IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-02-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

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]
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]
14:58:34 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started
14:58:41 [Zakim]
14:59:01 [Zakim]
14:59:06 [Zakim]
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]
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]
15:01:07 [Zakim]
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]
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]
15:03:48 [jang_scri]
any aob?
15:03:51 [jang_scri]
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]
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]
15:06:30 [Zakim]
15:06:34 [jang_scri]
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]
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
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]
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
15:27:13 [jang_scri]
cheers jos
15:27:25 [JosD]
15:27:30 [em]
i also note - 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]
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]
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]
15:53:21 [jang_scri]
daveb: next weeks meeting
15:53:24 [jang_scri]
15:53:34 [jang_scri]
em: will announce schedule for next week if there is one
15:53:35 [jang_scri]
15:53:35 [Zakim]
15:53:37 [Zakim]
15:53:37 [Zakim]
15:53:37 [Zakim]
15:53:38 [Zakim]
15:53:39 [Zakim]
15:53:44 [Zakim]
15:53:52 [Zakim]
15:53:52 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
15:54:44 [em]
RRSAgent, pointer?
15:54:44 [RRSAgent]
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