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