W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2001-06-29

13:00:02 Users on #rdfcore: logger_1 ArtB

13:28:19 * ArtB waves to Aaron and Brian

13:28:28 * AaronSw waves back

13:28:48 <jan_g> hullo

13:57:11 <jan_g> jan_g is now known as jan-dajobe

13:57:23 <jan-dajobe> we're doing the XP pair-programming thing

13:57:28 <jan-dajobe> jan gets all the vowels

13:57:34 <AaronSw> hehe

13:57:38 <mdean> mdean is now known as mdean_

13:57:59 <AaronSw> -> Phone Number: +1 630 536 3003 room #3003

13:58:33 <jan-dajobe> hi AaronSw - answering your Q last week, yes logger is on a crontab (dajobe)

13:59:09 <AaronSw> cool

13:59:17 <AaronSw> and daemontools?

14:00:12 <AaronSw> +Aaron

14:00:42 <spetschu> +StephenP

14:01:21 <jan-dajobe> jang,dajobe,bwm on phone + irc

14:02:09 <jan-dajobe> jan-dajobe is now known as jan-dajobe-scribe

14:02:34 <jan-dajobe-scribe> regrets danbri

14:02:39 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +bwm

14:02:44 <jan-dajobe-scribe> Art? can't hear you

14:03:07 <ArtB> +ArtB

14:03:08 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +ArtB

14:03:30 <jan-dajobe-scribe> Pierre Richards

14:03:46 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +DaveB

14:03:50 <jan-dajobe-scribe> FrankB regrets

14:03:57 <jan-dajobe-scribe> DanC regrets

14:03:59 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +Ron Daniel

14:04:07 <jan-dajobe-scribe> BillDehora regrets

14:04:08 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +Jos

14:04:13 <jan-dajobe-scribe> -Rael

14:04:15 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +Jan Grant

14:04:18 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +Martyn

14:04:53 <jan-dajobe-scribe> -Satoshi Nakamura, Yoshiuki regrets

14:05:03 <jan-dajobe-scribe> -Michael Kochenkov (sp!)

14:05:04 <jan-dajobe-scribe> -Ora

14:05:09 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +Frank Manola

14:05:16 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +Stephen

14:05:20 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +Aaron

14:05:23 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +Mike Dean

14:05:27 <jan-dajobe-scribe> -Guha

14:05:31 <jan-dajobe-scribe> -Pat Hayes

14:05:33 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +Sergey

14:05:41 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ----- agenda

14:05:45 <em_> +ericm

14:06:11 <jan-dajobe-scribe> Any others?

14:06:13 <jan-dajobe-scribe> Nope

14:06:22 <jan-dajobe-scribe> REVIEW OF AGENDA

14:06:28 <jan-dajobe-scribe> AOB

14:06:38 <jan-dajobe-scribe> jang - xml:base

14:07:04 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm - might talk about xml:lang if we have the time

14:07:20 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm - issue priorities and paritioning, if we have time

14:07:38 <jan-dajobe-scribe> PREVIOUS MINUTES

14:07:50 <jan-dajobe-scribe> 2001-06-15 minutes

14:07:59 <jan-dajobe-scribe> per corrections in agenda

14:08:09 <jan-dajobe-scribe> approved

14:08:18 <jan-dajobe-scribe> 2001-06-22 minutes + corrections in agenda

14:08:24 <jan-dajobe-scribe> approved

14:08:34 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ACTIONS COMPLETED

14:08:42 <jan-dajobe-scribe> danbri activated rdfs issues - done

14:08:48 <jan-dajobe-scribe> graham update minutes - done

14:09:08 <jan-dajobe-scribe> REVIEW STATUS OF ACTIONS

14:09:14 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ora - absent, continued

14:09:33 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm - write draft of issues in scope, allocation, dependencies...

14:09:39 <jan-dajobe-scribe> not yet done all of that - continued

14:09:50 <jan-dajobe-scribe> all - post issue priorities with reasons

14:10:02 <jan-dajobe-scribe> 3 responses so far

14:10:26 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey - basis for f2f, will summarise for next tconf

14:10:30 <jan-dajobe-scribe> continued

14:10:55 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ACTION: sergey, summarise for next tconf. issues to him by 9am SF time Wed.

14:11:09 <jan-dajobe-scribe> danbri - draft of rdfs - continued

14:11:15 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm - containers proposal writup

14:11:33 <jan-dajobe-scribe> put some in the agenda writeup and consider it sufficient

14:12:11 <jan-dajobe-scribe> AaronSw - after DanC, add some quotes from specification

14:12:35 <jan-dajobe-scribe> AaronSw - put it somewhere online. bwm - will do

14:12:43 <jan-dajobe-scribe> done

14:12:56 <jan-dajobe-scribe> danbri - writeup decision on partial desc. containers - continued

14:13:15 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ISSUES container syntax amb. / versus schema

14:14:05 <jan-dajobe-scribe> jang proposes we record this

14:14:12 <jan-dajobe-scribe> decided

14:14:29 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ISSUE rdfms difference between id and about

14:14:34 <jan-dajobe-scribe> AaronSw

14:14:49 <AaronSw> Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a description, is equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute with the same content, except prefixed by a '#' character and URI encoded.

14:14:57 <AaronSw> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/

14:15:01 <jan-dajobe-scribe> thx

14:15:01 * em_ suggests verbal confirmation from working group members in future decisions... (aye/nay/abstain)

14:15:33 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ron: rewording needed around 'except prefixed'

14:16:01 <AaronSw> Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a description, is equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute with the same content, except the content of the rdf:about attribute is prefixed by a '#' character and URI encoded.

14:17:24 <jan-dajobe-scribe> em: proposal on process - make specific votes

14:18:00 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey: relative uris and IDs

14:18:13 <AaronSw> ron, sergey abstain

14:18:18 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey: abstains

14:18:37 <jan-dajobe-scribe> miked: isDefinedBy suggestion still on agenda?

14:18:47 <jan-dajobe-scribe> Aaronsw: no this issue covers that

14:19:33 <jan-dajobe-scribe> Aaronsw, miked: like this idea but felt WG consensus was that this was a bad idea

14:20:39 <jan-dajobe-scribe> jang, dajobe: against adding this

14:20:46 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm: rather get consensus, take it to email

14:21:47 <jan-dajobe-scribe> em: get pro/con people to say why via actions

14:22:25 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ACTION ron: where the distinction of ID and about has been used

14:23:07 <jan-dajobe-scribe> dajobe: I present impl. evidence that AaronSw words represent practice

14:23:09 <jan-dajobe-scribe> --

14:23:14 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ISSSUE aboutEach on object

14:23:32 <jan-dajobe-scribe> anyone using it?

14:24:10 <jan-dajobe-scribe> propose we ratify what Ora said "aboutEach is not allowed on a Description element which is an object of a statement" (scribe trying to capture this)

14:24:16 <spetschu> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-aboutEach-on-object

14:24:26 <jan-dajobe-scribe> AaronSw: abstain

14:24:36 <jan-dajobe-scribe> decided

14:24:37 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ---

14:24:45 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ISSUE xml:base - jan grant

14:25:09 <jan-dajobe-scribe> for embedded rdf, might wish to pass to rdf parser a URI base

14:25:42 <jan-dajobe-scribe> for disambiguting relative URIs, however rdf parsers might be given a whole xml doc to extract rdf

14:25:50 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ... see JanG's email

14:26:23 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ... so unless we want to address emebedded, we leave this alone

14:26:58 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm: notes danbri was keen to see xml:base used for embedding and proposes we postpone this

14:27:10 <jan-dajobe-scribe> artb: also postpone, and +1 DanC

14:27:10 <AaronSw> artb 2nded

14:28:03 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ron: most parsers get a base URI, not a big problem to say that this is allowed

14:28:23 <jan-dajobe-scribe> jang: base URI allowed is OK but mandatory is probably not an option

14:28:46 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ron: can't generate same thing if we don't say precisely

14:29:15 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ACTION ron: write a mail message about that

14:29:19 <jan-dajobe-scribe> issue continued on email

14:29:22 <jan-dajobe-scribe> --

14:29:48 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ISSUE xml:lang - bwm

14:29:54 <jan-dajobe-scribe> (ANY OTHER BUSINESS)

14:30:06 <jan-dajobe-scribe> issue is basically, xml:lang is not in model

14:30:10 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm: it sort of is

14:30:29 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm: a pair (string of chars, string identifying language)

14:30:47 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey: broader scope

14:31:07 <jan-dajobe-scribe> related issue

14:31:17 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey: currently, namespaces not in model

14:32:03 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey: namespaces related to literals, can use data typing

14:32:23 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey: Are namespaces in the model?

14:32:47 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm: ack, will add that as an issue

14:33:27 <jan-dajobe-scribe> aaronsw: can combine with URI sub... issue?

14:33:33 <jan-dajobe-scribe> (can someone paste that?)

14:33:47 <AaronSw> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xmllang

14:33:54 <AaronSw> oops

14:33:56 <AaronSw> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-uri-substructure

14:33:57 <jan-dajobe-scribe> frankm: primarily technical 2.2.3 - "RDF uses XML namespaces" - not in model

14:34:12 <jan-dajobe-scribe> frankm: clarification needed

14:34:33 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey: namespaces used as an abbreviation (syntax) - is it syntactic sugar or part of model?

14:35:39 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ACTION bwm: update to add sergey's question to existing uri-substructure issue

14:36:16 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey, with namespaces xml:lang could be done via that mechanism

14:36:53 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm: literal is pair, for now, later get to data types etc.

14:37:28 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ron: some impls. use xml:lang but still we talk about triples

14:37:55 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ron: do we still need it in the model? A: yes

14:38:16 <jan-dajobe-scribe> martyn: agree with pair

14:38:31 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey: disagree

14:39:01 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ron: M&S includes xml:lang without saying how it is represented or used

14:39:36 * AaronSw raises hand

14:39:57 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey: by making xml:lang special in model, not best decision

14:40:20 <jan-dajobe-scribe> em: historical review ...

14:41:24 <jan-dajobe-scribe> em: have impls. with language needs, can we have examples of use, test cases?

14:41:38 <jan-dajobe-scribe> em: wants evidence

14:43:11 <jan-dajobe-scribe> Aaronsw: problem is want queries to be simple and complexifies apis, query lang, adds exceptions

14:43:19 <jan-dajobe-scribe> aaronsw: propose to throw out xml:lang

14:44:06 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ron: don't need to solve, can't close it now

14:44:37 <jan-dajobe-scribe> jang: have multi lang registry project...

14:45:33 <jan-dajobe-scribe> jang: query results needed a lot of processing to get language literals handled easily

14:45:49 * em_ concurs with jan for exactly the same reasons (and very similar application)

14:46:36 <jan-dajobe-scribe> dajobe: literal explanation...

14:46:48 <jan-dajobe-scribe> artb: e.g. xml:space

14:46:56 <jan-dajobe-scribe> jos: content encoding in literals

14:47:05 <jan-dajobe-scribe> jos: data: uri

14:47:27 <em_> note as well... my experience was that quite oftern the literal value was encoded in multiple languages (e.g. <span xml:lang = "fr">pomme</span>. etc)

14:47:36 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm: wants to drive it from use cases

14:47:50 <jan-dajobe-scribe> jang: yes, has experience can can do that

14:48:13 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ACTION jang, em: generate use cases

14:48:27 <jan-dajobe-scribe> +martyn: multi-lingual rdf

14:48:46 <jan-dajobe-scribe> em: also requirements

14:49:21 <jan-dajobe-scribe> sergey: please report also on primitive data typing

14:50:08 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ron: adding data types is not 1.0 clarification work but is with interaction with XML schema etc.

14:50:24 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ron: put out a draft clarified model but test it against future stuff that is coming along

14:51:58 <jan-dajobe-scribe> revising: ACTION jang, em, martyn: generate use cases and requirements for language (xml:lang) and literals

14:52:22 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm: not +data types, too many issues-in-1?

14:53:21 <jan-dajobe-scribe> frankm: when looking at use, xml:lang may turn out to be a special case of data types and is it important enought to leave in or go more general which might be future work

14:53:29 <AaronSw> datatypes are related to http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure

14:54:14 <jan-dajobe-scribe> martyn: agree with frankm. evidence: v.high interest for our customers

14:54:45 <jan-dajobe-scribe> em: yes, an important special case

14:54:51 <jan-dajobe-scribe> em: in original design

14:55:47 <jan-dajobe-scribe> em: recognised the need for this but didn't put xml:lang in model too neatly

14:57:12 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm: can we leave data types till later

14:57:25 <jan-dajobe-scribe> above revised ACTION recorded

14:57:49 <jan-dajobe-scribe> AOB (quick)

14:58:02 <jan-dajobe-scribe> frankm: changing f2f time?

14:58:24 <jan-dajobe-scribe> bwm: nope

14:58:28 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ADJOURNED

14:58:43 <jan-dajobe-scribe> DONM same time, same place

14:59:06 <bwm> next meeting 6th july

14:59:36 <bwm> Is it still sensible to meet next week given the 4th July holiday

14:59:39 <bwm> ?

15:02:24 <em_> bwm, I probably will be unavailiable...

15:03:14 <bwm> I'll poll the list

15:03:23 <em_> good idea

15:03:56 <jan-dajobe-scribe> ciao