IRC log of rdfcore on 2002-06-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:01:38 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
14:01:41 [AaronSw]
Zakim, Bristol has JanG, DaveB
14:01:42 [Zakim]
+JanG, DaveB; got it
14:01:43 [Zakim]
14:01:43 [Zakim]
14:01:54 [Zakim]
14:01:59 [AaronSw]
Zakim, ??P15 is RonD
14:02:00 [Zakim]
+RonD; got it
14:02:07 [AaronSw]
zakim, ??P16 is HP
14:02:08 [Zakim]
+HP; got it
14:02:13 [AaronSw]
zakim, HP has Jeremy, Brian
14:02:15 [Zakim]
+Jeremy, Brian; got it
14:02:20 [AaronSw]
zakim, Bristol is ILRT
14:02:21 [Zakim]
+ILRT; got it
14:02:23 [AaronSw]
zakim, who's here?
14:02:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PatH?, ILRT, AaronSw, GrahamK, EricM, RonD, HP
14:02:25 [Zakim]
HP has Jeremy, Brian
14:02:25 [Zakim]
ILRT has JanG, DaveB
14:02:26 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, em, bwm, danbri, Zakim, logger_1, AaronSw
14:02:46 [AaronSw]
zakim, ericm is em
14:02:47 [bwm_]
bwm_ has joined #rdfcore
14:02:47 [Zakim]
+Em; got it
14:03:02 [bwm_]
14:03:13 [AaronSw]
zakim, brian is bwm
14:03:15 [Zakim]
sorry, AaronSw, I do not recognize a party named 'brian'
14:03:21 [AaronSw]
zakim, Brian is bwm
14:03:22 [Zakim]
sorry, AaronSw, I do not recognize a party named 'Brian'
14:03:36 [AaronSw]
zakim, propose a victim
14:03:38 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JanG
14:03:51 [AaronSw]
when bwm talks it seems
14:03:54 [Zakim]
14:04:04 [AaronSw]
zakim, ??P14 is JosD
14:04:06 [Zakim]
+JosD; got it
14:04:38 [AaronSw]
zakim, who's here?
14:04:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PatH?, ILRT, AaronSw, GrahamK, Em, RonD, HP, JosD
14:04:40 [Zakim]
HP has Jeremy, Brian
14:04:41 [Zakim]
ILRT has JanG, DaveB
14:04:42 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bwm_, RRSAgent, em, bwm, danbri, Zakim, logger_1, AaronSw
14:04:50 [Zakim]
14:04:55 [jjc]
jjc has joined #rdfcore
14:05:33 [em-scribe]
-- roll call -- (see zakim above list)
14:05:59 [em-scribe]
bwm: regrets, -> frank, guha
14:06:14 [em-scribe]
review agenda...
14:06:19 [em-scribe]
14:06:21 [em-scribe]
14:06:38 [connolly]
connolly has joined #rdfcore
14:07:21 [em-scribe]
next telecon - Jul 12 (same time)
14:07:39 [em-scribe]
hmm... perhaps i hit return too early...
14:08:00 [em-scribe]
strike above
14:08:05 [em-scribe]
next telecon - Jul 5 (same time)
14:08:16 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rdfcore
14:08:31 [em-scribe]
regrets as well from danbri
14:09:06 [em-scribe]
bwm_: chase down danbri for notes
14:09:13 [Zakim]
14:09:25 [AaronSw]
zakim, ??P18 is SteveP
14:09:27 [Zakim]
+SteveP; got it
14:09:40 [AaronSw]
14:09:48 [em-scribe]
bwm_: made a lot of good progress
14:09:56 [em-scribe]
bwm_: XMLP review
14:10:06 [Zakim]
14:10:07 [em-scribe]
bwm_: danbri and dave have agreed to work on this
14:12:01 [em-scribe]
jjc: perhaps i'll look into this as well
14:13:47 [em-scribe]
bwm_: danbri to coordinate comments (include danbri, daveb)
14:13:57 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rdfcore
14:15:26 [Zakim]
14:16:09 [em-scribe]
agenda: F2F Review
14:16:12 [Zakim]
14:16:34 [em-scribe]
em-scribe: can you explain the purpose of the new suggested doc
14:17:24 [em-scribe]
gk: there was various issues that seemed to be missing from various docs and this was supposed to be something that addressed this?
14:19:28 [em-scribe]
gk: from f2f meeting we agreed that there was content that was not captured by exisitig docs
14:19:41 [connolly]
anybody got an example of one of these "not captured by MT/syntax/schema" things?
14:20:02 [em-scribe]
gk: agreed to (a) produce an outline a (b) supporting text that trys to agree to provide some text to this
14:21:25 [em-scribe]
bwm_: we where having a discussion of where oto but the specification of the graph systax
14:24:18 [jjc]
eric: datatypes tidy or untidy
14:24:36 [DanC]
"The WG decided to aim for last call on 26th Aug 2002" <- ugh; so we need *another* extension, past Sep 2002. oh well, the Sep 2002 thing never quite got finished anyway.
14:24:40 [jjc]
bwm: guha gave new analysis of datatype problem
14:25:07 [jjc]
bwm: decision made that bwm would write note on tidy/unitdy issue
14:25:48 [DanC]
oops; there it is: "# log The WG decided that a description of RDF(S) semantics in Lbase should be added as a non-normative appendix to the model theory document (provided it is ready in time) which should be renamed RDF Formal Semantics (or similar). Lbase will be published as a w3c note."
14:25:52 [jjc]
eric: lbase?
14:26:34 [jjc]
bwm: w3c note from ??? , not from the WG
14:27:58 [danbri]
I have a rough cut of a note-ified lbase doc, ("not a note")
14:29:17 [DanC]
but their views are wrong! 1/2 :-)
14:31:03 [DanC]
we need explicit license from anybody listed as "editor" to release this particular text under their name.
14:31:24 [sergey]
sergey has joined #rdfcore
14:31:49 [sergey]
Hi, sorry, today I'm on IRC only...
14:33:32 [DanC]
Hi sergey, I think we're on "9) F2F Review" still.
14:34:37 [em-scribe]
agenda - Procedure for determining reserved vocabulary
14:35:00 [em-scribe]
bwm_: can we do this without guha? he did send message about 3 options
14:35:14 [em-scribe]
JosD: very unsure at the moment
14:35:31 [em-scribe]
JosD: note that euler does not need such a thing
14:35:57 [DanC]
guha's msg:
14:36:43 [em-scribe]
DanC (daveb) : i hate all of these; but if we have to pick one lets use the one from the original spec
14:37:04 [danbri]
or at least the same technique, though we have a different meaning and I'd expect a different URI
14:37:05 [em-scribe]
which is #1 (with http://www....)
14:38:53 [DanC]
we haven't made any decisions on this issue, Graham; rejecting or otherwise.
14:41:18 [danbri]
14:45:43 [DanC]
I'd prefer to just fess up and change RDF/xml syntax, rather than sneak it into a magic worm-hole in URI space.
14:46:04 [em-scribe]
bwm_: i'm hearing a weak preference for #2 (with this prefix... ala : take this to list for dsicussion
14:47:13 [JosD]
DanC, I agree with that; we did a test with owl_: prefixes, but still...
14:47:14 [em-scribe]
ACTION: jjc, write a message about possible bug in guha's option #2 in
14:47:46 [em-scribe]
agendaitem - Datatypes
14:49:58 [DanC]
er... whoa... if A is noise, I don't know what's going on, and the best I can do is abstain on this.
14:50:10 [DanC]
pointer to this bit of magic from guha?
14:51:59 [em-scribe]
propose: bwm to send out to list
14:52:23 [em-scribe]
ron: is it an important use of our chairs time to keep rewriting this?
14:55:33 [em-scribe]
against - patrick
14:55:39 [em-scribe]
abstain - danc
14:55:45 [em-scribe]
rest agree
14:55:54 [em-scribe]
teleconference extension?
14:56:00 [em-scribe]
for 15 min?
14:56:03 [em-scribe]
14:56:16 [em-scribe]
agenda item - Review outline of new document.
14:57:21 [em-scribe]
gk: get material on material on the table and then figure out if and where this belogs
14:58:14 [DanC]
skimming it, I like the structure... stuff like "2.2.3 Extensible URI-based vocabulary" is good to have around.
15:01:21 [em-scribe]
15:01:38 [JosD]
DanC, re pointer to Guha magic
15:02:16 [em-scribe]
15:02:36 [DanC]
if having the matter-of-fact discussion of containers in this document would allow the primer to get radically shorter, I'm all for that.
15:07:46 [em-scribe]
15:08:43 [bwm_]
ack em-scribe
15:09:59 [DanC]
when the community was small and everybody knew why we were doing various technologies in the specs, sparse formal docs were the shortest route to the target. I now think the community is large enough that a certain amount of design principles is cost-effective.
15:10:40 [AaronSw]
i'd be happy with a primer that did "make an rdf thing in 15 min" as part 1 and saved part 2 for the discursive material
15:10:47 [AaronSw]
but give them the instant gratification first
15:10:57 [DanC]
yes, the primer should be about instant gratification
15:11:21 [AaronSw]
K&R works this way, for example. chapter 1 is a tutorial, then it gets deeper with each successive chapter
15:11:46 [bwm_]
thats a nice model
15:14:08 [Zakim]
15:14:10 [DanC]
yes, let's lock ericm and Graham in a corner until they come out happy
15:14:23 [AaronSw]
i'm all about an RDF QuickStartGuide ala
15:14:34 [DanC]
Zakim, mute me
15:14:36 [Zakim]
DanC should now be muted
15:15:29 [AaronSw]
i still hear the racing cars
15:16:23 [DanC]
Zakim, unmute me
15:16:25 [Zakim]
DanC should no longer be muted
15:17:49 [em-scribe]
ACTION: bwm, get editors together, review content of
15:18:11 [em-scribe]
bwm_: meeting adjourned
15:18:18 [Zakim]
15:18:27 [Zakim]
15:18:35 [em-scribe]
after hours discussions.....
15:18:38 [Zakim]
15:18:41 [Zakim]
15:21:00 [em]
RRSAgent, pointer?
15:21:00 [RRSAgent]
15:22:30 [bwm__]
bwm__ has joined #rdfcore
15:24:46 [em]
RRSAgent, please leave.
15:24:46 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 action items:
15:24:46 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jjc, write a message about possible bug in guha's option #2 in [1]
15:24:46 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:24:46 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: bwm, get editors together, review content of [2]
15:24:46 [RRSAgent]
recorded in