15:00:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
15:00:26 <Zakim> +Stevep; got it
15:00:27 <Zakim> sorry, bwm, I do not recognize a party named '??p19'
15:00:48 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ilrt, Manola, GrahamKlyne, Bwm, AaronSw, Stevep, EMiller
15:00:50 <Zakim> Ilrt has Jang, Daveb
15:00:53 <Zakim> +DanBri
15:03:08 <scrjang-d> we get started
15:03:24 <scrjang-d> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:25 <AaronSw> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ilrt, Manola, GrahamKlyne, Bwm, AaronSw, Stevep, EMiller, DanBri
15:03:26 <Zakim> Ilrt has Jang, Daveb
15:03:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ilrt, Manola, GrahamKlyne, Bwm, AaronSw, Stevep, EMiller, DanBri
15:03:28 <Zakim> Ilrt has Jang, Daveb
15:04:03 <scrjang-d> regrets: danc, miked, jjc, jos
15:04:37 <scrjang-d> comments on agenda/ aob...?
15:04:59 <scrjang-d> ericm: I'd like two minutes to talk about the rdfcore extension and getting WG members to contact advisory reps
15:05:02 <Zakim> +PatrickS
15:05:25 <scrjang-d> next week's scribe:
15:05:43 <scrjang-d> dave b
15:06:01 <scrjang-d> minutes of last telecon:
15:06:07 <scrjang-d> approved
15:06:26 <scrjang-d> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0231.html
15:06:35 <scrjang-d> completed / withdrawn actions:
15:06:56 <scrjang-d> daveb: a lot of withdrawn actions...
15:09:07 <jjc> jjc has joined #rdfcore
15:09:26 <jjc> Hi I will try and attend the concepts part - please shout when needed.
15:09:53 <jjc> hello
15:14:11 <scrjang-d> ACTION: jang to overview open testcase actions, review to list
15:15:37 <gkgk> gkgk has joined #rdfcore
15:15:43 <jjc> Can you ack me please?
15:15:50 <scrjang-d> 2002-09-20#1 and 2002-11-15#2 are DONE not WITHDRAWN
15:15:57 <scrjang-d> we hear you
15:16:18 <scrjang-d> (jang reads out jjc's note)
15:16:26 <scrjang-d> item 8:
15:16:39 <scrjang-d> bwm: we're not going to make LC decisions today, we agree last changes that need to be made
15:16:59 <ericm> q+
15:17:03 <scrjang-d> then next week we vote on everything
15:17:08 <scrjang-d> anyone object to that?
15:17:12 <scrjang-d> (silence)
15:17:18 <scrjang-d> eric comments:
15:17:39 <scrjang-d> it would be helpful for the pubteam if we know that certain documents are getting close, that they're purules compliant
15:17:53 <gkgk> q+ to ask about response to pre-last-call comments
15:17:57 <scrjang-d> bwm: we'll add those to actions as we tackle each document
15:18:01 <ericm> ack ericm
15:18:24 <scrjang-d> bwm: my preference is for stability of documents at the moment
15:18:45 <scrjang-d> ie, critical and trivial fixes only at this point.
15:18:53 <scrjang-d> critical fixes are substantive wrong things
15:19:02 <scrjang-d> trivial errors are typos, formatting, links missing, etc.
15:19:14 <scrjang-d> wrodsmithing doesn't really come under either of these categories
15:19:44 <scrjang-d> frankm: I'm confused, are these fixes things we want to do AFTER or BEFORE LC ub?
15:19:47 <gkgk> ack gkgk
15:19:49 <Zakim> Gkgk, you wanted to ask about response to pre-last-call comments
15:19:50 <scrjang-d> bwm: I meant, before last call pub
15:20:03 <scrjang-d> gkgk: relating to this is hopw to deal with pre-lc-comments coming from outside the WG
15:20:29 <scrjang-d> I thought as a general principle we shouldn't respond to preLCC unless someone within the WG chooses to respond to them
15:20:40 <scrjang-d> bwm: critical and trivial from outside we ought to treat the same
15:20:58 <scrjang-d> bwm: any other comments on what changes we're going to make?
15:21:12 <scrjang-d> jang: where do we change the docs?
15:21:17 <scrjang-d> bwm: unther the TR? spoace
15:21:26 <scrjang-d> under the TR space, that is.
15:21:33 <scrjang-d> frankm: how do we do that?
15:21:45 <scrjang-d> bwm: take offline, coordinate with EM or BWM
15:21:48 <scrjang-d> frankm: ok.
15:21:54 <scrjang-d> item 9: primer.
15:22:00 <scrjang-d> LCC, frank (thanks!)
15:22:06 <ericm> zakim, who is speaking?
15:22:09 <scrjang-d> bwm has volunteered to review it
15:22:09 <danbri> *background noise*
15:22:16 <scrjang-d> jang volunteers
15:22:18 <AaronSw> zakim, who is talking?
15:22:18 <Zakim> ericm, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ilrt (18%), Manola (23%), Bwm (14%), PatrickS (100%)
15:22:25 <danbri> zakim, mute PatrickS
15:22:26 <Zakim> PatrickS was already muted, danbri
15:22:30 <Zakim> AaronSw, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ilrt (45%), Bwm (64%), EMiller (20%)
15:22:42 <scrjang-d> ACTION jang to review primer
15:22:47 <scrjang-d> ACTION bwm to review primer
15:22:52 <scrjang-d> ACTION daveb to review primer
15:23:01 <scrjang-d> moving on
15:23:10 <scrjang-d> schema, a LCC! well done bwm and danbri!
15:23:18 <scrjang-d> thanks to daveb's review
15:23:27 <scrjang-d> daveb: they're mostly trivial comments
15:23:33 <scrjang-d> daveb: not really anything critical
15:23:47 <scrjang-d> ACTION jang to review schema
15:25:12 <scrjang-d> ACTION gk to review (we're happy with critical changes here)
15:25:31 <ericm> i'm not willing to be on the critical path re schema - but my review on this over the break was go ahead with this, only html fixes really
15:25:45 <scrjang-d> ACTION bwm: to update the document in place with daveb's trivial fixes.
15:25:56 <ericm> all html fixes were simply trivial 
15:26:12 <scrjang-d> jjc: concepts document ready for review...
15:26:39 <scrjang-d> we have two reviews (jang, patricks)
15:26:50 <ericm> zakim, unmute PatrickS
15:26:51 <Zakim> PatrickS should no longer be muted
15:27:22 <danbri> I also sent review comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0001.html
15:27:37 <scrjang-d> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0323.html pats' comments
15:28:30 <scrjang-d> pats' 2.1 comment: not a showstopper
15:29:09 <scrjang-d> 3.3 section
15:29:20 <scrjang-d> substantive section on rdf datatyping
15:29:30 <scrjang-d> gkgk: I find it hard to see that this is critical before last call
15:29:43 <scrjang-d> pats: not a showstopper: it's more to do with preemptive avoidance of comments
15:29:52 <scrjang-d> daveb: I'd agree with pats here.
15:30:24 <scrjang-d> ACTION gk: words for 3.3 to address apt's comments about non-xsd datatyped literals
15:30:35 <scrjang-d> s/apt's/pats'/
15:31:18 <scrjang-d> section 5, XMLLiteral values being normalised
15:31:56 <scrjang-d> bwm: I'm inclined to say that's a technical change, not an editorial one, is that ok pats?
15:31:57 <scrjang-d> pats: sure
15:32:53 <scrjang-d> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0004.html jan's review
15:34:18 <danbri> I also sent review comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0001.html
15:34:22 <scrjang-d> danbri's comments:
15:35:10 <scrjang-d> (jan's review was typos and/or wordsmithing)
15:35:19 <scrjang-d> gkgk: agree's with danbri's commnet in the message above
15:35:36 <scrjang-d> ACTION gk: correct doc with danbri's comment from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0001.html
15:35:38 <Zakim> +??P0
15:35:45 <scrjang-d> jjc arrives.
15:35:47 <danbri> zakim, ??P0 is Jeremy
15:35:48 <Zakim> +Jeremy; got it
15:35:49 <ericm> zakim, ??P0 is jjc
15:35:50 <Zakim> sorry, ericm, I do not recognize a party named '??P0'
15:36:01 <danbri> oops, shoulda used 'jjc'
15:36:10 <scrjang-d> bwm: concerning XMLLiteral raised by pats...
15:36:12 <danbri> zakim, Jeremy is jjc
15:36:13 <Zakim> +Jjc; got it
15:36:22 <danbri> zakim, who is here?
15:36:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see Ilrt, Manola, GrahamKlyne, Bwm, AaronSw, Stevep, EMiller, DanBri, PatrickS, Jjc
15:36:24 <Zakim> Ilrt has Jang, Daveb
15:36:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see gkgk, jjc, RRSAgent, ericm, danbri, Zakim, AaronSw, scrjang-d, bwm, logger_1
15:36:33 <scrjang-d> pats: should we want to require that XMLLiterals conform to XML 1.1?
15:36:45 <scrjang-d> we want to be forward-looking and not have our specs obsoleted before they're out
15:37:01 <scrjang-d> jjc: I thought the current text was a reasonable compromise between forward-and backward-looking
15:37:12 <scrjang-d> the main requirement of 1.1 is there, that is that literals must be in normal form c
15:37:34 <scrjang-d> the subtleties that are not required are to do with things beginning with composing characters
15:37:42 <scrjang-d> that we're not requring, but noting in just a note
15:37:54 <scrjang-d> ...that forward-looking sopftware ought to be addressing this.
15:38:06 <scrjang-d> 1.1 is CR at the moment: we may well overtake it.
15:38:32 <scrjang-d> having a dependency on xml 1.1 isn't a risk we need to take
15:38:42 <gkgk> q+ to say that Jeremy says that Patrock's main request is already satisfied
15:38:46 <scrjang-d> we provide for what it's reasonable for us to be doing without going overboard
15:38:55 <scrjang-d> (although I've a lot of sympathy for pats' position)
15:39:14 <scrjang-d> pats: since we're specifying a very particular encoding for xml literals, 
15:39:28 <scrjang-d> what would we lose by having a slightly stricter specification that would be xml 1.1 compatible?
15:39:35 <scrjang-d> jjc: I think it's just more work for the implementors
15:39:59 <scrjang-d> our current spec requires implementors to have access to 1.1 tools, but they can use them in a naive fashion
15:40:29 <scrjang-d> it's additionally complicated to implement the rest of the requirements
15:40:34 <scrjang-d> I think it's a bit premature to require it
15:40:54 <scrjang-d> I don't think there's sufficient evidence to reopen the issue from what we agreed in cannes
15:41:03 <scrjang-d> bwm: summarises
15:41:12 <scrjang-d> we'd like two changes: non xsd dts are legal
15:41:35 <scrjang-d> secondly, the change proposed by danbri in his review
15:41:55 <gkgk> q-
15:41:58 <scrjang-d> next item: syntax.
15:42:10 <scrjang-d> LCC syntax doc - 
15:42:15 <scrjang-d> (well done dave!)
15:42:23 <scrjang-d> jjc: one showstopper change
15:42:46 <scrjang-d> review at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0297.html
15:43:48 <scrjang-d> jjc talks about his showstopper change to section 5.1
15:44:09 <scrjang-d> (ban namespaces with rdf or xml namespace prefixes)
15:44:12 <scrjang-d> daveb: I'm happy
15:45:18 <scrjang-d> jjc: with the others, I'm happy for dave to decide which ones are trivial
15:45:39 <scrjang-d> ACTION daveb: to fix the showstopper change as per the wording jjc suggests, and to use editor's discretion to fix trivial changes
15:45:46 <scrjang-d> daveb: I'll post the additional changes to the list
15:46:08 <scrjang-d> daveb: pfps sent review comments in
15:46:20 <scrjang-d> bwm: anything critical, from your point of view or his?
15:46:32 <scrjang-d> (jjc notes pfps had critical comment on concepts)
15:47:50 <scrjang-d> pfps comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0297.html
15:50:21 <scrjang-d> close syntax discussion... any other comments?
15:50:52 <scrjang-d> ok, back to concepts and pfps
15:52:55 <gkgk> q+ To say that I think we need to let PFPS' point be debated in the last call process
15:53:18 <bwm> ack gkgk
15:53:20 <Zakim> Gkgk, you wanted to say that I think we need to let PFPS' point be debated in the last call process
15:54:39 <scrjang-d> discussion about pfps' comments on rdf and legal/social meaning (he hates the idea0
15:54:57 <scrjang-d> frankm: we're not saying they _do_ have legal meaning, just that they _may_ have legal meaning
15:55:17 <scrjang-d> jjc: the risk here is that, in the light of continual discussion with pfps we'll make significant changes and have to have a second LC
15:55:29 <Zakim> -Jjc
15:55:31 <scrjang-d> bwm: so be it. That's our call, we'll trake that if we have to.
15:55:42 <scrjang-d> item 13: semantics.
15:55:53 <scrjang-d> frankm: one last comment on concepts
15:56:00 <DanC> DanC has joined #rdfcore
15:56:22 <ericm> danc, jjc is on his way
15:56:28 <gkgk> q+ to raise point-of-order on semantics document...
15:56:31 <scrjang-d> an appropriate line to take in these interactions involves our making the distinction between not being sufficiently clear in the concepts document about what we mean, and/or whether our meaning is being disagreed with
15:56:59 <bwm> ack gkgk
15:57:00 <Zakim> Gkgk, you wanted to raise point-of-order on semantics document...
15:57:09 <gkgk> URI of review comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0000.html
15:57:23 <scrjang-d> jan notes pfps has one substantial comment on the test case doc too.
15:58:05 <scrjang-d> skipping semantics in pat's absence
15:58:08 <scrjang-d> test cases
15:58:09 <scrjang-d> review:
16:00:15 <scrjang-d> jang: the mailto: test case - deprecate it or unapprove it
16:00:33 <scrjang-d> jang suggest deprecate it
16:00:38 <scrjang-d> dfaveb: fine with me.
16:00:47 <scrjang-d> ACTION jang: deprecate the mailto: testcase
16:01:10 <scrjang-d> bwm: only critical comment was rdfs:contains non member
16:01:19 <scrjang-d> not member, even
16:01:30 <scrjang-d> ACTION jang: rdfs:member not rdfs:contains
16:03:30 <gkgk> I agree with jang -- dereferencing is implicit in the properties used in the manifest
16:03:43 <scrjang-d> daveb: with ntriples hat on:
16:03:52 <scrjang-d> proposing adding links to the concepts doc sections...
16:04:04 <scrjang-d> ie, a test case format that doesn't tell you what it's modelling
16:04:18 <scrjang-d> ACTION daveb: trivial: add a link to appropriate section of [concepts]
16:04:52 <scrjang-d> test cases: done.
16:05:07 <scrjang-d> skipping to item 16: LC process
16:05:15 <scrjang-d> propose 4-week LC process beginning 17 jan
16:05:36 <scrjang-d> propose action bwm to heads-up to appropriate people/groups
16:05:54 <scrjang-d> daveb: "to the chairs identified by eric"... who oare they?
16:06:19 <scrjang-d> em: basically it's the people you're thinking of: w3c and non-w3c group that we've targetted to coordinate with
16:06:30 <scrjang-d> the specifics that we want them to review
16:06:44 <ericm> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdfcore/reviewers
16:07:51 <scrjang-d> q+ frankm
16:07:54 <gkgk> s/beginning 17 January/beginning soon after 17 January/ ?
16:07:56 <AaronSw> ack frank
16:07:58 <scrjang-d> ack frankm
16:08:16 <scrjang-d> frankm: if we LC on the 17th, they don't get _published_ uintil a week later, right?
16:08:19 <scrjang-d> em: not necessarily
16:08:34 <scrjang-d> frankm: we have a LC period starting before the doc is actually published...?
16:08:43 <scrjang-d> em: LC period starts when these things are published
16:08:56 <scrjang-d> it took a week last time because w3c was publishing 40+ documents
16:09:46 <scrjang-d> bwm: if we do have comments on primer next week, are you in a position to implement them?
16:09:54 <scrjang-d> frankm: partly depends on travel, hope so
16:10:17 <scrjang-d> daveb: so we're asking for LC comments back in by 14th feb (or whatever)
16:10:27 <scrjang-d> daveb: the date where LC period ends must go into the document!
16:10:27 <Zakim> -Stevep
16:11:04 <Zakim> -AaronSw
16:11:53 <scrjang-d> bwqm: anyone unhappy?
16:12:11 <scrjang-d> ACTION: bwm to send out heads-up to groups identified by eric
16:12:34 <scrjang-d> AOB: eric.
16:12:54 <scrjang-d> rdfcore has gone a little over (by a few minutes or so)
16:13:07 <scrjang-d> w3c process states that we have to ask for an extension per the director's decision
16:13:13 <scrjang-d> in this case, w3c has a new patent policy
16:13:19 <scrjang-d> that requires us to go back to our AC reps
16:13:33 <scrjang-d> and ask them again to go through the formal process of nominating individuals 
16:13:44 <scrjang-d> a request has gone out to the AC members:
16:14:05 <scrjang-d> request is for all WG members to contact the AC reps to fill out the form and send it to the right place.
16:14:37 <danbri> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2003JanMar/0003.html 
16:14:37 <danbri> Call for Review: RDF Core Working Group Charter Revision
16:14:37 <danbri> From: Marie-Claire Forgue (mcf@w3.org)
16:14:37 <danbri> Date: Thu, Jan 09 2003 
16:14:47 <danbri> Message-ID: <3E1DC99F.1187E653@w3.org>
16:15:00 <danbri> (note, this is on the w3c member site; you'll need your passwords)
16:15:07 <scrjang-d> bwm: productive to discuss semantics doc or do we need pat here for that?
16:16:36 <scrjang-d> bwm: other stuff?
16:16:40 <scrjang-d> frankm: yes!
16:16:54 <scrjang-d> (I won't minute frank's appreciation)
16:19:45 <scrjang-d> daveb: outline LC process?
16:20:08 <scrjang-d> bwm: will EM/dan be around to explain exactly what LC is?
16:20:16 <scrjang-d> frankm: I can't make the call next week....
16:21:15 <scrjang-d> NOTE: reviewrs of primer in particular to expedite their reviews!
16:21:25 <ericm> ericm has joined #rdfcore
16:21:58 <scrjang-d> ACTION: bwm to chase other editors to ensure they make the call or have a proxy vote.
16:22:20 <scrjang-d> bwm: anything else?
16:22:24 <scrjang-d> meeting closes, thanks all.
16:22:26 <Zakim> -PatrickS
16:22:27 <Zakim> -Ilrt
16:22:28 <Zakim> -Bwm
16:22:39 <Zakim> -DanBri
16:22:41 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne
16:22:55 <ericm> zakim, who is here?
16:22:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see Manola, EMiller
16:22:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see ericm, DanC, jjc, RRSAgent, danbri, Zakim, AaronSw, bwm, logger_1
16:23:27 <DanC> DanC has left #rdfcore
16:25:21 <jjc> anyone still here?
16:25:33 <danbri> yup
16:25:39 <jjc> what happened with semantics?
16:25:50 <jjc> particularly Patel-Schneider on Literals
16:26:08 <jjc> time critical question --
16:26:29 <jjc> pfps: "I believe the problems with RDF MT breaks OWL MT"
16:26:45 <jjc> (his december message fixes the problem)
16:27:17 <danbri> I forget disposition re that particular comment; we didn't discuss semantics much as pat not here.
16:28:13 <jjc> OK - that's enough.
16:28:29 <danbri> 'k
16:41:10 <jjc> jjc has left #rdfcore
17:08:26 <Zakim> -Manola
17:08:27 <Zakim> -EMiller
17:08:28 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended