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

WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-05-31

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 18:28:20 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020531182525.0429e420@joy.songbird.com>
To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-05-31

10:00:00 Fri May 31 2002 in America/New York
15:00:00 Fri May 31 2002 in Europe/London
Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332
irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore

Transcript:
(file attached)


Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0150.html

1: Allocate scribe:  Graham Klyne


2: Roll call

Participants:
    - Brian McBride (chair)
    - Daniel Brickley
    - Dave Beckett
    - Frank Manola
    - Graham Klyne
    - Jeremey Carroll
    - Jos De Roo
    - Patrick Stickler
    - Ron Daniels
    - Jan Grant
    - Dan Connolly
    - Pat Hayes
    - Mike Dean
    - Stephen Petschulat
    - Guha

Regrets/Absent:
    - Aaron Swartz
    - Eric Miller (co-chair)
    - Sergey Melnik
    - Bill dehOra
    - Frank Boumphrey
    - KWON Hyung-Jin
    - Michael Kopchenov
    - Ora Lassila
    - Pierre G Richard
    - Rael Dornfest
    - Satoshi Nakamura
    - Yoshiyuki Kitahara


3: Review Agenda
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0150.html

Discussed F2F issues.
F2F home page at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020617-f2f/
All: Please send regrets if not attending.
All: Please send ideas for agenda.
Note that on the following Wddnesday, there will be talks given by
Mike Dean and Guha;  also some small-group discussions - suggestions
for topics are requested.


4: Next telecon?
Next Friday, 2002-06-07 to be chaired by Eric
Note: the following week will probably be no telecon;
this to be confirmed next week.


5: Review Minutes of 2002-05-24
See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0109.html
APPROVED


6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ALL CONFIRMED (see agenda for details)


7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions
ACTION: 2001-09-21#11 Bill DehOra
Prepare proposal on qnames as parsetype attributes

CONFIRMED


8: outstanding issues - 8 left
rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes
rdfms-contexts
rdfms-seq-representation
rdfms-assertion
rdfs-editorial
rdf-namespace-change
faq-html-compliance
rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics
See:
   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking


9: Document Status

Primer: little progress (Frank not well)
ACTION 2002-05-31#1, FrankM: Circulate list of issues needing clarification

Datatypes:  PatH will complete by end of today (2002-05-31)


10: Issue: rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics
OLD ACTION: 2002-05-24#4  danbri  update the isDefinedBy proposal (with 
help from Guha) in light of the discussion in the 2002-05-24 telecon

Lots of discussion, expect progress soon (next week?)


11: daml:collection
Propose
   o Approve Jos's test case as the basis for resolving this issue
   o add the new names to the rdf namespace
   o use parseType="Collection"
   o typed nodes are permitted as collection members
   o Action dajobe to add update the syntax spec based
     on Jos's test case
   o Action Jan to amend Jos's test case to show a typed node member
     and add it to the test cases with status approved
   o close this issue
See:
   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0103.html

General agreement in principle, discussion of details:
(1) agreed to create a daml:collection like structure in RDF
-- AGREED
(2) use rdf: namespace rather than rdfs:?
     Or use a new container namespace for the generated terms?
-- AGREED: go ahead with RDF namespace, but note reservations.
    Be prepared to change if good reasons arise.
    (The second most popular idea was to use a new namespace.)
(3) Change spelling to rdf:parseType='Collection'  (note capitalization)
-- AGREED
(4) Do we want to keep the rdf:type xxx:List triples?
-- YES
(5) instead of rdf:type properties, use rdf:member properties linked to 
containers?
-- NO
ACTION 2002-05-31#2, DaveB: Update syntax spec with above decisions
ACTION 2002-05-31#3, JanG: Update test case document with this, and other, 
test cases
DECIDED: the test case is approved

It was noted that there may be issue list decisions that need revisiting, 
in light of this decision being at variance to some previous decisions.

ACTION 2002-05-31#4, bwm: add "see also" annotation to ....?
[[[Sorry, I missed the detail of this - I hope you can fill in the blank.]]]
[[[Was this it? ACTION Brian: update issues list... re parseType not being 
generally extensible, and w.r.t. postponing fixing collections]]]

ACTION 2002-05-31#5, jos: Summarize and check decision with WebOnt


12: Definition of graph syntax
Discuss Jeremy's proposal.
See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0120.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0122.html

(Item skipped)


13: Dark Triples
Assign issue owner to assess the proposed solutions
Is there an interaction with rdfms-assertion?
See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0145.html

Guha has noted that the schema-based proposal for dark triples is 
non-monotonic; see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0154.html
Guha: adding DTs into RDF/S at this stage is like asknig for a nuclear 
bomb, 'i don't know if i want to use it, but can i have one just in case?'
Guha: basic defn nonmon: A->C but not: A&B->C
RonD: "when in doubt, leave it out"
Guha: There is also some question whether WebOnt really still want this, in 
light of recent developments.

No clear decision noted, but general feeling was to (a) check back with 
WebOnt and ask them to reaffirm they want dark triples before proceeding 
further, and (b) call a joint meeting on layering.

NOTED:  RonD states that he regards this enhancement as out of scope for 
this WG


14: Issue: rdfms-assertion
2002-05-17#7  DaveB  Investigate recent TAG decision on registering
mime types for W3C specifications and make a recommendation to the WG
Also consideration of Tim's recent response and ensuing thread.
See:
   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0126.html

(Item skipped)


15: Approve test cases
Propose approve test cases reviewed by Aaron and Graham
See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0125.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0144.html

(Item skipped)


16: Issue: xml:base
Feedback from the URI group - thread starting
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2002Apr/0025.html
See:
   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xml-base
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2002Apr/0025.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0060.html

(Item skipped)

--end--


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>


Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 13:16:47 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:48:17 EDT