Re: RDF Core telecon 2002-01-11 draft minutes

• From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:00:08 +0000
• To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020114135008.02b18ca8@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>

Jan, I've added the actual resolutions on a couple of the issues into the 
minutes, for precision and completenes.
At 11:58 14/01/2002 +0000, Jan Grant wrote:
>RDFCore WG minutes for the telecon 2002-01-11
>
>Transcript:
>         https://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-01-11
>Agenda:
>         https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0048.html
[...]
>Item 12: Issue: #rdfms-qname-uri-mapping
>    Proposed: to close the issue, not making any change.
>    APPROVED. (no objections / no abstentions)
As I recall the resolution approved was the one in the
agenda viz:
The WG resolves to not change the algorithm for mapping qnames to uris and 
close this issue on the grounds:
   1. Such a change would be a major change to the mapping of
RDF/XML syntax to the model and would be beyond our charter.
   2. It would cause the same RDF/XML to generate a different
graph from existing versus revised implementations
   3. Existing code may generate wrong (illegal) graphs for some RDF/XML.
>Item 13: Issue: #rdfms-reification-required
>    Resolved: a parser is not required to create bags of reified
>         statements for all rdf:Description elements, only those which are
>         explicitly reified using an rdf:ID on a propertyElt or by an
>         RDF:bagID on the rdf:Description.
>    RESOLVED. (no objections / Jos, Frank M abstain)
>Item 14: Issue:  #rdfms-replace-value
>    All proposers preferred Brian's syntesis proposal, namely:
>    - don't rename rdf:value at this time
>    - recast this issue as a need to clarify the semantics of rdf:value
>    (and the following two actions)
>    APPROVED. (no objections / no abstentions)
The resolution that was approved is:
The WG:
o resolves to not change the name of this property at this time on
the grounds:
- insufficient reasons to make this change
- will cause existing uses to be illegal - such as examples in m&s
o resolves to recast this issue as a need to clarify the semantics
of rdf:value.
Brian

Received on Monday, 14 January 2002 09:01:22 UTC