W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the telecon 2002-08-23

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 23:42:06 +0200
To: "Graham Klyne <GK" <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3C4E3353.32D215A2-ONC1256C1E.0076F3F3@agfa.be>
Graham, I have to say that I wasn't present (due to holidays, daytrips, 
etc...)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/




Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Sent by: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
2002-08-23 07:23 PM

 
        To:     RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RDFCore WG minutes for the telecon 2002-08-23


RDFCore WG minutes for the telecon 2002-08-23
=============================================

Time:
10:00:00 Fri Aug 23 2002 in America/New York

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Aug 23 2002 in Europe/London

Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332
irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore

Transcript:
(file attached)

Summary of new actions:

ACTION 2002-08-23#1, DanC:
   review primer text and propose alternative that clarifies
   status of Alt [and other collections?].
ACTION 2002-08-23#2, DaveB:
   initiate dialog with DC community about the issue of rdf:Alt usage.
ACTION 2002-08-23#3, JanG:
   review current datatypes document.
ACTION 2002-08-23#4, SteveP:
   review current datatypes document.
ACTION 2002-08-23#5, PatrickS:
   send copy of version-for-review of datatypes to www-archive,
   and post URI to the RDFcore mailing list.
   [scribe note:  I've assumed PatrickS will accept this action.]
ACTION 2002-08-23#6, bwm:
   Ensure that WG home page points to current editor working draft
documents for WG review.
ACTION 2002-08-23#7, FrankM:
   Propose alternative text for the concepts and abstract model document 
to
rectify concerns with conflicting use of "assertion".
ACTION 2002-08-23#8, AaronSw:
   Update MIME type draft for WG review prior to re-issue.

Agenda:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0180.html
   (but note that date should be 2002-08-23, not 2002-08-25)


1: Allocate scribe:  Graham Klyne
    Volunteer for next week: Jan Grant


2: Roll call

Participants:
    - Brian McBride (chair)
    - Eric Miller
    - Daniel Brickley
    - Dave Beckett
    - Frank Manola
    - Graham Klyne
    - Jos De Roo
    - Dan Connolly
    - Pat Hayes
    - Patrick Stickler
    - Jan Grant
    - Stephen Petschulat
    - Aaron Swartz

Regrets/absent:
    - Jeremey Carroll
    - Sergey Melnik
    - Guha
    - Ron Daniels
    - Mike Dean
    - Frank Boumphrey
    - KWON Hyung-Jin
    - Michael Kopchenov
    - Ora Lassila
    - Pierre G Richard
    - Rael Dornfest
    - Satoshi Nakamura
    - Yoshiyuki Kitahara


3: Review Agenda

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0180.html

Discussion of datatypes document to be brought forward;  PatrickS must
leave early today.


4: Next telecon 30th Aug 2002


5: Minutes of 2002-08-09 telecon

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0152.html
   ACCEPTED


6: Status of minutes of 2002-08-16 telecon

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0171.html
   ACCEPTED


7: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ACTION: 2002-06-18#3 daveB
   Fold Jeremy's text describing the graph syntax into the syntax document
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0067.html
ACTION: 2002-07-19#1 eric
   investigate why JanG gets dropped on rdf-comments (twice now)
ACTION: 2002-08-16#2 bwm
   to ask Semantic Web Coordination group to clarify priority of dark 
triples
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0168.html
ACTION: 2002-08-16#4 PatrickS
   Circulate URI of latest datatypes document
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0158.html
ACTION: 2002-08-16#6 bwm
   Summarise responses to datatypes question to community
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0163.html

AGREED: all completed.


8: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions

ACTION: 2002-06-17#8 guha
   define the dark/light function for URIREFs
ACTION: 2002-06-17#9  patH
   update the model theory to make statements with dark properties have no
semantics
ACTION: 2002-06-17#10 guha
   consider impact of dark triples on test cases
ACTION: 2002-06-17#12 patH
   propose a paragraph on dark triples for the primer
ACTION: 2002-06-17#13  daveB
   ensure that the description of the graph syntax adequately describes
darkness

AGREED: all closed, by virtue of dark triples no longer being a priority
concern
(see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0168.html)


9: Status of new Concepts and Abstract Data Model WD
2002-08-16#3  EricM  publish rdf concepts and abstract data model WD
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0067.html
   Action continues -- working on last pubrules, should be out soon.


10: Relationship between XML Schema and RDF

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0165.html

(Item skipped.)


11: rdf:Alt's relationship to individual statements

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0157.html

Problem with Alt is that different people are using it in different ways.
Dublin Core are using Alt in a way that doesn't accord with other RDF 
folks
expectations.

Suggestion to deprecate Alt/Seq/Bag.  Sentiment is that it's too late to
consider throwing out the existing containers.  People have been asking 
for
a common means of expressing collections for a variety of
tasks...  preference expressed to have more specific/formal declrations 
for
existing collections rather than just deprecating them.  More explanatory
material in Primer, maybe?

Main problem is Alt:  people are using it without defining a specific
vocabulary to go with such use.  Alt has no special formal semantics of
itself, so any such must be associated with properties.  Suggestion that
the primer should have material that use of Alt without special vocabulary
is may not achieve intended purpose.

So, current approach is to leave the Alt vocabulary defined, but NOT to
define the semantics that some people might expect.

Dublin Core are about to approve a spec that uses Alt in such 
inappropriate
ways -- there is an urgent need that they should be notified, preferably 
by
reference to material in the revised RDF documents.  Suggestion that they
might use repeated properties instead of Alt, or explain more carefully in
their own document what the Alt construct means.

As far as RDF is concerned, an Alt collection has a value that is the Alt
container object.  We should make it clear to the DC community that any
additional Alt semantics would apply only to properties they define.

[Suggestion that an "RDF myths" document should be created]

ACTION 2002-08-23#1, DanC:
   review primer text and propose alternative that clarifies
   status of Alt [and other collections?].
   (EricM will help.)

ACTION 2002-08-23#2, DaveB:
   initiate dialog with DC community about the issue of rdf:Alt usage.


12: rdfms:assertion

PROPOSED that the text in section 2.3.2 of the Concepts and Abstract Data
Model document resolves this issue and it be closed.
   http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-08-05/Overview.htm#section-Social
document is also archived as ZIP file attached to:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Aug/0003.html

Some discussion of this paragraph:
[[
For example, a media type, application/rdf+xml [RDF-MIME-TYPE ] is being
registered for indicating the use of RDF/XML that might be published with
the intent of being such an assertional representation (as distinguished
from other XML or text that may just happen to look like RDF assertions).
]]
DanBri says he asked for it to be omitted;  GK understood request to be
that the assertional requirement be softened (hence the "might ... with 
the
intent" in the above).  Concerns expressed about misalignment with MIME
type registration draft.  In discussion, the softened wording, quoted
above, will do for now but may need further wordsmithing and 
cross-checking
with revised MIME type registration draft.  Also concerns that the term
"assertion" is used in different fashions.

Also noted that RDF MIME type registration Internet-draft is about to
expire, and should be re-issued.  As part of the review process for
re-issue, we should cross-check for consistency with the concepts and
abstract model document.

AGREED:  the issue can be closed as proposed above (understanding that the
document text may undergo some additional wordsmithing).

[NOTE (not part of formal meeting record):  in post-meeting IRC 
discussion,
there was some debate about whether there should be some explicit mention
of HTTP usage in setting the context for RDF being asserted;  consensus
among those chatting seemed to be that an HTTP context might be introduced
as an illustrative example.  See attached IRC log.  DanBri made a comment
there that might be helpful: "I think we can carve things nicely down the
middle. (i) RDF/XML docs have propositional content (ii) agents can
demonstrate attitdues (believing, fearing, desiring) towards such 
content."]

ACTION 2002-08-23#6, bwm:
   Ensure that WG home page points to current editor working draft
documents for WG review.
ACTION 2002-08-23#7, FrankM:
   Propose alternative text for the concepts and abstract model document 
to
rectify concerns with conflicting use of "assertion".
ACTION 2002-08-23#8, AaronSw:
   Update MIME type draft for WG review prior to re-issue.


13: Meaning of rdf:type and relationship between RDF and RDFS

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0173.html

(Item skipped)


14: Datatypes

Need review of latest document, then we can shoot for publication.

Current document is: http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html

Some specific requests:
(1) be very clear about document status
(2) references to untidiness of literals should be clearly flagged
     with a request for further community feedback.  With test case
     example clarifying consequence (e.g. age "10" and title "10").
(3) DC examples in appendix should be RDF/XML not N-triples
(4) don't use abbreviations in first examples (e.g. &xsd;):
     if used, introduce them later.

More reviewer feedback is required before the editors can formally prepare
a new publication candidate.

ACTION 2002-08-23#3, JanG:
   review current datatypes document.
ACTION 2002-08-23#4, SteveP:
   review current datatypes document.
ACTION 2002-08-23#5, PatrickS:
   send copy of version-for-review of datatypes to www-archive,
   and post URI to the RDFcore mailing list.
   [scribe note:  I've assumed PatrickS will accept this action.]


--meeting closed--




Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 17:42:55 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:28 EDT