14:00:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
14:01:44 <bwm> bwm has joined #rdfcore
14:01:48 <danbri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0123.html
14:02:06 <em> em has changed the topic to: rdfcore teleconference - 20020719
14:02:52 <DanC> that(0123) says 2002-07-12; is it for today after all?
14:03:11 <danbri> oops, dunno. in hurry.
14:05:04 <danbri> I think it might just have wrong date on it.
14:05:13 <DaveB> isn't 0117.html the agenda?
14:05:34 <jang> yes
14:05:35 <danbri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0115.html appears to be it
14:05:44 <danbri> and the other copies are the same, i assume
14:06:07 <DanC> "4: Next telecon 26th July 2002" <- consistent with an agenda for today.
14:07:42 <danbri> yes, that's the one.
14:07:58 <danbri> Zakim, who is here?
14:07:59 <Zakim> sorry, danbri, I don't know what conference this is
14:08:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri, DanC, em, DaveB, Guha_, jang, logger_1
14:08:04 <danbri> Zakim, list conferences?
14:08:05 <Zakim> I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM
14:08:15 <danbri> Zakim, this is SW_RDFCore
14:08:16 <Zakim> ok, danbri
14:08:20 <danbri> Zakim, who is here?
14:08:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, ??P1, ??P3, DanBri, PatH?, +1.650.965.aabb
14:08:21 <jang> aob: guha, lbase
14:08:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri, DanC, em, DaveB, Guha_, jang, logger_1
14:08:26 <jang> plus, aob: datatypes
14:08:37 <jang> roll call:
14:08:48 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
14:09:00 <jang> bwm, danbri, dave b , jang, mike dean, pat h
14:09:20 <Zakim> +EricM
14:09:23 <jang> jjc regrets
14:09:27 <jang> danc regrets
14:09:30 <jang> rond abs
14:09:31 <jang> bill d abs
14:09:33 <jang> jos reg
14:09:35 <jang> rael abs
14:09:37 <jang> arno abs
14:09:40 <jang> eric here
14:09:45 <jang> jang here
14:09:47 <jang> yoshi abs
14:09:52 <jang> grah k reg
14:09:54 <jang> mick kop abs
14:09:56 <jang> kwon abs
14:09:58 <jang> ora abs
14:10:09 <jang> frank manola..? abs
14:10:13 <jang> satoshi abs
14:10:15 <jang> steve here
14:10:17 <jang> pierre r abs
14:10:23 <jang> patrick here
14:10:24 <jang> aaron abs
14:10:28 <jang> mike dean here
14:10:29 <jang> guha here
14:10:46 <jang> pat h here, sergei abs
14:11:01 <jang> next telecon: next week, eric to chair
14:11:09 <jang> minutes of last telecon:
14:11:15 <jang> approved (with jos there)
14:11:37 <jang> minutes all approves
14:11:37 <DanC> FYI: recent work in WebOnt on layering: # LANG: new version of abstract syntax/translation document Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Sun, Jul 07 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0031.html
14:11:40 <jang> actions approves
14:11:45 <DanC> I'd appreciate review from RDFCore folk.
14:11:49 <jang> lbase:
14:12:01 <jang> guha. path and i are going to give next version to eric soon to make it a note...
14:12:17 <jang> bwm: what was answer to process question? private submission?
14:12:23 <jang> eric: I'd suggest that it not be.
14:12:49 <jang> it sounds like theres sufficient consensus at f2f that this was useful contrib from rdfcore and should be submitted that way
14:12:54 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:13:03 <jang> the wg wants this to get published.
14:13:06 <Zakim> +??P7
14:13:08 <aaronsw> aaronsw has joined #rdfcore
14:13:20 <aaronsw> zakim, who's here?
14:13:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, ??P1, ??P3, DanBri, PatH?, +1.650.965.aabb, Mike_Dean, EricM, AaronSw, ??P7
14:13:21 <jang> danbri: this doc needs a "status of this document"
14:13:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see aaronsw, bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri, DanC, em, DaveB, Guha_, jang, logger_1
14:13:28 <jang> eric has volunteered to take it on...
14:13:49 <jang> action danbri-eric / take this offline and figure out who owns the publishing side
14:13:56 <jang> Guha_: we sould be ready end monday
14:14:54 <DaveB> can we have url of this doc?
14:14:55 <jang> bwm: if this is getting published in the name of the wg, then we ought to review it
14:14:58 <jang> have we seen it?
14:15:01 <DaveB> and www-archive copy pls?
14:15:20 <danbri> I checked a copy into w3.org datespace (rummages for URL)
14:15:26 <danbri> am waiting for more content from guha and pat
14:15:28 <jang> eric: guha and pat, if they can get this out by tuesday then feedback on friday to make publication
14:16:08 <jang> we'd be publishing on east coast time
14:16:24 <jang> datatypes: bwm sent out summary of responses
14:16:32 <jang> untidy is "in the lead"
14:16:41 <jang> bwm: my main concern right now..
14:16:54 <jang> I've been acting as the voice of the wg in the list
14:17:04 <jang> I'm not around next week... can someone stand in for me?
14:17:31 <jang> bwm: can eric do this?
14:17:45 <jang> bwm: I'm expecting it to be quite quiet next week.
14:17:55 <jang> danbri: I'll jump into the thread if necessary.
14:18:56 <jang> xmlp review.
14:19:05 <jang> danbri: we seem to largely agree
14:19:21 <jang> I'd rather we get comments to the group, so I'd suggest we each send comments directly.
14:19:32 <jang> bwm: is there a substantive issue we're worried about?
14:19:42 <jang> DanC: I'm worried that there are two specs coming out of w3c
14:19:50 <jang> both of which have edge-labelled graphs, etc.
14:19:55 <jang> both going to be widely deployed
14:19:59 <AaronSw> s/DanC/danbri
14:20:03 <jang> we don't know how different they are.
14:20:34 <jang> eric: I don't think it's as important to get an overall consensus doc from the rdfcore group
14:20:45 <jang> as it is to get issues back to the xmlp group
14:21:23 <jang> get the comments to xmlp-comments.
14:22:18 <jang> bwm: don't want to make work for another wg unless we can follow through on that
14:22:44 <jang> eric: how realistic can we be on harmonisation at this point? identify specific issues, goals, concerns about the specs.
14:23:44 <jang> bwm: the onus is on folks then to submit individual comments. I'm minded to push this to coordination group
14:23:52 <jang> if there's stuff here that needs to be done.
14:24:08 <jang> eric: certainly the future will be a coordination issue.
14:24:20 <jang> the deadline is today to get these responses in.
14:25:08 <jang> eric: I've already discussed this several times with the web services coordination group
14:25:24 <jang> we're still unsure how close these two things (xmlp, rdf) are
14:26:04 <jang> danbri: I've got an implementation that would take two days to wrap up
14:26:31 <jang> item 9: procedure for determining reserved vocab
14:26:37 <jang> back a second...
14:26:48 <jang> eric: are there other people on the list who are able to respond?
14:27:33 <jang> (eric sends graham an email to see if he can send his comments..)
14:27:38 <jang> item 9 again.
14:28:19 <jang> talking about option 2, the recognisale darkening uri prefix
14:28:36 <jang> bwm: guha, any more progress?
14:28:42 <danbri> <jang> danbri: I've got an implementation that would take two days to wrap up
14:28:59 <jang> Guha_: I'm waiting for jeremy's bug report, I can't find it
14:29:00 <danbri> ...two days that I lost this week due to problems with inria INRIA (for the record)
14:29:29 <em> em has joined #rdfcore
14:30:01 <bwm>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0001.html
14:30:37 <em> ping
14:30:38 <em> ?
14:30:44 <AaronSw> hi em
14:30:55 <em> ah, thanks!
14:31:46 <jang> bwm: suggests leaving out the http: prefix on the next url.
14:33:01 <AaronSw> asw: works conceptually, not really practically
14:33:51 <jang> jang: the redirect mentioned in jjs'c bug is a daft idea
14:34:11 <jang> test cases:
14:34:20 <jang> action: jang / update test cases in light of bugs
14:35:21 <jang> action: eric: jang gets dropped on rdf-comments (twice now)... any idea why?
14:35:34 <jang> dropped off, even
14:35:56 <jang> bwm: getting to last call. this means switching away from issues to focussing on the documents
14:36:29 <jang> how do people feel about document focus at each telecons?
14:36:50 <jang> DaveB: seems fine, but won't people want their documents put up as late as possible?
14:37:06 <em> q+
14:37:08 <jang> jan volunteers for the 26th july
14:37:27 <jang> graham: he hopes to have something published by the middle of next week...
14:37:36 <jang> suggest we put that up for the week after.
14:37:42 <jang> (pending jjc, gk's approval)
14:37:53 <jang> that would be 2nd august
14:38:02 <jang> that is, approval for first pub as wd
14:38:09 <em> q?
14:38:28 <jang> path: waiting on the tidy/untidy literal decision
14:38:39 <jang> path: can have document ready for the 9th august
14:38:56 <jang> DaveB: if not then the syntax document
14:39:05 <jang> 9th syntax
14:39:10 <jang> 16th august model theory
14:39:19 <jang> 23rd, schema.
14:39:33 <jang> eric: keep going.
14:39:52 <jang> bwm: how do you feel about close-to-last-call by 23rd august
14:39:53 <jang> Guha_: yes
14:39:56 <jang> danbri: sure
14:40:22 <jang> primer: ...
14:40:35 <jang> frank's not here. at the f2f, he was saying primer by ...
14:40:38 <jang> eric suggests 30th
14:40:46 <danbri> danbri: it's slightly at risk (re INRIA problem) but yes  (re RDFS)
14:41:04 <jang> datatypes: 6 september.
14:41:31 <jang> bwm: dts is likely to have a lot of discussion.
14:41:41 <jang> I'm tyring to get it so that other documents could go independently.
14:41:45 <jang> eric:...
14:42:15 <jang> bwm: you have action to get editors together to see if gk's stuff might have bits in other documents.
14:42:20 <jang> (last week, largely)
14:42:29 <jang> bwm: chapter three probably still needs a look
14:42:41 <jang> the role of that doc as overview has changed, it becomes a peer
14:42:44 <jang> but we do need it
14:42:46 <jang> eric:...
14:42:54 <jang> 1. first pub should not be last call
14:43:06 <jang> if that's the decision we need to put a WD somewhere in the schedule.
14:43:34 <jang> bwm: the 2nd august would be to propose to publish as wd
14:44:12 <Zakim> +Manola
14:44:45 <jang> eric: document dependencies are going to come up as we go to last call
14:44:54 <jang> if we talk about dts after the primer
14:45:04 <jang> then talking about [gk's new doc]
14:45:16 <jang> then those are going to have implications on the primer
14:45:20 <jang> cue frank m:
14:45:55 <jang> eric: I'm not sure how realistic that schedule is in that regard. I've been loking at the primer as the last doc to go out
14:45:59 <jang> but now frank's here(!)
14:46:18 <jang> third point:#wrt schedule: looking at the implementation of rdf, we could pretty much skip CR
14:46:26 <jang> we've got interop, test cases, etc.
14:46:40 <jang> if we include datatypes, that means we need CR period
14:46:57 <jang> if there's a way to implement these asap as the docs come out to test interop that will improve things
14:47:18 <jang> can developers on the list begin to think about allocating devel time to this?
14:47:22 <jang> [eric done]
14:47:35 <jang> bwm: on process: CR not nec without DTs?
14:47:42 <jang> eric: a strong case can be made that that's the case.
14:48:00 <jang> bwm: does that mean other docs can proceed to rec without cr, and only dts need cr period?
14:48:12 <jang> eric: that's a good question: I've been viewing this as a big lump
14:48:18 <jang> AaronSw: mt has dep on DTs?
14:48:40 <jang> path: yes, in the sense that DT decisions have a knock-on
14:48:53 <jang> Guha_: no syntax changes, but MT is affected.
14:49:14 <jang> path: the diff between tidy, untidy syntax affects the mt, 
14:49:26 <jang> [you're joking, danc!]
14:49:45 <DanC> [no, not joking. see earlier reference to 'abstract syntax' document.]
14:49:54 <jang> path: when the decision is made, the dt doc will be easy. we've written dozens of them already (!)
14:50:39 <DaveB> I rread that pfps doc - it's funny
14:50:49 <jang> eric: I'm trying to drive for rec, this is in my experience the hardest thing to do
14:51:09 <jang> it means implementation, development.
14:51:26 <jang> bwm: you're suggesting a schedule for conformant implementations?
14:51:33 <AaronSw> pfps doc = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/att-0031/01-specification.html
14:51:56 <jang> eric: the dts doc will have test cases, surely...
14:52:08 <jang> so you'll expect to see this in the tc document.
14:53:23 <jang> jang: I'd expect to extract TCs from the DT doc
14:54:10 <jang> action bwm / to identify applications needed and get a schedule for them
14:55:05 <jang> daveb reads danc's earlier dark triples comment
14:55:25 <jang> rod daniel on the phone, he's here
14:55:41 <jang> bwm: where are webont at the moment?
14:56:05 <jang> there's a brief round of catchup on webont's status. there's a subgroup dedicated to fixing the semantics
14:56:24 <jang> (path, pfps, danc, ianh on it)
14:56:36 <jang> frankm proposes a motion of sympathy with webont
14:57:06 <jang> path: it's ahrmless to put them in.
14:57:16 <jang> frank: it'll confuse a lot of people.
14:57:38 <jang> Guha_: the worst that can happen is that we don't provide the mechanism
14:57:43 <jang> and webont does their own thing
14:57:47 <jang> and sets that precedent
14:58:11 <jang> [jang: note that we could have the dark triples in black text on a black background in the docs]
14:58:28 <jang> frankm: I'm hoping to have a new version of the primer out sunday night or monday
14:58:36 <jang> eric: lauds
14:58:45 <jang> eric: are we talking about republication?
14:58:59 <jang> frank: possibly. There's certainly stuff that I'd like the group's review of
14:59:15 <jang> fragments, non-prescriptive interpretation of schema, some new material, etc.
14:59:38 <Zakim> -??P7
14:59:42 <jang> bwm: asks frank if he'd like to move primer forward in the schedule.
15:00:32 <jang> frank: I ca put this up independently
15:00:43 <jang> people can look at sections they're particularly concerned about
15:00:47 <jang> i can keep working away
15:01:01 <jang> in particular, people might want to look at triple representation in the introduction.
15:01:15 <jang> then people can look at other aspects of the primer or not as their fancy dictates.
15:01:21 <jang> q+
15:01:22 <Zakim> -??P0
15:01:24 <Zakim> -AaronSw
15:01:25 <em> ack em
15:01:33 <em> q+
15:01:55 <AaronSw> grr! zakim won't let me back on
15:02:11 <em> q-
15:02:15 <jang> q-
15:02:33 <jang> after-hours discussion: path and guha natter.
15:02:53 <jang> meeting closes
15:03:00 <jang> AaronSw: it's the time
15:03:07 <AaronSw> yeah
15:03:20 <jang> action bwm / have a good holiday
15:03:20 <AaronSw> still seems rude, tho
15:03:41 <AaronSw> Have we approved all the test cases?
15:03:42 <Zakim> -??P3
15:04:09 <AaronSw> Or are we planning to do that next week?
15:04:36 <DaveB> we approved a bunch previously, minutes just approved today
15:04:46 <jang> it sounds like there are more test cases coming...
15:04:53 <jang> from dts in particular
15:05:00 <jang> mostly wordsmithing, I think.
15:05:23 <jang> I've got time booked on monday to do a rundown and tidy-up.
15:06:00 <Zakim> -??P1
15:17:10 <Zakim> - +1.650.965.aabb
15:17:13 <Zakim> -PatH?
15:17:13 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
15:17:16 <Zakim> -Manola
15:17:21 <Zakim> -DanBri
15:17:28 <Zakim> -EricM
15:17:30 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
15:20:01 <danbri> danbri has left #rdfcore
17:11:53 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfcore
17:13:13 <DanC> DanC has left #rdfcore
17:16:55 <em> em has left #rdfcore