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

Telecon 2002-01-18 minutes

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 17:55:19 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020118174820.038beec0@joy.songbird.com>
To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-01-18

Transcript:
   (attached)

Agenda:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0125.html

1: Allocate scribe:  Graham Klyne

2: Roll call

Participants:
    - Aaron Swartz
    - Bill dehOra
    - Brian McBride (chair)
    - Daniel Brickley
    - Dan Connolly
    - Dave Beckett
    - Graham Klyne
    - Jeremey Carroll
    - Jos De Roo
    - Martyn Horner
    - Pat Hayes
    - Patrick Stickler
    - Ron Daniels
    - Sergey Melnik

    - Jan Grant ??


Regrets:
    - Eric Miller
    - Frank Manola
    - Mike Dean

Absent:
    - Frank Boumphrey
    - Guha
    - KWON Hyung-Jin
    - Michael Kopchenov
    - Ora Lassila
    - Pierre G Richard
    - Rael Dornfest
    - Satoshi Nakamura
    - Stephen Petschulat
    - Yoshiyuki Kitahara


3: Review Agenda

Interest was expressed in a report from WebOnt face-to-face.
(But as it happens, we did not have time.)


4: Next telecon - 10am Boston time, 25 Jan 2002


5: Please register for the face to face meeting.

See:
   http://cgi.w3.org/Register/selectUser.pl?_w3c_meetingName=techplenary2002


6: Review Minutes of 2002-01-11 with correction

See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0095.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0097.html

APPROVED


7: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

(See agenda)

ALL CONFIRMED


8: Reification

We are awaiting an initial gathering of thoughts in a paper from Frank M. 
to kick off discussion.

Since he's not here today, we can't really progress that.

DanC expressed some views about the nature of reification in his 
software.  Consider "Mary hits the ball".  In the reification of this, is 
the subject (a) a string with first letter "M", or (b) [something that 
denotes?) a femail person?  DanC thinks (a).  Others not so sure.  Some 
discussion.

ACTION 2002-01-18#1, DanC:  provide an example that shows why reification 
works one way for him, but not the other.

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

All actions continue.


10: Status of Primer

Item skipped -- FrankM not here.

Disappointment and concern for the schedule was noted.


11: Model Theory WD

Reviews are all in, and Pat is working through the comments.

Document:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/att-0007/01-RDF_Model_Theory.htm

Comments:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0000.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0094.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0127.html

Current estimate is that the document will go to a new public WD following 
discussion of any substantive points at next week's telecon -- 1-2 weeks time.


12: Unrecognised xml: attributes

Propose:  the WG resolves that unrecognized attributes in the xml namespace
should be ignored.

In discussion, it was felt that test cases are needed for a sensible decision.

ACTION 2002-01-18#2, DaveB:  Prepare some test cases for unrecognized xml: 
attributes


13: Issue: #rdfms-xml-base

See DaveB's excellent summary of the discussion to date:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0098.html

Discussion of original proposal, and a counter proposal.  Discomfort was 
expressed by several people about simply ignoring xml:base - it should be 
honoured or disallowed.

Proposed: that when RDF is embedded in an XML document that uses xml:base, 
the enclosing xml:base will be honoured.
APPROVED

After discussion, it was proposed that xml:base be allowed, and honoured, 
anywhere in an RDF document (this being easiest to implement).
APPROVED (understanding that if major problems are found this may be 
reconsidered)

ACTION 2002-01-18#3, JJC:  Analyze implications of allowing xml:base anywhere
ACTION 2002-01-18#4, JJC:  Provide test cases for xml:base to illustrate 
any issues


14: Issue: #rdfms-nested-bagIDs

DaveB has offered a proposal, with test cases:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0113.html

In discussion, there was concern that this did not agree with some people's 
understanding of reification.  Resolution of this has been deferred until 
the nature of reification has been agreed.


15: Issue: #mime-types-for-rdf-docs

Dave has offered a proposed wording:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0114.html

Propose
   o the WG authorize DaveB to add text as outlined in his proposal
   o this issue be removed from the list affecting the syntax WD

When we're ready (when documents are stable?) we'll request a MIME 
content-type registration for application/rdf+xml, based on Aaron's draft 
http://blogspace.com/rdf/mimetype


16: Issue: #rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr

Item skipped.


17: Datatypes

old ACTION 2002-01-11#6  miked  to drop an example of both approaches 
(implicit / explicit) to datatyping to the mailing list.
CONTINUES

Discussion of datatyping desiderata draft.  Latest version is "take 3":
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0137.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/att-0137/01-RDF-Datatyping-Desiderata.html

Patrick has offered a "preview" draft of the P/D proposal:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0118.html
   http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/TDL.html
We hope for a final version, with Jeremy providing the math, by the end of 
next week.

ACTION 2002-01-18#5, Sergey: Analyze both proposals against the desiderata
ACTION 2002-01-18#6, ALL: Propose new idioms that should be recorded
ACTION 2002-01-18#7, GK: Incorporate any new idioms/use-cases into the 
desiderate document
ACTION 2002-01-18#8, GK: Review "idioms" section to clarify that these are 
claimed examples of existing use, provide specific references where possible.

***Meeting closed***





--------------------------
        __
       /\ \    Graham Klyne
      /  \ \   (GK@ACM.ORG)
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
  \/___________/



Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 12:58:07 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:56 EDT