Minutes: 2002-09-20

Not our most successful meeting ...


SUMMARY
=======

DECISION (by 6 votes to 5) An rdf:descripton element containing a property
element of <age>10</age> is untidy.
[Scribe note, aside:
However, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0237.html
"I believe we have to try again to find a consensus.  "]

ACTION 2002-09-20#1 jjc Produce test case domain and range.
ACTION 2002-09-20#2 gk Post references to his previous actions on
"assertion"
REQUEST: jan (from danc) please do datatype test case (literal to bnode)

------------

AGENDA
=======
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0182.html

TRANSCRIPT
==========
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-09-20.txt


1: Scribes
Jeremy this week; Graham next week (hopefully).


2: Roll Call

Present:

FrankM,  Steve, PatrickS, PatH, Graham, AaronSw, Mike_Dean, Jeremy.
Bwm, DaveB, JanG, DanBri, DanC, Sergey

Regrets:
Jos, EricM

3: Review Agenda

No change.

4: Next telecon 27th Sept 2002


5: Minutes of 2002-09-13 telecon

See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0178.html

Approved.

6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ACTION: 2002-09-13#7 bwm
contact DaveB and request update n-triples depends on completion of
2002-09-06#4) to reflect datatype concensus

see:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0125.html

ACTION: 2002-09-13#9 bwm
request space at the tech plenary for RDF meeting

===

Both confirmed.
Note: action 2002-09-13#7 is now 2002-09-13#7a and assigned to DaveB.


7: Review of namespaces last call
2002-09-13#1  jjc  will send comments re namespace last call to appropriate
                   group
2002-09-06#1  bwm  get feedback to namespaces WG


See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0058.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0068.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0091.html

==
The action is complete:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-editor/2002Sep/0011.html

DanC raised the issue of a namespace as a collection of names.
It was determined that RDF makes no use of this concept, and so whether it
is a good concept or not is moot.



8: Semantics of untyped Literals
The WG should choose between value based and string based semantics


See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0157.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0161.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0160.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0164.html


===

More tedious discussion, repeating the tedious discussion that we have had
for nearly a year now.
As usual many strong opinions, a few waverers and a complete split down the
middle at each straw poll.
DanBri said a few things I hadn't heard before: perhaps seeing M&S as tidy
(see
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/fig9.gif ) and Schema as
untidy, but Schema never got to Rec.

If you weren't there you didn't miss much really.

After two completely split straw polls (U5-T4 and U7-T5) we then had a
formal vote.

Question: where you have an rdf:descipriton element containing a property
element of <age>10</age> is that tidy or untidy?

The vote was:

Tidy:
ILRT (Jan, DaveB), W3C (Dan & Dan), Steve, PatH, Aaron

Untidy:
Frank, PatrickS, Jeremy, Graham, Mike, Sergey.


i.e.
DECISION (by 6 votes to 5) An rdf:descripton element containing a property
element of <age>10</age> is untidy.
[Scribe note, aside:
However, see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0237.html
"I believe we have to try again to find a consensus.  "]

DanC and DanBri for W3C recorded outstanding dissent.



9: Abstract Syntax for Literals

2002-09-06#4 jjc review material thus far on specifics of
rdfs:Datatype, rdfs:Literal and the abstract syntax of literals and
produce a proposal for wording in the Abs. Syntax document.

2002-09-13#8 jjc update the abstract data model in concepts doc to
reflect the pair denoting a datatype literal

Where are we on this.  Do all literals have an xml lang component? Are
untyped literals specifically named?



See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0123.html
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0127.html

===

Lively discussion.
Pat and Patrick speak in favour of lang tag on typed literals.
Jeremy to get a move on with action.


10: Proposed technical changes to RDFS model theory


See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0169.html

ACTION 2002-09-20#1 jjc Produce test case domain and range.

11: Frank's new assertion text
2002-08-23#7  FrankM  Propose alternative text for the concepts and abstract
                 model document to rectify concerns with conflicting use of
                 "assertion".


See:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0226.html

http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-08-05/Overview.htm#section-Soc
ial

ACTION 2002-09-20#2 gk Post references to his previous actions on
"assertion"

Meeting closes.


After hours:

REQUEST: jan (from danc) please do datatype test case (literal to bnode)

Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 13:05:33 UTC