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

Minutes, 2003-11-07

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:10:22 +0000 (GMT)
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0311101410160.26055@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Agenda:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Nov/0017.html
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Nov/att-0017/rdfcore-agenda-2003-11-07.txt

Transcript:
        http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-11-07

swebscrape:N3:python: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/scripts/minutes2n3.py
date: 2003-11-07

Item 2: Roll call

Present:
  Dave Beckett
  Dan Brickley (chair)
  Jeremy Carroll
  Dan Connolly
  Mike Dean
  Jan Grant (scribe)
  Pat Hayes
  Graham Klyne
  Frank Manola
  Jos de Roo
  Patrick Stickler

Regrets: Eric Miller

Item 3: Review agenda

  AOB: JJC had sent preliminary proposed responses to I18N comments
	(see below)
  GK: had process questions wrt mime type draft.

Item 4: date of next telecon (next week?)
  Many members would be in Japan or otherwise absent. No decision was
  recorded at the meeting; postponement seemed likely.

Item 5: Approve minutes of previous meetings.
  2003-10-10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0150.html
  APPROVED.

  2003-10-31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0217.html
  APPROVED.

Item 6: Completed actions.
  ALL DONE.

Item 7: document status.

Reiteration of process: ANY changes to the document must be circulated
to the WG for chairs to pass as editorial or schedule time on.

Item 7a: Syntax.
  DaveB had one set of proposed editoral changes to address a point by PFPS.
  JJC supported those changes (thought the doc was better for them).
  DaveB: however, it'll be 10 days before I can devote large amounts of
	time to editing the doc any more.

  DaveB completed preliminary edits to the WD shortly after the meeting.

Item 7b: Schema
  DanBri was awaiting feedback on a schema LC2 comment.

  action status:
  20031031#8 DanBri Get documents and other language material to right places
  CONTINUED

ACTION 2003-11-07#1 danbri to look at the I18N comment on schema wrt Alt

Item 7c: Semantics
  PatH had received feedback wrt the range constraint on rdf:predicate
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0188.html
  In consequence:

ACTION 2003-11-07#2 danbri to change range of rdf:predicate to be \
	rdfs:Resource in schema doc and associated schemata

  PatH reported that dialogue with Herman on the detailed proofs was
	ongoing and very useful.
  PatH added that PFPS had withdrawn his strong objection at the rejection
	of some of his comments: the issue was now moot.

  action status:
  20031031#1 Path, Check with OWL folks on range of rdf:predictate
  COMPLETE
  20031031#2 DANBRI Update schema doc accordingly
  CONTINUED

Item 7d: Primer

  action status:
  20031031#4 EM to respond on primer-minor-editorial
  COMPLETED by FrankM

  Frank: There are a number of editorial (REALLY editorial) comments
	and corresponding changes outstanding
  JJC: The second I18N comment is primer-specific and substantive
  Frank still needed time to review this comment in full.

  There was some discussion (see later in transcript) on the
  defaultless rdf:Alt alternative.

  GK: The decision seems to be covered by WG minutes:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html
	item 19

Item 7e: test cases

  action status:
  20030711#4 danc to get a test case for pfps-09 into OWL test case doc
  COMPLETE
  20031031#5 Jang, remove test case and respond to commenter
  COMTINUED
ACTION 2003-11-07#3 jang withdraw rdf-charmod-literals error001, \
	error002 reflecting CONCEPTS changes
ACTION 2003-11-07#4 jang create PFPS/PatH test cases wrt rdfs/XMLLiteral
ACTION 2003-11-07#5 jang outline test case manifest with explicit \
	cons constructs for WG/chair input.

Item 7f: Concepts

  JJC: PFPS wasn't happy with URI issue, but agrees it's not our fault.
  DanC: urge you to cite TAG issue in response.

  JJC discussed the I18N comments, the first three of which are
	germane to CONCEPTS:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0120.html

ACTION 2003-11-07#6 bwm to review issue list to make sure that it's \
	correct (specifically DanC/XMLLiteral issue)

ACTION 2003-11-07#7 danc to respond to I18N comments on XMLLiteral \
	(first two issues) pointing to initial rationale

  The third I18N issue: does the denotation of a markupless XMLLiteral
  = the denotation of the corresponding langtagless plain literal?

JJC PROPOSED:
[[
I propose we add a new issue to the issue list:
"relationship between XMLLiterals and plain literals," and postpone it.

Rationale:

The lack of semantic equivalence between XMLLiterals and plain
literals has been clear since the first WD of RDF Concepts, and
was arguable in RDF Model and Syntax.

The RDF Semantics does not preclude RDF applications using additional
information to determine that two literals are equivalent, but does not
mandate that they should be.

Hence, RDF applciations which require this equivalence may operate
in such a mode, and so this issue is not a show stopper.
]]
DanC seconds. No objections; one abstention (JosD)
DECIDED: as above.

ACTION 2003-11-07#8 danc to respond to I18N comments on XMLLiteral \
	without markup / plain literal relationship. Additionally, \
	to include the "rdf:Alt default" with other responses.

ACTION 2003-11-07#9 bwm to add postponed issue on I18N/XMLLiteral \
	sans markup denotation

The WG DECIDED (prop: bwm, second, danc, none against, no abst) that
all other I18N comments were editorial and deferred to the primer
editor.


Item 9: next steps/schedule.

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

  JosD indicated he'd reviewed this.

  Proposed (DanC) for the WG to decide to request PR with
	today's docs + changes agreed by DanC, BWM, and respective
	editor.

  In a straw poll, all were in favour. Some particular reservations were
  expressed:
  JanG: test case manifest change may need attention
  BWM: yes, subject to adequate implementation report (happy for
	DanC/BWM to decide that)

  Formally (no seconder recorded): the proposal carried, with no
  abstentions and no objections.


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/
Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 10:12:25 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 10 November 2003 10:12:30 EST