W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-06-20

13:00:02 Users on #rdfcore: @logger

13:58:35 <em> em has changed the topic to: rdfcore jun 20 telecon

13:59:53 <jjc> Zakim said to me "you are the first participant in this conference, please hold while others join"

13:59:58 <jjc> That was a first for me.

14:01:10 <jjc> Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:01:11 <Zakim> sorry, jjc, I don't know what conference this is

14:01:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, danbri_dna, jjc, em, bwm, logger

14:01:23 * danbri_dna and jang having trouble connecting

14:01:28 <danbri_dna> zakim, this is RDF_Core

14:01:30 <Zakim> sorry, danbri_dna, I do not see a conference named 'RDF_Core'

14:01:31 <jjc> Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:01:31 <Zakim> sorry, jjc, I don't know what conference this is

14:01:32 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, danbri_dna, jjc, em, bwm, logger

14:01:33 <danbri_dna> zakim, this is RDFCore

14:01:33 <Zakim> ok, danbri_dna

14:01:39 <jjc> Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:01:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P17, FrankM

14:01:49 <Zakim> +??P20

14:01:54 * em will join in about 4 min

14:01:56 <bwm> Zakim, ??p20 is bwm

14:01:56 <Zakim> +bwm; got it

14:01:59 <jjc> Zakim, ?P17 is jjc

14:01:59 <Zakim> sorry, jjc, I do not recognize a party named '?P17'

14:02:03 <danbri_dna> 'passcode is not valid' :(

14:02:03 <jjc> Zakim, ??P17 is jjc

14:02:04 <Zakim> +jjc; got it

14:02:24 * RRSAgent is logging

14:02:30 * DanC Zakim, call DanC-BOS

14:02:30 * Zakim ok, DanC; the call is being made

14:02:31 <Zakim> +DanC

14:02:49 <DanC> agenda?

14:02:49 * Zakim sees nothing on the agenda

14:03:51 <bwm> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0134.html

14:04:11 <DanC> agenda + 20Jun http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0134.html

14:04:12 * Zakim notes agendum 1 added

14:04:15 * danbri_dna and jang try to debug phone problem

14:04:25 <Zakim> +??P18

14:04:31 * DanC Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:04:31 * Zakim sees on the phone: jjc, FrankM, bwm, DanC, ??P18

14:04:45 * DanC Zakim, ??P19 is ILRT

14:04:45 * Zakim sorry, DanC, I do not recognize a party named '??P19'

14:04:50 * DanC Zakim, ??P18 is ILRT

14:04:50 * Zakim +ILRT; got it

14:05:00 * DanC Zakim, ILRT holds JanG, DanBri

14:05:00 * Zakim +JanG, DanBri; got it

14:05:06 * DanC Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:05:06 * Zakim sees on the phone: jjc, FrankM, bwm, DanC, ILRT

14:05:07 * Zakim ILRT has JanG, DanBri

14:05:37 <DanC> DanC has changed the topic to: rdfcore jun 20 telecon. scribe: jjc

14:05:38 <jjc> jjc is now known as jjcscribe

14:07:35 <jjcscribe> agendum 1: scribe is jjc

14:07:46 * DanC notes "duration 120min". eek!

14:08:07 <jjcscribe> Zakim, who's on the phone?

14:08:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see jjc, FrankM, bwm, DanC, ILRT

14:08:08 <Zakim> ILRT has JanG, DanBri

14:08:09 <bwm> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:08:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see jjc, FrankM, bwm, DanC, ILRT

14:08:10 <Zakim> ILRT has JanG, DanBri

14:08:21 <DanC> agenda + warm-up calesthetics or do the wave or something

14:08:21 * Zakim notes agendum 2 added

14:08:38 <bwm>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0151.html

14:08:53 <jjcscribe> agendum item 2 roll call complete

14:09:06 <jjcscribe> agendum item 3 review agenda

14:09:23 <jjcscribe> the chair plans to tkae AOB before item 15

14:09:27 * DanC Zakim, pick a scribe

14:09:27 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DanC

14:09:30 <jjcscribe> 4 next meeting

14:09:33 * DanC Zakim, pick a scribe

14:09:33 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JanG

14:09:36 <jjcscribe> no scribe volunteer

14:09:38 * DanC Zakim, pick a scribe

14:09:39 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose FrankM

14:10:05 <Zakim> +EMiller

14:10:07 * em sorry for delay

14:10:33 <jjcscribe> DanC volunteers to scribe, EM will cover

14:10:48 <jjcscribe> agendum 5 minutes approved

14:10:51 <jjcscribe> agendum 6 minutes approved

14:11:20 <DanC> oops; neglected to check "update concepts to reflect disposition of danc-01"

14:11:22 <jjcscribe> agendum 7 complete actions recorded

14:11:27 <DanC> I guess I'll get a formal "are you ok?"

14:12:28 <jjcscribe> agendum 8 witrhdrawn actions

14:12:42 <DanC> (is there a test that shows synonyms for XMLLiteral? maybe it can't be done)

14:13:38 <jjcscribe> jjc: note that synonyms for XMLLiterals are allowed

14:13:46 <jjcscribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0173.html

14:13:54 <jjcscribe> agendum 9 OWL test cases

14:14:00 <jjcscribe> see msg above,

14:14:07 <jjcscribe> ACTION Jan review OWL Test Cases

14:14:17 <DanC> jjc's msg to webont http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0173.html

14:14:18 <jjcscribe> ACTION jjc clairfy scope of review of OWL Test Cases

14:14:56 <jjcscribe> agendum 10 value space of XMLLiteral

14:17:16 <gk> Oops, sorry I'm late. Dialling soon.

14:17:26 <bwm> welcome graham

14:18:48 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne

14:19:45 <jjcscribe> jumping to agenda item 13 I18N comment

14:19:50 * DanC asks that the chair make sure GK is with us

14:19:55 <jjcscribe> (jjc has explained what exlcussive canoncial XML is)

14:21:04 <jjcscribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0150.html

14:21:21 <bwm>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0025.html

14:21:25 <jjcscribe> (above msg contains exclusive canoncial XML discussion)

14:21:28 <DanC> the agenda doesn't cite the most relevant msg from I18N, to me http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0023.html

14:21:37 <bwm>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0132.html

14:24:31 <Zakim> +??P14

14:24:54 <JosD> Zakim. ??P14 is JosD

14:25:37 <gk> q+ to say that having to look inside the literal to look for markup is very painful to me

14:25:37 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:29:25 <em> is daveb here?

14:29:46 <jjcscribe> discussion of I18N msg

14:30:17 <jjcscribe> should treatmnet of parseType="Literal" be dependent on markup in side string

14:30:57 * em thought we had made a decision on this issue, but cant find records that we had - only that we talked about this

14:31:53 <jjcscribe> q+ to mention Cannes, and problems of not being able to distinguish

14:31:53 * Zakim sees gk, jjcscribe on the speaker queue

14:32:26 <jjcscribe> dan suggests folliowng I18N suggestion ..

14:32:32 <jjcscribe> ^dan^danc

14:33:18 <jjcscribe> bwm clarifies that dan is proposing a change to the parser

14:35:02 <jjcscribe> bwm asks can we reject this on the graounds of lateness?

14:35:21 <jjcscribe> danc maybe ...

14:36:20 <gk> Is an XML literal *really* a *byte* sequence, unlike a string??

14:36:25 <danbri_dna> q+ to have jang ask about something

14:36:25 * Zakim sees gk, jjcscribe, danbri_dna on the speaker queue

14:37:06 <gk> q-

14:37:06 * Zakim sees jjcscribe, danbri_dna on the speaker queue

14:37:56 <jjcscribe> danc: the I18N requirement is clear

14:38:21 <bwm> q?

14:38:22 * Zakim sees jjcscribe, danbri_dna on the speaker queue

14:38:27 <gk> q+ to make two suggestions: (a) restrict parsetype=literal, (b) drop XMLLiteral

14:38:29 * Zakim sees jjcscribe, danbri_dna, gk on the speaker queue

14:38:35 <jjcscribe> danc: we need to talk to them some more if we choose not to address the req

14:38:58 <bwm> ack danbri

14:38:58 <Zakim> danbri_dna, you wanted to have jang ask about something

14:38:59 * Zakim sees jjcscribe, gk on the speaker queue

14:39:43 <jjcscribe> jan asks why not use strings in value space?

14:39:56 <jjcscribe> jjc I think there was a reason but I can't remember it

14:40:11 <bwm> ack gk

14:40:11 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to make two suggestions: (a) restrict parsetype=literal, (b) drop XMLLiteral

14:40:13 * Zakim sees jjcscribe on the speaker queue

14:40:15 <bwm> q?

14:40:15 * Zakim sees jjcscribe on the speaker queue

14:40:19 <bwm> ack jjscribe

14:40:19 * Zakim sees jjcscribe on the speaker queue

14:40:34 <jjcscribe> q+ to explain why strings are not good

14:40:34 * Zakim sees jjcscribe on the speaker queue

14:42:00 * DanC wonders whether rdfms-xmlliteral has been reopened; feels awkward discussing an issue if it's not open

14:42:14 <jjcscribe> gk (a) could we restrict =literal to case when there is markup

14:42:38 * danbri_dna updates http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/ closing off pfps-24

14:43:20 <jjcscribe> jang: difficulties in serialization

14:44:16 <bwm> ack jjc

14:44:16 <Zakim> jjcscribe, you wanted to mention Cannes, and problems of not being able to distinguish and to explain why strings are not good

14:44:18 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:45:17 <gk> I think I disagree wioth jjc's entailment

14:45:30 <DanC> I hope it's in the test suite

14:45:50 <gk> DanC, I think it certainly should be

14:46:50 <gk> *is* XML a tree structure, or does in *encode* a tree structure

14:47:29 <gk> DanC says it's important to distinguish between a string that looks like XML, and "real" XML

14:48:18 <gk> GK asks: is it also important to distinguish between a string that happens to contain digits, and a string that denotes a number?

14:48:20 <DanC> that's the motivation for parseType="Literal", no?

14:48:47 <gk> DanC, that's not what I understood Ralph was claimed to say

14:49:06 <DanC> well, it's my motivation for parseType="Literal"

14:49:14 <jjcscribe> jos: can we use the datatype

14:50:27 <jjcscribe> does distinguishing XML and non-XML conflict with not distinguishing text from text?

14:50:36 <jjcscribe> gk: yes. danc: no.

14:51:34 <gk> q+ to offer another design

14:51:34 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:51:50 <DanC> consider <prop parseType="Literal">foo</> vs <prop>foo<//>

14:51:57 <DanC> ^bwm's example

14:52:08 * em cant think of any

14:52:23 * danbri_dna updates rdfs spec for edits in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0219.html

14:52:44 * danbri_dna has no strong opinion on this topic fwiw

14:53:13 <DanC> jjc: consider <prop parseType="Literal">foo &amp; bar </> vs <prop>foo &amp; bar</>

14:54:05 <gk> q-

14:54:06 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:54:32 * DanC isn't following fm; looks forward to scribe's transcription

14:55:47 * jjcscribe sorry danc - I haven't managed

14:55:56 * DanC is glad bwm is following

14:56:25 <jjcscribe> fm: parseTytpe="Literal" implicitly makes datatype = "XMLLiteral"

14:57:25 <gk> q+ to ask if parsetype=literal doesn't of itself constitute a different representation

14:57:25 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:59:02 <jjcscribe> q+ to ask about charmod

14:59:02 * Zakim sees gk, jjcscribe on the speaker queue

15:00:17 <DanC> jjc/fm: consider <prop parseType="Literal">100</> where upstream groks xsd:integer. [?]

15:01:55 <DanC> how does this motivate different abstract syntax from <prop>100</>

15:02:03 <DanC> ?

15:02:20 <jjcscribe> jjc: perhaps not very compelling

15:03:26 <gk> Jos suggests if you *really* want xmlliteral, then specify datatype XMLLiteral (?)

15:03:40 <bwm> jjc: consider <prop parseType="Literal">foo &amp; bar </> vs <prop>foo &amp; bar</>

15:04:01 <jjcscribe> danc: the I18N group has not convinced RDF Core

15:04:05 <jjcscribe> q+

15:04:05 * Zakim sees gk, jjcscribe on the speaker queue

15:04:56 <DanC> ... not convinces RDF Core to accept the requirement that <prop parseType="Literal">abc</> and <prop>abc</> have the same denotation

15:05:03 <DanC> convinced

15:08:22 * DanC em ping?

15:08:32 <gk> i.e. <foo>abc</foo> and <foo rdf:parsetype="Literal">abc</foo> are different representations.

15:08:36 <DanC> I'm not comfortable with "representation" here.

15:08:42 <em> i'm here... unmuted to speak but will follow up via irc

15:09:03 <bwm> ack gk

15:09:03 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to ask if parsetype=literal doesn't of itself constitute a different representation

15:09:05 * Zakim sees jjcscribe on the speaker queue

15:09:30 <jjcscribe> fm: are plain literals same as xsd:string?

15:09:36 <jjcscribe> some yeses, one agnostic

15:09:43 <em> i had this on an agenda with tim yesterday to help prep for this meeting (in case this happened)... unfortunatly didnt get to this due to other agenda items. I agree wrt getting a sense on management here - willig to do this

15:10:10 <em> q+ to confirm the previously raised issue about contradictory information

15:10:10 * Zakim sees jjcscribe, em on the speaker queue

15:10:19 <bwm> ack jjc

15:10:19 <Zakim> jjcscribe, you wanted to ask about charmod and to

15:10:20 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

15:10:27 <bwm> ack em

15:10:28 <Zakim> em, you wanted to confirm the previously raised issue about contradictory information

15:10:29 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:10:31 <jjcscribe> jjc: should we ask about charmod req

15:10:40 <jjcscribe> that we are contravening

15:11:30 <DanC> "management" includes the SemWeb CG, btw.

15:11:33 <jjcscribe> em: is this information consistent with cannes?

15:11:40 <jjcscribe> jjc: no it is not.

15:12:22 <jjcscribe> ACTION em get W3c mgmt feedback on I18N issue

15:12:43 <jjcscribe> ACTION jjc Dig out cannes minutes

15:13:20 <jjcscribe> ACTION bwm give feedback to martin

15:14:27 <jjcscribe> withdraw action bwm

15:14:32 <jjcscribe> ACTION danc give feedback to martin

15:14:51 <jjcscribe> end of I18N comment issue

15:15:00 <jjcscribe> back to value space of XMLLiteral

15:15:09 <jjcscribe> I18N issue seems to be parsing one

15:16:59 <jjcscribe> jjc: discusses jang preference against octet sequences

15:16:59 * gk has lost track of what we're discussing

15:17:12 * bwm item 10

15:17:18 * gk thanks

15:17:23 <jjcscribe> danc: qu are two bits of MXL equal is hard

15:17:39 <jjcscribe> danc: webont want equality

15:18:57 <jjcscribe> janG: every wg does its own thing on this

15:18:59 * gk I find it hard to conceive interesting RDF inference over XML literals

15:19:12 <jjcscribe> jang: is XML equality technically hard, or procedurally hard

15:19:26 <jjcscribe> danc: it is not hard, rather too easy, lots of answers

15:20:37 <jjcscribe> jjc: we had the requitement to have equality, the specs of the consortium that had this were the c14n specs, so thats why we have this

15:22:17 <jjcscribe> jang: the current value sapce is distasteful, but its not up to us to do better

15:22:55 <jjcscribe> jjc proposes XML Literal value space

15:23:00 <gk> The value space

15:23:01 <gk> is the set of all exclusive Canonical XML (with comments, with empty

15:23:01 <gk> InclusiveNamespaces PrefixList ), which when embedded within an arbitrary XML

15:23:01 <gk> start and end element form a document conforming to XML Namespaces [XML-NS].

15:24:32 <gk> "... canonicalized start and end element tags ..."?

15:24:41 <gk> (That last my comment, not quite)

15:26:16 <gk> BWM: "The value space of XML literals is a set of exclusively canonicalized XML"

15:26:26 <jjcscribe> jjc: clarifiies that editorial polishing may still be relevant

15:26:47 <jjcscribe> jproposes gk lines

15:27:31 <jjcscribe> proposed jjc, seconded jos, no abstentions, no agaionst

15:27:33 <jjcscribe> resolved

15:28:05 <jjcscribe> datatypes moved to email

15:28:10 <DanC> actions arising from that decision? is there a commentor waiting? [I feel a bit lost; never mind if I am, indeed, lost]

15:28:18 <jjcscribe> language tag or language identifier

15:28:45 <jjcscribe> semantics uses tag, primer neither

15:28:49 * DanC wonders what agendum we're on

15:29:00 <jjcscribe> agendum 12

15:29:11 <gk> DaveB, does syntax doc refer to labguage tag or identifier ??

15:29:20 <DaveB> I don't recall

15:29:26 <gk> ;-)

15:29:44 * DaveB could dial in, if necessary - bwm?

15:29:55 <gk> We think preferred term is "language tag" ...

15:30:11 <gk> ... for consistency acrosos docs. Do we care?

15:30:22 * DanC asks the series editor to flip a coin

15:30:28 <jjcscribe> editor has heard 'tag'

15:30:42 <jjcscribe> schedule

15:30:50 <gk> (RFC3066 uses "tag", and that's kind of the horse's mouth here)

15:31:05 <DaveB> hmm, I find 'language identifier' once at least

15:31:25 <DanC> re 14Jul... is that proposals from editors, or reviewed text for publication?

15:32:06 <DanC> em, what form of "done" do you have in mind for 14Jul?

15:32:59 <DanC> what's clear to me is that if we don't have a request for PR by 4 Aug, REC by ISWC is at risk.

15:33:05 <jjcscribe> fm: primer aimed to be ready by 1 July

15:33:11 <jjcscribe> jjc: concepts is ready

15:33:20 <em> i think what i described last week.... all open issues resolved and docs at a level that they could be ready to publish for a 2nd last call (*not* suggesting this is required, but thought of this in terms of worse case schedule scenario)

15:33:20 <DaveB> syntax is, or will be ready

15:33:25 <jjcscribe> danbri: schema waiting on peter a bit

15:33:33 <DaveB> (small items, I remembered a couple todo)

15:33:47 * danbri_dna waves to daveb

15:33:51 <jjcscribe> semantics -

15:33:54 * DanC feels we need more redundancy re semantics

15:34:30 * DanC wishes RDFS semantics were in a separate doc

15:35:01 <jjcscribe> bwm: which of PatH's version do we want?

15:35:19 <jjcscribe> Gk: want entailement rules, but don't care about completeness claim

15:35:26 <jjcscribe> jos, fm: +2

15:35:51 <jjcscribe> danc: implementation experience?

15:36:10 * em wonders if we should mute brian

15:36:12 <danbri_dna> bwm, brian do you want to be muted?

15:36:20 <gk> DanC, does implementation experience count for non-normative material?

15:36:26 <DanC> I'm trying to work from the "mother may we have PR status?" perspective.

15:37:05 <jjcscribe> bwm: I don't believe we need the completeness claim

15:39:27 * DanC q+ to say I thought the rules were normative. I'm pretty sure lots of implementations are based on them. I think they actually do specify the interoperability of RDFS

15:39:27 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:39:38 <DanC> ack danc

15:39:38 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say I thought the rules were normative. I'm pretty sure lots of implementations are based on them. I think they actually do specify the interoperability of RDFS

15:39:41 <gk> In support of jeremy: the benefit would be that we draw implementer feedback if we're wrong, so can move more quickly towards being truly complete. That said, I still don't care

15:39:42 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:42:55 <jjcscribe> danc asks whether rules should be normative

15:43:13 <jjcscribe> lots of people use the rules

15:43:30 <jjcscribe> (connolly, jena, de roo .... lots of others)

15:43:49 <jjcscribe> Ones that aren't: OWL Lite - DL implementations

15:45:03 <gk> q+ to say I think this debate is not really important. To the extent that the closure rules are a logical consequence of normative semantics, they *are* normative.

15:45:03 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:45:08 <Zakim> +Pat_Hayes

15:45:52 * DanC q+ to make the point about users expecations again

15:45:52 * Zakim sees gk, DanC on the speaker queue

15:46:23 <jjcscribe> Path speaks against normativity of closure rules

15:46:51 <jjcscribe> they are valid it is a fact

15:46:59 <jjcscribe> that they are complete is probably false

15:48:05 <gk> q+ to argue against DanC's "effective decision procedure"

15:48:05 * Zakim sees gk, DanC on the speaker queue

15:48:09 <jjcscribe> q+ to ask pat about completeness

15:48:09 * Zakim sees gk, DanC, jjcscribe on the speaker queue

15:49:41 <jjcscribe> PatH is not prepared to prove that RDFS is logically complete

15:50:22 <bwm> ack gk

15:50:22 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to say I think this debate is not really important. To the extent that the closure rules are a logical consequence of normative semantics, they *are* normative. and

15:50:25 <Zakim> ... to argue against DanC's "effective decision procedure"

15:50:26 * Zakim sees DanC, jjcscribe on the speaker queue

15:50:43 <em> q+ to balance picking our battles in the context of limited (and reducing) resources

15:50:43 * Zakim sees DanC, jjcscribe, em on the speaker queue

15:51:19 <bwm> ack danc

15:51:19 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to make the point about users expecations again

15:51:20 * Zakim sees jjcscribe, em on the speaker queue

15:51:29 <bwm> ack jjc

15:51:29 <Zakim> jjcscribe, you wanted to ask pat about completeness

15:51:30 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

15:51:58 <bwm> ack em

15:51:58 <Zakim> em, you wanted to balance picking our battles in the context of limited (and reducing) resources

15:51:59 <DanC> I thought the relevant theorem was "F1 rdfs-entails F2 iff datalog-closure(F1, rdfs-rules) rdf-simple-entails F2"

15:52:00 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:52:37 <bwm> regrets from mike dean, patrick

15:53:44 <jjcscribe> q+ to propose keeping editors conjecture as a compromise between normativity and dropping the rules

15:53:44 * Zakim sees jjcscribe on the speaker queue

15:55:43 <jjcscribe> danc: do we expect RDF RDFS reasoners to interoperate?

15:55:57 <bwm> ack jjc

15:55:57 <Zakim> jjcscribe, you wanted to propose keeping editors conjecture as a compromise between normativity and dropping the rules

15:55:59 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:55:59 <jjcscribe> gk, path, bwm: we do not define reasoners etc

15:58:08 <jjcscribe> jos was surprised to see rules move to an appendix

15:59:12 <jjcscribe> danc: when there is a bug where rules and model theory differ

15:59:22 <jjcscribe> danc: is this a bug in the rules or the mt?

15:59:33 <jjcscribe> path: in the rules by defn

16:00:34 <jjcscribe> gk: I don't want to be forced to use the rules for everything.

16:00:43 <jjcscribe> q+ to talk about datatypes

16:00:43 * Zakim sees jjcscribe on the speaker queue

16:01:18 <jjcscribe> danc: suggests banana as an RDF implementation!

16:01:22 * em appologies but needs to head off to next meeting

16:01:30 * em sighs

16:02:02 <DanC> this tells me that RDFS is too complicated. I thought it was 12 horn rules.

16:03:06 <jjcscribe> chair believes that it is late to raise normativity of rules

16:03:35 <em> q+

16:03:35 * Zakim sees jjcscribe, em on the speaker queue

16:04:39 <danbri_dna> the wg is out of time. we have to finish. i'm happy moving rules to appendix if that's the only way to finish...

16:04:50 <bwm> ack jjc

16:04:50 <Zakim> jjcscribe, you wanted to talk about datatypes

16:04:51 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

16:05:10 <bwm> ack em

16:05:10 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

16:06:32 <jjcscribe> em speaks about how to get to PR

16:07:27 <jjcscribe> bwm proposes closure rules remains in semantics doc and claim of completeness remains

16:08:22 <jjcscribe> no formal decision

16:08:25 <DanC> bwm, WG decisions are expensive. beware of saying "the WG must decide ..."

16:08:37 <jjcscribe> pat offers to strengthen RDF case with a proof

16:08:52 <em> i'm really sorry folks... i'm late and have to run. will lurk on irc for remainder of meeting

16:08:58 <Zakim> -EMiller

16:09:19 <jjcscribe> Meeting closes.

16:09:22 <Zakim> -??P14

16:09:27 <Zakim> -FrankM

16:09:42 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne

16:09:47 <Zakim> -bwm

16:14:17 <gk> DanC, to fly a kite, my story to the director would be that the entailment rules, though non-normative, to the extent that they are a logical cosequence of the normative semantics have normative force. Therefore there's no need for them to be normative.

16:31:58 * danbri_dna zakim, drop ILRT

16:31:58 * Zakim ILRT is being disconnected

16:31:59 <Zakim> -ILRT

16:55:23 <Zakim> -DanC

16:55:24 <Zakim> -jjc

16:55:34 <Zakim> -Pat_Hayes

16:55:35 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended