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]

primer:

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]

syntax:

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]

http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfcore-in-exile/2003-August/000007.html

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]

ack

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]

in http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/xsd-rdf-2002-11-25/

14:40:32 [bwm-scribe]

patS: it was a homework exercise

14:41:07 [danbri]

ack

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]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/request/cr

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]

http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr#last-call

14:46:24 [em]

http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr#return-to-wg

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]

s/tibl/timbl/

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]

q+

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]

...my 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]

in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0261.html

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]

adjourned.

15:17:25 [bwm-scribe]

action bwm send mail about xmlsch-03

15:17:59 [Zakim]

-ILRT

15:18:02 [em]

thanks all

15:18:08 [Zakim]

-Emiller

15:18:10 [Zakim]

-patrick

15:18:23 [Zakim]

-FrankM

15:18:23 [Zakim]

-Pat_Hayes

15:18:25 [Zakim]

-Mike_Dean

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]

-DanBri

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]

-bwm

15:18:41 [Zakim]

SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

15:18:55 [danbri]

logger, pointer?

15:18:55 [logger]

See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-08-22#T15-18-55

16:37:44 [danbri]

rrsagent, bookmark?

16:37:44 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2003/08/22-rdfcore-irc#T16-37-44

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 http://www.w3.org/2003/08/22-rdfcore-irc#T15-15-09

19:07:14 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: eds prepare for second last call [2]

19:07:14 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/08/22-rdfcore-irc#T15-15-19

19:07:14 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: em to ciruclate boilerplace for doc status [3]

19:07:14 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/08/22-rdfcore-irc#T15-16-45

19:07:23 [MJDuerst]

MJDuerst has joined #rdfcore