13:56:48 RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore 13:56:51 Zakim has joined #rdfcore 13:56:56 zakim, this will be RDFCore 13:56:56 ok, ericm; I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes 13:57:40 gk has joined #rdfcore 14:00:11 SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started 14:00:18 +??P2 14:00:25 zakim, dial emiller-bos 14:00:25 ok, ericm; the call is being made 14:00:26 -??P2 14:00:27 +??P2 14:00:28 +Emiller 14:00:33 DaveB has joined #rdfcore 14:01:01 +GrahamKlyne 14:01:21 DanC has joined #rdfcore 14:01:32 +DanC 14:01:40 +Pat_Hayes 14:02:21 +Manola 14:02:37 zakim, ??P2 is ILRT 14:02:37 +ILRT; got it 14:02:52 jang has joined #rdfcore 14:03:01 zakim, ILRT has JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc 14:03:01 +JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc; got it 14:03:11 Zakim, who's talking? 14:03:13 zakim, ilrt also has uncle tom cobbley 14:03:13 +uncle, tom, cobbley; got it 14:03:22 DanC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ILRT (70%), Pat_Hayes (64%), Emiller (15%), GrahamKlyne (24%) 14:03:24 zakim, ILRT has JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc 14:03:24 JanG was already listed in ILRT, ericm 14:03:25 BrianM was already listed in ILRT, ericm 14:03:26 Danbri was already listed in ILRT, ericm 14:03:27 DaveB was already listed in ILRT, ericm 14:03:28 jjc was already listed in ILRT, ericm 14:03:31 danbri_dna has joined #rdfcore 14:03:48 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:03:48 On the phone I see ILRT, Emiller, GrahamKlyne, DanC, Pat_Hayes, Manola 14:03:49 ILRT has JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc, uncle, tom, cobbley 14:04:55 danbri-scribe has changed the topic to: rdfcore sept 5 teleconf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0074.html 14:05:02 next telecon: same time, same place nxt week 14:05:05 +patrick 14:05:05 to chair: danbri 14:05:13 to scribe: dajobe 14:05:22 welcome patrick 14:05:26 regrets: mike dean 14:05:33 also JosD 14:05:44 5: Minutes of 29 Aug 2003 telecon 14:05:46 approved. 14:05:51 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions 14:06:08 brian: i've tidied out action list... closed/withdrawn all those that should have been done as part of pub process. 14:06:16 anyone believe any of these aren't done? 14:06:41 dajobe: Mime types reg? the draft expired... 14:06:46 brian: we have this in agenda for later 14:06:54 brian: gk had action to chase aaron 14:06:59 2330514... 14:07:12 gk: we had some interaction, expecting a new version... 14:07:20 brina: action is done, we'll talk status of it later 14:07:32 these all Done. 14:07:36 similarly, withdrawn actions... 14:07:42 7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions 14:07:49 dajobe: note that i did review primer 14:07:51 ...a done. 14:08:03 8: Doc Publishing status 14:08:07 2330514 = 2003-03-14#3 gk chase Aaron 14:08:16 ericm: am hoping to see http://www.w3.org/TR/ reflect these 14:08:19 soon... 14:08:32 -Pat_Hayes 14:08:34 em: all editors did a great job getting pubrules ready 14:08:46 (the echo went away with Hayes) 14:08:59 awaiting TR page rebuild 14:09:19 ...hope by end of call to report it's public 14:09:25 does anybody have an RSS gizmo that notices new stuff on the W3C homepage? 14:09:26 brian: cool :) 14:09:45 2003-08-29#6 jang remove xmlsch-02 test cases. 14:10:02 +Pat_Hayes 14:10:09 jang: 'they reflect our current position' 14:10:37 ...ws test cases back at pt where ws counts and isn't processed... a ' 1 ' isn't a valid integer 14:10:43 ...i'd rather hang onto these 14:10:58 brian: we discussed this before 14:11:02 ...and decided to remove 14:11:07 ...the action is/was there to remove them 14:11:14 ...does that reflect a decision to remove? 14:11:23 jang: was an action 14:11:31 ...i thought was cos wg thought they were wrong 14:11:39 jjc: all i saw was actions and no decision 14:11:49 ...cos this came up from an hp colleague, i tried track status of decision 14:12:00 bwm: so jang you've held off as wg decision not clear 14:12:05 ...so let's leave as continued 14:12:10 DaveB: see item 11 14:12:13 jang: yup. 14:12:30 ...also, i creatred 2 test cases, intentional test case... 2 are in the test case but marked as pending 14:12:47 brian: OK, an AOB. 14:13:19 actions: 14:13:21 doh 14:13:21 2003-08-01#2 daveb sync with aaron on macintosh file type 14:13:22 and make sure the docs are consistent and use the same type 14:13:22 2003-08-29#2 jang check for/create if nec the xsd:string-entails 14:13:22 plain literal test case. 14:13:24 ...both done. 14:13:35 2003-08-29#6 jang remove xmlsch-02 test cases. 14:13:37 continued. 14:13:43 9: Doc Publishing - script for cross references 14:13:55 gk: re mimetypes, pinged aaron... it has just expired... 14:14:02 brian: we had mail back ffrom Larry Masinter 14:14:05 ack danc 14:14:05 DanC, you wanted to ask if we called for review in ietf-types 14:14:12 gk: not sure if that was re stuff we were going to pull 14:14:16 ack danc 14:14:27 DanC: did we do the call? 14:14:29 DaveB: yup 14:14:36 gk: usually the call comes after the ID 14:14:47 DanC: but we've done one before. did we do a call before? 14:14:49 brian: yes, we did. 14:15:01 DaveB: yes, its in their archives 14:15:09 DanC: so it isn't finished but we've started the process 14:15:15 ietf-types posting by aaron 2003-july-24 http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2003-July/000073.html 14:15:18 gk: some changes needed following the existing review 14:15:31 action: gk to check with aaron on status of the rdf mimetypes draft 14:15:48 gk: I offered to take it over last time... he seemed ok continuing the task then. 14:15:55 brian: anything else on doc publishing? 14:15:59 ...one remark? 14:16:12 ...i did hear a view expressed of dissapointment in progress we'd made 14:16:16 ...that we'd not gone to CR 14:16:27 ...to me that's saying the glass is 10% empty not 90% full 14:16:59 ...come a long way getting through the LC work this year. significant progress, even if not quite where we hoped to be 14:17:12 jjc: with hindsight we should have published editors drafts during LC period 14:17:18 brian: also re doc publishing... 14:17:41 ...idea i had in mind was that all docs in shadow could be crosslinked, linkchecked, and then write a script to do the substitutions... 14:17:57 ...also would save Peter and others time 14:18:29 danbri: it would've made link checking easier this time 14:18:37 ack danc 14:18:38 em: scripting would've made sense 14:18:52 DanC: don't do anything to encourage ppl to read editors drafts 14:19:03 ...whatever is convenient for the wg is great 14:19:26 danbri: it'll indirectly benefit them as /TR/ publishing won't be such an ordeal 14:19:34 jjc: we have at least 3 more pubs ahead of us 14:20:06 frank: folks like webont have close interest 14:20:21 DanC: pls don't make that mistake... they're outside, they should learn our work via /TR/ 14:20:28 ... 14:20:43 brian: script seems like a good idea 14:20:47 long lead time? a week is a long time? 14:21:32 (DanC, my experience is that to have a doc approved for TR publication takes closer to a month) 14:21:45 action: danbri to investigation production of such a script 14:21:59 "I'll see what I can do in a week, might give the ball back if not as easy as hope" 14:22:06 but the month isn't all TR lead time. The TR delay is *only* the time between the editor's last save and the /TR/ update 14:22:11 +Jos 14:22:14 em: pubrules work was about 3hrs this time not 18 14:22:17 welcome Jos 14:22:47 maybe you can send the cvs logs to the WG in email, eric? 14:22:47 jjc has joined #rdfcore 14:22:55 (DanC, depends on your poV. In a technical sense, you're right, but as an editor it's not so simple) 14:23:01 note: editors to freese their work until danbri has framework in plce this week... 14:23:06 how so, gk? 14:23:29 10: heads up re TAG rdfURIMeaning-39 and public-sw-meaning 14:23:32 DanC: history... 14:23:38 meeting in Cambridge tech plenary 14:23:51 ...decided to take out social meaning, which we're just now publishing... 14:23:59 ...SW CG was supposed to do something 14:24:03 ...we asked tag to make an issue 14:24:05 ...he made a request 14:24:08 ...time passed 14:24:19 ...tag adopted issue but busy, said 'well get to it evnetually' 14:24:27 ...meanwhile a mailing list came out of budapest bof 14:24:33 ...i'm supposed to set up some kind of a meeting 14:24:39 ...patH has already done that 14:24:49 ...others i assume want to be there: timbl, danbri... 14:24:53 ...that's it i think 14:25:04 q+ 14:25:09 brian: basically there is now a mailing list for discussion of social meaning issue 14:25:21 DanC: it would be in order for this wg to delegate someone 14:25:32 (DanC, it's the combination of WG overhead - getting consensus to publish, meeting all the complex W3C publication requirements, and eventually actually publishing.) 14:25:39 JosD has joined #rdfcore 14:25:46 danbri: is there any expectation this'll impact on rdfcore's rec track ambitions? 14:26:01 ...or just a disucssion list 14:26:04 DanC: both/either seem possible 14:26:24 brian: a delegate... any volunteers? 14:26:38 danbri, pat: interested in aprticipating, but not sure re representing the group 14:26:50 pat: does 'delegate' mean representing group's view 14:26:59 DanC: could be either 14:27:05 (getting consensus to publish isn't "overhead". It's essential, core work of the group) 14:27:10 q+ 14:27:11 pat: i'm willing to volunteer so long as group gives me reasonably clear instructions 14:27:32 brian: pat, your initial brief is to keep the wg informed 14:27:46 DanC: also tell the social meaning anything they need to know factually about what's in the docs 14:28:05 danbri: who expects to participate? 14:28:15 (the record should show a decision to appoint path our delegate) 14:28:26 ack jjc 14:28:28 ...danbri, path, danc; gk on the list; brian maybe 14:28:41 11: xmlsch-02 14:29:00 jjc: talking to dave reynolds about this... (and re poss of withdrawing the comment)... 14:29:07 q? 14:29:09 ...(so we owe him a reply to indicate we're not acting on it) 14:29:09 RESOLVED: to appoint PatH as RDF Core representative to public-sw-meaning, to provide factual information about RDF Core drafts and to keep the RDF Core WG informed of progress in that forum. 14:29:15 thanks DanC 14:29:28 jjc: his actual comment was buried in an implementation report 14:29:39 Reguarding Danc's point re keeping social meaning group updated to previous M&S and current RDFCore work in this area - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Sep/0001.html 14:29:40 ...we should draft something to explain to him what we're now doing, and why 14:29:41 q- 14:29:48 JosD: we also had same comments... 14:29:57 ...3/4 of tests are not succeeding 14:30:05 ...i u/stood that last week it was decided to obsolete test cases 14:30:17 (DanC, I guess we have a different view about the extent of consensus necessary for publishing a *draft*. I find the IETF approach easier, where the editor has discretion to publish as-and-when, and WG consensus if focused onthe decision to go to LC [roughly]) 14:30:17 ...these things are not ideal 14:30:49 jjc: ...re outstanding action jang still has, that's bound up with any reply to dave (dave = dave reynolds) 14:30:57 brian: summary of current situation? 14:31:06 (I don't believe the IETF gives editors the right to publish as-and-when; draft publication is assumed to be authorized by the WG) 14:31:08 daver's report: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0076.html 14:31:19 JosD: several impl reports re test cases... either impls are wrong or test cases are wrong 14:31:43 jang: we've remove the 'fudge' compromise wording... 14:31:52 ...to remove the test cases themselves is to avoid the issue 14:32:01 (DanC, I don't entirely agree. Is this the really right place to discuss?) 14:32:02 ...there either is, or isn't, an intereop problem. 14:32:16 jjc: daver says this could be fixed in jena...[...] 14:32:33 (jjc, can you paste that quote here or is it from above url?) 14:32:42 jjc: ...its clumsy. 14:32:44 (yes, from above) 14:32:48 (it's not an ideal forum, no, but I'd hate to drop it altogether. oh well...) 14:32:54 q? 14:33:05 jjc: in conversaion, dave now seems to prefer current behaviour as most useful approach. 14:33:10 JosD: agree 14:33:36 ...not convinced we should fix the impls 14:33:41 (DanC, I'd be happy to pick up in email, somewhere, or later, or something else) 14:33:42 jang: thing w/ dealing w/ just the test case 14:33:50 it's a legit LC question to say 'what is answer to this tc 14:33:51 ' 14:34:03 brian: orig when we went to LC1 we said 'spaces not allowed' 14:34:13 ...but we got feedback saying 'tats not what we do' 14:34:19 so we went for laxer copmromise 14:34:30 ...but then feedback from pfps and others said 'dont be so lax' 14:34:35 ...so we're back where we were 14:34:47 brian: two ways to be precise 14:34:57 ...one way is 'whats in graph must be in lex space of datatype' 14:34:58 vs 14:35:05 q+ to say that meaning of spaces e.g. in " 3 "^^xsd:integer should be clearly undefined 14:35:15 ...'whats in the graph is a string, which when processed (...) is in lex space of datatype' 14:35:50 ... 14:36:07 DanC: latter would require impls to pick up knowledge they normally get as a matter of course 14:36:19 q? 14:36:32 patrick: i'm v v uncomfortable... where we incl ws processing in lex to value 14:36:36 ...several reasons 14:36:44 ...an app may choose to support xml schema datatypes 14:36:45 q+ 14:36:52 ...but not be an xml processor nor have those libraries handy 14:37:23 ...we're telling them they need to do something more than what datatypes are 14:37:39 ...pandora's box 14:37:42 ...not just ws processing 14:38:10 ...current tools happy saying 1.0 int is a perfectly ok typed literal <- scribe missed detail of point 14:38:39 ...any lex form that an rdf 14:38:49 processor can coerce into suitable form is ok 14:38:56 ...this seems sloppy, heuristic 14:39:10 ...shouldn't use tools in context not meant for 14:39:12 q? 14:39:26 DanC: folks would read the xml schema specs, find the datatypes and that'd be enough... 14:39:42 ...but if our specs ref xml schema and xmls says do ws processing 14:39:50 ... 14:40:02 [missed detail] 14:40:15 patrick: ws processing is only defined in xml schema 14:40:32 ack gk 14:40:32 gk, you wanted to say that meaning of spaces e.g. in " 3 "^^xsd:integer should be clearly undefined 14:40:32 jang: we are chartered to ... [] 14:41:01 gk: as i said in recent email, approach i'd suggest... follow approach that says meaning of a typed literal only when the lex form is in lex space of the datatype 14:41:11 ...but not get into q of what happens when that isn't so 14:41:31 ack jjc 14:41:33 ..would allow processors to do w/s processing to make inferences that went beyond what core expects 14:41:40 jjc: i find patrick's args fairly compelling 14:41:45 ...one extra point 14:41:56 ...would introduce a new nromative ref on xml schema pt1 14:42:06 ...currently our only normative refs are on pt2 14:42:24 ack danc 14:42:24 DanC, you wanted to note that xml schema part 2 normatively cites part 1 anyway 14:42:29 DanC: as above 14:42:41 DanC: request a straw poll 14:42:46 My latest position described at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0348.html 14:42:50 jjc: other thing came up when discussing datatyping... 14:42:51 thx gk 14:43:10 jjc: ...we wanted our datatyping mechanism general, not just w.r.t. xml schema datatypes 14:43:19 danbri: 2nded 14:43:41 jang: we wouldn't have to have extra text if xsd folk said the rdf mapping is ... 14:43:53 pat: we should be careful about doing xsd's job for them 14:44:01 ...sim to the issue re xml literature normalisation 14:44:13 ...coudl say the graph syntax requires spare ws to be rejected 14:44:33 ...but impls could store in non-normal form 14:44:40 dnbri: sounds like softwre engineering in a w3c spec 14:44:45 pat: we already do that re normalisation 14:44:59 patrick: reason for ws processing is cleaning up variations 14:45:23 ....clear from xmls spec that [mssed pt] 14:45:39 q+ 14:45:44 brian: i don't beleive alternative is any less precise 14:45:58 ...i started this re 'does anyoen wish to propose a change to current situioant' 14:46:02 ...anyone need a straw poll 14:46:04 [none] 14:46:11 ...is anyone willing to propose a change? 14:46:29 gk: yes. to be explicit re saying meaning of a typed literal is when lex form is in lex space of the datatype 14:46:38 (various): already do so 14:46:42 gk: in which case i'm happy 14:46:50 jjc: gk is correct, we are precise 14:47:12 path: semantics require that an illformed literal isn't in val space 14:47:18 brian: does it say it doesn't denote a literal 14:47:40 gk: ' 3 ' isn't in lex space 14:47:45 ..[missed] 14:48:01 DanC: ah, you're saying ' 3 ' wouldn't be explicitly treated 14:48:12 PatH: that would remove datatype clashes 14:48:32 ack jc 14:48:35 ack jjc 14:48:39 JosD: looking at xsd:string... it'd be valid as a string 14:48:53 JosD: is it in the lex space or not? 14:49:18 DanC: pat pts out that this would remove datatype clashes so you couldn't observe inconsistencies 14:49:18 q+ 14:49:24 ack danc 14:49:24 DanC, you wanted to say oops! there goes all the value of these things! 14:49:28 ...this would undercut many benefits to usrs 14:49:42 (discussion of whether it is in lex space) 14:50:03 JosD: ws facet on primitive datatypes -> remove wss 14:50:20 brian: i think i hear an action that we need to verify our interpretation of the xsd spec 14:50:27 ...patrick, would you want to do this? 14:50:40 DanC: we have a status quo 14:50:54 brian: gk was going to propose a change 14:51:04 ...would be good to know if ' 3 ' *is* in the lex space 14:51:11 If ' 3 ' *is* in the lex space of xsd:int, then the value would be clear: same as '3'^^xsd:integer... that is, I propose my changte regardless 14:51:28 jjc: we have an approved test case that says it isn't; if jos has new evidence pls submit to the list 14:51:33 jjc: fair, i'll take an action 14:51:40 s/jjc/josd/ 14:51:55 action: josd to send msg re accuracy of the ' 3 ' test case 14:52:27 12: Datatype subclasses 14:52:32 brian; some discussion on list 14:52:44 The meeting noted that the WG owes Reynolds a response 14:52:49 ...resolution 'datatype A is subclass of B "only if you/we say it is"' 14:53:09 (ie. same as normal subclassing; taking out the extentional subclassing that we had left in in error) 14:53:12 path: i'm happpy 14:53:35 jang: we have test cases for this already 14:53:45 path: specs published today will have that in them 14:54:27 jjc: I propose the semantics of rdfs:subClassOf on datatypes as in the 5th Sept Working Draft 14:54:38 connolly: abstain 14:54:43 danbri: 2nded 14:54:54 no other abstentions. 14:54:57 RESOLVED. 14:55:21 (skipping 13 for now) 14:55:21 14: Outstanding comments 14:55:33 pfps has msg on normal form c 14:55:43 jjc: i have a draft of a response i could circulate 14:55:46 jos, http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#integer 3.3.13.1 Lexical representation clearly specifies the lexical space, and there are no spaces in there. 14:55:58 DaveB: from email he sent, he asked that we don't require nfc for xml literals 14:56:02 ...but we changed things since january 14:56:15 ...new draft no longer says tha 14:56:16 t 14:56:18 jjc: says lex forms must be. 14:56:21 (this re Concepts) 14:56:30 jjc: concepts requires lex forms to be nfc, incl. xml literal 14:56:42 DaveB: ok in that case he is correct this is not in syntax doc 14:56:55 jjc: we don't say it explicitly. lots of things we don't. 14:57:06 path: 2 things he raised. internal consistency issue. also he makes a suggestion... 14:57:10 DaveB: yup was just doing pt 1 14:57:36 jjc: we coudl do it the way he says 14:57:47 ...that is, to produce warnings on plain literals tat are not in nfc 14:58:02 ...we would need to talk w/ i18n guys about what they thought 14:58:20 brian: do we need to think about what answer to this is? 14:58:29 DaveB: i18n's best practice rec'n is ifc 14:58:40 jjc: charmod encourages rejection of non-nfc data 14:59:02 action: jjc to prepare a response to peter on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0283.html 14:59:14 ...next: 14:59:17 status of 14:59:17 pfps comment on sectin 6.4 of concepts 14:59:17 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html 14:59:18 Concerning % in URI's, my last comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0055.html 14:59:23 jjc: no response yet. 14:59:28 ...i prefer 'no bytes to change' 14:59:35 ...seen suggestion we add a note about this issue 14:59:56 ...at one point i thought hard about this text... the closer this text is to what others have written, happier i am. 15:00:23 gk: a note would be in order 15:00:51 action: jjc to respond to peter re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html 15:01:02 DanC: if getting back could include test cases I'd be v happy 15:01:33 ...specs for this % stuff are a mess. Whereas test cases clearer 15:01:42 brian: hmm shouldn't uri guys do the test case 15:01:50 ...though we have the foo and bar test cases 15:02:01 (test case in mailing list thread) 15:02:37 DanC: best response, "In case not clear in Concepts, here is test case" 15:02:52 action: jjc to respond to peter re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html including test case. 15:03:02 brian: over time. 15:03:19 -patrick 15:03:20 ericm: specs should be up by noon ET (within an hour) 15:03:22 -Emiller 15:03:22 ADJOURNED. 15:03:23 -Jos 15:03:27 logger, pointer? 15:03:27 See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-09-05#T15-03-27 15:03:28 -Manola 15:03:28 -Pat_Hayes 15:03:31 rrsAgent, pointer? 15:03:31 See http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-31 15:03:40 -ILRT 15:03:51 -DanC 15:04:30 +DanC 15:05:15 rrsagent, actions? 15:05:15 I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'actions' 15:05:43 rrsagent, help? 15:05:43 I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'help' 15:05:53 rrsagent, help 15:06:25 rrsagent, show action items? 15:06:25 I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'show action items' 15:06:35 rrsagent, show action items 15:06:35 I see 7 open action items: 15:06:35