Nabble - w3.org - rdf

Re: Meeting minutes, 2009-11-05

2009-11-09T00:56:12Z

Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 19:42 +0100, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> ... There is MediaRSS - which is RDFa being used in a non-XHTML
>> dialect.
>
> DataRSS, surely? DataRSS is RDFa in Atom.
>

I am sorry. Yes, I meant DataRSS. Thanks for catching this:-)

> Regarding an RSS 1.1 Core specification, it looks to me like there are
> currently three "branches" of RDFa syntax:
>
> 1. XHTML+RDFa - the original, and a W3C Rec. DataRSS uses the same
> branch of RDFa - it's essentially just got different tag names.
>
> 2. HTML+RDFa - small refinements on XHTML+RDFa necessary to get it to
> work on an HTML DOM.
>
> 3. SVG 1.2 Tiny - this differs significantly from the other two in that
> it may also legitimately include RDF/XML chunks.
>

Just for the records, AFAIK the differences are:

- SVG 1.2 accepts the genuine xml verbs like xml:base and xml:lang (and
the latter should be added to RDFa in general)
- SVG 1.2 restricts itself to the genuine RDFa attributes and does not
have special reference to @href or @src

which would probably characterize the generic RDFa for XML in general. I
would not consider these two as significant.

There is, of course, another item that you refer to below: SVG always
had the <metadata> element, and it was defined in such a way that this
could include <rdf:RDF> portions, ie, RDF/XML things. The way SVG 1.2 is
defined is such that the generated default graph is a merge of the RDFa
processing output and such RDF/XML statements. Which is indeed, as you
say below, a feature we might want to think about in general for XML in
general...

> RDF 1.1 Core

You mean RDFa 1.1 and not RDF 1.1, right? :-)

> needs to unite not only the first two, but also the third
> branch - XML-based varieties of RDFa which can legitimately include
> RDF/XML chunks. (It should specify whether triples from all of them form
> a single graph or should/may be separated into separate graphs.

SVG 1.2 does not specify separate graphs

> It might
> even be useful if:
>
> <x property="foo:bar" datatype="rdfa:reified">
> <rdf:RDF>...</rdf:RDF>
> </x>
>
> resulted in something like the following N3:
>
> <> foo:bar { ... } .

Wow. That would open the floodgates vs. named graphs and reification...:-)

Ivan

>
> Just some things to think about...
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Meeting minutes, 2009-11-05

2009-11-08T11:04:18Z

On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 19:42 +0100, Ivan Herman wrote:
> ... There is MediaRSS - which is RDFa being used in a non-XHTML
> dialect.

DataRSS, surely? DataRSS is RDFa in Atom.

Regarding an RSS 1.1 Core specification, it looks to me like there are
currently three "branches" of RDFa syntax:

1. XHTML+RDFa - the original, and a W3C Rec. DataRSS uses the same
branch of RDFa - it's essentially just got different tag names.

2. HTML+RDFa - small refinements on XHTML+RDFa necessary to get it to
work on an HTML DOM.

3. SVG 1.2 Tiny - this differs significantly from the other two in that
it may also legitimately include RDF/XML chunks.

RDF 1.1 Core needs to unite not only the first two, but also the third
branch - XML-based varieties of RDFa which can legitimately include
RDF/XML chunks. (It should specify whether triples from all of them form
a single graph or should/may be separated into separate graphs. It might
even be useful if:

<x property="foo:bar" datatype="rdfa:reified">
<rdf:RDF>...</rdf:RDF>
</x>

resulted in something like the following N3:

<> foo:bar { ... } .

Just some things to think about...

--
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@...>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

TPAC09: IRC log of RDFa and Microdata in HTML5 session

2009-11-06T11:43:09Z

What follows is an IRC log of the RDFa and Microdata in HTML5 break-out
session that happened today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-->| YOU (manu) have joined #html-wg2
=-= Topic for #html-wg2 is “RDFa and Microdata next steps, in Salon B”
=-= Topic for #html-wg2 was set by MikeSmith on Fri Nov 6 11:53:20 2009
<timeless> ... The current HTML5+RDFa draft takes use of that provision
<timeless> ... so it's kind of a question of whether validator profiles
will take into account such specifications
<timeless> ... will they put them into
<timeless> tantek: does html5 define a validation model for extensions?
<timeless> Hixie: I don't understand what that means
<timeless> MJS: HTML5 defines the concrete syntax
<timeless> ... converting source into DOM
* manu unfortunately has an unrelated 2 hour meeting right now, but
will check this thread after I get back.
<timeless> ... and defining values for certain attributes
<timeless> ... other documents would have to define how their things
integrate
<timeless> tantek: extensions work at the DOM or tree model
<timeless> ... instead of the parsing model?
<timeless> MJS: correct
<timeless> plh: ...
<timeless> ... maybe it would be worth writing a document somewhere
<timeless> ... saying "these are the use cases for ..."
<timeless> Hixie: We actually have the use cases for microdata
<timeless> ... but I've never seen that for RDFa
<tantek> Zakim q?
<timeless> plh: Who is the community who sees them as unrelated
<tantek> Zakim, q?
<Zakim> I see plh on the speaker queue
<timeless> ... if we don't tell them "this is what you should use"
<tantek> ack plh
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<timeless> Hixie: we have an open bug on making the use of data-* more
clear
<timeless> plh: take those use cases and put them into one document
<timeless> Hixie: I think the spec does this rather well
<timeless> ... we have an introduction that explains how to use this
and (when?)
<timeless> ... In my view, we shouldn't split this out
<timeless> ... there is one thing which needs to be integrated in and
that'll help make it clearer
<timeless> plh: do we have a list of where all the extensions are?
<timeless> Hixie: this isn't really practical
<timeless> ... there are too many
<timeless> ... and i don't think people will come to the spec looking
for this
<timeless> tantek: I heard three requests from plh
<timeless> ... 1. use cases
<timeless> ... 2. a tutorial, of how to use the different pieces
<Hixie> plh,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0207.html has
the list of use cases used for developing microdata
<timeless> ... 3. some sort of documentation iterating all of the
extension mechanisms in htm5
<timeless> plh: ...
<timeless> ... I think we could put some of this in
<timeless> ... a wiki (perhaps)
<timeless> Hixie: do we have something like this in html4?
<timeless> plh: no, we don't
<Julian> canvas?
<timeless> Hixie: i don't think this has been a problem
<annevk> Julian, not an author extension
<timeless> tantek: when I looked at html4, i had a lot of trouble
figuring out what was extensible, and what wasn't
<timeless> ... I ended up writing this up in XMDP
<annevk> Julian, also a bad example, Apple is still regretting doing it
unilaterally
-->| rubys (rubys@...) has joined #html-wg2
<timeless> ... before that, there were very few extensions in html
<timeless> ... it was only after someone took the time to do that, that
people started doing that
<timeless> Hixie: I think it's healthy not to encourage this
<Julian> q+
* Zakim sees Julian on the speaker queue
<timeless> plh: If they're going to do it, they want to give them some
guidance
<plh> s/they want/we want/
<tantek> q+
* Zakim sees Julian, tantek on the speaker queue
<timeless> [ scribe pauses to roll back to elsewhere ]
<timeless> ack Julian
* Zakim sees tantek on the speaker queue
<tantek> ack julian
* Zakim sees tantek on the speaker queue
<timeless> Julian: I don't buy the argument that extensibility should
not be well documented to make it harder to use it
<timeless> ... people will do it
<timeless> Julian: see <canvas>
<timeless> Hixie: well <canvas> happened *way* later
* tantek notes that <canvas> didn't use any HTML4 extensibility mechanisms.
<timeless> ... and I told apple to go to the working group
<Kai> HTML 4 was not extended, because most people didn't really
understand it.
<timeless> ack tantek
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<timeless> tantek: I'm going to stay neutral on this
<timeless> ... it would have helped to have the document i ended up writing
<timeless> ... on the other hand, the process of doing the research
<tross> q+ to state that guidance helps avoid conflicts with future
HTML features
* Zakim sees tross on the speaker queue
<timeless> ... led me to a far deeper understanding, than had i just
read a tutorial
<timeless> tantek: I'm going to propose to wrap this up
<timeless> ... for people who want such tutorials
<timeless> ... you're welcome to write tutorials, or file change requests
<timeless> Hixie: ... or file bugs
<timeless> tantek: ... or just leave material on the side that search
engines can find
<timeless> ... I'm hearing no requests for a change request
<timeless> q?
* Zakim sees tross on the speaker queue
<tantek> ack tross
<Zakim> tross, you wanted to state that guidance helps avoid conflicts
with future HTML features
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<MikeSmith> scribe: MikeSmith
<tantek> tross: we have had trouble figuring out how to not step on
parts of HTML5 with extensions.
<MikeSmith> tross: ... while also enabling people to produce conformant
documents
-->| timeless_mbp (timeless@...) has joined #html-wg2
<MikeSmith> scribe: timeless_mbp
<timeless_mbp> RRSAgent: make minutes
<RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-html-wg2-minutes.html timeless_mbp
<timeless_mbp> scribenick: timeless_mbp
<timeless_mbp> [ proposal for coffee break ]
<timeless_mbp> tantek: I heard plh 's request about use cases
|<-- timeless has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Ping timeout)
<timeless_mbp> ... i'm also going to raise this up
-->| markbirbeck (markbirbec@...) has joined #html-wg2
<timeless_mbp> ... this has been a source of perma threads on the
mailing list
<timeless_mbp> ... i think it would be useful to put the use cases
somewhere else other than the email archives
<timeless_mbp> ... it would be useful to put them, e.g. in a wiki page
<timeless_mbp> ... just in the interest of reducing the amount of
duplicate traffic on the mailing list
<timeless_mbp> Hixie: I think the use cases are on a wiki page
<timeless_mbp> tantek: I heard that plh is willing to help
<Hixie> plh, http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Microdata_Problem_Descriptions
is the wiki page
<Hixie> plh, and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0207.html is the
e-mail
<timeless_mbp> Hixie: oh you wanted it for extensions, not just microdata
<annevk> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/New_Vocabularies
<timeless_mbp> annevk: We did have something like this
<myakura>
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-May/019681.html
that one?
<Hixie> plh,
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#HTML5_should_support_a_way_for_anyone_to_invent_new_elements.21
is the extension mechanism list
<timeless_mbp> tantek: I'm going to ask plh to review that page
<timeless_mbp> ... and otherwise, i think this issue is closed
<tantek> zakim, q?
<Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
<timeless_mbp> Hixie: plh if you look at all of the urls that were just
pasted
<timeless_mbp> ... they're all related/derivatives
<timeless_mbp> ... the wiki is probably out of date
<timeless_mbp> ... feel free to edit the what wg wiki to your heart's
content
<timeless_mbp> tantek: other topics?
<timeless_mbp> ... it was noted that these are both extensions
<timeless_mbp> ... mjs mentioned that html5 allows both attributes and
elements
<timeless_mbp> ... do both RDFa and microdata add just attributes?
<Julian> q+
* Zakim sees Julian on the speaker queue
<timeless_mbp> Hixie: that's an incomplete explanation
<timeless_mbp> ... RDFa also adds APIs
<timeless_mbp> ... one of these relies on something from drag and drop
<tantek> ack Julian
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<timeless_mbp> ack Julian
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<timeless_mbp> Julian: I think people are working on a javascript spec
for RDFa
<timeless_mbp> ... it's not in the spec, but people are working on a
proposal
<annevk> (RDFa adds near-infinite attributes)
<timeless_mbp> tantek: any other issues?
<Hixie> what i said above is that microdata has a DOM API, not RDFa
<timeless_mbp> ... are we only talking about moving RDFa into a
separate spec?
<timeless_mbp> Julian: it's a big time spot
<Julian> s/spot/slot/
<timeless_mbp> BryanSullivan: it would be good ...
<timeless_mbp> ... to have a comparison-tutorial for how these stack up
together
<timeless_mbp> ... without having to go into them in deep detail
<timeless_mbp> Hixie: it would be really helpful for someone who has
not established a public opinion
<timeless_mbp> ... to write this
<timeless_mbp> tantek: the source is often accused of bias based on who
the source is
<timeless_mbp> ... it's a tough problem to compare the three in a way
that is objective and seems objective
<timeless_mbp> plh: how stable are all three
<timeless_mbp> ... ?
<timeless_mbp> Hixie: microdata and RDFa
<timeless_mbp> ... microdata has issues open as to whether it should
exist or not
<timeless_mbp> ... RDFa has issues as to whether to use namespaces or not
<timeless_mbp> ... for microdata, stability depends on when/how we get
implementations
<timeless_mbp> ... without an implementation in the next six months,
then the spec is very fluid
<timeless_mbp> tantek: does anyone want to address stability for RDFa
<timeless_mbp> ... technically
<timeless_mbp> Julian: i think there are open questions about edge cases
<timeless_mbp> ... i don't anything in the generic syntax
<timeless_mbp> Hixie: there is an open bug about namespaces in RDFa
<timeless_mbp> plh: I don't want someone who might spend time to make a
tutorial to waste their time if there's significant potential change
<timeless_mbp> Hixie: ... in microdata, i think the desire is for
microdata to cease to exist (?)
<timeless_mbp> ... from my point of view, i don't think microdata needs
to exist
<timeless_mbp> ... RDFa has flaws
<timeless_mbp> ... especially namespaces/prefixes
<timeless_mbp> tantek: use cases can be found in the microformats wiki
<Julian> q+
* Zakim sees Julian on the speaker queue
<timeless_mbp> s/use cases/open issues/
<timeless_mbp> ack Julian
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<tantek> ack Julian
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<timeless_mbp> Julian: i want to mention that there's disagreement as
to whether the use of namespaces and prefixes is an actual bug
<Kai> q+
* Zakim sees Kai on the speaker queue
<timeless_mbp> tantek: is there an actual bug for this?
<timeless_mbp> Hixie: bug 7670
<Hixie> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7670
|<-- mjs has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Quit: mjs)
* timeless_mbp thanks Hixie
-->| mjs (mjs@...) has joined #html-wg2
<timeless_mbp> MJS: the process for resolving this issue
<timeless_mbp> ... will be the same as if this were a bug against the
main html5 spec
<timeless_mbp> ... the html5+RDFa editor will need to give an initial
editor's response
<timeless_mbp> ... and if someone cares to raise a complaint, it will
go to the issue tracker
|<-- mjs has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Quit: mjs)
<timeless_mbp> ... and once it's in the issue tracker, we'll solicit
change proposals
* timeless_mbp tries out things
<timeless_mbp> q?
* Zakim sees Kai on the speaker queue
<timeless_mbp> ack Kai
* Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
<tantek> zakim, q?
<Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
<timeless_mbp> Kai: (deutsche telecom)
<timeless_mbp> ... I want to make a plug for RDFa
<timeless_mbp> ... RDFa is sort of on the upswing
<timeless_mbp> ... I don't think one can really say at this point,
what's going to happen
<timeless_mbp> ... i bet there will be tons of use cases in
<timeless_mbp> ... where there will be lots of files
<timeless_mbp> ... using this stuff
<timeless_mbp> Hixie: microdata and RDFa are both serializations of RDF
-->| mjs (mjs@...) has joined #html-wg2
<timeless_mbp> ... they fulfill the same use cases
<timeless_mbp> ... in exactly the same places where you can have urls
in RDFa, you can have urls in microdata
<timeless_mbp> ... the exception is per field data types
<tantek> zakim, q?
<Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
|<-- mnot has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Ping timeout)
<timeless_mbp> ... and xml-wippls (?)
<timeless_mbp> Kai: i find it difficult for such a relatively small
group to foresee what will actually happen
<timeless_mbp> Hixie: just having one of either type will satisfy users
<markbirbeck> @Hixie: I don't like namespaces/prefixes either, but I
think they are here for a while to come. However, in the RDFa TF, I am
pushing for 'URIs-everywhere' -- i.e., authors don't need to use
namespaces if they don't want to. Would that address your issue with
RDFa? Or is it really 'all namespaces must go'?
<timeless_mbp> tantek: Kai: i'm going to ask you to review those urls
from irc
<timeless_mbp> ... and describe the
<timeless_mbp> Kai: I need approval before i could join
<timeless_mbp> Kai: I have a question, have you talked to Evan Herman?
<plh> s/Evan/Ivan/
<timeless_mbp> Julian: I think he's on the RDFa task force
<timeless_mbp> tantek: the specific request was for additional use cases
<timeless_mbp> Kai: i think we could ask Evan to look for additional
use cases
<timeless_mbp> s/Evan/Ivan/
<plh> s/Evan/Ivan/
<timeless_mbp> MikeSmith: was there a dispute as to whether microdata
didn't address all the use cases of RDFa
<tantek> Zakim, q?
<Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
<timeless_mbp> MikeSmith: I think we have massive amounts of use cases
<timeless_mbp> mjs: I think if anyone wants to talk to other
communities, they're welcome to
<timeless_mbp> ... I think chairs have a lot of work to do
<timeless_mbp> tantek: Kai, request: either you document use cases, or
you talk to Ivan and request that he document the use cases on a web page
<Hixie> markbirbeck: imho we should never introduce namespaces to text/html
<tantek> zakim, q?
<Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
<timeless_mbp> doug: are we expecting an equal amount of use cases from
microdata?
<timeless_mbp> tantek: we already have this for microdata
-->| glenng (48fe68fb@...) has joined #html-wg2
|<-- tross has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Quit: CGI:IRC)
|<-- mjs has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Quit: mjs)
<timeless_mbp> tantek: I want to Close this Session
|<-- adrianba has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Ping timeout)
|<-- Eliot_Graff has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Quit: For Sale: Parachute.
Only used once, never opened, small stain.)
=-= timeless_mbp is now known as timeless
|<-- weinig has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Quit: weinig)
* tantek noted queue is empty, MJS noted time is up, hence close session
|<-- Julian has left irc.w3.org:6665 (Ping timeout)
<timeless> scribenick: timeless
<hober> (this is several months out-of-date with respect to microdata
and rdfa-in-html changes, but) I put together some thoughts on how
microdata, microformats, rdf, and rdfa relate:
http://edward.oconnor.cx/2009/05/microdata-microformats-and-rdf
<timeless> ... as the queue is empty, and MJS noted time is up
<timeless> SESSION CLOSED

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

ECCM2010 Mini-Symposium on Image Processing and Visualization

2009-11-06T08:10:40Z

Subject: Symposium “Computational Methods in Image Analysis” within the USNCCM IX Congress – Announce & Call for Papers

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Apologies for cross-posting)

Mini-Symposium on Image Processing and Visualization

IV European Congress on Computational Mechanics (ECCM IV):

Solids, Structures and Coupled Problems in Engineering

Palais des Congrès in Paris, France, May 16-21, 2010

http://www.eccm2010.org

We would appreciate if you could distribute this information by your colleagues and co-workers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Colleague,

Within the IV European Congress on Computational Mechanics (ECCM IV): Solids, Structures and Coupled Problems in Engineering (http://www.eccm2010.org), to be held at Palais des Congrès in Paris, France, on 16-21 May 2010, we are organizing the Mini-Symposium on “Image Processing and Visualization” (#12).

Due to your research activities in the related fields, we would like to invite you to submit an invited abstract to our mini-symposium. Your contribution is mostly welcomed, and we would be honoured if you could accept this invitation.

TOPICS OF INTEREST (not restricted to):

- Image Analysis;

- Image Restoration, Compression, Segmentation and Description;

- Object Tracking, Matching, Recognition, and Reconstruction;

- Visual Inspection;

- 3D Vision;

- Medical Imaging;

- Scientific Visualization;

- Enhanced Visualization;

- Human Computer Interaction;

- Virtual Reality;

- Simulation and Animation;

- Data Processing, Modeling and Analysis;

- Numerical Methods, Partial Differential Equations, Level-sets, Meshless and Extended or Enriched Finite Element in Image Processing and Visualization;

- Multifields and Multiphysics Problems involving Image Processing and Visualization;

- Software Development for Image Processing and Visualization;

- Grid Computing in Image Processing and Visualization;

- Applications of Image Processing and Visualization.

IMPORTANT DATES:

Deadline for submissions of abstracts: November 20, 2009;

Notification of abstract acceptance: January 7, 2010.

ABSTRACT SUBMISSION:

Please go to the abstract submission page (https://www.eccm-2010.org/internet/proposition_abstract.php) and select the Mini-Symposium on “Image Processing and Visualization” (#12).

With kind regards,

João Manuel R. S. Tavares, University of Porto, Portugal, tavares@...

Renato Natal Jorge, University of Porto, Portugal, rnatal@...

Laurent Cohen, Universite Paris IX Dauphine, Paris, France, cohen@...

Gerald Schaefer, Aston University, UK, gerald.schaefer@...

(Organizers of the Mini-Symposium on “Image Processing and Visualization” (#12))

From forum: w3.org - www-rdf-rules

ECCM2010 Mini-Symposium on Image Processing and Visualization

2009-11-06T08:10:39Z

Subject: Symposium “Computational Methods in Image Analysis” within the USNCCM IX Congress – Announce & Call for Papers

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Apologies for cross-posting)

Mini-Symposium on Image Processing and Visualization

IV European Congress on Computational Mechanics (ECCM IV):

Solids, Structures and Coupled Problems in Engineering

Palais des Congrès in Paris, France, May 16-21, 2010

http://www.eccm2010.org

We would appreciate if you could distribute this information by your colleagues and co-workers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Colleague,

TOPICS OF INTEREST (not restricted to):

- Image Analysis;

- Image Restoration, Compression, Segmentation and Description;

- Object Tracking, Matching, Recognition, and Reconstruction;

- Visual Inspection;

- 3D Vision;

- Medical Imaging;

- Scientific Visualization;

- Enhanced Visualization;

- Human Computer Interaction;

- Virtual Reality;

- Simulation and Animation;

- Data Processing, Modeling and Analysis;

- Numerical Methods, Partial Differential Equations, Level-sets, Meshless and Extended or Enriched Finite Element in Image Processing and Visualization;

- Multifields and Multiphysics Problems involving Image Processing and Visualization;

- Software Development for Image Processing and Visualization;

- Grid Computing in Image Processing and Visualization;

- Applications of Image Processing and Visualization.

IMPORTANT DATES:

Deadline for submissions of abstracts: November 20, 2009;

Notification of abstract acceptance: January 7, 2010.

ABSTRACT SUBMISSION:

Please go to the abstract submission page (https://www.eccm-2010.org/internet/proposition_abstract.php) and select the Mini-Symposium on “Image Processing and Visualization” (#12).

With kind regards,

João Manuel R. S. Tavares, University of Porto, Portugal, tavares@...

Renato Natal Jorge, University of Porto, Portugal, rnatal@...

Laurent Cohen, Universite Paris IX Dauphine, Paris, France, cohen@...

Gerald Schaefer, Aston University, UK, gerald.schaefer@...

(Organizers of the Mini-Symposium on “Image Processing and Visualization” (#12))

From forum: w3.org - www-rdf-logic

ECCM2010 Mini-Symposium on Image Processing and Visualization

2009-11-06T08:10:39Z

Subject: Symposium “Computational Methods in Image Analysis” within the USNCCM IX Congress – Announce & Call for Papers

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Apologies for cross-posting)

Mini-Symposium on Image Processing and Visualization

IV European Congress on Computational Mechanics (ECCM IV):

Solids, Structures and Coupled Problems in Engineering

Palais des Congrès in Paris, France, May 16-21, 2010

http://www.eccm2010.org

We would appreciate if you could distribute this information by your colleagues and co-workers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Colleague,

TOPICS OF INTEREST (not restricted to):

- Image Analysis;

- Image Restoration, Compression, Segmentation and Description;

- Object Tracking, Matching, Recognition, and Reconstruction;

- Visual Inspection;

- 3D Vision;

- Medical Imaging;

- Scientific Visualization;

- Enhanced Visualization;

- Human Computer Interaction;

- Virtual Reality;

- Simulation and Animation;

- Data Processing, Modeling and Analysis;

- Numerical Methods, Partial Differential Equations, Level-sets, Meshless and Extended or Enriched Finite Element in Image Processing and Visualization;

- Multifields and Multiphysics Problems involving Image Processing and Visualization;

- Software Development for Image Processing and Visualization;

- Grid Computing in Image Processing and Visualization;

- Applications of Image Processing and Visualization.

IMPORTANT DATES:

Deadline for submissions of abstracts: November 20, 2009;

Notification of abstract acceptance: January 7, 2010.

ABSTRACT SUBMISSION:

Please go to the abstract submission page (https://www.eccm-2010.org/internet/proposition_abstract.php) and select the Mini-Symposium on “Image Processing and Visualization” (#12).

With kind regards,

João Manuel R. S. Tavares, University of Porto, Portugal, tavares@...

Renato Natal Jorge, University of Porto, Portugal, rnatal@...

Laurent Cohen, Universite Paris IX Dauphine, Paris, France, cohen@...

Gerald Schaefer, Aston University, UK, gerald.schaefer@...

(Organizers of the Mini-Symposium on “Image Processing and Visualization” (#12))

From forum: w3.org - www-rdf-interest

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-06T04:40:17Z

Yes, it is the change to NMTOKEN. We were unconfortable pushing a change to the scope of NMTOKEN onto all existing implementations - especially since we feared the change would not be supported in existing user agents and conforming processors.

Ivan Herman wrote:

Shane McCarron wrote:

Actually...  XHTML+RDFa is based upon XHTML M12N.  And M12N references
4th Edition explicitly.  All XHTML Family Recs are being updated to
refer to 4th Edition in the coming weeks.  We don't trust 5th Edition. 
So.... I am not sure what that means for this test case.


Can you tell me why the xhtml group does not trust the 5th edition? Is
it all the extra unicode stuff?

Ivan

Philip Taylor wrote:

Mark Birbeck wrote:

My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after
"xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well
see if the document was well-formed.)

The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is
likely to cause problems :-)

It's a U+0140, which is permitted by the latest Rec of XML at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-NameChar> but forbidden (not
well-formed) according to the previous Rec at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#NT-NameChar>.

Most XML implementations follow the old 4th Edition, so they'll
consider the test case ill-formed. I guess RDFa is meant to be based
on the latest edition (since I don't see anything that looks like
intentional references to old versions), but I'm not at all certain
about that. So this test case is an attempt to clarify the situation.

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@...

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-06T02:24:37Z

Philip Taylor wrote:

> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
>>
>> I am not sure whether the test should be a positive or a negative test.
>> The description of the test says "xmlns prefix 'xmlzzz' (reserved)"
>> which suggests a negative test. In that case, I approve.
>>
>> (we should make that more clear in the test cases, maybe in the html
>> test...)
>
> It's meant to be positive -
> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/xhtml-manifest.rdf says
> expectedResults is true.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/ says:
>
> "All other prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l,
> in any case combination, are reserved. This means that:
> * users SHOULD NOT use them except as defined by later specifications
> * processors MUST NOT treat them as fatal errors."
>
> So the test case XML document is violating the 'should', but XML
> processors (and presumably RDFa processors) must treat it exactly like
> any other normal prefix.

Ah! True, you are right.

If we had some sort of a warning mechanism, a warning would therefore be
in order, but it is indeed not an error.

To be formal: yes, I approve the test.

Thanks Philip

Ivan

>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-06T02:19:42Z

Ivan Herman wrote:
>> TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
>
> I am not sure whether the test should be a positive or a negative test.
> The description of the test says "xmlns prefix 'xmlzzz' (reserved)"
> which suggests a negative test. In that case, I approve.
>
> (we should make that more clear in the test cases, maybe in the html
> test...)

It's meant to be positive -
http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/xhtml-manifest.rdf says
expectedResults is true.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names/ says:

"All other prefixes beginning with the three-letter sequence x, m, l,
in any case combination, are reserved. This means that:
* users SHOULD NOT use them except as defined by later specifications
* processors MUST NOT treat them as fatal errors."

So the test case XML document is violating the 'should', but XML
processors (and presumably RDFa processors) must treat it exactly like
any other normal prefix.

--
Philip Taylor
pjt47@...

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-06T01:10:25Z

Manu Sporny wrote:

approved

> TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion

I am not sure whether the test should be a positive or a negative test.
The description of the test says "xmlns prefix 'xmlzzz' (reserved)"
which suggests a negative test. In that case, I approve.

(we should make that more clear in the test cases, maybe in the html
test...)

(sigh, my implementation is wrong:-)

> TC154: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion

I guess for the current version this means that this is a negative test,
though it may become a positive one if, in a new release, we move to xml
5th edition...

Ivan

>
> -- manu
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-06T01:04:15Z

> Philip Taylor wrote:
>> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>>> My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after
>>> "xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well
>>> see if the document was well-formed.)
>>
>> The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is
>> likely to cause problems :-)
>>
>> It's a U+0140, which is permitted by the latest Rec of XML at
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-NameChar> but forbidden (not
>> well-formed) according to the previous Rec at
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#NT-NameChar>.
>>
>> Most XML implementations follow the old 4th Edition, so they'll
>> consider the test case ill-formed. I guess RDFa is meant to be based
>> on the latest edition (since I don't see anything that looks like
>> intentional references to old versions), but I'm not at all certain
>> about that. So this test case is an attempt to clarify the situation.
>>
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-05T15:27:45Z

Hi Philip,

> The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is
> likely to cause problems :-)

Damn...that's the second time I've been caught out by the fact that
you need to know a particular test is failing, rather than succeeding.

Ah well -- I now know more about Unicode than I did before.

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@...

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-05T13:10:12Z

I agree completely. It is one of the reasons we are planning to update
all the XHTML family specs. As to the xml-names reference in
RDFa-syntax. That one's completely my fault. I pasted in the wrong
thing and never checked it. Pathetic, really.

Philip Taylor wrote:

> Shane McCarron wrote:
>> Actually... XHTML+RDFa is based upon XHTML M12N. And M12N
>> references 4th Edition explicitly. All XHTML Family Recs are being
>> updated to refer to 4th Edition in the coming weeks. We don't trust
>> 5th Edition. So.... I am not sure what that means for this test case.
>
> Okay, sounds good - if the intent is that everyone should use the 4th
> Edition instead, and it's made clear in the specs, then I'm happy with
> that (and test case 154 will be invalid, or could be turned into a
> negative test case of some kind).
>
> Looking at the current normative references from RDFa:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204 (Third Edition) as [XML-LANG].
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/ which includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml dated 10 February 1998 (either First
> Edition if you go by the date, or Fifth if you go by URL).
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/ which includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006 (Second Edition).
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xhtml-modularization-20081008/ which
> includes http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816 (Fourth Edition)
>
> So the normative reference chains lead to at least four out of five
> editions in various ways, and I don't think it's currently clear that
> any particular edition is blessed as being the one to use for RDFa
> processors. That wasn't a problem until the 5th Edition came along and
> redefined well-formedness, but it'd be nice to see the references
> tidied up a bit now.
>

--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@...

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-05T13:06:53Z

Shane McCarron wrote:
> Actually... XHTML+RDFa is based upon XHTML M12N. And M12N references
> 4th Edition explicitly. All XHTML Family Recs are being updated to
> refer to 4th Edition in the coming weeks. We don't trust 5th Edition.
> So.... I am not sure what that means for this test case.

Okay, sounds good - if the intent is that everyone should use the 4th
Edition instead, and it's made clear in the specs, then I'm happy with
that (and test case 154 will be invalid, or could be turned into a
negative test case of some kind).

Looking at the current normative references from RDFa:

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204 (Third Edition) as [XML-LANG].

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/ which includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml dated 10 February 1998 (either First
Edition if you go by the date, or Fifth if you go by URL).

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/ which includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006 (Second Edition).

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ includes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xhtml-modularization-20081008/ which
includes http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816 (Fourth Edition)

So the normative reference chains lead to at least four out of five
editions in various ways, and I don't think it's currently clear that
any particular edition is blessed as being the one to use for RDFa
processors. That wasn't a problem until the 5th Edition came along and
redefined well-formedness, but it'd be nice to see the references tidied
up a bit now.

--
Philip Taylor
pjt47@...

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Some comments on the SPARQL 1.1 draft documents

2009-11-05T13:00:56Z

I posted some comments about the 1.1 draft on my blog, which Axel
Polleres asked that I post here. I will not paste the entire
contents, as I suffer from a clinical lack of conciseness. Instead, I
will say my two main points and link.

The first, smaller point was a disappointment with the choice of
RDF/XML as the one standard required to be supported by the new RDF
graph HTTP management API. The protocol has issues marked as
'postponed' for years. Other easy to parse protocols have existed for
years. Why the continued support of RDF/XML as the canonical
standard?

The larger point was that the sizable syntax extensions make a
protocol with limited adoption even more difficult to implement.
Implementations do not exist for several popular web development
languages, and enlarging the syntax only increases the range of
features that are 'required' to be supported.

I suggested that a better route would be to establish a more
machine-friendly format as the standard, and define SPARQL in terms of
how it compiles into that. That algebra, already published alongside
the syntax, is readably expressible as S-expressions, and those should
be the protocol, with the human-readable form as an addendum. The end
result is that *every* language feature can easily be subject to
extension, service discovery, and the incremental implementation that
small-scale open source projects need, instead of only those features
expressible by extension functions.

Further, it's worth noting that SQL has spent the last 20 years being
abstracted away by necessarily complicated libraries, and having the
structure of a query language be well-defined in a machine-readable
format seems to be more forward-looking than the incidental details of
a human-readable version.

The service discovery feature was an excellent step in the right
direction, and some of us would love to see it apply to everything
SPARQL can do, not just part of it.

The long-winded version is at:

http://bhuga.net/2009/11/w3c-going-wrong-direction-sparql-11

Ben Lavender

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-dawg-comments

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-05T12:48:13Z

Actually... XHTML+RDFa is based upon XHTML M12N. And M12N references
4th Edition explicitly. All XHTML Family Recs are being updated to
refer to 4th Edition in the coming weeks. We don't trust 5th Edition.
So.... I am not sure what that means for this test case.

Philip Taylor wrote:

> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>> My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after
>> "xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well
>> see if the document was well-formed.)
>
> The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is
> likely to cause problems :-)
>
> It's a U+0140, which is permitted by the latest Rec of XML at
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-NameChar> but forbidden (not
> well-formed) according to the previous Rec at
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#NT-NameChar>.
>
> Most XML implementations follow the old 4th Edition, so they'll
> consider the test case ill-formed. I guess RDFa is meant to be based
> on the latest edition (since I don't see anything that looks like
> intentional references to old versions), but I'm not at all certain
> about that. So this test case is an attempt to clarify the situation.
>

--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@...

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-05T12:31:56Z

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after
> "xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well
> see if the document was well-formed.)

The entire point of the test case is that that particular character is
likely to cause problems :-)

It's a U+0140, which is permitted by the latest Rec of XML at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-NameChar> but forbidden (not
well-formed) according to the previous Rec at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816/#NT-NameChar>.

Most XML implementations follow the old 4th Edition, so they'll consider
the test case ill-formed. I guess RDFa is meant to be based on the
latest edition (since I don't see anything that looks like intentional
references to old versions), but I'm not at all certain about that. So
this test case is an attempt to clarify the situation.

--
Philip Taylor
pjt47@...

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Meeting minutes, 2009-11-05

2009-11-05T10:42:31Z

Minutes are here:

www.w3.org/2009/11/05-rdfa-minutes.html

text version below.

Cheers

Ivan

[1]W3C

[1] http://www.w3.org/

RDFa in XHTML Task Force

05 Nov 2009

Agenda:
[2]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009No
v/0004.html
See also: [3]IRC log
Previous: [4]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html

[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Nov/0004.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-rdfa-irc
[4] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html

Attendees

Present
Ivan Herman, Manu Sporny, Shane McCarron

Regrets
Ben Adida, Mark Birbeck, Steven Pemberton

Chair
Manu Sporny

Scribe
Manu Sporny

Contents

* [5]Topics
1. [6]Action Items
2. [7]RDFa WG Charter
3. [8]profile/vocab discussion
4. [9]RDFa DOM API
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________

Action Items

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to aggressively push review of test cases via
mailing list [recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action08] [DONE]

[11] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action08

Manu: Sent out overview
... Asked 3 new test cases to be reviewed.

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to try and find other interested parties in
RDFa WG. [recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
[CONTINUES]

[12] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action08

<scribe> ACTION: Ben to finish authoring RDFa WG charter. [recorded
in [13]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
[CONTINUES]

[13] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action07

<scribe> ACTION: Manu speak with Andy Seaborne about SPARQL.org
implementation re: c14n [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]

[14] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action06

Manu: Do have more thoughts on RDFa WG, Ivan?

Ivan: We need more W3C members.
... Currently in talks with a number of people offline - we seem to
be in good shape.
... If we have 2 large search companies and a number of other
smaller companies (all W3C members) we're fine.
... We should expect questions that are raised regarding why RDFa is
a separate group from Semantic Web.

<scribe> ACTION: Manu speak with Andy Seaborne about SPARQL.org
implementation re: c14n [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action06] [DONE]

[15] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action06

Manu: Jeremy Carroll said that this is a bug in Jena/SPARQL.org
... Andy seemed to imply it was as well.

<scribe> ACTION: Shane to look at XML spec and see if xml: is
illegal in RDF/XML re: TC 142 [recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
[CONTINUES]

[16] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action09

<scribe> ACTION: Shane to re-draft XMLLiteral errata text [recorded
in [17]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action04]
[CONTINUES]

[17] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action04

RDFa WG Charter

Ivan: I have one thing to mention re: the charter
... I don't think we should include the Microsoft extensibility
thing as a part of the RDFa charter.
... What happens if the HTML5 group stops the extensibility
mechanism? Our charter would be wrong.

Manu: Fine to remove it - we were attempting to express that we'd
like to work with HTML WG on distributed extensibility.

Ivan: We need to remove names for W3C staff contact - wait until
after a vote.

Manu: ok, made both changes to the charter.

Ivan: The other discussion we'll want to have is IG vs. WG

Shane: We want to publish REC track documents, so we have to be a
WG.

Ivan: So, an open question is that RDFa 1.1 will probably apply to
HTML5, so why the new WG?

Shane: XHTML+RDFa module has to be updated, and is work that is done
independently of the HTML5 spec. That's why we need a new WG.

Manu: There is also an RDFa 1.1 Core spec

Ivan: Right, the underlying RDFa 1.1 Core spec would be independent
of any language.
... There is MediaRSS - which is RDFa being used in a non-XHTML
dialect.
... That should be a REC, and must be done by a WG, not at IG.

Shane: Sure - we should have some kind of language-agnostic RDFa 1.1
Core document.
... An evolution of the current spec could do that pretty easily.
... The XHTML logic is restricted to 1 chapter.

Ivan: A little more than that - we refer to href and img, and some
other HTML dependent things.

<ShaneM> @src too

Ivan: We could do a generic spec which may have an additional XHTML
spec.
... We have to be very specific about what the WG is producing.

profile/vocab discussion

Manu: @profile is perma-thread area on HTML WG and WHAT WG. We'll
want to use @vocab
Shane: or <link rel="vocab" href="http://example.org/vocab#" />

RDFa DOM API

Manu: Two approaches - generic RDF DOM API, and a specific RDFa DOM
API.

Ivan: We may not want to make this an HTML-specific thing.

Shane: I don't think there is an HTML DOM - so, we may want to do
something that is XML-specific.
... XHTML/HTML DOM was something we never wanted to do.

Ivan: What might be faster and easier to define would be the
RDFa-specific DOM API.
... At ISWC2009, there was a paper on how one could extract triples
from an element.
... The point is that there is a slightly more general issue that is
coming up.
... How can we reconcile this: How do I get and manage RDF data from
Javascript in general? Regardless of whether or not it comes from
RDFa?
... Tabulator was done in Javascript, data was extracted from all
places... RDFa is just one source.
... it would be nice if these two things could be reconciled.
... Unless it becomes overcomplicated.

Manu: So, we could use the jQuery approach - specific API for RDFa
... Then jQuery provides the RDF query mechanism.

Shane: I think this could conflict with the way the HTML5 group does
things.

Manu: I disagree, I think it's in-line with how the web is being
developed. If we do the jQuery approach - we could tie in a unified
RDF query mechanism, regardless of the underlying data expression
mechanism - Microdata, RDFa, Microformats, etc.

Ivan: So, are we interested in a generic API to extract data out of
triple stores, regardless of where it comes from.
... Is that something that the RDFa WG would like to solve?
... There is a clear pressure from a number of people that we need
something at the triple store level... a specific RDFa API won't
solve the real problem.

Shane: So, RDFa API is necessary, but not sufficient.

Ivan: Is another WG needed to provide this? Or can this be solved in
the RDFa WG?
... What I'm interested in is the integrated triple store.
... From a SemWeb programmers point of view, this is what I'd want.

Shane: I see a couple of different things here, one of them is
having triple-store access available. Via the DOM or otherwise.
... This is an API for extracting triples from a URI.

Ivan: In rdflib, there is no provenance.
... Everything gets merged into the same bin.

Manu: So is it fair to say that we're talking about a TripleStore
API and a separate RDFa API? I'm worried about the amount of work
required to accomplish a TripleStore API.

Ivan: Yes... but these two should meet somewhere.
... Maybe only at an implementation level.
... Some have said you don't need a TripleStore API - you only need
a SPARQL API.
... Just like you don't have an API to get SQL data, you just issue
SQL commands.
... I think charter text should make these points very clearly.

<scribe> ACTION: Manu to update the charter to talk about RDFa API
[recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]

Manu: We could do TripleStore API in jQuery, RDFa API in jQuery and
natively?

Ivan: Maybe we want to put conditional item in there about
TripleStore API
... Maybe we plan to have a Note on a generic TripleStore API.
... We would not be obligated to do TripleStore API, but we will
look into the issue.

Summary of Action Items

]
[NEW] ACTION: Manu to update the charter to talk about RDFa API
[recorded in
[19]http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]

[PENDING] ACTION: Manu to aggressively push review of test cases via
mailing list [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action08
[PENDING] ACTION: Ben to finish authoring RDFa WG charter. [recorded
in [21]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action07]
[PENDING] ACTION: Manu to try and find other interested parties in
RDFa WG. [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action08]
[PENDING] ACTION: Shane to look at XML spec and see if xml: is
illegal in RDF/XML re: TC 142 [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action09]
[PENDING] ACTION: Shane to re-draft XMLLiteral errata text [recorded
in [24]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action04]

[20] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html#action08
[21] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action07
[22] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action08
[23] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/22-rdfa-minutes.html#action09
[24] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action04

[DONE] ACTION: Manu speak with Andy Seaborne about SPARQL.org
implementation re: c14n [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action06]

[25] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/15-rdfa-minutes.html#action06

[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________

Minutes formatted by David Booth's [26]scribe.perl version 1.135
([27]CVS log)
$Date: 2009/11/05 18:40:30 $
_________________________________________________________

[26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[27] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-05T09:14:55Z

Hi Manu,

TC142: approved
TC147: approved
TC154: approved, but with a small observation

My observation about TC154 is simply that the character after
"xmlns:test" caused my XML editor problems. (I thought I might as well
see if the document was well-formed.)

It's probably not an issue, since the character is definitely in the
correct range for a namespace prefix character. But the reason I'm
flagging it up, is that it's also not a straightforward problem with
my editor, because if I replace your character with another from
nearby in the Unicode tables, the document is seen as well-formed.

Like I say, I doubt it's a 'proper' problem, but I thought I'd mention
it, in case someone with more Unicode knowledge knows what's going on.

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@...

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@...> wrote:

> This is a call for review for Test Cases 142, 147 and 154. Everybody is
> encouraged to review these test cases. Reviews are due by next Thursday,
> 1600 UTC.
>
> The test cases can be found at the following URL:
>
> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/
>
> For "Test Suite", select: "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
> For "Unit Test Status", select: "Unreviewed"
>
> Here is a template to follow when responding:
>
> TC142: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
> TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
> TC154: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/
>
>

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Call for Review of XHTML Test Cases 142, 147, and 154

2009-11-05T07:35:05Z

This is a call for review for Test Cases 142, 147 and 154. Everybody is
encouraged to review these test cases. Reviews are due by next Thursday,
1600 UTC.

The test cases can be found at the following URL:

http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/test-suite/

For "Test Suite", select: "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
For "Unit Test Status", select: "Unreviewed"

Here is a template to follow when responding:

TC142: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
TC147: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion
TC154: approved/rejected/approved with modifications/needs discussion

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Reviewing Test Cases via the RDFa Community

2009-11-05T07:19:52Z

I have an action to start aggressively pushing the review of test cases
via the RDFa community mailing lists. Reviewing these test cases via the
telecons is time consuming and takes up valuable time that could be used
to work on new features or discuss various design changes.

Each week (around Wednesday or Thursday), I will introduce a number of
test cases in a call for review. It would be great if the community
could help us review the tests. A review by at least 4 RDFa Task Force
members will be mandatory, so if the list hasn't received at least 4
reviews by RDFa Task Force members, I'll start pestering those that
haven't replied.

A review doesn't have to be complicated or verbose, for example if Test
Cases 200-203 were being reviewed, the only response to the mailing list
could be:

---------------------
TC200: approved
TC201: approved
TC202: approved
TC203: approved
---------------------

If there should be changes to the test cases, a short explanation on
which changes should be made and the rationale for the changes should be
included. For example:

------------
TC204: approved with the following changes:

The "foaf" prefix uses the incorrect URL "http://xmlns.com/foaf/". It
should be "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/".
------------

or

------------
TC205: rejected, we need to discuss this feature

The @xxx attribute is obsolete in HTML5, so we should come up with an
alternative attribute to provide this behavior.
------------

I'll be sending the first such review e-mail out shortly.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Telecon Agenda - November 5, 2009, 1600 UTC

2009-11-05T06:55:45Z

TPAC regrets

Steven

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:27:46 +0100, Ben Adida <ben@...> wrote

>
> We're all on the same schedule now, so it's 1600 UTC for our meeting.
>
> Given TPAC, it may be that we shouldn't have this call, let's see what
> folks are up to?
>
>
> -Ben
>
>
> ==========
> Thursday, November 5th 2009
> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
> tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA
> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
> Duration: 60 minutes
> Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
> ==========
>
> Agenda:
>
> 1) Action Items
> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>
> 2) profile/vocab discussion
>
> 3) DOM API
>

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: problem report

2009-11-05T04:26:23Z

Looking at the archives, I just discovered that my earlier "problem report" mail to the list seems to have lost its message body, and only the attachment came through. (My Sent folder does have the actual message body.) Sorry about any confusion caused.

Here is the original message body that outlined the problem (for which the attachment was the input with which the problem could be reproduced):

~~~~~
One of the dc:subject Bag elements is quoted in the source ("dry earth" escaped as "); in the triplets table this appears as double double quotes (OK) but in the graph it appears as an empty box - looks like it's confused by the double double quotes.

Input to the validator attached.
~~~~~

Cheers,
--
Marjolein Katsma
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marjoleinkatsma
Info: http://marjoleinkatsma.com/personal/
Blog: http://blog.marjoleinkatsma.com/
Kölnisch Wasser: http://wasser.iamback.com/

From forum: w3.org - www-rdf-validator

Re: Telecon Agenda - November 5, 2009, 1600 UTC

2009-11-05T01:44:01Z

I'm also around. (This is like the Seven Samurai.)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@...> wrote:

> I am around (not at TPAC). But I may be the only one...
>
> I.
>
> Ben Adida wrote:
>>
>> We're all on the same schedule now, so it's 1600 UTC for our meeting.
>>
>> Given TPAC, it may be that we shouldn't have this call, let's see what
>> folks are up to?
>>
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> Thursday, November 5th 2009
>> 1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
>> tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA
>> irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
>> Duration: 60 minutes
>> Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
>> ==========
>>
>> Agenda:
>>
>> 1) Action Items
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
>>
>> 2) profile/vocab discussion
>>
>> 3) DOM API
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Telecon Agenda - November 5, 2009, 1600 UTC

2009-11-05T01:10:18Z

I am around (not at TPAC). But I may be the only one...

I.

Ben Adida wrote:

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Telecon Agenda - November 5, 2009, 1600 UTC

2009-11-04T17:27:46Z

We're all on the same schedule now, so it's 1600 UTC for our meeting.

Given TPAC, it may be that we shouldn't have this call, let's see what
folks are up to?

-Ben

==========
Thursday, November 5th 2009
1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA
irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
Duration: 60 minutes
Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
==========

Agenda:

1) Action Items
http://www.w3.org/2009/10/29-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary

2) profile/vocab discussion

3) DOM API

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Automatic XML namespaces

2009-11-04T14:14:13Z

In fact I proposed something like this at a talk at the Technical Plenary
in 2003. Glad to see it's finally getting some traction...

http://www.w3.org/2003/Talks/tp-steven-web/

Steven

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:56:11 +0100, Manu Sporny
<msporny@...> wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, has discussed the following in the
>> context of the Hypertext Coordination Group (HCG) and at the TPAC, but I
>> have not seen it discussed here:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/Talks/08-quin-balisage-namespaces/
>
> (bcc: RDFa TF)
>
> Yes, Liam' proposal is a good one.
>
> A number of us have been discussing the "Namespace Definition files"
> approach offline for a number of months. I remember that Mark Birbeck
> had also brought the concept up about a year ago in a XHTML+RDFa Task
> Force telecon.
>
> While there are a number of issues to be worked out, I think this is the
> right direction for the distributed extensibility debate. It provides a
> solid replacement for xmlns: while requiring authors to know what a
> namespace is or how to use it. It seems like this approach could be a
> good compromise and it seems to be in line with requirements put forth
> by WHATWG, the RDFa TF and HTML WG.
>
> -- manu
>

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Automatic XML namespaces

2009-11-04T10:55:43Z

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, has discussed the following in the
> context of the Hypertext Coordination Group (HCG) and at the TPAC, but I
> have not seen it discussed here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/Talks/08-quin-balisage-namespaces/

(bcc: RDFa TF)

Yes, Liam' proposal is a good one.

A number of us have been discussing the "Namespace Definition files"
approach offline for a number of months. I remember that Mark Birbeck
had also brought the concept up about a year ago in a XHTML+RDFa Task
Force telecon.

While there are a number of issues to be worked out, I think this is the
right direction for the distributed extensibility debate. It provides a
solid replacement for xmlns: while requiring authors to know what a
namespace is or how to use it. It seems like this approach could be a
good compromise and it seems to be in line with requirements put forth
by WHATWG, the RDFa TF and HTML WG.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

3rd CFP Agent-Directed Simulation, April 12-14, 2010, Orlando, Florida

2009-11-04T09:22:50Z

===============================================================
CALL FOR PAPERS and POSTERS
Agent-Directed Simulation Symposium (ADS'10)
Orlando, Florida, USA
April 12-14, 2010

http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~oren/conf-org/ADS_2010/ADS-CFP.htm
Manuscript Submission: November 30, 2009.

Sponsored by The Society for Modeling and Simulation
International (SCS) in collaboration with ACM/SIGSIM.
==============================================================

As part of the 2010 Spring Simulation Multi-conference (SpringSim'10)
http://www.scs.org/confernc/springsim/springsim10/springsim10.htm

the 2010 Agent-Directed Simulation Symposium is a premier platform to
explore all three aspects of the synergy of simulation and agent
technologies. Hence, it has a special place within simulation and
agent conferences, including agent-based (social) simulation
conferences. Therefore the ADS symposium fills a gap in the agent
community as well as the simulation community.

The purpose of the ADS symposium is to facilitate dissemination of the
most recent advancements in the theory, methodology, application, and
toolkits of agent-directed simulation. Agent-directed simulation is
comprehensive in the integration of agent and simulation technologies,
by including models that use agents to develop domain-specific
simulations, i.e., agent simulation (this is often referred to as
agent-based simulation -when other two important aspects are not
considered), and by also including the use of agent technology to
develop simulation techniques and toolkits that are subsequently
applied, either with or without agents.

Hence, agent-directed simulation consists of three distinct, yet
related areas that can be grouped under two categories as follows:

1. Simulation for Agents (agent simulation): simulation of agent
systems in engineering, human and social dynamics, military
applications etc.
2. Agents for Simulation (which has two aspects): agent-supported
simulation deals with the use of agents as a support facility to
enable computer assistance in problem solving or enhancing
cognitive capabilities; and agent-based simulation that focuses
on the use of agents for the generation of model behavior in a
simulation study.

Through the theme of agent-directed simulation, the symposium will
bring together agent technologies, tools, toolkits, platforms,
languages, methodologies, and applications in a pragmatic manner. In
this symposium, established researchers, educators, and students are
encouraged to come together and discuss the benefits of agent
technology in their use and application for simulation. It is a way
for people to discuss why and how they have used agent technology in
their simulations, and describe the benefit of having done so.

The theme of ADS'10 is based on the observation of the following
premises.

* The growth of new advanced distributed computing standards along
with the rapid rise of e-commerce are providing a new context that
acts as a critical driver for the development of next generation
systems. These standards revolve around service-oriented
technologies, pervasive computing, web-services, Grid, autonomic
computing, ambient intelligence etc. The supporting role that
intelligent agents play in the development of such systems is
becoming pervasive, and simulation plays a critical role in the
analysis and design of such systems.

* The use of emergent agent technologies at the organization,
interaction (e.g., coordination, negotiation, communication) and
agent levels (i.e. reasoning, autonomy) are expected to advance
the state of the art in various application technologies is
difficult. Using agent-supported simulation techniques for
testing complex agent systems is up and coming field.

* To facilitate bridging the gap between research and application,
there is a need for tools, agent programming languages, and
methodologies to analyze, design, and implement complex,
non-trivial agent-based simulations. Existing agent-based
simulation tools are still not mature enough to enable developing
agents with varying degrees cognitive and reasoning capabilities.

ADS'10 will provide a leading forum to bring together researchers and
practitioners from diverse simulation societies within computer science,
social sciences, engineering, business, education, human factors, and
systems engineering. The involvement of various agent-directed
simulation groups will enable the cross-fertilization of ideas and
development of new perspectives by fostering novel advanced solutions,
as well as enabling technologies for agent-directed simulation

AUTHOR GUIDE

* Technical papers provide a longer format for presenting experience
reports, research results, or descriptions of "work in progress".
They are limited to 8 pages.

* Short position papers are targeted at raising a question or framing
an issue for discussion during the symposium. Position papers are
limited to 3 pages.

* Poster presentations present an opportunity to present work in
progress and receive feedback from colleagues. A one page write-up
of the poster presentations will be included in the proceedings.

(For all, required font sizes are: min 10 pt for text and min 9 pt for
figures or references).

Papers should be submitted electronically to
http://www.softconf.com/scs/ADS10/ .
All papers will be subject to a peer-reviewing process by three program
committee members. (Please see the key dates listed below.)

FINAL PAPER SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

All prospective authors, whose papers are accepted for inclusion in the
program, will be invited to submit their position or technical papers
to ADS'10. Accepted and registered papers will be published in the
conference proceedings by the SCS. In addition, the committee will
select a set of best papers. Authors of these papers will be encouraged to
submit appropriately expanded versions of these papers for journal
publication.

KEY DATES
Nov 30, 2009: Manuscript submission
Dec 30, 2009: Notification of acceptance
Jan 20, 2010: Full Camera-ready papers
Apr 12-14, 2010: ADS'10 Symposium

General Co-Chair
Levent Yilmaz, Auburn University
Tuncer Ören, University of Ottawa
Program Co-Chair
Gregory Madey, University of Notre Dame
Maarten Sierhuis, Carnegie Mellon University, NASA Ames Research Center
Yu Zhang, Trinity University

From forum: w3.org - www-rdf-interest

Re: Concerning LET or AS

2009-11-03T22:58:05Z

As a personal comment, (sorry you are probably sick of me now). I don't
particularly seek a response to this comment.

I am surprised that there is concern that the LET single assignment
construct may mislead users into having an incorrect processing model in
their heads that might be overly procedural.

This surprise is because the whole point about having a declarative
semantics is that the processing model is irrelevant. Thus, with a
declarative language, we expect, perhaps even desire, that users have
incorrect processing models. Each implementation is free to use their
own processing model, and the user works with their own. For example,
when running an XSLT script, if it has some side effect of writing a
message to the console, it is often surprising when these messages get
written. This is because the easiest way to think of the XSLT processing
model is top-down left-to-right, but good implementations tend to be
lazy. This mismatch between the users model and the implementor's
reality is desirable because:
a) it makes it easier for the user to understand the language
b) it allows the implementor to efficiently implement the language
c) the declarative language design ensures that it doesn't matter that
these two views of the processing model differ, perhaps radically.

So, I think an advantage of the term LET as opposed to BIND (say) is
that LET reminds some users of procedural programming in BASIC, and
allows them to reuse that programming model. Now, while the details of
the execution flow are very different in SPARQL than in BASIC, it seems
that this apparent familiarity has pedagogical advantages.

==

For the record, TopQuadrant's position is we don't care what word is
used, whether it is LET or BIND or something else.

A further aside is that the latest release of TopBraid Composer includes
a SPARQL debugger function that exposes some aspects of the insides of
the SPARQL processing (I haven't used it). But I guess that using such a
tool would quickly disabuse you of any incorrect notions of the
processing model. (LET, I believe, is one of the SPARQL extensions
supported by the tool).

Jeremy

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-dawg-comments

Re: Concerning LET or AS

2009-11-03T22:43:48Z

I made a couple of mistakes in my previous text.

Please allow me to withdraw that text and try again.

The errors were:
1) I missed the { } around the subselect
2) my modification to rule 43 lost the SubSelect expansion
3) Removed too many '(' ')' in rewrite rule

I made some modifications for clarity too.

Also as a very minor comment, rule [43] etc combined with the gramar
rules from SPARQL 1.0 do not seem to expand to the example query
immediately above.

I take the intent of rule 43 to be:

GroupGraphPattern ::= '{' ( SubSelect | GroupGraphPatternSub )+ '}'

(Without the +, the rule matches either a single subselect or a SPARQL
1.0 body,
but not a combination of both.)

Here is modified text:

===============================

'LET' is specified as a macro-expansion, in terms of subselect queries.
In the FPWD of Query 1.1 we modify rule 43 for GroupGraphPattern as follows:

[43*] GroupGraphPattern ::= '{' GroupGraphPatternLetSub '}'

[A] GroupGraphPatternLetSub ::= ( GroupGraphPatternLetSub LetExpr '.'?
)? GroupGraphPatternNoLetSub

[B] LetExpr ::= 'LET' '(' Var ':=' Expression ( ',' Var ':='
Expression )* ')'

[C] GroupGraphPatternNoLetSub ::= ( SubSelect | GroupGraphPatternSub )+

Rules [A] and [B] are interpreted by rewriting queries involving LET
into queries not involving LET.
We will use phi(x) to be the rewritten query of x.
For clarity of exposition we will expand the two alternative readings of
[A] as
[A.1] GroupGraphPatternLetSub ::= GroupGraphPatternNoLetSub
[A.2] GroupGraphPatternLetSub ::= GroupGraphPatternLetSub LetExpr '.'?
GroupGraphPatternNoLetSub
Expressions matching rule [A.1] are not rewritten.

If x matches rule B, then:

phi(x) = 'SELECT' * '(' Expression 'AS' Var ')' ( '(' Expression 'AS'
Var ')' )*

(with the variables matching respectively).

If x matches rule A.2 with y matching GroupGraphPatternLetSub on the
R.H.S.,
z matching LetExpr, and w matching GroupGraphPatternNoLetSub then

phi(x) =
'{' phi(z)
'WHERE' '{'
phi(y)
'}'
'}'
w

After this rewrite is applied to all instances matching rules [A] and
[B], the rewritten query does not involve 'LET' and its meaning is as
given in
the rest of the specification.
======================

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-dawg-comments

FYI again on RDFa and Drupal 7

2009-11-03T21:44:06Z

http://openspring.net/blog/2009/11/02/status-of-rdf-in-drupal-november-09-and-wrap-up-of-iswc2009

All in all, this stuff really looks good:-)

Ivan

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf

Re: Concerning LET or AS

2009-11-03T14:51:40Z

off list Steve and Lee encouraged me to be clearer about what I thought
LET as a keyword means.

Here is my attempt at specifying it (based on the WG Wiki page).
Please note that I am not responsible for TopQuadrant's SPARQL work;
Holger is our expert, and we tend to be dependent on Andy's implementation.
So, I am happy with any corrections from Andy.

It is not important how the word LET is spelt (i.e. as far as I know,
TopQuadrant has no particular attachment to 'LET' rather than 'BIND' for
example).

================================

In the FPWD of Query 1.1 we modify rule 43 for GroupGraphPattern as follows:

[43*] GroupGraphPattern ::= '{' GroupGraphPatternLetSub '}'

[A] GroupGraphPatternLetSub ::= ( GroupGraphPatternLetSub Let '.'? )?
GroupGraphPatternSub

[B] Let ::= 'LET' '(' Var ':=' Expression ( ',' Var ':=' Expression
)* ')'

Rules [43*] [A] and [B] are interpreted by rewriting queries involving
LET into queries
not involving LET.
We will use phi(x) to be the written query of x.

If x matches rule B, then:

phi(x) = 'SELECT' '(' * '(' Expression 'AS' Var ')' ( '(' Expression
'AS' Var ')' )* ')'

(with the variables matching respectively).

If x matches rule A then

phi(x) =
phi(Let)
'WHERE' '{'
phi(GroupGraphPatternLetSub)
'}'
GroupGraphPatternSub

The rest of the specification then applies.
==================

(Note this is a fine recipe for implementing as well).
Specifically, this prohibits forward references.
Being a macro expansion into a declarative form, this is declarative.

Jeremy

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-dawg-comments

Re: Concerning LET or AS

2009-11-03T09:13:25Z

I thought I should share a couple of the comments I have had on this
topic from TopQuadrant colleagues:

[[
Speaking as a person who teaches this stuff, more than our own
reputation is at stake. Perhaps this is something to add to our objection.

Technology adoption is the goal of a standard. SPARQL fights an uphill
battle for a couple of reasons: (1) It's Not SQL. (2) Pattern-based
retrieval is weird (witness the fabulous popularity of PROLOG as a
software engineering language). In short, many people are looking for
reasons not to adopt it, and to stay with familiarity.
In short, the semantic web is faced with a huge hurdle in SPARQL. And
while I applaud the "small standard" policy (which in general is a boon
to teaching and adoption), it is only good when it serves ease of adoption.

SPARQL 1.0 has some huge problems, that give SQL fans great ammunition
when it comes to saying "it's not ready" - negation and aggregates are
the biggies here, and both of them have been fixed.

Adding in another complex idiom (like nested subqueries) for something
simple (LET) will be repeating the mistake of negation. Another reason
to say, "Wait for SPARQL 3".
I would go so far as to use the "small standard" argument the other
way. Subqueries are difficult - in fact, in my course, I say, 'The
reason SPARQL doesn't have subquery is because it is not needed. The
sorts of things that you use them for in SQL are done easily in a
pattern language, without resorted to a complex construct like a
subquery". I challenge the room to prove me wrong. One person was able
to do so. No SQL programmer can do it - subqueries are error prone and
confusing.

So - faced with a confusing, difficult, unsuccessful idea from SQL
(subqueries) vs a well-accepted idea from BASIC, which one fits the
"small standard" mantra better? I can speak confidently as an educator
in this stuff. LET wins hands-down.
]]

and

[[
Also look at our mailing list to see what our customers are doing. [X]'s
message from yesterday contains:

SELECT ?stringPredicate ?stringObject ?stringAttributesNodeName ?
stringAttributeNodeName
WHERE {
CQ:GatheredData ?predicate ?object .
LET (?stringPredicate := smf:cast(smf:name(?predicate),
xsd:string)) .
LET (?stringObject := smf:cast(smf:name(?object), xsd:string)) .
LET (?uuid := smf:generateUUID()) .
?attributes a CQ:attributes .
LET (?attributesNodeName := smf:qname(?attributes)) .
LET (?stringAttributesNodeName := smf:cast(smf:name(?
attributesNodeName), xsd:string)) .
LET (?stringAttributeNodeName := smf:buildString("{?
stringAttributesNodeName}-{?uuid}")) .
}

Will make a nice chain of sub-SELECTs...

]]

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-dawg-comments

Re: Concerning LET or AS

2009-11-02T23:39:15Z

PS

My example come from putting together the following thoughts ...
A suggestion that what people don't like about LET is that it is
'procedural'.
However single-assignment is declarative, and that perceiving LET as
procedural is a failure of understanding.
Ordering constraints can be declarative or procedural, LET introduces
declarative ordering constraints.
The ordering constraints appear because of the shape of the problem: for
example if you compute an end date from a start date and a duration, you
need to know the start date and the duration.
Each LET declaratively but concisely introduces an ordering constraint.
The alternative SELECT AS WHERE construct declaratively and verbosely
introduces an ordering constraint.

There is a natural ordering to do with the flow of information. This
isn't necessarily the order of computation, but it is an order in which
it is easier for the query author to think about the query. The LET
syntax follows this natural ordering, the AS syntax does not.

From forum: w3.org - public-rdf-dawg-comments