W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-03-28

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

14:58:28 <cmjg> zakim, who's on the phone?

14:58:39 <cmjg> zakim, who's on the phone?

14:58:39 <Zakim> sorry, cmjg, I don't know what conference this is

14:58:40 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, bwm, danbri, cmjg, DanC, logger

14:58:47 <cmjg> zakim, this is rdfcore

14:58:47 <Zakim> ok, cmjg

14:58:49 * danbri waves, dials

14:58:54 <cmjg> zakim, who's on the phone?

14:58:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P19

14:59:01 <cmjg> zakim, ??p19 is HP

14:59:01 <Zakim> +HP; got it

14:59:14 <cmjg> zakim, hp has Brian DaveB JanG

14:59:14 <Zakim> +Brian, DaveB, JanG; got it

14:59:31 <Zakim> +DanBri

14:59:44 <cmjg> agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0163.html

14:59:47 <DanC> danbri, can you relay my regrets? I'm focussing on WebOnt LC pubs

14:59:58 <danbri> danbri is now known as danb_scribe

15:00:04 <DanC> if the WG wants to discuss my issues, I'm willing to join

15:00:07 <cmjg> (passed on regrets danc)

15:00:41 <danb_scribe> danb_scribe has changed the topic to: rdfcore telecon http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0163.html

15:00:44 * DanC is also sync'd up with timbl on his reification issues, if that comes up, danbri

15:00:52 <danb_scribe> noted

15:01:25 * bwm reification isn't on the agenda but wondering what sync point is

15:01:45 <cmjg> zakim, who is talking?

15:01:56 <Zakim> cmjg, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: HP (64%), DanBri (30%)

15:02:01 * DanC just meant I have a feel for what he's after, what his argument is, and how important he thinks it is

15:02:25 * DanC asks GK to notify this WG that the URI CG was chartered

15:02:28 <cmjg> also passed on danc

15:02:36 <Zakim> +FrankM

15:02:43 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne

15:02:56 * bwm and how important does he think it is?

15:03:37 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean

15:04:33 <Zakim> +??P27

15:04:59 <danb_scribe> Do I need to do anything to make logger log?

15:05:02 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

15:05:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see HP, DanBri, FrankM, GrahamKlyne, Mike_Dean, ??P27

15:05:03 <Zakim> HP has Brian, DaveB, JanG

15:05:08 <danb_scribe> logger, pointer?

15:05:08 <danb_scribe> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T15-05-08

15:05:29 <cmjg> zakim, ??p27 is JJC

15:05:30 <Zakim> +JJC; got it

15:05:39 <danb_scribe> -------------------

15:05:47 <cmjg> agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0163.html

15:06:03 <danb_scribe> RDFCore 2002-03-28 Telecon

15:06:14 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

15:06:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see HP, DanBri, FrankM, GrahamKlyne, Mike_Dean, JJC

15:06:15 <Zakim> HP has Brian, DaveB, JanG

15:06:35 <danb_scribe> 3: Review Agenda

15:06:54 <danb_scribe> one aob: some discussion of the document that you get if you HTTP GET on the RDF uri ref

15:07:12 <danb_scribe> danbri: is that M+S only or RDFS too?

15:07:15 <danb_scribe> dave: mostly former

15:07:19 <danb_scribe> no more AOB

15:07:25 <danb_scribe> 4: Next telecon 04 Apr 2003 1000 Boston Time

15:07:25 <danb_scribe> Volunteer Scribe

15:07:36 <danb_scribe> Jan Grant volunteered. Thanks Jan!

15:07:37 <cmjg> jang volunteers

15:07:44 <danb_scribe> 5: Minutes of 21 Mar 2003 telecon

15:07:46 <danb_scribe> Approved.

15:08:05 <danb_scribe> Roll call - Regrets: from DanC; EricM off sick(?)

15:08:24 <danb_scribe> 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

15:08:36 <danb_scribe> all recorded as DONE.

15:08:43 <danb_scribe> 7: Last call review of webont docs

15:08:52 <danb_scribe> Congrats to WebOnt on their decision to go to LC

15:08:58 <danb_scribe> (except Test Cases, which will follow)

15:09:07 <danb_scribe> Jeremy: TC didn't go LC, as Tests are incorrect

15:09:13 <danb_scribe> ...RDFCore expecting to review these

15:09:20 <danb_scribe> Dave: how can we test the language?

15:09:34 <danb_scribe> J: story was meant to be that we'd (they'd) fix them during LC

15:09:45 <danb_scribe> ...DanC didn't agree

15:09:52 <danb_scribe> ...if tests are wrong report that to me(?)

15:10:15 <danb_scribe> brian: need to find reviewers for the reference document

15:10:21 <danb_scribe> they asked for Reference, Semantics, TestCases

15:10:26 <danb_scribe> ...latter not appropriate (yet)

15:10:34 <danb_scribe> ...volunteers?

15:10:37 <danb_scribe> danbri: on what timescale?

15:10:44 <Zakim> +??P29

15:10:51 <danb_scribe> brian: see msg 137 in archive

15:11:00 <danb_scribe> 24st april, draft review to list

15:11:06 <danb_scribe> zakim, ??P29 is JosD

15:11:06 <Zakim> +JosD; got it

15:11:19 <danb_scribe> jeremy: jos and I could review test cases ;) ;)

15:11:43 <cmjg> brian's message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0137.html

15:12:01 <danb_scribe> danbri: I intend to review Reference, but am overloaded so is at risk.

15:12:07 <danb_scribe> Jang: I'll review semantics

15:12:32 <danb_scribe> brian: anyone else got time to commit to doing Reference

15:12:35 <danb_scribe> brian: Graham?

15:12:48 <danb_scribe> gk: hard put to commit right now...

15:12:52 <danb_scribe> dave: possibly

15:12:53 * JosD Jeremy, this time tomcat gives a javax.servlet.ServletException: org/apache/jsp/main_jsp (Code of a method longer than 65535 bytes) for the main.jsp and the edit.jsp is OK (just the opposite as the former version)

15:13:14 <danb_scribe> dave: time commitment is tough

15:13:22 <DanC> review of owl-test can't finish until it's published as LC, but it could perhaps start.

15:13:35 <danb_scribe> jjc: since January, S+AS has improved in a linear fashion; Ref change was non-linear

15:13:51 <danb_scribe> DanC, I think that's ack'd.

15:14:03 <danb_scribe> brian: reference is the one that non-matheticians can read

15:14:12 * JosD DanC I would hope so (I'm still not recoverd from that decision of yesterday)

15:14:17 <danb_scribe> brian: I'll review OWL Reference

15:14:47 <danb_scribe> danbri, dave might do Reference

15:14:52 <danb_scribe> JanG will do Semantics

15:14:57 <danb_scribe> Brian will do Reference

15:15:13 <danb_scribe> ACTION: danbri review OWL Reference when published as Last Call

15:15:25 <danb_scribe> ACTION: JanG review OWL Reference when published as Last Call

15:15:29 <danb_scribe> ACTION: Brian review OWL Reference when published as Last Call

15:16:02 <danb_scribe> ACTION: JanG review OWL Semantics when published as Last Call

15:16:10 <danb_scribe> ERROR: JanG wasn't to review Reference

15:16:12 <danb_scribe> ....

15:16:19 <danb_scribe> 8: Last call review of cc/pp doc

15:16:19 <danb_scribe> Call for reviewers.

15:16:27 <danb_scribe> gk: I'm a bit out of cc/pp loop nowadays

15:16:32 <danb_scribe> ...it has been around a long while

15:16:39 <danb_scribe> ...datatyping threw up some issues

15:16:47 <danb_scribe> ...cc/pp itself, main changes are taking out the proxy vocab

15:17:09 <danb_scribe> brian: also removed rdf primer, and now cite RDF Core's Primer doc instead.

15:17:38 <danb_scribe> gk: i've been involved in discussions, but not detailed work on the doc

15:17:48 <danb_scribe> brian: introduced Rational datatype

15:17:53 <Zakim> +Pat_Hayes

15:18:15 <danb_scribe> gk: was always there, talk of adding xmls-style definbition

15:18:27 <danb_scribe> brian: they are asking for a review, so we'd need to approve comments by next friday's telecon

15:18:37 <danb_scribe> ...on basis that little has changed, so we can focus on the changes

15:18:47 <danb_scribe> ...do we have a reviewer to draft rdfcore's review?

15:19:57 <danb_scribe> danbri: it's important to support WGs that have invested in RDF

15:20:03 <danb_scribe> jjc: we should show willing...

15:20:18 <danb_scribe> brian: if there were more time, would someone step up?

15:20:20 * DanC sorry about the abrupt turn yesterday, jos

15:20:29 <danb_scribe> pat: how much time?

15:20:35 <danb_scribe> brian: they want next friday

15:21:02 <danb_scribe> brian: I'll do it

15:21:33 <danb_scribe> gk: the changes don't impact RDF that much

15:21:59 <danb_scribe> brian: intend to look in particular at their datatyping

15:22:00 * JosD DanC is cwm running any of the http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/ tests?

15:22:09 <danb_scribe> ACTION: Brian to review CC/PP spec for next friday

15:22:16 <danb_scribe> 9: Editors Drafts

15:22:16 <danb_scribe> See:

15:22:16 <danb_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0148.html

15:22:30 <danb_scribe> [

15:22:31 <danb_scribe> We agreed a while back that we'd use the shadow TR space to hold editors

15:22:31 <danb_scribe> drafts during last call. I'd like to put the pointers on the group

15:22:31 <danb_scribe> webpage. Is everyone ready/happy for me to do that?

15:22:32 <danb_scribe> ]

15:22:53 * DanC not that I know of, jos

15:22:53 <danb_scribe> brian: want pointers from WG page to wherever drafts are...

15:22:59 <danb_scribe> ...and shadow TR page seems best place for it

15:23:18 <danb_scribe> jang: do you intend to redate them?

15:23:20 <danb_scribe> brian: no

15:23:35 <danb_scribe> brian: i intend to act as proxy for Pat

15:23:40 <danb_scribe> ...em can do Frank

15:23:51 <danb_scribe> brian: Pat, do you have a view?

15:23:58 <danb_scribe> pat: it hasn't been much changed, lately

15:24:16 <gk> q+

15:24:16 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:24:16 <danb_scribe> ...as long as you can do transfer to w3.org, i've no views

15:24:23 <danb_scribe> jjc: no need for dogmatism...

15:24:47 <danb_scribe> brian: less work for me...

15:24:56 <danb_scribe> ...but i do want a single url that points to the ed drafts as they update

15:25:04 <danb_scribe> jos: hard to find latest semantics, for eg

15:25:09 <gk> q+ to say that even if editors have their own web space, the need is to transfer to the shadow space before sending responses that reference the drafts

15:25:09 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:25:17 <danb_scribe> ...the wg home page should be where to find urls

15:25:29 <danb_scribe> pat: my copy of the ed draft, i update at the same uri

15:25:46 <jjc> q+ for an AOB

15:25:48 * Zakim jjc, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...'

15:25:52 <danb_scribe> brian: i don't want urls to keep changing!

15:25:58 <jjc> q+ to add an AOB

15:25:58 * Zakim sees gk, jjc on the speaker queue

15:26:00 <danb_scribe> jos: someone please post that uri!

15:26:03 <danb_scribe> to irc...

15:26:20 <danb_scribe> (discussion pat/jos re website probs)

15:26:29 <danb_scribe> q+ to mention cvs version ids

15:26:29 * Zakim sees gk, jjc, danb_scribe on the speaker queue

15:27:07 <danb_scribe> brian: we'll update the wg homepage...

15:27:18 <danb_scribe> ...editors get to choose where they maintain editors drafts

15:27:31 <danb_scribe> ...please email to list or brian, pref to list, a url where ed draft will be

15:27:52 <danb_scribe> ...i'll update the overview page. please keep that url stable and not change

15:27:56 <danb_scribe> (ie latest version be there)

15:27:58 <danb_scribe> ack gk

15:27:58 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to say that even if editors have their own web space, the need is to transfer to the shadow space before sending responses that reference the drafts

15:28:01 * Zakim sees jjc, danb_scribe on the speaker queue

15:28:13 <danb_scribe> (what zakim said)

15:28:23 <danb_scribe> brian: if they're not in shadow space, they're not archived

15:28:30 <danb_scribe> gk: good idea for them to be there for that reason

15:28:33 <cmjg> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_Editors.html

15:28:35 <cmjg> pat's document : http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_Editors.html

15:28:50 <danb_scribe> jjc: possible to have private working copies that may be web accessible, and have 'official' editors draft

15:28:59 <danb_scribe> ...eg concepts

15:29:06 <danb_scribe> ack jjc

15:29:06 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to add an AOB

15:29:07 * Zakim sees danb_scribe on the speaker queue

15:29:27 * JosD is thanking cmjg

15:29:29 <danb_scribe> brian: any responses to LC txt should point to shadow archives

15:29:40 <danb_scribe> ...might be a good idea w/ semantics doc in particular

15:29:54 <danb_scribe> jjc: AOB re Peter's comments

15:30:05 <danb_scribe> ...concerned that latest Semantics ed draft had problems

15:30:12 <danb_scribe> ...to me, this seemed irrelevant

15:30:19 <danb_scribe> ...as that doc isn't an approved rdfcore doc, etc etc

15:30:28 <danb_scribe> (...peter was reading pat's work in progress)

15:30:42 <danb_scribe> ...need way to get feedback from community on changes-in-progress but not cause 'false review'

15:30:49 <danb_scribe> jos: on other hand, we have to make improvement steps

15:31:04 <danb_scribe> ...i see Feb 26th draft in front of me. Relevant to have this reviewed.

15:31:19 <danb_scribe> jjc: relevant to get peter's feedback, but need him to be clear on our view of it's status

15:31:23 <danb_scribe> brian: i've changed my mind

15:31:37 <danb_scribe> ...when we are sending responses, we should point to things that are in the archived record

15:31:46 <danb_scribe> ...i'll point to current docs in shadow TR as editors WDs

15:31:55 <danb_scribe> ...Pat, can I copy yours, put it up there/

15:31:56 <danb_scribe> ?

15:32:18 <danb_scribe> ACTION: brian to put pointers on web page to Shadow TR

15:32:25 <gk> q+ to suggest that editors add a pointer to the "official" editors draft in the shadow area to their unofficial docs

15:32:25 * Zakim sees danb_scribe, gk on the speaker queue

15:32:28 <danb_scribe> ACTION: brian to update shadow TR for Semantics

15:32:54 <danb_scribe> ack danbri?

15:32:54 * Zakim sees danb_scribe, gk on the speaker queue

15:32:59 <danb_scribe> ack danb_scribe

15:32:59 <Zakim> danb_scribe, you wanted to mention cvs version ids

15:33:00 <cmjg> danb:

15:33:00 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:33:11 <cmjg> having things on w3 site good

15:33:15 <cmjg> we get cvs version ids

15:33:20 <bwm> ack gk

15:33:20 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to suggest that editors add a pointer to the "official" editors draft in the shadow area to their unofficial docs

15:33:20 <cmjg> so we can be clear about document versions

15:33:22 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:33:31 <danb_scribe> gk: (what zakim said)

15:33:46 <danb_scribe> +1 on that

15:34:36 <gk> [[This is an editor's working draft, the current review version of which is at ...]] ?

15:35:02 <danb_scribe> brian: can leave to editors discretion

15:35:12 <danb_scribe> jjc: do we need to communicate something to peter on this, re Pat's doc?

15:35:20 <danb_scribe> jos: in substance, or process

15:35:23 <danb_scribe> jjc: process

15:35:32 <danb_scribe> ...one LC risk is that WebOnt might not like changes to Semantics

15:36:10 <danb_scribe> jos: (something w.r.t. datatypes, int etc)

15:36:55 * danb_scribe notes he still has some TODOs in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt

15:37:10 <danb_scribe> brian: does (...) have the clarifications we respond to in pfps08?

15:37:15 <danb_scribe> pat: if so, v minimal

15:37:21 <bwm> q?

15:37:21 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:37:56 <danb_scribe> frank: is it reasonable to expect peter, if unhappy w/ status of doc, to communicate directly to the editor, rather than have us guess at the dialog during telecon?

15:38:04 <danb_scribe> pat: to be fair to peter, he may have sent me mail

15:38:19 <danb_scribe> brian: need to find some way to make this work

15:38:56 <danb_scribe> jjc: re Owl Semantics , if RDF LC Semantics change, they've every right to demand a 2nd LC from RDFCore

15:40:10 <danb_scribe> pat: 1 on 1, we should be able to make fast progress

15:40:21 <danb_scribe> 10: Status on Incoming Last Call Comments

15:40:21 <danb_scribe> ACTION 2003-03-14#1 (jang) take a final pass of the comments list

15:40:21 <danb_scribe> to identify remaining items that have not been dealt with

15:40:21 <danb_scribe> or been assigned process numbers

15:40:27 <danb_scribe> Jang: will get to this early next week

15:40:56 <danb_scribe> brian: re XML Schema editorials, some left to editors

15:41:03 <danb_scribe> pat: yes to Semantics, wording changes in progress

15:41:14 <danb_scribe> dajobe: i didn't pick those up, action me

15:41:35 <danb_scribe> ACTION: Dave Beckett to get edits for Syntax from XML Schema review

15:41:37 <danb_scribe> @@URL

15:41:41 <danb_scribe> brian: Concepts?

15:41:58 <danb_scribe> gk: I have a big list of stuff on todo list, some of which not part of offical LC issue list

15:42:05 <danb_scribe> ...can't guarnatee every editorial comment

15:42:11 <danb_scribe> brian: specifically re XML Schema?

15:42:22 <danb_scribe> jjc: action one of us

15:42:30 <danb_scribe> ...we haven't yet touched it. so not done yet!

15:43:20 <danb_scribe> ACTION: Jeremy to update Concepts in light of XML Schema LC review

15:43:22 <danb_scribe> primer?

15:43:34 <danb_scribe> Frank: a while back recall some discussion, but couldn't see when i looked

15:44:27 <danb_scribe> ACTION: Frank to check for editorial actions on Primer from XML Schema LC review

15:44:34 <danb_scribe> ACTION: DanBri to check for editorial actions on Schema from XML Schema LC review

15:44:49 <danb_scribe> Test cases?

15:44:55 <danb_scribe> JAng: they didn't comment

15:45:35 <danb_scribe> jos: issues re test cases... i see two issues in LC list

15:45:51 <danb_scribe> (we're still on "Have editors reviewed the editorial comments from the xml schema WG?")

15:46:01 <danb_scribe> jang: there are no editorials in the list from their review

15:46:30 <danb_scribe> brian: better shape than we were

15:46:37 <danb_scribe> ...but new stuff just come in, SVG

15:46:48 <danb_scribe> dave: 4 weeks after LC ended, still ack'ing comments

15:46:54 <danb_scribe> ...should say 'sorry but no'

15:46:59 <danb_scribe> ...what do folk think?

15:48:14 <gk> q+ to say that it's never too late to consider well-founded comments, but that we should have discretion about accepting or processing them

15:48:14 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:48:26 <danb_scribe> danbri: obligation is for the period announced, but

15:48:45 <danb_scribe> ...we can say 'we don't plan to treat this as a formal LC comment, but we nevertheless value it and will bring to attention of the WG and editors'

15:48:55 <danb_scribe> pat: I'd never heard of this notion prior to W3C involvement

15:49:09 <danb_scribe> ...we're getting comments from all kinds of people, not just other people

15:49:31 <danb_scribe> dave: do we have to handle comments forever? I close two, two more arrive...

15:49:38 <danb_scribe> pat: they can be brough to attention of the WG

15:49:47 <danb_scribe> jjc: i think it depends on the substance of the comment

15:49:58 <danb_scribe> ...if it results in an improvement, we should look at it

15:50:01 <danb_scribe> ...some are a waste of time

15:50:06 <danb_scribe> frank: two dimensions here

15:50:20 <danb_scribe> ...if someone points out a ghastly error, we have to be responsible

15:50:35 <danb_scribe> ...but process perspective is w.r.t. formal comments during LC

15:50:43 <danb_scribe> ...we have to have a cut off date

15:50:57 <danb_scribe> dave: we're now two months after start of LC

15:51:03 <danb_scribe> ...date should be today

15:51:08 <danb_scribe> brian: i disagree with this

15:51:13 <danb_scribe> ...with having a fixed date

15:51:17 <danb_scribe> dave: hard to progress

15:51:24 <danb_scribe> brian: we have to balance a number of things

15:51:30 <danb_scribe> ...have to get finished

15:51:35 <danb_scribe> ...formally, process is that the Call ended

15:51:43 <danb_scribe> ...WG has discretion to accept comments after the deadline

15:51:53 <danb_scribe> ...in a sense dave is right, deadline was when set

15:52:05 <danb_scribe> ...anything since, accepted out of goodness of our hearts

15:52:14 <danb_scribe> ...as frank says, if glaring error we shouldn't ignore

15:52:36 <danb_scribe> ...also politcal aspect, if we get comments from other WGs, we should err on the accepting side

15:52:43 <danb_scribe> ...as need to build relationships with other WGs

15:52:56 <danb_scribe> dave: what if a group says we'll send comments in a few weeks

15:53:05 <danb_scribe> brian: we'd say that's too late, ...

15:53:13 <danb_scribe> jjc: ...but we wouldn't say 'we won't look at this'

15:53:21 <danb_scribe> brian: for eg., those just arrived from Chris Lilley

15:53:32 <danb_scribe> ...should look at, decide whether to feed into the process

15:53:45 <danb_scribe> ...should be more sympathetic to comments from WGs

15:53:55 <danb_scribe> ...Less symp to 'unhelpful' comments

15:54:02 <danb_scribe> pat: many comments are requests for clarification

15:54:05 <danb_scribe> ...some are resolvable

15:54:42 <danb_scribe> q+ to note that we have a standing invitation to the world to send RDF comments to www-rdf-comments

15:54:42 * Zakim sees gk, danb_scribe on the speaker queue

15:55:24 <danb_scribe> brian: is there support for taking view... be polite... receptive... with comments from now on, we'll decide collectively whether to feed them into LC process

15:55:39 <danb_scribe> danbri: what do you mean collectively? use telecon time to discuss whether to disucss...

15:55:44 <danb_scribe> brian: fair pt. ...

15:55:51 <danb_scribe> pat: discuss on list, editors should be primary filter

15:56:00 <danb_scribe> brian: yup. default is still to accept

15:56:15 <danb_scribe> ...editors can say 'this is a waste of time..., we can ignore this time'

15:56:21 <danb_scribe> s/time/one/

15:56:33 <gk> q+ to say at some point the default must be to reject

15:56:33 * Zakim sees gk, danb_scribe on the speaker queue

15:56:40 * danb_scribe wonders if Gk made his point?

15:56:45 <danb_scribe> dave: another process pt...

15:56:59 <danb_scribe> ...answering formally recorded issues needed for later points in process

15:57:05 * gk my 1st point is made (by others), the second is not quite

15:57:06 <danb_scribe> brian: you guys have to ask for a comment id

15:57:33 <gk> q-

15:57:33 * Zakim sees danb_scribe on the speaker queue

15:57:36 <danb_scribe> ack gk

15:57:36 * Zakim sees danb_scribe on the speaker queue

15:57:37 <bwm> ack gk

15:57:37 * Zakim sees danb_scribe on the speaker queue

15:57:40 <danb_scribe> ack danb_scribe

15:57:40 <Zakim> danb_scribe, you wanted to note that we have a standing invitation to the world to send RDF comments to www-rdf-comments

15:57:42 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:58:08 <danb_scribe> danbri: they're just trying to be helpful...

15:58:35 <danb_scribe> 11: Status on responses to Last Call Comments

15:58:35 <danb_scribe> Awaiting responses to:

15:58:35 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#macgregor-01

15:58:35 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#macgregor-02

15:58:35 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-01

15:58:36 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-02

15:58:38 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-01 ??

15:58:40 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#williams-01

15:58:44 * danb_scribe missed substance of comment

15:59:40 <danb_scribe> ACTION: gk send rseponse on macgregor-02

15:59:52 <danb_scribe> 12: Schedule

15:59:52 <danb_scribe> The current microschedule

15:59:52 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#microschedule

15:59:52 <danb_scribe> now seems a tad optimistic :(

16:00:05 <danb_scribe> brian: WWW2003 looms

16:00:13 <danb_scribe> ...a good thing to aim for, to stand up and say something 'good'

16:00:14 <jjc> ACTION: jjc send rseponse on danc-01

16:00:29 <danb_scribe> ...such as 'we processed and integrated all LC review comments'

16:00:36 <danb_scribe> May 24th

16:00:42 <danb_scribe> pat: that's reasonable

16:00:48 <danb_scribe> danbri: a reasoonable goal

16:00:53 <danb_scribe> jjc: as a goal, couldn't guarantee

16:02:07 <danb_scribe>http://www2003.org/

16:02:07 <danb_scribe> 20-24th May 2003

16:03:04 <danb_scribe> gk: too long!

16:03:13 <danb_scribe> jjc: i can only spent 1.5-2 days / week on RDFCore currnetly

16:03:31 <danb_scribe> pat: have we more substnative things to do? dotting is and crossing ts and fixing little bugs

16:04:36 * danb_scribe misses some discussion

16:07:11 <danb_scribe> ----

16:07:20 <danb_scribe> 13: Issues reagle-01, reagle-02

16:07:20 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-01

16:07:20 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-02

16:07:20 <danb_scribe> Proposal from Jeremy:

16:07:20 <danb_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0151.html

16:07:27 <danb_scribe> jjc: we discussed this previously

16:07:44 <danb_scribe> essense of change... to present in the specs model in whuch syntax spec does all the work

16:08:01 <danb_scribe> + then add impl notes that say one can be a valid implementation by not doing the canonicalisation

16:08:09 <danb_scribe> (i didn't do justice to what jjc said)

16:08:21 <danb_scribe> dave: general outline is good

16:08:30 <danb_scribe> this impl note thing... you said it could be 'informative'

16:08:31 <bwm>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0151.html

16:08:43 <danb_scribe> (as above)

16:08:58 <danb_scribe> pat: there shouldn't be normative notes or appendices... (this came up at TP)

16:09:04 <danb_scribe> (Tech Plenary)

16:09:28 <danb_scribe> ACTION: dave to check on whether status of 'notes' should be informative vs normative

16:09:47 <danb_scribe> dave: re reagle-01/2, is it 2 faced to say 'do it this way, but you don't have to'

16:09:58 <danb_scribe> brian: can you summarise proposal?

16:10:15 <danb_scribe> jjc: implementation note in concepts is key point.

16:10:29 <danb_scribe> ...impl are free to represent things in other forms (...)

16:11:35 * danb_scribe not getting all detail

16:11:43 <danb_scribe> dave: 'convoluted but correct'

16:11:52 <danb_scribe> jjc: ref to non-exclusive canonicalisaion gets dropped

16:12:41 <danb_scribe> brian: when a parser spits out ntriples

16:12:51 <danb_scribe> ...is it required that an xml literal is canonicalised?

16:13:03 <danb_scribe> jjc: depends what the ntriples doc says

16:13:06 <danb_scribe> ...no, mistaken

16:13:18 <danb_scribe> ...the ntriple doc... if not canonicalised, the lex form i

16:13:27 <danb_scribe> (ugh i'm not scribing this well)

16:13:38 <danb_scribe> pat: ...naughty ntriples...

16:13:40 * danb_scribe grins

16:14:06 <danb_scribe> [discussion of canonicalisation]

16:15:23 <danb_scribe> jjc: a parser that wannts to do ntriple output (not req'd) would need to do canonicalisation

16:15:36 <danb_scribe> brian: this effectively requires parsers to canonicalise

16:16:14 <danb_scribe> brian: do we know whether current parsers canonicalise

16:16:22 <danb_scribe> dave: mine doesn't

16:16:31 <danb_scribe> jjc: arp basically does

16:16:44 <danb_scribe> rubyrdf's doesn't

16:16:52 <danb_scribe> jjc: swi-prolog's doesn't

16:17:26 <danb_scribe> ...looking at bugs, eg stripping whitespace, wonder if we need better tests

16:17:31 <danb_scribe> jjc: why don't you propose some tests

16:17:39 <danb_scribe> s/jjc/dave/

16:17:53 <danb_scribe> brian: reason i'm asking about implementation is thinking w.r.t. Candidate Rec phase

16:18:02 <danb_scribe> dave: rdflib's does canonicalise

16:18:30 * danb_scribe asks how hard canonicalisation is

16:18:34 <danb_scribe> brian: any further comments?

16:18:51 <danb_scribe> pat: i'd like links in concepts doc to Definition of canonicalisation, and Impl note.

16:19:11 <danb_scribe> ACTION: jeremy to add anchors to Concepts for def of canonicalistion, and for Impl Note

16:19:46 <danb_scribe> RESOLVED: accept jjc's proposal

16:19:55 <danb_scribe> (unanimously)

16:20:23 <danb_scribe> 14: Issue pfps-04,pfps-05,pfps-06,pfps-07,pfps-10

16:20:23 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04

16:20:23 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05

16:20:23 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-06

16:20:23 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-07

16:20:24 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-10

16:20:26 <danb_scribe> Pat's message:

16:20:28 <danb_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0069.html

16:20:30 <danb_scribe> ACTION 2003-03-14#6 (gk) review semantics editor's draft wrt

16:20:32 <danb_scribe> changed arising out of pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -10

16:20:34 <danb_scribe> ACTION 2003-03-14#7 (jang) review semantics editor's draft wrt

16:20:36 <danb_scribe> changed arising out of pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -10

16:20:38 <danb_scribe> Done:

16:20:40 <danb_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0134.html

16:20:42 <danb_scribe> ACTION: 2003-03-21#9 jjc Check the details of the denotation of

16:20:44 <danb_scribe> XMLLiterals in section 3.1 of Semantics WD draft

16:20:48 <danb_scribe> brian: can you get this done in next week?

16:20:50 <danb_scribe> ...it was a while ago

16:21:05 <danb_scribe> (Scribe note: these aren't new actions, but pasted from agenda)

16:21:18 <danb_scribe> gk: i'll try

16:21:44 <danb_scribe> pat: i'd be happier if gk focussed on getting concepts right

16:21:50 <danb_scribe> brian: who else could pick it up?

16:21:55 <danb_scribe> ...jang, your review?

16:22:05 <danb_scribe> jang: basically positive. could be more explicit in a few places

16:22:17 <danb_scribe> context: review semantics editor's draft wrt

16:22:17 <danb_scribe> changed arising out of pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -10

16:22:47 <danb_scribe> jjc: propose, withdraw action on gk, put diff action on PatH to checkissues peter raised in webont(?)

16:23:26 <danb_scribe> brian: pat made some changes to sem spec, need check he didn't violate RDFCore WG's assumptions (ie not just w.r.t. peter/webont)

16:23:48 <danb_scribe> pat: gk's action is just checking that doesn't accidentally clash w/ Concepts

16:24:10 <danb_scribe> gk: have been away from Concepts for a while

16:24:22 <danb_scribe> brian: pat, you're off email until mid next week anyway

16:24:44 <danb_scribe> ...may as well put it off another week. gk if you manage the review, that'd be great. if not, we will have to go with the 1 we have.

16:24:54 <danb_scribe> brian: ok

16:25:22 <jjc> q+ to clairfy my action 21#9

16:25:22 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

16:25:43 <bwm> ack jjc

16:25:43 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to clairfy my action 21#9

16:25:45 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

16:25:58 <danb_scribe> jjc, i had action to check details of literals in sem draft

16:26:07 <danb_scribe> ...is the editors one the right draft to look at?

16:26:09 <danb_scribe> pat: yup

16:26:20 <danb_scribe> ---

16:26:26 <danb_scribe> 15: Issue horrocks-01

16:26:26 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horrocks-01

16:26:26 <danb_scribe> See:

16:26:26 <danb_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0081.html

16:26:34 <danb_scribe> reviewing ACTION 2003-03-14#11 (path) produce words for a resolution to horrocks-01

16:26:40 <danb_scribe> pat: prob do thurs next week

16:26:48 <danb_scribe> ---

16:26:49 <danb_scribe> 16: Issue tex-01

16:26:49 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#tex-01

16:26:49 <danb_scribe> Jeremy's proposal to resolve:

16:26:49 <danb_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0159.html

16:26:49 <danb_scribe> See:

16:26:51 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/

16:26:59 <danb_scribe> jjc: in a way quite sim to canon'n one

16:27:03 <danb_scribe> ...sol'n is similar

16:27:09 <danb_scribe> ...move effort into an impl note

16:27:13 <danb_scribe> ...on other hand opposite

16:27:28 <danb_scribe> ...should lang tag be normalised to lowercase?

16:27:36 <danb_scribe> ...ab syntax suggests should lowercase

16:28:02 <danb_scribe> ...an i18n reviewer (not a Group comment) was concerned that lowercase norm'n was incorrect

16:28:20 <danb_scribe> ...so should add a note saying 'only for purposes of abstract syntax that it is lc'

16:28:23 <danb_scribe> jjc: make sense?

16:28:36 <danb_scribe> brian: why nromalise this way?

16:28:46 <danb_scribe> jjc: we wanted graph to be tidy with low effort

16:28:54 <danb_scribe> ..if literals equal, need to be identical

16:29:10 <danb_scribe> ...rfc3066 on lang tags, they're case insensitive

16:29:20 <danb_scribe> ...tidyness violated by = instead of == test

16:29:22 <danb_scribe> ...so we normalise

16:29:47 <danb_scribe> q+ to ask about imple expectations for roundtripping

16:29:48 * Zakim sees danb_scribe on the speaker queue

16:30:00 <danb_scribe> jjc: eg en-US

16:30:13 <danb_scribe> pat: we could normalise to uppercase

16:30:21 <danb_scribe> jjc: why not, we don't care

16:30:28 <danb_scribe> ...would get rid of 3066 prob

16:30:43 <danb_scribe> b: why not say isn't a case insensitive compare?

16:30:51 <danb_scribe> p: graphs become untidy

16:30:56 <danb_scribe> d: i don't like that

16:31:45 <danb_scribe> p: just say that component of the literal is a 'language tag', and identity for those defined elsewhere

16:31:46 <danb_scribe> q-

16:31:46 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

16:32:51 <danb_scribe> q+ to ask for scribe help

16:32:51 * Zakim sees danb_scribe on the speaker queue

16:33:36 <danb_scribe> b: some risks if we say we'll norm to lc

16:33:43 <danb_scribe> ...eg if the lang folks change their minds

16:33:50 <danb_scribe> ...we'll be in a mess

16:34:06 <danb_scribe> p: some doc somewhere should draw readers attention to lc caselesness

16:34:46 <danb_scribe> b: we were told not to normalise to lowercase

16:34:54 <danb_scribe> ...why that not work for you, j?

16:35:13 <danb_scribe> j: we could say in 'lit equality, two lits compare equal if...'

16:35:19 <danb_scribe> j: I'll come back with that proposal

16:35:32 <danb_scribe> ACTION: jermemy update proposal on tex-01

16:35:34 <bwm> q?

16:35:34 * Zakim sees danb_scribe on the speaker queue

16:35:44 <bwm> ack danb_scribe

16:35:44 <Zakim> danb_scribe, you wanted to ask for scribe help

16:35:45 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

16:36:04 * cmjg notes we can say that two literals compare equal, we have to say two graphs compare equivalent/isomorphic :-)

16:36:15 <danb_scribe> danbri: help capturing more tech detail appreciated; i'll capture ACTIONS, may miss details. RSI.

16:36:26 <bwm> tex-02

16:36:28 <danb_scribe> ---

16:36:28 <danb_scribe> 17: Issue tex-02

16:36:28 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#tex-02

16:36:28 <danb_scribe> Jeremy's proposal to postpone:

16:36:28 <danb_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0155.html

16:36:32 <danb_scribe> lang ranges...

16:37:15 <cmjg> proposal for tex-01 was essentially @....if the string parts compare equal and the lang tags compare equal according to the definition given in rfcX@

16:37:20 <gk> I don't think equivalent-language-ranges, eg en-welsh, en-somerset, should not be in RDF core

16:37:44 <danb_scribe> jjc: not just identities, a more sophisticated comparision

16:37:51 <danb_scribe> ...the rfc describes what to do

16:37:56 <danb_scribe> p: why not just say 'yup'

16:38:04 <cmjg> rfc 3066 if you want to look it up

16:38:05 <danb_scribe> j: 'cos rdf doesn't have a mechanism that could implement it

16:38:07 <danb_scribe> ta

16:38:21 <danb_scribe> p: am puzzled why this our business

16:38:36 <danb_scribe> ...whatever they are, we deal with them, but not our job to define or improve

16:39:01 <danb_scribe> j: in my sugg'n i provide a sketch with eg en-US

16:39:07 <cmjg> jjc envisions a higher-level set of operations...

16:39:09 <danb_scribe> ...and others w/ 'en'

16:39:14 <danb_scribe> ...set union operations etc

16:39:19 <cmjg> ... which can grok literals with related language tags

16:39:27 <cmjg> these are not equality comparisons

16:39:38 <cmjg> but higher-level lang-tag-aware operations

16:39:38 <danb_scribe> g: options are to postpone or reject

16:39:52 <danb_scribe> ...i'm fine w/ postpone, suggested 'reject' as didn't see gt value in punting to future wg

16:39:57 <danb_scribe> ...if easier to postpone, fine

16:40:15 <danb_scribe> b: what are grounds for postponing?

16:40:19 <danb_scribe> j: not in our charter

16:40:20 <cmjg> - not in charter

16:40:36 <danb_scribe> ...postp not rej 'cos mechanisms in rdf for lang tag are undefined and rather poor

16:40:36 <cmjg> don't reject because mechanissm for dealing with lang tags in rdf are undefined at this moment

16:40:46 <danb_scribe> ...rdf presents data as triples, and the lang tag is not in that triple

16:40:58 <danb_scribe> ...at some pt the SemWeb community needs a story for dealing with these

16:41:10 <danb_scribe> ...at moment, can only say 'some APIs give access'

16:41:35 <danb_scribe> g: has anyone said this is inadequate?

16:41:41 <danb_scribe> danbri: DanC, periodically

16:41:57 * danb_scribe missed j's reply

16:42:17 <danb_scribe> d: rdf lacks expressive power to represent this

16:42:21 <danb_scribe> j: could punt to SW CG

16:42:27 <danb_scribe> dave: don't do that

16:42:39 <danb_scribe> ...if you would require owl construts, it isn't within rdf

16:42:42 <danb_scribe> ...go ask OWL

16:42:54 <danb_scribe> b: i though about punting to OWL, but don't think that's actually true

16:43:03 <danb_scribe> j: it would be amusing ;)

16:43:14 <danb_scribe> b: ...but they'd likely punt it back to us

16:43:31 <danb_scribe> b: _if_ we have literals as subjects, we could use OWL mechanism to define classes

16:43:44 <danb_scribe> ...but that comes down to RDF having literals as subjects

16:43:49 <danb_scribe> ...and hence arg for postponing

16:43:54 <danb_scribe> ...i liked g's orig answer

16:44:09 <danb_scribe> ...reason we had def'n of equality in these docs was to define graphs and entailment

16:44:14 <cmjg> [as an unspoken aside, does OWL have an 'inverse' of rdf:type?]

16:44:24 <danb_scribe> ...if we used tex's, this would just break

16:44:38 <danb_scribe> cmjg, no, but it has owl:inverseOf

16:45:02 <danb_scribe> b: an app might want to do things like 'find all the english text', over -en, -en-US etc

16:45:04 <cmjg> bwm: tex is describing what sounds like an application-level issue

16:45:11 <danb_scribe> ...don't want to hide behind 'not in our charter'

16:45:42 <danb_scribe> b: you could do it in triples, but not with lang tag mechanism we use

16:45:47 <gk> Distinction here between RDF-entailment use of lang tags and application use of lang tags...

16:46:03 <danb_scribe> jos: does rfcxxxx use this?

16:46:12 <danb_scribe> jjc: language range mechanism

16:46:18 <gk> ... IMO, the application-level issue is right to defer, the entailment-level should reject.

16:46:20 <danb_scribe> pat: could 'en' be a lang tag

16:46:27 <danb_scribe> ...makes identity thing hairier

16:46:43 <danb_scribe> jjc: no way of doing any work on this topic within our charter

16:46:50 <gk> RFC3066 mentions the use of langtuage-ranges, but does not define a specific mechanism and also notes that any correspondence within a range is not guaranteed.

16:47:48 * JosD thanks Graham, that's quite clear

16:48:36 <danb_scribe> danbri: i rec postponment, but being careful to track this and related issues for drafting of future WG charters

16:48:41 <danb_scribe> b: i think we should postpone

16:48:59 <danb_scribe> ...would emphasise that our notion of eq is for 'making this graph work properly'

16:49:05 <danb_scribe> ...and 2ndarily talk in terms of charter

16:49:54 <cmjg> [[

16:49:54 <cmjg> We have added this to the postponed issues list.

16:49:54 <cmjg> We have also asked the co-ordination group to note that better support for

16:49:54 <cmjg> langauge related operations is needed.

16:49:57 <cmjg> A sketch solution, that is outside our current charter to consider in

16:49:58 * danb_scribe offers ACTION: jeremy to redraft proposed response to tex-02

16:49:59 <cmjg> detail, is as follows:

16:50:03 <danb_scribe> or are we drafting it now?

16:50:03 <cmjg> For each language tag define two clases:

16:50:05 <cmjg> For example for language tag en-US define

16:50:09 <cmjg> <rdfs:Class rdf:about=

16:50:11 <cmjg> "http://www.w3.org/example/lang#en-US" >

16:50:13 <cmjg> <rdfs:comment>The class of all plain literals and XMLLiterals with

16:50:17 <cmjg> language tag en-US</rdfs:comment>

16:50:17 <cmjg> </rdfs:Class>

16:50:19 <cmjg> <rdfs:Class rdf:about=

16:50:23 <cmjg> "http://www.w3.org/example/lang2#en-US" >

16:50:25 <cmjg> <rdfs:comment>The class of all plain literals and XMLLiterals with

16:50:27 <cmjg> language tag which has

16:50:29 <cmjg> en-US as a prefix</rdfs:comment>

16:50:31 <cmjg> </rdfs:Class>

16:50:35 <cmjg> Then a combination of rdf range constraints, and various OWL constructs, can

16:50:37 <cmjg> be used to query/search/describe language tagged literals within the

16:50:39 <cmjg> semantic web.

16:50:41 <cmjg> ]]

16:50:56 <danb_scribe> b: is including the example useful?

16:51:08 <danb_scribe> danbri: yes, shows we've considered the design, not process only answer

16:51:28 <danb_scribe> resolved: accept http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0155.html

16:51:43 <danb_scribe> (with 3 abstentions)

16:52:09 <bwm> amended to empaphasize that the proposed equals operation is inappropriate for the graph mechanism

16:52:28 <danb_scribe> oops (with 2 abstentions)

16:52:47 <danb_scribe> --- 18: Issue williams-02

16:52:47 <danb_scribe> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#wiliams-02

16:52:47 <danb_scribe> Jeremy's proposal:

16:52:47 <danb_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0154.html

16:53:06 <danb_scribe> jjc: I heard from MartinD, that i18n now no longer think normal form C good for IRIs

16:53:13 <danb_scribe> ...they like it for Literals though

16:53:25 <danb_scribe> ...but for IRIs, not mandatory or even suggested

16:53:31 <danb_scribe> jjc: we need an email from them saying that

16:53:45 <danb_scribe> ...if we get that, and amend Concepts accordingly

16:54:11 <danb_scribe> ...then our def of a URIref is same as Namespaces1.1's notion of an IRIref

16:54:14 <cmjg> jjc: message ref'd from agenda should use IRIref, not IRI

16:54:19 <danb_scribe> (did i get that right?)

16:54:25 <cmjg> yes\

16:54:29 <danb_scribe> jjc: duplication not as good as reference...

16:54:34 <gk> q+ to ask how SPACE, '>', '<' in an IRI are to be encoded in (say) RDF/XML

16:54:34 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

16:54:36 <danb_scribe> ...and Namespaces is more mainstream than RDF

16:55:05 <gk> q+ to note some discussion about additional chars in IRIs noted at IETF URI BOF

16:55:06 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

16:55:12 <danb_scribe> ...propose ACTION jermemy to email i18n to get written confirmation re advice they give on normal form C for IRIs (affirm, withdraw?)

16:55:28 <danb_scribe> ACTION jermemy to email i18n to get written confirmation re advice they give on normal form C for IRIs (affirm, withdraw?)

16:55:55 <danb_scribe> ...if we get that then it is easy to change Concepts to ref Namespaces1.1

16:55:55 <bwm> q?

16:55:55 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

16:56:04 <danb_scribe> ...since we only have normal form C

16:56:10 <danb_scribe> q+ to ask whether test cases need changes?

16:56:10 * Zakim sees gk, danb_scribe on the speaker queue

16:56:27 <danb_scribe> jjc: deleting text and replacing by pointer is good

16:56:45 <danb_scribe> ...if we did this, further issue: do we want to s/URIref/IRIref/ throughout our specs

16:56:48 <danb_scribe> ack gk

16:56:48 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to ask how SPACE, '>', '<' in an IRI are to be encoded in (say) RDF/XML and to note some discussion about additional chars in IRIs noted at IETF URI BOF

16:56:51 * Zakim sees danb_scribe on the speaker queue

16:57:13 <danb_scribe> gk: stablitiy of IRI spec... it's still up for discussion

16:57:22 <danb_scribe> ...how to deal w/ chars as above

16:57:31 <danb_scribe> ...also gen concerns about stability of cited txt

16:57:55 <danb_scribe> ...as it is a piece of text that says it'll itself be replaced at some point

16:57:59 <danb_scribe> ...concerned about this

16:58:09 <bwm> ack danb_scribe

16:58:09 <Zakim> danb_scribe, you wanted to ask whether test cases need changes?

16:58:10 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

16:58:14 <JosD> q+

16:58:15 * Zakim sees JosD on the speaker queue

16:58:21 <danb_scribe> jjc: 3 or 4 testcases would have to change

16:58:49 <gk> q+ do we have test cases for '<', '>' and SPACE in {U|I}RIrefs ?

16:58:49 * Zakim gk, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...'

16:58:56 <gk> q+ to ask do we have test cases for '<', '>' and SPACE in {U|I}RIrefs ?

16:58:56 * Zakim sees JosD, gk on the speaker queue

16:59:10 <bwm> ack josd

16:59:10 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

16:59:11 <danb_scribe> jos: commenting on gk's....

16:59:22 <danb_scribe> ...namespaces 1.1 is in CR, just point to that, whatever they do...

16:59:30 <danb_scribe> ...i support idea of IRIrefs as used in CR

16:59:50 <danb_scribe> frank: i oppose notion of changing to say 'IRIs'

17:00:08 <danb_scribe> ...i believe it might be appropriate to have a note that our syntax for rdf urirefs is in fact an iri as defined in this doc

17:00:30 <danb_scribe> ...but i prefer to have our pointer for such a basic concept not to be to an XML spec, but to a web arch spec of some kind

17:00:32 <danb_scribe> pat: me too

17:00:41 <danb_scribe> q+ to express concern about URI2IRI

17:00:41 * Zakim sees gk, danb_scribe on the speaker queue

17:00:51 <danb_scribe> b: there isn't one that defines IRIs

17:01:35 <danb_scribe> b: as chair, mindful to avoid change unless well motivated

17:01:36 <danb_scribe> q-

17:01:36 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

17:01:46 <danb_scribe> ADJOURNED

17:01:53 <danb_scribe> Next meeting: same time, place

17:02:01 <Zakim> -Pat_Hayes

17:02:02 <Zakim> -JosD

17:02:02 <Zakim> -HP

17:02:04 <Zakim> -FrankM

17:02:05 <Zakim> -DanBri

17:02:06 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean

17:02:16 <danb_scribe> logger, pointer?

17:02:16 <danb_scribe> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T17-02-16

17:03:11 <bwm> thanks danbri

17:05:17 <Zakim> -JJC

17:05:26 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne

17:05:27 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

17:06:22 * danb_scribe sends irc ptr and stopgap grep of ACTIONs

17:06:50 <danb_scribe> zakim, leave us