- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 14:28:44 +0100
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Was Dan Connolly actually present on the teleconference? Brian Dave Beckett wrote: > > Corrections to me please. > > Dave > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > RDF Core WG Minutes 11 May 2001 > > This page summarizes the telecon for the RDF Core Working Group held from 1400 > to 1500 UTC on 11 May 2001. These minutes were prepared by Dave Beckett, but > have not yet been reviewed by the other participants. > > Meeting IRC Log > > Participants > > * Dave Beckett > * Stephen Petschulat > * Art Barstow > * Jan Grant > * Brian McBride, chairing > * Martyn Horner > * Jos De Roo > * Aaron Swartz > * Ora Lassila > * Dan Connolly > * Frank Manola > * Frank Boumphrey > * R.V. Guha (joined at +45mins) > > Regrets received from Dan Brickley, Mike Dean, Bill de Hora. > > Agenda > > Brian McBride added issue from XML Base discussion on www-rdf-interest this > week to the end of the agenda > > Review Minutes of Previous Meeting > > The previous minutes of 27 April 2001 were accepted. > > Review of Actions > > * RDF feature usage to Guha. > Brian asked people to follow this up and send more feedback > ACTION(all): Send feedback to Guha about use of RDF features. > * Container problem > Dan Brickley and Ora Lassilla - circulated comments to the list, already > on agenda > * Hosting the Face-2-Face meeting > Brian noted Rael Dornfest offered in the previous meeting to host in > Sebastopol, quite close to the Stanford SW meeting at end July. Ora > Lassilla said Nokia couldn't host then but offered Burlington nr Boston > for future F2F meetings. > > Issues Progress > > The RDF Model and Syntax spec is unclear about when rdf: prefix is needed > > Issue #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion > > Dave Beckett asked Art Barstow if he was happier with the revised wording Dave > proposed and Art agreed that the list of results were acceptable. > > Art asked about the second issue Dave introduced and after discussion it was > agreed that the proposed answer 1) was the best alternative, especially since > the current grammar forbids unprefixed attributes. Jan grant noted M+S grammar > productions 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 need updating amongst others and Dave was asked to > add test cases of how the proposed change would work. > > ACTION Dave Beckett: Update the proposed changes for this issue and add test > cases to demonstrate how they worked. > > Containers > > Issues #rdf-container-syntax-ambiguity and #rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema > > Dan Brickley had sent a message to www-archive, that not everyone had seen. > Ora said he would like to revise it and post to rdfcore list when ready and > would like feedback then, so that the issue can be discussed. > > Ora noted that it was intended that containers would be considered to be moved > out of the core data model. > > ACTION Ora Lassilla/Dan Brickley: send analysis to rdfcore-wg list > > ACTION All: Respond to Ora/Dan's notes when they appear. > > General editorial comments. > > Issue #rdfms-editorial > > ACTION Ora Lassilla: Carried over (Dan Brickley and Guha previously recorded > to help) > > The interpretation of empty property elements is unclear > > Issue #rdfms-empty-property-elements > > Jan Grant summarised his analysis but basically the answer is, it is an empty > literal, and although some people suggested an anonymous resource, that is a > bit broken. Consensus on this. > > RESOLVED: The answer is an empty literal (wordsmithing needed on M+S text) > > ACTION Jan Grant: reword and send a new message with test cases, including one > with just an ID attribute. > > What mime type should RDF Schema and other RDF documents have? > > Issue #mime-types-for-rdf-docs > > Aaron Swartz outlined the document got a favourable response apart from the > interaction with fragments and assertions. Not everyone was still happy with > this and since it made statements about what RDF meant, maybe not good in a > mime types doc? Brian asked if there was urgency for this since it wasn't > clear if this could be published and amended easily (unsure of IETF mime type > process). Agreed to postponed it until further work done on fixing various > things that it depends on. > > Not ID and resource attributes > > Issue #rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr > > Dave Beckett note that the existing analysis had a flaw and would need > revising, would do for next meeting. > > ACTION Dave Beckett: Revise analysis and post to list > > MUST a parser created bags of reified statements for all Description elements? > > Issue #rdfms-reification-required > > Skipped, Guha not present. Later on Guha arrived and said he will have > something before the next meeting. > > ACTION Guha: Present analaysis to list for discussion. > > What is a resource and how does it relate to other concepts such as URI and > entity? > > Issue #rdfms-resource-semantics > > Long discussion after Martyn Horner's posting to the list (just before > meeting) defining three terms - URI, Entity and Resource. Martyn presented the > ideas and after discussion, request for more formalisms from Jos De Roo, > Martyn a good goal but a part of the things we want to do is expressing > ambiguity. Frank [which one?] said formalisms are good but need to be > expressed from strong ideas. > > Discussion of binding resources and URIs, various views were expressed that > were not consistent. Ora noted that original RDF M+S people punted this issue. > Some discussion of Resource=URI but need to have more discussion on-list. Dan > Connolly emphasised the need for using test cases to base the discussion - see > also his comments to the list on 8 May and 11 May. > > Digression into test cases and Brian, Jos, Dave resolved strongly to use > these. Jos wondered about data for testing and correct results of, say, > parsing but Dave responded that there was at present no canonical triple dump > syntax so this wasn't yet possible. > > RESOLVED: Make all test cases / results public on the web. > > ACTION Brian McBride: Link test cases, results etc. from issues list > > The RDF community needs a precise terminology to enable it to discuss issues. > > Issue #rdf-terminologicus > > Discussed in previous issue. > > XML Base > > Brian outlined XML Base is now a candidate recommendation and there had been > discussion this week on www-rdf-interest about this including replies by Aaron > and Dave. He asked does this have an impact on RDF? A discussion followed > which seemed to indicate it would break old parsers if used in new RDF/XML. > Brian said his working model on backward compatibility was that what we end up > with might not go through existing parsers and it was better that existing > parsers failed on new syntax. Dave disagreed and wanted the existing syntax to > continue to work. Jan Grant offered to do an analysis and summarise it to the > list. > > ACTION Jan Grant: Do an analysis of the impact of XML Base and summarise to > list. > > Next Teleconference > > There will be a teleconference at the same time next week - 1400 to 1500 UTC > on 18 May 2001. > > Links > > * Agenda > * IRC Log > * RDF Issues
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 09:29:12 UTC