W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-03-21

14:00:01 Users on #rdfcore: @logger

14:57:19 em has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2003-03-21 teleconference

14:58:50 * RRSAgent is logging

15:01:04 <jjc> anyone on the call yet?

15:01:15 <DaveB> yes

15:01:30 <DaveB> Zakim, who's on the phone?

15:01:30 <Zakim> sorry, DaveB, I don't know what conference this is

15:01:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjc, bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DaveB, danbri, logger

15:01:35 <DaveB> Zakim, this is rdfcore

15:01:35 <Zakim> ok, DaveB

15:01:38 <DaveB> Zakim, who's on the phone?

15:01:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P1, ??P2, ??P3, FrankM, EricP

15:01:39 <danbri> zakim, EricP is temporarily DanBri

15:01:39 <Zakim> +DanBri; got it

15:01:43 <Zakim> +EMiller

15:01:44 * danbri waves

15:01:58 <jjc> Zakim, who's on the call?

15:01:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P1, ??P2 (muted), ??P3, FrankM, DanBri, EMiller

15:02:02 <jjc> I am P2

15:02:11 <jjc> Zakim, ??P2 is jjc.

15:02:11 <Zakim> +jjc.; got it

15:02:21 <danbri> zakim, mute danbri

15:02:21 <Zakim> DanBri should now be muted

15:02:23 <DaveB> muted

15:02:24 <jjc> Zakim, unmute jjc.

15:02:25 <Zakim> jjc. should no longer be muted

15:02:29 zakim, who is here?

15:02:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P1, jjc., ??P3, FrankM, DanBri (muted), EMiller

15:02:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjc, bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DaveB, danbri, logger

15:03:30 <bwm> zakim, ??p1 is bwm

15:03:30 <Zakim> +bwm; got it

15:03:44 <DaveB> Zakim, ??p3 is ilrt

15:03:44 <Zakim> +ilrt; got it

15:03:45 <Zakim> +??P6

15:03:50 <DaveB> Zakim, ?pp3 has jang, daveb

15:03:50 <Zakim> sorry, DaveB, I do not recognize a party named '?pp3'

15:03:56 <DaveB> Zakim, ??p3 has jang, daveb

15:03:56 <Zakim> sorry, DaveB, I do not recognize a party named '??p3'

15:04:05 <DaveB> Zakim, ilrt has jang, daveb

15:04:05 <Zakim> +jang, daveb; got it

15:04:12 zakim, ??P6 is jos

15:04:12 <Zakim> +jos; got it

15:04:13 <jjc> Zakim, who's on the call?

15:04:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see bwm, jjc., ilrt, FrankM, DanBri (muted), EMiller, jos

15:04:15 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

15:04:23 <jjc> Zakim, who's on the call?

15:04:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see bwm (muted), jjc., ilrt, FrankM, DanBri (muted), EMiller, jos

15:04:25 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

15:04:35 * jang eventually manages to join £rdfcore once he finds # on the imac keyboard

15:04:53 <jjc> Zakim, jjc. is jjc

15:04:54 <Zakim> +jjc; got it

15:04:59 <Zakim> +Pat_Hayes

15:05:30 <DaveB> DaveB is now known as db-scribe

15:05:37 <db-scribe> agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0129.html

15:06:18 <db-scribe> ^- above is correct agenda, has wrong date on it

15:06:31 <Zakim> +PatrickS

15:07:59 brb

15:08:38 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

15:08:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see bwm, jjc, ilrt, FrankM, DanBri (muted), EMiller, jos, Pat_Hayes, PatrickS (muted)

15:08:40 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

15:08:45 <danbri> zakim, unmute me

15:08:45 <Zakim> DanBri should no longer be muted

15:08:58 <db-scribe> roll call above

15:09:02 <db-scribe> 3 review agenda

15:09:14 <db-scribe> jang - aob - 30 seconds on copyright & xml comments in test cases

15:09:57 <db-scribe> ACTION jang: update copyright and xml declaration to all tests cases

15:09:58 * RRSAgent records action 1

15:10:43 <db-scribe> discussion of xml decl, favour having both tests with & without

15:10:50 <db-scribe> up to jang to leave it his discression

15:11:01 <db-scribe> bwm - aob - pfps does not accept pfps-08

15:11:04 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean

15:11:24 <db-scribe> 4 next telcon

15:11:38 not sure if we've done regrets yest... regrets from DanC

15:11:39 <db-scribe> 28 mar, 2 hours same time

15:11:57 <db-scribe> danbri scribe

15:12:10 <db-scribe> item 2 - roll call regrets from danc, grahamK

15:12:28 <db-scribe> minutes approved

15:12:34 <db-scribe> item 6

15:12:39 q+

15:12:39 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

15:12:57 q-

15:12:57 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:12:59 <db-scribe> item 6 xsd 1.1 requirements

15:13:06 i have

15:13:12 (briefly)

15:13:17 <db-scribe> daveb's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0101.html

15:13:21 but yes, i thought is was quit excellent

15:13:27 <db-scribe> patricks, bwm, em read it

15:13:44 * em has to mute for the next couple min

15:14:03 <db-scribe> jjc says would vote for

15:14:03 <danbri> I've not. Did have a little offlist discussion w/ HenryT on rdf syntax design

15:14:33 <db-scribe> danbri: that's different

15:14:53 <db-scribe> bwm: "Define the identity relation clearly." wording?

15:15:36 <db-scribe> JosD___: all ok

15:15:50 <db-scribe> daveb; discusses asking for identity, equality relation clearly defn

15:16:40 <db-scribe> jjc's xsd analysis http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/att-0092/02-index

15:16:47 <db-scribe> jjc: anyURI in a striing question

15:17:10 <db-scribe> would like to see clarity on whether xsd:anyURI and xsd:string may or may not be equal

15:17:14 <db-scribe> ^-jjc

15:17:48 <db-scribe> path: didn't capture it, string equality?

15:17:58 <db-scribe> bwm: would like to do rdf subclass relationships between schema datatypes

15:18:09 <db-scribe> and need clarity on where there is intersection on value space

15:18:13 <db-scribe> such as uri & string value space

15:18:45 <db-scribe> rather, subclass relationships between the value spaces

15:18:52 <db-scribe> and that links to jjc's study

15:19:27 <db-scribe> jjc: may not have time to commit to work on this xsd coordination

15:20:18 <db-scribe> JosD___: as well as subclass, also is the range relationships. If the range of a property is an int and anunsigned long, is it an unsigned int?

15:20:29 <db-scribe> path: I think we are covered by the answer to subclass

15:21:49 <db-scribe> ACTION daveb: make comment to xsd based on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0101.html plus value space subclassing, link to jjc study, maybe range relationships. Mention xsd anyURI & string equality question in particular

15:21:49 * RRSAgent records action 2

15:21:57 <db-scribe> item 7 incoming comments

15:22:22 <db-scribe> jang: need to assign some issues on comments that are still coming in

15:22:39 <db-scribe> bwm: ought to focus on live issues

15:22:49 <db-scribe> ... editorial discression

15:23:43 <db-scribe> danbri: schema

15:23:57 <db-scribe> 4 things left on my q needing responses

15:24:04 <db-scribe> then we're in LC update

15:24:13 <danbri> my queue: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt

15:24:36 <db-scribe> jjc: i18n haven't made an official comment

15:24:40 <danbri> One thing on my queue:

15:24:40 <danbri> [

15:24:41 <danbri> PFPS: divergences between rdf semantics and rdf schema

15:24:41 <danbri>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0124.html

15:24:41 <danbri> ]

15:24:47 <db-scribe> jjc: need to give them a timeout

15:25:27 <db-scribe> ACTION bwm: remind i18 if they are going to comment on rdf lc wds, ask nicely :)

15:25:27 * RRSAgent records action 3

15:25:28 <danbri> q+ to ask for advise re this todo

15:25:28 * Zakim sees danbri on the speaker queue

15:25:55 <db-scribe> above ACTION 3 to em

15:26:04 <db-scribe> q- danbri

15:26:04 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:26:12 <db-scribe> danbri: a missed pfps comment, above ...

15:26:13 <bwm> ack danbri

15:26:13 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:26:50 <db-scribe> bwm: pfps comment on process

15:30:25 <db-scribe> his message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0558.html

15:31:18 <danbri> q+ on 'what is rdfs'

15:31:18 * Zakim danbri, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...'

15:31:23 <danbri> q+ to waffle re 'what is rdfs'

15:31:23 * Zakim sees danbri on the speaker queue

15:37:44 <danbri> q-

15:37:44 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:40:55 <db-scribe> end item 7

15:40:58 <jjc> Distinguish our identity relation from the mathematical relation of quantitative equality.

15:40:58 <jjc>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0130.html

15:40:58 <db-scribe> bwm: item 7a

15:41:09 <jjc> (oops)

15:41:12 <db-scribe> bwm: pfps-08

15:41:29 <db-scribe> pfps reply - not accepting it http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0558.html

15:41:43 <db-scribe> oop,s wrong url

15:42:13 <db-scribe> bwm: outline of problems pfps has with pfps-08 response

15:42:32 <db-scribe> pfps's reject of response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0539.html

15:42:55 <db-scribe> 0) process - didn't point to clarification text

15:43:06 <db-scribe> 1) semantic cleanliness

15:43:11 <db-scribe> 2) an owl entailment

15:43:38 <db-scribe> patricks: pfps' concern is valid even if rdf doesn't have sameIndividualAs

15:44:17 <db-scribe> path: this is an exceptional case ... the builtin

15:44:29 <db-scribe> ... datatype and not unreasonable it has a special trigger

15:44:38 <db-scribe> ... and you only get this if you use that URI

15:44:49 <db-scribe> ... we could go the other way and make it just a datatype

15:45:11 <db-scribe> ... This way makes the rdf:XMLLiteral closer to it's original - a syntactic marker for XML

15:45:15 <db-scribe> ... closer to the syntax.

15:46:05 <danbri> jang, 3 things left TODO on http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt now, Ian, WebOnt, Bijan; i think they're all partially answered, so needs a bit of archaeology... any chance you could help?

15:46:22 <db-scribe> PatrickS: making it the a datatype, the only one we define OR just a literal

15:46:47 <db-scribe> bwm: new information here?

15:48:09 <db-scribe> bwm: since we don't hear this from the WebOnt...

15:48:20 <db-scribe> PatrickS: I was under the impression this entailment did hold

15:48:30 <db-scribe> ... that it doesn't is unexpected

15:48:47 <db-scribe> Path (earlier): this was somewhat of my MT sematnics decisions

15:49:43 <db-scribe> discssion of dropping xml:lang on all DTs

15:49:52 <db-scribe> and reference to earlier negative comments when we did have that

15:50:07 <db-scribe> bwm: view on #3

15:50:32 <db-scribe> path: not impressed, doesn't imply to owl-DL, only owl-full

15:51:49 <db-scribe> jang: must make test case?

15:51:54 <db-scribe> jjc, path: not sure we can

15:52:27 <db-scribe> ACTIOn bwm: draft test case for item 3 of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0539.html

15:52:30 <Zakim> -PatrickS

15:52:33 <db-scribe> ACTION bwm: draft test case for item 3 of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0539.html

15:52:33 * RRSAgent records action 4

15:53:03 <db-scribe> bwm: have discussed pfps' non-acceptance of pfps-8

15:53:12 <db-scribe> and the decision stands

15:53:22 <db-scribe> path: no new information was given

15:54:46 <db-scribe> JosD___: clearly as we have described

15:54:54 <db-scribe> ... reference to webont

15:55:40 <db-scribe> Where people are discussion entailments that OWL should have, that should best come from webont

15:56:05 <db-scribe> DECISION: pfps-08 - the original decisions stand

15:56:13 <db-scribe> item 8

15:57:05 <db-scribe> xmlsch-08 has a draft

15:57:18 <db-scribe> daveb proposed response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0131.html

15:57:20 <db-scribe> item 9

15:57:22 <db-scribe> reagle-01

15:58:00 <db-scribe> proposal from jjc http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0074.html

15:58:04 <db-scribe> to answer reagle-01,-02

15:58:56 <db-scribe> daveb: like to see new words

15:58:57 <db-scribe> jjc: ok

15:58:58 <db-scribe> item 10

15:59:01 <db-scribe> williams-01

15:59:12 <db-scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0114.html

15:59:20 <db-scribe> ^- proposal from graham

16:00:39 <db-scribe> jjc: williams points out some faults, was surprised at our graph/nodes

16:02:26 <db-scribe> discussion of whether need new wording before approval

16:02:49 <db-scribe> frankm: related to the triples discussion

16:02:52 <db-scribe> ... subject, pred, object

16:03:03 <db-scribe> jjc; only error is statements isntead of triples

16:03:05 <db-scribe> in 3.2

16:03:34 * jang notes that the editor's draft of semantics gives the lie to PFPS' issue (-08?) in at least two ways. It no longer appears to be a problem in that document

16:03:38 <db-scribe> jjc finds more words that need changing

16:04:22 <db-scribe> bwm: right approach?

16:04:25 <db-scribe> general consensus

16:04:43 <db-scribe> APPROVED: graham's resolution in 0114.html above

16:05:20 <db-scribe> draftACTION gk: update the text to fix williams-01 in 0114.html and circulate the text to the WG

16:05:30 <db-scribe> frankm: care on bnodes sec

16:05:33 <db-scribe> jjc: more my section

16:05:51 <db-scribe> jjc: happy to accept the note at the end of 0114.html

16:06:01 <db-scribe> frankm: not so sure. we can be more specific.

16:07:55 <db-scribe> discussion of bnode (identifier) in abstract syntax

16:12:54 <db-scribe> bwm: some concerns on clarification

16:13:12 <db-scribe> ... if it isn't clarifying, maybe leave the last bit out

16:14:04 <db-scribe> ACTION gk: After accepted the 0114.html proposal on williams-01. Action toupdate the concepts text to fix williams-01 based on 0114.html and circulate the text to the WG.

16:14:04 * RRSAgent records action 5

16:15:01 <db-scribe> ACTION jjc: review section-rdf-graph (3) in 0114.html, circulate changes to the wg

16:15:02 * RRSAgent records action 6

16:15:30 <db-scribe> ACTION jjc: review section-blank-nodes in concepts, propose change/non-change or furthe rclafiifcation to the wg

16:15:30 * RRSAgent records action 7

16:16:13 <db-scribe> ACTION all editors: check the use of the term node in their WD and check their usage is consistent - primer has a "scruffy license"

16:16:23 <db-scribe> ACTION all: check the use of the term node in their WD and check their usage is consistent - primer has a "scruffy license"

16:16:24 * RRSAgent records action 8

16:16:33 <db-scribe> end williams-01

16:16:37 <db-scribe> item 11

16:16:42 <db-scribe> pfps 4,5,6,7,10

16:17:13 <db-scribe> jang: review, mostly ok

16:17:22 <db-scribe> ... would ask jjc to check denotation of xmlliteral

16:17:39 <db-scribe> pat's message to deal with these issues http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0069.html

16:17:50 <db-scribe> jang: ambiguityu in text datatyped literals - details in an email

16:17:56 <db-scribe> ... revised text seems to sort out the issue

16:18:04 <db-scribe> ... new text in 3.4 in particular

16:18:39 <jang> check the details of the denotation of XMLLiterals in section 3.1

16:18:42 <jang> ^^ action JJC

16:18:54 <jang> that is, of revised editor's semantics spec

16:18:55 <bwm> that 3.1 of semantics

16:18:57 <db-scribe> ACTION jjc: check the details of the denotation of XMLLiterals in section 3.1 of semantics

16:18:57 * RRSAgent records action 9

16:19:10 <db-scribe> gk's review pending

16:19:15 <db-scribe> item 12 xmlsch-09

16:19:20 <jang>http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_Editors.html#dtype_interp

16:19:27 <jang> (above url for jjc)

16:20:30 <jang> bwm: get into xmlsch-09 now or skip to horrocks -01?

16:20:42 <jang> dave: fine to move to horrocks-01 first

16:21:21 <db-scribe> item 16

16:21:26 <db-scribe> horrocks-01

16:21:52 <db-scribe> path's message on this http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0081.html

16:22:03 <db-scribe> ACTION 2003-03-14#11 pendning

16:22:05 <db-scribe> to produce words

16:22:39 <db-scribe> path: not sure I want to do this interacive

16:22:49 <db-scribe> item 12

16:24:52 <db-scribe> "4.2. QNames (Editorial, but important)"

16:24:57 <db-scribe> in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html

16:25:26 <bwm>http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-intro

16:26:39 <db-scribe> says "RDF/XML uses XML QNames to represent RDF URI References. "

16:26:47 <db-scribe> probably should say XML namespaced-names

16:27:30 having problems maintaining connection... argg..

16:28:09 <jjc> QName ::= (Prefix ':')? LocalPart

16:29:13 <db-scribe> click through in setion that they point

16:29:14 <db-scribe> out

16:29:31 <db-scribe> we should then reply pointing that out, mention that we don't require prefixses and say mane namespace-name

16:30:34 <db-scribe> resolution: note that the prefix in a qname is optional as defined in xml1.0 but accept that the current text may lead to confusion - propsose to amend the text to make it clear that in a qname the prefix is optional wher ethis a defualt namespace

16:30:58 <jjc>http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata#NE10

16:31:19 <db-scribe> " Names with no colon can be qualified names."

16:31:48 :)

16:32:06 <db-scribe> ACTIOn daveb: reply politely to xmlsch-09 with above resolution, amend the text

16:32:10 <db-scribe> ACTION daveb: reply politely to xmlsch-09 with above resolution, amend the text

16:32:10 * RRSAgent records action 10

16:33:12 <jang> dave: canonical would have been nice, we wouldn't do it this way, all sorts of replies

16:33:45 <db-scribe> xmlsch-10 canonical syntax - "4.4. Normative specification of XML grammar (policy, substantive)" -

16:37:03 <db-scribe> jjc's response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0079.html

16:37:34 <JosD___> hm... in http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/ QName ::= PrefixedName | UnprefixedName

16:43:59 argg..

16:44:02 * em is back

16:46:10 * db-scribe fears a 20-member group to design a new syntax and consequent mess

16:47:01 * danbri thinks the test case machinery provides a lot of discipline that would make alternate syntaxes easier to QA

16:47:33 <db-scribe> ACTION daveb: draft a response on xmlsch-09 on xsd and dtd and rdf/xml's uncosntraintedness re canonical syntax. We hadn't discussed it because it was out of charter

16:47:33 * RRSAgent records action 11

16:47:39 <db-scribe> item xmlsch-10

16:47:53 <db-scribe> -11

16:48:14 <db-scribe> re paragraph "As regards the approach taken to defining the syntax, in our view, ..."

16:48:20 <db-scribe> in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html

16:49:58 <db-scribe> bwm: m&s was a character level bnf, gone along way from that

16:50:03 <db-scribe> ... sitting on top of an infoset

16:50:13 * danbri tried telling Henry that the other week, he didn't seem to agree we'd managed that

16:58:10 <db-scribe> bwm suggests composite reply to -10, -11 etc. in the structure they presented them

16:58:42 <jang> dave: out of charter comments...

16:58:46 <jang> require chair support

16:59:01 <jang> jjc: we were constrained by charter to not make dramatic changes to the syntax

16:59:08 <danbri> "The RDF Core WG is neither chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, nor to reformulate the RDF model." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter

16:59:20 <jang> this prevented us from making changes which would make the syntax conformant with (technology of choice)

16:59:21 * danbri thinks he might've written that bit

16:59:29 <bwm> [[The RDF Core WG is neither chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, nor to reformulate the RDF model.]]

16:59:39 <jang> frankm: mention early adopters

16:59:55 <jang> daveb: can the chairs rule on this? would that have been definitely out of charter?

17:00:41 <db-scribe> timecheck

17:00:45 <bwm> noted

17:01:18 <jang> danbri: with test case machinery it's alot easier for folks to go away and do their own syntaxes

17:01:34 <jang> frank: I point out in the primer you can explicitly transcribe rdf in rdf/xml a triple at a time

17:06:00 <jang> the WG agrees that

17:06:10 <jang> designing a new syntax for RDF would be out of charter

17:06:14 the working group agrees that designing a new syntax by this group would be considered out of charter

17:06:19 <jang> frank proposes

17:06:22 <jang> jjc seconds

17:06:23 <jang> no dissent

17:06:27 <jang> no abstentions

17:06:28 <jang> ]done

17:06:47 <danbri> (sometimes it helps to state the obvious...?)

17:07:11 <jjc> bye

17:07:18 <Zakim> -Pat_Hayes

17:07:19 <Zakim> -jjc

17:07:21 <Zakim> -bwm

17:07:22 <Zakim> -EMiller

17:07:24 <Zakim> -ilrt

17:07:25 <Zakim> -FrankM

17:07:26 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean

17:07:33 <Zakim> -DanBri

17:07:39 <Zakim> -jos

17:07:40 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

The IRC chat here was automatically logged without editing and contains content written by the chat participants identified by their IRC nick. No other identity is recorded.