IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-06-06
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:00:43 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
- 14:00:48 [em-lap]
- zakim, this is rdfcoew
- 14:00:48 [Zakim]
- sorry, em-lap, I do not see a conference named 'rdfcoew'
- 14:00:50 [em-lap]
- zakim, this is rdfcore
- 14:00:50 [Zakim]
- ok, em-lap
- 14:00:54 [Zakim]
- +??P18
- 14:00:56 [em-lap]
- zakim, dial emiller-bos
- 14:00:56 [Zakim]
- ok, em-lap; the call is being made
- 14:00:57 [Zakim]
- +Emiller
- 14:01:58 [Zakim]
- +??P19
- 14:02:06 [bwm]
- Zalim, ??p19 is bwm
- 14:02:11 [bwm]
- Zakim, ??p19 is bwm
- 14:02:11 [Zakim]
- +bwm; got it
- 14:02:16 [Zakim]
- +PatH
- 14:02:28 [bwm]
- Zakim, bwm is HP
- 14:02:28 [Zakim]
- +HP; got it
- 14:02:34 [em-lap]
- em-lap has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2003-06-06 telecon
- 14:02:34 [bwm]
- Zakim, HP has bwm
- 14:02:34 [Zakim]
- +bwm; got it
- 14:03:29 [bwm]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 14:03:29 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see ??P17, ??P18, Emiller, HP, PatH
- 14:03:30 [Zakim]
- HP has bwm
- 14:04:18 [bwm]
- Zakim, mute ??p17
- 14:04:18 [Zakim]
- ??P17 should now be muted
- 14:04:48 [bwm]
- Zakim ??p18 is ILRT
- 14:04:58 [bwm]
- Zakim, unmute ??p17
- 14:04:58 [Zakim]
- ??P17 should no longer be muted
- 14:05:11 [gk-scribe]
- gk-scribe has joined #rdfcore
- 14:05:18 [cmjg]
- cmjg has joined #rdfcore
- 14:05:44 [bwm]
- Zakim, ??p17 is FrankM
- 14:05:44 [Zakim]
- +FrankM; got it
- 14:05:51 [bwm]
- Zakim, HP has bwm, jjc
- 14:05:51 [Zakim]
- bwm was already listed in HP, bwm
- 14:05:52 [Zakim]
- +jjc; got it
- 14:06:05 [DaveB]
- DaveB has joined #rdfcore
- 14:06:19 [bwm]
- Zakim, ilrt has jang and daveB
- 14:06:19 [Zakim]
- sorry, bwm, I do not recognize a party named 'ilrt'
- 14:06:24 [jcarroll]
- jcarroll has joined #rdfcore
- 14:06:27 [jang]
- zakim, who is here?
- 14:06:27 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see FrankM, ??P18, Emiller, HP, PatH
- 14:06:29 [Zakim]
- HP has jjc
- 14:06:30 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see jcarroll, DaveB, jang, gk-scribe, RRSAgent, Zakim, em-lap, bwm, logger
- 14:06:38 [bwm]
- Zakim, ??p18 is ILRT
- 14:06:38 [Zakim]
- +ILRT; got it
- 14:06:48 [bwm]
- Zakim, ILRT has daveb, jang
- 14:06:48 [Zakim]
- +daveb, jang; got it
- 14:06:50 [Zakim]
- +GrahamKlyne
- 14:06:55 [bwm]
- Zakim, who is on the phone
- 14:06:55 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who is on the phone', bwm
- 14:06:57 [bwm]
- ?
- 14:07:01 [bwm]
- Zakim, who is on the phone?
- 14:07:01 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see FrankM, ILRT, Emiller, HP, PatH, GrahamKlyne
- 14:07:02 [Zakim]
- ILRT has daveb, jang
- 14:07:03 [Zakim]
- HP has jjc
- 14:07:51 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #rdfcore
- 14:09:24 [jjcscribe]
- Agenda changes
- 14:09:31 [jjcscribe]
- - OWL Test Cases
- 14:09:36 [jjcscribe]
- - Duerst comments
- 14:09:37 [bwm]
- Zakim, ILRT has danbri
- 14:09:37 [Zakim]
- +danbri; got it
- 14:10:05 [jjcscribe]
- - responses from WebOnt on OWL comments
- 14:10:29 [gk]
- q+ to ask if approval of last minutes should be on agenda
- 14:10:46 [jjcscribe]
- Agenda item 3 goofy literals
- 14:10:51 [gk]
- q-
- 14:11:19 [bwm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0027.html
- 14:12:24 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Dean
- 14:13:20 [JosD]
- JosD has joined #rdfcore
- 14:14:11 [Zakim]
- +??P21
- 14:14:25 [gk]
- My Haskell datatype for RDF nodes looks like this:
- 14:14:27 [gk]
- data RDFLabel =
- 14:14:27 [gk]
- Res QName -- resource
- 14:14:27 [gk]
- | Lit String (Maybe QName) Lang -- literal [type] [language]
- 14:14:27 [gk]
- | Blank String -- blank node
- 14:14:33 [bwm]
- Zakim, ??p21 is jos
- 14:14:33 [Zakim]
- +jos; got it
- 14:14:43 [mdean]
- mdean has joined #rdfcore
- 14:15:34 [DaveB]
- jjc's proposal of this morning http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0027.html
- 14:16:19 [jjcscribe]
- graham seconds, no objections
- 14:16:45 [jjcscribe]
- (There was some discussion of which values are the same as which values)
- 14:18:32 [jjcscribe]
- XML namespace elements
- 14:19:55 [danbri_]
- danbri_ has joined #rdfcore
- 14:20:37 [gk]
- XML spec says names beginning XML are reserved
- 14:22:22 [jjcscribe]
- Dave has editorial descretion to deal with this question. (Chair)
- 14:22:36 [jjcscribe]
- Item 5.
- 14:22:40 [jjcscribe]
- Arc
- 14:23:41 [jjcscribe]
- In the explanation of striping, use "Arc"
- 14:24:09 [jjcscribe]
- Arc is fine for the pictures (PatH)
- 14:24:19 [DaveB]
- 'predicate arc in the pic'
- 14:24:22 [jjcscribe]
- When moving to the RDF/XML talk about predicates
- 14:25:01 [jjcscribe]
- Item 7 pfps-24 what is RDF Schema
- 14:25:09 [danbri_]
- proposed resoution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0223.html
- 14:25:11 [DaveB]
- agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0021.html
- 14:26:02 [jjcscribe]
- Very little discussion.
- 14:26:12 [jjcscribe]
- Path seconds.
- 14:26:21 [jjcscribe]
- No objections.
- 14:26:35 [danbri_]
- resolved: issue closed, moved to editorial on rdfs
- 14:26:47 [jjcscribe]
- ACTION: danbri move to editorial on rdfs
- 14:26:57 [danbri_]
- action: danbri to change rdfs spec per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0223.html
- 14:27:44 [bwm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0225.html
- 14:27:47 [jjcscribe]
- Agenda item 8 pfps-25
- 14:28:56 [jjcscribe]
- Brian has worked through the discrepancies, and the changes have been made in the semantics doc
- 14:29:05 [jjcscribe]
- that bring the two documents into line
- 14:30:18 [jjcscribe]
- DanBri proposes #225, PatH seconds
- 14:30:28 [jjcscribe]
- NO objections, so resovled.
- 14:30:43 [danbri_]
- so action on path to edit semantics?
- 14:30:56 [jjcscribe]
- pat has already done it
- 14:31:05 [danbri_]
- ah ok. great.
- 14:31:17 [jjcscribe]
- Item 9 qu-04
- 14:31:37 [jjcscribe]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0224.html
- 14:31:47 [danbri_]
- dave proposes this; danbri 2nds
- 14:32:31 [jjcscribe]
- We are not bringing all the specs into a uniform ordering
- 14:32:48 [jjcscribe]
- No objections, resolved.
- 14:33:01 [jjcscribe]
- ACTION: danbri to edit as in #224
- 14:33:13 [jjcscribe]
- ACTION: danbri to respond to qu-04
- 14:33:35 [jjcscribe]
- ACTION: danbri to respond to pfps-025
- 14:33:45 [jjcscribe]
- ACTION: danbri to respond to pfps-024
- 14:34:33 [jjcscribe]
- Agendum webont-01
- 14:36:13 [jjcscribe]
- Brian argues agaisnt change for changes sake because of the quantity of work
- 14:36:29 [jjcscribe]
- Is there a substantive positive benefit?
- 14:36:33 [danbri_]
- in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0226.html [[
- 14:36:35 [danbri_]
- * never using 'rdf schema' in noun form, ie avoiding talk of their being
- 14:36:35 [danbri_]
- things that are 'rdf schemas' (while leaving it in as a _name_ for the
- 14:36:35 [danbri_]
- basic rdf vocabulary description language defined by w3c, just as OWL is
- 14:36:36 [danbri_]
- the name for W3C's 2nd RDF-based VDL).
- 14:36:40 [danbri_]
- ]]
- 14:36:47 [danbri_]
- q+ to comment re noun form
- 14:37:37 [bwm]
- ack danbri
- 14:37:37 [Zakim]
- danbri_, you wanted to comment re noun form
- 14:38:58 [jjcscribe]
- q+
- 14:39:08 [em-lap]
- q+
- 14:39:16 [jjcscribe]
- PatH SRI was = Stanford research institute
- 14:40:16 [jjcscribe]
- Propose we do not accept this comment and stay with current terminology and usage.
- 14:40:24 [jang]
- rdfs stands for "resource description vocabulary everything needs a snappier name, stupid"
- 14:40:31 [jjcscribe]
- Proposed danbri, seconder gk
- 14:40:43 [jjcscribe]
- Abstain ericM
- 14:41:17 [jjcscribe]
- ACTION: danbri to respond to webont
- 14:41:31 [jjcscribe]
- ACTION: danbri 7= to respond to webont on webont-01
- 14:41:47 [jjcscribe]
- Flat layering vass-01 item 11
- 14:41:57 [bwm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0253.html
- 14:42:40 [gk]
- q+ to say that I think we're agrees to not accept this, and only talking about how to respond
- 14:42:50 [em-lap]
- ack em-lap
- 14:43:33 [jjcscribe]
- are we going to hand behind charter?
- 14:43:53 [jjcscribe]
- Discussion of Horrocks paper in Budapest
- 14:44:22 [gk]
- q+ to ask if we can bounce this to SWCG
- 14:44:43 [bwm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0227.html
- 14:45:04 [jjcscribe]
- ack
- 14:46:34 [jjcscribe]
- gk suggests that drafting a response is not a WG priority
- 14:47:08 [jjcscribe]
- Brian: is 227 good enough as a response or not?
- 14:48:00 [jjcscribe]
- q+
- 14:48:09 [jjcscribe]
- Pat agrees with the message
- 14:48:10 [gk]
- q+ to say that Broan's message 0227 is fine, but that I don't think it should/need be sent from the wg
- 14:48:24 [jjcscribe]
- Brian do we have to expand it?
- 14:48:35 [bwm]
- ack gk
- 14:48:35 [Zakim]
- gk, you wanted to say that I think we're agrees to not accept this, and only talking about how to respond and to ask if we can bounce this to SWCG and to say that Broan's message
- 14:48:38 [Zakim]
- ... 0227 is fine, but that I don't think it should/need be sent from the wg
- 14:48:56 [bwm]
- ack jjc
- 14:51:16 [jjcscribe]
- DanBri wants to show that we have listened and thought about it
- 14:52:18 [gk]
- q+ to suggest if WG weighjt is required to delegate Pat/Danbri to draft response, and then let the WG approve it before sending
- 14:52:52 [jjcscribe]
- jjc propose to not accept comment
- 14:52:55 [jjcscribe]
- danbri seconds
- 14:53:02 [jjcscribe]
- resolved unaminous
- 14:53:09 [gk]
- q-
- 14:53:12 [jjcscribe]
- action pat to draft a response for the wg to send
- 14:53:29 [jjcscribe]
- item 12 rdfs:comment
- 14:54:07 [bwm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0222.html
- 14:54:30 [bwm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0233.html
- 14:56:55 [jjcscribe]
- Pat: can we just use differnt forms of words
- 14:57:24 [danbri_]
- q+ to mention constraint resource
- 14:57:36 [jjcscribe]
- perhaps weaken the nonformal descriptions
- 14:58:50 [bwm]
- ack danbri
- 14:58:50 [Zakim]
- danbri_, you wanted to mention constraint resource
- 15:00:19 [jjcscribe]
- brian wonders whether we should ask peter for text
- 15:00:28 [DaveB]
- [we hear bwm break up]
- 15:00:46 [danbri_]
- (bwm faded out with crackling noises; then got louder again)
- 15:04:13 [jjcscribe]
- jjc I disagree with this issue
- 15:05:27 [gk]
- q+ to suggest reducing expectations in RDF vocab doc
- 15:05:58 [bwm]
- ack gk
- 15:05:58 [Zakim]
- gk, you wanted to suggest reducing expectations in RDF vocab doc
- 15:07:29 [jjcscribe]
- ACTION: danbri to ask peter for text he would prefer
- 15:07:39 [jjcscribe]
- ITEM 6 pfps-12 lsits
- 15:07:40 [gk]
- "This document provides an informal description of elements of RDF and RDFS vocabulary. For formal semantics, see the ..."
- 15:08:29 [bwm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0179.html
- 15:10:12 [danbri_]
- (pat: '3 triple should be 2 tuple'(?) in semantics -- editorial?)
- 15:10:48 [DaveB]
- I find in semantics editor's draft http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#collections
- 15:10:58 [DaveB]
- 3.2.3 rdf collections - 'well-formed'
- 15:11:15 [bwm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0179.html
- 15:12:40 [DaveB]
- q+
- 15:13:26 [bwm]
- ack daveB
- 15:16:59 [gk]
- q+ to suggest rather than accepting the comment as on the table, to use it to develo0p new text and THEN ask if it addresses the problem
- 15:18:35 [gk]
- q-
- 15:18:48 [jjcscribe]
- discussion of domain cosntraitns and peter's text
- 15:19:19 [bwm]
- [[For the case of rdf:first above, I would much prefer
- 15:19:19 [bwm]
- rdf:first is an instance of rdf:Property that can be used to build
- 15:19:19 [bwm]
- descriptions of lists and other list-like structures. A triple of
- 15:19:19 [bwm]
- the form:
- 15:19:19 [bwm]
- L rdf:first O
- 15:19:20 [bwm]
- states that there is a first-element relationship between L and O.
- 15:19:22 [bwm]
- Note: RDFS does not require that there be only one first element
- 15:19:24 [bwm]
- of a list-like structure, or even that a list-like structure have a
- 15:19:26 [bwm]
- first element.
- 15:19:28 [bwm]
- I note that similar changes would have to be make for at least rdf:rest and
- 15:19:29 [jjcscribe]
- ACTION: danbri discuss #179 with peter concerning domains as well
- 15:19:30 [bwm]
- rdf:List.]]
- 15:20:04 [jjcscribe]
- refine text to include domain constaint, and make new proposal
- 15:20:21 [jjcscribe]
- Onto AOB
- 15:20:51 [jjcscribe]
- Jeremy asks RDF Core to review OWL Test Case
- 15:21:40 [jjcscribe]
- DaveB: reviewing document or tests?
- 15:22:26 [jjcscribe]
- ACTION: jjc TO get clear request from WebOnt chairs.
- 15:24:14 [jjcscribe]
- Jan may do it, depending on the request
- 15:24:47 [jjcscribe]
- I18N
- 15:26:10 [DaveB]
- msg 1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0023.html
- 15:26:23 [DaveB]
- msg 2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0025.html - from I18N
- 15:26:25 [gk]
- My summary and comments on Martin's comments at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0030.html
- 15:29:44 [DaveB]
- jjc discuses "<rdf:RDF>" vs xml"<rdf:RDF>" ->xhtml escape, vs don't escape <>
- 15:31:45 [jjcscribe]
- gk argues against jjc particularly that this is a domain of discourse issue
- 15:32:39 [DaveB]
- q+
- 15:32:50 [jjcscribe]
- gk notes that ralph supported xmlliteral = string
- 15:33:18 [jjcscribe]
- brian asks gk to establish case to reopen
- 15:33:26 [jjcscribe]
- gk 1) I18N comment
- 15:34:08 [DaveB]
- q-
- 15:34:28 [jjcscribe]
- gk 2) concerning cannes we needed the bit to trigger c14n, now we are doing c14n in the parser so we do not need to do this
- 15:35:51 [jjcscribe]
- gk is arguing on basis of complexity
- 15:36:36 [jjcscribe]
- daveb: we are simplified the xmlliterals
- 15:36:53 [em-lap]
- q+ to ask about feedback from query
- 15:37:46 [jjcscribe]
- daveb: we are primarily using this to ship around xhtml, according to the xml exc-c14n
- 15:38:42 [em-lap]
- q-
- 15:40:11 [jjcscribe]
- daveb discusses RSS feed use case
- 15:43:26 [DaveB]
- jjc? http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-XMLLiteral
- 15:44:37 [bwm]
- bwm: Question: Is the comment from I18N consistent with the advice given by I18N to RDFCore at the Cannes tech plenary?
- 15:44:45 [bwm]
- jjcscribe: Answer: No
- 15:44:57 [em-lap]
- RRSAgent, pointer
- 15:44:57 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2003/06/06-rdfcore-irc#T15-44-57
- 15:47:31 [gk]
- Other peoploe who've made rfelated comments (from memory)... TimBL doesn't seee why XML is special case in RDF; PFPS recently made some comments that XMLLiteral data type handling was "inconsistent"
- 15:48:23 [jjcscribe]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0151.html
- 15:49:59 [gk]
- I think the core question is: "do we really want/need XML literals to something other than character sequences"? If the RDF user community answer is "yes" then Jeremy is right. I've heard that requirement articulated.
- 15:50:12 [gk]
- s/heard/not heard/
- 15:51:07 [gk]
- BTW, to be fair, Patrick S hard argued that XML lits should be different things
- 15:55:20 [bwm]
- ACtion: jjc to provide an integrated definition of the value space of xml literal to include terminology for lexical space and value space.
- 15:55:44 [jang]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0121.html
- 15:57:21 [DaveB]
- q+ quick syntax report
- 15:59:02 [em-lap]
- ack DaveB
- 15:59:17 [Zakim]
- -jos
- 15:59:20 [jjcscribe]
- adjourned
- 15:59:20 [Zakim]
- -FrankM
- 15:59:22 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Dean
- 15:59:34 [Zakim]
- -GrahamKlyne
- 16:07:22 [Zakim]
- -ILRT
- 16:12:27 [Zakim]
- -PatH
- 16:12:29 [Zakim]
- -HP
- 16:12:30 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
- 16:23:32 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #rdfcore
- 17:01:42 [danbri_]
- danbri_ has joined #rdfcore
- 17:02:00 [danbri_]
- danbri_ has left #rdfcore
- 18:13:20 [em-lap]
- em-lap has joined #rdfcore