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

Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-10-12

From: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:55:59 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <2731525.1002808311921.JavaMail.bwm@MCBRIDE-B-4>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Time:
10:00:00 Fri Oct 12 2001 in America/New York

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Oct 12 2001 in Europe/London
23:00:00 Fri Oct 12 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, 19th October 2001


5: Review Minutes of previous meeting

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0005.html


6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ACTION: 2001-09-21#4 Pat Hayes
Report the subClassOf decision to the DAML joint committee

ACTION: 2001-09-28#1 Brian McBride
Ask Graham Klyne to propose resolution of identity of anon nodes issue

see:
   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources

ACTION: 2001-09-28#13 Brian McBride
Update issues document to show Sergey as owner of rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes



7: Confirm Folling actions are withdrawn

ACTION: 2001-08-17#5 Eric Miller
Write a newletter summary of the face to face for circulation to the W3C members.



8: Tidying up broken Test cases
  rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0007.rdf
  rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test0008.rdf
  rdfms-empty-property-elements/test011.rdf
  rdfms-empty-property-elements/test012.rdf

ACTION 2001-09-28#5  Dave Beckett  Fix test case errors
ACTION 2001-09-28#6  Jeremy Carroll  Re-post problem found in test case
ACTION 2001-09-28#7  Jan Grant  Remove xml:base from test cases
ACTION 2001-09-28#8  Art Barstow  Delete test cases containing
                     rdf:aboutEachPrefix
ACTION 2001-09-28#9  Art Barstow  Investigate best W3 practice in
    deleting test cases such as leaving a blank file there so as
    not to break the published URI

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0322.html


9: Propose approve cycle in subClassOf test cases

See:
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf/


10: Propose approve cycle in subPropertyOf test cases
ACTION 2001-09-28#3  Jos de Roos  Review test cases
ACTION 2001-09-28#4  Art Barstow  Review test cases


See:
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-no-cycles-in-subPropertyOf/


11: Review domain and range test cases

See:
  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfs-domain-and-range/


12: Issue: Identity of anonymous resources
PROPOSE the WG RESOLVE

1. Resources that are described but not named in an XML serialization (by 
rdf:ID or rdf:about) are represented in an RDF abstract graph by nodes that 
do not have any associated URI.  Such nodes, called bNodes (from blank 
nodes) are thereby distinguishable from other described resource nodes, 
which do have an associated URI-reference label.

To directly address the question of the issue:  a so-called anonymous 
resource has no URI.

2. To reflect un-named descriptions in N-triples, local names must be
introduced (i.e. of the form '_:name').  These names are not URIs, and
their scope is the N-triples document in which they appear.

3. In the defined use of RDF to express ground facts, the meaning of bNode 
is to assert the existence of at least one resource which is the subject 
and/or object of properties as indicated by the graph.  This is covered 
more formally by the Model Theory [3], section 2.  See also the anonymity 
lemmas in section 3.2.

NOTE:  it has been proposed that the RDF graph syntax can be used for form 
a query, in which bNodes may be interpreted as query variables.  This 
resolution confirms that bNodes can be distinguished from other labelled 
nodes within the graph syntax, but is silent about if and how the graph 
syntax might be used to represent a query.

This resolves specific questions in the original issue raised thus:

[1.] Should anonymous resources have URI's?
-- No (point 1 above).

[2.] If so, should they be clearly distinguishable as parser generated URI's?
-- Not applicable:  the parser is not required to generate URIs.

[3.] Should there be a standard algorithm for generating URI's which ensures
  that different parsers generate the same URI's from the same source
  input document?
-- No:  the parser is not required to generate URIs.

[4.] How might these automatically generated URI's be affected by changes
  in the source document?
-- There no automatically generated URIs to be affected.



See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0147.html


13: Syntax Sub-group Report

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0119.html


14: Issue rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes:  Review Progress

Sergey: Can you be prepared to summarize the current situation.  You
might care to comment on how we should relate to the DAML+OIL work on
datatypes.

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0444.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0003.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0002.html



------------------------------------------------------------
This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 09:56:20 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:00 EDT