IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-03-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
14:58:59 [bwm]
bwm has joined #rdfcore
14:59:31 [jjc]
jjc has joined #rdfcore
15:01:04 [jjc]
anyone on the call yet?
15:01:15 [DaveB]
15:01:30 [DaveB]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:01:30 [Zakim]
sorry, DaveB, I don't know what conference this is
15:01:31 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jjc, bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DaveB, danbri, logger
15:01:35 [DaveB]
Zakim, this is rdfcore
15:01:35 [Zakim]
ok, DaveB
15:01:38 [DaveB]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:01:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P1, ??P2, ??P3, FrankM, EricP
15:01:39 [danbri]
zakim, EricP is temporarily DanBri
15:01:39 [Zakim]
+DanBri; got it
15:01:43 [Zakim]
15:01:58 [jjc]
Zakim, who's on the call?
15:01:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P1, ??P2 (muted), ??P3, FrankM, DanBri, EMiller
15:02:02 [jjc]
I am P2
15:02:11 [jjc]
Zakim, ??P2 is jjc.
15:02:11 [Zakim]
+jjc.; got it
15:02:21 [danbri]
zakim, mute danbri
15:02:21 [Zakim]
DanBri should now be muted
15:02:23 [DaveB]
15:02:24 [jjc]
Zakim, unmute jjc.
15:02:24 [Zakim]
jjc. should no longer be muted
15:02:29 [em]
zakim, who is here?
15:02:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P1, jjc., ??P3, FrankM, DanBri (muted), EMiller
15:02:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jjc, bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DaveB, danbri, logger
15:03:30 [bwm]
zakim, ??p1 is bwm
15:03:30 [Zakim]
+bwm; got it
15:03:44 [DaveB]
Zakim, ??p3 is ilrt
15:03:44 [Zakim]
+ilrt; got it
15:03:45 [Zakim]
15:03:50 [DaveB]
Zakim, ?pp3 has jang, daveb
15:03:50 [Zakim]
sorry, DaveB, I do not recognize a party named '?pp3'
15:03:56 [DaveB]
Zakim, ??p3 has jang, daveb
15:03:56 [Zakim]
sorry, DaveB, I do not recognize a party named '??p3'
15:04:05 [DaveB]
Zakim, ilrt has jang, daveb
15:04:05 [Zakim]
+jang, daveb; got it
15:04:12 [em]
zakim, ??P6 is jos
15:04:12 [Zakim]
+jos; got it
15:04:13 [jjc]
Zakim, who's on the call?
15:04:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bwm, jjc., ilrt, FrankM, DanBri (muted), EMiller, jos
15:04:13 [jang]
jang has joined #rdfcore
15:04:15 [Zakim]
ilrt has jang, daveb
15:04:23 [jjc]
Zakim, who's on the call?
15:04:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bwm (muted), jjc., ilrt, FrankM, DanBri (muted), EMiller, jos
15:04:25 [Zakim]
ilrt has jang, daveb
15:04:53 [jjc]
Zakim, jjc. is jjc
15:04:53 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
15:04:59 [Zakim]
15:05:13 [JosD___]
JosD___ has joined #rdfcore
15:05:37 [db-scribe]
15:06:18 [db-scribe]
^- above is correct agenda, has wrong date on it
15:06:30 [em]
em has joined #rdfcore
15:06:32 [Zakim]
15:07:59 [em]
15:08:38 [bwm]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:08:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bwm, jjc, ilrt, FrankM, DanBri (muted), EMiller, jos, Pat_Hayes, PatrickS (muted)
15:08:40 [Zakim]
ilrt has jang, daveb
15:08:45 [danbri]
zakim, unmute me
15:08:45 [Zakim]
DanBri should no longer be muted
15:08:58 [db-scribe]
roll call above
15:09:02 [db-scribe]
3 review agenda
15:09:14 [db-scribe]
jang - aob - 30 seconds on copyright & xml comments in test cases
15:09:57 [db-scribe]
ACTION jang: update copyright and xml declaration to all tests cases
15:10:43 [db-scribe]
discussion of xml decl, favour having both tests with & without
15:10:50 [db-scribe]
up to jang to leave it his discression
15:11:01 [db-scribe]
bwm - aob - pfps does not accept pfps-08
15:11:04 [Zakim]
15:11:24 [db-scribe]
4 next telcon
15:11:38 [em]
not sure if we've done regrets yest... regrets from DanC
15:11:39 [db-scribe]
28 mar, 2 hours same time
15:11:58 [db-scribe]
danbri scribe
15:12:10 [db-scribe]
item 2 - roll call regrets from danc, grahamK
15:12:28 [db-scribe]
minutes approved
15:12:34 [db-scribe]
item 6
15:12:39 [em]
15:12:57 [em]
15:12:59 [db-scribe]
item 6 xsd 1.1 requirements
15:13:06 [em]
i have
15:13:12 [em]
15:13:17 [db-scribe]
daveb's proposal
15:13:22 [em]
but yes, i thought is was quit excellent
15:13:27 [db-scribe]
patricks, bwm, em read it
15:14:03 [db-scribe]
jjc says would vote for
15:14:03 [danbri]
I've not. Did have a little offlist discussion w/ HenryT on rdf syntax design
15:14:34 [db-scribe]
danbri: that's different
15:14:53 [db-scribe]
bwm: "Define the identity relation clearly." wording?
15:15:36 [db-scribe]
JosD___: all ok
15:15:50 [db-scribe]
daveb; discusses asking for identity, equality relation clearly defn
15:16:40 [db-scribe]
jjc's xsd analysis
15:16:47 [db-scribe]
jjc: anyURI in a striing question
15:17:10 [db-scribe]
would like to see clarity on whether xsd:anyURI and xsd:string may or may not be equal
15:17:14 [db-scribe]
15:17:48 [db-scribe]
path: didn't capture it, string equality?
15:17:58 [db-scribe]
bwm: would like to do rdf subclass relationships between schema datatypes
15:18:09 [db-scribe]
and need clarity on where there is intersection on value space
15:18:13 [db-scribe]
such as uri & string value space
15:18:45 [db-scribe]
rather, subclass relationships between the value spaces
15:18:52 [db-scribe]
and that links to jjc's study
15:19:27 [db-scribe]
jjc: may not have time to commit to work on this xsd coordination
15:20:19 [db-scribe]
JosD___: as well as subclass, also is the range relationships. If the range of a property is an int and anunsigned long, is it an unsigned int?
15:20:29 [db-scribe]
path: I think we are covered by the answer to subclass
15:21:49 [db-scribe]
ACTION daveb: make comment to xsd based on plus value space subclassing, link to jjc study, maybe range relationships. Mention xsd anyURI & string equality question in particular
15:21:57 [db-scribe]
item 7 incoming comments
15:22:22 [db-scribe]
jang: need to assign some issues on comments that are still coming in
15:22:39 [db-scribe]
bwm: ought to focus on live issues
15:22:49 [db-scribe]
... editorial discression
15:23:43 [db-scribe]
danbri: schema
15:23:58 [db-scribe]
4 things left on my q needing responses
15:24:04 [db-scribe]
then we're in LC update
15:24:13 [danbri]
my queue:
15:24:36 [db-scribe]
jjc: i18n haven't made an official comment
15:24:40 [danbri]
One thing on my queue:
15:24:40 [danbri]
15:24:41 [danbri]
PFPS: divergences between rdf semantics and rdf schema
15:24:41 [danbri]
15:24:42 [danbri]
15:24:47 [db-scribe]
jjc: need to give them a timeout
15:25:27 [db-scribe]
ACTION bwm: remind i18 if they are going to comment on rdf lc wds, ask nicely :)
15:25:28 [danbri]
q+ to ask for advise re this todo
15:25:55 [db-scribe]
above ACTION 3 to em
15:26:04 [db-scribe]
q- danbri
15:26:12 [db-scribe]
danbri: a missed pfps comment, above ...
15:26:13 [bwm]
ack danbri
15:26:50 [db-scribe]
bwm: pfps comment on process
15:30:25 [db-scribe]
his message
15:31:18 [danbri]
q+ on 'what is rdfs'
15:31:23 [danbri]
q+ to waffle re 'what is rdfs'
15:37:44 [danbri]
15:40:55 [db-scribe]
end item 7
15:40:58 [jjc]
Distinguish our identity relation from the mathematical relation of quantitative equality.
15:40:58 [jjc]
Distinguish our identity relation from the mathematical relation of quantitative equality.
15:40:58 [jjc]
Distinguish our identity relation from the mathematical relation of quantitative equality.
15:40:58 [jjc]
Distinguish our identity relation from the mathematical relation of quantitative equality.
15:40:58 [jjc]
15:40:58 [db-scribe]
bwm: item 7a
15:41:09 [jjc]
15:41:12 [db-scribe]
bwm: pfps-08
15:41:29 [db-scribe]
pfps reply - not accepting it
15:41:43 [db-scribe]
oop,s wrong url
15:42:13 [db-scribe]
bwm: outline of problems pfps has with pfps-08 response
15:42:32 [db-scribe]
pfps's reject of response
15:42:55 [db-scribe]
0) process - didn't point to clarification text
15:43:06 [db-scribe]
1) semantic cleanliness
15:43:11 [db-scribe]
2) an owl entailment
15:43:38 [db-scribe]
patricks: pfps' concern is valid even if rdf doesn't have sameIndividualAs
15:44:17 [db-scribe]
path: this is an exceptional case ... the builtin
15:44:29 [db-scribe]
... datatype and not unreasonable it has a special trigger
15:44:38 [db-scribe]
... and you only get this if you use that URI
15:44:49 [db-scribe]
... we could go the other way and make it just a datatype
15:45:11 [db-scribe]
... This way makes the rdf:XMLLiteral closer to it's original - a syntactic marker for XML
15:45:15 [db-scribe]
... closer to the syntax.
15:46:05 [danbri]
jang, 3 things left TODO on now, Ian, WebOnt, Bijan; i think they're all partially answered, so needs a bit of archaeology... any chance you could help?
15:46:22 [db-scribe]
PatrickS: making it the a datatype, the only one we define OR just a literal
15:46:47 [db-scribe]
bwm: new information here?
15:48:09 [db-scribe]
bwm: since we don't hear this from the WebOnt...
15:48:20 [db-scribe]
PatrickS: I was under the impression this entailment did hold
15:48:30 [db-scribe]
... that it doesn't is unexpected
15:48:47 [db-scribe]
Path (earlier): this was somewhat of my MT sematnics decisions
15:49:43 [db-scribe]
discssion of dropping xml:lang on all DTs
15:49:52 [db-scribe]
and reference to earlier negative comments when we did have that
15:50:07 [db-scribe]
bwm: view on #3
15:50:32 [db-scribe]
path: not impressed, doesn't imply to owl-DL, only owl-full
15:51:49 [db-scribe]
jang: must make test case?
15:51:54 [db-scribe]
jjc, path: not sure we can
15:52:27 [db-scribe]
ACTIOn bwm: draft test case for item 3 of
15:52:30 [Zakim]
15:52:33 [db-scribe]
ACTION bwm: draft test case for item 3 of
15:53:03 [db-scribe]
bwm: have discussed pfps' non-acceptance of pfps-8
15:53:12 [db-scribe]
and the decision stands
15:53:22 [db-scribe]
path: no new information was given
15:54:46 [db-scribe]
JosD___: clearly as we have described
15:54:54 [db-scribe]
... reference to webont
15:55:40 [db-scribe]
Where people are discussion entailments that OWL should have, that should best come from webont
15:56:05 [db-scribe]
DECISION: pfps-08 - the original decisions stand
15:56:13 [db-scribe]
item 8
15:57:05 [db-scribe]
xmlsch-08 has a draft
15:57:18 [db-scribe]
daveb proposed response
15:57:20 [db-scribe]
item 9
15:57:22 [db-scribe]
15:58:00 [db-scribe]
proposal from jjc
15:58:04 [db-scribe]
to answer reagle-01,-02
15:58:56 [db-scribe]
daveb: like to see new words
15:58:57 [db-scribe]
jjc: ok
15:58:58 [db-scribe]
item 10
15:59:01 [db-scribe]
15:59:12 [db-scribe]
15:59:20 [db-scribe]
^- proposal from graham
16:00:39 [db-scribe]
jjc: williams points out some faults, was surprised at our graph/nodes
16:02:26 [db-scribe]
discussion of whether need new wording before approval
16:02:49 [db-scribe]
frankm: related to the triples discussion
16:02:52 [db-scribe]
... subject, pred, object
16:03:03 [db-scribe]
jjc; only error is statements isntead of triples
16:03:05 [db-scribe]
in 3.2
16:03:38 [db-scribe]
jjc finds more words that need changing
16:04:22 [db-scribe]
bwm: right approach?
16:04:25 [db-scribe]
general consensus
16:04:43 [db-scribe]
APPROVED: graham's resolution in 0114.html above
16:05:20 [db-scribe]
draftACTION gk: update the text to fix williams-01 in 0114.html and circulate the text to the WG
16:05:30 [db-scribe]
frankm: care on bnodes sec
16:05:33 [db-scribe]
jjc: more my section
16:05:51 [db-scribe]
jjc: happy to accept the note at the end of 0114.html
16:06:01 [db-scribe]
frankm: not so sure. we can be more specific.
16:07:56 [db-scribe]
discussion of bnode (identifier) in abstract syntax
16:12:54 [db-scribe]
bwm: some concerns on clarification
16:13:13 [db-scribe]
... if it isn't clarifying, maybe leave the last bit out
16:14:04 [db-scribe]
ACTION gk: After accepted the 0114.html proposal on williams-01. Action toupdate the concepts text to fix williams-01 based on 0114.html and circulate the text to the WG.
16:15:01 [db-scribe]
ACTION jjc: review section-rdf-graph (3) in 0114.html, circulate changes to the wg
16:15:30 [db-scribe]
ACTION jjc: review section-blank-nodes in concepts, propose change/non-change or furthe rclafiifcation to the wg
16:16:13 [db-scribe]
ACTION all editors: check the use of the term node in their WD and check their usage is consistent - primer has a "scruffy license"
16:16:24 [db-scribe]
ACTION all: check the use of the term node in their WD and check their usage is consistent - primer has a "scruffy license"
16:16:33 [db-scribe]
end williams-01
16:16:37 [db-scribe]
item 11
16:16:42 [db-scribe]
pfps 4,5,6,7,10
16:17:13 [db-scribe]
jang: review, mostly ok
16:17:23 [db-scribe]
... would ask jjc to check denotation of xmlliteral
16:17:39 [db-scribe]
pat's message to deal with these issues
16:17:50 [db-scribe]
jang: ambiguityu in text datatyped literals - details in an email
16:17:56 [db-scribe]
... revised text seems to sort out the issue
16:18:04 [db-scribe]
... new text in 3.4 in particular
16:18:39 [jang]
check the details of the denotation of XMLLiterals in section 3.1
16:18:42 [jang]
^^ action JJC
16:18:54 [jang]
that is, of revised editor's semantics spec
16:18:55 [bwm]
that 3.1 of semantics
16:18:57 [db-scribe]
ACTION jjc: check the details of the denotation of XMLLiterals in section 3.1 of semantics
16:19:10 [db-scribe]
gk's review pending
16:19:15 [db-scribe]
item 12 xmlsch-09
16:19:20 [jang]
16:19:27 [jang]
(above url for jjc)
16:20:30 [jang]
bwm: get into xmlsch-09 now or skip to horrocks -01?
16:20:42 [jang]
dave: fine to move to horrocks-01 first
16:21:21 [db-scribe]
item 16
16:21:26 [db-scribe]
16:21:52 [db-scribe]
path's message on this
16:22:03 [db-scribe]
ACTION 2003-03-14#11 pendning
16:22:05 [db-scribe]
to produce words
16:22:39 [db-scribe]
path: not sure I want to do this interacive
16:22:50 [db-scribe]
item 12
16:24:52 [db-scribe]
"4.2. QNames (Editorial, but important)"
16:24:57 [db-scribe]
16:25:26 [bwm]
16:26:39 [db-scribe]
says "RDF/XML uses XML QNames to represent RDF URI References. "
16:26:47 [db-scribe]
probably should say XML namespaced-names
16:27:01 [em]
em has joined #rdfcore
16:27:30 [em]
having problems maintaining connection... argg..
16:28:09 [jjc]
QName ::= (Prefix ':')? LocalPart
16:29:13 [db-scribe]
click through in setion that they point
16:29:14 [db-scribe]
16:29:31 [db-scribe]
we should then reply pointing that out, mention that we don't require prefixses and say mane namespace-name
16:30:34 [db-scribe]
resolution: note that the prefix in a qname is optional as defined in xml1.0 but accept that the current text may lead to confusion - propsose to amend the text to make it clear that in a qname the prefix is optional wher ethis a defualt namespace
16:30:58 [jjc]
16:31:20 [db-scribe]
" Names with no colon can be qualified names."
16:31:48 [em]
16:32:06 [db-scribe]
ACTIOn daveb: reply politely to xmlsch-09 with above resolution, amend the text
16:32:10 [db-scribe]
ACTION daveb: reply politely to xmlsch-09 with above resolution, amend the text
16:33:13 [jang]
dave: canonical would have been nice, we wouldn't do it this way, all sorts of replies
16:33:45 [db-scribe]
xmlsch-10 canonical syntax - "4.4. Normative specification of XML grammar (policy, substantive)" -
16:37:03 [db-scribe]
jjc's response
16:37:34 [JosD___]
hm... in QName ::= PrefixedName | UnprefixedName
16:43:54 [em]
em has joined #rdfcore
16:43:59 [em]
16:47:33 [db-scribe]
ACTION daveb: draft a response on xmlsch-09 on xsd and dtd and rdf/xml's uncosntraintedness re canonical syntax. We hadn't discussed it because it was out of charter
16:47:39 [db-scribe]
item xmlsch-10
16:47:53 [db-scribe]
16:48:14 [db-scribe]
re paragraph "As regards the approach taken to defining the syntax, in our view, ..."
16:48:20 [db-scribe]
16:49:58 [db-scribe]
bwm: m&s was a character level bnf, gone along way from that
16:50:03 [db-scribe]
... sitting on top of an infoset
16:58:10 [db-scribe]
bwm suggests composite reply to -10, -11 etc. in the structure they presented them
16:58:42 [jang]
dave: out of charter comments...
16:58:46 [jang]
require chair support
16:59:01 [jang]
jjc: we were constrained by charter to not make dramatic changes to the syntax
16:59:08 [danbri]
"The RDF Core WG is neither chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, nor to reformulate the RDF model." --
16:59:20 [jang]
this prevented us from making changes which would make the syntax conformant with (technology of choice)
16:59:29 [bwm]
[[The RDF Core WG is neither chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, nor to reformulate the RDF model.]]
16:59:39 [jang]
frankm: mention early adopters
16:59:55 [jang]
daveb: can the chairs rule on this? would that have been definitely out of charter?
17:00:41 [db-scribe]
17:00:45 [bwm]
17:01:18 [jang]
danbri: with test case machinery it's alot easier for folks to go away and do their own syntaxes
17:01:34 [jang]
frank: I point out in the primer you can explicitly transcribe rdf in rdf/xml a triple at a time
17:06:00 [jang]
the WG agrees that
17:06:10 [jang]
designing a new syntax for RDF would be out of charter
17:06:14 [em]
the working group agrees that designing a new syntax by this group would be considered out of charter
17:06:19 [jang]
frank proposes
17:06:22 [jang]
jjc seconds
17:06:23 [jang]
no dissent
17:06:27 [jang]
no abstentions
17:06:28 [jang]
17:06:47 [danbri]
(sometimes it helps to state the obvious...?)
17:07:11 [jjc]
17:07:18 [Zakim]
17:07:19 [Zakim]
17:07:21 [Zakim]
17:07:22 [Zakim]
17:07:24 [Zakim]
17:07:25 [Zakim]
17:07:26 [Zakim]
17:07:33 [Zakim]
17:07:39 [Zakim]
17:07:40 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
17:07:49 [jang]
jang has left #rdfcore
18:03:04 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfcore
18:03:18 [danbri]
danbri has left #rdfcore
22:38:55 [em]
em has joined #rdfcore