IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-08-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:24:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
14:24:25 [bwm-scribe]
10. doc status
14:24:35 [bwm-scribe]
14:24:47 [bwm-scribe]
Zakim, mute me
14:24:47 [Zakim]
sorry, bwm-scribe, I do not see a party named 'bwm-scribe'
14:24:54 [bwm-scribe]
Zakim, mute bwm
14:24:54 [Zakim]
bwm should now be muted
14:25:00 [em]
.me notes rrsagent is picking up discussion mid-stream
14:25:09 [bwm-scribe]
primer is ready to go
14:25:20 [bwm-scribe]
does not have CR status indication
14:25:51 [bwm-scribe]
em: are all outstanding issues that came in last call addressed
14:25:56 [bwm-scribe]
frank: yes
14:26:13 [bwm-scribe]
can anyone speak for concepts:
14:26:27 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: concepts is ready to roll as far as I know
14:26:32 [bwm-scribe]
14:26:35 [bwm-scribe]
ready to go
14:26:49 [bwm-scribe]
semantics: ready to go
14:27:26 [bwm-scribe]
schema: uptodate with respect to technical content. not completed process on handling last call comments
14:27:58 [bwm-scribe]
Zakim, unmute bwm
14:27:58 [Zakim]
bwm should no longer be muted
14:28:56 [jang]
14:29:00 [bwm-scribe]
testcases: done except semantic equivalence between datatypes
14:29:04 [bwm-scribe]
Zakim, mute bwm
14:29:04 [Zakim]
bwm should now be muted
14:29:23 [bwm-scribe]
Pat: would now express himself less strongly
14:29:30 [bwm-scribe]
Zakim, unmute bwm
14:29:30 [Zakim]
bwm should no longer be muted
14:29:41 [bwm-scribe]
em: questions about last call comments doc
14:29:51 [bwm-scribe]
... there are a lot of outcomes that say none
14:30:03 [bwm-scribe]
... what does that mean
14:31:24 [bwm-scribe]
... bwm: there is no from the commentor to the WG disposition
14:31:51 [bwm-scribe]
... the last call comments disposition must be locked up as well
14:32:08 [em]
zakim, mute me
14:32:08 [Zakim]
Emiller should now be muted
14:32:59 [em]
zakim, unmute me
14:32:59 [Zakim]
Emiller should no longer be muted
14:33:30 [em]
zakim, mute me
14:33:30 [Zakim]
Emiller should now be muted
14:35:08 [bwm-scribe]
action pat to see whether pfps is now satisfied about pfps-06
14:35:16 [danbri]
11: French translation - review sought
14:35:39 [jang]
je suis desole, ma francais est schrechliche
14:35:54 [em]
zakim, unmute me
14:35:54 [Zakim]
Emiller should no longer be muted
14:35:54 [bwm-scribe]
j'ai la mal anglaise
14:36:03 [danbri]
12: Treatment of XSD types
14:36:10 [bwm-scribe]
12. treatment of xml schema datatypes
14:37:20 [bwm-scribe]
concern over clarity on the value spaces of xsd datatypes
14:37:29 [em]
zakim, mute me
14:37:29 [Zakim]
Emiller should now be muted
14:37:53 [em]
zakim, unmute me
14:37:53 [Zakim]
Emiller should no longer be muted
14:37:56 [bwm-scribe]
implemetors are reporting they won't implement it
14:38:06 [bwm-scribe]
DaveB: suggest throw it out
14:38:15 [bwm-scribe]
patH: we should not say, its for xsd to say
14:38:42 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: its nice we can express the problem so crisply
14:39:17 [em]
q+ to ask about the rdf modelling of xsd datatypes
14:39:29 [em]
14:39:34 [danbri]
ack em
14:39:34 [Zakim]
em, you wanted to ask about the rdf modelling of xsd datatypes
14:39:49 [bwm-scribe]
em: at one time jjc and patS had an rdf schema for the xsd datatypes
14:40:04 [bwm-scribe]
em: is that still floating around somewhere
14:40:20 [bwm-scribe]
jang: jjc did do a schema
14:40:27 [DaveB]
14:40:32 [bwm-scribe]
patS: it was a homework exercise
14:41:07 [danbri]
14:41:20 [DaveB]
not our problem
14:41:33 [bwm-scribe]
patS: better to remove the test case
14:42:20 [bwm-scribe]
em: do we have to close the loop with the xml schema folks
14:43:24 [bwm-scribe]
patH: its actually pretty clear when one type is derived from the other
14:43:39 [bwm-scribe]
no action
14:44:05 [bwm-scribe]
13. publication and next steps
14:44:06 [em]
zakim, unmute me
14:44:06 [Zakim]
Emiller was not muted, em
14:44:16 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: em please outline the options
14:44:49 [bwm-scribe]
em: last week em beleived the group felt strongly about moving to CR
14:45:25 [em]
14:45:25 [bwm-scribe]
em: make the case that we have done the right thing through implementation
14:45:52 [bwm-scribe]
em: has written draft request to advance to CR
14:46:04 [em]
14:46:24 [em]
14:46:40 [danbri]
"7.4.6 Returning a Document to a Working Group for Further Work"
14:46:57 [danbri]
[[substantive change (whether deletion, inclusion, or other modification) is one where someone could reasonably expect that making the change would invalidate an individual's review or implementation experience.]]
14:47:25 [bwm-scribe]
whilst we can schedule meetin giwth director, we believe we have made substantive changes to these docuemnts
14:47:41 [bwm-scribe]
concerned that we will get sent back to do a second last call
14:47:57 [bwm-scribe]
em: a second last call might be the quickest way to go
14:48:18 [bwm-scribe]
em: very concerned that we will have to do a second last call whether we like it or not
14:48:36 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: tibl away on holiday
14:48:45 [bwm-scribe]
14:48:58 [bwm-scribe]
it will takes weeks to schedule a meeting with tim
14:49:09 [bwm-scribe]
a lot has changed since we last published a last call WD
14:49:27 [bwm-scribe]
steve could stand in for tim, but steve is likely to defer to tim anyway
14:50:14 [bwm-scribe]
14:50:43 [bwm-scribe]
em: if last call goes well, we could then go to PR
14:50:47 [danbri]
ack bwm-scribe
14:51:16 [danbri]
bwm-scribe: a point to note. i18n have some comments they've *not* made, as they were w.r.t. contents of LC draft and they were late commenting so felt it would've been out of order...
14:51:31 [danbri]
...if we go back to LC, they might raise these
14:51:43 [bwm-scribe]
i18n may have some new issues to raise
14:51:46 [DaveB]
not more hypothetical comment sthey might raise...
14:52:22 [danbri]
bwm-scribe: i've been reading process doc today, it seems to allow a little wiggle room
14:52:37 [danbri]
...seems to me (though em may clarify) that we can request advancement of a substantively changed doc
14:52:52 [danbri]
...and it is then the director's decision to decide whether or not to allow that advancement or not
14:53:05 [danbri] q is: what criteria does the director use to make that decision
14:53:19 [danbri]
em: that's more about how director decides than a strict process question
14:53:36 [DaveB]
IMHO OWL has advanced as bwm describes
14:53:45 [danbri]
...agree there may be last call wiggleroom
14:54:22 [danbri]
bwm-scribe: if we don't know his criteria, what argument would we make for moving fwd?
14:54:38 [danbri]
em: if we've done due dilligence w/ developer community, etc
14:55:15 [DaveB]
T-5 minutes
14:55:19 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: we have done a good job of outreaching to the interest group
14:55:29 [bwm-scribe]
em: but there are other communities
14:56:17 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: interacts uncomfortably with internationalization, non-english speaking folks don't have equal access
14:57:18 [DaveB]
14:57:30 [bwm-scribe]
pfps has requested a re-review
14:57:57 [bwm-scribe]
frank: what is the dependancy between owl and rdf
14:58:06 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: they are dependent on us
14:58:25 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: owl are anxious to finish soon
14:58:39 [DaveB]
OWL seems to have got off lightly re i18n
14:59:00 [bwm-scribe]
move to extend by 15 mins
14:59:07 [bwm-scribe]
no objections
14:59:21 [bwm-scribe]
DaveB: please structure the last 15 minutes
14:59:34 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: I would like to publish
14:59:43 [bwm-scribe]
... its just this process question
14:59:58 [bwm-scribe]
em: where do we want to focus our effort
15:00:28 [bwm-scribe]
em: we could put the effort in to making a case to advance
15:01:08 [bwm-scribe]
... or we can put that effort in to getting the last call docs done and hope we don't get too many new issues
15:01:31 [bwm-scribe]
... we have done a lot of the work in communicating with the developer community ...
15:02:26 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: propose we do another last cal
15:03:31 [danbri]
brian: personal view... strong case for a 2nd LC, but my employer has other views/concerns (jjc isn't here to represent them)
15:03:42 [bwm-scribe]
bwm-scribe: we should do a second last call
15:04:21 [bwm-scribe]
em; if there are still issues in these docs its better to get them in a second last call than in cr/pr
15:04:55 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: do we have the energy?
15:05:12 [bwm-scribe]
... editors can you live with a second last call ...
15:05:17 [bwm-scribe]
path: yes
15:05:30 [bwm-scribe]
DaveB: yes, but I'll be harsh
15:05:33 [bwm-scribe]
jang: yes
15:05:39 [bwm-scribe]
frank: yes
15:06:50 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: does anyone want to speak against a second last call
15:07:07 [bwm-scribe]
em: what about you
15:08:02 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: have as much energy for a second lc as a CR
15:08:57 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: i can do more telecon's
15:09:27 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: does anyone want speak against ...
15:09:40 [bwm-scribe]
danbri: expect jjc would have
15:11:17 [DaveB]
T-5 mins
15:15:09 [bwm-scribe]
action: bwm contact i18n about second last call
15:15:19 [bwm-scribe]
action: eds prepare for second last call
15:15:43 [bwm-scribe]
action em circulate pub date
15:16:45 [bwm-scribe]
action em: ciruclate boilerplace for doc status
15:17:22 [danbri]
15:17:25 [bwm-scribe]
action bwm send mail about xmlsch-03
15:17:59 [Zakim]
15:18:02 [em]
thanks all
15:18:08 [Zakim]
15:18:10 [Zakim]
15:18:23 [Zakim]
15:18:23 [Zakim]
15:18:25 [Zakim]
15:18:31 [bwm-scribe]
Zakim, who is on the phone
15:18:31 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', bwm-scribe
15:18:34 [Zakim]
15:18:37 [bwm-scribe]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:18:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bwm
15:18:41 [Zakim]
15:18:41 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
15:18:55 [danbri]
logger, pointer?
15:18:55 [logger]
16:37:44 [danbri]
rrsagent, bookmark?
16:37:44 [RRSAgent]
17:19:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfcore
17:20:29 [danbri]
danbri has left #rdfcore
19:07:01 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdfcore
19:07:14 [danbri]
rrsagent, part
19:07:14 [RRSAgent]
I see 3 open action items:
19:07:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: bwm contact i18n about second last call [1]
19:07:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:07:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: eds prepare for second last call [2]
19:07:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:07:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: em to ciruclate boilerplace for doc status [3]
19:07:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
19:07:23 [MJDuerst]
MJDuerst has joined #rdfcore