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]

+??P15

14:01:43 [Zakim]

+EricM

14:01:54 [Zakim]

+??P16

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]

+??P14

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]

+PatrickS

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]

comments?

14:06:21 [em-scribe]

no

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]

+??P18

14:09:25 [AaronSw]

zakim, ??P18 is SteveP

14:09:27 [Zakim]

+SteveP; got it

14:09:40 [AaronSw]

heh

14:09:48 [em-scribe]

bwm_: made a lot of good progress

14:09:56 [em-scribe]

bwm_: XMLP review

14:10:06 [Zakim]

+Mike_Dean

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]

+DanBri

14:16:09 [em-scribe]

agenda: F2F Review

14:16:12 [Zakim]

+DanC

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, http://www.w3.org/2002/06/lbase/ ("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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0205.html

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]

example: http://www.w3.org/2002/unassertionalproperty/http://mymetadatainitiative.example.com/entails

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 : http://www.w3.org/2002/unassertionalproperty/http://mymetadatainitiative.example.com/entails) 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0205.html

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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0266.html 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]

ok

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]

q+

15:01:38 [JosD]

DanC, re pointer to Guha magic http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-06-18.html#T10-25-37

15:02:16 [em-scribe]

q-

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]

q+

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]

-SteveP

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 http://logicerror.com/taxo-quick-start

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 http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/Current/Overview.htm

15:18:11 [em-scribe]

bwm_: meeting adjourned

15:18:18 [Zakim]

-JosD

15:18:27 [Zakim]

-DanBri

15:18:35 [em-scribe]

after hours discussions.....

15:18:38 [Zakim]

-Em

15:18:41 [Zakim]

-RonD

15:21:00 [em]

RRSAgent, pointer?

15:21:00 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2002/06/28-rdfcore-irc#T15-21-00

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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0205.html [1]

15:24:46 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/28-rdfcore-irc#T14-47-14

15:24:46 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: bwm, get editors together, review content of http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/Current/Overview.htm [2]

15:24:46 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/06/28-rdfcore-irc#T15-17-49