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

Minutes of RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-25

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:08:42 +0200
To: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF67A8614A.EF74B7A9-ONC1256C5D.0073E34C-C1256C5D.0074297C@agfa.be>

Minutes of RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-25
========================================

IRC log -- http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc.txt

New action items:

ACTION: jjc Review syntax [1]
  recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T14-43-21
ACTION: Jeremy - tell PatH what the lexical-to-value mappings are [2]
  recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-25-39
ACTION: jeremy to propose to dan schema for new datatypes [3]
  recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-28-51
ACTION: Jeremy to circulate an updated version of the concepts document [4]
  recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-30-41
ACTION: PatH, DanC and JosD to review the updated version of the concepts
document [5]
  recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-32-42

ACTION DanC to produce a testcase for a nonentailment (RDF Collection)
ACTION DanC to explain why it's ok not to put functional semantics
       for rdf:first/rest in our spec
ACTION bwm to review syntax doc
========================================


Time:
10:00:00 Fri Oct 25 2002 in America/New York

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Oct 25 2002 in Europe/London

Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332
irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore

1: Scribes
This weeks volunteer scribe is Jos
Volunteer to scribe next week

----------------
DaveB volunteers
----------------


2: Roll Call

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the phone: JosD, DaveB, EricM, FrankM, Gk, Jeremy, DanC, Mike_Dean,
              AaronSw, Brian., PatrickS, DanBri, PatH, SteveP
On IRC:       bwm_, mdean, jjc, JosD, gk, AaronSw, RRSAgent, Zakim, em,
              DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger
regrets:      JanG
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


3: Review Agenda

-----------
no comments
-----------


4: Next telecon 1st Nov 2002
Note: according both the US and Europe have moved off DST according to:

  http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc


5: Minutes of 2002-10-18 telecon

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0220.html

--------
APPROVED
--------


6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ACTION: 2002-04-12#4 gk
write up datatyping use-case for CC/PP

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0260.html

ACTION: 2002-05-03#8 jang
push more of the pending test cases through formal approval

ACTION: 2002-05-17#7 DaveB
Investigate recent TAG decision on registering mime types for W3C
specifications and make a recommendation to the WG

ACTION: 2002-05-31#2 DaveB
Update syntax spec to include parseType collection

see:
  http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

ACTION: 2002-06-17#3 daveB
Update the syntax spec to reflect the resolution of faq-html-compliance

see:
  http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

ACTION: 2002-06-18#5 bwm
ensure a version of the Cannes statement on rdf-assertion goes into
normative document

see:
  http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/

ACTION: 2002-09-06#2 daveb
add the rdf:datatype productions to the syntax document

see:
  http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

ACTION: 2002-09-13#7a DaveB
update n-triples to reflect datatype concensus

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0310.html

ACTION: 2002-10-11#2 DaveB
make changes to ntriple reflecting rdf:datatype

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0310.html

--------
APPROVED
--------


7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions

ACTION: 2001-12-07#7  EricM
put removal of aboutEach to CG to ask whether this is in charter or not

ACTION: 2002-03-15#11 bwm
Ensure WEBONT are aware the RDFCore wishes to cooperate on resolution of
issues arising from their use of RDF

ACTION: 2002-04-19#17 Pat
respond helpfully to issue raiser of issue rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property

ACTION: 2002-05-31#1 FrankM
Circulate list of issues needing clarification

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTINUED: ACTION: 2001-12-07#7  EricM
  put removal of aboutEach to CG to ask whether this is in charter or not
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


8: WG Schedule
We now need to focus around getting the documents written up and published.
All hands to the pump to help get the documents completed.


See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0320.html

--------------------------------------------------------
discussing Concepts Doc ready for Review

DanC   for the reason PatrickS brought up, the docs should *not* talk
       about labels; the labelled design is isomorphic to the labelless
       one, but programming datastructures are *not*, and we shouldn't
       mislead developers into thinking nodes are datastructures.

discussing MT

Brian  really wants to publish before 18th
       try for decision the 15h
EricM  thinks that would work
Graham prefers before 13th
DanB   fwiw RDFS went thru pubrule tests ok last time; took a while to
       bring the spec up to date, but that's done
DanC   pubrules checker: http://www.w3.org/2001/07/pubrules-form
       also thinks that the 15th is reasonable
Brian  wants to make sure that the WD are *technically complete*
Jeremy proposes an editors todo list

discussing primer

DanC   thinks that is OK that the primer doesn't cover datatypes
Frank  has an action to add it
       has examples using Ntriples
DaveB  the draft does cover them

http://www.w3.org/2001/09/rdfprimer/rdf-primer-20021024.html#typedliterals
EricM  hears that Frank can meet the deadline
--------------------------------------------------------


9: Model Theory
2002-02-25#18  bwm  ensure model theory updated to reflect semantics of
rdf:value
2002-06-17#4  patH  Update the model theory to specify that
rdfs:isDefinedBy is an rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:seeAlso.
2002-09-13#4  PatH  to update model theory to cover 4 to reflect datatype
consensus

Status:
Needs:
Issues:

  o Possible semantic bugs in Domain and Range (Jos)

    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0288.html

  o Semantics of rdf:Collection

  o Proposed Technical changes to RDFS model theory

    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0169.html



See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0288.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0169.html

--------------------------------------------------------
Pat     is waiting for some decisions such as range semantics
DanC    waiting for decisions? the WG is *not* in the critical path
        any more; there are no pending issues.
        the WG has no open issues and proposes editors just proceed
Pat     domain and range, how to define semantics?  if or iff semantics?
        class A range B, B superclass C, A range C
DanB    eg. is rdfs:Resource an rdfs:range of each and every rdf:Property ?

discussing semantics of RDF Collection

Jeremy  feels strong about this e.g. lack of equality,
        also possibility of contradiction
DanB    if we add notion of a functional property for lists,
        i'd want it across the board... (hmm scope creep...)

ACTION: DanC to produce a testcase for a nonentailment
ACTION: DanC to explain why it's ok not to put functional semantics
        for rdf:first/rest in our spec.

discussing Proposed Technical changes to RDFS model theory

Pat     will update that
DanC    hmm... I have a concern about this IFF stuff, but I'm not sure what
it is.
Pat     raises point about syntax of literals
--------------------------------------------------------


10: Syntax Document
2002-05-17#3  jjc  Propose new text to describe serialization of b-nodes.
2002-10-11#4  DaveB  circulate new version of syntax doc, (ready to
publish?)

Status of ed's WD

  http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

Requiring rdf: prefixes on about etc causes XMP and Mozilla not to conform:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0032.html

Proposed revision:

[[
change

http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#eventterm-attribute-URI

to read

In the case of namespace-qualfied attributes,
set to the string value of the concatenation of the value of the
namespace-name accessor and the value of the local-name accessor.
In the case of unqualified attributes named
ID bagID about resource parseType, set to
<tt>http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>
concatenated with the value of the local-name accessor.
]]

What about type?

Call for Reviewers.



See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0032.html
  http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

--------------------------------------------------------
DaveB   the 2 actions are done
        proposed change rdf: prefix for about and resource
EricM   rdf:about -> about?
DanC    reduced that to 0ne paragraph change
Jeremy  wants to have deprecation and mentions the appropriate past
motivation
        from May 2001
AaronSw proposes warning DanC not in favor of deprecation
Patrick also supports deprecation
Graham  would prefer deprecation, but don't have cause to feel stringly
DanB    I don't care much either way. Can we have 'mild depracatation'?
DaveB   rdf:type is part of the "list"
DanB    adopting change from dajobe/danc editorial thread on
www-rdf-comments

RESOLVED to reopen rdfms-ns-confusion and close it with this change.
the question about deprecation is left to the editor

ACTION: jjc Review syntax
ACTION: bwm to review syntax doc
--------------------------------------------------------


11: Concepts Doc

2002-09-13#2  gk  to update concepts doc to cover 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 2.3 to
reflect datatype concensus
2002-09-13#8  jjc  update the abstract data model in concepts doc to
reflect the pair denoting a datatype literal
2002-20-11#3  jjc  circulate new version of concepts doc

Status
Issues:
Call for reviewers

--------------------------------------------------------
Graham  confirms that all actions are done
        overviewing received comments
        I've been working on the issues list today:
        http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDFConceptIssues.html
        don't think there are critical issues
DanC    raises Sandro's points
        remember imports discussion
        sympathetic to test his stuff but it's not critical last call
        I think the text in the concepts spec mostly addresses Sandro's
concern,
        but he wants to be sure these concepts have teeth, i.e. test cases.
        But I think this is a different kind of test than the rest of our
        entailment test, and I think that sandro agrees.
Brian   asks about dt literals
Jeremy  talks about the 2 new invented dt's
Pat     thinks this is a major change
DanC    jjc, you're moving to re-open the issue?
        I don't think this is inconsistent with what we decided.
DanB    is it the case that StringLiteral and XMLLiteral are, together,
        mutually disjoint with any other datatype class?
DanC    the value space of stringliteral better not be disjoint from
xsd:string
DanB    It's good that we can use OWL concepts to disambiguate our
design...
        to ask whether a literal can be in one of these classes as well
        as an xsd datatype class
        I'm trying to get my head around this for RDFS too.
        I don't know. I fear some confusion w.r.t disjointness or not.
Jeremy  and Pat argue about implicit/explicit notation
DanC    Pat wants the subject of Jeremy's msg
        RDF concepts Jeremy Carroll Fri, Oct 25 2002

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0335.html
DanC    BWM: jjc has said he can back out if this doesn't work.
        PatH [and somebody] hasn't read this. So please read it,
        then say if you can't accept it, in which case Jeremy can back out.
        jjc, my question is whether classicliteral is disjoint from
xsd:string.
        I would have a problem if it were.
        it doesn't need to be disjoint if it is a union
        thinks there is no problem with the union idea
DaveB   last week minutes said: [[ DECISION: datatyped literals CAN have
        a language tag in the abstract syntax]]
Brian   mentions the 2 other points w.r.t. langtag which need to be done
        in the abstract syntax
        1/does a dt literal have a lang tag
DanC    you asked if anybody's proposing it; no, nobody's proposing it.
        It doesn't follow that this is what we want; only that we don't
        expect to get it.
        it depends on the xml langtag
Graham  So we decide:  types literals MAY have lang tags
        Can that lang tag take part in the literal-to-value mapping?
Brian   2nd question can the mapping be influenced by the dt mapping?
        <a> <b> "foo"@"lang1"^^dt . entails <a> <b> "foo"@"lang2"^^dt .
DaveB   I sawy - yeah, why not.
        and for: <a> <b> "foo"@"lang1 entails <a> <b> "foo"@"lang2"
DanB    nope, leads to alice in wonderlandism
Brian   we should not go beyond xsd's mapping of lexical form to value
Graham  This sounds like arguing (FORALL dt) vs (EXISTS dt)
Brian   lang matters for RDFMS style literals,
        does it matter for datatyped literals?
DanC    also wants to check with I18N WG
Pat     says that it's just getting the same denotations
Graham  DanC's view of a query engine is purely entailment-based.
        Others have wider views i.e. some "query engines" might operate
        on the graph *syntax* elements
        thinks he hears a locale vs language conflict
Brian   thinks that we have a lexical coherent thing (with the langtag)
        Jeremy has to make the call
PatH    says needs lexical-to-value mappings to be clear

ACTION: Jeremy - tell PatH what the lexical-to-value mappings are

discussing Ntriples proposal of DaveB

Patrick gets DanC confirmation about ^^
        so no objections

ACTION: jeremy to propose to dan schema for new datatypes
ACTION: Jeremy to circulate an updated version of the concepts document
ACTION: PatH, DanC and JosD to review the updated version of the concepts
document
--------------------------------------------------------


15:33:38 meeting is CLOSED
========================================

13:53:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
13:54:48 <AaronSw> AaronSw has joined #rdfcore
13:56:09 <gk> gk has joined #rdfcore
13:57:25 <JosD> JosD has joined #rdfcore
13:58:56 <em> zakim, list conferences
13:58:57 <Zakim> I see WAI_EOWG()8:30AM, P3P_CG()9:30AM, SW_RDFCore
()10:00AM
13:59:05 <em> zakim, this is SW_RDFCore
13:59:06 <Zakim> ok, em
13:59:08 <Zakim> +??P15
13:59:17 <DaveB> Zakim, +??P15 is DaveB
13:59:18 <Zakim> sorry, DaveB, I do not recognize a party named '+??P15'
13:59:36 <DaveB> well you are stupid then Zakim
13:59:42 <em> Zakim, ??P15 is DaveB
13:59:43 <Zakim> +DaveB; got it
13:59:45 <JosD> Zakim, who is here
13:59:46 <Zakim> JosD, you need to end that query with '?'
13:59:55 <JosD> Zakim, who is here ?
13:59:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P10, DaveB
13:59:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see JosD, gk, AaronSw, RRSAgent, Zakim, bwm, em,
DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger
13:59:58 <Zakim> +EricM
14:00:14 <JosD> Zakim, ??P10 is JosD
14:00:15 <Zakim> +JosD; got it
14:00:49 <DanCon> agenda + 25Oct
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0327.html
14:01:03 <JosD> Zakim, who is here ?
14:01:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM
14:01:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see JosD, gk, AaronSw, RRSAgent, Zakim, bwm, em,
DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger
14:01:07 <Zakim> +FrankM
14:01:17 <DaveB> em and I discuss http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
14:01:19 <Zakim> +??P18
14:01:22 <gk> zakim, ??p18  is gk
14:01:24 <Zakim> +Gk; got it
14:01:26 <Zakim> +??P16
14:01:31 <Zakim> +DanC
14:01:53 <em> zakim, ??P16 is Jeremy
14:01:54 <Zakim> +Jeremy; got it
14:02:00 <DaveB> ugh, more non-N-Triples
14:02:02 <JosD> agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0327.html
14:02:27 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
14:02:35 <jjc> jjc has joined #rdfcore
14:03:23 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:03:39 <Zakim> +??P21
14:03:46 <mdean> mdean has joined #rdfcore
14:03:58 <Zakim> +??P22
14:04:11 <jjc> Zakim, who's on the call?
14:04:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM, FrankM, Gk, Jeremy,
DanC, Mike_Dean, AaronSw, ??P21, ??P22
14:04:28 <Zakim> +DanBri
14:04:33 <jjc> Zakim, ??P21 is Brian.
14:04:34 <Zakim> +Brian.; got it
14:04:38 <DanCon> Zakim, who's talking?
14:04:38 <Zakim> + +1.850.202.aaaa - is perhaps PatH?
14:04:50 <Zakim> DanCon, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the
following: FrankM (19%), Brian. (41%), ??P22 (59%), EricM (24%), DanC (4%),
DanBri (19%)
14:04:52 <AaronSw> zakim, Pat is PatH
14:04:53 <Zakim> +PatH; got it
14:05:16 <JosD> scribe for next week is DaveB
14:05:18 <bwm_> bwm_ has joined #rdfcore
14:05:24 <JosD> Zakim, who is here ?
14:05:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM, FrankM, Gk, Jeremy,
DanC, Mike_Dean, AaronSw, Brian., ??P22, DanBri, PatH
14:05:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see bwm_, mdean, jjc, JosD, gk, AaronSw,
RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger
14:05:40 <DaveB> one uknown?
14:05:43 <Zakim> +??P24
14:05:54 <em> zakim, ??P24 is SteveP
14:05:55 <Zakim> +SteveP; got it
14:06:06 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P22 is PatrickS
14:06:08 <Zakim> +PatrickS; got it
14:06:15 <JosD> Zakim, who is here ?
14:06:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM, FrankM, Gk, Jeremy,
DanC, Mike_Dean, AaronSw, Brian., PatrickS, DanBri, PatH, SteveP
14:06:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see bwm_, mdean, jjc, JosD, gk, AaronSw,
RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger
14:06:35 <AaronSw> zakim, Bri is BrianM
14:06:37 <Zakim> +BrianM; got it
14:06:59 <DanCon> w3c telcons are scheduled on Boston time.
14:07:15 <JosD> minutes approved
14:07:45 <AaronSw> DST ends at 2AM and summertime ends at 1AM, but i don't
think that will affect us
14:08:32 <DanCon> CONTINUED: ACTION: 2001-12-07#7  EricM
14:08:32 <DanCon> put removal of aboutEach to CG to ask whether this is in
charter or not
14:08:48 <JosD> approved 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions
14:09:05 <DaveB> were there any regrets?  I offer JanG's
14:09:17 <JosD> continue first action of 7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn
Actions
14:09:42 <JosD> agendum 8: WG Schedule
14:09:46 <JosD> ============
14:11:34 <JosD> ... discussing Concepts Doc ready for Review
14:12:31 <DanCon> for the reason PatrickS brought up, the docs should *not*
talk about labels; the labelled design is isomorphic to the labelless one,
but programming datastructures are *not*, and we shouldn't mislead
developers into thinking nodes are datastructures.
14:12:43 <JosD> ... discussing MT
14:13:21 <JosD> Brian really wants to publish before 18th
14:13:42 <AaronSw> can we call for reviewers now?
14:13:53 <DaveB> that's in the agenda near each doc
14:14:03 <danbri> $ cal 11 2002
14:14:03 <danbri>     November 2002
14:14:03 <danbri> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
14:14:03 <danbri>                 1  2
14:14:03 <danbri>  3  4  5  6  7  8  9
14:14:05 <danbri> 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
14:14:07 <danbri> 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
14:14:08 <danbri> 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
14:14:22 <JosD> try for decision the 15h
14:14:40 <gk> GK notes: I'll be travelling on 15th Nov
14:15:06 <JosD> Eric thinks that would work
14:15:35 <danbri> fwiw RDFS went thru pubrule tests ok last time; took a
while to bring the spec up to date, but that's done
14:15:52 <DanCon> pubrules checker: http://www.w3.org/2001/07/pubrules-form
14:17:48 <JosD> DanC also thinks that the 15th is reasonable
14:18:23 <gk> I really should try to be done *before* 13th.. after that,
I'm travelling
14:19:45 <JosD> Brian wants to make sure that the WD are *technically
complete*
14:20:44 <JosD> Jeremy proposes an editors todo list
14:20:56 <jjc> in the primer ...
14:22:52 <JosD> DanC thinks that is OK that the primer doesn't cover
datatypes
14:23:12 <JosD> ... although Frank has an action to add it
14:23:47 <DaveB> the draft does cover them
http://www.w3.org/2001/09/rdfprimer/rdf-primer-20021024.html#typedliterals
14:23:53 <JosD> ... and Frank has examples using Ntriples
14:24:13 <DaveB> not-n-triples
14:24:24 <JosD> Eric hears that Frank can meet the deadline
14:24:55 <DaveB> item 9: Model Theory
14:25:10 <JosD> ========== 9: Model Theory
14:25:22 <DanCon> ??? waiting for decisions? the WG is *not* in the
critical path any more; there are no pending issues.
14:26:02 <gk> PatH: domain and range, how to define semantics?  if or iff
semantics?
14:26:31 <JosD> Pat is waiting for some decisions such as range semantics
14:26:46 <gk> .. class A range B, B superclass C, A tange C  (??? is that
right example?)
14:27:08 <danbri> eg. is rdfs:Resource an rdfs:range of each and every
rdf:Property ?
14:27:10 <jjc> q+
14:28:18 <JosD> DanC says the the WG has no open issues and proposes
editors just proceed
14:29:01 <Zakim> -AaronSw
14:29:41 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:29:50 <Zakim> -AaronSw
14:30:16 <JosD> it's Pat's call
14:30:32 <JosD> semantics of RDF Collection
14:30:44 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:30:58 <bwm_> welcome Aaron
14:31:45 <bwm_> ack jjc
14:32:13 <JosD> Jeremy feels strong about this e.g. lack of equality,
14:32:28 <bwm_> ack dancon
14:32:29 <Zakim> DanCon, you wanted to get clarification
14:32:37 <JosD> ... also possibility of contradiction
14:33:57 <danbri> if we add notion of a functional property for lists, i'd
want it across the board... (hmm scope creep...)
14:34:31 <JosD> ACTION DanC to produce a testcase for a nonentailment
14:34:49 <DanCon> explain why it's ok not to put functional semantics for
rdf:first/rest in our spec.
14:35:04 <JosD> ACTION DanC to explain why it's ok not to put functional
semantics for rdf:first/rest in our spec.
14:35:31 <JosD> Proposed Technical changes to RDFS model theory
14:35:51 <DaveB> q+
14:36:05 <DaveB> q-
14:36:13 <JosD> Pat will update that
14:36:27 <DanCon> hmm... I have a concern about this IFF stuff, but I'm not
sure what it is.
14:36:49 <JosD> Pat raises point about syntax of literals
14:37:00 <JosD> ===========10: Syntax Document
14:37:08 <JosD> 2 actions are done
14:37:26 <em> rdf:about -> about?
14:37:33 <em> ok... yep same topic
14:37:58 <JosD> proposed change rdf: prefix for about and resource
14:38:38 <jjc> q+
14:38:39 <JosD> DanC and DaveB reduced that to 0ne paragraph change
14:39:25 <JosD> Jeremy wants to have deprecation and mentions the
appropriate past motivation
14:39:40 <JosD> ... from May 2001
14:41:01 <JosD> AaronSw proposes warning DanC not in favor of deprecation
14:41:26 <JosD> PatrickS also supports deprecation
14:41:50 <gk> I would prefer deprecation, but don't have cause to feel
stringly
14:41:53 <danbri> I don't care much either way. Can we have 'mild
depracatation'?
14:42:15 <JosD> RESOLVED deprecation
14:42:35 <jjc> (I don't think we RESOLVED anything, editors' call)
14:42:36 <JosD> rdf:type is part of the list
14:42:37 <Zakim> -AaronSw
14:43:09 <danbri> adopting change from dajobe/danc editorial thread on
www-rdf-comments
14:43:21 <jjc> ACTION: jjc Review syntax
14:43:24 <DanCon> we RESOLVED to reopen rdfms-ns-confusion and close it
with this change.
14:43:35 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:43:37 <JosD> the question about deprecation is left to the editor
14:45:27 <JosD> ACTION bwm to review syntax doc
14:45:45 <JosD> ================11: Concepts Doc
14:45:51 <JosD> all action done
14:46:11 <danbri> What's the specific request to Eikeon?
14:46:16 <danbri> see #rdfig
14:46:24 <JosD> Graham overviewing received comments
14:46:54 <DaveB> extend +1; move primer learlier for frank?
14:47:36 <JosD> DanC asks to extend meeting by 15 minutes
14:47:47 <JosD> DanC raises Sandro's points
14:47:56 <gk> I've been working on the issues list today:
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDFConceptIssues.html
14:48:07 <JosD> ... remember imports discussion
14:48:43 <danbri> from #rdfig
14:48:44 <danbri> [03:46] * eikeon is up for reviewing the spec.
14:48:56 <JosD> DanC sympathetic to test his stuff but it's not critical
last call
14:49:28 <JosD> Graham don't think there are critical issues
14:49:44 <JosD> Brian asks about dt literals
14:49:59 <DanCon> DanC: I think the text in the concepts spec mostly
addresses Sandro's concern, but he wants to be sure these concepts have
teeth, i.e. test cases. But I think this is a different kind of test than
the rest of our entailment test, and I think that sandro agrees.
14:50:27 <JosD> Jeremy talks about the 2 new invented dt's
14:51:11 <JosD> Pat thinks this is a major change
14:51:58 <DanCon> jjc, you're moving to re-open the issue?
14:52:06 <DanCon> I don't think this is inconsistent with what we decided.
14:52:59 <gk> DanBri, see:
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-predefined-datatypes
14:53:36 <Zakim> -AaronSw
14:55:38 <danbri> is it the case that StringLiteral and XMLLiteral are,
together, mutually disjoint with any other datatype class?
14:55:59 <DanCon> the value space of stringliteral better not be disjoint
from xsd:string
14:56:45 <danbri> It's good that we can use OWL concepts to disambiguate
our design...
14:57:49 <JosD> Jeremy and Pat argue about implicit/explicit notation
14:57:57 <danbri> q+ to ask whether a literal can be in one of these
classes as well as an xsd datatype class
14:58:55 <JosD> DanC argues in favor of 1 line in MT
14:59:21 <danbri> I'm trying to get my head around this for RDFS too.
14:59:51 <DanCon> jjc, path wants the subject of your msg
15:00:05 <DanCon> # RDF concepts Jeremy Carroll (Fri, Oct 25 2002)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0335.html
15:00:10 <danbri> I don't know. I fear some confusion w.r.t disjointness or
not.
15:00:29 <gk> URL's for the relevant document sections:
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-Literals,

http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-predefined-datatypes,

http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-Graph-syntax
15:00:42 <DanCon> BWM: jjc has said he can back out if this doesn't work.
PatH [and somebody] hasn't read this. So please read it, then say if you
can't accept it, in which case Jeremy can back out.
15:01:15 <DaveB> last week minutes said: [[ DECISION: datatyped literals
CAN have a language tag in the abstract syntax]]
15:01:19 <Zakim> -FrankM
15:01:24 <Zakim> -SteveP
15:01:30 <JosD> Brian mentions the 2 other points w.r.t. langtag
15:01:53 <JosD> ... which need to be done in the abstract syntax
15:01:57 <DanCon> which 2 new things, bwm? sorry, I lost track.
15:02:34 <bwm_> I'll resummarize
15:02:35 <DanCon> jjc, my question is whether classicliteral is disjoint
from xsd:string. I would have a problem if it were.
15:02:42 <DaveB> DanCon: rdfs:StringLiteral and rdfs:XMLLiteral
15:02:55 <DaveB> er, no.  I'm confused
15:03:39 <danbri> q-
15:03:51 <JosD> DanC thinks that it doesn't need to be disjoint if it is a
union
15:04:15 <gk> >> Not possible to add language tag by inference process
15:05:05 <danbri> (danbri + bwm resolve to meet tuesday re RDFS +
datatyping edits)
15:05:36 <JosD> Brian 2nd issue doed a dt literal have a lang tag
15:06:39 <JosD> DanC thinks there is no problem with the union idea
15:07:01 <DanCon> bwm, you asked if anybody's proposing it; no, nobody's
proposing it. It doesn't follow that this is what we want; only that we
don't expect to get it.
15:07:59 <JosD> DanC says that it depends on the xml langtag
15:08:24 <gk> So we decide:  types literals MAY have lang tags
15:08:28 <JosD> DECIDED they may have one
15:08:51 <gk> Can that lang tag take part in the literal-to-value mapping?
15:09:33 <JosD> Brian: 2nd question can the mapping be influenced by the dt
mapping?
15:09:52 <DaveB> I sawy - yeah, why not.
15:11:25 <danbri> nope, leads to alice in wonderlandism
15:11:44 <JosD> Brian: we should not go beyond xsd's mapping of lexical
form to value
15:12:05 <DaveB> we're never going to get to pubing lbase at this rate
15:12:32 <bwm_> <a> <b> "foo"@"lang1"^^dt . entails <a> <b> "foo"@"lang2"
^^dt .
15:13:40 <danbri> or rdfs
15:13:57 <DaveB> and for: <a> <b> "foo"@"lang1 entails <a> <b> "foo"
@"lang2"
15:13:58 <DaveB> ?
15:16:18 <jjc> q+
15:16:37 <gk> This sounds like arguing (FORALL dt) vs (EXISTS dt)
15:17:42 <DanCon> have we extended the meeting?
15:18:29 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
15:18:33 <JosD> meeting further extended by 15min
15:19:58 <gk> bwm: lang matters for RDFMS style literals, does it matter
for datatyped literals?
15:20:25 <JosD> ... we have the freedom to chose
15:21:10 <JosD> DanC also wants to check with I18N WG
15:21:38 <JosD> Pat says that it's just getting the same denotations
15:21:42 <gk> DanC's view of a query engine is purely entailment-based.
Others have wider views
15:22:22 <gk> ... i.e. some "query engines" might operate on the graph
*syntax* elements
15:22:25 <jjc> q+
15:23:29 <gk> GK thinks he hears a locale vs language conflict
15:23:47 <em> i've got to run folks... see you all in a but
15:23:51 <jjc> Q+
15:23:54 <em> s/but/bit :)
15:24:17 <Zakim> -EricM
15:24:31 <JosD> Brian thinks that we have a lexical coherent thing (with
the langtag)
15:24:42 <JosD> Jermy has to make the call
15:25:09 <gk> PatH says needs lexical-to-value mappings to be clear
15:25:20 <gk> (having looked at jeremy's datatype wording)
15:25:39 <gk> ACTION: Jeremy - tell PatH what the lexical-to-value mappings
are
15:26:00 <JosD> ACTION on Jeremy to tell Pat what the LV mappings are for
builtin dt's
15:26:58 <JosD> ----------- Ntriples proposal of DaveB
15:27:27 <JosD> PatrickS gets DanC confirmation about ^^
15:27:39 <JosD> ... so no objections
15:28:03 <JosD> action for the editors
15:28:51 <gk> ACTION: jeremy to propose to dan schema for new datatypes
15:30:41 <JosD> ACTION: Jeremy to circulate an updated version of the
concepts document
15:30:52 <JosD> Pat will review
15:31:30 <JosD> ...Graham involved
15:32:42 <JosD> ACTION: PatH, DanC and JosD to review the updated version
of the concepts document
15:33:38 <JosD> ====== meeting is closed
15:33:49 <Zakim> -DaveB
15:33:49 <Zakim> -PatrickS
15:33:53 <danbri> danbri has left #rdfcore
15:33:57 <Zakim> -DanBri
15:34:02 <JosD> Zakim help
15:34:13 <JosD> Zakim, help
15:34:15 <Zakim> Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot
for more detailed help.
15:34:16 <Zakim> Some of the commands I know are:
15:34:17 <Zakim>  xxx is yyy       - establish yyy as the name of unknown
party xxx
15:34:19 <Zakim>                     if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is
substituted
15:34:21 <Zakim>  xxx may be yyy   - establish yyy as possibly the name of
unknown party xxx
15:34:23 <Zakim>  I am xxx         - establish your nick as the name of
unknown party xxx
15:34:24 <Zakim>  xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name
and yyy, etc. as participants within that group
15:34:27 <Zakim>  xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants
in group xxx
15:34:28 <Zakim>  who's here?      - lists the participants on the phone
15:34:30 <Zakim>  who's muted?     - lists the participants who are muted
15:34:32 <Zakim>  mute xxx         - mutes party xxx (such that 60# will
not work)
15:34:34 <Zakim>  unmute xxx       - reverses the effect of "mute" and of
61#
15:34:37 <Zakim>  is xxx here?     - reports whether a party named like xxx
is present
15:34:38 <Zakim>  list conferences - reports the active conferences
15:34:40 <Zakim>  this is xxx      - associates this channel with
conference xxx
15:34:41 <Zakim>  excuse us        - disconnects from the irc channel
15:34:42 <Zakim> I last learned something new on $Date: 2002/10/25 16:06:11
$
15:38:36 <JosD> RRSAgent, help
15:39:42 <JosD> RRSAgent, show action items
15:39:42 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items:
15:39:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jjc Review syntax [1]
15:39:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T14-43-21
15:39:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jeremy - tell PatH what the lexical-to-value
mappings are [2]
15:39:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-25-39
15:39:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jeremy to propose to dan schema for new
datatypes [3]
15:39:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-28-51
15:39:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jeremy to circulate an updated version of the
concepts document [4]
15:39:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-30-41
15:39:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PatH, DanC and JosD to review the updated
version of the concepts document [5]
15:39:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-32-42
15:46:14 <Zakim> -JosD
15:49:09 <DanCon>   25-rdfcore-irc.html    (from ACLs DB)
15:49:09 <DanCon> world access.
15:49:09 <DanCon> 25-rdfcore-irc.rdf (from ACLs DB)
15:49:09 <DanCon> world access.
15:49:09 <DanCon> 25-rdfcore-irc.txt (from ACLs DB)
15:49:10 <DanCon> world access.
15:52:23 <DanCon> jjc, still here? we should have a non-entailment test for
different XML literals that canonicalize to the same thing, then?
15:54:47 <Zakim> -PatH
15:55:08 <Zakim> -DanC
15:57:19 <Zakim> -Gk
15:58:39 <gk> gk has joined #rdfcore
15:58:59 <gk> Jeremy, I don't know if that last msg got through...
15:59:16 <gk> I've emailed you relinquishment of document lock with note of
CVS revision
16:00:25 <Zakim> -BrianM
16:00:33 <gk> I've also done tentative update of issues list at
http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDFConceptIssues.html
16:00:39 <jjc> Zakim, who's on the call?
16:00:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see Jeremy
16:00:50 <Zakim> -Jeremy
16:00:55 <gk> I lost the call.. still in IRC?
16:01:51 <gk> I need to review old issues but have added new ones from the
last few days.
16:04:10 <bwm_> bwm_ has left #rdfcore
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 17:09:30 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:31 EDT