W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-04-25

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

13:58:51 <jang_scribe> zakim, list conferences

13:58:52 <Zakim> I see WAI_EOWG()8:30AM, ARCH_Team()9:30AM active

13:58:53 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are QA_Team()9:00AM, SW_RDFCore()10:00AM

13:58:59 <jang_scribe> zakim, this is sw_rdfcore

13:58:59 <Zakim> sorry, jang_scribe, I do not see a conference named 'sw_rdfcore'

13:59:10 <jang_scribe> zakim, this is SW_RDFCore

13:59:10 <Zakim> ok, jang_scribe

13:59:13 <Zakim> +??P2

13:59:23 <jang_scribe> zakim, ??p2 is ilrt

13:59:23 <Zakim> +ilrt; got it

13:59:28 * RRSAgent is logging

13:59:33 <em> zakim, this is RDF

13:59:33 <Zakim> em, this was already SW_RDFCore()10:00AM

13:59:34 <Zakim> ok, em

13:59:48 <DaveB> jang_scribe and I will chat in real life, on irc and telcon then

14:00:42 <Zakim> -ilrt

14:00:44 <Zakim> +ilrt

14:00:45 <Zakim> +EMiller

14:00:53 <Zakim> +DanBri

14:00:58 <em> zakim, who is here?

14:00:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, EMiller, DanBri (muted)

14:00:59 <Zakim> On IRC I see danbri, bwm, RRSAgent, Zakim, jang_scribe, DanC, em, DaveB, logger

14:01:11 * DanC puts down guitar, dons blue helm^H^H^H^H telcon headset

14:01:12 <jang_scribe> anyone having problems phoning in?

14:01:34 <Zakim> +??P6

14:01:45 <bwm> Zakim, ??p6 is bwm

14:01:45 <Zakim> +bwm; got it

14:02:20 * DanC Zakim, call DanC-BOS

14:02:20 * Zakim ok, DanC; the call is being made

14:02:21 <Zakim> +DanC

14:02:43 <Zakim> +Manola

14:03:26 <DanC> Zakim, who's on th ephone?

14:03:26 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, DanC.

14:03:26 <jang_scribe> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:03:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, EMiller, DanBri, bwm, DanC, Manola

14:03:38 <jang_scribe> zakim, ilrt has jang daveb

14:03:38 <Zakim> +jang, daveb; got it

14:03:53 <DanC> 21 group members in good standing per http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=27979

14:04:03 <jang_scribe> I'm scribing with a touchpad here, appreciate someone else C&Ping links in

14:05:28 <jang_scribe> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0290.html

14:05:40 * DanC hunts for agenda

14:05:44 <jang_scribe> (misdated in subject)

14:06:16 <Zakim> +PatH

14:06:55 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:06:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, EMiller, DanBri, bwm, DanC, Manola, PatH

14:06:56 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

14:06:58 * DanC recalls... in children's church, we sing "Jan's here! Jan's here! yeaaaaaaay Jan!" for each kid.

14:07:08 <jang_scribe> !

14:07:21 <jang_scribe> regrets: pats, gk

14:07:24 <DanC> agenda + 11Apr http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0290.html

14:07:24 * Zakim notes agendum 1 added

14:07:39 <jang_scribe> agenda review.. item 13 14 are teh same?

14:07:50 <DanC> DanC has changed the topic to: 25Apr telcon http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/

14:07:58 <jang_scribe> scratch item 14

14:08:03 <jang_scribe> next telecon next week

14:08:08 <jang_scribe> daveb will be scribing next week

14:08:19 <jang_scribe> lastmeeting's minutes:

14:08:32 <jang_scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0217.html

14:09:10 <jang_scribe> status of LCC comments etc skipped for now

14:09:18 <jang_scribe> PFPS-07, item 8

14:09:51 <jang_scribe> path: that's correct, has been fixed thoroughly

14:09:58 <DanC> where can I see the fix?

14:10:15 <DaveB> in the draft in item 8 of agenda

14:10:18 <jang_scribe> it's in the current editor's wd

14:10:33 <jang_scribe>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/

14:11:45 <jang_scribe> path: this addresses the typed literals + lang tags

14:11:59 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean

14:12:23 * DanC finds pointer from agenda. duh. sorry

14:12:50 <DaveB> I think patH is mostly talking about updates to 3.4 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#dtype_interp

14:13:43 <jang_scribe> path: propose to close this

14:13:46 <jang_scribe> jang_scribe: second

14:13:54 <jang_scribe> against? 0 abstain? 0

14:13:56 <jang_scribe> resolved

14:14:15 <jang_scribe> ACTION path: send [closed] message (this may already be done)

14:14:15 * RRSAgent records action 1

14:14:47 <jang_scribe> item 9: pfps-10

14:15:07 <em> lol

14:15:11 <jang_scribe> path: this is a bugfix which is fixed in this draft

14:16:28 <jang_scribe> DanC: include in test suite?

14:16:31 <jang_scribe> jang_scribe: ok.

14:16:48 <jang_scribe> ACTION jang: propose test case for pfps-10 (it's in the opriginating email)

14:16:48 * RRSAgent records action 2

14:17:10 <DaveB> [[ ex:foo ex:rel "a" . ]] entails [[ex:foo ex:rel _:x .

14:17:10 <DaveB> _:x rdf:type rdfs:Literal .]]

14:17:18 <DaveB> from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0085.html

14:17:46 <jang_scribe> propose to close this as fix

14:17:48 <jang_scribe> jang seconds

14:17:57 <jang_scribe> against? 0 abstain? 0

14:18:14 <jang_scribe> ^^ that action becomes: add it to the test suite.

14:18:39 <jang_scribe> path: pfps-08

14:18:54 <jang_scribe> this was rejected, it's now resolved to his satisfaction

14:19:39 <jang_scribe> can we change the disposition after the fact?

14:20:06 <jang_scribe> ACTION path: chase pfps response to pfps-08

14:20:07 * RRSAgent records action 3

14:20:27 <jang_scribe> item 10

14:20:30 <jang_scribe> timbl-03

14:20:44 <jang_scribe> two options suggested

14:20:50 <jang_scribe> daveb proposes a straight reject

14:20:59 <jang_scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0262.html

14:21:13 <jang_scribe> DanC: this has been in the spec for a while

14:22:06 <danbri> q+ to ask for something that will encourage flexibility from parsers

14:22:06 * Zakim sees danbri on the speaker queue

14:22:39 <jang_scribe> DanC: I'd object to this, but I'll understand if the chair overrules\

14:23:02 <jang_scribe> bwm: I suggested we reject but note in the doc or in the response to tim that there's nothing to stop an implementation not producing the triples

14:23:12 <jang_scribe> DaveB: you could say that about anything, why say it about this?

14:24:07 <jang_scribe> danbri: owl requires this...

14:24:17 <jang_scribe> DaveB: the syntax works at the rdf level

14:24:52 <jang_scribe> bwm: a graph entails any of its subgraphs

14:25:21 <jang_scribe> so throwing away triples doesn't _break_ entailments

14:25:31 <jang_scribe> DanC: we can't say "confirm"

14:25:33 <jang_scribe> conform even

14:25:59 <jang_scribe> bwm: one question then is that if we can do that, would you be less likely to object danc?

14:26:07 <jang_scribe> DanC: my position is going to be based on test cases

14:26:17 <jang_scribe> the test case weither has the List triple in it, or not

14:26:27 <jang_scribe> DaveB: I do not want to put those triples in tehre

14:26:39 <jang_scribe> any app could choose to not implement the mapping we've defined

14:26:46 <jang_scribe> previously we've had zero flexibility

14:26:55 <jang_scribe> (particularly since we're without bagid)

14:27:09 <jang_scribe> DanC: anyone can implement a mapping other than we've defined..

14:27:17 <jang_scribe> DaveB: yes, but we don't have to put it in the spec!

14:27:53 <jang_scribe> path: are there any other places in the parser where the _parser_ generates triples to do with domain and range?

14:27:56 <jang_scribe> no...

14:28:02 <jang_scribe> DaveB: because daml does it like this

14:28:21 <jang_scribe> DaveB: propose that we go with a straight rejection

14:28:30 * DanC asks whether he can speak for danbri and em here, or whether em wants to speak for W3C here

14:28:36 <jang_scribe> jang_scribe: second

14:28:50 <jang_scribe> against: danc, path

14:29:05 <jang_scribe> abstain? danbri (but in danc's organisation)

14:29:08 <danbri> q-

14:29:09 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:29:19 <jang_scribe> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:29:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, EMiller, DanBri, bwm, DanC, Manola, PatH, Mike_Dean

14:29:21 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

14:29:38 <jang_scribe> bwm: think we have to note the objections here.

14:29:48 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone

14:29:48 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', bwm

14:29:52 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:29:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, EMiller, DanBri, bwm, DanC, Manola, PatH, Mike_Dean

14:29:54 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

14:30:39 <jang_scribe> for: ilrt; against w3c; frank: abst; path: object; miked: abst

14:31:00 <jang_scribe> so not resolved

14:31:06 <jang_scribe> DanC: the burden now falls on those against

14:31:14 <jang_scribe> DanC: cost for rdfcore is :

14:31:20 <jang_scribe> syntax doc change, change test cases

14:31:25 <jang_scribe> DaveB: big example in primer

14:31:31 <jang_scribe> owl documents have it

14:31:39 <jang_scribe> primer has cost

14:32:13 <jang_scribe> DanC: jjc wrote to pfps, pfps said yes, they're needed here

14:32:44 <jang_scribe> path: these are entailed by rdfs; owl needs rdfs.

14:33:03 <jang_scribe> DanC: this is about the syntactic mapping to rdf.

14:33:19 <jang_scribe> the triple mapping depends on the List tokens being there.

14:34:06 <jang_scribe> DaveB: reads jjc's comment

14:34:17 <jang_scribe> (bwm: he'd currently be against)

14:35:00 <jang_scribe> ACTION danc: figure out the cost to OWL or to discuss with OWL whether they need the List tirples coming from the syntax

14:35:00 * RRSAgent records action 4

14:35:17 <jang_scribe> ACTION frank: look at cost to primer.

14:35:17 * RRSAgent records action 5

14:36:05 <jang_scribe> bwm: moving on

14:36:13 <jang_scribe> item 11: xmlsch-10

14:36:21 <jang_scribe> DaveB: I was going to postpone

14:36:36 <jang_scribe> the change would require OOC changes... it's in the minutes

14:37:57 <jang_scribe> [scribe has trouble following this]

14:38:21 <jang_scribe> DanC: the rdf/xml design (crops up in xmlsch-11 too)

14:38:38 <jang_scribe> isn't noncanonical, we've understood that

14:38:51 <jang_scribe> that is, we've noted the cost and gone as far as designing ntriples to mitigate this

14:41:31 <jang_scribe> DaveB: what they asked for was a syntax that could encode all rdf graphs

14:41:47 <jang_scribe> they wanted a syntax that matches the abvstract syntax 1-1

14:41:53 * danbri zakim mute danbri

14:41:59 * danbri zakim, mute danbri

14:41:59 * Zakim DanBri should now be muted

14:42:02 <jang_scribe> propose daveb

14:42:04 <jang_scribe> second danc

14:42:08 <jang_scribe> against? no

14:44:03 <jang_scribe> daveb:s proposed workds http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0277.html

14:44:52 <DaveB> original 0263

14:44:53 <jang_scribe> bwm: call vote formally, daveb gets ed discr to respond

14:45:01 <jang_scribe> against? no abstain? no

14:45:05 <jang_scribe> resolved

14:45:16 <jang_scribe> ACTION daveb: wordsmit & send an appropriate response

14:45:16 * RRSAgent records action 6

14:45:28 <jang_scribe> ACTION bwm: allocated postponed issue for xmlsch-10

14:45:28 * RRSAgent records action 7

14:45:42 <jang_scribe> Item 12: xmlsch-11

14:46:18 <jang_scribe> DaveB: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0272.html

14:50:57 <danbri> zakim, unmute danbri

14:50:58 <Zakim> DanBri should no longer be muted

14:51:18 <jang_scribe> DanC: likes the text

14:51:28 <jang_scribe> DaveB: but we can only accept, reject, postpone

14:51:35 <jang_scribe> DanC: move to add another: clarify

14:51:57 <jang_scribe> DanC: seems to work better if you put the 'decided' part at the bottom

14:52:12 <danbri> re 'Reject', how about 'Decided _not_ to change the specs based on ...'

14:52:59 <jang_scribe> bwm: given that we reclassify this as a 'clarification, any further discussion?

14:53:18 <jang_scribe> DaveB: proposes subject to changing 'reject' to 'clarify' and move status to bottom...

14:53:27 <jang_scribe> bwm: daveb has ed discr to smith here\

14:53:30 <jang_scribe> DanC: second

14:53:32 <jang_scribe> against 0

14:53:34 <jang_scribe> abstain 0

14:53:47 <jang_scribe> ACTION daveb: to respond to xmlsch-11

14:53:47 * RRSAgent records action 8

14:53:56 <jang_scribe> path: last paragraph, ungrammatical sentence

14:53:58 * danbri zakim, mute danbri

14:53:58 * Zakim DanBri should now be muted

14:54:11 <jang_scribe> Item 13: xmlsch-12

14:54:19 <jang_scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0274.html

14:54:42 <jang_scribe> DaveB: propose to reject here; this message says why

14:55:20 <jang_scribe> DanC: need other words than 'sucks because'...

14:55:25 <danbri> "sucks" isn't appropriate language.

14:55:28 <jang_scribe> just strike those two words.

14:57:02 <jang_scribe> discussion: the WG won't be here to welcome offers of help.

14:57:10 <jang_scribe> we _note_ your offer to help...

14:57:23 <jang_scribe> DanC: or action em to ask how do we deal with their offer to help?

14:57:58 <jang_scribe> DanC: the wg notes your offer of help and has asked the coordination group to carry it forward

14:58:15 <jang_scribe> DaveB: that and the two-word deletion, proposed then

14:58:21 <jang_scribe> seconded: path

14:58:29 <jang_scribe> against? no abstain? no

14:58:38 <jang_scribe> ACTION daveb: respond to xmlsch-12

14:58:38 * RRSAgent records action 9

14:58:52 <jang_scribe> ACTION bwm: postponed issue for this (it might be the same as for -10)

14:58:52 * RRSAgent records action 10

14:59:31 <jang_scribe> ACTION em: take this to carry xmlsch wg's offer of help to web coordination group

14:59:31 * RRSAgent records action 11

14:59:52 <DanC> well, the semantic web coordination group

15:00:06 <jang_scribe> thanks danc, noted

15:00:13 <jang_scribe> (that is, scribes notes that)

15:00:16 <jang_scribe> :-)

15:00:42 * DanC Zakim, is graham here?

15:00:42 * Zakim DanC, I do not see Graham anywhere

15:00:50 * DanC Zakim, is gk here?

15:00:51 * Zakim DanC, I do not see Gk anywhere

15:01:08 <jang_scribe> item 15, xmlsch-01

15:02:04 <DaveB> jjc's proposal http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0247.html

15:02:05 <em> action 11=em: take this to carry xmlsch wg's offer of help (-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html ) to semantic web coordination group

15:02:05 * RRSAgent records action 11 replaced

15:02:18 <bwm>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0489.html

15:02:51 <jang_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0252.html jjc's proposal to reject

15:03:09 <jang_scribe> DanC: this can be another clarify, not reject

15:03:20 <jang_scribe> they're asking 'why did you do it this way?'

15:03:38 <jang_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0247.html also proposal

15:06:52 <jang_scribe> bwm: how do people feel about 'regarding question 1'..?

15:07:40 * gk oops, got conference time wrong. Can't dial in now, it seems

15:07:49 <jang_scribe> bwm: anyone have strong objections on the breakdown into questions?

15:07:54 <em> gk, where are you at?

15:08:05 <jang_scribe> everyone sounds ok with response to question 1, 2.

15:08:42 <gk> em, disorganized, can't get dial-in to work

15:09:02 <jang_scribe> bwm: let's bring this one back next week

15:09:05 <jang_scribe> moving on:

15:09:16 <jang_scribe> xmlsch-02, item 16

15:09:33 <jang_scribe> propose to accpet: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0230.html

15:10:20 <jang_scribe> bwm; this is xmlsch-03, that we use the term 'lexical mapping' instead of datatype mapping

15:10:29 <jang_scribe> path responded that semantics uses lexical-to-value

15:10:36 <jang_scribe> frank also liked that l2v term

15:10:40 <DanC> the agenda will please ground names like "xmlsch-02" in URI space by including a pointer to the issues list (at leas at the top, if not under each agendum) next time, please.

15:11:41 <em> gk, you there/

15:11:43 <em> ?

15:11:44 <DaveB> q+

15:11:44 * Zakim sees DaveB on the speaker queue

15:11:52 <em> see private channel

15:12:00 <DaveB> concepts: 3.3 [A datatype mapping i]

15:12:09 <jang_scribe> DanC: these are words that are conventien to readers, not staking out top-level terminological space

15:12:24 <DaveB> q-

15:12:24 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:12:36 <DanC> s/these are/these seem to be.... right?/

15:12:44 <jang_scribe> yep

15:13:05 <jang_scribe> [scribe doesn't assume any speaker utters absolute truth]

15:13:37 <jang_scribe> bwm: as path points out, they're after inter-specification terminological consistency

15:14:37 <jang_scribe> DanC: the question is whether path's is introducing a concept, or borrowing. I don't mind if you're borrowing and renaming

15:14:51 <jang_scribe> path: I couldn't find the concept when I looked there.

15:15:11 <jang_scribe> DanC: borrow from 3.3 of concepts explicitly

15:15:29 <jang_scribe> don't mind if you import and rename for clarity

15:15:47 <jang_scribe> DanC: we can reply back saying give us a pointer into your spec that we can import from

15:16:01 <jang_scribe> DanC: I'm ok with NOT explicitly importing from xmlschema.

15:16:35 <jang_scribe> DanC: explains why: not completely unambiguous use of terms by xmlsch

15:17:13 <jang_scribe> can propose with action on editor to explicitly import "lexical mapping" from concepts 3.3

15:19:21 <jang_scribe> DanC: for the term defined in concepts 3.3, use "lexical mapping"

15:19:32 <jang_scribe> path: think it should be lexical-to-value mapping

15:19:59 <jang_scribe> I'm worried that we're indicating we're using this in a way that's consistent with a _future_ draft of the schema document

15:20:04 <jang_scribe> ^ xmlsch doc

15:21:00 <jang_scribe> DanC: suggest to postpone this, can't speak for jjc any more

15:21:03 <jang_scribe> bwm: ok, moving on

15:21:12 <jang_scribe> item 17: pfps-04 -05 -06

15:21:19 <jang_scribe> bwm: what can we do with these?

15:21:48 <DanC> (ah... good full URI pointers to issues here)

15:22:11 <jang_scribe> path: I've not yet written out a full proof of the closure lemma

15:22:58 <jang_scribe> DanC: we _can_ say, 'enough', and report nonsatisfaction of commented to the director, but point out that _we're_ happy with this

15:24:07 <jang_scribe> bwm: can we get a proposal by email mnextr week to close 04 05

15:24:17 <jang_scribe> then -06, same process, when you think it's ready

15:24:43 <jang_scribe> bwm: are we done?

15:24:59 * DanC would like to chat with EricM and Brian after the call

15:25:01 <jang_scribe> path: I've follwed up to review comments; that is, I've responded to gk, jang's comments

15:25:21 * DanC nothing sensitive, in case anybody else wants to stay

15:25:36 * danbri will lurk

15:25:43 <gk> I've seen Pat's response, and am happy with it. I'll try and re-read the doc at some stage.

15:26:06 <jang_scribe> bwm: suggest we close the meeting.

15:26:52 <DanC> [... suggestion to talk semantics/concepts after hours...]

15:26:59 <gk> Apologies for not being there on time. Also apologies for inaction. Losing email kinda put me in suspended animation for rdfcore for the past 2 weeks.

15:27:19 <gk> I's happily join in, but can't get into conference call.

15:27:26 <DanC> it's not your fault you lost the email. sigh.

15:27:42 <DanC> do you know what prevents you from joining the conference call?

15:27:49 <gk> Well, in a sense, it was... but these things happen.

15:28:12 <gk> I think it's because the conference is timed out, but that's only a guess.

15:28:48 <gk> In past ... I've noticed there seems to be a period when the bridge remains open for those online, but doesn't accept new connections.

15:29:17 <jang_scribe> ok, we're done

15:29:22 <Zakim> -ilrt

15:29:22 <Zakim> -Manola

15:29:24 <Zakim> -PatH

15:29:27 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean

15:30:45 <danbri> zakim, unmute danbri

15:30:45 <Zakim> DanBri should no longer be muted

15:31:14 * gk continues to lurk in IRC, if questions arise

15:31:24 <danbri> zakim, who is on the phone?

15:31:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see EMiller, DanBri, bwm, DanC

15:51:26 <Zakim> -DanBri

15:51:27 <Zakim> -bwm

15:51:27 <Zakim> -EMiller

15:51:32 <Zakim> -DanC

15:51:33 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

16:39:15 <em> zakim, who is here?

16:39:16 <Zakim> sorry, em, I don't know what conference this is; apparently SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

16:39:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, DanC, em, logger

16:39:25 <em> zakim, disconnet me

16:39:25 <Zakim> I don't understand 'disconnet me', em

16:39:28 <em> zakim, dissconnet me

16:39:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'dissconnet me', em

16:39:32 <em> zakim, disconnect me

16:39:32 <Zakim> sorry, em, I don't know what conference this is