IRC log of dawg on 2006-04-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:22:02 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:22:02 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:22:03 [kendallclark]
hehe, old SGML hacks always smile like this: :> -- anything else just seems weird
14:22:54 [libby]
zakim, please list conferences
14:22:54 [Zakim]
I see I18N_CoreWG()10:00AM, SVG_WG()9:30AM, VB_VBWG()10:00AM active
14:22:56 [Zakim]
also scheduled at this time are WAI_TIES()10:00AM, SYMM_WG()10:00AM, SW_DAWG()10:30AM, WS_DBWG()10:00AM, HTML_XHTML(editors)10:00AM
14:23:10 [LeeF]
haha, let's hijack one of those
14:23:12 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, this will be dawg
14:23:12 [Zakim]
ok, DanC_lap; I see SW_DAWG()10:30AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
14:23:29 [libby]
thanks danc_lap. I'm just tryying to remember how to use the bots
14:23:32 [kendallclark]
i'm gonna feed the agenda to zakim
14:23:37 [libby]
14:23:40 [LeeF]
Chair: kendallclark
14:23:46 [LeeF]
Scribe: libby
14:24:21 [ericP]
Meeting: RDF Data Access Working Group weekly telecon
14:24:57 [kendallclark]
agenda+ Convene RDF Data Access WG meeting of 2006-04-11T14:30Z
14:25:11 [ericP]
LeeF, i don't use localhost URLs. those might have a prayer of working on your machine.
14:25:17 [kendallclark]
agenda+ CR!
14:25:34 [LeeF]
true, but i couldn't remember the name of your machine =)
14:25:38 [ericP]
14:25:41 [kendallclark]
agenda+ Test Case, Suite Maintenance, Etc
14:25:49 [kendallclark]
agenda+ Future meeting frequency
14:26:00 [kendallclark]
agenda+ Implementation Report
14:26:03 [LeeF]
I hemmed and hawed over my lack of preciseness. And now I was called out over it. Dang.
14:26:09 [kendallclark]
agenda+ MIME type registrations
14:26:14 [kendallclark]
agenda+ UC&R end game
14:26:41 [kendallclark]
ok, i suppose that worked well enough
14:27:16 [ericP]
do we want to chat about sameTermAs(RDF term, RDF term) ?
14:27:28 [ericP]
might be worth an agendum at the end
14:27:30 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started
14:27:32 [Zakim]
14:27:51 [kendallclark]
ericP: sure... is that the AndyS Geoff discussion?
14:28:01 [kendallclark]
i didn't see that when reviewing the traffic from last week
14:28:57 [Zakim]
14:28:59 [Zakim]
14:28:59 [ericP]
zakim, please dial ericP-617
14:29:00 [Zakim]
14:29:01 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:29:02 [Zakim]
14:29:13 [Zakim]
14:29:18 [libby]
zakim, mute me
14:29:18 [Zakim]
Libby_Miller should now be muted
14:29:20 [EliasT]
EliasT has joined #dawg
14:29:21 [LeeF]
Zakim, IBMCambridge is me
14:29:21 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
14:29:29 [Zakim]
14:29:43 [Zakim]
14:29:50 [EliasT]
Zakim, IBMCambridge is me
14:29:50 [Zakim]
+EliasT; got it
14:29:57 [Zakim]
14:30:07 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P26 is me
14:30:07 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:30:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.459.aaaa
14:31:16 [ericP]
Zakim, aaaa is Souri
14:31:16 [Zakim]
+Souri; got it
14:31:23 [LeeF]
14:32:12 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the call?
14:32:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Kendall_Clark, Libby_Miller (muted), EricP, LeeF, DanC, EliasT, AndyS, Souri
14:32:18 [Zakim]
14:33:15 [kendallclark]
14:33:19 [Souri]
Souri has joined #dawg
14:33:41 [libby]
zakim, open next agendum
14:33:41 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Convene RDF Data Access WG meeting of 2006-04-11T14:30Z" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:34:01 [kendallclark]
14:34:02 [ericP]
-> last meeting record
14:34:11 [Zakim]
14:34:26 [libby]
kc: propose this as a true record
14:34:44 [libby]
...kc sent regrets - needs fixing
14:35:05 [kendallclark]
next item?
14:35:11 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, next item
14:35:12 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "CR!" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:35:20 [libby]
ericp seconds
14:35:26 [kendallclark]
14:35:32 [LeeF]
14:35:36 [libby]
kc: a happy thing
14:35:53 [libby]
kc: anything we need to know here?
14:36:17 [kendallclark]
what are the constraints on how long CR should last?
14:36:20 [libby]
danc: it's a good thing. I got asked how long CR will last
14:36:29 [libby]
... minimum 2 months
14:37:09 [libby]
... we chose this minimum
14:37:26 [libby]
kc: do we need to wait for xquery?
14:37:50 [libby]
danc: we can't go to rec until they are at PR
14:38:10 [kendallclark]
WSDL 2 also a dependency
14:38:19 [libby]
danc: PR means rec in 6 weeks, sets clear expectations
14:38:58 [libby]
kc: wsdl2 and xquery are the twop primary dependences on external things - what else? an implementation report? test suite creation / maintenance
14:39:25 [libby]
danc: we have set ourselves a bar that's higher than typical, we're well ahead with a test suite and have some approved
14:39:40 [kendallclark]
Approve the remaining unapproved tests
14:40:01 [kendallclark]
Maintain an implementation report, answer questions pursuant to that work
14:40:04 [libby]
... expectation is that we go through the remaining 120 and approve / reject / modify, a few at a time; and also the public is reportign implemnattion experience - we have to answer mains
14:40:08 [libby]
14:40:26 [libby]
... basically testcases, questions, marketing
14:40:39 [libby]
kc: implemnentation report - can it continue to be a wiki page?
14:40:53 [libby]
danc: material in wiki, report in w3c cvs
14:41:18 [libby]
... basically an argument to director that have enough implemntations, according to the criteria we made
14:41:24 [ericP]
I just added a list of those present to the minutes we just approved :[[Jeen, Libby_Miller, DanC, EliasT, EricP, SteveH, Sven_Groppe]]
14:42:14 [kendallclark]
zakim, next item?
14:42:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, kendallclark.
14:42:16 [kendallclark]
zakim, next item
14:42:16 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Test Case, Suite Maintenance, Etc" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:42:18 [libby]
zakim, next item
14:42:19 [Zakim]
agendum 3 was just opened, libby
14:42:23 [libby]
14:42:46 [kendallclark]
14:42:59 [libby]
kc: is the validator rejecting approved testcasese?
14:43:55 [libby]
andys: I replied. problem is bnodes in the predicate syntax. the doc was a bit inconsistent about that and was resolved late on. need to corerect these
14:44:03 [libby]
... tests need removing
14:44:30 [libby]
kc: propose someone takes an action to remove those
14:44:53 [AndyS]
Tests are SyntaxFull/syntax-bnodes-03.rq and SyntaxFull/syntax-bnodes-04.rq
14:45:02 [libby]
andys: we definitely made that decision
14:45:12 [libby]
... finding them
14:45:33 [kendallclark]
Auto extraction from rq23?
14:45:36 [ericP]
14:45:50 [AndyS]
14:46:07 [libby]
danc: when was this approved?
14:46:29 [libby]
ericp: probably 2 places - no bnodes in the prediacte and an approved grammar
14:46:56 [DanC_lap]
14:47:00 [EliasT]
I found this:
14:47:09 [libby]
danc: this should be colected under the punctuation sysntax
14:47:39 [libby]
want an action kendall?
14:47:51 [kendallclark]
eek, no. not me, not on this ;)
14:48:17 [libby]
ACTION: DanC_lap find decision record for bnodes in predicate
14:48:23 [libby]
ACTION DanC_lap: find decision record for bnodes in predicate
14:48:46 [DanC_lap]
action -2
14:48:46 [DanC_lap]
ACTION: find decision record for bnodes in predicate
14:48:50 [libby]
14:49:20 [libby]
rssagent, show actions
14:50:05 [kendallclark]
sorry, quarter of a pig arrives in an ice chest, you can't ignore it :>
14:50:42 [libby]
kc: if we approve a document that has a grammar in it - implicit decision at least
14:51:02 [kendallclark]
14:51:53 [kendallclark]
Found an inconsistency in the document re: casting illegal lexical forms and IRIs/anyURI
14:51:57 [AndyS]
14:52:01 [libby]
andys: I think we found an inconsistency. one issue steve brought up as casting illegal lexical forms, the other was iris and anyurio
14:52:33 [libby]
kc: what does it need?
14:52:36 [kendallclark]
but yr more complete, libby :>
14:53:05 [libby]
ericp: illegal lexical forms - we rely on xpaths - guessing it's illegal but we don't take a stand on it
14:53:19 [libby]
... test for casting 256 to a byte
14:53:24 [libby]
... e.g
14:53:34 [DanC_lap]
FILTER int("23.4") > 20
14:53:37 [DanC_lap]
type errro
14:53:51 [DanC_lap]
FILTER "23.4"^^xsd:int > 20
14:54:12 [libby]
danc: our spec doesn't deleetgate to xpath / xquery there does it?
14:54:12 [DanC_lap]
^ not sure about 2nd case there
14:55:30 [ericP]
14:55:52 [ericP]
14:57:19 [kendallclark]
ACTION EricP to figure out what our spec says re: casting illegal lexical forms
14:57:32 [DanC_lap]
the relevant issue is "valueTesting"; pls include that in the subject of relevant email
14:57:33 [ericP]
14:57:34 [ericP]
RDF typed literals passed as arguments to these functions and operators are mapped to XML Schema typed values with a string value of the lexical form and an atomic datatype corresponding to the datatype IRI. The returned typed values are mapped back to RDF typed literals.
14:57:37 [EliasT]
ACTION: EricP to figure out what our spec says re: casting illegal lexical forms
14:57:38 [ericP]
14:58:23 [libby]
ericp: guessing we don't say what happens there
14:58:28 [DanC_lap]
I think our spec has a hole here.
14:58:56 [libby]
ericp: we don't say what happens when there isn;t a corresponing xsd data type
14:58:58 [DanC_lap]
this looks like sufficient information to re-open valueTesting, unfortunately
14:59:10 [libby]
ericp: we could throw a type errror there for example
15:00:04 [libby]
danc: it has been the chair's perogative to open the issue and it needs the wg to make a decision in order to close it
15:00:27 [libby]
kc: as acting chair today it looks like there's enough tehre that the wg needs to make a decision
15:01:04 [libby]
zakim next item
15:01:05 [kendallclark]
zakim, next item
15:01:05 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Future meeting frequency" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:01:38 [libby]
kc: we have to decide as a group how often we want to meet now
15:02:00 [ericP]
q+ to propose we postpone this agendum until things quiet down
15:02:16 [ericP]
ack me
15:02:16 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to propose we postpone this agendum until things quiet down
15:02:40 [libby]
ericp: don't think we can make this decision now, need a quiet week
15:03:07 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Kendall_Clark, Libby_Miller (muted), EricP, LeeF, DanC, EliasT, AndyS, Souri
15:03:08 [libby]
danc: if you want things to get quieter, meet less often
15:03:17 [DanC_lap]
ack libby
15:03:19 [libby]
15:04:14 [libby]
zakim, mute me
15:04:14 [Zakim]
Libby_Miller should now be muted
15:04:24 [libby]
I would like to meet less often, fwiw
15:05:00 [kendallclark]
dan notes the cost to meeting less often, swapping in, etc
15:05:08 [libby]
danc: if you meet less often, there's a cost to swapping back in; but cost to meeting often too, time, agendas etc
15:05:28 [libby]
kc: expect to meet next week, so no differnce today
15:05:43 [libby]
elias: not sure, depend on the todos that are leftf. shorten the meetings?
15:05:52 [libby]
... 30-45 mins?
15:05:57 [Souri]
I prefer meeting less often, but same duration as now
15:06:02 [libby]
danc: more for the chair, less for others
15:06:30 [libby]
andys: would like to get towards meetign every 2 weeks but not there yet
15:06:37 [libby]
... it's the chair's call
15:07:03 [libby]
kc: might be a few more meetings to change chair, but after that maybe later
15:07:19 [libby]
souri: meeting less often but keep the duration the same
15:07:35 [kendallclark]
15:07:37 [libby]
... an hour or so is fine - once we're swapped in
15:07:40 [DanC_lap]
(in order for shorter meetings to work well, agenda items have to be prepared better in email.)
15:08:11 [libby]
kc: leaning to meet less often but not yet
15:08:14 [kendallclark]
agenda, next item
15:08:19 [libby]
zakim, next item
15:08:19 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Implementation Report" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:08:22 [kendallclark]
zakim, next item
15:08:22 [Zakim]
agendum 5 was just opened, kendallclark
15:09:04 [libby]
kc: useful to maintain impl report in wiki form
15:09:18 [libby]
... saw some gaps lately, ned to keep it up to date
15:09:31 [libby]
... we talked about this earlier though
15:09:37 [DanC_lap]
(the report itself is mostly pointers into the wiki and the test suites)
15:10:24 [libby]
danc: at one point steve harris took an action to make a working draft out the test materials, not sure what's happened there, but it would be nice to have
15:10:51 [libby]
kc: just a wg draft or a note or just written up some place
15:10:53 [libby]
15:11:04 [libby]
danc: any of those, the readme doesn't quite do it for me
15:11:08 [DanC_lap]
15:11:36 [libby]
danc: it doesn't say "hello gentle reader, I'm going to talk nice to you"
15:11:45 [libby]
... redame is mildly friendlier
15:11:57 [libby]
kc: copy the readme into the file?
15:12:05 [libby]
danc: needs hacking into the makefile
15:12:13 [libby]
ericp: not sure how it works...
15:12:21 [libby]
... needs 3store
15:12:33 [libby]
danc: jeen also knows how to do it
15:12:58 [libby]
kc: I'd like a doc too; let's put this back on the agenda when jeen /steve is back
15:13:30 [libby]
danc: 2 bars: can people run the tests? (seems ok) and does it encourage new people to try (no)
15:13:47 [libby]
kc: woudl like people to submit tests too, though we would have to approve them
15:14:03 [kendallclark]
zakim, next item?
15:14:03 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, kendallclark.
15:14:04 [kendallclark]
zakim, next item
15:14:04 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "MIME type registrations" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:14:20 [libby]
kc: not sure of the status here?
15:14:26 [kendallclark]
15:14:45 [ericP]
agenda + same term as
15:15:04 [kendallclark]
agenda, next item
15:15:05 [libby]
ericp: still needs to do actions on mimetype registration
15:15:30 [libby]
danc: we didn't do LC before CR but we could on UC&R before PR
15:16:09 [libby]
... we know that people want to be able to query lists, but this isn't in the UC&R. if we did a LC, people could say this
15:16:26 [libby]
... we couldcoontinue on the current path or open it up a bit more
15:17:27 [libby]
kc: would like to be guided by what owl did, UC&R very useful, would like to make it more visible
15:18:16 [libby]
andys: be a good idea to try and capture the things we haven't covered; not sure LC for UC&R is the way to go there - sounds like saying 'we haven;t finished'
15:18:44 [libby]
kc: could be messy
15:20:03 [kendallclark]
ack libby
15:20:19 [LeeF]
an application??!?! heavens!
15:20:38 [libby]
well, a student application
15:21:04 [libby]
danc: some experimental implementations of this
15:21:08 [AndyS]
15:21:17 [libby]
ericp: andys has one, ericp has one
15:21:24 [libby]
zakim, mute me
15:21:24 [Zakim]
Libby_Miller should now be muted
15:21:25 [AndyS]
15:21:48 [libby]
kc: let's take this decision when we have a fuller house. need to be plumper
15:22:08 [libby]
andys: when we went to CR, some of the ourstanding dissent was in UC&R
15:22:24 [libby]
...e.g. dissent on optional
15:22:34 [libby]
... network inference
15:22:41 [kendallclark]
15:22:54 [kendallclark]
zakim, next item
15:22:54 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "UC&R end game" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:23:25 [libby]
andys: wasn't sure what it meant to do a LC with outstanding dissent
15:23:35 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, close item 7
15:23:35 [Zakim]
agendum 7, UC&R end game, closed
15:23:37 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:23:38 [Zakim]
8. same term as [from ericP]
15:23:58 [LeeF]
q+ to ask status of JSON document because I have a bad memory
15:24:02 [ericP]
15:24:34 [libby]
ericp: a msg a long time ago where ericp proposed a modification to the operators - numerical equalisty symbol is the same as test for same rdf term. same rdf term = same node is easy
15:24:42 [DanC_lap]
(re JSON, I think EricP has an action to publish it, which continues without discussion in today's meeting)
15:24:59 [libby]
ericp numerical equality depends on degree of support for numerics (case was roman numeral)
15:24:59 [LeeF]
(thanks, DanC_lap)
15:25:02 [LeeF]
15:25:16 [kendallclark]
hmm, i think there may have been 1 or 2 issues that Andy and I didn't agree on from his review...
15:25:21 [libby]
... simple implementation get a false, better get a true; can;t distinguish between that and rdf equality
15:26:00 [libby]
andy: thought we decided not equal on 2 terms is as open world as possible - onlty reurns true if it definitely knows they are not the same
15:26:13 [libby]
ericp: [missed it]
15:26:46 [libby]
andys: boolean, lexical in upper and lower case - this case equals returns false.
15:27:15 [DanC_lap]
q+ to say that I think I kinda screwed up the last time we closed valueTesting; I was supportive of proposals along the lines that Andy recalls (open world) but forgot about some stuff when I put the question, so we're prolly over the map, w.r.t. decision records
15:27:18 [libby]
ericp: 2 issues numerical equals can give you a type error, same as wil not ...
15:27:58 [libby]
ericp: if it doesn't understand my boollean then it does an rdf equals; if it does, a numeric equals
15:28:15 [DanC_lap]
(this is all yet more reason to re-open valueTesting)
15:28:24 [kendallclark]
15:28:26 [kendallclark]
15:28:28 [libby]
...separate syntax they would get a type error if the implementation did not understand what a boolean was, and the not equals would do the right thing
15:28:48 [libby]
ericp: do you want to pick holes in my message?
15:28:56 [ericP]
15:29:04 [libby]
<-- this one
15:29:26 [libby]
ericp: my thesis is that it answers this question
15:30:10 [kendallclark]
15:30:20 [libby]
... if they thing they're doing a numerica euqals, it falls through to a term equals and they get a false, then this is a failure. if separate those two syntaxes, get better errors
15:30:42 [libby]
andys: don't agree...big trouble - same numeric with different lexical forms, different effects
15:30:45 [kendallclark]
ack next
15:30:47 [Zakim]
DanC_lap, you wanted to say that I think I kinda screwed up the last time we closed valueTesting; I was supportive of proposals along the lines that Andy recalls (open world) but
15:30:48 [libby]
-> email
15:30:54 [Zakim]
... forgot about some stuff when I put the question, so we're prolly over the map, w.r.t. decision records
15:31:42 [libby]
andys: what about string equals?
15:32:01 [libby]
ericp: implicit in mail message, just stays the same as before
15:32:13 [libby]
... only changes term equals
15:32:58 [kendallclark]
15:33:00 [libby]
kc: have we opened valuetesting properly?
15:33:04 [libby]
danc: yes
15:33:07 [kendallclark]
zakim, next item
15:33:07 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "same term as" taken up [from ericP]
15:33:29 [AndyS]
15:33:32 [libby]
kc: propose we meet next week 14.30Z
15:33:38 [libby]
... seconded
15:33:48 [DanC_lap]
Zakim, pick a scribe
15:33:48 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose EliasT
15:33:49 [kendallclark]
zakim, pick a scribe
15:33:49 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose LeeF
15:33:58 [libby]
... volunteer scribe?
15:34:01 [EliasT]
15:34:03 [EliasT]
I'll do it.
15:34:15 [EliasT]
that was rigged.
15:34:25 [libby]
... scribe next week: eliast
15:34:33 [EliasT]
15:34:38 [libby]
15:34:38 [Zakim]
15:34:39 [Zakim]
15:34:45 [DanC_lap]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
15:34:47 [libby]
shall I just follw the instructions?
15:34:47 [kendallclark]
ack libby
15:34:48 [LeeF]
(sorry, was trying to arrange to go to www2006)
15:34:51 [Zakim]
15:35:12 [DanC_lap]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:35:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate DanC_lap
15:36:05 [Zakim]
15:36:07 [Zakim]
15:36:08 [Zakim]
15:36:09 [Zakim]
15:36:24 [Zakim]
15:36:25 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended
15:36:26 [Zakim]
Attendees were Kendall_Clark, Libby_Miller, EricP, LeeF, DanC, EliasT, AndyS, +1.603.459.aaaa, Souri
15:38:37 [libby]
action -1
15:38:49 [libby]
15:39:04 [DanC_lap]
don't worry about the dup
15:39:26 [libby]
useful to know how to use it better
15:43:01 [libby]
Present: Kendall_Clark, Libby_Miller, EricP, LeeF, DanC, EliasT, AndyS
15:44:00 [libby]
Present+ Souri
15:46:47 [libby]
15:47:21 [libby]
RSSAgent, make minutes
15:47:33 [libby]
15:47:36 [libby]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:47:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate libby
16:48:41 [DanC]
DanC has joined #dawg
16:53:38 [EliasT_]
EliasT_ has joined #dawg
17:07:22 [EliasT]
EliasT has joined #dawg
17:17:49 [AndyS]
AndyS has left #dawg
17:29:20 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #dawg
17:36:34 [DanC_lap]
DanC_lap has joined #dawg
18:00:13 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #dawg
18:36:39 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #dawg
20:10:17 [EliasT_]
EliasT_ has joined #dawg
20:39:44 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #dawg
21:11:08 [EliasT__]
EliasT__ has joined #dawg
22:03:51 [EliasT]
EliasT has joined #dawg