W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2001-10-26

12:00:06 Users on #rdfcore: @logger_1

12:00:06 <ChanServ> ChanServ has changed the topic to:

12:00:06 <ChanServ> This channel has been registered with ChanServ.

12:39:32 <dajobe> dajobe has changed the topic to: RDF Core meetings 13:00 - 15:00 UTC Friday

12:39:52 <dajobe> dajobe has changed the topic to: RDF Core WG Meetings 13:00 - 15:00 UTC Friday

12:55:03 <jjc> hi art

12:59:41 <ArtB> 'morning gents

12:59:50 <jjc> morning

13:00:38 <ArtB> Dave - I'm just starting to look at syntax ver 1.95. Is that the primary topic for this meeting?

13:00:38 <dajobe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0504.html

13:01:13 <spetschu> hi folks -- is anyone on the syntax call?

13:01:24 * ArtB is not (yet)

13:01:37 * dajobe dialed

13:01:38 <jjc> just joined

13:02:27 <dajobe> yes, above is one of the things

13:02:27 <jjc>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/att-0408/01-tp-jjc-no-xslt.html

13:03:48 <dajobe> artb dialling?

13:05:16 <ArtB> +ArtB

13:05:54 <spetschu> +SteveP

13:06:28 <dajobe> bwm can't scribe just yet - rebooting

13:06:44 <spetschu> Item 1 - Jeremy describe his doc, group discuss

13:06:58 <ArtB> jjc: the snail work will tell where triples come from, not just give the triples

13:07:16 <dajobe> Jeremy is trying to provide a formal description of where triples come from

13:07:45 <dajobe> art: I'd be happy if you'd scribe

13:08:06 <ArtB> ok

13:09:24 * ArtB is having trouble hearing jjc - his speech is broken ...

13:09:50 <ArtB> dave: I'm concerned it doesnt meet our target audience (it = the snail doc)

13:10:37 <ArtB> steve: is a goal to have consistency b/w the 2 docs?

13:10:49 <ArtB> jjc: we need to describe where the tripels come from

13:11:18 <ArtB> jjc: choices: 1. English text (ala M&S); 2 a sep set of rulles

13:11:27 <ArtB> ... rules describe what triples are generated

13:11:51 <ArtB> daveb: the separation may be too difficult for people to deal with

13:12:38 <ArtB> daveb: I don't wat to see the separation

13:12:58 <ArtB> daveb: XPath can be used as a template for keeping things precise

13:13:18 <ArtB> artb: I haven't looked at jjc's document

13:13:45 <ArtB> steve: I scanned jjc's doc; read dave's

13:15:09 <ArtB> Brian: we need to decide on an approch but more WG memebers need to read JJC's doc

13:16:43 * ArtB can't hear whoever is speaking

13:17:21 <ArtB> Brian: I think the doc isn't too big

13:17:37 <ArtB> Brian: the intro text is a little off-putting

13:17:42 <ArtB> ... but that can be fixed

13:18:28 <ArtB> ... I find it hard to know if we can describe alal of the cases in English

13:18:57 <ArtB> ... seems like it would be easier to get all of the case by describing a transformation

13:19:03 <ArtB> Steve: the audience?

13:19:14 <ArtB> dave: we decided its parser writers

13:20:25 <ArtB> Steve: want to hear about Dave's doc so we can make a better decision

13:20:29 <ArtB> BM: yep, sounds good

13:21:02 <spetschu>http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Updated-Grammar-changes

13:21:18 <spetschu>http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

13:21:19 <jjc>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/att-0393/01-index.html

13:22:10 <ArtB> Dave: shows a good link from XML and go into model used in XPath

13:22:54 <ArtB> Dave: approach - for each production, would write a description of the triples that would be generrated

13:23:11 <ArtB> ... I wrote down some of the triples that would be generated

13:23:45 <ArtB> ... gets around some of the bnode naming problems

13:24:22 <ArtB> ... the doc has changed some

13:24:42 <ArtB> ... the goal was for the 2nd WD to have the grammar specified and to start the mapping

13:24:52 <ArtB> ... the 3rd WD would finish the mapaping

13:24:57 <ArtB> ... the 4th would be cleanup

13:25:49 <ArtB> Steve: reader must understan XPath, Infoset, RDF, XML, ...

13:26:03 <ArtB> Dave: don't need to understand XPath but do need to know SAX

13:26:13 <ArtB> JJC: reader must know the XPath node set

13:28:03 <ArtB> ArtB: it would be good to explicitly state what background docs the reader must understand to grok the syntax doc

13:28:31 <ArtB> BM: does anyone want to urge the editor to change his preference

13:28:57 <ArtB> scribe: no objections

13:29:26 <ArtB> EM: spit the question - have they read enough to make a deciosoon; if yes, what do you recommend

13:29:59 <ArtB> Steve: who has readd enough of both docs to make a decision?

13:30:58 <ArtB> Steve: I can make a high-level decision

13:31:09 <ArtB> EM: I haven't read enough to make a recommendation

13:31:32 <ArtB> ... I echo the point about how much bg the reader will need

13:31:46 <ArtB> ArtB: I also abstain for same reasons as EM

13:32:01 <ArtB> BM: mild preference for JJC's more formal work

13:32:24 <ArtB> ... but would yield for the editors preference

13:33:08 <ArtB> JJC: I'm nervouse about whetehr structured English will just leave us with holes like the original M&S

13:33:30 <ArtB> DB: I think the sturutured English approach has been good enough in the past

13:33:53 <jjc> DB: for other specs (not M&S)

13:34:07 <ArtB> EM: Dave, Jeremy - is what you've done the same; equally comprehensive?

13:34:21 <ArtB> JJC: we agree on what triples should be emmitted

13:35:30 <ArtB> BM: I don't want to see us delay any longer

13:35:38 <ArtB> ... we have to proceed

13:36:33 <ArtB> JJC: I think we shoujld have 1 or the other, not both

13:37:17 <ArtB> EM: yes, but we need to make things as comprehensive as possible

13:37:32 <ArtB> ... Could JJC's stuff feed DB's document?

13:38:33 <ArtB> ... that is, JJC continues his work and make sure DB's document covers all of the cases

13:38:42 <bwm> PROPOSE: That we will use structured English to describe the transformation from the grammar to n-triples. The rule based formalism will be used to verify that the structured english is correct.

13:38:51 <ArtB> DB: I would be happy with that

13:39:02 <ArtB> +1 from ArtB

13:39:54 <ArtB> JCC: I would be somewhat disappointed on an emotional level

13:40:44 <ArtB> ... the lack of response so far reflects that perhas thw WG doesn't think my work was as important that it should be

13:42:14 * ArtB wonders if it would be useful to get feedback from "real" parser writers (e.g. Meggison, CARA, Jason Diamond, etc)

13:42:40 * em agrees with ArtB with this

13:43:03 * em will also note however that we have in part a RELAX schema based on the first draft approach

13:43:56 * em raises his hand

13:47:32 <ArtB> EM: if someone was starting from scratch, I wonder which approach would be more useful

13:48:04 * em agrees with bwm's proposal

13:48:04 <ArtB> Steve: does everyone agree with BM's PROPOSE above?

13:48:10 <ArtB> DB: OK with me

13:48:13 <ArtB> EM: OK

13:48:16 <ArtB> AB: OK

13:48:27 <ArtB> JJC: Abstain

13:48:51 <ArtB> Steve: any objections?

13:49:01 <ArtB> scribe: no objections raised

13:49:41 <spetschu> closed!

13:56:32 * danb-lap waves from boston (art's desk, in fact :)

13:57:01 <dajobe> dajobe has changed the topic to: RDF Core WG meeting 14:00-15:00 UTC Friday - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0539.html

13:57:02 * bwm waves back

14:00:45 <danb-lap> +danbri

14:05:41 <spetschu> spetschu is now known as spetschu-scribe

14:05:46 <spetschu-scribe> 1: Allocate scribe

14:05:47 <spetschu-scribe> steve

14:05:51 <spetschu-scribe> 2: Roll Call

14:06:03 <dajobe> art?

14:06:03 <spetschu-scribe> art absent

14:06:05 <spetschu-scribe> daveb here

14:06:07 <AaronSw> ArtB, are you on the call?

14:06:10 <spetschu-scribe> frankb absent

14:06:14 <spetschu-scribe> jeremy here

14:06:18 <spetschu-scribe> danc absent

14:06:22 <ArtB> +ArtB [sorry ...]

14:06:23 <spetschu-scribe> rond absent

14:06:27 <spetschu-scribe> artb here

14:06:34 <spetschu-scribe> billd here

14:06:36 <spetschu-scribe> josd here

14:06:43 <spetschu-scribe> rael absent

14:06:46 <spetschu-scribe> jan regr

14:06:50 <spetschu-scribe> martyn abs

14:06:52 <spetschu-scribe> yoshi abs

14:06:55 <spetschu-scribe> graham regrets

14:06:59 <spetschu-scribe> michael abs

14:07:05 <spetschu-scribe> kwan abs

14:07:06 <spetschu-scribe> ora abs

14:07:09 <spetschu-scribe> frankm here

14:07:13 <spetschu-scribe> nakamura abs

14:07:16 <spetschu-scribe> stevep here

14:07:18 <spetschu-scribe> pierre abs

14:07:19 <spetschu-scribe> aaron here

14:07:24 <spetschu-scribe> danbri here

14:07:25 <spetschu-scribe> brian here

14:07:30 <spetschu-scribe> mikedean abs

14:07:32 <spetschu-scribe> guha abs

14:07:37 <spetschu-scribe> path here

14:07:40 <spetschu-scribe> sergey abs

14:07:49 <spetschu-scribe> mikedean now here

14:07:56 <spetschu-scribe> 3: Review Agenda

14:07:59 <dajobe> agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0539.html

14:08:17 <spetschu-scribe> no comments

14:08:18 <spetschu-scribe> 4: Next telecon - 10am Boston time, 2nd Nov 2001

14:08:35 <AaronSw> regrets from danbri, jos

14:08:36 <spetschu-scribe> 5: Review Minutes of previous meeting with correction

14:08:42 <spetschu-scribe> approved

14:08:54 <spetschu-scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0405.html

14:08:54 <spetschu-scribe>

14:08:59 <spetschu-scribe> 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

14:09:00 <spetschu-scribe> done

14:09:04 <spetschu-scribe> 7: Propose resolution of whether graphs are sets or bags

14:09:13 <spetschu-scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0489.html

14:09:13 <spetschu-scribe>

14:09:18 <spetschu-scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0496.html

14:09:30 <spetschu-scribe> pat: understands model theory will use sets

14:09:47 <spetschu-scribe> pat: but will allow implementers to do what they want (sets or bags)

14:10:11 <spetschu-scribe> jeremy: prefer clear wording w/ sets only

14:11:18 <ArtB>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0088.html

14:12:04 <spetschu-scribe> art: we should have an explicit test case showing decision

14:12:11 <spetschu-scribe> jeremy: what would it show?

14:12:54 <spetschu-scribe> aaron: agenda doesn't give license to processors to double up on arcs

14:12:57 <bwm> -hi

14:13:03 * em hangs up phone and dials in

14:13:15 * em appologies for delay

14:13:45 <spetschu-scribe> ...Confusion over what the text allows & doesn't allow...

14:13:59 <danb-lap> hi em

14:14:11 <spetschu-scribe> frank: are you suggesting if the parser finds dups it SHOULDNT remove them?

14:14:13 <spetschu-scribe> aaron: yup

14:14:23 <bwm> brian raises hand

14:14:46 <dajobe> the processors word again

14:14:58 <spetschu-scribe> jos: concerns about merging of large graph datasets

14:15:02 * bwm raises hand

14:15:27 <spetschu-scribe> brian: point of decision is how to treat model theory

14:15:47 <spetschu-scribe> brian: this is independent of parser/implemention decisions

14:16:03 <spetschu-scribe> ACTION: art: make a test case to illustrate this

14:16:19 * spetschu-scribe asks if JEMA is running

14:16:29 <spetschu-scribe> 8: Brief update on Primer status

14:16:37 <bwm> regrets - Jema not available

14:16:39 <spetschu-scribe> em: hoping to get a release by this afternoon

14:17:07 <spetschu-scribe> em: would primer sub-group be willing to meet next week?

14:18:12 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: any text on schema for the primer?

14:18:36 <spetschu-scribe> em: some taken from various docs

14:19:20 <spetschu-scribe> frankm: will produce data model section in next few days

14:19:58 <spetschu-scribe> em: for those who have sections to contribute... short is sweet

14:20:54 <spetschu-scribe> 9: Brief update on schema status

14:21:07 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: sent draft out the other day

14:21:13 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: subclass loops are out

14:21:38 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: too much writing work to do

14:21:49 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: can we push some schema into the primer

14:21:49 <dajobe> see danbri's mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0563.html

14:22:00 <dajobe> speak up dan!

14:22:08 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: I can arrange a telecon to address this

14:22:40 <spetschu-scribe> aaron: suggests splitting schema spec into two -- primer & formal

14:23:03 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: worried about M&S all over again... "acres of chatty prose"

14:23:33 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: ...intended audience...

14:24:24 * bwm raises hand

14:25:22 * em raises hand

14:25:24 <sergey> +sergey

14:25:39 <spetschu-scribe> brian: don't want to expand discussion... nevermind

14:25:49 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: schema telecon anyone?

14:26:31 * bwm raises hand again

14:26:41 <spetschu-scribe> em: talked to some engineers who don't think in terms of model theory...

14:26:54 * dajobe heard that too (twice)

14:27:04 <spetschu-scribe> em: ... don't count on it covering stuff for the intended audience

14:27:30 <dajobe> take to email? "brief update"?

14:27:55 <spetschu-scribe> brian: not convince current document set we have is the right one

14:28:20 <spetschu-scribe> brian: lets review overall structure to address audiences needs (not just schema, but other docs as well)

14:28:45 <spetschu-scribe> em: am I hearing that the PRIMER isn't just gravy, but it is essential?

14:28:59 <spetschu-scribe> ...general nodding...

14:29:37 <spetschu-scribe> em: if PRIMER is mission critical I want help editing this & getting it out the door

14:29:59 <spetschu-scribe> em: boinking will be done

14:30:02 <spetschu-scribe> ;-)

14:30:52 <spetschu-scribe> brian: that decision can be made when we review document structures

14:31:24 <spetschu-scribe> 11: Postpone syntax issues

14:31:42 <dajobe> That we will use structured English to describe the transformation from

14:31:42 <dajobe> +the grammar to n-triples. The rule based formalism will be used to verify that the

14:31:44 <dajobe> +structured english is correct.

14:31:55 <dajobe> (we agreed that proposal earlier)

14:32:05 <spetschu-scribe> CORRECTION:

14:32:06 <spetschu-scribe> 10: Status of Action 2001-08-02#7

14:32:52 <spetschu-scribe> daveb: action 10 closed

14:32:56 <spetschu-scribe> NOW:

14:32:57 <spetschu-scribe> 11: Postpone syntax issues

14:33:50 <spetschu-scribe> dave: PROPOSE these issues are postponed and off our issues list

14:33:55 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: wait...

14:34:14 * AaronSw disconnects

14:34:24 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: in what detail were these items discussed in syntax sub-group

14:34:30 <spetschu-scribe> jeremy: not discussed in group

14:34:46 <spetschu-scribe> jeremy: indication on mail list that there is room for discussion

14:35:28 <spetschu-scribe> aaron: dissent on qname stuff because implementers are confused

14:35:41 <spetschu-scribe> jeremy: lets take this to email

14:35:59 <spetschu-scribe> ACTION: aaron to write objections to specific issues in email

14:36:17 <spetschu-scribe> ...lets see which ones we can knock off today...

14:36:57 <spetschu-scribe> No objections to the following issues being taken off the list:

14:37:46 <spetschu-scribe> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values

14:38:08 <spetschu-scribe> pat: is it out of scope?

14:38:12 <spetschu-scribe> pat: ok, no objection

14:38:35 <spetschu-scribe>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-syntax-incomplete

14:39:14 <jjc>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0571.html

14:39:34 <jjc> The items graham said OK were all agreed as out of scope

14:40:20 <spetschu-scribe>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values

14:40:25 <spetschu-scribe>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-syntax-incomplete

14:40:34 <spetschu-scribe>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris

14:40:39 <spetschu-scribe> > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-quoting

14:40:51 <spetschu-scribe> 12: Close syntax issues

14:41:04 <spetschu-scribe> daveb: propose we close two issues in this agenda item

14:41:06 <spetschu-scribe> DONE

14:41:11 <spetschu-scribe> 13: Datatyping: Review Sergey's analysis and proposal

14:41:16 <spetschu-scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0530.html

14:44:03 <spetschu-scribe> ... discussion on sergeys doc ...

14:46:29 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: how can we decide which way to go w/ datatyping? we will have to go to the implementers community

14:46:46 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: sergeys doc can be a discussion item for mailing lists or as a WD doc

14:47:23 <spetschu-scribe> sergey: lets bat it around and try to get some agreement first

14:47:37 <spetschu-scribe> sergey: I can provide more clarification

14:48:19 <spetschu-scribe> pat: lots of controversial issues here mixed together

14:48:51 <spetschu-scribe> pat: don't know if we can just get a simple bulleted list of things to vote on

14:49:36 <spetschu-scribe> frankm: two directions here -- what about ppl using XML schema data types and putting them in RDF? how does a parser deal with this?

14:49:50 <spetschu-scribe> frankm: it isn't just RDF centric

14:50:07 * bwm raises hand

14:50:39 * danb-lap fails to look at both screens at once

14:50:48 <spetschu-scribe> sergey: proposes we need a roadmap on how XML schema datatypes will be used in RDF

14:50:59 <spetschu-scribe> pat: clarify "used within"

14:51:28 <spetschu-scribe> sergey: standard or default interpretation of how it should be used in RDF

14:51:41 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: small or large SHOULD

14:52:10 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: we are seeking "common conventions" for represention data types in RDF

14:53:11 <dajobe> speak up danbri

14:53:39 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: schema creators need recommendations for how to specify datatypes

14:55:16 * bwm raises hand

14:55:38 <spetschu-scribe> em: lets get the group to properly review this & discuss it and make some decisions

14:56:27 <spetschu-scribe> brian: how does sergeys doc relate to pats doc

14:57:13 <spetschu-scribe> [5 min left]

14:59:03 <spetschu-scribe> pat: may be possible to get them together in one framework

14:59:06 <spetschu-scribe> sergey: not sure

14:59:26 <spetschu-scribe> ... lots more discussion needed here ...

14:59:28 <spetschu-scribe> 14: Decide on topics for next telecon

14:59:54 <spetschu-scribe> danbri: datatyping next week... do we need time for syntax too?

15:00:19 <spetschu-scribe> pat: lot sergey & I in a box...

15:00:21 <spetschu-scribe> :)

15:00:25 <spetschu-scribe> s/lot/lock/

15:00:34 <spetschu-scribe> em: we really need to get this out

15:00:49 <spetschu-scribe> jos: interested in participated

15:00:55 <spetschu-scribe> s/pated/pating/

15:01:36 <spetschu-scribe> ... take to list: set up a datatyping discussion

15:01:39 <spetschu-scribe> CLOSED

15:02:18 * danb-lap remembers a new action he forgot to suggest: contact XML Schema WG w.r.t. Schema Formalisation of xml schema datatypes