IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-01-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:28 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
14:59:19 [ericm]
zakim, this will be RDFC
14:59:20 [Zakim]
ok, ericm, I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM already started
14:59:20 [Zakim]
+EMiller
14:59:21 [bwm]
bwm has joined #rdfcore
14:59:39 [ericm]
zakim, who is here?
14:59:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.223.aaaa
14:59:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P17 (muted), EMiller, +1.202.223.aaaa
14:59:41 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bwm, RRSAgent, gk, Zakim, DaveB, danbri, ericm, ASw-lurk, logger
14:59:43 [Zakim]
+GrahamKlyne
14:59:59 [ericm]
zakim, 1.202.223.aaaa is FrankM
15:00:00 [Zakim]
sorry, ericm, I do not recognize a party named '1.202.223.aaaa'
15:00:09 [Zakim]
+DanBri
15:00:26 [ericm]
zakim, ??P17 is PatrickS
15:00:27 [Zakim]
+PatrickS; got it
15:01:00 [Zakim]
+??P20
15:01:01 [Zakim]
+??P15
15:01:19 [Zakim]
+??P21
15:01:20 [ericm]
zakim, ??P20 is PatH
15:01:21 [Zakim]
+PatH; got it
15:01:26 [danbri]
zakim, ??P15 is JosD
15:01:26 [Zakim]
+JosD; got it
15:01:28 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rdfcore
15:01:30 [Zakim]
+??P22
15:01:33 [danbri]
zakim, ??P21 is ILRT
15:01:34 [Zakim]
+ILRT; got it
15:01:39 [bwm]
Zakim, ??p21 is bwm
15:01:40 [Zakim]
sorry, bwm, I do not recognize a party named '??p21'
15:01:45 [DaveB]
Zakim, ilrt has daveb, jang
15:01:45 [ericm]
zakim, ??P22 is bwm
15:01:46 [Zakim]
+Daveb, Jang; got it
15:01:46 [danbri]
zakim, ILRT holds DaveB, JanG
15:01:47 [Zakim]
+Bwm; got it
15:01:48 [Zakim]
DaveB was already listed in ILRT, danbri
15:01:49 [Zakim]
JanG was already listed in ILRT, danbri
15:01:51 [danbri]
oops
15:01:52 [ericm]
zakim, who is here
15:01:53 [Zakim]
ericm, you need to end that query with '?'
15:01:55 [ericm]
zakim, who is here?
15:01:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PatrickS (muted), EMiller, +1.202.223.aaaa, GrahamKlyne, DanBri, PatH, JosD, ILRT, Bwm
15:01:57 [Zakim]
ILRT has Daveb, Jang
15:01:58 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JosD, bwm, RRSAgent, gk, Zakim, DaveB, danbri, ericm, ASw-lurk, logger
15:02:01 [Zakim]
+??P24
15:02:17 [danbri]
zakim, ??P24 is Jeremy
15:02:18 [ericm]
zakim, 1.202.223.aaaa is FrankM
15:02:18 [Zakim]
+Jeremy; got it
15:02:19 [Zakim]
sorry, ericm, I do not recognize a party named '1.202.223.aaaa'
15:02:28 [ericm]
zakim, +1.202.223.aaaa is FrankM
15:02:29 [Zakim]
+FrankM; got it
15:02:52 [ericm]
zakim, who is here?
15:02:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PatrickS (muted), EMiller, FrankM, GrahamKlyne, DanBri, PatH, JosD, ILRT, Bwm, Jeremy
15:02:55 [Zakim]
ILRT has Daveb, Jang
15:02:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JosD, bwm, RRSAgent, gk, Zakim, DaveB, danbri, ericm, ASw-lurk, logger
15:03:06 [Zakim]
+??P25
15:03:15 [ericm]
zakim, ??P25 is SteveP
15:03:16 [Zakim]
+SteveP; got it
15:03:29 [daveb-scr]
roll call
15:03:34 [daveb-scr]
(scribe daveb)
15:03:35 [bwm]
Zalim, who is on the phone?
15:03:41 [jjc]
jjc has joined #rdfcore
15:03:48 [bwm]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PatrickS (muted), EMiller, FrankM, GrahamKlyne, DanBri, PatH, JosD, ILRT, Bwm, Jeremy, SteveP
15:03:50 [Zakim]
ILRT has Daveb, Jang
15:03:58 [danbri]
zakim, jjc is Jeremy
15:03:59 [Zakim]
sorry, danbri, I do not recognize a party named 'jjc'
15:04:07 [danbri]
zakim, Jeremy is jjc
15:04:08 [Zakim]
+Jjc; got it
15:04:31 [Zakim]
+Mike_Dean
15:04:40 [ericm]
regrets from Guha, ericm is proxy
15:04:50 [daveb-scr]
regrets aarong, no proxy
15:04:56 [daveb-scr]
aaron
15:05:22 [ericm]
ASw-lurk, is your position to abstain on the last call vote?
15:05:26 [ASw-lurk]
yes
15:05:38 [daveb-scr]
item 3 review agenda
15:05:42 [daveb-scr]
no aob
15:05:45 [daveb-scr]
item 4 next telcon
15:05:45 [ericm]
thanks, just confirming
15:05:53 [daveb-scr]
jang scribe 24th jan
15:05:57 [daveb-scr]
item 5 minutes
15:06:05 [daveb-scr]
approved with fix, patricks was present
15:06:13 [daveb-scr]
item 6
15:06:25 [daveb-scr]
completed actions approved
15:06:26 [daveb-scr]
item 7
15:06:29 [daveb-scr]
primer - lcc
15:06:37 [daveb-scr]
3 reviews, no showstopper issues reported
15:06:39 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rdfcore
15:06:52 [daveb-scr]
bwm: any critical comments , such as from pfps?
15:06:53 [daveb-scr]
frankm: no
15:07:33 [danbri]
agenda url: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0109.html
15:07:42 [Zakim]
-Mike_Dean
15:08:08 [danbri]
mdean?
15:08:16 [Zakim]
+Mike_Dean
15:08:20 [daveb-scr]
bwm: respond to pfps giving their status, will respond during LC period
15:08:25 [ericm]
welcome back Mike_Dean! :)
15:08:33 [daveb-scr]
frankm: got extensive comments, will send a brief ack shortly
15:08:40 [DanConn]
DanConn has joined #rdfcore
15:08:54 [mdean]
thanks - i got a new phone for xmas and haven't worked out all the features yet :-)
15:08:57 [daveb-scr]
ACTION frankm: send a brief ack to pfps indicating status of primer responses
15:09:08 [danbri]
zakim, mute danbri
15:09:10 [Zakim]
DanBri should now be muted
15:09:22 [daveb-scr]
ericm notes above action 1 must be done before going to LC, if we decide to publish
15:09:31 [daveb-scr]
frankm promises to do ACTION 1 today ;)
15:10:21 [daveb-scr]
bwm: no changes required for LC
15:10:24 [daveb-scr]
group acks
15:10:25 [danbri]
zakim, unmute danbri
15:10:26 [Zakim]
DanBri should no longer be muted
15:10:27 [daveb-scr]
item 8 schema wd
15:10:34 [daveb-scr]
s/wd/lcc wd/
15:10:39 [daveb-scr]
danbri - happy with status
15:10:57 [daveb-scr]
jan, jos, daveb - happy with the changes proposed
15:11:09 [daveb-scr]
no other external critical comments raisaed
15:11:25 [daveb-scr]
patricks - rdf:XMLLiteral was defined as a datatype, is that in schema or concepts?
15:11:35 [daveb-scr]
bwm - that was in semantics, IIRC?
15:11:51 [daveb-scr]
patricks - if it is in schema, should be fixed there
15:12:03 [daveb-scr]
josd - I said this should be added in my comments
15:12:48 [daveb-scr]
jjc - pfps noted there is no defn of literal strings, lang tags in rdf docs (on wowg list)
15:13:12 [daveb-scr]
patH - Q on terminology of XML lang tags or lang tags.
15:13:52 [daveb-scr]
ACTION bwm: check that it is clear that rdf:XMLLiteral is a URI or a datatype
15:13:55 [jjc]
jjc^pfps noted ... in rdf schema doc (not all the docs)
15:14:17 [daveb-scr]
jjc - not clear strings are unicode strings - I see as editorial
15:14:32 [daveb-scr]
... and lang tags - also minor
15:14:52 [DanConn]
DanConn has joined #rdfcore
15:15:03 [daveb-scr]
bwm: given changes outlined and ACTION2, anything required for LC schema?
15:15:25 [daveb-scr]
group acks that lC schema is ok
15:15:41 [daveb-scr]
item 9 concepts
15:15:42 [gk]
q+ to raise issue of definition of literals in Concepts, and use in Semantics
15:15:50 [daveb-scr]
bwm: all changes done?
15:16:06 [daveb-scr]
gk: all last week changes from have been done and uploaded (confirms bwm)
15:16:32 [daveb-scr]
gk: uneasy about discussion of literals and defn re cc/pp ....
15:16:53 [DanConn]
DanConn has joined #rdfcore
15:17:24 [daveb-scr]
gk: combination of reading (concepts, semantics, xsd) cannot work out if a plain literal without lang tag is a member of value space of xsd:string datatype
15:17:44 [daveb-scr]
gk: xsd:string defn is quite clear though
15:18:06 [daveb-scr]
bwm: we've said that a plain literal with no lang tag denotes just the string
15:18:18 [daveb-scr]
gk: if that is the intent, happy wth that to be fixed in LC
15:18:32 [daveb-scr]
jang: not clear in one spot of doc, but several bits in total show what's going on
15:19:03 [daveb-scr]
jjc: in concepts the syntactic form is not this, might need some tweaking in semantics (agrees PatH)
15:19:20 [daveb-scr]
bwm: suggest it is an editorial fix
15:19:58 [DanConn]
DanConn has joined #rdfcore
15:20:35 [daveb-scr]
jang: sec 6.5 does say this ...
15:21:26 [daveb-scr]
jang confirms, it is 4.5 of concepts http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-Graph-Literal
15:21:38 [daveb-scr]
lots of discussion
15:22:44 [daveb-scr]
PatrickS: another doc could discuss futher xsd datatypes in rdf, not needed for rdf specs
15:23:12 [gk]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-Graph-Literal
15:23:26 [daveb-scr]
gk corrects me, yes 6.5 of LCWD
15:23:31 [gk]
.. is section of concepts LCC describing literals
15:23:43 [daveb-scr]
jjc: could be polished more
15:24:03 [daveb-scr]
mdean: people are askiung about relationship between literal and string
15:24:11 [daveb-scr]
bwm: we have to answer it
15:24:22 [daveb-scr]
jang: shall we propose a test case for last call?
15:24:59 [daveb-scr]
bwm: we should be as clear as we can about the denotation of a plain literal, find out later how it relates to xsd:string
15:25:24 [daveb-scr]
mdean: that is acceptible, and is critical
15:25:29 [daveb-scr]
... for us to be answered
15:26:05 [daveb-scr]
JosD: has a test case in msg 0100 yesterday
15:26:41 [daveb-scr]
bwm: we don't know the answer yet, mostly 'cos we don't understand xsd datatypes enough
15:27:11 [daveb-scr]
jos's thread with test case starts http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0099.html
15:27:16 [gk]
I think XSD definition of string is quite clear; see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0084.html
15:27:29 [daveb-scr]
jos withdraws requirement for new test case now
15:27:35 [daveb-scr]
item 10 syntax
15:28:23 [daveb-scr]
daveb-scr: still having discussion with pfps on comments with issues, nothing critical i seen
15:28:30 [daveb-scr]
daveb-scr: nothing new and critical
15:28:33 [daveb-scr]
bwm: done
15:28:36 [daveb-scr]
item 11 test cases
15:28:45 [gk]
(We agreed that clarification of literals in Concepts is editorial, to be done during last call. I heard.)
15:28:45 [daveb-scr]
gone some pending test cases
15:29:03 [daveb-scr]
either we approve them or leave till LC process
15:29:07 [daveb-scr]
bwm: what are pending?
15:29:39 [daveb-scr]
bwm: weren't they approved last week
15:29:47 [daveb-scr]
jang: ok
15:29:52 [daveb-scr]
bwm: approved, done here
15:29:58 [daveb-scr]
item 12 semantics doc
15:30:05 [daveb-scr]
bwm: has shipped an updated version
15:30:57 [daveb-scr]
ACTION jang: item 11, update test cases zip file for w3 LCCWD, today
15:31:32 [daveb-scr]
... item 12 ...
15:31:39 [daveb-scr]
PatH: still offline, catching up
15:33:19 [daveb-scr]
discussion of semantics comments
15:36:33 [daveb-scr]
people try to work out what PFPS problems are with semantics, various people try to interpret them
15:36:42 [daveb-scr]
jjc, josd don't see his comments as critical
15:37:02 [daveb-scr]
jjc: semantics may yet need more polishing than other docs
15:37:20 [danbri]
danbri: perhaps we could note this in the Status section
15:37:24 [danbri]
brian: that would be good
15:37:33 [danbri]
(or words to that effect, i think)
15:39:06 [daveb-scr]
bwm: I see that there is a difference in the perspective on the class of errors; we see no critical errors (such that we see no need for a futher LC WD)
15:39:35 [daveb-scr]
jjc: proposes danbri propose words for semantics LC status section to note about further polishing
15:39:38 [daveb-scr]
jos, path: agree
15:40:02 [DanConn]
DanConn has joined #rdfcore
15:40:03 [daveb-scr]
ACTION danbri propose words for semantics LC status section to note about further polishing needed - 1 sentence please
15:40:23 [daveb-scr]
bwm: wg agreeed to publish lCWD without change except for above status change?
15:40:24 [daveb-scr]
done
15:40:33 [daveb-scr]
item 13 lbase
15:40:46 [daveb-scr]
danbri: pubrules read, 1 change to change ref to new rdfs and rdf docs etc.
15:40:52 [daveb-scr]
s/read/ready/
15:41:24 [daveb-scr]
danbri: want me to reference upcoming LCWD urls or latest urls?
15:41:59 [daveb-scr]
PatH: lbase sec in rdf semantics is newere, needs cutting and pasting into lbase
15:42:29 [Zakim]
-SteveP
15:42:31 [daveb-scr]
ACTION danbri: copy the lbase rdf schema tables from the latest version in rdf semantics
15:43:05 [daveb-scr]
that is, copy from rdf semantics into the lbase. I think that was clearer
15:43:12 [daveb-scr]
bwm: confirms lbase will be pubbed with these other wds
15:43:19 [daveb-scr]
item 14 last call entrance critera
15:44:13 [daveb-scr]
ericm: gives LC process overview
15:44:54 [daveb-scr]
... WG believes this is pretty much ready for a REC
15:45:36 [daveb-scr]
... we are the polishing stage and formally addressing comments - "we think we are done"
15:47:05 [daveb-scr]
bwm: do we meet the criteria?
15:47:12 [daveb-scr]
no disagreements
15:47:15 [daveb-scr]
item 15 last call vote
15:47:21 [ericm]
zakim, who is here?
15:47:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PatrickS (muted), EMiller, FrankM, GrahamKlyne, DanBri, PatH, JosD, ILRT, Bwm, Jjc, Mike_Dean
15:47:23 [daveb-scr]
bwm: proposal to publish all last LCWDs
15:47:23 [Zakim]
ILRT has Daveb, Jang
15:47:24 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DanConn, mdean, jjc, JosD, bwm, RRSAgent, gk, Zakim, daveb-scr, danbri, ericm, ASw-lurk, logger
15:48:00 [daveb-scr]
... publishing ASAP (might be today) with a last call ending 21 feb 2003
15:48:03 [daveb-scr]
(see agenda for details)
15:48:15 [bwm]
zakim, who is onthe phone?
15:48:16 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, bwm.
15:48:37 [daveb-scr]
nokia: yes
15:48:40 [daveb-scr]
w3c: yes
15:48:52 [daveb-scr]
mitre: yes
15:49:11 [daveb-scr]
invited expert gk: yes
15:49:20 [daveb-scr]
invited expert PatH: yes
15:49:26 [daveb-scr]
agfa: yes
15:49:29 [daveb-scr]
HP: yes
15:49:37 [daveb-scr]
invited expert MikeD: yes
15:49:42 [daveb-scr]
University of Bristol/ILRT: yes
15:50:01 [daveb-scr]
proxies
15:50:10 [daveb-scr]
IBM proxy (via em): yes
15:50:22 [daveb-scr]
rephrasing
15:50:24 [danbri]
(that was Guha, btw;)
15:50:44 [daveb-scr]
IBM: yes (proxied by em)
15:50:53 [daveb-scr]
.. for guha
15:51:33 [daveb-scr]
iwa/hwg: abstain (proxied via bwm for AaronSw)
15:52:07 [daveb-scr]
bwm: decided, we go to last call
15:52:37 [daveb-scr]
--
15:52:46 [daveb-scr]
ericm: congrats, woo hoo!
15:52:53 [gk]
q+ to ask if issue tracking is sorted yet
15:53:07 [daveb-scr]
ericm: from process ... now actions to staff contact to take docs and pub them .
15:53:24 [daveb-scr]
... will be some minor mods - date for last call reviews in status of each doc
15:54:02 [daveb-scr]
ACTION ericm: publish the last call wds (+lbase)
15:54:34 [danbri]
q+ to propose Text for Semantics LC Status section: "The Working Group notes that this Last Call Working Draft completes the group's design of the formal Semantics for RDF, however it may still need some editorial polishing and clarification following last call."
15:55:05 [daveb-scr]
ericm: national holiday in US monday, so might be Tues
15:55:27 [daveb-scr]
[what holiday?]
15:55:38 [danbri]
martin luther king day, i think.
15:56:04 [daveb-scr]
[yeah, birthday]
15:56:18 [daveb-scr]
ericm: comms team are forewarned
15:56:30 [daveb-scr]
... eta tues, wed at latest
15:56:51 [daveb-scr]
PatH: cann I try get an updated lbase by then?
15:57:45 [daveb-scr]
CLARIFICATION: Lbase is included in above action 5 to pub
15:58:41 [daveb-scr]
ericm: we are not obliged to include comments right now into pubs, certainly when responding later
15:58:56 [daveb-scr]
PatrickS: maybe post to rdf-comments to note this?
16:00:21 [bwm]
ack danbri
16:00:23 [Zakim]
Danbri, you wanted to propose Text for Semantics LC Status section: "The Working Group notes that this Last Call Working Draft completes the group's design of the formal Semantics
16:00:24 [Zakim]
... for RDF, however it may still need some editorial polishing and clarification following last call."
16:00:46 [daveb-scr]
group acks danbris' sentence, closes his action
16:00:52 [bwm]
ack gk
16:00:54 [Zakim]
Gk, you wanted to raise issue of definition of literals in Concepts, and use in Semantics and to ask if issue tracking is sorted yet
16:01:49 [daveb-scr]
q+ jang
16:03:12 [daveb-scr]
discussion with frankm about more editorial changes, spellings to primer
16:03:30 [daveb-scr]
q- jang
16:04:04 [daveb-scr]
jang: asks where new post-lcwds are editied,changed
16:04:07 [daveb-scr]
bwm: AOB?
16:04:12 [daveb-scr]
END OF MEETING
16:04:16 [Zakim]
-FrankM
16:04:16 [gk]
DanBri, how would the MT system work as an issue-collating tool?
16:04:19 [Zakim]
-JosD
16:04:23 [Zakim]
-PatrickS
16:04:24 [Zakim]
-EMiller
16:04:26 [Zakim]
-ILRT
16:04:27 [Zakim]
-Bwm
16:04:28 [Zakim]
-Jjc
16:04:43 [Zakim]
-DanBri
16:04:43 [danbri]
zakim, drop DanBri
16:04:44 [Zakim]
sorry, danbri, I do not see a party named 'DanBri'
16:04:47 [Zakim]
-GrahamKlyne
16:05:00 [danbri]
gk, possibly, but it isn't really targeted at such thinks. BugZilla might be better.
16:05:07 [DanConn]
DanConn has joined #rdfcore
16:05:27 [Zakim]
-PatH
16:05:29 [gk]
OK, just a passing thought
16:05:31 [Zakim]
-Mike_Dean
16:05:32 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
16:07:08 [DanConn]
DanConn has joined #rdfcore
16:11:54 [danbri]
RRSAgent, pointer?
16:11:54 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2003/01/17-rdfcore-irc#T16-11-54
16:12:29 [danbri]
I've made logs public.
16:54:56 [DanConn]
DanConn has joined #rdfcore
18:33:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfcore
18:35:03 [DanConn]
DanConn has joined #rdfcore
19:00:50 [DanConn]
DanConn has left #rdfcore
23:35:02 [ericm]
ericm has joined #rdfcore