IRC log of rdfcore on 2002-10-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

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