W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-05-02

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

14:01:04 <DaveB> ilrt dialling..

14:01:28 <bwm> bwm dialing ...

14:01:37 <DaveB> we're in

14:01:51 <bwm> sounds like a line from an action movie

14:02:19 * RRSAgent is logging

14:02:28 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:02:28 <Zakim> sorry, bwm, I don't know what conference this is

14:02:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, DaveB, gk, bwm, em, logger

14:02:31 <em> em has changed the topic to: rdfcore may 2 telecon

14:02:36 <em> zakim, this is rdf

14:02:36 <Zakim> ok, em

14:02:40 <em> zakim, who is here?

14:02:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P10, EMiller, PatH, ??P11

14:02:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, DaveB, gk, bwm, em, logger

14:02:41 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:02:42 <Zakim> +FrankM

14:02:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P10, EMiller, PatH, ??P11, FrankM

14:02:49 <DaveB> Zakim, ??P10 is ILRT

14:02:49 <Zakim> +ILRT; got it

14:02:57 <bwm> zakim mute ??P11

14:02:58 <DaveB> Zakim, ILRT has DaveB jang

14:02:58 <Zakim> +DaveB, jang; got it

14:03:19 <bwm> zakim, unmute ??p11

14:03:19 <Zakim> ??P11 was not muted, bwm

14:03:19 <Zakim> +??P14

14:03:29 <bwm> zakim, ??p11 is bwm

14:03:29 <Zakim> +bwm; got it

14:03:32 <em> zakim, ??P14 is jjc

14:03:32 <Zakim> +jjc; got it

14:04:22 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne

14:04:44 <Zakim> +DanBri

14:04:46 <cmjg> zakim, this is RDF

14:04:46 <Zakim> cmjg, this was already SW_RDFCore()10:00AM

14:04:47 <Zakim> ok, cmjg

14:04:56 <cmjg> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:04:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see ILRT, EMiller, PatH, bwm, FrankM, jjc, GrahamKlyne, DanBri

14:04:58 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, jang

14:05:15 <DaveB> DaveB is now known as db-scribe

14:05:26 <db-scribe> meeting starts

14:05:37 <db-scribe> (nnote I can't paste urls, so help appreciated)

14:05:48 <db-scribe> item 2 roll call

14:05:50 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:05:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see ILRT, EMiller, PatH, bwm, FrankM, jjc, GrahamKlyne, DanBri

14:05:52 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, jang

14:06:11 <db-scribe> regrets

14:06:22 <db-scribe> patrickS

14:06:24 <db-scribe> josD

14:06:53 <db-scribe> item 3 review agenda

14:07:07 <db-scribe> item 4 next telcon

14:07:16 <db-scribe> scribe: jjc

14:08:07 * gk prefers shorter telecon

14:08:33 * danBRIstol wonders if more folk might be here if it were 1hr

14:08:40 * gk but longer is OK if it's really productive

14:09:04 <db-scribe> discussion of telcon length

14:09:14 <em> zakim, who is here?

14:09:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see ILRT, EMiller, PatH, bwm, FrankM, jjc, GrahamKlyne, DanBri (muted)

14:09:16 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, jang

14:09:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see cmjg, danBRIstol, RRSAgent, Zakim, db-scribe, gk, bwm, em, logger

14:09:44 <db-scribe> item 5 minutes of 25 apr

14:09:59 * gk we don't need to be obliged to use the full telcom period, do we?

14:10:03 <db-scribe> approved with correction, item was postponed

14:10:10 <db-scribe> item 6 status of completed actions

14:10:32 <cmjg> zakim, who is talking?

14:10:39 * danBRIstol wondered if it was his own phone, but is muted

14:10:42 <Zakim> cmjg, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ILRT (60%), bwm (24%), FrankM (14%), GrahamKlyne (4%)

14:11:05 <db-scribe> we're muted (on our phone)

14:11:13 <em> zakim, who is talking?

14:11:18 <cmjg> zakim, mute ILRT

14:11:18 <Zakim> ILRT should now be muted

14:11:24 <Zakim> em, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ILRT (15%), bwm (39%), PatH (15%), FrankM (35%), GrahamKlyne (30%)

14:11:39 <danBRIstol> (how long would it take for ilrt to drop and redial?)

14:11:48 * gk now ILRT muted by Zakim, crackling seems to have gone

14:11:50 <cmjg> zakim, unmute ILRT

14:11:50 <Zakim> ILRT should no longer be muted

14:12:15 * gk crackling's back

14:12:18 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean

14:12:20 <db-scribe> item 7

14:12:29 <Zakim> -ILRT

14:12:40 <db-scribe> I (dave) read brian's comments, they looked fine

14:12:45 <mdean> sorry I'm late

14:12:52 <Zakim> +??P10

14:12:53 <cmjg> better?

14:12:59 <cmjg> zakim, ??p10 is ilrt

14:12:59 <Zakim> +ilrt; got it

14:13:04 <cmjg> zakim, ilrt has daveb jang

14:13:04 <Zakim> +daveb, jang; got it

14:14:06 <db-scribe> daveb, gk, frankm, path looked at the comments

14:14:08 <db-scribe> jjc

14:14:21 <db-scribe> bwm: uncertain of the owl transative properties comment, last one

14:14:43 <cmjg>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0002.html

14:14:49 <cmjg> bwm's comments

14:15:17 <db-scribe> jjc: agree with jos's avoiding bnode use on both sides

14:16:14 <db-scribe> since bnodes are different in diff graphs

14:16:26 <db-scribe> path: check rdf semantics doc on this issue

14:16:46 <db-scribe> path: a bnode is preseved through an inference

14:16:57 <db-scribe> a new graph but all the bnmodes are preseved identity...

14:17:02 <db-scribe> through the entailment

14:17:43 <db-scribe> ... we don't need to worry about this, if they are intended to be the same graph, you can make this work

14:17:59 <db-scribe> ... if different graphs then you don't assume it

14:18:15 <db-scribe> bwm: bnode and datatype property - using uris doesn't make the point so clearly

14:18:26 <db-scribe> ... although strictly should give a uri to a datatype value

14:18:42 <db-scribe> ... could add all the premises to the entailed section?

14:18:54 <db-scribe> jjc: happy to leave it

14:19:01 <db-scribe> jang: slightly agreeing with jjc

14:19:48 <db-scribe> bwm: anyone object to keep it this way?

14:19:51 <db-scribe> (no disagreement)

14:20:57 <db-scribe> path: propose to send to webont

14:21:30 <db-scribe> jjc: seconded

14:21:35 <db-scribe> against: none

14:21:41 <db-scribe> abstain: gk

14:21:57 <db-scribe> APPROVED

14:22:07 <db-scribe> ACTION bwm: forward comments in 0002 to webont

14:22:07 * RRSAgent records action 1

14:22:14 <db-scribe> item 8 comments on owl as+s

14:24:08 <db-scribe> jang: concern with 2.1 names of ontologies, section uses deferencing of web docs

14:24:31 <db-scribe> jang: propose to strike jang's comment on para 2.1

14:24:39 <db-scribe> jjc: I have reviewed these

14:25:29 <db-scribe> bwm: I've looked at some of these

14:25:46 <db-scribe> ... needs a little polishing on presentation of these before sending

14:26:02 <db-scribe> separate out typos from substantive issues

14:26:11 <db-scribe> so rdfcore can check the latter

14:26:18 <db-scribe> jang: happy to split them out

14:26:26 * gk I think I've found the changes in Semantics that PatH referred to, and I don't see how they address Jeremy's concern. Tey seem to be about distinguishing between graph union and merge, and if anything seem to reinforce JJC's concern.

14:26:37 <db-scribe> bwm: maybe give out separate ids for multiple comments

14:27:35 <db-scribe> jjc: comment on nfc, propose we drop

14:27:39 <db-scribe> jang: ok

14:27:51 <db-scribe> jjc: 2.3.2.1 propose drop

14:28:02 <db-scribe> - was intended meaning

14:28:13 <db-scribe> jang: pretty sure there is no rule

14:28:24 <db-scribe> jjc: mapping rule does apply...

14:29:12 <db-scribe> jjc: may want to ask to make this "hack" a bit more explicit

14:29:19 <db-scribe> jang: ok, will reword for that

14:29:21 <db-scribe> jjc: 4.1

14:29:29 <db-scribe> ... not sold on translation table

14:29:58 <db-scribe> jang: will reword 2.3.2.1 will say it was non-obvious, please elaborate

14:30:02 <db-scribe> s/will/will ask/

14:30:05 <db-scribe> 4.1 ...

14:30:49 <db-scribe> ... jjc points out his idea in jjc's formal objection

14:31:29 <db-scribe> jang: looks more at 2.3.2.1 still has problems seeing it

14:32:16 <db-scribe> ACTION jang: send revised 2.3.2.1 words to the list

14:32:16 * RRSAgent records action 2

14:32:35 <db-scribe> back to 4.1...

14:32:53 <em> :)

14:36:14 <db-scribe> jang: a great deal of difficulty telling it was right, found it highly opaque

14:36:21 <db-scribe> this one needs work

14:37:22 <db-scribe> jang: the contents of this table would not go into my impl

14:37:30 <db-scribe> ... not reaidng it formally, not clear to tell what it is doing

14:37:36 <db-scribe> daveb: I read it earlier, also found it hard to read

14:37:43 <db-scribe> ajng: formally, it looks like a mess

14:38:58 <db-scribe> bwm: try to reword this comment, feeling

14:39:37 <db-scribe> call for volunteers

14:40:15 <db-scribe> ACTION gk: review 4.1 of AS&S especially the translation to triples table, for implementation

14:40:15 * RRSAgent records action 3

14:41:11 <db-scribe> ACTION jang: split comments into editorial & substantial

14:41:11 * RRSAgent records action 4

14:41:42 <db-scribe> bwm: would like to make a decision by friday, comemnts deadline 9

14:41:57 <db-scribe> jjc: one more point - restrictions on blank nodes in owl dl and owl lite

14:42:15 <db-scribe> ... we chanegd rdf/xml to do blank nodes thoroguhly, maybe suggest owl do the same - allow them more

14:42:33 <db-scribe> ACTION jcc: explain point on blank nodes in dl, lite in OWL and propose a comment for owl

14:42:33 * RRSAgent records action 5

14:42:37 <db-scribe> jjc

14:43:13 <db-scribe> item 9 skipped

14:43:15 <db-scribe> item 10

14:43:20 <db-scribe> timbl-03

14:43:33 <db-scribe> - the rdf:type rdf:List issue

14:44:10 <db-scribe> frankm: primer has an example with full graph picture

14:44:52 <db-scribe> and would need more explanation about maybe not generating them, when they are infered

14:44:55 * gk ... was having problems connecting to W3C web and IRC servers

14:45:45 <db-scribe> if we take out rdf:List, we can't discuss lists in the primer at all ...

14:46:01 <danBRIstol> danBRIstol has changed the topic to: rdfcore may 2 telecon agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0003.html

14:46:04 <db-scribe> no webont feedback

14:47:21 * gk test

14:49:40 <db-scribe> ACTION jjc: ask jim, guus inform them that he will be dropping objection friday due to lack of webont response

14:49:40 * RRSAgent records action 6

14:50:01 <db-scribe> ACTION bwm: remind webont co-chairs about this issue

14:50:02 * RRSAgent records action 7

14:50:34 <db-scribe> ACTION eric: put this on the agenda for next SWCG

14:50:34 * RRSAgent records action 8

14:50:56 <db-scribe> item 11 danc-04

14:51:04 <db-scribe> - add a trivially true predicate

14:51:22 <jjc> q+ to object

14:51:22 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

14:51:35 <danBRIstol> q+ to object

14:51:35 * Zakim sees jjc, danBRIstol on the speaker queue

14:51:44 * db-scribe tempted to object on the "significant last minute change PoV"

14:51:58 <db-scribe> discussion...

14:52:07 <db-scribe> ack jjc

14:52:07 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to object

14:52:08 * Zakim sees danBRIstol on the speaker queue

14:52:27 <db-scribe> jjc - compelled by danBRIstol's argument

14:52:30 <db-scribe> ack danBRIstol

14:52:30 <Zakim> danBRIstol, you wanted to object

14:52:31 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:52:47 <db-scribe> danBRIstol: classic squeezing in ideas without a lot of discuss, impl

14:53:01 <db-scribe> em: 2nd danBRIstol

14:53:07 <danBRIstol> prior discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0108.html

14:53:34 <db-scribe> bwm: seems to be some consensus to object

14:53:47 <db-scribe> jang: maybe get feedback from IH, would it solve it form him?

14:54:35 <db-scribe> path: IH discovered late on that comment didn't mean comment

14:54:45 <db-scribe> (scribe: whatever *that* means!)

14:55:06 <cmjg> [em: comment has semantic impact]

14:55:22 <db-scribe> danBRIstol: problem was that rdf schema comments are the kind of thing that can be true or false of the world, xmlcomments are not part of the graph

14:56:19 <db-scribe> em: xml schema comments are a failure for prodviding a useful info

14:57:03 <em> ... in the sense that xml applications do not have access to this information

14:57:10 <db-scribe> ah

14:57:12 <em> (qualifies)

14:57:16 <db-scribe> but xml comments are in the infoset

14:57:30 <db-scribe> danBRIstol: propose to reject

14:57:45 <em> but with no way of 'associating' comments with the structure

14:57:53 <db-scribe> .. on grounds that it's too new, too late and not sufficiently motivated, well understood or discussed

14:57:59 <db-scribe> ... could explore in later specs

14:58:33 <db-scribe> changing to postpone

14:58:52 <db-scribe> ... above plus encouragement to try implementing

14:58:57 <db-scribe> seconded: jjc

14:59:05 <db-scribe> abstain: none

14:59:07 <db-scribe> against: none

14:59:18 <db-scribe> CARRIED - postpone danc-04

14:59:29 <db-scribe> ACTION bwm: add danc-04 to postponed issues list

14:59:29 * RRSAgent records action 9

14:59:56 <db-scribe> ACTION danbri: send the formal response on postponing danc-04 to list, submitted, with grounds

14:59:56 * RRSAgent records action 10

15:00:00 <db-scribe> item 12 vass-02

15:01:18 <db-scribe> danBRIstol: something of prefering a different rdf model that we consdiered, and didn't go for

15:01:31 <db-scribe> and related comments to this point of view, some on semantics too (path)

15:01:40 <danBRIstol> q+ to note that they don't like RDF's open world design principles

15:01:40 * Zakim sees danBRIstol on the speaker queue

15:02:14 <db-scribe> path: maybe could respond somewhat on how to do this in the rdf model rather than rej

15:02:29 <bwm> q?

15:02:29 * Zakim sees danBRIstol on the speaker queue

15:02:41 <bwm> ack danBRIstol

15:02:41 <Zakim> danBRIstol, you wanted to note that they don't like RDF's open world design principles

15:02:43 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:03:17 <db-scribe> coming from a point so diff from the design of rdf (such as open & closed world)

15:03:33 <gk> q+ to say their "metaproperty" idea looked to me like RDF superproperties

15:03:33 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:03:43 <db-scribe> danBRIstol: they have an impl that may be RDF M&S or some sort of it

15:04:00 <danBRIstol> see http://139.91.183.30:9090/RDF/VRP/ The Validating RDF Parser (VRP)

15:04:20 <db-scribe> jang: influenced by database and relational notions - how I'd categorise their perspective

15:04:41 <db-scribe> danBRIstol: their notation of schema validation is more database like

15:05:04 <db-scribe> path: hmm, somewhat in their own world

15:05:31 <db-scribe> ... good to do outreach

15:05:39 <jjc> q+

15:05:39 * Zakim sees gk, jjc on the speaker queue

15:05:55 <jjc> q+ to discuss subPropertyOf and triples

15:05:55 * Zakim sees gk, jjc on the speaker queue

15:05:59 <db-scribe> em: did a lot of work with rdf m&s ideas and bootstraped off their earlier dabtase and inference work

15:06:02 <danBRIstol> "The Validator checks whether the statements contained in both RDF schemas and resource descriptions satisfy the semantic constraints derived by the RDF Schema Specification (RDFS)."

15:06:37 <db-scribe> em: they made some things explicit as they needed them, a lot of impl and people using that toolkit

15:07:39 <db-scribe> path: don't violate the spec, but are using a more constrained world inside our specs

15:08:00 <db-scribe> bwm: they may want to claim completness, but their constraints mean they aren't quite

15:08:18 <db-scribe> ... rdf isn't saying you can't do that, it is just more liberal

15:08:44 <db-scribe> ... comment up to swcg that groups familiar with closed world approaches maybe needs to find some mechanism to explain the diffs and justify them

15:09:05 <db-scribe> danBRIstol: closed world stystems can be built on rdf, get your closed world jobs done ...

15:09:14 <db-scribe> ... but thye still claim thheir closed world system is RDFS

15:09:37 <db-scribe> bwm: is there a test case they can't do?

15:10:03 <db-scribe> em: maybe ask them in the response if they pass all the tests?

15:10:29 <db-scribe> ack gk

15:10:29 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to say their "metaproperty" idea looked to me like RDF superproperties

15:10:31 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

15:11:04 <db-scribe> gk: the original comment (half understood it) - talked about metaproperty seemed to be like rdf superproperty, less assymetry than they claim

15:11:11 <db-scribe> path: I agree, some misunderstanding maybe?

15:11:17 <bwm> ack jjc

15:11:17 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to discuss subPropertyOf and triples

15:11:18 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:11:26 <db-scribe> jjc: suggest how tey can do domain and range constraints using a superproperty

15:11:35 <db-scribe> path: their model is idiosyncratic somewhat

15:11:53 <danBRIstol> yes, we should point them in that direction

15:12:15 <db-scribe> jjc: say there is no instantiation of properties in the data laayer, but don't know what htye mean, isn't that just a triple?

15:13:24 <cmjg> this comment means, you have a schema and you have instance data and never the twain shall meet

15:13:39 <gk> q+ tp say that whatever response we make, I think it's unlikely we'll accept their comment

15:13:40 * Zakim gk, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...'

15:13:45 <db-scribe> bwm: we don't all understand their comment, either get that clarified or respond now

15:13:46 <gk> q+ to say that whatever response we make, I think it's unlikely we'll accept their comment

15:13:46 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:14:03 <db-scribe> jjc: happy with proposal in 305

15:14:12 <db-scribe> with a new example on superproperty

15:14:16 <db-scribe> path: +1

15:14:17 <danBRIstol> danbri: i could add domain/range on a superproperty

15:14:32 <db-scribe> path: may continue the dialogue with them

15:14:43 <gk> q+ to say I don't think we'll accept the point whatever response we make

15:14:43 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:14:59 <jjc> s/we/they/ ?

15:15:06 <db-scribe> danBRIstol: propose 305

15:15:08 <db-scribe> jjc: 2nded

15:15:12 <db-scribe> against: none

15:15:16 <db-scribe> abstain: none

15:15:25 <gk> q-

15:15:25 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:15:26 <db-scribe> APPROVED danc-04

15:15:42 <db-scribe> ERORO: vass-02

15:16:03 <db-scribe> ACTIOn danbri: respond on vass-02 using message 0305 with the new example

15:16:09 <danBRIstol> msg 305 rject + example, yup.

15:16:26 <db-scribe> item 13 xmlsch-03,4, pfps13

15:17:04 <gk> q+ to suggest a small tweak to jeremy's proposal

15:17:04 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:17:55 <db-scribe> xsd's notion of union datatype is substanially richer, more complex

15:18:18 <db-scribe> 03 - asked us to use certain terms, we prefer generally lexical-to-value

15:18:27 <db-scribe> (noisy kbd)?

15:18:50 * danBRIstol zakim, mute danbri

15:18:50 * Zakim DanBri should now be muted

15:19:07 <db-scribe> their lexical mapping fn is more complex, suggest we don't take their term, and be more consitent in using ou term lex-to-val mapping

15:19:11 <db-scribe> on 04 - zero or more

15:19:24 <db-scribe> ... we allow values in the value space that have no lex space, reason is union datatypes

15:19:48 <db-scribe> ... since they have a more complex understanding, suggest a note at the end - see msg

15:22:33 <db-scribe> bwm: union datatypes such as (union string, int) .. none have a lexical form

15:22:57 <db-scribe> path: they do by selecting "under the hood" and getting the union aspects

15:24:43 <gkgk> q?

15:24:43 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:26:16 <db-scribe> bwm: to jjc, maybe need to point ot last para of explanation

15:26:29 <db-scribe> jjc: asks path for help rewording, editorially after decision

15:27:27 <bwm> ack gk

15:27:27 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to suggest a small tweak to jeremy's proposal

15:27:28 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:27:36 <db-scribe> jjc points out rewording of first sentence

15:27:47 <db-scribe> gkgk: asks that it be made more inclusive as first setence, broader

15:28:22 <db-scribe> proposed by jjc, seconded gk

15:28:32 <db-scribe> against: none

15:28:35 <db-scribe> abstain: none

15:28:37 <db-scribe> APPROVED

15:29:00 <db-scribe> ACTION jjc,path: coordinate on wordsmithing resolution for xmlsch-03,04, pfps-13

15:29:07 <db-scribe> +gk in loop

15:29:13 <db-scribe> ^ignore that

15:29:35 <db-scribe> ACTION jjc: update the concepts doc with words discussed with path and gk from msg aprl 0368.html mesg

15:29:35 * RRSAgent records action 11

15:29:49 <db-scribe> ACTIOn jjc: send response after issues in april 0368 msg

15:30:08 <db-scribe> ACTION jjc: send response after issues in april 0368 msg

15:30:08 * RRSAgent records action 12

15:30:24 <db-scribe> item 14 xml schema class

15:30:48 <db-scribe> item descr erro: should be an rdfs:Schema class

15:31:54 <em> q+

15:31:55 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

15:31:59 <jjc> q+ to propose accept by owl:Ontology

15:31:59 * Zakim sees em, jjc on the speaker queue

15:32:16 <bwm> ack em

15:32:16 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

15:33:25 <db-scribe> jang: abstract syntax has the ontology

15:34:10 <db-scribe> ... connected to the terms, but it doesn't seem to appear in the rdf triples

15:34:47 <bwm> ack jjc

15:34:47 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to propose accept by owl:Ontology

15:34:48 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:35:10 <danBRIstol>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0302.html

15:35:44 <db-scribe> jjc: propose to ask webont about this issue

15:36:19 <bwm> ping

15:36:23 <danBRIstol> pong

15:38:52 <em> q+ to talk abuot registry

15:38:52 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

15:38:56 <cmjg> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/mapping.html - section 4. Mapping into RDF, only Annotations are linked to ontologies in the graph

15:39:15 <danBRIstol>http://rdfschema.info/2003/submit

15:39:24 <danBRIstol> [[

15:39:25 <danBRIstol> <rdf:RDF

15:39:25 <danBRIstol> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"

15:39:25 <danBRIstol> xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"

15:39:25 <danBRIstol> xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"

15:39:25 <danBRIstol> >

15:39:27 <danBRIstol> <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/">

15:39:29 <danBRIstol> <rdfs:label>FoaF</rdfs:label>

15:39:31 <danBRIstol> <rdfs:comment>The 'friend of a friend' vocabulary</rdfs:comment>

15:39:33 <danBRIstol> </owl:Ontology>

15:39:35 <danBRIstol> </rdf:RDF>

15:39:37 <danBRIstol> ]]

15:40:19 <db-scribe> discussion of every rdf schema is an owl ontology, not other way round

15:40:52 <jjc>http://rdfschema.info/2003/submit

15:40:59 <jjc> EIkin uses owl:Ontology

15:41:11 <jjc> ^Elkin^Eicon

15:41:38 <db-scribe> ack em

15:41:38 <Zakim> em, you wanted to talk abuot registry

15:41:39 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:41:59 <db-scribe> em: sun has this problem, lots of vocabs, trying to identify & organise them

15:42:34 <db-scribe> danBRIstol: provenance

15:43:10 <danBRIstol> My proposal for closing this remains http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0302.html

15:43:21 <db-scribe> bwm: anyone want this?

15:43:24 <db-scribe> daveb: yes

15:43:32 <db-scribe> em: if owl:Ontology is this thing, we don't need two

15:43:51 <db-scribe> path: I can argue owl:ontology doesn't meet this need

15:43:53 <danBRIstol> I would object to proposing an rdfs:Schema class at this stage.

15:45:26 <bwm> q?

15:45:26 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:46:15 <gk> q+ to ask whether or not OWL's done it doen't mean we should wade in too

15:46:16 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:46:17 <danBRIstol> q+ to propose a strategy

15:46:17 * Zakim sees gk, danBRIstol on the speaker queue

15:46:53 * danBRIstol wants to close this LC issue on the RDFS spec

15:47:10 <bwm> ack

15:47:14 <bwm> ack gk

15:47:15 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to ask whether or not OWL's done it doen't mean we should wade in too

15:47:15 <db-scribe> em: it's a name, that may be enoguh

15:47:16 * Zakim sees danBRIstol on the speaker queue

15:47:31 <bwm> ack danbri

15:47:31 <Zakim> danBRIstol, you wanted to propose a strategy

15:47:32 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:47:49 <db-scribe> jjc: webont backed off deliberately giving this a formal semantics

15:48:18 <em> q+ to ask a pracmatic question about owl:Ontology and rdf* schemas

15:48:18 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

15:49:05 <db-scribe> ACTION bwm: allocate a formal comment ID for this RDF schema issue

15:49:05 * RRSAgent records action 13

15:49:10 <db-scribe> ^LC comment ID

15:49:45 <gk> DanBri's prev message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0302.html

15:49:54 <db-scribe> proposal from danbri in 0302 might be a bit long

15:50:04 <em> q?

15:50:04 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

15:50:05 <db-scribe> along the lines of we think OWL ontology is applicable for this

15:50:47 <danBRIstol> proposal: the WG believes the OWL:Ontology class is applicable; its members are RDF vocabularies.

15:51:20 <db-scribe> proposal to not accept it

15:51:41 <db-scribe> on the grounds that owl:ONtology can be used for this purpose...

15:51:50 <db-scribe> ... future refinement of this comment belongs with the webont WG

15:52:15 <db-scribe> s/comment/concept/

15:52:47 <db-scribe> em: I own schemas the namespace issue

15:52:51 <bwm> future refinement of this concept will be done in the context of the OWL specifications.

15:52:55 <db-scribe> ... would you expect to see owl:Ontology in those docs?

15:54:53 <db-scribe> bwm: suggest to add these to the rdf schema in the schema doc

15:55:16 <bwm> Proposal: we accept this comment and will use owl:Ontology and will include in the schema for rdf schema

15:55:37 <db-scribe> against: none

15:55:47 <db-scribe> abstain: daveb, path

15:56:19 <em>http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#

15:56:31 <db-scribe> (time?)

15:57:01 <em> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Ontology">

15:57:01 <em> <rdfs:label>Ontology</rdfs:label>

15:57:01 <em> </rdfs:Class>

15:57:05 <db-scribe> APPROVED proposal above, vwmm

15:57:24 <db-scribe> ACTION danbri: respond to daniel on this issue

15:57:24 * RRSAgent records action 14

15:57:34 <db-scribe> ACTION danbri: add an owl:Ontology thing to rdf schema for rdf schema

15:57:34 * RRSAgent records action 15

15:57:47 <danBRIstol> noting http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Ontology">

15:57:47 <danBRIstol> <rdfs:label>Ontology</rdfs:label>

15:57:47 <danBRIstol> </rdfs:Class>

15:58:07 <db-scribe> item 15 tags in typed lits

15:58:09 <db-scribe> straw poll

15:58:15 <db-scribe> favour of removing them

15:58:19 <db-scribe> path - don't care

15:58:35 <gk> gk - in favour

15:58:35 <db-scribe> NO

15:58:41 <db-scribe> ---

15:59:03 <db-scribe> bwm: hypothesis noone argue against?

15:59:08 <db-scribe> (taking it out)

15:59:13 * danBRIstol notes http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl has a bunch of properties with domain/range of Ontology

15:59:17 <db-scribe> em: grumble, impl issues?

15:59:21 <jjc> q+ XMLLiteral

15:59:21 * Zakim sees em, XMLLiteral on the speaker queue

15:59:23 <db-scribe> bwm: say it was a mistake?

15:59:28 <jjc> q+ to XMLLiteral

15:59:28 * Zakim sees em, XMLLiteral, jjc on the speaker queue

15:59:46 <cmjg> XMLLiteral is on the queue? How appropriate.

16:00:01 <db-scribe> bwm: seems support for taking it out

16:00:07 <db-scribe> call for someone to write a proposal

16:00:10 <bwm> ack em

16:00:10 <Zakim> em, you wanted to ask a pracmatic question about owl:Ontology and rdf* schemas

16:00:12 <em> ack em

16:00:12 * Zakim sees XMLLiteral, jjc on the speaker queue

16:00:13 * Zakim sees XMLLiteral, jjc on the speaker queue

16:00:14 <bwm> ack jjc

16:00:14 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to XMLLiteral

16:00:15 * Zakim sees XMLLiteral on the speaker queue

16:00:22 <em> ack XMLLiteral

16:00:22 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

16:00:33 * em thinking about lang and datatypes...

16:00:34 <db-scribe> jjc: propose to remove lang tag from xmlliteral too

16:00:46 <db-scribe> on pfps-08 want xmlliteral to be treatadd like other literals

16:01:09 <em> <dc:subject xml:lang="fr-fr" rdf:datatype="&ddc;">chat</dc:subject> ...

16:01:22 <db-scribe> ACTION jjc: make proposal to treat XMLLiteral like any other datatype

16:01:22 * RRSAgent records action 16

16:01:30 <em> s/ddc/lcc

16:01:35 <em> hmm...

16:01:48 <db-scribe> ?

16:02:01 <db-scribe> end of meeting

16:02:10 <Zakim> -FrankM

16:02:11 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean

16:02:33 <Zakim> -ilrt

16:14:46 <danBRIstol> zakim, unmute danbri

16:14:46 <Zakim> DanBri was not muted, danBRIstol

16:15:03 <irc.w3.org> danBRIstol invited danbriP800 into channel #rdfcore.

16:15:35 <Zakim> -bwm

16:17:35 <danbriP800> hi from my phone

16:19:31 <Zakim> -EMiller

16:21:40 <Zakim> -DanBri

16:39:29 <Zakim> -jjc

16:41:36 <Zakim> -PatH

16:41:46 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne

16:41:47 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended