IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-02-28
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:00:53 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
- 15:01:45 [em]
- zakim, this is rdf
- 15:01:46 [Zakim]
- ok, em
- 15:01:50 [em]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:01:51 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see EMiller
- 15:01:52 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see RRSAgent, gk, Zakim, em, DanC, bwm, danbri, logger
- 15:02:07 [Zakim]
- +GrahamKlyne
- 15:02:13 [Zakim]
- +FrankM
- 15:02:18 [Zakim]
- +??P0
- 15:02:30 [em]
- zakim, ??P0 is jjc
- 15:02:31 [Zakim]
- +jjc; got it
- 15:02:31 [Zakim]
- +??P2
- 15:02:40 [em]
- zakim, ??P2 is feerlessleader
- 15:02:41 [Zakim]
- +feerlessleader; got it
- 15:02:51 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #rdfcore
- 15:02:55 [Zakim]
- +DanBri
- 15:02:56 [bwm]
- zakim, feelessleader is bwm
- 15:02:57 [Zakim]
- sorry, bwm, I do not recognize a party named 'feelessleader'
- 15:03:01 [em]
- agenda + review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0224.html
- 15:03:31 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 15:03:41 [em]
- zakim, ??P3 is SteveP
- 15:03:42 [Zakim]
- +SteveP; got it
- 15:04:11 [jjc]
- Zakim, who is talking?
- 15:04:22 [Zakim]
- jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jjc (18%), FrankM (32%), feerlessleader (23%), SteveP (9%), EMiller (29%), GrahamKlyne (13%), DanBri (18%)
- 15:04:31 [Zakim]
- -feerlessleader
- 15:04:38 [jjc]
- Zakim, who is talking?
- 15:04:40 [em]
- zakim, feerlessleader is bwm
- 15:04:41 [Zakim]
- sorry, em, I do not recognize a party named 'feerlessleader'
- 15:04:49 [Zakim]
- jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jjc (41%), FrankM (26%), SteveP (5%), EMiller (14%), GrahamKlyne (9%), DanBri (18%)
- 15:04:58 [jjc]
- Zakim, who is talking?
- 15:05:07 [em]
- agenda?
- 15:05:09 [Zakim]
- jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: FrankM (15%), EMiller (54%)
- 15:05:12 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 15:05:19 [em]
- zakim, who is on the call?
- 15:05:20 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see EMiller, GrahamKlyne, FrankM, jjc, DanBri, SteveP, DanC (muted)
- 15:05:33 [em]
- role call...
- 15:06:07 [em]
- regrets: PatH, Jos
- 15:06:25 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Dean
- 15:06:32 [bwm]
- get thru - go ahead without me whilst I keep trying
- 15:06:54 [mdean]
- mdean has joined #rdfcore
- 15:07:13 [Zakim]
- +??P4
- 15:07:18 [bwm]
- zakim, ??p4 is bwm
- 15:07:19 [Zakim]
- +bwm; got it
- 15:07:25 [danbri]
- gk: is agenda correct, proposes a meeting on a tuesday?
- 15:07:39 [danbri]
- frank: according to our home page, we agreed some tues meeting...
- 15:07:58 [danbri]
- bwm: yup, 11 Mar 2003 tues, "1hr later starting"
- 15:08:19 [danbri]
- ... checks with Eric re whether bridges were booked, and longer for fridays
- 15:08:24 [danbri]
- em: fridays done
- 15:08:27 [danbri]
- ... tues not yet
- 15:08:42 [DanC]
- I offer regrets for all the non-fri telcons
- 15:08:49 [danbri]
- em: brian... I blanked re the tuesdays. Number, duration etc?
- 15:08:55 [danbri]
- bwm: see wg homepage
- 15:09:12 [bwm]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#microschedule
- 15:09:25 [em]
- action: em to schedule tuesday teleconference for rdfcore (11th and 18th)... find more info on rdfcore home page
- 15:09:31 [danbri]
- jeremy: requests distinctive email msgs about these
- 15:09:35 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 15:09:47 [em]
- zakim, ??P5 is PatH
- 15:09:48 [Zakim]
- +PatH; got it
- 15:10:24 [em]
- regrets: Patrick, DaveB
- 15:10:30 [danbri]
- and JosD
- 15:12:34 [danbri]
- (some discussion of quorum in prior meetings)
- 15:15:00 [danbri]
- wg approves prior minutes
- 15:15:06 [danbri]
- (qualifier: ???)
- 15:15:21 [DanC]
- last week, we RESOLVED the proposal under Item 12: Schedule for processing comments
- 15:16:03 [em]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/
- 15:16:05 [danbri]
- 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions
- 15:16:20 [danbri]
- confirmed.
- 15:16:35 [danbri]
- 7: XML Schema 1.1 Requirements
- 15:16:40 [em]
- ok...
- 15:16:51 [jjc]
- 10:45 - 12:15 Second morning session
- 15:16:54 [danbri]
- waiting for Dave, joining us later. Moving on to 8.
- 15:16:59 [danbri]
- 8: RDF in HTML
- 15:16:59 [danbri]
- 2003-02-14#3 em set up a discussion between RDFCore and (x)HTML
- 15:16:59 [danbri]
- with the objective to understand each other on
- 15:16:59 [danbri]
- the subject of RDF in HTML
- 15:17:03 [jjc]
- Thu, 6 March 2003 (all day)
- 15:17:12 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 15:17:18 [danbri]
- action is done.
- 15:17:29 [em]
- zakim, ??P6 is daveb
- 15:17:30 [Zakim]
- +daveb; got it
- 15:17:45 [danbri]
- bwm: is this to be a large group session or a small breakout group?
- 15:18:05 [danbri]
- em: after talking w/ ralph, large group, specific focussed qs, specific participants
- 15:18:09 [danbri]
- bwm: who?
- 15:18:34 [danbri]
- em: currently committed, steven pemberton +1, ralph swick, ... (em to get back to you...)
- 15:18:45 [danbri]
- jeremy: who from rdf?
- 15:18:48 [danbri]
- em: myself...
- 15:19:06 [danbri]
- danc: or RalphS and those speakers he acks
- 15:19:11 [danbri]
- bwm: seems a little odd
- 15:19:20 [danbri]
- ...if this is between rdfcore and xhtml
- 15:19:23 [danbri]
- danc: it isn't
- 15:19:29 [danbri]
- bwn: between rdfcore and xhtml folks
- 15:19:50 [danbri]
- danc: yup, the assembled company aren't making decisions that bind on behalf of their groups
- 15:20:19 [danbri]
- danc: does anyone here really want to get in on this?
- 15:20:28 [danbri]
- jeremy: I have an interest, but don't have much time
- 15:21:00 [danbri]
- danc: dave, are you interested?
- 15:21:06 [danbri]
- dajobe: yes but not attending...
- 15:21:10 [danbri]
- ...and no plan for telecon
- 15:21:27 [danbri]
- danc: but could arrange irc proxy, or phone chat maybe w/ ralph?
- 15:21:59 [DaveB]
- DaveB has joined #rdfcore
- 15:22:02 [DaveB]
- phew
- 15:22:09 [danbri]
- danc: anyone else who is interested and has logistical challenges?
- 15:22:20 [danbri]
- returning to 7.:
- 15:22:24 [danbri]
- [[
- 15:22:24 [danbri]
- 7: XML Schema 1.1 Requirements
- 15:22:24 [danbri]
- 2003-02-14#1 daveB respond immediately to XML Schema 1.1 with a date for
- 15:22:24 [em]
- item 7 - xml schema 1.1. requierments
- 15:22:25 [danbri]
- " we'll get back to you"
- 15:22:25 [danbri]
- 2003-02-14#2 daveB liase with jjc to work up a response on the XML Schema
- 15:22:25 [danbri]
- 1.1 requirements
- 15:22:28 [danbri]
- ]]
- 15:22:33 [danbri]
- dave: apologies, lost that...
- 15:22:37 [danbri]
- action continued for now.
- 15:22:40 [danbri]
- Ah
- 15:22:43 [danbri]
- Deadline is today.
- 15:22:52 [danbri]
- danc: is it straightforward to ask for more time?
- 15:23:30 [danbri]
- ah, no deadline today.
- 15:23:34 [em]
- no deadline
- 15:23:37 [em]
- for today
- 15:23:42 [danbri]
- Dave: I'll look at this next week
- 15:23:43 [danbri]
- Continued.
- 15:24:31 [danbri]
- jjc: want to emphasise that we'd like to be able to refer to simple user defined types, and nothing else(?scribeconfusion)
- 15:24:43 [danbri]
- jjc, can you clarify your comment for notes
- 15:24:52 [danbri]
- coming back to this later.
- 15:24:55 [em]
- agenda 9 status on Last Call Comments
- 15:24:59 [danbri]
- 9: Status on Last Call Comments
- 15:24:59 [em]
- concepts...
- 15:25:12 [danbri]
- brian: a lot out there without issue number or closed
- 15:25:13 [em]
- gk: one comment that jjc is planning on responding
- 15:25:34 [gk]
- http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/RDF-Concepts-notes/index.html
- 15:25:42 [DanC]
- (how is one expected to get to the last call comments list? e.g. path from agenda?)
- 15:25:48 [em]
- gk: 6 comments for which i've repsonded, but havent finalized answer (not sure if go thtat right)
- 15:26:12 [bwm]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/
- 15:26:14 [DaveB]
- DanC: on the rdfcore page, an early link
- 15:26:20 [em]
- gk: http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/RDF-Concepts-notes/index.html is personal record of issues and statges of responses
- 15:27:29 [DanC]
- (no link to WG home from lc issues list?)
- 15:28:01 [em]
- gk: in a couple of cases, waiting from responses from people who raised the issues, a couple waiting from chair to determine if these are open issues
- 15:28:47 [em]
- bwm: wrt clarification on comments... if no response in general we close this issue
- 15:29:12 [em]
- ... send message to list, saying such... and if people respond otherwise we ... ?
- 15:30:05 [em]
- open this and respond formally
- 15:30:40 [em]
- bwm: wrt clarification on comments...
- 15:30:41 [DanC]
- "This is the issue tracking document of RDFCore Working Group." *the* issue tracking document? there's another one now. pls add a link from http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/ to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/
- 15:31:34 [danbri]
- DanC, thats why we want StaticFunctionalProperty vs FunctionalProperty distnction in OWL ;)
- 15:32:58 [em]
- if no response in general, we send a message to the list suggesting without further information we consider this issue closed. If additional information is presented, we then consider this an issue or not and address it accordingly.
- 15:33:18 [em]
- If no response, this issue is considered closed.
- 15:33:28 [em]
- frank: in good shape
- 15:33:33 [em]
- ... wrt primer
- 15:33:46 [em]
- DaveB: still need to respond to SusanL but thats about it
- 15:34:22 [em]
- DanC: frank (if you had to guess on primer).. are you thinking substantive chages? or just editorial?
- 15:34:33 [em]
- Frank: the reification seems substantive
- 15:35:12 [em]
- removing sections ... is this substantive or not?
- 15:35:27 [em]
- (diffictut to assess in the primer)
- 15:36:53 [em]
- jjc: re concepts... there are 3 issues ... not clear if substantive or not... .deletion of section (possible social meaning) , xml literal equality/connonicalization could be consider substantive
- 15:37:38 [em]
- ... possible change of RDF URI reference to IRI... waiting for input
- 15:37:45 [em]
- ... essentially editorial
- 15:37:56 [em]
- ... but changes are potentially large
- 15:38:06 [em]
- .. a substantial but textual change
- 15:39:05 [em]
- jjc: i'm seeing stuff that causes me to think hard
- 15:39:11 [em]
- re syntax...
- 15:39:21 [em]
- anything that you think the test-cases are wrong
- 15:39:34 [em]
- DaveB: yes... because we made a mistake in the manifest
- 15:40:17 [em]
- DanC: sowhen we fix the test cases, you belive the code out there is correct?
- 15:40:20 [em]
- DaveB: yes
- 15:40:25 [em]
- ...
- 15:40:27 [em]
- on to schema
- 15:40:32 [em]
- danbri: ...
- 15:40:40 [DaveB]
- danbri's todo: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt
- 15:40:48 [em]
- i hope to get to half responses by thie weekend
- 15:41:02 [em]
- .... nothing that raises red flags ...
- 15:41:25 [em]
- ... there are a few issues that people are asking for.
- 15:41:36 [em]
- DanC: i suggest you get the working group to help responsd
- 15:41:51 [em]
- danbri... ICS forth group responses
- 15:42:17 [em]
- danbri... s/RDF Schema / RDF Vocabulary Description... biggest change
- 15:42:28 [em]
- danbri...
- 15:42:48 [DaveB]
- q+ on syntax issues
- 15:43:00 [em]
- i have the list that deserve rdf schema responses in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt
- 15:43:25 [em]
- q+
- 15:43:34 [danbri]
- re http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt
- 15:43:43 [danbri]
- FORTH comments, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0282.html
- 15:43:49 [Zakim]
- -PatH
- 15:43:54 [danbri]
- mention datatypes. Could someone from Concepts handle that?
- 15:44:22 [danbri]
- [[
- 15:44:23 [danbri]
- Subject: Clarifications needed for the Collection construct
- 15:44:23 [danbri]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html
- 15:44:23 [danbri]
- ...which spec takes this one? Concepts??
- 15:44:24 [danbri]
- ]]
- 15:44:30 [em]
- DaveB... a few more comments from jjc and pps that i haven't factored in yet from previous to last-call period... heads up
- 15:44:34 [danbri]
- zakim, q+ to ask about these two
- 15:44:35 [Zakim]
- I see DaveB, em, danbri on the speaker queue
- 15:44:50 [em]
- DanC: to suggest these are unfortunate timing but that these are not last call comments
- 15:44:52 [DaveB]
- q-
- 15:45:39 [em]
- q-
- 15:45:53 [em]
- ack danbri
- 15:45:54 [Zakim]
- danbri, you wanted to ask about these two
- 15:45:59 [em]
- danbri...
- 15:46:30 [em]
- ICS forth group... dont feel qualifyed to respond... can i get someone from concepts to help (jjc?)
- 15:46:55 [danbri]
- vassilis's comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0282.html
- 15:47:40 [danbri]
- 2nd q:
- 15:47:53 [danbri]
- re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html "Clarifications needed for the Collection construct"
- 15:48:20 [danbri]
- asking Is this RDFS?
- 15:48:40 [em]
- action: Gk to help respond to Vassillis's comments on datatypes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0282.html
- 15:49:17 [em]
- action: Brian to help respond to Karsten(sp?) question wrt collections http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html
- 15:49:26 [em]
- test cases....
- 15:49:29 [em]
- dave and Jan
- 15:49:37 [em]
- DaveB: doing ok?
- 15:49:39 [em]
- q+
- 15:49:58 [em]
- q-
- 15:50:24 [em]
- DaveB: test-case manifest is wrong ... we just recorded it wrong
- 15:51:18 [em]
- jjc: Reagle-03 should be closed... .
- 15:51:28 [jjc]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0185.html
- 15:51:35 [DaveB]
- lol
- 15:52:00 [em]
- summary...
- 15:52:34 [em]
- does anyone think they can get to all of the comments by next thursday?
- 15:52:42 [em]
- s/can/can't
- 15:52:59 [em]
- jjc: i'm concerned the i18n group havent responded
- 15:53:08 [em]
- jjc: as such nervous about the time scales
- 15:56:15 [jjc]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2003Feb/0067.html
- 15:57:04 [jjc]
- just off now for a moment
- 15:58:27 [em]
- ..
- 15:58:29 [em]
- agenda 10
- 15:58:32 [em]
- 10: Handling last call comments
- 15:58:32 [em]
- What order do we want to do these in?
- 15:58:54 [em]
- DanC: on behalf of PatH, he's proposal for danc-01 i think is fine
- 15:59:17 [em]
- DaveB: rdf and html will have info from plenary... but for the rest i think these will be closed
- 16:00:10 [jjc]
- back now
- 16:00:32 [jjc]
- (family interrupt)
- 16:03:06 [em]
- ..
- 16:03:24 [danbri]
- <em> jjc: Reagle-03 should be closed... .
- 16:03:24 [danbri]
- <jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0185.html
- 16:03:28 [bwm]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-03
- 16:03:47 [em]
- proposal... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-03 is this is done
- 16:04:02 [em]
- DanC: seconded
- 16:04:13 [em]
- withdrawn reference http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0185.html
- 16:04:41 [danbri]
- resolved.
- 16:04:44 [em]
- all present agreed, resolved
- 16:04:58 [em]
- ..
- 16:05:21 [em]
- DaveB: wrt earlier question... 3/4 wil lbe ready by 11th of March
- 16:05:55 [DaveB]
- the other pfps-19 is on this meeting agenda
- 16:06:09 [DaveB]
- but I expect to have hendler-01 krech-01 hodder-01 propose to resolve by 11 mar
- 16:09:19 [em]
- Frank: pfps-15 and danc-03 will be ready by 11th of March
- 16:09:49 [em]
- gk: pfps-15 i see as both concepts and primer
- 16:10:17 [em]
- bwm: pfps-15 is not about concepts
- 16:11:18 [Zakim]
- -SteveP
- 16:11:23 [jjc]
- q+ I18N WG update
- 16:11:32 [jjc]
- q+ to give I18N WG update
- 16:11:37 [em]
- action: Gk to follow up on the concepts implication on pfps-15
- 16:11:40 [bwm]
- ack jjc
- 16:11:41 [Zakim]
- jjc, you wanted to give I18N WG update
- 16:12:45 [jjc]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2003Feb/0070.html
- 16:13:23 [em]
- thanks jjc
- 16:15:39 [em]
- jjc: i will propose reagle-01 reagle-02 by March 11
- 16:16:08 [jjc]
- ACTION jjc propose close of reagle-01 and reagle-02 by Mar 11
- 16:16:13 [em]
- gk: i should be able to get to look at issues and bring what i can
- 16:17:10 [em]
- agenda 11
- 16:17:15 [em]
- 11: Issue pfps-17,18,19,20,21
- 16:17:22 [em]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-17
- 16:17:37 [bwm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0150.html
- 16:19:50 [jjc]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#section-URIspaces
- 16:20:32 [jjc]
- these URI prefix strings correspond to XML namespaces [XML-NS] associated with the RDF core vocabulary terms.
- 16:21:48 [DaveB]
- "RDF namespace" in syntax: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Namespace
- 16:22:20 [bwm]
- [[[Definition:] An XML namespace is a collection of names, identified by a URI reference [RFC2396], which are used in XML documents as element types and attribute names.]]
- 16:22:43 [bwm]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/
- 16:22:52 [danbri]
- problem imho is that that XML Namespaces spec failed to introduce a new noun into Web community's terminology...
- 16:26:57 [DanC]
- ACTION Frank: review primer for 'namespace'
- 16:27:01 [DanC]
- ACTION danbri: review primer for 'namespace'
- 16:27:14 [DanC]
- ACTION dave: review ayntax for 'namespace'
- 16:27:27 [DanC]
- ACTION graham: review concepts for 'namespace'
- 16:28:04 [DanC]
- dave: issue doesn't occur for test
- 16:28:21 [DanC]
- ACTION bwm: review semantics for 'namespace' (w/PatH)
- 16:28:37 [em]
- 12: Social Meaning
- 16:29:22 [bwm]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-01
- 16:29:32 [bwm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0112.html
- 16:29:35 [DanC]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0225.html
- 16:30:04 [em]
- DanC: i'm endorsing the proposal identified in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0225.html as a response to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-01
- 16:31:05 [DaveB]
- this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#section-rdf-graph ?
- 16:31:14 [DaveB]
- "An RDF graph is a set of RDF triples."
- 16:31:42 [DaveB]
- I think there is a dfn link somewhere
- 16:32:42 [DaveB]
- dfn link: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#dfn-rdf-graph
- 16:34:06 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #rdfcore
- 16:34:18 [bwm]
- Proposal: An RDF graph is a set of triples and this disposes of danc-03.
- 16:34:51 [bwm]
- s/danc-03/danc-01/
- 16:35:39 [gk]
- gk has joined #rdfcore
- 16:37:15 [bwm]
- Proposal: An RDF graph is a set of triples, the term graph equality be changed to graph equivalence and this disposes of danc-03.
- 16:37:35 [bwm]
- Proposal: An RDF graph is a set of triples, the term graph equality be changed to graph equivalence and this disposes of danc-01.
- 16:37:36 [gk]
- shouldn't that s/danc-03/danc-01/ ??
- 16:38:05 [em]
- gk: seconded
- 16:38:15 [em]
- no abjections
- 16:38:26 [em]
- resolved!
- 16:38:55 [em]
- actions: jjc to change text in concepts
- 16:39:06 [DaveB]
- (test cases doesn't use graph isomorphism)
- 16:39:19 [em]
- action: danc to convey resolution of danc-01 issue to PatH for semantics
- 16:40:23 [em]
- action: daveb to check test cases document and edit accordingly
- 16:41:07 [em]
- action: frank to take a look at primer wrt danc-01 resolution and make any suggests neccessayr
- 16:41:44 [em]
- 12: Social Meaning
- 16:41:59 [em]
- jjc: leading section on social meeting at tech plen
- 16:42:28 [em]
- bwm: anyone not going to tech plen have any additional views on this prior to the meeting
- 16:42:29 [em]
- ?
- 16:42:57 [DaveB]
- personally, I'm happy to remove sec4 - jang is too, I asked him
- 16:43:00 [danbri]
- on social meaning, imho Concepts says too much currently, I was happier with the original proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
- 16:43:05 [em]
- gk: if recomendation for those assembled removed, i wont object
- 16:43:29 [em]
- DanC: i propose to thank Gk for going above and behold call of duty as editor... well done
- 16:43:52 [em]
- on rdfms-assertion
- 16:44:00 [danbri]
- 3rd'd!
- 16:44:07 [em]
- woohoo! well done GK!
- 16:44:11 [DaveB]
- lol
- 16:46:27 [danbri]
- zakim, who is muted?
- 16:46:28 [Zakim]
- I see no one muted
- 16:46:36 [DaveB]
- social meaning vague irc chat started around http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-02-26.html#T20-31-27
- 16:47:22 [em]
- danbri, i'd like to strongly recommend the original paragraph still remain and thats its normative
- 16:48:07 [em]
- danbri, its important that rdf is not just a datastructure and that it reflects real world descriptions
- 16:48:12 [danbri]
- em s/,/:/
- 16:48:17 [em]
- thanks
- 16:48:57 [em]
- DanC: appologies for playing the tim card on this one a bit harder than i should have... we need to all agree as a wg
- 16:49:49 [em]
- ...
- 16:50:12 [danbri]
- Adjourned.
- 16:50:12 [em]
- gk: there is a comment that came up at the CC/PP CR telecon id be happy to talk about after hours...
- 16:50:18 [em]
- (after hours discussions)
- 16:50:19 [danbri]
- oops sorry em
- 16:50:22 [em]
- meeting adjourned...
- 16:50:54 [DaveB]
- xsd 1.1 requiements chat...
- 16:51:05 [DaveB]
- jjc: naming user defined top level datatypes
- 16:51:09 [DaveB]
- is our main req
- 16:51:21 [em]
- hmm..
- 16:51:25 [DaveB]
- jjc: prioritisation - that is our #1
- 16:51:26 [em]
- zakim, please disconnect me
- 16:51:27 [Zakim]
- EMiller is being disconnected
- 16:51:28 [Zakim]
- -EMiller
- 16:52:28 [DaveB]
- DaveB: qnames maybe?
- 16:52:54 [DaveB]
- names for ocmplex dataypes would be desireable
- 16:53:00 [DaveB]
- (are they named by qnames - yes, I think)
- 16:53:08 [DaveB]
- but lower priortity than simple DTs
- 16:53:44 [DaveB]
- reference to a request to webont on DTs? url anyone?
- 16:54:11 [DaveB]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I4.3-Structured-Datatypes
- 16:54:46 [DanC]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I4.3-Structured-Datatypes
- 16:55:53 [DanC]
- agenda + identifying datatypes
- 16:56:19 [danbri]
- danbri: we could note that owl:InverseFunctionalProperty values can help in situationts where things have identifying descriptions via properties, but no well known URIs. But also this is no excuse for not using uris!
- 16:57:21 [jjc]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0265.html
- 16:58:01 [DaveB]
- minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0114.html
- 17:01:51 [danbri]
- zakim, drop me
- 17:01:52 [Zakim]
- DanBri is being disconnected
- 17:01:52 [Zakim]
- -DanBri
- 17:07:40 [Zakim]
- -bwm
- 17:07:41 [Zakim]
- -jjc
- 17:07:42 [Zakim]
- -daveb
- 17:07:44 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Dean
- 17:07:47 [Zakim]
- -FrankM
- 17:07:53 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 17:07:55 [Zakim]
- -GrahamKlyne
- 17:07:55 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
- 17:09:44 [gk]
- gk has joined #rdfcore
- 17:12:20 [gk]
- zakim, who's here?
- 17:12:21 [Zakim]
- sorry, gk, I don't know what conference this is; apparently SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
- 17:12:22 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see gk, jjc, mdean, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DanC, bwm, danbri, logger
- 17:12:30 [gk]
- gk has left #rdfcore
- 20:17:55 [danbri]
- danbri has left #rdfcore