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

Minutes of 19-Oct-2001 teleconference

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:45:01 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011019194314.045a2ec0@joy.songbird.com>
To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2001-10-19

Transcript:
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-10-19
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0079.html

1: Allocate scribe:  Graham Klyne

2: Roll call

Participants:
    - Brian McBride (chair)
    - Daniel Brickley
    - Eric Miller
    - Art Barstow
    - Dave Beckett
    - Jeremey Carroll
    - Jos De Roo
    - Jan Grant
    - Graham Klyne
    - Frank Manola
    - Stephen Petschulat
    - Aaron Swartz
    - Sergey Melnik
    - Martyn Horner

Regrets:
    - Dan Connolly
    - Bill dehOra
    - Pat Hayes

Absent:
    - Frank Boumphrey
    - Ron Daniels
    - Rael Dornfest
    - Yoshiyuki Kitahara
    - Michael Kopchenov
    - KWON Hyung-Jin
    - Ora Lassila
    - Satoshi Nakamura
    - Pierre G Richard
    - Mike Dean
    - Guha

3: Review agenda:

    No AOB


4: Next telecon - 10am Boston time, 26th October 2001

    Confirmed


5: Review Minutes of previous meeting

See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0249.html

APPROVED.


6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

See agenda for details:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0079.html

ACTION: 2001-09-21#3 Dan Connolly
ACTION: 2001-09-28#3 Jos de Roos
ACTION: 2001-09-28#4 Art Barstow
ACTION: 2001-09-28#5 Dave Beckett
ACTION: 2001-09-28#6 Jeremy Carroll
ACTION: 2001-09-28#8 Art Barstow
ACTION: 2001-09-28#9 Art Barstow
ACTION: 2001-09-28#10 Art Barstow
   Not noted in agenda.  See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0441.html
ACTION: 2001-10-12#1 Pat Hayes
ACTION: 2001-10-12#2 Art Barstow
ACTION: 2001-10-12#3 Jos deRoos
ACTION: 2001-10-12#4 Graham Klyne
ACTION: 2001-10-12#5 Frank Manola
ACTION: 2001-10-12#6 Jos deRoos
ACTION: 2001-10-12#7 Sergey Melnik

CONFIRMED.


7: Propose approve parseType test cases

See:
   http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-parseType/

This introduced the question of whether or not unrecognized attributes in 
the RDF namespace are legal.

RESOLVED: will postpone approval until the treatment of unrecognized 
attributes in RDF namespace is resolved.

ACTION: 2001-10-19#1, DaveB, ensure there is a syntax document issue 
dealing with unrecognized attributes in the RDF namespace.


8: Propose approve domain and range test cases 1, 2 and 3

Review status of test case 4

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

RESOLVED:  test cases 1 and 2 are approved.

RESOLVED:  consideration of test cases 3 and 4 is postponed, pending 
definition of how we do entailment.


9: Issue rdfms-identity-anon-resources

Propose that the WG RESOLVE that the RDF model theory draft of
25 September 2001 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-mt-20010925/)
adequately addresses the issue
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources

See:
   http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-mt-20010925/

There was some concern about the motivation for this issue, so it went to a 
vote of those present.  Passed with 10 in favour, 3 abstain.

For details of vote, see:
   http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-10-19#T14-19-28

10: Propose approve test cases in 
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-identity-anon-resources/

See:
   http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-identity-anon-resources/

These have been reviewed by Art, Jos and Graham, with no issues.

RESOLVED:  these test cases are approved.


11: Propose approve Pat's suggestion to distinguish between a blank node 
and its label.

In future the term *node identifier* (which may be abbreviated to nodeId)
should be used to refer label of a blank node in, for example n-triples.
A node in the graph itself should be referred to as a blank node,
which may be abbreviated to bNode.

See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0237.html

RESOLVED:  This change of nomenclature is approved.


12: Review status of Entailment tests and Test manifest proposal.

ACTION: 2001-10-19#2, JanG, produce proposal for next week.

There was some discussion, and concerns, regarding use of TimBLs ideas for 
N3.  For details:
   http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-10-19#T14-26-46

We alspo need some test cases for a couple of issues that were resolved at 
the F2F meeting.

ACTION: 2001-10-19#3, Jos, Create test cases for "model" issues resolved at f2f

ACTION: 2001-10-19#4, ArtB, Extract text from Jos to update Test Cases WD


13: Review status of next Syntax WD

Dave Becket has a document that needs to be studied and reviewed, with 
comments going back to the syntax subgroup.

There was also discussion of how to progress Jeremy's syntax transform 
work.  Two proposals have been mapped out, we need to decide which goes 
forward; pick one and debug it.

ACTION: 2001-10-19#5, JanG, Aaron. Review and report on Jeremy's syntax work
ACTION: 2001-10-19#6, Jan, Jeremy, Dave, Brian, Aaron, Art, SteveP, 
DanC.  Review the syntax draft document and report back to teleconference 
next week.
ACTION: 2001-10-19#7, EricM. Find teleconference bridge slots for next week 
for syntax group teleconference.

There was a call for all group members to look at the syntax issues and 
offer comments.

ACTION: 2001-10-19#8, DaveB.  Email URLs of issues to be discussed/resolved


14: Review status of Schema WD

DanBri has been working on this, has reflected range/domain decisions.

REAWAKEN OLD ACTION: (id?) DanBri to get working version of schema spec 
with domain/range reflected to WG.

There is still some uncertainty about the constraint resources/properties 
issues, though many folks seem happy to lose these.

ACTION: 2001-10-19#9, DanBri.  Propose resolution of constraint resources 
for next week
ACTION: 2001-10-19#10, DanBri.  ditto for constraint properties


15: Review status and technical discussion on datatypes issue

See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0343.html

Sergey has surveyed the approaches and tried to classify;  there seem to be 
two broad approaches we could take.  There were some attempts to clarify 
the two approaches in the meeting, but without too much mutual 
comprehension.  Hence:

ACTION: 2001-10-19#11, Sergey to post text attempting to state the two 
options, as soon as possible.

DanC notes that we should also be considering test cases here, to clarify 
the problem space.

It is generally acknowledged that this is probably THE most difficult issue 
the group has yet to solve.

***Meeting closed***



------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)


Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 15:36:48 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:07 EDT