14:21:53 RRSAgent has joined #vocabs 14:21:53 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/09/21-vocabs-irc 14:21:58 Zakim has joined #vocabs 14:22:06 rhiaro has changed the topic to: Vocabulary management at W3C: https://www.w3.org/2016/08/namespaces/ 14:22:10 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:22:47 scribenick: rhiaro 14:29:38 phila_ has joined #vocabs 14:33:26 raphael has joined #vocabs 14:33:49 nandana has joined #vocabs 14:34:20 phila: Good afternoon! *intro* 14:34:34 vagner has joined #vocabs 14:34:41 ... My role is data related things at w3c 14:35:03 KjetilK has joined #vocabs 14:35:04 ... An issue that is coming up again and again is that the w3c is bad at managing vocabularies, at helping people develop them, at helping people maintain them 14:35:04 BernadetteLoscio has joined #vocabs 14:35:26 ... the reason we're bad at it is because our process is designed for rock solid specs that we can prove work, that you can build businesses against 14:35:34 jtandy has joined #vocabs 14:35:35 ahaller2 has joined #vocabs 14:35:45 ... We're good at that. But not very good when you want to have lots of changing situations and people contributing in an agile way 14:35:52 csarven has joined #vocabs 14:35:56 sandro has joined #vocabs 14:36:19 DanhLePhuoc has joined #vocabs 14:36:27 ... So we need a different approach. Some of the baggage of not changing a byte gets in the way 14:36:48 ... I'd like to focus on one mini issue that will raise discussion points that speak to the bigger issue 14:37:01 https://www.w3.org/2016/08/namespaces/ 14:37:53 clapierre has joined #vocabs 14:38:05 fabgandon has joined #vocabs 14:38:09 Avneesh has joined #vocabs 14:38:13 kajimoto has joined #vocabs 14:38:14 cwebber2 has joined #vocabs 14:38:17 AndreaPerego has joined #vocabs 14:38:17 ... The mini issue is that LDP was finished, and then the SocialWG find that in some of their work they want to add one term to the LDP namespace 14:38:22 ... Does anyone think they shouldn't? 14:38:34 masato has joined #vocabs 14:38:37 present+ AndreaPerego 14:38:43 danbri: When people die they leave a will. When WGs die they don't really express their hopes and dreams for what comes after 14:39:12 ... If it was OWL, these are fragile technologies, it can break... if you know the expecations the group had set, then sure. But you can break things by adding stuff to RDF. You can introduce contradictions. 14:39:12 present+ Charles_LaPierre 14:39:21 present+ George_Kerscher 14:39:22 sandro: Fortunately, WGs are not people. So all the people in the OWL WG are still alive, and so are LDP 14:39:29 present+ Avneesh_Singh 14:39:33 tantek has joined #vocabs 14:39:39 ... So it's quite possible to contact them and ask their opinion and see if they can see a problem 14:39:51 danbri: Generally I'm in favour of agility, but don't assume that adding stuff does no harm 14:39:54 ... It can introduce confusion 14:39:58 tantek: why is it that adding is blocked by default? 14:40:13 cwebber2: Functional programmers also hate it when things change... but are okay with append-only data structures 14:40:21 ... Seems like a tremendously differnet thing than modifying something that does exist 14:40:21 present+ BernadetteLoscio 14:40:25 present+ 14:40:38 ... Maybe a group should be able to say this is our baby never touch it, so there should be some sort of process so we don't just add spaghetti 14:40:46 ... I don't see the problem in appending things if people say they're okay 14:41:12 danbri: Documentation needed so undermining existing terms doesn't happen 14:41:17 ... that's happened in schema.org 14:41:21 ... People don't realise until a few weeks or a month later 14:41:33 ... How can we tweak the definitions after the fact 14:41:57 present+ 14:42:02 David: The SW was not designed for top level vocab alignment... no-one ever thought that the whole thing we're tyring to do with LD/SW was to create vocabularies that must be considered in the totality of every other vocabulary 14:42:03 present+ 14:42:07 danbri: within the single ns 14:42:14 David: schema.org is a big ns.. 14:42:24 danbri: Dublin Core has close terms 14:42:28 aaronpk has joined #vocabs 14:42:41 sandro: Absolutely those ar eissues. What is the bar that should be set? 14:42:59 ... At the very leaste, all the people who were invnolved in the design before can say yes, it would make sense. I think that would be too high a bar. 14:43:12 ... If the chairs and editors can see that it's okay.. 14:43:23 phila: So in https://www.w3.org/2016/08/namespaces/ we have a speciifc set of propopsals on that 14:43:41 ... Yes it is possible that one group could create a rec track doc that is attached ot a ns, and someone comes along and just adds to it who doesn't know anything about it... yes that could mess things up 14:43:44 present+ 14:43:46 ... We think we could get round that by some sort of discussion 14:44:19 ... if you decide, as a WG, that you want to add one term to an existing ns that came out of a WG that no longer exists 14:44:24 mmiya has joined #vocabs 14:44:28 ... What they first do is contact a special mailing list (we have to work out who answers this) 14:44:54 ... And you don't just add it. You have to give a reason why. Describe the term, why it is appropriate to add it to the existing ns 14:45:14 ... Evidence that any relevant group sand communites which initiated or use the ns have been contacted to determine if there is any principled reason not to add them... there is outreach 14:45:22 /me wonders how can you tell who is using your ns? 14:45:33 ... And then link to your own document, which is defining your term 14:45:54 ... If we go through the process of contacting the relevant people, and given there is salways someone somewhere that is writing some code, but you make a concerted effort 14:46:01 ... Does anyone think it's a bad idea? 14:46:37 raphael: in the case where vocabs are part of rec trac, generally you may have test cases that try to use all terms defined in a vocab, how do you work that? 14:46:49 sandro: outside of OWL-DL I can't see anything that would actually pay attention all terms int he vocab. OWL-DL wouldn't even notice that 14:46:57 ... A vocabulary is not the same as a ns document 14:47:12 ... The spec says here are the URIs you care about. The ns document lets you dereference them. If there are other things in the ns document that's irrelevent 14:47:26 ... If you put a contradictory rdf statement in there that will cause a problem for some reasoners, but just defininig the term, I don't think so 14:47:42 kerry: are you implying you have something in the ns document that isn't in the spec? 14:47:47 phila: it's normal.. 14:47:58 newton has joined #vocabs 14:48:18 ... This for example is the CSVW 14:48:30 present+ 14:48:41 ... This is not the TR space rec trac, this is just the ns with a list of what is available in this ns 14:48:49 present+ raphael 14:48:56 ... Adding a term to this document, which is what we're talking about, wouldn't make any difference at all, wouldn't edit, the CSV on the web standards 14:49:06 present+ newton 14:49:08 ... But what we're saying is *before* you go messing with that, you need to contact the CSV on the web people 14:49:17 ... We're not talking about editing standards to add something new 14:49:37 ... We're talking about adding a term to a ns document which is not a standard, having checked and so on 14:49:49 sandro: the RDF spec is 12 different spec. THe RDF ns is gathering together these terms 14:49:56 ... There are already these pointers back and forth 14:50:22 q+ 14:50:43 ahaller2 has joined #vocabs 14:50:43 David: if this was done properly it might provide the beginning of a process to fix things like having stuff scattered over 12 specs, and we don't have a mechanism for saying that now all this work is done and the WG is finished, ther'es no mechanism to just say let's have a look at the totality of the specs and put together something akin to a ns 14:50:47 q+ TimBL 14:51:02 sandro: RDF is split across 2 namespaces 14:51:26 danbri: Changing URIs is even more expensive 14:51:52 ... My only concern with this added petition thing is that there's this built in bias towards fragmentation... you don't need to add if you can change (?) 14:52:02 q? 14:52:04 q+ 14:52:18 kerry has joined #vocabs 14:52:23 q- TimBL 14:52:23 q+ to talk about social contract around a vocab 14:52:32 timbl: There's a WG that has produced one vocab with 16 terms. THen another WG thinks the stuff we've produced, our terms would fit in the first group, let's propose it to them 14:52:37 ... it's an addition, it adds more text, more data 14:52:44 david_wood has joined #vocabs 14:52:53 present+ David_Wood 14:53:08 present+ FabienGandon 14:53:17 ... if you could change the spec it would be an addition to the spec as well. One part would be to say we propose a change to the spec itself. One is to make it easier by going through a social process with the original WG which may involve someone stand in if they don't exist, the result is just nice. 14:53:36 ... All the things with the same sort of semantics, can be assembled in the same sort of ns, that's very nice, better for developrs, don't have to mess around with many prefixes 14:53:41 q+ 14:53:47 ... Suggesting changes or deprecating other people's things is not so good.. 14:53:52 present+ Kerry_Taylor 14:54:11 ... The other thing, is addin ginformation, to say by the way foaf ontology, we the vcard ontology think our name is the same as your name, and we'd like you to add that equivalence. Just adding a fact. 14:54:23 present+ DanhLePhuoc 14:54:23 present+ 14:54:31 Zakim, who is here? 14:54:31 Present: AndreaPerego, Charles_LaPierre, George_Kerscher, Avneesh_Singh, BernadetteLoscio, tantek, cwebber, nandana, csarven, DanhLePhuoc, raphael, newton, David_Wood, 14:54:34 cwebber: I'm not sure about updating old namespaces to move terms. That's not my concern. I'm concerned about new and upcoming namespaces 14:54:35 ... FabienGandon, Kerry_Taylor, sandro 14:54:35 On IRC I see david_wood, kerry, ahaller2, newton, mmiya, aaronpk, tantek, masato, AndreaPerego, cwebber2, kajimoto, Avneesh, fabgandon, clapierre, DanhLePhuoc, sandro, csarven, 14:54:35 ... jtandy, BernadetteLoscio, KjetilK, vagner, nandana, raphael, phila_, Zakim, RRSAgent, rhiaro 14:54:46 present+ 14:54:52 present+ 14:54:56 present+ jtandy 14:54:56 ... The decision around this will affect what ActivityPub does. We know we have certain terms we need. I'm anticipating, social networks are complicated things, we'll miss some things the first time.. 14:54:57 present+ 14:55:03 q? 14:55:12 ... We might want to add some stuff. I'm looking at right now... should we do it with w3c or should we go to w3id.org? 14:55:22 ... The updating old things I can understand why that might make some people uncmofrotable. But for new things, groups shoulld be able to opt into this 14:55:26 q+ I also think that there is a case for making vocabs multilingual e.g. adding French labels to an existing voc 14:55:26 ... That is an easy win, right? 14:55:36 ack cwebber 14:55:37 q+ to say I also think that there is a case for making vocabs multilingual e.g. adding French labels to an existing voc 14:55:41 Armin: If we're allowed to add new terms, would it be nice to have a living documetn which is automatically updated? 14:55:54 q? 14:55:56 ack ahaller 14:55:58 phila: You're getting onto my big topic... that's about tooling, managmeent overall... would like to test the water, but Dan and I are running a session about that on friday 14:56:06 sandro: nobody would disagree with that, that' sjust a resource question 14:56:13 present+ 14:56:47 sandro: do we have consensus about adding new terms..? 14:56:52 phila: if you take the effort to contact people 14:56:54 sandro: and document everything 14:57:04 PROPOSED: https://www.w3.org/2016/08/namespaces/#new-namespaces 14:57:04 q? 14:57:13 ack raphael 14:57:13 raphael, you wanted to talk about social contract around a vocab 14:57:14 +1 14:57:15 ack raphael 14:57:15 +1 14:57:19 +1 14:57:33 +1 14:57:47 raphael: adding new things not a big deal. When a vocab is designed, there might be already a social contract on which terms we have or do not have. So imagine the SSN onotlogy they want to add a term, but in the lifetime of the group there is a decision that we don't include it 14:57:54 +0 seems reasonable, weak opinion 14:58:01 ... And 3 months later, the same guy who was a minority wants to add new term 14:58:06 ... Adding a new term is not that innocent 14:58:08 +1 14:58:26 phila: If you have a term of 'agent', and add a new term of 'person' are all your agent things wrong suddnely? Yes, it isn't always cost-free. Hence youv'e gotta check with people, not just do it. 14:58:37 raphael: how long do you give them to anser? 14:58:41 sandro: silence does not imply consent 14:58:44 where is the guidance on whether to add a term or make a new ns? 14:58:46 ... When you need horizontal review.. 14:58:53 q+ to ask who "you" is -- ie what is the decision process? 14:58:54 raphael: the text doesn't say that if there is no answer then the term is not added 14:58:57 BernadetteLoscio has joined #vocabs 14:59:05 phila: requests will typically be responded to within two business days 14:59:09 sandro: that's request to the team, not for review 14:59:23 +0, agrees with raphael. At some cases the WG might've left those to keep their vocab simple enough and adding more terms might contradict with this. 14:59:38 danbri: do you distinguish adding a term to adding assertions about a term? 14:59:52 ... there are a bundle of things you'd say at the same time as sticking a term in 15:00:02 phila: which is why we can't cover everything, but say do due diligence 15:00:23 danbri: it's framed as adding a term, but need description 15:00:28 phila: requires description 15:00:29 danbri gives example of adding "Palestine" to the "Country" namespace 15:00:37 (or Taiwain for that matter) 15:00:38 q? 15:00:39 newton has joined #vocabs 15:00:45 s/Taiwain/Taiwan 15:00:47 timbl: a whole subsection of this can be just adding translations 15:00:52 ack csarven 15:01:24 csarven: If we look at human languages and dictionaries and how they work... whether rdf vocabs should reflect that. Any term, besides new terms being added, but existing terms get different definitions over time. Somehow that works. 15:01:38 ... You got to read a description o fthat term and you see different verisons o fit 15:01:46 timbl: the RDF philosphy is not the philosophy of natural language 15:02:04 ... We constrcut it. We are engineering... we construct a use case, and RDF terms are owned by the person who owns that domain name 15:02:11 ... They're the authority 15:02:12 timbl: "We are philosophical engineers" 15:02:16 q? 15:02:27 ericp: The reason we do all this vocab management stuff is because natural language does not work :p 15:02:34 timbl: this is a rathole 15:02:49 george: date entered into the vocabulary should be present 15:02:52 phila: that's reasonable 15:02:58 slightlyoff has joined #vocabs 15:03:07 +1 to George's proposal 15:03:12 +1 to george 15:03:14 ... That suggests that the original vocabulary would hopefully have metadata that tells you when it was created and when it was updated. 15:03:23 ... When you add a new term, it should include when that was added 15:03:27 yes also +1 15:03:29 +1 to george 15:03:30 that seems good/easy 15:03:51 timbl: most of the ontologies have not worked like that so far. We switch it and say at the top this is living and say you can't assume the date of each term is the date on the document 15:04:05 phila: I don't want to stand here reading text out... making sure each term, it must link to where it's defined 15:04:17 ... Modification and removal now 15:04:35 ... We've been talking about adding. It's going to be easy to say a new WG should NOT remove a term 15:04:51 ... Can a new group modify the semantics in any way? Tighter, looser, clarification? (With consultation) 15:04:54 q+ 15:05:21 sandro: I'm gonna say the answer is the same as the rest of w3c... the fact that it's a ns doesn't matter. The ns reflects the recommendation. Recs can change previous recs occasionally, with a whole lot of review 15:05:24 ... I don't see why this is any different 15:05:26 deiu has joined #vocabs 15:05:29 q? 15:05:30 danbri has joined #vocabs 15:05:31 timbl: People make mistakes.. 15:05:32 q+ Alexandre 15:05:57 jeremy: The way that I"ve manged these kind of things is it's aboslutely forbidden to tighten a definition. You could in good circumstances widen the definiton, because it sitll includes the way it was used before 15:06:22 kerry: what concerns me about any of those is a strong sense is a lack of any real governance. There's a lot of governance associated with deprecating a standard 15:06:48 sandro: My strawman proposal is the ns is the same as the document. TO change a rec you need a fully chartered WG with a charter. To modify 15:07:06 kerry: My concern is broader... contact some people who were involved... pretty much anyone can do it, from reading that.. for adding a term 15:07:13 ... strikes me as way too easy to have governance over 15:07:51 arnaud: sounds reasonable but the problem is, it starts to replicate an issue with specs we have today for which we have no wg around, in data shapes we found a bug in sparql, we don't know what to do try to get the community to agree on a fix, but even if we get that we don't know how to use it 15:08:06 ... I would hate to replicate this... the process that is 'just charter another WG to revise sparql'... 15:08:08 sandro: errata 15:08:26 phila: I propose we charter a WG for one meeting at TPAC... go through all the stuff that's wrong and resolve it.. anyway 15:08:37 timbl: why don't we do all the outstanding bugs in the recs before we leave today? 15:08:42 *laughter* 15:08:47 danbri: not all namespaces are rdf namespaces 15:08:50 q? 15:08:56 ... OWL is a speical case of RDf. There are others that might have format/standard specific... 15:09:00 sandro: this is just about rdf ns 15:09:11 q- 15:09:16 danbri: I'm not sold on the loosening and tightening are different. You can still break things. 15:09:27 ... If you write code assuming one and it was changed to be the other, things leak through 15:09:51 timbl: in solid we decided we're going to use vcard, the way it works is it says I have a friend and you are of type Friend 15:09:57 q- 15:09:59 q+ to note that any normative changes to anything "REC-like" of part of a REC would likely require a Proposed Edited Rec step, which needs to go before AC 15:10:01 ... it's broken in RDF, it doesn't talk about relationship 15:10:07 ... Pretty soon you are mentor, father son, and all these things, it's not helpful 15:10:12 ... It's modelling less 15:10:19 danbri: I'm not intrinsincally an ArchNemesis 15:10:27 timbl: that is a whoops.. 15:10:50 q? 15:10:52 ... There's an example of something where the stability of vcard is very important, but ther's a chunk which ishorrible 15:10:54 ... Should we fix it? 15:11:17 ... Should we suggest that people use vcard the good bits, and make their own separate ontology to do relationships? 15:11:19 ... What should we do? 15:11:23 phila: that sounds like an application profile 15:11:37 ... you produce something encoded in shacl... say which to use... if you want to say this, you say don't use vcard 15:11:42 ... tells peopel how you should use vocabularies 15:11:49 ... Defining a vocab is all well and good, but doesn't say how to use it 15:12:02 timbl: the issue is that anyone who does try to use it will make strange consequences 15:12:04 q? 15:12:28 clapierre has joined #vocabs 15:13:01 ericp: Ther'es tim's example which illustrates the meta level, what is the streamlined process by which we can reach out to the right people, that we've been reasonably careful and not broken existing data 15:13:09 q- Alexandre 15:13:19 phila: how do you prove that you've asked all the people you need to ask 15:13:21 deiu, the problem is most of the people speaking aren't on IRC. 15:13:29 sandro: says boldly that silence is not consensus.. 15:13:53 ericp: there's a really vague thing for TR-PR you have to show evidence of wide review. That's goign to be spec specific... we haven't been able to get tighter than that 15:14:00 ... You can't codify that, all you can do is leave it to director discretion 15:14:06 q?\ 15:14:16 queue= 15:14:23 q- 15:14:26 zakim, ack kerry 15:14:26 I see no one on the speaker queue 15:14:27 tantek: with my AB hat on I thought I heard arnaud... correct me if I'm wrong... if a ns document is a normative part of a rec 15:14:31 sandro & phila: it never is 15:14:47 sandro: you could make it an appendix, but normally it's generated by hand or by machine from the text of the specification 15:14:52 ... Somebody looks at the spec and makes it 15:15:07 tantek: I'm having trouble reconciling interoperating..... 15:15:11 sandro: that's not.. 15:15:22 timbl: timeout, I use namespaces for interop all the time. What you put in them really matters 15:15:36 ... If you put stupid labels that are not good you making the world a worse place 15:15:47 ... So some people put labels in lots of languages is really neat 15:15:59 sandro: that doesn't change whether the software using the vocab does not interoperate 15:16:12 tantek: if it's a normative rference, if you're going to add or change it, that's equivalent to proposing recommendation type stuff.. 15:16:32 timbl: it's good practice to generate the ns document from the human readable document or the other way round. Dan you've done that with lots of things? 15:16:44 danbri: we did a lot of things before rdfa... we used to use an rdf/xml file and generate xml 15:16:49 ... if we started from scratch it'd be rdfa now 15:17:11 tantek: the example use case you started with .. 15:17:25 phila: This is not a normative document. The normative document is /TR/ 15:17:32 tantek: has a normative reference? 15:17:35 phila: no 15:17:50 sandro: this is the machine or hand generated summary 15:18:03 tantek: how is that not normative? 15:18:07 reminded of https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/NamespacesAreResources.html 15:18:15 masato has joined #vocabs 15:18:32 raphael: In the rec trac doc of Annotation, with json-ld context, if you add new terms you'd need to update json-ld context 15:18:47 tantek: the bottom line is you're altering the IP footprint 15:18:47 phila: I don't think you are 15:18:53 sandro: json-ld raises a different question 15:19:05 q+ 15:19:21 s/footprint/footprint and that implies requiring an AC exclusion opportunity [like Proposed Edited Recommendation] 15:19:25 ack cwebber 15:19:49 cwebber: I think json-ld context might be a little bit more complicated.. if you include a context and you add a term to it ... eg. overlapping terms with multiple namespaces? Something else globs on that wasn't there before? 15:19:56 ericp: the last one wins in JSON 15:20:12 danbri: we ran into this in schema.org. If you have a huge verbose context file that declares every term, it's okay. If you want a tight thing you get the problem 15:20:17 timbl: the import * problem 15:20:31 phila: this specific case in point... this is the LDP ns document not the recommendation. It links to the normative document 15:20:42 https://github.com/csarven/ldn/issues/13 <-- ldp:inbox 15:20:47 ... want to add 'inbox' to this 15:20:58 ... I hear a number of reasons why the generic policy might be dangerous 15:21:28 ... kerry says governance is loose, tantek says IP concerns.. 15:21:42 ... how do we align that with the fact that the LDP group think that adding inbox here is a totally fine and sane things to do 15:21:50 csarven: this case is filling a gap that was intentionally left 15:22:04 david: that gap was left not by design but as a tool to get around a lack of consensus, is my recollection 15:22:18 sandro: in ldp we had a logn wishlist of things we weanted to do in the future, which we haven't done yet 15:22:24 ... Were they all going to be in 30 different namespaces? 15:22:37 ^^^ that was my original question above 15:22:38 ... Really if you're saying 30 then you can object to this proposal, but otherwise you have to let future work extend the ns in the ns 15:22:45 what is the guidance on adding to a NS vs adding a new NS? 15:22:48 I suspect the process quirk of namespace docs being outside the Process stems from https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000May/0000.html - i.e. when many in XML community didn't want namespaces to be resolvable to documents at all. 15:22:53 david: speaking as an implementor of the ldp spec... I'd rather update my implementation than live with a dead spec 15:22:57 ... Not everybody is going to feel that way 15:23:02 sandro: I'm not sure that's the tradeoff 15:23:19 arnaud: the quesiton is, would you rather add another namespace if it gets revised 15:23:24 david: no I wouldn't, I'd rather go into one 15:23:36 I'm not sure the process folks would be happy with the use of namespace additions as a loophole for adding feature(s) post-REC 15:23:47 ... I'm not sure the LDP example is as clean as it looks. As I recall the discussion around container, you'd be changing (crrect me if I'm wrong) the intention of the WG 15:23:56 various: ? 15:24:07 david: defining a method for discovering a container 15:24:11 timbl: which doesn't currently exist 15:24:17 david: the group didn't do that because they didnt' get consensus 15:24:21 ericp: I'm going to say that's fine. 15:24:36 ... Someone is coming along and cleaning up laundry. The fact that I group had arrived at a stalemate and couldn't resolve a problem.. 15:24:39 david: so we sneak it in later? 15:24:47 ericp: THat's fine.. you can even conspire to do that 15:24:50 sandro: Every WG I"ve ever seen does that 15:24:59 ... They say we're not going to settle this now, this is for future work. probably won't be a w3c rec 15:25:07 ... That's the only way you can ever finish a WG 15:25:17 ... YOu're not making it par tof the Rec 15:25:26 timbl: if they didn't get there, ther emust have been some issues that are tough 15:25:42 various: people are might have explicitly objected 15:25:52 +1 to tantek's "I'm not sure the process folks would be happy with the use of namespace additions as a loophole for adding feature(s) post-REC" 15:26:21 csarven: I don't think it' suseful to speculate about the exact reasons something was not added. The point is it was not, and in light of new information in the future, a new group reconsidered that information and came to a different conclusion, and it now makes sense, we have new use cases, we foudn we were not able to build stuff that we need it for, so we can add it 15:26:22 s/ther emust/there must 15:26:26 clapierre has joined #vocabs 15:26:49 It's all about expectation setting (and documentating of same). If a WG defines a ns as closed/static/conservative, better to respect their wishes; if they define it as wiki-like and open to subsequent interference/improvement, sure great fine. 15:26:53 timbl: there are two ways to go ahead and do that - one is to change the original spec, and make a version of it and make that change 15:27:21 ... The other thing to do is to say the way these namespace documents arrive is as an administrative duty of w3c staff to amke sure there is machine readable data at their urls, which points to the appropraite spec 15:27:32 ... in the sitaution wher eyou have two specs which document the same namespace, it's reasonable to make a second spec which defines the new term 15:27:39 ... You have two tr documents, one is old and hasnt' changed, a new one hasn't changed 15:27:47 ... THe staff create the ns document and add pointers to both specs 15:28:22 ericp: One minor point. I was sort of promoting the last person standing wins argument... my concern is that you don't want to have situation where everybody is afraid to do something because they dont' want to dig the whole record of the group 15:28:41 ... You should leave breadcrumbs when you decide NOT to do something because it's wise, you can record notes for future generations 15:28:45 ... or be aware of these issues 15:28:52 sandro: yeah put it in the ns document.. 15:29:09 timbl: you can say something is NOT an rdf:Property 15:29:25 phila: I don't think we've reached a full consensus on this. I thought we would. But given what we've heard, who things we should not add inbox to ldp? 15:29:29 ... Bearing in mind the precedent 15:29:48 now I'm a -0 due to the process / AC-exclusion opportunity problem 15:29:52 nandana: I don't object, but if you're not involve din LDP or SWWG you probably dont' care 15:30:02 arnaud: there is still an ldp public mailing list 15:30:11 ... as a good gesture, send an email there 15:30:42 david: I would love to say yes to this, but I am worried about the precedent of if you can't get somethign done in a group then get a better group 15:30:51 sandro: is anybody objecting? 15:31:26 ericp: this is one fo th eplaces in the critical path 15:31:37 phila: who thinks the discussion we've heard means we shouldn't do it for now 15:31:41 ... who doesn't have enough information 15:31:52 ... Thank you for your complete lack of cooperation there. 15:32:37 -0 and abstain for the precedent 15:32:47 phila: I don't think we have consensus 15:33:03 I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why [term, definition] may not be added to [namespace, version, checksum]. 15:33:11 timbl: rephrasing the question... you can object or you can not object. We are not in a positon to say yes. 15:33:36 phila: does anyone objec tto adding inbox to LDP? 15:33:37 room: no 15:33:47 phila: does anybody object to the precedent 15:33:51 room: silence 15:33:58 room claps 15:34:14 RRSAgent, draft minutes 15:34:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/09/21-vocabs-minutes.html phila_ 15:34:25 BernadetteLoscio has joined #vocabs 15:37:36 phila has joined #vocabs 15:39:34 clapierre has joined #vocabs 15:39:53 ahaller2 has joined #vocabs 15:40:03 danbri has joined #vocabs 15:42:48 BernadetteLoscio has joined #vocabs 15:43:42 newton has joined #vocabs 15:47:45 phila has joined #vocabs 15:49:26 ahaller2 has joined #vocabs 15:54:09 newton has joined #vocabs 15:55:27 KjetilK has joined #vocabs 16:06:19 ahaller2 has joined #vocabs 16:22:30 danbri has joined #vocabs 16:27:15 ahaller2 has joined #vocabs 16:36:25 jtandy has joined #vocabs 16:36:45 BernadetteLoscio has joined #vocabs 16:48:55 ahaller2 has joined #vocabs 16:55:38 vagner has left #vocabs 19:45:17 newton has joined #vocabs 20:10:52 Zakim has left #vocabs