W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2002-08-30

13:00:03 Users on #rdfcore: @logger_1

13:26:12 <AaronSw> zakim, this will be rdfc

13:26:13 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw

13:54:42 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started

13:54:48 <Zakim> +??P0

13:55:32 <Zakim> -??P0

13:55:33 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

13:55:46 <AaronSw> zakim, this will be rdfc

13:55:48 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw

13:55:51 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started

13:55:58 <Zakim> +FrankM

13:56:38 <Zakim> +??P1

13:56:47 <gk> zakim, ??p1 is gk

13:56:48 <Zakim> +Gk; got it

13:58:57 <Zakim> +??P2

13:59:07 <DaveB> Zakim, ??p2 is ILRT

13:59:08 <Zakim> +ILRT; got it

13:59:17 <DaveB> ILRT has bwm, daveb

13:59:23 <DaveB> Zakim: ILRT has bwm, daveb

13:59:30 <DaveB> phooey

13:59:35 <AaronSw> zakim, ilrt has bwm, daveb

13:59:37 <Zakim> +Bwm, Daveb; got it

14:00:06 <Zakim> +AaronSw

14:00:35 <DaveB> Zakim, ILRT has bwm, daveb, jang

14:00:37 <Zakim> Bwm was already listed in ILRT, DaveB

14:00:37 <Zakim> Daveb was already listed in ILRT, DaveB

14:00:38 <Zakim> +Jang; got it

14:00:52 <Zakim> +??P4

14:01:15 <AaronSw> zakim, ??p4 is SteveP

14:01:16 <Zakim> +SteveP; got it

14:01:28 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?

14:01:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, Gk, ILRT, AaronSw, SteveP

14:01:30 <Zakim> ILRT has Jang

14:01:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see DanConn, em_lap, danbri, gk, DaveB, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1

14:01:36 <Zakim> +EricP

14:01:37 <danbri> Zakim, EricP is temporarily DanBri

14:01:38 <Zakim> +DanBri; got it

14:01:41 <AaronSw> Zakim, ILRT has bwm, daveb, jang

14:01:42 <Zakim> Jang was already listed in ILRT, AaronSw

14:01:43 <Zakim> +Bwm, Daveb; got it

14:01:47 <DaveB> DaveB is now known as db-scribe

14:01:49 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean

14:01:54 <AaronSw> zakim, ILRT also has JanG

14:01:55 <Zakim> +JanG; got it

14:02:01 <db-scribe> agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0266.html

14:02:01 <AaronSw> hmm. zakim bug

14:02:03 <DanConn> em_lap, bwm, danbri, can you accept my regrets?

14:02:22 <AaronSw> bwm: ok

14:02:23 <danbri> ack'd

14:02:28 <Zakim> +EricM

14:02:49 <danbri> em, we got your voicemail

14:02:54 <em_lap> ack

14:03:12 <em_lap> zakim, please disconnect me

14:03:13 <Zakim> sorry, em_lap, I do not see a party named 'em'

14:03:20 <em_lap> zakim, please disconnect em_lap

14:03:21 <Zakim> sorry, em_lap, I do not see a party named 'em_lap'

14:03:25 <danbri> zakim, who is here?

14:03:26 <em_lap> zakim, please disconnect EricM

14:03:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, Gk, ILRT, AaronSw, SteveP, DanBri, Mike_Dean, EricM

14:03:27 <Zakim> ILRT has Bwm, Daveb, JanG

14:03:28 <Zakim> EricM is being disconnected

14:03:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see mdean, DanConn, em_lap, danbri, gk, db-scribe, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1

14:03:30 <Zakim> -EricM

14:03:38 * em_lap tries again

14:04:11 <db-scribe> item 1 scribe

14:04:16 <db-scribe> jang volunteers for next week

14:04:21 <db-scribe> item 2 roll call

14:04:26 <db-scribe> Zakim, who's here?

14:04:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, Gk, ILRT, AaronSw, SteveP, DanBri, Mike_Dean

14:04:28 <Zakim> ILRT has Bwm, Daveb, JanG

14:04:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see mdean, DanConn, em_lap, danbri, gk, db-scribe, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1

14:04:32 <danbri> zakim, mute danbri

14:04:33 <Zakim> DanBri should now be muted

14:04:39 <Zakim> +??P7

14:04:59 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P7 is jjc

14:05:00 <Zakim> +Jjc; got it

14:05:27 <db-scribe> regrets danc, jos

14:05:35 <db-scribe> regrets sergey

14:05:46 <DanConn> re my Alt action: no progress. apologies. pls continue.

14:05:53 <db-scribe> item 3 review agenda

14:06:11 * em_lap is awaiting dialout....

14:06:22 <Zakim> +EricM

14:06:50 * em_lap remains mutted

14:07:16 <db-scribe> bwm: apologies for agenda being late, didn't seem to mail out right

14:07:18 <db-scribe> item 4

14:07:23 <db-scribe> next telcon 6 sept 2002

14:07:33 <em_lap> re ericm action item on publishing... request is still being processed by pub team

14:07:36 <db-scribe> frankm: regrets for 6 sept

14:08:13 <db-scribe> item 5 minutes of 2002-08-23 telcon

14:08:22 <db-scribe> approved

14:08:30 <db-scribe> item 6 completed actions

14:08:34 <db-scribe> all done

14:08:39 <em_lap> yep

14:08:43 <db-scribe> item 7 concepts and abs data model wd

14:08:58 <db-scribe> em_lap: in pub team queue, hoped for today

14:09:26 <db-scribe> note to gk: check things for pubrules

14:09:29 <em_lap>http://www.w3.org/2002/08/05-rdf/

14:09:45 <db-scribe> item 8 status of mime types draft

14:10:31 <db-scribe> aaron: been updating after comments

14:10:34 <db-scribe> gk: time to goahead

14:10:39 <em_lap> gk, if you haven't started integrating any updates, please build on http://www.w3.org/2002/08/05-rdf/ this would help re future publications

14:10:42 <danbri> zakim, unmute danbri

14:10:43 <Zakim> DanBri should no longer be muted

14:10:55 <db-scribe> danbri: happy don't wait

14:11:05 <db-scribe> ACTION aaron: publish new mime type ietf draft

14:11:10 <db-scribe> item 9 datatypes

14:11:16 <gk> My message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0252.html

14:11:23 <danbri> zakim, mute danbri

14:11:24 <Zakim> DanBri should now be muted

14:11:35 <db-scribe> bwm reviews

14:11:37 <Zakim> +PatrickS

14:11:47 <danbri> rewind 15 seconds :)

14:12:18 <db-scribe> bwm: review of 2 parts of patricks' doc

14:12:27 <db-scribe> where part 1 captures the progress made, agreed on

14:12:37 <db-scribe> and part 2 is ... (other stuff)

14:12:56 <db-scribe> patricks: part2 is what the wg may choose to discuss

14:14:02 <db-scribe> gk: thought we were going for a minimal datatypes plan sufficient for numbers and other vals

14:14:38 <db-scribe> jjc: agree might be over strong; some sense of emerging consensus

14:15:30 <db-scribe> jang: part 1 a very good job in a neutral light of least contentious part. May need more advice instead of options

14:17:18 <db-scribe> patricks: the two parts mean we can see way to possibly select bits of part2 above the minimal solution in part1

14:18:24 <db-scribe> bwm: part1 review pls

14:19:51 <db-scribe> patricks: can we leave off the rdf:type discussion to the list, where examplesa rew beter discussed

14:19:59 <db-scribe> jjc: I find daveb's example compelling

14:20:11 <db-scribe> frankm: can we leave discussion of what attr, over if there is an attr at all

14:20:38 <db-scribe> bwm: records issue of the attr used to identify the datatype

14:20:59 <danbri> fwiw, as per jjc's comment, I also found dave's argument compelling.

14:21:25 <db-scribe> frankm: use of the word constraint in sec 3.1 might be trouble, best used without that word (just assertions)

14:21:34 <db-scribe> patricks: can try to re-rexpress

14:22:09 <danbri> [background noise]

14:22:11 <db-scribe> frankm: problem with 6.1.2 and see 3.1's global datatyping

14:22:49 <db-scribe> 6.1.2 excluding the use of inline literals with the range constraint properties

14:22:59 <db-scribe> and comparing with 3.1 is confusing

14:23:18 <db-scribe> no instance example in 3.1 of somebody specifying an age

14:23:39 <db-scribe> how do you specify an actual age in an instance?

14:24:09 <db-scribe> patricks: global implicit dataypes uses the range assertion to assign a datatypes that is not other specified

14:24:17 <db-scribe> (not in part 1)

14:24:36 <db-scribe> if we have explict locally typed literals, then the machinery for rdf:range works as it does wnow

14:24:46 <db-scribe> and we can assert the type using them

14:25:31 <db-scribe> frankm: so, in 3.1 this would be ok in an instance that explictly gives the datatype. Would be clarified with an example.

14:25:40 <db-scribe> patricks: yeah, need an example in 3.1

14:25:52 <db-scribe> frankm: in 6.2, need to compare with the (new) example in 3.1

14:26:03 <db-scribe> patricks: ok

14:26:50 <db-scribe> stevep: unclear when the document creator has to duplicate the types

14:28:13 <db-scribe> frankm: 6.2 the property cannot validly accept inline literal values

14:28:33 <db-scribe> patricks: need to say when MT provides no interpretation for some things

14:29:09 <db-scribe> bwm: editorial things? any more substantial issues?

14:30:04 <db-scribe> jjc: graham talked of a minimal spec. but part 1 has a range constraint that might be removed?

14:30:21 <db-scribe> gk: had a quick look, most of my previous comments are applicable

14:30:59 <danbri> gk's comments (just posted): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0269.html

14:31:00 <db-scribe> patricks: not sure if we are going for an absolute minimal spec. We didn't decide that

14:33:01 <danbri> zakim, unmute danbri

14:33:02 <Zakim> DanBri should no longer be muted

14:33:19 <db-scribe> bwm asks and gets conf that the spec need not be minimal

14:33:35 <db-scribe> frankm: really happy with part1 as far as it goes

14:33:37 <db-scribe> solid

14:34:03 <danbri> danbri: i would like to see _something_ rather than _nothing_; we need to do the range thing eventually, don't know if we can get there in this step

14:34:08 <db-scribe> bwm: gk, do a proper read through and review

14:34:49 <db-scribe> jjc: minor issue with xml union datatypes interaction of range constraints. May not be difficult

14:35:26 <db-scribe> patricks: went over with patH earlier, there isn't a problem. It satisfies the three characteristics of an rdf datatype

14:35:57 <db-scribe> jjc: editorial issue that is sufficiently non-obvious that should be recorded

14:36:16 <db-scribe> jang: expressing a literal as a dataype + language + xml bit - like to de-emphasis this

14:36:18 <db-scribe> NOISE

14:36:19 <danbri> [horrible white noise]

14:36:21 <em_lap> ouch?

14:36:26 <danbri> zakim, who is speaking?

14:36:27 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, danbri.

14:36:32 <Zakim> +AaronSw.a

14:36:33 <danbri> zakim, who is talking?

14:36:38 <em_lap> zakim, who is talking

14:36:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is talking', em_lap. Try /msg Zakim help

14:36:47 <Zakim> danbri, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: FrankM (100%), Gk (41%), AaronSw (100%), DanBri (45%), AaronSw.a (14%)

14:36:50 <db-scribe> silence

14:36:52 <Zakim> -AaronSw

14:37:08 <db-scribe> jjc continues - de-emphasis the 3-part structure

14:37:16 <db-scribe> typed literals which are unicode strings

14:37:23 <db-scribe> typed literals which are xml

14:37:31 <db-scribe> see current syntax as sugar for them

14:37:40 <danbri> zakim, who is muted?

14:37:41 <Zakim> I see Jjc muted

14:37:42 <db-scribe> bwm: how do we represent literals in the abstract literal, including datatypes

14:38:02 <db-scribe> jang: change to the mindset - type is UnicodeString, other bit is a uncide string

14:38:10 <db-scribe> type is LangString, other bit is lang+unicode string

14:38:21 <db-scribe> ACTION jang: write up a proposal for this

14:39:00 <db-scribe> patricks: not sure if this is necessary for datatypes?

14:39:11 <db-scribe> jang: yes, structure is not important

14:39:48 <db-scribe> patricks: xml:lang inffects all contained XML

14:39:54 <db-scribe> bwm: can we take offline and ask parser writers

14:40:00 <db-scribe> bwm: can we talk about rdf:type

14:40:39 <db-scribe> bwm: I see the experts in the group all are speaking with one voice

14:40:54 <gk> DaveB gave a concrete example

14:41:29 <db-scribe> jjc: rdf:type makes properties vs something that doesn't give an arc

14:42:14 <gk> Dave's example of bad rdf:type behaviour is in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0260.html

14:42:41 <db-scribe> bwm: this is the basis for moving forward?

14:43:10 <db-scribe> bwm: no comments or input yet from PatH or sergey on this specific doc

14:43:29 <db-scribe> how does this datatyping doc relate to the other specs

14:43:41 <db-scribe> seems we are changing the abs syn of RDF - reflect in concepts and abs dM doc

14:43:52 <db-scribe> changing (rdf/xml) syntax in order to indicate dataype of literal

14:44:06 <db-scribe> and schema documetn will have to address domain and range on datatypes

14:44:20 <db-scribe> don't want to specify things in 2 places

14:44:22 <Zakim> -SteveP

14:44:37 <db-scribe> bwm: dataypes editors, think about this

14:44:54 <danbri> Just wanted to note: the RSS group are looking at using range constraints on subclass of literals, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/message/3264

14:45:25 <db-scribe> patricks: don't see any dependency on rdfs, no change to rdfs:range, doesn't use rdfs:domain

14:46:00 <gk> q+ to agree that RDF schema not affected, but abstract syntax and XML syntax may be

14:46:01 * Zakim sees Gk on the speaker queue

14:46:29 <bwm> ack zakim

14:46:31 * Zakim sees Gk on the speaker queue

14:46:36 <bwm> ack Gk

14:46:37 <Zakim> Gk, you wanted to agree that RDF schema not affected, but abstract syntax and XML syntax may be

14:46:38 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:47:21 <db-scribe> frankm: datatyping may not change the specifications but it may change what's said in, say, the schema document

14:49:17 <db-scribe> frankm: I'll want to say in theschema section of the primer about datatypes used

14:49:33 <db-scribe> [not sure I captured that right]

14:50:12 <db-scribe> jjc: we conceived this as a layer; once we start putting this into a graph, can't keep the layering view - impact on doc structure

14:50:22 <danbri> (off telecon to save time: as RDFS editor, I do expect that spec will need to field expectations re datatypes. I'm tempted to add a bookPrice example to the current eg)

14:50:49 <em_lap> hear hear!!

14:50:51 <db-scribe> bwm: we have made a lot of progress (lots, while I was away) - thanks a lot patrick

14:50:55 <Zakim> -AaronSw.a

14:50:59 <db-scribe> bwm: need to maintain momentum

14:51:40 <db-scribe> item 10

14:52:47 <db-scribe> danc action continued

14:52:50 <db-scribe> daveb done

14:52:51 <em_lap> q+

14:52:52 * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue

14:52:57 <gk> Dave has spoken to DC group, but cannot answer their questions because he doesn't fully understand himself how to answert theior questions

14:52:58 <em_lap> q-

14:52:59 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:53:04 <db-scribe> action bwm: try to enter the conversation

14:53:21 <danbri> aside: Dublin Core architecture list, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/message/3264

14:53:41 <danbri> alt thread: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0208&L=dc-architecture&T=0&F=&S=&P=3573

14:54:51 <db-scribe> em: dc groups seing this as a collection mechanism

14:55:28 <db-scribe> em: don't think dc group would mind one way or other, need guidance. waiting for us

14:56:22 <gk> From last week, IIRC, note that one concern with rdf:Alt previously noted was that it might be used with existing properties

14:57:08 <db-scribe> item 12 meaning of rdf:type rdf/rdfs relationship

14:57:27 <db-scribe> bwm: removing "rdf processor"?

14:57:58 <em_lap> q+

14:57:59 * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue

14:57:59 <db-scribe> frankm: yes, will remove such refs but still would like a agreement on bwm'sentailment

14:58:11 <em_lap> q+, to mention http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/

14:58:12 * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue

14:58:29 <db-scribe> frankm: suggest that an (rdf processor) is not required to conclude that the object of a type property is a class

14:58:37 <db-scribe> jjc: that is an entailment

14:59:31 <db-scribe> danbri: no concluding (processing entailment rules) if you don't do entailment

14:59:34 <danbri> it seems too lose to me; "an rdf processor is not required to conclude ANYTHING at all"...

14:59:57 <db-scribe> frankm: rdf:type is in RDF, rdfs:Class is not?

15:00:22 <db-scribe> frankm: what concepts are one lang, what are in another?

15:00:35 <db-scribe> jjc: the MT clarifies this

15:01:55 <db-scribe> bwm: no need for a decision; this is implicit in the MT?

15:01:58 <db-scribe> frankm: ok

15:02:37 <Zakim> -PatrickS

15:02:38 <Zakim> -DanBri

15:02:41 <db-scribe> thanks to gk and jjc for new WD: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/

15:02:43 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean

15:02:45 <db-scribe> end of meeting

15:02:46 <db-scribe> ----

15:02:50 <db-scribe> (end of scribing)

15:03:35 <db-scribe> erk, new WD points at editor's draft!

15:03:40 <db-scribe> .. of syntax

15:03:56 <danbri> eek

15:04:02 <danbri> em_lap, is that fixable?

15:04:03 <db-scribe> maybe we can get that fixed

15:04:05 <db-scribe> phew

15:04:21 <danbri> phew?

15:04:47 <db-scribe> sec 2.5, "section 3.4" link

15:05:33 <db-scribe>http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Namespace

15:30:02 <Zakim> -EricM

15:30:20 <Zakim> -FrankM

15:33:36 <Zakim> -ILRT

15:33:37 <Zakim> -Gk

15:33:39 <Zakim> -Jjc

15:33:39 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended