W3C RDFCore Working Group
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,
Jos De Roo
Pierre G. Richard
R. V. Guha
@@haven't implemented "excused"
@@link to transcript
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.
R. V. Guha: Solicit RDF feature usage info and report back to the group
Dave Beckett: Update the proposed changes for this issue[@@which?] and add test cases to demonstrate how they worked.
Dan Brickley: send analysis (#rdf-container-syntax-ambiguity and
#rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema)to rdfcore-wg list
Dave Beckett: re #rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr: Revise analysis and post to list
R. V. Guha: re #rdfms-reification-required: Present analaysis to list for discussion.
Brian McBride: Link test cases, results etc. from issues list
Jan Grant: Do an analysis of the impact of XML Base and summarise to list.
Brian McBride: Contact Rael about hosting face to face at O'Reilly.
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Withdrawn: dup of A9
Eric Miller: to provide a solution enabling write access to RDF M&S and Schema errata documents.
Art Barstow: to formalize his suggestion RDFCore changes be reflected in
a separate page so developers can easily find these
postponed. @@make this a class.
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item 7 is withdrawn; change is incorporated into item 2.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?
ArtB: do folks realize there might be a lot of RDF out there in this form?
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
scribe note: "prefixed" doesn't occur in the RDF 1.0 spec.
DaveB: I have 7 tests.
The current RDF/XML syntax uses the following attributes in the syntax:
about aboutEach aboutEachPrefix
-- 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0123.html
[@@@hmm... formatting/structure of decisions]
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 http://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
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
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
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
is currently forbidden by production 6.3; it requires rdf:Description
Brian McBride: edit the errata per the resolutions above; i.e. those regarding #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
Dave Beckett: assemble test cases re #rdf-ns-prefix-confusion and suggest details of how the grammar in the spec should be updated.
jang: we have an evolving convention for test case input; I have a suggestion for "expected results" format. that I intend to send.
@@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