IRC log of rdfcore on 2002-11-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:01:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
15:01:22 [bwm]
Zakim, ??p7 is bwm
15:01:23 [Zakim]
+Bwm; got it
15:01:31 [Zakim]
+EMiller
15:01:40 [Zakim]
+PatH
15:01:41 [Zakim]
+Manola
15:01:45 [DanC]
agenda + 1Nov http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0016.html (despite subject)
15:02:03 [Zakim]
+??P15
15:02:11 [Zakim]
+DanC
15:02:20 [em]
em has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2002-11-01 teleconference
15:02:30 [em]
zakim, ??P15 is SteveP
15:02:31 [Zakim]
+SteveP; got it
15:02:38 [em]
zakim, who is here?
15:02:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DaveB, ??P12, Bwm, EMiller, PatH, Manola, SteveP, DanC
15:02:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, danbri, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, DanC, em, DaveB, logger
15:03:18 [em]
zakim, ??P12 is PatrickS
15:03:20 [Zakim]
+PatrickS; got it
15:03:27 [Zakim]
+Mike_Dean
15:03:30 [DanC]
Zakim, who's talking?
15:03:40 [Zakim]
DanC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Bwm (49%), PatrickS (5%), Mike_Dean (9%), EMiller (10%), DanC (15%)
15:03:56 [em]
zakim, mute bwm
15:03:57 [Zakim]
Bwm should now be muted
15:04:07 [em]
zakim, unmute bwm
15:04:08 [Zakim]
Bwm should no longer be muted
15:04:09 [bwm]
I'll redial
15:04:12 [DanC]
(you can "mute bwm temporarily" btw)
15:04:12 [Zakim]
-Bwm
15:04:30 [Zakim]
+AaronSw
15:04:41 [em]
zakim, who is here?
15:04:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DaveB, PatrickS, EMiller, PatH, Manola, SteveP, DanC, Mike_Dean, AaronSw
15:04:43 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, danbri, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, DanC, em, DaveB, logger
15:04:58 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: RDF Core 1Nov; chair: BrianM; scribe: DaveB
15:05:09 [DanC]
Zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:10 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Mike_Dean
15:05:13 [DanC]
Zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:14 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AaronSw
15:05:19 [DanC]
Zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:20 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Mike_Dean
15:05:23 [DanC]
Zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:24 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DaveB
15:05:26 [DanC]
Zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:27 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DaveB
15:05:30 [DanC]
Zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:31 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose EMiller
15:05:33 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rdfcore
15:05:41 [DanC]
Zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:42 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose EMiller
15:05:45 [DanC]
Zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:46 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DaveB
15:06:01 [bwm]
I'm going to change rooms - phone now dead - back shortly
15:06:23 [DanC]
scribe next week: MikeD, with Aaron's help
15:06:54 [DanC]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:06:55 [DaveB]
roll call
15:06:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see DaveB, PatrickS, EMiller, PatH, Manola, SteveP, DanC, Mike_Dean, AaronSw
15:07:17 [DaveB]
regrets jang
15:07:22 [Zakim]
+??P17
15:07:25 [DaveB]
regrets jjc
15:07:29 [AaronSw]
zakim, ??P17 is BrianM
15:07:31 [Zakim]
+BrianM; got it
15:07:33 [em]
zakim, ??P17 is bwm
15:07:34 [Zakim]
sorry, em, I do not recognize a party named '??P17'
15:07:49 [DanC]
RESOLVED: Next telecon 8th Nov 2002
15:07:50 [DaveB]
danbri: you dialling in?
15:08:20 [DaveB]
minutes of 2002-10-25
15:08:32 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to approve http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0386.html
15:08:42 [DaveB]
item 6
15:08:44 [Zakim]
+EricP
15:08:55 [DaveB]
all done
15:08:56 [danbri]
Zakim, EricP is temporarily DanBri
15:08:57 [Zakim]
+DanBri; got it
15:09:02 [DaveB]
item 7
15:09:22 [DaveB]
done
15:09:26 [DaveB]
item 8 doc schedule
15:10:55 [DaveB]
a reminder of the schedule (bwm)
15:11:00 [DaveB]
any comments?
15:11:03 [DaveB]
item 9 concepts doc
15:11:09 [DaveB]
(no comments on 8)
15:11:13 [DaveB]
propose to publish
15:11:18 [DaveB]
have 2 reviews (bwm, danc)
15:11:55 [DaveB]
patH did some reviewing, comments similar to bwm
15:12:11 [DaveB]
DanC: can you assure docs are ready?
15:12:24 [DaveB]
path: yeah, can speak to that
15:12:53 [DaveB]
bwm: some problems/caveats from DanC
15:13:04 [DanC]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0001.html
15:13:32 [DaveB]
DanC; think my critical comments are non controversial
15:13:42 [DaveB]
(note that neither of concepts wg chairs are present)
15:14:42 [DaveB]
discussing msg ... 2002Nov/0001.html
15:15:16 [DaveB]
item 1 - rdf does not include rdfs
15:16:09 [DaveB]
item 2 - rdf datatyping
15:16:28 [DaveB]
item 3 - remove universal, use flexible
15:16:48 [DaveB]
item 4 - asserted expression - make a hyperlink
15:17:30 [DaveB]
item 5 - g entailing g' - note more work needed hear here, more than one type of entailment
15:17:40 [DaveB]
s/hear here/near here/
15:17:49 [DaveB]
above are DanC's must-fix comments
15:18:00 [DaveB]
if they are fixed and detail is checked
15:18:10 [DaveB]
since only did up to 2.3.3
15:18:15 [DaveB]
then ok - danc
15:18:19 [DaveB]
path - no showstoppers
15:18:39 [DaveB]
ACTION bwm: get editors of concepts to make changes requested and publish
15:18:54 [DaveB]
ACTIOM em: staff contact for pubing concepts
15:19:04 [DaveB]
heh
15:19:13 [DaveB]
revising
15:19:27 [DaveB]
both actions on em
15:19:36 [DaveB]
(correction)
15:19:39 [em]
ACTION em: to get editors of concepts to make changes outlined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0001.html and requested and publish
15:19:56 [DaveB]
RESOLVED: to publish concepts and abstract syntax doc
15:20:30 [DaveB]
ACTION jjc/gk title change at editors discression
15:20:45 [DanC]
(that's not an action; they're not here.)
15:20:48 [DaveB]
yeah
15:20:58 [DaveB]
s/ACTION/note/
15:21:03 [DaveB]
em: woo hoo!
15:21:13 [DaveB]
item 10 syntax doc
15:21:23 [DaveB]
AaronSw: can you scribe now?
15:22:20 [AaronSw]
sure
15:22:35 [AaronSw]
DaveB: don't have time to converse with jjc before publishing
15:22:40 [AaronSw]
DanC: Are you ready to publish?
15:22:54 [AaronSw]
DaveB: sorta split. want to perfect it for jjc, but other people like it fine
15:23:03 [AaronSw]
DanC: anyone else propose to publish?
15:23:09 [AaronSw]
DaveB: no one will do that
15:23:26 [AaronSw]
Brian: jjc asked me to speak for him, he's not willing to support publication unless his issues are met
15:23:55 [AaronSw]
... rest of document must take prescedence over section 2
15:24:01 [AaronSw]
... dave, can you meet that condition?
15:24:27 [AaronSw]
DaveB: could say "this is intended...latest is correct". i don't think (informative) says that strongly. some things in that section are normative.
15:24:40 [AaronSw]
... "node element" is defined there
15:25:12 [AaronSw]
bwm: sounds like you're willing to make that clear?
15:25:14 [AaronSw]
DaveB: fine.
15:25:24 [AaronSw]
... does that sound good to everyone else?
15:25:33 [AaronSw]
DanC: I have reservations, happy to address later.
15:26:09 [AaronSw]
Brian: I think jjc will not oppose publication now. Anyone willing to propose publication?
15:26:29 [AaronSw]
DaveB: lots of editorial issues in sec2 and elsewhere? some substantial ones. will we approve at this stage?
15:26:58 [AaronSw]
DaveB: can we publish if we change?
15:27:02 [AaronSw]
DanC: oh yeah
15:27:19 [AaronSw]
DaveB: publish concepts first and i can improve things
15:27:25 [AaronSw]
... but i'll make the changes in the agenda
15:27:37 [AaronSw]
Brian: rest is down to editor's discretion. do what you can, but get it out
15:27:51 [AaronSw]
DaveB: technical cahnges (ntriples) ignored
15:28:06 [AaronSw]
daveb, frank, eric
15:28:10 [AaronSw]
all propose to publish
15:28:15 [AaronSw]
no objections
15:28:19 [AaronSw]
team contact: eric
15:28:26 [AaronSw]
ACTION eric: arrange publication of syntax with daveb
15:28:31 [DaveB]
I'll go back to scribing, thanks eric
15:28:34 [DaveB]
aaron
15:28:35 [DaveB]
!
15:28:36 [AaronSw]
sure
15:28:51 [DaveB]
item 11
15:28:54 [DaveB]
primer
15:28:59 [DaveB]
new draft out for review
15:29:21 [DanC]
oops; apologies; I didn't do it.
15:29:41 [DaveB]
frankm: a desc of rdf:value is there, not sure if it s right yet :)
15:29:49 [AaronSw]
em: 0225#17 is DONE
15:30:26 [DaveB]
04-19-6 not sure
15:30:57 [DaveB]
08-23#1 got ALT in thjere
15:31:07 [DaveB]
09-13#5 DONE
15:31:19 [DaveB]
got a note in beiginning of schema scection
15:31:42 [DaveB]
04-19#6 continued
15:31:52 [DaveB]
call for reviewers
15:31:59 [AaronSw]
zakim, mute aaronsw
15:32:00 [Zakim]
AaronSw should now be muted
15:32:17 [DaveB]
ACTION daveb: will look at syntax section
15:32:25 [DaveB]
ACTIOn danbri: look at schema section of primer
15:32:45 [DaveB]
ACTION stevep: review all of primer
15:33:15 [DaveB]
danbri: q if status of docs section notes that there is some doc overlap
15:33:20 [DaveB]
.. ask that team contact check this
15:33:50 [DaveB]
frankm: for reviewers, also make notes where there is overlap and "change this" notes if needed
15:34:51 [DaveB]
ACTION frankm: discuss overlap between primer & concepts doc with editors
15:34:58 [danbri]
for status-s, we might say "The WG acknowledge that their is some overlap between the normative specs and the primer, and in particular solicit feedback from reviewers on the partitioning of content between these documents"
15:34:59 [DaveB]
we'd like to action them to read it ;)
15:35:01 [danbri]
or somesuch
15:35:08 [DaveB]
ACTION bwm: review all of primer
15:35:24 [Zakim]
+AaronSw.a
15:35:36 [danbri]
em, does that SOTD blurb work for you?
15:35:43 [Zakim]
-AaronSw
15:36:01 [DaveB]
em: actions aren't exclusive, other WG members should read this if you can
15:36:08 [em]
danbri, yes
15:36:12 [em]
thanks
15:36:18 [DaveB]
ACTION Patricks: review datatypes in primer
15:36:55 [DaveB]
frankm requests patH to look at reification section
15:37:10 [DaveB]
ACTION: patH look at reification section in primer
15:37:32 [DaveB]
DanC: Note he has a critical comment on rdf-in-html section - not in that way
15:37:35 [DaveB]
not encouraging at least
15:37:51 [DaveB]
rather, we were not encouraging people to do that
15:38:56 [DaveB]
maybe take embedding rdf-in-html issue to email
15:39:00 [DanC]
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf
15:39:14 [DanC]
9Nov decision http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0294.html
15:39:17 [DaveB]
frankm: not a strong interest in that sec being there
15:39:26 [DaveB]
.. has seemed to be a natural q
15:39:33 [DaveB]
item 12 model thory
15:39:56 [DaveB]
PatH: likely done a week today, possibly wednesday
15:40:24 [DaveB]
bwm: try to get an email allowing to publish
15:40:32 [DaveB]
if necessary
15:40:52 [DaveB]
PatH: some issues/failures to recall what decision was ;)
15:41:08 [DaveB]
DanC: decisions are a matter of record in minutes
15:41:26 [DaveB]
.. ask for pointers to records, authorative source
15:41:30 [DaveB]
... either the minutes, or docs
15:41:57 [DaveB]
bwm: issuets
15:42:47 [DaveB]
(can somebody find bwm's msg url)
15:42:59 [DaveB]
abs syntax details - labeled
15:43:48 [DaveB]
change to PatH suggestion - nodes are URI-fs, literals or blanks
15:44:05 [DaveB]
DaveB: syntax doc has been changed to this form
15:44:15 [DaveB]
frankm: asked to clarify
15:45:07 [DaveB]
frankm: when I desc pics of graphs, talking of picture using "labeled with URI-ref" nodes but in rdf, the nodes are URIs
15:45:33 [DaveB]
bwm: subject to objections from jjc/gk, will go with nodes are URI-refs
15:45:48 [DaveB]
DanC: happy with risk it isn't done in this draft
15:46:18 [DaveB]
DECISION: use nodes are URI-refs notation, subject to confirmation/objections from jjc/gk
15:46:31 [DaveB]
- do datatype literals have lang-tags
15:47:11 [DaveB]
DanC: no to opening this issue for now until impl experience
15:47:20 [DaveB]
PatH: need an explanation of them for MT
15:47:50 [DaveB]
bwm: ignore the lang tags, they have no semantic significance. "semantic residue"
15:48:23 [DaveB]
DanC: get this reviewed by i18n wg
15:48:51 [DaveB]
bwm: not reopening
15:49:23 [DaveB]
ACTION bwm: Ask i18wg to review the datatype-lang form
15:49:33 [DaveB]
- non datatype literals
15:49:38 [DaveB]
denote themselves
15:50:00 [DaveB]
DanC: maybe union of (string, (string, lang)) ?
15:50:31 [DaveB]
bwm: is that string an xsd:string ?
15:50:44 [DaveB]
DanC: doesn't seem necessary to specify
15:51:01 [DaveB]
as in it is a seq of unicode chars, same defn as xsd:string
15:51:10 [DaveB]
... so same value spacae
15:51:17 [DaveB]
bwm: isn't that same as URIs?
15:51:46 [DaveB]
PatH: could say these are moot, datatype questions which is up to how you use dataypes?
15:52:23 [DaveB]
DanC: I want the strings to be xsd:string; satisfyable, not guranteed
15:52:26 [DaveB]
not rule it out/in
15:53:16 [DaveB]
DECISION: non datatype literals is union of (strings and pair of (string, lang tag)). Not to specify if the strings are same as xsd;string or not.
15:53:40 [DaveB]
ACTION DanC: create test cases for non-datatyped/simple literals
15:54:38 [DaveB]
- schema what's in the class rdf:Literal
15:54:45 [danbri]
I'd love to know!
15:55:53 [Zakim]
-AaronSw.a
15:56:39 [DaveB]
DECISION: all datatype values are members of rdfs:Literal
15:56:41 [DanC]
[[[
15:56:41 [DanC]
The object of a statement (i.e., the property value) can be another resource or it can be a literal; i.e., a resource (specified by a URI) or a simple string or other primitive datatype defined by XML. In RDF terms, a literal may have content that is XML markup but is not further evaluated by the RDF processor.
15:56:48 [DanC]
]]] -- http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222
15:58:12 [DaveB]
meeting extended for 15 minutes, no more than 30
15:58:17 [DaveB]
- list semantics
15:58:40 [DaveB]
bwm: we did decide a list semantics
15:58:48 [DaveB]
oops
15:58:59 [DaveB]
bwm: we did decide there was no list semantics
15:59:35 [DaveB]
DanC: want to think about it some more since although we added it for webont, they don't seem to have an advocate that there
15:59:42 [DaveB]
s/that there/for that there/
15:59:56 [DaveB]
PatH: not closed containers
16:00:17 [DaveB]
DanC: not a complete solution for it, but the necessary and sufficient bits
16:00:43 [DaveB]
PatH: really going to go with something that has no semantic meaning?
16:01:16 [DaveB]
reason for it in RDF is so to put it in the parser
16:01:48 [DaveB]
PatH: isn't it wierd that rdf things are given a semantic by other WGs?
16:02:57 [DaveB]
- datatypes in the semantics
16:03:28 [DaveB]
DanC: two forms of entailment says WG, PatH proposed one?
16:03:36 [DaveB]
PatH: old issue, can see a way around it?
16:03:39 [DaveB]
s/?//
16:03:44 [danbri]
re 'rdf things given semantics by other WGs': no, seems fine. More expressive languages can better describe the meaning of many rdf: and rdfs: constructs
16:03:51 [DaveB]
... can do it the way it was suggested
16:04:18 [DaveB]
... and build things up with datatypes
16:04:34 [DaveB]
... rdf, rdf+DT, rdfs ?
16:04:37 [DaveB]
DanC: yeah
16:04:59 [DaveB]
PatrickS: how do you do that without rdfs?
16:05:22 [DaveB]
PatH: more sense to put DT in rdfs layer?
16:05:36 [DaveB]
yes
16:05:56 [DaveB]
item 13
16:06:22 [DaveB]
testcases
16:06:58 [DaveB]
ACTION bwm: ask JanG about state of testcases wd
16:07:05 [DaveB]
DaveB: not much in ntriples ection
16:07:08 [DaveB]
item 14 schema
16:07:21 [DaveB]
danbri: working on new draft
16:08:00 [DaveB]
danbri expects a draft on monday 4th
16:08:12 [DaveB]
ACTION DanC: review schema draft
16:08:27 [DaveB]
continued action with syncing with primer, em+danbri
16:08:45 [DaveB]
ACTION danbri: Contact jjc/gk to ask them to review schema wd
16:08:56 [DaveB]
ACTION bwm: review schema wd
16:09:00 [DaveB]
s/wd/draft/
16:09:26 [DaveB]
bwm: comments as early as poss, of course - thanks
16:09:54 [DaveB]
item 15 lbase
16:10:02 [DaveB]
bwm: who has reviwed it?
16:10:39 [DaveB]
bwm: jjc has reviewed
16:10:57 [DaveB]
PatH: jjc's comments initially didn't like it, now ok?
16:12:03 [DaveB]
bwm: an rdf core spin off doc ...
16:12:22 [DaveB]
... any proposers as a useful doc for discussion
16:12:28 [DaveB]
propose: DAnC, seconded DaveB
16:12:41 [DaveB]
PatH: want to add text for acks to other existing work
16:12:58 [DaveB]
DECISION: approved publication of lbase note
16:13:09 [DaveB]
ACTION danbri: team contact for pubing lbase
16:15:05 [DaveB]
END OF MEETING
16:15:06 [Zakim]
-BrianM
16:15:08 [Zakim]
-PatrickS
16:15:09 [Zakim]
-SteveP
16:15:10 [Zakim]
-PatH
16:15:10 [Zakim]
-DaveB
16:15:11 [Zakim]
-DanBri
16:15:11 [Zakim]
-Manola
16:15:13 [Zakim]
-Mike_Dean
16:15:21 [Zakim]
-DanC
16:15:34 [Zakim]
-EMiller
16:15:36 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
16:38:13 [gk]
gk has joined #rdfcore
17:49:44 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfcore
20:05:11 [DanCon]
DanCon has joined #rdfcore