W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2002-05-03

13:01:05 Users on #rdfcore: @logger_1

13:50:42 <jang> g'day all

13:51:16 <bwm> G'day Jan :)

13:51:39 <jang> are you doing the decent bit and phoning at 4am from "somewhere in america"? :-)

13:51:43 <bwm> Brian wonders if his phone will work this time

13:51:59 * jang will phone in ten minutes... just sorting out mess of cabling

13:52:14 <bwm> nope - in Bristol; fly Sunday; arrive 10pm Hawaii time

13:52:21 <bwm> see you later

13:52:40 <jang> dave sent regrets while sipping pina coladas on a beachfront hotel veranda, I think :-)

13:55:54 <bwm> re dave: yup: they have no phones in hawaii.

14:01:40 <bwm> hp phone system not working again

14:01:48 <DanCon> oh joy

14:02:29 <em> zakim, this is rdf_core

14:02:30 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not see a conference named 'rdf_core'

14:02:35 <em> zakim, this is rdfcore

14:02:36 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not see a conference named 'rdfcore'

14:02:38 <em> hmm...

14:02:48 <DanCon> Zakim, this will be rdf

14:02:49 <Zakim> ok, DanCon, I see SW_RDF Cor()10:00AM already started

14:03:16 * DanCon reviews agenda, considers offering regrets

14:03:21 <em> zakim, who is here?

14:03:22 <Zakim> I see +1.978.988.aaaa, ??P13, EricM, ??P6

14:03:39 <em> zakim, ??P6 is JosD

14:03:40 <Zakim> +JosD; got it

14:04:07 <Zakim> +??P14

14:04:08 <em> zakim, +1.978.988.aaaa is FrankM

14:04:09 <Zakim> +FrankM; got it

14:04:27 <em> zakim, +??P14 is bwm

14:04:28 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not recognize a party named '+??P14'

14:04:43 <Zakim> +DanC

14:05:03 <em> zakim, ??P13 is SteveP

14:05:04 <Zakim> +SteveP; got it

14:05:37 <DanCon> Zakim, who's here?

14:05:38 <Zakim> I see FrankM, SteveP, EricM, JosD, ??P14, DanC

14:05:40 * jang is just dialling in now...

14:05:43 <Zakim> +??P15

14:06:03 <em> zakim, +??P15 is RonD

14:06:04 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not recognize a party named '+??P15'

14:06:09 <em> zakim, ??P15 is RonD

14:06:10 <Zakim> +RonD; got it

14:06:23 <em> zakim, ??P14 is bwm

14:06:24 <Zakim> +Bwm; got it

14:06:42 <DanCon> Zakim, who's here?

14:06:43 <Zakim> I see FrankM, SteveP, EricM, JosD, Bwm, DanC, RonD

14:06:49 <em> em has changed the topic to: rdfcore teleconference - 20020503

14:06:53 <Zakim> +??P16

14:07:06 <em> zakim, ??P16 is JanG

14:07:07 <Zakim> +JanG; got it

14:07:09 <DanCon> Zakim, JanG just joined

14:07:10 <Zakim> I don't understand 'JanG just joined', DanCon. Try /msg Zakim help

14:07:14 * jang to scribe

14:07:15 <jang> roll calll

14:07:19 <DanCon> Zakim, who's here?

14:07:21 <Zakim> I see FrankM, SteveP, EricM, JosD, Bwm, DanC, RonD, JanG

14:07:47 <jang> regrets: aaron, sergei, martin h

14:07:55 <jang> reg: danbri, jjc

14:08:04 <jang> agenda review:

14:08:25 <jang> bwm aob: new issue (webont) duplicate member properties

14:08:36 <bwm>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-duplicate-member-props

14:08:52 <jang> next telecon: two weeks' time

14:08:56 <em> agenda -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0016.html

14:08:58 <jang> review minutes of last meeting

14:09:01 <jang> one correction .. comments?

14:09:01 <DanCon> -agenda next

14:09:10 <jang> -next

14:09:11 <Jema> command not recognised

14:09:27 <jang> item 8: congrats all round

14:09:36 <DanCon> hip hip... hooray!

14:09:45 <jang> heh

14:10:04 <jang> em: item 7

14:10:19 <jang> em wants to change dateon actionfor IPR document

14:10:28 <DanCon> new draft don't point to a disclosures page?

14:10:33 <jang> IP disclosures document..

14:10:39 <jang> DanCon: we have 30 days to do that

14:11:10 <DanCon> booh.

14:11:21 <jang> suggestion was to wait until page is in place

14:11:30 <jang> so that its contents don't change under th wds

14:11:31 <bwm> -open

14:11:32 <Jema> RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-05-03 is now open

14:11:32 <Jema> The agenda can be found at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0016.html

14:11:32 <Jema> Agenda item 1: Volunteer scribe

14:11:46 <jang> -item 7

14:11:47 <Jema> command not recognised

14:11:52 <jang> -agenda 7

14:11:53 <Jema> Agenda item 7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions

14:12:14 <DanCon> booh. grumble. <- re unavailability of disclosures page

14:12:37 <Zakim> +MDean

14:12:51 <DanCon> date is Apr 24 2002 +30days

14:12:52 <jang> ok, reiterate action on em

14:13:04 <jang> re: gettings dates

14:13:26 <jang> -agenda 9

14:13:27 <Jema> Agenda item 9: outstanding issues - 9 left

14:13:27 <Jema> See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/

14:13:42 <jang> move to aob: webont issue

14:14:01 <jang> DanCon: subject rdf:_1 a

14:14:06 <jang> subject rdf:_1 b

14:14:12 <jang> is that an rdf document?

14:14:30 * em found message he was looking for... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2002AprJun/0041.html -> suggests changing date for his action item to May 24

14:14:32 <jang> JosD: hard to say if you don't have the concept of a unique property

14:14:44 <jang> bwm: i think it's legal

14:14:50 <jang> it is syntactically legal

14:14:59 <jang> JosD: if you have unique property, that entails a=b

14:15:14 <jang> DanCon: question is: should a parser fail?

14:15:30 <jang> jeremy thinsk (according to bwm) that a parser shouldn't fail on that

14:15:43 <jang> no dissent on : this is legal

14:15:49 <jang> (jeremy arrives)

14:16:13 <jang> RESOLUTION: that's legal rdf syntax

14:16:29 <jang> ACTION jang: create test case for this

14:16:38 <jang> -agenda 10

14:16:39 <Jema> Agenda item 10: Issue: rdf-charmod-resources

14:16:39 <Jema> See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0013.html

14:17:10 <jang> xml namespaces uses uris like rdf

14:17:18 <DanCon> q+

14:17:19 * Zakim sees DanCon on the speaker queue

14:17:23 <jang> ie, as an identifier as opposed to something to dereference

14:17:35 <jang> xml:namespaces uses us-ascii

14:17:38 <DanCon> I wonder about Aaron's question 'is our decision on charmod in charter?'. I'd like confirmation from the chair.

14:17:55 <jang> jjc: my view: this is new information, should proceed in light of this

14:18:32 <jang> if feedback indicated that they'll proceed without taking i18n input into account

14:18:45 <jang> then we should either do the same, or go to the director for guidance on this

14:19:13 <jang> DanCon: xmlns="andre'" is illegal?

14:19:30 <jang> or = xmlns="andr%69" (or whatever)

14:19:41 <jang> DanCon: what about asking them that point blank?

14:20:01 <jang> jjc wants to do that in addition to this message

14:20:06 <jang> bwm: why do we care?

14:20:23 <jang> jjc: consensus last week has a point that we're not the best place to push this forward

14:20:33 <DanCon> s/consensus/dissenter/

14:21:09 <jang> bwm: question to ns people should go first, then?

14:21:22 <jang> that answer could affect our committment to this deision

14:21:43 <jang> jjc: there's a process that needs to happen between i18n and ns people

14:21:52 <DanCon> brian, you can either re-open the issue now, or wait 'till we get an answer back and re-open the issue then.

14:22:34 <jang> asks about charter

14:22:51 <jang> bwm: reluctant to rule as out of charter

14:23:06 <jang> q+

14:23:08 * Zakim sees DanCon, Jang on the speaker queue

14:24:08 <jang> action bwm: to review charter issues first

14:24:45 <DanCon> action jjc: ask xml-names-editor about andre'/andr%xx

14:25:15 <jang> -action bwm: to review charter issues first

14:25:17 <Jema> Jema could not parse the action command. Please separate the action holder from the action by a '/' character

14:25:32 <jang> JosD: somene else should take the lead

14:25:50 <jang> -action bwm/ to review charter issues first

14:25:51 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-05-03#1

14:26:12 <jang> -action jjc/ to ask xml-names-editor about andre' / andr%xx

14:26:13 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-05-03#2

14:26:36 <jang> jjc: thinks need to move forward over i18n of uris

14:26:53 <jang> making a clear statement to xml community that the messages they're sending out are different

14:27:07 <jang> bwm:want to omve on.

14:27:12 <jang> -next

14:27:13 <Jema> command not recognised

14:27:17 <jang> -agenda 11

14:27:18 <Jema> Agenda item 11: Issue rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics

14:27:18 <Jema> See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics

14:27:18 <Jema> See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0478.html

14:27:55 <jang> DanCon: is this discussed in the primer?

14:27:58 <jang> em: checking...

14:28:23 <jang> DanCon: because there's a useful technique of taking properties + classes and connecting them to the schema where there're defined

14:28:36 <jang> em: we were using it for registry applications

14:28:48 <jang> DanCon: I'd be happy if primer editors to expand on this technique

14:29:02 <jang> action em/ primer editors to expand on this technique

14:29:07 <jang> -action em/ primer editors to expand on this technique

14:29:08 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-05-03#3

14:29:22 <jang> -action em/ to ensure schema stays in sync with this

14:29:23 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-05-03#4

14:29:34 <jang> propose: accept resolution?

14:29:35 <jang> no dissent

14:29:41 <jang> -agenda 12

14:29:42 <Jema> Agenda item 12: Issue rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance

14:29:42 <Jema> See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-clarify-subClass-and-instance

14:29:42 <Jema> See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0479.html

14:30:02 <jang> comments?

14:30:06 <jang> dissent?

14:30:17 <jang> DanCon: explanatory text should come from the primer

14:30:36 <jang> -action bwm/ close this issue, respond to raiser about this

14:30:37 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-05-03#5

14:30:41 <jang> -agenda 13

14:30:42 <Jema> Agenda item 13: Syntax Doc: serializing b-nodes

14:31:05 <jang> DanCon: let's leave this without the editor here

14:31:12 <jang> -agenda 14

14:31:13 <Jema> Agenda item 14: Issue: rdf-namespace-change

14:31:13 <Jema> See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-namespace-change

14:31:33 <jang> DanCon: I don't think this is enough, but didn't volunteer to beef it up :-)

14:31:37 <em> [[

14:31:39 <em> Editorial Note: this Working Draft does not

14:31:39 <em> propose a change to the namespace URIs use, nor to the prefix

14:31:39 <em> 'rdfs' traditionally used to indicate the vocabulary

14:31:39 <em> description language's namespace URI . The Working Group seek

14:31:39 <em> feedback from implementors on the costs and benefits of

14:31:40 <em> moving to a new RDFS namespace URI. Implementors should note

14:31:43 <em> that the description of rdfs:domain and

14:31:44 <em> rdfs:range in this specification differs from

14:31:45 <em> that in earlier versions of the RDF Schema specification.

14:31:45 <jang> thanks eric

14:31:48 <em> ]]

14:31:51 <em> -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/

14:31:53 <Jema> command not recognised

14:32:04 <jang> DanCon: we should ack that we're going to some trouble to keep the old one

14:32:23 <jang> we sould demonstrate hard thinking (angst) over this

14:32:43 <jang> em: we've spent a lot of time trying to now feature-creep

14:33:09 <jang> s/now/not

14:33:27 <jang> a lot of people will take this as precedence

14:33:43 <jang> we MUST make that point clear

14:33:54 <jang> I can work with danbri on doing that

14:34:35 <jang> bwm: seems em, danbri, danc are well-placed to do this

14:34:47 <jang> DanCon: the in/out of charter thing is this game.

14:35:13 <jang> DanCon: there's no big hurry, must be done by the time we're writing proposed rec requests

14:35:27 <jang> em: you can stick my name on this, but I'm going to come to the whole wg for this

14:35:32 <jang> bwm: I'll take it

14:35:44 <jang> DanCon: we need this for last call

14:36:10 <jang> -action bwm/ to take lead on the action to close rdf-namespace-change

14:36:11 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-05-03#6

14:36:18 <jang> item 15 : pat's not here

14:36:22 <jang> -agenda 16

14:36:23 <Jema> Agenda item 16: daml:collection

14:36:23 <Jema> See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation

14:36:23 <Jema> See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0334.html

14:36:40 <jang> DanCon: news since last week: went to webont meeting, explained options

14:36:45 <jang> in particular, longhand ok

14:36:49 <jang> they said: ugly

14:36:55 <jang> DanCon: I said, yes, acceptable?

14:36:57 <jang> webont: no

14:37:22 <jang> DanCon: I'm trying to show why largest member is hard

14:37:39 <jang> but first/rest works in my software - only barely

14:38:00 <jang> JosD: we've an option for shorthand presentation syntax in owl

14:38:17 <jang> DanCon: that didn't fly

14:38:33 <jang> JosD: I'm not planning to do the reasoning for max index

14:38:43 <jang> recursive list proc is so straight forward

14:38:50 <jang> I'm not a fan of _n

14:39:20 <jang> JosD: list processing (append, etc) is harder

14:40:03 <jang> bwm: you and jos are using a lp-style; jena's procedural approach makes this no big deal

14:40:17 <jang> DanCon: I'll believe that when I see the code

14:41:05 <jang> bwm: does 1st rest mean we need to add terms?

14:41:13 <jang> DanCon: yes

14:41:17 <jang> jjc: could be in new namespace

14:42:02 <jang> JosD: we could clarify / deprecate, so don't need new ns as long as mt provides a story for it

14:42:24 <jang> DanCon: the biggest problem with this is that it's new

14:42:31 <jang> bwm: how do we go forward then?

14:42:39 <jang> DanCon: i can't see any proposals that get consensus

14:42:54 <jang> I don't think i can sell "highest index" ideas to webont

14:43:27 <jang> jjc: have I missed something about daml:collection ?

14:43:42 <jang> DanCon: I saw that as being objected to by (iirc) daveb, rond

14:45:08 <jang> rond the issue is : what's happening to people with older software?

14:45:50 <jang> -action danc/ summarise options on collections, together with objections that you're aware of

14:45:51 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-05-03#7

14:46:12 <jang> aob:

14:46:17 <jang> em: isdefined by stuff

14:46:25 <jang> not cler how this is different from see also

14:46:32 <jang> and if they're similar, why have both?

14:46:43 <jang> DanCon: there's deployed code that exploits the difference

14:46:47 <jang> ...so that's why have both

14:47:10 <jang> jjc: so there's a bunch of semantics not in the mt?

14:47:27 <jang> bwm: define a type to correspond to the range of isdefined by?

14:47:34 <jang> ie, schema

14:48:14 <jang> (discussion on how to use remaining time)

14:48:35 <jang> frankm: we're maybe not reopening issue, but asking for advice on what to say in the primer

14:49:30 <jang> em: we have at least an implied use for this

14:49:51 <jang> em: I'm happy to move this to the list

14:50:34 <jang> -action jang/ send more tcs to list o get formal approval

14:50:35 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-05-03#8

14:50:52 <jang> DanCon: what's the sense of when last call's likely?

14:51:10 <jang> bwm: eric, frank gave a fairly detailed schedule to getting primer to lc

14:51:40 <jang>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0440.html

14:52:12 <DanCon> "publish: 22 July [Last Call]"

14:52:23 <jang> DanCon: both of us (frank, danc) feel taht the primer is probably the last document to get out

14:52:31 <DanCon> s/DanCon/EricM/

14:53:30 <jang> DanCon: can we get these out at different poitns?

14:53:38 <jang> (nobody seems to think the is really feasable)

14:54:02 <jang> DanCon: schedule's raison d'etre is to get stuff done, not necc. to get things done to schedule :-)

14:54:41 <jang> DanCon: we don't have to treat lc as first call, either

14:55:01 <jang> lc really should be: we've had lots of feedback, we don't want to hear anything else (s/want/expect)

14:55:16 <jang> we're trying to be proactive wrt pitfalls at lc

14:55:30 <jang> jjc: xml 1.1/charmod is at lc

14:55:47 <jang> we might need to review literals beginning with combining chars decisions, etc.

14:55:53 <jang> as we delay, the world moves on

14:56:59 <jang> DanCon: we have wds out there, we should encourage them to be read

14:57:05 <jang> bwm: who to prod?

14:57:09 <jang> DanCon: webont

14:57:12 <jang> bwm: prissm?

14:57:18 <jang> em: dc to look at primer.

14:57:39 <jang> rond: re prissm, I'm looking at it, I can't task others to do this, time is precious

14:57:46 <jang> DanCon: odds on issues coming out of prissm?

14:57:53 <jang> rond: I don't think we'll have real problems

14:58:17 <jang> DanCon: what about test suite?

14:58:45 <jang> rond: unlikely

14:59:50 <jang> bwm: one more action...

15:00:12 <jang> -action em/ figure out which groups we should be encouraging to read the specs before last call

15:00:14 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-05-03#9

15:00:38 <jang> bwm: we should be plugging this in hawaii

15:01:45 <jang> 4-week deadline on this, any sooner would be great

15:01:56 <jang> bwm: I was thinking: off the top of your head list to email

15:01:59 <jang> em: ok

15:02:02 <jang> close meeting

15:02:08 <Zakim> -SteveP

15:02:09 <Jema> command not recognised

15:05:39 <bwm> -close

15:05:40 <Jema> The meeting is closed

15:05:42 <Jema> the action/decision list has been mailed

15:13:49 <Zakim> -Bwm

15:13:50 <Jema> command not recognised

15:13:51 <Zakim> -JanG

15:13:52 <Zakim> -JosD

15:13:52 <Jema> command not recognised

15:13:53 <Jema> command not recognised

15:13:56 <Zakim> -MDean

15:13:57 <Zakim> -RonD

15:13:57 <Jema> command not recognised

15:13:58 <Jema> command not recognised

15:13:59 <Zakim> -DanC

15:14:00 <Zakim> -FrankM

15:14:00 <Jema> command not recognised

15:14:01 <Jema> command not recognised

15:14:11 <Zakim> -EricM

15:14:12 <Jema> command not recognised

15:14:13 <Zakim> SW_RDF Cor()10:00AM has ended

15:14:39 <DanCon> chuckle... dueling bots