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

Minutes of 2003-09-26 RDFCore teleconference

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:30:40 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030926182919.034783f0@127.0.0.1>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

RDFCore teleconference:  2003-09-26


Time:
10:00:00 Fri Sep 26 2003 in America/New York duration 60 minutes +
possible 15 minute extension

which is equivalent to
15:00:00 Fri Sep 26 2003 in Europe/London

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

danbri to chair.

Agenda:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0245.html
IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2003/09/26-rdfcore-irc


Summary of decisions:
   to replace lBase material in semantics document with informative reference


Summary of actions:
   JJC    add nfc text to Concepts as proposed
   JJC    review this document to take specific account of formal objection 
from I18N
   DanC   review jjc's revised I18N document in the context of request for 
PR, looking for problems
   EricM  review jeremy's document for inclusion in proposal to advance
   JJC    draft proposal that whitespace processing is part of L2V map
   PatH   update semantics document to replace lbase appendix with 
informative note and reference
   BWM    link issue list to supporting documents (such as JJC I18N issue 
review)
   DanBri record Karsten's dissent in rdfs spec



--swebscrape:
date:20030926
--



1: scribe
   Graham volunteered


2: Roll Call

Present:
   Dave Beckett
   Brian McBride
   Graham Klyne
   Pat Hayes
   Dan Brickley
   Mike Dean
   Dan Connolly
   Jeremy Carroll
   Eric Miller

Regrets:
   Jos de Roo
   Patrick Stickler
   Jan Grant
   Frank Manola


3: Review Agenda

One additional item:
request for rdf:RDF to be optional in more circumstances.
cf.


4: Next telecon 3 October 2003 1000 Boston Time
Chair?
Volunteer Scribe

[[[NOTE: the next-meeting data in the agenda was incorrect]]]

[[[No chair or volunteer scribe noted for next week]]]


5: Minutes of 19 Sep 2003 telecon

see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0213.html

No objections.



6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions

8: Status of Misc Actions

See current action list 2003-09-25,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0232.html

[[[This was a somewhat rambling discussion, with the three agenda
items run together, and the scribe had great difficulty following
what was being discussed.  What follows is probably incomplete]]]

Brian noted that he will update the action list based on
comments sent to the mailing list.

Discussion of NFC action.
(cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0234.html
and following messages)

ACTION: JJC add nfc text to Concepts as proposed


Jeremy's text relating to I18N concerns to accompany request for PR:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/att-0259/i18n-part.html
While we were talking, the following document was made public as a formal
objection from I18N to our current design:
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2003/rdf

ACTION: JJC review this document to take specific account of formal 
objection from I18N

ACTION: DanC review jjc's revised I18N document in the context of request 
for PR, looking for problems

ACTION: EricM review jeremy's document for inclusion in proposal to advance

Whitespace processing for XML schema datatypes:
Brian has had private discussions, and the short answer seems to be:
"3" and " 3 " being different isn't going to be popular.
But:  if one asks is " 3 " in the lexical space of xsd:integer?  Answer no.
But ask if in the context of XML, is " 3 " an integer?  Answer yes.
Suggests preparing a proposal that whitespace processing is part of the
L2V mapping of XML schema datatypes.

ACTION: JJC draft proposal that whitespace processing is part of L2V map


Eric working on securing a puiblication date for LC2.
Not yet confirmed, but aiming for 10 Oct 2003.
Action continues.


Danbri working on text for abstract/status of document section
Action continues.


9: defusing semantics objections (lbase appendix)

Brian in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0242.html
         Two of Peter's objections concern the translation to LBase.  I'm
         wondering whether we might defuse these objections by replacing the
         LBase appendix with a suitably worded informative reference to the 
LBase
         note.

see also 'not accepteds' re semantics (pfps) summarised in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0241.html

Proposed: we do just this from danbri,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0244.html

RESOLVED:  to replace lBase material in semantics document with informative 
reference

ACTION: PatH update semantics document to replace lbase appendix with 
informative note and reference

(ensuring that the revised wording suitably addresses the concerns raised,
so that if there is an error in the lbase, such error doesn't contaminate
the RDF semantics.)



10: collecting objections

what exactly do we need to record w.r.t. known objections (esp I18N)
prior to LC2? See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0237.html
and nearby.

Hopefully 2 of 5 semantics objections are addressed above.

Concenring completeness of closure rules, they never have been complete
and to make them so would be a major effort at this stage.

ACTION: bwm link issue list to supporting documents (such as JJC I18N issue 
review)

Concerning objection on schema, pfps-12
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-12

This was co-submitted by Karsten Tolle, who agrees the revised text is
accurate but does not like the design choice it describes.

ACTION: DanBri record Karsten's dissent in rdfs spec



11: next steps - planning for LC2

What needs to be done?

   - couch in terms of refining a 'request to advance' doc
(old draft http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance.html)
and removing obstacles such that we're happy to send it.

What issues/comments do we need to respond to.
Schedule? - update after SW CG discussion this week

Discussion of issue tracking.  Having separate LC issue list causes
some problems, as it can result in duplication of existing decisions.

[[[Outcome?]]]



12. AOB

Request concerning optional <rdf:RDF>

[[[Outcome?]]]


swebscrape:N3:python: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/scripts/minutes2n3.py


------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Friday, 26 September 2003 13:48:15 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Friday, 26 September 2003 13:48:32 EDT