- From: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:46:56 GMT
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Time: 10:00:00 Fri Feb 15 2002 in America/New York which is equivalent to 15:00:00 Fri Feb 15 2002 in Europe/London Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332 irc: irc.openprojects.net #rdfcore 1: Allocate scribe 2: Roll Call 3: Review Agenda 4: Next telecon - 10am Boston time, 22 Feb 2002 5: Review Minutes of 2002-02-01 telecon with correction See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0263.html 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions ACTION: 2001-11-16#7 Pat following email discussion of rdfms-boolean-valued-properties, prepare new statement of this resolution to bring back for approval. see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0365.html ACTION: 2002-02-08#1 bwm Update RDFcore home page to point to new see: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/ ACTION: 2002-02-08#5 Jeremy post URI of description of property attributes and bagId indeterminacy problem to list. see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0013.html ACTION: 2002-02-08#6 FrankM lead the reification discussion based with goal of addressing the provenance use-case (to the extent that this can be done without adding new features) see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0359.html 7: face to face meeting See: http://cgi.w3.org/Register/selectUser.pl?_w3c_meetingName=techplenary2002 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f 8: Model Theory WD ACTION: 2002-02-08#2 Eric Arrange publication of model WD 9: Status of Test Cases WD ACTION: 2001-11-30#3 Jan Grant Get access to test case areas of W3C site ACTION: 2002-01-11#2 JanG post summary of Test Cases WD outstanding updates to list. ACTION: 2002-01-11#1 bwm persue CVS access for Jan with EM 10: WG Status 11: Preparing for the f2f rdfms-seq-representation: The ordinal property representation of containers does not support recursive processing of containers in languages such as Prolog. Need a volunteer to prepare a proposal. rdfms-assertion: RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion. The director has an architectural requirement that we say something about this.We need someone to draft some appropriate words. We have two volunteers, Graham and PatH. Yes? Schema Issues: DAnbri? 12: Issue rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr Clarify the interpretation of an ID attribute in the propertyElt production within a Description element with a distributive referrant. Propose: o the WG resolves that this issue be closed on the grounds that with the removal of rdf:aboutEachPrefix and rdf:aboutEach there are no distributive referrants and the issue is mute. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr 13: Issue rdf-terminologicus The RDF community needs a precise terminology to enable it to discuss issues.(Martyn Horner) Propose: o the WG resolves that this issue is addressed by the glossary in the primer and that this issue be closed. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-terminologicus 14: Issue rdfms-graph Formal description of the properties of an RDF graph. Propose: o the WG resolve that the model theory is a formal description of the properties of an RDF graph and that this issue be closed. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-graph 15: Issue rdf-formal-semantics The RDF Model and Syntax Rec and RDF Schema CR do not provide a formal specification of the semantics of RDF. Propose: o the WG resolves that the model theory defines formal semantics for RDF and that this issue be closed. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-formal-semantics 16: Issue rdfms-fragments Propose: o The WG resolves that the meaning of absolute URI's with fragment ID's is a matter of web architecture and beyond the scope of this WG and that this issue be closed. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments 17: Issue rdfms-literals-as-resources Consider replacing literals with resources whose URI uses the data: URI scheme. Propose: o the WG resolve that the proposed change would be a major change to the RDF specification and is out of scope for this WG. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literals-as-resources 18: Issue rdfms-literalsubjects Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to be literals? Propose: o the WG resolves that the current syntaxes (RDF/XML, n-triples, graph syntax) do not allow literals as subjects. o the WG notes that it is aware of no reason why literals should not be resources and a future WG with a less restrictive charter may extend the syntaxes to allow literals as the subjects of statements. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects 19: Issue rdf-containers-otherapproaches The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various awkward features. Might these be augmented with a 'better' design? Propose: o the WG resolves this issue is out of scope for this WG but places the issue on the list of to be considered by a future WG. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches 20: Issue rdfms-uri-substructure xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..? Clarification needed Propose: o the WG resolves to close this issue on the grounds that changing how resources are named on the web is a web architecture issue and beyond the scope of our charter. o Whereas: (a) the RDF 1.0 spec says that property and class names are computed from element and attribute names by concatenating their namespace names with their local names (b) it's useuful to be able to process RDF with XPath and XSLT, where even though concat(namespace-name(qname1), local-name(qname1)) is the same as concat(namespace-name(qname2), local-name(qname2)) the qnames themselves may not compare equal in XPath expressions. (c) lots of implementors have looked for advice on how to serialize RDF, and, in particular, how to compute a namespace name and localname from the name of a property or a class. the WG advises RDF schema/namespace/vocabulary designers (d) choose namespace names that end in non-xml-name-characters such as / # ? and we advise implementors of RDF serializers: (e) in order to break a URI into a namespacename and a local name, split it at the last XML name character. If the URI ends in a non-name-character and no other information is available to indicate where to split the URI, throw a "this graph cannot be serialized in RDF 1.0" exception. Propose action the Syntax WD editor to add to Syntax WD. Propose action Test Cases Editor to add test cases bsed on those suggested by Dan in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0318.html See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literals-as-resources http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0318.html 21: Issue rdfms-boolean-valued-properties No standard vocabulary is defined for representing boolean valued properties. The author of this suggestion proposes the introduction of two new properties, rdf:is and rdf:isNot. To represent the fact that someone likes chocolate, their resource could have the property rdf:is with a value of foo:ChocolateLover. We have two candidate resolutions: o. The WG notes that since a boolean-valued property can be identified with a class, rdf:type can be used to represent boolean valued properties. Thus: <foo> <chocolateLover> <true> . can be represented by <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateLover> . o. While this provides no way to express a negative (negated) boolean value, the addition of such an ability would extend RDF beyond its anticipated semantic basis, requiring unacceptably far-reaching changes. o. The WG resolves to close this issue on the grounds that the current facilities are adequate for all purposes that do not over-extend RDF. Alternatively: The WG notes that since a boolean-valued property can be identified with a class, rdf:type can be used to represent boolean valued properties. Thus: <foo> <chocolateLover> <true> . <foo> <rdf:chocolateHater> <true> . can be represented by <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateLover> . <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateHater> . The WG notes that RDF(S) defines no built in mechanism for expressing that ChocolateLover and ChocolateHater are disjoint classes. The WEBONT WG are defining mechanisms for such expressions. The WG resolves to close this issue. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-boolean-valued-properties http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0365.html 22: Model Theory for Containers Discuss PatH's proposal for the semantics of rdf:Bag. Possibly approve and action Pat to update model theory. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0072.html 23: Reification See Frank's subAgenda See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0359.html 24: Datatypes Review status and plan. ------------------------------------------------------------ This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 13:47:00 UTC