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

Draft minutes of the RDFCore telecon, 2002-10-18

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:27:48 +0100 (BST)
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0210181649030.2755-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Agenda:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0209.html

Transcript:
	http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-10-18.txt

1. Scribe: next week's scribe is Jos.


2. Roll call.

Participants:

  Dan Connolly
  Jos de Roo
  Jan Grant (scribe)
  Pat Hayes
  Graham Klyne
  Frank Manola
  Brian McBride (chair)
  Steve Petschulat
  Patrick Stickler
  Aaron Swartz

Regrets: (not listed in meeting - may be partial?)
  Dan Brickley; Eric Miller


3. Review agenda
  No AOB raised.


4. Next telecon: 25th October 2002, same time.


5. Minutes of the last telecon:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0131.html
  APPROVED


6. Confirm status of completed actions:
  All DONE


7. Confirm status of withdrawn actions:
  All OK.


8. Book review:
  Shelly Powers' book needs reviewers, see:
	http://rdf.burningbird.net


9. LBase document
  (attached to:)
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Oct/0046.html
  Call for reviewers
  ACTION 2002-10-18#1 (jang, jos, jjc, gk) Review Lbase document.

  Note that the "status of this document" section will be authored
  by W3 staff, not the document editor, on publication.


10. Abstract syntax questions.

  [scribe's note: DanC asked that it should be remembered that editors
  have been actioned to produce documents, and therefore items noted
  as DECISIONs below should be recognised simply as the WG producing
  reasonable consensus on advice that the editors' have solicited.
  (The motivation being that the WG recognise the editors are free to
  proceed toward completion of their documents without micromanagement
  of every decision)]



10.1 Are datatypes restricted to XSD datatypes?

  jjc pointed out that opinions could be characterised as a difference
  of emphasis on the importance of XSD compatability.

  DECISION (unopposed): datatypes other than XSD ones are permitted.


10.2 Do typed literals have a language identifier?

  There was a degree of debate on this issue as to where the language
  tag should live (in the abstract syntax, for example) and whether
  XSD-datatyped literals (eg, xsd:string) should carry an orthogonal
  language-tag element. Patrick Stickler outlined Nokia's use case
  in favour of this. Opponents argued on the basis that this was
  adding complexity to RDF literals.

  Whether the language tag should take part in a value mapping
  or simply be "available" to an application layer was also an
  issue of contention. Jeremy's point was that RDF meaning was
  realised by the model theory; to leave language tags out of the model
  theory seemed incoherent.

  DECISION: datatyped literals CAN have a language tag in the abstract
	syntax


10.3 Does the abstract syntax require a datatype URI to refer to a
	datatype and that the lexical form be from the
	lexical space of that datatype?

  An illustrative example for this question is that xsd:integer"foo"
  appears to have something wrong with it; where should that be
  detected?

  Graham appeared to put various opinions of this in the most
  articulate fashion:

  Proposal: to distinguish between RDF-entailment (without DT knowledge,
  where DTyped literals in the abstract syntax don't have an equality
  based on value mappings) and a parameterised RDF+DT-entailment
  (that is, parameterised by the set of datatypes involved in the particular
  entailment)

  There seemed to be general agreement that this distinction was
  important and useful.

  DanC asked how Candidate Rec could be reached in the light of this.
  Jeremy proposed that while RDF+DT-entailment was parameterised,
  a conformant implementation up to XSD-datatypes should suffice.

  PatrickS made a timely comment that he'd just sent
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0219.html
  "Example code for working with RDF Datatypes (incl. XSD, UAProf, MARS, etc.)"

  ACTION: 2002-10-18#2 (jang) to ensure that the test suite is capable
  of expressing, testing and illustrating RDF-entailment and
  RDF+DT-entailment


The meeting was extended for ten minutes to discuss the problems with
language-tags.

  PatH said that it was a coherent* position that "this is a French
  literal and it denotes the number 10". There was some question
  about whether this was tidy.

  JanG clarified this as "the literal (<&xsd:integer>, "10", fr) is
  a French literal..." which was ugly but tidy in the abstract syntax.


  ACTION 2002-10-18#3 (jjc) to write up the current position - that is,
  the agreement reached in today's telecon - and to try to produce
  a coherent proposal dealing with the open questions from today.


The meeting closed.



jan

* [in]coherent being the mot de jour


-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 12:29:24 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:27 EDT