13:01:05 <logger_1> logger_1 has joined #rdfcore
13:01:05 <irc.w3.org> Users on #rdfcore: @logger_1 
13:47:14 <AaronSw> AaronSw has joined #rdfcore
13:47:26 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfcore
13:47:31 <AaronSw> Zakim, this will be rdfco
13:47:32 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw
13:47:37 <AaronSw> Zakim, this will be rdfc
13:47:38 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw
13:47:43 <bwm> bwm has joined #rdfcore
13:49:29 <DaveB> DaveB has joined #rdfcore
13:55:35 <bwm> * bwm bwm waves to DaveB, regrets not making it down to ilrt
13:58:16 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM matches both rdfco and rdfc
13:58:44 <em> em has joined #rdfcore
13:59:30 <danb_lap> danb_lap has joined #rdfcore
13:59:41 <AaronSw> Zakim , this is SW_RDFCore
13:59:47 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?
13:59:48 <Zakim> sorry, AaronSw, I don't know what conference this is
13:59:49 <AaronSw> Zakim, this is SW_RDFCore
13:59:49 <Zakim> On IRC I see danb_lap, em, DaveB, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1
13:59:50 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw
13:59:54 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?
13:59:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P15, ??P16
13:59:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see danb_lap, em, DaveB, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1
14:00:13 <Zakim> -??P16
14:00:15 <JosD> JosD has joined #rdfcore
14:00:21 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:00:45 <Zakim> -AaronSw
14:00:58 <Zakim> +??P18
14:01:00 <Zakim> +PatrickS
14:01:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
14:01:03 <RRSAgent> * RRSAgent is logging
14:01:11 <AaronSw> who's P18?
14:01:14 <Zakim> +??P19
14:01:18 <em> em has changed the topic to: RDFCore teleconference - 2002-09-06
14:01:26 <Zakim> +EricM
14:01:37 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:01:42 <em> zakim, who is here?
14:01:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P15, ??P18, PatrickS, EricM, ??P19, AaronSw
14:01:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, JosD, danb_lap, em, DaveB, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1
14:02:13 <DaveB> DaveB is now known as jang-scri
14:02:15 <AaronSw> brian < 20
14:02:16 <Zakim> +EricP
14:02:36 <danb_lap> zakim, EricP is temporarily DanBri
14:02:37 <Zakim> +DanBri; got it
14:02:51 <Zakim> +??P21
14:02:54 <JosD> zakim, ??p18 is JosD
14:02:56 <Zakim> +JosD; got it
14:03:06 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P21 is ILRT
14:03:07 <Zakim> +ILRT; got it
14:03:11 <AaronSw> zakim, ILRT has JanG
14:03:13 <Zakim> +JanG; got it
14:03:16 <jang-scri> zakim, ilrt has daveb jang
14:03:17 <Zakim> Jang was already listed in ILRT, jang-scri
14:03:17 <Zakim> +Daveb; got it
14:03:20 <AaronSw> zakim, ??p15 is Bwm
14:03:22 <Zakim> +Bwm; got it
14:03:25 <Zakim> +??P22
14:03:30 <AaronSw> zakim, ILRT also has JanG
14:03:32 <Zakim> +JanG; got it
14:03:34 <Zakim> +??P24
14:03:39 <AaronSw> zakim, ??p22 is jjc
14:03:40 <Zakim> +Jjc; got it
14:03:45 <AaronSw> zakim, ??p24 is graham
14:03:46 <Zakim> +Graham; got it
14:03:54 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?
14:03:56 <jjc> jjc has joined #rdfcore
14:03:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see Bwm, JosD, PatrickS, EricM, ??P19, AaronSw, DanBri, ILRT, Jjc, Graham
14:03:57 <Zakim> ILRT has Daveb, JanG
14:03:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjc, RRSAgent, JosD, danb_lap, em, jang-scri, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1
14:04:02 <jang-scri> scribe for next week...
14:04:11 <jang-scri> is eric!
14:04:17 <gk> gk has joined #rdfcore
14:04:29 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?
14:04:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see Bwm, JosD, PatrickS, EricM, ??P19, AaronSw, DanBri, ILRT, Jjc, Graham
14:04:31 <Zakim> ILRT has Daveb, JanG
14:04:32 <Zakim> On IRC I see gk, jjc, RRSAgent, JosD, danb_lap, em, jang-scri, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1
14:04:36 <danb_lap> zakim, mute danbri
14:04:37 <Zakim> DanBri should now be muted
14:04:38 <jang-scri> * jang-scri scribes... great!
14:05:04 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P19 is SteveP
14:05:05 <Zakim> +SteveP; got it
14:05:08 <jang-scri> regrets?
14:05:30 <jang-scri> (possibly...)
14:05:49 <jang-scri> frank m, dancon
14:06:01 <jang-scri> review agenda:
14:06:13 <jang-scri> comments, aob..? nope.
14:06:17 <em> * em bwm scolds jema
14:06:20 <jang-scri> next telecon next week
14:06:28 <jang-scri> last week's minutes...
14:07:02 <jang-scri> apparently we're best practice accoriding to pfps (!)
14:07:04 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
14:07:07 <jang-scri> (regarding minuting)
14:07:23 <jang-scri> minutes APPROVED
14:07:28 <jang-scri> completed actions...
14:07:30 <jang-scri> all done
14:07:34 <jang-scri> withdrawn actions...
14:07:54 <jang-scri> 2002-08-03#2: peace has broken out
14:08:18 <jang-scri> dc-architecture: we're backing off on this at the moment
14:08:30 <jang-scri> item 8: status of new mime types draft
14:08:55 <jang-scri> going to be sunday, monday with luck
14:09:00 <jang-scri> (fate conspired, alas)
14:09:22 <jang-scri> moving on...
14:09:28 <jang-scri> item 9: namespaces last call
14:09:32 <jang-scri> jjc has responded positively.
14:09:39 <jang-scri> anyone else?
14:09:45 <jang-scri> daveb: supports jjc's comments
14:10:05 <jang-scri> jjc: would like WG to make those comments.
14:10:15 <gk> I intend to look at this (namespace 1.1), but can't promise when
14:10:32 <AaronSw> ooh, server's back!
14:10:33 <jang-scri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0058.html
14:11:22 <jang-scri> -ACTION bwm / get back to them with commitment to review
14:11:28 <jang-scri> item 10: datatypes
14:11:42 <jang-scri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0257.html
14:11:46 <jang-scri> with changes in
14:11:53 <jang-scri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0040.html
14:12:01 <jang-scri> bwm: feedback has been good thus far.
14:12:07 <em> q+
14:12:08 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue
14:12:24 <jang-scri> frankm seemed in favour
14:12:29 <jang-scri> jjc: yes, with enthusiasm
14:12:33 <jang-scri> jang: yes!
14:12:36 <em> q-
14:12:37 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:12:56 <jang-scri> em: woo-hoo to part one.
14:13:18 <jang-scri> general consensus is that this captures general consensus :-)
14:13:33 <jang-scri> josd: beginning implementation
14:13:37 <jang-scri> seems reasonable
14:13:42 <em> go JosD! :)
14:13:45 <jang-scri> ntriples representation might need sorting out
14:13:48 <em> q+
14:13:49 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue
14:13:52 <jang-scri> miked: liked it too
14:13:57 <em> q?
14:13:58 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue
14:14:13 <jang-scri> bwm: any other comments?
14:14:16 <em> q+ to ask if anyone has implemented this (other than JosD)
14:14:17 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue
14:14:25 <jang-scri> gk: not yet had an opportunity to look at it, but I'll try to do so asap
14:14:30 <danb_lap> sorry, didn't know the Unmute code and was away from keyboard
14:14:32 <JosD> yes EricM :-)
14:14:35 <danb_lap> zakim, unmute danbri
14:14:36 <Zakim> DanBri should no longer be muted
14:14:46 <jang-scri> danbri: yes.
14:15:20 <jang-scri> ajng: I've got an implementation of this.
14:15:36 <jang-scri> daveb: what counts as an implementation? does the dting entailments?
14:15:59 <jang-scri> jjc: jena puts strings in the graph, not integers, so not there yet
14:16:12 <jang-scri> daveb: sounds like I've got one too, basically.
14:16:38 <jang-scri> daveb: there are probably a couple more not on wg
14:16:44 <jang-scri> em: I sent this to 4th group
14:17:08 <jang-scri> bwm: patrick... enthusiastic too?
14:17:11 <jang-scri> pats: yep
14:17:21 <jang-scri> jos: I'd like to see danc's opinion if anyone knows it
14:17:39 <jang-scri> bwm: concerned we've not heard from path, sergey, danc
14:17:56 <jang-scri> (path recently posted that it looked pretty good)
14:18:04 <jang-scri> daveb: my only concern...
14:18:08 <danb_lap> zakim, mute danbri
14:18:09 <Zakim> DanBri should now be muted
14:18:09 <jang-scri> syntax stuff, but let's punt
14:18:12 <jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0066.html
14:18:12 <jang-scri> then section 6
14:18:16 <jang-scri> where there's stuff I don't like too much
14:18:23 <Zakim> +??P26
14:18:24 <jang-scri> I'm not quite sure why it's there
14:18:36 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P26 is Sergey
14:18:37 <mdean> mdean has joined #rdfcore
14:18:38 <Zakim> +Sergey; got it
14:18:48 <jjc> Pat sayys in that msg Patrick's document up to section 6 describes how to handle datatyped 
14:18:49 <jjc> literals (and does it fine), 
14:19:10 <jang-scri> sergey: i think it's a good split
14:19:16 <jang-scri> I've lots of editorial suggestions to part 1
14:19:21 <jang-scri> it's a point we can move on from
14:20:03 <jang-scri> in my opinion, conceptually it looks good
14:20:29 <jang-scri> bwm: that sounds like lots of support, this is how we move forward
14:20:44 <jang-scri> em: we've heard a critical mass to put it to the vote...
14:21:46 <jang-scri> pats: 
14:21:52 <jang-scri> all in favour for staking the ground...
14:22:04 <sergey> sergey has joined #rdfcore
14:22:10 <jang-scri> but i want to be clear that it's not suggested that that's the end of it all
14:22:15 <jang-scri> that we can still come back to add to that
14:22:19 <em> q+
14:22:21 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue
14:22:28 <em> q-
14:22:29 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:22:30 <jang-scri> jjc: I've similar reservations, but we need to record this.
14:22:37 <em> jjc, captured my point
14:22:39 <jang-scri> we've reached a better consensus on this than any other.
14:23:00 <jang-scri> open issues (lang tags, eg) but this is significant
14:23:24 <jang-scri> bwm: propose that part one of
14:23:36 <jang-scri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0257.html
14:23:55 <bwm> Propose that part 1 of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0257.html is the conceptual basis for our datatypes solution.
14:24:26 <jang-scri> q+
14:24:28 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jang on the speaker queue
14:24:47 <jang-scri> q-
14:24:49 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:25:09 <bwm> zakim, who's here
14:25:10 <Zakim> bwm, you need to end that query with '?'
14:25:10 <jang-scri> ok... (eventually)...
14:25:17 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?
14:25:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Bwm, JosD, PatrickS, EricM, SteveP, AaronSw, DanBri (muted), ILRT, Jjc, Graham, Mike_Dean, Sergey
14:25:20 <Zakim> ILRT has Daveb, JanG
14:25:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see sergey, mdean, gk, jjc, RRSAgent, JosD, danb_lap, em, jang-scri, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1
14:25:36 <danb_lap> zakim, unmute danbri
14:25:37 <Zakim> DanBri should no longer be muted
14:26:08 <jang-scri> jos, pats, em, steve p, aaron abs, danbdi yes, daveb yes, jang, jjc, gk abs, mike, sergey, 
14:26:13 <jang-scri> all bar aaron gk yes
14:26:36 <jang-scri> bwm: on 6th september last year, first wd was published
14:26:39 <jang-scri> what a birthday present!
14:26:46 <jang-scri> and brian is 21 again.
14:26:59 <danb_lap> happy b'day brian :)
14:27:12 <jang-scri> WG resolves that brian should have many happy returns, etc.
14:27:32 <AaronSw> -aob sing happy birthday to bwm
14:27:39 <jang-scri> pats: substantive issue is rdf:datatype rather than rdf:type
14:27:41 <JosD> yes Brian, happy birthday :-) :-)
14:27:55 <jang-scri> daveb: that is, rdf:dtatype as the rdf/xml attribute
14:28:04 <jang-scri> rdf:datatype is the attribute.
14:28:19 <jang-scri> ok, DECIDED. 
14:28:35 <jang-scri> action daveb: add that to the syntax (rdf:datatype changes)
14:28:42 <jang-scri> that depends on ntruiples changing...
14:28:47 <jang-scri> which depends on conceptual graph changing...
14:28:53 <jang-scri> but we'll figure that out.
14:30:18 <jang-scri> bwm: splitting the document up...
14:30:30 <em> q+
14:30:31 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue
14:30:39 <jang-scri> we don't need the dt document any more, in fact it's rather odd to have one
14:31:01 <jang-scri> sergey: that makes sense... danbri: yes, pats: leave it to the wg
14:31:35 <jang-scri> jang: yeah, bwm's division makes sense to me
14:31:59 <jang-scri> jos: I'm also more convinced that this could be distributed amongst the other documents.
14:32:05 <jang-scri> sergey: two comments.
14:32:19 <jang-scri> first, we still need some coordination effort on that so all the pieces get properly put inplace.
14:32:24 <jang-scri> so someone needs to keep track of this
14:32:37 <jang-scri> secondly, we should recognise the editorial effort pats put into this.
14:32:47 <jang-scri> jang: seconded.
14:33:00 <em> q- 
14:33:01 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:33:05 <jang-scri> bwm: pats, sergey, pat put a lot of effort into this
14:33:09 <Zakim> -JosD
14:33:15 <em> bwm just made the point i was going to make so i take myself off the queu
14:33:31 <danb_lap> +1 re ensuring Acknowledgements
14:33:41 <jang-scri> action BWM / ensure that editorial efforts re: dting doc are not lost to posterity
14:34:01 <Zakim> +??P0
14:34:03 <jang-scri> bwm: part one...
14:34:12 <jang-scri> jjc: sounds sensible, job for the series editor!
14:34:19 <danb_lap> zakim, ??P0 is JosD
14:34:20 <Zakim> +JosD; got it
14:34:32 <jang-scri> daveb: each section that has to move - give it an action
14:35:22 <jang-scri> action bwm / to solicit aid from document editor in assigning parts of document to other docs
14:36:30 <jang-scri> (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0257.html )
14:36:41 <jang-scri> 0061, evven
14:37:16 <jang-scri> pats: I'd like to also minute details that stil need addressing:
14:37:21 <jang-scri> I think there are three major ones.
14:37:30 <jang-scri> 1. inline literals: say anything? if so, what?
14:37:51 <jang-scri> 2. ntiurlpes syntax, abs syntax, structure of literals. where do we put xml:lang, etc.
14:37:59 <jang-scri> needs clarification.
14:38:15 <jang-scri> 3. maybe there were only two.
14:38:46 <gk> Brian's proposed breakout of Datatyping material is at:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0061.html
14:39:12 <jang-scri> pats: I think there's some misunderstanding on rdfs:Datatype, rdfs:Literal, etc.
14:39:18 <jang-scri> not sure if there are still issues on this
14:39:42 <jang-scri> jjc: my inclination is to say...
14:39:50 <jang-scri> I've got an indirect action to update abs model
14:40:01 <jang-scri> I'll be rewriting to fit that together, that may be helpfuol
14:40:09 <jang-scri> so I'd be inclined to postpone discussion
14:40:16 <jang-scri> until there's some additional text coming from me
14:40:34 <jang-scri> action jjc / review action so far and report back with specific proposal
14:40:47 <jang-scri> bwm: I'm holding inline literal discussion
14:41:00 <jang-scri> but I'd like to get DTed literals moving then come back to that.
14:41:10 <Zakim> -AaronSw
14:41:40 <jang-scri> pats: there's closure on part one, why not move on to discussing the rest?
14:41:53 <jang-scri> q+
14:41:56 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jang on the speaker queue
14:42:06 <jang-scri> pats: could we at least put it on the agenda for next week?
14:42:09 <jang-scri> bwm: yes
14:43:13 <jang-scri> pats: rather than fall into tidy/untidy debate, maybe we coud just say nothing..?
14:43:27 <jang-scri> bwm: worth noting that that's a possibility worth considering
14:44:43 <bwm> ack jang-scri
14:44:44 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jang on the speaker queue
14:44:46 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:44:46 <jjc> q+
14:44:48 <jang-scri> jang: path independently suggested the bnode dt, I'm happier about it seeing that
14:44:48 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jang, Jjc on the speaker queue
14:44:53 <jang-scri> q-
14:44:54 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jjc on the speaker queue
14:45:10 <jang-scri> jjc: on the untidy approach...
14:45:12 <bwm> ack Jjc
14:45:13 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:45:19 <jang-scri> I'd suport it if there's noone strongly objecting to it
14:45:23 <gk> Q+ to say that if we don't need to say anything more about datatypes, it may be better not to do so for now
14:45:25 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Gk on the speaker queue
14:45:28 <jang-scri> but if there's stong objection I don't think we need to go the whole hog
14:45:40 <jang-scri> in other words, I'm happy to support objections, if you see what I mean
14:45:48 <jang-scri> on the other issue...
14:45:57 <jang-scri> there's no uri for xsd:string
14:46:10 <jang-scri> daveb: there is! - xml schema produced a set of uris for schema datatypes
14:46:16 <jang-scri> jjc: oh, ok, comment withdrwan
14:46:26 <bwm> ack gk
14:46:26 <Zakim> Gk, you wanted to say that if we don't need to say anything more about datatypes, it may be better not to do so for now
14:46:26 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:46:48 <jang-scri> (that summarises it)
14:46:54 <jang-scri> general feeling towards minimality
14:47:04 <jang-scri> 15 minutes left... next item
14:47:15 <jang-scri> item 11. relationship between xml schema and rdf
14:47:32 <jang-scri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0165.html
14:48:09 <jang-scri> suggestion that rdf should ignore attributes from the xml schema namespace.
14:48:22 <jang-scri> daveb: yuck
14:48:30 <jang-scri> more explicitly: breaking the layering
14:48:34 <jang-scri> it's a wart on the syntax
14:48:40 <jang-scri> if you're going to ignore another namespace
14:48:46 <jang-scri> then add a general language feature
14:48:50 <gk> q+ I think XML/RDF compatibility is a great idea, but I'm concerned about adding special features ... where does it stop?
14:48:51 <jang-scri> rdf:ignorethisnamespace=...
14:48:52 <Zakim> * Zakim sees I, Think, XML/RDF, Compatibility, Is, A, Great, Idea, But, I'm, Concerned, About, Adding, Special, Features, ..., Where, Does, It, Stop? on the speaker queue
14:49:09 <jang-scri> there are going to be other ns that people want to ignore...
14:49:16 <bwm> ack gk
14:49:18 <Zakim> * Zakim sees I, Think, XML/RDF, Compatibility, Is, A, Great, Idea, But, I'm, Concerned, About, Adding, Special, Features, ..., Where, Does, It, Stop? on the speaker queue
14:49:19 <jang-scri> q-
14:49:19 <jang-scri> q-
14:49:19 <jang-scri> q-
14:49:19 <jang-scri> q-
14:49:21 <Zakim> * Zakim sees I, Think, XML/RDF, Compatibility, Is, A, Great, Idea, But, I'm, Concerned, About, Adding, Special, Features, ..., Where, Does, It, Stop? on the speaker queue
14:49:22 <Zakim> * Zakim sees I, Think, XML/RDF, Compatibility, Is, A, Great, Idea, But, I'm, Concerned, About, Adding, Special, Features, ..., Where, Does, It, Stop? on the speaker queue
14:49:27 <Zakim> * Zakim sees I, Think, XML/RDF, Compatibility, Is, A, Great, Idea, But, I'm, Concerned, About, Adding, Special, Features, ..., Where, Does, It, Stop? on the speaker queue
14:49:28 <em> zakim, clear queue
14:49:28 <jang-scri> oh dear
14:49:30 <Zakim> * Zakim sees I, Think, XML/RDF, Compatibility, Is, A, Great, Idea, But, I'm, Concerned, About, Adding, Special, Features, ..., Where, Does, It, Stop? on the speaker queue
14:49:32 <Zakim> I don't understand 'clear queue', em.  Try /msg Zakim help
14:49:51 <jang-scri> daveb: jjc and i write these parsers, what d'you think?
14:50:09 <jang-scri> jjc: i'd actually support this, I may be wrong, but I'd happioly change the spec to say "the xsi namespace is ignored"
14:50:21 <jang-scri> I can see that "ignore this namespace" is more general, possibly better.
14:50:33 <jang-scri> but I can take gk's point that all of this is the thin end of the wedge
14:50:44 <em> q=
14:50:45 <Zakim> em, if you meant to query the queue, please say 'q?'; if you meant to replace the queue, please say 'queue= ...'
14:50:45 <jang-scri> towards junking all the current syntax and doing it again.
14:50:51 <em> queue=
14:50:53 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:51:28 <bwm> thanks eric
14:51:31 <gk> * gk sorry about my confusing zakim there
14:51:39 <em> q+
14:51:40 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue
14:51:45 <jang-scri> jjc: put it on the postponed issues list..?
14:52:02 <jang-scri> em: while the particulars of this I have views on...
14:52:13 <jang-scri> the more general issue on the relationship between rdf & xml is part of the charter
14:52:32 <jang-scri> while the specific issue might be postponed, it's important to recognise that our charter
14:52:48 <jang-scri> asks that we clearly articulate the relationships between these two families of technology here
14:53:16 <danb_lap> zakim, unmute danbri
14:53:17 <Zakim> DanBri was not muted, danb_lap
14:53:34 <jjc> q+
14:53:35 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Em, Jjc on the speaker queue
14:53:48 <bwm> noted jjc
14:54:10 <jang-scri> em: expect more and more questions of how rdf & xml relate
14:54:24 <jang-scri> action bwm / propose plan to address the rdf / xml part of the charter
14:54:35 <jang-scri> jjc: lots of this is still a research issue
14:54:41 <jang-scri> noting pfps paper recently...
14:54:54 <jang-scri> we'll see more at the research level for a year or so, 
14:55:03 <jang-scri> so an adequate answer is unlikely to appear in the next month
14:56:16 <jang-scri> bwm: specific issue raised, to come back to that...
14:56:39 <jang-scri> I think postponing this issue is a good idea
14:56:55 <jang-scri> I'm personally sympathetic to what's being suggested, but in the interests of getting done
14:57:03 <jang-scri> we should postpone this
14:57:19 <jang-scri> ie, postpone answer to ignoring xsi: attributes
14:57:31 <jang-scri> danbri: postpone it, absolutely. [never do it]
14:57:50 <jang-scri> danbri, daveb, pats seem to prefer saying no.
14:58:01 <jang-scri> daveb: then I propose saying "not in this syntax"
14:58:04 <jang-scri> pats seconds.
14:58:10 <jang-scri> jjc abstains, at least.
14:58:27 <danb_lap> (we could investigate possibility in the future. Currently no compelling reason to expect to do this now or in future)
14:59:08 <jang-scri> aaron also abstained
14:59:08 <danb_lap> i meant: currently we see no compelling reason... 
14:59:11 <danb_lap> (minor wordsmith)
14:59:13 <jang-scri> done then.
14:59:19 <jang-scri> and that's time...
14:59:23 <jang-scri> anything for after hours?
14:59:31 <Zakim> -AaronSw
15:00:14 <Zakim> -ILRT
15:00:14 <Zakim> -JosD
15:00:14 <jang-scri> gotta dash folks, see you.
15:00:15 <Zakim> -SteveP
15:00:17 <Zakim> -Sergey
15:00:17 <jang-scri> jang-scri has left #rdfcore
15:00:25 <sergey> sergey has quit
15:02:33 <em> zakim, who is here?
15:02:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see Bwm, PatrickS, EricM, DanBri, Jjc, Graham, Mike_Dean
15:02:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see mdean, gk, jjc, RRSAgent, JosD, danb_lap, em, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1
15:02:57 <Zakim> -DanBri
15:04:31 <em> http://archive.dstc.edu.au/RDU/staff/jane-hunter/www10/paper.html
15:04:40 <em> Combining RDF and XML Schemas to Enhance Interoperability
15:04:40 <em> Between Metadata Application Profiles
15:04:42 <em> fyi
15:12:15 <Zakim> -EricM
15:12:34 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
15:22:19 <gk> gk has quit
15:38:37 <jjc> jjc has quit
15:38:43 <Zakim> -PatrickS
15:38:47 <Zakim> -Bwm
15:46:09 <bwm> bwm has quit
15:52:33 <JosD> JosD has quit
15:53:23 <em> em has left #rdfcore
16:19:30 <Zakim> -Graham
16:19:32 <Zakim> -Jjc
16:19:33 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended