W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Minutes of telecon: 2003-08-15

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:25:57 +0100 (BST)
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0308181145570.25941-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Agenda:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0176.html

Transcript:
	http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-08-15

swebscrape:N3:python: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/scripts/minutes2n3.py
date: 2003-08-15

Roll call
  Dave Beckett
  Dan Brickley (chair)
  Jeremy Carroll
  Jan Grant (scribe)
  Pat Hayes
  Frank Manola
  Eric Miller
  Patrick Stickler

Regrets: Mike Dean, Jos deRoo, Brian McBride, Graham Klyne

Review agenda:
  AOB (xmlsch-02) added

Next telecon:
  22 Aug 2003 10:00 Boston time. JJC to scribe.

Minutes of last telecon:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0138.html
APPROVED


Item 6: completed actions.
ALL DONE.


Item 7: Misc actions:
20030808#1 DONE
20030808#2 DONE
20030808#3 DONE
20030425#10 continued?
20030711#4 continued (although reported probably done, DanC absent)
2003-08-01#4 done (10 minutes prior to telecon)


Item 8: Reification vocab proposal.

  Pat's proposed text:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0161.html

  Comments/concerns from Frank:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0171.html

ACTION 20030815#1 danbri to fold PatH's words for reification into schema


Item 9: Implementation report.

  See:
	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance

em (In summary):
  If you have a toolkit and haven't run the LC test cases, please do so.
  if you've input or leads on other toolkit vendors, notify em/daveb

ACTION 20030815#2 danbri summarise rubyrdf for em
ACTION 20030815#3 jjc chase an HP endorsement of the impl report


Item 10: denotation of XMLLiteral

JJC proposed the text in
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0185.html
[[
The lexical space is the set of all strings:
   + which are well-balanced, self-contained XML content [XML];
   + for which encoding as [UTF-8] yields exclusive Canonical
     XML (with comments, with empty InclusiveNamespaces
     PrefixList ) [XML-XC14N];
   + for which embedding between an arbitrary XML start tag
     and an end tag yields a document conforming to XML
     Namespaces [XML-NS]

The value space is a set of entities, called XML values, which is:
   + disjoint from the lexical space
   + disjoint from the value space of any XML schema datatype [XML-SCHEMA2]
   + disjoint from the set of Unicode character strings [Unicode]
   + in 1:1 correspondence with the lexical space.

The lexical-to-value mapping
    is a one-one mapping from the lexical space onto the value space,
    i.e. it is both injective and surjective.


Note: Not all lexical forms of this datatype are compliant with XML 1.1
[XML 1.1]. If compliance with XML 1.1 is desired, then only those that
are fully normalized according to XML 1.1 should be used.

Note: XML values can be thought of as the [XML Infoset] or the [XPath]
nodeset corresponding to the lexical form, with an appropriate equality
function.

Note: RDF applications may use additional equivalence relations, such as
that which relates an xsd:string with an rdf:XMLLiteral corresponding to
a single text node of the same string.
]]

Prop: JJC (no seconder recorded). No abstentions, no against.
RESOLVED.

ACTION 20030815#4 path incorporate the XMLLiteral text from message 0185 \
	into semantics
ACTION 20030815#5 daveb incorporate XMLLiteral text into syntax
ACTION 20030815#6 jjc incorporate XMLLiteral text into concepts
ACTION 20030815#7 jjc review syntxa changes
ACTION 20030815#8 jang review test cases in light of XMLLiteral


Item 11: I18N update.

  The WG discussed an upcoming objection from I18N.
  em explained that we needed to give strong evidence that we had
	explored the design space; that we had done "due diligence"
	with the community; that we had considered and rejected
	the objection for sound reasons.

  pats expressed the view (to some support) that the I18N problems
	are generic XML ones, not RDF specific ones; that RDF wasn't
	the place to address these.

ACTION 20030815#9 jjc to draft implementation report response to \
	I18N objection


Item AOB: Whitespace and XSD literals

JJC's proposal:
[[
Implementation Note: (normative)

In [XML-SCHEMA1], white space normalization occurs during validation
according to the value of the whiteSpace facet. The lexical-to-value
mapping used in RDF datatyping occurs after this, so that in RDF
datatyping the whiteSpace facet formally has no effect. However, in line
with the principle of being liberal with what is accepted and strict
with what is produced:

+ During input processing of XML Schema Datatypes within RDF, software
MAY apply the appropriate whitespace normalization immediatly before the
lexical to value mapping, and MAY produce a warning if any whitespace is
changed in this normalization.

+ Software generating RDF data SHOULD produce lexical forms which do not
require whitespace processing.

(The keywords MAY and SHOULD are defined in [RFC ????])
]]

Proposed: jjc; Seconded: PatS; no objections; no abstentions.

ACTION 20030815#10 jang ensure test cases affected by WS processing \
	are marked with a note in the TC document

ACTION 20030815#11 daveb note in syntax to be changed wrt whitespace
ACTION 20030815#12 jjc modify concepts wrt whitespace/xsd resolution
ACTION 20030815#13 jjc inform XMLSCHEMA WG wrt whitespace resolution
ACTION 20030815#14 jjc inform PFPS wrt whitespace/xsd resolution


Item: Document Status
Primer DONE.
Concepts: a couple of things arising today; can be ready Monday
Syntax: as above.
Semantics: as above.
Schema: Reification action for today will be done Monday.
Test cases: TC repo awaiting checking, actions from today, can be ready Monday

ACTION 20030815#15 path to write to PFPS to characterise the outstanding \
	objection wrt semantics design so that it can be captured correctly.


Item 12: the next step: LC#2/CR/PR

There was a long discussion about the nature of changes made to the
documents.

jjc noted that from an implementation point of view (Jena tracking the
documents as they changed), the changes were minimal.

The WG noted that "due diligence" had been performed chasing reviews,
opinions, feedback from the community.

There was little WG enthusiasm for a second LC; JJC suggested that we
move to CR instead, marking the XMLLiteral decision as "at risk". Cited
precedence for that.

It was noted that pragmatically, some WG members' contribution of effort
to the WG may have to be scaled back should a second LC go ahead, due to
external considerations.

On the specific I18N issue:
  jjc: a design that satisfied Martin would not satisfy OWL; would be
	less well implemented; and in my opinion would actually serve
	I18N less well too.

The WG Resolved that:
  The Wg would like a CR (with at-risk sections w.r.t. I18N), and
  expectation it would move on to PR.
APPROVED (Prop Danbri; second not recorded. Unanimous "aye"s).

The meeting adjourned.

-- 
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/
Don't annihilate, assimilate: MacDonalds, not missiles.
Received on Monday, 18 August 2003 07:29:07 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:39 EDT