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]: yes
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]: +EMiller
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]: muted
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]: +??P6
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]: +Pat_Hayes
15:05:13 [JosD___]: JosD___ has joined #rdfcore
15:05:37 [db-scribe]: agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0129.html
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]: +PatrickS
15:07:59 [em]: brb
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]: +Mike_Dean
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]: q+
15:12:57 [em]: q-
15:12:59 [db-scribe]: item 6 xsd 1.1 requirements
15:13:06 [em]: i have
15:13:12 [em]: (briefly)
15:13:17 [db-scribe]: daveb's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0101.html
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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/att-0092/02-index
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]: ^-jjc
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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0101.html 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: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt
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]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0124.html
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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0558.html
15:31:18 [danbri]: q+ on 'what is rdfs'
15:31:23 [danbri]: q+ to waffle re 'what is rdfs'
15:37:44 [danbri]: q-
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]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0130.html
15:40:58 [db-scribe]: bwm: item 7a
15:41:09 [jjc]: (oops)
15:41:12 [db-scribe]: bwm: pfps-08
15:41:29 [db-scribe]: pfps reply - not accepting it http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0558.html
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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0539.html
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 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0539.html
15:52:30 [Zakim]: -PatrickS
15:52:33 [db-scribe]: ACTION bwm: draft test case for item 3 of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0539.html
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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0131.html
15:57:20 [db-scribe]: item 9
15:57:22 [db-scribe]: reagle-01
15:58:00 [db-scribe]: proposal from jjc http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0074.html
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]: williams-01
15:59:12 [db-scribe]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0114.html
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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0069.html
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]: http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_Editors.html#dtype_interp
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]: horrocks-01
16:21:52 [db-scribe]: path's message on this http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0081.html
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]: in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html
16:25:26 [bwm]: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-intro
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]: out
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]: http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata#NE10
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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0079.html
16:37:34 [JosD___]: hm... in http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/ QName ::= PrefixedName | UnprefixedName
16:43:54 [em]: em has joined #rdfcore
16:43:59 [em]: argg..
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]: -11
16:48:14 [db-scribe]: re paragraph "As regards the approach taken to defining the syntax, in our view, ..."
16:48:20 [db-scribe]: in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html
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." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter
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]: timecheck
17:00:45 [bwm]: noted
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]: ]done
17:06:47 [danbri]: (sometimes it helps to state the obvious...?)
17:07:11 [jjc]: bye
17:07:18 [Zakim]: -Pat_Hayes
17:07:19 [Zakim]: -jjc
17:07:21 [Zakim]: -bwm
17:07:22 [Zakim]: -EMiller
17:07:24 [Zakim]: -ilrt
17:07:25 [Zakim]: -FrankM
17:07:26 [Zakim]: -Mike_Dean
17:07:33 [Zakim]: -DanBri
17:07:39 [Zakim]: -jos
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