W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2002-12-06

14:01:03 Users on #rdfcore: @logger

14:51:15 <AaronSw> zakim, this will be rdf

14:51:17 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw

14:58:50 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM matches both RDF and rdf

14:58:57 <AaronSw> zakim, this will be rdf

14:58:58 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw, I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM already started

14:59:01 <AaronSw> zakim, this is rdf

14:59:03 <Zakim> this was already SW_RDFCore()10:00AM

14:59:03 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw

14:59:09 <DaveB> Zakim, who's here

14:59:10 <Zakim> DaveB, you need to end that query with '?'

14:59:14 <AaronSw> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:59:14 <DaveB> Zakim, who's here?

14:59:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P13

14:59:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P13

14:59:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see JosD, Zakim, AaronSw, DaveB, bwm, logger

14:59:22 <DaveB> Zakim, ??P13 is ILRT

14:59:23 <Zakim> +ILRT; got it

14:59:32 <DaveB> Zakim, ILRT has bwm, jang, DaveB

14:59:33 <Zakim> +Bwm, Jang, DaveB; got it

15:00:06 <Zakim> +??P14

15:00:25 <DaveB> Zakim, ??P14 is SteveP

15:00:27 <Zakim> +SteveP; got it

15:01:03 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean

15:01:17 <Zakim> +??P16

15:01:30 <DaveB> Zakim, ??P16 is JosD

15:01:32 <Zakim> +JosD; got it

15:01:50 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

15:01:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see ILRT, SteveP, Mike_Dean, JosD

15:01:52 <Zakim> ILRT has Bwm, Jang, DaveB

15:02:21 <Zakim> +PatH

15:02:46 <Zakim> +AaronSw

15:03:15 <Zakim> +FrankM

15:04:13 <DaveB> meeting starts

15:04:15 <Zakim> +Ralph

15:04:41 <DaveB> Ralph standing in for eric, or danbri

15:04:45 <Zakim> +??P24

15:04:46 <DaveB> DaveB scribe

15:04:53 <AaronSw> zakim, ??p24 is grahamk

15:04:54 <DaveB> agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0059.html

15:04:55 <Zakim> +Grahamk; got it

15:05:10 <DaveB> item 1

15:05:22 <DaveB> DaveB has changed the topic to: rdfcore http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0059.html

15:05:36 <DaveB> next week grahamK scribe

15:05:37 <RalphS> [Ralph stands-in for EricM]

15:05:43 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone

15:05:44 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', bwm

15:05:48 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

15:05:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see ILRT, SteveP, Mike_Dean, JosD, PatH, AaronSw, FrankM, Ralph, Grahamk

15:05:50 <Zakim> ILRT has Bwm, Jang, DaveB

15:06:15 <DaveB> item 2 roll call above

15:06:19 <DaveB> item 3 agenda review

15:06:19 <Zakim> +DanBri

15:06:21 <Zakim> +??P25

15:06:32 <DaveB> frankm: rdf:value ?

15:06:41 <Zakim> -??P25

15:06:45 <Zakim> -DanBri

15:06:46 <DaveB> bwm adds that under primer

15:06:54 <DaveB> item 7

15:06:58 <DaveB> er, under item 7

15:07:28 <DaveB> item 4

15:07:34 <DaveB> next telcon 13 dec 2002

15:07:37 <DaveB> item 5

15:07:39 <DaveB> minutes of 2002-11-2

15:07:43 <DaveB> approved

15:07:47 <DaveB> item 6 completed actions

15:08:01 <Zakim> +??P25

15:08:14 <DaveB> Zakim, ??P25 is danbri

15:08:15 <Zakim> +Danbri; got it

15:08:15 <AaronSw> zakim, ??p25 is danbri

15:08:17 <Zakim> sorry, AaronSw, I do not recognize a party named '??p25'

15:08:19 <Zakim> -Danbri

15:08:28 <Zakim> +DanBri

15:08:29 <DaveB> item 7

15:08:32 <DaveB> primer

15:09:43 <DaveB> frankm: hope to have a last call candidate by next friday 13th

15:10:14 <DaveB> issue of rdf:value; or vocab that has things "over or above" the MT

15:10:21 <DaveB> such as rdf:Alt

15:10:41 <DaveB> which the primer goes into; what to say about these things?

15:10:55 <Zakim> +??P25

15:11:11 <DaveB> PatH: worry about combination of saying in MT that it has no meaning then having stuff in the primer, seems odd combination

15:11:28 <DaveB> ... either don't encourage people to use it

15:11:35 <DaveB> (rdfs:Label is ok though)

15:12:10 <DaveB> danbri: using meaning vs "no further inferential semantics"

15:12:20 <Zakim> +??P26

15:12:28 <jjc> Zakim, who is on the call?

15:12:28 <Zakim> -??P26

15:12:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see ILRT, SteveP, Mike_Dean, JosD, PatH, AaronSw, FrankM, Ralph, Grahamk, DanBri, ??P25

15:12:31 <Zakim> ILRT has Bwm, Jang, DaveB

15:12:31 <DaveB> Zakim, ??P25 is danbri

15:12:33 <Zakim> +Danbri; got it

15:12:50 <Zakim> + +358.408.aaaa

15:12:57 * RalphS wonders if DanBri is really on twice?

15:12:59 <jjc> Zakim, Danbri is Jeremy

15:13:00 <Zakim> sorry, jjc, I do not recognize a party named 'Danbri'

15:13:12 <AaronSw> zakim, where is 358?

15:13:13 <DaveB> oops

15:13:14 <Zakim> sorry, I do not know where North American dialing code 1.358 is, AaronSw

15:13:17 * RalphS zakim, who's on the phone?

15:13:18 * Zakim sees on the phone: ILRT, SteveP, Mike_Dean, JosD, PatH, AaronSw, FrankM, Ralph, Grahamk, DanBri, Danbri, +358.408.aaaa

15:13:19 * Zakim ILRT has Bwm, Jang, DaveB

15:13:21 <DaveB> italy

15:13:23 <jjc> Zakim, Danbri is Jeremy

15:13:25 <Zakim> sorry, jjc, I do not recognize a party named 'Danbri'

15:13:30 <jjc> Jeremy is here!!

15:13:41 <DaveB> Zakim, +358.408.aaaa is jjc

15:13:42 <Zakim> +Jjc; got it

15:13:44 <AaronSw> is +358.408.aaaa jeremy

15:13:50 <AaronSw> hm, two jeremies too?

15:14:04 <jjc> No +358 is not italy.

15:14:11 <RalphS> zakim, where is +358?

15:14:12 <Zakim> country code 358 is Finland

15:14:12 <DaveB> sigh

15:14:16 <DaveB> ah

15:14:19 <AaronSw> zakim, jeremy is PatrickS

15:14:21 <Zakim> sorry, AaronSw, I do not recognize a party named 'jeremy'

15:14:27 <AaronSw> zakim, jjc is PatrickS

15:14:29 <Zakim> +PatrickS; got it

15:15:06 <DaveB> bwm: we've already decided to keep rdf:value with no formal meaning, not to deprecate

15:15:13 <RalphS> zakim, who's on the phone?

15:15:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see ILRT, SteveP, Mike_Dean, JosD, PatH, AaronSw, FrankM, Ralph, Grahamk, DanBri, Jeremy, PatrickS

15:15:15 <Zakim> ILRT has Bwm, Jang, DaveB

15:15:21 * RalphS pats zakim

15:15:52 <DaveB> ... path: your concern is the stuff in the primer; make sure it does not look like formal inferencing from reading the text

15:15:59 <DaveB> PatH: yes, that's it

15:16:07 <DaveB> gk: +1

15:16:45 <DaveB> frankm: I'd like some guidance on what to say, if this is what is wanted

15:16:56 <DaveB> ... since the current words are pretty much what M&S says

15:18:20 <DaveB> primer text on rdf:value "4.3.1 more on structured values" http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#rdfvalue

15:18:45 <DaveB> ACTION PatH: suggest alternate text on rdf:value for primer by Monday 9th

15:20:20 <DaveB> jjc suggests adding schema info to the primer examples for rdf:value, putting it's meaning there. leaving rdf:value alone in the rdfs

15:21:14 <jjc> (e.g. a schema defn for exterms:units that explicitly says that it looks atthe rdf:value)

15:21:16 <DaveB> ACTION PatH: update the rdf:value desc in the semantics doc

15:21:40 <DaveB> FrankM: isDefinedBy mentioned not described in the primer. Do people want that added? If so, let me know.

15:21:49 <RalphS> [Ralph is happy to note that the 20021124 editor's draft of the primer says:

15:21:50 <RalphS> RDF does not associate any particular meaning with it. rdf:value is simply provided as a convenience for use in these commonly-occurring situations.

15:22:13 <RalphS> ... at the end of 4.4.1 http://www.w3.org/2001/09/rdfprimer/rdf-primer-20021124.html#rdfvalue ]

15:23:48 <DaveB> Action PatrickS: draft one paragraph about rdfs:isDefinedBy and other terms to draw out them for readers of the primer

15:24:01 <DaveB> (exact list of terms, tbd)

15:25:06 <DaveB> re issue primer/schema sync over isDefinedBy

15:25:16 <DaveB> -> schema item

15:25:28 <DaveB> item 8 concepts

15:25:54 <DaveB> gk: pretty much done

15:26:41 <DaveB> jjc: some discussion on uri-ref text

15:28:14 <DaveB> +1 from PatH, daveb to explicitly writing "there are blank nodes" rather than define by complement of other terms (urirefs, literals)

15:28:39 <DaveB> ACTION jjc: write explicit definition of (set of) blank nodes in concepts

15:29:22 <DaveB> ... discussion of third-party vocabs

15:29:59 <DaveB> ... still wordsmithing that

15:30:07 <DaveB> bwm: any other issues for wg/telcon?

15:30:45 <DaveB> jjc: currently not proposing to mention smenatic extensions in concepts doc?

15:30:52 <DaveB> path: +1

15:30:54 <JosD> Pat's 3rd party vocab proposed text http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Dec/0065.html

15:31:07 <DaveB> smenatic=semantic

15:31:23 <DaveB> gk: we're done anytime now

15:31:51 <DaveB> DaveB: go ahead and renumber/reorder if you like

15:32:59 <DaveB> ACTION jjc: concepts doc renumbering/reordering done by Tuesday 10th

15:33:16 <DaveB> concepts will be last call candidate by friday 13th

15:33:21 <DaveB> item 9 semantics doc

15:33:45 <Zakim> -AaronSw

15:33:50 <Zakim> +AaronSw

15:33:55 <DaveB> PatH: basically done apart from changes wanted by group - removing rdf:value comment, adding patrick's xsd summary (as appendix maybe) - relatively quick

15:34:05 <DaveB> ... still needs internal HTML tidying and anchors

15:34:22 <DaveB> bwm: datatypes schema

15:34:28 <DaveB> ... concern about putting that in

15:35:09 <DaveB> ... the world does make closed world assumptions on reading doc; so putting in an ontology (that might turn out to be incomplete, needs discussion with XSD, other groups) then we might be publishing a spec that is "wrong", is a concern

15:35:24 <DaveB> PatH: can put in another doc?

15:35:45 <DaveB> bwm: that is possible; a separate schema, or a note that could be revisioned; a link to it may not be required

15:35:54 <DaveB> PatH: good idea

15:35:57 <DaveB> PatrickS: fine

15:36:18 <DaveB> JosD: I like jjc's schema and have checked it

15:37:06 <DaveB> jjc: discussion of XSD datatype relationships; implicit and explicit

15:37:45 <DaveB> ... there are three levels of XSD facts, as far as jjc understands

15:38:16 <DaveB> PatrickS: I've done an extended schema; this might be something worth showing to XSD wg

15:38:59 <DaveB> bwm: I suggest that it would be nice if there is an rdf schema at the XSD namespace uRI. That would certainly need agreement from XSD.

15:39:19 <DaveB> ... have discussed this at semweb CG and actioned emiller to take this to XSD groupo

15:39:41 <DaveB> general agreement for this; wait for feedback from emiller action

15:40:01 <DaveB> jang: if owl can express more; would that mean that there could be an owl one there too?

15:40:22 <DaveB> bwm: that si something for them to discuss

15:40:53 <DaveB> PatH: I'd like people to look at rdf:XMLLiteral since it now appears throughout the doc

15:41:18 <DaveB> ... which is new; want to check if it is ok. DOes it effect, need test case changes?

15:41:51 <DaveB> ... for e.g. since XMLLiteral is a datatype; ytou can't check it unless you have datatype entailment for bad wf lexical forms

15:42:31 <DaveB> ACTION jang: Check the use of rdf:XMLLiteral in the current semantics editor's draft re test cases, does it fit there ok

15:43:22 <jang> call it 'director's cut' version :-)

15:43:26 <DaveB> last call candidate semantics wd - friday 13th

15:43:34 <DaveB> item 10 syntax

15:43:41 <jang> dave~: pretty much ready

15:43:49 <jang> parsetype literal discussion only thing going on

15:43:53 <jang> we're pretty much tehre

15:43:55 <jang> bwm:

15:43:59 <jang> lc candidates are "this is is"

15:44:03 <jang> it, even

15:44:08 <jang> (ewxcuse mac ketbroad)

15:44:15 <jang> we're going to review, bugfix

15:44:26 <jang> buit I'd like editors to be saying: this is a lc candidate, without caveats

15:44:38 <jang> daveb: syntax lc cand: monday

15:44:59 <jang> daveb: wondering about taking out relaxng schema

15:45:02 <jang> it's staying as an appendix

15:45:09 <jang> syntax, done

15:45:11 <DaveB> item 11 schema

15:45:36 <DaveB> danbri: still in progress

15:46:39 <DaveB> bwm: not sure how long it'll take this to get into shape

15:47:10 <DaveB> bwm and danbri discuss editing

15:48:09 <DaveB> in summary: schema may not make last call deadline of 13th

15:48:18 <DaveB> item 12 test cases

15:48:32 <DaveB> jang: doing doc review, expect to finish wed including updated test cases

15:48:39 <DaveB> bwm: review of specific test cases?

15:48:57 <DaveB> jang: some things will need reviewing, will bring to group wed/thu

15:49:11 <Zakim> -AaronSw

15:49:20 <DaveB> bwm: if there are no contentious test cases, tehn review the test cases as part of doc

15:49:28 <DaveB> bwm: any controversial ones?

15:49:39 <DaveB> JosD: might be some in datatyping

15:49:46 <DaveB> ... but I'm quite happy

15:50:30 <DaveB> DaveB: some test case in xmlbase has two rdf:RDF's in it; is not rdf/xml

15:51:13 <DaveB> it's XML

15:51:21 <RalphS> [specifically, XML only allows one "root" element per document]

15:51:24 <DaveB> and IIRC testing the scope of rdf:ID

15:52:33 <DaveB> jjc asks if rdf:RDF can be in an rdf/xml doc twice

15:52:49 <DaveB> daveb says no; but it can be in an embeedded xml file multiple types

15:52:56 * RalphS wonders which specific test case this is?

15:54:07 <DaveB> ACTION jang: find the 2xrdf:RDF test case (we think an xml:base one), find out what it was testing and adddress replcing/deleting or updating

15:54:47 <DaveB> RalphS: yes, but we're asking if there can be two rdf:RDF elements somewhere in rdf/xml mime type docs

15:55:21 <jjc>http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/test005.rdf

15:55:38 <RalphS> [RDF could say that rdf:RDF is embeddable in some other element, in which case there can be more than one. But I don't know the specific case that Jan was citing]

15:55:44 <DaveB> jjc: not that one

15:55:51 <DaveB> jjc: but that isn't rdf/xml either

15:56:21 <DaveB> RalphS: it does say that; but the outer XMl doc isn't rdf/xml then

15:57:27 <RalphS> [ok, I see the distinction you're making]

15:57:40 <DaveB> ACTION PatH: produce wording on effective use of closure rules on datatyping (sec 4.3)

15:57:59 <jang> actually, that test case from earlier is ok: it was xmlbase/test014.rdf

15:59:13 <DaveB> ACTION jang: check list of testcase actions under item 12 agenda, confirm with bwm tha tthey are all done

15:59:32 <DaveB> jjc notes 2002-04-05#5 and 2002-09-20#1 are done

15:59:46 <DaveB> last call candidate of test cases fri 13th

15:59:51 <DaveB> item 13 lbase

15:59:58 <Zakim> -Grahamk

16:00:01 <Zakim> -SteveP

16:00:16 <DaveB> semantic doc refs lbase

16:00:24 <DaveB> bwm: so better send it out

16:00:54 <DaveB> danbri: some changes from pat yet to merge in

16:02:49 <DaveB> discussion of pub priorities; schema first before lbase

16:02:59 <DaveB> but lbase needed before actual last call wd pub

16:03:19 <DaveB> item 14 last deliverable

16:03:58 <DaveB> bwm: unsure what to do about this issue?

16:04:08 <DaveB> [RalphS: you got any ideas here eihter?]

16:04:32 <jjc> zakim, who is speaking?

16:04:44 <DaveB> danbri: could do a large amount of things but at the minimum, need to discuss rdf schema and web ontologies w/ xsd

16:04:44 <Zakim> jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ILRT (4%), FrankM (35%), DanBri (78%)

16:06:31 <DaveB> danbri: not sure what size this would be, where this would go, or what it's normative status would be

16:07:19 <DaveB> RalphS: points at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0473.html

16:07:37 <DaveB> ... seems to me, syntax doc is one place where rdf/xml uses xml itself

16:07:53 <DaveB> ... intent of lang in original charter was for them to pay more tattention to xml tech

16:08:01 <DaveB> ... which has happened

16:08:57 <DaveB> ... Given eveidence that wg has done due dilligence on checking with XMl tech, it would meet the intent of the charter if brian's doc above was part of a FAQ

16:09:05 <DaveB> ... a WG-endoresed faq response

16:09:43 <DaveB> jjc: suggests key/values of xml tech/discussion, ptrs such as xlink -> ron daniel Jr's xlink/rdf note

16:10:14 <DaveB> danbri: often xml & rdf compares done as trees & graphs but rdf is about the world, rather than about doc

16:10:28 <DaveB> PatH: rdf intended to be machine accessible propositional content

16:10:52 <DaveB> ... Ora Lassilla (?) or Frank van Harmelen (sp?) has some slides on this

16:11:20 <DaveB> frankm: not too clear why an rdf or xml purchase order

16:11:32 <DaveB> bwm: a potentially huge rathole

16:12:02 <DaveB> ... find the faq, series of q & a approach appealing

16:12:09 <DaveB> agreement

16:12:19 <DaveB> jang: can also have low overhead, brief, updates more dynamic

16:12:56 <DaveB> DECISION: Will produce FAQs on the relationship between XML and RDF

16:13:38 <DaveB> ACTION bwm: to ensure rdf and xml FAQs get written; delegate this if appropriate

16:13:40 <JosD> e.g. like in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/att-0473/01-2002-11-06-rdfRxml.html

16:13:47 <DaveB> item 15 schedule

16:13:59 <DaveB> bwm: everyone except schema say last call candidate by fri 13th?

16:14:13 <DaveB> frankm: not confident about meeting that

16:14:22 <DaveB> danbri: there will be a new version of schema by 13th

16:16:01 <DaveB> discussion of dates...

16:17:57 * RalphS thinks he can't add much to this; needs to leave for another telecon (already late)

16:18:39 <bwm> thanks for coming ralph

16:19:03 <DaveB> <lots of bg noise>

16:19:15 <RalphS> Brian, you might ask of those people not available for a telecon on the 20th, who could send email?

16:19:16 <jang> zakim, who is talking?

16:19:28 <Zakim> jang, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ILRT (42%), FrankM (29%)

16:19:40 <RalphS> [i.e. send an 'ok to publish' to the group]

16:19:50 * RalphS waves 'bye

16:19:51 <Zakim> -DanBri

16:20:02 <Zakim> -Ralph

16:20:47 <DaveB> discussion of a clear voting process for pubing last call wds

16:21:15 <DaveB> jjc: need positive affirmation to pub

16:22:11 <DaveB> ACTION bwm: work out the voting process for last call approval, possibly by email

16:22:30 <DaveB> MEETING CLOSED

16:22:37 <Zakim> -ILRT

16:22:37 <Zakim> -PatH

16:22:38 <Zakim> -Jeremy

16:22:38 <Zakim> -PatrickS

16:22:41 <Zakim> -FrankM

16:22:42 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean

16:22:43 <Zakim> -JosD

16:22:44 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended