W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-10-31

14:00:02 Topic now rdfcore

14:00:02 Users on #rdfcore: logger Zakim @danbri

14:47:04 <danbri> hi graham

14:47:11 <danbri> thanks for offering to scribe. yes please!

14:47:15 <danbri> logger is logging already...

14:48:53 <gk> Hi Dan. OK.

14:49:03 <gk> Just checking final emails.

14:49:31 <danbri> are you ok to do an update on Concepts too? re LC2 comment handling

14:49:35 <danbri> hi brian

14:49:43 <bwm> G'day

14:54:50 <gk> Oops back again, got distractyed by Brian's msg about MIME registration.

14:55:24 <danbri> danbri has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2003-10-31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0182.html + AOB mime types, ns schema files.

14:56:11 <gk> Yup... unless anyone sees anything I've missed, ther5e are none.

14:56:19 <danbri> re Concepts, good.

14:59:58 <gk> gk is now known as gk-scribe

15:00:04 <danbri> zakim, this will be RDF_Core

15:00:04 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, danbri

15:00:07 <danbri> zakim, this will be RDFCore

15:00:07 <Zakim> ok, danbri, I see SW_RDFCore()10:00AM already started

15:00:21 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the phone?

15:00:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P16, ??P17

15:00:27 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne

15:00:28 <jang> zakim, ??p16 is ilrt

15:00:29 <Zakim> +ilrt; got it

15:00:34 <jang> zakim, ilrt has jang daveb

15:00:34 <Zakim> +jang, daveb; got it

15:00:37 <bwm> Zakim, ??p17 is bwm

15:00:37 <Zakim> +bwm; got it

15:01:03 <Zakim> +PatH

15:01:10 <bwm> Zakim, who is on the phone?

15:01:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, bwm, GrahamKlyne, PatH

15:01:11 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

15:01:16 <ericm> zakim, dial emiller-bos

15:01:16 <Zakim> ok, ericm; the call is being made

15:01:17 <Zakim> +Emiller

15:01:24 <Zakim> +DanBri

15:01:26 <patH> hey, it works.

15:01:59 <danbri> zakim, who is on the phone?

15:01:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, bwm, GrahamKlyne, PatH, Emiller, DanBri

15:02:00 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

15:02:30 <danbri>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0182.html

15:02:34 <bwm>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/att-0182/rdfcore-agenda-20031031.txt

15:02:34 <danbri> <- agenda

15:02:49 <gk-scribe> Tx

15:03:35 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean

15:03:52 <danbri> zakim, who is on the phone?

15:03:52 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, bwm, GrahamKlyne, PatH, Emiller, DanBri, Mike_Dean

15:03:54 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

15:04:44 <gk-scribe> AOB: discuss MIME registration

15:05:08 <gk-scribe> ... schema files @ namespace URIs

15:05:14 <gk-scribe> ... ISWC feedback

15:05:27 <gk-scribe> Next telecon, next week, same time, etc.

15:05:41 <gk-scribe> Scribe... JanG

15:05:57 * DanCon waves, finishing up review of draft PR request

15:06:06 <gk-scribe> ITEM 5 - document status review

15:06:17 <gk-scribe> 5a Syntax

15:06:46 <gk-scribe> One pending comment from PFPS, rest all dealt with

15:06:51 <gk-scribe> 5b Schema

15:07:02 <gk-scribe> Need to check things not falling between cracks

15:07:10 <gk-scribe> One outstanding issue ...

15:07:31 <gk-scribe> ... and another on WG list, inconsistency between schema and semantics

15:07:55 <gk-scribe> 5c Semantics/LBase

15:08:01 <danbri> rdfs 1.0 feedback needing reply, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0049.html

15:08:09 <jang> bwm's schema/semantics comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0189.html

15:08:16 <gk-scribe> Pat and Herman are engaged, finding bugs, fixing bugs

15:08:51 <gk-scribe> LC version had some known problems found at last moment

15:09:12 <gk-scribe> Pat and Herman had F2F at ISWC, thinks they have agreement and Pat has implemented it

15:09:31 <gk-scribe> No more comments from Peter

15:09:44 <danbri> all comments should be in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/ somewhere.

15:09:51 <gk-scribe> Pat had concern about missing emails, but Brian has been tracking the list

15:10:36 * gk-scribe I was looking at OWL, maybe wrinkle with owl:Restriction ?

15:11:28 <gk-scribe> Discuss possible compatibility between RDF and OWL semantics.

15:11:58 <gk-scribe> ACTION: Path, check with OWL folks on range of rdf:predictate

15:12:16 <gk-scribe> ACTION: DANBRI, Update schema doc accordingly

15:13:03 <gk-scribe> ACTION: BWM, Update rdf.rdf accordingly

15:13:13 <gk-scribe> (schema at RDF namespace)

15:13:45 <gk-scribe> All changes can be classed editorial

15:13:57 <gk-scribe> 5d. Primer

15:14:08 <gk-scribe> Only two comments.

15:14:27 <gk-scribe> One on LC" to rdf-comments; use of internal DTDs and validating XML

15:14:38 <gk-scribe> Other was minor editorial.

15:14:44 <gk-scribe> Both are addressed.

15:15:03 <gk-scribe> First has been handled and responded to

15:16:13 <gk-scribe> Brian has tracked the editorial issue as LC2 issue, so does require response

15:16:26 <gk-scribe> Other comment not tracked, so was before LC2(?)

15:16:47 * gk-scribe was this fixed in the LC2 document?

15:17:19 <gk-scribe> 5e. Test cases

15:17:23 <bwm> ACTION: EM to respond on primer-minor-editorial

15:17:38 * DanCon Zakim, call DanC-BOS

15:17:38 * Zakim ok, DanCon; the call is being made

15:17:42 <gk-scribe> 2396bis issue? Need a response.

15:17:44 <Zakim> +DanC

15:18:06 <gk-scribe> Proposal is on the table.

15:18:19 <bwm>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0195.html

15:18:51 * gk-scribe I think the test case should be pulled

15:19:47 <danbri> Danc abstains on behalf of the Team.

15:19:55 <gk-scribe> RESOLVED: remove test case XMLbase/test012

15:20:33 <gk-scribe> ACTION: Jang, remove test case and respond to commenter

15:20:41 <DanCon> what does "remove" mean? does it really disappear from the face of the earth? or does it just get a different status?

15:20:55 <gk-scribe> Another issue on test cases...

15:21:14 * danbri looking for a tmp scribe while gk tells us about Concepts

15:21:57 <gk-scribe> ... Peter suggests test case based on false premise

15:22:42 <gk-scribe> We have a way to handle this: specifically indicate that a statement is inconsistent.

15:23:03 <gk-scribe> Has anyone passed such tests? Jos is working on them. We think he has passed some.

15:23:40 <gk-scribe> How are we to respond to Peter?

15:24:15 <gk-scribe> We don't believe ther are any other inconsistency tests

15:26:10 <gk-scribe> Jan: we already have such a test... test002 ...

15:26:13 <bwm> q+

15:26:13 * Zakim sees bwm on the speaker queue

15:26:22 <gk-scribe> ... uses a non-well-formed integer

15:27:08 * DanCon wonders who's whacking their keyboard so loudly?

15:27:10 <danbri> (someone typing quite loudly)

15:28:28 <jang> DanCon: anyeone who sends a test case to the comments list

15:28:32 <jang> asking for clarification

15:28:40 <jang> deserves to have that test case one way or another in the suite

15:29:02 <DanCon> wow... you can express inconsistency in RDF without datatypes? oops! news to me.

15:29:05 <jang> danbri: where next?

15:29:37 <bwm> q+

15:29:37 * Zakim sees bwm on the speaker queue

15:29:52 <danbri> ack bwm

15:29:52 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:29:58 <jang> bwm: it's not the test case that pfps has asked for

15:30:05 <gk-scribe> I'm back. Don't know what happened there

15:30:14 <jang> we're caught in a contradiction with our test cases

15:30:24 <DanCon> I didn't say "and that's all"

15:30:29 <jang> on one hand: they're there to illustrate decisions

15:30:41 <jang> but also being used as evidence for going to PR

15:31:12 <jang> patH: I don't think PFPS wants us to add the test case as is

15:31:15 <DaveB> q+

15:31:15 * Zakim sees DaveB on the speaker queue

15:31:26 <jang> q+

15:31:26 * Zakim sees DaveB, jang on the speaker queue

15:31:34 <danbri> ack daveb

15:31:34 * Zakim sees jang on the speaker queue

15:31:54 <jang> DaveB: pfps' comment 7 oct, proposes following entailment as a positive entailment test

15:32:19 <gk-scribe> Point peter tries to make ... incompleteness of entailment rules

15:32:22 <jang> bwm: the point isn't about contradiction detection, it's about the incompleteness of the entailment rules

15:32:28 <gk-scribe> Rules don't detect inconsistency

15:32:43 <jang> DaveB: so someone, path? should reply to this

15:33:05 * gk-scribe Jang, are you continuing with this?

15:33:27 <jang> jang: we generally illustrate these with blah entails FALSE

15:33:37 <jang> DanCon: why not pfps' form?

15:34:01 <jang> gk, can you continue?

15:34:05 <gk-scribe> OK

15:34:27 <DanCon> I like having both tests: an inconsistency test and a positive entailment test.

15:34:28 <gk-scribe> Two actions? Pat's response to peter, Jang to include new test case?

15:34:41 <danbri> gk, yes; still refining the test case action.

15:34:42 <jang> the inconsistency test IS a positive entailment test

15:34:58 <gk-scribe> PatH: document currently indicates test for inconsistency. Never previously requires "silly entailments" Why start now?

15:35:10 <gk-scribe> DanC: because someone asks us to!

15:35:31 <gk-scribe> PatH: would be blunder if people try to write ruoles to capture these entaiulments

15:36:13 <gk-scribe> Suggested response: can we ask Peter if indicating this as an inconsistency is enough?

15:36:41 <danbri> q?

15:36:41 * Zakim sees jang on the speaker queue

15:36:52 <gk-scribe> danC: it news to me ... please put it in the test suite.

15:37:19 <ericm> brb

15:37:20 <gk-scribe> Other ways to get inconsistency? None without datatypes.

15:37:27 <danbri> ack jang

15:37:28 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:38:03 <gk-scribe> JanG: we indicate inconsistencies by given a document that entails "FALSE", where "FALSE" is a stand-in for any false document.

15:38:51 <gk-scribe> ... test cases should be illustrative; random conclusions are likely to confuse.

15:39:07 <gk-scribe> PatH: strongly agree

15:39:25 <gk-scribe> DanC: can we have all three tests?

15:40:23 <gk-scribe> wrap this up?

15:40:54 <gk-scribe> JanG: if test case goes in as-is, it would be violently red-flagged.

15:41:33 <gk-scribe> Proposed: test case goes in as-is

15:42:00 <jang> without going back the pfps, object

15:42:58 <gk-scribe> DanC: would like test case to be put in as-is, and any other test cases that may be required

15:43:11 <gk-scribe> No seconder for this?

15:43:38 <gk-scribe> Next step...

15:44:33 <gk-scribe> ACTION: PatH, respond to Peter and see if alternative approach is OK. If Peter insists then use his tyest case

15:44:45 <gk-scribe> Nest... conceytps

15:44:56 <danbri> gk on Concepts status.

15:45:07 <danbri> ...as far as i'm aware (unless missed) no issues. one minor typo.

15:45:18 <danbri> ...also req'd jjc change my email addr as anti-spam measure. no majors.

15:45:30 * DanCon q+ to note WebOnt WG is happy with concepts LC2

15:45:30 * Zakim sees DanCon on the speaker queue

15:45:38 <danbri> brian: i see no comments on Concepts.

15:45:43 <danbri> ack DanCon

15:45:43 <Zakim> DanCon, you wanted to note WebOnt WG is happy with concepts LC2

15:45:44 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:45:53 <danbri> danc: as per comment above. formal notice on its.

15:46:06 <gk-scribe> Next ... LBase

15:46:22 <gk-scribe> No negative comments

15:46:39 <gk-scribe> Agenda item 6: next steps/schedule

15:47:42 <gk-scribe> Two things: Brian just sent useful message to RDFcore identifying individuals useful for filling blanks. Do the individuals (Path?) know this?

15:47:56 <gk-scribe> Nov 7, end LC2

15:48:21 <gk-scribe> Next, proposed recommendation request draft for presentation to director

15:48:38 <gk-scribe> Plan to skip CR, go for PR

15:48:57 <gk-scribe> Document requires some attention, some identified by Brian

15:49:07 * DanCon has double-booked himself, sorta needs to go; danbri, ericm, ok?

15:49:27 <danbri> fine by me. thanks dan.

15:49:33 <gk-scribe> Concerned with statement from implemenation about each test case having 2 impementers, without stats to back it up.

15:49:43 * DanCon maybe doesn't need to go; is confused about my calendar. 321lkj23lkj4

15:50:16 <gk-scribe> Have asked sandro to apply Owl software (?) to RDF test cases (?)

15:50:36 <DaveB> it's a python script to make html from rdf descriptions of test case pass/fails

15:50:56 <gk-scribe> Need noted individuals to read Brian's message

15:51:19 <gk-scribe> What to do about I18N issue response?

15:52:21 <danbri> q?

15:52:21 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:52:40 * gk-scribe I have software that I can drive to query RDF to HTML summary

15:54:20 <gk-scribe> Applying OWL test case tools to RDF? Would be nice. Unsubstantiated claims? Do the tools help resolve this. If so, they yes please.

15:54:55 <gk-scribe> Need to get test case results encoded in appropriate (RDF) form for subsequent processing

15:55:15 <gk-scribe> (No Jeremy and Jos here, so can only guess)

15:55:41 <bwm> q+

15:55:41 * Zakim sees bwm on the speaker queue

15:55:51 <gk-scribe> Dave, please lookminto Jeremy/Jos test case work and see how easy to use

15:56:11 <danbri> mime type registration

15:56:20 <danbri> gk: i posted comments to mailing list this am

15:56:28 <danbri> ...we're in reasonably good shape. see list.

15:56:48 <gk-scribe> Schema at namespoace URIs... where are we?

15:57:17 <gk-scribe> Need some form of other language material...

15:57:45 <danbri> danbri: as I recall. we have two .xml files to publish. danbri+maxf have a single .xml with the french translations. danbri can do server publication, config etc.

15:57:58 <gk-scribe> state of files: have split out rdf schema from rdfs. COuple of issues spotted. Ralph has requested non-english labels.

15:58:08 <gk-scribe> Do we have content?

15:58:29 <gk-scribe> Yes, Franch translation is in RDF schema directory.

15:59:06 <gk-scribe> Suggest single language document for both namespaces, may be easier to manage.

15:59:48 <gk-scribe> DanC: what if I want to believe french labels for RDF but not for RDFS?

15:59:57 * DanCon Zakim, mute me

15:59:57 * Zakim sorry, DanCon, I do not see a party named 'DanCon'

16:00:00 * DanCon Zakim, mute DanC

16:00:00 * Zakim DanC should now be muted

16:00:46 <gk-scribe> Brian: if you have Frenchg content, I can add it in or you can take it over... I don't care

16:01:05 <gk-scribe> ACTION: Brian, send rdf.rdf document to DanBri

16:01:14 <gk-scribe> ACTION DanBri, get document to right place

16:01:39 <danbri> thanks all.

16:01:40 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean

16:01:43 <danbri> logger, pointer?

16:01:43 <danbri> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-10-31#T16-01-43

16:01:44 <gk-scribe> -- Meeting closed --

16:02:07 <danbri> zakim, leave us

16:02:31 <ericm> rrsagent, list actions

16:02:40 <danbri> zakim, who is on the phone?

16:02:45 <danbri> oops :)

16:03:00 <danbri> zakim, who is on the call?

16:03:00 <Zakim> sorry, danbri, I don't know what conference this is

16:03:01 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, gk-scribe, DanCon, patH, jang, ericm, bwm, logger, danbri

16:03:08 <danbri> zakim, this is RDF_Core

16:03:08 <Zakim> sorry, danbri, I do not see a conference named 'RDF_Core' in progress or scheduled at this time

16:03:38 * DanCon Zakim, unmute DanC

16:03:38 * Zakim sorry, DanCon, I don't know what conference this is

16:03:43 <danbri> zakim, this is RDFCore

16:03:43 <Zakim> ok, danbri

16:03:47 * DanCon Zakim, unmute DanC

16:03:47 * Zakim DanC should no longer be muted

16:03:50 <danbri> zakim, who is here?

16:03:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see bwm, Emiller, DanBri, DanC

16:03:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see Zakim, gk-scribe, DanCon, patH, jang, ericm, bwm, logger, danbri

16:06:46 * danbri tunes out slightly until someone asks him to do something

16:07:10 <ericm>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance

16:07:38 * danbri looks

16:08:51 <bwm>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0201.html

16:15:18 <ericm>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/EO/usecases/report

16:23:16 <Zakim> -DanC

16:32:04 <danbri> bwm, did you see http://www.w3.org/2003/08/owl-systems/test-results-out

16:32:13 <bwm> no

16:32:19 <danbri> have a skim.

16:41:07 * danbri adds http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance to his toolbar

16:42:19 <Zakim> -bwm

16:42:32 <Zakim> -Emiller

16:42:41 <Zakim> -DanBri

16:42:42 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

16:43:26 <bwm> - pfps comment - its a placeholder for the bug PatH pointed out.

16:44:02 <danbri> yup

18:12:24 * Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed