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]
15:02:13 [Zakim]
15:02:18 [Zakim]
15:02:30 [em]
zakim, ??P0 is jjc
15:02:31 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
15:02:31 [Zakim]
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]
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
15:03:31 [Zakim]
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]
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]
15:05:09 [Zakim]
jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: FrankM (15%), EMiller (54%)
15:05:12 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
15:16:05 [danbri]
6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions
15:16:20 [danbri]
15:16:35 [danbri]
7: XML Schema 1.1 Requirements
15:16:40 [em]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
15:26:14 [DaveB]
DanC: on the rdfcore page, an early link
15:26:20 [em]
gk: 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 to
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:
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]
15:42:48 [DaveB]
q+ on syntax issues
15:43:00 [em]
i have the list that deserve rdf schema responses in
15:43:25 [em]
15:43:34 [danbri]
15:43:43 [danbri]
FORTH comments,
15:43:49 [Zakim]
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]
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]
15:45:39 [em]
15:45:53 [em]
ack danbri
15:45:54 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to ask about these two
15:45:59 [em]
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:
15:47:40 [danbri]
2nd q:
15:47:53 [danbri]
re "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
15:49:17 [em]
action: Brian to help respond to Karsten(sp?) question wrt collections
15:49:26 [em]
test cases....
15:49:29 [em]
dave and Jan
15:49:37 [em]
DaveB: doing ok?
15:49:39 [em]
15:49:58 [em]
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]
15:51:35 [DaveB]
15:52:00 [em]
15:52:34 [em]
does anyone think they can get to all of the comments by next thursday?
15:52:42 [em]
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]
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]
16:03:28 [bwm]
16:03:47 [em]
proposal... is this is done
16:04:02 [em]
DanC: seconded
16:04:13 [em]
withdrawn reference
16:04:41 [danbri]
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]
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]
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]
16:17:37 [bwm]
16:19:50 [jjc]
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:
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]
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]
16:29:32 [bwm]
16:29:35 [DanC]
16:30:04 [em]
DanC: i'm endorsing the proposal identified in as a response to
16:31:05 [DaveB]
this one: ?
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:
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]
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]
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
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]
16:44:07 [em]
woohoo! well done GK!
16:44:11 [DaveB]
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
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
16:54:46 [DanC]
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]
16:58:01 [DaveB]
17:01:51 [danbri]
zakim, drop me
17:01:52 [Zakim]
DanBri is being disconnected
17:01:52 [Zakim]
17:07:40 [Zakim]
17:07:41 [Zakim]
17:07:42 [Zakim]
17:07:44 [Zakim]
17:07:47 [Zakim]
17:07:53 [Zakim]
17:07:55 [Zakim]
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