14:01:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
14:01:14 <em> zakim, this is rdfcore
14:01:15 <Zakim> this was already SW_RDFCore()10:00AM
14:01:16 <Zakim> ok, em
14:01:23 <em> zakim, who is here?
14:01:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, ??P10 (muted)
14:01:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, em, Zakim, DanC, logger, Aa-latere, jang
14:01:34 <Zakim> +??P11
14:01:43 <DanC> anybody know what PatrickS means by "this proposal" in his recent message? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0033.html
14:01:59 <Zakim> +??P13
14:02:04 <em> em has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2002-10-04 teleconference
14:02:32 <Zakim> +??P15
14:02:34 <DanC> "Of that the WG has had nearly unanimous agreement" <- as far as I know, the WG hasn't made any decisions about datatyping. We have no approved test cases. Or did I miss something?
14:02:41 <bwm> bwm has joined #rdfcore
14:02:50 <gk-scribe> gk-scribe has joined #rdfcore
14:02:54 <DanC> anybody know what PatrickS means by "this proposal" in his recent message? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0033.html
14:02:56 <DanC> "Of that the WG has had nearly unanimous agreement" <- as far as I know, the WG hasn't made any decisions about datatyping. We have no approved test cases. Or did I miss something?
14:03:38 <DanC> Jermy writes "we had already agreed on with the
14:03:38 <DanC> rdf:datatype mechanism"
14:03:44 <DanC> ^where's the record of that agreement?
14:03:50 <DaveB> DaveB has joined #rdfcore
14:03:51 <JosD> JosD has joined #rdfcore
14:03:55 <DanC> when did the wg agree to rdf:datatype?
14:04:08 <jjc> jjc has joined #rdfcore
14:04:14 <jjc> jjc has joined #rdfcore
14:04:41 <Zakim> +??P14
14:04:43 <bwm> 3-4 weeks ago
14:04:44 <em> zakim, who is here?
14:04:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, ??P10, ??P11, ??P13, ??P15, ??P14
14:04:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjc, JosD, DaveB, gk-scribe, bwm, RRSAgent, em, Zakim, DanC, logger, Aa-latere, jang
14:05:07 <Zakim> +EricM
14:05:22 <em> we seem to have a lot of unknowns...
14:05:52 <Zakim> +??P16
14:06:05 <em-scribe> zakim, ??P16 is MikeD
14:06:06 <Zakim> +MikeD; got it
14:06:06 <JosD> Zakim, ??p14 is JosD
14:06:08 <Zakim> +JosD; got it
14:06:24 <em-scribe> jjc to scribe next week
14:06:27 <em-scribe> role call...
14:06:30 <em-scribe> zakim, who is on the phone
14:06:31 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', em-scribe
14:06:33 <em-scribe> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:06:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, ??P10, ??P11, ??P13, ??P15, JosD, EricM, MikeD
14:06:44 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfcore
14:06:54 <Zakim> +??P17
14:07:01 <em-scribe> zakim,  ??P17 is PatH.
14:07:02 <Zakim> +PatH.; got it
14:07:12 <em-scribe> zakim,  ??P10 is bristol.
14:07:13 <Zakim> +Bristol.; got it
14:07:21 <em-scribe> zakim,  ??P11 is PatrickS.
14:07:22 <Zakim> +PatrickS.; got it
14:07:29 <em-scribe> zakim,  ??P13 is SteveP.
14:07:30 <Zakim> +SteveP.; got it
14:07:33 <em-scribe> zakim,  ??P13 is GK.
14:07:34 <Zakim> sorry, em-scribe, I do not recognize a party named '??P13'
14:07:39 <em-scribe> zakim,  ??P15 is GK.
14:07:40 <Zakim> +GK.; got it
14:07:48 <em-scribe> agenda discussion....
14:07:54 <Zakim> +DanC
14:07:55 <em-scribe> patrick: sent item earlier
14:08:01 <DaveB> Zakim, bristol has bwm, jjc, daveb
14:08:02 <Zakim> +Bwm, Jjc, Daveb; got it
14:08:28 <em-scribe> DanC: rdfs:format agenda request?
14:08:34 <em-scribe> bwm: agenda item 9.
14:08:42 <em-scribe> minutes from last telecon are approved...
14:09:35 <Zakim> +EricP
14:09:36 <danbri> zakim, EricP is temporarily DanBri
14:09:37 <Zakim> +DanBri; got it
14:10:11 <em-scribe> minutes from last telecon are approved...
14:10:19 <em-scribe> todays agenda - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0029.html
14:10:46 <em-scribe> brian: talking about voting structure
14:10:47 <DanC> how many members are there in good standing?
14:11:02 <em-scribe> brian: we're looking for 2/3 majority
14:11:04 <DaveB> that's a q for team contact
14:11:12 <DanC> yup; I'm asking em-scribe
14:11:27 <em-scribe> i missed the question?
14:11:38 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:12:58 <em-scribe> ack DanC
14:13:17 <AaronSw> n-way questions sounds equivalent to condorcet
14:13:23 <AaronSw> is someone breathng heavily?
14:13:31 <DanC> Zakim, who's talking?
14:13:35 <mdean> mdean has joined #rdfcore
14:13:42 <Zakim> DanC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: FrankM (55%), Bristol. (39%), PatrickS. (95%), PatH. (30%), DanBri (29%), DanC (5%)
14:14:07 <DanC> em-scribe, did you get the details of the voting procedure? or is there an action on bwm to mail out details?
14:14:21 <em-scribe> i'm going to ask for an action to the chair
14:15:52 <em-scribe> ACTION: Brian to send message to the list re the specifics of the voting procedure
14:16:43 <em-scribe> PS: agenda 7 ... (are we away from this)
14:18:20 <em-scribe> agenda 8.... HP Proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0019.html
14:18:43 <em-scribe> jjc: compromise between tidy and untidy proposal
14:19:56 <DanC> jjc, just say "yes".
14:20:25 <gk> jjc: Proposal is alternative, not replacement for typed literal
14:20:42 <em-scribe> mdean: does it have to be in the top? if so, how is this supported?
14:20:43 <DanC> again, jjc, the answer to mdean's question is "yes".
14:21:14 <em-scribe> jjc: if you round tripping, the order may not be preserved... literal by literal datatpye may be possible
14:22:06 <em-scribe> JosD: similar to namespace declarations
14:22:51 <DanC> mdean, consensus isn't at issue yet; jjc gets to say, unilaterally, what the proposal is.
14:22:51 <em-scribe> bwm: mike, is this a critical detail that is required to help explain (and decide) on this proposal?
14:24:55 <gk> q+ to say I think the proposal is fine in principle, but I'm concerned about some details and don't see why we need it at this time
14:24:58 <gk> q-
14:25:25 <danbri> q+ to suggest that XML entities give us a syntax hack for this already
14:25:36 <DanC> how so, danbri?
14:25:59 <DaveB> not for every property; only in generally shortening verboseness
14:26:14 <danbri> I read the HP proposal as a sort of macro expansion thingy... And that we could do same as people do now for taking up less room
14:26:18 <danbri> ...with uris etc
14:26:21 <jjc> correct
14:26:23 <danbri> hmm, can entities have whitespace in them?
14:26:26 <em-scribe> DaveB: changes to this proposal would only be in the syntax and primer documents
14:26:29 <danbri> q-
14:26:54 <DanC> jjc/danbri, has the WG decided to adopt the rdfd:datatype stuff? can somebody help me find the record of it? when was it?
14:27:03 <em-scribe> Patrick, i missed the querstion? can you repeat?
14:27:15 <DaveB> we did decide thiat danc, was called 'approving part1' i think
14:27:31 <em-scribe> pps; will there be some mechansism so that instance data would have to be mod to use this faciliyt?
14:27:37 <em-scribe> annswer: no
14:27:39 <danbri> I'm looking for such decisions too, for my RDFS editorial task list.
14:27:45 <em-scribe> arr... pps; -> PatrickS (sorry)
14:28:18 <em-scribe> DanC: the working group has approved rdfs:datatype?
14:28:21 <em-scribe> answer: yes
14:28:23 <em-scribe> (uri?)
14:28:40 <em-scribe> DanC: ok, i retrack the suggestion
14:28:41 <DaveB> getting it
14:28:49 <em-scribe> thanks DaveB
14:29:08 <DanC> no, I don't withdraw my proposal; I'm just not prepared to argue to re-open the rdfs:datatype decision.
14:29:16 <em-scribe> ok, thanks for clarification
14:29:17 <DanC> I withdraw my agenda request.
14:29:29 <DaveB> in msg .../2002/Sep/0178.html minutes of 2002-09-13 item 9
14:29:33 <jjc> q+
14:29:35 <em-scribe> q+
14:30:12 <DaveB> em-scribe: above url has the datatypes 1 decision recorded, i can't cut'n'paste urls here
14:30:30 <em-scribe> q?
14:30:42 <jjc> q-
14:31:22 <AaronSw> Zakim, who's talking?
14:31:28 <DanC> DaveB, item 9 on 13Sep was about splitting the document among the existing WDs; it wasn't a design decision, was it?
14:31:34 <Zakim> AaronSw, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: FrankM (39%), PatH. (15%), DanBri (68%), EricM (21%), DanC (5%)
14:31:52 <jjc> Zakim, who's talking?
14:32:03 <Zakim> jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: FrankM (68%), PatrickS. (10%), PatH. (24%), DanBri (34%), EricM (76%), DanC (9%)
14:32:51 <jjc> q+
14:32:54 <DaveB> DanC: it was, but by adding the docs secs to the WDs, it added rdf datatyping
14:33:55 <DanC> oh come on! the record doesn't say anything of the sort.
14:34:09 <Zakim> -SteveP.
14:34:33 <em-scribe> ack em
14:35:05 <DaveB> DanC: right, I see item 10 in 2002Sep/0081.html that is more explicit
14:35:22 <Zakim> +??P2
14:35:33 <gk> zakim, ??p2 is gk
14:35:35 <Zakim> +Gk; got it
14:35:41 <Zakim> -AaronSw
14:35:44 <DanC> ah, thx DaveB
14:35:53 <Zakim> +Guha
14:36:13 <em-scribe> ACTION: bwm, to help articulate a the tidy/untidy discussion  (more statement.. 'can you live with this') and ask WebOnt at f2f
14:36:26 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:37:04 <DanC> re my question on whether the WG has decided about rdf:datatype, yes, in item 10 on 6Sep http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0081.html
14:38:34 <em-scribe> ACTION: ericm, to contact the Adobe XMP folk and solicit input to tidy/untidy debate
14:39:30 <em-scribe> bwm to survey customers.... 
14:39:49 <em-scribe> DaveB: (and aaron) say that DC is tidy('esq)
14:40:17 <em-scribe> ACTION: bwm, to contact Mark Butler (CCPP) about tidy/untidy issue
14:40:56 <DanC> note to self: suggest a technical way to address the conflict between cc/pp's current schema and tidy semantics. (specifically: change rdfs:range to rdfs:format, and the conflict goes away)
14:41:06 <em-scribe> action danc?
14:41:39 <DanC> ok by me, but it needs to be OK by the chair too, and I'm not sure he wants to go there.
14:41:49 <DanC> (i.e. to interrupt the discussion)
14:42:58 <em-scribe> bwm: is this propsal helpful?
14:43:03 <gk> q+ to the extent that verbosity is a concern, I think HP proposal helps
14:43:31 <em-scribe> stevep: i think this helps
14:43:50 <em-scribe> mdean: i think this helps some... need to think more (round tripping important0
14:44:01 <em-scribe> q?
14:44:06 <em-scribe> ack jjc
14:44:08 <em-scribe> ack Gk
14:44:08 <jjc> q-
14:44:08 <Zakim> Gk, you wanted to the extent that verbosity is a concern, I think HP proposal helps
14:44:36 <em-scribe> ack DanC
14:44:37 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say that the HP might help with verbosity, but it's too complex/messy
14:45:52 <em-scribe> DanC: new syntax is the core my concern
14:46:01 <em-scribe> (impact on testcases, parsers)
14:46:10 <em-scribe> implementation cost discussion....
14:46:24 <em-scribe> DaveB: its new but i dont consider this large
14:46:31 <em-scribe> on the order of hours
14:46:42 <em-scribe> jjc: hours
14:46:46 <em-scribe> jjc: hours to implement
14:47:03 <em-scribe> q+ to ask frank
14:47:35 <em-scribe> q?
14:48:18 <em-scribe> ack em
14:48:19 <Zakim> Em, you wanted to ask frank
14:49:24 <Zakim> -AaronSw
14:49:27 <DaveB> i'd simplify this something like <rdf:DatatypingBlah rdf:foo="foo:prop1" rdf:bar="&xsd;decimal"/>
14:50:01 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:50:07 <em-scribe> q?
14:50:11 <DanC> ah... I'm starting to remember why I didn't absorb the rdfd:datatype proposal... the spec is in a zip file that I never got around to unzipping; I should have objected to the record.
14:50:57 <DaveB> or <rdf:DatatypingRanges foo:prop1="&xsd;decimal" foo:prop2="&xsd:string"/>
14:51:50 <DanC> yeah, but what about semantics? does it say that xsd:decimal is a class? a property? what's its extension?
14:52:04 <DanC> to me, it's a propoerty.
14:52:06 <DaveB> it's a syntax abbreviation
14:52:24 <DaveB> s/DatatypeingRanges/other term/
14:52:40 <DanC> it (part1) doesn't specify any relationship between rdfs:range and that syntax?
14:54:50 <DanC> in http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html section 6.1.2, I see <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;integer"/>. sigh.
14:55:10 <Zakim> -AaronSw
14:55:48 <JosD> Zakim, mute JosD
14:55:50 <Zakim> JosD should now be muted
14:56:39 <DanC> Zakim, who's talking?
14:56:49 <Zakim> DanC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: FrankM (60%), Bristol. (30%), PatrickS. (100%), PatH. (45%), DanBri (46%)
14:57:04 <gk> jjc, you mention datatyping being file-scoped -- do you mean that, or do you mean element-scoped?
14:57:12 <bwm> detail
14:57:16 <jjc> don't know
14:57:20 <JosD> Zakim, unmute JosD
14:57:22 <Zakim> JosD should no longer be muted
14:57:25 <jjc> I haven't really decided
14:58:26 <gk> (Yes, it's detail)
14:58:59 <em-scribe> frank: this prosal will require additinoal work on the primer
14:59:26 <DaveB> (DanC: sec 6 of that doc wasn't proposed to go in wds, if you looka t the split)
15:01:17 <em-scribe> DanC: <agr rdf:format="&int;" /> 
15:02:40 <em-scribe> PatH: purely a lexical check?>
15:02:46 <em-scribe> DanC: yes per MT
15:02:51 <gk> q+ to ask DanC if his format check can be used with typed literals
15:03:13 <em-scribe> guha: there is actually history for this (CYC).. worked quite well
15:04:07 <em-scribe> PatH: is this propsal incompatable with typed literals?
15:04:09 <em-scribe> jjc: yes
15:04:19 <em-scribe> PatH: then i dont this is acceptable
15:04:55 <gk> q+ to object to withdrawal of typed literals
15:06:01 <em-scribe> guha: support danc's propsal
15:06:11 <em-scribe> JosD: agreed.. simple and straitforward
15:06:17 <em-scribe> miked: i support this as well
15:06:33 <em-scribe> guha: danc would go fine with the dmoz stuff
15:06:37 <gk> My position:  the availability of typed literals is important to my view of accepting tidy literals in CC/PP ... see my message about redesigning CC/PP for tidy literals
15:06:39 <danbri> I like the sound of it too.
15:06:51 <DaveB> it=what?
15:06:52 <em-scribe> path: i'm amazed that you guys are supporting this... seems to rule out datatyping?
15:07:07 <danbri> it=danc's proposal. But I don't understand how it is incompatible with typed literals.
15:07:15 <DaveB> also limits to only XSD types, which isn't good
15:07:24 <DaveB> for e.g. DC can't use that limitation
15:08:05 <gk> I think DanC's proposal to withdraw typed literals is a bigger step back than any other we've considered today.
15:08:20 <em-scribe> PatrickS: i appose
15:08:38 <em-scribe> PatH: i disagree with this proposal as well
15:09:46 <em-scribe> PS: tidy/untidy debat as uncovered a divide... RDF as a markup model and others who want to represent knowledge... 
15:09:47 <Zakim> -GK.
15:09:54 <Zakim> -PatH.
15:09:54 <Zakim> -JosD
15:09:54 <Zakim> -Guha
15:10:06 <Zakim> -MikeD
15:10:08 <gk> zamik, whos on the phone?
15:10:14 <gk> zakim, whos on the phone?
15:10:16 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, gk.
15:10:17 <em-scribe> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:10:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, Bristol., PatrickS., EricM, DanC, DanBri, Gk
15:10:19 <Zakim> Bristol. has Bwm, Jjc, Daveb
15:10:33 <DaveB> Zakim: bristol has bwm, daveb
15:10:43 <DaveB> hmm
15:14:32 <Zakim> -DanBri
15:15:05 <danbri> danbri has left #rdfcore
15:20:49 <em-scribe> folks... i have to run ... thanks
15:21:12 <Zakim> -EricM
15:29:57 <Zakim> -Gk
15:35:17 <Zakim> -FrankM
15:35:22 <Zakim> -DanC
15:36:07 <DaveB> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:36:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see Bristol., PatrickS.
15:36:09 <Zakim> Bristol. has Bwm, Jjc, Daveb
15:51:52 <Zakim> -PatrickS.
15:51:59 <Zakim> -Bristol.
15:52:01 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
17:50:50 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfcore
18:24:47 <DanC> DanC has left #rdfcore