W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2002-07-19

13:01:04 Users on #rdfcore: @logger_1

13:58:52 * DanC can't find agenda

14:00:21 * DanC can't find agenda to decide whether to attend

14:00:56 * RRSAgent is logging

14:01:47 <dajobe2> dajobe2 is now known as DaveB

14:01:48 <danbri>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0123.html

14:02:06 <em> em has changed the topic to: rdfcore teleconference - 20020719

14:02:22 * em will be a couple minutes late... appologies

14:02:52 <DanC> that(0123) says 2002-07-12; is it for today after all?

14:03:11 <danbri> oops, dunno. in hurry.

14:04:04 <dajobe1> dajobe1 is now known as jang

14:04:56 * DanC needs agenda in order to decide between meetings

14:05:04 <danbri> I think it might just have wrong date on it.

14:05:09 * danbri re-reads

14:05:13 <DaveB> isn't 0117.html the agenda?

14:05:34 <jang> yes

14:05:35 <danbri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0115.html appears to be it

14:05:44 <danbri> and the other copies are the same, i assume

14:06:07 <DanC> "4: Next telecon 26th July 2002" <- consistent with an agenda for today.

14:07:32 * jang scribes, pat s to write up

14:07:42 <danbri> yes, that's the one.

14:07:58 <danbri> Zakim, who is here?

14:07:59 <Zakim> sorry, danbri, I don't know what conference this is

14:08:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri, DanC, em, DaveB, Guha_, jang, logger_1

14:08:04 <danbri> Zakim, list conferences?

14:08:05 <Zakim> I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM

14:08:15 <danbri> Zakim, this is SW_RDFCore

14:08:16 <Zakim> ok, danbri

14:08:20 <danbri> Zakim, who is here?

14:08:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, ??P1, ??P3, DanBri, PatH?, +1.650.965.aabb

14:08:21 <jang> aob: guha, lbase

14:08:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri, DanC, em, DaveB, Guha_, jang, logger_1

14:08:26 <jang> plus, aob: datatypes

14:08:37 <jang> roll call:

14:08:48 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean

14:08:57 * em dialing

14:09:00 <jang> bwm, danbri, dave b , jang, mike dean, pat h

14:09:20 <Zakim> +EricM

14:09:23 <jang> jjc regrets

14:09:27 <jang> danc regrets

14:09:30 <jang> rond abs

14:09:31 <jang> bill d abs

14:09:32 <jang> jos reg

14:09:35 <jang> rael abs

14:09:37 <jang> arno abs

14:09:40 <jang> eric here

14:09:45 <jang> jang here

14:09:47 <jang> yoshi abs

14:09:52 <jang> grah k reg

14:09:54 <jang> mick kop abs

14:09:56 <jang> kwon abs

14:09:58 <jang> ora abs

14:10:09 <jang> frank manola..? abs

14:10:13 <jang> satoshi abs

14:10:15 <jang> steve here

14:10:17 <jang> pierre r abs

14:10:23 <jang> patrick here

14:10:24 <jang> aaron abs

14:10:28 <jang> mike dean here

14:10:29 <jang> guha here

14:10:46 <jang> pat h here, sergei abs

14:11:00 <jang> next telecon: next week, eric to chair

14:11:09 <jang> minutes of last telecon:

14:11:15 <jang> approved (with jos there)

14:11:37 <jang> minutes all approves

14:11:38 <DanC> FYI: recent work in WebOnt on layering: # LANG: new version of abstract syntax/translation document Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Sun, Jul 07 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0031.html

14:11:40 <jang> actions approves

14:11:45 <DanC> I'd appreciate review from RDFCore folk.

14:11:49 <jang> lbase:

14:12:01 <jang> guha. path and i are going to give next version to eric soon to make it a note...

14:12:17 <jang> bwm: what was answer to process question? private submission?

14:12:23 <jang> eric: I'd suggest that it not be.

14:12:49 <jang> it sounds like theres sufficient consensus at f2f that this was useful contrib from rdfcore and should be submitted that way

14:12:54 <Zakim> +AaronSw

14:13:03 <jang> the wg wants this to get published.

14:13:06 <Zakim> +??P7

14:13:20 <aaronsw> zakim, who's here?

14:13:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, ??P1, ??P3, DanBri, PatH?, +1.650.965.aabb, Mike_Dean, EricM, AaronSw, ??P7

14:13:21 <aaronsw> aaronsw is now known as AaronSw

14:13:21 <jang> danbri: this doc needs a "status of this document"

14:13:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see aaronsw, bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri, DanC, em, DaveB, Guha_, jang, logger_1

14:13:28 <jang> eric has volunteered to take it on...

14:13:49 <jang> action danbri-eric / take this offline and figure out who owns the publishing side

14:13:56 <jang> Guha_: we sould be ready end monday

14:14:54 <DaveB> can we have url of this doc?

14:14:55 <jang> bwm: if this is getting published in the name of the wg, then we ought to review it

14:14:58 <jang> have we seen it?

14:15:01 <DaveB> and www-archive copy pls?

14:15:20 <danbri> I checked a copy into w3.org datespace (rummages for URL)

14:15:26 <danbri> am waiting for more content from guha and pat

14:15:28 <jang> eric: guha and pat, if they can get this out by tuesday then feedback on friday to make publication

14:16:08 <jang> we'd be publishing on east coast time

14:16:24 <jang> datatypes: bwm sent out summary of responses

14:16:32 <jang> untidy is "in the lead"

14:16:41 <jang> bwm: my main concern right now..

14:16:54 <jang> I've been acting as the voice of the wg in the list

14:17:04 <jang> I'm not around next week... can someone stand in for me?

14:17:31 <jang> bwm: can eric do this?

14:17:45 <jang> bwm: I'm expecting it to be quite quiet next week.

14:17:54 <jang> danbri: I'll jump into the thread if necessary.

14:18:56 <jang> xmlp review.

14:19:05 <jang> danbri: we seem to largely agree

14:19:21 <jang> I'd rather we get comments to the group, so I'd suggest we each send comments directly.

14:19:31 <jang> bwm: is there a substantive issue we're worried about?

14:19:42 <jang> DanC: I'm worried that there are two specs coming out of w3c

14:19:50 <jang> both of which have edge-labelled graphs, etc.

14:19:55 <jang> both going to be widely deployed

14:19:59 <AaronSw> s/DanC/danbri

14:20:03 <jang> we don't know how different they are.

14:20:34 <jang> eric: I don't think it's as important to get an overall consensus doc from the rdfcore group

14:20:45 <jang> as it is to get issues back to the xmlp group

14:21:22 <jang> get the comments to xmlp-comments.

14:22:18 <jang> bwm: don't want to make work for another wg unless we can follow through on that

14:22:44 <jang> eric: how realistic can we be on harmonisation at this point? identify specific issues, goals, concerns about the specs.

14:23:44 <jang> bwm: the onus is on folks then to submit individual comments. I'm minded to push this to coordination group

14:23:52 <jang> if there's stuff here that needs to be done.

14:24:08 <jang> eric: certainly the future will be a coordination issue.

14:24:20 <jang> the deadline is today to get these responses in.

14:25:07 <jang> eric: I've already discussed this several times with the web services coordination group

14:25:24 <jang> we're still unsure how close these two things (xmlp, rdf) are

14:26:04 <jang> danbri: I've got an implementation that would take two days to wrap up

14:26:31 <jang> item 9: procedure for determining reserved vocab

14:26:37 <jang> back a second...

14:26:48 <jang> eric: are there other people on the list who are able to respond?

14:27:33 <jang> (eric sends graham an email to see if he can send his comments..)

14:27:38 <jang> item 9 again.

14:28:19 <jang> talking about option 2, the recognisale darkening uri prefix

14:28:36 <jang> bwm: guha, any more progress?

14:28:41 <danbri> <jang> danbri: I've got an implementation that would take two days to wrap up

14:28:59 <jang> Guha_: I'm waiting for jeremy's bug report, I can't find it

14:29:00 <danbri> ...two days that I lost this week due to problems with inria INRIA (for the record)

14:30:01 <bwm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0001.html

14:30:37 <em> ping

14:30:38 <em> ?

14:30:44 <AaronSw> hi em

14:30:55 <em> ah, thanks!

14:31:46 <jang> bwm: suggests leaving out the http: prefix on the next url.

14:33:01 <AaronSw> asw: works conceptually, not really practically

14:33:51 <jang> jang: the redirect mentioned in jjs'c bug is a daft idea

14:34:11 <jang> test cases:

14:34:20 <jang> action: jang / update test cases in light of bugs

14:35:21 <jang> action: eric: jang gets dropped on rdf-comments (twice now)... any idea why?

14:35:34 <jang> dropped off, even

14:35:56 <jang> bwm: getting to last call. this means switching away from issues to focussing on the documents

14:36:30 <jang> how do people feel about document focus at each telecons?

14:36:50 <jang> DaveB: seems fine, but won't people want their documents put up as late as possible?

14:37:06 <em> q+

14:37:07 * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue

14:37:08 <jang> jan volunteers for the 26th july

14:37:27 <jang> graham: he hopes to have something published by the middle of next week...

14:37:36 <jang> suggest we put that up for the week after.

14:37:42 <jang> (pending jjc, gk's approval)

14:37:53 <jang> that would be 2nd august

14:38:03 <jang> that is, approval for first pub as wd

14:38:09 <em> q?

14:38:10 * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue

14:38:28 <jang> path: waiting on the tidy/untidy literal decision

14:38:39 <jang> path: can have document ready for the 9th august

14:38:56 <jang> DaveB: if not then the syntax document

14:39:05 <jang> 9th syntax

14:39:10 <jang> 16th august model theory

14:39:19 <jang> 23rd, schema.

14:39:33 <jang> eric: keep going.

14:39:52 <jang> bwm: how do you feel about close-to-last-call by 23rd august

14:39:53 <jang> Guha_: yes

14:39:56 <jang> danbri: sure

14:40:22 <jang> primer: ...

14:40:35 <jang> frank's not here. at the f2f, he was saying primer by ...

14:40:38 <jang> eric suggests 30th

14:40:46 <danbri> danbri: it's slightly at risk (re INRIA problem) but yes (re RDFS)

14:41:04 <jang> datatypes: 6 september.

14:41:31 <jang> bwm: dts is likely to have a lot of discussion.

14:41:41 <jang> I'm tyring to get it so that other documents could go independently.

14:41:45 <jang> eric:...

14:42:15 <jang> bwm: you have action to get editors together to see if gk's stuff might have bits in other documents.

14:42:20 <jang> (last week, largely)

14:42:29 <jang> bwm: chapter three probably still needs a look

14:42:41 <jang> the role of that doc as overview has changed, it becomes a peer

14:42:44 <jang> but we do need it

14:42:46 <jang> eric:...

14:42:54 <jang> 1. first pub should not be last call

14:43:06 <jang> if that's the decision we need to put a WD somewhere in the schedule.

14:43:34 <jang> bwm: the 2nd august would be to propose to publish as wd

14:44:12 <Zakim> +Manola

14:44:46 <jang> eric: document dependencies are going to come up as we go to last call

14:44:54 <jang> if we talk about dts after the primer

14:45:04 <jang> then talking about [gk's new doc]

14:45:16 <jang> then those are going to have implications on the primer

14:45:20 <jang> cue frank m:

14:45:55 <jang> eric: I'm not sure how realistic that schedule is in that regard. I've been loking at the primer as the last doc to go out

14:46:00 <jang> but now frank's here(!)

14:46:18 <jang> third point:#wrt schedule: looking at the implementation of rdf, we could pretty much skip CR

14:46:26 <jang> we've got interop, test cases, etc.

14:46:40 <jang> if we include datatypes, that means we need CR period

14:46:58 <jang> if there's a way to implement these asap as the docs come out to test interop that will improve things

14:47:19 <jang> can developers on the list begin to think about allocating devel time to this?

14:47:22 <jang> [eric done]

14:47:35 <jang> bwm: on process: CR not nec without DTs?

14:47:42 <jang> eric: a strong case can be made that that's the case.

14:48:00 <jang> bwm: does that mean other docs can proceed to rec without cr, and only dts need cr period?

14:48:12 <jang> eric: that's a good question: I've been viewing this as a big lump

14:48:18 <jang> AaronSw: mt has dep on DTs?

14:48:40 <jang> path: yes, in the sense that DT decisions have a knock-on

14:48:53 <jang> Guha_: no syntax changes, but MT is affected.

14:49:01 * DanC notes, in passing, that WebOnt isn't using dark triples anyway

14:49:14 <jang> path: the diff between tidy, untidy syntax affects the mt,

14:49:26 <jang> [you're joking, danc!]

14:49:45 <DanC> [no, not joking. see earlier reference to 'abstract syntax' document.]

14:49:54 <jang> path: when the decision is made, the dt doc will be easy. we've written dozens of them already (!)

14:50:39 <DaveB> I rread that pfps doc - it's funny

14:50:49 <jang> eric: I'm trying to drive for rec, this is in my experience the hardest thing to do

14:51:09 <jang> it means implementation, development.

14:51:26 <jang> bwm: you're suggesting a schedule for conformant implementations?

14:51:33 <AaronSw> pfps doc = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/att-0031/01-specification.html

14:51:56 <jang> eric: the dts doc will have test cases, surely...

14:52:08 <jang> so you'll expect to see this in the tc document.

14:53:23 <jang> jang: I'd expect to extract TCs from the DT doc

14:54:10 <jang> action bwm / to identify applications needed and get a schedule for them

14:55:05 <jang> daveb reads danc's earlier dark triples comment

14:55:25 <jang> rod daniel on the phone, he's here

14:55:41 <jang> bwm: where are webont at the moment?

14:56:05 <jang> there's a brief round of catchup on webont's status. there's a subgroup dedicated to fixing the semantics

14:56:24 <jang> (path, pfps, danc, ianh on it)

14:56:36 <jang> frankm proposes a motion of sympathy with webont

14:57:06 <jang> path: it's ahrmless to put them in.

14:57:16 <jang> frank: it'll confuse a lot of people.

14:57:38 <jang> Guha_: the worst that can happen is that we don't provide the mechanism

14:57:43 <jang> and webont does their own thing

14:57:47 <jang> and sets that precedent

14:58:11 <jang> [jang: note that we could have the dark triples in black text on a black background in the docs]

14:58:28 <jang> frankm: I'm hoping to have a new version of the primer out sunday night or monday

14:58:36 <jang> eric: lauds

14:58:45 <jang> eric: are we talking about republication?

14:58:59 <jang> frank: possibly. There's certainly stuff that I'd like the group's review of

14:59:15 <jang> fragments, non-prescriptive interpretation of schema, some new material, etc.

14:59:38 <Zakim> -??P7

14:59:42 <jang> bwm: asks frank if he'd like to move primer forward in the schedule.

15:00:32 <jang> frank: I ca put this up independently

15:00:43 <jang> people can look at sections they're particularly concerned about

15:00:47 <jang> i can keep working away

15:01:01 <jang> in particular, people might want to look at triple representation in the introduction.

15:01:15 <jang> then people can look at other aspects of the primer or not as their fancy dictates.

15:01:21 <jang> q+

15:01:22 * Zakim sees Em, Jang on the speaker queue

15:01:22 <Zakim> -??P0

15:01:24 <Zakim> -AaronSw

15:01:25 <em> ack em

15:01:26 * Zakim sees Jang on the speaker queue

15:01:33 <em> q+

15:01:34 * Zakim sees Jang, Em on the speaker queue

15:01:55 <AaronSw> grr! zakim won't let me back on

15:02:11 <em> q-

15:02:12 * Zakim sees Jang on the speaker queue

15:02:15 <jang> q-

15:02:16 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:02:33 <jang> after-hours discussion: path and guha natter.

15:02:53 <jang> meeting closes

15:03:00 <jang> AaronSw: it's the time

15:03:07 <AaronSw> yeah

15:03:20 <jang> action bwm / have a good holiday

15:03:20 <AaronSw> still seems rude, tho

15:03:41 <AaronSw> Have we approved all the test cases?

15:03:42 <Zakim> -??P3

15:04:09 <AaronSw> Or are we planning to do that next week?

15:04:36 <DaveB> we approved a bunch previously, minutes just approved today

15:04:46 <jang> it sounds like there are more test cases coming...

15:04:53 <jang> from dts in particular

15:05:00 <jang> mostly wordsmithing, I think.

15:05:23 <jang> I've got time booked on monday to do a rundown and tidy-up.

15:06:00 <Zakim> -??P1

15:17:10 <Zakim> - +1.650.965.aabb

15:17:13 <Zakim> -PatH?

15:17:13 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean

15:17:16 <Zakim> -Manola

15:17:21 <Zakim> -DanBri

15:17:28 <Zakim> -EricM

15:17:30 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended