Re: Agenda/Logistics - Telecon May 15, 2003

This msg includes a possible subagenda for the test discussion, and a  bit of 
feedback about XMLLiteral etc.

> 2.0 Last Call of Test Document
> Main agenda item will be moving Test to Last Call.  Please read
> Jeremy's email from [1]  and the accompanying thread(s).

Suggested discussion:

2.1 Remove complete DL consistency checker conformance clause?
See DanC
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0203.html

2.2 Datatypes and consistency checkers:
Is the following text correct:
[[
If the input document uses datatypes (other than in triples with predicate 
owl:cardinality, owl:minCardinality and owl:maxCardinality) that are not 
supported by the datatype theory of the consistency checker, and the 
consistency of the document depends on the internals of the unsupported 
datatypes then an OWL consistency checker MUST return Unknown. 
]]
See 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0190.html
or
for more detail
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0189.html

2.3 s/complete/decisive/ or not
See 
Pat's suggestion:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0166.html

Ian's response:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0225.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0243.html
(counter proposal s/complete/complete and terminating/)

Jeremy
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0246.html

2.4 Review of changes as a result of WG review
See change log:
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/changes
(not all comments were accepted, these are listed)

The version proposed for last call is 
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/draft/
(without the change log file)

> 3.0 Status of XMLLiteral issue
> I do not think we answered Brian's question whether the RDFCore 
> response to the XMLLiteral comment was satisfactory. See:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Apr/0031.html

> Jeremy asked us to wait until RDFCore decided on pfps08, which is 
> apparently a related comment by Peter.

I am sorry with another hat I am meant to have informed Jim that there is a 
further RDF Core decision concerning ltierals.
Specifically literals are not permitted to have both a language tag and a 
type. Thus XMLLiterals cannot have a language. Moreover all the rdf-wrapper 
stuff will be dropped (since it is now superfluous and merely confusing).

This makes rdf:XMLLiteral a regular datatype, and I believe that the status of 
pfps-08 will change as a result ...

I hope this makes the rdf:XMLLiteral decision more acceptable to the group.
If one wishes to use the rdf:parseType="Literal" construction with an xml:lang 
attribute then it is necessary to include the xml:lang within the embedded 
XML (e.g. on an xhtml:span element).

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 08:58:02 UTC