IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-09-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:42:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
13:42:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdfcore
13:42:14 [danbri_desk]
zakim, this will be RDF_Core
13:42:14 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, danbri_desk
13:42:19 [danbri_desk]
zakim, this will be RDFCore
13:42:19 [Zakim]
ok, danbri_desk; I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM scheduled to start in 18 minutes
13:54:10 [gk]
gk has joined #rdfcore
13:54:36 [ericm]
ericm has joined #rdfcore
13:54:37 [DaveB]
DaveB has joined #rdfcore
13:55:43 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started
13:56:01 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
13:56:26 [ericm]
13:56:33 [danbri_desk]
short and sweet
13:56:35 [ericm]
zakim, this will be RDF
13:56:35 [Zakim]
ok, ericm; I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:56:47 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started
13:56:48 [Zakim]
13:56:49 [ericm]
ericm has changed the topic to: rdfcore sept 26 telecon - agenda @@
13:58:13 [DaveB]
DaveB has joined #rdfcore
13:58:21 [Zakim]
13:58:23 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
13:59:14 [danbri_desk]
ericm, what's up?
13:59:19 [danbri_desk]
zakim, this is RDF
13:59:19 [Zakim]
danbri_desk, I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be RDF".
13:59:27 [danbri_desk]
zakim, this will be RDFCore
13:59:27 [Zakim]
ok, danbri_desk, I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM already started
13:59:54 [ericm]
zakim, who is here/
13:59:54 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is here/', ericm
13:59:56 [ericm]
zakim, who is here?
13:59:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see no one
13:59:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DaveB, ericm, gk, Zakim, RRSAgent, danbri_desk, logger
14:00:10 [ericm]
hold on folks
14:00:18 [gk]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:00:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see no one
14:00:28 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
14:00:34 [DaveB]
14:00:38 [bwm]
bwm has joined #rdfcore
14:00:48 [ericm]
hold, on... looking into this
14:00:50 [DaveB]
can we dial in?
14:01:06 [gk]
I'll wait until someone else comes on the phone
14:01:19 [danbri_desk]
gk, you still ok to scribe? ah yes good, thanks.
14:01:46 [gk-scribe]
At this rate, it promises to be the easiest scribing job ever ;-)
14:01:50 [ericm]
zakim, list conferences
14:01:50 [Zakim]
I see SW_Plan()9:00AM, ARCH_Team()9:30AM, WAI_EOWG()8:30AM active
14:01:51 [Zakim]
also scheduled at this time is SW_RDFCore()10:00AM
14:01:59 [ericm]
zakim, this is RDF
14:01:59 [Zakim]
ericm, I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be RDF".
14:02:08 [ericm]
zakim, will be RDF
14:02:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'will be RDF', ericm
14:02:14 [ericm]
zakim, this will be RDF
14:02:14 [Zakim]
ok, ericm, I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM already started
14:02:31 [ericm]
ok, try again?
14:02:46 [DanC]
DanC has joined #rdfcore
14:02:49 [Zakim]
14:02:55 [DaveB]
I dialled in
14:03:04 [Zakim]
14:03:12 [Zakim]
14:03:16 [Zakim]
14:03:26 [jjc]
jjc has joined #rdfcore
14:03:41 [jjc]
Zakim, who's here?
14:03:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ralph (muted), ??P13, ??P20, GrahamKlyne, PatH
14:03:42 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jjc, DanC, bwm, DaveB, ericm, gk-scribe, Zakim, RRSAgent, danbri_desk, logger
14:03:43 [Zakim]
14:03:48 [Zakim]
14:03:54 [Zakim]
14:04:05 [Zakim]
14:04:05 [DaveB]
Zakim, ??P13 is ILRT
14:04:06 [Zakim]
+ILRT; got it
14:04:12 [Zakim]
14:04:15 [DaveB]
Zakim, ??p13 has DaveB
14:04:15 [Zakim]
sorry, DaveB, I do not recognize a party named '??p13'
14:04:22 [DaveB]
Zakim, ??P13 has DaveB
14:04:22 [Zakim]
sorry, DaveB, I do not recognize a party named '??P13'
14:04:38 [bwm]
Zakim, ??p24 is bwm
14:04:38 [Zakim]
+bwm; got it
14:04:40 [danbri_desk]
danbri_desk has changed the topic to: rdfcore sept 26 -- agenda (w/ wrong date in it)
14:04:54 [DaveB]
Zakim, ILRT has DaveB
14:04:54 [Zakim]
+DaveB; got it
14:05:02 [danbri_desk]
ericm, are you on the call?
14:05:17 [ericm]
zakim, dial emiller-bos
14:05:17 [Zakim]
ok, ericm; the call is being made
14:05:18 [Zakim]
14:05:46 [danbri_desk]
14:06:05 [gk-scribe]
Regrets: Jos, PatrickS, JanG
14:06:06 [danbri_desk]
rather, Agenda:
14:06:17 [danbri_desk]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:06:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ILRT, ??P20, GrahamKlyne, PatH, DanBri, Mike_Dean, DanC, bwm, Emiller
14:06:19 [Zakim]
ILRT has DaveB
14:06:50 [danbri_desk]
zakim, ??P20 is jjc
14:06:50 [Zakim]
+jjc; got it
14:07:31 [gk-scribe]
Agenda review...
14:07:39 [gk-scribe]
Question about <rdf:RDF>
14:07:48 [DanC]
agenda + Question about <rdf:RDF>
14:08:11 [gk-scribe]
Next telecon, agenda incorrect, *next* week
14:08:34 [gk-scribe]
Item 5, last week minutes
14:08:35 [gk-scribe]
14:08:57 [gk-scribe]
But link in agenda is incorrect (?)
14:09:08 [gk-scribe]
Item 6, status compled actions
14:09:11 [DanC]
agenda 1 = 26Sep
14:09:13 [DanC]
agenda + Question about <rdf:RDF>
14:09:42 [DanC]
what's wrong with the minutes pointer? are not these they?
14:09:49 [gk-scribe]
Brian will update list based on comments sent to list
14:09:57 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rdfcore
14:10:13 [danbri_desk]
discussion of NFC action / jjc
14:10:15 [danbri_desk]
14:10:32 [gk-scribe]
(DanC, I'll check and correct if needed when I do the minutes)
14:10:34 [DanC]
DaveB, my review of the URI control character foo turned up a bit of wierdness in rdf-syntax; did you catch that?
14:10:57 [DanC]
DaveB, did you propose to accept as a true record?
14:10:58 [DaveB]
DanC: I remember the mail, but I don't remember what was broken
14:10:59 [jjc]
ACTION jjc add nfc text
14:11:08 [DaveB]
213 - yes
14:11:10 [gk-scribe]
to concepts
14:12:03 [DanC]
found jjc's text.
14:12:06 [danbri_desk] draft3
14:12:26 [gk-scribe]
I18N... update draft for reply to I18N...
14:12:33 [jjc]
14:12:33 [DaveB]
yes, jjc is discussing 259
14:14:58 [gk-scribe]
Also discussion of messages that state I18N position...
14:15:54 [bwm]
14:17:19 [gk-scribe]
This document (of JJC's) is intended to accompany request for PR, to document the WG's position and rationale
14:17:29 [danbri_desk]
ack brian
14:18:28 [DanC]
ACTION DanC: review jjc's document in the context of request for PR, looking for problems
14:18:39 [danbri_desk]
ack bwm
14:18:41 [gk-scribe]
action ericm review jeremy's document for inclusion in proposal to advance
14:19:33 [gk-scribe]
Brian, process requires statement of objection, then Jeremy's document is *preparatory* work for response to such objection
14:20:16 [jjc]
14:20:46 [gk-scribe]
(above URI is member access only)
14:22:01 [DanC]
14:22:02 [DanC]
> > For the Nth time, they are already on record; we notified
14:22:02 [DanC]
> > them of our 9 may decision to revise
14:22:02 [DanC]
> >
14:22:02 [DanC]
> >
14:22:02 [DanC]
> > and they let us know that no, that wasn't acceptable.
14:22:04 [DanC]
> >
14:22:06 [DanC]
14:22:36 [DanC]
msg from jjc
14:22:38 [jjc]
14:23:16 [Zakim]
14:23:26 [jjc]
above is URL of msg askign for i18n comments
14:23:36 [gk-scribe]
(DanC goes to get Martin online to make doc public...)
14:23:54 [gk-scribe]
Semantics objections...
14:24:10 [DaveB]
we asked them 28 Jan 2003 to review our specs, nothing has appeared eyet
14:24:20 [gk-scribe]
bwm, need for LC2, need copy of I18N objections (?)
14:24:51 [gk-scribe]
danbri, please complete action today to approach other groups
14:26:11 [gk-scribe]
jjc, poke michael wrt xmlschema feedback .. eric spoke this morning ... whitespace facet. Short version, "3" and " 3 " being different isn't going to be popular.
14:26:57 [gk-scribe]
Expecting further/fuller response from XML schema WG in next couple of days
14:27:21 [danbri_desk]
zakim, who is speaking?
14:27:34 [Zakim]
danbri_desk, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
14:27:39 [jjc]
Zakim, who's speaking?
14:27:50 [Zakim]
jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: bwm (94%)
14:28:08 [gk-scribe]
Brian: ask XSWG if " 3 " in lex space of xsd:integer? Answer no. In the context of XML, is " 3 " an integer? answer yes
14:29:05 [gk-scribe]
Brian: suggest prepare proposal that whitespace processing is part of L2V map.
14:29:33 [gk-scribe]
(noting whitespace processing option is part of datatype specification)
14:29:41 [DaveB]
IMHO's I18N's draft objection needs a lot of work, is not near complete; and contains things that can be rebutted easily
14:29:59 [gk-scribe]
action jjc draft proposal along the lines indicated by brian
14:30:44 [gk-scribe]
securing publication date (eric) - not complete, but currently proposing 10 October.
14:31:45 [gk-scribe]
danbri, action re abstract/status of document, other stuff ... continues
14:31:58 [danbri_desk]
9: defusing semantics objections (lbase appendix)
14:32:15 [gk-scribe]
Item 9, semantics objections
14:32:23 [danbri_desk]
14:32:33 [danbri_desk]
14:32:33 [danbri_desk]
Two of Peter's objections concern the translation to LBase. I'm
14:32:33 [danbri_desk]
wondering whether we might defuse these objections by replacing the
14:32:33 [danbri_desk]
LBase appendix with a suitably worded informative reference to the LBase
14:32:33 [danbri_desk]
14:32:34 [danbri_desk]
14:34:01 [gk-scribe]
Brian suggests removing lbase appendix, and replacing with a link. Then errors in lbase translation then don't "contaminate" semantics.
14:34:39 [gk-scribe]
danbri proposes, jjc seconded
14:35:17 [gk-scribe]
approved unopposed
14:35:28 [DanC]
ok, called martin, got this cleared up: <-
14:35:34 [gk-scribe]
action path complete changes to semantcis and lbase documents
14:35:38 [Zakim]
14:36:33 [gk-scribe]
Brian: is wording around the lbase link fireproof
14:36:47 [danbri_desk]
10: collecting objections
14:36:48 [gk-scribe]
pat will review this as part of above action
14:37:22 [gk-scribe]
DanC: I18N objection (URI above) is now public record
14:38:00 [DanC]
action connolly above is revised to review jjc's draft 4, to appear
14:38:03 [gk-scribe]
action jjc review draft supporting recommendation request to take account of format objection from I18N
14:38:32 [gk-scribe]
Other objections?
14:38:56 [gk-scribe]
Problems with semantics... hopefully 2/5 are addressed above
14:39:15 [gk-scribe]
PatH: one, agree to disagree
14:39:51 [gk-scribe]
... one have adjusted change log, still no response
14:40:45 [gk-scribe]
Completeness of closure rules: they have never been a *complete* characterization of entailment.
14:41:35 [gk-scribe]
To change them now would be a major effort.
14:41:57 [danbri_desk]
jjc: see bwm's msg of today for url to pfps objections
14:42:03 [DanC]
ack danc
14:42:03 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to ask which issue(s) jjc's document is connected to and to objections on datatypes (as cited from PR request draft) and to ask what's between the WG and a
14:42:06 [Zakim]
... decision to go to LC
14:42:21 [jjc]
14:42:52 [jjc]
peter's summary of where we are at
14:42:56 [gk-scribe]
How to link jjc's response document to issue list?
14:43:26 [gk-scribe]
(I'd always assumed we were now working the LC issue list)
14:43:31 [DanC]
14:44:18 [danbri_desk]
dan, SOTD sections can point into issues doc
14:44:20 [gk-scribe]
action bwm link issue list to these documents (from jjc, and another ?)
14:44:28 [danbri_desk]
14:45:01 [gk-scribe]
danc: what's holding up going to last call? Why not this week?
14:45:23 [gk-scribe]
danbri: need to be sure whar the objections are (?)
14:45:36 [gk-scribe]
objection on schema, pfps-12
14:46:01 [DanC]
bwm, if you get a chance to note the outstanding dissent under , pls do
14:46:31 [danbri_desk] - karsten tolle
14:46:31 [gk-scribe]
about karsten(?) who was co-submitter: text accurate, but doesn't like design choice
14:46:56 [danbri_desk]
action danbri record karsten's dissent in rdfs spec
14:47:22 [gk-scribe]
jjc: objections going into LC we must be prepared to carry out of LC
14:48:05 [DanC]
seems connected to
14:48:28 [danbri_desk]
11: next steps - planning for LC2
14:48:49 [DanC]
pointer which?
14:48:55 [danbri_desk]
14:49:25 [gk-scribe]
" RDFCore Working Group Implementation Report, PR request - DRAFT"
14:50:03 [ericm]
14:50:06 [bwm]
there is the aob about rdf:RDF!
14:50:19 [danbri_desk]
14:52:15 [gk-scribe]
rdf:RF issue
14:52:50 [gk-scribe]
Request to make rdf:RDF optional... it already is but requester seems to want to do so in more places.
14:53:08 [gk-scribe]
q+ to say I thought the current workd was pretty flexible in this respect
14:53:14 [DanC]
bwm, I recommend *not* keeping a "last call responses" thingy separate from the issues list. When comments come in, try to see which existing WG decision/issue is relevant, consider whether to re-open; if no new info, just give the commentor the existing decision rationale and ask "are you happy?"
14:53:18 [danbri_desk]
ack gk-scribe
14:53:18 [Zakim]
gk-scribe, you wanted to say I thought the current workd was pretty flexible in this respect
14:54:12 [jjc]
14:54:15 [gk-scribe]
request has test case, we agree test case is not currently allowed
14:54:41 [jjc]
q+ to suggest we should wait
14:55:29 [gk-scribe]
Are there known document changes?
14:56:13 [gk-scribe]
... or any changes not merely editorial discretion?
14:56:19 [danbri_desk]
jjc: xmlschema 02 may need wg discussion
14:57:27 [gk-scribe]
path still not clear about "this version ..." text in header
14:58:18 [DanC]
ack jjc
14:58:18 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to suggest we should wait
14:58:21 [danbri_desk]
ack danc
14:58:21 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to suggest lesson learned re issues list maintenance
14:58:29 [DaveB]
so, xmlsch-02 is criticial path for our LC2 decision
14:58:56 [gk-scribe]
DanC wants to recommend keeping a single issues list, even if process is tracked separately
14:59:55 [gk-scribe]
Brian: need to ensure: we've responded to every comment, using existing issue list seems like double tracking
15:00:31 [gk-scribe]
DanC: many comments can be refered to existing decisions, hence reduce number of decisions to make
15:00:44 [Zakim]
15:01:18 [gk-scribe]
Time up.
15:01:19 [danbri_desk]
15:01:23 [gk-scribe]
Meeting closed.
15:01:24 [Zakim]
15:01:25 [Zakim]
15:01:26 [Zakim]
15:02:18 [Zakim]
15:03:22 [Zakim]
15:03:25 [danbri_desk]
zakim, drop danbri
15:03:25 [Zakim]
DanBri is being disconnected
15:03:26 [Zakim]
15:03:28 [Zakim]
15:03:29 [Zakim]
15:03:30 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
15:03:40 [danbri_desk]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:03:40 [RRSAgent]
15:10:25 [ericm]
ericm has left #rdfcore
15:10:51 [gk-scribe]
gk-scribe has left #rdfcore
15:21:03 [danbri_desk]
fixed*,access* world access
15:21:06 [danbri_desk]
danbri_desk has left #rdfcore
17:25:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfcore
18:55:47 [DanC]
DanC has left #rdfcore