IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-06-06 (original) (raw)

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:00:43 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore

14:00:48 [em-lap]

zakim, this is rdfcoew

14:00:48 [Zakim]

sorry, em-lap, I do not see a conference named 'rdfcoew'

14:00:50 [em-lap]

zakim, this is rdfcore

14:00:50 [Zakim]

ok, em-lap

14:00:54 [Zakim]

+??P18

14:00:56 [em-lap]

zakim, dial emiller-bos

14:00:56 [Zakim]

ok, em-lap; the call is being made

14:00:57 [Zakim]

+Emiller

14:01:58 [Zakim]

+??P19

14:02:06 [bwm]

Zalim, ??p19 is bwm

14:02:11 [bwm]

Zakim, ??p19 is bwm

14:02:11 [Zakim]

+bwm; got it

14:02:16 [Zakim]

+PatH

14:02:28 [bwm]

Zakim, bwm is HP

14:02:28 [Zakim]

+HP; got it

14:02:34 [em-lap]

em-lap has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2003-06-06 telecon

14:02:34 [bwm]

Zakim, HP has bwm

14:02:34 [Zakim]

+bwm; got it

14:03:29 [bwm]

zakim, who is on the phone?

14:03:29 [Zakim]

On the phone I see ??P17, ??P18, Emiller, HP, PatH

14:03:30 [Zakim]

HP has bwm

14:04:18 [bwm]

Zakim, mute ??p17

14:04:18 [Zakim]

??P17 should now be muted

14:04:48 [bwm]

Zakim ??p18 is ILRT

14:04:58 [bwm]

Zakim, unmute ??p17

14:04:58 [Zakim]

??P17 should no longer be muted

14:05:11 [gk-scribe]

gk-scribe has joined #rdfcore

14:05:18 [cmjg]

cmjg has joined #rdfcore

14:05:44 [bwm]

Zakim, ??p17 is FrankM

14:05:44 [Zakim]

+FrankM; got it

14:05:51 [bwm]

Zakim, HP has bwm, jjc

14:05:51 [Zakim]

bwm was already listed in HP, bwm

14:05:52 [Zakim]

+jjc; got it

14:06:05 [DaveB]

DaveB has joined #rdfcore

14:06:19 [bwm]

Zakim, ilrt has jang and daveB

14:06:19 [Zakim]

sorry, bwm, I do not recognize a party named 'ilrt'

14:06:24 [jcarroll]

jcarroll has joined #rdfcore

14:06:27 [jang]

zakim, who is here?

14:06:27 [Zakim]

On the phone I see FrankM, ??P18, Emiller, HP, PatH

14:06:29 [Zakim]

HP has jjc

14:06:30 [Zakim]

On IRC I see jcarroll, DaveB, jang, gk-scribe, RRSAgent, Zakim, em-lap, bwm, logger

14:06:38 [bwm]

Zakim, ??p18 is ILRT

14:06:38 [Zakim]

+ILRT; got it

14:06:48 [bwm]

Zakim, ILRT has daveb, jang

14:06:48 [Zakim]

+daveb, jang; got it

14:06:50 [Zakim]

+GrahamKlyne

14:06:55 [bwm]

Zakim, who is on the phone

14:06:55 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'who is on the phone', bwm

14:06:57 [bwm]

14:07:01 [bwm]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

14:07:01 [Zakim]

On the phone I see FrankM, ILRT, Emiller, HP, PatH, GrahamKlyne

14:07:02 [Zakim]

ILRT has daveb, jang

14:07:03 [Zakim]

HP has jjc

14:07:51 [jjc]

jjc has joined #rdfcore

14:09:24 [jjcscribe]

Agenda changes

14:09:31 [jjcscribe]

- OWL Test Cases

14:09:36 [jjcscribe]

- Duerst comments

14:09:37 [bwm]

Zakim, ILRT has danbri

14:09:37 [Zakim]

+danbri; got it

14:10:05 [jjcscribe]

- responses from WebOnt on OWL comments

14:10:29 [gk]

q+ to ask if approval of last minutes should be on agenda

14:10:46 [jjcscribe]

Agenda item 3 goofy literals

14:10:51 [gk]

14:11:19 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0027.html

14:12:24 [Zakim]

+Mike_Dean

14:13:20 [JosD]

JosD has joined #rdfcore

14:14:11 [Zakim]

+??P21

14:14:25 [gk]

My Haskell datatype for RDF nodes looks like this:

14:14:27 [gk]

data RDFLabel =

14:14:27 [gk]

Res QName -- resource

14:14:27 [gk]

| Lit String (Maybe QName) Lang -- literal [type] [language]

14:14:27 [gk]

| Blank String -- blank node

14:14:33 [bwm]

Zakim, ??p21 is jos

14:14:33 [Zakim]

+jos; got it

14:14:43 [mdean]

mdean has joined #rdfcore

14:15:34 [DaveB]

jjc's proposal of this morning http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0027.html

14:16:19 [jjcscribe]

graham seconds, no objections

14:16:45 [jjcscribe]

(There was some discussion of which values are the same as which values)

14🔞32 [jjcscribe]

XML namespace elements

14:19:55 [danbri_]

danbri_ has joined #rdfcore

14:20:37 [gk]

XML spec says names beginning XML are reserved

14:22:22 [jjcscribe]

Dave has editorial descretion to deal with this question. (Chair)

14:22:36 [jjcscribe]

Item 5.

14:22:40 [jjcscribe]

Arc

14:23:41 [jjcscribe]

In the explanation of striping, use "Arc"

14:24:09 [jjcscribe]

Arc is fine for the pictures (PatH)

14:24:19 [DaveB]

'predicate arc in the pic'

14:24:22 [jjcscribe]

When moving to the RDF/XML talk about predicates

14:25:01 [jjcscribe]

Item 7 pfps-24 what is RDF Schema

14:25:09 [danbri_]

proposed resoution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0223.html

14:25:11 [DaveB]

agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0021.html

14:26:02 [jjcscribe]

Very little discussion.

14:26:12 [jjcscribe]

Path seconds.

14:26:21 [jjcscribe]

No objections.

14:26:35 [danbri_]

resolved: issue closed, moved to editorial on rdfs

14:26:47 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: danbri move to editorial on rdfs

14:26:57 [danbri_]

action: danbri to change rdfs spec per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0223.html

14:27:44 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0225.html

14:27:47 [jjcscribe]

Agenda item 8 pfps-25

14:28:56 [jjcscribe]

Brian has worked through the discrepancies, and the changes have been made in the semantics doc

14:29:05 [jjcscribe]

that bring the two documents into line

14:30:18 [jjcscribe]

DanBri proposes #225, PatH seconds

14:30:28 [jjcscribe]

NO objections, so resovled.

14:30:43 [danbri_]

so action on path to edit semantics?

14:30:56 [jjcscribe]

pat has already done it

14:31:05 [danbri_]

ah ok. great.

14:31:17 [jjcscribe]

Item 9 qu-04

14:31:37 [jjcscribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0224.html

14:31:47 [danbri_]

dave proposes this; danbri 2nds

14:32:31 [jjcscribe]

We are not bringing all the specs into a uniform ordering

14:32:48 [jjcscribe]

No objections, resolved.

14:33:01 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: danbri to edit as in #224

14:33:13 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: danbri to respond to qu-04

14:33:35 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: danbri to respond to pfps-025

14:33:45 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: danbri to respond to pfps-024

14:34:33 [jjcscribe]

Agendum webont-01

14:36:13 [jjcscribe]

Brian argues agaisnt change for changes sake because of the quantity of work

14:36:29 [jjcscribe]

Is there a substantive positive benefit?

14:36:33 [danbri_]

in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0226.html [[

14:36:35 [danbri_]

* never using 'rdf schema' in noun form, ie avoiding talk of their being

14:36:35 [danbri_]

things that are 'rdf schemas' (while leaving it in as a _name_ for the

14:36:35 [danbri_]

basic rdf vocabulary description language defined by w3c, just as OWL is

14:36:36 [danbri_]

the name for W3C's 2nd RDF-based VDL).

14:36:40 [danbri_]

]]

14:36:47 [danbri_]

q+ to comment re noun form

14:37:37 [bwm]

ack danbri

14:37:37 [Zakim]

danbri_, you wanted to comment re noun form

14:38:58 [jjcscribe]

14:39:08 [em-lap]

14:39:16 [jjcscribe]

PatH SRI was = Stanford research institute

14:40:16 [jjcscribe]

Propose we do not accept this comment and stay with current terminology and usage.

14:40:24 [jang]

rdfs stands for "resource description vocabulary everything needs a snappier name, stupid"

14:40:31 [jjcscribe]

Proposed danbri, seconder gk

14:40:43 [jjcscribe]

Abstain ericM

14:41:17 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: danbri to respond to webont

14:41:31 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: danbri 7= to respond to webont on webont-01

14:41:47 [jjcscribe]

Flat layering vass-01 item 11

14:41:57 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0253.html

14:42:40 [gk]

q+ to say that I think we're agrees to not accept this, and only talking about how to respond

14:42:50 [em-lap]

ack em-lap

14:43:33 [jjcscribe]

are we going to hand behind charter?

14:43:53 [jjcscribe]

Discussion of Horrocks paper in Budapest

14:44:22 [gk]

q+ to ask if we can bounce this to SWCG

14:44:43 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0227.html

14:45:04 [jjcscribe]

ack

14:46:34 [jjcscribe]

gk suggests that drafting a response is not a WG priority

14:47:08 [jjcscribe]

Brian: is 227 good enough as a response or not?

14:48:00 [jjcscribe]

14:48:09 [jjcscribe]

Pat agrees with the message

14:48:10 [gk]

q+ to say that Broan's message 0227 is fine, but that I don't think it should/need be sent from the wg

14:48:24 [jjcscribe]

Brian do we have to expand it?

14:48:35 [bwm]

ack gk

14:48:35 [Zakim]

gk, you wanted to say that I think we're agrees to not accept this, and only talking about how to respond and to ask if we can bounce this to SWCG and to say that Broan's message

14:48:38 [Zakim]

... 0227 is fine, but that I don't think it should/need be sent from the wg

14:48:56 [bwm]

ack jjc

14:51:16 [jjcscribe]

DanBri wants to show that we have listened and thought about it

14:52:18 [gk]

q+ to suggest if WG weighjt is required to delegate Pat/Danbri to draft response, and then let the WG approve it before sending

14:52:52 [jjcscribe]

jjc propose to not accept comment

14:52:55 [jjcscribe]

danbri seconds

14:53:02 [jjcscribe]

resolved unaminous

14:53:09 [gk]

14:53:12 [jjcscribe]

action pat to draft a response for the wg to send

14:53:29 [jjcscribe]

item 12 rdfs:comment

14:54:07 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0222.html

14:54:30 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0233.html

14:56:55 [jjcscribe]

Pat: can we just use differnt forms of words

14:57:24 [danbri_]

q+ to mention constraint resource

14:57:36 [jjcscribe]

perhaps weaken the nonformal descriptions

14:58:50 [bwm]

ack danbri

14:58:50 [Zakim]

danbri_, you wanted to mention constraint resource

15:00:19 [jjcscribe]

brian wonders whether we should ask peter for text

15:00:28 [DaveB]

[we hear bwm break up]

15:00:46 [danbri_]

(bwm faded out with crackling noises; then got louder again)

15:04:13 [jjcscribe]

jjc I disagree with this issue

15:05:27 [gk]

q+ to suggest reducing expectations in RDF vocab doc

15:05:58 [bwm]

ack gk

15:05:58 [Zakim]

gk, you wanted to suggest reducing expectations in RDF vocab doc

15:07:29 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: danbri to ask peter for text he would prefer

15:07:39 [jjcscribe]

ITEM 6 pfps-12 lsits

15:07:40 [gk]

"This document provides an informal description of elements of RDF and RDFS vocabulary. For formal semantics, see the ..."

15:08:29 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0179.html

15:10:12 [danbri_]

(pat: '3 triple should be 2 tuple'(?) in semantics -- editorial?)

15:10:48 [DaveB]

I find in semantics editor's draft http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#collections

15:10:58 [DaveB]

3.2.3 rdf collections - 'well-formed'

15:11:15 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0179.html

15:12:40 [DaveB]

15:13:26 [bwm]

ack daveB

15:16:59 [gk]

q+ to suggest rather than accepting the comment as on the table, to use it to develo0p new text and THEN ask if it addresses the problem

15🔞35 [gk]

15🔞48 [jjcscribe]

discussion of domain cosntraitns and peter's text

15:19:19 [bwm]

[[For the case of rdf:first above, I would much prefer

15:19:19 [bwm]

rdf:first is an instance of rdf:Property that can be used to build

15:19:19 [bwm]

descriptions of lists and other list-like structures. A triple of

15:19:19 [bwm]

the form:

15:19:19 [bwm]

L rdf:first O

15:19:20 [bwm]

states that there is a first-element relationship between L and O.

15:19:22 [bwm]

Note: RDFS does not require that there be only one first element

15:19:24 [bwm]

of a list-like structure, or even that a list-like structure have a

15:19:26 [bwm]

first element.

15:19:28 [bwm]

I note that similar changes would have to be make for at least rdf:rest and

15:19:29 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: danbri discuss #179 with peter concerning domains as well

15:19:30 [bwm]

rdf:List.]]

15:20:04 [jjcscribe]

refine text to include domain constaint, and make new proposal

15:20:21 [jjcscribe]

Onto AOB

15:20:51 [jjcscribe]

Jeremy asks RDF Core to review OWL Test Case

15:21:40 [jjcscribe]

DaveB: reviewing document or tests?

15:22:26 [jjcscribe]

ACTION: jjc TO get clear request from WebOnt chairs.

15:24:14 [jjcscribe]

Jan may do it, depending on the request

15:24:47 [jjcscribe]

I18N

15:26:10 [DaveB]

msg 1 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0023.html

15:26:23 [DaveB]

msg 2 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0025.html - from I18N

15:26:25 [gk]

My summary and comments on Martin's comments at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0030.html

15:29:44 [DaveB]

jjc discuses "rdf:RDF" vs xml"rdf:RDF" ->xhtml escape, vs don't escape <>

15:31:45 [jjcscribe]

gk argues against jjc particularly that this is a domain of discourse issue

15:32:39 [DaveB]

15:32:50 [jjcscribe]

gk notes that ralph supported xmlliteral = string

15:33:18 [jjcscribe]

brian asks gk to establish case to reopen

15:33:26 [jjcscribe]

gk 1) I18N comment

15:34:08 [DaveB]

15:34:28 [jjcscribe]

gk 2) concerning cannes we needed the bit to trigger c14n, now we are doing c14n in the parser so we do not need to do this

15:35:51 [jjcscribe]

gk is arguing on basis of complexity

15:36:36 [jjcscribe]

daveb: we are simplified the xmlliterals

15:36:53 [em-lap]

q+ to ask about feedback from query

15:37:46 [jjcscribe]

daveb: we are primarily using this to ship around xhtml, according to the xml exc-c14n

15:38:42 [em-lap]

15:40:11 [jjcscribe]

daveb discusses RSS feed use case

15:43:26 [DaveB]

jjc? http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-XMLLiteral

15:44:37 [bwm]

bwm: Question: Is the comment from I18N consistent with the advice given by I18N to RDFCore at the Cannes tech plenary?

15:44:45 [bwm]

jjcscribe: Answer: No

15:44:57 [em-lap]

RRSAgent, pointer

15:44:57 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2003/06/06-rdfcore-irc#T15-44-57

15:47:31 [gk]

Other peoploe who've made rfelated comments (from memory)... TimBL doesn't seee why XML is special case in RDF; PFPS recently made some comments that XMLLiteral data type handling was "inconsistent"

15:48:23 [jjcscribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0151.html

15:49:59 [gk]

I think the core question is: "do we really want/need XML literals to something other than character sequences"? If the RDF user community answer is "yes" then Jeremy is right. I've heard that requirement articulated.

15:50:12 [gk]

s/heard/not heard/

15:51:07 [gk]

BTW, to be fair, Patrick S hard argued that XML lits should be different things

15:55:20 [bwm]

ACtion: jjc to provide an integrated definition of the value space of xml literal to include terminology for lexical space and value space.

15:55:44 [jang]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0121.html

15:57:21 [DaveB]

q+ quick syntax report

15:59:02 [em-lap]

ack DaveB

15:59:17 [Zakim]

-jos

15:59:20 [jjcscribe]

adjourned

15:59:20 [Zakim]

-FrankM

15:59:22 [Zakim]

-Mike_Dean

15:59:34 [Zakim]

-GrahamKlyne

16:07:22 [Zakim]

-ILRT

16:12:27 [Zakim]

-PatH

16:12:29 [Zakim]

-HP

16:12:30 [Zakim]

SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

16:23:32 [jjc]

jjc has joined #rdfcore

17:01:42 [danbri_]

danbri_ has joined #rdfcore

17:02:00 [danbri_]

danbri_ has left #rdfcore

18:13:20 [em-lap]

em-lap has joined #rdfcore