Skip to topic | Skip to bottom
Home

RDFTM
RDFTM.ConCall20041214r1.3 - 14 Dec 2004 - 18:15 - StevePeppertopic end

Start of topic | Skip to actions

Minutes of 2004-12-14 meeting

Decisions:

  • The Survey should use just two small test cases for assessing "readability". These should not aim for completeness: Their purpose is simply to provide an indication of the "readability".
  • The TestCases document should contain a number of tiny test cases, each of which can test a different aspect of the two models. These test cases should be complete.
  • Chapter 5 should not aim for complete consistency in the description of the five proposals. It is more important to summarize the proposals accurately in their own terms.
  • Chapter 6 is the place where we define and use our own terminology, compare the proposals, and evaluate their pros and cons.
  • Chapter 6 should not preempt the Guidelines by making specific suggestions, but may provide a vague indication of what we believe to be a correct approach on certain issues.
  • The key criterion by which proposals will be judged is likely to be "readability". All the other criteria are simply reflections of the state of completeness of the proposal. Full support for bi-directionality, reversability, completeness, and correctness could probably all be achieved for any of the proposals if more work were done on them.

Action points:

  • NG: Check official RDF test cases for suitability for use as a basis for the RDF TestCases. The test cases should cover every conceivable construct that might be encountered in an RDF document. (NOTE: This does not include syntactic constructs.)
  • VP: Add test cases for Meta; use RDF Converter at http://www.mindswap.org/2002/rdfconvert/
  • SP: Contact Stanford, Moore, and Ogievetsky again for input.
  • FV/VP/NG: Study TMDM at http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/
  • FV/NG: Look into chapters 1 and 2 together.
  • ALL: Add thoughts about the naming of "readability" (see discussion below).

We are struggling to define what we mean by "readability" and came up with the following alternative terms:

  • Naturalness?
  • Correct modelling?
  • Faithfulness?
  • Integrity?
  • Fidelity!
  • (some other term)

We are still not happy with this. Readability is just an aspect or indicator of the "quality" that we are trying to find a name for. NOTE: Steve is leaning towards "fidelity", but we will have to define clearly how the term is being used, and we must make sure we distinguish it from "completeness" and "correctness". There is an action point for everyone to think more about this in order to come to a conclusion during the next meeting.

Timelines:

  • 2004-12-14..2004.12-20 (approx.) Action items to be completed.
  • 2004-12-20 (approx.) Brief telecon to discuss status
  • 2005-01-03 (approx.) Announce availability of draft documents (DraftSurvey and TestCases) to Task Force for review.
  • 2005-01-20 (approx.) TELECON @ ??:??

-- StevePepper - 10 Dec 2004
to top


RDFTM.ConCall20041214 moved from RDFTM.ConCall20041210 on 14 Dec 2004 - 13:39 by StevePepper - put it back
You are here: RDFTM > MinutesOfConferenceCalls > ConCall20041214

to top

Copyright © 1999-2017 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Fabio's Wiki? Send feedback