Session Start: Fri May 31 15:07:08 2002 [15:07] *** Now talking in #rdfcore [15:10] *** DaveB has joined #rdfcore [15:13] +Jos, SteveP, GK, RonD [15:14] +bwm, jjc [15:14] *** Jema has joined #rdfcore [15:14] *** DaveB is now known as daveb-jan [15:16] -open [15:16] RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-05-31 is now open [15:16] The agenda can be found at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0150.html [15:16] Agenda item 1: Volunteer scribe [15:16] +jang, daveB [15:17] *** gk is now known as gk-scribe [15:17] +FrankM [15:17] Regrets: none noted [15:17] + Guha [15:18] Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0150.html [15:18] *** DanC_ has joined #rdfcore [15:18] -agenda next [15:18] Agenda item 2: Roll Call [15:18] -agenda next [15:18] Agenda item 3: Review Agenda [15:18] See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0150.html [15:19] * DanC_ decides between two meetings... [15:19] (Comments about strange URI scheme - otherwise none) [15:19] -agenda next [15:20] Agenda item 4: Next telecon? [15:20] -agenda 3 [15:20] Agenda item 3: Review Agenda [15:20] See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0150.html [15:20] Discussion of F2F issues [15:20] * DanC_ doesn't plan to attend the ftf, fyi [15:20] (Agenda 3.5) - F2F [15:21] F2F homa page has been posted. [15:22] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020617-f2f/#where [15:22] People please send regrets if not attending... [15:23] Please send ideas for agenda. [15:23] Also, Mike, Guha talks on Wednesday, also some small-group discussions [15:23] Suggestions for topics are welcome [15:23] +MikeD [15:24] Regrets DanC (for this meeting and F2F) [15:24] Regrets EricM [15:24] People please send regrets if not attending... [15:24] danbri arrives here [15:25] People please send regrets if not attending... else will assume you're not coming [15:25] +DanBri [15:25] -agenda next [15:25] Agenda item 4: Next telecon? [15:25] Hope Eric will be chairing telecon next week. [15:26] Most present can make next week telecon [15:26] Following week, looks like no telecon - to be confirmed next week. [15:26] -agenda next [15:26] Agenda item 5: Review Minutes of 2002-05-24 [15:26] See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0109.html [15:26] APPROVED [15:26] -agenda next [15:26] Agenda item 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions [15:26] CONFIRMED [15:26] -agenda next [15:26] Agenda item 7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions [15:27] CONFIRMED [15:27] -agenda next [15:27] Agenda item 8: outstanding issues - 8 left [15:27] See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking [15:27] +PatH [15:27] -agenda next [15:27] Agenda item 9: Document Status [15:27] Primer: little progress, some issues need clarifying. [15:28] -action FrankM/Circulate list of issues needing clarification [15:28] Jema notes action 2002-05-31#1 [15:28] Datatypes: PatH will have it done by end of today [15:29] -agenda next [15:29] Agenda item 10: Issue: rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics [15:29] * DanC_ Zakim, what's the passcode? [15:29] no zakim, but it is #7332 [15:29] * DanC_ reads timbl on rdfms-assertion... hmm... appeals to my intution, but hellifino how to specify it [15:30] Lots of discussion, progress soon (next week?) [15:30] +PatrickS [15:30] *** Zakim has joined #rdfcore [15:30] Zakim, this is RDF [15:30] ok, DanC_ [15:30] +DanC [15:30] -agenda next [15:30] Agenda item 11: daml:collection [15:30] See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation [15:30] See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0103.html [15:30] *** danbri has joined #rdfcore [15:33] Brief description of test case - illustrates simple use of collection - very like daml:collection with slightly different names (?) [15:33] updated test http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/att-0137/01-test001.rdf [15:33] updated ans http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/att-0137/02-test001.nt [15:33] Nits noted: use rdf namespace, capitalize "Collection" [15:33] updated case: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0143.html [15:34] These corrections applied. [15:35] Preference expressed to use only one rdf:parseType in test case, so synatctic intent is clearer [15:35] Decisions: [15:36] (1) blessing basic idea of daml:collection in RDF, OK [15:36] adding 4 terms [15:37] danger of maybe will cause ppl to say need namespaace URI change [15:37] q+ [15:37] * Zakim sees Danbri on the speaker queue [15:38] (2) use rdf: namespace rather than rdfs:? Or use a new namespace for t5he generated terms? [15:40] danbri: we're adding container vocab into rdfs (member); alonside stuff that was in there already rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty. [15:42] If no new namespace for this, why for dtatypes? A: aesthetics. [15:43] Guha - in favour of a new namespace: to collect vocabulary for containers [15:43] the idea of moving Bag, Alt, etc. to some part of the planet... say... on the other side of a fault line... one quick earthquake, and... good riddance! [15:43] ahem. [15:44] PROPOSED: to move ahead using RDF namespace, with reservations [15:44] (3) Spelling is rdf:parseType='Collection' [15:46] (4) Do we want to keep the rdf:type xxx:List triples? [15:48] (5) instead of rdf:type properties, use rdf:member properties linked to containers? [15:49] aside: Which spec describes the container vocab and reification vocab currently? RDFS. Having a representation of containers, reification etc in the rdfs: namespace would be consistent with this. [15:50] RDFS describes container and reification vocab? that seems like a bug. [15:50] (4) - decide YES [15:51] "agreed to bless daml collection"??? huh? [15:51] (3) - decide YES [15:51] * gk-scribe Dan, figure of speech [15:52] danc, It doesn't say much about them. We used to have a section called "Concepts from Model and Syntax" or somesuch, catching overspill from M+S'99 that wasn't given a namespace. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#mns [15:52] -action DaveB/Update syntax spec with above decisions [15:52] Jema notes action 2002-05-31#2 [15:52] -action JanG/Update test case document with this, and other, test cases [15:52] Jema notes action 2002-05-31#3 [15:52] DECIDED: the test case is approved [15:53] * DanC_ would rather the collection and reification stuff didn't get any friendly write-up; just formal treatment in MT and syntax; in prosey docs, just say "don't use these unless you know what you're doing". [15:54] DaveB - notes that there may be issue list decisions that need revisiting, in light of this decision at variance to some previous decisions. [15:55] -action bwm/add "see also" annotation to ....? [15:55] Jema notes action 2002-05-31#4 [15:55] ... to the issues related to use of parsetype (as extension mechanism) [15:56] ... and to the issue related to new container mechanisms [15:56] latter is http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches [15:56] -action jos/Summarize and check decision with WebOnt - Report back and get their confirmation that the decision is OK for them [15:56] Jema notes action 2002-05-31#5 [15:56] ACTION Brian: update issues list... re parseType not being generally extensible, and w.r.t. postponing fixing collections [15:57] Proposed not to make special semantics for new collection vocabulary [15:57] -agenda next [15:57] Agenda item 12: Definition of graph syntax [15:57] See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0120.html [15:57] See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0122.html [15:57] -agenda 13 [15:58] Agenda item 13: Dark Triples [15:58] See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0145.html [15:58] I'm quite uncomfortable with there being two specifications of rdf:first and rdf:rest. But I'll live. [15:58] Jos - not convinced that dark triples are needed [15:59] it's pretty clear that it has to be a syntactic mechanism. [15:59] * daveb-jan notes rdf core home page has lost 1st f2f links [15:59] and 2nd... [15:59] Guha - has noted that the semantic proposal for dark triples is non-monotonic; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0154.html [16:00] ... (where "semantic" means dark triples are flagged by application of a class) [16:00] 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?' [16:00] lol! [16:01] Guha: basic defn nonmon: A->C but not: A&B->C [16:05] RonD: "when in doubt, leave it out" [16:05] hmm... this is awkward; I disagree with the proposal, but I think it deserves a fair shake. But there are no proponents for it here. [16:06] Brian, let's please don't make any decision based on just this discussion. [16:07] WebOnt have asked RDFcore to prvide some kind of dark triple mechanism [16:09] Guha - Wednesday, everyone agreed this was a requirement; but mention of non-monononicity has complicated the position; suggest we ask webOnt to reaffirm before doing more work [16:10] Propose: action chair to ask WebOnt to send someone to RDFcore to argue for a proposal [16:11] EricM isn't here today? [16:11] * gk-scribe DanC, no [16:11] NOTED: RonD states that he regards this as out of scope for this WG [16:12] I don't see how "owl can do it (unasserted triples) all on its own". [16:12] Guha - the right place is owl [16:13] * gk-scribe DanC, I agree, if it involves syntax change [16:14] what I think the SemWeb CG should do is call a joint-meeting on layering; folks from both WGs (and maybe some others) invited. [16:14] JJC - worried about not doing anything, blesses WebOnt "doing their own thing" [16:14] -close [16:14] The meeting is closed [16:14] the action/decision list has been mailed [16:16] -??P3 [16:16] command not recognised [16:17] I have a (technical) view on this debate... [16:17] * daveb-jan sign off (another mtg) [16:18] -??P7 [16:18] command not recognised [16:18] *** daveb-jan has quit IRC (Leaving) [16:18] ... I think the right answer (for RDF 2?) is to add nested graphs: a syntax extension. [16:18] ... I've done a document and am working on code for some aspects of this [16:19] I'm sympathetic to that, but don't feel I understand the issues that well [16:19] *** gk-scribe is now known as gk [16:19] Sure... for that reason, I'd be happy to see the issue shelved for now, and revisited in RDF 2 [16:20] ... by that time I hope to have implementation experience :-) [16:20] - +1.650.965.aaaa [16:20] command not recognised [16:23] -??P12 [16:23] command not recognised [16:24] -close [16:24] The meeting is closed [16:24] the action/decision list has been mailed Session Close: Fri May 31 17:21:26 2002