13:48:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
13:48:32 <em> agenda +Volunteer scribe
13:48:41 <em> agenda +Roll Call
13:48:52 <em> Agenda +Review Agenda - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0155.html
13:49:04 <em> agenda + Next telecon Aug 2nd 2002
13:49:28 <em> agenda +Review minutes of 2002-07-19 teleconference - (no minutes but log http://www.w3.org/2002/07/19-rdfcore-irc)
13:49:42 <em> agenda +action item status
13:49:55 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfcore
13:50:00 <em> agenda +rdf:ID / rdf:node proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0080.html
13:50:14 <ilrt> ilrt has joined #rdfcore
13:50:18 <em> agenda +New Document - http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-07-25/Overview.html
13:50:31 <em> agenda +rdfns-assertion
13:50:42 <em> agenda +Procedure for determining reserved vocabulary
13:50:57 <em> agenda +Schedule and Process to Last Call
13:51:01 <em> agenda +datatypes
13:51:21 <ilrt2> ilrt2 has joined #rdfcore
13:56:08 <gk-scribe> gk-scribe has joined #rdfcore
13:57:43 <em> zakim, list conferences.
13:57:44 <Zakim> I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM, WAI_EOWG()8:30AM
13:57:53 <em> zakim, this is SW_RDFCore.
13:57:54 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not see a conference named 'SW_RDFCore.'
13:57:57 <em> zakim, this is SW
13:57:58 <Zakim> ok, em
13:58:05 <em> zakim, who is here?
13:58:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricM
13:58:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see gk, ilrt2, ilrt, danbri, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, logger_1
14:00:45 <Zakim> +??P3
14:01:01 <Zakim> +Manola
14:01:02 <Zakim> +??P11
14:02:57 <em> zakim, who is here?
14:02:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricM, ??P3, Manola, ??P11
14:02:59 <Zakim> On IRC I see gk, jang, DaveB, danbri, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, logger_1
14:03:25 <jang> zakim, don't pick me!
14:03:26 <Zakim> I don't understand 'don't pick me!', jang.  Try /msg Zakim help
14:03:56 <danbri> zakim, exempt.add(danbri,'wrists hurt')
14:03:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'exempt.add(danbri,'wrists hurt')', danbri.  Try /msg Zakim help
14:04:26 <Zakim> +??P13
14:04:32 <Zakim> +DanBri
14:04:40 <em> zakim, +??P13 is jjc
14:04:41 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not recognize a party named '+??P13'
14:05:02 <jang> zakim, ??P13 is jjc
14:05:04 <Zakim> +Jjc; got it
14:05:06 <Zakim> +??P12
14:05:08 <connolly> connolly has joined #rdfcore
14:05:37 <em> agenda?
14:06:11 <DaveB-scr> jjc scribe
14:06:14 <em> zakim, who is here?
14:06:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricM, ??P3, Manola, ??P11, DanBri, Jjc, ??P12
14:06:15 <DaveB-scr> (daveb doing for now)
14:06:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see connolly, gk, jang, DaveB-scr, danbri, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, logger_1
14:06:46 <em> gk is here
14:06:53 <em> stevep is here
14:06:58 <em> daveb and jan are also here
14:07:02 <gk> zakim, ??P11 is GK
14:07:04 <Zakim> +GK; got it
14:07:05 <DaveB-scr> rollcall complete
14:07:09 <DaveB-scr> review agenda
14:07:25 <DaveB-scr> item 4
14:07:43 <DaveB-scr> donm, 2 august
14:07:50 <jjcscribe> jjcscribe has joined #rdfcore
14:07:57 <jang> reg bwm (holidaY0 jos \
14:08:08 <jjcscribe> I am on now.
14:08:18 <jjcscribe> reg danc
14:08:19 <DaveB-scr> regrets josd
14:08:28 <jang> [excuse poor trying, imac ketbroad]
14:08:39 <jjcscribe> Minutes Last Telecon
14:08:53 <jjcscribe> Patrick agreed to do minutes but they are missing
14:09:09 <jjcscribe> ACTION ericm Chase minutes of last telecon
14:09:20 <jjcscribe> Current record is IRC log
14:10:30 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
14:10:46 <jjcscribe> ACTION danbri versus LBase
14:11:04 <jjcscribe> dan will circulate something before Wednesday
14:11:37 <jjcscribe> This will be a note coming out of the WG discussion
14:12:32 <jjcscribe> ACTION: jang update test cases - continued
14:12:50 <jjcscribe> ACTION: eric Look into why jang ... continued
14:13:47 <jjcscribe> 2002-06-28# closed 
14:13:55 <jjcscribe> Because close
14:14:56 <Zakim> +??P15
14:15:17 <jjcscribe> Jos joined
14:15:20 <jjcscribe> Agenda item 7
14:15:23 <DaveB> regrets were from PatH
14:16:01 <jjcscribe> New agenda item 7a rdf:ID
14:16:08 <jang> jjc:
14:16:17 <jang> my take is that xml NS production is the correct one
14:16:24 <jang> ie, a ns name, without the colon
14:16:34 <jang> djb: we've been over this, can't we decide it?
14:16:36 <danbri> Oh., em,  Agenda request: Namespaces 1.1 LC review.
14:16:38 <jang> dave: anyone object?
14:16:49 <jang> frankm: what's the issue again?
14:16:50 <em> ok, danbri so noted
14:16:57 <gk> NCName
14:16:58 <gk> ::=
14:16:58 <gk> (Letter | '_') (NCNameChar)*
14:16:58 <gk> An XML Name, minus the ":" */
14:16:59 <em> agenda +Namespace 1.1
14:17:00 <jang> jjc: test case sent to wg the other day... just looking for it
14:17:30 <jang> daveb: the issue is that xml id and rdf id take different sets of characters
14:17:33 <jang> they shold be the same
14:17:39 <jang> then xml schema can validate it
14:17:45 <jang> em: objections?
14:17:58 <danbri> re aggendum 13, see Namespaces 1.1 LC plan: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2002JulSep/0040.html (need W3C Member passwd)
14:18:07 <jang> decision: this is obvious, we should do this?
14:18:33 <jang> jjc points to message 0148 from this month
14:19:24 <DaveB> xml id and rdf id in the syntax take differetn set of charcater
14:19:30 <DaveB> I propose that we make them the same
14:19:39 <DaveB> and then we can use w3x xsl to validate it.
14:20:00 <jang> mike: issues with some tools: ids can't begin with numbers?
14:20:06 <jang> currently allowed by rdf, not xml
14:20:11 <jang> daveb: that's the change
14:20:28 <jang> miked: rdf is becoming more restrictive here, right?
14:20:32 <jjcscribe> mike: rdf is becoming more restrictive
14:20:53 <jjcscribe> consider ssn or zip code
14:21:16 <em> q+
14:22:22 <DaveB> connolly: was ambiguous, as jjc explaining on the telcon
14:22:28 <DaveB> can't find ptrs to more just this sec
14:22:50 <jjcscribe> Abstentions: miked
14:23:00 <jjcscribe> Proposal carried.
14:23:10 <jjcscribe> ACTION jjc update test case
14:23:24 <DaveB> (jjc: can you split test cases so one thing tested rather than two?)
14:23:41 <jjcscribe> ACTION dave update syntax
14:23:53 <mdean> mdean has joined #rdfcore
14:23:57 <JosD> JosD has joined #rdfcore
14:24:14 <jjcscribe> ACTION jjc include test case with numeric ID
14:24:20 <DaveB> connolly: the three lines I typed higher up "xml id ..." up to "validate it"
14:24:54 <jang> item 7b
14:25:03 <jang> jjc has simple proposal for rdf:node
14:25:09 <jang> doesn't address all aspect sof the syntax
14:25:21 <jang> but it solves the bulk of the roundtripping problem
14:25:28 <jang> a number of choicepoints highlighted in the email...
14:25:35 <jang> ..we could discuss those here... chair?
14:25:46 <jang> em: want to get this finished.
14:25:56 <jang> that being said, don't know if people consider this a no-brainer
14:26:09 <jang> one choice-point seems obvious, the rest less so
14:26:28 <jang> chair's position was not to reopen at this time, but if a slam-0dunk then reopen and finish it
14:26:32 <danbri> this= rdf:node idea?
14:26:34 <jang> is this a slam dunk?
14:26:38 <DaveB> yes
14:26:39 <jang> yes
14:26:45 <jang> (yes to danbri)
14:26:48 <DaveB> (not agreeing, replying to danbri)
14:27:02 <jang> jjc: there is a proposal
14:27:09 <jang> which is moderately long but is complete, I think
14:27:23 <jang> that we add the file-scope identifier for a blank node as an attribute
14:27:34 <jang> we can label subject or object with such an attribute.
14:27:39 <jang> that's about it
14:27:44 <em> danbri, please do not deal with the comments thing - please focus on the meeting at hand
14:27:44 <danbri> (rdf:node is what rdf:ID should've been)
14:27:49 <jang> em: comments?
14:28:03 <jang> frank: question: concerning the use of xml strings as blank-node identifiers?
14:28:16 <jang> jjc: i could have been more restrictive tthan just @xml strings@
14:28:32 <jang> daveb; coincidentally, the ntriples IDs are also xml ids
14:28:46 <jang> frank: how do you distinguish it as a blank node id?
14:28:53 <jang> danbri: a new attribute for it
14:29:15 <jang> daveb: shouldn't look like a uri
14:29:25 <jang> should look like rdf:id
14:29:33 <jang> jjc: ntriples is us-ascii,
14:29:43 <jang> we should allow id's as e-acute, etc.
14:29:55 <jang> danbri: ntriples is just a test format
14:30:10 <jang> jjc: there's no reason why these have _anything_ to do with ntriples identifiers
14:30:18 <jang> it's just another syntax
14:30:30 <jang> if the id's don't survive roundtripping because they just label a blank node...
14:30:36 <jang> not a problem
14:30:44 <jang> em: what's the risk if we don't have this?
14:30:57 <jang> jjc: there are real users who really want to write rdf/xml that they've read in
14:31:04 <jang> in a programmatic sense
14:31:16 <jang> and at some point they need blank node ids to do that in certain circumstances
14:31:24 <jang> if they assign a uri then the meaning has changed
14:31:31 <jang> they might do something nonstandard
14:31:44 <jang> in jena, we're feeling increasing pressure to do something nonstandard
14:31:50 <jang> which we'd rather not do
14:32:10 <jang> danbri: ntriples are increasingly attractive because they're the only roundtrippable format
14:32:23 <jang> jjc: if we don't do this then the user community is being effectively forced to use ntriples
14:32:29 <jang> even though we don't endorse it
14:32:30 <danbri> zakim, q+ rdf:node
14:32:31 <Zakim> I see Em, Rdf:node on the speaker queue
14:32:34 <danbri> doh
14:32:39 <em> ack em
14:32:40 <danbri> zakim, q- rdf:node
14:32:41 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
14:32:42 <jang> \frank: the roundtripping is rdf/xml -> somehitng, -> rdf/xml
14:32:49 <danbri> zakim, q+
14:32:50 <Zakim> I see Danbri on the speaker queue
14:33:05 <jang> I want to read rdfxml, store it, generate it
14:33:13 <jang> if blank node ids are allowed to look like uris?
14:33:29 <jang> what i have to do (i think) is adopt some nonstandard approach to store these?
14:33:38 <jang> danbri: it's inside your db implementation
14:33:42 <gk> If we adopt them, I think graph-scope IDs should be limited to N-triple allowed form, I18N not needed because its a machine notion, not human-readable.  This seems simplest effective approach.
14:33:50 <jang> jjc: jena has effectively a bit on every resource indicating the label type
14:34:40 <jang> danbri: have same syntactic constraints as we do on rdf:id
14:34:50 <jang> there are few things I've really cared about as an implementor
14:34:54 <jang> this is one of those
14:34:57 <gk> I think the compelling case for this feature is to provide applications a standard way to communicate arbitrary graphs.
14:34:59 <jang> I can load, query, merge, etc. rdf
14:35:03 <jang> but I can't dump it back as a file
14:35:09 <jang> it's honestly embarrassing
14:35:35 <jang> em: unless we standardise ntriples, with i18n etc. this kind of mechanism is necessary
14:35:38 <DaveB> maybe rdf:nodeID ?
14:35:42 <jang> (yesses )
14:35:45 <danbri> yes, I like rdf:nodeID
14:35:56 <jang> em: I like danbri's suggestion of synchronising with rdf:id
14:36:01 <danbri> This is really the continuation of our cleanup re anonymous/blank resources.
14:36:07 <jang> jjc: I'm happy with node id
14:36:17 <gk> q+
14:36:26 <jang> then we restrict to string syntax of rdf:id (= xml:id)
14:36:28 <jjcscribe> rdf:nodeID
14:36:39 <jang> daveb: frank - much rewriting on the primer?
14:36:45 <jang> frank: er, there will be some...
14:36:57 <jang> I'd like a clear explanation of what the change is...
14:37:05 <jang> in particular, what these node ids are going to look like
14:37:14 <jang> em: premature, i think ,without that being written up
14:37:24 <connolly> er... nodeID and nodeRef? or do you use nodeID in both places? note you can't use rdf:resource to refer to these things.
14:37:28 <jang> davbe: isn't that's jjc's proposal plus the amendments we're discussing?
14:37:33 <DaveB> connolly: rdf:nodeID in both
14:37:36 <connolly> ew
14:37:48 <em> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0080.html
14:37:49 <connolly> oh well
14:37:56 <DaveB> haven't decided yet DanC
14:38:25 <jang> (quick rummage through mailing lists...)
14:38:39 <jang> frankm: this doesn't mention what's in the primer about blank nodes
14:38:56 <jang> because we're talking about generating those ids, not explicitly identifying them
14:39:11 <jang> jjc: the proposal is that the blank nodes remain blank
14:39:24 <jang> we just want to allow a file to refer to the same blank node in two places\
14:39:40 <jang> there's some push to allow blank nodes with a @global@ scope identifier. that's _not_ the proposal
14:39:55 <jjcscribe> the playground is me ...
14:40:00 <jang> frankm: you're being allowed to explicitly specify an id for a blank node
14:40:02 <jang> right?
14:40:13 <jang> secondly: are you always required to specify an id for a blank node?
14:40:24 <jang> or are the current syntactic abbrevs still allowed?
14:40:34 <danbri> hmm, rdf:nodeID seems ok for having something to point to. But how (re dan's questoin) do we point to it?
14:40:51 <em> q?
14:40:58 <danbri> q-
14:40:59 <DaveB> I don't mind, rdf:resourceID/resourceRef - hmm
14:41:15 <em> ack gk
14:41:18 <jang> jjc: second question: the answer is not required
14:41:31 <jang> jang: first question: no suggestion that blank node id -strings_ survive a roundtripping
14:41:43 <danbri> The proposal doesn't mention resourceID or similar; is the proposal incomplete?
14:41:56 <jang> gk: jjc's said it's not necessary to have different names for rdf:nodeid and rdf:nodeidref
14:42:06 <jang> but is it worth having two attributes for subject and object?
14:42:21 <jang> jjc: the proposal is to use the same attribute twice
14:42:49 <jang> danbri; I've often wished rdf:about and rdf:resouce were just rdf:webid
14:42:57 <jang> jjc: it makes the striping easier to see
14:43:08 <jang> taking the opposite viewpoint is maybe perverse...?
14:43:12 <danbri> I like it.
14:43:19 <jang> gk; both work technically, just from a pedagogical pov, which is better?
14:43:28 <jang> nodeid and nodeidref work for me (gk)
14:43:31 <DaveB> gk mentions rdf:nodeIDref
14:43:32 <DaveB> oh
14:43:43 <jang> jjc: my muse deserted me, i only came up with one name
14:44:35 <jang> (the "bnode" terminology is almost resurrected... but not)
14:44:52 <jang> em: is the view of the group this is (a) important, and (b) this is the way to do it?
14:45:01 <jang> decisions in then to get this into the spec, right?
14:45:16 <jang> em: this puts timescales at risk, so if we can agree...
14:45:20 <jang> and I think we have...
14:45:25 <jang> let's make the decision now, ok?
14:45:35 <jang> otherwise, this is no longer a slam-dunk
14:45:41 <jang> (frank: it's a three-point-shot)
14:45:55 <jang> jjc: my full resolution of msg 0080
14:45:59 <jang> with node replaced by nodeid
14:46:10 <jang> and nodeid attr value the same restrictions as rdf:id attr value?
14:46:37 <jang> that should be rdf:nodeID
14:46:40 <gk> Do we have separate attribute for subj/obj?
14:46:43 <DaveB> no
14:47:00 <jang> jjc: personally, I prefer not
14:47:04 <jang> danbri: not
14:47:37 <jang> mike: symmetry argument?
14:47:42 <jang> with resource, about?
14:48:20 <jang> jjc asks for suggestions.. nodeabout, noderef, bid, babout, etc.
14:48:28 <jang> none meet with much agreement
14:48:39 <jang> s/much/any
14:49:08 <jang> em: stick with one. it'll hurt, but big payoff
14:49:14 <jang> with two, hurts much more for the same benefit
14:49:51 <em> zakim, who is here?
14:49:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricM, ??P3, Manola, GK, DanBri, Jjc, ??P12, Mike_Dean, ??P15
14:49:53 <Zakim> On IRC I see JosD, mdean, jjcscribe, DanC, gk, jang, DaveB, danbri, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, logger_1
14:50:03 <jang> yesses to the revised proposal above...
14:50:09 <jang> em asks for no's?
14:50:12 <jang> abstentions?
14:50:19 <jang> none and none, respectively
14:50:34 <jang> agreement. congrats, jeremy.
14:50:45 <jang> (the actions are in the resolution...)
14:50:57 <jang> action: daveb to update syntax doc to reflect nodeID
14:51:04 <jang> action: jjc to produce test cases
14:51:08 <jang> (on nodeID)
14:51:21 <jang> action daveB to update syntax to bring rdfid into line with xmlid
14:51:31 <gk> See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0159.html
14:51:37 <jang> [want to scribe again jjc?]
14:51:52 <jjcscribe> action daveB to update rdfms-names-use to reflect rdf:nodeID
14:53:22 <jjcscribe> Graham talks through new doc.
14:53:36 <jjcscribe> em: the section 2.3 needs activ review
14:53:52 <jjcscribe> (next agenda item)
14:54:29 <jjcscribe> Where Dave has suggested pointing to syntax doc we will,
14:54:40 <jjcscribe> but unclear exactly where
14:54:48 <jang> [note: could do with this living somewhere under w3-space so that TC doc can refer to it normatively... in the near future]
14:55:07 <jjcscribe> Section 4.2 fragment IDs is new material that needs atcive WG agreement
14:56:00 <danbri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0159.html points to a 404
14:56:04 <jang> [unavailable for review, out of the country next week, sorry]
14:56:47 <DaveB> I asked gk to post to www-archive, should be a copy there
14:57:05 <jjcscribe> Isn't that done?
14:57:24 <jjcscribe> em: is this ready to go out as a WD?
14:57:31 <jjcscribe> gk: yes, jjc: nearly
14:57:39 <DaveB> gk's doc - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jul/att-0052/01-Overview.htm
14:57:44 <DaveB> gk/jjc's 25/ july doc
14:57:50 <danbri> (beat me to it, ta)
14:58:15 <DaveB> q+
14:58:22 <jjcscribe> ACTION gk release doc on Tuesday
14:58:26 <DaveB> hmm, no Zakim - nevermind
14:58:52 <jjcscribe> who can review this for Friday?
14:58:52 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfcore
14:59:07 <danbri> I re-invited Zakim; don't know why it left, or whether it lost state.
14:59:10 <danbri> zakim, who is here?
14:59:11 <Zakim> sorry, danbri, I don't know what conference this is
14:59:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, JosD, mdean, jjcscribe, DanC, gk, jang, DaveB, danbri, RRSAgent, em, logger_1
14:59:24 <gk> BTW, proposed title:  Miscellanea and Abstract Data Model
14:59:38 <jang> RDF MADM?
15:00:09 <em> q?
15:00:25 <jjcscribe> DaveB has pretty much reviewed it.
15:00:39 <jjcscribe> Are there two more?
15:00:47 <jang> [needs rdf:nodeID in section 3.7]
15:00:48 <jjcscribe> ACTION ericm Review document.
15:01:14 <jjcscribe> 3.7 could be in syntax doc?
15:01:24 <jjcscribe> ACTION danbri Review document.
15:01:33 <jang> yep
15:01:50 <danbri> (noting that I'm not 100% confident I'll manage it, but want to and will try my best to...)
15:02:02 <DaveB> em: timecheck
15:03:02 <jjcscribe> ACTION jos Partial review (emphasis on section 2.3)
15:03:13 <jjcscribe> ACTION danbri Review of section 2.3
15:03:26 <danbri> ie. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jul/att-0052/01-Overview.htm#section-Meaning
15:03:53 <jjcscribe> ACTION ericm Solicit reviews on rdf-core wg
15:04:03 <jjcscribe> ACTION frank Review section 2.3
15:05:35 <jjcscribe> em: last call scheculde - problem is datatypes.
15:07:20 <jang> bye folks, thanks.
15:07:28 <jjcscribe> Possible theme for next week is datatypes.
15:07:35 <jjcscribe> adjourned.
15:07:59 <gk> DaveB, can you point me to vocab list in syntax doc pls?
15:08:10 <DaveB> hold on
15:09:36 <gk> Ta .. (I lose track of where to find the latest working version)
15:10:12 <gk> zakim, who is her5e?
15:10:13 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, gk.
15:10:16 <gk> zakim, who is here?
15:10:17 <Zakim> sorry, gk, I don't know what conference this is
15:10:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, JosD, jjcscribe, DanC, gk, DaveB, danbri, RRSAgent, em, logger_1
15:10:43 <danbri> zakim loststate when dropped off channel.
15:10:52 <danbri> anyone know what happend?
15:11:54 <DaveB> 3.4 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Namespace
15:11:58 <DaveB> is where rdf namespace defined
15:12:00 <DaveB> and has all the terms
15:12:10 <DaveB> in the editor's draft, there are expansions and updates
15:13:58 <DaveB> editor's draft version http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Namespace
15:14:10 <DaveB> with collection stuff - first, rest, nil
15:15:36 <DaveB> end of chat
15:23:06 <DanC> DanC has left #rdfcore
17:38:00 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfcore
17:38:48 <em> em has left #rdfcore
17:46:20 <danbri> danbri has left #rdfcore