W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-08-15

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

13:56:09 <danbri_> dave, was http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure/test002.nt approved?

13:58:54 <DaveB> dunno, the manifest records such things

13:59:21 <DaveB> seems not

14:00:01 <DaveB> from 2001-10 so rather old

14:00:18 <DaveB> xml:space - yup, definitely not approved

14:01:19 <danbri_> zakim, this is RDF_Core

14:01:19 <Zakim> sorry, danbri_, I do not see a conference named 'RDF_Core' in progress or scheduled at this time

14:01:24 <danbri_> zakim, this is RDFCore

14:01:24 <Zakim> ok, danbri_

14:01:29 <danbri_> zakim, who is here?

14:01:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM

14:01:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see DaveB, Zakim, danbri_, em, logger

14:01:56 <Zakim> +??P12

14:01:57 <Zakim> +EricM

14:02:04 * RRSAgent is logging

14:02:27 <em> zakim, ??P12 is Jeremy

14:02:27 <Zakim> +Jeremy; got it

14:02:37 <Zakim> +??P13

14:02:41 <em> zakim, who is here?

14:02:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, Jeremy, EricM, ??P13

14:02:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, DaveB, Zakim, danbri_, em, logger

14:02:53 <em> zakim, ??P13 is ILRT

14:02:53 <Zakim> +ILRT; got it

14:03:06 <em> zakim, ILRT holds DaveB and JanG

14:03:06 <Zakim> +DaveB, JanG; got it

14:03:25 <jang> jang is now known as jang_scribe

14:03:55 * danbri_ calling now

14:03:59 <Zakim> +Pat_Hayes

14:04:29 <Zakim> +DanBri

14:04:34 <jang_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0176.html agenda

14:05:03 <jang_scribe> zakim, who is here?

14:05:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, Jeremy, EricM, ILRT, Pat_Hayes, DanBri

14:05:04 <em> zakim, who is on the phone

14:05:04 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, JanG

14:05:05 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjc, jang_scribe, RRSAgent, DaveB, Zakim, danbri_, em, logger

14:05:06 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', em

14:05:50 <jang_scribe> regrets received already: Mike, Brian, Jos

14:06:03 <jang_scribe> GK..? Pats..?

14:06:45 <Zakim> +PatrickS

14:07:04 <danbri_> danbri_ has changed the topic to: RDFCOoooore 2003-08-15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0176.html

14:07:30 <jang_scribe> zakim, pick a scribe

14:07:30 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JanG

14:07:35 <jang_scribe> zakim, make it jjc

14:07:35 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make it jjc', jang_scribe

14:08:00 <jang_scribe> jjc volunteers for next week

14:08:03 <jang_scribe> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:08:03 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, Jeremy, EricM, ILRT, Pat_Hayes, DanBri, PatrickS

14:08:03 <danbri_> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:08:05 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, JanG

14:08:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, Jeremy, EricM, ILRT, Pat_Hayes, DanBri, PatrickS

14:08:07 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, JanG

14:08:31 <jang_scribe> agenda AOB: xsd + whitespace

14:09:26 <jang_scribe> minutes last week:

14:09:40 <jang_scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0138.html approved

14:09:43 <jang_scribe> completed actions:

14:10:18 <jang_scribe> done#

14:10:24 <jang_scribe> misc actions.

14:10:34 <jjc> Zakim, who is talking?

14:10:46 <Zakim> jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Jeremy (4%), ILRT (47%), FrankM (47%), PatrickS (23%)

14:13:13 <jang_scribe> #1 pending checkin, #2 done, #3 done, #10 ? continues, #4 continues, #4 jang done

14:14:01 <jang_scribe> item 8

14:14:08 <jang_scribe> reification vocab

14:14:13 <jang_scribe> path talks about his new words

14:14:28 <jang_scribe> hopefully nothing withoutstanding rational diffs.

14:14:39 <jang_scribe> editorial: omit "published document" words

14:15:43 <jang_scribe> danbri_: anything to fold in franks changes?

14:15:50 <jang_scribe> path: think frank's message was ok

14:15:57 <jang_scribe> action danbri to fold these into schema.

14:16:08 <jang_scribe> jjc: formally discourages that we never want to talk about this again

14:16:24 <jang_scribe> item 9: impl report

14:16:35 <jang_scribe>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance

14:16:42 <jang_scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0157.html

14:17:27 <Zakim> -PatrickS

14:17:27 <jang_scribe> (eric describes the document at that first link)

14:17:55 <Zakim> +PatrickS

14:18:21 <jang_scribe> em: I've added what are essentially "notes to self" on justifications for cr/pr

14:18:35 <DaveB> q+ to give impl report input

14:18:35 * Zakim sees DaveB on the speaker queue

14:19:05 <jang_scribe> em: seeks Wg feedback on this doc

14:19:17 <jang_scribe> DaveB: mostly been talking to key implementors chasing feedback

14:19:25 <jang_scribe> looking for "useful" implementation feedback

14:19:27 <danbri_> dave++ for jollying folks along on www-rdf-interest

14:19:28 <jang_scribe> sesame

14:19:30 <danbri_> and #rdfig

14:19:43 <jang_scribe> in the -comments archive

14:20:03 <danbri_> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2003Aug/0094.html RDF implementation reports

14:20:03 <danbri_> From: Dave Beckett (dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk)

14:20:03 <danbri_> Date: Fri, Aug 15 2003

14:20:08 <danbri_> Message-Id: <20030815113604.08fd3c58.dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

14:20:08 <jang_scribe> it's hard to get implementor feedback that isn't a press release

14:20:50 <jang_scribe> jjc: eg, I can say, jena implements reif to the extent of providing api and compact storage for reification

14:21:23 <jang_scribe> em: is this draft working for you?

14:21:38 <jang_scribe> danbri_: I find brief text as compelling or more so than checkboxes

14:22:27 <jang_scribe> daveb (amongst others) note that "parsers are the easy one"

14:22:40 <danbri_> danbri_: lets try be complete w.r.t. parsers

14:22:41 <jang_scribe> it's api, etc support that's less "well-defined" as to what "support for X" means

14:23:36 <jang_scribe> jjc: as an implementor I'm motivated by a blank checkbox where I thnk there should be a tick :-)

14:23:49 * DaveB notes need "Y", "N" and "don't know" or maybe "won't" :)

14:24:19 <jang_scribe> em: it strikes me that the impl exp report isn't all the parsers and languages etc

14:24:28 <jang_scribe> it's really the ones that do a good proportion of the test cases

14:24:42 <jang_scribe> it's the ones that conform to the specs that are most important to present to the director

14:24:55 <jang_scribe> I'd appreciate it being written up and included, however, even if incomplete

14:25:18 <jang_scribe> eg, on a weekly basis I'm fielding questions "what ruby/php etc toolkits are there?"

14:25:36 <jjc> q+

14:25:37 * Zakim sees DaveB, jjc on the speaker queue

14:25:39 <jang_scribe> danbri_: in summary then..?

14:25:41 <DaveB> ack DaveB

14:25:41 <Zakim> DaveB, you wanted to give impl report input

14:25:42 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

14:25:49 <jang_scribe> em: if you have a tk and haven't run it against LC test cases, do it

14:25:57 <jang_scribe> if you've input on other TKs, let me/daveb know

14:26:04 <DaveB> TAP/Stanford?

14:26:08 <danbri_> ACTION: danbri summarise rubyrdf for eric's survey

14:26:08 * RRSAgent records action 1

14:26:12 <jang_scribe> if you know of other groups that aren't listed here, make sure they run the TCs and get back to rdfcomments

14:26:25 <jang_scribe> q?

14:26:25 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

14:26:27 <jang_scribe> ack jjc

14:26:27 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:26:27 <danbri_> ack jjc

14:26:28 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:26:40 <jang_scribe> jjc: ask for HP endorsement at this stage?

14:26:47 <jang_scribe> em: good idea to get it in the works now.

14:27:19 <jang_scribe> ACTION jjc to chase hp endorsement for the impl report

14:29:14 <jang_scribe> chair notes time is pressing, moving on

14:29:21 <jang_scribe> item 10: denotation of rdf:XMLLiteral#

14:29:33 <jang_scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0163.html

14:29:39 <jang_scribe> jjc's proposal

14:29:57 <jang_scribe> [[

14:29:58 <jang_scribe> PROPOSE: accept the definition of rdf:XMLLiteral value space from

14:29:58 <jang_scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0452

14:29:58 <jang_scribe> and action concepts editors to integrate it in the editors draft, using

14:29:58 <jang_scribe> editorial discretion.

14:29:58 <jang_scribe> ]]

14:30:03 <danbri_> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0185.html Integrating text from Martin and Graham

14:30:03 <danbri_> (see particularly second bullet point UTF-8)

14:32:16 <jang_scribe> pats: the technical issues with path's foundational proposal are addressed here

14:32:46 <jang_scribe> danbri_: ready for a decision?

14:32:56 <jang_scribe> jjc: I think so, so I propose message 0185

14:33:08 <jang_scribe> path: that'll lead to minor wording changes in semantics

14:33:31 <jang_scribe> propose (JJC) adopt 185

14:33:33 <jang_scribe> no against

14:33:36 <jang_scribe> no abstain

14:33:52 <jang_scribe> ACTION path incorporate message 0185 into semantics (xmlliteral)

14:34:05 <em> rrsagent, actions?

14:34:05 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'actions'

14:34:06 <jang_scribe> ACTION daveb incorporate xmlliteral denotation words into syntax

14:34:26 <jang_scribe> ACTION jjc incorporate xmlliteral denotation words into concepts along 0185

14:34:27 * em notes to jang_scribe that 'ACTION:' triggers actions if helpful

14:34:39 <jang_scribe> ACTION jjc review syntax changes

14:34:53 <jang_scribe> ACTION jang check test cases with XMLLiteral and entailment

14:35:51 <jang_scribe> em: I read the primer in excruciating detail for the past days, I think it's excellent

14:35:58 <jang_scribe> danbri_: need a primer change?

14:36:12 <jang_scribe> em: I think what's here is fine

14:36:20 <jang_scribe> DaveB: I think it's ok, looked at it last week

14:36:34 <jang_scribe> 11: i18n update

14:37:02 <jang_scribe> [[

14:37:04 <jang_scribe> I18N are objecting to our current (post-LC) design regarding language

14:37:04 <jang_scribe> tagging and XML literals.

14:37:04 <jang_scribe> B/G Reading:

14:37:04 <jang_scribe> Minutes I18N Core TF telcon, 2003-08-05

14:37:04 <jang_scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0174.html

14:37:05 <jang_scribe> Summary from Richard Ishida

14:37:07 <jang_scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2003Aug/0022

14:37:11 <jang_scribe>

14:37:13 <jang_scribe> JJC's take on I18N concerns

14:37:15 <jang_scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0156.html

14:37:17 <jang_scribe> ]]

14:38:02 <jang_scribe> em: this has focussed a lot of attention on rdfcore

14:38:08 <jang_scribe> short version: they'll object

14:38:26 <jang_scribe> our impl report needs to include a strong rationale of why it chose this decision

14:38:43 <jang_scribe> path: "...objection?"

14:39:00 <jang_scribe> em: explains objection status. individuals and wgs can formally object to our positions

14:39:12 <danbri_> see http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews "3.3.2 Recording and Reporting Formal Objections"

14:39:16 <jang_scribe> eg, bwm has drafted a response to our formal objection from aaron

14:39:29 <DaveB> (objection was also from mike d)

14:40:04 <jang_scribe> a director's decision is largely about understanding why objections are made and understanding the WG position wrt those objections

14:40:09 <danbri_> "When the Chair believes that the legitimate concerns of the dissenters have received due consideration as far as is possible and reasonable, then objections MUST be recorded and the group SHOULD move on."

14:40:18 <jang_scribe> so we need a persuasive argument of why this decision is the right one

14:41:59 * jang_scribe looks at Ishida's summary... "markup integrity"..?

14:42:47 <jang_scribe> frankm: I'd like it to be really clear in what we write that the change since LC was done in response to comments received,

14:43:01 <jang_scribe> a formal objection says that they don't like the decision but some of this has to pass through us

14:43:08 <jang_scribe> if we have conflicting objections to resolve,

14:43:08 <danbri_> Should note that jjc has recently responded to Ishida's msg and points, a good start towards recording our reaction to the objection.

14:43:09 * DaveB reads a large list of substantice changes to OWL semantics doc, post LC version, draft CR version

14:43:28 <jang_scribe> part of the discussion has to address how to simultaneously resolve to satisfy everyone

14:43:54 * danbri_ notes that SOAP had a fair few changes too

14:44:27 <jang_scribe> em: making the case that this is the right decision that balances all these conflicting requirements

14:44:37 <jang_scribe> and fits within the framework is the task the WG has to do as it moves to wrap up

14:45:20 <jang_scribe> pats: didn't jjc say that these objections are inconflict with earlier objections from the group wrt exc-can

14:45:38 <jang_scribe> jjc: explains that point

14:46:22 <jang_scribe> danbri; talks about keeping XMLLiterals datatype-literal-flavoured

14:47:00 <jang_scribe> jjc: the one design that includes lang tags in scope but had unlanged typed lits didn't get much support in WG: I was the only person who liked that

14:47:51 <jang_scribe> frankm: we're after the minimum of rdf-specific magic involved in the process of handling XMLLiterals

14:48:02 <DaveB> IMHO since xml:lang support was *optional* in RDFM&S, some of i18n's objections have no basis

14:48:13 <jang_scribe> it's extremely difficult for an implementor/user who's worried about what's going to happen to their parsetype=literal expreession

14:49:06 <jang_scribe> jjc: there's a lot of material on the list, we need someone to grab it all and start putting it together

14:49:29 <jang_scribe> em: someone willing to take an initial stab at this would be good.

14:49:43 <jang_scribe> danbri_: jjc's initial response was good, addresses their point

14:50:49 <jang_scribe> pats: these are general XML problems, we're being singled out as an example

14:51:01 <DaveB> I18N's object isn't yet formally recorded, right?

14:51:04 <DaveB> objection

14:51:09 <jang_scribe> they're not _our_ problems or our bailiwick though

14:52:01 <jang_scribe> ACTION jjc to have a first pass through the lists to grab prior discussion on this issue

14:52:23 <jang_scribe> revise that to:

14:52:33 <jang_scribe> ACTIO Njjc to draft impl report response to i18n objection

14:53:22 <jang_scribe> em: move on?

14:53:35 <jang_scribe> all ok for the extra 30 minutes?

14:53:42 <jang_scribe> em: doc status...

14:54:03 <jang_scribe> jang_scribe: take whitespace AOB?

14:54:13 <jang_scribe> jjc: propose some text...

14:54:23 <jang_scribe> pats seconds it assuming that "SHOULD" becomes "MAY"

14:54:33 <DaveB> msg August/0164

14:54:34 <jjc>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0192.html

14:54:34 <danbri_> taking the AOB, Whitespace...

14:55:22 <jang_scribe> pats: test cases reflect what we expect the lexical form to be

14:55:26 <jang_scribe> so I'd leave them as is.

14:56:05 <jang_scribe> jjc: small statement in TC doc to note that these are "MAY" not "SHOULD"?

14:57:55 <jang_scribe> frankm: I'd like for someone to read the wording if pats' change is applied.

14:58:19 <jang_scribe> [[

14:58:19 <jang_scribe> > > Implementation Note: (normative)

14:58:19 <jang_scribe> > > In [XML-SCHEMA1], white space normalization occurs during

14:58:19 <jang_scribe> > validation according

14:58:19 <jang_scribe> > > to the value of the whiteSpace facet. The lexical-to-value

14:58:20 <jang_scribe> > mapping used in

14:58:22 <jang_scribe> > > RDF datatyping occurs after this, so that in RDF datatyping

14:58:24 <jang_scribe> > the whiteSpace

14:58:26 <jang_scribe> > > facet formally has no effect. However, in line with the

14:58:28 <jang_scribe> > principle of being

14:58:30 <jang_scribe> > > liberal with what is accepted and strict with what is produced:

14:58:32 <jang_scribe> > >

14:58:34 <jang_scribe> > > + During input processing of XML Schema Datatypes within

14:58:36 <jang_scribe> > RDF, software

14:58:38 <jang_scribe> MAY

14:58:40 <jang_scribe> apply the appropriate whitespace normalization

14:58:42 <jang_scribe> > immediatly before

14:58:44 <jang_scribe> > > the lexical to value mapping, and MAY produce a warning if

14:58:48 <jang_scribe> > any whitespace

14:58:50 <jang_scribe> > > is changed in this normalization.

14:58:52 <jang_scribe> > >

14:58:54 <jang_scribe> >

14:58:56 <jang_scribe> > > + Software generating RDF data SHOULD produce lexical forms

14:58:58 <jang_scribe> > > which do not require whitespace processing.

14:59:00 <jang_scribe> >

14:59:02 <jang_scribe> > >

14:59:04 <jang_scribe> > > (The keywords MAY and SHOULD are defined in [RFC ????])

14:59:06 <jang_scribe> > > ]]

14:59:08 <jang_scribe> > >

14:59:10 <jang_scribe> that's the proposal.

14:59:32 <jang_scribe> prop jjc, second pats. no objections. no abstentions.

14:59:36 <jang_scribe> test case:

14:59:55 <jang_scribe> ACTION jang to include test case document to not "may not pass this" in test case

15:00:07 <jang_scribe> ACTION daveb note in syntax to be changed wrt whitespace

15:00:18 <jang_scribe> ACTION concepts jjc to modify wrt whitespace resoluition

15:00:28 <jang_scribe> ACTION jjc to inform xmlschema WG wrt whitespace resolution

15:00:45 <jang_scribe> ACTION jjc to inform pfps wrt whitespace resolution

15:00:59 <jang_scribe> document status:

15:01:09 <jang_scribe> primer DONE

15:01:19 <jang_scribe> pfps 15 is done, in particular.

15:01:26 <jang_scribe> concepts:

15:01:41 <jang_scribe> jjc couple of things arising from today

15:02:26 <jang_scribe> jjc: if we agree to publish today I'll have a copy ready for monday morning

15:03:42 <jang_scribe> syntax: some things to do from today, I'll publish monday if you want

15:03:45 <jang_scribe> semantics: ditto

15:04:06 <jang_scribe> schema: I've an action on reification I can do monday

15:04:09 <jjc> q+

15:04:09 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

15:04:23 <jjc> q+ to talk about pfps and semantics

15:04:23 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

15:04:31 <danbri_> ack jjc

15:04:31 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to talk about pfps and semantics

15:04:32 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:04:33 <jang_scribe> test cases: cvs WC awaiting checkin, apart from that, actions from today

15:05:17 <jang_scribe> path: pfps is a great bug-finder and I believe we have all the bugs apart from the fine details wrt XMLLiteral

15:05:44 <jang_scribe> other objectsions are on the grounds of the general design of the rule systems which havent' changed since first draft

15:06:05 <jang_scribe> which I'm uninclined to do anything else about.

15:06:42 <jang_scribe> action path to write to pfps to characterise his outstanding objection wrt semantics design so we can capture that

15:06:52 <danbri_> 12: Process - next step? CR/LC2/PR/etc.

15:06:56 <jang_scribe> item 12: process: next step?

15:07:10 <jang_scribe> em: sounds like we can be ready to go monday, for a vote friday

15:07:46 <jang_scribe> i18n discussions sound like we HAVE made a substantive change

15:08:06 <jang_scribe> so the question is: have we had, in honesty, editorial cleanups since last call?

15:08:39 <jang_scribe> frankm: my impression was that if, in response to LC comment that a WG decision was needed, and a formal issue ascribed,

15:08:45 <jang_scribe> that they might very well be substantive

15:09:05 <jjc> q+

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

15:09:23 <jang_scribe> em: consider people looking at LC drafts, then these documents

15:10:16 <jang_scribe> frankm: with those substantive changes, is another LC due?

15:10:33 <jang_scribe> then that sounds like a "yes"

15:10:37 <jang_scribe> jjc: this sounds like nonsense

15:10:47 <jang_scribe> the process doc may say that any substantive change requires another LC

15:10:53 <jang_scribe> but in practice there is a judgement call

15:11:03 <jang_scribe> eg. removal of social meaning section

15:11:31 <jang_scribe> but our judgement is that we went through an appropriate process at that point and we don't need another LC

15:11:45 <jang_scribe> not because it wasn't a big change, but because we agve people a chance to be heard on that

15:12:03 <jang_scribe> the language change thing, we've made it widely known sufficiently to hear objects

15:12:15 <jang_scribe> we've listened to objections and decided that we're not persuaded by them

15:12:32 <jang_scribe> that we know about pending i18n objections is indication that we've done sufficient diligence to NOT require another LC?

15:12:55 <jang_scribe> pats: asks for "substantive change" definition?

15:13:24 <jang_scribe> and what about limiting comments to only particular sections

15:13:50 <jang_scribe> em: there are no strict guidelines

15:14:03 <danbri_>http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#return-to-wg

15:14:04 <jang_scribe> the onus on the WG is to make an argument for moving from one state to another

15:14:05 <danbri_> [[

15:14:05 <danbri_> A technical report is returned to a Working Group for further work in either of the following situations:

15:14:05 <danbri_> 1. The Working Group makes substantive changes to the technical report at any time after a Last Call announcement and prior to Publication as a Recommendation, except when the changes involve the removal of features at risk identified in a Call for Implementations. In the case of substantive changes, the Working Group MUST republish the technical report as a Working Draft.

15:14:07 <danbri_> 2. The Director requires the Working Group to address important issues raised during a review or as the result of implementation experience. In this case, Director MAY request that the Working Group republish the technical report as a Working Draft, even if the Working Group has not made substantive changes.

15:14:12 <danbri_> ]]

15:14:23 <danbri_>http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#substantive-change

15:14:40 <danbri_> [[

15:14:40 <danbri_> Indicate whether the document has been modified substantively since the previous step. A substantive change (whether deletion, inclusion, or other modification) is one where someone could reasonably expect that making the change would invalidate an individual's review or implementation experience. Other changes (e.g., clarifications, bug fixes, editorial repairs, and minor error corrections) are minor changes. A Working Group MUST document changes (both subst

15:14:41 <danbri_> antive and minor) between steps.

15:14:41 <danbri_> ]]

15:14:52 <jang_scribe> em: we've done a hell of a lot of outreach

15:15:02 <jang_scribe> so a second last call wraps and goes direct to PR, there's a case for that

15:15:56 <jang_scribe> jang_scribe: you can always say, "refer the honourable member to the same response we gave the last LC around"

15:18:16 <jang_scribe> jjc: I'd like to argue for CR labelling some parts of the design as "at risk"

15:18:26 <jang_scribe> this is basically what pats was after.

15:19:52 <jang_scribe> I think labelling the I18N area as "at risk" is sufficient.

15:19:58 <jang_scribe> pats: think the concerns are legit?

15:20:10 <jang_scribe> jjc: in that we've changed things, yes, but only that far

15:21:06 <jang_scribe> jjc: I'm viewing the second LC as viable jsut wrt the amount of effort available

15:21:33 <jang_scribe> so pragmatically, how do we progress as fast as possible?

15:21:55 <jang_scribe> em: what if the answer was a really short last call?

15:23:06 <jang_scribe> jang_scribe: what about LC? would we actually _do_ anything wrt the objections we know are coming?

15:23:54 <jang_scribe> pats: we posted to rdf-interest about the XMLliteral change, we didn't get feedback

15:24:03 <jang_scribe> that is, we SOLICITED feedback and didn't get much

15:24:24 <jang_scribe> path: we accepted comments a looong time after official LC closure

15:24:28 <jjc> (I don't view 2nd LC as viable - denying above)

15:25:01 <jang_scribe> extending for 15 minutes

15:25:12 <jang_scribe> em: I hope to achieve assessment of next steps

15:25:19 <danbri_> (15 minutes from end of call)

15:25:41 <jang_scribe> we've explored LC

15:25:56 <jang_scribe> thre's some argument that CR is the fastest route

15:26:11 <jang_scribe> jjc: getting strong feedback that second LC is going to take too long

15:26:45 <jang_scribe> we want to be done

15:27:06 <jang_scribe> pats: I'm in a similar position, seeing termination would be really nice

15:27:52 <jang_scribe> pats: I'd like the WG to say second LC is not necessary

15:28:50 <jang_scribe> danbri_: lists things in our favour: ongoing outreach, explored design space, accepted initial LC comments long past closure

15:29:35 <DaveB> we had comments about the wrapper tag showing confusion about it

15:29:43 <jang_scribe> danbri_: wrt xmlliteral, it'd be good to show we've really thoroughly explored the deisgn space

15:29:52 <jang_scribe> jjc: I already have an action to effectively do that

15:30:45 <jang_scribe> jjc: the jena team have been tracking the docs as they progress

15:30:50 <jang_scribe> the amount of changes we've had to make:

15:31:01 <jang_scribe> delete bagid code, the rdf:List triple, that kind of thing

15:31:09 <jang_scribe> the implementation changes have been minimal

15:32:54 <jang_scribe> danbri_: does anyone have a sense that there's a design out there that could satisfy everyone?

15:33:16 <jang_scribe> pats: our design may not address all of martin's concerns, but martin's concerns are for the whole XML community, not RDF in particular

15:33:44 <jang_scribe> I'd point at XML fragment to address that need, RDF will support any generic solution that the XML community arrives at

15:34:45 <jang_scribe> jjc: labelling XMLliteral as "at risk" still leaves the issue in some way open

15:35:07 <jang_scribe> we're seeking implementor feedback on, eg, the ability for an implemnentor to access language implementation within a literal

15:35:45 <jang_scribe> danbri_: typical "at risk" is a feature that might be dropepd or used inconsistently

15:36:29 <jang_scribe> danbri_: reasks the "is there another design" question to jjc

15:36:59 <jang_scribe> jjc: a design that satisfies martin would not satisfy other people (eg, owl), would be less well implemented, and in my opinion would actually serve i18n less well too

15:37:46 <jang_scribe> The RDF specs and OWL Dl specs now work together consistently post dropping lang tags from XML Literal

15:38:04 <jang_scribe> that is, current design actually makes RDF and OWL DL hang together consistently

15:38:26 <DaveB> q+

15:38:26 * Zakim sees jjc, DaveB on the speaker queue

15:38:28 <jang_scribe> path: offers agreement with that

15:38:45 * DaveB sees an owl test with xm:lang & ptL

15:39:01 <jang_scribe> em: jjc, please ensure that that case gets into the implementation report

15:39:09 <danbri_> "the wg believes that adjusting our (post-LC) design to accomdate Martin's concerns would raise objections elsewhere (incl. but not limted to OWL)"

15:39:16 <danbri_> ack jjc

15:39:16 * Zakim sees DaveB on the speaker queue

15:39:17 <jang_scribe> q?

15:39:17 * Zakim sees DaveB on the speaker queue

15:39:23 <jang_scribe> ack daveb

15:39:23 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:39:24 <danbri_> ack daveb

15:39:24 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:39:33 <em> q+ to get back to CR/LC discussions

15:39:34 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

15:39:38 <jang_scribe> owl miscellaneous consistent 201

15:39:38 <danbri_> misc-consistent-201 in owl

15:40:18 <DaveB> seems it has been changed; the xml:lang is now in the ptl body

15:40:19 <jang_scribe> jjc: I see the direct-to-cr route as having less risk

15:40:29 <jang_scribe> a second LC leaves the door wider open

15:40:31 <DaveB> ... however I can't see the status fo the test

15:41:09 <DaveB> ok, that test wsa PROPOSED, doesn't seem to be approved

15:41:25 <danbri_> jjc: Adv of CR: focus is on impl not design; and that we can more easily reject design-oriented comments

15:42:50 <danbri_> q?

15:42:50 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

15:42:53 <danbri_> ack em

15:42:53 <Zakim> em, you wanted to get back to CR/LC discussions

15:42:54 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:42:56 <em> ack em

15:42:56 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:43:06 <jang_scribe> frankm: I think that in evaluating this, you need to compare

15:43:11 <jang_scribe> cr: possibly with at-risk

15:43:13 <jang_scribe> versus

15:43:28 <jang_scribe> new set of LC docs where the WG practically rejects every comment they get

15:43:43 <DaveB> (timecheck)

15:44:13 <jang_scribe> danbri_: I'd much rather go cr

15:44:23 <jang_scribe> if we have to do LC2 it'll be a grumpy one and as short as possible

15:44:35 <jang_scribe> pats: strongly support jjc's proposal to go to cr

15:45:16 <jang_scribe> frankm: given that you think there'll be a battle to get to cr, is there more overhead involved in one or another?

15:45:20 * danbri_ looks at clock

15:45:21 <jang_scribe> em: less overhead in going to lc2

15:45:50 <jang_scribe> frankm: overhead means, overhead for everyone

15:47:46 <danbri_> I propose "the WG resolves that we'd like a CR, and expectation it would move on to PR; failing that, we would like any 2nd LC to be short, and as scoped as possible to specific issues; we are not receptive to design changes at this stage".

15:48:03 <jang_scribe> remove from failing that onwards

15:49:55 <danbri_> revised "the WG resolves that we'd like a CR (with at-risk sections w.r.t. I18N), and expectation it would move on to PR.".

15:50:46 <jang_scribe> meeting finishes

15:50:49 <danbri_> ADJOURNED.

15:50:52 <jang_scribe> APPROVED

15:51:22 <Zakim> -ILRT

15:51:32 <danbri_> jjc, what country are you in?

15:51:39 <jjc> uk

15:52:55 <Zakim> -Pat_Hayes

15:52:56 <Zakim> -Jeremy

15:53:06 <Zakim> -DanBri

15:53:22 <em> zakim, who is here?

15:53:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see FrankM, EricM, PatrickS

15:53:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see jjc, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri_, em, logger

15:53:58 <danbri_> rrsagent, pointer?

15:53:58 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2003/08/15-rdfcore-irc#T15-53-58

15:58:28 <danbri_>http://www.w3.org/2003/08/15-rdfcore-actions.rdf

15:58:38 <danbri_> I've set public ACLs on all these.

16:10:07 <Zakim> -EricM

16:16:37 <Zakim> -PatrickS

16:16:39 <Zakim> -FrankM

16:16:40 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended