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