IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-01-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

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]
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]
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]
15:06:26 [scrjang-d]
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completed / withdrawn actions: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daveb: a lot of withdrawn actions...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]
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2002-09-20#1 and 2002-11-15#2 are DONE not WITHDRAWN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]
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]
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:
15:27:37 [scrjang-d] 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]
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] jan's review
15:34:18 [danbri]
I also sent review comments:
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
15:35:38 [Zakim]
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]
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
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:
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]
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
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]
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]
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]
16:11:04 [Zakim]
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]
16:14:37 [danbri]
Call for Review: RDF Core Working Group Charter Revision
16:14:37 [danbri]
From: Marie-Claire Forgue (
16:14:37 [danbri]
Date: Thu, Jan 09 2003
16:14:47 [danbri]
Message-ID: <>
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]
16:22:27 [Zakim]
16:22:28 [Zakim]
16:22:39 [Zakim]
16:22:41 [Zakim]
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]
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]
16:41:10 [jjc]
jjc has left #rdfcore
17:08:26 [Zakim]
17:08:27 [Zakim]
17:08:28 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended