IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-09-05
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:56:48 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
- 13:56:51 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #rdfcore
- 13:56:56 [ericm]
- zakim, this will be RDFCore
- 13:56:56 [Zakim]
- ok, ericm; I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
- 13:57:40 [gk]
- gk has joined #rdfcore
- 14:00:11 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started
- 14:00:18 [Zakim]
- +??P2
- 14:00:25 [ericm]
- zakim, dial emiller-bos
- 14:00:25 [Zakim]
- ok, ericm; the call is being made
- 14:00:26 [Zakim]
- -??P2
- 14:00:27 [Zakim]
- +??P2
- 14:00:28 [Zakim]
- +Emiller
- 14:00:33 [DaveB]
- DaveB has joined #rdfcore
- 14:01:01 [Zakim]
- +GrahamKlyne
- 14:01:21 [DanC]
- DanC has joined #rdfcore
- 14:01:32 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 14:01:40 [Zakim]
- +Pat_Hayes
- 14:02:21 [Zakim]
- +Manola
- 14:02:37 [ericm]
- zakim, ??P2 is ILRT
- 14:02:37 [Zakim]
- +ILRT; got it
- 14:02:52 [jang]
- jang has joined #rdfcore
- 14:03:01 [ericm]
- zakim, ILRT has JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc
- 14:03:01 [Zakim]
- +JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc; got it
- 14:03:11 [DanC]
- Zakim, who's talking?
- 14:03:13 [jang]
- zakim, ilrt also has uncle tom cobbley
- 14:03:13 [Zakim]
- +uncle, tom, cobbley; got it
- 14:03:22 [Zakim]
- DanC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ILRT (70%), Pat_Hayes (64%), Emiller (15%), GrahamKlyne (24%)
- 14:03:24 [ericm]
- zakim, ILRT has JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc
- 14:03:24 [Zakim]
- JanG was already listed in ILRT, ericm
- 14:03:25 [Zakim]
- BrianM was already listed in ILRT, ericm
- 14:03:26 [Zakim]
- Danbri was already listed in ILRT, ericm
- 14:03:27 [Zakim]
- DaveB was already listed in ILRT, ericm
- 14:03:28 [Zakim]
- jjc was already listed in ILRT, ericm
- 14:03:31 [danbri_dna]
- danbri_dna has joined #rdfcore
- 14:03:48 [bwm]
- Zakim, who is on the phone?
- 14:03:48 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see ILRT, Emiller, GrahamKlyne, DanC, Pat_Hayes, Manola
- 14:03:49 [Zakim]
- ILRT has JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc, uncle, tom, cobbley
- 14:04:55 [danbri-scribe]
- 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 [danbri-scribe]
- next telecon: same time, same place nxt week
- 14:05:05 [Zakim]
- +patrick
- 14:05:05 [danbri-scribe]
- to chair: danbri
- 14:05:13 [danbri-scribe]
- to scribe: dajobe
- 14:05:22 [danbri-scribe]
- welcome patrick
- 14:05:26 [danbri-scribe]
- regrets: mike dean
- 14:05:33 [danbri-scribe]
- also JosD
- 14:05:44 [danbri-scribe]
- 5: Minutes of 29 Aug 2003 telecon
- 14:05:46 [danbri-scribe]
- approved.
- 14:05:51 [danbri-scribe]
- 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions
- 14:06:08 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: i've tidied out action list... closed/withdrawn all those that should have been done as part of pub process.
- 14:06:16 [danbri-scribe]
- anyone believe any of these aren't done?
- 14:06:41 [danbri-scribe]
- dajobe: Mime types reg? the draft expired...
- 14:06:46 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: we have this in agenda for later
- 14:06:54 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: gk had action to chase aaron
- 14:06:59 [danbri-scribe]
- 2330514...
- 14:07:12 [danbri-scribe]
- gk: we had some interaction, expecting a new version...
- 14:07:20 [danbri-scribe]
- brina: action is done, we'll talk status of it later
- 14:07:32 [danbri-scribe]
- these all Done.
- 14:07:36 [danbri-scribe]
- similarly, withdrawn actions...
- 14:07:42 [danbri-scribe]
- 7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions
- 14:07:49 [danbri-scribe]
- dajobe: note that i did review primer
- 14:07:51 [danbri-scribe]
- ...a done.
- 14:08:03 [danbri-scribe]
- 8: Doc Publishing status
- 14:08:07 [DanC]
- 2330514 = 2003-03-14#3 gk chase Aaron
- 14:08:16 [danbri-scribe]
- ericm: am hoping to see http://www.w3.org/TR/ reflect these
- 14:08:19 [danbri-scribe]
- soon...
- 14:08:32 [Zakim]
- -Pat_Hayes
- 14:08:34 [danbri-scribe]
- em: all editors did a great job getting pubrules ready
- 14:08:46 [DanC]
- (the echo went away with Hayes)
- 14:08:59 [danbri-scribe]
- awaiting TR page rebuild
- 14:09:19 [danbri-scribe]
- ...hope by end of call to report it's public
- 14:09:25 [DanC]
- does anybody have an RSS gizmo that notices new stuff on the W3C homepage?
- 14:09:26 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: cool :)
- 14:09:45 [danbri-scribe]
- 2003-08-29#6 jang remove xmlsch-02 test cases.
- 14:10:02 [Zakim]
- +Pat_Hayes
- 14:10:09 [danbri-scribe]
- jang: 'they reflect our current position'
- 14:10:37 [danbri-scribe]
- ...ws test cases back at pt where ws counts and isn't processed... a ' 1 ' isn't a valid integer
- 14:10:43 [danbri-scribe]
- ...i'd rather hang onto these
- 14:10:58 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: we discussed this before
- 14:11:02 [danbri-scribe]
- ...and decided to remove
- 14:11:07 [danbri-scribe]
- ...the action is/was there to remove them
- 14:11:14 [danbri-scribe]
- ...does that reflect a decision to remove?
- 14:11:23 [danbri-scribe]
- jang: was an action
- 14:11:31 [danbri-scribe]
- ...i thought was cos wg thought they were wrong
- 14:11:39 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: all i saw was actions and no decision
- 14:11:49 [danbri-scribe]
- ...cos this came up from an hp colleague, i tried track status of decision
- 14:12:00 [danbri-scribe]
- bwm: so jang you've held off as wg decision not clear
- 14:12:05 [danbri-scribe]
- ...so let's leave as continued
- 14:12:10 [danbri-scribe]
- DaveB: see item 11
- 14:12:13 [danbri-scribe]
- jang: yup.
- 14:12:30 [danbri-scribe]
- ...also, i creatred 2 test cases, intentional test case... 2 are in the test case but marked as pending
- 14:12:47 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: OK, an AOB.
- 14:13:19 [danbri-scribe]
- actions:
- 14:13:21 [danbri-scribe]
- doh
- 14:13:21 [danbri-scribe]
- 2003-08-01#2 daveb sync with aaron on macintosh file type
- 14:13:22 [danbri-scribe]
- and make sure the docs are consistent and use the same type
- 14:13:22 [danbri-scribe]
- 2003-08-29#2 jang check for/create if nec the xsd:string-entails
- 14:13:22 [danbri-scribe]
- plain literal test case.
- 14:13:24 [danbri-scribe]
- ...both done.
- 14:13:35 [danbri-scribe]
- 2003-08-29#6 jang remove xmlsch-02 test cases.
- 14:13:37 [danbri-scribe]
- continued.
- 14:13:43 [danbri-scribe]
- 9: Doc Publishing - script for cross references
- 14:13:55 [danbri-scribe]
- gk: re mimetypes, pinged aaron... it has just expired...
- 14:14:02 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: we had mail back ffrom Larry Masinter
- 14:14:05 [bwm]
- ack danc
- 14:14:05 [Zakim]
- DanC, you wanted to ask if we called for review in ietf-types
- 14:14:12 [danbri-scribe]
- gk: not sure if that was re stuff we were going to pull
- 14:14:16 [danbri-scribe]
- ack danc
- 14:14:27 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: did we do the call?
- 14:14:29 [danbri-scribe]
- DaveB: yup
- 14:14:36 [danbri-scribe]
- gk: usually the call comes after the ID
- 14:14:47 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: but we've done one before. did we do a call before?
- 14:14:49 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: yes, we did.
- 14:15:01 [danbri-scribe]
- DaveB: yes, its in their archives
- 14:15:09 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: so it isn't finished but we've started the process
- 14:15:15 [DaveB]
- ietf-types posting by aaron 2003-july-24 http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2003-July/000073.html
- 14:15:18 [danbri-scribe]
- gk: some changes needed following the existing review
- 14:15:31 [danbri-scribe]
- action: gk to check with aaron on status of the rdf mimetypes draft
- 14:15:48 [danbri-scribe]
- gk: I offered to take it over last time... he seemed ok continuing the task then.
- 14:15:55 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: anything else on doc publishing?
- 14:15:59 [danbri-scribe]
- ...one remark?
- 14:16:12 [danbri-scribe]
- ...i did hear a view expressed of dissapointment in progress we'd made
- 14:16:16 [danbri-scribe]
- ...that we'd not gone to CR
- 14:16:27 [danbri-scribe]
- ...to me that's saying the glass is 10% empty not 90% full
- 14:16:59 [danbri-scribe]
- ...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 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: with hindsight we should have published editors drafts during LC period
- 14:17:18 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: also re doc publishing...
- 14:17:41 [danbri-scribe]
- ...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 [danbri-scribe]
- ...also would save Peter and others time
- 14:18:29 [danbri-scribe]
- danbri: it would've made link checking easier this time
- 14:18:37 [bwm]
- ack danc
- 14:18:38 [danbri-scribe]
- em: scripting would've made sense
- 14:18:52 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: don't do anything to encourage ppl to read editors drafts
- 14:19:03 [danbri-scribe]
- ...whatever is convenient for the wg is great
- 14:19:26 [danbri-scribe]
- danbri: it'll indirectly benefit them as /TR/ publishing won't be such an ordeal
- 14:19:34 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: we have at least 3 more pubs ahead of us
- 14:20:06 [danbri-scribe]
- frank: folks like webont have close interest
- 14:20:21 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: pls don't make that mistake... they're outside, they should learn our work via /TR/
- 14:20:28 [danbri-scribe]
- ...
- 14:20:43 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: script seems like a good idea
- 14:20:47 [DanC]
- long lead time? a week is a long time?
- 14:21:32 [gk]
- (DanC, my experience is that to have a doc approved for TR publication takes closer to a month)
- 14:21:45 [danbri-scribe]
- action: danbri to investigation production of such a script
- 14:21:59 [danbri-scribe]
- "I'll see what I can do in a week, might give the ball back if not as easy as hope"
- 14:22:06 [DanC]
- 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 [Zakim]
- +Jos
- 14:22:14 [danbri-scribe]
- em: pubrules work was about 3hrs this time not 18
- 14:22:17 [danbri-scribe]
- welcome Jos
- 14:22:47 [DanC]
- maybe you can send the cvs logs to the WG in email, eric?
- 14:22:47 [jjc]
- jjc has joined #rdfcore
- 14:22:55 [gk]
- (DanC, depends on your poV. In a technical sense, you're right, but as an editor it's not so simple)
- 14:23:01 [danbri-scribe]
- note: editors to freese their work until danbri has framework in plce this week...
- 14:23:06 [DanC]
- how so, gk?
- 14:23:29 [danbri-scribe]
- 10: heads up re TAG rdfURIMeaning-39 and public-sw-meaning
- 14:23:32 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: history...
- 14:23:38 [danbri-scribe]
- meeting in Cambridge tech plenary
- 14:23:51 [danbri-scribe]
- ...decided to take out social meaning, which we're just now publishing...
- 14:23:59 [danbri-scribe]
- ...SW CG was supposed to do something
- 14:24:03 [danbri-scribe]
- ...we asked tag to make an issue
- 14:24:05 [danbri-scribe]
- ...he made a request
- 14:24:08 [danbri-scribe]
- ...time passed
- 14:24:19 [danbri-scribe]
- ...tag adopted issue but busy, said 'well get to it evnetually'
- 14:24:27 [danbri-scribe]
- ...meanwhile a mailing list came out of budapest bof
- 14:24:33 [danbri-scribe]
- ...i'm supposed to set up some kind of a meeting
- 14:24:39 [danbri-scribe]
- ...patH has already done that
- 14:24:49 [danbri-scribe]
- ...others i assume want to be there: timbl, danbri...
- 14:24:53 [danbri-scribe]
- ...that's it i think
- 14:25:04 [ericm]
- q+
- 14:25:09 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: basically there is now a mailing list for discussion of social meaning issue
- 14:25:21 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: it would be in order for this wg to delegate someone
- 14:25:32 [gk]
- (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]
- JosD has joined #rdfcore
- 14:25:46 [danbri-scribe]
- danbri: is there any expectation this'll impact on rdfcore's rec track ambitions?
- 14:26:01 [danbri-scribe]
- ...or just a disucssion list
- 14:26:04 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: both/either seem possible
- 14:26:24 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: a delegate... any volunteers?
- 14:26:38 [danbri-scribe]
- danbri, pat: interested in aprticipating, but not sure re representing the group
- 14:26:50 [danbri-scribe]
- pat: does 'delegate' mean representing group's view
- 14:26:59 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: could be either
- 14:27:05 [DanC]
- (getting consensus to publish isn't "overhead". It's essential, core work of the group)
- 14:27:10 [jjc]
- q+
- 14:27:11 [danbri-scribe]
- pat: i'm willing to volunteer so long as group gives me reasonably clear instructions
- 14:27:32 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: pat, your initial brief is to keep the wg informed
- 14:27:46 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: also tell the social meaning anything they need to know factually about what's in the docs
- 14:28:05 [danbri-scribe]
- danbri: who expects to participate?
- 14:28:15 [DanC]
- (the record should show a decision to appoint path our delegate)
- 14:28:26 [jjc]
- ack jjc
- 14:28:28 [danbri-scribe]
- ...danbri, path, danc; gk on the list; brian maybe
- 14:28:41 [danbri-scribe]
- 11: xmlsch-02
- 14:29:00 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: talking to dave reynolds about this... (and re poss of withdrawing the comment)...
- 14:29:07 [bwm]
- q?
- 14:29:09 [danbri-scribe]
- ...(so we owe him a reply to indicate we're not acting on it)
- 14:29:09 [DanC]
- 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 [danbri-scribe]
- thanks DanC
- 14:29:28 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: his actual comment was buried in an implementation report
- 14:29:39 [ericm]
- 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 [danbri-scribe]
- ...we should draft something to explain to him what we're now doing, and why
- 14:29:41 [ericm]
- q-
- 14:29:48 [danbri-scribe]
- JosD: we also had same comments...
- 14:29:57 [danbri-scribe]
- ...3/4 of tests are not succeeding
- 14:30:05 [danbri-scribe]
- ...i u/stood that last week it was decided to obsolete test cases
- 14:30:17 [gk]
- (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 [danbri-scribe]
- ...these things are not ideal
- 14:30:49 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: ...re outstanding action jang still has, that's bound up with any reply to dave (dave = dave reynolds)
- 14:30:57 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: summary of current situation?
- 14:31:06 [DanC]
- (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 [DaveB]
- daver's report: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0076.html
- 14:31:19 [danbri-scribe]
- JosD: several impl reports re test cases... either impls are wrong or test cases are wrong
- 14:31:43 [danbri-scribe]
- jang: we've remove the 'fudge' compromise wording...
- 14:31:52 [danbri-scribe]
- ...to remove the test cases themselves is to avoid the issue
- 14:32:01 [gk]
- (DanC, I don't entirely agree. Is this the really right place to discuss?)
- 14:32:02 [danbri-scribe]
- ...there either is, or isn't, an intereop problem.
- 14:32:16 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: daver says this could be fixed in jena...[...]
- 14:32:33 [danbri-scribe]
- (jjc, can you paste that quote here or is it from above url?)
- 14:32:42 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: ...its clumsy.
- 14:32:44 [DaveB]
- (yes, from above)
- 14:32:48 [DanC]
- (it's not an ideal forum, no, but I'd hate to drop it altogether. oh well...)
- 14:32:54 [bwm]
- q?
- 14:33:05 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: in conversaion, dave now seems to prefer current behaviour as most useful approach.
- 14:33:10 [danbri-scribe]
- JosD: agree
- 14:33:36 [danbri-scribe]
- ...not convinced we should fix the impls
- 14:33:41 [gk]
- (DanC, I'd be happy to pick up in email, somewhere, or later, or something else)
- 14:33:42 [danbri-scribe]
- jang: thing w/ dealing w/ just the test case
- 14:33:50 [danbri-scribe]
- it's a legit LC question to say 'what is answer to this tc
- 14:33:51 [danbri-scribe]
- '
- 14:34:03 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: orig when we went to LC1 we said 'spaces not allowed'
- 14:34:13 [danbri-scribe]
- ...but we got feedback saying 'tats not what we do'
- 14:34:19 [danbri-scribe]
- so we went for laxer copmromise
- 14:34:30 [danbri-scribe]
- ...but then feedback from pfps and others said 'dont be so lax'
- 14:34:35 [danbri-scribe]
- ...so we're back where we were
- 14:34:47 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: two ways to be precise
- 14:34:57 [danbri-scribe]
- ...one way is 'whats in graph must be in lex space of datatype'
- 14:34:58 [danbri-scribe]
- vs
- 14:35:05 [gk]
- q+ to say that meaning of spaces e.g. in " 3 "^^xsd:integer should be clearly undefined
- 14:35:15 [danbri-scribe]
- ...'whats in the graph is a string, which when processed (...) is in lex space of datatype'
- 14:35:50 [danbri-scribe]
- ...
- 14:36:07 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: latter would require impls to pick up knowledge they normally get as a matter of course
- 14:36:19 [ericm]
- q?
- 14:36:32 [danbri-scribe]
- patrick: i'm v v uncomfortable... where we incl ws processing in lex to value
- 14:36:36 [danbri-scribe]
- ...several reasons
- 14:36:44 [danbri-scribe]
- ...an app may choose to support xml schema datatypes
- 14:36:45 [jjc]
- q+
- 14:36:52 [danbri-scribe]
- ...but not be an xml processor nor have those libraries handy
- 14:37:23 [danbri-scribe]
- ...we're telling them they need to do something more than what datatypes are
- 14:37:39 [danbri-scribe]
- ...pandora's box
- 14:37:42 [danbri-scribe]
- ...not just ws processing
- 14:38:10 [danbri-scribe]
- ...current tools happy saying 1.0 int is a perfectly ok typed literal <- scribe missed detail of point
- 14:38:39 [danbri-scribe]
- ...any lex form that an rdf
- 14:38:49 [danbri-scribe]
- processor can coerce into suitable form is ok
- 14:38:56 [danbri-scribe]
- ...this seems sloppy, heuristic
- 14:39:10 [danbri-scribe]
- ...shouldn't use tools in context not meant for
- 14:39:12 [bwm]
- q?
- 14:39:26 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: folks would read the xml schema specs, find the datatypes and that'd be enough...
- 14:39:42 [danbri-scribe]
- ...but if our specs ref xml schema and xmls says do ws processing
- 14:39:50 [danbri-scribe]
- ...
- 14:40:02 [danbri-scribe]
- [missed detail]
- 14:40:15 [danbri-scribe]
- patrick: ws processing is only defined in xml schema
- 14:40:32 [bwm]
- ack gk
- 14:40:32 [Zakim]
- gk, you wanted to say that meaning of spaces e.g. in " 3 "^^xsd:integer should be clearly undefined
- 14:40:32 [danbri-scribe]
- jang: we are chartered to ... []
- 14:41:01 [danbri-scribe]
- 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 [danbri-scribe]
- ...but not get into q of what happens when that isn't so
- 14:41:31 [bwm]
- ack jjc
- 14:41:33 [danbri-scribe]
- ..would allow processors to do w/s processing to make inferences that went beyond what core expects
- 14:41:40 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: i find patrick's args fairly compelling
- 14:41:45 [danbri-scribe]
- ...one extra point
- 14:41:56 [danbri-scribe]
- ...would introduce a new nromative ref on xml schema pt1
- 14:42:06 [danbri-scribe]
- ...currently our only normative refs are on pt2
- 14:42:24 [bwm]
- ack danc
- 14:42:24 [Zakim]
- DanC, you wanted to note that xml schema part 2 normatively cites part 1 anyway
- 14:42:29 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: as above
- 14:42:41 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: request a straw poll
- 14:42:46 [gk]
- My latest position described at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0348.html
- 14:42:50 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: other thing came up when discussing datatyping...
- 14:42:51 [danbri-scribe]
- thx gk
- 14:43:10 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: ...we wanted our datatyping mechanism general, not just w.r.t. xml schema datatypes
- 14:43:19 [danbri-scribe]
- danbri: 2nded
- 14:43:41 [danbri-scribe]
- jang: we wouldn't have to have extra text if xsd folk said the rdf mapping is ...
- 14:43:53 [danbri-scribe]
- pat: we should be careful about doing xsd's job for them
- 14:44:01 [danbri-scribe]
- ...sim to the issue re xml literature normalisation
- 14:44:13 [danbri-scribe]
- ...coudl say the graph syntax requires spare ws to be rejected
- 14:44:33 [danbri-scribe]
- ...but impls could store in non-normal form
- 14:44:40 [danbri-scribe]
- dnbri: sounds like softwre engineering in a w3c spec
- 14:44:45 [danbri-scribe]
- pat: we already do that re normalisation
- 14:44:59 [danbri-scribe]
- patrick: reason for ws processing is cleaning up variations
- 14:45:23 [danbri-scribe]
- ....clear from xmls spec that [mssed pt]
- 14:45:39 [jjc]
- q+
- 14:45:44 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: i don't beleive alternative is any less precise
- 14:45:58 [danbri-scribe]
- ...i started this re 'does anyoen wish to propose a change to current situioant'
- 14:46:02 [danbri-scribe]
- ...anyone need a straw poll
- 14:46:04 [danbri-scribe]
- [none]
- 14:46:11 [danbri-scribe]
- ...is anyone willing to propose a change?
- 14:46:29 [danbri-scribe]
- 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 [danbri-scribe]
- (various): already do so
- 14:46:42 [danbri-scribe]
- gk: in which case i'm happy
- 14:46:50 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: gk is correct, we are precise
- 14:47:12 [danbri-scribe]
- path: semantics require that an illformed literal isn't in val space
- 14:47:18 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: does it say it doesn't denote a literal
- 14:47:40 [danbri-scribe]
- gk: ' 3 ' isn't in lex space
- 14:47:45 [danbri-scribe]
- ..[missed]
- 14:48:01 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: ah, you're saying ' 3 ' wouldn't be explicitly treated
- 14:48:12 [DanC]
- PatH: that would remove datatype clashes
- 14:48:32 [jjc]
- ack jc
- 14:48:35 [jjc]
- ack jjc
- 14:48:39 [danbri-scribe]
- JosD: looking at xsd:string... it'd be valid as a string
- 14:48:53 [danbri-scribe]
- JosD: is it in the lex space or not?
- 14:49:18 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: pat pts out that this would remove datatype clashes so you couldn't observe inconsistencies
- 14:49:18 [jjc]
- q+
- 14:49:24 [bwm]
- ack danc
- 14:49:24 [Zakim]
- DanC, you wanted to say oops! there goes all the value of these things!
- 14:49:28 [danbri-scribe]
- ...this would undercut many benefits to usrs
- 14:49:42 [danbri-scribe]
- (discussion of whether it is in lex space)
- 14:50:03 [danbri-scribe]
- JosD: ws facet on primitive datatypes -> remove wss
- 14:50:20 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: i think i hear an action that we need to verify our interpretation of the xsd spec
- 14:50:27 [danbri-scribe]
- ...patrick, would you want to do this?
- 14:50:40 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: we have a status quo
- 14:50:54 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: gk was going to propose a change
- 14:51:04 [danbri-scribe]
- ...would be good to know if ' 3 ' *is* in the lex space
- 14:51:11 [gk]
- 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 [danbri-scribe]
- 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 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: fair, i'll take an action
- 14:51:40 [danbri-scribe]
- s/jjc/josd/
- 14:51:55 [danbri-scribe]
- action: josd to send msg re accuracy of the ' 3 ' test case
- 14:52:27 [danbri-scribe]
- 12: Datatype subclasses
- 14:52:32 [danbri-scribe]
- brian; some discussion on list
- 14:52:44 [DanC]
- The meeting noted that the WG owes Reynolds a response
- 14:52:49 [danbri-scribe]
- ...resolution 'datatype A is subclass of B "only if you/we say it is"'
- 14:53:09 [danbri-scribe]
- (ie. same as normal subclassing; taking out the extentional subclassing that we had left in in error)
- 14:53:12 [danbri-scribe]
- path: i'm happpy
- 14:53:35 [danbri-scribe]
- jang: we have test cases for this already
- 14:53:45 [danbri-scribe]
- path: specs published today will have that in them
- 14:54:27 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: I propose the semantics of rdfs:subClassOf on datatypes as in the 5th Sept Working Draft
- 14:54:38 [danbri-scribe]
- connolly: abstain
- 14:54:43 [danbri-scribe]
- danbri: 2nded
- 14:54:54 [danbri-scribe]
- no other abstentions.
- 14:54:57 [DanC]
- RESOLVED.
- 14:55:21 [danbri-scribe]
- (skipping 13 for now)
- 14:55:21 [danbri-scribe]
- 14: Outstanding comments
- 14:55:33 [danbri-scribe]
- pfps has msg on normal form c
- 14:55:43 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: i have a draft of a response i could circulate
- 14:55:46 [DanC]
- 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 [danbri-scribe]
- DaveB: from email he sent, he asked that we don't require nfc for xml literals
- 14:56:02 [danbri-scribe]
- ...but we changed things since january
- 14:56:15 [danbri-scribe]
- ...new draft no longer says tha
- 14:56:16 [danbri-scribe]
- t
- 14:56:18 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: says lex forms must be.
- 14:56:21 [danbri-scribe]
- (this re Concepts)
- 14:56:30 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: concepts requires lex forms to be nfc, incl. xml literal
- 14:56:42 [danbri-scribe]
- DaveB: ok in that case he is correct this is not in syntax doc
- 14:56:55 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: we don't say it explicitly. lots of things we don't.
- 14:57:06 [danbri-scribe]
- path: 2 things he raised. internal consistency issue. also he makes a suggestion...
- 14:57:10 [danbri-scribe]
- DaveB: yup was just doing pt 1
- 14:57:36 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: we coudl do it the way he says
- 14:57:47 [danbri-scribe]
- ...that is, to produce warnings on plain literals tat are not in nfc
- 14:58:02 [danbri-scribe]
- ...we would need to talk w/ i18n guys about what they thought
- 14:58:20 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: do we need to think about what answer to this is?
- 14:58:29 [danbri-scribe]
- DaveB: i18n's best practice rec'n is ifc
- 14:58:40 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: charmod encourages rejection of non-nfc data
- 14:59:02 [danbri-scribe]
- action: jjc to prepare a response to peter on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0283.html
- 14:59:14 [danbri-scribe]
- ...next:
- 14:59:17 [danbri-scribe]
- status of
- 14:59:17 [danbri-scribe]
- pfps comment on sectin 6.4 of concepts
- 14:59:17 [danbri-scribe]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html
- 14:59:18 [gk]
- Concerning % in URI's, my last comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0055.html
- 14:59:23 [danbri-scribe]
- jjc: no response yet.
- 14:59:28 [danbri-scribe]
- ...i prefer 'no bytes to change'
- 14:59:35 [danbri-scribe]
- ...seen suggestion we add a note about this issue
- 14:59:56 [danbri-scribe]
- ...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 [danbri-scribe]
- gk: a note would be in order
- 15:00:51 [danbri-scribe]
- action: jjc to respond to peter re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html
- 15:01:02 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: if getting back could include test cases I'd be v happy
- 15:01:33 [danbri-scribe]
- ...specs for this % stuff are a mess. Whereas test cases clearer
- 15:01:42 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: hmm shouldn't uri guys do the test case
- 15:01:50 [danbri-scribe]
- ...though we have the foo and bar test cases
- 15:02:01 [danbri-scribe]
- (test case in mailing list thread)
- 15:02:37 [danbri-scribe]
- DanC: best response, "In case not clear in Concepts, here is test case"
- 15:02:52 [danbri-scribe]
- 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 [danbri-scribe]
- brian: over time.
- 15:03:19 [Zakim]
- -patrick
- 15:03:20 [danbri-scribe]
- ericm: specs should be up by noon ET (within an hour)
- 15:03:22 [Zakim]
- -Emiller
- 15:03:22 [danbri-scribe]
- ADJOURNED.
- 15:03:23 [Zakim]
- -Jos
- 15:03:27 [danbri-scribe]
- logger, pointer?
- 15:03:27 [logger]
- See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-09-05#T15-03-27
- 15:03:28 [Zakim]
- -Manola
- 15:03:28 [Zakim]
- -Pat_Hayes
- 15:03:31 [danbri-scribe]
- rrsAgent, pointer?
- 15:03:31 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-31
- 15:03:40 [Zakim]
- -ILRT
- 15:03:51 [Zakim]
- -DanC
- 15:04:30 [Zakim]
- +DanC
- 15:05:15 [danbri-scribe]
- rrsagent, actions?
- 15:05:15 [danbri-scribe]
- I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'actions'
- 15:05:43 [danbri-scribe]
- rrsagent, help?
- 15:05:43 [danbri-scribe]
- I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'help'
- 15:05:53 [danbri-scribe]
- rrsagent, help
- 15:06:25 [danbri-scribe]
- rrsagent, show action items?
- 15:06:25 [danbri-scribe]
- I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'show action items'
- 15:06:35 [danbri-scribe]
- rrsagent, show action items
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- I see 7 open action items:
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: s to [1]
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T14-13-19
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: gk to check with aaron on status of the rdf mimetypes draft [2]
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T14-15-31
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: danbri to investigation production of such a script [3]
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T14-21-45
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: josd to send msg re accuracy of the ' 3 ' test case [4]
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T14-51-55
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: jjc to prepare a response to peter on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0283.html [5]
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T14-59-02
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: jjc to respond to peter re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html [6]
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T15-00-51
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: jjc to respond to peter re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html including test case. [7]
- 15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T15-02-52
- 15:07:53 [danbri-scribe]
- logs: http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc.html
- 15:09:45 [Zakim]
- -GrahamKlyne
- 15:12:47 [gk]
- gk has left #rdfcore
- 15:12:57 [gk]
- gk has joined #rdfcore
- 15:14:46 [Zakim]
- disconnecting the lone participant, DanC, in SW_RDFCore()10:00AM
- 15:14:47 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
- 17:16:31 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #rdfcore
- 18:22:16 [DanC]
- DanC has left #rdfcore