IRC log of rdfcore on 2002-07-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
14:01:44 [bwm]
bwm has joined #rdfcore
14:01:48 [danbri]
14:02:06 [em]
em has changed the topic to: rdfcore teleconference - 20020719
14:02:52 [DanC]
that(0123) says 2002-07-12; is it for today after all?
14:03:11 [danbri]
oops, dunno. in hurry.
14:05:04 [danbri]
I think it might just have wrong date on it.
14:05:13 [DaveB]
isn't 0117.html the agenda?
14:05:34 [jang]
14:05:35 [danbri] appears to be it
14:05:44 [danbri]
and the other copies are the same, i assume
14:06:07 [DanC]
"4: Next telecon 26th July 2002" <- consistent with an agenda for today.
14:07:42 [danbri]
yes, that's the one.
14:07:58 [danbri]
Zakim, who is here?
14:07:59 [Zakim]
sorry, danbri, I don't know what conference this is
14:08:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri, DanC, em, DaveB, Guha_, jang, logger_1
14:08:04 [danbri]
Zakim, list conferences?
14:08:05 [Zakim]
I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM
14:08:15 [danbri]
Zakim, this is SW_RDFCore
14:08:16 [Zakim]
ok, danbri
14:08:20 [danbri]
Zakim, who is here?
14:08:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, ??P1, ??P3, DanBri, PatH?, +1.650.965.aabb
14:08:21 [jang]
aob: guha, lbase
14:08:23 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri, DanC, em, DaveB, Guha_, jang, logger_1
14:08:26 [jang]
plus, aob: datatypes
14:08:37 [jang]
roll call:
14:08:48 [Zakim]
14:09:00 [jang]
bwm, danbri, dave b , jang, mike dean, pat h
14:09:20 [Zakim]
14:09:23 [jang]
jjc regrets
14:09:27 [jang]
danc regrets
14:09:30 [jang]
rond abs
14:09:31 [jang]
bill d abs
14:09:33 [jang]
jos reg
14:09:35 [jang]
rael abs
14:09:37 [jang]
arno abs
14:09:40 [jang]
eric here
14:09:45 [jang]
jang here
14:09:47 [jang]
yoshi abs
14:09:52 [jang]
grah k reg
14:09:54 [jang]
mick kop abs
14:09:56 [jang]
kwon abs
14:09:58 [jang]
ora abs
14:10:09 [jang]
frank manola..? abs
14:10:13 [jang]
satoshi abs
14:10:15 [jang]
steve here
14:10:17 [jang]
pierre r abs
14:10:23 [jang]
patrick here
14:10:24 [jang]
aaron abs
14:10:28 [jang]
mike dean here
14:10:29 [jang]
guha here
14:10:46 [jang]
pat h here, sergei abs
14:11:01 [jang]
next telecon: next week, eric to chair
14:11:09 [jang]
minutes of last telecon:
14:11:15 [jang]
approved (with jos there)
14:11:37 [jang]
minutes all approves
14:11:37 [DanC]
FYI: recent work in WebOnt on layering: # LANG: new version of abstract syntax/translation document Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Sun, Jul 07 2002)
14:11:40 [jang]
actions approves
14:11:45 [DanC]
I'd appreciate review from RDFCore folk.
14:11:49 [jang]
14:12:01 [jang]
guha. path and i are going to give next version to eric soon to make it a note...
14:12:17 [jang]
bwm: what was answer to process question? private submission?
14:12:23 [jang]
eric: I'd suggest that it not be.
14:12:49 [jang]
it sounds like theres sufficient consensus at f2f that this was useful contrib from rdfcore and should be submitted that way
14:12:54 [Zakim]
14:13:03 [jang]
the wg wants this to get published.
14:13:06 [Zakim]
14:13:08 [aaronsw]
aaronsw has joined #rdfcore
14:13:20 [aaronsw]
zakim, who's here?
14:13:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P0, ??P1, ??P3, DanBri, PatH?, +1.650.965.aabb, Mike_Dean, EricM, AaronSw, ??P7
14:13:21 [jang]
danbri: this doc needs a "status of this document"
14:13:23 [Zakim]
On IRC I see aaronsw, bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri, DanC, em, DaveB, Guha_, jang, logger_1
14:13:28 [jang]
eric has volunteered to take it on...
14:13:49 [jang]
action danbri-eric / take this offline and figure out who owns the publishing side
14:13:56 [jang]
Guha_: we sould be ready end monday
14:14:54 [DaveB]
can we have url of this doc?
14:14:55 [jang]
bwm: if this is getting published in the name of the wg, then we ought to review it
14:14:58 [jang]
have we seen it?
14:15:01 [DaveB]
and www-archive copy pls?
14:15:20 [danbri]
I checked a copy into datespace (rummages for URL)
14:15:26 [danbri]
am waiting for more content from guha and pat
14:15:28 [jang]
eric: guha and pat, if they can get this out by tuesday then feedback on friday to make publication
14:16:08 [jang]
we'd be publishing on east coast time
14:16:24 [jang]
datatypes: bwm sent out summary of responses
14:16:32 [jang]
untidy is "in the lead"
14:16:41 [jang]
bwm: my main concern right now..
14:16:54 [jang]
I've been acting as the voice of the wg in the list
14:17:04 [jang]
I'm not around next week... can someone stand in for me?
14:17:31 [jang]
bwm: can eric do this?
14:17:45 [jang]
bwm: I'm expecting it to be quite quiet next week.
14:17:55 [jang]
danbri: I'll jump into the thread if necessary.
14:18:56 [jang]
xmlp review.
14:19:05 [jang]
danbri: we seem to largely agree
14:19:21 [jang]
I'd rather we get comments to the group, so I'd suggest we each send comments directly.
14:19:32 [jang]
bwm: is there a substantive issue we're worried about?
14:19:42 [jang]
DanC: I'm worried that there are two specs coming out of w3c
14:19:50 [jang]
both of which have edge-labelled graphs, etc.
14:19:55 [jang]
both going to be widely deployed
14:19:59 [AaronSw]
14:20:03 [jang]
we don't know how different they are.
14:20:34 [jang]
eric: I don't think it's as important to get an overall consensus doc from the rdfcore group
14:20:45 [jang]
as it is to get issues back to the xmlp group
14:21:23 [jang]
get the comments to xmlp-comments.
14:22:18 [jang]
bwm: don't want to make work for another wg unless we can follow through on that
14:22:44 [jang]
eric: how realistic can we be on harmonisation at this point? identify specific issues, goals, concerns about the specs.
14:23:44 [jang]
bwm: the onus is on folks then to submit individual comments. I'm minded to push this to coordination group
14:23:52 [jang]
if there's stuff here that needs to be done.
14:24:08 [jang]
eric: certainly the future will be a coordination issue.
14:24:20 [jang]
the deadline is today to get these responses in.
14:25:08 [jang]
eric: I've already discussed this several times with the web services coordination group
14:25:24 [jang]
we're still unsure how close these two things (xmlp, rdf) are
14:26:04 [jang]
danbri: I've got an implementation that would take two days to wrap up
14:26:31 [jang]
item 9: procedure for determining reserved vocab
14:26:37 [jang]
back a second...
14:26:48 [jang]
eric: are there other people on the list who are able to respond?
14:27:33 [jang]
(eric sends graham an email to see if he can send his comments..)
14:27:38 [jang]
item 9 again.
14:28:19 [jang]
talking about option 2, the recognisale darkening uri prefix
14:28:36 [jang]
bwm: guha, any more progress?
14:28:42 [danbri]
<jang> danbri: I've got an implementation that would take two days to wrap up
14:28:59 [jang]
Guha_: I'm waiting for jeremy's bug report, I can't find it
14:29:00 [danbri]
...two days that I lost this week due to problems with inria INRIA (for the record)
14:29:29 [em]
em has joined #rdfcore
14:30:01 [bwm]
14:30:37 [em]
14:30:38 [em]
14:30:44 [AaronSw]
hi em
14:30:55 [em]
ah, thanks!
14:31:46 [jang]
bwm: suggests leaving out the http: prefix on the next url.
14:33:01 [AaronSw]
asw: works conceptually, not really practically
14:33:51 [jang]
jang: the redirect mentioned in jjs'c bug is a daft idea
14:34:11 [jang]
test cases:
14:34:20 [jang]
action: jang / update test cases in light of bugs
14:35:21 [jang]
action: eric: jang gets dropped on rdf-comments (twice now)... any idea why?
14:35:34 [jang]
dropped off, even
14:35:56 [jang]
bwm: getting to last call. this means switching away from issues to focussing on the documents
14:36:29 [jang]
how do people feel about document focus at each telecons?
14:36:50 [jang]
DaveB: seems fine, but won't people want their documents put up as late as possible?
14:37:06 [em]
14:37:08 [jang]
jan volunteers for the 26th july
14:37:27 [jang]
graham: he hopes to have something published by the middle of next week...
14:37:36 [jang]
suggest we put that up for the week after.
14:37:42 [jang]
(pending jjc, gk's approval)
14:37:53 [jang]
that would be 2nd august
14:38:02 [jang]
that is, approval for first pub as wd
14:38:09 [em]
14:38:28 [jang]
path: waiting on the tidy/untidy literal decision
14:38:39 [jang]
path: can have document ready for the 9th august
14:38:56 [jang]
DaveB: if not then the syntax document
14:39:05 [jang]
9th syntax
14:39:10 [jang]
16th august model theory
14:39:19 [jang]
23rd, schema.
14:39:33 [jang]
eric: keep going.
14:39:52 [jang]
bwm: how do you feel about close-to-last-call by 23rd august
14:39:53 [jang]
Guha_: yes
14:39:56 [jang]
danbri: sure
14:40:22 [jang]
primer: ...
14:40:35 [jang]
frank's not here. at the f2f, he was saying primer by ...
14:40:38 [jang]
eric suggests 30th
14:40:46 [danbri]
danbri: it's slightly at risk (re INRIA problem) but yes (re RDFS)
14:41:04 [jang]
datatypes: 6 september.
14:41:31 [jang]
bwm: dts is likely to have a lot of discussion.
14:41:41 [jang]
I'm tyring to get it so that other documents could go independently.
14:41:45 [jang]
14:42:15 [jang]
bwm: you have action to get editors together to see if gk's stuff might have bits in other documents.
14:42:20 [jang]
(last week, largely)
14:42:29 [jang]
bwm: chapter three probably still needs a look
14:42:41 [jang]
the role of that doc as overview has changed, it becomes a peer
14:42:44 [jang]
but we do need it
14:42:46 [jang]
14:42:54 [jang]
1. first pub should not be last call
14:43:06 [jang]
if that's the decision we need to put a WD somewhere in the schedule.
14:43:34 [jang]
bwm: the 2nd august would be to propose to publish as wd
14:44:12 [Zakim]
14:44:45 [jang]
eric: document dependencies are going to come up as we go to last call
14:44:54 [jang]
if we talk about dts after the primer
14:45:04 [jang]
then talking about [gk's new doc]
14:45:16 [jang]
then those are going to have implications on the primer
14:45:20 [jang]
cue frank m:
14:45:55 [jang]
eric: I'm not sure how realistic that schedule is in that regard. I've been loking at the primer as the last doc to go out
14:45:59 [jang]
but now frank's here(!)
14:46:18 [jang]
third point:#wrt schedule: looking at the implementation of rdf, we could pretty much skip CR
14:46:26 [jang]
we've got interop, test cases, etc.
14:46:40 [jang]
if we include datatypes, that means we need CR period
14:46:57 [jang]
if there's a way to implement these asap as the docs come out to test interop that will improve things
14:47:18 [jang]
can developers on the list begin to think about allocating devel time to this?
14:47:22 [jang]
[eric done]
14:47:35 [jang]
bwm: on process: CR not nec without DTs?
14:47:42 [jang]
eric: a strong case can be made that that's the case.
14:48:00 [jang]
bwm: does that mean other docs can proceed to rec without cr, and only dts need cr period?
14:48:12 [jang]
eric: that's a good question: I've been viewing this as a big lump
14:48:18 [jang]
AaronSw: mt has dep on DTs?
14:48:40 [jang]
path: yes, in the sense that DT decisions have a knock-on
14:48:53 [jang]
Guha_: no syntax changes, but MT is affected.
14:49:14 [jang]
path: the diff between tidy, untidy syntax affects the mt,
14:49:26 [jang]
[you're joking, danc!]
14:49:45 [DanC]
[no, not joking. see earlier reference to 'abstract syntax' document.]
14:49:54 [jang]
path: when the decision is made, the dt doc will be easy. we've written dozens of them already (!)
14:50:39 [DaveB]
I rread that pfps doc - it's funny
14:50:49 [jang]
eric: I'm trying to drive for rec, this is in my experience the hardest thing to do
14:51:09 [jang]
it means implementation, development.
14:51:26 [jang]
bwm: you're suggesting a schedule for conformant implementations?
14:51:33 [AaronSw]
pfps doc =
14:51:56 [jang]
eric: the dts doc will have test cases, surely...
14:52:08 [jang]
so you'll expect to see this in the tc document.
14:53:23 [jang]
jang: I'd expect to extract TCs from the DT doc
14:54:10 [jang]
action bwm / to identify applications needed and get a schedule for them
14:55:05 [jang]
daveb reads danc's earlier dark triples comment
14:55:25 [jang]
rod daniel on the phone, he's here
14:55:41 [jang]
bwm: where are webont at the moment?
14:56:05 [jang]
there's a brief round of catchup on webont's status. there's a subgroup dedicated to fixing the semantics
14:56:24 [jang]
(path, pfps, danc, ianh on it)
14:56:36 [jang]
frankm proposes a motion of sympathy with webont
14:57:06 [jang]
path: it's ahrmless to put them in.
14:57:16 [jang]
frank: it'll confuse a lot of people.
14:57:38 [jang]
Guha_: the worst that can happen is that we don't provide the mechanism
14:57:43 [jang]
and webont does their own thing
14:57:47 [jang]
and sets that precedent
14:58:11 [jang]
[jang: note that we could have the dark triples in black text on a black background in the docs]
14:58:28 [jang]
frankm: I'm hoping to have a new version of the primer out sunday night or monday
14:58:36 [jang]
eric: lauds
14:58:45 [jang]
eric: are we talking about republication?
14:58:59 [jang]
frank: possibly. There's certainly stuff that I'd like the group's review of
14:59:15 [jang]
fragments, non-prescriptive interpretation of schema, some new material, etc.
14:59:38 [Zakim]
14:59:42 [jang]
bwm: asks frank if he'd like to move primer forward in the schedule.
15:00:32 [jang]
frank: I ca put this up independently
15:00:43 [jang]
people can look at sections they're particularly concerned about
15:00:47 [jang]
i can keep working away
15:01:01 [jang]
in particular, people might want to look at triple representation in the introduction.
15:01:15 [jang]
then people can look at other aspects of the primer or not as their fancy dictates.
15:01:21 [jang]
15:01:22 [Zakim]
15:01:24 [Zakim]
15:01:25 [em]
ack em
15:01:33 [em]
15:01:55 [AaronSw]
grr! zakim won't let me back on
15:02:11 [em]
15:02:15 [jang]
15:02:33 [jang]
after-hours discussion: path and guha natter.
15:02:53 [jang]
meeting closes
15:03:00 [jang]
AaronSw: it's the time
15:03:07 [AaronSw]
15:03:20 [jang]
action bwm / have a good holiday
15:03:20 [AaronSw]
still seems rude, tho
15:03:41 [AaronSw]
Have we approved all the test cases?
15:03:42 [Zakim]
15:04:09 [AaronSw]
Or are we planning to do that next week?
15:04:36 [DaveB]
we approved a bunch previously, minutes just approved today
15:04:46 [jang]
it sounds like there are more test cases coming...
15:04:53 [jang]
from dts in particular
15:05:00 [jang]
mostly wordsmithing, I think.
15:05:23 [jang]
I've got time booked on monday to do a rundown and tidy-up.
15:06:00 [Zakim]
15:17:10 [Zakim]
- +1.650.965.aabb
15:17:13 [Zakim]
15:17:13 [Zakim]
15:17:16 [Zakim]
15:17:21 [Zakim]
15:17:28 [Zakim]
15:17:30 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
15:20:01 [danbri]
danbri has left #rdfcore
17:11:53 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfcore
17:13:13 [DanC]
DanC has left #rdfcore
17:16:55 [em]
em has left #rdfcore