- From: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:17:45 -0400
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
What: RFD Core WG Syntax teleconf When: Oct 26, 2001 Who: Jeremy, DaveB, Brian, Steve, Eric, Art The dicussion focused on whether the RDF/XML Syntax doc - editor's version is at: [1] http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/ should define the syntax to triple transfomration in "Structured English" [as is currently done in [1]] or to use the method Jeremy has described in: [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0326.html DECISION: That we will use structured English [in the Syntax document] to describe the transformation from the grammar to n-triples. The rule based formalism [done by Jeremy] will be used to verify that the structured English is correct. IRC log: Session Start: Fri Oct 26 08:32:11 2001 [08:32] *** Now talking in #rdfcore [08:32] *** Topic is 'RDF Core WG Meetings 13:00 - 15:00 UTC Friday[08:32] *** Set by dajobe on Fri Oct 26 08:39:54 [08:40] *** jjc has joined #rdfcore [08:40] <jjc> hi art [08:44] *** dajobe has joined #rdfcore [08:45] <ArtB> 'morning gents [08:45] <jjc> morning [08:45] <ArtB> Dave - I'm just starting to look at syntax ver 1.95. Is that the primary topic for this meeting? [08:45] <dajobe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0504.html [08:46] *** spetschu has joined #rdfcore [08:46] <spetschu> hi folks -- is anyone on the syntax call? [08:46] * ArtB is not (yet) [08:46] * dajobe dialed [08:46] <jjc> just joined [08:47] <dajobe> yes, above is one of the things [08:47] <jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/att-0408/01-tp-jjc-no-xslt.html [08:47] *** danb-lap has joined #rdfcore [08:49] <dajobe> artb dialling? [08:50] <ArtB> +ArtB [08:51] <spetschu> +SteveP [08:51] <dajobe> bwm can't scribe just yet - rebooting [08:52] <spetschu> Item 1 - Jeremy describe his doc, group discuss [08:52] <ArtB> jjc: the snail work will tell where triples come from, not just give the triples [08:52] <dajobe> Jeremy is trying to provide a formal description of where triples come from [08:53] <dajobe> art: I'd be happy if you'd scribe [08:53] <ArtB> ok [08:54] * ArtB is having trouble hearing jjc - his speech is broken ... [08:55] <ArtB> dave: I'm concerned it doesnt meet our target audience (it = the snail doc) [08:55] <ArtB> steve: is a goal to have consistency b/w the 2 docs? [08:56] <ArtB> jjc: we need to describe where the tripels come from [08:56] <ArtB> jjc: choices: 1. English text (ala M&S); 2 a sep set of rulles [08:56] <ArtB> ... rules describe what triples are generated [08:57] <ArtB> daveb: the separation may be too difficult for people to deal with [08:57] <ArtB> daveb: I don't wat to see the separation [08:58] <ArtB> daveb: XPath can be used as a template for keeping things precise [08:58] <ArtB> artb: I haven't looked at jjc's document [08:59] <ArtB> steve: I scanned jjc's doc; read dave's [09:00] <ArtB> Brian: we need to decide on an approch but more WG memebers need to read JJC's doc [09:01] * ArtB can't hear whoever is speaking [09:02] *** em has joined #rdfcore [09:02] <ArtB> Brian: I think the doc isn't too big [09:02] <ArtB> Brian: the intro text is a little off-putting [09:02] <ArtB> ... but that can be fixed [09:03] <ArtB> ... I find it hard to know if we can describe alal of the cases in English [09:04] <ArtB> ... seems like it would be easier to get all of the case by describing a transformation [09:04] <ArtB> Steve: the audience? [09:04] <ArtB> dave: we decided its parser writers [09:05] <ArtB> Steve: want to hear about Dave's doc so we can make a better decision [09:05] <ArtB> BM: yep, sounds good [09:06] <spetschu> http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Updated-Grammar-changes [09:06] <spetschu> http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/ [09:06] <jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/att-0393/01-index.html [09:07] <ArtB> Dave: shows a good link from XML and go into model used in XPath [09:08] <ArtB> Dave: approach - for each production, would write a description of the triples that would be generrated [09:08] <ArtB> ... I wrote down some of the triples that would be generated [09:08] <ArtB> ... gets around some of the bnode naming problems [09:09] <ArtB> ... the doc has changed some [09:09] <ArtB> ... the goal was for the 2nd WD to have the grammar specified and to start the mapping [09:10] <ArtB> ... the 3rd WD would finish the mapaping [09:10] <ArtB> ... the 4th would be cleanup [09:10] <ArtB> Steve: reader must understan XPath, Infoset, RDF, XML, ... [09:11] <ArtB> Dave: don't need to understand XPath but do need to know SAX [09:11] <ArtB> JJC: reader must know the XPath node set [09:13] <ArtB> ArtB: it would be good to explicitly state what background docs the reader must understand to grok the syntax doc [09:13] <ArtB> BM: does anyone want to urge the editor to change his preference [09:14] <ArtB> scribe: no objections [09:14] <ArtB> EM: spit the question - have they read enough to make a deciosoon; if yes, what do you recommend [09:15] <ArtB> Steve: who has readd enough of both docs to make a decision? [09:16] <ArtB> Steve: I can make a high-level decision [09:16] <ArtB> EM: I haven't read enough to make a recommendation [09:16] <ArtB> ... I echo the point about how muchwe agree on what triples should be emmitted [09:20] <ArtB> BM: I don't want to see us delay any longer [09:20] <ArtB> ... we have to proceed [09:21] *** bwm has joined #rdfcore [09:21] <ArtB> JJC: I think we shoujld have 1 or the other, not both [09:22] <ArtB> EM: yes, but we need to make things as comprehensive as possible [09:22] <ArtB> ... Could JJC's stuff feed DB's document? [09:23] <ArtB> ... that is, JJC continues his work and make sure DB's document covers all of the cases [09:23] <bwm> PROPOSE: That we will use structured English to describe the transformation from the grammar to n-triples. The rule based formalism will be used to verify that the structured english is correct. [09:24] <ArtB> DB: I would be happy with that [09:24] <ArtB> +1 from ArtB [09:25] <ArtB> JCC: I would be somewhat disappointed on an emotional level [09:25] <ArtB> ... the lack of response so far reflects that perhas thw WG doesn't think my work was as important that it should be [09:27] * ArtB wonders if it would be useful to get feedback from "real" parser writers (e.g. Meggison, CARA, Jason Diamond, etc) [09:27] * em agrees with ArtB with this [09:28] * em will also note however that we have in part a RELAX schema based on the first draft approach [09:29] * em raises his hand [09:32] <ArtB> EM: if someone was starting from scratch, I wonder which approach would be more useful [09:33] <ArtB> Steve: does everyone agree with BM's PROPOSE above? [09:33] * em agrees with bwm's proposal [09:33] <ArtB> DB: OK with me [09:33] <ArtB> EM: OK [09:33] <ArtB> AB: OK [09:33] <ArtB> JJC: Abstain [09:34] <ArtB> Steve: any objections? [09:34] <ArtB> scribe: no objections raised [09:34] <spetschu> closed! [09:40] *** ChanServ sets mode: +o dajobe [09:41] *** Disconnected Session Close: Fri Oct 26 09:41:10 2001
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 10:17:44 UTC