W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-08-22

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

13:44:08 <danbri> zakim, this will be RDFCore

13:44:08 <Zakim> ok, danbri; I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes

13:46:09 <danbri> danbri has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2003-08-22 agenda: http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfcore-in-exile/2003-August/000004.html

13:55:54 <danbri> em, can you look over the agenda... am wondering about re-ordering...

13:56:17 <danbri> also brian suggested AOB fodder: xmlsc-02 (whitespace) and pfps-05 objection, both w.r.t. Peter

13:56:18 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started

13:56:26 <Zakim> + +358.408.01aaaa

13:56:35 * em looking at agenda now

13:58:15 <em> order is fine i think - but i'd give higher preference to all agenda items getting us to conclude on wrapping docs up, issues list closed and discuss LC,CR

13:58:35 <danbri> brian, re whitespace/xmlsc-02, did you see resolutions/actions in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0215.html

13:58:44 <em> .. so this may mean you have to keep some of these other agenda issues tight, scoped and short

13:58:56 <jang_not_scribing> hiya!

13:58:58 <jang_not_scribing> jang_not_scribing is now known as jang

13:59:11 <Zakim> +DanBri

13:59:26 <bwm> xmlsch-02 - I that's last weeks minutes - yes - that's what pfps is complaining about

13:59:46 <danbri> zakim, who is here?

13:59:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see +358.408.01aaaa, DanBri

13:59:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see DaveB, jang, bwm, em, Zakim, danbri, logger

13:59:51 <DaveB> dialling

13:59:51 <em> zakim, dial emiller-mobile

13:59:51 <Zakim> ok, em; the call is being made

13:59:52 <Zakim> +Emiller

13:59:55 <jang> his point about interop is probably a good one

14:00:10 <Zakim> +??P13

14:00:15 <DaveB> Zakim, ??P13 is ILRT

14:00:15 <Zakim> +ILRT; got it

14:00:21 <DaveB> Zakim, ILRT has jang, DaveB

14:00:21 <Zakim> +jang, DaveB; got it

14:00:22 <Zakim> +FrankM

14:00:25 <em> zakim, mute me

14:00:25 <Zakim> Emiller should now be muted

14:00:33 <jang> I think maybe the RDF l2v mapping isn't the xsd one; it seems more like a composition of xsd's WS processing plus l2v plus ditching any pair crap with a type in

14:00:44 <jang> ... but that's their problem

14:00:48 <danbri> zakim, +358.408.01aaaa is patrick

14:00:48 <Zakim> +patrick; got it

14:01:22 * em reads bwms point above, makes connection with pfps's email

14:01:40 <em> zakim, unmute me

14:01:40 <Zakim> Emiller should no longer be muted

14:01:42 <Zakim> +??P9

14:01:50 <em> zakim, mute me

14:01:50 <Zakim> Emiller should now be muted

14:01:59 <bwm> Zakim, ??p9 is bwm

14:02:00 <Zakim> +bwm; got it

14:02:18 <danbri> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:02:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see patrick, DanBri, Emiller (muted), ILRT, FrankM, bwm

14:02:19 <Zakim> ILRT has jang, DaveB

14:02:58 * bwm volunteers to scribe

14:03:15 * em muted due to mobile phone.. not clear how noise quality is

14:03:43 <danbri> agenda: http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfcore-in-exile/2003-August/000004.html

14:03:52 * em notes its in topic as well

14:03:57 <bwm> bwm is now known as bwm-scribe

14:04:08 <bwm-scribe> 1. bwm to scribe

14:04:11 <jang> zakim, who is talking?

14:04:19 <em> anyone know if path is availiable?

14:04:21 <Zakim> jang, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: bwm (49%), patrick (25%), ILRT (4%), FrankM (20%), DanBri (49%)

14:04:43 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, mute bwm

14:04:43 <Zakim> bwm should now be muted

14:04:48 <bwm-scribe> is that better?

14:05:03 <bwm-scribe> jang volunteers to scribe next week

14:05:10 <danbri> zakim, who is on the phone?

14:05:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see patrick, DanBri, Emiller (muted), ILRT, FrankM, bwm (muted)

14:05:12 <Zakim> ILRT has jang, DaveB

14:05:36 <bwm-scribe> 3. review agenda

14:05:51 <em> zakim, unmute me

14:05:51 <Zakim> Emiller should no longer be muted

14:05:53 <danbri> AOB: + schema-02 + pfps-05 concerns from Peter

14:06:10 <em> zakim, mute me

14:06:10 <Zakim> Emiller should now be muted

14:06:10 <bwm-scribe> aob: pfps concerns on xmlsch-02

14:06:14 <bwm-scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0273.html

14:06:25 * em appreciates danbris' back-up list

14:06:40 <bwm-scribe> 4. minutes of last week

14:06:49 <bwm-scribe> did not formally resolve to go to CR

14:06:56 <bwm-scribe> minutes approved with that correction

14:07:20 <bwm-scribe> 6. confirm status of completed actions

14:07:31 <bwm-scribe> 20030711#4 danc to get a test case for pfps-09 into OWL test

14:07:31 <bwm-scribe> case doc

14:07:33 <bwm-scribe> continued

14:07:35 <bwm-scribe> others done

14:07:37 <em> zakim, unmute me

14:07:37 <Zakim> Emiller should no longer be muted

14:07:58 <bwm-scribe> 7. misc actions

14:08:25 <bwm-scribe> 20030425#10 em carry xmlsch WG's offer of help wrt xmlsch-12

14:08:27 <bwm-scribe> completed

14:08:36 <bwm-scribe> 20030815#1 danbri to fold PatH's words for reification into schema

14:08:37 <bwm-scribe> done

14:08:45 <bwm-scribe> 20030815#2 danbri summarise rubyrdf for em

14:08:47 <bwm-scribe> continued

14:08:53 <Zakim> +Pat_Hayes

14:08:57 <bwm-scribe> 20030815#4 path incorporate the XMLLiteral text from message 0185 \

14:08:58 <bwm-scribe> into semantics

14:09:00 <bwm-scribe> done

14:09:00 <em> zakim, mute me

14:09:00 <Zakim> Emiller should now be muted

14:09:10 <bwm-scribe> 20030815#5 daveb incorporate XMLLiteral text into syntax

14:09:11 <bwm-scribe> done

14:09:53 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, unmute bwm

14:09:53 <Zakim> bwm should no longer be muted

14:10:16 <danbri> continue: jjc inform XMLSCHEMA WG wrt whitespace resolution

14:10:29 <bwm-scribe> ACTION 20030815#6 jang review test cases in light of XMLLiteral

14:12:05 <em> zakim, unmute me

14:12:05 <Zakim> Emiller should no longer be muted

14:13:10 <bwm-scribe> 8. administrivia

14:13:32 <bwm-scribe> there has been a problem with email due to the email virus storm

14:13:49 <bwm-scribe> there is a copy of the rdfcore list because w3c lists have been down

14:14:05 <bwm-scribe> should not be needed now,but left in place in case needed

14:14:13 <bwm-scribe> 9. owl is now candidate rec

14:14:42 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean

14:14:53 <bwm-scribe> note they have a dependency on RDF semantics to get to PR

14:15:08 <bwm-scribe> 9. CR request draft

14:15:13 <jang> this is item 9(b)

14:15:33 <bwm-scribe> patrickS reviewed it closely

14:15:40 <danbri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0244.html

14:15:40 <danbri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/att-0244/i18n-part.html

14:15:53 <bwm-scribe> eric review it, thought it was helpful for directors decision

14:16:02 <DaveB> my own addition would be to note how bad <wrapper> looked and we got negative feedback to that

14:16:43 <danbri> brian: text mentions that exc-c18n defines how you deal w/ xml:lang

14:17:31 <danbri> ...reagle has repudiated claim that ex-c18n stops us doing xml:lang; that's overstating the case.

14:17:47 <bwm-scribe> action bwm to send comment xml:lang justification

14:18:30 <DaveB> +1 on c14n interop argument

14:18:57 <em> q+

14:18:57 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

14:19:16 <danbri> ack em

14:19:16 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:19:17 <em> ack em

14:19:17 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:19:50 <DaveB> bwm I think is refering to limitation 1 in http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-exc-c14n/#sec-Limitations

14:19:50 <bwm-scribe> em: can't confirm but wording is from i18n

14:20:05 <bwm-scribe> em: requires bwm and danbri to sign off on it

14:20:48 <bwm-scribe> bwm-scribe: we haven't recieved the text of the objection yet

14:21:42 <bwm-scribe> frank: we can have justification of current design without hving received objection

14:22:16 <bwm-scribe> franK: lack of definitiveness in exc18n spec is further justification that its an xml problem not ours

14:22:26 <bwm-scribe> frank: this is an issue for the xml community

14:22:34 <em> q+

14:22:34 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

14:22:48 <danbri> ack em

14:22:48 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:22:55 <bwm-scribe> em: agrees with frank

14:23:03 <bwm-scribe> em: its not clear how soon it will be needed

14:23:14 <bwm-scribe> em: we talked about this a little last week

14:23:33 <bwm-scribe> em: its a good thing to record our current state in preparation

14:24:08 <bwm-scribe> action: danbri to review i18n rebuttal

14:24:25 * RRSAgent is logging

14:24:25 <bwm-scribe> 10. doc status

14:24:35 <bwm-scribe> primer:

14:24:47 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, mute me

14:24:47 <Zakim> sorry, bwm-scribe, I do not see a party named 'bwm-scribe'

14:24:54 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, mute bwm

14:24:54 <Zakim> bwm should now be muted

14:25:00 <em> .me notes rrsagent is picking up discussion mid-stream

14:25:09 <bwm-scribe> primer is ready to go

14:25:20 <bwm-scribe> does not have CR status indication

14:25:51 <bwm-scribe> em: are all outstanding issues that came in last call addressed

14:25:56 <bwm-scribe> frank: yes

14:26:13 <bwm-scribe> can anyone speak for concepts:

14:26:27 <bwm-scribe> danbri: concepts is ready to roll as far as I know

14:26:32 <bwm-scribe> syntax:

14:26:35 <bwm-scribe> ready to go

14:26:49 <bwm-scribe> semantics: ready to go

14:27:26 <bwm-scribe> schema: uptodate with respect to technical content. not completed process on handling last call comments

14:27:58 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, unmute bwm

14:27:58 <Zakim> bwm should no longer be muted

14:28:56 <jang>http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfcore-in-exile/2003-August/000007.html

14:29:00 <bwm-scribe> testcases: done except semantic equivalence between datatypes

14:29:04 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, mute bwm

14:29:04 <Zakim> bwm should now be muted

14:29:23 <bwm-scribe> Pat: would now express himself less strongly

14:29:30 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, unmute bwm

14:29:30 <Zakim> bwm should no longer be muted

14:29:41 <bwm-scribe> em: questions about last call comments doc

14:29:51 <bwm-scribe> ... there are a lot of outcomes that say none

14:30:03 <bwm-scribe> ... what does that mean

14:31:24 <bwm-scribe> ... bwm: there is no from the commentor to the WG disposition

14:31:51 <bwm-scribe> ... the last call comments disposition must be locked up as well

14:32:07 * DaveB confused by some accepted/accepted and some accepted/none ...

14:32:08 <em> zakim, mute me

14:32:08 <Zakim> Emiller should now be muted

14:32:59 <em> zakim, unmute me

14:32:59 <Zakim> Emiller should no longer be muted

14:33:30 <em> zakim, mute me

14:33:30 <Zakim> Emiller should now be muted

14:35:08 <bwm-scribe> action pat to see whether pfps is now satisfied about pfps-06

14:35:15 * DaveB groans

14:35:16 <danbri> 11: French translation - review sought

14:35:39 <jang> je suis desole, ma francais est schrechliche

14:35:54 <em> zakim, unmute me

14:35:54 <Zakim> Emiller should no longer be muted

14:35:54 <bwm-scribe> j'ai la mal anglaise

14:36:03 <danbri> 12: Treatment of XSD types

14:36:11 <bwm-scribe> 12. treatment of xml schema datatypes

14:37:20 <bwm-scribe> concern over clarity on the value spaces of xsd datatypes

14:37:29 <em> zakim, mute me

14:37:29 <Zakim> Emiller should now be muted

14:37:53 <em> zakim, unmute me

14:37:53 <Zakim> Emiller should no longer be muted

14:37:56 <bwm-scribe> implemetors are reporting they won't implement it

14:38:06 <bwm-scribe> DaveB: suggest throw it out

14:38:15 <bwm-scribe> patH: we should not say, its for xsd to say

14:38:42 <bwm-scribe> danbri: its nice we can express the problem so crisply

14:39:17 <em> q+ to ask about the rdf modelling of xsd datatypes

14:39:17 * Zakim sees em on the speaker queue

14:39:29 <em> ack

14:39:34 <danbri> ack em

14:39:34 <Zakim> em, you wanted to ask about the rdf modelling of xsd datatypes

14:39:35 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:39:45 * danbri notes 20 mins left

14:39:49 <bwm-scribe> em: at one time jjc and patS had an rdf schema for the xsd datatypes

14:40:04 <bwm-scribe> em: is that still floating around somewhere

14:40:20 <bwm-scribe> jang: jjc did do a schema

14:40:27 <DaveB> in http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/xsd-rdf-2002-11-25/

14:40:32 <bwm-scribe> patS: it was a homework exercise

14:41:02 * bwm-scribe wonders if this is on topic

14:41:07 <danbri> ack

14:41:20 <DaveB> not our problem

14:41:33 <bwm-scribe> patS: better to remove the test case

14:41:43 * DaveB IMHO we get most problems testing other people's specs (xml base, exc-c14n, xsd., ...)

14:42:20 <bwm-scribe> em: do we have to close the loop with the xml schema folks

14:43:24 <bwm-scribe> patH: its actually pretty clear when one type is derived from the other

14:43:39 <bwm-scribe> no action

14:44:05 <bwm-scribe> 13. publication and next steps

14:44:07 <em> zakim, unmute me

14:44:07 <Zakim> Emiller was not muted, em

14:44:16 <bwm-scribe> danbri: em please outline the options

14:44:49 <bwm-scribe> em: last week em beleived the group felt strongly about moving to CR

14:45:25 <em>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/request/cr

14:45:25 <bwm-scribe> em: make the case that we have done the right thing through implementation

14:45:52 <bwm-scribe> em: has written draft request to advance to CR

14:46:04 <em>http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr#last-call

14:46:24 <em>http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr#return-to-wg

14:46:40 <danbri> "7.4.6 Returning a Document to a Working Group for Further Work"

14:46:57 <danbri> [[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.]]

14:47:26 <bwm-scribe> whilst we can schedule meetin giwth director, we believe we have made substantive changes to these docuemnts

14:47:41 <bwm-scribe> concerned that we will get sent back to do a second last call

14:47:57 <bwm-scribe> em: a second last call might be the quickest way to go

14:48:18 <bwm-scribe> em: very concerned that we will have to do a second last call whether we like it or not

14:48:36 <bwm-scribe> danbri: tibl away on holiday

14:48:45 <bwm-scribe> s/tibl/timbl/

14:48:58 <bwm-scribe> it will takes weeks to schedule a meeting with tim

14:49:09 <bwm-scribe> a lot has changed since we last published a last call WD

14:49:27 <bwm-scribe> steve could stand in for tim, but steve is likely to defer to tim anyway

14:50:14 <bwm-scribe> q+

14:50:14 * Zakim sees bwm-scribe on the speaker queue

14:50:43 <bwm-scribe> em: if last call goes well, we could then go to PR

14:50:47 <danbri> ack bwm-scribe

14:50:47 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:51:16 <danbri> bwm-scribe: a point to note. i18n have some comments they've *not* made, as they were w.r.t. contents of LC draft and they were late commenting so felt it would've been out of order...

14:51:31 <danbri> ...if we go back to LC, they might raise these

14:51:43 <bwm-scribe> i18n may have some new issues to raise

14:51:46 <DaveB> not more hypothetical comment sthey might raise...

14:52:22 <danbri> bwm-scribe: i've been reading process doc today, it seems to allow a little wiggle room

14:52:37 <danbri> ...seems to me (though em may clarify) that we can request advancement of a substantively changed doc

14:52:52 <danbri> ...and it is then the director's decision to decide whether or not to allow that advancement or not

14:53:05 <danbri> ...my q is: what criteria does the director use to make that decision

14:53:19 <danbri> em: that's more about how director decides than a strict process question

14:53:36 <DaveB> IMHO OWL has advanced as bwm describes

14:53:45 <danbri> ...agree there may be last call wiggleroom

14:54:22 <danbri> bwm-scribe: if we don't know his criteria, what argument would we make for moving fwd?

14:54:38 <danbri> em: if we've done due dilligence w/ developer community, etc

14:55:15 <DaveB> T-5 minutes

14:55:19 <bwm-scribe> danbri: we have done a good job of outreaching to the interest group

14:55:29 <bwm-scribe> em: but there are other communities

14:56:17 <bwm-scribe> danbri: interacts uncomfortably with internationalization, non-english speaking folks don't have equal access

14:57:18 <DaveB> in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0261.html

14:57:30 <bwm-scribe> pfps has requested a re-review

14:57:57 <bwm-scribe> frank: what is the dependancy between owl and rdf

14:58:06 <bwm-scribe> danbri: they are dependent on us

14:58:25 <bwm-scribe> danbri: owl are anxious to finish soon

14:58:39 <DaveB> OWL seems to have got off lightly re i18n

14:59:00 <bwm-scribe> move to extend by 15 mins

14:59:07 <bwm-scribe> no objections

14:59:21 <bwm-scribe> DaveB: please structure the last 15 minutes

14:59:34 <bwm-scribe> danbri: I would like to publish

14:59:43 <bwm-scribe> ... its just this process question

14:59:59 <bwm-scribe> em: where do we want to focus our effort

15:00:28 <bwm-scribe> em: we could put the effort in to making a case to advance

15:01:08 <bwm-scribe> ... or we can put that effort in to getting the last call docs done and hope we don't get too many new issues

15:01:30 * DaveB asks the chairs for some proposals

15:01:31 <bwm-scribe> ... we have done a lot of the work in communicating with the developer community ...

15:02:26 <bwm-scribe> danbri: propose we do another last cal

15:03:31 <danbri> brian: personal view... strong case for a 2nd LC, but my employer has other views/concerns (jjc isn't here to represent them)

15:03:43 <bwm-scribe> bwm-scribe: we should do a second last call

15:04:21 <bwm-scribe> em; if there are still issues in these docs its better to get them in a second last call than in cr/pr

15:04:55 <bwm-scribe> danbri: do we have the energy?

15:05:12 <bwm-scribe> ... editors can you live with a second last call ...

15:05:17 <bwm-scribe> path: yes

15:05:30 <bwm-scribe> DaveB: yes, but I'll be harsh

15:05:33 <bwm-scribe> jang: yes

15:05:39 <bwm-scribe> frank: yes

15:06:50 <bwm-scribe> danbri: does anyone want to speak against a second last call

15:07:07 <bwm-scribe> em: what about you

15:08:02 <bwm-scribe> danbri: have as much energy for a second lc as a CR

15:08:57 <bwm-scribe> danbri: i can do more telecon's

15:09:27 <bwm-scribe> danbri: does anyone want speak against ...

15:09:40 <bwm-scribe> danbri: expect jjc would have

15:11:17 <DaveB> T-5 mins

15:15:09 <bwm-scribe> action: bwm contact i18n about second last call

15:15:09 * RRSAgent records action 1

15:15:19 <bwm-scribe> action: eds prepare for second last call

15:15:19 * RRSAgent records action 2

15:15:44 <bwm-scribe> action em circulate pub date

15:16:45 <bwm-scribe> action em: ciruclate boilerplace for doc status

15:16:45 * RRSAgent records action 3

15:17:22 <danbri> adjourned.

15:17:25 <bwm-scribe> action bwm send mail about xmlsch-03

15:17:59 <Zakim> -ILRT

15:18:02 <em> thanks all

15:18:08 <Zakim> -Emiller

15:18:10 <Zakim> -patrick

15:18:23 <Zakim> -FrankM

15:18:23 <Zakim> -Pat_Hayes

15:18:25 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean

15:18:32 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, who is on the phone

15:18:32 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', bwm-scribe

15:18:34 <Zakim> -DanBri

15:18:37 <bwm-scribe> Zakim, who is on the phone?

15:18:37 <Zakim> On the phone I see bwm

15:18:41 <Zakim> -bwm

15:18:42 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

15:18:55 <danbri> logger, pointer?

15:18:55 <danbri> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-08-22#T15-18-55

16:37:44 <danbri> rrsagent, bookmark?

16:37:44 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2003/08/22-rdfcore-irc#T16-37-44

17:19:42 * Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed