IRC log of rdfcore on 2002-11-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:02:04 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore

15:02:04 [AaronSw]

zakim, ilrt holds dajobe jang

15:02:06 [Zakim]

Jang was already listed in ILRT, AaronSw

15:02:07 [Zakim]

+Dajobe; got it

15:02:15 [AaronSw]

zakim, ilrt also holds jang

15:02:17 [Zakim]

+Jang; got it

15:02:26 [bwm]

zakim, who is on the phone?

15:02:28 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Hp, DanBri (muted), ILRT, EMiller, AaronSw, FrankM

15:02:28 [Zakim]

Hp has Bwm, Jjc

15:02:29 [Zakim]

ILRT has Dajobe, Jang

15:02:38 [em]

em has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2002-11-15 teleconference

15:02:56 [jan_g]

jan_g has joined #rdfcore

15:03:43 [em]

zakim, who is here?

15:03:44 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Hp, DanBri (muted), ILRT, EMiller, AaronSw, FrankM

15:03:44 [Zakim]

Hp has Bwm, Jjc

15:03:45 [Zakim]

ILRT has Dajobe, Jang

15:03:47 [Zakim]

On IRC I see jan_g, RRSAgent, danbri, Zakim, AaronSw, bwm, em, logger

15:04:54 [jang_scri]

em to scribe latter half

15:05:02 [jang_scri]

next week's scribe: jang

15:05:21 [bwm]

zakim, who is on the phone?

15:05:23 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Hp, DanBri (muted), ILRT, EMiller, AaronSw, FrankM

15:05:23 [Zakim]

Hp has Bwm, Jjc

15:05:23 [AaronSw]

rdfcore doc publication hurt em's hands

15:05:23 [Zakim]

ILRT has Dajobe, Jang

15:05:25 [jang_scri]

roll call:

15:05:49 [jang_scri]

regrets:

15:06:05 [jang_scri]

miked, patrick, gk, danc

15:06:12 [jang_scri]

and reg from jos

15:06:24 [jang_scri]

3. review agenda:

15:06:48 [jang_scri]

em request regarding new additions:

15:06:59 [jang_scri]

pick up html corrections, etc from the published documents

15:07:07 [jang_scri]

AOB: em on editorial process

15:07:14 [jang_scri]

any more?

15:07:35 [jang_scri]

bwm: schedule 90 minutes. ILRT has to duck out at 3:45, jjc at 4

15:07:44 [jang_scri]

next telecon same time, same place

15:07:46 [jang_scri]

minutes of last meeting:

15:08:01 [jang_scri]

approved

15:08:07 [jang_scri]

[aaron, can you get a pointer to minutes?]

15:08:18 [jang_scri]

status of completed actions:

15:09:11 [AaronSw]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0230.html ?

15:09:18 [jang_scri]

despite the excruciating embarrasment amongst brits present, we give ourselves a round of applause

15:09:20 [jang_scri]

thanks aaron

15:09:29 [jang_scri]

withdrawn actions...

15:09:34 [danbri]

'the WG notes that it dun good'

15:10:07 [jang_scri]

frankm: wants to keep the action on danbri to review schema section of primer

15:10:19 [danbri]

ack'd

15:10:41 [jang_scri]

item 9: review of these wds

15:10:49 [em]

q+

15:10:52 [jang_scri]

jjc: we need to get webont to review datatyping, mt

15:10:54 [em]

ack em

15:10:55 [DaveB]

DaveB has joined #rdfcore

15:10:57 [bwm]

ack em

15:10:58 [AaronSw]

not withdrawing 2002-11-01#5 danbri

15:11:21 [jang_scri]

em: i think it's worthwhile to announce the new round of documents

15:11:45 [jang_scri]

it's also helpful to identify individuals in targetted groups - not just targetted groups - to ask them to look at documetns

15:12:03 [AaronSw]

"So... hmm... maybe asking everybody to review everything is right for this round of drafts, supplemented by a few more targetted invitations here and there."

15:12:13 [AaronSw]

- DanC

15:12:16 [jang_scri]

so, when we say "webont", etc. I'd rather let the group know, but look for friendlies in each group who are willing to provide feedback

15:12:34 [jang_scri]

jjc: pfps!

15:12:41 [Zakim]

+??P17

15:12:45 [jang_scri]

jos arrives

15:12:48 [AaronSw]

zakim, ??P17 is josd

15:12:49 [Zakim]

+Josd; got it

15:13:13 [jang_scri]

action jjc / ping pfps to ask to review DTs and MT.

15:13:18 [jang_scri]

jjc: can someone identify what DTs is?

15:13:33 [jang_scri]

ie, "to review DTs you need to review x.a, x.b, x.c, y.z"

15:13:48 [jang_scri]

ACTION bwm / figure out which bits of docs you need to read to review DTs

15:14:34 [AaronSw]

ACTION: bwm / figure out which bits of docs you need to read to review DTs

15:14:52 [AaronSw]

ACTION: jjc / ping pfps to ask to review DTs and MT.

15:15:04 [jang_scri]

cheers, aaron, got it

15:15:20 [jang_scri]

bwm: general action on everyone to spread the news.

15:15:28 [jang_scri]

item 9... anything else?

15:15:30 [danbri]

I'll do Mozilla, RSS lists.

15:15:32 [jang_scri]

no, move on

15:15:37 [jang_scri]

item 10, namespace for XMLLiteral

15:15:46 [jang_scri]

propose to move to RDF namespace.

15:16:09 [jang_scri]

dan'c reasoning: because a parser has to treat that specially, and so rdf is independent of rdfs in this case

15:16:11 [jang_scri]

comments?

15:16:26 [jang_scri]

jjc: I'd initially put it in rdf; someone asked me to move it to rdfs, can't remember who or why

15:16:34 [jang_scri]

frankm: Literal is there

15:16:55 [jang_scri]

jjc: can't believe it's that crucial

15:17:18 [jang_scri]

putting it in rdfs seems to make as much sense as rdf; if danc feels strongly I'm prepared to give way

15:17:34 [jang_scri]

DaveB: rdf namespace, grammar, etc. consequent changes...

15:17:51 [jang_scri]

bwm: path said it would involve him in rewriting too

15:17:58 [AaronSw]

the thing is that at the moment the only namespace a parser needs to know is rdf:. a parser needs to know this

15:18:13 [jang_scri]

jjc: suggest postpone until danc back?

15:18:22 [jang_scri]

danc: we shouldn't dink with w3 recs lightly

15:18:33 [jang_scri]

we can't just keep arbitrarily shoving stuff in rdf namespace

15:18:49 [jang_scri]

DaveB: danc said this "policy" wasn't apparent to him

15:18:57 [AaronSw]

reagle?

15:19:15 [jang_scri]

not showing enough respect to namespaces.

15:19:32 [jang_scri]

jjc: namespaces are a bit of a mess; whateer we do isn't going to be tidy

15:19:44 [jang_scri]

possibly putting stuff into rdfs is cleaner

15:19:50 [jang_scri]

(can't put nodeID into rdfs)

15:19:54 [jang_scri]

DaveB: agree with last point

15:20:11 [jang_scri]

danbri: how many non-syntax things are there in rdf namespace?

15:20:24 [jang_scri]

Bag, Alt, object, etc.

15:20:56 [jang_scri]

DaveB: a parser doesn't have any special handling of XMLLiteral; it just knows to generate it

15:21:33 [jang_scri]

moving XMLLiteral into rdf ns isn't sufficiently worse than the "hurt" we've done to it already

15:21:53 [gk]

gk has joined #rdfcore

15:21:58 [jang_scri]

we're trying to balance the need to be clean and respectful of the old spec versus impact of changes, etc.

15:22:13 [jang_scri]

DaveB: nobody's ever come back to us on this...

15:22:47 [jang_scri]

danbri: as long as we don't do this lightly, I'm happy to do it

15:23:09 [jang_scri]

proposal: danc wants to move XMLLiteral to rdf namespace

15:23:17 [jang_scri]

jos, danbri propose, second it

15:23:20 [jang_scri]

nobody against

15:23:37 [jang_scri]

jjc to abstain; daveb; jang

15:24:11 [jang_scri]

DECISION: XMLLiteral goes into RDF namespace

15:24:24 [jang_scri]

item 11: doc overlap, content transfers

15:24:42 [jang_scri]

danc responded: keep the primer slim, a hacker's guide

15:24:53 [jang_scri]

bwm: sees it as a place to put discursive and explanatory commentary

15:25:07 [jang_scri]

bwm: frank, what do you think?

15:25:15 [jang_scri]

frankm: ...

15:25:28 [jang_scri]

bwm: frankm, em are the editors, which way d'you want to call it?

15:25:37 [jang_scri]

frankm: you need to keep in mind:

15:25:52 [jang_scri]

... the principle that's established needs to be established for every document

15:26:04 [jang_scri]

eg, talking about syntax: are you going to move all examples out of syntax into primer?

15:26:06 [Zakim]

-AaronSw

15:26:16 [Zakim]

+??P24

15:26:23 [Zakim]

+AaronSw

15:27:00 [jang_scri]

frank: there are lots of discussions involving either route.

15:27:10 [jang_scri]

bwm: I want to resolve as many x-doc issues as possible

15:27:34 [jang_scri]

(steve P joins as ??P24)

15:27:43 [jang_scri]

zakim, ??p24 is stevep

15:27:45 [Zakim]

+Stevep; got it

15:27:46 [em]

zakim, ??P24 is SteveP

15:27:47 [Zakim]

sorry, em, I do not recognize a party named '??P24'

15:28:01 [jang_scri]

em: on the primer...

15:28:06 [jang_scri]

few issues.

15:28:24 [jang_scri]

first: from editor's standpoint. feedback from rdf-comments obligates us to respond back on that

15:28:48 [jang_scri]

we've got several comments; xml.com's comments are one

15:28:59 [jang_scri]

"keep it short & sweet"

15:29:05 [jang_scri]

that's a worthwhile document

15:29:06 [danbri]

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/05/15/rdfprimer.html [[ Go Tell It On the Mountain

15:29:06 [danbri]

by Kendall Grant Clark

15:29:06 [danbri]

May 15, 2002

15:29:07 [danbri]

]]

15:29:10 [jang_scri]

... but that's not what we've got

15:29:46 [jang_scri]

so we've got an increasing number of short, sweet documents plus a big fat one that tries to make sense of it

15:29:57 [jang_scri]

if I consider how we'd do it over, I think we'd do it the same wway

15:30:15 [jang_scri]

in the fat one, "to learn this go here", we have...

15:30:28 [jang_scri]

... basically we're in line with what we started with; we're close to wrapping this up.

15:30:39 [jang_scri]

jjc: one option re: short preprimer...

15:30:48 [jang_scri]

we've done a long one - someone might write a short one?

15:31:00 [jang_scri]

em: I think people want a short, sweet primer for particular objectives.

15:31:21 [jang_scri]

I think there are several short sweet docs that might be derived from the primer depending on the objectives

15:31:53 [jang_scri]

we must recognise that producing those derived docs isn't within rdfcore's scope; we should encourage others to produce short docs as need requires them

15:32:57 [jang_scri]

bwm wraps up the discussion...

15:33:07 [jang_scri]

editors want to keep to current strategy

15:33:09 [jang_scri]

anyone disagree?

15:33:17 [jang_scri]

jjc: gk's position, I think:

15:33:46 [jang_scri]

my understanding is that gk wrote text in our document because that was where he _couold_ write it. He thinks it must appear somewhere, but is fairly neutral on where it appear

15:33:55 [jang_scri]

bwm: propose that we stick to that philosophy

15:34:01 [jang_scri]

em: one more question, to bwm:

15:34:14 [jang_scri]

at a certain level, you've got to feel comfortable on this decision

15:34:20 [jang_scri]

as series editor.

15:34:40 [jang_scri]

bwm: I support that decision. em and frankm have a challenge to look at internal structure of the primer

15:34:58 [jang_scri]

to see what might be done re: the positioning of document bits and pieces - maybe to create a fastpath

15:35:03 [jang_scri]

but we're very tight on time here

15:35:41 [jang_scri]

frankm: I've taken the new published primer, done an experiment where I move the xml and uri sections to appendices

15:35:42 [gk]

GK comments... JJC has my position about right. But I'm also concerned that the primer is becoming a potential dumping ground for anything that isn't exactly part of some normative spec. I think some of the discursive material is NOT primer material.

15:36:22 [jang_scri]

that version of the primer is about 8 pages shorter

15:36:31 [jang_scri]

thinning of xml syntax discussion...

15:36:37 [jang_scri]

bwm: did that help?

15:36:52 [jang_scri]

frankm: I didn't smoothe resulting text; I suspect it can be made to work

15:37:00 [jang_scri]

bwm: do you want to share that doucment?

15:37:06 [jang_scri]

frankm: not until I've looked at it some more.

15:37:44 [jang_scri]

bwm: document narrative structure relies on the editors

15:38:00 [jang_scri]

you can't satisfy all the critics all the time

15:38:05 [jang_scri]

take feedback into account,

15:38:07 [danbri]

[aside] I have updated RDFS re "DECISION: XMLLiteral goes into RDF namespace", see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/200212/

15:38:14 [jang_scri]

but in the end, there must be a consistent, working document

15:39:12 [jang_scri]

next item: test cases

15:40:25 [jang_scri]

jang_scri: DT test cases need doing...

15:40:29 [jang_scri]

everything else is scraps.

15:41:53 [jang_scri]

ACTION: jang to get basic test cases for DTs ready by next friday

15:42:24 [jang_scri]

jos: question wrt. rec...

15:42:32 [jang_scri]

do we need several implementations ?

15:42:40 [jang_scri]

bwm: put that down as AOB

15:42:56 [jang_scri]

coming back to moving stuff.

15:43:03 [jang_scri]

moving section 2 from syntax to primer

15:43:18 [jang_scri]

DaveB: that makes some sense, but it'd have to be replaced with something that defines the same terms

15:43:31 [jang_scri]

bwm: I meant, move the examples.

15:43:58 [jang_scri]

DaveB: I've had several comments saying we need examples

15:44:03 [jang_scri]

bwm: can we use hyperlinks?

15:44:13 [jang_scri]

jjc: examples from syntax doc can be in teh primer.

15:44:40 [jang_scri]

q+

15:44:54 [jang_scri]

bwm: can you refer to appropriate material in the primer?

15:45:08 [jang_scri]

DaveB: instead of examples, ut "see examples in primer section 12"

15:45:37 [jang_scri]

bwm: frank, eric: is this stuff covered in primer already?

15:45:56 [jang_scri]

frankm: dave's presentation takes a different line to mine. He talks about striping...

15:46:00 [jang_scri]

... i start from the graph.

15:46:13 [jang_scri]

that leads to different starting points, different natural complications that come up in different orders.

15:46:30 [jang_scri]

bwm: I'm hearing that this isn't a good idea.

15:46:32 [jang_scri]

ok, that's dropped.

15:46:59 [jang_scri]

CAN THE NEXT SCRIBE please email me a ping at the end of the telecon to get the minutes out?

15:47:01 [em]

/nick em-scribe

15:47:22 [em-scribe]

ok jang_scri, i'll send a pointter to you

15:47:31 [Zakim]

-ILRT

15:48:02 [em-scribe]

moving concepts to primer

15:48:09 [em-scribe]

frank: willing to take this

15:48:36 [em-scribe]

jjc: ok

15:49:26 [gk]

moving which bit of concepts?

15:51:27 [em-scribe]

(general agreement) section 2.2 and 2.1 remain where they are

15:51:57 [em-scribe]

13 - concepts doc...

15:52:06 [em-scribe]

bwm: what needs done?

15:52:14 [em-scribe]

jjc: clarifiy informative sections

15:52:32 [em-scribe]

jjc: overlap between sections 2.? and 4

15:52:37 [DaveB]

DaveB has joined #rdfcore

15:52:49 [em-scribe]

jjc: section from charmod (some section) needs to be deleted

15:53:06 [em-scribe]

jjc: dependencies on IRI - TAG possition

15:53:27 [gk]

Charmod: 5.1, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#xtocid48034

15:53:29 [em-scribe]

jjc: if TAG makes a ruling i suggest we go along with this... until then as is

15:53:33 [em-scribe]

thanks gk

15:54:08 [em-scribe]

bwm: can we go out in 2 weeks?

15:54:16 [em-scribe]

jjc: yes

15:54:31 [em-scribe]

... on to Schema

15:54:47 [Zakim]

-AaronSw

15:54:58 [em-scribe]

bwm: danbri what needs to be done?

15:55:08 [em-scribe]

danbri: detailed cross references

15:55:25 [em-scribe]

to axioms and model theory, primer, etc.

16:00:56 [em-scribe]

q+

16:01:18 [bwm]

ack em-scribe

16:01:27 [bwm]

ack em

16:01:30 [bwm]

ack jang

16:05:57 [em-scribe]

bwm, i'm willing to work with Danbri over next couple weeks to work on this

16:06:01 [em-scribe]

this == schema

16:07:02 [em-scribe]

model theory...

16:07:10 [em-scribe]

bwm: pats not here, moving on...

16:07:15 [em-scribe]

test cases we've done

16:07:17 [em-scribe]

schedule....

16:07:20 [em-scribe]

bwm: seems tight

16:07:22 [DaveB]

s/model theory/rdf semantics/ :)

16:07:38 [em-scribe]

bwm: but i dont here things that say we're wont make it

16:11:35 [em-scribe]

bwm: all editors use current published document

16:11:48 [em-scribe]

bwm: links should be to TR doc not editors working drafts

16:12:12 [DaveB]

dated TR or undated ?

16:12:15 [em-scribe]

bwm: be consistent on linking to named versions or latest version

16:12:22 [danbri]

fwiw my editors copy was based on the TR publication

16:12:25 [em-scribe]

bwm: suggestion - use latest version

16:12:26 [danbri]

of rdfs i mean

16:12:39 [DaveB]

but refs have to cite a particular dated version - pubrules

16:12:41 [em-scribe]

bwm: if you create link, dont remove it...

16:12:54 [DaveB]

link - anchor target you mean?

16:13:33 [em-scribe]

yes DaveB

16:15:53 [em-scribe]

issue tracking....

16:16:24 [gk]

GK wonders if anyone is referencing an auto-generated ToC anchor in Concepts... of the form xtocnnnnn... maybe we should get heads together to replace these with something more meaningful?

16:17:09 [DaveB]

I am

16:17:17 [DaveB]

since that was all I had for some topics

16:17:39 [DaveB]

6 of them it seems

16:18:02 [DaveB]

sorry, 3:

16:18:04 [DaveB]

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#xtocid103646

16:18:04 [DaveB]

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#xtocid48021

16:18:04 [DaveB]

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#xtocid48034

16:18:15 [em-scribe]

rdf primer....

16:18:30 [em-scribe]

bwm: next steps?

16:18:50 [gk]

Dave, if I leave the old anchors in place, but add new anchors on the <H?> tags, and send you new anchors, would that provide a safe upgrade path?

16:19:04 [em-scribe]

frank: starting from new published version... address comments from wg and reviewers

16:20:25 [em-scribe]

frank: re timing - thanksgiving week traveling (ends on 29th)

16:20:25 [DaveB]

gk: yes that would be fine, but why would you need to? anchors don't need to be human readable

16:20:35 [DaveB]

gk: if you do, let me know.

16:22:03 [gk]

Dave, if you think they're OK I'm not desperate to chhange... sometimes, they appear in URLs in messages, etc... now we're talking about final tidying I thought this was time to consider them.

16:22:26 [em-scribe]

frank: work next week - post then

16:22:30 [em-scribe]

issue tracking...

16:22:41 [em-scribe]

bwm: handle last call comments

16:22:48 [em-scribe]

bwm: respond to every comment

16:23:12 [em-scribe]

bwm: decentalized / centralized approaches

16:23:24 [DaveB]

did anyone gk / jjc reply to that www-rdf-comments on <rdf-wrapper> ?

16:23:56 [gk]

Dave, I didn't: assumed JJC would handle that

16:24:32 [DaveB]

you'll have to work between you so those don't get dropped if you each think the other will respond :)

16:25:39 [gk]

Yeah :) (So far, we've been pretty clear and made sure each other knows what's happening.)

16:31:12 [Zakim]

-Josd

16:31:15 [em-scribe]

action: bwm to think == code a possible solution for managing issue tracking for incorporating comments

16:31:16 [Zakim]

-Stevep

16:31:17 [Zakim]

-DanBri

16:31:21 [Zakim]

-Hp

16:33:54 [DaveB]

ended?

16:41:07 [Zakim]

-EMiller

16:41:08 [Zakim]

-FrankM

16:41:09 [Zakim]

SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

16:54:57 [gk]

gk has left #rdfcore

18:15:02 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #rdfcore

18:17:06 [danbri]

danbri has left #rdfcore