IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-08-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

12:59:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
13:00:02 [logger]
logger has joined #rdfcore
13:20:55 [ericm]
ericm has joined #rdfcore
13:21:04 [ericm]
danbri_dna, you there?
13:21:26 [ericm]
feedback welcome - http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/templates/lc2-stod
13:24:22 [danbri_dna]
hi
13:25:09 [danbri_dna]
"necessary by substantive changes resulting in feedback"
13:25:15 [danbri_dna]
remove 'substantive'
13:25:24 [danbri_dna]
by a number of changes, perhaps.
13:26:02 [danbri_dna]
suggests we're more unstable than we are. 'substantive' has a technical meaning re Process; to a wider audience it may be misinterpreeted.
13:27:08 [danbri_dna]
all done now
13:27:54 [danbri_dna]
I dispair re deciding whether LC2, vanilla WD or CR or whatever, I just want to be told...
13:28:08 [ericm]
LC2
13:28:20 [ericm]
err.. does that help :)
13:28:28 [danbri_dna]
I do lean towards vanilla WD though, not convinced we won't get yet more I18N changes and -> LC3
13:28:32 [danbri_dna]
sir yessir! :)
13:28:35 [ericm]
lol
13:32:30 [danbri_dna]
(assuming Brian doesn't mind, which I don't think he will...)
13:33:53 [ericm]
the group needs to decide which way to go - i'm happy for a decision
13:49:40 [bwm]
bwm has joined #rdfcore
13:59:12 [bwm]
Zakim, help?
13:59:12 [Zakim]
Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help.
13:59:15 [Zakim]
Some of the commands I know are:
13:59:16 [Zakim]
xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx
13:59:18 [Zakim]
if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted
13:59:22 [Zakim]
xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx
13:59:24 [Zakim]
I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx
13:59:26 [Zakim]
xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group
13:59:28 [Zakim]
xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx
13:59:30 [Zakim]
who's here? - lists the participants on the phone
13:59:32 [Zakim]
who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted
13:59:34 [Zakim]
mute xxx - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#)
13:59:36 [Zakim]
unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61#
13:59:38 [Zakim]
is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present
13:59:40 [Zakim]
list conferences - reports the active conferences
13:59:41 [Zakim]
this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx
13:59:42 [Zakim]
excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel
13:59:43 [Zakim]
I last learned something new on $Date: 2003/08/13 12:34:28 $
14:00:02 [bwm]
Zakim, what conference is this?
14:00:02 [Zakim]
no conference has been selected, bwm
14:00:07 [ericm]
zakim, this will be rdfcore
14:00:07 [Zakim]
ok, ericm; I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM scheduled to start now
14:00:14 [ericm]
zakim, dial emiller-bos
14:00:14 [Zakim]
ok, ericm; the call is being made
14:00:14 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started
14:00:16 [Zakim]
+Emiller
14:00:50 [ericm]
zakim, mute me
14:00:51 [Zakim]
sorry, ericm, I do not see a party named 'ericm'
14:00:55 [Zakim]
+??P14
14:00:57 [ericm]
zakim, mute em
14:00:57 [Zakim]
Emiller should now be muted
14:01:04 [ericm]
brb
14:01:04 [bwm]
Zakim, ??p14 is bwm
14:01:04 [Zakim]
+bwm; got it
14:02:22 [Zakim]
+??P15
14:02:22 [ericm]
zakim, unmute me
14:02:22 [Zakim]
sorry, ericm, I do not see a party named 'ericm'
14:02:26 [ericm]
zakim, unmute em
14:02:26 [Zakim]
Emiller should no longer be muted
14:02:54 [ericm]
zakim, ??P15 is ILRT
14:02:54 [Zakim]
+ILRT; got it
14:02:58 [jang-scribe]
jang-scribe has joined #rdfcore
14:03:08 [ericm]
zakim, ILRT holds Jan, DaveB
14:03:08 [Zakim]
+Jan, DaveB; got it
14:03:12 [jang-scribe]
bwm, those actions under item 17 are _still_ done :-)
14:03:16 [Zakim]
+??P16
14:03:32 [jang-scribe]
message as of about 2-3 weeks ago to that effect.
14:03:37 [ericm]
zakim, ??P19 is PatrickS
14:03:37 [Zakim]
sorry, ericm, I do not recognize a party named '??P19'
14:03:42 [ericm]
zakim, ??P16 is PatrickS
14:03:42 [Zakim]
+PatrickS; got it
14:04:11 [jang-scribe]
minutes need ACTION with a ":", right?
14:04:17 [bwm]
think so
14:04:20 [ericm]
jang-scribe, yes
14:04:21 [jang-scribe]
ok
14:04:37 [Zakim]
+DanBri
14:04:45 [ericm]
zakim, who is here?
14:04:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Emiller, bwm, ILRT, PatrickS, DanBri
14:04:46 [Zakim]
ILRT has Jan, DaveB
14:04:47 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jang-scribe, bwm, ericm, logger, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri_dna
14:04:48 [ericm]
zakim, who is not here?
14:04:48 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, ericm.
14:04:49 [jang-scribe]
if someone else can paste URLs into IRC I'd appreciate it (using mouse nipple, not so great)
14:04:58 [DaveB]
DaveB has joined #rdfcore
14:05:19 [Zakim]
+Mike_Dean
14:05:21 [jang-scribe]
roll call
14:05:22 [bwm]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:05:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Emiller, bwm, ILRT, PatrickS, DanBri, Mike_Dean
14:05:23 [Zakim]
ILRT has Jan, DaveB
14:05:32 [ericm]
agenda - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0320.html
14:05:59 [jang-scribe]
regrets JJC gk frankm jos
14:06:03 [jang-scribe]
comments on agenda?
14:06:25 [jang-scribe]
em: one, extracted additional aciton items that were logged last week
14:06:46 [jang-scribe]
two, item 11 (next steps)
14:06:57 [jang-scribe]
want to ad something when we get there
14:07:00 [ericm]
suggestions: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0328.html
14:07:02 [jang-scribe]
next telecon same time next week
14:07:06 [jang-scribe]
minutes of last telecon:
14:07:21 [ericm]
additional actions: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0332.html
14:07:33 [jang-scribe]
completed actions.
14:07:36 [jang-scribe]
all ok...?
14:07:46 [jang-scribe]
done
14:07:48 [jang-scribe]
misc actions:
14:08:07 [jang-scribe]
danbri ruby action continues, withdrawl formally
14:08:10 [jang-scribe]
danc continued
14:08:17 [jang-scribe]
jjc absent, continued
14:08:18 [danbri_dna]
re i18n txt review, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/att-0244/i18n-part.html
14:08:24 [jang-scribe]
i18n update
14:08:35 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: jjc's text is technically accurate
14:09:08 [jang-scribe]
not up-to-speed with all the minutae of the social side of that
14:09:36 [jang-scribe]
one comment - more information on the rejection of the wrapper solution (why isn't it appropriate?)
14:09:52 [jang-scribe]
DaveB: two comments in the LC period were confused about that, at least
14:09:53 [ericm]
q+
14:10:03 [bwm]
ack ericm
14:10:17 [jang-scribe]
ACTION daveb please track down comments on wrapper solution for xmlliteral
14:10:23 [jang-scribe]
... from aLC
14:10:24 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rdfcore
14:10:33 [jang-scribe]
bwm: can you add anything to this danbri?
14:10:47 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: nothing immediate, just a request for more information on what we've done before
14:11:00 [jang-scribe]
I think some people (i18n/martin) think we've been lazy on covering the options
14:11:05 [jang-scribe]
I don't think that's the case
14:11:20 [danbri_dna]
what i was trying to say, "I find it hard to summarise our previous investigation into alternate designs"
14:11:28 [jang-scribe]
bwm: are we saying we need more time to look at this?
14:11:31 [ericm]
q+
14:12:08 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: not sure what "this" is, exactly yet
14:12:15 [jang-scribe]
bwm: also not clear if they'll raise anything else
14:12:22 [DaveB]
wrapper comment 1): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0109.html
14:13:23 [DaveB]
wrapper comment 2) (reagle, LC) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0434
14:13:45 [jang-scribe]
pats: we already decided that we'd call for someone to produce a note on the relationship between rdf datatyping etc
14:13:53 [gk]
gk has joined #rdfcore
14:14:25 [jang-scribe]
pats: there's this issue of "are xml lang without markup and plain lits the same value"?
14:14:39 [ericm]
q+ to suggest that we don't need to spend more time about this at this time - suggest discussing next steps; waiting for input from any group and then responding to input
14:14:42 [jang-scribe]
s/xml lang/xsd:string
14:15:36 [jang-scribe]
bwm: the value space of plain literals is larger than xsd:string
14:16:07 [jang-scribe]
ACTION jang check/create if necc xsd:string -> plain literal test case
14:16:47 [jang-scribe]
bwm: i18n, anything more to say or shoud we move on?
14:17:24 [ericm]
ack ericm
14:17:24 [Zakim]
ericm, you wanted to suggest that we don't need to spend more time about this at this time - suggest discussing next steps; waiting for input from any group and then responding to
14:17:27 [Zakim]
... input
14:17:31 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: there's unfortunate woding in the i18n minutes recently, I think we're in "agree to disagree" territory
14:17:39 [jang-scribe]
item 9. outstanding comments
14:17:45 [jang-scribe]
pfps on normalisation
14:18:05 [ericm]
is path planning on attending?
14:18:31 [jang-scribe]
DaveB: this comment isn't correct. You can already have illegal stuff in xml literals however you encode it
14:18:38 [jang-scribe]
bwm: do you know exactly what his concern is?
14:18:49 [jang-scribe]
DaveB: he rejects any leniency in going from rdf/xml to triples
14:18:56 [jang-scribe]
points out we don't do any normalisation/ws checking
14:19:35 [jang-scribe]
we don't check nfc on plain literals
14:19:53 [jang-scribe]
bwm: he seems to be saying we can generate illegal rdf graphs from legal rdf/xml
14:19:55 [jang-scribe]
is that right?
14:20:07 [jang-scribe]
DaveB: we decided not to check any of these xml conditions, that's already been the case
14:20:24 [jang-scribe]
this isn't anything we don't already know about, it's not a new issue, it's the current status of the rdf/xml -> triple mapping
14:20:45 [jang-scribe]
DaveB: I've responded to him before extensively on this, this is the same comment. There's not a lot more to say
14:21:07 [jang-scribe]
DaveB: we do not check even for our OWN datatype, let alone xsd types etc
14:21:30 [jang-scribe]
we don't check that with the datatype = rdf:XMLLiteral, the literal form is legal
14:21:32 [jang-scribe]
this is nothing new
14:21:56 [Zakim]
+GrahamKlyne
14:22:22 [danbri_dna]
zakim, mute graham
14:22:22 [Zakim]
GrahamKlyne should now be muted
14:22:26 [ericm]
zakim, disconnect GrahamKlyne
14:22:26 [Zakim]
GrahamKlyne is being disconnected
14:22:27 [Zakim]
-GrahamKlyne
14:22:34 [danbri_dna]
gk, we heard modem noises :(
14:23:00 [jang-scribe]
pfps made a comment also on 6.4 of concepts, that the definiition of URI was incorrect
14:23:07 [jang-scribe]
bwm: I think, looking at ti, that he's right.
14:23:16 [jang-scribe]
I think the "%" case isn't handled correctly
14:23:23 [Zakim]
+GrahamKlyne
14:23:30 [jang-scribe]
path's not here for comments on semantics
14:23:34 [jang-scribe]
moving on, therefore:
14:23:39 [jang-scribe]
item 10, xmlsch-02
14:23:47 [jang-scribe]
winding back
14:23:55 [jang-scribe]
6.4 concepts, "%"s in URI
14:24:29 [jang-scribe]
bwm: suspect this is a quick editorial fix, if anything
14:24:44 [jang-scribe]
ACTION gk to check details of URI and "%" in 6.4 of concepts
14:24:46 [jang-scribe]
moving on
14:24:51 [jang-scribe]
item 10, xmlsch-02
14:24:57 [jang-scribe]
WS processing of XSD datatype
14:25:04 [jang-scribe]
we'd decided previously to fudge this
14:25:37 [jang-scribe]
although " 10 " isn't in the lexical space for xsd:decimal, to say applications might be more flexible
14:25:45 [jang-scribe]
bwm: pats, you have a view on this?
14:25:54 [jang-scribe]
pats: the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with pfps
14:26:17 [gk]
q+ to say that the problem here, I think, is because we're wandering into grey area of specifying behaviour of strictly incorrect RDF
14:26:26 [jang-scribe]
esp. since jos showed the thing where "10"^^xsd:integer entailed "10.0"^^xsd:integer
14:26:49 [jang-scribe]
I'm coming to the opinion that I wouldn't trust an rdf processor that didn't have a STRICT interpretation of lexical forms
14:27:19 [jang-scribe]
there's the interop problems inherent in this
14:27:38 [jang-scribe]
even if we have a "MAY choose to cope with this" we should have a "MUST produce a warning"
14:28:15 [jang-scribe]
bwm: if we don't fudge it we're either strict or have a looser lexical and l2v in rdf than in xsd
14:28:40 [jang-scribe]
pats: it's not about ws processing, it's about using tools in contexts they were never intended for
14:29:41 [bwm]
ack gk
14:29:41 [Zakim]
gk, you wanted to say that the problem here, I think, is because we're wandering into grey area of specifying behaviour of strictly incorrect RDF
14:29:50 [jang-scribe]
gk: I think part of the problem here is that we're specifying the behaviour / meaning of input which isn't true rdf
14:30:12 [jang-scribe]
that is, specifying what applications should do when we get something which isn't quite valid rdf/xml + stuff, but almost
14:30:21 [jang-scribe]
we should back off specifying behaviour in the case of errors
14:30:33 [jang-scribe]
q+
14:30:53 [bwm]
ack jangg
14:32:17 [jang-scribe]
jang-scribe: remove the fudge one way or the other.
14:32:38 [jang-scribe]
bwm: sounds like the consensus is to remove the fudge, anyone want to speak against that?
14:32:58 [jang-scribe]
DaveB: we did this after comments from implementors
14:33:09 [jang-scribe]
bwm: one way is to remove the test cases
14:33:21 [gk]
q+ to suggest decision on whether " 1 "^^xsd:integer is considered valid RDF?
14:33:23 [jang-scribe]
pats: removing the normative test cases from xsd:schema-specific stuff
14:33:58 [jang-scribe]
bwm: shall we end the discussion for the moment with a note that we're generally against fudging, and take it to email?
14:34:22 [gk]
q-
14:34:25 [jang-scribe]
moving on
14:34:27 [jang-scribe]
ack jang
14:34:33 [jang-scribe]
item 11: next steps
14:34:40 [jang-scribe]
eric:
14:34:56 [jang-scribe]
we're caught in a situation where we've editors' drafts that are 90-95% done
14:35:05 [jang-scribe]
can't get out of the loop of fielding useful input that's coming in
14:35:27 [jang-scribe]
so last week it seemed that the group as a whole was trying to grapple with cr/lc2 etc.
14:35:37 [jang-scribe]
and there were concerns about energy/effort available to do this
14:36:18 [DaveB]
ericm: breaking up
14:36:22 [Zakim]
-Emiller
14:36:29 [ericm]
dialing in
14:36:40 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: we have to get some specs back out on the tr page asap
14:36:59 [jang-scribe]
DaveB: publish now
14:37:04 [Zakim]
+EricM
14:37:07 [jang-scribe]
pats: I agree cr is a better path to lc2
14:37:31 [jang-scribe]
(don't think that's necessarily what daveb meant)
14:38:19 [jang-scribe]
DaveB: pfps' comments was on the january 2003 drafts, our latest stuff addresses that
14:38:31 [jang-scribe]
I don't care lc2/cr, we MUST publish
14:39:23 [DaveB]
(OWL had 5 months between published drafts, we are at 8)
14:39:25 [gk]
q+ to say best course here seems to depend more on W3C process than any particular technical matter
14:39:40 [DaveB]
(7 not 8 sorry)
14:39:47 [jang-scribe]
em: cr is an uphill battle, to make the CASE for CR which may or may not wind up winning
14:40:52 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: I've been convinced that we need another LC
14:41:06 [jang-scribe]
CR suggests that we're completely done
14:42:48 [gk]
q+ to also say that from my perspective, new WD and LC2 seems the appropriate option right now (the length of time in LC1 suggests that much)
14:42:51 [jang-scribe]
em: substantive changes during cr result in another wd anyway
14:42:56 [jang-scribe]
pats: I'm convinced
14:43:07 [ericm]
q?
14:43:39 [jang-scribe]
bwm: hp's made some strong remarks on this, whilst I try to remain neutral from this position for the purpose of chairing,
14:43:53 [jang-scribe]
I hope nobody's unconfortable with this
14:44:05 [jang-scribe]
em: makes informal vote of confidence in bwm's chairing
14:44:08 [jang-scribe]
(it's unanimous)
14:44:15 [bwm]
ack gk
14:44:15 [Zakim]
gk, you wanted to say best course here seems to depend more on W3C process than any particular technical matter and to also say that from my perspective, new WD and LC2 seems the
14:44:18 [Zakim]
... appropriate option right now (the length of time in LC1 suggests that much)
14:45:32 [jang-scribe]
bwm: whether we need another LC doesn't say that the next docs we publish are another LC, or whether we push out another WD quickly
14:45:45 [jang-scribe]
did you have a view on that, gk?
14:46:01 [jang-scribe]
gk: not publishing anything is more harmful than publishing soething we know is imperfect
14:46:21 [bwm]
q?
14:46:36 [jang-scribe]
bwm: I hear, we want to publish, and publish quickly
14:46:39 [jang-scribe]
(no dissent to that)
14:46:44 [jang-scribe]
are we ready to do a LC2?
14:47:48 [jang-scribe]
em: lc means we must have done everything - addressed all the issues from the previous LC?
14:47:54 [jang-scribe]
if not, then going to LC2 is not appropriate
14:48:34 [gk]
q+ to ask: if we do LC2, don't we have to publish new WD anyway?
14:48:39 [jang-scribe]
[ilrt needs this room at 4:05, we have 15 minutes remaining them scribe must disappear]
14:49:02 [DaveB]
from the lc issue list there are still two "none" wg responses for pfps-11, 12
14:49:06 [jang-scribe]
[I can type up, but cannot remain, daveb has ilrt proxy for you bwm]
14:49:38 [jang-scribe]
bwm: danbri's been completing the schema dance on a couple today
14:49:44 [jang-scribe]
there are a couple of objections on sematics
14:49:48 [jang-scribe]
pfps-06 could change
14:49:53 [jang-scribe]
so we're pretty much through that dance
14:49:56 [jang-scribe]
my personal view:
14:50:10 [jang-scribe]
1. I do not want to wind up doing LC3
14:50:20 [danbri_dna]
q+ re what LC means
14:50:26 [danbri_dna]
q+ to comment re what LC means
14:50:27 [jang-scribe]
I don't know if i18n are going to raise more issues
14:50:44 [jang-scribe]
I'm also certain about semantics. I don't want another LC for that which
14:50:55 [jang-scribe]
leaves another slew of pfps issues,
14:51:12 [jang-scribe]
I'd rather reach agreement with pfps about what his objections if outstanding are
14:51:26 [jang-scribe]
and once those are resolved (however that might be), do a second lc
14:51:48 [jang-scribe]
so I'm saying publish WDs now as is, as part of that
14:52:05 [jang-scribe]
ask pfps for a detailed review now, settle those issues (even if it's "we cannot agree on this")
14:52:09 [jang-scribe]
then go to formal second LC
14:52:13 [bwm]
q?
14:52:27 [DaveB]
q+ to speak on proxy before 16:00 when ILRT have to leave
14:52:44 [jang-scribe]
em: what's the difference between wd now and lc2 now then lc3?
14:53:05 [jang-scribe]
if we make this lc2 then we have the potential to not have to make another step
14:53:37 [jang-scribe]
bwm: if it's an lc2 now then the issue tracking process is more onerous than having pfps and path on the phone trying to sort everything out informally
14:53:43 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: we've been doing that for months
14:53:46 [jang-scribe]
q?
14:53:48 [bwm]
ack danbri
14:53:48 [Zakim]
danbri_dna, you wanted to comment re what LC means
14:53:58 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: lc has an "L" for a reason
14:54:18 [jang-scribe]
a wg can devalue lc by either doing a lc, change stuff, and never doing another
14:54:26 [jang-scribe]
or by doing LCs when they mean WD
14:54:40 [jang-scribe]
in either case this isn't fair to the rest of the w3 community
14:55:04 [jang-scribe]
I think we should get specs out with no fuss now
14:55:21 [jang-scribe]
and feed back to w3c that our process punishes WGs for publishing specs
14:55:57 [bwm]
ack gk
14:55:57 [Zakim]
gk, you wanted to ask: if we do LC2, don't we have to publish new WD anyway?
14:56:00 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: I think we should publish vanilla WDs next week, and make sure w3 acks that that's not a retrograde step
14:56:03 [jang-scribe]
ack gk
14:56:18 [jang-scribe]
gk lc requires prelim wd?
14:56:20 [bwm]
ack daveb
14:56:20 [Zakim]
DaveB, you wanted to speak on proxy before 16:00 when ILRT have to leave
14:56:21 [jang-scribe]
apparently not
14:56:33 [jang-scribe]
DaveB: proxy vote to chair to vote to publish ANYTHING next week
14:56:45 [jang-scribe]
bwm: I'd like to vote now
14:56:55 [jang-scribe]
don't want to compel pat to publish in his absense,
14:57:19 [jang-scribe]
bwm: I'm asking if we want to publish WD next week
14:57:27 [jang-scribe]
with status != LC2
14:57:37 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: like to get path's agreement
14:57:51 [jang-scribe]
propose (danbri) publish all docs as wd
14:57:58 [jang-scribe]
(subject to path's agreement wrt semantics)
14:58:01 [jang-scribe]
second pats
14:58:03 [danbri_dna]
I propose we publish all our docs ASAP as (plain) WDs
14:58:06 [jang-scribe]
no against
14:58:27 [jang-scribe]
HP abstains; Jos (probably) abstains - think he was arguing for CR (in fairness)
14:58:49 [jang-scribe]
that's a DECISION to publish as wd
14:59:08 [jang-scribe]
em: propose that we publish these as LC2s with a three-week review period
14:59:17 [jang-scribe]
DaveB: ilrt seconds that.
14:59:42 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: personally, I'm against that.
15:00:25 [gk]
q+ to ask eric if LC2 is really quicker?
15:01:32 [DaveB]
ilrt gotta go...
15:01:35 [jang-scribe]
danbri_dna: the MT is more-or-less baked
15:01:47 [DaveB]
bye everyone
15:01:48 [bwm]
thanks dave - check the minutes for a decision
15:01:50 [jang-scribe]
apologies to chair; ilrt must leave.
15:01:53 [Zakim]
-ILRT
15:02:01 [jang-scribe]
send me an email offlist and I'll write up the minutes.
15:06:02 [gk]
PatrickS has suggested alternative of limiting period from WD to LC2
15:07:38 [gk]
DanBri: think we can get further if we're clear we haven't fully addressed all outstanding messages (?)
15:08:10 [gk]
Brian: current problems may be partly due to doing LC1 with outstanding issues not resolved
15:08:20 [danbri_dna]
go further than what brian said, i meant: that we can't go to LC knowing that Peter has outstanding concerns
15:09:11 [gk]
Eric: just concerned with getting quickest to REC
15:09:39 [gk]
(thinks, aren't we all, just don't know what's quickest?)
15:13:31 [gk]
q+ to ask what's jjc availability? I don't (knowingly) have latest concepts source
15:13:33 [danbri_dna]
action danbri: update http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/templates/lc2-stod for WD
15:14:20 [danbri_dna]
Editors: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/ has links to pubrule-checking URLs for each spec.
15:14:42 [gk]
action gk: liaise with jjc to remove whitespace "fudge"
15:15:28 [gk]
... above action ("from concepts")
15:15:39 [danbri_dna]
I'm also happy to help editors with pubrule checker if they have difficulties/questions
15:16:20 [gk]
action bwm: contact jang to remove xmlschema02 test cases
15:17:09 [danbri_dna]
em: use friday's date, sept 05
15:17:10 [gk]
Need pubrule-checked documents to em by Wednesday, can publish by Friday (Sep 5)
15:17:32 [gk]
... Wed, 5:00PM EST
15:17:58 [gk]
... make that NOON EST Werdnesday, pubrules-ready
15:18:24 [ericm]
rrsagent, actions?
15:18:24 [ericm]
I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'actions'
15:19:47 [gk]
action editors: update cross-refs to 5 september documents
15:20:14 [gk]
meeting closed
15:20:19 [Zakim]
-PatrickS
15:20:23 [ericm]
http://www.w3.org/2003/08/29-rdfcore-irc
15:21:37 [gk]
Holiday pics: http://www.ninebynine.org/Travels/2003Aug-Thames/Intro.html
15:21:57 [Zakim]
-EricM
15:21:59 [Zakim]
-bwm
15:22:01 [Zakim]
-Mike_Dean
15:22:06 [Zakim]
-DanBri
15:22:15 [Zakim]
-GrahamKlyne
15:22:15 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
15:23:50 [danbri_dna]
logger, off
15:27:37 [danbri_dna]
getting there...
16:08:53 [ericm]
ericm has joined #rdfcore
18:28:48 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfcore