RDF Core Working Group IRC logs for 2002-02-26

These are the logs from the RDF Core Working Group IRC chat.

Dave Beckett

[07:25:56] DanC

DanC has joined #rdfcore

[07:46:49] libby

libby has joined #rdfcore

[07:57:23] JosD

JosD has joined #rdfcore

[07:58:33] libby

some photos from yesterday, some of the group: http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2002/02/25/

[08:03:32] JosD

DanC in full (guitar) preparation of the golden triple song

[08:04:57] gk

gk has joined #rdfcore

[08:05:02] gk

The golden triples:

[08:05:02] gk

Lyrics:

[08:05:02] gk

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0103.html

[08:05:02] gk

Chords (Spanish Lady):

[08:05:02] gk

http://ils.student.utwente.nl/main/r/reilly_paddy/spanish_lady.crd

[08:05:03] gk

MP3 of Spanish Lady:

[08:05:05] gk

http://www.thepaleboys.com/Paddy%20and%20the%20Pale%20Boys%20-%20Spanish%20Lady.mp3

[08:13:44] bwm

bwm has joined #rdfcore

[08:13:44] JosD

1. DaveB's detailed test case for rdfms-nested-bagID

[08:15:05] JosD

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0113.html

[08:17:04] gk

FYI, I18N discussion: logging in #rdfcore-i18n

[08:23:22] DanC

we tried with the W3C validator, and it seemed to agree; 14 triples.

[08:23:49] DanC

But we're not in a good position to decide; it doesn't seem intuitive to us that the nested stuff wouldn't get tagged with "this was said on tuesday".

[08:23:58] DanC

------

[08:25:10] JosD

testcas 2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/att-0113/02-test002.rdf

[08:29:14] DanC

test2 seems straightforward.

[08:29:16] DanC

APPROVED.

[08:33:31] JosD

2. Jeremy's XML base test cases (+ve test cases for error2 and error3)

[08:33:31] DanC

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0516.html

[08:35:00] DanC

LMM: yes, re / question, the text of 6.H isn't quite clear...

[08:39:19] DanC

LMM: no, re #frag , doesn't seem consistent with RFC2396

[08:41:02] DanC

ACTION DanC: get "thismessage:" from RFC2557 in the IANA URI scheme list http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes

[08:42:49] DanC

LMM: consider defining a "thisdocument:" uri scheme which works similarly

[08:45:05] JosD

(e) When the methods above do not yield an absolute URI, a base URL

[08:47:43] DanC

(re / question is test011.rdf)

[08:48:22] DanC

LMM: for self-document referce, perhaps you're not doing relative URI references.

[08:50:34] DanC

DanC: should we have you review the relevant text?

[08:50:47] DanC

LMM: actually, somebody not familiar with the issue should review it...

[08:50:56] JosD

test011 APPROVED

[08:50:57] DanC

... e.g. implementors, during CR.

[08:59:27] JosD

discussing error001

[09:01:30] DanC

-- err002

[09:01:57] DanC

re-reading RFC2396 carefully, it seems that the path component of mailto:foo is empty, not undefined...

[09:02:13] DanC

so "relfile" relative to mailto:foo@bar is mailto:relfile.

[09:02:40] DanC

so RFC2396 does give an answer in this case. perhaps we needn't make it an error.

[09:03:43] DanC

-- back to same-document refs:

[09:05:14] DanC

in 4.2, there's an "If ... always intended to result in a new request"... that can explain why "#foo" can work with xml:base in RDF.

[09:05:52] DanC

-- back to err002, mailto:foo@bar + relfile

[09:05:59] DanC

LMM: 1.4 seems relevant...

[09:07:43] DanC

suggests that relative URIs are only to be used with schemes that are specified as hierarchical.

[09:08:03] DanC

so while it's not an error to do the syntactic composition, users should be warned that this makes no sense.

[09:08:17] DanC

(meanwhile: there are lots of ways to say nonsense in RDF.)

[09:14:23] DanC

re err002, seems we shouldn't make it an error.

[09:18:10] DanC

-- re the same-document case again:

[09:18:56] DanC

perhaps the algorithm for computing the absolute form has another input, in addition to the normal base and the relative URI: an address to use in the "this document" case.

[09:19:14] DanC

this would require enhancing our test infrastructure to take another input.

[09:38:59] gk

gk has quit

[09:40:05] bwm

bwm has quit

[09:55:11] mdean_

mdean_ has joined #rdfcore

[09:57:24] mdean_

test case for nested-bag-ids is approved

[10:03:50] mdean_

ACTION: jeremy review error2 and error3 test cases

[10:05:11] gk

gk has joined #rdfcore

[10:08:54] mdean_

Jeremy: xml:base should apply to rdf:about="" and "#foo", otherwise we should abandon it

[10:11:14] mdean_

DanC: we need to show that developers can read the spec and implement it

[10:15:20] mdean_

RESOLVED: xmlbase/test001 approved

[10:17:06] mdean_

Jeremy summarized internationalization discussion

[10:17:13] mdean_

very successful, didn't get beat up

[10:17:30] mdean_

most interested in equality as a mathematical operation

[10:17:47] mdean_

charmod normalization has changed slightly

[10:18:09] mdean_

string literals should be in normal form C and shouldn't start with a combining character (to allow concatenation)

[10:19:21] DanC

note to self: testing normalization stuff.

[10:19:58] mdean_

want to have IRI's where URIs

[10:20:25] mdean_

3 options

[10:20:47] mdean_

need to define IRI equality for RDF graphs (in order to define tidiness)

[10:22:00] mdean_

Martin wanted to define equality in such a way that preserves the original input string, since that's what the user intended

[10:22:39] mdean_

talked about xml:lang and literal containing Italiano example from yesterday

[10:22:53] mdean_

fr:chat en:chat problem

[10:22:54] DanC

note to self: does this fuzzy matching of IRIs conflict with the URI opacity axiom? hmm...

[10:23:54] mdean_

they were happy for us to define strict equivality as long as we did not mislead application developers that this was the only type of equality

[10:24:04] mdean_

Brian minuted exact wording

[10:24:58] mdean_

RFC 3066

[10:25:12] mdean_

dialects are considered different languages

[10:25:46] mdean_

no new parseType="Literal" issues

[10:27:02] mdean_

began hearing about what internationalization requirements for NTriples might be, and ruled it out of order (as only a test format)

[10:27:56] mdean_

deployment: if we put all of this normalization into our spec, our implementors are dependent upon the XML layers implementing this -- they haven't yet

[10:28:28] mdean_

question about whether we need a normalizing transcoder

[10:29:13] gk

Only for reading from a non-UTF source.

[10:31:49] mdean_

issue of charmod versions -- synchronizing glaciers

[10:32:01] gk

jjc: Who gets to rec first ... the race of the glaciers

[10:32:51] mdean_

IRI comparison: hexify representations and do binary compare

[10:33:51] mdean_

different handling than namespaces?

[10:34:55] mdean_

charmod spec is uncooked

[10:35:47] mdean_

Jeremy: charmod spec is advice to us on how to meet our internationalization responsibility

[10:36:00] mdean_

... which would be there even without charmod

[10:37:59] mdean_

need for waiver from Director on implementing internationalization, if we're depending on features from XML implementors

[10:38:07] mdean_

view that this is unlikely to happen

[10:38:53] mdean_

suggestion to separate IRI and literal normalization

[10:39:14] mdean_

IRI is not yet an IRC

[10:40:17] JosD

i.e. an RFC

[10:40:30] mdean_

yes -- thanks!

[10:41:50] mdean_

discussion about hex encoding

[10:42:11] mdean_

many IRIs correspond to one URI

[10:42:49] mdean_

RDF works in URI space, not IRI

[10:43:20] mdean_

we don't want to have to normalize hostnames, etc.

[10:45:53] mdean_

Jeremy discussed test case with escaped IDs

[10:45:56] mdean_

not approved yet

[10:46:38] mdean_

rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/test2

[10:47:15] gk

Fort information: there is an XML erratum (http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata#E26) says that conversion to hexified form should be deferred until the latest possible moment.

[10:47:52] gk

(This bears only indirectly on our discussion, I think)

[10:49:11] mdean_

DanC: XML folks seem to have moved to IRIs and treat the protocols that use URIs as legacy

[10:50:14] DanC

note to self: this (doing RDF in IRI space, as opposed URI space) seems to have architectural impact.

[10:52:36] mdean_

in Jeremy's example, doing it in IRI space produces 2 nodes, doing it in URI space produces 1 node

[11:19:32] logger

logger has joined #rdfcore

[11:19:32]

Topic now RDF Core WG meeting, Cannes, France 25-26 Feb (telcon 16:00-18:00 UTC each day) - Agenda http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/

[11:19:32]

Users on #rdfcore: logger gk mdean_ JosD libby DanC AaronSw

[11:19:35]

* DanC thinks folks now know the issue well enough to form an opinion... let's take a straw poll, please.

[11:20:15] libby

we lost some text in the log

[11:20:17] libby

[[

[11:20:26] libby

mdean_: Jeremy: If we just use a bit, we lose round-tripping

[11:20:26] libby

mdean_: DanC: don't kid people into thinking that RDF is extensible in this way

[11:20:26] libby

mdean_: EricP: think of this as encoding rather than parseType

[11:20:26] mdean_

EricP: what is the cost/benefit of having an extensibility mechanism

[11:20:27] libby

]]

[11:20:55] mdean_

DanC: parsers may reach wrong conclusions

[11:24:20] mdean_

straw poll against using this as an extensibility mechanism

[11:25:05] mdean_

GK: XML has a distinguished status w.r.t. RDF

[11:26:47] gk

... other point is that parseType can still be used for defining alternative pure-syntactic structuired like daml:collection that don't have special representation in the graph (i.e. other than triples)

[11:28:50] DanC

note to self: as to actual n-triples, I don't want to use (0, none, "abc") for "abc" with no lang and no Literal... I want to use "abc". with lang="en", it becomes "abc"/en or some such... for parsetype literal, I'd rather something like xmlparse("c14n form"). hmm... XML with lang... hmm.

[11:32:29] mdean_

possibility of grandfathering support for daml:collection in RDF

[11:32:43] mdean_

RESOLVED: treat parseType as a bit

[11:33:19] mdean_

next topic: regarding xml:lang string vs. URI

[11:33:33] mdean_

Jeremy: this isn't our problem

[11:36:03] gk

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-urn-ietf-lang-01.txt

[11:36:13] mdean_

DanC: regstries are available, but their URIs keep moving around

[11:36:21] mdean_

registries

[11:36:35] mdean_

DanC: cost of doing this now doesn't seem to be worthwhile

[11:36:49] mdean_

GK: IETF proposal to map lang tags to URIs

[11:37:23] gk

(URI is above)

[11:37:26] mdean_

Jeremy: sounds like an RDF 2 issue

[11:38:22] mdean_

EricP: make lang a string now with intent to move to a URI later

[11:38:42] mdean_

ACTION (Brian): add this to postponed list

[11:39:17] mdean_

RESOLVED: string from XML 1.0 (RFC 3066)

[11:39:58] mdean_

not ready to close charmod-literals

[11:40:57] mdean_

Patrick: test case for daml:collection

[11:41:25] mdean_

ACTION (DanC): test case that daml:collection is an error

[11:42:34] mdean_

ACTION (DanC, DaveB): update NTriples document

[11:42:57] DanC

s/daml:collection is an error/is just like Literal/

[11:43:35] mdean_

issue: ask WebOnt whether they would like us to bless/grandfather daml:collection

[11:44:22] mdean_

ACTION (DaveB): update syntax doc

[11:44:55] mdean_

ACTION (Brian): contact Pat about any required updates to Model Theory

[11:45:31] mdean_

Brian: can we close rdfms-xmllang?

[11:45:38] gk

Ohhh.... but (e.g. for DAML) *not* generating a literal for parseType!=literal may not be an error?

[11:46:55] mdean_

TimBL raised rdfms-xmllang

[11:47:19] mdean_

RESOLVED: close rdfms-xml-lang

[11:47:30] mdean_

rdfms-xmllang

[11:48:29] mdean_

regarding rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure

[11:49:35] mdean_

MathML example in M&S section 7.5

[11:50:16] mdean_

already in UTF-8

[11:50:31] mdean_

otherwise we'd need a normalizing transcoder

[11:50:46] mdean_

namespaces that aren't used don't get inherited

[11:51:48] mdean_

exclusive and inclusive canonicalization are different in their handling of QNames

[11:53:17] mdean_

have to explicitly say xmlns="" to turnoff namespaces in parseType="Literal"

[11:54:22] mdean_

will get equivalent canonical XML, not necessarily original -- no way to force representation

[11:55:24] mdean_

what about comments, entities, etc.?

[11:59:14] mdean_

ACTION (Jeremy): review canonicalization spec w.r.t. comments and processing instructions and produce proposal

[12:00:10] gk

gk has left #rdfcore

[12:00:26] gk

gk has joined #rdfcore

[12:00:47] mdean_

Jeremy: concerned about overly-onerous impact on DPH

[12:01:48] mdean_

RESOLVED: closed rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure

[12:02:30] mdean_

canonicalization will address rdfms-literal-namespaces -- wait for Jeremy's proposal before closing

[12:02:31] gk

gk has left #rdfcore

[12:02:40] mdean_

lunch now, back in 1 hour

[12:02:41] libby

cvs commit

[12:02:44] libby

oops

[12:03:18] libby

ehem

[12:03:29] libby

libby has quit

[12:40:14] DanC

DanC has quit

[12:40:14] JosD

JosD has quit

[12:58:47] mdean_

mdean_ has quit

[13:09:50] mdean_

mdean_ has joined #RDFCore

[13:11:41] JosD

JosD has joined #rdfcore

[13:11:50] libby

libby has joined #rdfcore

[13:13:25] libby

brian would like to look at rdfs assertion beiefly

[13:13:54] libby

[[asaserting anrdf graph amounts to claiming it is true...]] model theory

[13:15:07] libby

dabc

[13:15:10] libby

nc:

[13:15:21] libby

the web context is taht you publish it and you meab it

[13:15:31] libby

bran: what about saying this is rubbish?

[13:15:54] gk

gk has joined #rdfcore

[13:16:28] libby

brian: 'assrting' an rdf graph - web context you are asserting it, a mail you are not (for example)

[13:16:28] libby

ps: need to define what asserting means

[13:16:28] libby

jjc: about legal stuff

[13:16:28] libby

danc: social implications

[13:16:59] libby

ep: least maount can do that clear that contextual issuesz are fdor the courts to decide?

[13:17:35] libby

ps there could be other rdf statements saying you are nmot asserting that they are true

[13:18:11] libby

brian: need to cature when asserted and when not: not our job

[13:19:01] libby

danc: publishes somethign traditional way in rdf whioch looks like a promise to supply widgets, and then can deny it,then we havce failed.

[13:19:48] libby

ps: lots diff ways to assert stuff on the web. not our job to say so. klegal issue. we're not qualified

[13:20:00] libby

jos: person need to know has such consequences

[13:20:13] libby

ps: societty not the web

[13:20:25] libby

jjc: 2 cases in uk, web-realted

[13:21:00] libby

...1 low price advertised, didnt get goods; 2 ditto, but w an email ...

[13:21:12] libby

...2nd place email closed the contract, and liable

[13:21:23] libby

brian: we are off-course

[13:21:41] libby

jjc: asserting is a legal issue, so resolved in the courts

[13:22:22] libby

...agree w brain that this closes issue

[13:23:03] libby

danc: prefer to say 'for example publishing it on the web with a 200 response code bla bla bla' maybe better in primer

[13:23:23] libby

...we could be back here again if our readers dont agree

[13:24:08] libby

ps: because gl;obal, wont apply everywhere; also make peopel afraid of legal implicationas of rdf

[13:24:22] libby

...just a means for expressing knowldge

[13:24:31] libby

..danc - a contract mechanism

[13:24:33] libby

danc: yes

[13:24:45] libby

...'absolutely'

[13:25:19] libby

brian: lots of specs in the legal process...

[13:25:30] libby

...dont believe we have to complete entire chain

[13:25:53] libby

...we have to lay a part in making it so directpor can claim that a contract happened

[13:26:09] libby

gk: violent agreemnt! propose we accept dancs proposal

[13:26:32] libby

...'for example by publication on the web with response code 200'

[13:26:46] libby

md: in absense of legal sigs, problem

[13:26:57] libby

danc, no, is http spec, same as http

[13:27:10] libby

ep: avoid 'true'

[13:27:30] libby

ep: ...some text comparing rdf to any other language....

[13:28:24] libby

danc: agree no more (bit also no less) than html

[13:28:38] libby

jjc, ps like ep's text more than danc's

[13:29:55] bwm

bwm has joined #rdfcore

[13:31:50] libby

ep: assertion made in rdf are analgous to assertions made in any other langiuage. the author of these assertions is responsible for tehse assertions but it remains the responsibility of courts to determine the effects of context and other factors.

[13:31:50] gk

For information: If we're going to talk detailed wording, here are the ones I proposed: "RDF is intended to convey assertions that are meaningful to the extent that they may, in appropriate contexts, be used to express the terms of binding agreements."

[13:32:56] libby

(some tweaking)

[13:33:07] libby

(some arguing)

[13:34:01] libby

brain: the director needs something. we nede to have something to show his, and see if efficient

[13:34:09] libby

..will that work danc?

[13:34:23] libby

danc, yep, but also need to get it right

[13:35:28] libby

arguing about publisher

[13:37:25] libby

danc: treat it like text! I cannot change my position

[13:38:11] libby

dave, jos think too weak, ambiguous

[13:38:25] libby

dac, thinks could change 'may be' to 'is'

[13:39:38] libby

jjc: proposes a change 'is responsible for these assertions. It remains...'

[13:40:52] libby

...'it reamins the responsibility of courts to determine legal responsibioity considering the effects of context and otherr factors'

[13:41:14] libby

dave now happy, jos noit quite happy

[13:41:26] libby

danc yjoimks needs to say somethiogn about web servers

[13:42:18] libby

jjc: does think we shoudl untuil/if director says need something about web servers

[13:42:27] gk

I think we're wasting our time here on two counts: (a) the text is being offered in isolation from the document in which it to appear, (b) from my previous work in legally admissable messaging, legal liability is determined far more by custom and practice than anything we may say in a document.

[13:42:44] libby

brian: action (brian) to send this text to timbl and test whether this meets his needs

[13:44:01] libby

---issue rdfs-not-id-and-resource

[13:44:07] libby

-attr

[13:45:02] libby

jjc: was a problem when ID didnt mean reification. but now it does, this is fixed.

[13:45:13] libby

Appoved!

[13:45:19] libby

(shortest time ever)

[13:45:28] libby

actions: daveb to update testcases

[13:46:01] DanC

DanC has joined #rdfcore

[13:46:15] libby

(generate or amend testcase, review existing ones)

[13:46:29] DanC

in case Brian sees this: when you send the text to TimBL, he's gonna want to read it in context; i.e. in the context of the primer or the model theory.

[13:46:37] libby

----datatyping

[13:46:47] libby

(universal happiness)

[13:47:39] libby

danc: time to choose one of teh props

[13:47:48] libby

jjc: liked simple 2 better

[13:48:21] libby

brain: titdy contradicts simple datatypes 2.

[13:48:32] libby

jjc would like 3-4 moins to talk about it.

[13:48:38] libby

jjc talks about simple 2

[13:49:37] libby

jjc: the literal "foo" is is replacable in the MT with a bnode _b <rdf:dlex> "foo"

[13:49:53] libby

...completely replaceable with each other, seen one, seen the other

[13:50:01] libby

danc: infinte regress?

[13:50:06] libby

jjc: can sort it if so

[13:50:46] libby

...from tidiness pov, the bnode becomes typed and so is not tidy

[13:51:28] libby

..jjc thought allows SB idom, interworks with SA idiom, and they are genuinely compatible

[13:52:02] libby

danc: convinced to reopen the issue?

[13:52:38] libby

brian: who supports reopening issue

[13:52:45] libby

3 1/2 - not enough

[13:53:11] libby

jos: proposed similar earlier, coinvinced not workable

[13:53:19] libby

- not reopened

[13:53:53] libby

danc has some questions:

[13:54:36] libby

http://.....#decimal - lots people want to use it as a class name; lots as a property name (xsd:decimal)

[13:55:02] libby

gk: ambivilant, cos have to assin afdditional meaning to it in the rdf context not in schema one

[13:55:47] libby

danc: in your favourite design, doy ou want to use this as a prooperty

[13:55:50] libby

?

[13:56:36] libby

brain realizes what danc is trying to do....

[13:57:08] libby

brian: pat's latest doc has been amended over night

[13:58:20] libby

...who agrees with it?

[13:58:39] libby

..m,artyn yes; miked reservations; jjc, opoosed

[13:59:46] libby

...lukewarm support

[14:00:23] libby

...made all the key deciisons, minor stuff only

[14:00:23] libby

ps would like path to review some things he's found with it

[14:00:36] libby

jjc will bedragged with the group reluctantly

[14:01:12] libby

brian thinks jeremy is they only one who doesnt have what he wants

[14:01:41] libby

brian: do you want to do the process?

[14:02:00] libby

agrement that if danc fails to persuade we revert to the path doc

[14:02:13] libby

danc: 10 mins

[14:02:45] libby

http://....#decimal (xsd:decimal) is a propert name?

[14:02:56] libby

...sometimes people like this, sometime not

[14:03:20] libby

danc: if so

[14:03:45] libby

.. people like: dc:date range date

[14:04:54] libby

...B4

[14:05:22] libby

mary age "10"

[14:05:22] libby

film title "10"

[14:05:22] libby

mary age _x

[14:05:25] libby

filem title _x

[14:05:41] libby

about 1/2 each way as a good thuing

[14:06:55] libby

danc is close to abandoning all hope is his method...

[14:07:16] libby

serveral peple withdraw their 'nos'

[14:07:46] libby

danc gives up in despair

[14:07:58] libby

brain: we go to pat's doc then

[14:08:10] libby

danc: what are the big and what small issues for discussion

[14:08:58] libby

danc: ascethetic arguments are no longer in order

[14:12:16] libby

[scribe missed a bit by jjc, sorry]

[14:12:51] libby

ps: woulod like to talk about changing pats proposal - postponed to later

[14:13:20] libby

brian jjc has pointed out that entailment important to us, and path's rules it aout

[14:13:41] libby

...change your mind anyone, re jjc comments (unfixable by minor changes)

[14:14:24] libby

?

[14:14:48] libby

danc would not want to move forwar in that case, nor grahma, ps or jjc

[14:15:28] libby

jjc thinks possible to solve problem by halving path's proposal and taking half any half!)

[14:15:34] libby

brian thinks this in scope

[14:17:47] libby

brian: propose simple datatypes doc is the basis for our datatypes solution: http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype23-02-2002.html

[14:18:30] libby

...we will only make changes to fix specific problems, with testcases. A problem is something the WG agrees is a problem

[14:19:37] libby

danc: the lack of xml e.g.s in the doc is a problem. but path doesnt, cant do that

[14:19:44] libby

gk does think a problem

[14:19:51] libby

sorry, doesnt think so

[14:20:04] libby

most people think lack of e.gs in xml is a problem

[14:20:30] libby

ps 'volunteers'

[14:20:43] libby

action PS produce these examples

[14:20:59] libby

brian: is jjcs entailment not being entoialed a problem?

[14:21:02] libby

...yes

[14:21:17] libby

jjcs entailment si a problem - WG agrees

[14:22:14] libby

going to do this here and on telecon

[14:22:48] libby

ps: problem that it is too complex correctly

[14:22:56] libby

s/correctly/currently

[14:23:15] libby

jjc: let's appreciate patH's work here

[14:24:25] libby

ps: too cumbersome

[14:24:58] libby

brian: not enough support for that as a problem heree, maybe in another few weeks

[14:25:36] libby

mikeD: take out octal and germal decimal are not good in here

[14:25:51] libby

(also as a point xsd:number shopuld be xsd:decimal)

[14:26:39] libby

..no octal concept in xsd, not commas intead of periods in xsd

[14:27:08] libby

agreemnt that this a problem

[14:27:39] libby

gk: question: are we limited to xsd datatypes for the purposes of evaluating this proposal?

[14:30:40] libby

gk: no rational numbers in sd

[14:30:43] libby

xsd

[14:31:06] libby

'what we define a datatypeto be'

[14:31:41] libby

jjc: small changes, e.g. examples form xsd unl;ess compelling reason not to

[14:31:56] libby

approved!

[14:32:01] libby

whoo!

[14:32:49] libby

libby has quit

[14:52:01] AaronSw

<Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started

[14:52:01] AaronSw

<Zakim> +TP-Iles-C

[14:52:11] AaronSw

<Zakim> +AaronSw

[14:53:07] DanC

testing suggests phone working well... low latency, full duplex.

[14:53:41] AaronSw

http://www.thepaleboys.com/Paddy%20and%20the%20Pale%20Boys%20-%20Spanish%20Lady.mp3

[14:53:53] AaronSw

<gk> http://ils.student.utwente.nl/main/r/reilly_paddy/spanish_lady.crd

[14:59:43] AaronSw

<Zakim> +Manola

[15:00:59] AaronSw

<Zakim> +Guest P7 7332 - is perhaps PatH?

[15:01:47] patH

patH has joined #rdfcore

[15:03:19] DanC

for W3C process presentation, the materials are: http://www.w3.org/2001/02pd/rec54.ps

[15:03:29] libby

libby has joined #rdfcore

[15:04:59] DanC

I tried to actually hold a design discussion about datatypes, but it became clear after <10min that we were so far from consensus that we just picked pat's most recent as "as good as it gets".

[15:05:34] gk

gk is now known as gk-scribe

[15:19:21] gk-scribe

(Dan is talking through the process for last call, based on the diagram at: http://www.w3.org/2001/02pd/rec54.png)

[15:19:57] gk-scribe

Thinks we have a good chance o shooting directly for proposed rec (i.e. have sufficient interoperable implementation experience.)

[15:21:00] gk-scribe

The next step (to full recommendation) is not so much about technology development as getting consensus from the AC that this is a worthwhile technology to deploy.

[15:22:54] gk-scribe

So now we need to estimate the schedules (overrun from original charter) going forward from here to proposed rec ... and to full rec???

[15:23:32] gk-scribe

As a working group, we need to agree that this is more that just an editorial clarification of the original RDR M&S, which was the original plan.

[15:23:56] gk-scribe

Aaaron: but we could have made some more interesting decisions....??

[15:24:17] gk-scribe

[But the charter limited our scope there - ed]

[15:24:34] gk-scribe

AGREED: out new documents are not just an editorial clarificaTion.

[15:25:32] gk-scribe

Documents are: primer, syntax, model th, schema, test cases, datatypes(?), relationship to other specs.

[15:25:47] gk-scribe

Which of these are REC track?

[15:26:25] gk-scribe

DanC: all but XML relationship.

[15:26:33] gk-scribe

GK: dont think the primer is.

[15:30:40] gk-scribe

AGREED: the primer will be recommendation track, with dissent from 1 (GK)

[15:31:53] gk-scribe

Discussion of datatyping -- will this be rolled into the schema specfication?

[15:32:50] gk-scribe

FrankM: consequence is that maybe cannot use RDF without using _some_ schema features.

[15:33:45] gk-scribe

jjc: support for idea that Datatyping is published as a NOTE; lack implementation experience, treat design as a hypothesis for a design to be used.

[15:34:34] gk-scribe

Jos: entailment rules in current model theory [...] advantage of having in RDFS is a coherent whole.

[15:34:52] gk-scribe

Aaron: if we find problems, who'se responsible to fix?

[15:35:01] gk-scribe

jjc: tougher if a REC

[15:35:31] gk-scribe

DanC: Have sympathy, but there are real dependencies here, so we really need to have this sorted, not just hypothesis.

[15:36:27] gk-scribe

... seems to be some implementation experience with schema.

[15:36:48] gk-scribe

Aaron: may take RDF schema to CR, and have others skip to PR.

[15:37:08] gk-scribe

DaveB: all documents need to be ready by May -- there are to many interdependencies.

[15:37:23] gk-scribe

[May? did we agree that?]

[15:37:39] gk-scribe

bwm: back to datatypes...

[15:38:05] gk-scribe

jjc: unhappy committing datatypes to REC

[15:38:57] gk-scribe

GK sympathy expressed, but DanC made compelling case.

[15:39:59] gk-scribe

AGREED: Datatyping will be in the schema spec ... maybe with parts in model theory???

[15:40:24] gk-scribe

DanC think we can do last cal my May.

[15:41:00] gk-scribe

i.e. beginning of May (May 7)

[15:41:03] gk-scribe

FrankM: if scope creep can be limited.

[15:41:36] gk-scribe

PatH: remember there's lots of conferences, etc., in April

[15:42:01] gk-scribe

Aaron, DanC: would like finished copies of specs to hand out at WWW2002

[15:42:48] gk-scribe

If working draft= document author not embarassed to put name on (may be incomplete)

[15:42:56] gk-scribe

When can primer be ready???

[15:43:15] gk-scribe

Basically, current material, made presentable.

[15:43:24] gk-scribe

FrankM: a week.

[15:43:58] gk-scribe

ACTION: FrankM, primer WD copy ready by next week.

[15:44:28] gk-scribe

Model theory... last-call working draft??

[15:45:11] gk-scribe

PatH: 1 May 2002, Pat Hayes busy in March, relatively fee in April.

[15:46:10] gk-scribe

EricM: If the primer is the document that will integrate the other parts, it will need a _lot_ of work from all WG members to be ready for last-call.

[15:46:50] gk-scribe

Schema, DanBri is not available -- need a plan B.

[15:47:54] gk-scribe

ABove... *if* DanBri is not available...

[15:48:04] gk-scribe

... and isn't in current call.

[15:48:16] gk-scribe

PatrickS, if people will "look over my shoulder" I'll be plan B editor for Scema.

[15:48:54] gk-scribe

We need a woring draft of schema (as well as Primer) *before* last call.

[15:49:34] gk-scribe

Ask PatrickS to come back with a higher confidence answer in a week.

[15:50:00] gk-scribe

So, for the time being, plan is to have everything to go by 1 May 2002.

[15:51:01] gk-scribe

==== Note target above ====

[15:52:02] gk-scribe

XML relationships NOTE, not same deadline. Words might appear in the primer.

[15:53:58] gk-scribe

----

[15:54:02] gk-scribe

After May...

[15:54:55] gk-scribe

DanC: It will be too soon to disband the WG, so when should we? conventional wisdom = REC+6 months

[15:55:26] gk-scribe

Will also deliver list of suggestions of what to do next.

[15:57:19] gk-scribe

Suggested we'll hang around for 6 months without necessarily meeting regularly.

[15:57:27] gk-scribe

Seems like general agreement.

[15:59:35] gk-scribe

How long for last call? Aim for 3-week response period, all responses by end of May - need F2F to resolve difficult comments.

[16:00:32] gk-scribe

(If no issues, we have F2F for a big party ;-)

[16:03:06] gk-scribe

Aiming for mid-June (maybe around Sardinia meeting?)

[16:08:14] gk-scribe

AGREED: plan to meet in Europe, dates around the Sardinia conference

[16:09:29] gk-scribe

Bristol is preferred to Pizza, for many.

[16:10:08] DanC

s/Pizza/Pisa/g

[16:10:31] gk-scribe

ACTION: bwm to specify precise dates and sort hosting details.

[16:11:11] gk-scribe

Schedule another event, later F2F ??

[16:12:05] gk-scribe

... not a WG activity? Workshop as oriming activity for follow-on work. People may want to think iof they're available for more

[16:12:18] gk-scribe

ACTION: bwm, consider arrangements for RDF-2.0 workshop.

[16:13:50] AaronSw

aw, no singing

[16:14:12]

* AaronSw starts up "Spanish Lady" on Karaoke mode

[16:14:13] gk-scribe

Aaargh! We had it all lined up.

[16:14:30] gk-scribe

End of session.

[16:14:36] gk-scribe

---

[16:14:43] gk-scribe

gk-scribe is now known as gk

[16:16:11] AaronSw

Whack for the toora loora laddie

[16:16:11] AaronSw

Whack for the toora loora lay.

[16:18:22] AaronSw

Well, we'll have to have at least a get-together at Hawaii.

[16:18:38] DanC

you plan to come to Hawaii? I guess you said that.

[16:19:11] AaronSw

Yeah, I spent my one travel opportunity on it

[16:19:16] AaronSw

I want a F2F I can actually be at, gosh darnit.

[16:22:29] AaronSw

Tho I did find someone who'll pay to fly me out to California for some meetings.

[16:22:51] gk

gk has left #rdfcore

[16:23:31] patH

patH has quit

[16:37:03] bwm

bwm has quit

[16:41:15] AaronSw

We'll have to save the singing for our next telecon.

[16:46:05] mdean_

mdean_ has quit

[17:02:36] libby

libby has quit

[17:52:39] JosD

JosD has quit

[19:42:43] DanC

DanC has quit

[22:41:34] DanC

DanC has joined #rdfcore

[23:17:12] DanC

DanC has quit

Provided by Dave Beckett, Institute for Learning and Research Technology, University of Bristol