W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2001-10-19

13:01:03 Topic now RDF Core Meeting 14:00 UTC Friday - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0361.html

13:01:03 Users on #rdfcore: logger_1 @dajobe bwm

13:58:40 <AaronSw> Seems awfully quiet...

13:59:25 * em waves

13:59:32 * em is dialing

13:59:53 * AaronSw dials

14:00:20 <em> 4ouch?

14:01:29 <bwm> bristol redialing

14:01:54 <DanC> hmm... there should be a link from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/ to the WGhome page

14:02:51 <DanC> hmm... _Pointers_ is only mildly better than _here_. suggest: make the link around _editors drafts_ in stead. [I'll do it if I find a moment]

14:03:12 <DanC> regrets for the 1st part of the meeting; I'll try to join later.

14:03:25 <gk> Role call

14:03:29 <gk> +danBri

14:03:35 <gk> +ericm

14:03:41 <gk> -art

14:03:42 <Jema> command not recognised

14:03:45 <gk> +daveb

14:03:49 <gk> -frankb

14:03:50 <Jema> command not recognised

14:03:52 <gk> +jeremyc

14:03:58 <gk> danc regrets

14:04:01 * ArtB will join shortly

14:04:03 <gk> -rond

14:04:03 <Jema> command not recognised

14:04:08 <gk> regrets billdeh

14:04:11 <gk> +jos

14:04:23 <gk> +jan

14:04:28 <gk> abs raeld

14:04:40 <gk> abs yoshi

14:04:43 <gk> +gk

14:04:52 <gk> abs michaelK

14:04:56 <gk> abs kwon

14:05:00 <gk> abs ora

14:05:05 <gk> +frankm

14:05:13 <gk> abs nakamura

14:05:19 <gk> +stevep

14:05:25 <gk> abs pierre

14:05:28 * ArtB just joined via phone

14:05:29 <gk> +aaron

14:05:30 <ArtB> +ArtB

14:05:36 <gk> abs miked

14:05:39 <gk> abs guha

14:05:42 <gk> regrets path

14:05:58 <gk> abs sergey (for now)

14:06:07 <gk> -next

14:06:09 <Jema> command not recognised

14:06:28 <gk> -agenda 3

14:07:14 <gk> >> Review agenda items

14:07:42 <gk> >>Next telecon (next week)

14:07:55 <gk> >>review minutes last week

14:07:58 <bwm> (from danbri) - DanC, o-o-b comments like this distract, though i share yr concern. to email pls.

14:08:15 <DanC> sorry. will do.

14:08:25 <DanC> or: might do. might forget. such is life.

14:08:31 <bwm> :)

14:08:56 <gk> Discussion of URIs in last week's minutes; no pobjections

14:09:01 <gk> APPROBVED: minutes

14:09:12 <gk> >> Completed actions

14:09:19 <sergey> +sergey

14:10:32 <ArtB> Dave - here it is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0441.html

14:10:47 <gk> That was Art's action from last week

14:11:08 <gk> >> Approve parsetype test cases

14:12:20 <gk> Discussion whether unrecognized attributes in rdf namespace should be legal

14:12:43 <gk> This is a broader question, but affects these test cases

14:13:06 <gk> DECIDED: will postpone approval until discussion of use of RDF namespace and unrecognized attributes

14:13:44 * DanC is reasonably happy with that... didn't want to ban attributes in wierd places, but hasn't thought it thru

14:13:52 <gk> ACTION DaveB: check there is an issue dealing with unrecognized attributes in RDF namespace

14:15:12 <gk> >> Approve domain and range test cases

14:16:20 <ArtB> +1 on what Jos said

14:16:35 <ArtB> ... only approve 1 and 2; postpone 3 and 4

14:17:13 <gk> DECIDED: approve cases 1 and 2, postpone 3 and 4

14:17:40 <gk> Cases 3,4 pending definition of how we do entailment

14:18:29 <gk> >> Approve rdfms-identoty-anon-resource

14:19:28 <gk> Sergey has reservation about motivation for this resolution

14:19:59 <gk> Otherwise strong support in the meeting; will go for vote in teleconference (i.e. now)

14:20:32 <gk> DanBri: yes (=approve)

14:20:40 <gk> EricM: yes

14:20:43 <gk> Art: yes

14:20:46 <gk> DaveB: yes

14:20:50 <gk> Jeremy: yes

14:21:00 <gk> Jos: yes

14:21:03 <gk> JanG: yes

14:21:06 <gk> Martyn: yes

14:21:08 <gk> GK: yes

14:21:14 <gk> Stephen: abstain

14:21:18 <gk> Aaron: abstain

14:21:24 <gk> Sergey: abstain

14:21:34 <gk> FrankM: yes

14:22:03 <gk> CONSENSUS: motion approved

14:22:46 <gk> >> Propose approve test cases

14:23:03 <gk> Art, Jos, GK have reviewed them. No issues.

14:23:10 <gk> DECIDED: test cases approved

14:23:30 <gk> (Thjese are test cases for anon issue)

14:24:21 <gk> >> Propose approve Pat's revised wording for "anon nodes"

14:24:33 <gk> DECIDED: approved

14:25:01 <gk> (This is about using "node id" rather than bNode)

14:25:10 <gk> >> Review status of entailment tests

14:26:09 <gk> ACTION: Jan to produce a proposal for next week

14:26:40 * AaronSw raises hand

14:26:46 <gk> Jos notes that TimBL has come back with some ideas about this, as part of his N3 work

14:26:55 * ArtB wonders if N3 is a four-letter word :-)

14:26:57 <gk> But there is a problem with using N3 for our work

14:28:16 <gk> Please have other comments and thoughts to the list

14:28:46 <AaronSw> bwm: anything else we need to do on entailment tests?

14:28:59 <AaronSw> jos: we have a couple of issues resolved at f2f which we need to make test cases for

14:29:13 <AaronSw> jos is volunteering... but not for all of them.

14:29:31 <AaronSw> -action Jos / Create test cases for "model" issues resolved at f2f

14:29:32 <Jema> Jema notes action 2001-10-19#1

14:29:43 <AaronSw> Others should follow suit

14:30:02 <AaronSw> -action ArtB / Extract text from Jos to update Test Cases WD

14:30:03 <Jema> Jema notes action 2001-10-19#2

14:30:21 * GKGK I'm back

14:30:23 * AaronSw lets GK take over

14:30:33 <GKGK> >> Status of N-triples draft

14:31:07 <GKGK> >> Status of syntax draft

14:32:03 <AaronSw> DaveB: I've got a document that needs to be looked at

14:32:14 <AaronSw> ... we need to look at both of these in order to proceed

14:32:28 <AaronSw> ... report back to the Syntax WG subgroup

14:32:33 <AaronSw> ... to discuss these reviews

14:32:46 <AaronSw> JanG: I'll review Jeremy's stuff

14:33:24 <AaronSw> proposed: -action Jan / Review and report on Jeremy's syntax work

14:33:46 <AaronSw> bwm: you've formed a task force for a transform and there are now two proposals... key issue is to decide which proposal goes forward

14:34:17 <AaronSw> Jeremy: Don't want to trade bugs for bugs -- both are buggy

14:34:27 <AaronSw> bwm: we have a formal method along with structured english

14:34:32 <AaronSw> ... need to recommend a decision

14:34:55 * gk is this IRC logged to the web?

14:34:57 <AaronSw> Jan: want to make sure Dan participates in review

14:34:59 <AaronSw> gk, yes

14:35:06 <AaronSw> - http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-10-19.txt

14:35:09 <bwm> s/dan/danc/

14:35:26 <gk> Aaron, thanks

14:35:57 <AaronSw> proposed: -action EricM / Find teleconference slots next week for syntax telecon

14:36:19 * gk OK I think I'm back and stable

14:36:24 * DanC tunes in at the mention of my name...

14:36:41 <AaronSw> DanC, we want you to review Jeremy's syntax work

14:36:57 <DanC> ooh... Jeremy's rules stuff... yes, I have that in my "should read that Real Soon Now" pile. Note I'm out all next week.

14:37:06 <AaronSw> -action Aaron / Take a look at syntax work

14:37:07 <Jema> Jema notes action 2001-10-19#3

14:37:22 <gk> ACTION: lots of folks to review syntax document, and join syntax conference next week

14:38:03 <gk> Jan, Jeremy, Dave, Brian, Aaron, Art, StyeveP, DanC

14:38:56 <gk> DaveB on issue resolution: has written some words on addressing these; need to move to resolution

14:39:34 <gk> Ask people to look at issues section (of syntax doc?) and bring them to the next meeting

14:40:07 <gk> ACTION: DaveB: to email URLs of issues to be discussed/resolved

14:40:15 <gk> >> Status of schema

14:40:45 <gk> DanBri: most of new domain and range is reflected.

14:41:04 <gk> Constraint resource is confusing/bizarrly defined; is on issues list.

14:41:18 <gk> ACTION: DanBri to propose resolution of constraint resources for next week

14:41:37 <gk> ACTION: ditto for constraint properties

14:42:39 <gk> What is the state of play of data typing machinery; is it ready for RDF schema document text?

14:43:18 <gk> REWAKE OLD ACTION: DanBri to get working version of schema spec with domain/range reflected to WG

14:43:27 <gk> >> Data types

14:44:23 <gk> Seget has surveyed approaches, tried to classify.

14:44:43 <gk> E.g. is data type encoded in literal, or specified in schema? Have some responses.

14:44:47 <gk> How to progress?

14:45:14 <gk> Which possible directions are more in line with what we think should be?

14:46:24 <gk> BWM: Sergey made specific proposal (S3 in message?) "typing at place where literal occurs", rather than externally.

14:47:01 <gk> Also, TimBLs interpretation properties

14:47:38 <gk> e.g. [rdf:type xsd:integer ; rdf:value "10" ] (using n3)

14:47:53 <gk> or add type to literal?

14:48:11 <gk> or others (not following details)

14:50:12 <gk> Jan: backward compatibility compelling; any RDF processor should cope

14:50:46 <gk> Steve: this is obvious way

14:53:58 <gk> Need a decision:

14:54:05 <DanC> yes, please, let's go this way! note that all XML Schema scalar values can be written (uri-for-primitive-type, unicode-char-seq)

14:54:57 <JosD> exactly DanC

14:55:00 <gk> Do we go the way of using blank nodes for literals, or do we regard literals as structured entities....(attempt)

14:55:07 <DanC> ... and that the XML Schema spec specifies a canonical lexicalization (unicode-character-string) for each value; so there's a well-defined mapping in both directions.

14:55:38 <gk> Literals as separarate animal in the model theory, or just another kind of resource node? (another attempt)

14:55:56 <DanC> please let string literals denote strings. hmm... what to do with xml:lang.

14:56:16 <AaronSw> Aaron's attempt: Are literals _composite_ entities... i.e. in N-Triples do they use bNodes or are literals their own thing.

14:57:04 <gk> ACTION: Sergey to post text attempting to separate these two options

14:57:07 * DanC would like to know if a decision is likely in today's meeting; if so, I'll join the telcon

14:57:28 * AaronSw thinks it's unlikely with 3 minutes lefrt

14:57:31 <bwm> we're just winding up; sergey presented overview of options (danbri)

14:57:32 <DanC> do we have test inputs that reflect what the users want?

14:57:43 * gk we're struggling with words here .. decision hjere is unlikely, I think

14:58:10 <DanC> did we ever find any users that seriously want to use xml:lang syntax as is?

14:58:14 <ArtB> +1 on what Jeremy said

14:58:32 * AaronSw heads off

15:00:00 <gk> Jan: likes idea of literal instance. Two levels of typing -- lowlevel interpretation of literals, higher level schema issues

15:00:25 <gk> This is probably THE most difficult issue left to resolve

15:01:04 <gk> Sergey, please get wording of dichotomy out as soon as possible

15:01:28 <gk> Propose to formally close the meeting

15:01:49 <gk> (But will Aaron sing "The Golden Triples")

15:02:13 <gk> Meeting closed.

15:03:44 <DanC> has sergey been actioned to produce test cases? inputs, at least?

15:04:29 <bwm> -close

15:04:30 <Jema> The meeting is closed

15:04:31 <gk> not yet: the action was simply to describe two directions of moving forward

15:04:32 <Jema> the action/decision list has been mailed

15:05:20 <sergey> DanC, I'll try to include several informally specified test cases.

15:05:48 <gk> I was about to type to suggest you (and others) might do that

15:06:21 <gk> (by "you" I meant DanC there)

15:06:22 <DanC> thanks, sergey.

15:07:48 <gk> Oh well, time to write up the minutes. Bye folks.

15:09:35 <sergey> bye