W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2002-03-22

14:01:04 Topic now RDF Core WG http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0304.html

14:01:04 Users on #rdfcore: logger_1 Zakim AaronSw @DaveB

14:36:30 * jang-dajo using an even slower, older pc than usual

14:36:37 <jang-dajo> 200mhz of massive power

14:36:47 <AaronSw> is that why it's called churchill?

14:37:53 <jang-dajo> dunno

14:38:00 <jang-dajo> this is dave btw

14:38:18 <AaronSw> aha

14:38:19 <jang-dajo> did you get graham's mail?

14:38:25 <AaronSw> which one?

14:38:43 <jang-dajo> seems for ietf to proceed, best to start with i-d right now

14:38:45 <jang-dajo> mime types

14:38:49 <AaronSw> oh, yes.

14:39:18 <jang-dajo> so if you want to work on that, make a minimal I-D, with me as (silentish) co-author ?

14:39:54 <AaronSw> i'll try and write one up later today

14:39:58 <jang-dajo> OK

14:40:10 <jang-dajo> your site was still down for me, Ihad to use google cache :)

14:40:19 <jang-dajo> this kbd rubbish,spacebar is dodgy

14:40:30 <jang-dajo> large clacking noises to separate words

14:40:39 <jang-dajo> biab

14:40:41 <AaronSw> that'll be fun to hear on the phone

14:46:38 <AaronSw> -hi

14:46:39 <Jema> Hi. I'm Jema, the Jena meeting assistant

14:46:41 <bwm> -hi

14:46:42 <Jema> Hi. I'm Jema, the Jena meeting assistant

14:47:05 <bwm> Aaron - please leave her alone - she is a little sensitive

14:47:12 * AaronSw wonders if Jema and Zakim will get along

14:47:29 * bwm hopes they will make wonderful music together :)

14:47:38 <bwm> G'day Aaron

14:47:44 <AaronSw> g'day

14:48:24 <bwm> jema didn't run last week because I forgot to unhack the hacks I did to make her run in Cannes

14:49:15 <bwm> we need to talk to ralph about where Zakim his headed

14:49:20 <bwm> zakin, help

14:49:26 <AaronSw> it's zakim, not zakin

14:49:27 <bwm> sakim, help

14:49:32 * AaronSw coughs

14:49:33 <bwm> zakim, help

14:49:34 <Zakim> Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help.

14:49:35 <Zakim> Some of the commands I know are:

14:49:36 <Zakim> xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx

14:49:37 <Zakim> if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted

14:49:38 <Zakim> xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx

14:49:39 <Zakim> I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx

14:49:40 <Zakim> xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group

14:49:41 <Zakim> xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx

14:49:42 <Zakim> who's here? - lists the participants on the phone

14:49:44 <Zakim> who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted

14:49:46 <Zakim> mute xxx - mutes party xxx (such that 60# will not work)

14:49:48 <Zakim> unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61#

14:49:50 <Zakim> is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present

14:49:53 <Zakim> list conferences - reports the active conferences

14:49:54 <Zakim> this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx

14:49:56 <Zakim> excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel

14:49:58 <Zakim> I last learned something new on $Date: 2002/03/10 19:12:39 $

14:50:01 <AaronSw> -help

14:50:02 <Jema> Jema recognises the following commands:

14:50:02 <Jema> -hi // tests whether Jema is alive

14:50:02 <Jema> -help // prints this help message

14:50:02 <Jema> -open // begin the meeting

14:50:02 <Jema> -close // close the meeting

14:50:04 <Jema> -agenda [next|prev|n] // next|prev|nth agenda item

14:50:06 <Jema> -aob ... // add an item of another business

14:50:07 <Jema> -action owner/... // record an action item

14:50:11 <Jema> -decision ... // record a decision

14:50:40 <AaronSw> hm, zakim tracks the agenda too.

14:50:47 <AaronSw> Zakim, please do not track the agenda

14:50:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'please do not track the agenda', AaronSw. Try /msg Zakim help

14:51:08 <AaronSw> zakim, pls ignore the agenda

14:51:11 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw, I will ignore the agenda

14:51:43 <AaronSw> ooh, this is cool:

14:51:51 <AaronSw> [please] allow [each speaker] <number> minutes|seconds

14:51:51 <AaronSw> [please] time [each speaker] [at] <number> minutes|seconds

14:52:55 <bwm> -open

14:52:58 <Jema> RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-03-22 is now open

14:52:58 <Jema> The agenda can be found at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0304.html

14:52:58 <Jema> Agenda item 1: Allocate scribe

14:53:14 <AaronSw> AaronSw is now known as AaronSw|n

14:53:17 <AaronSw|n> hmph

14:53:20 <AaronSw|n> AaronSw|n is now known as AaronSw

14:54:08 <Zakim> SW_RDF Cor()10:00AM has now started

14:54:16 <Zakim> +PatrickS

14:54:42 * RRSAgent is logging

14:54:54 <Zakim> +AaronSw

14:54:55 <AaronSw> two loggers, eh?

14:55:19 <DaveB> redundancy :)

14:56:35 <em> zakim, who is here?

14:56:36 <Zakim> I see PatrickS, AaronSw

14:56:43 <em> hmm...

14:56:53 <em> zakim, this is RDFC

14:56:54 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not see a conference named 'RDFC'

14:57:02 <AaronSw> <Zakim> SW_RDF Cor()10:00AM has now started

14:57:17 * em can never remember all of these names :)

14:57:25 <AaronSw> Zakim, what is the passcode?

14:57:26 <Zakim> sorry, AaronSw, I don't know what conference this is

14:57:31 <AaronSw> zakim, this is rdf

14:57:34 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw

14:57:36 <AaronSw> Zakim, what is the passcode?

14:57:37 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332, AaronSw

14:58:02 <Zakim> +??P10

14:58:04 <Zakim> +EricM

14:58:22 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here

14:58:24 <Zakim> AaronSw, you need to end that query with '?'

14:58:24 <Zakim> +Manola

14:58:46 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?

14:58:47 <Zakim> I see PatrickS, AaronSw, EricM, ??P10, Manola

14:59:46 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P10 is Bristol

14:59:47 <Zakim> +Bristol; got it

14:59:54 <AaronSw> zakim, Bristol has JanG, DaveB

14:59:56 <Zakim> +JanG, DaveB; got it

15:00:00 <em> zakim, who is here

15:00:01 <Zakim> em, you need to end that query with '?'

15:00:03 <em> zakim, who is here?

15:00:04 <Zakim> I see PatrickS, AaronSw, EricM, Bristol, Manola

15:00:04 <Zakim> Bristol has JanG, DaveB

15:01:36 <Zakim> +??P11

15:01:44 <Zakim> +??P14

15:02:05 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P14 is HP

15:02:07 <Zakim> +HP; got it

15:02:08 <AaronSw> zakim, HP has Brian

15:02:10 <Zakim> +Brian; got it

15:02:25 <bwm> zakim, HP has Andy

15:02:26 <Zakim> +Andy; got it

15:03:39 * DanC Zakim, what's the passcode?

15:03:40 * Zakim the conference code is 7332, DanC

15:03:56 <bwm> zakim, HP has Jeremy

15:03:58 <Zakim> +Jeremy; got it

15:04:14 <Zakim> +??P15

15:04:24 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P15 is RonD

15:04:26 <Zakim> +RonD; got it

15:04:49 <DanC> hmm... dark triples... I guess I should join for that one...

15:04:53 * danbri awaits zakim

15:05:00 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?

15:05:01 <Zakim> I see PatrickS, AaronSw, EricM, Bristol, Manola, ??P11, HP, RonD

15:05:01 <Zakim> Bristol has JanG, DaveB

15:05:02 <Zakim> HP has Jeremy

15:05:25 <Zakim> +DanBri

15:06:10 <Zakim> +DanC

15:06:13 <jang-dajo> use a proper operating system, danbri

15:06:49 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P11 is JosD

15:06:50 <Zakim> +JosD; got it

15:06:59 <DanC> Zakim, who's here?

15:07:00 <Zakim> I see PatrickS, AaronSw, EricM, Bristol, Manola, JosD, HP, RonD, DanBri, DanC

15:07:01 <Zakim> Bristol has JanG, DaveB

15:07:02 <Zakim> HP has Jeremy

15:07:11 <danbri> danbri is now known as danb_scri

15:07:27 <danb_scri> 3: Welcome guest Andy Seaborne

15:07:28 <DanC> agenda + http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0304.html

15:07:28 <AaronSw> zakim, HP also has AndyS, Brian

15:07:30 <Zakim> +AndyS, Brian; got it

15:07:39 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?

15:07:42 <Zakim> I see PatrickS, AaronSw, EricM, Bristol, Manola, JosD, HP, RonD, DanBri, DanC

15:07:42 <Zakim> Bristol has JanG, DaveB

15:07:42 <Zakim> HP has Jeremy, AndyS, Brian

15:07:44 <danb_scri> (andy duly welcomed)

15:07:48 <danb_scri> 4: Review Agenda

15:07:57 <danb_scri> 5: Next telecon 10am Boston time, 05 Aprr 2002

15:08:05 <danb_scri> NO TELECON NEXT WEEK

15:08:10 <AaronSw> -agenda 6

15:08:12 <Jema> Agenda item 6: Review Minutes of 2002-03-15 telecon with correctoins

15:08:12 <Jema> See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0235.html

15:08:12 <danb_scri> 6: Review Minutes of 2002-03-15 telecon with correctoins

15:08:14 <danb_scri> APROVED

15:08:23 <danb_scri> 7: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

15:08:26 <danb_scri> ALL RECORDED DONE.

15:08:34 <danb_scri> 8: Status of Primer WD

15:08:40 <danb_scri> PUBLISHED (@@ref).

15:08:42 <DanC> at this point, the WG throws a small party for the primer editors. :-)

15:08:43 <Zakim> +MDean

15:08:44 <danb_scri> Well done Frank!

15:08:52 <danb_scri> Thanks to EricM et al for getting it done

15:08:55 <bwm> -agenda 9

15:08:56 <Jema> Agenda item 9: Syntax WD

15:08:56 <Jema> See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Mar/att-0053/01-rdf_syntax.html

15:09:00 <danb_scri> Frank: note that we're geting comments already

15:09:06 <danb_scri> 9: Syntax WD

15:09:27 <danb_scri> Dave: I sent a summary out a few hours ago. Accepted changes from Graham, Jeremy.

15:09:28 <mdean> Mike Dean just joined -- sorry I'm late

15:09:31 <danb_scri> Dave: who else has looked?

15:09:40 <bwm> welcome mik

15:09:45 <danb_scri> Em: me. Suggest swapping pictures -- these need correcting

15:09:47 <bwm> s/mik/mike/

15:09:51 <danb_scri> dave: I redid the SVG, is in the doc now.

15:10:00 <danb_scri> Dave: Was toying with putting RDF in the SVG...

15:10:03 <danb_scri> Em: mmmm

15:10:14 <danb_scri> Em: Overall I find this a technically excellent document

15:10:29 <danb_scri> Dave: now at stage of polishing wording

15:10:30 <Zakim> + +1.650.494.aaaa

15:10:38 <AaronSw> zakim, where is 1.650?

15:10:39 <Zakim> sorry, AaronSw, I do not understand your question

15:10:42 <AaronSw> zakim, where is 650?

15:10:43 <Zakim> North American dialing code 1.650 is California

15:10:52 <danb_scri> Brian: Note that W3C tech proofreader commented that the language was excellent (=susanL)

15:10:53 <AaronSw> zakim, +1.650 is PatH

15:10:54 <Zakim> +PatH; got it

15:11:01 <danb_scri> Brian: Proposal to authorize publication

15:11:02 <danb_scri> 2nded

15:11:12 <danb_scri> Frank: One minor problem, ie with the new drawings.

15:11:26 <DanC> which drawing? where?

15:11:30 <danb_scri> ...in one browser, the background is so dark the words and in one case the lines get lost

15:11:33 <Zakim> +??P20

15:11:36 <danb_scri> @@ref pls to Dave's draft

15:11:44 <danb_scri> Frank: In Netscape 4.78

15:11:48 <danb_scri> Dave: Minor editorial changes

15:12:03 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P20 is GrahamK

15:12:04 <Zakim> +GrahamK; got it

15:12:11 <danb_scri> +PatH, +Graham

15:12:22 <danb_scri> Url please

15:12:28 <danb_scri> dave: brian didn't copy the images

15:12:42 <AaronSw>http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

15:12:51 <danb_scri> em: need to figure out how these documents all fit together

15:12:56 <AaronSw> <Jema> See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Mar/att-0053/01-rdf_syntax.html

15:12:58 <DanC> http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

15:12:58 <DanC> CVS version 1.225

15:12:59 <danb_scri> em: eg both documents have a striped section

15:13:09 <danb_scri> em: not a show stopper, but we need to figure this out.

15:13:22 <danb_scri> em: happy to talk about this after the call

15:13:29 <danb_scri> Brian: Are there any showstoppers that'd prevent publication?

15:13:36 <danb_scri> ...we ack the background/figures need fixing

15:13:45 <danb_scri> Brian: PROPOSE publish, with image fixed.

15:13:51 <danb_scri> DanC: can somebody summarise changes?

15:14:04 <danb_scri> Dave: the document includes one

15:14:07 <danb_scri> DanC: please read it to me

15:14:12 <danb_scri> (dave reads bits of it)

15:14:31 <danb_scri> Jeremy: BagID is now fixed.

15:14:34 <Zakim> -PatrickS

15:14:36 <Jema> command not recognised

15:14:42 <danb_scri> DanC: it is traditional to put a ptr to the changes section from the status section

15:14:49 <danb_scri> dave: on my todo list -- update status and changes

15:14:56 <Zakim> +PatrickS

15:14:57 <danb_scri> Brian: does this need doing before it goes out?

15:15:02 <danb_scri> dave: yes, Danc: ideally.

15:15:08 <danb_scri> (Patrick rejoins)

15:15:36 <danb_scri> Jeremy: can we leave b/g at editors discretion

15:15:40 <DanC> the diagrams look fine in galeon

15:15:44 <danb_scri> Em: I'm having same problem in IE 6

15:15:51 <danb_scri> Dave: might be PNG image transparency issues

15:16:27 <DanC> EricM, you know you need to read and vouch for every character in the SOTD section, right?

15:16:28 <danb_scri> BRian: FIX b/g. ptr to chagnes from status section, update status. Subject to these, do we authorise publication?

15:16:49 <danb_scri> Jos: asked about whether there are changes in 3.1.7 / literal node

15:17:02 <danb_scri> dave: dotted things? problem with formatting of document...

15:17:07 <DanC> [[ literal-language and ?string-value?. ]]

15:17:16 <danb_scri> jos: how are literal nodes represented in ntriples?

15:17:28 <danb_scri> dave: (details of representation)

15:17:38 <danb_scri> DanC: what if there's a doublequote char in the literal value

15:17:52 <danb_scri> Jos: In syntax I see concatenation of triple quote... (3.1.7...)

15:17:53 <DanC> issue: what's the n-triples representation of a literal value with a double-quote in it?

15:18:03 <danb_scri> EchoeyEric: A formatting problem in the browser

15:18:19 <danb_scri> Jos: it isn't a bad idea to use triple-quotes...

15:18:29 <danb_scri> Jeremy: this section is marked as subject to change

15:18:34 <danb_scri> ...shouldn't pick on it too much

15:18:41 <DanC> where's the "this is still in flux?" notice?

15:18:44 <danb_scri> Brian: Is there a showstopper problem?

15:19:15 <danb_scri> Jos: I don't consider this a showstopper (although haven't implemented it)

15:19:30 <danb_scri> DanC: Jeremy, you said this section still subject to change. Where does it say that?

15:19:39 <danb_scri> Dave: I can add a note in that particular section about literals.

15:19:48 <danb_scri> danc: you read this in the doc?

15:19:57 <danb_scri> jeremy: in doc, perhaps an earlier editors copy

15:20:16 <danb_scri> dave: there is a warning in another secion. I can add a note to 3.1.7 and 3.1.8.

15:20:19 <danb_scri> Anything else?

15:20:34 <danb_scri> danc: the tests are pointed to too? Cool!

15:20:41 <danb_scri> dave: yes, want to add more eventually

15:20:46 <danb_scri> Brian: Can we publish

15:20:55 <bwm> -decision publish syntax wd

15:20:56 <danb_scri> RESOLVED: Publish

15:21:10 <danb_scri> Brian: actions as a consequence?

15:21:31 <DanC> suggest: action DaveB to make 2or3 updates; action EricM: make it so, number one.

15:21:35 <bwm> -action daveb/ make the requested updates to the syntax wd

15:21:36 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-03-22#1

15:21:50 <bwm> -action ericm / organise publication

15:21:52 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-03-22#2

15:22:04 <danb_scri> ===

15:22:05 <danb_scri> 10: XML Base Test Cases

15:22:09 <bwm> -agenda next

15:22:10 <Jema> Agenda item 10: XML Base Test Cases

15:22:31 <danb_scri> Brian: some of our test cases are testing our interpretation of (other specs), not RDF.

15:22:49 <danb_scri> ...a suggestion that this risks our tests being invalidated by other groups work

15:22:56 <danb_scri> DanC: that's a reason to have tests!

15:23:02 <danb_scri> danbri: quite

15:23:09 <danb_scri> Jeremy: <missed this>

15:23:10 <DanC> umm... no pointers from the agenda, and I'm not reading all the email; pointer to test we're trying to approve, pls?

15:23:18 <gkgk> I second DanC: if our interpretation is wrong, it helps reviewers to know it!

15:23:20 <danb_scri> Yes, URL please!

15:23:27 <danb_scri> Jeremy: there are about eight cases in total

15:23:39 <danb_scri> Brian: a couple of comments that we ought to keep these in.

15:24:00 <danb_scri> Dave: only one I have problem with is <...>

15:24:03 <danb_scri> (dave: which one?)

15:24:07 <AaronSw> linked from http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/

15:24:14 <danb_scri> Jeremy: test cases are on website under xmlbase

15:24:21 <AaronSw>http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/

15:24:25 <danb_scri> DanC: can I get to the test case repository from group home page?

15:24:34 <danb_scri> brian: no, will fix

15:24:45 <bwm> action brian / update wg page to point to test case repository

15:24:49 <danb_scri> -action bwm/ update home page to point to test cases

15:24:51 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-03-22#3

15:24:53 * DanC wishes for a README in the directory

15:25:12 <danb_scri> Jeremy: the relevant tests are numbered 7 and upwards, excluding number 14 and negative cases.

15:25:15 <AaronSw> danc, there is one

15:25:25 <AaronSw> oh wait, i take it back

15:25:34 <danb_scri> danc: we're talking about multiple test cases here?

15:25:47 <danb_scri> jeremy: they're summarised in a msg no 301 from March

15:25:51 <danb_scri> (scribe: URL please!)

15:25:57 <AaronSw>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0301

15:26:05 * danb_scri thanks AaronSw

15:26:58 <DanC> q+

15:26:59 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:27:04 <danb_scri> jeremy: the point is that the tests describe approx a dozen cases of uris and their resolution

15:27:16 <danb_scri> ...only 3 going fwd. involve some degree of interpretation from me

15:27:18 <DanC> I recently coded this up (2000/10/swap/uripath.py); I could test these, but I have not.

15:27:27 <danb_scri> brian: issue is that the lack of clarity isn't RDF's fault

15:27:40 <danb_scri> Jeremy: it makes meaning of an rdf/xml doc that uses it unclear

15:27:47 <danb_scri> DanC: it matters for our spec more than some others

15:28:07 * DanC wonders if the chair watches Zakim's queue

15:28:07 <danb_scri> Jeremy: more pertinent for us than others as we use URIs as identifiers not for retrieval

15:28:16 <AaronSw> q?

15:28:17 <danb_scri> ...some concerns less pertinent

15:28:17 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:28:28 <danb_scri> Brian: current status is that they're all approved

15:28:40 <danb_scri> error 01 isn't approved, test nn isn't

15:28:42 <danb_scri> (nn?)

15:28:45 <AaronSw> q+

15:28:46 <jang-dajo> 17

15:28:47 * Zakim sees DanC, AaronSw on the speaker queue

15:29:11 <danb_scri> bwm: in general folk seem ok with having them in here, though my view is that we needn't

15:29:23 <danb_scri> danc: I don't see why xml base owe us an answer on this

15:29:27 <danb_scri> jermey: me too

15:29:36 <danb_scri> Gk: its rfc 2396 at fault

15:29:45 <danb_scri> danc: would be fair to notify uri@w3.org of our issue/concerns

15:29:55 <danb_scri> jeremy: at least one tag member worried (?)

15:29:59 <AaronSw> DanC's code gives: ValueError: mailto:Jeremy_Carroll@hp.com

15:30:01 <danb_scri> brian: OK, we'll keep them.

15:30:07 <gkgk> Hmmm... I'd not asay "at fault" so much as we're stating our interpretation

15:30:16 <danb_scri> DanC: you suggested some action we might take.

15:30:20 <danb_scri> s/DanC/brian/

15:30:26 <danb_scri> ?: what about error 01

15:30:31 <danb_scri> jos: I can live with the list as-is

15:30:50 <danb_scri> Brian: can we clear this up?

15:31:34 <danb_scri> action jeremy/ Send mailto:uri@w3.org to xxx

15:31:40 <danb_scri> (some discussion about previous actions)

15:31:59 <danb_scri> danc: jeremy did you accept a f2f action?

15:32:02 <danb_scri> jeremy: I don't think so

15:32:04 <danb_scri> danc: ok

15:32:43 <danb_scri> -action jeremy/ Send mailto:uri@w3.org with appropriate tests and explanation, explaining how we interpreted RFC2396 and xml base

15:32:44 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-03-22#4

15:32:46 <bwm> -action jjc / send message to uri list telling folks how we interpreted rfc 2396 and xml:base specs with appropriate text

15:32:48 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-03-22#5

15:32:52 <danb_scri> danc: it'd be a lot better if copied pasted from spec

15:33:24 <danb_scri> danc: I'd expect in the middle of the doc, the bit that says how to compute full URI, that's where it'd be.

15:33:34 <danb_scri> Jema, drop last action

15:33:43 <danb_scri> Jeremy: <reads from spec>

15:34:08 <danb_scri> ...I think Graham had some nice wording explaining/justifying in terms of logical documentws

15:34:19 <danb_scri> danc: ideally explan would be in spec. Do quote the text in our spec.

15:34:37 <danb_scri> ...probably a condition on last call that we get this ok'd

15:34:42 <jang-dajo> 3.6 text, second note

15:34:45 <danb_scri> dave: in 3.6 (2nd note)

15:34:50 <jang-dajo>http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-baseURIs

15:35:17 <danb_scri> danc: during last call, we need this clarified

15:35:32 <danb_scri> danc: I should get URI CG together, nobbody in IETF currently owes answers to these questions

15:35:44 <danb_scri> scribe: is there a new action here

15:35:45 <danb_scri> no

15:36:03 <danb_scri> ====

15:36:04 <danb_scri> 11: Datatypes

15:36:04 <danb_scri> The only outstanding issue against datatypes at present (did I really say that?) is the whether we need rdfs:dlex. For discussion and decision.

15:36:10 <danb_scri> See:

15:36:10 <danb_scri> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype23-02-2002.html

15:36:10 <danb_scri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0292.html

15:36:21 <danb_scri> brian: as jeremy points out, we have two outstanding actions against datatypes.

15:36:27 <danb_scri> 1st: do we need rdfs:dlex

15:36:33 * DanC apologizes for slowing things down by coming without really preparing

15:36:35 <danb_scri> ...understood pat had use cases for this

15:36:51 <danb_scri> brian: pat, do you have more to offer?

15:36:56 <danb_scri> path: replied offlist

15:36:58 * DanC wonders if anybody else is prepared to decide this agenda item; I'm not following cuz there are no RDF/xml examples I can test

15:37:00 <danb_scri> (brian sent a sumary of this)

15:37:01 <jang-dajo> danc: don't sweat it - _someone_ needs to drive thefixing ofthis relative URIthing

15:37:23 <danb_scri> pat: it was more a sketch of a use case, not fleshed out

15:37:41 <JosD> dlex example http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/p7.nt

15:37:43 <danb_scri> graham: a Q, different angle. Is there a use case which requires dlex which isn't satisfied by using a datatype uri as a property?

15:37:57 <danb_scri> pat: case being where one doesn't know type of the dataype at time literal is put in...

15:38:03 <danb_scri> (??was that it)

15:38:12 <danb_scri> Brian: Do we have a problem here? Is it possible to simplify?

15:38:24 <danb_scri> ...is pat's use case compelling enough? Anyone to speak up for dlex?

15:38:33 <danb_scri> brian: Pat, I thought you were one!

15:38:37 * DanC abstains on the grounds of no XML examples to make things clear

15:38:39 <danb_scri> Pat: Yes, me!

15:38:48 <danb_scri> also Jos, Dave, PAtrickS.

15:38:52 <danb_scri> Brian: who wants it dropped.

15:38:53 <danb_scri> nobody.

15:38:58 <danb_scri> RESOLVED: dlex stays

15:39:04 <danb_scri> 2)

15:39:08 <DanC> I think the decision is that there's no problem to discuss.

15:39:09 <danb_scri> Jeremy's entailement

15:39:17 <bwm> -decision dlex stays

15:39:26 <danb_scri> Jeremy: Jenny's age local, bob's global. Both are string "1.0", integers.

15:39:37 <danb_scri> ...we wish to entail they're the same age

15:39:47 <DanC> brian, I don't think you put the question to the WG about whether dlex stays; if you had, I would have abstained. the question you asked was: is this a problem we need to fix?

15:39:47 <danb_scri> Jos: Same, or different.

15:39:52 <danb_scri> ...properties work, provided different

15:40:04 <danb_scri> DanC: use audio pls

15:40:20 <DanC> q+

15:40:21 * Zakim sees DanC, AaronSw on the speaker queue

15:40:28 <danb_scri> graham: should be possible to add or apply some additional statements or rules that'd allow you to make the entailment

15:40:33 <bwm> noted

15:40:35 <danb_scri> ...not that it'd be there in the bare RDF

15:40:46 <danb_scri> pat: how do you state the conclusion?

15:40:49 <danb_scri> j: same bnode

15:40:59 <AaronSw> q-

15:41:00 * danb_scri fails to transcribe detailed example

15:41:00 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:41:26 <danb_scri> DanC: Two things. The decision earler wasn't dlex so much as there's no problem to fix.

15:41:33 <bwm> -decision there is no problem to fix by removing dlex

15:41:44 <danb_scri> 2nd: agenda says only outstanding issue was re dlex. But we agreed at f2f that we lack XML examples.

15:41:50 <danb_scri> Brian: PatrickS has XML examples now

15:42:05 <danb_scri> (PatrickS no IRC or could paste in)

15:42:23 <danb_scri> danc: we agreed that jeremy's entailement is a prob, and we need another property for it.

15:42:47 <danb_scri> brian: I'd like to press on. can we use the 1/2 hour after the call for this? (cont. of datatytpes discussoin)

15:42:57 <danb_scri> moving on.

15:43:04 <danb_scri> ]]]]

15:43:05 <danb_scri> 12: Dark Triples

15:43:05 <danb_scri> The need for this, and the timing, should be on the agenda for the next swcg telecon. Early indications from the chairs of WEBONT are that that this issue may go away and that they do not feel that a solution is needed in the next set of RDF specs to go to rec.

15:43:11 <danb_scri> Brian: good stuff from PatH.

15:43:21 * DanC hunts for dark triples discussion...

15:43:26 <danb_scri> ...have exchanged mail w/ jimhendler. No sense of urgency in "this round of specs".

15:43:35 <danb_scri> SCRIBE: Dark triples: URL please

15:43:41 <DanC> q+

15:43:42 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:44:13 <danb_scri> Brian: expecting this to come up on monday's SW CG call

15:44:26 <danb_scri> ..webont members of rdfcore... coudl they brief us?

15:44:38 <danb_scri> jeremy: there is a WebOnt f2f mid april

15:44:54 <danb_scri> ...a suggestion that rdfcore would be unwilling to change things. we might want to counter that...

15:45:01 <danb_scri> danc: we currently have no plans to change anything

15:45:08 <jang-dajo> pat'sstuff starts here: http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-baseURIs

15:45:09 <danb_scri> ...we have a last call scheduled for may

15:45:11 <jang-dajo> oops

15:45:17 <jang-dajo>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0253.html

15:45:30 <danb_scri> ...what you said to pat gives impression that SW CG would come up with a technical answer.

15:45:43 <danb_scri> Brian: No, I'm looking more for a process discussion, how the two groups should work together.

15:45:52 <danb_scri> ...am getting mixed messages re urgency, timescales etc.

15:46:00 <danb_scri> Danc: Pat, is there a problem we need to fix?

15:46:22 <danb_scri> Pat: yes, there's this layering problem w/ WebOnt. 90 pc fixed by this relatively small change to RDF

15:46:32 <danb_scri> ...boils down to saying that an RDF graph is two sets of triples, not one.

15:46:44 <danb_scri> DanC: how does a parser decide which set the triples go into?

15:46:57 <danb_scri> PatH: we need to decide that. Small change to underlying model

15:47:10 <danb_scri> DanC: underlying model not entire pictures. Tools, users, explanation

15:47:18 <danb_scri> PatH: could say the 2nd set ignorable

15:47:36 <danb_scri> (missed a comment)

15:47:42 <Zakim> +AaronSw

15:47:52 <danb_scri> DanC: I don't see a solution to a problem

15:48:00 <Zakim> -AaronSw

15:48:02 <Jema> command not recognised

15:48:05 <AaronSw> zakim, AaronSw is AaronCell

15:48:07 <danb_scri> PatH: problem is not an RDF problem but a webont problem

15:48:08 <AaronSw> zakim, AaronSw is AaronCell

15:48:11 <Zakim> +AaronCell; got it

15:48:24 <danb_scri> Jeremy: I don't think the webont problem is clear yet. Several solutions floating around.

15:48:32 <danb_scri> (who was speaking then?)

15:48:47 <danb_scri> Brian: Anyone also in WebOnt disagree?

15:48:52 <danb_scri> (disagree with what?)

15:49:01 <jang-dajo> q+

15:49:02 * Zakim sees DanC, Jang-dajo on the speaker queue

15:49:16 <danb_scri> PatH: webont is too large, unwieldy etc to be sure of reaching a conclusion on a timescale close to ours

15:49:22 <danb_scri> PatH: It would be generally useful

15:49:29 <danb_scri> ...it sort of goes along with our model theory

15:49:44 <danb_scri> ...we've made it all assert things. Many people use it in non-assertional ways.

15:49:52 <danb_scri> ...we could turn off assertional aspect

15:50:07 <jang-dajo> danc: that email thread has a few example suggestions of doing this

15:50:13 <gkgk> PatH made the point that his proposal moves towards addressing how folks are actually using RDF ???

15:50:35 <danb_scri> DanC: Pat, you said something about namespaces being 'switched off'? I can imagine spelling that out in XML. And sort of in the OLD M+S spec (the magic 'throw out stuff flagged with xyz ns) claim

15:50:42 <danb_scri> ...the bit we threw out could go back

15:50:53 <danb_scri> Brian: I'm hearing no compelling reason for doing it in a rush

15:51:07 <jang-dajo> janghas ácompellingreason

15:51:32 <JosD> q+

15:51:34 <danb_scri> danbri: is Jim's view online? b

15:51:34 * Zakim sees DanC, Jang-dajo, JosD on the speaker queue

15:51:43 <danb_scri> brian: not yet, hopefully deal with this SW CG

15:52:03 <danb_scri> path: hoping to go to webont f2f saying "hey, we solved your problem"

15:52:07 <danb_scri> ...so wanted to get it done in a hurry

15:52:22 <danb_scri> Jang: Pat suggested two things. Dark triples and unasserted contexts.

15:52:40 <danb_scri> ...we want this for the provenance case that people have been trying to do with reification

15:52:49 <danb_scri> ...there are simple syntax proposals around

15:52:57 <danb_scri> ...is there a reason to prefer dark triples than contexts?

15:53:06 <danb_scri> Path: simpler than using contexts.

15:53:13 <danb_scri> ...contexts would be of great utility

15:53:22 <danb_scri> ...but would be a bigger change

15:53:33 <danb_scri> JanG: many implementations have notion of a context

15:53:45 <danb_scri> ...often people code to quads not triples

15:54:04 <danb_scri> ...not a big step for people who've built real rdf systems

15:54:17 <danb_scri> PatH: I thought contexts would be too much forthis wg

15:54:27 <danb_scri> Jeremy: We aren't chartered to extend RDF like this.

15:54:35 <danb_scri> ...if webont demand such changes, them could investigate

15:54:57 <danb_scri> ...am ok with PAt going to webont meeting and saying 'rdfcore would support adding this if asked'

15:55:15 <jang-dajo> q-

15:55:17 <danb_scri> Brian: Thanks, I have plenty of input for SW CG meeting.

15:55:17 * Zakim sees DanC, JosD on the speaker queue

15:55:24 <danb_scri> =====

15:55:25 * DanC q-

15:55:25 <danb_scri> 13: Internationalization

15:55:26 * Zakim sees JosD on the speaker queue

15:55:29 <danb_scri> ...issues on literals.

15:55:39 <JosD> q-

15:55:40 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:55:42 <danb_scri> Brian: Proposal is that string components of literals should be in unicode normal form C.

15:55:56 <danb_scri> ...that thety should conform to thte appropriate xml internationalizastion spec

15:56:19 <danb_scri> [[

15:56:19 <danb_scri> resolves that the string components of literals should be in UNICODE normal form C

15:56:19 <danb_scri> o resolves that the string component of literals SHOULD conform to the appropriate XML internationalization specifications

15:56:19 <danb_scri> o notes that at this time, these specifications are not finalized but expects that the errata for the RDF specifications will be updated to identify the specifications and provide guidance on their application to RDF literals.

15:56:23 <danb_scri> o notes, that whilst no processing model for RDF is defined, RDF processing is expected to conform to the XML policy of early uniform normalization.

15:56:24 <danb_scri> ]]

15:56:40 <danb_scri> brian: ...giving us a hook, putting a mistake into the spec to fix later.

15:56:56 <danb_scri> DanC: doesn't sound like a decision to me. Do we have test cases?

15:57:04 <danb_scri> Jeremy: yes, for everything exxcept last one.

15:57:11 <danb_scri> DanC: there are 2 possibilities.

15:57:27 <danb_scri> 1) we nkow black/white answres to all our tests, not sure where specified though

15:57:40 <danb_scri> Jeremy: a grey test case. (something to do with a cedilla in a literal)

15:57:52 <danb_scri> ....in this prposal that'll be legal. If CHARMOD goes to REC as is, it'd become Illegal.

15:58:01 <danb_scri> ...last 4 versions of charmod have varied on this.

15:58:15 <danb_scri> ... which is why I guided brian towards not picking one onthis

15:58:23 <danb_scri> danc: we need to jump on this. Does test pass or fail?

15:58:31 <danb_scri> Brian: A litteral beginning with a literal is legal.

15:58:37 <danb_scri> ...set up so it only takes an errata to change this

15:58:39 <danb_scri> Danc: NO!

15:58:43 <danb_scri> brian: glad you're here

15:58:48 <danb_scri> ...we can't do that?

15:58:52 <danb_scri> DanC: I'd advise strongly against it

15:59:05 <danb_scri> gragham: if we change mind later, we've got an interop problem

15:59:18 <danb_scri> jeremy: issue is we're saying now that not being in normal form C isn't ok

15:59:24 <danb_scri> ...m+S has only got placeholders

15:59:31 <danb_scri> PatH: why is this a problem?

15:59:41 <danb_scri> TIMECHECK!

15:59:51 <bwm> noted

16:00:01 <danb_scri> (sorry, that came over rudely)

16:00:07 <DanC> I don't like the idea of variables in our spec.

16:00:13 <danb_scri> brian: the propsal didn't fly yet. Take it to email.

16:00:22 <danb_scri> (re variables, I agree)

16:00:24 <danb_scri> ========

16:00:32 <danb_scri> DanC: propose to extend meeting to discuss last call schedule

16:00:34 <gkgk> How about the conservative/liberat mantra? Say SHOULD NOT generate leading cedilla, SHOULD accept it ??

16:00:37 <danb_scri> Brian: good idea.

16:00:40 <DanC> ~15min, say

16:00:54 <danb_scri> 15 mins for last call discussion.

16:01:05 <danb_scri> Brian: I put out a schedule, do we believe it is achievable?

16:01:18 <danb_scri> ...jeremy says no, patricks says yes; Frank says no.

16:01:22 <danb_scri> ...any other comments?

16:01:36 <danb_scri> em: my response misinterpreted the doc. We need them in pub schedule by april 30th

16:02:11 <danb_scri> danc: who claimed we'll have enough review of datatypes? patricks?

16:02:19 <danb_scri> jeremy: I'm not on critical path

16:02:25 <danb_scri> dave: I can get my doc to that schedule

16:02:40 <danb_scri> danc: point jeremy raised is community haven't had time to review datatypes

16:03:02 <danb_scri> patrick: my comment was that if we prime the community, let them know about aggressive schedule...

16:03:12 <danb_scri> ...let them know it won't be leisurely

16:03:18 <danb_scri> danc: last call is last call, not 1st.

16:03:37 <danb_scri> patricks: obviously... looking at schedule... we can choose to make available WDs at each point along the way.

16:03:41 <danb_scri> q+

16:03:42 <em> q+

16:03:43 * Zakim sees Danb_scri on the speaker queue

16:03:44 * Zakim sees Danb_scri, Em on the speaker queue

16:04:05 <danb_scri> jeremy: schedule doesn't propose MT before last call

16:04:14 <danb_scri> brian: we could circulate a version of PAtH's datatypes document

16:04:19 <danb_scri> DanC: with XML examples added

16:04:33 <danb_scri> PAtricks: I don't see a problem w/ having a datatypes doc ready by end of next week

16:04:50 <danb_scri> ...taking Pat's content, adding examples, for addiotn to RDFS, for next week.

16:04:57 <danb_scri> DanC: do you expect the WG would be ready to publish it?

16:05:01 <danb_scri> PatrickS: as a WD, yes.

16:05:31 <danb_scri> ...whether ready by end of next week. We couldn't vote (no call) but would give WG a week to review it.

16:05:48 <bwm> -agenda 16

16:05:48 <danb_scri> DanC: thanks, good to know

16:05:48 <Zakim> -AaronCell

16:05:50 <Jema> Agenda item 16: Schedule Review

16:05:50 <Jema> See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0303.html

16:05:50 <Jema> command not recognised

16:06:03 <danb_scri> jeremy: for current datatypes doc w/ edits? split between schema and MT later

16:06:13 <danb_scri> PAtH: I may not be on this 100pc this next week

16:06:17 <danb_scri> ...out of loop for a bit

16:06:26 <danb_scri> Brian: I don't thing this is doable

16:06:32 <danb_scri> PAth: could do monday after that.

16:06:43 <danb_scri> brian: scheulde looks too tight

16:06:46 <danb_scri> danbri: inclined to agree

16:07:07 <danb_scri> danc: we can get a lot of review at May web conf. Go to last call shortly afterwards.

16:07:21 <danb_scri> graham: can we get folk to read this at web conf

16:07:43 <danb_scri> em: www2002 is great opportunity, but inclined to agree w/ brian. we're pretty tight on the schedule

16:07:51 <danb_scri> ...need to think about how datatypes relate to schema

16:08:06 <danb_scri> dave: when we say 'going to last call', are we assuming everything is going on same day

16:08:15 <danb_scri> brian: syntax, schema, model theory at same time

16:08:26 <danb_scri> dave: in that case I vote for a MT asap

16:08:31 <gkgk> So, use WWW2002 to let people know what's there and how they fit together, so their post-conference reading goes more smoothly???

16:08:35 <danb_scri> brian: other three are interdependent

16:08:40 <danb_scri> danc: a lot will want primer to read

16:08:51 <danb_scri> jeremey: can't separate test cases either

16:09:01 <danb_scri> patricks: even if primer and test cases aren't going to last call...

16:09:17 <danb_scri> ...people will need to read them when reviewing the others

16:09:32 <danb_scri> ...we say the others will shortly follow, bundling all together as a package for people to read

16:09:57 <danb_scri> danc: if we had drafts of everything, and one or two at last call (Esp. Syntax). that'd be good.

16:09:59 <danb_scri> danbri: agree

16:10:02 <danb_scri> ...esp re syntax

16:10:06 <danb_scri> patr: what dates?

16:10:11 <danb_scri> 7-8 may

16:10:18 <danb_scri> pat: model theory / datatyping by them

16:10:24 <danb_scri> danc: too agresssive re datatyping

16:10:30 * em corrects himself...

16:10:36 <em> www2002 - 7-11 May 2002

16:11:10 <danb_scri> brian: I persoanlly don't believe datatyping should be going out as agressively as we're doing it.

16:11:17 <danb_scri> ...at f2f was decided we wanted to integrate it into schema

16:11:27 <danb_scri> DanC: best guess right now is a (datatypes?) WD in 3 weeks.

16:11:46 <DanC> yes, datatypes WD

16:11:57 <danb_scri> Frank: we can adopt as aggressive a schedule as we like, but if we're serious about listening to comments, we must accept that the users community may not be for it.

16:12:01 * danb_scri nods

16:12:13 * DanC couldn't hear jeremy

16:12:24 <danb_scri> jeremy: detecting some dissent on datatyping?(?)

16:12:29 * danb_scri hands hurt

16:12:35 <jang-dajo> not detecting,intending

16:12:51 <jang-dajo> I'llscribe fromhere dan

16:12:59 <jang-dajo> (with broken space bar!)

16:13:00 <danb_scri> patricks: not that datatyping is a shoe-in, but we should in 2-3 weeks put together a reasonably complete spec that can be reviewed.

16:13:10 <danb_scri> I'm OK, but if you could keep an eye out for typos

16:13:17 <danb_scri> or mistakes, rather

16:13:26 <danb_scri> Brian: datatyping puts rest of specs at risk?

16:13:35 <danb_scri> ...inclined it to maybe go out as a Note?

16:13:51 <danb_scri> ...the decision to include datatypes into the current Schema doc.

16:14:06 <danb_scri> danc: I heard a proposal from

16:14:12 <jang-dajo> danc, danbri, daveb all happy with pullig DT out of schema

16:14:16 <jang-dajo> as separate WDs

16:14:22 <danb_scri> brian: suggestions that we do datatypes as a separate WD

16:14:23 <gkgk> and GK

16:14:32 <DanC> what dependencies?

16:14:40 <DanC> datatypes are layered on top, no?

16:14:46 <danb_scri> jeremy: if we get to last to last call and we want it stnadards track, not note...

16:14:51 <danb_scri> jermey: on the MT

16:15:09 <danb_scri> ...additioanl closure rules

16:15:14 <jang-dajo> danc: into datatype spec

16:15:16 <danb_scri> danc: those go in the datatrypes spec

16:15:22 <danb_scri> path: those go elsewhere is fine

16:15:33 <danb_scri> brian: that sounds hopeful

16:15:41 <danb_scri> patricks: I'm happy with that. prefer REC not Note.

16:15:52 <danb_scri> ...would be more useful to community with weight behind it of REC

16:15:57 <danb_scri> ...happy to split out a different doc

16:16:46 <danb_scri> patricks: if we're looking at schema going out...

16:17:03 <jang-dajo> DECISION:

16:17:12 <jang-dajo> split schema,dtas separate WDs

16:17:18 <danb_scri> danc: the community haven't seen RDFS for ages, datatypes ever. We put them out shortly as WDs, and see what happens.

16:17:39 <danb_scri> graham: <something re CCPP, missed this>

16:17:41 <jang-dajo> -action pats / publish DT asWD

16:17:44 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-03-22#6

16:18:05 <danb_scri> patricks: appendix would address CCPP use case etc?

16:18:13 <danb_scri> TIMECHECK

16:18:40 <danb_scri> Grahma: at moment CCPP spec uses XSD datatypes in its schema. USers them for specifying lex form of properties.

16:18:50 <danb_scri> DanC: you guys are going to be primer reviewers...

16:19:00 <DanC> prime reviewers of datatypes, that is

16:19:11 <danb_scri> Brian: are we slowing everything up to datatypes pace?

16:19:22 <DanC> yes, this is a dependency from CC/PP to RDF Datatypes

16:19:29 <danb_scri> Graham: I'm thinking about CCPP schedule, wether our actions affect that

16:19:36 <danb_scri> danc/em: you should worry!

16:19:47 <Zakim> -RonD

16:19:49 <Jema> command not recognised

16:19:50 <danb_scri> frank: question is whether separating datatypes matters

16:19:51 <Zakim> -PatH

16:19:52 <Jema> command not recognised

16:19:53 <jang-dajo> janghastogo

16:19:55 <danb_scri> ...to pace.

16:21:29 <DanC> brian, I'm not sure you still have quorum. the WG only agreed to stay an extra 15; folks were implicitly excused.

16:21:49 <bwm> i agree some folks have left

16:22:01 <DanC> doesn't seem critical to get a recorded decision here.

16:22:16 <jang-dajo> close the meeting bwm; please

16:22:25 <DanC> yes, I second the motion to adjourn.

16:22:47 <danb_scri> ADJOURNED.

16:22:50 <danb_scri> ===

16:22:52 <em> RDF Core, RDF Schema, RDF Model Theory, RDF Test Cases, RDF Primer, RDF Datatypes (not sure about name...)

16:22:59 <em> yes? no?

16:23:02 <Zakim> -DanC

16:23:03 <Jema> command not recognised

16:23:11 <DanC> LOL!

16:23:25 <DanC> Zakim and Jema duke it out!

16:23:29 <gkgk> Robot wars?

16:23:35 <danb_scri> danbri == in my view: Yes. That's what the bundle looks like to me (though we may choose to integrate RDFS and Datatypes after initial WDs)

16:23:43 * danb_scri stops scribing

16:24:06 <bwm> thanks danbri

16:24:20 <Zakim> -JosD

16:24:21 <Jema> command not recognised

16:25:37 <danb_scri> logger_1, pointer?

16:25:37 <danb_scri> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-03-22#T16-25-37

16:27:40 <jang-dajo> yet more discussion of datatypes dependencies...

16:28:49 * DanC wonders if Jos has some time to chat...

16:28:57 <jang-dajo> jos left

16:29:13 <DanC> and he's not on IRC either. bummer.

16:30:12 <Zakim> -PatrickS

16:30:14 <Jema> command not recognised

16:34:14 <gkgk>http://www.ninebynine.org/RDFNotes/MasterSpec/Overview.html

16:34:49 <gkgk> The above is currently a private note that shows what I think an RDF "umbrella" specification might look like.

16:35:42 <danb_scri> It isn't private any more. You've posted it to a public, logged IRC channel. cf http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-03-22#T16-25-37

16:36:18 <jang-dajo> note we already agreed doc structure -no overall spec at this time

16:36:27 <gkgk> By private, I meant that it's a private view, not official WG item. I just posted it so folks could see it and commant.

16:36:43 <DanC> I thought the primer was an "overall spec"; i.e. it introduces each of the other specs.

16:36:45 <danb_scri> Ok, cool.

16:37:00 <danb_scri> yes. I'm not in favour of another master spec.

16:37:00 <gkgk> DanC, I don't think a "primer" serves that role

16:37:10 <jang-dajo> it works for me

16:37:16 <danb_scri> and me

16:41:59 <jang-dajo> tues 2nd ápril poss schema wd candidate for wg

16:44:09 <gkgk> bwm, jjc, talking about Bristol, do you know when does Mark Butler want to meet??

16:44:37 <danb_scri> logger_1, off