W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2001-06-01

08:36:07 Users on #rdfcore: logger_1 dajobe

10:48:43 <dehora> test

10:48:53 <dehora> bye

13:08:20 <bwm> is logger running

13:14:22 <bwm> Logger told to quit

13:15:02 Users on #rdfcore: logger bwm ArtB

13:15:21 <bwm> hmm

13:17:14 <dsajdhask> dsajdhask is now known as dajobe-jang

13:17:27 <dajobe-jang> yet another strange amorphous entity spawned by the ilrt

13:18:02 <dajobe-jang> dave beckett, jan grant here with brian mcB at HP labs Bristol

13:22:23 <ArtB> Hi Guys!

13:23:52 <dajobe-jang> today we are in the HP Lounge, with a sofa and a plant

13:26:22 <ArtB> And at ILRT it's a dungeon with a single light bulb :-)?

13:41:16 * danbri waves, mentions that he appears to have forgotten the password channel

13:42:18 <dajobe-jang> back again

13:44:32 * danbri tries to imagine what 'dajobe-jang' would look like!

13:44:46 <dajobe-jang> damn good looking and myopic

13:45:13 * bwm waves

13:45:21 <danbri> I think I'll stick to IRC :)

13:45:29 <danbri> Hi Brian

13:46:55 <bwm> danbri: do you mean you won't be on a phone?

13:47:29 <danbri> No, sorry! Just kidding re 'dajobe-jang' hybrid

13:47:54 <danbri> have headset, bandwith, mute button, the works.

13:48:15 <danbri> (though perhaps not mental bandwidth today)

13:48:32 <bwm> I having my afternoon coughing spasm

13:56:25 * danbri is dissapointed to be responsible for the downbeat review we'll have of the first few action items: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0283.html

13:59:26 <dajobe-jang> +SteveP

13:59:32 <dajobe-jang> +MikeD

13:59:45 <ArtB> +ArtB

13:59:54 <ArtB> +Martyn

13:59:54 <dajobe-jang> +martyn

13:59:59 <dajobe-jang> :-)

14:00:05 <ArtB> ArtB is now known as scribe

14:00:18 <scribe> +EricM

14:00:53 <mdean> mdean is now known as _mdean

14:01:52 <scribe> +Ora

14:02:10 <danbri> i'm dialing +1 630 536 3003 and losing :(

14:02:11 <AaronSw> Aaron Swartz

14:02:13 <GK> Graham Klyne

14:02:13 <_mdean> +Mike Dean

14:02:14 <dajobe-jang> Dave Beckett, Jan Grant

14:02:17 <scribe> Art Barstow

14:02:37 <em> +eric miller

14:02:53 <scribe> Present: Ora, FrankM, Martyn, Jos, StephenP

14:03:02 <bwm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0283.html

14:03:15 <AaronSw> rael sends his regrets -- he is unable to attend for personal reasons

14:03:19 <danbri> can someone confirm http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0283.html -> +1 630 536 3003

14:03:25 <scribe> Regrets: Rael, Bill

14:03:26 <AaronSw> confirmed

14:03:41 <em> danbri: are you getting in to bridge but not able to join conference room, or not able to get answer to number at all

14:03:43 <scribe> Agenda: test repository, XML base

14:03:55 <danbri> no answer, bad tone.

14:04:01 <em> danbri, yes this is correct +1 630 536 3003 room #3003

14:04:12 <scribe> Regrets: FrankB

14:04:13 <danbri> don't wait for me.

14:04:14 * danbri fiddles

14:04:21 <scribe> Regrets: DanC

14:04:37 <dajobe-jang> danbri: no # in room number

14:04:55 <em> so you can't get answer calling +1 630 536 3003

14:04:58 <scribe> Action D1: done

14:05:01 <danbri> sure; haven't got that fare

14:05:13 <danbri> My actions need to carry over to next week.

14:05:26 <scribe> A1: Dan Brickley: need to carry over

14:05:33 <DanC> phtpht

14:05:38 <scribe> A2 and A3: Dan Bri carry over

14:05:49 <scribe> A4: Guha: carry over

14:06:25 <scribe> A5: Brian: have done some test case linking (DaveB's, Jan's, DanBri's)

14:06:32 <scribe> ... DanBri - reification

14:06:40 <scribe> ... DaveB - ns prefix confusion

14:06:47 <DanC> scribe, DanC on the phone now.

14:07:05 <scribe> Martyn: I will create some test cases for a past action item

14:07:06 * AaronSw waves

14:07:07 <danbri> Guha and I spoke late yesterday; we (I) need to write that up. Continue the action.

14:07:24 <scribe> A6: Jan: I sent a note to the list

14:07:26 <scribe> ... Done

14:07:49 <scribe> A7: Brian: f2f is on, Aug 1 and 2

14:08:10 <scribe> ... Sebastibol - 60-90 minutes North of SFO

14:08:27 <DanC> order... this is review of actions, not discussion.

14:08:29 <scribe> ... Done

14:08:36 <scribe> A5: Done

14:09:21 <scribe> A8: Graham [and FrankM]: I posted a message about this to the list; I just posted an update this morning

14:09:40 <DanC> folks, in the interest of time, when your action comes up, please be prepared to answer "done." or "please continue this" or "I'd like to withdraw this."

14:09:43 <scribe> ... FrankM did a good job; if group concurs, we can call it Done

14:11:02 <scribe> FrankM: in a response to a response from DanBri, I promised to create some test cases; the test cases are partly done; there will be more test cases than I would have thought

14:11:03 <DanC> I guess there's another action review response option: "please put this on the agenda".

14:11:44 <danbri> [danbri: My office phone appears to have had its international dialing privileges removed by Uni of Bristol beauracracy; *danbri fumes uselessly]

14:12:15 <scribe> ArtB: do we mark A8 done and create a new item for FrankM's tests?

14:12:19 <scribe> A8: Done

14:12:26 <em> danbri, can you take international calls?

14:12:30 <scribe> ACTION: FrankM: create the test cases.

14:12:33 <em> can we call you?

14:12:44 <scribe> Brain: I still do not have access to the errat

14:13:04 <em> e.g. can the bristol folk call you and patch you in?

14:13:05 <scribe> A9: have a new section in the issues list at the top

14:13:18 <scribe> ... the errata now has a pointer to the issues list

14:13:44 <scribe> Brian: I am going to work with ArtB about how to structure the docs

14:13:53 <scribe> ... A9 = ongoing

14:14:07 <scribe> A10: Jan: done [will revisit later]

14:14:22 <danbri> re my phone: don't let this eat up your attention. em, yes I can take calls. I've asked someone here to chase it, but won't be immediate.

14:14:31 <scribe> Issue 1: Dan Bri - will skip

14:14:49 <em> danbri, you're on the agenda so it seems having you on the call would be a good thing :)

14:14:49 <scribe> Issue 2: empty property elements

14:15:16 <scribe> Jan: get back to me if you have any issues; otherwise, it will go in the errata

14:15:36 <danbri> I concur; though talked with brian just earlier about reprioritising the agenda due to lack of progress on that issue. I'm trying to get dialed in tho.

14:15:40 <scribe> Jos: I checked it but need to look again

14:16:00 <scribe> DaveB: I also did a first glance and they look OK; want to do a detailed analysis

14:16:25 <scribe> em: who will take an Action item to review the tests?

14:16:37 <scribe> ACTION: Jos: review the test cases.

14:16:54 <scribe> ACTION: DaveB: review the test cases

14:16:56 <DanC> jan, the test are in your message of Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:50:21 +0100 (BST) , right?

14:17:15 <dajobe-jang> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0000.html

14:17:23 <scribe> Agenda #3: Stephen

14:17:31 <scribe> ... aboutEachPrefix

14:17:45 <scribe> ... people generally want it to go - it is broken

14:17:58 <scribe> ... there are various options

14:18:12 <scribe> ... can deprecate and recommend a diff approach - this is my pref

14:18:19 <scribe> Ora: I want it to be gone

14:18:34 <scribe> Graham: agree with Ora, it should be layered

14:18:44 <scribe> +1: Aaron, Jos

14:19:03 <scribe> Jan: can we inherit this functinaly from somewhere else?

14:19:03 <dehora> agree with Ora

14:19:08 <DanC> am I being heard?

14:19:12 <em> no

14:19:23 <em> we can not hear you on the phone

14:19:37 <scribe> +DanC

14:19:57 <scribe> DanC: no, cannot inherit it

14:20:24 <scribe> DanC: I agree to remove it; does anyone use it?

14:20:41 <scribe> AaronSw: SiRPAC [online] has some support

14:20:53 <scribe> em: PICS uses it;

14:21:05 <scribe> ... but containers would be a better way

14:21:28 <scribe> DanC: perhaps this goes in a someday pile

14:21:50 <scribe> ... that is consider this for later work

14:21:54 <scribe> Ora: good idea

14:22:13 <scribe> Brian: Art and I will consider how to doc this

14:22:35 <scribe> Brian: DECISON: aboutEach* will be removed from the spec

14:22:52 <dajobe-jang> NO

14:22:57 <dajobe-jang> aboutEachPrefix

14:23:14 <scribe> DanC: was it just a typo; or is it that there is no implem experience that supports it use

14:23:22 * dajobe-jang raises his hand

14:23:46 <scribe> RESOLVE: lack of impl experience leads us to justify removing aboutEach*

14:24:24 <DanC> for the record, I propose: where as the WG sees insufficient implementation experience of the aboutEachPrefix feature in RDF, it does not belong in a W3C Recommendation.

14:24:31 <AaronSw> interesting ideas -- use aboutEachPrefix to define a container and make assertions about the container

14:24:53 <scribe> DaveB: we were talking about aboutEachPrefix !

14:25:18 <scribe> Brian: all agree with DanC?

14:25:23 <scribe> All: YES!

14:25:51 <scribe> ========= AOB ========

14:25:56 <scribe> Test case format:

14:26:01 * danbri agrees pathetically from irc-land

14:26:22 <DanC> porposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/

14:26:36 <DanC> rather http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0264.html

14:27:03 <scribe> DanC: Jan proposed something; I proposed something in 264

14:27:31 <scribe> DanC: there are 2-3 batches of test cases that follow my format

14:27:36 <scribe> Jan: I'm OK with that

14:27:54 <scribe> Jan: while it looks like N3; please keep test cases simple

14:28:09 <scribe> DanC: agree - 1 triple per line

14:28:09 * GK raise hand for question about test cases

14:28:22 <scribe> DanC: absolute simplest form

14:28:34 <dajobe-jang> can we add a # comment lines please

14:28:36 <scribe> Brian: don't call it N3; it's our format

14:28:49 <scribe> Jos: don't understand the name

14:28:56 <scribe> DanC: could be any name

14:29:16 <DanC> n2.5

14:29:33 <scribe> Brian: let's take the name offline

14:29:34 <DanC> jan

14:29:39 <dajobe-jang> jan groans

14:29:40 <DanC> wilber. petey. rdf-result

14:30:13 <scribe> Brian: I move we take this off line

14:30:28 <scribe> Brian: test cases and absolute URIs

14:30:36 * GK still wants to ask about test cases

14:30:45 <scribe> ... don't know the abs URI until after you sent the message

14:30:54 <scribe> ... seems like we need a test repository

14:32:01 <scribe> Brian: EricM, will you investigate ways we can meet this need

14:32:22 <scribe> ArtB: I don't want to be part of the pipe to get tests to the W3C's rdf-tests/ repository

14:32:33 <scribe> ACTION: EricM: I will investigate

14:32:43 <scribe> DanC: who wants write access?

14:33:09 <scribe> ME: Aaron, DaveB, Brian, Jan, Martyn, ArtB, DanC

14:33:16 * danbri too

14:33:16 <scribe> ... DanBri

14:33:18 <em> +ericm +danbri

14:33:25 <scribe> ... EricM

14:33:26 <GK> What, exactly, does a test case consist of? Is it (a) specification of some 'input', (b) spec of 'input' and corresponding 'output' (if so - how related?), (c) something else?

14:34:29 <scribe> Jan: for the most part, we are currently dealing with syntactic issues

14:34:35 * em suggests rdf metadata associated with the test cases

14:34:44 <scribe> ... the output we specified should be unambigous

14:34:52 <dajobe-jang> metadata - I did that for my parser tests

14:34:56 <DanC> "n3-ish"; see, we already need a name. ;-)

14:34:56 <scribe> ... it should reflect our interpretation of the spec

14:35:24 * dajobe-jang raises his hand

14:35:48 <scribe> em: how about a vocab for describing the test cases?

14:35:56 <dehora> gk's (b) seems best for automating tests: output machine readable

14:36:04 <scribe> DaveB: I've created a schema for describing test cases

14:36:09 <GK> Name for test case interpretation format: 'N-triples' seems to match the intended use.

14:36:25 <AaronSw> http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/03/parser-tests/

14:36:37 <AaronSw> http://ilrt.org/discovery/swsw/pt

14:36:42 <scribe> ACTION: DaveB: I'll send a pointer and update it

14:36:46 * scribe thanks Aaron

14:37:10 <DanC> =========== xml base

14:37:11 <scribe> ======== XML Base ==========

14:37:28 <scribe> Jan: gives a way to attach a base URI to attributes and element content;

14:37:37 <scribe> ... doesn't say what to do with it

14:37:43 <scribe> ... two of my tests use it

14:38:00 <scribe> ... gives a way to anchor rel URIs where they occur in the serialization

14:38:11 <scribe> DanC: would you expect existing RDF imple to support this?

14:38:25 <scribe> Jan: not current ones; would be a useful addition

14:38:51 <scribe> DanC: is there something in the spec that implies parsers should support this?

14:39:20 <AaronSw> jan: this operates at the infoset level

14:39:28 <AaronSw> danc: we need one language, one set of triples

14:39:39 <scribe> DanC: can't define diff triples depending on whether XML base is implemented or not

14:40:16 <scribe> DanC: my pref - this goes into the next time pile

14:40:27 <scribe> em: who owns the next time pile

14:40:38 <scribe> Brian: would XML base be useful?

14:40:41 <dajobe-jang> daveb: I thought it would be a bad idea to allow now

14:40:46 <scribe> DanC: absolutely.

14:41:10 <AaronSw> useful, that is

14:41:11 <scribe> ... don't expect the dev community to already have supported this.

14:42:31 <dajobe-jang> (jan pronounced with hard-"j")

14:42:36 <scribe> DanC: it does not automatically apply everywhere [it == XML base]

14:43:01 <scribe> ACTION: Jan: follow-up about this on the list

14:43:09 <GK> I agree with DanC that changing the meaning of currently-valid and widely understood RDF would be the worst kind of backward-incompatibility

14:43:51 <scribe> Jan: I will summarize what it might do; if too great of an impact, it should go on the next time list.

14:44:53 <scribe> Jos: TBL mentioned caching, would someone explain that?

14:45:02 <DanC> Jos, I use wwwoffle

14:45:03 <scribe> DanC: I'll talk to you offline about that

14:45:19 <scribe> ======== aboutEach ==========

14:45:37 <scribe> DaveB: should we get rid of aboutEach?

14:45:44 <scribe> DanC: short answer: yes.

14:46:07 <scribe> ... I posted my interpretation; I could put it in the next time pile

14:46:23 <scribe> DaveB: I agree with DanC; should be layered

14:46:29 <scribe> DanC: has anyone used it?

14:46:39 <scribe> AaronSw: I've used it a little

14:46:45 <scribe> Brian: what is the problem?

14:47:07 <scribe> DanC: the spec isn't clear

14:47:23 <scribe> Brian: I think it is clear - but it's syntactic sugar.

14:47:33 <scribe> Ora: I use it, don't want it removed;

14:48:07 <scribe> Brian: my discussions with DanBri have been along the lines of keeping it

14:48:21 <scribe> DaveB: if have a hugh file, can cause implementation problems

14:48:38 <scribe> Ora: it's a linear issue

14:49:10 <scribe> ACTION: DanC: point out the spec bug - need an errata

14:49:37 <scribe> DaveB: aboutEach makes it difficult to implement wrt streaming

14:49:48 <scribe> em: what does it mean to take something out and leave something in?

14:50:04 <scribe> DanC: can't be generalized

14:50:28 <scribe> ... we decided before that lack of impl experience was justification to remove something

14:50:37 <scribe> Who is using it and how?

14:50:45 <dajobe-jang> (said daveb)

14:50:47 <scribe> Jan: I use it but it is problematic

14:51:02 <scribe> Ora: I use it; wasn't difficult;

14:51:24 <scribe> ACTION: Ora: post imple details for aboutEach

14:52:32 <scribe> DanC: does your impl work if you use _<n>?

14:52:35 <scribe> Ora: yes

14:53:27 <scribe> Brian: DaveB, are you OK?

14:53:40 <scribe> DaveB: I want to read Ora's report.

14:53:55 <scribe> Brian: anything else?

14:54:08 <scribe> ======= Anything else? ========

14:54:28 <scribe> DanC: do you folks use the W3C meeting registration form?

14:55:03 <scribe> ... it can be useful

14:55:35 <scribe> DanC: what are the expectations for the f2f?

14:55:47 <scribe> Ora: informal social interaction is very useful.

14:55:55 <dajobe-jang> daveb: TIN - Tin Isn't N3

14:55:58 <DanC> rdf-result

14:56:01 <DanC> ntriples

14:56:03 <scribe> =========== Test format name ==========

14:56:13 <DanC> n-triples, says GK

14:56:21 <dehora> linear form but TIN is a good name :)

14:56:33 <scribe> ArtB: I vote for TIN

14:56:46 <em> +1 tim

14:56:48 <scribe> This Isnt N3 == TIN

14:56:49 <em> s/tim/tin

14:56:52 <DanC> I like n-triples

14:56:56 <dehora> +1 TIN

14:57:11 <scribe> Jos: I like n-triples too

14:57:28 <scribe> Brian: motion to use n-triples

14:57:32 <scribe> DanC: seconded

14:57:33 <dajobe-jang> +2 jan, daveb

14:57:48 <scribe> RESOLUTION: n-triples it is!

14:58:02 <scribe> Next meeting: Jun 08

14:58:27 <scribe> Scribe next week: Jan Gran

14:58:35 <scribe> Adjourned ...

14:58:43 <AaronSw> bye all

14:58:54 <DanC> Great meeting, folks! we closed some issues, made progress on others.

14:59:09 <dajobe-jang> and decided a name!

14:59:14 <DanC> whee!

14:59:17 <GK> Yup.

14:59:31 <GK> Dan... are you still thinking about RDF model-semantics?

14:59:36 <DanC> hmm... should I change the name of the perl-hack from n3-simple.pl to n-triples.pl?

14:59:44 <DanC> semantics: sure, always.

14:59:59 <DanC> (we're ADJOURNED, btw, for readers of the log)

15:00:41 <DanC> GK, off to #rdfig for semantics-noodling?

15:00:43 <GK> I'm getting closer to the point that I might have a go at some MT for the RDF core... for the purposes of discussion

15:00:54 <dajobe-jang> MT?

15:01:02 <GK> MT = Model Theory

15:01:42 <DanC> I'm zeroing in on a model theory for cwm's view of RDF. It's modal; richer than the simplest "conjunctive existential fragment of FOPC" semantics.

15:02:04 <GK> Dan, sure (to #rdfig) I was slow to spot that.

15:04:29 <dehora> need to drop off, bye folks

15:10:59 <GK> GK is now known as GK1

15:11:04 <GK1> GK1 is now known as GK

16:43:52 <scribe> scribe is now known as ArtB

16:44:13 <ArtB> See you in other channels ...