IRC log of rdfcore on 2002-10-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:53:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
13:54:48 [AaronSw]
AaronSw has joined #rdfcore
13:56:09 [gk]
gk has joined #rdfcore
13:57:25 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rdfcore
13:58:56 [em]
zakim, list conferences
13:58:57 [Zakim]
I see WAI_EOWG()8:30AM, P3P_CG()9:30AM, SW_RDFCore()10:00AM
13:59:05 [em]
zakim, this is SW_RDFCore
13:59:06 [Zakim]
ok, em
13:59:08 [Zakim]
+??P15
13:59:17 [DaveB]
Zakim, +??P15 is DaveB
13:59:18 [Zakim]
sorry, DaveB, I do not recognize a party named '+??P15'
13:59:36 [DaveB]
well you are stupid then Zakim
13:59:42 [em]
Zakim, ??P15 is DaveB
13:59:43 [Zakim]
+DaveB; got it
13:59:45 [JosD]
Zakim, who is here
13:59:46 [Zakim]
JosD, you need to end that query with '?'
13:59:55 [JosD]
Zakim, who is here ?
13:59:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P10, DaveB
13:59:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JosD, gk, AaronSw, RRSAgent, Zakim, bwm, em, DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger
13:59:58 [Zakim]
+EricM
14:00:14 [JosD]
Zakim, ??P10 is JosD
14:00:15 [Zakim]
+JosD; got it
14:00:49 [DanCon]
agenda + 25Oct http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0327.html
14:01:03 [JosD]
Zakim, who is here ?
14:01:04 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM
14:01:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JosD, gk, AaronSw, RRSAgent, Zakim, bwm, em, DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger
14:01:07 [Zakim]
+FrankM
14:01:17 [DaveB]
em and I discuss http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
14:01:19 [Zakim]
+??P18
14:01:22 [gk]
zakim, ??p18 is gk
14:01:24 [Zakim]
+Gk; got it
14:01:26 [Zakim]
+??P16
14:01:31 [Zakim]
+DanC
14:01:53 [em]
zakim, ??P16 is Jeremy
14:01:54 [Zakim]
+Jeremy; got it
14:02:00 [DaveB]
ugh, more non-N-Triples
14:02:02 [JosD]
agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0327.html
14:02:27 [Zakim]
+Mike_Dean
14:02:35 [jjc]
jjc has joined #rdfcore
14:03:23 [Zakim]
+AaronSw
14:03:39 [Zakim]
+??P21
14:03:46 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rdfcore
14:03:58 [Zakim]
+??P22
14:04:11 [jjc]
Zakim, who's on the call?
14:04:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM, FrankM, Gk, Jeremy, DanC, Mike_Dean, AaronSw, ??P21, ??P22
14:04:28 [Zakim]
+DanBri
14:04:33 [jjc]
Zakim, ??P21 is Brian.
14:04:34 [Zakim]
+Brian.; got it
14:04:38 [DanCon]
Zakim, who's talking?
14:04:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.850.202.aaaa - is perhaps PatH?
14:04:50 [Zakim]
DanCon, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: FrankM (19%), Brian. (41%), ??P22 (59%), EricM (24%), DanC (4%), DanBri (19%)
14:04:52 [AaronSw]
zakim, Pat is PatH
14:04:53 [Zakim]
+PatH; got it
14:05:16 [JosD]
scribe for next week is DaveB
14:05:18 [bwm_]
bwm_ has joined #rdfcore
14:05:24 [JosD]
Zakim, who is here ?
14:05:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM, FrankM, Gk, Jeremy, DanC, Mike_Dean, AaronSw, Brian., ??P22, DanBri, PatH
14:05:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bwm_, mdean, jjc, JosD, gk, AaronSw, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger
14:05:40 [DaveB]
one uknown?
14:05:43 [Zakim]
+??P24
14:05:54 [em]
zakim, ??P24 is SteveP
14:05:55 [Zakim]
+SteveP; got it
14:06:06 [AaronSw]
zakim, ??P22 is PatrickS
14:06:08 [Zakim]
+PatrickS; got it
14:06:15 [JosD]
Zakim, who is here ?
14:06:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JosD, DaveB, EricM, FrankM, Gk, Jeremy, DanC, Mike_Dean, AaronSw, Brian., PatrickS, DanBri, PatH, SteveP
14:06:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bwm_, mdean, jjc, JosD, gk, AaronSw, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DanCon, DaveB, danbri, logger
14:06:35 [AaronSw]
zakim, Bri is BrianM
14:06:37 [Zakim]
+BrianM; got it
14:06:59 [DanCon]
w3c telcons are scheduled on Boston time.
14:07:15 [JosD]
minutes approved
14:07:45 [AaronSw]
DST ends at 2AM and summertime ends at 1AM, but i don't think that will affect us
14:08:32 [DanCon]
CONTINUED: ACTION: 2001-12-07#7 EricM
14:08:32 [DanCon]
put removal of aboutEach to CG to ask whether this is in charter or not
14:08:48 [JosD]
approved 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions
14:09:05 [DaveB]
were there any regrets? I offer JanG's
14:09:17 [JosD]
continue first action of 7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions
14:09:42 [JosD]
agendum 8: WG Schedule
14:09:46 [JosD]
============
14:11:34 [JosD]
... discussing Concepts Doc ready for Review
14:12:31 [DanCon]
for the reason PatrickS brought up, the docs should *not* talk about labels; the labelled design is isomorphic to the labelless one, but programming datastructures are *not*, and we shouldn't mislead developers into thinking nodes are datastructures.
14:12:43 [JosD]
... discussing MT
14:13:21 [JosD]
Brian really wants to publish before 18th
14:13:42 [AaronSw]
can we call for reviewers now?
14:13:53 [DaveB]
that's in the agenda near each doc
14:14:03 [danbri]
$ cal 11 2002
14:14:03 [danbri]
November 2002
14:14:03 [danbri]
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
14:14:03 [danbri]
1 2
14:14:03 [danbri]
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
14:14:05 [danbri]
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
14:14:07 [danbri]
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
14:14:08 [danbri]
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
14:14:22 [JosD]
try for decision the 15h
14:14:40 [gk]
GK notes: I'll be travelling on 15th Nov
14:15:06 [JosD]
Eric thinks that would work
14:15:35 [danbri]
fwiw RDFS went thru pubrule tests ok last time; took a while to bring the spec up to date, but that's done
14:15:52 [DanCon]
pubrules checker: http://www.w3.org/2001/07/pubrules-form
14:17:48 [JosD]
DanC also thinks that the 15th is reasonable
14:18:23 [gk]
I really should try to be done *before* 13th.. after that, I'm travelling
14:19:45 [JosD]
Brian wants to make sure that the WD are *technically complete*
14:20:44 [JosD]
Jeremy proposes an editors todo list
14:20:56 [jjc]
in the primer ...
14:22:52 [JosD]
DanC thinks that is OK that the primer doesn't cover datatypes
14:23:12 [JosD]
... although Frank has an action to add it
14:23:47 [DaveB]
the draft does cover them http://www.w3.org/2001/09/rdfprimer/rdf-primer-20021024.html#typedliterals
14:23:53 [JosD]
... and Frank has examples using Ntriples
14:24:13 [DaveB]
not-n-triples
14:24:24 [JosD]
Eric hears that Frank can meet the deadline
14:24:55 [DaveB]
item 9: Model Theory
14:25:10 [JosD]
========== 9: Model Theory
14:25:22 [DanCon]
??? waiting for decisions? the WG is *not* in the critical path any more; there are no pending issues.
14:26:02 [gk]
PatH: domain and range, how to define semantics? if or iff semantics?
14:26:31 [JosD]
Pat is waiting for some decisions such as range semantics
14:26:46 [gk]
.. class A range B, B superclass C, A tange C (??? is that right example?)
14:27:08 [danbri]
eg. is rdfs:Resource an rdfs:range of each and every rdf:Property ?
14:27:10 [jjc]
q+
14:28:18 [JosD]
DanC says the the WG has no open issues and proposes editors just proceed
14:29:01 [Zakim]
-AaronSw
14:29:41 [Zakim]
+AaronSw
14:29:50 [Zakim]
-AaronSw
14:30:16 [JosD]
it's Pat's call
14:30:32 [JosD]
semantics of RDF Collection
14:30:44 [Zakim]
+AaronSw
14:30:58 [bwm_]
welcome Aaron
14:31:45 [bwm_]
ack jjc
14:32:13 [JosD]
Jeremy feels strong about this e.g. lack of equality,
14:32:28 [bwm_]
ack dancon
14:32:29 [Zakim]
DanCon, you wanted to get clarification
14:32:37 [JosD]
... also possibility of contradiction
14:33:57 [danbri]
if we add notion of a functional property for lists, i'd want it across the board... (hmm scope creep...)
14:34:31 [JosD]
ACTION DanC to produce a testcase for a nonentailment
14:34:49 [DanCon]
explain why it's ok not to put functional semantics for rdf:first/rest in our spec.
14:35:04 [JosD]
ACTION DanC to explain why it's ok not to put functional semantics for rdf:first/rest in our spec.
14:35:31 [JosD]
Proposed Technical changes to RDFS model theory
14:35:51 [DaveB]
q+
14:36:05 [DaveB]
q-
14:36:13 [JosD]
Pat will update that
14:36:27 [DanCon]
hmm... I have a concern about this IFF stuff, but I'm not sure what it is.
14:36:49 [JosD]
Pat raises point about syntax of literals
14:37:00 [JosD]
===========10: Syntax Document
14:37:08 [JosD]
2 actions are done
14:37:26 [em]
rdf:about -> about?
14:37:33 [em]
ok... yep same topic
14:37:58 [JosD]
proposed change rdf: prefix for about and resource
14:38:38 [jjc]
q+
14:38:39 [JosD]
DanC and DaveB reduced that to 0ne paragraph change
14:39:25 [JosD]
Jeremy wants to have deprecation and mentions the appropriate past motivation
14:39:40 [JosD]
... from May 2001
14:41:01 [JosD]
AaronSw proposes warning DanC not in favor of deprecation
14:41:26 [JosD]
PatrickS also supports deprecation
14:41:50 [gk]
I would prefer deprecation, but don't have cause to feel stringly
14:41:53 [danbri]
I don't care much either way. Can we have 'mild depracatation'?
14:42:15 [JosD]
RESOLVED deprecation
14:42:35 [jjc]
(I don't think we RESOLVED anything, editors' call)
14:42:36 [JosD]
rdf:type is part of the list
14:42:37 [Zakim]
-AaronSw
14:43:09 [danbri]
adopting change from dajobe/danc editorial thread on www-rdf-comments
14:43:21 [jjc]
ACTION: jjc Review syntax
14:43:24 [DanCon]
we RESOLVED to reopen rdfms-ns-confusion and close it with this change.
14:43:35 [Zakim]
+AaronSw
14:43:37 [JosD]
the question about deprecation is left to the editor
14:45:27 [JosD]
ACTION bwm to review syntax doc
14:45:45 [JosD]
================11: Concepts Doc
14:45:51 [JosD]
all action done
14:46:11 [danbri]
What's the specific request to Eikeon?
14:46:16 [danbri]
see #rdfig
14:46:24 [JosD]
Graham overviewing received comments
14:46:54 [DaveB]
extend +1; move primer learlier for frank?
14:47:36 [JosD]
DanC asks to extend meeting by 15 minutes
14:47:47 [JosD]
DanC raises Sandro's points
14:47:56 [gk]
I've been working on the issues list today: http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDFConceptIssues.html
14:48:07 [JosD]
... remember imports discussion
14:48:43 [danbri]
from #rdfig
14:48:44 [danbri]
[03:46] * eikeon is up for reviewing the spec.
14:48:56 [JosD]
DanC sympathetic to test his stuff but it's not critical last call
14:49:28 [JosD]
Graham don't think there are critical issues
14:49:44 [JosD]
Brian asks about dt literals
14:49:59 [DanCon]
DanC: I think the text in the concepts spec mostly addresses Sandro's concern, but he wants to be sure these concepts have teeth, i.e. test cases. But I think this is a different kind of test than the rest of our entailment test, and I think that sandro agrees.
14:50:27 [JosD]
Jeremy talks about the 2 new invented dt's
14:51:11 [JosD]
Pat thinks this is a major change
14:51:58 [DanCon]
jjc, you're moving to re-open the issue?
14:52:06 [DanCon]
I don't think this is inconsistent with what we decided.
14:52:59 [gk]
DanBri, see: http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-predefined-datatypes
14:53:36 [Zakim]
-AaronSw
14:55:38 [danbri]
is it the case that StringLiteral and XMLLiteral are, together, mutually disjoint with any other datatype class?
14:55:59 [DanCon]
the value space of stringliteral better not be disjoint from xsd:string
14:56:45 [danbri]
It's good that we can use OWL concepts to disambiguate our design...
14:57:49 [JosD]
Jeremy and Pat argue about implicit/explicit notation
14:57:57 [danbri]
q+ to ask whether a literal can be in one of these classes as well as an xsd datatype class
14:58:55 [JosD]
DanC argues in favor of 1 line in MT
14:59:21 [danbri]
I'm trying to get my head around this for RDFS too.
14:59:51 [DanCon]
jjc, path wants the subject of your msg
15:00:05 [DanCon]
# RDF concepts Jeremy Carroll (Fri, Oct 25 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0335.html
15:00:10 [danbri]
I don't know. I fear some confusion w.r.t disjointness or not.
15:00:29 [gk]
URL's for the relevant document sections: http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-Literals, http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-predefined-datatypes, http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-25/rdf-concepts.html#section-Graph-syntax
15:00:42 [DanCon]
BWM: jjc has said he can back out if this doesn't work. PatH [and somebody] hasn't read this. So please read it, then say if you can't accept it, in which case Jeremy can back out.
15:01:15 [DaveB]
last week minutes said: [[ DECISION: datatyped literals CAN have a language tag in the abstract syntax]]
15:01:19 [Zakim]
-FrankM
15:01:24 [Zakim]
-SteveP
15:01:30 [JosD]
Brian mentions the 2 other points w.r.t. langtag
15:01:53 [JosD]
... which need to be done in the abstract syntax
15:01:57 [DanCon]
which 2 new things, bwm? sorry, I lost track.
15:02:34 [bwm_]
I'll resummarize
15:02:35 [DanCon]
jjc, my question is whether classicliteral is disjoint from xsd:string. I would have a problem if it were.
15:02:42 [DaveB]
DanCon: rdfs:StringLiteral and rdfs:XMLLiteral
15:02:55 [DaveB]
er, no. I'm confused
15:03:39 [danbri]
q-
15:03:51 [JosD]
DanC thinks that it doesn't need to be disjoint if it is a union
15:04:15 [gk]
>> Not possible to add language tag by inference process
15:05:05 [danbri]
(danbri + bwm resolve to meet tuesday re RDFS + datatyping edits)
15:05:36 [JosD]
Brian 2nd issue doed a dt literal have a lang tag
15:06:39 [JosD]
DanC thinks there is no problem with the union idea
15:07:01 [DanCon]
bwm, you asked if anybody's proposing it; no, nobody's proposing it. It doesn't follow that this is what we want; only that we don't expect to get it.
15:07:59 [JosD]
DanC says that it depends on the xml langtag
15:08:24 [gk]
So we decide: types literals MAY have lang tags
15:08:28 [JosD]
DECIDED they may have one
15:08:51 [gk]
Can that lang tag take part in the literal-to-value mapping?
15:09:33 [JosD]
Brian: 2nd question can the mapping be influenced by the dt mapping?
15:09:52 [DaveB]
I sawy - yeah, why not.
15:11:25 [danbri]
nope, leads to alice in wonderlandism
15:11:44 [JosD]
Brian: we should not go beyond xsd's mapping of lexical form to value
15:12:05 [DaveB]
we're never going to get to pubing lbase at this rate
15:12:32 [bwm_]
<a> <b> "foo"@"lang1"^^dt . entails <a> <b> "foo"@"lang2"^^dt .
15:13:40 [danbri]
or rdfs
15:13:57 [DaveB]
and for: <a> <b> "foo"@"lang1 entails <a> <b> "foo"@"lang2"
15:13:58 [DaveB]
?
15:16:18 [jjc]
q+
15:16:37 [gk]
This sounds like arguing (FORALL dt) vs (EXISTS dt)
15:17:42 [DanCon]
have we extended the meeting?
15:18:29 [Zakim]
-Mike_Dean
15:18:33 [JosD]
meeting further extended by 15min
15:19:58 [gk]
bwm: lang matters for RDFMS style literals, does it matter for datatyped literals?
15:20:25 [JosD]
... we have the freedom to chose
15:21:10 [JosD]
DanC also wants to check with I18N WG
15:21:38 [JosD]
Pat says that it's just getting the same denotations
15:21:42 [gk]
DanC's view of a query engine is purely entailment-based. Others have wider views
15:22:22 [gk]
... i.e. some "query engines" might operate on the graph *syntax* elements
15:22:25 [jjc]
q+
15:23:29 [gk]
GK thinks he hears a locale vs language conflict
15:23:47 [em]
i've got to run folks... see you all in a but
15:23:51 [jjc]
Q+
15:23:54 [em]
s/but/bit :)
15:24:17 [Zakim]
-EricM
15:24:31 [JosD]
Brian thinks that we have a lexical coherent thing (with the langtag)
15:24:42 [JosD]
Jermy has to make the call
15:25:09 [gk]
PatH says needs lexical-to-value mappings to be clear
15:25:20 [gk]
(having looked at jeremy's datatype wording)
15:25:39 [gk]
ACTION: Jeremy - tell PatH what the lexical-to-value mappings are
15:26:00 [JosD]
ACTION on Jeremy to tell Pat what the LV mappings are for builtin dt's
15:26:58 [JosD]
----------- Ntriples proposal of DaveB
15:27:27 [JosD]
PatrickS gets DanC confirmation about ^^
15:27:39 [JosD]
... so no objections
15:28:03 [JosD]
action for the editors
15:28:51 [gk]
ACTION: jeremy to propose to dan schema for new datatypes
15:30:41 [JosD]
ACTION: Jeremy to circulate an updated version of the concepts document
15:30:52 [JosD]
Pat will review
15:31:30 [JosD]
...Graham involved
15:32:42 [JosD]
ACTION: PatH, DanC and JosD to review the updated version of the concepts document
15:33:38 [JosD]
====== meeting is closed
15:33:49 [Zakim]
-DaveB
15:33:49 [Zakim]
-PatrickS
15:33:53 [danbri]
danbri has left #rdfcore
15:33:57 [Zakim]
-DanBri
15:34:02 [JosD]
Zakim help
15:34:13 [JosD]
Zakim, help
15:34:15 [Zakim]
Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help.
15:34:16 [Zakim]
Some of the commands I know are:
15:34:17 [Zakim]
xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx
15:34:19 [Zakim]
if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted
15:34:21 [Zakim]
xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx
15:34:23 [Zakim]
I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx
15:34:24 [Zakim]
xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group
15:34:27 [Zakim]
xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx
15:34:28 [Zakim]
who's here? - lists the participants on the phone
15:34:30 [Zakim]
who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted
15:34:32 [Zakim]
mute xxx - mutes party xxx (such that 60# will not work)
15:34:34 [Zakim]
unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61#
15:34:37 [Zakim]
is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present
15:34:38 [Zakim]
list conferences - reports the active conferences
15:34:40 [Zakim]
this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx
15:34:41 [Zakim]
excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel
15:34:42 [Zakim]
I last learned something new on $Date: 2002/09/24 12:08:09 $
15:38:36 [JosD]
RRSAgent, help
15:39:42 [JosD]
RRSAgent, show action items
15:39:42 [RRSAgent]
I see 5 open action items:
15:39:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jjc Review syntax [1]
15:39:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T14-43-21
15:39:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jeremy - tell PatH what the lexical-to-value mappings are [2]
15:39:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-25-39
15:39:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jeremy to propose to dan schema for new datatypes [3]
15:39:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-28-51
15:39:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jeremy to circulate an updated version of the concepts document [4]
15:39:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-30-41
15:39:42 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: PatH, DanC and JosD to review the updated version of the concepts document [5]
15:39:42 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/10/25-rdfcore-irc#T15-32-42
15:46:14 [Zakim]
-JosD
15:49:09 [DanCon]
25-rdfcore-irc.html (from ACLs DB)
15:49:09 [DanCon]
world access.
15:49:09 [DanCon]
25-rdfcore-irc.rdf (from ACLs DB)
15:49:09 [DanCon]
world access.
15:49:09 [DanCon]
25-rdfcore-irc.txt (from ACLs DB)
15:49:10 [DanCon]
world access.
15:52:23 [DanCon]
jjc, still here? we should have a non-entailment test for different XML literals that canonicalize to the same thing, then?
15:54:47 [Zakim]
-PatH
15:55:08 [Zakim]
-DanC
15:57:19 [Zakim]
-Gk
15:58:39 [gk]
gk has joined #rdfcore
15:58:59 [gk]
Jeremy, I don't know if that last msg got through...
15:59:16 [gk]
I've emailed you relinquishment of document lock with note of CVS revision
16:00:25 [Zakim]
-BrianM
16:00:33 [gk]
I've also done tentative update of issues list at http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDFConceptIssues.html
16:00:39 [jjc]
Zakim, who's on the call?
16:00:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jeremy
16:00:50 [Zakim]
-Jeremy
16:00:55 [gk]
I lost the call.. still in IRC?
16:01:51 [gk]
I need to review old issues but have added new ones from the last few days.
16:04:10 [bwm_]
bwm_ has left #rdfcore
19:22:25 [Zakim]
SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
19:26:51 [DanCon]
DanCon has left #rdfcore
20:33:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdfcore