14:01:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
14:02:20 <em> zakim ack waves
14:02:25 <em> zakim,ack waves
14:02:37 <bwm> q?
14:02:49 <bwm> Zakim, ack waves, his
14:02:49 <Zakim> I see waves, his on the speaker queue
14:03:09 <bwm> Zakim, ack waves
14:03:09 <Zakim> I see his on the speaker queue
14:03:13 <jjc> jjc has joined #rdfcore
14:03:14 <bwm> Zakim, ack waves
14:03:14 <Zakim> I see his on the speaker queue
14:03:22 <bwm> Zakim, ack his
14:03:22 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
14:03:33 <jjcscribe> Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:03:33 <Zakim> sorry, jjcscribe, I don't know what conference this is
14:03:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjcscribe, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, bwm, logger
14:03:48 <jjcscribe> Zakim, this is RDFCore.
14:03:48 <Zakim> sorry, jjcscribe, I do not see a conference named 'RDFCore.'
14:03:50 <bwm> Zakim, this is RDFCore
14:03:50 <Zakim> ok, bwm
14:04:10 <Zakim> +??P6
14:04:18 <jjcscribe> Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:04:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P2, ??P1, PatH, ??P3 (muted), ??P5, ??P6
14:04:20 <Zakim> +EMiller
14:04:21 <bwm> Zakim, ??P6 is bwm
14:04:21 <Zakim> +bwm; got it
14:04:30 <em> zakim, who is here?
14:04:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P2, ??P1, PatH, ??P3 (muted), ??P5, bwm, EMiller
14:04:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjcscribe, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, bwm, logger
14:04:37 <jjcscribe> Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:04:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P2, ??P1, PatH, ??P3 (muted), ??P5 (muted), bwm, EMiller
14:04:49 <jjcscribe> Zakim ??P5 is jjcscribe
14:04:54 <DanC> DanC has joined #rdfcore
14:04:57 <jjcscribe> Zakim, ??P5 is jjcscribe
14:04:57 <Zakim> +jjcscribe; got it
14:05:09 <jjcscribe> Zakim, unmute jjcscribe
14:05:09 <Zakim> jjcscribe should no longer be muted
14:06:03 <jang> jang has joined #rdfcore
14:06:10 <jjcscribe> Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:06:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P2, ??P1, PatH, ??P3 (muted), jjcscribe, bwm, EMiller
14:06:16 <jjcscribe> Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:06:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P2, ??P1 (muted), PatH, ??P3 (muted), jjcscribe, bwm, EMiller
14:06:28 <jang> zakim ??p2 is ilrt
14:06:31 <bwm> Zakim, ??p1 is steveP
14:06:31 <Zakim> +steveP; got it
14:06:41 <DanC> agenda + 11May http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0076.html
14:06:41 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone
14:06:42 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', bwm
14:06:42 <jjcscribe> Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:06:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P2, steveP, PatH, ??P3, jjcscribe, bwm, EMiller
14:06:44 <em> (back in 2 min)
14:06:52 <jang> zakim, who is talking?
14:06:55 <jjcscribe> Zakim, ??p2 is ilrt.
14:06:55 <Zakim> +ilrt.; got it
14:07:03 <Zakim> jang, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P2 (85%), ??P3 (5%)
14:07:07 <Zakim> +DanC
14:07:17 <jang> zakim, ??p2 is ilrt
14:07:17 <Zakim> sorry, jang, I do not recognize a party named '??p2'
14:07:20 <gk> gk has joined #rdfcore
14:07:23 <jang> zakim, ilrt. is ilrt
14:07:23 <Zakim> +ilrt; got it
14:07:30 <jang> zakim, ilrt has jang daveb
14:07:30 <Zakim> +jang, daveb; got it
14:07:32 <jjcscribe> Zakim, ??P3 is PatrickS.
14:07:32 <Zakim> +PatrickS.; got it
14:07:38 <jjcscribe> Zakim, who's on the phone?
14:07:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, steveP, PatH, PatrickS., jjcscribe, bwm, EMiller, DanC
14:07:40 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb
14:08:14 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne
14:09:34 <jang> suggest action lines adopt python indentation rules?
14:09:34 <jjcscribe> Roll Call complete by Zakim
14:09:36 <DanC> my suggestion: a very valuable thing to do with actions is to associate them with agenda items
14:09:47 <jjcscribe> Agenda Review
14:09:52 <jjcscribe> no change - approved
14:09:57 <jjcscribe> Next telecon next week
14:09:57 <DanC> regrets 16May
14:10:01 <DanC> regrets 16May Connolly
14:10:03 <jjcscribe> JanG volunteer scribe
14:10:05 <em> regrets 16 may for em as well
14:10:53 <jjcscribe> Scribe comment on minutes that there was a missing seconder for one motion
14:11:01 <jjcscribe> (Minutes of last week)
14:11:31 <DanC> it's not critical to minute seconders.
14:11:57 <jjcscribe> Completed actions #6
14:12:00 <jjcscribe> all approved
14:12:08 <jjcscribe> #7 comments on OWL S&AS
14:13:00 <jjcscribe> Jan's comments gk and jjc have read and approved
14:15:28 <DanC> Jan's comments = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0074.html
14:15:29 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0074.html
14:15:34 <jjcscribe> approved.
14:15:50 <jjcscribe> ACTION jang send comments in 0074
14:16:13 <jang> DanC: the comments rdfcore-6 and rdfcore-7 were probably the heaviest in content
14:16:28 <jjcscribe> connolly abstaining on comments 0074
14:16:52 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0070.html
14:16:59 <jjcscribe> (backtrack regrets:
14:17:12 <jjcscribe> MikeDean,
14:17:26 <jjcscribe> Frank, Patrick who turned up)
14:18:04 <DanC> could we *please* desist from the use of identifiers such as rdfcore-6 and rdfcore-7 that are based on the commentor. If you're going to use identifiers for issues, include some *technical keywords* in them, PLEASE!
14:19:46 <gk> q+ to ask if these comments might be better as personal comments... Im not sure there's anything here that is truly an RDFcore concern
14:19:50 <jang> [danc - noted. since all the comments are approved to send I'll put keywords into identifiers for them]
14:21:53 <gk> JJC just explained why they *are* rdfcore concern -- suggest we be explicit about this
14:21:57 <bwm> ack danc
14:21:58 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask for an example
14:22:16 <bwm> ack gk
14:22:16 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to ask if these comments might be better as personal comments... Im not sure there's anything here that is truly an RDFcore concern
14:23:00 <bwm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0099.html
14:23:22 <DanC> AS+S Comments: [was Re: Blank nodes in OWL DL, resend]
14:23:22 <DanC> From: Brian McBride (bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com)
14:23:22 <DanC> Date: Fri, May 09 2003 
14:23:33 <jang> danbri's test case http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0121.html
14:23:45 <DanC> *much* better id: owlsas-rdfcore-np-complete
14:25:09 <JosD> JosD has joined #rdfcore
14:25:37 <Zakim> +??P7
14:26:05 <JosD> Zakim, ??P7 is JosD
14:26:05 <Zakim> +JosD; got it
14:27:22 <jjcscribe> discussion of bnodes 
14:28:28 <jjcscribe> disucssion of request or suggest or strongly suggest in kast comment in 0099
14:28:58 <jjcscribe> suggesting adding Danbris foaf example
14:29:25 <Zakim> -steveP
14:29:36 <jjcscribe> approved 0099 comment rdfcore-bnodes-restriction
14:29:58 <jjcscribe> with link to foaf use case
14:30:45 <DanC> jos, we're discussing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0099.html owlsas-rdfcore-bnodes-restrictions
14:32:27 <jjcscribe> owlsas-rdfcore-np-complete
14:32:30 <jjcscribe> in 0099
14:32:34 <jjcscribe> No-one argues against
14:32:46 <gk> NP complete?  I'm happy to send it... only concerned about spending RDFcore time on it
14:33:22 <jjcscribe> Patrick suggests adding pointer to text in RDF Semantics doc
14:34:01 <DanC> pointer and excerpt, please.
14:34:09 <jjcscribe> Abstentions: none
14:34:12 <jjcscribe> Comment approved
14:35:47 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfcore
14:36:10 <Zakim> +DanBri
14:36:49 <jjcscribe> owlsas-rdfcore-rules-complexity
14:36:49 <jjcscribe> owlsas-rdfcore-rules-complexity
14:36:49 <jjcscribe> owlsas-rdfcore-rules-complexity
14:36:49 <jjcscribe> insufficient support for owlsas-rdfcore-rules-completely
14:37:55 <jjcscribe> ACTION bwm to send rdfcore-np-complete rdfcore-bnodes-restriction
14:38:06 <jjcscribe> ACTION jang not send comment on np-completeness
14:38:18 <jang> note: jang will NOT send comment suypporting np complete complaint since brian's going to send it instead
14:38:38 <bwm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0124.html
14:39:38 <jjcscribe> owlref-rdfcore-relationship-to-RDF
14:39:38 <jjcscribe> rdfcore-relationship-to-RDF
14:41:06 <gk> q+ to ask if the AC knows that OWL-DL os not intended for use with "wild" RDF
14:41:35 <jjcscribe> discussion about wild RDF
14:41:40 <danbri> aside: I wrote up my understanding of OWL/DL/Lite/RDF/S etc in http://esw.w3.org/topic/OwlAndRdf
14:43:22 <jjcscribe> q+
14:44:02 <bwm> ack jjscribe
14:44:41 <bwm> ack gk
14:44:41 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to ask if the AC knows that OWL-DL os not intended for use with "wild" RDF
14:45:05 <DanC> JosD, a hueristic tool that turns wild RDF into DL is likely to be unsound, ala "I thnk you meant trip S P O to be in there, even though it's not logically implied"
14:46:27 <jjcscribe> do we have consensus?
14:46:55 <jjcscribe> Many for
14:46:58 <jjcscribe> Against none
14:47:13 <jjcscribe> Abstaining jos W3C
14:48:02 <DanC> ericm, we might want to talk about this; I'm not sure your abstention is consistent with other things you've said.
14:48:07 <jjcscribe> Approved to send msg 0124 on OWL Ref
14:48:19 <jjcscribe> ACTION bwm to send msg 0124 on OWL Ref
14:48:21 <DanC> i.e. owlref-rdfcore-relationship-to-RDF
14:49:13 <jjcscribe> Graham speaks on his review
14:49:20 <jjcscribe> of section 4.1 of S&AS
14:49:32 <DanC> are we now on gk: review 4.1 of OWL AS&S http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0045.html ?
14:49:47 <jjcscribe> yes
14:49:48 <bwm> yes
14:50:11 <jjcscribe> ack
14:50:14 <jjcscribe> q-
14:52:56 <DanC> graham, will you please send your experiend to public-webont-comments regardless?
14:53:03 <em> (delayed response) danc, danbri... *I* support this being sent as *I* think Lite/DL confusing in terms of the 'stack' and expectations; As *W3C* supporting both groups it stikes me obstaining makes more sense. Its still not clear to me the best way of W3C seperating personal and organizational positions. 
14:53:27 <DanC> ah; good to know, em.
14:53:47 <jjcscribe> xmlschema-07 datatype defn
14:54:00 <jjcscribe> bwm propose that we do not accept xmlschema-07
14:54:26 <jjcscribe> Pat seconds
14:54:28 <jjcscribe> no opposed
14:54:31 <jjcscribe> no abstention
14:54:33 <jjcscribe> terx-01
14:55:39 <jjcscribe> proposed jjc
14:55:42 <jjcscribe> second pat
14:55:47 <jjcscribe> motion as in agenda
14:55:49 <jjcscribe> resolved
14:55:49 <JosD> oops.. OK DanC, would you think it would (indirectly) lead to nonmomotonicity as well?
14:56:24 <jjcscribe> #11 tmbl-03
14:57:44 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0102.html
14:57:49 <jjcscribe> bwm proposal
14:58:45 <bwm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0102.html
15:00:22 <jjcscribe> danc thinks we should take these triples out, but argues against any decision for today
15:00:48 <jjcscribe> postponed for a week
15:01:00 <jjcscribe> language tags in typed literals
15:01:32 <DanC> (I've tried to collect my thoughts on the issue in http://esw.w3.org/topic/TextValues)
15:04:05 <jjcscribe> is this broken or is this simply overly complicated
15:04:12 <jjcscribe> many people say it is too complicated
15:04:55 <jjcscribe> but noone produces a fundamental brokenness
15:06:00 <DanC> are we reopening http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure and http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes ?
15:06:26 <bwm> ack danc
15:06:26 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask that we postpone deciding this for... umm... coordination cost reasons and to ask whether to what extent the I18N WG is party to the discussion of this
15:06:29 <Zakim> ... issue xmlsch-01 Typed Literal Structure? and to note that we decided rdfms-xmlliteral
15:09:50 <jjcscribe> ACTION bwm fix issue list resolution for rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure
15:11:18 <jjcscribe> many people propose/second option 4 ...
15:12:16 <gk> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0117.html ??
15:12:32 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0096.html
15:13:06 <DanC> RE: typed literals and language tags - ugly parade http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0096.html
15:13:30 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0086.html
15:13:45 <jjcscribe> Contains actual option 4 proposal wording
15:14:16 <DanC> typed literals and language tags - two more proposals http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0086.html
15:15:33 <jjcscribe> Jos: one test case is affected
15:17:53 <jjcscribe> DanC: option4 would need review from I18N-WG and XML Core
15:18:38 <em> The fact that we have 2 different interpretations of this seems a convincing argument to have xml core review
15:18:38 <jjcscribe> Patrick disagrees about need for XML Core review
15:18:47 <em> ... if we do this
15:19:00 <jang> q+ daveb
15:19:07 <jang> ack
15:19:09 <bwm> ack daveb
15:20:57 <jjcscribe> Bwm asks eric if we need review from XML Core
15:21:02 <jjcscribe> Eric says yes
15:21:09 <jjcscribe> q+
15:21:38 <DanC> do we have a test case for how xml:base doesn't propagate? do we have XML Core on record as saying "yes, RDF syntax is ok"?
15:22:17 <jjcscribe> we use exc-c14n and that explicitly does not copy xml:space or xml:base or xml:lang
15:22:40 <DanC> ah, that c14n precedent is handy.
15:23:15 <DanC> em, do we have review of RDF syntax by XML Core?
15:23:39 <jjcscribe> pat hayes why do we treaty xml:lang differently from other xml attributes
15:24:54 <em> DanC: we asked; but I recall that PaulG indicated they were not able to do this (i dont recall reasons: time constraints, lack of resources, etc.)
15:25:38 <jjcscribe> We are still awaiting I18N review anyway
15:25:57 <jjcscribe> em on XMLCore
15:26:10 <jjcscribe> Paul Grosso did not send a review
15:26:17 <jjcscribe> and said that they would not send a review
15:26:42 <jjcscribe> q+ *not* counter to XML community
15:26:51 <jjcscribe> q+ to say it is *not* counter to XML community
15:27:43 <bwm> ack jjscribe
15:27:44 <jjcscribe> jjc quotes exc-c14n
15:27:54 <jjcscribe> "attributes in the XML namespace, such as xml:lang and xml:space are not imported into orphan nodes"
15:29:13 <jjcscribe> PatrickS proposes option4 from msg 0086
15:29:21 <DanC> typed literals and language tags - two more proposals 
15:29:22 <DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0086.html
15:29:29 <DanC> [[
15:29:29 <DanC> > Option 4:
15:29:29 <DanC> > Language tag is simply dropped from all typed literals including
15:29:30 <DanC> > rdf:XMLLiteral
15:29:30 <DanC> >
15:29:31 <DanC> >
15:29:32 <DanC> PROPOSE
15:29:34 <DanC>   Concepts is changed to say that a literal can have either a datatype or a
15:29:37 <DanC> language tag and not both.
15:29:41 <DanC>   rdf:XMLLiteral datatype is changed to have the identity as its lexical
15:29:42 <DanC> value mapping (no wrapping), with consequential change to the value space of
15:29:44 <DanC> rdf:XMLLiteral.
15:29:46 <DanC>   Other editors to make consequential changes.
15:29:48 <DanC> ]]
15:29:51 <jjcscribe> ILRT seconds
15:30:16 <jjcscribe> Abstentions: Jeremy
15:30:22 <jjcscribe> Carried
15:31:17 <jang> N-triples loses lang tags on dted literals, plus full test case review for thse
15:31:25 <jjcscribe> ACTIONS: jjc Make changes in concepts, and review for consequential changes
15:31:53 <jjcscribe> ACTION: path Review semantics and make consequential changes
15:32:16 <jjcscribe> ACTION: jjc Provide anchor for rdf:XMLLiteral to path
15:32:42 <jjcscribe> ACTION: dave To change ntriples to remove language from typed literal
15:32:53 <em> [/me find partial discussion with PaulG and XML Core review of RDF Core - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-cg/2003Mar/0007.html]
15:32:56 <jjcscribe> ACTION: dave Review syntax and make consequntial changes
15:33:19 <jjcscribe> ACTION: jang To review all test cases, and make consequetnaitl changes
15:34:02 <jjcscribe> ACTION: em Review primer for consequential changes
15:34:37 <jjcscribe> ACTION: bwm Review issue list and update those affected
15:35:22 <jjcscribe> ACTION: jjc Inform reagle-01 and reagle-02 of literals decision
15:35:41 <jjcscribe> ACTION: path Tell pfps of change to literals decision
15:36:22 <jjcscribe> ACTION: jjc Inform I18N-WG of literals decision.
15:38:40 <jjcscribe> ACTION bwm Update status of pfps-08 if necessary
15:39:01 <jjcscribe> Agenda Item #13
15:39:46 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0252.html
15:40:09 <bwm> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/
15:41:32 <DanC> point 3?
15:42:32 <jjcscribe> path rationale was that everything else ended in argument!!
15:43:09 <jjcscribe> DanC: "but given we don't have the resources "
15:43:16 <jjcscribe> but we wrote 6 documents ....
15:44:24 <jang> this sounds like a Perry Mason cross-examination!
15:45:05 <jjcscribe> DanC proposes "the working group chose to spend its writing resource on explanatory text and formal specification
15:45:14 <jjcscribe> rather than justification"
15:45:30 <jjcscribe> instead of above text
15:46:53 <jjcscribe> Jeremy proposes text in 2523
15:46:55 <jjcscribe> 252
15:47:04 <jjcscribe> seconded, reoslved unanimously
15:47:10 <jjcscribe> ACTION: jjc to send response
15:49:33 <bwm> <foo:prop rdf:datatype="&xsd;int"> 3 </foo:prop>
15:49:38 <bwm> is illegal
15:49:48 <bwm> q?
15:50:34 <bwm> ack jjcscribe
15:50:34 <Zakim> jjcscribe, you wanted to say it is *not* counter to XML community
15:50:45 <jjcscribe> path someone could define a non xsd:int datatype that 
15:50:47 <bwm> ack danc
15:50:47 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask where we're making the clarification
15:50:59 <JosD> q+
15:51:02 <jjcscribe> did do include whitespace normalization in l2v mapping
15:51:34 <jjcscribe> PatrickS: the whitespace facet is defined as part of datatype, are the XMLSChema people happy?
15:52:40 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0097.html
15:54:05 <jjcscribe> JosD: my implementation will need to change
15:54:10 <DanC> what entailment?
15:54:29 <gk> q+ to ask if this whitespace proposal goes against a primciple of "minimum surprise"?
15:54:40 <jjcscribe> Dan there's a test case in msg 0097
15:54:59 <DanC> thx
15:55:24 <bwm> ack gk
15:55:24 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to ask if this whitespace proposal goes against a primciple of "minimum surprise"?
15:56:30 <bwm> ack jos
15:57:22 <jjcscribe> ACTION: jan figure out right answer for inverse entailment
15:58:04 <jjcscribe> Jeremy proposes msg 0097
15:58:36 <jang> path's example:
15:58:40 <jang> a well-formed literal
15:58:48 <jang> a p "lit"@type
15:58:49 <jang> entails
15:58:53 <jang> a p _:x
15:59:02 <jang> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Literal
15:59:36 <jang> PLUS
15:59:43 <jang> the opposite to 97 is also not entailed
15:59:45 <jjcscribe> proposal includes two more test cases
15:59:52 <jjcscribe> Connolly seconds
15:59:58 <jjcscribe> Graham abstains
16:00:02 <jjcscribe> RESOLVED.
16:00:06 <jjcscribe> Meeting closed
16:00:26 <Zakim> -EMiller
16:00:29 <DanC> what did we skip?
16:00:51 <JosD> item 15 DanC (Semantic Issues)
16:01:36 <Zakim> -ilrt
16:01:38 <Zakim> -JosD
16:01:39 <Zakim> -DanC
16:01:39 <Zakim> -PatrickS.
16:01:47 <Zakim> -bwm
16:01:50 <Zakim> -jjcscribe
16:01:52 <Zakim> -PatH
16:02:29 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne
16:02:30 <Zakim> -DanBri
16:02:31 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
16:55:03 <gk> gk has left #rdfcore
17:50:13 <danbri> danbri has left #rdfcore
18:09:19 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfcore
18:14:08 <DanC> DanC has left #rdfcore