- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:40:57 +0000
- To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011116173836.0448e4e0@joy.songbird.com>
RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2001-11-16
Transcript:
(attached to this message)
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0485.html
1: Allocate scribe: Graham Klyne
2: Roll call
Participants:
- Brian McBride (chair)
- Daniel Brickley
- Eric Miller
- Dave Beckett
- Jeremey Carroll
- Jos De Roo
- Jan Grant
- Graham Klyne
- Frank Manola
- Aaron Swartz
- Sergey Melnik
- Dan Connolly
- Pat Hayes
- Ron Daniels
- Mike Dean
Regrets:
- Martyn Horner
- Stephen Petschulat
- KWON Hyung-Jin
- Patrick Stickler
Absent:
- Frank Boumphrey
- Bill dehOra
- Rael Dornfest
- Yoshiyuki Kitahara
- Ora Lassila
- Michael Kopchenov
- Satoshi Nakamura
- Pierre G Richard
- Guha
3: Review Agenda
No AOB.
4: Next telecon - 10am Boston time, 30th Nov 2001
(As 22nd is Thanksgiving holiday in the US, will not 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
APPROVED
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?
The biggest problem is that our chair is unable to keep up with the volume
of traffic. After some discussion, no single obvious solution, but
participants are requested to consider any or all of the following:
- ensure subject line is meaningful.
- raise message priority for essential WG summaries, agenda, minutes,
resolutions, actions, and other essential WG business items, to distinguish
them from general discussion.
- Take conversations to private email, IRC or telephone (but post the
summary of any outcomes back to the list).
7: Status of 2001-10-19#2 JanG produce proposal on Entailment tests and
test Manifest for 26/10/2001
Ongoing.
8: Status of 2001-10-19#3 Jos Create test cases for model issues resolved
at f2f
Ongoing.
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
ACTION: 2001-11-16#1, DanBri, mail Brian with list of issues that have been
folded into document.
ACTION: 2001-11-16#2, Brian, new test case from Jos to go onto futire
telecon agenda.
ACTION: 2001-11-16#3, Jos, Send pointer to new test case to Brian.
10: Primer status
ACTION: 2001-11-16#4, Eric, Have updated copy available to group by 5PM EST
Monday 19-Nov-2001.
11: Model Theory WD status
This has been on hold, pending resolution of dadatyping issues. Resolution
does not appear imminent.
ACTION: 2001-11-16#5, Pat, Post updated copy of model theory, with datatype
discussion elided, for group review by Wednesday 21-Nov-2001.
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
RESOLVED with 1 abstention.
(With the caveat that equivalence is a statement of intent rather than
certified fact).
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
The group were not able to close this issue at this time, due to lack of
agreement about what it meant to be sustainable in law, and the extent to
which the WG could offer such assertions.
ACTION: 2001-11-16#6, Aaron, to resubmit alternative proposal based on MIME
type for further discussion.
DanC provided a pointer to Aaron's proposal in IRC:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0003.html
GK also requested that points raised in here be considered by any proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0487.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
The use of rdf:type to express a Boolean predicate was not controversial,
but the participants couldn't agree what to say about negation (rdf:type
ChocolateLover vs rdf:type NotAChocolateLover). In particular, the extent
that we should reference pending work from the WebOnt group. Pat was
concerned that adopting the negation aspect could break the model theory.
ACTION: 2001-11-16#7, Pat, following email discussion of this topic,
prepare new statement of this resolution to bring back for approval.
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
This item was not discussed.
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
This item was not discussed.
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
The schemes considered were:
U - datatype+literal embedded in URI form; uses special URI form.
S - denotation of intermediate bNode is data type value; literals are all
strings.
P - use rdfs:range to indicate data type; this means different instances
of a literal string can denote different values; requires change to the
model theory.
P++ - like P, but also allows type information to be attached to literal
instances (with literals as subjects)
X - was not included in this staw poll because no advocate was present to
explain it.
In straw poll, S was clearly the most favoured system (by 9), and nobody
said they could not live with it. P/P++ was second most favoured (by 3), 1
could not live with it.
2 participants said they needed more time to review and understand the issues.
GK expressed concern about compatibility of S with existing RDF usage, esp.
CC/PP; it seems that existing instances are OK, but existing schema may be
broken. Or vice versa. Can we do better; e.g. per
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0534.html ?
Pat noted that proposal S is clearly not compatible with DAML+OIL's
treatment of literals. That proposal uses scheme P.
Frank noted that the broader implications of any proposal selected need
further consideration.
For the time being, we will pursue proposal S, subject to review.
ACTION: 2001-11-16#8, Sergey, Get datatype discussion document to WG as
soon as possible.
ACTION: 2001-11-16#9, Frank, Clarify the architectural and other broader
concerns with any datatyping scheme that must be considered.
ACTION: 2001-11-16#10, Jeremy, raise compatibility issues concerning
schemes S and P with the WebOnt working group.
ACTION: 2001-11-16#11, MikeD, raise compatibility issues concerning schemes
S and P with the DAML+OIL joint committee.
18: Semantics of Reification - what progress
This item was not discussed.
***Meeting closed***
-------------------------
__
/\ \ Graham Klyne
/ \ \ (GK@ACM.ORG)
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Attachments
- text/plain attachment: 2001-11-16-irc.txt
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 13:27:46 UTC