issue rdfms-aboutEach
Propose

  o  the WG resolves to remove rdf:aboutEach from the language on the grounds
    - it is not used
    - it is not widely implemented
    - it has confusing interactions with bagID as recorded in
        http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-abouteach
    - it prohibits the development of  streaming RDF/XML parsers
    - it requires schema processing in the parser
    - this is the wrong layer in which to implemenent such functionality

  o Action DaveB remove from the grammar in the RDF/XML document

  o Action Brian update the issues list, especially Attention Developers
             


17: Datatypes
Take a straw poll of the WG's views on the various datatype proposals
and discuss how to proceed

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0295.html


18: Semantics of Reification - what progress



------------------------------------------------------------
This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 11:55:14 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:41 EDT