W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2002-03-15

14:01:04 Users on #rdfcore: @logger_2

14:01:04 <ChanServ> You do not have AutoOp access to [#rdfcore]

14:01:04 <ChanServ> You do not have AutoOp access to [#rdfcore]

14:24:39 * AaronSw has his office back this week, so hopefully less wind noises

14:30:40 <AaronSw> dajobe2, mind removing the t mode on the channel?

14:30:56 <AaronSw> /topic Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0210

14:31:23 <AaronSw> Regrets: danb, danc

14:34:44 <dajobe> dajobe has changed the topic to: RDF Core WG 15:00-16:00 UTC Friday. Agenda - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0210.html

14:34:47 <dajobe> hi AaronSw

14:34:56 <AaronSw> hello.

14:34:57 <AaronSw> Regrets: DanC, danbri

14:35:49 <dajobe> great; so we can make decisions about n3^wntriples then :)

14:36:16 <AaronSw> Heh. I was thinking x"string" would me more Pythony than the verbose xml

14:36:28 <AaronSw> prescedent: u"string" and r"string" in py ;)

14:36:30 <dajobe> yes, I was thinking of that but xml was more clearer

14:36:37 <dajobe> sure

14:36:41 <AaronSw> [everybody wants to be a lang designer...]

14:37:22 <dajobe> looks like we might end up back with predicate-like stuff xml("foo", "fr-ca") mebbe

14:37:27 <dajobe> but not now

14:37:32 <AaronSw> noooo!

14:37:51 <AaronSw> I think we may have convinced TimBL to require whitespace.

14:37:57 <AaronSw> his - encoding scheme is just silly.

14:38:03 <dajobe> really? I've changed to remove that req

14:38:21 <dajobe> language ::= character+ excluding '.' and ws

14:38:42 <dajobe> plus I've implemented it, as you might have read between the lines of my msg

14:38:49 <AaronSw> no -- i meant for his - operator.

14:38:55 <dajobe> ok

14:39:11 <dajobe> so en-us != en - us

14:39:34 * dajobe doesn't really care at this stage about future language changes

14:39:54 <AaronSw> I care more about backwards-compatibility than future-compatibility.

14:40:26 <dajobe> hi em

14:40:39 <em> hey dajobe! :)

14:40:58 * dajobe focussing on getting this stuff out the door by 1 May

14:41:22 * em supports dajobe's focus 100%

14:45:20 * AaronSw tries to piece together his telecon headset

14:48:51 <dajobe> hmm, webont seem to have abandoned OPN for w3 irc server

14:54:17 <AaronSw> tanks

14:57:04 * dajobe2 sits down at other pc

14:58:31 <AaronSw> <Zakim> SW_RDF Cor()10:00AM has now started

14:58:44 <AaronSw> +EricM

14:58:45 * notZakim wonders where EricM is

14:58:46 <AaronSw> +AaronSw

14:58:46 * notZakim wonders where AaronSw is

14:58:55 <dajobe2> dajobe2 is now known as jang_dajobe

14:59:40 <AaronSw> notZakim, excuse us

14:59:58 <jang_dajobe> +jang, +dajobe

15:00:06 <jang_dajobe> bwm and jjc to call from hp today

15:00:29 <jang_dajobe> testing testing

15:00:34 <jang_dajobe> can you hear me typing?

15:00:39 <jang_dajobe> bugger, i won't scribe then

15:02:16 <AaronSw> +PatrickS

15:02:22 <AaronSw> +PatH

15:03:11 <AaronSw> +MarkButler

15:04:03 <jang_dajobe> jang to scribe

15:04:13 <jang_dajobe> rol call

15:04:20 <jang_dajobe> danbri regrets

15:04:24 <jang_dajobe> bwm here, em here

15:04:35 <AaronSw> +MDean +???

15:04:50 <jang_dajobe> frank b abs, jjc reg, danc reg

15:05:11 <jang_dajobe> ron d here, bill deh abs,

15:05:20 <jang_dajobe> jos here (hung over? :-)

15:05:25 <jang_dajobe> rael abs

15:05:31 <jang_dajobe> jang here

15:05:34 <jang_dajobe> martin h here

15:05:37 <jang_dajobe> yoshi abs

15:05:40 <jang_dajobe> gk here

15:05:46 <jang_dajobe> mich kop bs kwon abs ora abs

15:05:48 <jang_dajobe> frank m here

15:05:57 <jang_dajobe> satoshi abs steve p reg

15:06:04 <jang_dajobe> pierre r abs, pat h here

15:06:09 <jang_dajobe> aaron here

15:06:11 <jang_dajobe> pat s here

15:06:14 <jang_dajobe> mike d here

15:06:18 <jang_dajobe> guha abs

15:06:31 <jang_dajobe> sergei reg

15:06:37 <jang_dajobe> anyone else...?

15:06:39 <jang_dajobe> dave b here

15:07:05 <jang_dajobe> also here: mark butler from HP labs as an observer

15:07:15 <jang_dajobe> agenda - comments?

15:07:17 <jang_dajobe> AOB?

15:07:31 <jang_dajobe> eric: two minutes to suggest moving to w3c's irc to take advantage of zakim

15:07:52 <jang_dajobe> path: wants to talk about unasserted stuff and contexts

15:08:03 <jang_dajobe> (that's item 16)

15:08:21 <AaronSw> agenda+ Move IRC to W3C

15:08:21 * notZakim notes agendum 1 added

15:08:32 <jang_dajobe> last weeks minutes:

15:08:37 <jang_dajobe> approved

15:08:44 <jang_dajobe> completed actions.. all ok?

15:09:07 <jang_dajobe> frankm: next telecon, 22nd march, NOT 29th

15:09:19 <jang_dajobe> actions DONE

15:09:24 <jang_dajobe> june f2f in bristol

15:09:26 <jang_dajobe> 17th 18th

15:09:36 <jang_dajobe> hp, ilrt to negotiate venue

15:09:41 <jang_dajobe> 17, 18 june

15:09:49 <jang_dajobe> primer WD:

15:10:13 <jang_dajobe> frank: wysiw you've got

15:10:18 <jang_dajobe> daveb: made my commetns to list: minor fiddle, publish it!

15:10:27 <jang_dajobe> em, danc also say the same

15:10:29 * AaronSw notes RDF Core F2F is during CFP2002...

15:10:33 <jang_dajobe> propose: wg to approve publication

15:10:51 <jang_dajobe> martinh: discussed some changes with frankm, I'm ok if they are included

15:11:10 <jang_dajobe> rond: frankm's asked me for something on prissm

15:11:27 <jang_dajobe> if I can't get it done this week, 'd like it at least in a future version

15:11:42 <jang_dajobe> frankm: let's be clear on "approved for publication"...

15:11:47 <jang_dajobe> there's additional work to do

15:11:55 <jang_dajobe> there are placeholder sections

15:12:13 <gkgk> Suggest: "approve publication _as working draft_"

15:12:15 <jang_dajobe> what we're saying: we're publishing this as initial wd, a lot of stuff is going to get done to this

15:12:33 <jang_dajobe> em: this is a _working_ draft, that's understood

15:12:53 <jang_dajobe> ...are we comfortable that this is going to be ok for public release?

15:13:01 <jang_dajobe> aaron: more to do, shouldn't stop publication

15:13:09 <AaronSw> ... should be clear in status section

15:13:12 <jang_dajobe> frankm: core wg's webpage had pointers to prereleae versions

15:13:35 <jang_dajobe> ph: "publication" is an odd term - it's not like it's being "more" public

15:13:43 <jang_dajobe> just more publicised

15:14:19 <AaronSw> pumkination?

15:14:34 <jang_dajobe> frankm: if this is how w3c process works, then that's ok

15:14:40 <jang_dajobe> em: that's exactly what the process is

15:14:54 <jang_dajobe> it's pointed at off /TR

15:15:15 <jang_dajobe> frankm happy to publish

15:15:18 <gkgk> I assume the process is an outgrowth of the IETF approach, in which working drafts are used to focus the ongoing work, and to solicit wider feedbackl

15:15:20 <jang_dajobe> anyone unhappy?

15:15:26 <jang_dajobe> propose approval of publication...

15:15:30 <jang_dajobe> no dissent, SO ORDERED

15:15:35 <jang_dajobe> action: em to drive process

15:15:52 <jang_dajobe> em: publication won't happen until monday, I'd expect

15:16:06 <jang_dajobe> frankm: few minutes at end of call with em to discuss

15:16:17 <jang_dajobe> ACTION: frankm to sign on to rdf-comment

15:16:26 <jang_dajobe> ok, move on

15:16:33 <jang_dajobe> item: open e-book forum

15:16:46 <jang_dajobe> pats: about open ebook

15:17:11 <jang_dajobe> ...gives some background

15:17:31 <jang_dajobe> open format for producing content for publication to desktop for native reading

15:17:50 <jang_dajobe> or can be converted to target formats - eg, palm

15:18:09 <jang_dajobe> ebooks have "fallbacks" - eg, flash, with fallpack to some LCD encoding

15:18:12 <jang_dajobe> like jpeg

15:18:27 <jang_dajobe> so lots of metadata about those

15:18:30 <jang_dajobe> also, digital rights

15:18:49 <jang_dajobe> ebook were sold on using rdf as the foundation for this ebook packaging

15:19:02 <jang_dajobe> also getting ratification for using rdf as core encoding for metadata

15:19:17 <jang_dajobe> em: for public discussion?

15:19:29 <jang_dajobe> pats: yes, packaging model finally published, see message on list

15:19:36 <jang_dajobe> @@someone post a pointer to that message?

15:19:45 <AaronSw>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0128.html

15:19:49 <jang_dajobe> cheers aaron

15:19:52 <AaronSw>http://www.xpackage.org/

15:20:35 <jang_dajobe> bwm: thanks pat

15:20:41 <jang_dajobe> next:

15:20:52 <AaronSw> patrick is our liason to the OEB

15:20:53 <jang_dajobe> item 11: xmlbase test cases

15:21:00 <jang_dajobe> daveb: all ok bar one, I think

15:21:05 <jang_dajobe> dubious about test 17

15:21:30 <jang_dajobe> jos: though error001 was an error, initially...

15:21:34 <jang_dajobe> i'm still not sure on that

15:21:53 <jang_dajobe> not sure: error001, or 17

15:22:00 <jang_dajobe> daveb: can we approve 1-16?

15:22:05 <jang_dajobe> other commetns:

15:22:14 <jang_dajobe> propose approve tests 1-16, close the issue

15:22:26 <jang_dajobe> daveb: 17 isn't crucial

15:22:37 <jang_dajobe> so approved

15:22:51 <gkgk> (em: FYI, there an iTrust page at http://www.bitd.clrc.ac.uk/Activity/iTrust)

15:22:58 <jang_dajobe> action bwm: arrange resolution of test017, and error 001

15:23:01 <jang_dajobe> next

15:23:11 <jang_dajobe> item 12: review of test cases

15:23:16 <jang_dajobe> daveb: these look ok

15:23:21 <jang_dajobe> jos: quick look, seem ok

15:23:33 <jang_dajobe> propose approve these:

15:23:39 <jang_dajobe> no dissent, approved.

15:23:47 <jang_dajobe> ACTION: jang update to reflect this

15:23:58 <jang_dajobe> ACTION: jang to update to reflect xmlbase tests too

15:24:08 <jang_dajobe> item 13:

15:24:14 <jang_dajobe> nested bagid

15:24:21 <jang_dajobe> daveb: can't be certain about these

15:24:29 <jang_dajobe> I'm happy with them, as I recall

15:24:35 <jang_dajobe> they were rewritten after f2f

15:24:42 <jang_dajobe> jos: I've reviewed, I'm happy

15:24:50 <jang_dajobe> email about this last friday

15:25:08 <jang_dajobe> i see major differences between implementations, which concern me

15:25:24 <jang_dajobe> it's sometimes astonshing how simple things give such wide results

15:25:30 <jang_dajobe> bwm: that's why we're here!

15:25:36 <jang_dajobe> daveb: and bagid isn't so "simple"

15:25:48 <jang_dajobe> jos: believes correct as they stand

15:26:01 <jang_dajobe> bwm: propose approval: no dissent

15:26:07 <jang_dajobe> action jang: update test cases with these

15:26:12 <jang_dajobe> item 14:

15:26:18 <jang_dajobe> updated notation for literals

15:26:32 <jang_dajobe> daveb: propose we go with my current syntax, then maybe change later.

15:26:36 <jang_dajobe> we need to move forward

15:27:13 <jang_dajobe> jos: some nt/n3 ambigities in my parser... notas easy as I'd have liked

15:27:56 <jang_dajobe> daveb, jos discuss punctuation problems in syntax

15:28:42 <jang_dajobe> jos is pretty neutral about this.

15:29:10 <jang_dajobe> path: can I ask for a delay so I can have a look?

15:29:24 <jang_dajobe> daveb: this is going to delay as long as the review akes...

15:29:39 <jang_dajobe> jos didn't sound neutral to me, he sounde like it couldnt live with an n3 parser

15:30:43 <jang_dajobe> bwm: need to decide what to do:

15:31:03 <jang_dajobe> daveb: we can't apprve xml literals or languages in test cases without _something_

15:31:23 <jang_dajobe> gk: will it take effort if we go with this, revise later if necc?

15:31:47 <jang_dajobe> daveb: want syntax, I'm after decisions using the notation for the test cases

15:32:44 <jang_dajobe> bwm: propose action daveb to go ahead with current format, to use with any new fancy literals in test cases

15:32:50 <jang_dajobe> until that format changes...dissent?

15:32:52 <jang_dajobe> DECIDED>

15:33:08 <jang_dajobe> action daveb to go ahead with current format, to use with any new fancy literals in test cases

15:33:15 <jang_dajobe> jeremy arrives

15:33:26 <jang_dajobe> item 15: datatypes

15:34:26 <jang_dajobe> bwm recaps the issues listed in the agenda

15:34:45 <jang_dajobe> jeremy: i18n seem divided: something it's fundamentally right, others exactly the opposite

15:34:53 <jang_dajobe> comes down to language/locale differences

15:35:02 <jang_dajobe> they want adequate guidance

15:35:18 <gkgk> bwm: also 2 maybe issues -- tbl's comment, and my comment

15:36:47 <jang_dajobe> path: only datatyping remaining: constraints on lexical form

15:37:14 <jang_dajobe> is that the real case...?

15:37:21 <jang_dajobe> path: i think that's insane

15:37:26 <jang_dajobe> and will cause howls of protest

15:37:34 <jang_dajobe> (including mine)

15:37:48 <jang_dajobe> pats: rdfs:range has no meaning wrt dting

15:38:26 <jang_dajobe> path, pats agree that dting has become syntax checking, nothing more

15:39:23 <jang_dajobe> bwm: you think there are stong cases for the doublet idiom?

15:39:26 <jang_dajobe> path: yes.

15:39:45 <jang_dajobe> bwm: if you can show us those compelling cases, we'll have to revise these decisions

15:40:03 <jang_dajobe> jos: I've test cases for these. I agree with path.

15:40:39 <jang_dajobe> bwm: we're looking to provide rdf users the facilities they need

15:40:49 <jang_dajobe> we've heard that some people want it simple...

15:41:02 <jang_dajobe> so we have to have cases that establish the need for this idiom

15:41:44 <jang_dajobe> (more discussion centred around lexical form ambiguities)

15:42:06 <jang_dajobe> path: we're trying to decide whether to include a particular piece of machinery

15:42:14 <jang_dajobe> we can go ahead in parallel with other decisions

15:43:12 <jang_dajobe> daveb: can we turn these issues into actions?

15:43:50 <jang_dajobe> action: path to integrate pats' xml examples into the document.

15:44:10 <jang_dajobe> action: path to remove references to octal, different lang representations in schema dts

15:44:20 <jang_dajobe> daveb: jjc's entailment to email?

15:44:34 <jang_dajobe> bwm: ok.

15:44:36 <jang_dajobe> item 16

15:44:49 <jang_dajobe> contexts, quoting, nonassertional modes

15:45:19 <jang_dajobe> path has noted that the "next" language - owl- has problems in layering on rdf

15:45:32 <jang_dajobe> one thing that we could do to vastly alleviate these problems...

15:46:05 <jang_dajobe> ...to allow collections of triples to exist as part of a graph, but not asserted

15:46:19 <jang_dajobe> that is, to stick them in some kind of "contextual bubble"

15:46:46 <jang_dajobe> also happens to be very useful for all sorts of other things

15:47:29 <jang_dajobe> we can do it simply, or more elaborately (eg, naming contexts)

15:47:44 <jang_dajobe> we should go -some- way along this apth, to open the door to these possibilities

15:48:03 <jang_dajobe> jjc: there are some who would like to not use rdf, and they'd like strong reasons to not do so

15:48:18 <jang_dajobe> and this shows we _can_ play ball here too

15:48:53 <jang_dajobe> bwm: what's the minimum necessary to solve this?

15:49:01 <jang_dajobe> is it that we include a mechanism to do this?

15:49:11 <jang_dajobe> or give a strong indication that we can do this in the future?

15:49:39 <jang_dajobe> path: I've been telling webont that rdfcore isn't really in a position to start extending the language

15:49:53 <jang_dajobe> that's not getting a strong positive reception - they're in a hurry

15:50:08 <jang_dajobe> jos: there's a known issue, and real urgency

15:50:30 <jang_dajobe> bwm: eric: have you been approached by webont asking for changes to what we're doing?

15:50:40 <jang_dajobe> jjc: i think the first steps toward that are being taken

15:51:02 <jang_dajobe> there will be a formal approach later

15:51:17 <jang_dajobe> em: path- you said there's a small, simple step: have you elaborated on that?

15:51:45 <jang_dajobe> path: yes, it's small simple step in ntriples notation: I've no idea as yet what implication for rdf/xml

15:52:00 <jang_dajobe> daveb: show us the minimum, let's have a look

15:52:06 <jang_dajobe> bwm: maybe for email?

15:52:17 <jang_dajobe> action: path to write pu a proposal for email

15:52:29 <jang_dajobe> em: would be very sympathetic to this...

15:52:40 <jang_dajobe> want to hear pros and cons

15:52:55 <jang_dajobe> (jang notes that there's an easy way to put this in rdf/xml)

15:53:34 <jang_dajobe> frankm: i'd also like it to be made clear that we're prepared to do what is necessary to rdf to make it to fulfil its intended place in web architecture...

15:53:41 <jang_dajobe> to make the right political statement

15:54:01 <jang_dajobe> that we're not going to get the blaame for "standing in the way" of architectural needs

15:54:15 <jang_dajobe> we're willing to consider the change, but we need to be made aware of it explicitly

15:54:47 <jang_dajobe> no dissent that we should meet webont's needs

15:54:53 <jang_dajobe> gk: providing it's well-founded

15:55:10 <jang_dajobe> frankm: that doesn't mean idle complaints, that means: let's sit down and work out the technical details

15:55:23 <jang_dajobe> bwm: could path convey our intent to webont?

15:55:47 <jang_dajobe> em: we could make this as formal as it need to be, but I hope we all recognise we're in this together

15:56:08 <jang_dajobe> frankm: i'd like to think that too; so if we're in it together, let's _work_ it together

15:56:18 <jang_dajobe> bwm: seek a wrapup

15:56:36 <jang_dajobe> action: bwm - to figure out a way to get webont knowing that we want to cooperate

15:56:39 <jang_dajobe> 3 minutes remain

15:56:49 <jang_dajobe> item 17:

15:57:15 <jang_dajobe> jeremy outlines minimal requirements (conservative, no large implementation constraints)

15:57:40 <jang_dajobe> it amkes it easy for implementors, interoperability may take a hit...

15:57:57 <jang_dajobe> (jeremy outlines ns in attribute corner cases)

15:58:04 <jang_dajobe> daveb: as jjc says, do't overengineer this

15:58:17 <jang_dajobe> i'd like to do more, cautious of requireing too much

15:58:35 <jang_dajobe> proposal: (from agenda, copy to minutes)

15:59:43 <jang_dajobe> jjc: note comments: CONFORMANCE is tested without comments, throwing them away is not required

15:59:47 <jang_dajobe> no disagreement

15:59:49 <jang_dajobe> CLOSED

16:00:18 <jang_dajobe> action: raise a comment on xquery/xpath about corner case (jeremy) on behalf of rdfcore

16:00:32 <jang_dajobe> time.

16:00:51 <AaronSw> agenda?

16:00:51 * notZakim sees 1 item on the agenda:

16:00:52 * notZakim 1. Move IRC to W3C [from AaronSw]

16:00:54 <jang_dajobe> jang: what about aob...?

16:01:04 <jang_dajobe> AOB: eric's move fo irc server

16:01:21 <jang_dajobe> em: the new telecon bridges have a whole bunch of good things

16:01:36 <jang_dajobe> muting, noise reduction, mutual co-muting, etc.

16:01:53 <jang_dajobe> irc.w3.org can also give us an advanatge fo the robots that track and manage these

16:02:08 <jang_dajobe> I'm hoping to shave some of the administrivia time from the telecons

16:02:21 <jang_dajobe> so i propose: move IRC to irc.w3.org

16:02:29 <jang_dajobe> daveb: i can log that too.

16:03:02 <jang_dajobe> em: so we don't lose any of the funcitonality... the kind of thing that aaron's doing is much simpler by moving to the irc.w3.org server

16:03:07 <jang_dajobe> path: any downside?

16:03:12 <jang_dajobe> em merely change of habit

16:03:21 <jang_dajobe> daveb: is this supported by the systems team?

16:03:29 <jang_dajobe> em: for wgs, yes; not for general discussion

16:03:34 <jang_dajobe> so rdfig stays wher eit is

16:03:41 <jang_dajobe> em: as of next week

16:03:59 <jang_dajobe> APPROVED: as of next week, we're at irc.w3.org:6665

16:04:08 <jang_dajobe> note: port change

16:04:26 <jang_dajobe> aaron: note - attendance will be onted in the logs(!) if you sneak away

16:04:54 <jang_dajobe> meeting closes; any informal discussion?

16:05:15 * gkgk would like to ask PatH about datatype proposal

16:05:56 <jang_dajobe> jang -> left

16:06:01 <jang_dajobe> dajobe -> left

16:06:16 <AaronSw> -MDean

16:10:13 <AaronSw>http://www.w3.org/2001/07/pubrules-form

16:12:32 <AaronSw> red stuff: http://www.w3.org/2000/06/webdata/xslt?xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2001/07/pubrules-checker&doc_uri=http://www.w3.org/2001/09/rdfprimer/rdf-primer-20020314.html&auth=&recursive=on&xmlfile=http://cgi.w3.org/cgi-bin/tidy?docAddr=http://www.w3.org/2001/09/rdfprimer/rdf-primer-20020314.html

16:14:58 <gkgk> Eric: metadata = data about data, as opposed to "real" data = data in its own right, free-standing, application data, etc.

16:15:48 <gkgk> ... metadata has an implication of annotation of something else

16:19:15 <em> gkgk, i appreciate (and have much sympathey) this view of metadata... its simply that metadata to one person is indeed data of another

16:19:32 <AaronSw> em, what's the planned /TR/name?

16:19:34 <AaronSw> rdf-primer?

16:20:22 <em> rdf-primer is what i'm thinking, yes

16:26:57 <bwm> I think they want s-expressions

16:27:59 <AaronSw> down with xml. up with s-exps

16:50:38 <AaronSw> Brian: if we're going to do [contexts], let's do it right

16:50:51 <AaronSw> prepare it as a note, then slip it in if it's ready in time

16:51:14 <AaronSw> Pat: May require a lot of rewrites...

17:39:06 Users on #rdfcore: logger_1 @DaveB