Minutes: 2002-09-20 (retry)

Sorry for the omissions. Here we go again. (A few adjectives removed).


SUMMARY
=======

DECISION (by 6 votes to 5) An rdf:descripton element containing a property
element of <age>10</age> is untidy.
[Scribe note, aside:
However, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0237.html
"I believe we have to try again to find a consensus.  "]

ACTION 2002-09-20#1 jjc Produce test case domain and range.
ACTION 2002-09-20#2 gk Post references to his previous actions on
"assertion"
REQUEST: jan (from danc) please do datatype test case (literal to bnode)

------------

AGENDA
=======
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0182.html

TRANSCRIPT
==========
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-09-20.txt


1: Scribes
Jeremy this week; Graham next week (hopefully).


2: Roll Call

Present:

FrankM,  Steve, PatrickS, PatH, Graham, AaronSw, Mike_Dean, Jeremy.
Bwm, DaveB, JanG, DanBri, DanC, Sergey

Regrets:
Jos, EricM

3: Review Agenda

No change.

4: Next telecon 27th Sept 2002


5: Minutes of 2002-09-13 telecon

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0178.html

Approved.

6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ACTION: 2002-09-13#7 bwm
contact DaveB and request update n-triples depends on completion of
2002-09-06#4) to reflect datatype concensus

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0125.html

ACTION: 2002-09-13#9 bwm
request space at the tech plenary for RDF meeting

===

Both confirmed.
Note: action 2002-09-13#7 is now 2002-09-13#7a and assigned to DaveB.


7: Review of namespaces last call
2002-09-13#1  jjc  will send comments re namespace last call to appropriate
                   group
2002-09-06#1  bwm  get feedback to namespaces WG


See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0058.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0068.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0091.html

==
The action is complete:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2002Sep/0011.html

DanC raised the issue of a namespace as a collection of names.
It was determined that RDF makes no use of this concept, and so whether it
is a good concept or not is moot.



8: Semantics of untyped Literals
The WG should choose between value based and string based semantics


See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0157.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0161.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0160.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0164.html


===

Discussion, repeating the discussion that we have had
for nearly a year now.
As usual many strong opinions, a few waverers and a complete split down the
middle at each straw poll.
DanBri said a few things I hadn't heard before: perhaps seeing M&S as tidy
(see
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/fig9.gif ) and Schema as
untidy, but Schema never got to Rec.

There was some discussion about Adobe's implementation but it was noted that 
we had not heard from them on this topic.

After two completely split straw polls (U5-T4 and U7-T5) we then had a
formal vote.

Prior to the vote PatrickS (Nokia) inficated intent to dissent to a tidy 
decision, and DanC (W3C0 indicated intent to dissent to an untidy decision.

Question: where you have an rdf:descipriton element containing a property
element of <age>10</age> is that tidy or untidy?

The vote was:

Tidy:
ILRT (Jan, DaveB), W3C (Dan & Dan), Steve, PatH, Aaron

Untidy:
Frank, PatrickS, Jeremy, Graham, Mike, Sergey.


i.e.
DECISION (by 6 votes to 5) An rdf:descripton element containing a property
element of <age>10</age> is untidy.
[Scribe note, aside:
However, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0237.html
"I believe we have to try again to find a consensus.  "]

DanC and DanBri for W3C recorded outstanding dissent.



9: Abstract Syntax for Literals

2002-09-06#4 jjc review material thus far on specifics of
rdfs:Datatype, rdfs:Literal and the abstract syntax of literals and
produce a proposal for wording in the Abs. Syntax document.

2002-09-13#8 jjc update the abstract data model in concepts doc to
reflect the pair denoting a datatype literal

Where are we on this.  Do all literals have an xml lang component? Are
untyped literals specifically named?



See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0123.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0127.html

===

Lively discussion.
Pat and Patrick speak in favour of lang tag on typed literals.
Jeremy to get a move on with action.


10: Proposed technical changes to RDFS model theory


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

ACTION 2002-09-20#1 jjc Produce test case domain and range.

11: Frank's new assertion text
2002-08-23#7  FrankM  Propose alternative text for the concepts and abstract
                 model document to rectify concerns with conflicting use of
                 "assertion".

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 04:51:06 UTC