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

Re: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-11-16

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:39:48 -0800
Message-ID: <3BF47C74.D459AA53@db.stanford.edu>
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Guys, I'm afraid I won't be able to deliver the promised draft of the
datatyping document until tomorrow. Much of my time was consumed by
digesting the exploded email traffic (item 6 on the agenda, thanks for
bringing it up) and trying to keep up with the new suggestions and
clarifications.

Let's discuss how to proceed with datatyping after the straw poll
tomorrow...

Sergey


bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com wrote:
>
> 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 21:25:39 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:43 EDT