13:53:58 RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore 13:54:48 AaronSw has joined #rdfcore 13:56:09 gk has joined #rdfcore 13:57:25 JosD has joined #rdfcore 13:58:56 zakim, list conferences 13:58:57 I see WAI_EOWG()8:30AM, P3P_CG()9:30AM, SW_RDFCore()10:00AM 13:59:05 zakim, this is SW_RDFCore 13:59:06 ok, em 13:59:08 +??P15 13:59:17 Zakim, +??P15 is DaveB 13:59:18 sorry, DaveB, I do not recognize a party named '+??P15' 13:59:36 well you are stupid then Zakim 13:59:42 Zakim, ??P15 is DaveB 13:59:43 +DaveB; got it 13:59:45 Zakim, who is here 13:59:46 JosD, you need to end that query with '?' 13:59:55 Zakim, who is here ? 13:59:56 On the phone I see ??P10, DaveB 13:59:57 On IRC I see JosD, gk, AaronSw, RRSAgent, Zakim, bwm, em, DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger 13:59:58 +EricM 14:00:14 Zakim, ??P10 is JosD 14:00:15 +JosD; got it 14:00:49 agenda + 25Oct http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0327.html 14:01:03 Zakim, who is here ? 14:01:04 On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM 14:01:05 On IRC I see JosD, gk, AaronSw, RRSAgent, Zakim, bwm, em, DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger 14:01:07 +FrankM 14:01:17 em and I discuss http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/ 14:01:19 +??P18 14:01:22 zakim, ??p18 is gk 14:01:24 +Gk; got it 14:01:26 +??P16 14:01:31 +DanC 14:01:53 zakim, ??P16 is Jeremy 14:01:54 +Jeremy; got it 14:02:00 ugh, more non-N-Triples 14:02:02 agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0327.html 14:02:27 +Mike_Dean 14:02:35 jjc has joined #rdfcore 14:03:23 +AaronSw 14:03:39 +??P21 14:03:46 mdean has joined #rdfcore 14:03:58 +??P22 14:04:11 Zakim, who's on the call? 14:04:12 On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM, FrankM, Gk, Jeremy, DanC, Mike_Dean, AaronSw, ??P21, ??P22 14:04:28 +DanBri 14:04:33 Zakim, ??P21 is Brian. 14:04:34 +Brian.; got it 14:04:38 Zakim, who's talking? 14:04:38 + +1.850.202.aaaa - is perhaps PatH? 14:04:50 DanCon, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: FrankM (19%), Brian. (41%), ??P22 (59%), EricM (24%), DanC (4%), DanBri (19%) 14:04:52 zakim, Pat is PatH 14:04:53 +PatH; got it 14:05:16 scribe for next week is DaveB 14:05:18 bwm_ has joined #rdfcore 14:05:24 Zakim, who is here ? 14:05:26 On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM, FrankM, Gk, Jeremy, DanC, Mike_Dean, AaronSw, Brian., ??P22, DanBri, PatH 14:05:27 On IRC I see bwm_, mdean, jjc, JosD, gk, AaronSw, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger 14:05:40 one uknown? 14:05:43 +??P24 14:05:54 zakim, ??P24 is SteveP 14:05:55 +SteveP; got it 14:06:06 zakim, ??P22 is PatrickS 14:06:08 +PatrickS; got it 14:06:15 Zakim, who is here ? 14:06:17 On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM, FrankM, Gk, Jeremy, DanC, Mike_Dean, AaronSw, Brian., PatrickS, DanBri, PatH, SteveP 14:06:18 On IRC I see bwm_, mdean, jjc, JosD, gk, AaronSw, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger 14:06:35 zakim, Bri is BrianM 14:06:37 +BrianM; got it 14:06:59 w3c telcons are scheduled on Boston time. 14:07:15 minutes approved 14:07:45 DST ends at 2AM and summertime ends at 1AM, but i don't think that will affect us 14:08:32 CONTINUED: ACTION: 2001-12-07#7 EricM 14:08:32 put removal of aboutEach to CG to ask whether this is in charter or not 14:08:48 approved 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions 14:09:05 were there any regrets? I offer JanG's 14:09:17 continue first action of 7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions 14:09:42 agendum 8: WG Schedule 14:09:46 ============ 14:11:34 ... discussing Concepts Doc ready for Review 14:12:31 for the reason PatrickS brought up, the docs should *not* talk about labels; the labelled design is isomorphic to the labelless one, but programming datastructures are *not*, and we shouldn't mislead developers into thinking nodes are datastructures. 14:12:43 ... discussing MT 14:13:21 Brian really wants to publish before 18th 14:13:42 can we call for reviewers now? 14:13:53 that's in the agenda near each doc 14:14:03 $ cal 11 2002 14:14:03 November 2002 14:14:03 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 14:14:03 1 2 14:14:03 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14:14:05 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14:14:07 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 14:14:08 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 14:14:22 try for decision the 15h 14:14:40 GK notes: I'll be travelling on 15th Nov 14:15:06 Eric thinks that would work 14:15:35 fwiw RDFS went thru pubrule tests ok last time; took a while to bring the spec up to date, but that's done 14:15:52 pubrules checker: http://www.w3.org/2001/07/pubrules-form 14:17:48 DanC also thinks that the 15th is reasonable 14:18:23 I really should try to be done *before* 13th.. after that, I'm travelling 14:19:45 Brian wants to make sure that the WD are *technically complete* 14:20:44 Jeremy proposes an editors todo list 14:20:56 in the primer ... 14:22:52 DanC thinks that is OK that the primer doesn't cover datatypes 14:23:12 ... although Frank has an action to add it 14:23:47 the draft does cover them http://www.w3.org/2001/09/rdfprimer/rdf-primer-20021024.html#typedliterals 14:23:53 ... and Frank has examples using Ntriples 14:24:13 not-n-triples 14:24:24 Eric hears that Frank can meet the deadline 14:24:55 item 9: Model Theory 14:25:10 ========== 9: Model Theory 14:25:22 ??? waiting for decisions? the WG is *not* in the critical path any more; there are no pending issues. 14:26:02 PatH: domain and range, how to define semantics? if or iff semantics? 14:26:31 Pat is waiting for some decisions such as range semantics 14:26:46 .. class A range B, B superclass C, A tange C (??? is that right example?) 14:27:08 eg. is rdfs:Resource an rdfs:range of each and every rdf:Property ? 14:27:10 q+ 14:28:18 DanC says the the WG has no open issues and proposes editors just proceed 14:29:01 -AaronSw 14:29:41 +AaronSw 14:29:50 -AaronSw 14:30:16 it's Pat's call 14:30:32 semantics of RDF Collection 14:30:44 +AaronSw 14:30:58 welcome Aaron 14:31:45 ack jjc 14:32:13 Jeremy feels strong about this e.g. lack of equality, 14:32:28 ack dancon 14:32:29 DanCon, you wanted to get clarification 14:32:37 ... also possibility of contradiction 14:33:57 if we add notion of a functional property for lists, i'd want it across the board... (hmm scope creep...) 14:34:31 ACTION DanC to produce a testcase for a nonentailment 14:34:49 explain why it's ok not to put functional semantics for rdf:first/rest in our spec. 14:35:04 ACTION DanC to explain why it's ok not to put functional semantics for rdf:first/rest in our spec. 14:35:31 Proposed Technical changes to RDFS model theory 14:35:51 q+ 14:36:05 q- 14:36:13 Pat will update that 14:36:27 hmm... I have a concern about this IFF stuff, but I'm not sure what it is. 14:36:49 Pat raises point about syntax of literals 14:37:00 ===========10: Syntax Document 14:37:08 2 actions are done 14:37:26 rdf:about -> about? 14:37:33 ok... yep same topic 14:37:58 proposed change rdf: prefix for about and resource 14:38:38 q+ 14:38:39 DanC and DaveB reduced that to 0ne paragraph change 14:39:25 Jeremy wants to have deprecation and mentions the appropriate past motivation 14:39:40 ... from May 2001 14:41:01 AaronSw proposes warning DanC not in favor of deprecation 14:41:26 PatrickS also supports deprecation 14:41:50 I would prefer deprecation, but don't have cause to feel stringly 14:41:53 I don't care much either way. Can we have 'mild depracatation'? 14:42:15 RESOLVED deprecation 14:42:35 (I don't think we RESOLVED anything, editors' call) 14:42:36 rdf:type is part of the list 14:42:37 -AaronSw 14:43:09 adopting change from dajobe/danc editorial thread on www-rdf-comments 14:43:21 ACTION: jjc Review syntax 14:43:24 we RESOLVED to reopen rdfms-ns-confusion and close it with this change. 14:43:35 +AaronSw 14:43:37 the question about deprecation is left to the editor 14:45:27 ACTION bwm to review syntax doc 14:45:45 ================11: Concepts Doc 14:45:51 all action done 14:46:11 What's the specific request to Eikeon? 14:46:16 see #rdfig 14:46:24 Graham overviewing received comments 14:46:54 extend +1; move primer learlier for frank? 14:47:36 DanC asks to extend meeting by 15 minutes 14:47:47 DanC raises Sandro's points 14:47:56 I've been working on the issues list today: http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDFConceptIssues.html 14:48:07 ... remember imports discussion 14:48:43 from #rdfig 14:48:44 [03:46] * eikeon is up for reviewing the spec. 14:48:56 DanC sympathetic to test his stuff but it's not critical last call 14:49:28 Graham don't think there are critical issues 14:49:44 Brian asks about dt literals 14:49:59 DanC: I think the text in the concepts spec mostly addresses Sandro's concern, but he wants to be sure these concepts have teeth, i.e. test cases. But I think this is a different kind of test than the rest of our entailment test, and I think that sandro agrees. 14:50:27 Jeremy talks about the 2 new invented dt's 14:51:11 Pat thinks this is a major change 14:51:58 jjc, you're moving to re-open the issue? 14:52:06 I don't think this is inconsistent with what we decided. 14:52:59 DanBri, see: http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-predefined-datatypes 14:53:36 -AaronSw 14:55:38 is it the case that StringLiteral and XMLLiteral are, together, mutually disjoint with any other datatype class? 14:55:59 the value space of stringliteral better not be disjoint from xsd:string 14:56:45 It's good that we can use OWL concepts to disambiguate our design... 14:57:49 Jeremy and Pat argue about implicit/explicit notation 14:57:57 q+ to ask whether a literal can be in one of these classes as well as an xsd datatype class 14:58:55 DanC argues in favor of 1 line in MT 14:59:21 I'm trying to get my head around this for RDFS too. 14:59:51 jjc, path wants the subject of your msg 15:00:05 # RDF concepts Jeremy Carroll (Fri, Oct 25 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0335.html 15:00:10 I don't know. I fear some confusion w.r.t disjointness or not. 15:00:29 URL's for the relevant document sections: http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-Literals, http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-predefined-datatypes, http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-Graph-syntax 15:00:42 BWM: jjc has said he can back out if this doesn't work. PatH [and somebody] hasn't read this. So please read it, then say if you can't accept it, in which case Jeremy can back out. 15:01:15 last week minutes said: [[ DECISION: datatyped literals CAN have a language tag in the abstract syntax]] 15:01:19 -FrankM 15:01:24 -SteveP 15:01:30 Brian mentions the 2 other points w.r.t. langtag 15:01:53 ... which need to be done in the abstract syntax 15:01:57 which 2 new things, bwm? sorry, I lost track. 15:02:34 I'll resummarize 15:02:35 jjc, my question is whether classicliteral is disjoint from xsd:string. I would have a problem if it were. 15:02:42 DanCon: rdfs:StringLiteral and rdfs:XMLLiteral 15:02:55 er, no. I'm confused 15:03:39 q- 15:03:51 DanC thinks that it doesn't need to be disjoint if it is a union 15:04:15 >> Not possible to add language tag by inference process 15:05:05 (danbri + bwm resolve to meet tuesday re RDFS + datatyping edits) 15:05:36 Brian 2nd issue doed a dt literal have a lang tag 15:06:39 DanC thinks there is no problem with the union idea 15:07:01 bwm, you asked if anybody's proposing it; no, nobody's proposing it. It doesn't follow that this is what we want; only that we don't expect to get it. 15:07:59 DanC says that it depends on the xml langtag 15:08:24 So we decide: types literals MAY have lang tags 15:08:28 DECIDED they may have one 15:08:51 Can that lang tag take part in the literal-to-value mapping? 15:09:33 Brian: 2nd question can the mapping be influenced by the dt mapping? 15:09:52 I sawy - yeah, why not. 15:11:25 nope, leads to alice in wonderlandism 15:11:44 Brian: we should not go beyond xsd's mapping of lexical form to value 15:12:05 we're never going to get to pubing lbase at this rate 15:12:32 "foo"@"lang1"^^dt . entails "foo"@"lang2"^^dt . 15:13:40 or rdfs 15:13:57 and for: "foo"@"lang1 entails "foo"@"lang2" 15:13:58 ? 15:16:18 q+ 15:16:37 This sounds like arguing (FORALL dt) vs (EXISTS dt) 15:17:42 have we extended the meeting? 15:18:29 -Mike_Dean 15:18:33 meeting further extended by 15min 15:19:58 bwm: lang matters for RDFMS style literals, does it matter for datatyped literals? 15:20:25 ... we have the freedom to chose 15:21:10 DanC also wants to check with I18N WG 15:21:38 Pat says that it's just getting the same denotations 15:21:42 DanC's view of a query engine is purely entailment-based. Others have wider views 15:22:22 ... i.e. some "query engines" might operate on the graph *syntax* elements 15:22:25 q+ 15:23:29 GK thinks he hears a locale vs language conflict 15:23:47 i've got to run folks... see you all in a but 15:23:51 Q+ 15:23:54 s/but/bit :) 15:24:17 -EricM 15:24:31 Brian thinks that we have a lexical coherent thing (with the langtag) 15:24:42 Jermy has to make the call 15:25:09 PatH says needs lexical-to-value mappings to be clear 15:25:20 (having looked at jeremy's datatype wording) 15:25:39 ACTION: Jeremy - tell PatH what the lexical-to-value mappings are 15:26:00 ACTION on Jeremy to tell Pat what the LV mappings are for builtin dt's 15:26:58 ----------- Ntriples proposal of DaveB 15:27:27 PatrickS gets DanC confirmation about ^^ 15:27:39 ... so no objections 15:28:03 action for the editors 15:28:51 ACTION: jeremy to propose to dan schema for new datatypes 15:30:41 ACTION: Jeremy to circulate an updated version of the concepts document 15:30:52 Pat will review 15:31:30 ...Graham involved 15:32:42 ACTION: PatH, DanC and JosD to review the updated version of the concepts document 15:33:38 ====== meeting is closed 15:33:49 -DaveB 15:33:49 -PatrickS 15:33:53 danbri has left #rdfcore 15:33:57 -DanBri 15:34:02 Zakim help 15:34:13 Zakim, help 15:34:15 Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help. 15:34:16 Some of the commands I know are: 15:34:17 xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx 15:34:19 if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted 15:34:21 xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx 15:34:23 I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx 15:34:24 xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group 15:34:27 xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx 15:34:28 who's here? - lists the participants on the phone 15:34:30 who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted 15:34:32 mute xxx - mutes party xxx (such that 60# will not work) 15:34:34 unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61# 15:34:37 is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present 15:34:38 list conferences - reports the active conferences 15:34:40 this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx 15:34:41 excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel 15:34:42 I last learned something new on $Date: 2002/10/25 20:35:48 $ 15:38:36 RRSAgent, help 15:39:42 RRSAgent, show action items 15:39:42 I see 5 open action items: 15:39:42 ACTION: jjc Review syntax [1] 15:39:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T14-43-21 15:39:42 ACTION: Jeremy - tell PatH what the lexical-to-value mappings are [2] 15:39:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-25-39 15:39:42 ACTION: jeremy to propose to dan schema for new datatypes [3] 15:39:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-28-51 15:39:42 ACTION: Jeremy to circulate an updated version of the concepts document [4] 15:39:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-30-41 15:39:42 ACTION: PatH, DanC and JosD to review the updated version of the concepts document [5] 15:39:42 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-32-42 15:46:14 -JosD 15:49:09 25-rdfcore-irc.html (from ACLs DB) 15:49:09 world access. 15:49:09 25-rdfcore-irc.rdf (from ACLs DB) 15:49:09 world access. 15:49:09 25-rdfcore-irc.txt (from ACLs DB) 15:49:10 world access. 15:52:23 jjc, still here? we should have a non-entailment test for different XML literals that canonicalize to the same thing, then? 15:54:47 -PatH 15:55:08 -DanC 15:57:19 -Gk 15:58:39 gk has joined #rdfcore 15:58:59 Jeremy, I don't know if that last msg got through... 15:59:16 I've emailed you relinquishment of document lock with note of CVS revision 16:00:25 -BrianM 16:00:33 I've also done tentative update of issues list at http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDFConceptIssues.html 16:00:39 Zakim, who's on the call? 16:00:41 On the phone I see Jeremy 16:00:50 -Jeremy 16:00:55 I lost the call.. still in IRC? 16:01:51 I need to review old issues but have added new ones from the last few days. 16:04:10 bwm_ has left #rdfcore 19:22:25 SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended 19:26:51 DanCon has left #rdfcore 20:33:45 Zakim has left #rdfcore