W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-08-29

13:00:02 Topic now 2003-08-29 rdfcore agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0320.html

13:00:02 Users on #rdfcore: logger RRSAgent Zakim @danbri_dna

13:21:04 <ericm> danbri_dna, you there?

13:21:26 <ericm> feedback welcome - http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/templates/lc2-stod

13:24:23 <danbri_dna> hi

13:25:09 <danbri_dna> "necessary by substantive changes resulting in feedback"

13:25:15 <danbri_dna> remove 'substantive'

13:25:24 <danbri_dna> by a number of changes, perhaps.

13:26:02 <danbri_dna> suggests we're more unstable than we are. 'substantive' has a technical meaning re Process; to a wider audience it may be misinterpreeted.

13:27:03 * danbri_dna sent his issue closure admin msgs for RDFS, sorry bout the delay...

13:27:08 <danbri_dna> all done now

13:27:53 * ericm checking in

13:27:54 <danbri_dna> I dispair re deciding whether LC2, vanilla WD or CR or whatever, I just want to be told...

13:28:08 <ericm> LC2

13:28:20 <ericm> err.. does that help :)

13:28:28 <danbri_dna> I do lean towards vanilla WD though, not convinced we won't get yet more I18N changes and -> LC3

13:28:32 <danbri_dna> sir yessir! :)

13:28:35 <ericm> lol

13:32:03 * danbri_dna encourages you to lead that bit of the discussion today, as Activity Lead or Staff Contact

13:32:30 <danbri_dna> (assuming Brian doesn't mind, which I don't think he will...)

13:33:53 <ericm> the group needs to decide which way to go - i'm happy for a decision

13:55:25 * danbri_dna back in a sec

13:59:12 <bwm> Zakim, help?

13:59:13 <Zakim> Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help.

13:59:15 <Zakim> Some of the commands I know are:

13:59:16 <Zakim> xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx

13:59:18 <Zakim> if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted

13:59:22 <Zakim> xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx

13:59:24 <Zakim> I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx

13:59:26 <Zakim> xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group

13:59:28 <Zakim> xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx

13:59:30 <Zakim> who's here? - lists the participants on the phone

13:59:32 <Zakim> who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted

13:59:34 <Zakim> mute xxx - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#)

13:59:36 <Zakim> unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61#

13:59:38 <Zakim> is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present

13:59:40 <Zakim> list conferences - reports the active conferences

13:59:41 <Zakim> this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx

13:59:42 <Zakim> excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel

13:59:43 <Zakim> I last learned something new on $Date: 2003/08/13 12:34:28 $

14:00:02 <bwm> Zakim, what conference is this?

14:00:02 <Zakim> no conference has been selected, bwm

14:00:07 <ericm> zakim, this will be rdfcore

14:00:07 <Zakim> ok, ericm; I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM scheduled to start now

14:00:14 <ericm> zakim, dial emiller-bos

14:00:14 <Zakim> ok, ericm; the call is being made

14:00:15 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started

14:00:16 <Zakim> +Emiller

14:00:50 <ericm> zakim, mute me

14:00:51 <Zakim> sorry, ericm, I do not see a party named 'ericm'

14:00:55 <Zakim> +??P14

14:00:57 <ericm> zakim, mute em

14:00:57 <Zakim> Emiller should now be muted

14:01:04 <ericm> brb

14:01:04 <bwm> Zakim, ??p14 is bwm

14:01:04 <Zakim> +bwm; got it

14:02:19 * ericm is back

14:02:22 <Zakim> +??P15

14:02:23 <ericm> zakim, unmute me

14:02:23 <Zakim> sorry, ericm, I do not see a party named 'ericm'

14:02:26 <ericm> zakim, unmute em

14:02:26 <Zakim> Emiller should no longer be muted

14:02:54 <ericm> zakim, ??P15 is ILRT

14:02:55 <Zakim> +ILRT; got it

14:03:08 <ericm> zakim, ILRT holds Jan, DaveB

14:03:08 <Zakim> +Jan, DaveB; got it

14:03:12 <jang-scribe> bwm, those actions under item 17 are _still_ done :-)

14:03:16 <Zakim> +??P16

14:03:32 <jang-scribe> message as of about 2-3 weeks ago to that effect.

14:03:37 <ericm> zakim, ??P19 is PatrickS

14:03:37 <Zakim> sorry, ericm, I do not recognize a party named '??P19'

14:03:42 <ericm> zakim, ??P16 is PatrickS

14:03:42 <Zakim> +PatrickS; got it

14:03:43 * bwm appologises to Jan for action list not being uptodate

14:03:57 * danbri_dna on his way, sorry

14:04:11 <jang-scribe> minutes need ACTION with a ":", right?

14:04:17 <bwm> think so

14:04:20 <ericm> jang-scribe, yes

14:04:21 <jang-scribe> ok

14:04:34 * ericm notes 'Action: name, blah'

14:04:37 <Zakim> +DanBri

14:04:45 <ericm> zakim, who is here?

14:04:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Emiller, bwm, ILRT, PatrickS, DanBri

14:04:46 <Zakim> ILRT has Jan, DaveB

14:04:47 <Zakim> On IRC I see jang-scribe, bwm, ericm, logger, RRSAgent, Zakim, danbri_dna

14:04:48 <ericm> zakim, who is not here?

14:04:48 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ericm.

14:04:49 <jang-scribe> if someone else can paste URLs into IRC I'd appreciate it (using mouse nipple, not so great)

14:05:19 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean

14:05:21 <jang-scribe> roll call

14:05:22 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:05:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see Emiller, bwm, ILRT, PatrickS, DanBri, Mike_Dean

14:05:23 <Zakim> ILRT has Jan, DaveB

14:05:32 <ericm> agenda - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0320.html

14:05:59 <jang-scribe> regrets JJC gk frankm jos

14:06:03 <jang-scribe> comments on agenda?

14:06:26 <jang-scribe> em: one, extracted additional aciton items that were logged last week

14:06:46 <jang-scribe> two, item 11 (next steps)

14:06:57 <jang-scribe> want to ad something when we get there

14:07:00 <ericm> suggestions: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0328.html

14:07:02 <jang-scribe> next telecon same time next week

14:07:06 <jang-scribe> minutes of last telecon:

14:07:21 <ericm> additional actions: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0332.html

14:07:33 <jang-scribe> completed actions.

14:07:36 <jang-scribe> all ok...?

14:07:46 <jang-scribe> done

14:07:48 <jang-scribe> misc actions:

14:08:07 <jang-scribe> danbri ruby action continues, withdrawl formally

14:08:10 <jang-scribe> danc continued

14:08:17 <jang-scribe> jjc absent, continued

14:08:18 <danbri_dna> re i18n txt review, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/att-0244/i18n-part.html

14:08:24 <jang-scribe> i18n update

14:08:35 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: jjc's text is technically accurate

14:09:08 <jang-scribe> not up-to-speed with all the minutae of the social side of that

14:09:36 <jang-scribe> one comment - more information on the rejection of the wrapper solution (why isn't it appropriate?)

14:09:52 <jang-scribe> DaveB: two comments in the LC period were confused about that, at least

14:09:53 <ericm> q+

14:09:53 * Zakim sees ericm on the speaker queue

14:10:03 <bwm> ack ericm

14:10:03 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:10:17 <jang-scribe> ACTION daveb please track down comments on wrapper solution for xmlliteral

14:10:23 <jang-scribe> ... from aLC

14:10:33 <jang-scribe> bwm: can you add anything to this danbri?

14:10:47 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: nothing immediate, just a request for more information on what we've done before

14:11:00 <jang-scribe> I think some people (i18n/martin) think we've been lazy on covering the options

14:11:05 <jang-scribe> I don't think that's the case

14:11:20 <danbri_dna> what i was trying to say, "I find it hard to summarise our previous investigation into alternate designs"

14:11:29 <jang-scribe> bwm: are we saying we need more time to look at this?

14:11:31 <ericm> q+

14:11:31 * Zakim sees ericm on the speaker queue

14:12:08 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: not sure what "this" is, exactly yet

14:12:15 <jang-scribe> bwm: also not clear if they'll raise anything else

14:12:22 <DaveB> wrapper comment 1): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002OctDec/0109.html

14:13:23 <DaveB> wrapper comment 2) (reagle, LC) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0434

14:13:45 <jang-scribe> pats: we already decided that we'd call for someone to produce a note on the relationship between rdf datatyping etc

14:14:14 * bwm hi graham

14:14:21 * danbri_dna waves to gk

14:14:25 <jang-scribe> pats: there's this issue of "are xml lang without markup and plain lits the same value"?

14:14:39 <ericm> q+ to suggest that we don't need to spend more time about this at this time - suggest discussing next steps; waiting for input from any group and then responding to input

14:14:39 * Zakim sees ericm on the speaker queue

14:14:41 * gk gk wave's back... just back home, dialling ...

14:14:42 <jang-scribe> s/xml lang/xsd:string

14:15:36 <jang-scribe> bwm: the value space of plain literals is larger than xsd:string

14:16:07 <jang-scribe> ACTION jang check/create if necc xsd:string -> plain literal test case

14:16:47 <jang-scribe> bwm: i18n, anything more to say or shoud we move on?

14:17:24 <ericm> ack ericm

14:17:24 <Zakim> ericm, you wanted to suggest that we don't need to spend more time about this at this time - suggest discussing next steps; waiting for input from any group and then responding to

14:17:27 <Zakim> ... input

14:17:28 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:17:31 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: there's unfortunate woding in the i18n minutes recently, I think we're in "agree to disagree" territory

14:17:39 <jang-scribe> item 9. outstanding comments

14:17:45 <jang-scribe> pfps on normalisation

14:18:05 <ericm> is path planning on attending?

14:18:31 <jang-scribe> DaveB: this comment isn't correct. You can already have illegal stuff in xml literals however you encode it

14:18:38 <jang-scribe> bwm: do you know exactly what his concern is?

14:18:49 <jang-scribe> DaveB: he rejects any leniency in going from rdf/xml to triples

14:18:59 <jang-scribe> points out we don't do any normalisation/ws checking

14:19:35 <jang-scribe> we don't check nfc on plain literals

14:19:53 <jang-scribe> bwm: he seems to be saying we can generate illegal rdf graphs from legal rdf/xml

14:19:55 <jang-scribe> is that right?

14:20:07 <jang-scribe> DaveB: we decided not to check any of these xml conditions, that's already been the case

14:20:24 <jang-scribe> this isn't anything we don't already know about, it's not a new issue, it's the current status of the rdf/xml -> triple mapping

14:20:45 <jang-scribe> DaveB: I've responded to him before extensively on this, this is the same comment. There's not a lot more to say

14:21:07 <jang-scribe> DaveB: we do not check even for our OWN datatype, let alone xsd types etc

14:21:30 <jang-scribe> we don't check that with the datatype = rdf:XMLLiteral, the literal form is legal

14:21:32 <jang-scribe> this is nothing new

14:21:56 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne

14:22:22 <danbri_dna> zakim, mute graham

14:22:22 <Zakim> GrahamKlyne should now be muted

14:22:26 <ericm> zakim, disconnect GrahamKlyne

14:22:26 <Zakim> GrahamKlyne is being disconnected

14:22:27 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne

14:22:34 <danbri_dna> gk, we heard modem noises :(

14:23:01 <jang-scribe> pfps made a comment also on 6.4 of concepts, that the definiition of URI was incorrect

14:23:07 <jang-scribe> bwm: I think, looking at ti, that he's right.

14:23:16 <jang-scribe> I think the "%" case isn't handled correctly

14:23:23 * ericm working on gk

14:23:23 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne

14:23:30 <jang-scribe> path's not here for comments on semantics

14:23:34 <jang-scribe> moving on, therefore:

14:23:39 <jang-scribe> item 10, xmlsch-02

14:23:47 <jang-scribe> winding back

14:23:55 <jang-scribe> 6.4 concepts, "%"s in URI

14:24:29 <jang-scribe> bwm: suspect this is a quick editorial fix, if anything

14:24:44 <jang-scribe> ACTION gk to check details of URI and "%" in 6.4 of concepts

14:24:46 <jang-scribe> moving on

14:24:51 <jang-scribe> item 10, xmlsch-02

14:24:57 <jang-scribe> WS processing of XSD datatype

14:25:04 <jang-scribe> we'd decided previously to fudge this

14:25:37 <jang-scribe> although " 10 " isn't in the lexical space for xsd:decimal, to say applications might be more flexible

14:25:45 <jang-scribe> bwm: pats, you have a view on this?

14:25:54 <jang-scribe> pats: the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with pfps

14:26:18 <gk> q+ to say that the problem here, I think, is because we're wandering into grey area of specifying behaviour of strictly incorrect RDF

14:26:18 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:26:26 <jang-scribe> esp. since jos showed the thing where "10"^^xsd:integer entailed "10.0"^^xsd:integer

14:26:49 <jang-scribe> I'm coming to the opinion that I wouldn't trust an rdf processor that didn't have a STRICT interpretation of lexical forms

14:27:19 <jang-scribe> there's the interop problems inherent in this

14:27:38 <jang-scribe> even if we have a "MAY choose to cope with this" we should have a "MUST produce a warning"

14:28:15 <jang-scribe> bwm: if we don't fudge it we're either strict or have a looser lexical and l2v in rdf than in xsd

14:28:40 <jang-scribe> pats: it's not about ws processing, it's about using tools in contexts they were never intended for

14:29:41 <bwm> ack gk

14:29:41 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to say that the problem here, I think, is because we're wandering into grey area of specifying behaviour of strictly incorrect RDF

14:29:42 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:29:50 <jang-scribe> gk: I think part of the problem here is that we're specifying the behaviour / meaning of input which isn't true rdf

14:30:12 <jang-scribe> that is, specifying what applications should do when we get something which isn't quite valid rdf/xml + stuff, but almost

14:30:21 <jang-scribe> we should back off specifying behaviour in the case of errors

14:30:33 <jang-scribe> q+

14:30:33 * Zakim sees jang-scribe on the speaker queue

14:30:54 <bwm> ack jangg

14:30:54 * Zakim sees jang-scribe on the speaker queue

14:32:17 <jang-scribe> jang-scribe: remove the fudge one way or the other.

14:32:38 <jang-scribe> bwm: sounds like the consensus is to remove the fudge, anyone want to speak against that?

14:32:58 <jang-scribe> DaveB: we did this after comments from implementors

14:33:09 <jang-scribe> bwm: one way is to remove the test cases

14:33:21 <gk> q+ to suggest decision on whether " 1 "^^xsd:integer is considered valid RDF?

14:33:21 * Zakim sees jang-scribe, gk on the speaker queue

14:33:23 <jang-scribe> pats: removing the normative test cases from xsd:schema-specific stuff

14:33:58 <jang-scribe> bwm: shall we end the discussion for the moment with a note that we're generally against fudging, and take it to email?

14:34:22 <gk> q-

14:34:22 * Zakim sees jang-scribe on the speaker queue

14:34:25 <jang-scribe> moving on

14:34:27 <jang-scribe> ack jang

14:34:27 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:34:34 <jang-scribe> item 11: next steps

14:34:40 <jang-scribe> eric:

14:34:44 * DaveB notes pfps' comments on the January 2003 drafts are correct, but on our 8 month later editor;s drafts are incorrect

14:34:56 <jang-scribe> we're caught in a situation where we've editors' drafts that are 90-95% done

14:35:05 <jang-scribe> can't get out of the loop of fielding useful input that's coming in

14:35:27 <jang-scribe> so last week it seemed that the group as a whole was trying to grapple with cr/lc2 etc.

14:35:37 <jang-scribe> and there were concerns about energy/effort available to do this

14:36:18 <DaveB> ericm: breaking up

14:36:22 <Zakim> -Emiller

14:36:29 <ericm> dialing in

14:36:40 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: we have to get some specs back out on the tr page asap

14:36:59 <jang-scribe> DaveB: publish now

14:37:04 <Zakim> +EricM

14:37:07 <jang-scribe> pats: I agree cr is a better path to lc2

14:37:31 <jang-scribe> (don't think that's necessarily what daveb meant)

14:38:19 <jang-scribe> DaveB: pfps' comments was on the january 2003 drafts, our latest stuff addresses that

14:38:31 <jang-scribe> I don't care lc2/cr, we MUST publish

14:39:23 <DaveB> (OWL had 5 months between published drafts, we are at 8)

14:39:25 <gk> q+ to say best course here seems to depend more on W3C process than any particular technical matter

14:39:25 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:39:40 <DaveB> (7 not 8 sorry)

14:39:47 <jang-scribe> em: cr is an uphill battle, to make the CASE for CR which may or may not wind up winning

14:40:52 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: I've been convinced that we need another LC

14:41:06 <jang-scribe> CR suggests that we're completely done

14:42:48 <gk> q+ to also say that from my perspective, new WD and LC2 seems the appropriate option right now (the length of time in LC1 suggests that much)

14:42:49 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:42:51 <jang-scribe> em: substantive changes during cr result in another wd anyway

14:42:56 <jang-scribe> pats: I'm convinced

14:43:07 <ericm> q?

14:43:08 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:43:39 <jang-scribe> bwm: hp's made some strong remarks on this, whilst I try to remain neutral from this position for the purpose of chairing,

14:43:53 <jang-scribe> I hope nobody's unconfortable with this

14:44:05 <jang-scribe> em: makes informal vote of confidence in bwm's chairing

14:44:08 <jang-scribe> (it's unanimous)

14:44:15 <bwm> ack gk

14:44:15 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to say best course here seems to depend more on W3C process than any particular technical matter and to also say that from my perspective, new WD and LC2 seems the

14:44:18 <Zakim> ... appropriate option right now (the length of time in LC1 suggests that much)

14:44:19 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:45:32 <jang-scribe> bwm: whether we need another LC doesn't say that the next docs we publish are another LC, or whether we push out another WD quickly

14:45:45 <jang-scribe> did you have a view on that, gk?

14:46:01 <jang-scribe> gk: not publishing anything is more harmful than publishing soething we know is imperfect

14:46:21 <bwm> q?

14:46:21 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:46:36 <jang-scribe> bwm: I hear, we want to publish, and publish quickly

14:46:39 <jang-scribe> (no dissent to that)

14:46:44 <jang-scribe> are we ready to do a LC2?

14:47:48 <jang-scribe> em: lc means we must have done everything - addressed all the issues from the previous LC?

14:47:54 <jang-scribe> if not, then going to LC2 is not appropriate

14:48:34 <gk> q+ to ask: if we do LC2, don't we have to publish new WD anyway?

14:48:34 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:48:39 <jang-scribe> [ilrt needs this room at 4:05, we have 15 minutes remaining them scribe must disappear]

14:48:49 * bwm noted

14:49:02 <DaveB> from the lc issue list there are still two "none" wg responses for pfps-11, 12

14:49:06 <jang-scribe> [I can type up, but cannot remain, daveb has ilrt proxy for you bwm]

14:49:38 <jang-scribe> bwm: danbri's been completing the schema dance on a couple today

14:49:44 <jang-scribe> there are a couple of objections on sematics

14:49:48 <jang-scribe> pfps-06 could change

14:49:53 <jang-scribe> so we're pretty much through that dance

14:49:56 <jang-scribe> my personal view:

14:50:10 <jang-scribe> 1. I do not want to wind up doing LC3

14:50:20 <danbri_dna> q+ re what LC means

14:50:20 * Zakim danbri_dna, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...'

14:50:26 <danbri_dna> q+ to comment re what LC means

14:50:26 * Zakim sees gk, danbri_dna on the speaker queue

14:50:27 <jang-scribe> I don't know if i18n are going to raise more issues

14:50:44 <jang-scribe> I'm also certain about semantics. I don't want another LC for that which

14:50:55 <jang-scribe> leaves another slew of pfps issues,

14:51:12 <jang-scribe> I'd rather reach agreement with pfps about what his objections if outstanding are

14:51:26 <jang-scribe> and once those are resolved (however that might be), do a second lc

14:51:48 <jang-scribe> so I'm saying publish WDs now as is, as part of that

14:52:05 <jang-scribe> ask pfps for a detailed review now, settle those issues (even if it's "we cannot agree on this")

14:52:09 <jang-scribe> then go to formal second LC

14:52:13 <bwm> q?

14:52:13 * Zakim sees gk, danbri_dna on the speaker queue

14:52:27 <DaveB> q+ to speak on proxy before 16:00 when ILRT have to leave

14:52:27 * Zakim sees gk, danbri_dna, DaveB on the speaker queue

14:52:44 <jang-scribe> em: what's the difference between wd now and lc2 now then lc3?

14:53:05 <jang-scribe> if we make this lc2 then we have the potential to not have to make another step

14:53:37 <jang-scribe> bwm: if it's an lc2 now then the issue tracking process is more onerous than having pfps and path on the phone trying to sort everything out informally

14:53:43 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: we've been doing that for months

14:53:46 <jang-scribe> q?

14:53:46 * Zakim sees gk, danbri_dna, DaveB on the speaker queue

14:53:48 <bwm> ack danbri

14:53:48 <Zakim> danbri_dna, you wanted to comment re what LC means

14:53:49 * Zakim sees gk, DaveB on the speaker queue

14:53:58 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: lc has an "L" for a reason

14:54:18 <jang-scribe> a wg can devalue lc by either doing a lc, change stuff, and never doing another

14:54:26 <jang-scribe> or by doing LCs when they mean WD

14:54:40 <jang-scribe> in either case this isn't fair to the rest of the w3 community

14:55:04 <jang-scribe> I think we should get specs out with no fuss now

14:55:21 <jang-scribe> and feed back to w3c that our process punishes WGs for publishing specs

14:55:57 <bwm> ack gk

14:55:57 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to ask: if we do LC2, don't we have to publish new WD anyway?

14:55:59 * Zakim sees DaveB on the speaker queue

14:56:00 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: I think we should publish vanilla WDs next week, and make sure w3 acks that that's not a retrograde step

14:56:03 <jang-scribe> ack gk

14:56:03 * Zakim sees DaveB on the speaker queue

14:56:19 <jang-scribe> gk lc requires prelim wd?

14:56:20 <bwm> ack daveb

14:56:20 <Zakim> DaveB, you wanted to speak on proxy before 16:00 when ILRT have to leave

14:56:21 <jang-scribe> apparently not

14:56:22 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:56:33 <jang-scribe> DaveB: proxy vote to chair to vote to publish ANYTHING next week

14:56:45 <jang-scribe> bwm: I'd like to vote now

14:56:55 <jang-scribe> don't want to compel pat to publish in his absense,

14:57:19 <jang-scribe> bwm: I'm asking if we want to publish WD next week

14:57:27 <jang-scribe> with status != LC2

14:57:37 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: like to get path's agreement

14:57:51 <jang-scribe> propose (danbri) publish all docs as wd

14:57:58 <jang-scribe> (subject to path's agreement wrt semantics)

14:58:01 <jang-scribe> second pats

14:58:03 <danbri_dna> I propose we publish all our docs ASAP as (plain) WDs

14:58:06 <jang-scribe> no against

14:58:28 <jang-scribe> HP abstains; Jos (probably) abstains - think he was arguing for CR (in fairness)

14:58:49 <jang-scribe> that's a DECISION to publish as wd

14:59:08 <jang-scribe> em: propose that we publish these as LC2s with a three-week review period

14:59:17 <jang-scribe> DaveB: ilrt seconds that.

14:59:42 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: personally, I'm against that.

15:00:25 <gk> q+ to ask eric if LC2 is really quicker?

15:00:25 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:01:32 <DaveB> ilrt gotta go...

15:01:35 <jang-scribe> danbri_dna: the MT is more-or-less baked

15:01:47 <DaveB> bye everyone

15:01:48 <bwm> thanks dave - check the minutes for a decision

15:01:50 <jang-scribe> apologies to chair; ilrt must leave.

15:01:53 <Zakim> -ILRT

15:02:01 <jang-scribe> send me an email offlist and I'll write up the minutes.

15:06:02 <gk> PatrickS has suggested alternative of limiting period from WD to LC2

15:07:38 <gk> DanBri: think we can get further if we're clear we haven't fully addressed all outstanding messages (?)

15:08:10 <gk> Brian: current problems may be partly due to doing LC1 with outstanding issues not resolved

15:08:20 <danbri_dna> go further than what brian said, i meant: that we can't go to LC knowing that Peter has outstanding concerns

15:09:11 <gk> Eric: just concerned with getting quickest to REC

15:09:39 <gk> (thinks, aren't we all, just don't know what's quickest?)

15:13:31 <gk> q+ to ask what's jjc availability? I don't (knowingly) have latest concepts source

15:13:31 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:13:33 <danbri_dna> action danbri: update http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/templates/lc2-stod for WD

15:13:34 * RRSAgent records action 1

15:14:20 <danbri_dna> Editors: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/ has links to pubrule-checking URLs for each spec.

15:14:42 <gk> action gk: liaise with jjc to remove whitespace "fudge"

15:14:42 * RRSAgent records action 2

15:15:28 <gk> ... above action ("from concepts")

15:15:39 <danbri_dna> I'm also happy to help editors with pubrule checker if they have difficulties/questions

15:16:20 <gk> action bwm: contact jang to remove xmlschema02 test cases

15:16:20 * RRSAgent records action 3

15:17:09 <danbri_dna> em: use friday's date, sept 05

15:17:10 <gk> Need pubrule-checked documents to em by Wednesday, can publish by Friday (Sep 5)

15:17:32 <gk> ... Wed, 5:00PM EST

15:17:58 <gk> ... make that NOON EST Werdnesday, pubrules-ready

15:18:24 <ericm> rrsagent, actions?

15:18:24 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'actions'

15:19:47 <gk> action editors: update cross-refs to 5 september documents

15:19:47 * RRSAgent records action 4

15:20:15 <gk> meeting closed

15:20:19 <Zakim> -PatrickS

15:20:23 <ericm>http://www.w3.org/2003/08/29-rdfcore-irc

15:21:37 <gk> Holiday pics: http://www.ninebynine.org/Travels/2003Aug-Thames/Intro.html

15:21:57 <Zakim> -EricM

15:21:59 <Zakim> -bwm

15:22:01 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean

15:22:06 <Zakim> -DanBri

15:22:15 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne

15:22:15 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

15:23:50 <danbri_dna> logger, off