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

RDF-Core (draft) minutes telecon 2003-03-21

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:10:31 +0000
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <28786.1048594231@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>


Agenda:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0129.html
	(date in agenda is wrong, agenda content is correct)

Transcript:
	http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-21.html

Item 2: Roll call:

Participants:

  Dave Beckett (scribe)
  Dan Brickley
  Jeremy Carroll
  Jos De Roo
  Mike Dean
  Jan Grant
  Pat Hayes
  Frank Manola
  Brian McBride (chair)
  Eric Miller
  Patrick Stickler

Regrets:
  Dan Connolly
  Graham Klyne


Item 3: Review Agenda
  AOB jang: copyrights & xml declarations in test case files

    Taken immediately.

    Brief discussion that the test case files contain the older W3C
    copyright (INRIA not ERCIM) need updating and since the XML
    declaration <?xml version....> is optional, tests should exist
    both with and without it.

ACTION 2003-03-21#1 jang: Update all test case copyrights and XML
  declarations at editors discretion.

  AOB bwm: on pfps does not accept pfps-08. New Agenda Item 7a.


Item 4: Next telecon 28 March 2003  1000 Boston time, 120 minutes

Item 5: Minutes of 14 Mar 2003 telecon

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0124.html

APPROVED

Item 6: XML Schema 1.1 Requirements
2003-02-14#2  daveB  liase with jjc to work up a response on the XML Schema
                     1.1 requirements

  ACTION 2003-02-14#2 is done

  Discussion of DaveB's proposal
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0101.html
  and general consensus.  Request for clarity on:

    * Whether xsd:anyURI and xsd:string may or may not be equal.

    * We would like to do RDF subclass relationships between the value
      spaces of datatypes.  We thus need clarity on where there is
      intersection on value spaces, in particular xsd:anyURI & xsd:string.

    * If the ranges of an RDF property is an integer and unsigned long,
      is it an unsigned int?  (May be covered by the subclass answer)

ACTION 2003-03-21#2 daveb: make an RDF Core WG response to the 
  XML Schema 1.1 requirements based on 
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0101.html
  plus value space subclassing.  Link to jjc's study in
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/att-0092/02-index
  maybe mention range relationships. Mention equality of xsd:anyURI &
  xsd:string in particular.


Item 7: Status on Incoming Last Call Comments

  danbri reports some comments still needing responses. RDFS to do
  list at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt

  Noted we still haven't received an official comment from the I18N WG.

ACTION 2003-03-21#3 em: Remind the I18N WG if they are
going to comment on the RDF LC WDS, ask nicely :)

  Discussion of PFPS comment on process:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0558.html


Item 7a (AOB): PFPS rejection of pfps-08 "typed literals"
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0539.html

  He rejects it for 3 reasons
      0) process - didn't point to clarification text
      1) semantic cleanliness reasons
      2) belief an owl entailment should hold

  Brian points out #0 is correct, forgot to add the pointer in the reply.
  Discusssion of #1 - special case of rdf:XMLLiteral could be addressed
  in a few ways.  Item #2 with respect to language on datatypes is this
  way because of previous negative feedback when it wasn't involved. 
  PatH says it doesn't apply to OWL DL, only OWL Full.  There is no
  new information given and the design remains as it described.
  Entailments that OWL should have should best come from the webont WG.

ACTION 2003-03-21#4 bwm: Draft a test case for item 2 of
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0539.html

RESOLVED 2003-03-21#R1: LC issue pfps-08 - the original decisions stand


Item 8: Status on responses to  Last Call Comments

  Awaiting responses to submitter (on Concepts & Abstract Syntax WD)
    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#macgregor-01
    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#macgregor-02

  Awaiting responses to submitter (on Semantics WD)
    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-01
    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-02

  Awaiting responses to submitter (on RDF/XML Syntax WD)
    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-08

    Draft proposed response from DaveB:
      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0131.html


Item 9: Issues reagle-01, reagle-02

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-01
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-02

No action  


Item 10: Issue williams-01 "What is a node in an RDF graph?"

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#williams-01

  Proposal from Jeremy:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0074.html

  Proposal from Graham:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0114.html

  Discussion of whether we need to see the new words, since this is
  the core definition of RDF.  Related to the parts-of-the triple
  naming / nodes discussion.  May be an error in using statements
  rather than triples.

  APPROVED: General consensus on Graham's resolution in
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0114.html

ACTION 2003-03-21#5 gk: Update the concepts WD after the
  proposed changes given in
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0114.html
  to address williams-01 and circulate the changes to the WG.

ACTION 2003-03-21#6 jjc: review
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-rdf-graph
  in concepts WD after proposal to change in
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0114.html
  and circulate changes to the WG.

ACTION 2003-03-21#7 jjc: review 
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-blank-nodes
  in concepts WD after proposal to change in
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0114.html
  and propose change/non-change or further clarification to the WG.

ACTION 2003-03-21#8 all editors: check the use of the term "node" in
  their WDs and check the usage is consistent with this
  terminology.  The primer WD has a "scruffy license".


11: Issue pfps-04,pfps-05,pfps-06,pfps-07,pfps-10

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-06
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-07
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-10

Pat's message:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0069.html

  ACTION 2003-03-14#6 (gk) review semantics editor's draft wrt
	changed arising out of pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -10

  GK not present

  ACTION 2003-03-14#7 (jang) review semantics editor's draft wrt
	changed arising out of pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -10

  Jan: reviewed in:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0134.html
  Looks OK, some things that need addressing - asks Jeremy to check
  denotation of XML Literal.

ACTION 2003-03-14#8 jeremy:  Check the details of the denotation of
  XMLLiterals in section 3.1 of Semantics WD draft at
  http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_Editors.html#dtype_interp


16: Issue horrocks-01 "rdfs:comment semantics"

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horrocks-01

  See:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0081.html
  
  ACTION 2003-03-14#11 (path) produce words for a resolution to horrocks-01

Continued


12: Issue xmlsch-09 "qnames"
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-09

  from
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html
    "4.2. QNames (Editorial, but important)"

  Discussion of Dave's Proposal and thread at:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0077.html
  note might be some confusion with wording in section they point at;
  we don't require XML namespace prefixes, just namespaced-names.

RESOLVED 2003-03-21#R2: The prefix in a XML QName is optional as defined in XML
  1.0 but accept that the current text may lead to confusion - propose
  to amend the text to make it clear that in a XML QName the prefix is
  optional where there is a default namespace.

  Note that http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-intro
  links to QNames http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#NT-QName
  which has an optional prefix in the grammar.  And:

    "Names with no colon can be qualified names."
    http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata#NE10

    QName ::= PrefixedName | UnprefixedName
    http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/

ACTION 2003-03-21#9 daveb: reply politely to xmlsch-09 using
  resolution 2003-03-21#R2, amend the response text.


13: Issue xmlsch-10 "cannonical syntax"

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-10

  from
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html
    "4.4. Normative specification of XML grammar (policy, substantive)"
    around 2nd paragraph.

  Discussion of text in dave's proposal and thread starting:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0077.html
  with some pushback to the objection on canonical syntax being
  solely due to charter.  Property elements (attributes) are the key
  aspect that mean RDF/XML can't be described/constrained.

ACTION 2003-03-21#10 daveb: draft a response on xmlsch-10 discussing
  W3C XML Schema, DTD and RDF/XML'S unconstraintedness with respect
  to a canonical syntax. We hadn't discussed it because it was out of
  charter.


14: Issue xmlsch-11 "layering on xml"

  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-11

  from
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html
    "4.4. Normative specification of XML grammar (policy, substantive)"
    around 3rd paragraph.

  Discussion of Dave's Proposal and subsequent thread starting:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0077.html

  Brian summarises as RDF M&S was a character level BNF and we have
  gone along way from that to be sitting on top of an infoset.
  Suggests a composite reply to xmlsch-* issues to address them in
  the structure presented.  Jeremy proposes that we were constrained
  by charter to not make dramatic changes to the syntax.

RESOLVED 2003-03-21#R3: The working group agrees that designing a new
  syntax by this group would be considered out of charter


15: Issue xmlsch-12 "capricious syntax"

    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-12

  Dave's Proposal:

    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0077.html

  Jeremy's Followup:

    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0079.html

  See:
    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/

Out of time, not covered.
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 07:13:10 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:15 EDT