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]
14:00:25 [ericm]
zakim, dial emiller-bos
14:00:25 [Zakim]
ok, ericm; the call is being made
14:00:26 [Zakim]
14:00:27 [Zakim]
14:00:28 [Zakim]
14:00:33 [DaveB]
DaveB has joined #rdfcore
14:01:01 [Zakim]
14:01:21 [DanC]
DanC has joined #rdfcore
14:01:32 [Zakim]
14:01:40 [Zakim]
14:02:21 [Zakim]
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
14:05:02 [danbri-scribe]
next telecon: same time, same place nxt week
14:05:05 [Zakim]
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]
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 closed/withdrawn all those that should have been done as part of pub process.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]
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 reflect these
14:08:19 [danbri-scribe]
14:08:32 [Zakim]
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]
14:10:09 [danbri-scribe]
jang: 'they reflect our current position'
14:10:37 [danbri-scribe] 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] 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]
14:13:21 [danbri-scribe]
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]
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
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] 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] 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]
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]
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]
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]
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 -
14:29:40 [danbri-scribe]
...we should draft something to explain to him what we're now doing, and why
14:29:41 [ericm]
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: 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:
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] 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]
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] we're back where we were
14:34:47 [danbri-scribe]
brian: two ways to be precise
14:34:57 [danbri-scribe] way is 'whats in graph must be in lex space of datatype'
14:34:58 [danbri-scribe]
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]
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] app may choose to support xml schema datatypes
14:36:45 [jjc]
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]
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] 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:
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]
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]
14:46:11 [danbri-scribe] 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]
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]
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]
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]
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, 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] draft no longer says tha
14:56:16 [danbri-scribe]
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
14:59:14 [danbri-scribe]
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]
14:59:18 [gk]
Concerning % in URI's, my last comment:
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] 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
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 including test case.
15:03:02 [danbri-scribe]
brian: over time.
15:03:19 [Zakim]
15:03:20 [danbri-scribe]
ericm: specs should be up by noon ET (within an hour)
15:03:22 [Zakim]
15:03:22 [danbri-scribe]
15:03:23 [Zakim]
15:03:27 [danbri-scribe]
logger, pointer?
15:03:27 [logger]
15:03:28 [Zakim]
15:03:28 [Zakim]
15:03:31 [danbri-scribe]
rrsAgent, pointer?
15:03:31 [RRSAgent]
15:03:40 [Zakim]
15:03:51 [Zakim]
15:04:30 [Zakim]
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
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gk to check with aaron on status of the rdf mimetypes draft [2]
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: danbri to investigation production of such a script [3]
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: josd to send msg re accuracy of the ' 3 ' test case [4]
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jjc to prepare a response to peter on [5]
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jjc to respond to peter re [6]
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jjc to respond to peter re including test case. [7]
15:06:35 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
15:07:53 [danbri-scribe]
15:09:45 [Zakim]
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