rdf-text telecon agenda

Alan, Eric, and I just talked through the status of this effort, and
came up with an agenda based on trying to make sure we're all in
agreement on the things we think we're in agreement on, and then going
on to share ideas about the remaining issue(s).

   Changed IRC channel: #owl
   Teleconference code: OWL1  (6951)
   10am Eastern  Time

This agenda has lots of PROPOSED resolutions.  This group has no formal
decision-making authority, so these resolutions should be understood as
reflecting consensus among the people who attend.  Brief +1 / -1
response via e-mail could be helpful, too.

1.  set of language tags

    BCP-47 vs RFC-3066
    Clarify that we're interpreting RDF Concepts as
        linking to 3066 or it successor.
    double-check with addison?

    PROPOSED: We understand that when RDF Concepts referred to RFC
    3066 it really meanted "RFC 3066 or its successor" (which is
    currently BCP-47).  We'll add a note to this effect to this spec.

2.  change of name of datatype

    PROPOSED: The datatype previously known as rdf:text should be
    called rdf:PlainLiteral

3.  change of title

    PROPOSED: The title will no longer mention i18n.  It will be
    something more like: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals

4.  how much of i18n stuff to remove?

    PROPOSED: Pending approval from Michael Sperberg-McQueen, we'll
    remove the 3rd intro paragraph (from LC version).  It talks about
    xml:lang, etc.

    (That paragraph was expanded in response to Michael
    Sperberg-McQueen's comment.  Assuming Michael is okay, we'll just
    drop that paragraph.)

5.  action: we need a new Abstract

6.  plain literals without language tags

    PROPOSED: rdf:PlainLiterals will map 1-1 to RDF Plain Literals, so
    Plain Literals with and without language are both handled by

7.  backward-compatibility goal

    This spec is not asking anyone to change their RDF implementation.
    We're not adding market pressure to add the d-entailment.  RDF
    folks can freely ignore this spec, without harm.

    PROPOSED: The spec will be clear that while this spec formally
    specifies an XML Schema datatype, we do not promote or suggest or
    pressure RDF or SPARQL software or data to be modified to
    support/use this datatype.

8.  interoperability goal

    PROPOSED: We'll say something about how rdf:PlainLiteral typed
    literals are not supposed to to leak out and break the
    backward-compatibility goal.

9.  How to meet the interoperability goal...?

  .. brainstorming, sharing ideas, etc ...
     * Pat's approach using RDF'

    Status of Table 3?

    What do we say specifically about SPARQL?  

      - it shouldn't be be in the queried graph (but this this
        isn't about SPARQL)
      - it shouldn't be in the BGP
      - it shouldn't be in a filter
               STR("foo@"^^rdf:PlainLiteral), LANG( ), DATATYPE( )
      - it shouldn't be in CONSTRUCT

Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 22:47:15 UTC