| CARVIEW |
W3C RDFCore Working Group
Previous:
2001-05-18 (archive)
Minutes 2001-05-25
Present: Brian McBride(Chair), Dan Brickley, Art Barstow, Dave Beckett, Dan Connolly(Scribe), Bill dehOra, Jan Grant, Frank Manola, Stephen Petschulat, Aaron Swartz, Mike Dean, Eric Miller,
Regrets: Ron Daniel Jos De Roo Graham Klyne
Absent: Frank Boumphrey Rael Dornfest Martyn Horner Renato Iannella Yoshiyuki Kitahara Michael Kopchenov Ora Lassila Satoshi Nakamura Pierre G. Richard R. V. Guha
@@haven't implemented "excused"
Agenda
Summary
@@link to transcript
00 Welcome, Roll Call, volunteer scribe, Agenda Review Minutes of previous meeting
minutes recorded by EricM approved as corrected in 0124, 0125 @@links. DanBri: intends to meet with Guha next week in IRC and to get a brain dump from him. McBride solicits folks with test cases to send them to him. McBride reminds all that ftf is scheduled for 1,2 Aug. agenda request: discussion of communicating resolutions to developer community.
- ACTION R. V. Guha: Solicit RDF feature usage info and report back to the group
- DONE Dave Beckett: Update the proposed changes for this issue[@@which?] and add test cases to demonstrate how they worked.
- ACTION Dan Brickley: send analysis (#rdf-container-syntax-ambiguity and #rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema)to rdfcore-wg list
- DONE Dave Beckett: re #rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr: Revise analysis and post to list
- ACTION R. V. Guha: re #rdfms-reification-required: Present analaysis to list for discussion.
- ACTION Brian McBride: Link test cases, results etc. from issues list
- ACTION Jan Grant: Do an analysis of the impact of XML Base and summarise to list.
- ACTION Brian McBride: Contact Rael about hosting face to face at O'Reilly.
- ACTION Graham Klyne: to summarize www-rdf-logic perspective of reification as it applies to both logic and rdf andreport back to rdfcore wg
- Withdrawn: dup of A9
- DONE Eric Miller: to provide a solution enabling write access to RDF M&S and Schema errata documents.
- DONE Art Barstow: to formalize his suggestion RDFCore changes be reflected in a separate page so developers can easily find these issues/resolutions.
@@disposition: done/postponed/withdrawn/...
15 re issues: #rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity #rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema
postponed. @@make this a class.
@@disposition: done/postponed/withdrawn/...
30 re issue: #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
Connolly: so the language doesn't contain these documents. Good. that's clear. Connolly: licensing processors to accept documents that aren't in the language is risky... the user community learns what the language is by what the tools do. [... scribe is discussing too much to do a good job recording; help? ] EricM: there's a requirement for syntactic inclusion in HTML. BillD: I think we need to fix productions 4, 5, and 9 DaveB: I listed a bunch of productions in item2 of the proposal... BillD: let's make it clear that folks MUST NOT use unprefixed resource/about/.. attrs. em notes that he may have overstated earlier requirements as there is no specified requirement of syntactic inclusion in M&S Specification. item 7 is withdrawn; change is incorporated into item 2. ArtB: so you're changing production 6.19 so that the prefix is not optional? DaveB: yes. ArtB: do folks realize there might be a lot of RDF out there in this form? several: yes. BillD: this looks like an erratum then; the grammar had a typo. EricM: let's note this in both places: the errata and the developers page. BrianM: DaveB's proposal should be couched in terms of 'namespace qualified' rather than 'namespace prefixed'. scribe note: "prefixed" doesn't occur in the RDF 1.0 spec. DaveB: I have 7 tests.
- RESOLVED: The current RDF/XML syntax uses the following attributes in the syntax: about aboutEach aboutEachPrefix ID bagID resource parseType -- List of RDF attributes (henceforth The List) The remaining concepts are not in the list because: a. Seq Bag Alt Property Statement These are rdfs:Class-es and can never be used as attributes b. RDF Description Syntax only things that have no current use as attributes c. li _<n> subject predicate object type value Not allowed to be used unprefixed according to the grammar Note Re: aboutEach aboutEachPrefix At present it is expected these will be removed from the specification although the WG has not addressed this yet. See thread at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0123.html [@@@hmm... formatting/structure of decisions]
- RESOLVED: 2. The grammar will be corrected to require namespace-qualification for all attributes for The List. A namespace prefix MUST be used for these attributes, where the namespace prefix points to the RDF URI https://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# The meaning of the attributes is defined by the appropriate RDF M&S sections and is not modified here. The changes to the grammar at https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#grammar include modifying productions 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.11, 6.18, 6.32, 6.33 to have rdf: added before all the attributes. There are almost certainly other changes to the grammar, as well as changes throughout the rest of the document such as examples and in-text mentions.
- RESOLVED: to remove 3, 4, 5 from the proposal of Thu, 24 May 2001 14:47:07 +0100; i.e. not to license RDF processors to accept documents that contain unprefixed attributes
- RESOLVED: 6. The grammar will be corrected to allow non-prefixed [correction: _not_ non-qualified] RDF elements (NOT attributes) when a default XML namespace is defined with an xmlns="..." attribute. Discussion: For example <Description xmlns="https://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> ... </Description> is currently forbidden by production 6.3; it requires rdf:Description
- ACTION Brian McBride: edit the errata per the resolutions above; i.e. those regarding #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
- ACTION Dave Beckett: assemble test cases re #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion and suggest details of how the grammar in the spec should be updated.
@@disposition: done/postponed/withdrawn/...
Format for expected results of test cases
jang: we have an evolving convention for test case input; I have a suggestion for "expected results" format. that I intend to send.
@@disposition: done/postponed/withdrawn/...
@@who, scribe for @@who, chair; not yet reviewed by the participants
formatting with $Id: rdfc25May.html,v 1.2 2001/05/30 23:12:03 connolly Exp $; see RDF meeting records