W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-09-05

13:00:02 Topic now rdfcore pub rules scratchpad

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

13:39:11 <ericm> damn... no ops

13:56:40 <ericm> ericm has changed the topic to: rdfcore Sept 5 teleconference

13:56:48 * RRSAgent is logging

13:56:56 <ericm> zakim, this will be RDFCore

13:56:56 <Zakim> ok, ericm; I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes

14:00:11 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started

14:00:18 <Zakim> +??P2

14:00:25 <ericm> zakim, dial emiller-bos

14:00:25 <Zakim> ok, ericm; the call is being made

14:00:26 <Zakim> -??P2

14:00:27 <Zakim> +??P2

14:00:28 <Zakim> +Emiller

14:01:02 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne

14:01:31 * DanC Zakim, call DanC-BOS

14:01:31 * Zakim ok, DanC; the call is being made

14:01:32 <Zakim> +DanC

14:01:40 <Zakim> +Pat_Hayes

14:02:21 <Zakim> +Manola

14:02:37 <ericm> zakim, ??P2 is ILRT

14:02:37 <Zakim> +ILRT; got it

14:03:01 <ericm> zakim, ILRT has JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc

14:03:01 <Zakim> +JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc; got it

14:03:11 <DanC> Zakim, who's talking?

14:03:13 <jang> zakim, ilrt also has uncle tom cobbley

14:03:14 <Zakim> +uncle, tom, cobbley; got it

14:03:22 <Zakim> DanC, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ILRT (70%), Pat_Hayes (64%), Emiller (15%), GrahamKlyne (24%)

14:03:24 <ericm> zakim, ILRT has JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc

14:03:24 <Zakim> JanG was already listed in ILRT, ericm

14:03:25 <Zakim> BrianM was already listed in ILRT, ericm

14:03:26 <Zakim> Danbri was already listed in ILRT, ericm

14:03:27 <Zakim> DaveB was already listed in ILRT, ericm

14:03:28 <Zakim> jjc was already listed in ILRT, ericm

14:03:45 <danbri_dna> danbri_dna is now known as danbri-scribe

14:03:48 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:03:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see ILRT, Emiller, GrahamKlyne, DanC, Pat_Hayes, Manola

14:03:49 <Zakim> ILRT has JanG, BrianM, Danbri, DaveB, jjc, uncle, tom, cobbley

14:04:55 <danbri-scribe> danbri-scribe has changed the topic to: rdfcore sept 5 teleconf http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0074.html

14:05:02 <danbri-scribe> next telecon: same time, same place nxt week

14:05:05 <Zakim> +patrick

14:05:05 <danbri-scribe> to chair: danbri

14:05:13 <danbri-scribe> to scribe: dajobe

14:05:22 <danbri-scribe> welcome patrick

14:05:26 <danbri-scribe> regrets: mike dean

14:05:33 <danbri-scribe> also JosD

14:05:44 <danbri-scribe> 5: Minutes of 29 Aug 2003 telecon

14:05:46 <danbri-scribe> approved.

14:05:51 <danbri-scribe> 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

14:06:08 <danbri-scribe> brian: i've tidied out action list... closed/withdrawn all those that should have been done as part of pub process.

14:06:16 <danbri-scribe> anyone believe any of these aren't done?

14:06:41 <danbri-scribe> dajobe: Mime types reg? the draft expired...

14:06:46 <danbri-scribe> brian: we have this in agenda for later

14:06:54 <danbri-scribe> brian: gk had action to chase aaron

14:06:59 <danbri-scribe> 2330514...

14:07:12 <danbri-scribe> gk: we had some interaction, expecting a new version...

14:07:20 <danbri-scribe> brina: action is done, we'll talk status of it later

14:07:32 <danbri-scribe> these all Done.

14:07:36 <danbri-scribe> similarly, withdrawn actions...

14:07:42 <danbri-scribe> 7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions

14:07:49 <danbri-scribe> dajobe: note that i did review primer

14:07:51 <danbri-scribe> ...a done.

14:08:03 <danbri-scribe> 8: Doc Publishing status

14:08:07 <DanC> 2330514 = 2003-03-14#3 gk chase Aaron

14:08:16 <danbri-scribe> ericm: am hoping to see http://www.w3.org/TR/ reflect these

14:08:19 <danbri-scribe> soon...

14:08:22 * DanC grabs Amy re echo

14:08:32 <Zakim> -Pat_Hayes

14:08:34 <danbri-scribe> em: all editors did a great job getting pubrules ready

14:08:46 <DanC> (the echo went away with Hayes)

14:08:59 <danbri-scribe> awaiting TR page rebuild

14:09:19 <danbri-scribe> ...hope by end of call to report it's public

14:09:25 <DanC> does anybody have an RSS gizmo that notices new stuff on the W3C homepage?

14:09:26 <danbri-scribe> brian: cool :)

14:09:45 <danbri-scribe> 2003-08-29#6 jang remove xmlsch-02 test cases.

14:09:55 * danbri-scribe misses point as fumbles looking at agenda

14:10:02 <Zakim> +Pat_Hayes

14:10:09 <danbri-scribe> jang: 'they reflect our current position'

14:10:37 <danbri-scribe> ...ws test cases back at pt where ws counts and isn't processed... a ' 1 ' isn't a valid integer

14:10:43 <danbri-scribe> ...i'd rather hang onto these

14:10:58 <danbri-scribe> brian: we discussed this before

14:11:02 <danbri-scribe> ...and decided to remove

14:11:07 <danbri-scribe> ...the action is/was there to remove them

14:11:15 <danbri-scribe> ...does that reflect a decision to remove?

14:11:23 <danbri-scribe> jang: was an action

14:11:31 <danbri-scribe> ...i thought was cos wg thought they were wrong

14:11:39 <danbri-scribe> jjc: all i saw was actions and no decision

14:11:49 <danbri-scribe> ...cos this came up from an hp colleague, i tried track status of decision

14:12:00 <danbri-scribe> bwm: so jang you've held off as wg decision not clear

14:12:05 <danbri-scribe> ...so let's leave as continued

14:12:10 <danbri-scribe> DaveB: see item 11

14:12:13 <danbri-scribe> jang: yup.

14:12:30 <danbri-scribe> ...also, i creatred 2 test cases, intentional test case... 2 are in the test case but marked as pending

14:12:47 <danbri-scribe> brian: OK, an AOB.

14:13:19 <danbri-scribe> actions:

14:13:19 * RRSAgent records action 1

14:13:21 <danbri-scribe> doh

14:13:21 <danbri-scribe> 2003-08-01#2 daveb sync with aaron on macintosh file type

14:13:22 <danbri-scribe> and make sure the docs are consistent and use the same type

14:13:22 <danbri-scribe> 2003-08-29#2 jang check for/create if nec the xsd:string-entails

14:13:22 <danbri-scribe> plain literal test case.

14:13:24 <danbri-scribe> ...both done.

14:13:35 <danbri-scribe> 2003-08-29#6 jang remove xmlsch-02 test cases.

14:13:37 <danbri-scribe> continued.

14:13:43 <danbri-scribe> 9: Doc Publishing - script for cross references

14:13:43 * DanC q+ to ask if we called for review in ietf-types

14:13:43 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

14:13:55 <danbri-scribe> gk: re mimetypes, pinged aaron... it has just expired...

14:14:02 <danbri-scribe> brian: we had mail back ffrom Larry Masinter

14:14:05 <bwm> ack danc

14:14:05 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask if we called for review in ietf-types

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

14:14:12 <danbri-scribe> gk: not sure if that was re stuff we were going to pull

14:14:16 <danbri-scribe> ack danc

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

14:14:27 <danbri-scribe> DanC: did we do the call?

14:14:29 <danbri-scribe> DaveB: yup

14:14:36 <danbri-scribe> gk: usually the call comes after the ID

14:14:47 <danbri-scribe> DanC: but we've done one before. did we do a call before?

14:14:50 <danbri-scribe> brian: yes, we did.

14:15:01 <danbri-scribe> DaveB: yes, its in their archives

14:15:09 <danbri-scribe> DanC: so it isn't finished but we've started the process

14:15:15 <DaveB> ietf-types posting by aaron 2003-july-24 http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2003-July/000073.html

14:15:18 <danbri-scribe> gk: some changes needed following the existing review

14:15:31 <danbri-scribe> action: gk to check with aaron on status of the rdf mimetypes draft

14:15:31 * RRSAgent records action 2

14:15:48 <danbri-scribe> gk: I offered to take it over last time... he seemed ok continuing the task then.

14:15:55 <danbri-scribe> brian: anything else on doc publishing?

14:15:59 <danbri-scribe> ...one remark?

14:16:12 <danbri-scribe> ...i did hear a view expressed of dissapointment in progress we'd made

14:16:16 <danbri-scribe> ...that we'd not gone to CR

14:16:27 <danbri-scribe> ...to me that's saying the glass is 10% empty not 90% full

14:16:59 <danbri-scribe> ...come a long way getting through the LC work this year. significant progress, even if not quite where we hoped to be

14:17:12 <danbri-scribe> jjc: with hindsight we should have published editors drafts during LC period

14:17:18 <danbri-scribe> brian: also re doc publishing...

14:17:41 <danbri-scribe> ...idea i had in mind was that all docs in shadow could be crosslinked, linkchecked, and then write a script to do the substitutions...

14:17:57 <danbri-scribe> ...also would save Peter and others time

14:17:59 * DanC q+

14:17:59 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

14:18:29 <danbri-scribe> danbri: it would've made link checking easier this time

14:18:37 <bwm> ack danc

14:18:37 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:18:38 <danbri-scribe> em: scripting would've made sense

14:18:53 <danbri-scribe> DanC: don't do anything to encourage ppl to read editors drafts

14:19:03 <danbri-scribe> ...whatever is convenient for the wg is great

14:19:26 <danbri-scribe> danbri: it'll indirectly benefit them as /TR/ publishing won't be such an ordeal

14:19:34 <danbri-scribe> jjc: we have at least 3 more pubs ahead of us

14:20:06 <danbri-scribe> frank: folks like webont have close interest

14:20:20 * gk troubloe is, publishing a tech report has such a long lead time

14:20:21 <danbri-scribe> DanC: pls don't make that mistake... they're outside, they should learn our work via /TR/

14:20:28 <danbri-scribe> ...

14:20:43 <danbri-scribe> brian: script seems like a good idea

14:20:47 <DanC> long lead time? a week is a long time?

14:21:32 <gk> (DanC, my experience is that to have a doc approved for TR publication takes closer to a month)

14:21:45 <danbri-scribe> action: danbri to investigation production of such a script

14:21:45 * RRSAgent records action 3

14:21:59 <danbri-scribe> "I'll see what I can do in a week, might give the ball back if not as easy as hope"

14:22:06 <DanC> but the month isn't all TR lead time. The TR delay is *only* the time between the editor's last save and the /TR/ update

14:22:11 <Zakim> +Jos

14:22:14 <danbri-scribe> em: pubrules work was about 3hrs this time not 18

14:22:17 <danbri-scribe> welcome Jos

14:22:47 <DanC> maybe you can send the cvs logs to the WG in email, eric?

14:22:55 <gk> (DanC, depends on your poV. In a technical sense, you're right, but as an editor it's not so simple)

14:23:01 <danbri-scribe> note: editors to freese their work until danbri has framework in plce this week...

14:23:06 <DanC> how so, gk?

14:23:29 <danbri-scribe> 10: heads up re TAG rdfURIMeaning-39 and public-sw-meaning

14:23:32 <danbri-scribe> DanC: history...

14:23:38 <danbri-scribe> meeting in Cambridge tech plenary

14:23:51 <danbri-scribe> ...decided to take out social meaning, which we're just now publishing...

14:23:59 <danbri-scribe> ...SW CG was supposed to do something

14:24:03 <danbri-scribe> ...we asked tag to make an issue

14:24:05 <danbri-scribe> ...he made a request

14:24:08 <danbri-scribe> ...time passed

14:24:19 <danbri-scribe> ...tag adopted issue but busy, said 'well get to it evnetually'

14:24:27 <danbri-scribe> ...meanwhile a mailing list came out of budapest bof

14:24:33 <danbri-scribe> ...i'm supposed to set up some kind of a meeting

14:24:39 <danbri-scribe> ...patH has already done that

14:24:49 <danbri-scribe> ...others i assume want to be there: timbl, danbri...

14:24:53 <danbri-scribe> ...that's it i think

14:25:04 <ericm> q+

14:25:04 * Zakim sees ericm on the speaker queue

14:25:09 <danbri-scribe> brian: basically there is now a mailing list for discussion of social meaning issue

14:25:21 <danbri-scribe> DanC: it would be in order for this wg to delegate someone

14:25:32 <gk> (DanC, it's the combination of WG overhead - getting consensus to publish, meeting all the complex W3C publication requirements, and eventually actually publishing.)

14:25:46 <danbri-scribe> danbri: is there any expectation this'll impact on rdfcore's rec track ambitions?

14:26:01 <danbri-scribe> ...or just a disucssion list

14:26:04 <danbri-scribe> DanC: both/either seem possible

14:26:24 <danbri-scribe> brian: a delegate... any volunteers?

14:26:38 <danbri-scribe> danbri, pat: interested in aprticipating, but not sure re representing the group

14:26:50 <danbri-scribe> pat: does 'delegate' mean representing group's view

14:26:59 <danbri-scribe> DanC: could be either

14:27:05 <DanC> (getting consensus to publish isn't "overhead". It's essential, core work of the group)

14:27:10 <jjc> q+

14:27:10 * Zakim sees ericm, jjc on the speaker queue

14:27:11 <danbri-scribe> pat: i'm willing to volunteer so long as group gives me reasonably clear instructions

14:27:32 <danbri-scribe> brian: pat, your initial brief is to keep the wg informed

14:27:46 <danbri-scribe> DanC: also tell the social meaning anything they need to know factually about what's in the docs

14:28:05 <danbri-scribe> danbri: who expects to participate?

14:28:15 <DanC> (the record should show a decision to appoint path our delegate)

14:28:26 <jjc> ack jjc

14:28:26 * Zakim sees ericm on the speaker queue

14:28:28 <danbri-scribe> ...danbri, path, danc; gk on the list; brian maybe

14:28:41 <danbri-scribe> 11: xmlsch-02

14:29:00 <danbri-scribe> jjc: talking to dave reynolds about this... (and re poss of withdrawing the comment)...

14:29:07 <bwm> q?

14:29:07 * Zakim sees ericm on the speaker queue

14:29:09 <danbri-scribe> ...(so we owe him a reply to indicate we're not acting on it)

14:29:09 <DanC> RESOLVED: to appoint PatH as RDF Core representative to public-sw-meaning, to provide factual information about RDF Core drafts and to keep the RDF Core WG informed of progress in that forum.

14:29:15 <danbri-scribe> thanks DanC

14:29:28 <danbri-scribe> jjc: his actual comment was buried in an implementation report

14:29:39 <ericm> Reguarding Danc's point re keeping social meaning group updated to previous M&S and current RDFCore work in this area - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Sep/0001.html

14:29:40 <danbri-scribe> ...we should draft something to explain to him what we're now doing, and why

14:29:41 <ericm> q-

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

14:29:48 <danbri-scribe> JosD: we also had same comments...

14:29:57 <danbri-scribe> ...3/4 of tests are not succeeding

14:30:05 <danbri-scribe> ...i u/stood that last week it was decided to obsolete test cases

14:30:13 * danbri-scribe realises jos missed earlier exchange

14:30:17 <gk> (DanC, I guess we have a different view about the extent of consensus necessary for publishing a *draft*. I find the IETF approach easier, where the editor has discretion to publish as-and-when, and WG consensus if focused onthe decision to go to LC [roughly])

14:30:17 <danbri-scribe> ...these things are not ideal

14:30:49 <danbri-scribe> jjc: ...re outstanding action jang still has, that's bound up with any reply to dave (dave = dave reynolds)

14:30:57 <danbri-scribe> brian: summary of current situation?

14:31:06 <DanC> (I don't believe the IETF gives editors the right to publish as-and-when; draft publication is assumed to be authorized by the WG)

14:31:08 <DaveB> daver's report: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0076.html

14:31:19 <danbri-scribe> JosD: several impl reports re test cases... either impls are wrong or test cases are wrong

14:31:30 * danbri-scribe thanks daveb for the url

14:31:43 <danbri-scribe> jang: we've remove the 'fudge' compromise wording...

14:31:52 <danbri-scribe> ...to remove the test cases themselves is to avoid the issue

14:32:01 <gk> (DanC, I don't entirely agree. Is this the really right place to discuss?)

14:32:02 <danbri-scribe> ...there either is, or isn't, an intereop problem.

14:32:16 <danbri-scribe> jjc: daver says this could be fixed in jena...[...]

14:32:33 <danbri-scribe> (jjc, can you paste that quote here or is it from above url?)

14:32:42 <danbri-scribe> jjc: ...its clumsy.

14:32:44 <DaveB> (yes, from above)

14:32:48 <DanC> (it's not an ideal forum, no, but I'd hate to drop it altogether. oh well...)

14:32:54 <bwm> q?

14:32:54 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:33:05 <danbri-scribe> jjc: in conversaion, dave now seems to prefer current behaviour as most useful approach.

14:33:10 <danbri-scribe> JosD: agree

14:33:36 <danbri-scribe> ...not convinced we should fix the impls

14:33:41 <gk> (DanC, I'd be happy to pick up in email, somewhere, or later, or something else)

14:33:42 <danbri-scribe> jang: thing w/ dealing w/ just the test case

14:33:50 <danbri-scribe> it's a legit LC question to say 'what is answer to this tc

14:33:51 <danbri-scribe> '

14:34:03 <danbri-scribe> brian: orig when we went to LC1 we said 'spaces not allowed'

14:34:13 <danbri-scribe> ...but we got feedback saying 'tats not what we do'

14:34:19 <danbri-scribe> so we went for laxer copmromise

14:34:30 <danbri-scribe> ...but then feedback from pfps and others said 'dont be so lax'

14:34:35 <danbri-scribe> ...so we're back where we were

14:34:47 <danbri-scribe> brian: two ways to be precise

14:34:57 <danbri-scribe> ...one way is 'whats in graph must be in lex space of datatype'

14:34:58 <danbri-scribe> vs

14:35:05 <gk> q+ to say that meaning of spaces e.g. in " 3 "^^xsd:integer should be clearly undefined

14:35:05 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:35:15 <danbri-scribe> ...'whats in the graph is a string, which when processed (...) is in lex space of datatype'

14:35:50 <danbri-scribe> ...

14:36:07 <danbri-scribe> DanC: latter would require impls to pick up knowledge they normally get as a matter of course

14:36:19 <ericm> q?

14:36:19 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

14:36:32 <danbri-scribe> patrick: i'm v v uncomfortable... where we incl ws processing in lex to value

14:36:36 <danbri-scribe> ...several reasons

14:36:44 <danbri-scribe> ...an app may choose to support xml schema datatypes

14:36:45 <jjc> q+

14:36:45 * Zakim sees gk, jjc on the speaker queue

14:36:52 <danbri-scribe> ...but not be an xml processor nor have those libraries handy

14:37:23 <danbri-scribe> ...we're telling them they need to do something more than what datatypes are

14:37:39 <danbri-scribe> ...pandora's box

14:37:42 <danbri-scribe> ...not just ws processing

14:38:10 <danbri-scribe> ...current tools happy saying 1.0 int is a perfectly ok typed literal <- scribe missed detail of point

14:38:39 <danbri-scribe> ...any lex form that an rdf

14:38:49 <danbri-scribe> processor can coerce into suitable form is ok

14:38:56 <danbri-scribe> ...this seems sloppy, heuristic

14:39:11 <danbri-scribe> ...shouldn't use tools in context not meant for

14:39:12 <bwm> q?

14:39:12 * Zakim sees gk, jjc on the speaker queue

14:39:26 <danbri-scribe> DanC: folks would read the xml schema specs, find the datatypes and that'd be enough...

14:39:42 <danbri-scribe> ...but if our specs ref xml schema and xmls says do ws processing

14:39:50 <danbri-scribe> ...

14:40:02 <danbri-scribe> [missed detail]

14:40:15 <danbri-scribe> patrick: ws processing is only defined in xml schema

14:40:32 <bwm> ack gk

14:40:32 <Zakim> gk, you wanted to say that meaning of spaces e.g. in " 3 "^^xsd:integer should be clearly undefined

14:40:32 <danbri-scribe> jang: we are chartered to ... []

14:40:33 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

14:41:01 <danbri-scribe> gk: as i said in recent email, approach i'd suggest... follow approach that says meaning of a typed literal only when the lex form is in lex space of the datatype

14:41:11 <danbri-scribe> ...but not get into q of what happens when that isn't so

14:41:31 <bwm> ack jjc

14:41:32 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:41:33 <danbri-scribe> ..would allow processors to do w/s processing to make inferences that went beyond what core expects

14:41:40 <danbri-scribe> jjc: i find patrick's args fairly compelling

14:41:45 <danbri-scribe> ...one extra point

14:41:56 <danbri-scribe> ...would introduce a new nromative ref on xml schema pt1

14:42:06 <danbri-scribe> ...currently our only normative refs are on pt2

14:42:07 * DanC q+ to note that xml schema part 2 normatively cites part 1 anyway

14:42:08 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

14:42:24 <bwm> ack danc

14:42:24 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to note that xml schema part 2 normatively cites part 1 anyway

14:42:26 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:42:29 <danbri-scribe> DanC: as above

14:42:41 <danbri-scribe> DanC: request a straw poll

14:42:46 <gk> My latest position described at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Aug/0348.html

14:42:50 <danbri-scribe> jjc: other thing came up when discussing datatyping...

14:42:51 <danbri-scribe> thx gk

14:43:10 <danbri-scribe> jjc: ...we wanted our datatyping mechanism general, not just w.r.t. xml schema datatypes

14:43:19 <danbri-scribe> danbri: 2nded

14:43:28 * DanC wonders about the duration of the call...

14:43:41 <danbri-scribe> jang: we wouldn't have to have extra text if xsd folk said the rdf mapping is ...

14:43:53 <danbri-scribe> pat: we should be careful about doing xsd's job for them

14:43:56 * bwm to danc 60 mins

14:44:01 <danbri-scribe> ...sim to the issue re xml literature normalisation

14:44:13 <danbri-scribe> ...coudl say the graph syntax requires spare ws to be rejected

14:44:33 <danbri-scribe> ...but impls could store in non-normal form

14:44:40 <danbri-scribe> dnbri: sounds like softwre engineering in a w3c spec

14:44:45 <danbri-scribe> pat: we already do that re normalisation

14:44:59 <danbri-scribe> patrick: reason for ws processing is cleaning up variations

14:45:23 <danbri-scribe> ....clear from xmls spec that [mssed pt]

14:45:39 <jjc> q+

14:45:39 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

14:45:44 <danbri-scribe> brian: i don't beleive alternative is any less precise

14:45:58 <danbri-scribe> ...i started this re 'does anyoen wish to propose a change to current situioant'

14:46:02 <danbri-scribe> ...anyone need a straw poll

14:46:04 <danbri-scribe> [none]

14:46:11 <danbri-scribe> ...is anyone willing to propose a change?

14:46:29 <danbri-scribe> gk: yes. to be explicit re saying meaning of a typed literal is when lex form is in lex space of the datatype

14:46:38 <danbri-scribe> (various): already do so

14:46:42 <danbri-scribe> gk: in which case i'm happy

14:46:50 <danbri-scribe> jjc: gk is correct, we are precise

14:47:12 <danbri-scribe> path: semantics require that an illformed literal isn't in val space

14:47:18 <danbri-scribe> brian: does it say it doesn't denote a literal

14:47:40 <danbri-scribe> gk: ' 3 ' isn't in lex space

14:47:45 <danbri-scribe> ..[missed]

14:48:02 <danbri-scribe> DanC: ah, you're saying ' 3 ' wouldn't be explicitly treated

14:48:06 * danbri-scribe missing detail

14:48:12 <DanC> PatH: that would remove datatype clashes

14:48:22 * DanC q+ to say oops! there goes all the value of these things!

14:48:22 * Zakim sees jjc, DanC on the speaker queue

14:48:32 <jjc> ack jc

14:48:32 * Zakim sees jjc, DanC on the speaker queue

14:48:35 <jjc> ack jjc

14:48:35 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

14:48:39 <danbri-scribe> JosD: looking at xsd:string... it'd be valid as a string

14:48:53 <danbri-scribe> JosD: is it in the lex space or not?

14:49:18 <danbri-scribe> DanC: pat pts out that this would remove datatype clashes so you couldn't observe inconsistencies

14:49:18 <jjc> q+

14:49:19 * Zakim sees DanC, jjc on the speaker queue

14:49:24 <bwm> ack danc

14:49:24 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to say oops! there goes all the value of these things!

14:49:26 * Zakim sees jjc on the speaker queue

14:49:28 <danbri-scribe> ...this would undercut many benefits to usrs

14:49:42 <danbri-scribe> (discussion of whether it is in lex space)

14:50:03 <danbri-scribe> JosD: ws facet on primitive datatypes -> remove wss

14:50:20 <danbri-scribe> brian: i think i hear an action that we need to verify our interpretation of the xsd spec

14:50:27 <danbri-scribe> ...patrick, would you want to do this?

14:50:40 <danbri-scribe> DanC: we have a status quo

14:50:54 <danbri-scribe> brian: gk was going to propose a change

14:51:04 <danbri-scribe> ...would be good to know if ' 3 ' *is* in the lex space

14:51:11 <gk> If ' 3 ' *is* in the lex space of xsd:int, then the value would be clear: same as '3'^^xsd:integer... that is, I propose my changte regardless

14:51:28 <danbri-scribe> jjc: we have an approved test case that says it isn't; if jos has new evidence pls submit to the list

14:51:33 <danbri-scribe> jjc: fair, i'll take an action

14:51:40 <danbri-scribe> s/jjc/josd/

14:51:55 <danbri-scribe> action: josd to send msg re accuracy of the ' 3 ' test case

14:51:55 * RRSAgent records action 4

14:52:27 <danbri-scribe> 12: Datatype subclasses

14:52:32 <danbri-scribe> brian; some discussion on list

14:52:44 <DanC> The meeting noted that the WG owes Reynolds a response

14:52:49 <danbri-scribe> ...resolution 'datatype A is subclass of B "only if you/we say it is"'

14:53:09 <danbri-scribe> (ie. same as normal subclassing; taking out the extentional subclassing that we had left in in error)

14:53:12 <danbri-scribe> path: i'm happpy

14:53:35 <danbri-scribe> jang: we have test cases for this already

14:53:45 <danbri-scribe> path: specs published today will have that in them

14:54:27 <danbri-scribe> jjc: I propose the semantics of rdfs:subClassOf on datatypes as in the 5th Sept Working Draft

14:54:38 <danbri-scribe> connolly: abstain

14:54:43 <danbri-scribe> danbri: 2nded

14:54:54 <danbri-scribe> no other abstentions.

14:54:58 <DanC> RESOLVED.

14:55:21 <danbri-scribe> (skipping 13 for now)

14:55:21 <danbri-scribe> 14: Outstanding comments

14:55:33 <danbri-scribe> pfps has msg on normal form c

14:55:43 <danbri-scribe> jjc: i have a draft of a response i could circulate

14:55:46 <DanC> jos, http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#integer 3.3.13.1 Lexical representation clearly specifies the lexical space, and there are no spaces in there.

14:55:58 <danbri-scribe> DaveB: from email he sent, he asked that we don't require nfc for xml literals

14:56:03 <danbri-scribe> ...but we changed things since january

14:56:15 <danbri-scribe> ...new draft no longer says tha

14:56:16 <danbri-scribe> t

14:56:18 <danbri-scribe> jjc: says lex forms must be.

14:56:21 <danbri-scribe> (this re Concepts)

14:56:30 <danbri-scribe> jjc: concepts requires lex forms to be nfc, incl. xml literal

14:56:42 <danbri-scribe> DaveB: ok in that case he is correct this is not in syntax doc

14:56:55 <danbri-scribe> jjc: we don't say it explicitly. lots of things we don't.

14:57:06 <danbri-scribe> path: 2 things he raised. internal consistency issue. also he makes a suggestion...

14:57:10 <danbri-scribe> DaveB: yup was just doing pt 1

14:57:36 <danbri-scribe> jjc: we coudl do it the way he says

14:57:47 <danbri-scribe> ...that is, to produce warnings on plain literals tat are not in nfc

14:58:02 <danbri-scribe> ...we would need to talk w/ i18n guys about what they thought

14:58:20 <danbri-scribe> brian: do we need to think about what answer to this is?

14:58:29 <danbri-scribe> DaveB: i18n's best practice rec'n is ifc

14:58:40 <danbri-scribe> jjc: charmod encourages rejection of non-nfc data

14:59:01 * DanC is lost; if anybody thinks this is important, pls send a test case to the WG

14:59:02 <danbri-scribe> action: jjc to prepare a response to peter on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0283.html

14:59:06 * RRSAgent records action 5

14:59:14 <danbri-scribe> ...next:

14:59:17 <danbri-scribe> status of

14:59:17 <danbri-scribe> pfps comment on sectin 6.4 of concepts

14:59:17 <danbri-scribe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html

14:59:18 <gk> Concerning % in URI's, my last comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0055.html

14:59:24 <danbri-scribe> jjc: no response yet.

14:59:28 <danbri-scribe> ...i prefer 'no bytes to change'

14:59:35 * DanC q+ to request a test case

14:59:35 * Zakim sees jjc, DanC on the speaker queue

14:59:35 <danbri-scribe> ...seen suggestion we add a note about this issue

14:59:56 <danbri-scribe> ...at one point i thought hard about this text... the closer this text is to what others have written, happier i am.

15:00:13 * danbri-scribe glances at clock

15:00:23 <danbri-scribe> gk: a note would be in order

15:00:51 <danbri-scribe> action: jjc to respond to peter re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html

15:00:51 * RRSAgent records action 6

15:01:02 <danbri-scribe> DanC: if getting back could include test cases I'd be v happy

15:01:33 <danbri-scribe> ...specs for this % stuff are a mess. Whereas test cases clearer

15:01:42 <danbri-scribe> brian: hmm shouldn't uri guys do the test case

15:01:50 <danbri-scribe> ...though we have the foo and bar test cases

15:02:01 <danbri-scribe> (test case in mailing list thread)

15:02:37 <danbri-scribe> DanC: best response, "In case not clear in Concepts, here is test case"

15:02:52 <danbri-scribe> action: jjc to respond to peter re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html including test case.

15:02:52 * RRSAgent records action 7

15:03:02 <danbri-scribe> brian: over time.

15:03:19 <Zakim> -patrick

15:03:20 <danbri-scribe> ericm: specs should be up by noon ET (within an hour)

15:03:22 <Zakim> -Emiller

15:03:22 <danbri-scribe> ADJOURNED.

15:03:23 <Zakim> -Jos

15:03:27 <danbri-scribe> logger, pointer?

15:03:27 <danbri-scribe> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-09-05#T15-03-27

15:03:28 <Zakim> -Manola

15:03:29 <Zakim> -Pat_Hayes

15:03:31 <danbri-scribe> rrsAgent, pointer?

15:03:31 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T15-03-31

15:03:40 <Zakim> -ILRT

15:03:51 <Zakim> -DanC

15:04:28 * DanC Zakim, call DanC-BOS

15:04:28 * Zakim ok, DanC; the call is being made

15:04:30 <Zakim> +DanC

15:05:15 <danbri-scribe> rrsagent, actions?

15:05:15 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'actions'

15:05:43 <danbri-scribe> rrsagent, help?

15:05:43 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'help'

15:05:53 <danbri-scribe> rrsagent, help

15:05:53 <RRSAgent> More detailed help is available in http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent

15:05:54 <RRSAgent> Some of the commands I know are:

15:05:55 <RRSAgent> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)

15:05:56 <RRSAgent> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)

15:05:58 <RRSAgent> excuse us - Leave the channel (also: bye)

15:05:59 <RRSAgent> grep [-i] [first-last|max] <perl regex> - Search the logs

15:06:01 <RRSAgent> e.g. grep foo, grep 5 bar, grep -i things [case independent]

15:06:03 <RRSAgent> append |mail EMAIL-ADDRESS to email results instead of printing

15:06:05 <RRSAgent> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log

15:06:06 <RRSAgent> show action items - give a list of ACTION: entries

15:06:08 <RRSAgent> drop action n - remove entry [n] from the list of action items

15:06:10 <RRSAgent> I respond to 'RRSAgent, command' in public and '/msg RRSAgent command' in private

15:06:12 <RRSAgent> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for

15:06:14 <RRSAgent> "action" messages (messages sent with the '/me' command) and

15:06:15 <RRSAgent> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.

15:06:16 <RRSAgent> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.

15:06:17 <RRSAgent> The log is in http://www.w3.org/2003/

15:06:18 <RRSAgent> Do RRSAgent, adminhelp for help on administrative commands

15:06:25 <danbri-scribe> rrsagent, show action items?

15:06:25 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'show action items'

15:06:35 <danbri-scribe> rrsagent, show action items

15:06:35 <RRSAgent> I see 7 open action items:

15:06:36 <RRSAgent> ACTION: s to [1]

15:06:37 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T14-13-19

15:06:39 <RRSAgent> ACTION: gk to check with aaron on status of the rdf mimetypes draft [2]

15:06:41 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T14-15-31

15:06:43 <RRSAgent> ACTION: danbri to investigation production of such a script [3]

15:06:45 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T14-21-45

15:06:47 <RRSAgent> ACTION: josd to send msg re accuracy of the ' 3 ' test case [4]

15:06:49 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T14-51-55

15:06:51 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jjc to prepare a response to peter on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0283.html [5]

15:06:54 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T14-59-02

15:06:56 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jjc to respond to peter re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html [6]

15:06:59 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T15-00-51

15:07:00 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jjc to respond to peter re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0282.html including test case. [7]

15:07:02 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc#T15-02-52

15:07:53 <danbri-scribe> logs: http://www.w3.org/2003/09/05-rdfcore-irc.html

15:09:46 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne

15:14:46 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, DanC, in SW_RDFCore()10:00AM

15:14:47 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

17:16:31 * Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed