Re: rdf-text telecon agenda

> > 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.
> 
> +1, sure, why not, but isn't this quite a minor point?

Yep.  Hopefully we can be done with this in 2 minutes.  It's nice to
start a meeting with some items for easy agreement.

> > 2.  change of name of datatype
> > 
> >     PROPOSED: The datatype previously known as rdf:text should be
> >     called rdf:PlainLiteral
> 
> +0, any name that makes people less unhappy is good
> 
> PS:  By rdf:PlainLiteral I assume you really mean rdf: O(+>

Hmmm?  I can't parse your comment here.   

> > 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.)
> 
> 0, does it harm anything to keep the paragraph in?

It seems to me a little confusing, talking about stuff that's really
beside the point.  I would have left it, but Boris argued for removing
it. Maybe the better resolution would be to defer to Michael about this.
(I was hoping he'd answer my e-mail about this before now.)

> > 5.  action: we need a new Abstract
> 
> +1, this should be tied to the title change
> 
> > 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
> >     rdf:PlainLiteral.
> 
> Umm, isn't this already the case?  Why is there a proposal to change to
> the current situation?  Further, if this isn't the case, then the
> proposed name change doesn't make sense.

Yes, I believe this is the current case, but it seemed useful to make
sure we're all actually agreed about it (cf e-mail exchange with Andy
[1]).  Yes, maybe this should have been listed before/with the name
change.  Rephrased:

     PROPOSED: The intent of rdf:PlainLiterals is to map 1-1 to RDF
     Plain Literals, so Plain Literals with and without language are
     both handled by rdf:PlainLiteral.  

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0192

> > 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.
> 
> -1, this is not the kind of thing to say in a recommendation

Isn't that what RFC 2119 "MAY" is for?  I don't think we have to say
anything about this, but it seems to me we should really try to help
people coming fresh to this spec to understand what it means for them.

> -1, this document does *not* have anything to do with an XML Schema datatype

Huh...  That's an odd claim.  For many drafts, the document has said
"Datatypes are defined in this document along the lines of XML Schema
Datatypes [XML Schema Datatypes]. Each datatype is identified by a URI
and is described by the following components...."  In mind, this has
always been an XML Schema datatype.  In RIF (and I think OWL) it's used
exactly like a subset of the datatypes defined in
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/.  In what way is this not an XML
Schema datatype?

> -1, it is not the case that all RDF folks cannot freely ignore this spec
>     without harm, nor should it be

This claim is also surprising to me.  Who, not using using OWL 2 or RIF,
would need to read this spec?

> > 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.
> 
> Huh?  There already is quite some wording to this effect, and it appears
> to me that the deatils of this wording is where the action currently is.
> It appears to me that just about everyone has agreed (some reluctantly)
> that there should be something said aobut interoperability with software
> that has not had a chance to take this datatype into account.

As with point 6, I was trying to make sure, in writing, that we all
agreed about the things that I thought we probably all agreed about.  In
fact, points 1-8 are all like that -- they were things I thought we
pretty much had consensus on.  I thought we could start the meeting by
getting that all recorded, then, yes, focus on the meat of the subject
which is how to do point 8.

I suppose we don't need to resolve point 7.  I hope getting the
disagreement out on the table there will be helpful.  Since I can't
imagine why you're objecting like you are there, it's hard to know.

> > 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
> 
> Now, finally we appear to be getting to the need for a teleconference,
> possibly at the end of the teleconference time.  I'm going to put my
> thoughts on this in a separate response.

Hopefully that's in my mailbox now.  :-)

      -- Sandro

Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 13:36:38 UTC