13:01:01 logger has joined #rdfcore 13:01:01 Users on #rdfcore: @logger 13:44:54 danbri has joined #rdfcore 13:52:46 gk has joined #rdfcore 13:52:56 gk is now known as gk-scribe 13:52:56 hi gk 13:53:01 bwm has joined #rdfcore 13:53:11 Hi Dan ... U back in UK? 13:53:37 danbri has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2003-07-18 for 1hr+ agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0229.html 13:53:51 no, i'm at sophia (w3c/europe) 13:53:56 hi brian 13:54:14 G'day 13:54:51 re agenda 4 / scribe, I pre-volunteered for next week's duties. 13:55:13 * danbri is probably standing in for ericm today, though doubts he'll do a good impression 13:55:18 so you did that'll be quick then 13:55:26 (w3c staff contact role, i mean) 13:56:02 * bwm thinks that he'd rather have danbri doing an impression of danbri than em 13:56:46 Zakim has joined #rdfcore 13:56:51 zakim, this will be rdfcore 13:56:52 ok, danbri, I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM already started 13:57:02 urk, my clock's wrong 13:57:05 zakim, who is here? 13:57:06 On the phone I see no one 13:57:06 On IRC I see Zakim, bwm, gk-scribe, danbri, logger 13:57:10 Uh... I just did a dial-in and have some very folky music going on 13:57:12 quelle heure est il? 13:57:28 I have 3 before 3 13:57:37 Yup, about that 13:57:40 and so does my computer 13:57:52 me too 13:57:54 * bwm stocks up on tea 13:58:22 SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended 13:58:32 odd 13:58:36 zakim, this will be rdfcore 13:58:36 ok, danbri; I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 13:59:28 SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started 13:59:35 +??P0 14:00:06 +??P1 14:00:09 -??P0 14:00:10 +??P0 14:00:15 Zakim, ??p1 is bwm 14:00:15 +bwm; got it 14:00:21 +FrankM 14:01:41 +Charles 14:01:47 +GrahamKlyne 14:02:10 zakim, charles is temporarily danbri 14:02:10 +danbri; got it 14:02:15 -GrahamKlyne 14:02:32 zakim, mute danbri 14:02:32 danbri should now be muted 14:02:53 +GrahamKlyne 14:02:54 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:02:54 On the phone I see ??P0, bwm, FrankM, danbri (muted), GrahamKlyne (muted) 14:03:03 zakim, mute ??P0 14:03:04 ??P0 should now be muted 14:03:12 zakim, unmute ??P0 14:03:12 ??P0 should no longer be muted 14:03:21 zakim, ??P0 is ilrt 14:03:21 +ilrt; got it 14:03:27 zakim, unmute GrahamKlyne 14:03:27 GrahamKlyne was not muted, gk-scribe 14:03:41 zakim, who is here? 14:03:41 On the phone I see ilrt, bwm, FrankM, danbri (muted), GrahamKlyne 14:03:42 Zakim, ilrt has janG, daveB 14:03:42 On IRC I see Zakim, bwm, gk-scribe, danbri, logger 14:03:43 +janG, daveB; got it 14:03:50 zakim, mute bwm 14:03:50 bwm should now be muted 14:04:02 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:04:02 On the phone I see ilrt, bwm (muted), FrankM, danbri (muted), GrahamKlyne 14:04:04 ilrt has janG, daveB 14:04:05 +Mike_Dean 14:04:09 zakim, unmute bwm 14:04:09 bwm should no longer be muted 14:05:01 zakim, unmute danbri 14:05:01 danbri should no longer be muted 14:05:44 zakim, mute bwm 14:05:44 bwm should now be muted 14:05:50 DanC has joined #rdfcore 14:06:02 zakim, unmute bwm 14:06:02 bwm should no longer be muted 14:06:04 -bwm 14:06:10 mdean has joined #rdfcore 14:06:13 +??P4 14:06:25 zakim, ??P4 is Jeremy 14:06:26 +Jeremy; got it 14:06:53 jang has joined #rdfcore 14:06:54 * bwm redialing 14:07:02 * bwm gets no answer 14:07:06 * DanC reviews agenda, considers whether to join 14:07:21 DaveB has joined #rdfcore 14:08:02 Regrets: PatrickS (?) 14:08:14 +??P1 14:08:15 retracted-regrets from me 14:08:15 bwm: note that actions on agenda appear to be missing quoted stuff: python error? 14:08:23 bwm requests DanC take chair and proceed while he tries to reconnect 14:08:28 no DanC 14:08:30 s/danc/danB 14:08:43 that is, agenda item 6, action 20030627#1 14:08:51 zakim, ??P1 is patrick 14:08:51 +patrick; got it 14:08:57 zakim, mute patrick 14:08:57 patrick should now be muted 14:09:02 zakim, unmute patrick 14:09:02 patrick should no longer be muted 14:09:10 * DanC zakim, who is on the phone? 14:09:10 * Zakim sees on the phone: ilrt, FrankM, danbri, GrahamKlyne, Mike_Dean, Jeremy, patrick 14:09:12 * Zakim ilrt has janG, daveB 14:09:25 bwm, are you having trouble reconnecting? 14:09:29 * DanC Zakim, call DanC-BOS 14:09:30 * Zakim ok, DanC; the call is being made 14:09:31 +DanC 14:09:41 zakim, who is talking? 14:09:41 As far as I can tell, all regrets have turned up? 14:09:43 * DanC Zakim, drop DanC 14:09:43 * Zakim DanC is being disconnected 14:09:44 -DanC 14:09:46 PStickler has joined #rdfcore 14:09:53 jang, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: ilrt (17%), patrick (87%), FrankM (22%), GrahamKlyne (4%) 14:09:57 zakim, mute patrick 14:09:57 patrick should now be muted 14:10:10 * DanC Zakim, call DanC-BOS 14:10:10 * Zakim ok, DanC; the call is being made 14:10:11 +DanC 14:10:20 +??P5 14:10:30 Zakim, ??p5 is bwm 14:10:30 +bwm; got it 14:11:27 zakim, who is here? 14:11:27 On the phone I see ilrt, FrankM, danbri, GrahamKlyne, Mike_Dean, Jeremy, patrick (muted), DanC, bwm 14:11:29 ilrt has janG, daveB 14:11:30 On IRC I see PStickler, DaveB, jang, mdean, DanC, Zakim, bwm, gk-scribe, danbri, logger 14:11:36 Note to scribe: use "\" for continuation in minutes actions 14:12:10 agenda this time: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0229.html 14:12:32 Comments on agenda: none 14:12:40 Next telecon, per agenda, danbri to scribe 14:12:43 last minute http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0173.html 14:12:48 Minutes last meeting, OK 14:13:03 Completed actions: all OK 14:13:23 Misc actions: all continued 14:13:28 -Jeremy 14:14:05 Item 8: pfps-22,23 14:14:21 Proposal in agenda 14:15:02 +??P4 14:15:16 zakim, ??P4 is Jeremy 14:15:16 +Jeremy; got it 14:16:38 Discussion about deleting RDFS URI reference from section 4 of concepts... 14:16:49 No argument against 14:16:58 and the normative reference, right? 14:17:13 (That is the normative reference) 14:17:39 JosD has joined #rdfcore 14:17:47 Also use of term RDFcore: 14:17:56 * danbri hi JosD, will you be dialing in? 14:18:28 * JosD is trying... 14:18:38 +??P7 14:18:51 zakim, ??P7 is JosD 14:18:51 +JosD; got it 14:19:01 * danbri hears b/g noise 14:19:16 * DanC wonders where jjc is today 14:19:48 * danbri wonders if it sounded Italian 14:19:52 ACTION: jjc, review references to term "RDF core" in Concepts 14:20:11 s/review/remove/ 14:20:57 ACTION: jjc, apply changes per agendum 8 14:21:21 (What email client, so I can steer clear of it?) 14:21:32 Item 9, XML literal issue 14:21:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0224.html 14:22:05 * DanC Zakim, who's talking? 14:22:17 * Zakim DanC, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: FrankM (38%), GrahamKlyne (4%) 14:22:32 * DanC Zakim, who's talking? 14:22:43 * Zakim DanC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: FrankM (37%) 14:22:52 * DanC Zakim, mute FrankM temporarily 14:22:52 * Zakim FrankM should now be muted 14:23:06 * Zakim FrankM should now be unmuted again 14:23:08 Brian talking through his proposal 14:23:14 Any comments? 14:23:15 * DanC Zakim, I don't think you know who'se talking 14:23:15 * Zakim I don't understand 'I don't think you know who'se talking', DanC 14:23:30 zakim, unmute pstickler 14:23:30 sorry, PStickler, I do not see a party named 'pstickler' 14:23:43 zakim, unmute patrick 14:23:43 patrick should no longer be muted 14:23:54 q+ 14:23:54 * Zakim sees PStickler on the speaker queue 14:24:32 title example in 7.5 of RDF M&S 14:25:01 PatrickS: good to say things as proposed. Add comment about mixed content? 14:26:41 ... to say that for mixed (XML) content, language must be provided by additional markup 14:27:03 zakim, mute patrick 14:27:03 patrick should now be muted 14:27:05 ... e.g. or other XML language-specific markup. 14:27:23 * DanC still wonders where jjc is 14:28:03 zakim, unmute patrick 14:28:03 patrick should no longer be muted 14:28:05 Jeremy, this comment in concept of RDF/XHTML OK, not more general use 14:28:21 after comment/OK ^^ 14:28:37 ... not more general use of XML in RDF 14:28:51 zakim, mute patrick 14:28:51 patrick should now be muted 14:29:10 Proposed action to create a prostponed issue 14:29:13 No objection 14:29:14 +1 14:29:22 tutorial = primer, I presume 14:29:39 "- create a postponed issue to revisit support for 14:29:39 internationalization in the triple structure" 14:29:49 ACTION bwm, create postponed issue (as above) 14:30:23 Additional text for primer .. volunteers to draft? BWM only taker 14:30:37 * Zakim hears FrankM's hand up 14:30:38 * Zakim sees PStickler, FrankM on the speaker queue 14:30:46 Can Frank identify appropriate place for this? 14:31:07 Depends what it covers... BWM and Frank to do this offline 14:31:20 " - add a section to the tutorial suggesting care be taken when chosing 14:31:20 to use plain or xml literals" 14:31:24 I'd assume somewhere in section3, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#rdfxml 14:31:28 add a section to the tutorial suggesting care be taken when chosing 14:31:28 to use plain or xml literals 14:31:43 - add a note to 3.4 of concepts with a similar warning 14:31:57 q+ 14:31:57 * Zakim sees PStickler, FrankM, DaveB on the speaker queue 14:31:57 ACTION BWM, draft text for primer, as above, work with Frank to integrate it 14:32:03 (looking at the primer, it's not immediately obvious what section this discussion of literals should be added) 14:32:10 -q 14:32:19 q- 14:32:19 * Zakim sees FrankM, DaveB on the speaker queue 14:32:36 q? 14:32:36 * Zakim sees FrankM, DaveB on the speaker queue 14:32:52 change testcase http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/datatypes/Manifest.rdf#language-and-xml-literal 14:33:07 should be positive 14:33:13 Aboive should be positive entailment test 14:33:15 ack frankm 14:33:15 * Zakim sees DaveB on the speaker queue 14:33:27 ack daveb 14:33:27 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue 14:33:32 ACTION jang, update test case as noted above 14:33:49 q? 14:33:49 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue 14:34:07 DaveB may take some words from Brian for syntax 14:34:10 "dd a note to 3.4 of concepts with a similar warning" 14:34:12 ^add 14:34:21 ACTION, jjc, add appropriate text to concepts as proposed 14:34:32 - add a note to 3.4 of concepts with a similar warning 14:35:08 item 11 14:35:11 Item 11: Test cases to approve 14:35:30 Propose approve 14:35:30 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/tex-01/ 14:35:30 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlsch-02/ 14:35:30 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/horst-01/ 14:35:36 tex-01 test case looks good to me 14:37:36 horst-01 is always a non-entailment, despite knowledge of int, string 14:38:38 tex-01: danc seconds 14:38:49 -patrick 14:38:55 horst-01: approved 14:39:03 tex-01: approved 14:39:15 * bwm bwm is back 14:39:25 discuss xmlsch-02, 3 cases... 14:39:28 My line went silent... anyone home 14:39:46 (Currently talking) 14:40:05 PStickler: you were dropped above, zakim says 14:40:07 zakim shows patrick has dropped off call 14:40:22 * jang in passing: ACTION complete to update XMLLiteral datatype test case 14:40:57 +PatH 14:41:14 Ahhh, PatH kicked me off! ;-) 14:41:21 q+ 14:41:21 * Zakim sees DaveB on the speaker queue 14:41:42 +??P8 14:42:15 * DanC Zakim, who's talking? 14:42:16 ack daveB 14:42:16 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue 14:42:17 Dan seconds xmlsch-02 cases 14:42:25 * DanC Zakim, mute jeremy temporarily 14:42:25 * Zakim Jeremy should now be muted 14:42:26 zakim, mute patrick 14:42:26 sorry, PStickler, I do not see a party named 'patrick' 14:42:28 * Zakim DanC, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: ilrt (81%), FrankM (32%), Jeremy (41%), bwm (49%), ??P8 (22%), danbri (4%) 14:42:37 zakim, mute PStickler 14:42:37 sorry, PStickler, I do not see a party named 'PStickler' 14:42:40 * Zakim Jeremy should now be unmuted again 14:42:50 DaveB: not clear tests don't require knowledge of xsd datatypes 14:43:07 zakim, +??P8 is PStickler 14:43:07 sorry, PStickler, I do not recognize a party named '+??P8' 14:43:13 ... manifest doesn't say. 14:43:22 q- 14:43:22 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue 14:43:27 ... how to do ill-formed literal test 14:43:35 zakim, ??P8 is PStickler 14:43:35 +PStickler; got it 14:43:42 zakim, mute PStickler 14:43:42 PStickler should now be muted 14:43:57 Dave's point is good... the " 3 " test needs knowledge of the int datatype 14:43:59 DaveB: said that the manifest for xmlsch-02 needs an additional test:entailmentRules (maybe?) to show that xsd inference needed 14:44:20 Approved xmlsch-02 14:44:31 ACTION jjc, update manifest 14:44:34 (does jjc stick them in the test suite?) 14:44:54 Completes item 11 14:45:18 Agenda item 10: closing semnatics comments 14:45:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0015.html 14:45:32 pfps-02 14:45:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0015.html 14:45:33 pfps-06 14:45:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0013.html 14:46:13 DanC, asks that relevant text be pasted into any formal response, because reference may change 14:46:45 ... and paste link to archive version of document 14:47:04 propose close pfps-02, seconder DanC 14:47:11 APPROVED 14:47:20 pfps-06 14:48:15 Diffiult to paste in all relevant text, will try to catch improtant bits 14:48:28 Proposed ..., seconded Jos 14:48:33 DanC abstains 14:48:40 APPROVED 14:49:01 Response on pan-01 proposal to close 14:49:06 "I am afraid I disagree." -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0040.html 14:49:13 q+ to say that's maybe what OWL DL is? 14:49:13 * Zakim sees danbri on the speaker queue 14:50:29 * DanC Zakim, mute jeremy temproarily 14:50:29 * Zakim I don't understand 'mute jeremy temproarily', DanC 14:50:33 * DanC Zakim, mute jeremy temprorarily 14:50:33 * Zakim I don't understand 'mute jeremy temprorarily', DanC 14:50:40 * DanC Zakim, mute jeremy temporarily 14:50:40 * Zakim Jeremy should now be muted 14:50:53 * DanC confirms jjc is the source of the noise 14:50:55 * Zakim Jeremy should now be unmuted again 14:50:57 (I think the disagreement is with the claim that WebOnt has solved the problems) 14:51:24 Proposing to create a postponed issue... 14:51:39 * DanC Zakim, mute jeremy temporarily 14:51:39 * Zakim Jeremy should now be muted 14:51:46 PStickler has quit 14:51:54 * Zakim Jeremy should now be unmuted again 14:51:58 propose: create a postponed issue to define a layered sublangauge of RDFS 14:52:27 (qu-03 seems also living under this postpned issue for making a sublanguage) 14:52:54 refer to pan-01 and qu-03 14:53:22 how about something like, "the group notes that work underway in the W3C Web Ontology WG to create a profile of their OWL language, OWL DL, was motivated by similiar concerns regarding architectural layering." 14:53:59 seconded: danbri 14:54:09 abstain: GK 14:54:15 APPROVED 14:54:17 (who has the ball to get back to pan?) 14:54:40 ACTION, bwm, create postponed issue 14:54:53 ACTION path, respond further to Pan 14:55:02 q? 14:55:02 * Zakim sees danbri on the speaker queue 14:55:04 Item 10 done 14:55:15 ack danbri 14:55:15 danbri, you wanted to say that's maybe what OWL DL is? 14:55:16 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue 14:55:26 q- 14:55:26 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue 14:55:42 Item 12: schedule 14:56:02 Brian: Last call responses needed ... as agreed ... ASAP 14:56:28 Things decided, people not notified? 14:56:54 DanBri to progress vocab issues/doc next week, brian may help with process 14:57:07 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ 14:57:25 Semantics responses... 14:57:38 q+ re time -- i need to drop off at 5pm CET; was being staff contact person... 14:57:38 * Zakim danbri, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...' 14:57:44 q+ to note re time -- i need to drop off at 5pm CET; was being staff contact person... 14:57:44 * Zakim sees danbri on the speaker queue 15:00:33 ACTION bwm, complete Semantics last-call dance, and liaise with PatH where response not clear 15:00:44 Second last call needed? 15:01:05 Summary of changes: 15:01:30 (I'd appreciate a pointer to post-last-call-changelog for each doc; maybe I can find them) 15:01:52 PatH's description sounds like substantial changes to me 15:01:59 semantics: many editorial, datatype semantics revised, RDFS semantics weakened 15:02:08 XML literal handling 15:02:19 * danbri revisits http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#last-call 15:02:20 also removed lang tag from XML literals 15:02:54 Concepts: pulled all social meaning stuff 15:03:04 Syntax: killed bagid 15:03:27 removed rdf:type rdf:List from list "cons" elements 15:03:40 Schema: subclass and subproperty went from iff to if 15:03:53 subclass, subproperty semantics 15:04:22 Primer, not normative... 15:05:05 * DanC q+ to say in order to not do another last call, we'll need to convince The Director that the design we've got (after all these changes) has been widely reviewed 15:05:05 * Zakim sees danbri, DanC on the speaker queue 15:05:27 Added some discussion to typed literals, ... 15:05:46 ack danbri 15:05:46 danbri, you wanted to note re time -- i need to drop off at 5pm CET; was being staff contact person... 15:05:48 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue 15:05:59 noise 15:06:57 ack danc 15:06:57 DanC, you wanted to say in order to not do another last call, we'll need to convince The Director that the design we've got (after all these changes) has been widely reviewed 15:07:00 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue 15:08:25 Reviews -- semantics, widely reviewed by interested parties 15:09:00 DanC: Risk of people we don't hear from who thought LC was OK 15:09:19 josD: pretty convinced this is editorial 15:09:29 Jos: thinks semantics changes are mostly editorial -- no major test-case changes 15:09:44 * danbri zakim mute danbri 15:09:50 * danbri zakim, mute danbri 15:09:50 * Zakim danbri should now be muted 15:09:56 weakened entailment rules, but no problems with test cases 15:09:59 * danbri packs up his things, tries to keep listening 15:10:46 PatH: bit other issues not to do with entailment, eg I18N 15:11:39 zakim, unmute danbri 15:11:39 danbri should no longer be muted 15:11:50 (Advancing to proposed rec) 15:12:23 DanC: please draft PR request... use that as basis of LC decision 15:12:41 got to go... 15:12:41 PStickler has joined #rdfcore 15:12:45 zakim, drop danbri 15:12:45 danbri is being disconnected 15:12:46 -danbri 15:13:33 QA folks seem keen on conformance statements... do we need more? 15:14:04 DaveB: suggest copy OWL wording, ignoring class-of-software issues. 15:14:38 DanC: what is a "conforming RDF document" ??? (do we define such a document?) (RDF/XML document?) 15:15:02