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

Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-22

From: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:09:06 GMT
Message-ID: <4407860.1014322071275.JavaMail.bwm@MCBRIDE-B-4>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Time:
10:00:00 Fri Feb 22 2002 in America/New York

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Feb 22 2002 in Europe/London

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

1: Allocate scribe


2: Roll Call


3: Review Agenda


4: Next telecon (excluding f2f) - 10am Boston time, 01 Mar 2002


5: Review Minutes of 2002-02-15 telecon with correction

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html


6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ACTION: 2002-01-18#3 jjc
Analyze implications of allowing xml:base anywhere

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0516.html

ACTION: 2002-01-18#4 jjc
Provide test cases for xml:base to illustrate any issues

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0516.html

ACTION: 2002-02-08#2 Eric
Arrange publication of model WD

see:
  %20http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20020214/

ACTION: 2002-02-09#7 Sergey/Patrick/PatH
to prepare a proposal based on PatH

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0409.html

ACTION: 2002-02-15#2 bwm
Consider holding teleconference(s) during F2F

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0564.html

ACTION: 2002-02-15#3 bwm
Announce new Model Theory WD to appropriate lists: rdf-logic, interest, ...

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Feb/0065.html

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2002Feb/0113.html

ACTION:  2002-02-15#9 DanC
Write up rdf:Bag idea and send to list

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0483.html



7: face to face meeting
Telecon arrangements
Meeting with I18N

See:
  http://cgi.w3.org/Register/selectUser.pl?_w3c_meetingName=techplenary2002
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f


8: Status of Test Cases WD
ACTION: 2001-11-30#3 Jan Grant Get access to test case areas of W3C site
ACTION: 2002-01-11#2  JanG  post summary of Test Cases WD outstanding updates to list.
ACTION: 2002-01-11#1  bwm  persue CVS access for Jan with EM



9: Preparing for the f2f
Schema Issues:  Danbri?



10: Model Theory for Containers
Propose action PatH to update the model theory to state a semantics for
rdf:Bag and rdf:Alt which is the same as that for rdf:Seq.

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0072.html


11: Datatypes

A proposal for datatyping was produced last week and  comments round the table have been sought this week.  The WG should now accept the proposal or propose specific actionable ammendments to it.  Based on the discussion and feedback this week:

Propose the WG request that the proposal should be ammended, if neccessary, to reflect the following:

  1.  The proposal should include support for the following idiom:

        <mary> <age> "10" .
        <age>  <range> <integer> . # for some appropriate <integer>
                                      # for some appropriate <range>

  2.  That in case 1, the value of the age property is a 'string' which is
      constrained to conform to lexical space of a datatype indicated by
      <integer>, i.e. the node labelled "10" denotes the string "10".

  3.  That the doublet be dropped from the proposal (the rdf:value idiom).

  4.  That the datatype triple idiom be dropped from the proposal.

Each requested ammendment will be considered in turn, in order.


See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0359.html


12: Issue rdfms-fragments
Please see the description in the issues list.


See:
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments


13: Issue rdfms-identity-of-statements
[[
 "There is a question whether or not there can be two different statements with the same subject, object and property. Most people seem to say "no". I have suggested that this should be allowed because it can be expressed in reified RDF statements and that there should be a 1:1 correspondence between what can be expressed in an RDF model and its reification. "
]]

Propose:

  o the WG resolves that the entailment decision made in the previous
    weeks telecon resolves this issue, that the answer is yes and that
    this issue be closed.


See:
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-of-statements
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html


14: Provenance




------------------------------------------------------------
This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 15:09:20 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:18 EDT