W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-04-11

13:01:02 Topic now 2003-04-04 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0041.html

13:01:02 Users on #rdfcore: logger em

14:01:20 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:01:22 <Zakim> sorry, bwm, I don't know what conference this is

14:01:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see gk, DaveB, Zakim, jang, bwm, logger, em

14:01:36 <bwm> zakim, this is rdfcore

14:01:39 <Zakim> ok, bwm

14:01:49 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:01:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see PatH, ??P21

14:01:56 <jang> zakim, ??p21 is ilrt

14:01:57 <Zakim> +ilrt; got it

14:02:04 <jang> zakim, ilrt has bwm daveb jang

14:02:04 <Zakim> +bwm, daveb, jang; got it

14:02:17 * em a couple min behind today... should be joining shortly

14:02:37 <danbri> I'm also late. Going to head into ILRT, regrets for first portion of meeting.

14:02:45 <Zakim> +EMiller

14:03:20 <danbri> re my actions: I have started the OWL review, have ack'd http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0416.html but not yet the other one re rdfs:Schema class. And not done the xml schema review yet.

14:04:12 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne

14:05:23 <jang> jang scribes until jjc arrives

14:05:23 <Zakim> + +00aaaa

14:05:36 * RRSAgent is logging

14:05:48 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:05:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see PatH, ilrt, EMiller, GrahamKlyne, +00aaaa

14:05:48 <em> em has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2003-04-11 teleconference

14:05:49 <Zakim> ilrt has bwm, daveb, jang

14:05:49 <jjc> jjc is now known as jjcscribe

14:06:03 <DaveB> agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0187.html

14:06:05 <em> zakim, +00aaaa is jjc

14:06:06 <Zakim> +jjc; got it

14:06:28 <jjcscribe> regrets danbri, miked,frank,patrick

14:06:39 <em> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:06:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see PatH, ilrt, EMiller, GrahamKlyne, jjc

14:06:40 <Zakim> ilrt has bwm, daveb, jang

14:06:52 <jjcscribe> AOB: gk - 3.3 of concepts - datatypes

14:06:59 <jjcscribe> how normative is it?

14:07:19 <jjcscribe> OWL Test Cases

14:08:06 <em> q+ to think it would be useful to run RDF Core tools on WebOnt test cases and see what happend

14:08:06 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

14:08:09 <jjcscribe> DaveB suggest OWL Test Cases as AOB

14:08:17 <em> ack em

14:08:17 <Zakim> em, you wanted to think it would be useful to run RDF Core tools on WebOnt test cases and see what happend

14:08:18 <jjcscribe> JJc clarifies that it was about reification

14:08:19 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:08:42 <jjcscribe> The chair rejects the suggestion of looking for holidays

14:08:52 <jjcscribe> Next telecon 25th april, scribe jan

14:09:01 <jjcscribe> Minutesd

14:09:19 <jjcscribe> Minutes of 28 Mar 2003 telecon with corrections

14:09:21 <jjcscribe> approved

14:09:31 <jjcscribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0097.html

14:09:39 <jjcscribe> Minutes of 04 Apr 2003 telecon

14:09:45 <jjcscribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0128.html

14:09:47 <jjcscribe> approved

14:09:55 <jjcscribe> 7 done

14:10:20 <jjcscribe> 8 reminder

14:10:34 <jjcscribe> 9 incoming last call comments

14:10:42 <jjcscribe> trying to divide up amongst the editors

14:10:58 <jjcscribe> Please editors follow up on these

14:11:40 <jjcscribe> 2003-03-28#8 daveB

14:11:44 <jjcscribe> is done

14:11:53 <jjcscribe> other xml sch actions continued

14:12:08 <gk>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0206.html

14:12:13 <jjcscribe> #timbl-02

14:12:38 <bwm>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0206.html

14:12:39 <jjcscribe> Is everyone happy?

14:13:05 <Zakim> +??P26

14:13:05 <jjcscribe> no objections, em wants another minute

14:13:16 <jjcscribe> Zakim, ??P26 is Jos

14:13:18 <Zakim> +Jos; got it

14:13:20 <jang> zakim, ??p26 is jos

14:13:22 <Zakim> sorry, jang, I do not recognize a party named '??p26'

14:13:25 <jjcscribe> Jos is tired.

14:13:47 <gk> em, It's very little changed from the last version .. just added details noted at top of message

14:13:48 <DaveB> gk: yes it is RolandS who does use reification as defined

14:14:03 <gk> Dave, do we have a reference?

14:14:26 <DaveB> it was personal communications but ther emight be something in www-rdf-comments

14:14:34 <jjcscribe> Jos thinks we made the wrong decision on tbl-02

14:14:58 <jjcscribe> jos: we should leave it out

14:15:26 <jjcscribe> CHAIR: we are not reopening the issue

14:15:49 <em> Roland Schwaenzl

14:16:05 <jjcscribe> em: wants pointer to Roland's project

14:16:14 <jjcscribe> in tbl-02 response

14:16:32 <em>http://www.math-net.de/

14:17:20 <DaveB> or http://www.math-net.org/

14:17:33 <DaveB> Roland: http://www.mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de/staff/phpages/schwaenzlr.html

14:17:35 * gk thanks Dave... I'll add that in

14:18:12 <gk> Note to self: add Roland Schwaenzl full name, and URI

14:18:26 <jjcscribe> general agreement with gk's text + em's mods

14:19:30 <jjcscribe> Proposal gk should send message

14:19:40 <jjcscribe> Discussion about whether Jos will object

14:20:26 <jjcscribe> Proposal carried, with Jos abstaining

14:20:46 <jjcscribe> ACTION gk send response tbl-02

14:20:51 <jjcscribe> 11. schedule

14:22:01 <jjcscribe> concepts progressing, syntax only four left

14:22:07 <gk> I believe remaining concepts issues are with Abstract Syntax, which I think Jeremy should lead

14:24:22 <jjcscribe> jeremy to make 4 proposals by next telecon

14:24:34 <jjcscribe> ACTION jeremy identify which four will be progressed next

14:24:56 <jjcscribe> ACTION dave make proposals on remaining syntax issues by next telecon

14:25:05 <jjcscribe> ACTION bwm talk to danbri about schema issues

14:25:36 <jjcscribe> path is prioritizing this work at the moment - Herman has raised a difficult one

14:26:14 <jjcscribe> This impacts naive implementations of closure rules.

14:26:29 <jjcscribe> ACTION jos WIll check closure rule impact on implementation

14:26:45 <jjcscribe> danbri turns up

14:27:09 <jjcscribe> ACTION danbri To propose eight resolutions for the next telecon

14:27:51 <jjcscribe> pat: asks about horrock-01 response

14:28:12 <jjcscribe> Chair: we need WG decision for issues on list

14:28:25 <jjcscribe> thus on horrocks-01 we have not had a decision

14:28:36 <jjcscribe> thus pat cannot reply until the decision

14:28:57 <jjcscribe> Pat proposes

14:29:08 <jjcscribe> msgh 110

14:29:09 <DaveB>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0110.html

14:29:11 <jjcscribe> Jos seconds

14:29:23 <jjcscribe> no discussion

14:29:56 <jjcscribe> resolved

14:30:19 <jjcscribe> discussion between path and bwm concerning when editor responds to commentor

14:30:47 <jjcscribe> daveb points out that the minutes have to be out

14:31:03 <jjcscribe> jjc did not care

14:31:29 <jjcscribe> jos did do some tests that shgowefd problems with rdf comments

14:31:46 <jjcscribe> (the resolution is now approved, earlier approval was premature)

14:32:08 <jjcscribe> Agenda 12

14:32:36 <jjcscribe> There are reviews, and Pat needs to respond

14:32:51 <jjcscribe> Jeremy's actions is continued

14:33:59 <jjcscribe> 14. tex-01 jjc still has do testcases - continued

14:34:10 <jjcscribe> 15. namespace

14:34:28 <jjcscribe> jjc proposed text in asgenda

14:34:36 <jjcscribe> dave seconds

14:34:44 <jjcscribe> no one against

14:34:49 <jjcscribe> gk abstain

14:34:54 <jjcscribe> approved

14:35:14 <jjcscribe> ACTION editors remove text about feedback

14:35:41 <gk>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0205.html

14:37:11 <jang> jang scribes.

14:37:24 <gk>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0201.html

14:37:33 <jang> gk: message 0201 has the revised proposal for pfps 22 23

14:37:42 <jang> a small wording change to replace uri with uriref

14:37:46 <jang> otherwise the same as it was before

14:37:49 <jang> is that ok?

14:38:31 <jang> 22 complains about status of reserved terms in abs syntax

14:39:12 <jang> I've redrafted the sections to be clearer about one can and cannot presume about urirefs which are "within"

14:39:18 <jang> the rdf and rdfs namespaces

14:40:13 <jang> gk reads out important sentence from his proposed resolution

14:40:34 <jang> danbri: could webont put stuff into the namespaces? do you say who can and who can't change or add these things?

14:40:45 <jang> danbri; making claims about things in the namespace is ok

14:40:59 <jang> adding things to the namespace is the province of w3c

14:41:16 <jang> it's hard to write predictive text that sketches what might happen

14:41:42 <jang> [[

14:41:56 <jang> Any information about URI references in the RDF and RDFS vocabularies (i.e.

14:41:56 <jang> those that start with the RDF or RDFS namespace name) that is not supported

14:41:56 <jang> by the RDF specifications (including possible future revisions and

14:41:57 <jang> extensions) should not be taken to be correct in all uses of RDF.

14:42:03 <jang> Any information about URI references in the RDF and RDFS vocabularies (i.e.

14:42:07 <jang> those that start with the RDF or RDFS namespace name) that is not supported

14:42:09 <jang> by the RDF specifications (including possible future revisions and

14:42:11 <jang> extensions) should not be taken to be correct in all uses of RDF.

14:42:17 <jang> Any information about URI references in the RDF and RDFS vocabularies (i.e.

14:42:19 <jang> those that start with the RDF or RDFS namespace name) that is not supported

14:42:21 <jang> by the RDF specifications (including possible future revisions and

14:42:23 <jang> extensions) should not be taken to be correct in all uses of RDF.

14:42:25 <jang> ]]

14:42:27 <jang> excuse multiple pastings, mac keyboard

14:42:29 <jang> danbri: it's 'extensions' that rattles me

14:42:38 <jang> path: the term 'semantic extension' has a precise meaning

14:42:50 <gk> q+ TO ASK IF *PROCEDURALLY* this discussion is helpful

14:42:50 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:42:51 <jang> JosD: agrees with pat

14:44:02 <jang> jjcscribe: does the last para not say again what's said in the first paragraph?

14:44:25 <jang> ack gk

14:44:25 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to ASK IF *PROCEDURALLY* this discussion is helpful

14:44:26 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:45:51 <jang> DaveB: the note for reviewers para should be deleted

14:46:06 <jang> DaveB: I'd take out the clause about possible future revisions and extensions

14:46:32 <jang> gk: just strike '(including possible future revisions and extensions)'?

14:47:48 <jang> general suggestion that the last para could go since it just restates the first one.

14:48:49 <jang> bwm: take a decisions or take more time?

14:49:06 <jang> gk: propose that we resolve pfps22 and pfps23 with the text outlined in message 0201

14:49:17 <jang> with the note for reviewrs and the last paragraph removed

14:49:19 <jang> jjc seconds

14:49:21 <jang> no against

14:49:23 <jang> no abst

14:49:26 <jang> APPROVED

14:49:30 <jang> bwm: gk, next!

14:50:44 <jang> ACTION jjc update CONCEPTS in light of this decision

14:51:03 <jang> ACTION gk respond wrt pfps 22 pfps 23 when the text is ready

14:51:37 <jang> (daveb notes he'll check syntax to ensure his wording agrees with this)

14:51:38 <jang> next

14:51:40 <jang> pfps16

14:51:43 <gk>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0200.html

14:51:46 <jang> message 0200 revised proposal

14:52:08 <jang> bwm: the issue is ...?

14:52:29 <jang> pfps 16: rdf's expressive power

14:52:51 <jang> raised: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0154.html

14:54:45 <jang> bwm: are gk and jjc in agreeement on this?

14:54:56 <jang> gk: I believe I've made responses which address jjc's concerns

14:55:16 <jang> jjcscribe: I think there are some silly points of difference (eg, which issues does which text address)

14:55:27 <jang> although we agree on the changes themselves,

14:55:46 <jang> also there's more difference of opinion on the size of changes to section 3.5

14:56:06 <jang> the editors have talked themselves to a standstill.

14:56:19 <jang> danbri: I've had a look at this;

14:56:36 <jang> it goes fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, assertion

14:56:46 <jang> I think it's better with s/fact/assertion/

14:57:30 <jang> bwm: what's the essence of the disagreement between gk and jjc?

14:57:39 <jjcscribe> zakim, mute jjc

14:57:40 <Zakim> jjc should now be muted

14:57:42 <jang> gk: I've chopped a lot of text, including stuff taken from the primer.

14:58:01 <jang> bwm: that's in a response to a pfps comment?

14:58:07 <jang> gk: I felt it was, yes.

14:58:19 <jjcscribe> zakim, unmute jjc

14:58:19 <Zakim> jjc should no longer be muted

14:58:50 <jang> jjcscribe: pfps commented that we'd made an erroneous statement on the expressive power of rdf

14:59:00 <jang> I felt that we should just delete the one sentence.

14:59:46 <jang> danbri: 3.5 as it currently stands is more modest in its claims, but it's positive in its tone

15:00:46 <jang> the modesty sets us up for the semantic web layering, I think

15:00:53 <jang> bwm: sets us up..?

15:01:07 <jang> danbri: we say rdf is simple and can only express simple assertions

15:01:22 <jang> but owl uses rdf to make more powerful expressions

15:01:45 <jang> JosD: I think I agree with jeremy.

15:01:55 <jang> jjcscribe: you mean the text in the last full document?

15:02:27 <jang> path: this issue is only relevant to one sentence of that text

15:02:46 <jang> gk: in the followup discussion with pfps I got the impression that he was more concerned with the rest of the text

15:04:38 <jang> path: it's not outrageous to use a cluster of binary relationships to encode an nary one

15:04:45 <jang> t's standard practice

15:04:55 <jang> we don't need to go overboard to dealing with this.

15:05:11 <DaveB> sentence "The expressive power of RDF corresponds to the existential-conjunctive (EC) subset of first order logic [Sowa]."

15:05:40 <jang> gk: I was being cautious about this ...

15:05:51 <jang> I've no objection to reverting to just deleting that sentence and pushing ahead

15:06:04 <jang> I just was concerned if that was all I did I'd wind up with another argument on my hands

15:06:04 * Zakim jang, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...'

15:06:23 <jang> ?

15:06:35 <jang> path: I'll back you up wrt that smaller change, gk.

15:07:12 <jang> jjcscribe: proposes just dropping the sentence

15:07:16 <jang> path: second

15:07:20 <jang> objections?

15:07:22 <jang> abstain?

15:07:27 <jang> resolved.

15:07:46 <jang> jjc happy to make changes to 2.2.6, 2.2.7 as editorial changes

15:10:16 <gk>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0199.html

15:10:18 <jang> gk: next, message to discuss:

15:10:51 <jang> jjc notes this impacts 2.2.6 too

15:11:10 <jang> bringing that text into line with our decision for describing the model

15:11:42 <jang> path: I think we have an 18-month-old decision on this

15:12:11 <jang> bmw: who's read this?

15:12:15 <jang> jjcscribe: I think I have

15:12:25 <jang> most recent change is s/property/predicate/

15:12:32 <jang> according to patrick's request

15:12:41 <jang> gk: there were two before this

15:12:51 <jang> the one before this was discussion about a three-element list

15:13:07 <jang> now just: each triple has three parts, subject, predicate, object

15:13:50 <jang> daveb;'s read it and is happy

15:13:55 <jang> jjc's read it and is happy

15:13:59 <jang> pat made warm noises

15:14:11 <jang> so proposal that the text in 0199 is accepting williams 01

15:14:23 <jang> and make the changes to the text as described in 0199

15:14:26 <jang> gk proposes

15:14:28 <jang> seconded daveb

15:14:43 <jang> path: wait up!

15:14:55 <jang> williams 01 asks for @nodes LABELLED with a uri@

15:15:04 <jang> gk: yes, so we're not accepting the comment

15:15:16 <jang> but modifying the text to satsfy the desire of consistency

15:15:24 <jang> gk: propose still

15:15:26 <jang> daveb still seconds

15:15:30 <jang> aghainst: no

15:15:33 <jang> abstain: no

15:15:35 <jang> resolved.

15:15:43 <jang> actions arising and frmo pfps 16:

15:15:49 <jang> as before, jjc to update document

15:16:05 <jang> action gk to respond to the issue when the text is available

15:16:35 <jang> bwm: what's next

15:16:47 <jang> gk: those are the hard issues, with specific proposal

15:16:59 <jang> the rdf fragment text

15:17:05 <jang> I've done another version of that text

15:17:08 <gk>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0203.html

15:17:17 <jang> the last versionb attracted private comment

15:17:29 <jang> message 0203 has a slightly revised version of the fragid text

15:17:51 <jang> the wording's changed from the previous version.

15:18:00 <jang> bwm: which LCC?

15:18:13 <jang> jjcscribe: it's related to LC comment, not issues

15:18:24 <jang> it's treated editorially, I'm happy, so let's not discuss this further

15:18:31 <jang> bwm: gk, want anything from the wg here?

15:19:05 <jang> gk: on the mailing list patrick made an objection to the whole section.

15:19:19 <jang> bwm: patrick's not here to discuss it, so I'd guess you need to plumb this issue with him

15:20:26 <jang> bwm: sounds like there's nothing here to discuss here today

15:20:41 <jang> path: sounds like there's some dissent that needs registering, without any other action

15:20:55 <jang> gk: other stuff isn't important, just heads-up

15:21:00 <jang> response ready for timbl-02

15:21:04 <jang> also for pfps-14

15:21:28 <jang> and this concludes the item 16

15:21:30 <jang> moving on

15:21:32 <jang> item 17

15:21:40 <jjcscribe> thnaks jan

15:22:01 <jang>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0012.html

15:22:12 <jjcscribe> what is the normative force of these triples

15:23:01 <jjcscribe> pat this is a black hole existence proof

15:23:28 <jjcscribe> danb this is about w3c process

15:24:33 <jjcscribe> this is not a comment about a document

15:24:38 <jjcscribe> thus we do not need to deal with it

15:24:52 <jjcscribe> gk: could pass it to the cg with the social meaning stuff

15:25:48 <jjcscribe> danbri changing the 1999 doc is hard

15:27:02 <jjcscribe> jjcscribe: can we change the document at &rdf;

15:27:10 <em> +1 on proposal

15:29:37 <jjcscribe> discussion of action one em or bwm

15:29:52 <jjcscribe> this is to indicate intent - not to be executed immediately

15:30:53 <jjcscribe> jos take the decsriptions from the vocab doc and put them at the ned of the URL

15:31:16 <jjcscribe> action em Request that the documents at the end of the rdf and rdfs namespace uris be updated to new spec

15:31:23 <jjcscribe> s/and rdfs//

15:32:21 <jjcscribe> JosD: see appendix A in vocab document

15:32:49 <jjcscribe> bwm: where is the black hole?

15:33:24 <jjcscribe> DaveB: we havce considered pfps's commnet, we have not accepted it as an issue since it is not about a document

15:33:31 <jjcscribe> we have decided to update the documents

15:33:36 <DaveB> s/we have not accepted//

15:33:38 <jjcscribe> ACTION daveb reply to pfps as above

15:34:07 <jjcscribe> s/above/below/

15:34:11 <DaveB> we have considered wth eocmment and decided to ask for the document at th enamespace to be updated

15:34:46 <DaveB> s/comment/email/

15:35:02 <DaveB> ^-last 2 lines is my action

15:35:29 <jjcscribe> JosD: appendix A says that it is not published - that sentence should go

15:36:56 <jjcscribe> discussion of how to find minutes

15:37:01 <jjcscribe> aob

15:37:02 <gk>http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Datatypes

15:37:09 <jjcscribe> 3.3 in LC

15:37:37 <jjcscribe> odd-ball normative in informative area

15:40:52 <jjcscribe> Dave's AOB OWL TEst Cases

15:41:08 <jjcscribe> proposed as a bar conversation

15:41:47 <jjcscribe> jjc OWL test will go to last call soon

15:41:50 <jjcscribe> ADjourned

15:42:00 <Zakim> -Jos

15:42:07 <Zakim> -EMiller

15:42:09 <Zakim> -ilrt

15:52:00 <Zakim> -PatH

15:52:01 <Zakim> -jjc

15:52:12 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne

15:52:13 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

15:56:03 <jjcscribe> logger, pointer?

15:56:03 <jjcscribe> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-04-11#T15-56-03

15:56:13 <jjcscribe> RRSAgent, pointer?

15:56:13 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2003/04/11-rdfcore-irc#T15-56-13

17:33:00 * Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed