13:01:03 <logger> logger has joined #rdfcore
13:01:03 <irc.w3.org> Users on #rdfcore: logger @sandro 
13:36:30 <bwm> bwm has joined #rdfcore
13:46:18 <bwm> bwm has quit
13:51:35 <AaronSw> AaronSw has joined #rdfcore
13:51:44 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfcore
13:51:50 <AaronSw> zakim, this will be rdf
13:51:51 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw
13:52:12 <bwm> bwm has joined #rdfcore
13:52:53 <jjc> jjc has joined #rdfcore
13:53:00 <jjc> hi aaron
13:53:05 <jjc> jjc is now known as jjcscribe
13:53:05 <AaronSw> hi jjc
13:53:31 <jjcscribe> hi brian - my parcel man took linger than I expected, and I wanted to go to habitat
13:53:39 <jjcscribe> so here i am down at ILRT
13:53:56 <bwm> I got your voice mail; I would have joined you but didn't have time.
13:54:16 <bwm> And I'm trying to sync up with a visitor from crl after the telecon.
13:54:31 <bwm> T-300
13:54:32 <jjcscribe> who's that?
13:55:07 <jjcscribe> (is it bad form to have changed my nick before the official start?)
13:55:40 <bwm> Beth someone;  put herself in my diary - she's going round talking to lots of folks.  I stood her up yesterday by accident so feel I want to make up.
13:56:06 <bwm> re form: I have absolutely no idea.
13:56:09 <DaveB> DaveB has joined #rdfcore
13:57:08 <bwm> * bwm waves to Sandro who he has not seen/talked to for some time
13:57:32 <bwm> brb
13:57:38 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started
13:57:40 <Zakim> +FrankM
13:57:56 <em> em has joined #rdfcore
13:58:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
13:58:07 <RRSAgent> * RRSAgent is logging
13:58:19 <em> em has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2002-10-11 teleconference
13:58:29 <Zakim> +??P9
13:58:30 <Zakim> -??P9
13:58:31 <Zakim> +??P9
13:58:36 <em> zakim, this is rdfcore
13:58:37 <Zakim> this was already SW_RDFCore()10:00AM
13:58:37 <Zakim> ok, em
13:58:46 <em> zakim, who is on the phone?
13:58:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, ??P9
13:58:51 <AaronSw> anyone know who ??P9 is?
13:58:53 <gk> gk has joined #rdfcore
13:58:54 <DaveB> Zakim, ??P9 is ILRT
13:58:55 <Zakim> +ILRT; got it
13:59:05 <DaveB> Zakim, ILRT has DaveB, jjcscribe
13:59:06 <Zakim> +DaveB, Jjcscribe; got it
13:59:32 <Zakim> +??P10
13:59:42 <gk> zakim, ??p10 is GK
13:59:43 <Zakim> +GK; got it
13:59:53 <Zakim> +??P11
14:00:20 <sandro> sandro has left #rdfcore
14:00:48 <DaveB> Zakim, ILRT has DaveB, jjcscribe, jang
14:00:49 <Zakim> DaveB was already listed in ILRT, DaveB
14:00:49 <Zakim> Jjcscribe was already listed in ILRT, DaveB
14:00:50 <Zakim> +Jang; got it
14:01:26 <Zakim> -??P11
14:01:31 <em> * em tries dialing again
14:01:36 <Zakim> +??P12
14:01:46 <bwm> zakim, p12 is bwm
14:01:47 <Zakim> sorry, bwm, I do not recognize a party named 'p12'
14:01:51 <jan_g> jan_g has joined #rdfcore
14:01:55 <AaronSw> zakim, ??p12 is bwm
14:01:56 <bwm> zakim, ??p12 is bwm
14:01:57 <Zakim> +Bwm; got it
14:01:57 <Zakim> sorry, bwm, I do not recognize a party named '??p12'
14:02:02 <Zakim> +??P13
14:02:03 <Zakim> +??P11
14:02:04 <bwm> thanks aaron
14:02:31 <Zakim> +??P14
14:02:43 <jan_g> zakim, who is here?
14:02:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, ILRT, GK, Bwm, ??P13, ??P11, ??P14 (muted)
14:02:45 <Zakim> ILRT has Jang
14:02:45 <bwm> zakim, ??p13 is jos
14:02:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see jan_g, gk, RRSAgent, em, DaveB, jjcscribe, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, logger
14:02:47 <Zakim> +Jos; got it
14:02:55 <DaveB> Zakim, ILRT has DaveB, jjcscribe, jan_g
14:02:56 <Zakim> +DaveB, Jjcscribe, Jan_g; got it
14:02:58 <bwm> zakim, ??p11 is steveP
14:02:59 <Zakim> +SteveP; got it
14:03:07 <JosD> JosD has joined #rdfcore
14:03:12 <jjcscribe> beginning to start up ...
14:03:17 <bwm> zakim, ??p14 is PatrickS
14:03:18 <Zakim> +PatrickS; got it
14:03:31 <Zakim> +EricM
14:03:39 <em> * em dials manually
14:03:39 <jjcscribe> zakim, who's on the phone?
14:03:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, ILRT, GK, Bwm, Jos, SteveP, PatrickS (muted), EricM
14:03:42 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, Jjcscribe, Jan_g
14:04:01 <Zakim> + +1.850.202.aaaa - is perhaps PatH?
14:04:21 <em> agenda?
14:04:22 <Zakim> * Zakim sees nothing on the agenda
14:04:31 <em> zakim, +1.850.202.aaaa is PatH
14:04:32 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not recognize a party named '+1.850.202.aaaa'
14:04:39 <em> zakim, 1.850.202.aaaa is PatH
14:04:40 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not recognize a party named '1.850.202.aaaa'
14:04:46 <em> arggg...
14:04:50 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfcore
14:04:54 <bwm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0103.html
14:04:57 <danbri> * danbri along shortly
14:05:25 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
14:05:49 <jjcscribe> Item 1:
14:05:51 <DanC> DanC has joined #rdfcore
14:05:57 <jjcscribe> Volunteer for next week: JanG
14:05:59 <AaronSw> zakim, 1.850 is PatH
14:06:01 <Zakim> sorry, AaronSw, I do not recognize a party named '1.850'
14:06:06 <AaronSw> zakim, +1.850 is PatH
14:06:07 <Zakim> sorry, AaronSw, I do not recognize a party named '+1.850'
14:06:10 <jjcscribe> Volunteer for week after: JosD
14:06:16 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:06:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, ILRT, GK, Bwm, Jos, SteveP, PatrickS (muted), EricM, PatH?, Mike_Dean
14:06:18 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, Jjcscribe, Jan_g
14:06:20 <jjcscribe> 2: RollCall
14:06:31 <AaronSw> zakim, Pat is PatH
14:06:32 <Zakim> sorry, AaronSw, I do not recognize a party named 'Pat'
14:06:46 <DaveB> AaronSw: you not dialling?
14:06:47 <mdean> mdean has joined #rdfcore
14:06:49 <jjcscribe> Roll Call complete from zakim
14:06:54 <AaronSw> * AaronSw looks for phone number
14:07:07 <Zakim> +DanC
14:07:11 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:07:11 <jjcscribe> 3: Review Agenda
14:07:21 <jjcscribe> jjc: it's somewhat dull
14:07:28 <AaronSw>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0103.html
14:07:29 <bwm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0103.html
14:07:52 <Zakim> +DanBri
14:08:01 <jjcscribe> DanC: does not list all outstanding actions, specifically those on editors to do datatyping stuff.
14:08:07 <jjcscribe> DanC: please minute this.
14:08:27 <jjcscribe> 5. Minytes
14:08:49 <jjcscribe> Minutes 2002-10-04 were sparse but are approved.
14:09:00 <DanC> 4Oct minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0064.html
14:09:00 <jjcscribe> 6. untyped literals
14:09:06 <jjcscribe> bwm: critical to move forward
14:09:24 <jjcscribe> 6 (review of new info)
14:09:39 <jan_g> jan_g has quit
14:09:47 <jjcscribe> see links from agenda
14:10:39 <jjcscribe> DanC: option B gave problems with "10" "010" and cardinality constraints
14:11:03 <jan_g> jan_g has joined #rdfcore
14:11:05 <jjcscribe> DanC: (about webont)
14:11:05 <AaronSw> that's a really bad argument
14:11:13 <DanC> well, it's coherent.
14:11:23 <gk> q+ to say I think there may be a problem with Pat's
14:11:24 <jjcscribe> PatH: model theory wheeze ...
14:11:24 <AaronSw> every app should have to have information about what strings are value equivalent just so a single app doesn't have to have this information?
14:11:24 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Gk on the speaker queue
14:11:52 <jjcscribe> q+
14:11:54 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Gk, Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:12:18 <bwm> ack gk
14:12:19 <Zakim> Gk, you wanted to say I think there may be a problem with Pat's
14:12:20 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:12:25 <jjcscribe> PatH: it may be a possible way, but don't want to urge it on anyone ...
14:12:33 <DanC> * DanC q+ to ask whether this "possible untidy route" has the same problem with cardinality constraints
14:12:34 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jjcscribe, DanC on the speaker queue
14:12:35 <Zakim> -EricM
14:12:48 <DanC> [[[
14:12:49 <DanC> From: 	pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
14:12:49 <DanC> To: 	w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
14:12:49 <DanC> Subject: 	possible untidy route
14:12:49 <DanC> Date: 	09 Oct 2002 12:38:21 +0100
14:12:50 <DanC> ]]]
14:13:16 <bwm> ack danc
14:13:17 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask whether this "possible untidy route" has the same problem with cardinality constraints
14:13:17 <AaronSw> it's a heisenstring
14:13:19 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:13:39 <jjcscribe> Zakim, why are you scribing?
14:13:41 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, jjcscribe.
14:13:45 <bwm> ack jjc
14:13:46 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:13:59 <DaveB> jjc notes that b,c,d,f are quite simple - likes this
14:14:12 <DaveB> ... and sees path's suggestion as rather complex to explain
14:14:28 <jjcscribe> Path: I withdraw my suggestion
14:14:40 <mdean> q+ to suggest merge of C and F similar to DAML+OIL approach
14:14:41 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Mdean on the speaker queue
14:14:58 <jjcscribe> PatrickS: speaks about profium implementation
14:15:08 <DanC> * DanC q+ to say I'm not convinced
14:15:09 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Mdean, DanC on the speaker queue
14:15:27 <bwm> ack mdean
14:15:28 <Zakim> Mdean, you wanted to suggest merge of C and F similar to DAML+OIL approach
14:15:29 <Zakim> * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue
14:15:51 <Zakim> -PatrickS
14:16:00 <JosD> q+
14:16:01 <Zakim> * Zakim sees DanC, JosD on the speaker queue
14:16:08 <DaveB> * DaveB also would also like C+F if poss
14:16:12 <jjcscribe> q+
14:16:14 <Zakim> * Zakim sees DanC, JosD, Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:16:22 <Zakim> +??P14
14:16:33 <AaronSw> zakim, ??p14 is PatrickS
14:16:34 <Zakim> +PatrickS; got it
14:16:53 <Zakim> +EricM
14:17:00 <bwm> ack DanC
14:17:01 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say I'm not convinced
14:17:01 <Zakim> * Zakim sees JosD, Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:17:19 <jjcscribe> DanC: profium did not distinugish B and F
14:18:07 <jjcscribe> DanC: option C can be used with range constraints but you must still tag the values
14:18:11 <bwm> ack JosD
14:18:12 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:18:26 <jjcscribe> q-
14:18:28 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:18:37 <em> em has quit
14:18:43 <jjcscribe> Jos: C + F are incompatible in that you have to choose on the tidy entailment
14:18:50 <AaronSw> do both C and F require my applications to keep all this value-space information (i.e. distinguish between integers, dates and binary digits)?
14:19:21 <DanC> (I just said that, didn't I?)
14:19:47 <JosD> * JosD thinks so
14:19:58 <jjcscribe> Agenda item 7.
14:20:04 <jjcscribe> Picking the option
14:20:31 <jjcscribe> bwm: not everyone will be happy ...
14:20:50 <jjcscribe> bwm: straw poll results have been posted
14:21:03 <jjcscribe> bwm: let's remove option D
14:21:07 <DanC> yes, please.
14:21:12 <jjcscribe> jjc: happy with this
14:21:15 <DaveB> yes do this, move on
14:21:55 <jjcscribe> bwm: remove option B? B/C pretty even, but webont argument was compelling.
14:22:16 <jjcscribe> danc: unhappy, but can live with it
14:22:32 <jjcscribe> bwm: we are down to C and F
14:22:46 <jjcscribe> bwm: strongest support and least dissent is C
14:23:09 <jjcscribe> PatS, bwm: changed nokia vote has been taken into account
14:23:43 <jjcscribe> FrankM: I checked your numbers, the raw data was sligtly different but summary C/F was not impacted
14:24:01 <Zakim> -PatrickS
14:24:18 <jjcscribe> MikeD: in this situation I would go unacceptable on C
14:24:40 <jjcscribe> bwm: my proposal is to put the question and ask the working group to support C.
14:25:10 <Zakim> +??P14
14:25:14 <jjcscribe> bwm: without an agreement we cannot get enough consensus to publish another MT
14:25:18 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P14 is PatrickS
14:25:20 <Zakim> +PatrickS; got it
14:26:27 <jan_g> q+
14:26:28 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jan on the speaker queue
14:26:29 <jjcscribe> MikeD: any way to put bopth options in the question
14:27:14 <jjcscribe> jjc: i want the wg to make a decision
14:27:17 <DaveB> bwm: remind of choices - concur too ?
14:28:01 <jjcscribe> danc: if too many vote abstain then C will not carry.
14:28:03 <DanC> sorry, I neglected to mention concur
14:28:43 <jjcscribe> bwm: I think the right thing to do is to put the question with C
14:29:39 <jjcscribe> frankm: this may come back if we get lots of neagtive feedback
14:29:49 <JosD> q+
14:29:50 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jan, JosD on the speaker queue
14:29:54 <jan_g> * jan_g is only on the queue to point out that C doesn't preclude the bnode/rdf:value idiom to do long-range typing
14:29:55 <jjcscribe> bwm: you are right, I hope wg members will not stir up trouble
14:30:08 <Zakim> -PatrickS
14:30:09 <bwm> ack jan
14:30:10 <Zakim> * Zakim sees JosD on the speaker queue
14:30:12 <gk> I agree with Jan's point
14:30:16 <bwm> ack jos
14:30:18 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:30:28 <Zakim> +??P14
14:31:02 <DanC> [[[
14:31:03 <DanC> From: 	Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
14:31:03 <DanC> To: 	RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
14:31:03 <DanC> Subject: 	draft question: option C
14:31:03 <DanC> Date: 	10 Oct 2002 21:50:11 +0100
14:31:04 <DanC> ]]]
14:31:22 <DaveB> -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0098.html
14:31:34 <Zakim> -??P14
14:31:41 <jjcscribe> we are takingitem 8 together with item 7
14:31:51 <AaronSw> I dissent to the possible additions
14:32:06 <jjcscribe> q+ I strongly rpefer the additions
14:32:08 <Zakim> * Zakim jjcscribe, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...'
14:32:40 <DanC> AaronSw, I was a bit asleep w.r.t the 6Sep decision, but I don't think you're giving new info here.
14:32:43 <jjcscribe> q+ to strongly prefer the additions
14:32:45 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:32:45 <Zakim> +??P14
14:33:53 <jjcscribe> Aaron: additional datatype stuff (from the older decision) gives me stuff to implement that I don't want
14:35:12 <em> em has joined #rdfcore
14:35:47 <jjcscribe> PatrickS: is it a type clash
14:35:56 <Zakim> +Guha
14:36:08 <jjcscribe> jjc: I like the range constraint and the untyped literal stuff ..
14:36:27 <jjcscribe> bwm: I believe I have heard that people prefer the additions
14:36:28 <DaveB> +1 to addition (since it reconfirms an existing decision)
14:36:40 <Zakim> +??P3
14:36:46 <Zakim> -??P3
14:36:46 <Zakim> -AaronSw
14:37:12 <Zakim> +AaronSw
14:37:32 <jjcscribe> 9: putting the question
14:37:38 <jjcscribe> q+
14:37:39 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:38:07 <jjcscribe> ack
14:38:18 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:38:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, ILRT, GK, Bwm, Jos, SteveP, EricM, PatH?, Mike_Dean, DanC, DanBri, ??P14, Guha, AaronSw
14:38:20 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, Jjcscribe, Jan_g
14:38:25 <DaveB> -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0098.html
14:38:25 <jjcscribe> bwm: would anyone object to a formal vote now
14:38:47 <jjcscribe> optional parts are included in question, there is a typo corrected by graham
14:38:49 <DanC> 0098 as ammended per Graham's fix
14:39:14 <jjcscribe> otpions are AYE, CONCUR, ABSTAIN, NO
14:39:27 <DaveB> this is per-person or org?
14:39:49 <jjcscribe> bwm: per-org
14:39:57 <jan_g> "aye" sounds like "I ..."
14:40:11 <danbri> For W3C, I defer to DanC (or Em)
14:40:48 <danbri> FWIW I support DanC's 'AYE'
14:41:01 <jjcscribe> CAAAANANAAAA
14:41:02 <DanC> poll: C Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y
14:41:33 <DanC> 10/2 > 2/3, yes
14:41:38 <DanC> er... oops...
14:41:49 <DanC> yes, 10/2 > 2/3, yes
14:41:49 <DaveB> just do it bwm!
14:41:51 <jjcscribe> We are putting the question ...
14:41:58 <jan_g> please, ask the question
14:42:15 <jjcscribe> FrankM: concur
14:42:27 <jjcscribe> ILRT: yes
14:42:37 <jjcscribe> Graham: yes
14:42:40 <jjcscribe> Jos: yes
14:42:43 <jjcscribe> Steve: yes
14:42:45 <jjcscribe> PatH: yes
14:42:52 <jjcscribe> MikeD: no
14:42:56 <jjcscribe> W3C: yes
14:42:59 <jjcscribe> Nokia: no
14:43:02 <jjcscribe> Guha: yes
14:43:05 <jjcscribe> Aaron: yes
14:43:07 <jjcscribe> HP: yes
14:43:21 <gk> * gk DanC, I think you meant 10/(10+2) = 10/12 > 2/3, no?
14:43:25 <DanC> so RESOLVED, Nokia and Mike Dean dissenting
14:43:29 <jan_g> * jan_g makes tmesis out of "hooray" by putting in a rude word
14:43:30 <jjcscribe> Decisioon carried 10 to 2
14:43:41 <DanC> * DanC doesn't feel like cheering when we've got dissent outstanding
14:43:53 <DaveB> wait till we show it to the outside world
14:43:56 <Zakim> -Guha
14:44:51 <DaveB> several existing actions cover this re-decision; esp with rdf:datatype
14:45:26 <jjcscribe> Sergey: proxy was not counted -vote changed 11 to 2
14:46:21 <DaveB> sergey's proxy in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0375.html
14:46:36 <DanC> yes, please, let's have the example from today's question in the RDF Schema spec.
14:47:17 <em> q+
14:47:18 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jjcscribe, Em on the speaker queue
14:47:20 <jjcscribe> PatH - has model theory stuff to do
14:47:21 <DaveB> q+
14:47:22 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jjcscribe, Em, DaveB on the speaker queue
14:47:32 <jjcscribe> Schema some stuff to do
14:47:42 <jjcscribe> Test Cases they are in the question
14:47:54 <JosD> q+
14:47:55 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jjcscribe, Em, DaveB, JosD on the speaker queue
14:47:57 <bwm> ack jjcscribe
14:47:58 <jjcscribe> ACTION: jang - add test cases
14:47:58 <Zakim> Jjcscribe, you wanted to strongly prefer the additions and to 
14:47:58 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Em, DaveB, JosD on the speaker queue
14:47:59 <RRSAgent> * RRSAgent records action 1
14:48:15 <jjcscribe> q+
14:48:17 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Em, DaveB, JosD, Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:48:21 <em> ack em
14:48:22 <Zakim> * Zakim sees DaveB, JosD, Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:48:23 <bwm> ack em
14:48:24 <em> ack daveb
14:48:24 <Zakim> * Zakim sees DaveB, JosD, Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:48:25 <Zakim> * Zakim sees JosD, Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:48:27 <DanC> * DanC hopes to have a fairly complete set of drafts to review within 2 weeks.
14:49:12 <gk> * gk I'd hope so too
14:49:52 <DanC> * DanC q+ to ask about ntriples...
14:49:53 <Zakim> * Zakim sees JosD, Jjcscribe, DanC on the speaker queue
14:50:06 <bwm> ack danC
14:50:07 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask about ntriples...
14:50:08 <Zakim> * Zakim sees JosD, Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:50:19 <bwm> ack JosD
14:50:20 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Jjcscribe on the speaker queue
14:50:22 <jjcscribe> ACTION: daveb make changes to ntriple
14:50:22 <RRSAgent> * RRSAgent records action 2
14:50:25 <DaveB> the ntriples will be <dataytpeURI>"blah"
14:50:35 <DanC> hmm...
14:50:37 <Zakim> -AaronSw
14:51:01 <jjcscribe> bwm: in illustrative examples q:name"foO"
14:51:14 <bwm> ack jjcscribe
14:51:15 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
14:51:46 <DaveB> as I outlined in in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0198.html - I'm making change 3 only
14:51:58 <DaveB> um, and change 1
14:52:22 <jjcscribe> danc: concepts seems critical path
14:52:27 <JosD> * JosD thinks that works i.e. <dt-uri>"abc" and eg:dt"abc"
14:52:56 <JosD> * JosD ... at least in our running code
14:53:00 <DanC> * DanC noodles on a process idea... any WG decision that isn't published in a WD within, say, 2 months, is vacated.
14:53:48 <jjcscribe> jjc: webont guide would benefit from new RDF Xyntax WD
14:54:16 <DanC> ... that shows parseType="Collection" details.
14:54:56 <jjcscribe> ACTION: jjc circulate new version of concepts doc
14:54:57 <RRSAgent> * RRSAgent records action 3
14:55:25 <DanC> * DanC awaits action on syntax spec...
14:55:28 <jjcscribe> ACTION: daveb circulate new version of syntax doc, with a view to publication
14:55:30 <RRSAgent> * RRSAgent records action 4
14:55:49 <jjcscribe> gk: i think agenda item 12 should be deleted from next agedna
14:56:01 <jjcscribe> gk: it is passed its sell by date
14:56:09 <jjcscribe> close early
14:56:10 <Zakim> -SteveP
14:56:11 <Zakim> -Jos
14:56:13 <Zakim> -ILRT
14:56:14 <Zakim> -??P14
14:56:16 <Zakim> -Bwm
14:56:20 <Zakim> -DanC
14:56:28 <Zakim> -FrankM
14:56:28 <Zakim> -DanBri
14:57:24 <DaveB> DaveB has quit
14:57:31 <JosD> JosD has quit
14:57:33 <em> zakim, please disconnect me
14:57:34 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not see a party named 'em'
14:57:40 <em> zakim, please disconnect EricM
14:57:41 <Zakim> EricM is being disconnected
14:57:42 <Zakim> -EricM
14:58:55 <jan_g> jan_g has quit
15:02:09 <jjcscribe> jjcscribe has quit
15:02:21 <Zakim> -PatH?
15:02:56 <danbri> danbri has left #rdfcore
15:03:10 <bwm> bwm has quit
15:04:38 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
15:04:46 <Zakim> -GK
15:04:47 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
15:15:08 <gk> gk has quit
16:33:45 <mdean> mdean has quit