W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2002-07-12

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

13:58:47 <bwm> -hi

13:58:48 <Jema> Hi. I'm Jema, the Jena meeting assistant

14:00:43 <danbri> bwm, I will be joining (hopefully just a little) late. Sent mail. biab.

14:01:09 <AaronSw\> zakim, this is RDF\

14:01:12 <Zakim> sorry, AaronSw\, I do not see a conference named 'RDF\'

14:01:14 <AaronSw\> zakim, this is RDF

14:01:15 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw\

14:01:21 <AaronSw\> AaronSw\ is now known as AaronSw

14:01:38 <Zakim> +??P11

14:01:40 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?

14:01:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P5, AaronSw, ??P11

14:01:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, AaronSw, DaveB, Jema, bwm, danbri, logger_1

14:01:50 <Zakim> +Manola

14:01:52 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P11 is HP

14:01:54 <Zakim> +HP; got it

14:01:58 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P5 is SteveP

14:02:00 <Zakim> +SteveP; got it

14:02:04 <AaronSw> zakim, HP has Jeremy

14:02:06 <Zakim> +Jeremy; got it

14:02:06 <Zakim> +??P13

14:02:13 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P13 is ILRT

14:02:15 <Zakim> +ILRT; got it

14:02:17 <AaronSw> zakim, ILRT has DaveB

14:02:19 <Zakim> +DaveB; got it

14:02:20 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here/

14:02:21 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's here/', AaronSw. Try /msg Zakim help

14:02:25 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?

14:02:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveP, AaronSw, HP, Manola, ILRT

14:02:27 <Zakim> HP has Jeremy

14:02:28 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB

14:02:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, AaronSw, DaveB, Jema, bwm, danbri, logger_1

14:03:11 <bwm> who knows how to tell zakim that hp=brian+jeremy?

14:03:24 <jjc> zakim, who is here?

14:03:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveP, AaronSw, HP, Manola, ILRT

14:03:26 <Zakim> HP has Jeremy

14:03:26 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB

14:03:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjc, Zakim, AaronSw, DaveB, Jema, bwm, danbri, logger_1

14:03:32 <DaveB> Jang's here too

14:03:34 <AaronSw> zakim, HP also has Brian

14:03:37 <Zakim> +Brian; got it

14:03:39 <DaveB> DaveB is now known as daveb

14:03:40 <AaronSw> zakim, ILRT also has JanG

14:03:41 <Zakim> +JanG; got it

14:03:43 <daveb> daveb is now known as dave-jan

14:03:54 <jjc> zakim, who is here

14:03:55 <Zakim> jjc, you need to end that query with '?'

14:03:58 <jjc> zakim, who is here?

14:03:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveP, AaronSw, HP, Manola, ILRT

14:03:59 <Zakim> HP has Jeremy, Brian

14:04:00 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, JanG

14:04:01 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjc, Zakim, AaronSw, dave-jan, Jema, bwm, danbri, logger_1

14:04:05 <dave-jan> dave-jan is now known as db-scribe

14:04:34 <bwm> zakim, who is here?

14:04:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see SteveP, AaronSw, HP, Manola, ILRT

14:04:36 <Zakim> HP has Jeremy, Brian

14:04:37 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, JanG

14:04:37 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjc, Zakim, AaronSw, db-scribe, Jema, bwm, danbri, logger_1

14:05:09 <db-scribe> roll call above

14:05:26 <db-scribe> regrets miked, rond, grahamk, patrickS

14:05:35 <db-scribe> item 3

14:05:58 <db-scribe> rond asks to consider ocmmenting on xpointer WDs

14:06:04 <db-scribe> set of WDs

14:06:11 <db-scribe> bwm: AOB

14:06:19 <db-scribe> item 4

14:06:37 <bwm> danbri?

14:07:00 <db-scribe> donm, same time next week

14:07:01 <db-scribe> item 5

14:07:18 <db-scribe> still waiting for 2002-06-14 minutes

14:07:48 <db-scribe> bwm: consider abandoning it, i.e. no minutes, no official meeting

14:07:49 <db-scribe> ?

14:08:22 <AaronSw> danbri emails he'll be back asap

14:09:05 <db-scribe> action bwm: assure minutes of 2002-06-14 are written up

14:09:36 <Zakim> +Pat_Hayes

14:09:39 <bwm> -action bwm: assure minutes of 2002-06-14 are written up

14:09:40 <Jema> Jema could not parse the action command. Please separate the action holder from the action by a '/' character

14:09:50 <bwm> -action bwm/ assure minutes of 2002-06-14 are written up

14:09:51 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-07-12#1

14:10:09 <dajobe-la> oops, that's what the 'X' button does

14:10:36 <AaronSw> This Pat Hayes sounds suspiciously like DanC.

14:10:56 <dajobe-la> daveb: email bwm with updated f2f irc logs, lost

14:11:06 <dajobe-la> confirm: patH has arrived

14:11:09 <dajobe-la> item 6

14:11:14 <dajobe-la> minutes of 2002-06-28

14:11:17 <dajobe-la> approved

14:11:39 <dajobe-la> confirming, meeting last week was called off since early on, few people around

14:11:46 <dajobe-la> item 7(that was)

14:11:47 <dajobe-la> item 8

14:11:52 <dajobe-la> done

14:11:54 <dajobe-la> item 9

14:12:03 <dajobe-la> withdrawn

14:12:32 <dajobe-la> i.e. rdfms-assertion words in new document

14:12:41 <dajobe-la> so patH action no longer needed

14:12:44 <dajobe-la> item 10

14:12:46 <dajobe-la> XMLP review

14:13:12 <dajobe-la> deadline next week

14:13:26 <dajobe-la> for comments from WG, need to have things early next week

14:13:36 * danbri back, nods, looks guilty, dials in

14:13:43 <dajobe-la> please do

14:13:58 <dajobe-la> -action bwm: remind danbri need to get this sorted for next week

14:13:59 <Jema> Jema could not parse the action command. Please separate the action holder from the action by a '/' character

14:14:09 <dajobe-la> -action bwm / remind danbri need to get this sorted for next week

14:14:10 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-07-12#2

14:14:26 <dajobe-la> item 11

14:14:42 <dajobe-la> reserved vocab bug from jjc?

14:14:46 <dajobe-la> jjc: have done this

14:14:47 <dajobe-la> ptr?

14:15:22 <Zakim> +DanBri

14:15:22 <danbri> +danbri

14:15:23 * Zakim saw DanBri just arrive

14:15:34 <dajobe-la> jjc looks for ptr

14:15:38 <dajobe-la> back to xmlp review

14:15:57 <dajobe-la> danbri: dropped the ball,

14:17:20 <danbri>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/

14:17:29 <dajobe-la> danbri: sec 2 is bit needs to focus on

14:17:32 <dajobe-la> s/sec/part/

14:17:34 <dajobe-la> ajunct

14:18:32 <dajobe-la> deadline 19 July 2002

14:18:36 <dajobe-la> for comments

14:18:44 <dajobe-la> bwm: i ntend to approve at next telcon

14:18:46 <danbri> [[

14:18:48 <danbri> Comments on this document should be sent to xmlp-comments@w3.org (public archive [14]). It is inappropriate to send discussion email to this address. Comments should be sent during the last call review period, which ends on 19 July 2002.

14:18:49 <danbri> ]]

14:18:49 <dajobe-la> .. so want the comments early next week

14:19:06 <dajobe-la> jang: also will look at part 2 and try to comment

14:19:15 <dajobe-la> -action jang / review SOAP Part 2: Adjuncts

14:19:16 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-07-12#3

14:19:30 <danbri> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/#datamodel [[

14:19:31 <danbri> The SOAP Data Model represents application-defined data structures and values as a directed edge-labeled graph of nodes. Components of this graph are described in the following sections.

14:19:33 <danbri> ]]

14:19:41 <danbri> [[

14:19:43 <danbri> 3. SOAP Encoding

14:19:43 <danbri> SOAP Encoding describes how to encode instances of data that conform to the data model described in 2. SOAP Data Model.

14:19:44 <danbri> ]]

14:19:46 <dajobe-la> -action danbri / review SOAP Part 2: Adjuncts (and other bits) by Tuesday 16th

14:19:47 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-07-12#4

14:20:05 <dajobe-la> danbri: could we use soap encoding and transport for exchange rather than our ow

14:20:06 <dajobe-la> n

14:20:37 <dajobe-la> daveb: comment on use of soap identifiers - uris, qnames, strings

14:20:45 <jjc>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0001.html

14:20:46 <dajobe-la> back to item 11

14:20:47 <dajobe-la> above:

14:20:55 <bwm> -agenda 11

14:21:27 <dajobe-la> above url was jjc's message - action DONE

14:21:38 <dajobe-la> item 12

14:21:53 <bwm> -agenda next

14:21:59 <bwm> -hi

14:22:00 <Jema> Hi. I'm Jema, the Jena meeting assistant

14:22:08 <dajobe-la> jjc: flying a kite, in jena they have repeated requests to roundtrip their rdf/xml

14:22:16 <dajobe-la> and we increasingly need to support it

14:22:24 <dajobe-la> has the WG any inclination to support it?

14:22:30 <dajobe-la> or postponed to rdf2?

14:22:45 <dajobe-la> on reflection, mistake I feel, any support for this?

14:22:53 <dajobe-la> jang: agree

14:23:10 <dajobe-la> esp if soap can encode rdf roundtrip wise

14:23:32 <dajobe-la> patH: issue roundtrip rdf/xml graph and get back same bnodes? or isomorphic?

14:23:36 <dajobe-la> jang: isomorphic

14:23:55 <dajobe-la> daveb: smaller change than others, less of a problem

14:24:09 <dajobe-la> danbri: use damlUnambigprop

14:24:33 <danbri> ...as one option

14:24:46 <dajobe-la> bwm: some people say good thing, not big change, no objetions

14:24:57 <dajobe-la> jang: no back compat issue, won't break existing docs

14:25:09 <dajobe-la> danbri: getting this right would improve credibility?

14:25:14 <dajobe-la> s/?//

14:25:36 <dajobe-la> bwm: suggest that jjc make a specific proposal to WG and do yes/no

14:26:23 <dajobe-la> -action jjc / make a specific proposal on node identifiers in rdf/xml uri for WG consideration

14:26:24 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-07-12#5

14:26:29 * DanC_ waves, having returned from the dentist. Apologies for missing the telcon without notice.

14:26:39 <dajobe-la> frankm: askes us to use node identifiers rather than "bnodes" terminology

14:26:52 <dajobe-la> jang: minimal changes to test cases?

14:26:57 <DanC_> jjc, pls do it with a new attribute, not some wierd URI-ish syntax in rdf:about

14:27:50 <dajobe-la> daveb: notes that change would make it poss to make xml results of test cases

14:28:08 <dajobe-la> jang: seconds DanC_

14:28:45 <dajobe-la> jjc will bear above comment in mind

14:28:49 <dajobe-la> daveb: I don't mind

14:29:06 <dajobe-la> AaronSw: are we opening up the rest of syntax incomplete issues?

14:29:13 <dajobe-la> bwm: not this time around

14:29:21 <dajobe-la> PatH: nice try :)

14:29:25 <dajobe-la> item 13

14:29:28 <AaronSw> phew

14:29:29 <dajobe-la> -agenda 13

14:30:19 <dajobe-la> accepted as guideline for triples

14:30:21 <dajobe-la> item 14

14:31:06 <dajobe-la> back to item 13

14:31:18 <dajobe-la> bwm: other things between dopcs that we need to agree on, from f2f

14:31:23 <dajobe-la> consistency issues

14:31:29 <dajobe-la> jjc: way that references were done

14:31:54 <dajobe-la> daveb: doc publishing format guide explains that

14:32:18 <dajobe-la> danbri: illustrations - how much do we care that we use the same graphing tools

14:32:24 <dajobe-la> ... don't care much.

14:32:29 <dajobe-la> bwm: graphing look and feel

14:32:48 <dajobe-la> PatH: using omnigraffle

14:33:00 <dajobe-la> on mac

14:33:26 * danbri too

14:33:29 <dajobe-la> jang: uris for examples

14:34:09 <dajobe-la> daveb: have to use example.org, example.com, ...

14:34:23 <dajobe-la> urls in WDs, even if just body text, have to be u sed

14:34:29 <dajobe-la> ditto for examples such as rdf/xml

14:34:39 <dajobe-la> and test cases

14:35:02 <dajobe-la> bwm: standard prefix for that too ("ex:")

14:35:16 <danbri> See RFC2606 Reserved Top Level DNS Names

14:35:21 <dajobe-la> Path: want to write things that look triples, but have things that aren't such as variables that want to use for explanation

14:35:23 <danbri> eg http://rfc.net/rfc2606.html

14:35:24 <dajobe-la> but are in triples syntax

14:35:31 <danbri> [[

14:35:32 <danbri> To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a few top level

14:35:32 <danbri> domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as examples in

14:35:32 <danbri> documentation, and the like. In addition, a few second level domain

14:35:32 <danbri> names reserved for use as examples are documented.

14:35:33 <danbri> ]]

14:35:42 <dajobe-la> jang: should be ok, using "aaa bbb ccc." form

14:36:02 <dajobe-la> item 14

14:36:07 <dajobe-la> reviwe of proposed "model" doc

14:36:16 <danbri> don't use xxx (triggers spam filters :)

14:36:35 <dajobe-la> bwm: purpose and audience of primer

14:36:47 <AaronSw> ooh, random.example or something.test will work

14:36:49 <dajobe-la> frankM: a general introduction to RDF to msot people

14:37:10 <dajobe-la> ... has to handle a wide audience, with as few as poss assumptions about previous knowledge

14:37:24 <dajobe-la> and that was reasoning behind saying a little behind each of the documents

14:37:33 <dajobe-la> and length of explanation about graphs, triples

14:37:38 <DanC_> re illustrations: I've had good luck with dia lately. http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2002/07/11/2002-07-11.html#1026372465.427020

14:37:49 <dajobe-la> i.e. enough for somebody who is coming to this wants to know

14:38:24 <dajobe-la> bwm: some want a quickstart doc

14:38:38 <dajobe-la> frankm: assumes they know some things already, say XML, and graphs then you can do that

14:38:54 <dajobe-la> ... not a quickstart guide

14:39:13 <dajobe-la> sine don't want to make assumptions of who readers area

14:39:14 <dajobe-la> are

14:39:22 <AaronSw> frank: primer is explicitly not a quick start guide because i don't want to assume the readers have the background

14:40:06 <dajobe-la> more discussion

14:40:10 <dajobe-la> new model doc:

14:40:33 <dajobe-la> jjc: current doc assumes reader wants to read a normative rdf spec and this is where they start

14:40:49 <dajobe-la> in particular sec 3 is intended to be a list of all normative stuff

14:40:58 <dajobe-la> and the complete normative statements by reference

14:41:13 <dajobe-la> and expecting a skilled reader

14:41:27 <dajobe-la> who wants to have the works and other speciifc things, including the rdf datamodel

14:41:42 <dajobe-la> PatH: it sounds like the rdf desk reference

14:42:11 <dajobe-la> frankm: seen size of physicians desk reference?

14:43:05 <dajobe-la> daveb: soap and xml schema don't ahve one of these

14:43:23 <dajobe-la> daveb: why do we have this new 20 page doc this late

14:43:30 <dajobe-la> jjc: material from different places

14:43:37 <dajobe-la> for the skilled reader as intro material

14:45:08 <dajobe-la> ...

14:45:38 <dajobe-la> fmanola: material in M&S which was explantory in nature which has exlcuded from other specs

14:45:59 <dajobe-la> ... and should be kept around, but primer was being overloaded - too long

14:46:37 <dajobe-la> .. needed a different home but end up with a kind of scrapbook

14:46:57 <dajobe-la> ... so need to fill it out to make it look more coherent

14:47:04 <dajobe-la> which tends to duplicate other stuff

14:47:14 <dajobe-la> jjc: need to make normative statements that dont' fit in other docs

14:47:41 <dajobe-la> bwm: move on

14:47:55 <dajobe-la> bwm: goal - uncomfortable with t his pointing to all other rdf specs

14:48:22 <dajobe-la> since will need updating

14:49:08 <dajobe-la> bwm: general observation - same thing being said several times, in overview and in sec 3 for e.g. saying we have a mT - repetative

14:49:19 <dajobe-la> main point - don't feel it is right this as a top pointer

14:49:29 <dajobe-la> because this is a normative spec and updating

14:50:02 <dajobe-la> daveb: I support this as a sibling

14:50:05 <dajobe-la> rather top doc

14:50:07 <dajobe-la> bwm: title

14:50:16 <dajobe-la> jjc: current title reflects this as top doc

14:50:27 <dajobe-la> then if not goal, need renaming

14:50:40 <dajobe-la> bwm: suggest as RDF - Abstract Data Model?

14:50:48 <dajobe-la> suggestion, come back later

14:51:04 <bwm> -agenda 14

14:51:24 <dajobe-la>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0022.html

14:51:58 <dajobe-la> bwm: if we drop goal, then sec 3 largely goes

14:52:01 <dajobe-la> ?

14:52:07 <dajobe-la> jjc: I suspect so

14:52:56 <dajobe-la> bwm: gk suggests sec 5 some bits to schema - vocab

14:53:07 <dajobe-la> jjc: quite diff in flavour to current schema spec

14:53:34 <dajobe-la> ... and other M&S bits which normative status

14:54:02 <dajobe-la> bwm: danbri - sec5 stuff goto schema?

14:54:16 <AaronSw> can someone post a link?

14:54:21 <dajobe-la> above

14:54:38 <dajobe-la> danbri: for describing property, classes - yeah

14:54:48 <dajobe-la> bwm: we'll try that

14:55:11 <dajobe-la> -action danbri / try to move sec 5 'model' doc stuff into schema

14:55:12 <Jema> Jema notes action 2002-07-12#6

14:55:20 <dajobe-la> or if not,t ry to move it back

14:55:32 <dajobe-la> sec 6 rdf & html to primer?

14:55:35 <dajobe-la> frankm: yes

14:55:52 <AaronSw> aha, http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-basics/2002-06-27/Overview.htm

14:56:02 <dajobe-la> was linked from above

14:56:44 <dajobe-la> path; not normative if in primer, problem?

14:56:52 <dajobe-la> frankm: well it is useful, but we don't say too much now

14:57:05 <dajobe-la> sec 6.2 this is

14:57:18 <dajobe-la> 6.4 seems xml syntax

14:57:52 <dajobe-la> propose move 6.4 to syntax

14:57:59 <dajobe-la> daveb: alreayd there

14:58:34 <dajobe-la> daveb: notes sec 3.1.1 also duplicates syntax but hey, sec 3 going ;)

14:58:52 <dajobe-la> 6.5 to primer

14:59:12 <dajobe-la> frankm agrees

14:59:38 <dajobe-la> ---

14:59:39 <Jema> command not recognised

14:59:44 <dajobe-la> stop for now

14:59:46 <dajobe-la> review xptr spec?

14:59:49 <dajobe-la> (AOB)

15:00:16 <dajobe-la> bwm: no volunteers here

15:00:39 <dajobe-la> bwm: DONE

15:00:42 <dajobe-la> END OF MEETING

15:00:46 <AaronSw> my concern is more whewther it comments on us

15:01:11 <Zakim> -DanBri

15:01:12 <Jema> command not recognised

15:01:28 <bwm> -close

15:01:29 <Jema> The meeting is closed

15:01:30 <Jema> the action/decision list has been mailed

15:02:03 <Zakim> -Pat_Hayes

15:02:04 <Jema> command not recognised

15:04:33 <AaronSw> there's also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-announce/

15:05:15 <Zakim> -SteveP

15:05:16 <Jema> command not recognised

15:16:47 <Zakim> -Manola

15:16:48 <Jema> command not recognised

15:16:49 <Zakim> -HP

15:16:50 <Zakim> -ILRT

15:16:50 <Jema> command not recognised

15:16:51 <Jema> command not recognised

15:16:51 <AaronSw> it's too bad because the IE team doesn't want to support *+xml

15:16:54 <Zakim> -AaronSw

15:16:55 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

15:16:55 <Jema> command not recognised

15:17:03 <dajobe-la> not even svg?

15:17:17 <dajobe-la> what about mac ie, diff team, isn't it?

15:17:24 <dajobe-la> anyway, later...

15:17:29 <AaronSw> yeah, it is

15:17:46 <AaronSw> SVG is why they don't want to support it

15:17:53 <AaronSw> because they hand that off to the svg plugin

16:21:23 * Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed