Skip to topic | Skip to bottom
Home

RDFTM
RDFTM.ConCall20060221r1.4 - 21 Feb 2006 - 10:35 - StevePeppertopic end

Start of topic | Skip to actions

Agenda and Minutes of 2006-02-21 meeting

TIME: 11:30 UTC+01.00 (Western European time)

DOCUMENTS:

AGENDA:

1. Review action points from 2006-01-27:

  • LMG: Provide email comments on VP's Draft of the formalization
  • SP: edit complete document
  • VP: write prose description of alternative solution to Identity issue
  • SP: collect vocabulary for n-ary associations (including talking to Chris Welty) and also look at how it can be applied to unary associations
  • VP/SP: start general discussion on unary associations
  • VP: send email of reification example that causes problems
  • SP: check with Ralph on status of Survey as WG Note

2. Discuss issues raised in the draft:

  • (Status) Note or Recommendation?
  • (1.2) Do we need to state that it is a goal "to provide the mapping between the RDF and Topic Maps models"?
  • (3.4) Is the description of rdfs:label in OWL correct?
  • (3.4) Is there agreement on having built-in guidance for rdfs:label?
  • (3.4.1) Is it correct to introduce a new property rdftm:variant-scope?
  • (3.6.1) Is it OK not to support multiple signatures?
  • (3.6.1.1) Should it be possible to overrule the assumed equivalence between rdf:type and tm:type-instance?
  • (3.6.1.2) Should it be possible to overrule the assumed equivalence between rdfs:subClassOf and tm:supertype-subtype?
  • (3.7) How to handle datatypes other than string that are mapped to names?
  • (3.7) Is it true that RDF only allows xsd: datatypes, whereas TMs allow any type? If so, how do we handle the situation?
  • (3.8) How to support reification of n-ary associations?
  • (3.9.1) How do we know when a name or internal occurrence is scoped by a language?
  • (3.9.1) What is the mapping between a language tag and a language topic?
  • (3.10) In the absence of guidance for a property, do we assume occurrence? If so, should we simply drop the rdftm:OccurrenceProperty class?
  • (7.2) Do we want to support reification of roles and, if so, how?
  • (7.2) Do we want to support reification of topic maps and, if so, how?
  • (Re. PPS's comments) Are TM reification and RDF reification really equivalent, or is the latter about annotating the statement rather than the relationship that it represents?

3. Discuss issues raised by reviewers:

  • Bernard Vatant (Feb 10)
    • Thinks identity handling is deterministic. Change 3.3 and 7.1.
    • Suggests using owl:equivalentClass and owl:equivalentProperty in addition to owl:sameAs in order to avoid OWL-Full
  • Peter Patel-Schneider (Feb 11, Feb 13)
    • Doesn't like the term 'proxy': use 'symbol' instead?)
    • Disapproves of use of 'resource': use 'RDF node' instead? What then with 'property'? Better to tidy up usage of resource so that it doesn't cause obvious "offence"?
    • Dislikes talk of 'ambiguity' re. RDF identifiers
    • Thinks we should either support all of OWL or none of it
    • Points out that properties are resources (fair enough; fix wording)
    • Says that RDF reification is "*extremely* problematic" and doesn't mean what we think; this also affects scope
    • Was confused by role types
    • Points out that it is unnecessary to create a second (inverse) statement in OWL
    • Sceptical about use of scope to capture language tags ("appears to be non-monotonic")
    • Uses the term "IRI reference"
  • Elisa Kendall (Feb 16)
    • Recommends going for informative rather than normative mappings
    • Takes issue with focus on guided translations, fearing limited utility because mappings will be project-dependent
    • Recommendation to use annotation properties in #4 in order to avoid OWL Full (?)
    • Comment regarding typed statements in TMs (#5)
    • Comment on container construct in OWL

ATTENDEES:

  • NN

ACTION POINTS:

  • NN: ...

OTHER DECISIONS:

  • ...

TIMELINES:

  • ...

NEXT MEETING:

  • ...

-- StevePepper - 16 Feb 2006
to top


You are here: RDFTM > MinutesOfConferenceCalls > ConCall20060221

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