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withdrawn actions...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