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

Minutes telecon 26th July 2002

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 17:27:16 +0100
Message-ID: <3D417864.2060904@hpl.hp.com>
To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Minutes of RDF Telecon July 26th 2002

Chair: Eric Miller
Scribe: Jeremy Carroll
   (with assistance from Dave and Jan)



DECISION rdf:ID matches the same as XML IDs.
DECISION The WG agree the modified proposal of msg July 0080

We plan to consider the new document (title still unknown)
(editors) for publication as a WD next meeting.


ACTION ericm Chase minutes of telecon of 19th July 2002.
ACTION danbri Circulate a document re Lbase by Wednesday 31st July.
ACTION jjc Update test case from colon in ID e-mail.
ACTION dave Update syntax document to  bring rdf:ID into line with xmlid
ACTION jjc Create test case with number at start of ID.
ACTION daveb to update syntax doc to reflect nodeID
ACTION jjc to produce nodeID test cases
ACTION daveB to update rdfms-names-use to reflect rdf:nodeID
ACTION gk Release new draft of doc for Tuesday.
ACTION ericm Review new document.
ACTION danbri Review new document, particularly section 2.3.
ACTION jos Review new document, particularly section 2.3.
ACTION frank Review section 2.3 of new document .
ACTION ericm Solicit more reviewers for new document on WG e-mail.


Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0155.html
IRC log below.

1: Volunteer scribe


2: Roll Call

Eric Miller
Dave Becket
Jan Grant
Frank Manola
Steve Petchulat
Dan Brickley
Jeremy Carroll
Graham Klyne
Jos de Roo
Mike Dean

Brian McBride
Dan Connolly
Pat Hayes

Patrick Stickler is on holiday

3: Review Agenda

No change, but changed under item 7.

4: Next telecon Aug 2nd 2002

5: Review minutes of 2002-07-19 teleconference

no minutes yet

IRC log:

Appears that Patrick agreed to write up minutes.

ACTION ericm Chase minutes of telecon of 19th July 2002.

6: Status of Action Items

ACTION: danbri, eric
Identify who owns the publishing next steps and responsibilities for
LBase Note
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc.html#T14-13-49
ACTION danbri Circulate a document re Lbase by Wednesday 31st July.

ACTION: jang
update test cases in light of bugs</dd>
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-34-20

ACTION: eric
Look into why jang gets dropped on rdf-comments list and fix problem
context: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc#T14-35-21

(Proposed Closed)

ACTION: 2002-06-28#2 bwm
get editors together, review contents of documents

Jeremy asserted that he attended a telecon that was this meeting;
the action is closed.

7) rdf:ID / rdf:node proposal

Agenda discussion split this into:

7a) rdf:ID

Dave: the issue is that xml id and rdf id are different.
Propose to make them the same.

On some readings of M&S this makes RDF more restrictive in that
XML IDs cannot begin with numbers.

DECISION: rdf:ID matches the same as XML IDs.

Abstention: Mike Dean.

ACTION jjc Update test case from colon in ID e-mail.
ACTION dave Update syntax document to  bring rdf:ID into line with xmlid
ACTION jjc Create test case with number at start of ID.

7b) rdf:node


Discussion, followed by minor mods to the proposal, and unaminous decision.

The changes to the proposal were that
+ rdf:node is replaced by rdf:nodeID.
+ the value of rdf:nodeID must match the same as rdf:ID
(which is the same as XML IDs).

There was also discussion about whether applications had to store these
IDs; the relationship to NTriple IDs.

A substantive point was whether two new attributes or one should be used.
Eric argued that each new attribute adds a significant pedagogical cost,
and hence that one was better than two.

DECISION The WG agree the modified proposal of msg July 0080

Carried unaminously (vocally).

ACTION daveb to update syntax doc to reflect nodeID
ACTION jjc to produce nodeID test cases
ACTION daveB to update rdfms-names-use to reflect rdf:nodeID

8) New Document


Graham talks through new document.
see also

Eric: the section 2.3 needs active review.

Eric asked if this is ready to go out as a WD, and pointed out
that the schedule is tight. Graham said yes, Jeremy nearly.

ACTION gk Release new draft of doc for Tuesday.

The plan is to try and OK its release as a WD next Friday.

Reviewers. DaveB has already reviewed the document.
ACTION ericm Review new document.
ACTION danbri Review new document, particularly section 2.3.
ACTION jos Review new document, particularly section 2.3.
ACTION frank Review section 2.3 of new document .
ACTION ericm Solicit more reviewers for new document on WG e-mail.

9) rdfns-assertion

Not discussed, except for emphasis on reviewing section 2.3

10) Procedure for determining reserved vocabulary


11) Schedule and Process to Last Call

Eric: dependency on datatypes is a problem.

12) Datatypes

Proposed as main theme for next week.


13:00:05 <logger_1> logger_1 has joined #rdfcore
13:00:05 <irc.w3.org> Users on #rdfcore: @logger_1
13:27:22 <em> em has joined #rdfcore
13:27:38 <em> em has changed the topic to: rdfcore teleconference - 
13:48:16 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfcore
13:48:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
13:48:24 <RRSAgent> * RRSAgent is logging
13:48:32 <em> agenda +Volunteer scribe
13:48:33 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 1 added
13:48:41 <em> agenda +Roll Call
13:48:42 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 2 added
13:48:52 <em> Agenda +Review Agenda - 
13:48:53 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 3 added
13:49:04 <em> agenda + Next telecon Aug 2nd 2002
13:49:05 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 4 added
13:49:28 <em> agenda +Review minutes of 2002-07-19 teleconference - (no 
minutes but log http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc)
13:49:29 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 5 added
13:49:42 <em> agenda +action item status
13:49:43 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 6 added
13:49:55 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfcore
13:50:00 <em> agenda +rdf:ID / rdf:node proposal - 
13:50:01 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 7 added
13:50:14 <ilrt> ilrt has joined #rdfcore
13:50:18 <em> agenda +New Document - 
13:50:19 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 8 added
13:50:31 <em> agenda +rdfns-assertion
13:50:32 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 9 added
13:50:42 <em> agenda +Procedure for determining reserved vocabulary
13:50:43 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 10 added
13:50:57 <em> agenda +Schedule and Process to Last Call
13:50:58 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 11 added
13:51:01 <em> agenda +datatypes
13:51:02 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 12 added
13:51:21 <ilrt2> ilrt2 has joined #rdfcore
13:51:22 <em> * em we have to figure out how to get rdf agenda's into 
13:54:41 <em> * em heads for much needed coffee... back in a few
13:55:42 <danbri> * danbri too
13:55:51 <danbri> * danbri sympathising w/ boston timezone ;-)
13:56:08 <gk-scribe> gk-scribe has joined #rdfcore
13:56:16 <gk-scribe> gk-scribe is now known as gk
13:57:12 <em> * em thanks gk for his excellent prep work
13:57:43 <em> zakim, list conferences.
13:57:44 <Zakim> I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM, WAI_EOWG()8:30AM
13:57:53 <em> zakim, this is SW_RDFCore.
13:57:54 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not see a conference named 'SW_RDFCore.'
13:57:57 <em> zakim, this is SW
13:57:58 <Zakim> ok, em
13:58:05 <em> zakim, who is here?
13:58:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricM
13:58:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see gk, ilrt2, ilrt, danbri, RRSAgent, Zakim, 
em, logger_1
13:58:27 <gk> * gk dialling...
14:00:45 <Zakim> +??P3
14:01:01 <Zakim> +Manola
14:01:02 <Zakim> +??P11
14:01:09 <ilrt> ilrt is now known as DaveB
14:01:13 <ilrt2> ilrt2 is now known as jang
14:01:20 <gk> * gk GK, just joined (??P11 ?)
14:02:57 <em> zakim, who is here?
14:02:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricM, ??P3, Manola, ??P11
14:02:59 <Zakim> On IRC I see gk, jang, DaveB, danbri, RRSAgent, Zakim, 
em, logger_1
14:03:02 <danbri> * danbri dialing
14:03:25 <jang> zakim, don't pick me!
14:03:26 <Zakim> I don't understand 'don't pick me!', jang.  Try /msg 
Zakim help
14:03:56 <danbri> zakim, exempt.add(danbri,'wrists hurt')
14:03:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'exempt.add(danbri,'wrists hurt')', 
danbri.  Try /msg Zakim help
14:04:26 <Zakim> +??P13
14:04:32 <Zakim> +DanBri
14:04:40 <em> zakim, +??P13 is jjc
14:04:41 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not recognize a party named '+??P13'
14:05:02 <jang> zakim, ??P13 is jjc
14:05:04 <Zakim> +Jjc; got it
14:05:06 <Zakim> +??P12
14:05:08 <connolly> connolly has joined #rdfcore
14:05:22 <connolly> * connolly is a little slow booting up; reviews 
14:05:32 <DaveB> DaveB is now known as DaveB-scr
14:05:37 <em> agenda?
14:05:38 <Zakim> * Zakim sees 12 items remaining on the agenda:
14:05:39 <Zakim> * Zakim 1. Volunteer scribe [from em]
14:05:40 <Zakim> * Zakim 2. Roll Call [from em]
14:05:41 <Zakim> * Zakim 3. Review Agenda - 
[from em]
14:05:43 <Zakim> * Zakim 4. Next telecon Aug 2nd 2002 [from em]
14:05:44 <Zakim> * Zakim 5. Review minutes of 2002-07-19 teleconference 
- (no minutes but log http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc) [from em]
14:05:47 <Zakim> * Zakim 6. action item status [from em]
14:05:48 <Zakim> * Zakim 7. rdf:ID / rdf:node proposal - 
[from em]
14:05:51 <Zakim> * Zakim 8. New Document - 
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-07-25/Overview.html [from em]
14:05:53 <Zakim> * Zakim 9. rdfns-assertion [from em]
14:05:54 <Zakim> * Zakim 10. Procedure for determining reserved 
vocabulary [from em]
14:05:56 <Zakim> * Zakim 11. Schedule and Process to Last Call [from em]
14:05:58 <Zakim> * Zakim 12. datatypes [from em]
14:06:11 <DaveB-scr> jjc scribe
14:06:14 <em> zakim, who is here?
14:06:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricM, ??P3, Manola, ??P11, DanBri, 
Jjc, ??P12
14:06:15 <DaveB-scr> (daveb doing for now)
14:06:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see connolly, gk, jang, DaveB-scr, danbri, 
RRSAgent, Zakim, em, logger_1
14:06:46 <em> gk is here
14:06:53 <em> stevep is here
14:06:58 <em> daveb and jan are also here
14:07:02 <gk> zakim, ??P11 is GK
14:07:04 <Zakim> +GK; got it
14:07:05 <DaveB-scr> rollcall complete
14:07:09 <DaveB-scr> review agenda
14:07:25 <DaveB-scr> item 4
14:07:43 <DaveB-scr> donm, 2 august
14:07:50 <jjcscribe> jjcscribe has joined #rdfcore
14:07:57 <jang> reg bwm (holidaY0 jos \
14:08:08 <jjcscribe> I am on now.
14:08:18 <jjcscribe> reg danc
14:08:19 <DaveB-scr> regrets josd
14:08:24 <DaveB-scr> DaveB-scr is now known as DaveB
14:08:28 <jang> [excuse poor trying, imac ketbroad]
14:08:39 <jjcscribe> Minutes Last Telecon
14:08:53 <jjcscribe> Patrick agreed to do minutes but they are missing
14:09:09 <jjcscribe> ACTION ericm Chase minutes of last telecon
14:09:20 <jjcscribe> Current record is IRC log
14:10:30 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
14:10:46 <jjcscribe> ACTION danbri versus LBase
14:11:04 <jjcscribe> dan will circulate something before Wednesday
14:11:37 <jjcscribe> This will be a note coming out of the WG discussion
14:12:32 <jjcscribe> ACTION: jang update test cases - continued
14:12:34 <RRSAgent> * RRSAgent records action 1
14:12:50 <jjcscribe> ACTION: eric Look into why jang ... continued
14:12:51 <RRSAgent> * RRSAgent records action 2
14:13:47 <jjcscribe> 2002-06-28# closed
14:13:55 <jjcscribe> Because close
14:14:56 <Zakim> +??P15
14:15:17 <jjcscribe> Jos joined
14:15:20 <jjcscribe> Agenda item 7
14:15:23 <DaveB> regrets were from PatH
14:16:01 <jjcscribe> New agenda item 7a rdf:ID
14:16:08 <jang> jjc:
14:16:17 <jang> my take is that xml NS production is the correct one
14:16:24 <jang> ie, a ns name, without the colon
14:16:34 <jang> djb: we've been over this, can't we decide it?
14:16:36 <danbri> Oh., em,  Agenda request: Namespaces 1.1 LC review.
14:16:38 <jang> dave: anyone object?
14:16:49 <jang> frankm: what's the issue again?
14:16:50 <em> ok, danbri so noted
14:16:57 <gk> NCName
14:16:58 <gk> ::=
14:16:58 <gk> (Letter | '_') (NCNameChar)*
14:16:58 <gk> An XML Name, minus the ":" */
14:16:59 <em> agenda +Namespace 1.1
14:17:00 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 13 added
14:17:00 <jang> jjc: test case sent to wg the other day... just looking 
for it
14:17:30 <jang> daveb: the issue is that xml id and rdf id take 
different sets of characters
14:17:33 <jang> they shold be the same
14:17:39 <jang> then xml schema can validate it
14:17:44 <jang> em: objections?
14:17:58 <danbri> re aggendum 13, see Namespaces 1.1 LC plan: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2002JulSep/0040.html (need 
W3C Member passwd)
14:18:07 <jang> decision: this is obvious, we should do this?
14:18:32 <jang> jjc points to message 0148 from this month
14:19:24 <DaveB> xml id and rdf id in the syntax take differetn set of 
14:19:30 <DaveB> I propose that we make them the same
14:19:39 <DaveB> and then we can use w3x xsl to validate it.
14:20:00 <jang> mike: issues with some tools: ids can't begin with numbers?
14:20:06 <jang> currently allowed by rdf, not xml
14:20:11 <jang> daveb: that's the change
14:20:28 <jang> miked: rdf is becoming more restrictive here, right?
14:20:32 <jjcscribe> mike: rdf is becoming more restrictive
14:20:53 <jjcscribe> consider ssn or zip code
14:21:05 <connolly> * connolly thought rdf IDs had to start with letters 
all along
14:21:16 <em> q+
14:21:17 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue
14:22:22 <DaveB> connolly: was ambiguous, as jjc explaining on the telcon
14:22:28 <DaveB> can't find ptrs to more just this sec
14:22:50 <jjcscribe> Abstentions: miked
14:23:00 <jjcscribe> Proposal carried.
14:23:10 <jjcscribe> ACTION jjc update test case
14:23:15 <connolly> * connolly thinks it's kinda silly, not to mention 
very painful, that XML IDs have to start with letters
14:23:24 <DaveB> (jjc: can you split test cases so one thing tested 
rather than two?)
14:23:41 <jjcscribe> ACTION dave update syntax
14:23:53 <mdean> mdean has joined #rdfcore
14:23:54 <connolly> * connolly wonders what proposal carried
14:23:57 <JosD> JosD has joined #rdfcore
14:24:14 <jjcscribe> ACTION jjc include test case with numeric ID
14:24:20 <DaveB> connolly: the three lines I typed higher up "xml id 
..." up to "validate it"
14:24:21 <gk> * gk DanC: proposal to limit RDF IDs to same form as XML 
IDs, I think
14:24:54 <jang> item 7b
14:25:03 <jang> jjc has simple proposal for rdf:node
14:25:09 <jang> doesn't address all aspect sof the syntax
14:25:18 <connolly> * connolly is happy to see the coin officially 
flipped, for IDs
14:25:21 <jang> but it solves the bulk of the roundtripping problem
14:25:28 <jang> a number of choicepoints highlighted in the email...
14:25:35 <jang> ..we could discuss those here... chair?
14:25:46 <jang> em: want to get this finished.
14:25:56 <jang> that being said, don't know if people consider this a 
14:26:08 <jang> one choice-point seems obvious, the rest less so
14:26:28 <jang> chair's position was not to reopen at this time, but if 
a slam-0dunk then reopen and finish it
14:26:31 <danbri> this= rdf:node idea?
14:26:33 <jang> is this a slam dunk?
14:26:37 <DaveB> yes
14:26:38 <jang> yes
14:26:45 <jang> (yes to danbri)
14:26:48 <DaveB> (not agreeing, replying to danbri)
14:26:57 <danbri> * danbri nods, just checking
14:27:02 <jang> jjc: there is a proposal
14:27:06 <danbri> * danbri tring to fix www-rdf-comments mail thing for jang
14:27:09 <jang> which is moderately long but is complete, I think
14:27:23 <jang> that we add the file-scope identifier for a blank node 
as an attribute
14:27:33 <jang> we can label subject or object with such an attribute.
14:27:39 <jang> that's about it
14:27:44 <em> danbri, please do not deal with the comments thing - 
please focus on the meeting at hand
14:27:44 <danbri> (rdf:node is what rdf:ID should've been)
14:27:49 <jang> em: comments?
14:27:53 <danbri> * danbri done
14:28:02 <jang> frank: question: concerning the use of xml strings as 
blank-node identifiers?
14:28:16 <jang> jjc: i could have been more restrictive tthan just @xml 
14:28:32 <jang> daveb; coincidentally, the ntriples IDs are also xml ids
14:28:46 <jang> frank: how do you distinguish it as a blank node id?
14:28:53 <jang> danbri: a new attribute for it
14:29:15 <jang> daveb: shouldn't look like a uri
14:29:25 <jang> should look like rdf:id
14:29:33 <jang> jjc: ntriples is us-ascii,
14:29:42 <jang> we should allow id's as e-acute, etc.
14:29:55 <jang> danbri: ntriples is just a test format
14:30:10 <jang> jjc: there's no reason why these have _anything_ to do 
with ntriples identifiers
14:30:18 <jang> it's just another syntax
14:30:30 <jang> if the id's don't survive roundtripping because they 
just label a blank node...
14:30:36 <jang> not a problem
14:30:44 <jang> em: what's the risk if we don't have this?
14:30:57 <jang> jjc: there are real users who really want to write 
rdf/xml that they've read in
14:31:03 <jang> in a programmatic sense
14:31:16 <jang> and at some point they need blank node ids to do that in 
certain circumstances
14:31:24 <jang> if they assign a uri then the meaning has changed
14:31:31 <jang> they might do something nonstandard
14:31:44 <jang> in jena, we're feeling increasing pressure to do 
something nonstandard
14:31:50 <jang> which we'd rather not do
14:32:09 <jang> danbri: ntriples are increasingly attractive because 
they're the only roundtrippable format
14:32:23 <jang> jjc: if we don't do this then the user community is 
being effectively forced to use ntriples
14:32:29 <jang> even though we don't endorse it
14:32:30 <danbri> zakim, q+ rdf:node
14:32:31 <Zakim> I see Em, Rdf:node on the speaker queue
14:32:34 <danbri> doh
14:32:39 <em> ack em
14:32:40 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Rdf:node on the speaker queue
14:32:40 <danbri> zakim, q- rdf:node
14:32:41 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
14:32:42 <jang> \frank: the roundtripping is rdf/xml -> somehitng, -> 
14:32:49 <danbri> zakim, q+
14:32:50 <Zakim> I see Danbri on the speaker queue
14:33:05 <jang> I want to read rdfxml, store it, generate it
14:33:13 <jang> if blank node ids are allowed to look like uris?
14:33:29 <jang> what i have to do (i think) is adopt some nonstandard 
approach to store these?
14:33:38 <jang> danbri: it's inside your db implementation
14:33:42 <gk> If we adopt them, I think graph-scope IDs should be 
limited to N-triple allowed form, I18N not needed because its a machine 
notion, not human-readable.  This seems simplest effective approach.
14:33:50 <jang> jjc: jena has effectively a bit on every resource 
indicating the label type
14:34:40 <jang> danbri: have same syntactic constraints as we do on rdf:id
14:34:50 <jang> there are few things I've really cared about as an 
14:34:54 <jang> this is one of those
14:34:57 <gk> I think the compelling case for this feature is to provide 
applications a standard way to communicate arbitrary graphs.
14:34:59 <jang> I can load, query, merge, etc. rdf
14:35:03 <jang> but I can't dump it back as a file
14:35:09 <jang> it's honestly embarrassing
14:35:35 <jang> em: unless we standardise ntriples, with i18n etc. this 
kind of mechanism is necessary
14:35:38 <DaveB> maybe rdf:nodeID ?
14:35:42 <jang> (yesses )
14:35:45 <danbri> yes, I like rdf:nodeID
14:35:56 <jang> em: I like danbri's suggestion of synchronising with rdf:id
14:36:01 <danbri> This is really the continuation of our cleanup re 
anonymous/blank resources.
14:36:07 <jang> jjc: I'm happy with node id
14:36:17 <gk> q+
14:36:19 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Danbri, Gk on the speaker queue
14:36:27 <jang> then we restrict to string syntax of rdf:id (= xml:id)
14:36:28 <jjcscribe> rdf:nodeID
14:36:39 <jang> daveb: frank - much rewriting on the primer?
14:36:45 <jang> frank: er, there will be some...
14:36:57 <jang> I'd like a clear explanation of what the change is...
14:37:05 <jang> in particular, what these node ids are going to look like
14:37:15 <jang> em: premature, i think ,without that being written up
14:37:24 <connolly> er... nodeID and nodeRef? or do you use nodeID in 
both places? note you can't use rdf:resource to refer to these things.
14:37:28 <jang> davbe: isn't that's jjc's proposal plus the amendments 
we're discussing?
14:37:33 <DaveB> connolly: rdf:nodeID in both
14:37:36 <connolly> ew
14:37:48 <em> -> 
14:37:49 <connolly> oh well
14:37:51 <gk> * gk DanC, I think that's a remaining choice point that I 
am queued to raise
14:37:56 <DaveB> haven't decided yet DanC
14:38:07 <connolly> connolly is now known as DanC
14:38:25 <jang> (quick rummage through mailing lists...)
14:38:39 <jang> frankm: this doesn't mention what's in the primer about 
blank nodes
14:38:56 <jang> because we're talking about generating those ids, not 
explicitly identifying them
14:39:01 <em> * em wonders who is taking the call in the playground?
14:39:11 <jang> jjc: the proposal is that the blank nodes remain blank
14:39:24 <jang> we just want to allow a file to refer to the same blank 
node in two places\
14:39:40 <jang> there's some push to allow blank nodes with a @global@ 
scope identifier. that's _not_ the proposal
14:39:55 <jjcscribe> the playground is me ...
14:40:00 <jang> frankm: you're being allowed to explicitly specify an id 
for a blank node
14:40:02 <jang> right?
14:40:13 <jang> secondly: are you always required to specify an id for a 
blank node?
14:40:24 <jang> or are the current syntactic abbrevs still allowed?
14:40:35 <danbri> hmm, rdf:nodeID seems ok for having something to point 
to. But how (re dan's questoin) do we point to it?
14:40:52 <em> q?
14:40:53 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Danbri, Gk on the speaker queue
14:40:58 <danbri> q-
14:40:59 <DaveB> I don't mind, rdf:resourceID/resourceRef - hmm
14:40:59 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Gk on the speaker queue
14:41:15 <em> ack gk
14:41:16 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:41:18 <jang> jjc: second question: the answer is not required
14:41:31 <jang> jang: first question: no suggestion that blank node id 
-strings_ survive a roundtripping
14:41:43 <danbri> The proposal doesn't mention resourceID or similar; is 
the proposal incomplete?
14:41:56 <jang> gk: jjc's said it's not necessary to have different 
names for rdf:nodeid and rdf:nodeidref
14:42:06 <jang> but is it worth having two attributes for subject and 
14:42:21 <jang> jjc: the proposal is to use the same attribute twice
14:42:49 <jang> danbri; I've often wished rdf:about and rdf:resouce were 
just rdf:webid
14:42:57 <jang> jjc: it makes the striping easier to see
14:43:08 <jang> taking the opposite viewpoint is maybe perverse...?
14:43:12 <danbri> I like it.
14:43:19 <jang> gk; both work technically, just from a pedagogical pov, 
which is better?
14:43:28 <jang> nodeid and nodeidref work for me (gk)
14:43:31 <DaveB> gk mentions rdf:nodeIDref
14:43:32 <DaveB> oh
14:43:43 <jang> jjc: my muse deserted me, i only came up with one name
14:44:35 <jang> (the "bnode" terminology is almost resurrected... but not)
14:44:52 <jang> em: is the view of the group this is (a) important, and 
(b) this is the way to do it?
14:45:01 <jang> decisions in then to get this into the spec, right?
14:45:16 <jang> em: this puts timescales at risk, so if we can agree...
14:45:20 <jang> and I think we have...
14:45:25 <jang> let's make the decision now, ok?
14:45:35 <jang> otherwise, this is no longer a slam-dunk
14:45:41 <jang> (frank: it's a three-point-shot)
14:45:55 <jang> jjc: my full resolution of msg 0080
14:45:59 <jang> with node replaced by nodeid
14:46:10 <jang> and nodeid attr value the same restrictions as rdf:id 
attr value?
14:46:37 <jang> that should be rdf:nodeID
14:46:40 <gk> Do we have separate attribute for subj/obj?
14:46:43 <DaveB> no
14:47:00 <jang> jjc: personally, I prefer not
14:47:04 <jang> danbri: not
14:47:37 <jang> mike: symmetry argument?
14:47:42 <jang> with resource, about?
14:48:20 <jang> jjc asks for suggestions.. nodeabout, noderef, bid, 
babout, etc.
14:48:28 <jang> none meet with much agreement
14:48:39 <jang> s/much/any
14:49:08 <jang> em: stick with one. it'll hurt, but big payoff
14:49:14 <jang> with two, hurts much more for the same benefit
14:49:51 <em> zakim, who is here?
14:49:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricM, ??P3, Manola, GK, DanBri, 
Jjc, ??P12, Mike_Dean, ??P15
14:49:53 <Zakim> On IRC I see JosD, mdean, jjcscribe, DanC, gk, jang, 
DaveB, danbri, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, logger_1
14:50:03 <jang> yesses to the revised proposal above...
14:50:09 <jang> em asks for no's?
14:50:12 <jang> abstentions?
14:50:19 <jang> none and none, respectively
14:50:35 <jang> agreement. congrats, jeremy.
14:50:45 <jang> (the actions are in the resolution...)
14:50:57 <jang> action: daveb to update syntax doc to reflect nodeID
14:51:04 <jang> action: jjc to produce test cases
14:51:08 <jang> (on nodeID)
14:51:21 <jang> action daveB to update syntax to bring rdfid into line 
with xmlid
14:51:31 <gk> See: 
14:51:37 <jang> [want to scribe again jjc?]
14:51:52 <jjcscribe> action daveB to update rdfms-names-use to reflect 
14:53:03 <Zakim> Zakim has quit
14:53:22 <jjcscribe> Graham talks through new doc.
14:53:36 <jjcscribe> em: the section 2.3 needs activ review
14:53:52 <jjcscribe> (next agenda item)
14:54:29 <jjcscribe> Where Dave has suggested pointing to syntax doc we 
14:54:40 <jjcscribe> but unclear exactly where
14:54:48 <jang> [note: could do with this living somewhere under 
w3-space so that TC doc can refer to it normatively... in the near future]
14:55:07 <jjcscribe> Section 4.2 fragment IDs is new material that needs 
atcive WG agreement
14:56:00 <danbri> 
points to a 404
14:56:04 <jang> [unavailable for review, out of the country next week, 
14:56:47 <DaveB> I asked gk to post to www-archive, should be a copy there
14:57:05 <jjcscribe> Isn't that done?
14:57:19 <danbri> * danbri thought he saw something there, yup
14:57:24 <jjcscribe> em: is this ready to go out as a WD?
14:57:31 <jjcscribe> gk: yes, jjc: nearly
14:57:39 <DaveB> gk's doc - 
14:57:44 <DaveB> gk/jjc's 25/ july doc
14:57:50 <danbri> (beat me to it, ta)
14:58:15 <DaveB> q+
14:58:22 <jjcscribe> ACTION gk release doc on Tuesday
14:58:26 <DaveB> hmm, no Zakim - nevermind
14:58:52 <jjcscribe> who can review this for Friday?
14:58:52 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfcore
14:59:07 <danbri> I re-invited Zakim; don't know why it left, or whether 
it lost state.
14:59:10 <danbri> zakim, who is here?
14:59:11 <Zakim> sorry, danbri, I don't know what conference this is
14:59:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, JosD, mdean, jjcscribe, DanC, gk, 
jang, DaveB, danbri, RRSAgent, em, logger_1
14:59:24 <gk> BTW, proposed title:  Miscellanea and Abstract Data Model
14:59:38 <jang> RDF MADM?
15:00:09 <em> q?
15:00:10 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
15:00:25 <jjcscribe> DaveB has pretty much reviewed it.
15:00:39 <jjcscribe> Are there two more?
15:00:47 <jang> [needs rdf:nodeID in section 3.7]
15:00:48 <jjcscribe> ACTION ericm Review document.
15:01:14 <jjcscribe> 3.7 could be in syntax doc?
15:01:24 <jjcscribe> ACTION danbri Review document.
15:01:33 <jang> yep
15:01:50 <danbri> (noting that I'm not 100% confident I'll manage it, 
but want to and will try my best to...)
15:02:02 <DaveB> em: timecheck
15:03:02 <jjcscribe> ACTION jos Partial review (emphasis on section 2.3)
15:03:13 <jjcscribe> ACTION danbri Review of section 2.3
15:03:26 <danbri> ie. 
15:03:53 <jjcscribe> ACTION ericm Solicit reviews on rdf-core wg
15:04:03 <jjcscribe> ACTION frank Review section 2.3
15:05:35 <jjcscribe> em: last call scheculde - problem is datatypes.
15:07:20 <jang> bye folks, thanks.
15:07:28 <jjcscribe> Possible theme for next week is datatypes.
15:07:35 <jjcscribe> adjourned.
15:07:51 <jang> jang has quit
15:07:59 <gk> DaveB, can you point me to vocab list in syntax doc pls?
15:08:10 <DaveB> hold on
15:09:36 <gk> Ta .. (I lose track of where to find the latest working 
15:10:00 <mdean> mdean has quit
15:10:12 <gk> zakim, who is her5e?
15:10:13 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, gk.
15:10:16 <gk> zakim, who is here?
15:10:17 <Zakim> sorry, gk, I don't know what conference this is
15:10:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, JosD, jjcscribe, DanC, gk, DaveB, 
danbri, RRSAgent, em, logger_1
15:10:43 <danbri> zakim loststate when dropped off channel.
15:10:52 <danbri> anyone know what happend?
15:11:54 <DaveB> 3.4 
15:11:58 <DaveB> is where rdf namespace defined
15:12:00 <DaveB> and has all the terms
15:12:10 <DaveB> in the editor's draft, there are expansions and updates
15:13:58 <DaveB> editor's draft version 
15:14:09 <DaveB> with collection stuff - first, rest, nil
15:15:36 <DaveB> end of chat
15:15:38 <DaveB> DaveB has quit
15:18:06 <JosD> JosD has quit
15:23:06 <DanC> DanC has left #rdfcore
15:25:40 <gk> gk has quit
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 12:33:29 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:53 EDT