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]
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]
14:01:58 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
14:11:19 [bwm]
14:12:24 [Zakim]
14:13:20 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rdfcore
14:14:11 [Zakim]
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
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]
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:
14:25:11 [DaveB]
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
14:27:44 [bwm]
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]
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 [[
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]
14:39:08 [em-lap]
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]
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]
14:45:04 [jjcscribe]
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]
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]
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]
14:54:30 [bwm]
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]
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
15:10:58 [DaveB]
3.2.3 rdf collections - 'well-formed'
15:11:15 [bwm]
15:12:40 [DaveB]
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]
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]
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]
15:26:10 [DaveB]
msg 1
15:26:23 [DaveB]
msg 2 - from I18N
15:26:25 [gk]
My summary and comments on Martin's comments at:
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]
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]
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]
15:40:11 [jjcscribe]
daveb discusses RSS feed use case
15:43:26 [DaveB]
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]
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]
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]
15:57:21 [DaveB]
q+ quick syntax report
15:59:02 [em-lap]
ack DaveB
15:59:17 [Zakim]
15:59:20 [jjcscribe]
15:59:20 [Zakim]
15:59:22 [Zakim]
15:59:34 [Zakim]
16:07:22 [Zakim]
16:12:27 [Zakim]
16:12:29 [Zakim]
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