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 withdrawn actions...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