- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 14:44:17 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
RDF Core WG Syntax subgroup minutes for telecon 2001-10-05 Transcript: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-10-05 Present: Art Barstow Dave Beckett (chair, co-scribe, minutes) Dan Connolly Jeremy Carroll Jan Grant (co-scribe) Pat Hayes (joined later) 0: Allocate scribe: Dave (and Jan later) 1: Review Agenda (typed into IRC) No AOB 2: Schema validation technology - what to use to validate RDF/XML? A strawpoll saw general approval that the non-XML RelaxNG schema produced by James Clarke was popular: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0238.html Discussion of whether having a normative validation schema in the specification was a good idea. Agreement that prose would describe what is valid declaratively and the existing WD is reasonably intelligible. Agreement that the target audience of the syntax document is parser writers, not end users - we require something they can review and understand. The primer must cover the rest of the explanation of the syntax. A potential approach with general agreement is to have an accurate description of syntax in prose with a non-normative RelaxNG and other schemas in appendixes. 3: Transformational approaches from RDF/XML to N-Triple Jeremy outlined his approach: transforming RDF/XML using XSLT and staying within XML for as long as possible because that's the natural setting for thinking about the abbreviated syntax as abbreviations. The XSLT he writes is generated from a smaller rules language, that apply XML transforms anchored to the root XML element (rdf:RDF) to flatten the structure This avoids syntax striping issues (since nodes are always below root). bNodes have to be introduced and done using beyond-RDF/XML syntax to distinguish from nodes with URIs. Jeremy explains that the language is not very stable at this point and estimates it will have 2x rules in a complete version (reification). ACTION 2001-10-05#1 Jeremy Carroll: Email work to w3c-rdfcore-wg list as attachments to get archived. Discussion of rdf:aboutEach and how it is still broken, not really in syntax or model. Dan refers to his rdf:aboutEach test case conundrum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001AprJun/0107.html Discussion of the XSLT approach; Jeremy wants not to specify the mapping in a "programming language", Dan thinks XSLT is one since it is Turing complete. Jan says yes, but what matters is that the mapping is clear, whatever language. Jeremy explains the rules.xml is intended to be compiled into HTML info "visually appealing" patterns. It it the generated HTML that is meant to make the rules clear, and would be normative, indicating that applying the transformation rules in any order gives the same result. Dan explained he wrote an RDF/XML parser in XSLT in April (in an afternoon): http://www.w3.org/2001/04rs22/ Although not complete, and it generated a lot of issues on the issues list. Would be similar using another approach such as attribute grammar (Brian McBride did one) but although kind of long to do in XSLT, once familiar, the idioms are rather straightforward. Dan notes there is XSLT support for ID generation for introducing identifiers for bNodes. Discussion of future work. Dave notes he'll continue with existing style but try going for a more sax-like Infoset trying to make an EBNF with the infoset terms as terminals. Jeremy notes he has an XML version of this that could be useful to generate this. ACTION 2001-10-05#2 Jeremy Carroll: Email XML version to Dave and/or the w3c-rdfcore-wg mailing list. The group notes that the HTML will be normative and any non-normative XML appendix of mapping etc. is a pleasant bonus. Agreement to plough on with existing approaches (Dave, Jeremy) 4: Outstanding issues from issues list Dave outlines the goal of looking at the issues on the issues list at http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/ and move the job of writing their resolution to dealt with by the document editor(s) and workers, to speed up work and do it attached to working on documents. The issue list would point to resolutions still recorded in the issues list. The WDs would have a section listing the issues resolved, addressed, discussed by the document, along with pointers to the words that address them. Then the group did a walk through the Issue Tracking doc http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/ "Currently Active Issues" section, sub section "Model and Syntax Issues" and made the following split between syntax, non-syntax issues: 4.1 Purely Syntax Issues Issues with no resolution yet: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-aboutEach-on-object http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-syntax-desc-clarity http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-quoting http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-nested-bagIDs http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-replace-value http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-formal-grammar http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xml-literal-namespaces http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qname-uri-mapping http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values -- (aside: answer is "No") http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xml-base http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#mime-types-for-rdf-docs http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-abouteach http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-reification-required http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-rdf-names-use Active Issues: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about Resolved Issues: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-abouteachprefix http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-empty-property-elements 4.2 Partial Syntax Issues http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-editorial These are general editorial comments on RDF M&S, some of which will apply to new syntax documents. 4.3 Non Syntax Issues in "Model and Syntax Issues" section http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-resource-semantics http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-equivalent-uris http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xmllang http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-contexts http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-of-statements http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-equivalent-representations http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-formal-semantics http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-logical-formalism http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-logical-terminololgy http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-boolean-valued-properties Note: We didn't decide whether they were Model issues, just that they were non-Syntax. 4.4 For all issues, review decisions as how they affect the syntax. Examples include rdfms-xmllang, anything to do with literals or the model. ACTION 2001-10-05#3 Dave Beckett: Looking at potential resolutions for all the undecided syntax issues above. Then the group had a discussion of where the resolution goes along with words in syntax docs. The resolution would be recorded in issues list, with words in the syntax docs too; test cases for the issue resolution go in the usual test cases area and document, linked from the syntax doc and issues list. Dave noted that the curent refactoring syntax document lists several issues and how they caused changes in http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20010906/#section-Updated-Grammar-changes The intention is that new versions of this document would say "we're address, explain, discuss, ... this issue in section X" Discussion of when to get next WD out (RSN of course). agreement it would be good to have most of disposition done by Christmas 2001 rather than aiming for WWW2002. END OF MEETING
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 09:44:18 UTC