Re: WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-05-31

> 11: daml:collection
> Propose
>    o Approve Jos's test case as the basis for resolving this issue
>    o add the new names to the rdf namespace
>    o use parseType="Collection"
>    o typed nodes are permitted as collection members
>    o Action dajobe to add update the syntax spec based
>      on Jos's test case
>    o Action Jan to amend Jos's test case to show a typed node member
>      and add it to the test cases with status approved
>    o close this issue
> See:
> General agreement in principle, discussion of details:
> (1) agreed to create a daml:collection like structure in RDF
> (2) use rdf: namespace rather than rdfs:?
>      Or use a new container namespace for the generated terms?
> -- AGREED: go ahead with RDF namespace, but note reservations.
>     Be prepared to change if good reasons arise.
>     (The second most popular idea was to use a new namespace.)
> (3) Change spelling to rdf:parseType='Collection'  (note capitalization)
> (4) Do we want to keep the rdf:type xxx:List triples?
> -- YES
> (5) instead of rdf:type properties, use rdf:member properties linked to
> containers?
> -- NO
> ACTION 2002-05-31#2, DaveB: Update syntax spec with above decisions
> ACTION 2002-05-31#3, JanG: Update test case document with this, and other,
> test cases
> DECIDED: the test case is approved

Noting that the test case was not in the repository, and finally getting round 
to adding this to ARP, and using an extreme programming style of starting 
with the tests, I applied the edits above to the test case above and created:

The server seems to be down, so I can't check the permissions right now.

Hope this is helpful.


Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 15:32:01 UTC