Summary
@@link to transcript
minutes recorded by EricM approved as corrected in 0124, 0125 @@links.
DanBri: intends to meet with Guha next week in IRC and to get a brain dump from him.
McBride solicits folks with test cases to send them to him.
McBride reminds all that ftf is scheduled for 1,2 Aug.
@@WG home page: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/
agenda request: discussion of communicating resolutions to developer community.
-
ACTION
R. V. Guha: Solicit RDF feature usage info and report back to the group
-
DONE
Dave Beckett: Update the proposed changes for this issue[@@which?] and add test cases to demonstrate how they worked.
-
ACTION
Dan Brickley: send analysis (#rdf-container-syntax-ambiguity and
#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema)to rdfcore-wg list
-
DONE
Dave Beckett: re #rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr: Revise analysis and post to list
-
ACTION
R. V. Guha: re #rdfms-reification-required: Present analaysis to list for discussion.
-
ACTION
Brian McBride: Link test cases, results etc. from issues list
-
ACTION
Jan Grant: Do an analysis of the impact of XML Base and summarise to list.
-
ACTION
Brian McBride: Contact Rael about hosting face to face at O'Reilly.
-
ACTION
Graham Klyne: to summarize www-rdf-logic perspective of reification as
it applies to both logic and rdf andreport back to rdfcore wg
-
Withdrawn: dup of A9
-
DONE
Eric Miller: to provide a solution enabling write access to RDF M&S and Schema errata documents.
-
DONE
Art Barstow: to formalize his suggestion RDFCore changes be reflected in
a separate page so developers can easily find these
issues/resolutions.
@@disposition: done/postponed/withdrawn/...
postponed. @@make this a class.
@@disposition: done/postponed/withdrawn/...
Connolly: so the language doesn't contain these documents. Good. that's clear.
Connolly: licensing processors to accept documents that aren't in the language is risky... the user community learns what the language is by what the tools do.
[... scribe is discussing too much to do a good job recording; help? ]
EricM: there's a requirement for syntactic inclusion in HTML.
BillD: I think we need to fix productions 4, 5, and 9
DaveB: I listed a bunch of productions in item2 of the proposal...
BillD: let's make it clear that folks MUST NOT use unprefixed resource/about/.. attrs.
em notes that he may have overstated earlier requirements as there is no specified requirement of syntactic inclusion in M&S Specification.
item 7 is withdrawn; change is incorporated into item 2.
ArtB: so you're changing production 6.19 so that the prefix is not optional?
DaveB: yes.
ArtB: do folks realize there might be a lot of RDF out there in this form?
several: yes.
BillD: this looks like an erratum then; the grammar had a typo.
EricM: let's note this in both places: the errata and the developers page.
BrianM: "namespace prefixed" should become "namespace qualified" several times in the spec.
scribe checks, finds that "prefixed" doesn't occur in the spec.
DaveB: I have 7 tests.
-
RESOLVED:
The current RDF/XML syntax uses the following attributes in the syntax:
about aboutEach aboutEachPrefix
ID bagID
resource
parseType
-- List of RDF attributes (henceforth The List)
The remaining concepts are not in the list because:
a. Seq Bag Alt Property Statement
These are rdfs:Class-es and can never be used as attributes
b. RDF Description
Syntax only things that have no current use as attributes
c. li _<n> subject predicate object type value
Not allowed to be used unprefixed according to the grammar
Note Re: aboutEach aboutEachPrefix
At present it is expected these will be removed from the
specification although the WG has not addressed this yet.
See thread at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0123.html
[@@@hmm... formatting/structure of decisions]
-
RESOLVED:
2. The grammar will be corrected to require namespace-qualification
for all attributes for The List. A namespace prefix MUST be used
for these attributes, where the namespace prefix points to the
RDF URI http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
The meaning of the attributes is defined by the appropriate RDF
M&S sections and is not modified here.
The changes to the grammar at
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#grammar
include modifying productions 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.11, 6.18,
6.32, 6.33 to have rdf: added before all the attributes. There
are almost certainly other changes to the grammar, as well as
changes throughout the rest of the document such as examples and
in-text mentions.
-
RESOLVED:
to remove 3, 4, 5 from the proposal of Thu, 24 May 2001 14:47:07 +0100; i.e. not to license RDF processors to accept documents that contain unprefixed attributes
-
RESOLVED:
6. The grammar will be corrected to allow non-prefixed [correction: _not_ non-qualified] RDF elements (NOT attributes) when a default XML
namespace is defined with an xmlns="..." attribute.
Discussion: For example
<Description xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
...
</Description>
is currently forbidden by production 6.3; it requires rdf:Description
-
ACTION
Brian McBride: edit the errata per the resolutions above; i.e. those regarding #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
-
ACTION
Dave Beckett: assemble test cases re #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion and suggest details of how the grammar in the spec should be updated.
@@disposition: done/postponed/withdrawn/...
jang: we have an evolving convention for test case input; I have a suggestion for "expected results" format. that I intend to send.
@@disposition: done/postponed/withdrawn/...
@@disposition: done/postponed/withdrawn/...