14:24:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
14:24:25 <bwm-scribe> 10. doc status
14:24:35 <bwm-scribe> primer:
14:24:47 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, mute me
14:24:47 <Zakim> sorry, bwm-scribe, I do not see a party named 'bwm-scribe'
14:24:54 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, mute bwm
14:24:54 <Zakim> bwm should now be muted
14:25:00 <em> .me notes rrsagent is picking up discussion mid-stream
14:25:09 <bwm-scribe> primer is ready to go
14:25:20 <bwm-scribe> does not have CR status indication
14:25:51 <bwm-scribe> em: are all outstanding issues that came in last call addressed
14:25:56 <bwm-scribe> frank: yes
14:26:13 <bwm-scribe> can anyone speak for concepts:
14:26:27 <bwm-scribe> danbri: concepts is ready to roll as far as I know
14:26:32 <bwm-scribe> syntax:
14:26:35 <bwm-scribe> ready to go
14:26:49 <bwm-scribe> semantics: ready to go
14:27:26 <bwm-scribe> schema: uptodate with respect to technical content.  not completed process on handling last call comments
14:27:58 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, unmute bwm
14:27:58 <Zakim> bwm should no longer be muted
14:28:56 <jang> http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfcore-in-exile/2003-August/000007.html
14:29:00 <bwm-scribe> testcases: done except semantic equivalence between datatypes
14:29:04 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, mute bwm
14:29:04 <Zakim> bwm should now be muted
14:29:23 <bwm-scribe> Pat: would now express himself less strongly
14:29:30 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, unmute bwm
14:29:30 <Zakim> bwm should no longer be muted
14:29:41 <bwm-scribe> em: questions about last call comments doc
14:29:51 <bwm-scribe> ... there are a lot of outcomes that say none
14:30:03 <bwm-scribe> ... what does that mean
14:31:24 <bwm-scribe> ... bwm: there is no from the commentor to the WG disposition
14:31:51 <bwm-scribe> ... the last call comments disposition must be locked up as well
14:32:08 <em> zakim, mute me
14:32:08 <Zakim> Emiller should now be muted
14:32:59 <em> zakim, unmute me
14:32:59 <Zakim> Emiller should no longer be muted
14:33:30 <em> zakim, mute me
14:33:30 <Zakim> Emiller should now be muted
14:35:08 <bwm-scribe> action pat to see whether pfps is now satisfied about pfps-06
14:35:16 <danbri> 11: French translation - review sought
14:35:39 <jang> je suis desole, ma francais est schrechliche
14:35:54 <em> zakim, unmute me
14:35:54 <Zakim> Emiller should no longer be muted
14:35:54 <bwm-scribe> j'ai la mal anglaise
14:36:03 <danbri> 12: Treatment of XSD types
14:36:10 <bwm-scribe> 12. treatment of xml schema datatypes
14:37:20 <bwm-scribe> concern over clarity on the value spaces of xsd datatypes
14:37:29 <em> zakim, mute me
14:37:29 <Zakim> Emiller should now be muted
14:37:53 <em> zakim, unmute me
14:37:53 <Zakim> Emiller should no longer be muted
14:37:56 <bwm-scribe> implemetors are reporting they won't implement it
14:38:06 <bwm-scribe> DaveB: suggest throw it out
14:38:15 <bwm-scribe> patH: we should not say, its for xsd to say
14:38:42 <bwm-scribe> danbri: its nice we can express the problem so crisply
14:39:17 <em> q+ to ask about the rdf modelling of xsd datatypes
14:39:29 <em> ack
14:39:34 <danbri> ack em
14:39:34 <Zakim> em, you wanted to ask about the rdf modelling of xsd datatypes
14:39:49 <bwm-scribe> em: at one time jjc and patS had an rdf schema for the xsd datatypes
14:40:04 <bwm-scribe> em: is that still floating around somewhere
14:40:20 <bwm-scribe> jang: jjc did do a schema
14:40:27 <DaveB> in http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/xsd-rdf-2002-11-25/
14:40:32 <bwm-scribe> patS: it was a homework exercise 
14:41:07 <danbri> ack
14:41:20 <DaveB> not our problem
14:41:33 <bwm-scribe> patS: better to remove the test case
14:42:20 <bwm-scribe> em: do we have to close the loop with the xml schema folks
14:43:24 <bwm-scribe> patH: its actually pretty clear when one type is derived from the other
14:43:39 <bwm-scribe> no action
14:44:05 <bwm-scribe> 13. publication and next steps
14:44:06 <em> zakim, unmute me
14:44:06 <Zakim> Emiller was not muted, em
14:44:16 <bwm-scribe> danbri: em please outline the options
14:44:49 <bwm-scribe> em: last week em beleived the group felt strongly about moving to CR
14:45:25 <em> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/request/cr
14:45:25 <bwm-scribe> em: make the case that we have done the right thing through implementation
14:45:52 <bwm-scribe> em: has written draft request to advance to CR
14:46:04 <em> http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr#last-call
14:46:24 <em> http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr#return-to-wg
14:46:40 <danbri> "7.4.6 Returning a Document to a Working Group for Further Work"
14:46:57 <danbri> [[substantive change (whether deletion, inclusion, or other modification) is one where someone could reasonably expect that making the change would invalidate an individual's review or implementation experience.]]
14:47:25 <bwm-scribe> whilst we can schedule meetin giwth director, we believe we have made substantive changes to these docuemnts
14:47:41 <bwm-scribe> concerned that we will get sent back to do a second last call
14:47:57 <bwm-scribe> em: a second last call might be the quickest way to go
14:48:18 <bwm-scribe> em: very concerned that we will have to do a second last call whether we like it or not
14:48:36 <bwm-scribe> danbri: tibl away on holiday
14:48:45 <bwm-scribe> s/tibl/timbl/
14:48:58 <bwm-scribe> it will takes weeks to schedule a meeting with tim
14:49:09 <bwm-scribe> a lot has changed since we last published a last call WD
14:49:27 <bwm-scribe> steve could stand in for tim, but steve is likely to defer to tim anyway
14:50:14 <bwm-scribe> q+
14:50:43 <bwm-scribe> em: if last call goes well, we could then go to PR
14:50:47 <danbri> ack bwm-scribe
14:51:16 <danbri> bwm-scribe: a point to note. i18n have some comments they've *not* made, as they were w.r.t. contents of LC draft and they were late commenting so felt it would've been out of order...
14:51:31 <danbri> ...if we go back to LC, they might raise these
14:51:43 <bwm-scribe> i18n may have some new issues to raise
14:51:46 <DaveB> not more hypothetical comment sthey might raise...
14:52:22 <danbri> bwm-scribe: i've been reading process doc today, it seems to allow a little wiggle room
14:52:37 <danbri> ...seems to me (though em may clarify) that we can request advancement of a substantively changed doc
14:52:52 <danbri> ...and it is then the director's decision to decide whether or not to allow that advancement or not
14:53:05 <danbri> ...my q is: what criteria does the director use to make that decision
14:53:19 <danbri> em: that's more about how director decides than a strict process question
14:53:36 <DaveB> IMHO OWL has advanced as bwm describes
14:53:45 <danbri> ...agree there may be last call wiggleroom 
14:54:22 <danbri> bwm-scribe: if we don't know his criteria, what argument would we make for moving fwd?
14:54:38 <danbri> em: if we've done due dilligence w/ developer community, etc
14:55:15 <DaveB> T-5 minutes
14:55:19 <bwm-scribe> danbri: we have done a good job of outreaching to the interest group
14:55:29 <bwm-scribe> em: but there are other communities
14:56:17 <bwm-scribe> danbri: interacts uncomfortably with internationalization, non-english speaking folks don't have equal access
14:57:18 <DaveB> in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0261.html
14:57:30 <bwm-scribe> pfps has requested a re-review
14:57:57 <bwm-scribe> frank: what is the dependancy between owl and rdf
14:58:06 <bwm-scribe> danbri: they are dependent on us
14:58:25 <bwm-scribe> danbri: owl are anxious to finish soon
14:58:39 <DaveB> OWL seems to have got off lightly re i18n
14:59:00 <bwm-scribe> move to extend by 15 mins
14:59:07 <bwm-scribe> no objections
14:59:21 <bwm-scribe> DaveB: please structure the last 15 minutes
14:59:34 <bwm-scribe> danbri: I would like to publish
14:59:43 <bwm-scribe> ... its just this process question
14:59:58 <bwm-scribe> em: where do we want to focus our effort
15:00:28 <bwm-scribe> em: we could put the effort in to making a case to advance
15:01:08 <bwm-scribe> ... or we can put that effort in to getting the last call docs done and hope we don't get too many new issues
15:01:31 <bwm-scribe> ... we have done a lot of the work in communicating with the developer community ...
15:02:26 <bwm-scribe> danbri: propose we do another last cal
15:03:31 <danbri> brian: personal view... strong case for a 2nd LC, but my employer has other views/concerns (jjc isn't here to represent them)
15:03:42 <bwm-scribe> bwm-scribe: we should do a second last call
15:04:21 <bwm-scribe> em; if there are still issues in these docs its better to get them in a second last call than in cr/pr
15:04:55 <bwm-scribe> danbri: do we have the energy?
15:05:12 <bwm-scribe> ... editors can you live with a second last call ...
15:05:17 <bwm-scribe> path: yes
15:05:30 <bwm-scribe> DaveB: yes, but I'll be harsh
15:05:33 <bwm-scribe> jang: yes
15:05:39 <bwm-scribe> frank: yes
15:06:50 <bwm-scribe> danbri: does anyone want to speak against a second last call
15:07:07 <bwm-scribe> em: what about you
15:08:02 <bwm-scribe> danbri: have as much energy for a second lc as a CR
15:08:57 <bwm-scribe> danbri: i can do more telecon's
15:09:27 <bwm-scribe> danbri: does anyone want speak against ...
15:09:40 <bwm-scribe> danbri: expect jjc would have
15:11:17 <DaveB> T-5 mins
15:15:09 <bwm-scribe> action: bwm contact i18n about second last call
15:15:19 <bwm-scribe> action: eds prepare for second last call
15:15:43 <bwm-scribe> action em circulate pub date
15:16:45 <bwm-scribe> action em: ciruclate boilerplace for doc status
15:17:22 <danbri> adjourned.
15:17:25 <bwm-scribe> action bwm send mail about xmlsch-03
15:17:59 <Zakim> -ILRT
15:18:02 <em> thanks all
15:18:08 <Zakim> -Emiller
15:18:10 <Zakim> -patrick
15:18:23 <Zakim> -FrankM
15:18:23 <Zakim> -Pat_Hayes
15:18:25 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
15:18:31 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, who is on the phone
15:18:31 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', bwm-scribe
15:18:34 <Zakim> -DanBri
15:18:37 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:18:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see bwm
15:18:41 <Zakim> -bwm
15:18:41 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
15:18:55 <danbri> logger, pointer?
15:18:55 <logger> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-08-22#T15-18-55
16:37:44 <danbri> rrsagent, bookmark?
16:37:44 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2003/08/22-rdfcore-irc#T16-37-44
17:19:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdfcore
17:20:29 <danbri> danbri has left #rdfcore
19:07:01 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfcore
19:07:14 <danbri> rrsagent, part
19:07:14 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items:
19:07:14 <RRSAgent> ACTION: bwm contact i18n about second last call [1]
19:07:14 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/08/22-rdfcore-irc#T15-15-09
19:07:14 <RRSAgent> ACTION: eds prepare for second last call [2]
19:07:14 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/08/22-rdfcore-irc#T15-15-19
19:07:14 <RRSAgent> ACTION: em to ciruclate boilerplace for doc status [3]
19:07:14 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/08/22-rdfcore-irc#T15-16-45
19:07:23 <MJDuerst> MJDuerst has joined #rdfcore