14:55:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
14:56:03 <AaronSw> no he has, he just joins an hour before everyone else
14:56:26 <em> who owns logger? 
14:56:31 <AaronSw> dajobe
14:56:31 <em> AaronSw, is he yours?
14:56:35 <em> thought so
14:56:52 <AaronSw> dajobe mentioned he's set up as a cron job
14:57:35 <DanC> logger, learn about chanops, ok?
14:57:37 <logger> I'm logging.  I found 1 answer for 'learn about chanops, ok'
14:57:37 <logger> 0) 2003-02-14 14:57:35 <DanC> logger, learn about chanops, ok?
14:57:58 <AaronSw> heh
14:58:34 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started
14:58:41 <Zakim> +FrankM
14:59:01 <Zakim> +PatH
14:59:06 <Zakim> +??P15
14:59:21 <bwm> Zakim, ??p15 is bwm
14:59:23 <jang_scri> jang_scri has joined #rdfcore
14:59:23 <Zakim> +Bwm; got it
14:59:54 <Zakim> +??P16
15:00:00 <jang_scri> zakim, ??p16 is ilrt
15:00:01 <Zakim> +Ilrt; got it
15:00:09 <jang_scri> zakim, ilrt has jang daveb
15:00:11 <Zakim> +Jang, Daveb; got it
15:01:06 <Zakim> +EMiller
15:01:07 <Zakim> +AaronSw
15:01:49 <jang_scri> rdf lets you think anything about anything
15:01:53 <jang_scri> libel law prevents you saying it
15:02:13 <jang_scri> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0111.html
15:02:18 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, PatH, Bwm, Ilrt, AaronSw, EMiller
15:02:20 <Zakim> Ilrt has Jang, Daveb
15:02:42 <jang_scri> regrets patrick danbri jjc
15:02:57 <jang_scri> scribe jan today... 
15:03:16 <jang_scri> regrets danc
15:03:27 <jang_scri> frank: regrets gk?
15:03:34 <jang_scri> bwm: ah yes
15:03:45 <jang_scri> agenda:
15:03:48 <jang_scri> any aob?
15:03:51 <jang_scri> nope
15:04:09 <jang_scri> next telecon 28 feb (proposing a holiday next week)
15:04:24 <jang_scri> path: no objection: I'm away the week after.
15:04:43 <jang_scri> minuites last meeting:
15:04:57 <jang_scri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0082.html
15:05:08 <jang_scri> plus: mike dean was there.
15:05:14 <jang_scri> scribe next meeting?
15:05:27 <jang_scri> eric: yep
15:05:48 <JosD> JosD has joined #rdfcore
15:05:54 <jang_scri> minutes APPROVED
15:06:15 <jang_scri> item 6, xml schema
15:06:26 <jang_scri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0163.html
15:06:30 <Zakim> +??P9
15:06:34 <jang_scri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0078.html
15:06:49 <jang_scri> uris for bits of schemas
15:06:50 <JosD> Zakim, ??P9 is JosD
15:06:52 <Zakim> +JosD; got it
15:07:03 <jang_scri> bwm: we should respond, 
15:07:15 <jang_scri> daveb: the xml schema people aren't here, jjc, pats, maybe gk
15:07:19 <AaronSw> zakim, mute aaronsw
15:07:21 <Zakim> AaronSw should now be muted
15:07:27 <jang_scri> could we ask them to look at it?
15:07:36 <jang_scri> otherwise I'll have a look, although I'm not an expert
15:07:44 <jang_scri> make precise the requirement though
15:08:00 <jang_scri> bwm: we agree to the WD they've produced and respond to it from the rdf WG
15:08:09 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
15:08:10 <jang_scri> daveb: ok, I'll review bits that seem relevant
15:08:19 <jang_scri> daveb: hasn't jjc said stuff?
15:08:27 <jang_scri> bwm: already, yes, think so... on this document?
15:08:32 <jang_scri> daveb: I recall that's the case
15:08:36 <mdean> mdean has joined #rdfcore
15:09:01 <jang_scri> ACTION daveb - liase with jjc to work up a response on schema 1.1 requirements
15:09:08 <JosD> should be about http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/
15:09:37 <JosD> RQ23 endorsed
15:09:49 <jang_scri> daveb: I'll reply to their message immediately once I've absorbed it, give them a date we'll get back to them on.
15:10:02 <jang_scri> ACTION daveb give immediate response, 
15:10:13 <jang_scri> ACTION daveb liase etc
15:10:27 <mdean> Mike is here too (phone and IRC) -- sorry I'm late
15:10:44 <jang_scri> item 7:
15:10:51 <jang_scri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0103.html
15:10:55 <jang_scri> rdf in html
15:10:59 <jang_scri> dave's responded...
15:11:04 <jang_scri> some TAG activity on this
15:11:27 <jang_scri> daveb: this is one of the three threads in tag on multiple-namespaced documents
15:11:49 <jang_scri> bwm: my reading of the issue is that it's more to do with html than rdf
15:12:10 <jang_scri> daveb: we've already made the links on this
15:12:31 <jang_scri> bwm: the html guys also want to add syntax to html that can be used to represent some (subset) of rdf
15:12:42 <jang_scri> bwm: my initial reaction is that that's good news!
15:12:51 <jang_scri> em: do people have a view on that?
15:13:05 <jang_scri> em: I'm quite encouraged by this.
15:13:17 <jang_scri> stephen and I've had conversations in the past about this
15:13:26 <jang_scri> one of the big impediments at the moment is deployment
15:13:32 <jang_scri> eg, legacy editing environemnts
15:13:51 <jang_scri> it's like ntriples in html
15:13:58 <jang_scri> it's a really clear way of doing s/p/o
15:14:07 <jang_scri> but it'd certainly benefit from this group's review
15:14:25 <jang_scri> daveb, path, jang: are going to look at it.
15:14:39 <JosD> Zakim, who is here?
15:14:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, PatH, Bwm, Ilrt, AaronSw (muted), EMiller, JosD, Mike_Dean
15:14:41 <Zakim> Ilrt has Jang, Daveb
15:14:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see mdean, JosD, jang_scri, RRSAgent, em, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, DanC, logger
15:14:45 <jang_scri> it has the potential to bridge between html meta tags and the abstract model that we're defining
15:14:59 <jang_scri> daveb: I should point stephen at ntriples so that he sees it made concrete
15:15:04 <jang_scri> there's the ntriples/test.nt file
15:15:11 <jang_scri> that demonstrates the kind of things we want to say
15:15:32 <jang_scri> em: he's not proposing using bnodes, for example.
15:15:39 <jang_scri> path: we MUST look at this then!
15:15:56 <jang_scri> bwm: at the back of my mind there are a number of questions:
15:16:13 <jang_scri> is this html specific or is it a more general syntax that other specs might find easier to embed?
15:16:36 <jang_scri> another question: do they intend to represent arbitrary graphs or just a subset?
15:17:01 <jang_scri> em: this proposal doesn't exclude the rdf/xml embedding we've already talked about
15:17:01 <AaronSw> em: this is intermediate point between HTML and RDF
15:17:22 <jang_scri> bwm: em, what's the best way forward?
15:17:29 <jang_scri> em: (a) identify reviewers
15:17:49 <jang_scri> (b) if the group thinks it's important enough, make it a target of the upcoming tech plenary to get the right people in the room
15:18:09 <jang_scri> path: I'm going to be in cambridge throughout the plenary week, I can be avaiulable for this
15:18:28 <jang_scri> bwm: also wonder if we should invite stephen to a telecon, since dave can't be there?
15:18:38 <jang_scri> em: seconded,
15:18:46 <jang_scri> wonder if that's the right place though
15:18:57 <jang_scri> or if there's some specific meeting we can arrange to focus on that
15:19:05 <jang_scri> daveb: use this slot next week instead?
15:19:14 <jang_scri> "good idea"s all around
15:19:24 <jang_scri> daveb: can you contact them about this?
15:19:39 <jang_scri> em: we've been increasingly trying to affect each other's groups on this
15:19:46 <jang_scri> getting it on the html agenda is the first step
15:19:53 <jang_scri> I'm happy to keep pushing and pushing hard
15:20:01 <jang_scri> I'm potentially at risk next week...
15:20:08 <jang_scri> ...but it may be a good opportunity
15:20:14 <jang_scri> I can see if I can make it happen
15:20:27 <jang_scri> em: who'd want to attend?
15:20:34 <jang_scri> (for next week)
15:20:46 <jang_scri> path: yes, miked, yes, daveb yes
15:20:47 <jang_scri> jang yes
15:20:55 <jang_scri> em: ok
15:21:17 <jang_scri> ACTION em to set up a discussion between stephen and rdfcore , objective to understand each other on the subject of rdf in html
15:21:34 <jang_scri> bwm: done with rdf in html?
15:22:03 <jang_scri> item 8; webont update
15:22:29 <jang_scri> webont are reviewing our documents, generating a lot of discussion...
15:22:35 <jang_scri> update (pat maybe, mike?)
15:22:42 <jang_scri> social meaning:
15:22:46 <jang_scri> pat verbally blanches
15:23:05 <jang_scri> bwm: after a general "where webont are on reviewing our specs"
15:23:21 <jang_scri> path: the difficulty is more that webont's not sure what to say, agreement internally on that
15:23:30 <jang_scri> sociual meaning is the one that's causing the most debate
15:23:43 <jang_scri> most of the recent discussions don't appear to impinge on rdf
15:23:48 <jang_scri> there's an rdfs:comment issue
15:23:54 <jang_scri> because they don't want comments to be assertions
15:24:08 <jang_scri> JosD: annotations in general, not just comments
15:24:14 <jang_scri> there's a rather plsit issue here
15:24:17 <jang_scri> split, even
15:24:32 <jang_scri> I'm anxiously awaiting a test case that jjc is producing...
15:24:49 <jang_scri> path: in the weakened form that pfps' got it to, it shouldn't impact rdf at the moment
15:25:16 <jang_scri> path: the simpler owl languages don't have a good fit for classes of things that apply to individuals
15:25:23 <jang_scri> em: can you send me a link to that thread?
15:25:43 <jang_scri> JosD: not a particular thread, it's tied around everywhere
15:25:57 <jang_scri> em: i just don't want to take rdfcore time on this, I want to read up on it first
15:26:05 <jang_scri> JosD: I'll post a link to a good summary message now...
15:26:17 <jang_scri> daveb: I read the webont logs fairly regularly...
15:26:30 <jang_scri> there are some things that I'm not sure of, eg
15:26:34 <jang_scri> 1. why rdfs:class and owl: class
15:26:44 <jang_scri> and 2. why ban some rdf terms from owl?
15:26:52 <jang_scri> path: owl lite ban, maybe, not owl full
15:27:07 <jang_scri> daveb: I'm still not very happy with the owl three languages thing
15:27:09 <JosD> Pat's webont message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Feb/0197.html
15:27:13 <jang_scri> cheers jos
15:27:25 <JosD> :-)
15:27:30 <em> i also note - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Feb/0000.html re OWL and RDF schema relationshop
15:27:40 <em> thanks JosD for the pointer
15:27:58 <jang_scri> bwm: where do people step up from rdfs?
15:28:03 <jang_scri> not owl light....
15:28:07 <JosD> right eric
15:28:22 <jang_scri> path: owl's got a bunch of clean sublanguages
15:28:34 <jang_scri> path: the other view is that owl full is just a large extension of rdf
15:28:40 <jang_scri> which you then constrain to get the full languages
15:28:52 <jang_scri> it depends on whether you see the smaller languages coming first, or last
15:29:23 <jang_scri> daveb: I see rdf, I see "sameindividual as", I'd like to use that. which owl am I using?
15:29:31 <jang_scri> path: safe option is to assume you're using owl full
15:30:07 <jang_scri> path: the other thing you ight find direct feedback on is about xmlliteral, which they really don't like
15:30:14 <jang_scri> jjc could say more about that
15:30:18 <jang_scri> JosD: much more, i'd guess(!)
15:30:21 <jang_scri> moving on
15:30:29 <jang_scri> item 9: actions from last week.
15:31:20 <jang_scri> bwm: summarising, 
15:31:24 <jang_scri> concepts defines a triple
15:31:36 <jang_scri> the subject of a triple is a rdf uriref
15:31:57 <jang_scri> there was at one point some language in schema, primer that didn't conform to that
15:32:30 <jang_scri> ACTION daveb: same action as 2003-02-07#3
15:32:44 <jang_scri> frankm: there's another component of this:
15:32:57 <jang_scri> the corresponding s/p/o vocab applied to statements
15:33:33 <jang_scri> bwm: think danbri's got an action to check this
15:33:56 <jang_scri> path: one way to deal with this is "syntactic object", "semantic subject", etc.
15:34:06 <jang_scri> daveb: argh! please no
15:34:21 <jang_scri> ... a triple has three parts, called what: nodes? arcs?
15:34:35 <jang_scri> path: no, they're sets of triples
15:35:18 <jang_scri> bwm: the key thing is making sure that the subject of a triple is a uiriref
15:35:20 <jang_scri> not a resource
15:35:27 <jang_scri> ACTION bwm: check a resource
15:35:35 <jang_scri> daveb: taking out the word "labelled" - I've done this already
15:35:45 <jang_scri> daveb's action done.
15:35:54 <jang_scri> moving on
15:36:04 <jang_scri> 10. format of references in documents
15:36:31 <jang_scri> frank: in december we agreed the format of references
15:36:53 <jang_scri> what's in syntax (which jjc proposed we used) doesn't match what I thought we agreed on
15:37:00 <jang_scri> there's a mixture across these documents
15:37:15 <jang_scri> frank: let's all agree on one thing, please
15:37:31 <jang_scri> daveb: syntax wasn't consistent with what we agreed. Think we had a japanese name that didn't fit
15:37:58 <jang_scri> frankm: I can change the primer to agree with everyone else, but I think we should agree.
15:38:07 <jang_scri> path: I've changed at least twice.
15:38:12 <jang_scri> bwm: I'll pick one: what we said before
15:38:24 <jang_scri> it's not mandatory if the other docs change
15:38:31 <jang_scri> but it's low down the list of the things we have to do.
15:38:57 <jang_scri> please conform to the pattern in primer, semantics, if you DO tidy these up
15:39:12 <jang_scri> em: for all people putting links into documents, please point into the DATED documents
15:39:26 <jang_scri> a lot of people were putting pointers into the "latest" documetns
15:40:00 <em> - /tr/rdf-primer
15:40:05 <AaronSw> if you link to /TR/rdf-concepts/#foo then that might break when #foo becomes #5-foo
15:40:14 <jang_scri> ACTION em send a followup email on this
15:40:22 <jang_scri> moving on#
15:40:29 <jang_scri> 11 responses to comments
15:41:06 <jang_scri> there are quite a few comments languishing there with no responses
15:41:16 <jang_scri> primer, syntax, semantics ok
15:41:35 <jang_scri> LCComments end next week, be good to be on top of things at that time
15:41:59 <jang_scri> frank: the problem isn't in rapidly responding; it's the content of those comments wrt our agreed procedure
15:42:15 <jang_scri> frank: keeping the ball rolling...
15:42:23 <jang_scri> bwm: is ok. it's the ones that sit there I'm worried about.
15:43:31 <jang_scri> item 12:
15:43:36 <jang_scri> schedule for processing LC comments
15:43:42 <jang_scri> everyone had a chance to look?
15:43:54 <jang_scri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0094.html
15:45:43 <jang_scri> bwm: goes through his schedule
15:45:52 <jang_scri> JosD: I'd guess plan for CR, 
15:46:17 <jang_scri> bwm: I need to put together a message proposing to go to PR
15:46:20 <jang_scri> JosD: "plan a", ok
15:46:31 <jang_scri> bwm: extra telecons?
15:46:37 <jang_scri> path: I'm up for it, apart from 18th
15:46:40 <jang_scri> daveb:@ yes
15:46:45 <jang_scri> jang_scri: ok
15:46:48 <jang_scri> frank: ok
15:47:18 <jang_scri> 11, 14 are ok.
15:47:42 <jang_scri> bwm: the 18th...
15:47:48 <jang_scri> path: all dates next to that are out
15:48:07 <jang_scri> bwm: suggest we schedule 18th and avoid path's needed to being there if possible
15:49:08 <jang_scri> (times an hour later on tuesdays ok for everyone)
15:49:14 <jang_scri> two hours on the 21st... ok
15:49:19 <jang_scri> two hours on the 28th:...?
15:49:32 <jang_scri> path: iffy for me, probably ok, but maybe not network access.
15:49:39 <jang_scri> bwm: let's schedult ie, see how it goes.
15:50:04 <jang_scri> bwm: folks happy with that plan then?
15:50:28 <jang_scri> jang_scri: can't make 28th feb, alas
15:50:42 <jang_scri> bwm: don't have either concepts editors, crucial we have their agreement
15:50:49 <jang_scri> but at least for now that's the plan
15:51:05 <jang_scri> ACTION bwm update schedule page to reflect our current plan
15:51:20 <jang_scri> daveb: danb, danc be nice if they're there
15:51:52 <jang_scri> DanC: availability for lc comment review currently being discussed
15:51:55 <jang_scri> are you?
15:52:06 <DanC> want me to dial in?
15:52:22 <jang_scri> nah, we'll take to email
15:52:26 <jang_scri> ^^^ bwm
15:52:30 <DanC> k
15:52:31 <jang_scri> item 12 done,
15:52:35 <jang_scri> any aob?
15:52:46 <jang_scri> frank: eric, s+w has announced new 50-cal,
15:52:51 <jang_scri> if you need a "persuader"
15:53:15 <jang_scri> done, cheers, folks...
15:53:16 <jang_scri> ooh
15:53:21 <jang_scri> daveb: next weeks meeting
15:53:24 <jang_scri> heh
15:53:34 <jang_scri> em: will announce schedule for next week if there is one
15:53:35 <jang_scri> done
15:53:35 <Zakim> -JosD
15:53:37 <Zakim> -Bwm
15:53:37 <Zakim> -PatH
15:53:37 <Zakim> -Ilrt
15:53:38 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
15:53:39 <Zakim> -FrankM
15:53:44 <Zakim> -AaronSw
15:53:52 <Zakim> -EMiller
15:53:52 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
15:54:44 <em> RRSAgent, pointer?
15:54:44 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2003/02/14-rdfcore-irc#T15-54-44
16:05:04 <AaronSw> AaronSw has left #rdfcore
16:17:07 <em> em has left #rdfcore
17:45:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfcore
17:53:19 <DanC> DanC has left #rdfcore