W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-11-07

14:01:02 Users on #rdfcore: @logger

14:56:40 <gk-scribe> gk-scribe is now known as gk

15:00:46 * RRSAgent is logging

15:00:47 <jang-scribe> zakim, this is rdfcore

15:00:47 <Zakim> ok, jang-scribe

15:00:58 <danbri> zakim, this is RDF_Core

15:00:58 <Zakim> sorry, danbri, I do not see a conference named 'RDF_Core' in progress or scheduled at this time

15:01:00 <danbri> zakim, this is RDFCore

15:01:00 <Zakim> danbri, this was already SW_RDFCore()10:00AM

15:01:01 <Zakim> ok, danbri

15:01:29 <danbri> danbri has changed the topic to: RDFCore Oct 7: agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Nov/att-0017/rdfcore-agenda-2003-11-07.txt

15:01:30 <jang-scribe> zakim, who is on the phone?

15:01:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P15, PatH

15:01:37 <danbri> who is p15?

15:01:40 <jang-scribe> zakim, ??p15 is ilrt

15:01:40 <Zakim> +ilrt; got it

15:01:45 <jang-scribe> zakim, ilrt has jang daveb

15:01:45 <Zakim> +jang, daveb; got it

15:01:58 <Zakim> + +1.978.835.aaaa

15:02:10 * gk must tear myself away from my datatype relation calculator and dial in

15:02:17 <Zakim> +DanBri

15:02:42 <Zakim> +??P18

15:02:48 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne

15:02:51 <bwm> Zakim, ??p18 is bwm

15:02:51 <Zakim> +bwm; got it

15:03:05 <danbri> zakim, ??P18 is Frank

15:03:05 <Zakim> sorry, danbri, I do not recognize a party named '??P18'

15:03:31 <danbri> zakim, who is on the phone?

15:03:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, PatH, +1.978.835.aaaa, DanBri, bwm, GrahamKlyne

15:03:33 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

15:03:56 <danbri> zakim, +1.978.835.aaaa is Frank

15:03:56 <Zakim> +Frank; got it

15:04:13 <Zakim> +??P19

15:04:27 <danbri> zakim, ??P19 is Jjc

15:04:27 <Zakim> +Jjc; got it

15:05:10 <Zakim> +Patrick

15:05:15 * gk that's 'moot', not 'mute'?

15:05:25 <danbri> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Nov/att-0017/rdfcore-agenda-2003-11-07.txt

15:05:42 <jang-scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Nov/0017.html

15:06:09 <jang-scribe> zakim, who is on the phone?

15:06:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, PatH, Frank, DanBri, bwm, GrahamKlyne, Jjc, Patrick (muted)

15:06:11 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

15:06:23 * DanC Zakim, call DanC-BOS

15:06:23 * Zakim ok, DanC; the call is being made

15:06:24 <Zakim> +DanC

15:06:33 <jang-scribe> regrets em

15:06:38 <jang-scribe> review agenda:

15:06:43 <jang-scribe> i18n comments arrive, for aob

15:06:45 <jang-scribe> other suggestions?

15:06:49 <gk> q+

15:06:49 * Zakim sees gk on the speaker queue

15:06:58 <jang-scribe> jjc: I've dropped a line in proposing dealing with pobvious i18n comment

15:07:00 * DanC q+

15:07:01 * Zakim sees gk, DanC on the speaker queue

15:07:02 <danbri> ack gk

15:07:02 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:07:13 <jang-scribe> gk: process point I raised concerning mime type draft

15:07:33 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean

15:07:39 <jang-scribe> DanC: I'd like to take i18n under 7f

15:08:29 <jang-scribe> next tetecon: several wg will be in japan for w3c ac meeting etc

15:08:35 <jang-scribe> who can't make it next week?

15:08:40 <jang-scribe> danc daveb, danbri, em

15:08:58 <jang-scribe> DanC: sandro is a possibility, but we'd be short on team resources anyway

15:09:18 <jang-scribe> DanC: can we take it later?

15:09:32 <danbri> 2003-10-10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0150.html

15:09:32 <danbri> 2003-10-31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0217.html

15:09:46 <jang-scribe> minutes oct 10th

15:09:56 <jang-scribe> 2003-10-10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0150.html

15:09:56 <jang-scribe> 2003-10-31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0217.html

15:10:00 <jang-scribe> approved

15:10:07 <jang-scribe> (10th)

15:10:12 <jang-scribe> approved (31st)

15:10:18 <jang-scribe> completed actions.

15:10:28 <jang-scribe> em did chase other groups for lc2 reviews, completed

15:10:36 <jang-scribe> 7 doc status

15:10:55 <danbri> 7a: Syntax

15:10:58 <jang-scribe> 7a syntax...

15:11:06 <jang-scribe> note pfps traffic... all in hand?

15:11:09 <jang-scribe> DaveB: in hand, I think

15:11:15 <jang-scribe> danbri: all issues closed?

15:11:25 <danbri> q?

15:11:25 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:11:28 <danbri> ack danc

15:11:28 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:11:28 <jang-scribe> DaveB: yup, think so.

15:11:38 <jang-scribe> bwm sent a pointer to something, no url in it..?

15:11:53 <DanC> issues: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/

15:12:48 <jang-scribe> DanC: daveb, do you intend to make further changes?

15:13:05 <jang-scribe> DaveB: I've shown him the text, just not in the document

15:13:09 <jang-scribe> it's editorial

15:13:35 <jang-scribe> DanC: ... so those changes are outstanding, ok.

15:13:47 <jang-scribe> jjc: I think daveb's proposed changes would be for the better, I think they should be made

15:14:04 <jang-scribe> DaveB: it'll be 10 days before the doc's updated

15:14:25 <danbri> 7b: Schema

15:14:52 <jang-scribe> I've responded to lc2 comment and awaiting feedback

15:14:58 * DanC q+ to preview item 9

15:14:59 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:15:08 <jang-scribe> jjc: alt comment from i18n in your domain?

15:15:18 <jang-scribe> danbri: not in my mailbox, but it presumably will be

15:15:28 <danbri> action: danbri look at i18n comment re rdf:Alt

15:15:28 * RRSAgent records action 1

15:15:41 <jang-scribe> 7c semantics

15:15:57 <jang-scribe> path took action to check range with owl

15:16:12 <jang-scribe> patH: sent messgae, indicated that no response I'd make the change, didn't see any response

15:16:17 <jang-scribe> DanC: I think I saw some response/

15:16:47 <jang-scribe> jjc: I remember that, pfps replied indicating that the problem was

15:16:54 <danbri>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0187.html

15:16:58 <jang-scribe> that the stronger range constraint on predicate meant it couldn't be used in owl dl

15:16:59 <danbri> From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

15:16:59 <danbri> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:46:16 -0600

15:16:59 <danbri> Message-Id: <p06001f10bbc82c3c4ac4@[10.1.31.1]>

15:16:59 <danbri> To: www-webont-wg@w3.org

15:17:11 <DanC> "Yes. It would require that rdf:predicate be forbidden in OWL DL" -- pfps Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:50:16 -0500 (EST)

15:17:23 <danbri> reply: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Oct/0188.html

15:17:33 <jang-scribe> patH: that suggests that we should leave semantics alone and change the range in the other document

15:17:51 <danbri> action: danbri to change range of rdf:predicate to be rdfs:Resource in RDFS doc and associated schemata

15:17:51 * RRSAgent records action 2

15:17:53 <jang-scribe> ACTION dambri change range of rdf:predicate to be rdxfs:Resource in rdfs doc and assoc schemata

15:18:04 <jang-scribe> danbri: anything else on semantics?

15:18:18 <jang-scribe> patH: herman's still going through the proofs, I've fixed a couple of typos

15:18:34 <jang-scribe> and I've sent him some explanatory prose which I've added to the doc, waiting for his response to that

15:18:36 * DanC q?

15:18:36 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:18:48 <jang-scribe> (this is in terms of the ed's working copy)

15:18:50 <danbri> ack DanC

15:18:50 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to preview item 9

15:18:51 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:19:10 <jang-scribe> DanC: my goal is to get the WG to decide to ask for PR

15:19:41 <jang-scribe> sp bear that in mind while we review status

15:19:51 <jang-scribe> patH: a number of outstanding objections from pfps have now been dealt with

15:19:51 <bwm> q+

15:19:51 * Zakim sees bwm on the speaker queue

15:19:58 <jang-scribe> he has withdrawn his protest of the rejection

15:20:20 <jjc> Zakim, who's on the call?

15:20:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, PatH, Frank, DanBri, bwm, GrahamKlyne, Jjc, Patrick (muted), DanC, Mike_Dean

15:20:22 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

15:20:36 <danbri> ack bwm

15:20:36 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:20:39 <jang-scribe> path's pointer to ed's working copy

15:20:56 <jang-scribe> bwm: herman had picked up a couple of errors, it seemed, in entailment rules (saw it this morning)

15:21:23 * DaveB edits syntax doc, half heartedly

15:21:31 <danbri> completed: 20031031#1 Path, Check with OWL folks on range of rdf:predictate

15:21:32 * DanC wonders about duration of today's call... "60 minutes + possible 15 minute extension"

15:21:48 <danbri> continued 20031031#2 DANBRI Update schema doc accordingly

15:22:36 <jang-scribe> 7d primer.

15:22:37 <danbri> 7d: Primer

15:22:49 <jang-scribe> action on eric continued, unless it's been done..?

15:22:57 <danbri> Frank has responded re 20031031#4 EM to respond on primer-minor-editorial

15:23:00 <jang-scribe> frank: I've responded, made some of the suggested changes

15:23:15 <jang-scribe> some of these have to do with what the boiler-plate says

15:23:29 * DanC encourages bwm to re-iterate change process orally, reiterating recent mail

15:23:34 <danbri> +1

15:23:50 <danbri> q?

15:23:50 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:24:00 <jang-scribe> jjc: i18n second comment in particular is in particular primer-only

15:24:07 <patH> semantics current draft is http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_LC2.5.html

15:24:14 <jang-scribe> bwm: just a reminder, process: any changes to the document would be circulated to the WG

15:24:25 <jang-scribe> the chairs would call if these were editorial or needed discussion time

15:24:41 <jang-scribe> danbri: sounds like you have a bunch of changes outstanding, ..

15:24:52 <jang-scribe> frank: the changes in response to minor ed comments really ARE minor ed comments

15:24:59 <jang-scribe> some have been made in the ed's draft on the web page

15:25:06 <DanC> phayes semantics 241190 bytes md5sum 4971ab5c4859eb5aad49830aa2860a1d

15:25:12 <jang-scribe> otehrs I need to do a search through the doc loking for '.' and '(' etc.

15:25:22 <jang-scribe> the i18n comments are the more substantive ones.

15:25:44 * jang-scribe wonders if danc did that in his head? Impressed :-)

15:25:49 <DanC> phayes semantics Last-Modified: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:53:06 GMT

15:26:20 <jang-scribe> the question is how important is it that the i18n comments be explicitly made to the primer

15:26:42 <jang-scribe> Ifrank: not had a chance to go over this in detail.

15:26:51 <jang-scribe> 7e tests.

15:27:01 <jang-scribe> danc's action for owl test case doc...?

15:27:05 <danbri> re 20030711#4 danc to get a test case for pfps-09 into OWL test case doc

15:27:08 <jang-scribe> DanC: I've made the effort ... jjc?

15:27:21 <jang-scribe> anyway it's not critical, propose withdraw

15:27:26 <jang-scribe> danbri seconded,

15:27:34 <jang-scribe> withdrawn: 20030711#4 danc

15:27:46 <jang-scribe> pats: can we go back a sec?

15:27:51 <jang-scribe> i18n comments on primer

15:28:07 <jang-scribe> would be useful to draw a line between methodoligical issues and pure rdf intro issues

15:28:20 <jang-scribe> DanC: I'd expect i18n to object to that

15:28:36 <jang-scribe> pats: would be helpful to focus on what the purpose of the primer is,

15:28:38 <jang-scribe> anyhoo.

15:28:47 <danbri> continued: 20031031#5 Jang, remove test case and respond to commenter

15:29:02 * DanC takes notes while jan talks...

15:29:07 <jang-scribe> jang-scribe: I don't recall sending a responsee, I'

15:29:09 <jang-scribe> continue that

15:29:21 <DanC> jang: sandro's msg about simple entailment...

15:29:33 <DanC> ... pfps indicated agreement to PatH

15:29:40 <danbri> action: jang pfps re test case agreed w/ path; jang to create a couple test cases

15:29:40 * RRSAgent records action 3

15:29:41 <DanC> ... Pat's msg about test case...

15:29:43 <jang-scribe> ACTION pfps/path message about test case for rdfs inconsistency

15:30:05 <DanC> PatH: i just sent mail re jjc's msg on [negative?] entailment...

15:30:42 <DanC> ... sandro's msg identified some simple entailment tests...

15:30:55 <DanC> ... that are implicitly marked rather than explicitly

15:32:11 <Zakim> +JosD

15:32:24 <jjc> DanC actions on pfps-09 is completed:

15:32:41 <jjc> OWL test I5.8-017

15:33:04 <danbri> josd, we are at 7e in agenda.

15:33:05 <jang-scribe> jjc: pfps-09 action completed

15:33:55 <DanC> jang: hmm... aside from impact on folks already using this manifest, I'm inclined to agree that being more explicit is better...

15:34:01 <danbri> jang: apart from impact on ppl out there, i'm inclined to agree. i'll stick something together re changes to manifest file, for chairs to decide if substantive.

15:34:15 <jang-scribe> ACTION jang: test case with explicit cons constructs

15:34:15 * RRSAgent records action 4

15:34:16 * JosD thanks danbri;) sorry for joining late...(meeting overrruns)

15:34:21 <danbri> 7f: Concepts

15:34:33 * DanC encourages danbri to welcome jos orally

15:34:38 <jang-scribe> action continues... sort out syntax/manifest changes and circulate to list for chairs to look at

15:35:00 * danbri did, danc

15:35:03 * gk I hadn't seen those latest comments

15:35:05 <jang-scribe> jjc: I'll propose ed changes, see if herman is happy with then

15:35:06 <jang-scribe> bwm: he is

15:35:12 * DanC oh

15:35:17 <jang-scribe> jjc: pfps was worrying about uri equiv

15:35:27 <jang-scribe> he isn't happy with the conclusion, but is happy that it's not our fault

15:35:32 <jang-scribe> he'd like the inclusion of a note

15:35:51 <jang-scribe> DanC: I encourage you to cite the tag issue on that

15:36:37 <jang-scribe> jjc: i18n comments, first three are relevant to comments

15:36:43 <jang-scribe> I've proposed resolutions to those before the meeting.

15:37:23 <jang-scribe> proposed resolutions are reject, reject, reject, with rationale of the docs I prepared earlier

15:37:43 <jang-scribe> the third issue was xmlliteral without markup and plain literal with same char string to denote the same thing

15:37:47 <DanC> I18N comments http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0120.html

15:37:48 <jang-scribe> i suggest we postpone that

15:38:03 <jang-scribe> danbri: this is the same discussion all summer, nothing nerw?

15:38:51 <jang-scribe> DanC: I'd like to see more of jjc's rationale copied into the issues list

15:38:56 <jang-scribe> danbri: bwm to comment?

15:39:14 <jang-scribe> bwm: felt unconfortable with jjc's rationale, too defensive, didn't clearly say what the real reasons for our decisions was

15:39:23 <jang-scribe> danbri: what do you believe the real reason was?

15:39:37 <jang-scribe> bwm: I'd look for a more succinct expression of the rationale than we've got there

15:39:55 <jang-scribe> DanC: if people don't know why we decided what we decided, I'd be inclined to repopen

15:40:08 <gk> My old message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0276.html

15:40:20 <jang-scribe> danbri: anyone proposing to reopen the issue on the basis of the comments we've received?

15:40:27 <gk> about perceived "real reasons" for handling of I18N issues

15:40:30 <jang-scribe> DanC: the issue is how do you represent xml in an rdf graph?

15:40:34 <jang-scribe> 18 march 2001

15:40:36 <DanC>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure

15:40:55 <jang-scribe> DanC: the i18n propose one of the designs jjc says we already discussed

15:41:26 <jang-scribe> bwm: my understanding is that we believe it's really an xml problem

15:41:37 <jang-scribe> the second reason: no loss of functionality

15:41:39 * DanC q+

15:41:39 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:41:41 <gk> (bwm: to embedd XML in XML)

15:41:49 <danbri> ack danc

15:41:49 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:42:04 <jang-scribe> DanC: if we believe there's something in the xml infrastructure then we should have a postponed issue on that

15:42:11 <jang-scribe> bwm: us, or comment on another group about this?

15:42:29 <jang-scribe> DanC: I heard there: we cannot solve this because we're lacking something

15:42:50 <jang-scribe> frankm: xmlliteral the type is our solution to that

15:43:13 <jang-scribe> DaveB: so we think we don't have the tools in xml to do it, and we refrained from inventing something new

15:43:36 <gk> DaveB: ... so we should be writing this down ...

15:43:46 <jang-scribe> DanC: I'm arguing for a new postponed issue.

15:44:13 <jang-scribe> pats: dan, can you please provide a justification for why it should be postponed

15:44:20 <jang-scribe> what needs to be done is an xml issue,

15:44:34 <jang-scribe> embedding xml frags in xml is an xml issue, we can already embed xml in a graph

15:44:44 <jang-scribe> so an xml solution to this immediately becomes usable by us

15:45:14 <jang-scribe> danbri: we have a working solution that's ugly to some of us, concerns to some of us

15:45:17 * DanC q+

15:45:17 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:45:24 <gk> q+ to ask Dan if he means an issue "postponed until XML comes up with appropriate infrastructure" ?

15:45:24 * Zakim sees DanC, gk on the speaker queue

15:45:25 <jang-scribe> if xml itslef has some of these answers we could have done a better job

15:45:54 <jang-scribe> DanC: the issue list currently says this is closed,

15:46:03 <jang-scribe> (talks through the issue list pointer to closure)

15:46:12 <jang-scribe> eek! issue list points to old solution

15:46:34 <gk> (The old decision was changed in LC1)

15:47:28 <DanC>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0138.html

15:47:34 <DanC>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure

15:47:49 <DanC>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0252.html

15:48:44 <jang-scribe> (the wg chases the decision that closed this issue)

15:48:54 <jang-scribe> jjc: may 0138, item 12

15:49:15 <danbri>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0086.html

15:49:20 <danbri> > Option 4:

15:49:20 <danbri> > Language tag is simply dropped from all typed literals including

15:49:20 <danbri> > rdf:XMLLiteral

15:49:32 <jang-scribe> DanC: on that basis I'm prepared to accept the status quo

15:49:40 <danbri> jjc: was rationale in preceeding discussion that week

15:49:57 <jang-scribe> DanC: I intend to work with bwm to make that easier to find

15:50:15 <jang-scribe> ACTION bwm: review issue list to make sure it's correct (specifically XMLLiteral danc issue)

15:50:15 * RRSAgent records action 5

15:50:33 <jang-scribe> extending 15 minutes...

15:50:49 <jang-scribe> jjc: i18n appears to have 3 comments on concepts

15:50:53 <jang-scribe> do I have to do anything?

15:51:09 <jang-scribe> DanC: it's in order for someone to point to the issue list and say, we stand by our rationale

15:51:22 <gk> q-

15:51:22 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:51:36 <jang-scribe> ACTION danc: respond to i18n comments on xmlliteral (first two issues) pointing to initial rationale

15:51:36 * RRSAgent records action 6

15:52:00 <jang-scribe> jjc: third is the question of xmllitseral sans markup = string?

15:52:14 <jang-scribe> ACTION (done) jjc send a proposal on this.

15:52:38 <jang-scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Nov/0032.html

15:52:42 <jang-scribe> jjc reads

15:52:47 <DanC>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Nov/0032.html

15:52:51 <danbri> (can you paste?)

15:52:57 <jang-scribe> The I18N group also raised the following XMLLiteral related issue:

15:52:57 <jang-scribe>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0120.html

15:52:57 <jang-scribe> [[

15:52:57 <jang-scribe> - XML Literals containing only text should be equivalent to the

15:52:57 <jang-scribe> corresponding plain literals and to the corresponding string type

15:52:58 <jang-scribe> literals.

15:53:00 <jang-scribe> ]]

15:53:02 <jang-scribe> I propose we add a new issue to the issue list: relationship between

15:53:04 <jang-scribe> XMLLiterals and plain literals, and postpone it.

15:53:06 <jang-scribe> Rationale:

15:53:08 <jang-scribe> It is too late in the day to add new requirements. The lack of semantic

15:53:10 <jang-scribe> equivalence between XMLLiterals and plain literals has been clear since the

15:53:12 <jang-scribe> first WD of RDF Concepts, and was arguable in RDF Model and Syntax.

15:53:14 <jang-scribe> The RDF Semantics does not preclude RDF applications using additional

15:53:16 <jang-scribe> information to determine that two literals are equivalent, but does not

15:53:18 <jang-scribe> mandate that they should be.

15:53:20 <jang-scribe> Hence, RDF applciations which require this equivalence may operate in such a

15:53:22 <jang-scribe> mode, and so this issue is not a show stopper.

15:53:24 <jang-scribe> [quote ends]

15:53:32 <jang-scribe> DanC: would strike first sentence, less emphasis on time

15:53:34 <jang-scribe> jjc: ok.

15:54:03 <jang-scribe> danbri: accept as issue, propose to postpone this?

15:54:09 <jang-scribe> DanC: seconded.

15:54:22 <jang-scribe> objections? (none) abstentions? (josd)

15:54:32 <jang-scribe> decided.

15:55:00 <jang-scribe> ACTION danc: action to respond to i18n to include xmlliteral without markup and plain literal

15:55:00 * RRSAgent records action 7

15:55:11 <jang-scribe> action bwm add issue (postponed) on i18n/xmlliteral sans markup

15:55:25 <jang-scribe> jjc: there's more i18n, not on concepts

15:55:34 <jang-scribe> there's the "alt" one, and lots of editorial stuff in primer.

15:55:47 <jang-scribe> DanC: will the remaining stuff require changes?

15:56:16 <jang-scribe> jjc: I think we should accept the alt change, which is a small substantive textual change, not observable in tests

15:56:29 <jang-scribe> that is, the comment says that there shouldn't be a default

15:56:35 <jang-scribe> I think that's a valid point

15:56:59 <jang-scribe> DanC: I don't see this as a technical substantive design change

15:57:11 <jang-scribe> we should cite semantics that says, there aren't any semsntics

15:57:19 <jang-scribe> therefore accept as editorial, respond with an oops.

15:57:22 <danbri> q?

15:57:23 * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue

15:57:28 <danbri> ack DanC

15:57:28 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:57:28 <DanC> ack danc

15:57:30 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:57:38 <jang-scribe> frankm: do I understand that we're removing all mention of defaults?

15:57:49 <jang-scribe> DanC: that seems like a good summary to me.

15:57:49 <bwm> q+

15:57:49 * Zakim sees bwm on the speaker queue

15:58:31 <danbri> ack bwm

15:58:31 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

15:58:31 <jang-scribe> jang-scribe: their commetn was that we should add an alt without defulat

15:58:54 <jang-scribe> bwm: this seems madness, we made decisions on containers, we don't want to reopen

15:59:04 <jang-scribe> there may be people relying on the informal description

15:59:17 <jang-scribe> we already have a postponed issue on this to relook at containers

15:59:56 <jang-scribe> danbri: we proved incapable of providing a definition of "default"

16:00:06 <jang-scribe> bwm: I can't give you a uri off the top of my head, but the recollection

16:00:21 <jang-scribe> was that the description of containers would be as in m&s with vacuous semantics

16:00:49 <jang-scribe> bwm: i18n are saying they want an alt without default, we havent' defined one, it would be an extension to produce one, we haven't done it

16:01:15 <jang-scribe> jjc: we could respond that we don't exclude users so designing an alt

16:01:40 <jang-scribe> jjc: I find the desire of their motivation is compelling

16:01:49 <jang-scribe> frank: the only way to take action on this is fairly drastic

16:01:50 <danbri> q+ to ask what 1st means? rdf:_1?

16:01:50 * Zakim sees danbri on the speaker queue

16:01:59 <jang-scribe> danbri: yes

16:02:18 * DanC notes to bwm et. al. that having WG decisions handy from the issues list is really handy in situations like this

16:02:23 <jang-scribe> frank: we've not defined formal semantics for containers.

16:02:32 <jang-scribe> making this change now is really the thin end of the edge

16:02:36 * DaveB notes he's made a 7 Nov syntax editor's draft with scrappy PFPS changes in

16:02:42 * bwm has learned a lot and would do better next time - if there is a next time

16:02:47 <danbri> thanks DaveB.

16:02:48 <jang-scribe> there's all sorts of other stuff in containers that's "understood" but not formally defined

16:03:13 <jang-scribe> patH: I agree with frank here

16:03:29 <DanC>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches

16:03:33 <jang-scribe> bwm: I can take an action to find such decisions as we can

16:03:36 <danbri> ack DanB

16:03:36 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to ask what 1st means? rdf:_1?

16:03:37 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

16:04:12 <DanC> "The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various awkward features."

16:04:35 <jang-scribe> so they could use rdf:_2, ... ie, leave out the rdf:_1

16:04:39 <jang-scribe> so no default value

16:05:03 <jang-scribe> frankm: not proposig a change to the primer

16:05:30 <jang-scribe> DanC: if we're going to give an example, put it in the primer.

16:05:48 <jang-scribe> patH: generically, we can't support default reasonoing, it's nonmonotonic

16:06:36 <jang-scribe> jjc: I withdraw the proposal then

16:07:02 <jang-scribe> ACTION: danc to include alt default with other responses to i18n

16:07:02 * RRSAgent records action 8

16:07:16 <jang-scribe> danbri: where does that leave the rest of their comment? primer?

16:07:20 <jang-scribe> jjc: yes, primer.

16:07:21 <gk> (The decision seems to be covered by WG minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0476.html, item 19)

16:07:27 <jang-scribe> danbri: can we take those now?

16:07:37 <jang-scribe> DanC: would prefer to get into the future issues.

16:07:38 <danbri> q?

16:07:38 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

16:07:52 <patH> herman is right about the rules rdfs5+9, which shuld allow bnodes. I propose to make this change as editorial....

16:07:54 <jang-scribe> bwm: all primer changes are editorial.

16:08:08 <gk> Yes, me too

16:08:11 <jang-scribe> seconded, danc

16:08:28 <jang-scribe> decided: i18n messages, 120 and 121 (second from martin), rest of issues are editorial

16:08:33 <jang-scribe> and decisions devolved to primer editor

16:08:42 <danbri> q?

16:08:42 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

16:08:50 <jang-scribe> DanC: really need the floor.

16:09:00 <jang-scribe> skipping to item 9: next steps/ schedule.

16:09:18 * DaveB emails PFPS

16:09:24 <jang-scribe> I'd like to get the WG out of the critical path

16:10:04 <jang-scribe> so I'd like to go for PR with docs as discussed today,

16:10:16 <jang-scribe> with changes as negotiated with danc, bwm, and the respective editor.

16:10:23 <DanC> Zakim, who's on the phone?

16:10:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see ilrt, PatH, Frank, DanBri, bwm, GrahamKlyne, Jjc, Patrick (muted), DanC, Mike_Dean, JosD

16:10:25 <Zakim> ilrt has jang, daveb

16:10:45 <danbri>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030331-advance

16:10:45 <jang-scribe> DanC: has anyone looked at the text for the director?

16:10:58 <jang-scribe> JosD: yes.

16:11:00 <DanC> $Revision: 1.18 $ of $Date: 2003/11/06 21:56:27

16:11:31 <danbri> danc: for the wg to decide to request PR w/ todays docs + changes agreed by connolly, mcbride + respective editor

16:11:49 <danbri> jang: yess, subject to test cases msg i'll send shortly, re manifest file (asking chairs)

16:11:56 <jang-scribe> jang-scribe: yes, test case manifest change may be problematical.

16:12:03 <jang-scribe> DaveB: yes

16:12:08 <jang-scribe> patH: yes

16:12:10 <jang-scribe> frank: yes

16:12:12 <jang-scribe> danbri: yes

16:12:24 <jang-scribe> bwn: yes, subject to adequate implementation report.

16:12:33 <jang-scribe> I'm happy danc and bwm judging that

16:12:37 <jang-scribe> gk: yes

16:12:56 <jang-scribe> jjc: subject to no showstopping comments before LC2 closes.

16:13:10 <jang-scribe> DanC: who gets to stop the show? danc or bwm or resp. editor?

16:13:43 <gk> (I think that if a comment cannot persuade one of the above, it's not substantive.)

16:14:11 <jang-scribe> jjc: did anyone get an extension? I understood i18n asked for one.

16:14:14 * DanC notes we're at T-2

16:14:27 * gk talking of extensions... ah DanC noticed

16:14:29 <jang-scribe> bwm: i18n got an extension in the sense that the closing date was after the date of the extension they requested

16:14:34 <jang-scribe> pats: yes (to straw poll)

16:14:35 <jang-scribe> DanC: yes

16:14:37 <jang-scribe> miked: yes

16:14:39 <jang-scribe> JosD: yes

16:14:53 <jang-scribe> formally: as before.

16:15:03 <jang-scribe> objections? none. abstentions? none

16:15:59 <jang-scribe> resolved: go to PR, with changes as agreed with danc, bwm, and relevant editors

16:16:23 <jang-scribe> patH: what are the deadlines for editors here?

16:16:29 <jang-scribe> hello?

16:16:32 <Zakim> -Patrick

16:16:39 <jang-scribe> scribe has mouse problems

16:16:45 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean

16:16:47 <jang-scribe> DanC: propose to adjourn

16:16:51 <danbri> adjourned.

16:17:00 <jang-scribe> gk: was going to ask for mimetype rreg to be reviewed

16:17:11 <jang-scribe> DaveB: I'd encourage you, gk, to run with it.

16:17:24 <jang-scribe> gk: I can do things, I'd feel better with wg backing

16:17:30 <jang-scribe> jjc: you have the wg backing!

16:18:06 <jjc> I am sorry graham I don't understand ietf process, so I trust you with it

16:18:20 <jang-scribe> DanC: I need the bits before tlking to the director

16:18:34 <jang-scribe> if I go with docs as today, will I lose badly?

16:19:02 <jang-scribe> syntax fine with me: daveb

16:19:16 <jang-scribe> frank: need to look at i18n comments before I say anything

16:19:24 <jjc> concepts ok

16:19:33 <jjc> semantics not ok

16:19:39 <jang-scribe> DanC: don't think we're in a big hurry to get the text

16:19:54 <jang-scribe> 7 november is last date for comments.

16:20:15 <jang-scribe> patH: tuesday.

16:20:44 <jang-scribe> DanC: I get on the plane thursday

16:21:09 <jang-scribe> DanC: when we send message to chair citing the advance docs.

16:21:12 <jang-scribe> a clock starts ticking

16:21:20 <jang-scribe> the director won't convene the meeting for 7 days

16:21:47 <jang-scribe> that gives people time to say, hang on, there's stuff left to address

16:22:03 <jang-scribe> DanC: our request will say, we know they're not happy.

16:22:17 <jang-scribe> DanC: I'd expect bwm to be there.

16:22:39 <jang-scribe> the other thing that becomes relevant is, what do we put in a press release?

16:23:25 <jang-scribe> bwm: we need to be clear at what point changing the document is not allowed any more.

16:23:44 <jang-scribe> patH: then wednesday?

16:23:51 <jang-scribe> DanC: noon wednesday your time

16:24:01 <jang-scribe> patH: hang on, I've a problem next week.

16:24:13 <jang-scribe> I'm out of the loop sunday-tuesday

16:24:23 <jang-scribe> thursday I can do.

16:26:12 <danbri> q?

16:26:12 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

16:26:23 <danbri> rrsagent, what is on the action list?

16:26:23 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'what is on the action list'

16:26:30 <danbri> rrsagent, actions?

16:26:30 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'actions'

16:26:54 <danbri> rrsagent, show actions

16:26:54 <RRSAgent> I see 8 open action items:

16:26:55 <RRSAgent> ACTION: danbri look at i18n comment re rdf:Alt [1]

16:26:56 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/07-rdfcore-irc#T15-15-28

16:26:58 <RRSAgent> ACTION: danbri to change range of rdf:predicate to be rdfs:Resource in RDFS doc and associated schemata [2]

16:27:00 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/07-rdfcore-irc#T15-17-51

16:27:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jang pfps re test case agreed w/ path; jang to create a couple test cases [3]

16:27:04 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/07-rdfcore-irc#T15-29-40

16:27:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: jang to test case with explicit cons constructs [4]

16:27:08 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/07-rdfcore-irc#T15-34-15

16:27:10 <RRSAgent> ACTION: bwm to review issue list to make sure it's correct (specifically XMLLiteral danc issue) [5]

16:27:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/07-rdfcore-irc#T15-50-15

16:27:14 <RRSAgent> ACTION: danc to respond to i18n comments on xmlliteral (first two issues) pointing to initial rationale [6]

16:27:16 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/07-rdfcore-irc#T15-51-36

16:27:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: danc to action to respond to i18n to include xmlliteral without markup and plain literal [7]

16:27:20 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/07-rdfcore-irc#T15-55-00

16:27:21 <RRSAgent> ACTION: danc to include alt default with other responses to i18n [8]

16:27:22 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/11/07-rdfcore-irc#T16-07-02

16:27:52 <jjc>http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-charmod-literals/Manifest.rdf#error001

16:27:54 <jjc>http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-charmod-literals/Manifest.rdf#error002

16:27:59 <jang-scribe> should be withdrawn

16:28:11 <jjc> both should be withdrawn, the relevant text in concepts changed

16:28:18 <jang-scribe> ACTION jang withdraw rdf-charmod-literals error001 error002

16:29:37 <gkgk> (Hmmm, in transcribing the entailment rules for my code, I appear to have overlooked the requirement for URIs. Oh well.)

16:30:37 <DanC> when are we gonna see a jena column for the rdfcore test results page, jjc?

16:30:46 <bwm> my question too

16:31:58 <DanC> bwm, anything you need from me before SemWeb CG Monday?

16:33:04 <bwm> not that comes to mind

16:33:53 <bwm> what might I have needed?

16:33:57 <Zakim> -ilrt

16:33:58 <Zakim> -DanC

16:33:58 <Zakim> -JosD

16:34:01 <Zakim> -bwm

16:34:02 <Zakim> -Frank

16:34:03 <Zakim> -PatH

16:34:12 <Zakim> -DanBri

16:34:15 <Zakim> -Jjc

16:34:15 <DanC> dunno, but I tend to be explicit about parting company between chair and team contact.

16:34:20 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne

16:34:21 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

16:34:35 <danbri> rrsagent, pointer?

16:34:35 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2003/11/07-rdfcore-irc#T16-34-35

16:34:37 <DanC> esp. when it's not clear when the next WG meeting is.

16:35:01 <danbri> I am OK with idea of our next week's call.

16:35:10 <DanC> which idea is that?

16:35:14 <danbri> I'm also OK with idea of trying to be heroic and calling in from midnight in Japan.

16:35:23 <danbri> sorry, missed a word.

16:35:27 <danbri> I am OK with idea of skipping our next week's call.

16:36:07 <danbri> though I really don't know much about likely setup in .jp. Whether my hotel has net link etc. Tempting to try voice-over-ip from there too.

16:36:24 * danbri chACLs the logs

16:36:33 <danbri> logs: http://www.w3.org/2003/11/07-rdfcore-irc

16:36:34 * DanC stands bye for "ok, see you later" or "hang on" from bwm

16:36:47 <danbri> bwm gone from this channel.

16:36:54 <DanC> oops

16:37:26 * DanC scrolls back... ah... indeed.

18:36:47 * Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed