13:58:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
13:58:46 <jjc> Zakim, who's on the call?
13:58:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see +39.050.3.aaaa
13:58:54 <em> em has changed the topic to: rdfcore jun 27 teleconference
13:58:55 <jjc> Zakim, aaaa is jjc
13:58:55 <Zakim> +jjc; got it
13:59:02 <jang> ok, jjc, how'd you get zakim to understand that?
13:59:27 <jjc> You can see the log?
13:59:43 <gk> gk has joined #rdfcore
13:59:48 <jang> argh, intl calls barred from the office (that's new!) - back in a few minutes.
13:59:49 <jjc> 1) tell him this is RDFCore 2) find out who he thinks is on the call
13:59:50 <Zakim> +EMiller
14:00:07 <Zakim> +Pat_Hayes
14:00:56 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne
14:01:37 <em> zakim, who is here?
14:01:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see jjc, EMiller, Pat_Hayes, GrahamKlyne
14:01:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see gk, RRSAgent, jjc, bwm, Zakim, jang, em, logger
14:01:49 <Zakim> +??P16
14:02:03 <em> zakim, ??P16 is Jang
14:02:03 <Zakim> +Jang; got it
14:02:06 <Zakim> +FrankM
14:02:52 <jjc> Brian are you around?
14:03:02 <bwm> dialing ...
14:03:44 <bwm> zakim misbehaving
14:04:01 <Zakim> +??P18
14:04:07 <bwm> Zakim, ??p18 is bwm
14:04:07 <Zakim> +bwm; got it
14:04:15 <em> zakim, who is on the telecon
14:04:15 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the telecon', em
14:04:18 <em> zakim, who is on the teleconference
14:04:18 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the teleconference', em
14:04:23 <em> zakim, who is on the phone
14:04:23 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', em
14:04:25 <em> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:04:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see jjc, EMiller, Pat_Hayes, GrahamKlyne, Jang, FrankM, bwm
14:04:56 <em> regrets from miked, daveb
14:06:18 <em-scribe> role call... see above
14:06:42 <jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0176.html
14:06:47 <em-scribe> comments on agenda....
14:06:47 <jjc> agenda
14:07:11 <em-scribe> next telecon....
14:07:24 <DanC> DanC has joined #rdfcore
14:07:26 <em-scribe> 11th july
14:07:33 <em-scribe> regrets from jjc (on the 11th)
14:07:36 <Zakim> +DanC
14:07:44 <em-scribe> jang willing to scribe on the 11th
14:08:08 <em-scribe> comments on minutes from last meeting... approved
14:09:01 <em-scribe> what # are we on?
14:09:43 <em-scribe> Item 8
14:09:52 <em-scribe> These were editorial and have been addressed to bwm's satisfaction:
14:09:52 <em-scribe>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0173.html
14:11:14 <jan_g> jan_g has joined #rdfcore
14:11:16 <em-scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2003Apr/0010.html
14:12:07 <em-scribe> (rdf core response to cc/pp)
14:13:17 <bwm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2003Apr/0010.html
14:13:38 <jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2003May/0008.html
14:13:40 <bwm> http://www.w3.org/Mobile/CCPP/Group/PR/PR-CCPP-struct-vocab-20030514/Overview.html
14:14:03 <bwm> http://www.w3.org/Mobile/CCPP/Group/PR/PR-CCPP-struct-vocab-20030514/diff-20030325.html
14:14:07 <em-scribe> bwm: asking wether http://www.w3.org/Mobile/CCPP/Group/PR/PR-CCPP-struct-vocab-20030514/Overview.html doc satisfies the comments  from rdfcore http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2003Apr/0010.html
14:14:33 <em-scribe> diff-20030325.html doc is diff of original doc and rdfcore comments
14:15:05 <em-scribe> bwm: authorize response saying were satisfied or ask for more time to review...
14:15:48 <em-scribe> ACTION: bwm to respond to cc/pp saying we're satisfied with their document changes based on our feedback
14:16:48 <em-scribe> q+ to give status update on informal action from last week... not successful but hope for more for next week
14:17:40 <em-scribe> agenda item 10:
14:17:44 <em-scribe> 10: Issue horst-01
14:17:44 <em-scribe>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horst-01
14:18:01 <em-scribe> DanC: vote for change in semantics
14:18:09 <em-scribe> jjc: change the closure rules
14:19:03 <DanC> [[[
14:19:04 <DanC> If you axiomatize the iff semantics, it looks like:
14:19:04 <DanC> all SUB SUPER (
14:19:04 <DanC>  rdf(SUB, subClassOf, SUPER) 
14:19:04 <DanC>    <-> 
14:19:04 <DanC>   (all INSTANCE (
14:19:06 <DanC>     (rdf(INSTANCE, type, SUB) -> rdf(INSTANCE, type, SUPER))
14:19:08 <DanC>   ))
14:19:10 <DanC> ).
14:19:12 <DanC> ]]]
14:19:37 <DanC> --- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0175.html
14:24:50 <em-scribe> gk: been getting my head around the issue - can't seem reason for changing the semantics
14:24:56 <jjc> rdf( SUB subClassOf foobar ) <-> all INSTANCE { rdf(INSTANCE type SUB) -> rdf(INSTANCE type foobar) }
14:25:05 <jjc> is equivalent to
14:26:08 <jjc> rdf( SUB subClassOf foobar ), rdf( INSTANCE type SUB) -> rdf( INSTANCE type foobar)
14:26:31 <bwm> who is on the call
14:26:38 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the call?
14:26:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see jjc, EMiller, Pat_Hayes, GrahamKlyne, Jang, FrankM, bwm, DanC
14:27:28 <DanC> gk, you don't care whether RDFS fits in Horn or not?
14:28:45 <bwm> q?
14:29:06 <em-scribe> ack em
14:29:06 <Zakim> em-scribe, you wanted to give status update on informal action from last week... not successful but hope for more for next week
14:29:20 <bwm> ack em
14:29:22 <em-scribe> ack danc
14:32:01 <jjc> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byIssue#I5.24-001
14:32:10 <jjc> Is the test surprising OWL test case
14:32:39 <gk> [thinks...] If owl notion of range is stronger than rdfs concept, then why not have owl:range as subproperty of rdfs:range?
14:32:50 <jjc> (superproeprty)
14:33:22 <gk> jjc, ?  stronger means smaller IEXT, n'est pas?
14:33:44 <bwm> no - jjc is right
14:34:22 <jjc> q+ to ask Dan why 12a and 12b are not Horn?
14:34:56 <DanC> 12a and 12b are in horn; they just can't be complete.
14:35:05 <gk> Hmmm... maybe I misunderstand "stronger" then?  do we have a owl:range b  |=  a rdfs:range b  ?  If not I have a different concern.
14:36:30 <DanC> indeed not, gk
14:36:40 <jan_g> A subClassOf b (owl) does NOT mean A sobClassOf B (rdf) ?!?!
14:36:41 <jjc> Dan, so your concern is completeness?
14:36:57 <bwm> ack jjc
14:36:57 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to ask Dan why 12a and 12b are not Horn?
14:37:01 <DanC> er... completeness as symptom of simplicity, yes
14:38:24 <gk> (super/sub ... I agree now ... was confused)
14:38:41 <bwm> q?
14:40:23 <jjc> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byIssue#I5.24-001
14:43:10 <gk> (So we might rdfs:subClass rdfs:subProperty owl:subClass ?)
14:43:22 <jjc> yes
14:45:09 <jjc> q+ to talk about 29th April 2002 model theory
14:45:11 <gk> I'm gettimng more comfortable with this:  deducing a rdfs:subClass b using RDFS entailment must always hold.  Using OWL, one might find some more such.
14:45:51 <jan_g> yes, the difference between provability and entailment
14:46:24 <gk> em says it good:  "the more you know, the more you can prove"
14:47:02 <bwm> ack jjc
14:47:02 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to talk about 29th April 2002 model theory
14:47:05 <em-scribe> thanks gk
14:51:02 <bwm> A class C is a subclass of a class C' if and only if all the instances of C are also instances of C'. All classes are subclasses of themselves.
14:51:33 <em-scribe> DanC: suggests then simply taking the 'and only if' out
14:52:50 <jan_g> q+ to remind that this comes down to intension/extension, really. intension = classes aren't quite sets (but sets behave much like classes). extension means they're pretty much the same thing.
14:53:27 <jjc> q+ to talk about datatypes
14:53:48 <jjc> ? xsd:unsignedInteger rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer. ?
14:55:28 <jan_g> jjc: to be honest, if we take the intentional point of view, I'm not convinced I buy your example as true. You're right.
14:55:38 <em-scribe> ack jan_g
14:55:38 <Zakim> jan_g, you wanted to remind that this comes down to intension/extension, really. intension = classes aren't quite sets (but sets behave much like classes). extension means they're
14:55:41 <Zakim> ... pretty much the same thing.
14:55:46 <em-scribe> ack RRSAgent
14:55:48 <em-scribe> acj jjc
14:55:54 <em-scribe> ack jjc
14:55:54 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to talk about datatypes
14:55:59 <em-scribe> ack danc
14:55:59 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say this is why social meaning is hard
14:56:06 <em-scribe> q=
14:56:14 <em-scribe> queue=
14:56:47 <gk> (I agree with DanC that we should *try* to make the inference system complete)
14:57:08 <jan_g> jjc: in your example, the class _is_ the set, so yes (?)
14:57:43 <DanC> qeueu=
14:57:48 <DanC> queue=
14:59:05 <gk> Is the set of answers to life the universe and everything a subclass of integers?
14:59:32 <jjc> of course!
14:59:41 <DanC> no. :)
14:59:49 <bwm> ack janc
15:00:39 <DanC> ack jan
15:00:53 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the call?
15:00:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see jjc, EMiller, Pat_Hayes, GrahamKlyne, Jang, FrankM, bwm, DanC
15:01:15 <DanC> extensional = iff
15:01:44 <DanC> intensional = if (which clearly fits in Horn)
15:02:37 <DanC> lots intenstional a few extensional
15:02:49 <em-scribe> s/few/one
15:03:46 <em-scribe> bwm: now that we agree 'intensional' what are the implecations?
15:04:05 <DanC> changes to semantics are in progress. I'd like some tests. schema spec needs a few words stuff. concepts is not affected.
15:04:11 <em-scribe> primer (not sure), schema will be 
15:04:20 <DanC> ^my view only.
15:04:55 <em-scribe> jang: section 2 in schema would have to be changed (introductory section seems intentional), while other points extensional
15:05:13 <jjc> PROPOSE to close horst-01 by moving to intensional semantics for subClassOf, and by including new rules rdfs12a and rdfs12b in additional part of rules section.
15:05:13 <em-scribe> test case document... useful to add tests to make this point clearer
15:05:19 <jan_g> roger that skipper
15:05:28 <em-scribe> :)
15:05:48 <jjc> Also we should decide on transitivity, relfecivity, rdfs:resource
15:06:09 <DanC> you mean rdfs:Resource, yes?
15:06:15 <jjc> yes thanks
15:07:23 <em-scribe> model theory... thinks changes will be done by Wed
15:07:33 <em-scribe> now on to webont.... 
15:07:36 <DanC> proposed ammendment(1): make the closure rules normative
15:07:40 <em-scribe> implecations ... 
15:07:45 <DanC> proposed ammendment(2): subClassOf transitive
15:07:58 <DanC> proposed ammendment(3): subClassOf not reflexive
15:08:02 <em-scribe> would have to change document(s) to make a more extensional position
15:08:14 <em-scribe> DanC: they may not have a specific position
15:09:43 <em-scribe> ack jjc
15:09:43 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to make his proposal
15:09:55 <em-scribe> <jjc> PROPOSE to close horst-01 by moving to intensional semantics for subClassOf, and by including new rules rdfs12a and rdfs12b in additional part of rules section.
15:10:20 <jan_g> hrm, then does owl:subPropertyOf become an owl:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf?
15:10:28 <bwm> ack jjc
15:10:32 <em-scribe> bwm: before proposal want to understadn implecations
15:10:34 <em-scribe> ack danc
15:10:34 <Zakim> danc, you wanted to make my ammendments
15:11:06 <jjc> (actually I do not want to PROPOSE - since I would like to abstain)
15:12:18 <em-scribe> DanC:  PROPOSE to close horst-01 by moving to intensional semantics for subClassOf ('if' rather than 'if and only if'), and by including new rules rdfs12a and rdfs12b in additional part of rules section.
15:12:42 <em-scribe> + see above
15:13:14 <jjc> because they disagree with him!!
15:13:18 <gk> q+ to ask DanC why not reflexive?
15:13:58 <jan_g> A sco B, b sco A is a natural way to say A = B. but A not sco A ?!
15:16:02 <gk> q+ to say I thought we had extensive discussion of reflexivity long time ago;  also we get a sco a from a type class.
15:16:04 <em-scribe> q+ to ask if there are implications for other contructs as well (e.g subPropertyOf, etc.)
15:16:15 <jjc> (yes)
15:16:46 <em-scribe> just checking re previous implications discussions
15:16:58 <bwm> ack gk
15:16:58 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to ask DanC why not reflexive? and to say I thought we had extensive discussion of reflexivity long time ago;  also we get a sco a from a type class.
15:18:31 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:18:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see jjc, EMiller, Pat_Hayes, GrahamKlyne, Jang, FrankM, bwm, DanC
15:19:28 <jan_g> proposal: intentional, transitive, reflexive.
15:19:56 <DanC> DanC:  PROPOSE to close horst-01 by moving to intensional semantics for subClassOf ('if' rather than 'if and only if'), and by including new rules rdfs12a and rdfs12b in additional part of rules section. subClassOf is reflexive. (and let's be sure to test that)
15:20:26 <DanC> ACTION Frank: check primer
15:20:35 <DanC> ACTION PatH: deliver semantics draft (eta tues)
15:20:37 <jjc> (subClassOf is transitive)
15:20:45 <DanC> ACTION jang: add tests
15:21:11 <DanC> ACTION DanC: inform WebOnt
15:21:48 <DanC> ACTION PatH: respond to the commentor (ter horst)
15:22:09 <em-scribe> ack em
15:22:09 <Zakim> em-scribe, you wanted to ask if there are implications for other contructs as well (e.g subPropertyOf, etc.)
15:22:13 <DanC> action 4 = add tests for intensional subClassOf semantics
15:22:34 <em-scribe> q: you wanted to ask if there are implications for other contructs as well (e.g subPropertyOf, etc.)
15:22:38 <em-scribe> answer: yes
15:22:47 <gk> (Reflexivity:  I've thought some more and I can see DanCs viewpoint -- it doesn't really add any useful conclusions but does add inferecne triples.  But on balance, retaining reflexivity is the smaller change to our current specs)
15:23:01 <DanC> ACTION bwm: get schema editor to reflect intensional subClassOf/subPropertyOf in schema spec
15:23:35 <bwm> q?
15:23:55 <jan_g> [reflexivity: we have concrete axioms that describe sets. Intensional classes/categories are what we're trying to write the axioms to describe. You could go either way really]
15:24:21 <em-scribe> ............
15:24:22 <em-scribe> 11: Issue qu-03
15:24:22 <em-scribe> Discuss:
15:24:22 <em-scribe>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0145.html
15:24:22 <em-scribe>              
15:24:34 <em-scribe> (side track for a minute)...
15:24:40 <em-scribe> back to agenda item 7
15:24:49 <em-scribe> 7: Review of Owl test cases
15:24:49 <em-scribe> Status.
15:24:49 <em-scribe>             
15:24:58 <em-scribe> bwm: jang says ok
15:25:15 <em-scribe> .. any implications based on above wg decision?
15:25:22 <em-scribe> jang: yes, i'm happier :)
15:25:42 <em-scribe> jjc: have to produce more test cases showing differences between rdfs and owl semantics
15:26:01 <em-scribe> action: jang to respond to webont with a 'good job'!
15:26:24 <DanC> agenda?
15:26:32 <em-scribe> ok, back to 11....
15:26:38 <em-scribe> 11: Issue qu-03
15:26:38 <em-scribe> Discuss:
15:26:38 <em-scribe>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0145.html
15:26:40 <DanC> agenda + 26Jun http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0176.html
15:28:11 <em-scribe> DanC: please ammend response to 'see owl wg' but other than that looks good
15:30:24 <em-scribe> DanC: (and pat) also suggest including a response that includes this is being placed on the 'someday pile' and provide pointer 
15:31:27 <em-scribe> action: path to propose a joint resolution of qu-03 and ??? (and moved to someday pile)
15:32:01 <em-scribe> ...
15:32:02 <em-scribe> 12: Schedule
15:32:02 <em-scribe> I suggest our current priorities are:
15:32:32 <DanC> issues list: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/
15:32:59 <DanC> (it would be nice if the issues list explictly bounded its up-to-dateness; e.g. "this is no more than a week out of date")
15:33:07 <DanC> (same for webont's)
15:33:43 <Zakim> -Pat_Hayes
15:34:11 <jan_g> bwm: closing the other TC LC comment - all the details here, status on issue list needs updating http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0147.html
15:34:12 <em-scribe> which docs ready for review?
15:34:29 <em-scribe> syntax - jjc wiling to review
15:36:01 <em-scribe> action: bwm to check that the xml schema responses get cc'd to the right place
15:36:03 <jjc> Concepts: graham to send responses to pfps, jeremy to other commentators
15:36:33 <DanC> pointer to summary of syntax changes since last call?
15:37:01 <em-scribe> action: jjc to review syntax document at report back by july 4 via email
15:37:11 <Zakim> +Pat_Hayes
15:38:28 <DanC> summary of syntax changes since last call http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/#section-Changes
15:38:55 <em-scribe> concepts doc review...
15:39:23 <DanC> aren't actions due by next meeting by default?
15:39:28 <em-scribe> action: jang review concepts document
15:39:34 <em-scribe> action: path review concepts document
15:39:52 <em-scribe> action: jjc inform list when concepts doc is ready for review
15:40:03 <em-scribe> semantics document....
15:40:32 <em-scribe> by next meeting by default? yes... but since we're meeting in 2 weeks just checking to see if action'ers are willing to commit to earilier date
15:41:42 <DanC> hmm... gonna be non-trivial to argue we've got community review of the RDF syntax spec after the "Appendix B.1: Substantive Revisions"
15:42:30 <DanC> ah; 2 weeks. gotcha
15:44:01 <DanC> I'd be willing to entertain one motion to close them all with a revised semantics document, though actions to get back to the commentors individually would still need assigning.
15:46:33 <DanC> DanC: on the denotation of literals, and whether they're the same as xml schema literals, we should say our literals are strings per charmod; since the xml schema datatypes spec also cites charmod, they do work out to be the same.
15:52:13 <gk> (jjc, I think you commented rdf:type is an iff condition ... I don't see that)
15:55:45 <gk> plain literals "same as" xsd:string?  Do we mean in graph syntax or denotation?  (I think the latter)
15:57:33 <jan_g> denotation, graham
15:58:29 <DanC> thanks, bwm. I had considerable obligation to do that.
15:58:39 <jjc> q+ noprmative ref to charmod
15:58:50 <jjc> q+ to ask noprmative ref to charmod
15:59:09 <em-scribe> action: bwm, to ask xml schema working group ... specificially in terms of a test case
15:59:10 <bwm> ack jjc
15:59:10 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to ask noprmative ref to charmod
16:02:15 <em-scribe> bwm, sorry i've got to head to another meeting... can somone wrap up?
16:02:38 <em-scribe> meeting adjourned... 
16:02:53 <Zakim> -Pat_Hayes
16:02:54 <Zakim> -EMiller
16:02:56 <Zakim> -FrankM
16:02:57 <Zakim> -bwm
16:03:11 <jan_g> are we "done" or are we "done"^^rdfcore:meetingstatus ?
16:08:20 <Zakim> -Jang
16:08:23 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne
16:11:11 <gk> gk has left #rdfcore
16:23:45 <Zakim> -DanC
16:23:46 <Zakim> -jjc
16:23:46 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
16:25:43 <bwm> bwm has left #rdfcore
19:58:45 <DanC> DanC has left #rdfcore