Session Start: Fri Apr 12 15:05:46 2002 [15:05] *** Now talking in #rdfcore [15:05] *** Topic is '+1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332' [15:06] * gkgk dialling [15:06] *** Jema has joined #rdfcore [15:06] *** danbri has joined #rdfcore [15:06] SW_RDF Cor()10:00AM has now started [15:06] +??P11 [15:06] who was that? [15:06] Zakim: ++??P11 is dajobe+jang [15:06] hmm [15:06] +??P13 [15:06] zakim, ??P11 is ILRT [15:06] +ILRT; got it [15:06] zakim, ILRT has DaveB, JanG [15:06] +DaveB, JanG; got it [15:07] 2nd is graham [15:07] zakim, ??P13 is GrahamK [15:07] +GrahamK; got it [15:08] +??P15 [15:08] who's that? [15:08] what is the number folks [15:08] +AaronSw [15:08] bwm, it's in the topic [15:08] zakim, ??P15 is FrankM [15:08] +FrankM; got it [15:08] aha [15:08] +EricM [15:09] bwm you missed the irc port number off the agenda [15:09] so from uk its 00 1 617 ... right? [15:09] yeah [15:09] +??P17 [15:09] +PatrickS [15:10] *** jang has joined #rdfcore [15:10] zakim, ??P17 RonD [15:10] I don't understand '??P17 RonD', AaronSw. Try /msg Zakim help [15:10] zakim, ??P17 is RonD [15:10] +RonD; got it [15:10] +??P20 [15:10] * danbri awaits zakim dialback [15:10] *** connolly has joined #rdfcore [15:10] +??P21 [15:10] zakim, ??P20 BrianM [15:10] I don't understand '??P20 BrianM', AaronSw. Try /msg Zakim help [15:10] zakim, ??P20 is bwm [15:10] +Bwm; got it [15:10] +??P22 [15:11] zakim, who's here? [15:11] I see ILRT, GrahamK, FrankM, AaronSw, EricM, RonD, PatrickS, Bwm, ??P21, ??P22 [15:11] ILRT has DaveB, JanG [15:11] *** gkgk is now known as gk-scribe [15:11] * danbri waits some more [15:11] +Jeremy [15:11] * Zakim wonders where Jeremy is [15:11] +Jos [15:11] * Zakim wonders where Jos is [15:11] zakim, ??P21 is JosD [15:11] +JosD; got it [15:11] zakim, ??P22 is JeremyC [15:12] *** oreste has joined #rdfcore [15:12] +JeremyC; got it [15:12] Regrets: SteveP, MartynH [15:12] *** oreste is now known as jjc [15:12] regrets from me. [15:12] *** connolly is now known as DanC [15:12] zakim, JeremyC is jjc [15:12] ====3: agenbda [15:12] +Jjc; got it [15:12] +DanBri [15:12] -agenda 3 [15:13] -open [15:13] RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-04-12 is now open [15:13] The agenda can be found at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0127.html [15:13] Agenda item 1: Allocate scribe [15:13] -agenda next [15:13] Agenda item 2: Roll Call [15:13] -agenda next [15:13] Agenda item 3: Review Agenda [15:13] See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0127.html [15:13] -agenda next [15:13] Agenda item 4: Next telecon 10am Boston time, 19 Aprr 2002 [15:13] Datatypes under item 9 [15:13] -agenda next [15:13] Agenda item 5: Review Minutes of 2002-03-22 [15:13] See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0112.html [15:14] oops [15:14] No comments - APPROVERD [15:14] RETRACT - two comments... [15:14] Completed actions - one not, but since completed [15:14] Discrepancy with test case review - again the discrepancy is now resolved [15:15] Given above, APPROVED [15:15] -agenda next [15:15] Agenda item 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions [15:15] DaveB, 1st on list 1130#4(?), not done, still working on them. [15:16] Some discussion, agreed to close issue. [15:16] -agenda next [15:16] Agenda item 7: Confirm Status of Withdrawn Actions [15:16] No objections raised -- APPROVED [15:16] *** JosD has joined #rdfcore [15:16] *** JosD has quit IRC (EOF From client) [15:16] -agenda next [15:16] Agenda item 8: outstanding issues [15:16] See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-subClassOf-a-Property [15:16] q+ [15:16] * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue [15:17] em asks about Jeremy's 'end' marker for containers [15:17] the matter was raised at webont f2f, but discussion of resolution continues in rdfcore [15:18] danbri: "if things get squeezed not that one please" [15:18] 8: outstanding issues [15:18] in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0127.html [15:18] chari acks em [15:18] chair acks em [15:18] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue [15:18] * danbri realises Jema and that uri have different ideas about agenda items [15:18] This is a reminder of what work we have yet to do. The list is getting shorter!! [15:19] -agenda next [15:19] Agenda item 9: Schedule and document status [15:19] See: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#L473 [15:19] Frank, Eric, plans for primer? [15:20] Current is rev 1. Strawman is to get another doc out, and then have the 3rd rev stable for last call. [15:21] Doc rev 2, up to group for WD approval for 19 Apr -- em thinks it might slip. [15:21] *** JosD has joined #rdfcore [15:21] *** JosD has quit IRC (EOF From client) [15:22] RonD has some material to provide, but cannot commit readiness until 19th [15:24] Frank: to add: containers, why RDF (vs XML). Not sure when will sync with em. If this gets to the group by mid next week, that will be plenty to review, even without RoinD's material [15:25] *** JosD has joined #rdfcore [15:25] *** JosD has quit IRC (EOF From client) [15:25] -action fm/provide schedule for primer to last call, to brian [15:25] Jema notes action 2002-04-12#1 [15:26] *** JosD has joined #rdfcore [15:26] hey JosD [15:27] Syntax document: DaveB presents... [15:27] Mostly editorial from last issue [15:27] Other things: MIME type registration, and likely webont desiderate [15:27] ... if these require substantial syntax changes they may upset the schedule [15:28] ... otherwise schedule looks good [15:28] Model theory [15:29] jjc notes that model theory and syntax docs should be reviewed against the original M&S, to check for things dropped thru' the cracks. [15:29] Hi Aaron, I had too try many times with cgi-irc, strange isn't it? [15:29] Yes, very much so. [15:29] -action bwm/figure when this review fits in schedule (before or after last call?) [15:29] Jema notes action 2002-04-12#2 [15:29] Schema document [15:30] DanBri - not as much progress as hoped. Current draft reflects most decisions, but doc is editorially "scrappy". Need to work on a new example to thread thru the draft. [15:30] is this http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/200203/? [15:30] Aiming for new draft mid-late next week [15:31] Issue raised about whether or not to change the namespace -- new vocab introduced, old vocab has been dropped. [but nothing has changed meaning?] [15:32] DanBri: suggest this for next week's agenda [15:32] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/200203/ [15:32] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/200203/ [15:34] re vocab: I suggest that the document at the namespace documents all the names in the old specs and new, but has a comment that the new spec doesn't govern the obsolete terms [15:34] +q [15:34] * Zakim wonders where q is [15:34] q+ [15:34] * Zakim sees Gk-scribe on the speaker queue [15:34] chair acks gk-scribe [15:34] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue [15:35] graham reads DanC's comment [15:35] -action danbri/produce schedule for schema to last call, for next week [15:35] Jema notes action 2002-04-12#3 [15:36] noting that he and brian to discuss this next weds [15:36] Test cases - Jan [15:36] DanC, are you happy with continuing to use the rdf/1999 and rdfs/2002 namespace URIs? [15:36] The main descriptive draft is nearly done - words should be complete this weekend. Then it's down to managing the test cases themselves [15:37] Should have draft for review next week [15:37] [Is that 3 drafts to review next week???] [15:38] One more interim draft to come, then subsequent changes to test cases only [15:38] Data types document [15:38] jos: I'll drop you a line re: format of entailment manifests this afternoon/weekend. [15:38] Apart from intro and noin-normative appendices, and section 4, pretty much done. [15:39] Expect to be ready with core material ready for review by close of Tuesday. Aim to review and approve publication next week. [15:39] Expecting WD to be "mature" by WWW conference [15:40] Looking for volunteers to write up use cases for various applications (DAML+OIL, CC/PP, ... ) [15:40] ?? can we get something from the webont requirements doc? [15:40] "example-rich jump-start" [15:41] also Dublin Core [15:41] ... dublin core, ... [15:42] -action gk/will write use-case appendix for CC/PP (no schedule) [15:42] Jema notes action 2002-04-12#4 [15:42] -action aaron/will write similar for dublin core [15:42] Jema notes action 2002-04-12#5 [15:42] ns happy: I think so. [15:42] * DaveB would like to move webont f2f debrief earlier on the agenda [15:43] * danbri too [15:43] Nobody yet volunteered for DAML use-cases of datatyping [15:43] danbri: rdfs, pls add a "Changes" section :) [15:44] yup, will do [15:44] -agenda 15 [15:44] Agenda item 15: Webont F2F report [15:44] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0096.html - jeremy's email report [15:45] jjc has given email report -- was anyone else there? [15:45] (Jos was, but jjc presents) [15:45] WebOnt have endorsed RDF as a base for their work [15:46] For info, *DRAFT* minutes from WebOnt F2f: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0094.html [15:46] Likely to be alternative presentation syntaxes that are not RDF/XML, but transformable to RDF/XML [15:47] the SW CG msg (W3C Member access req'd), http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-semweb-cg/2002Apr/0010.html 'Web Ont face to face - consensus on "layering" issue' [15:47] Expecting a request from webont for "dark triples" (i.e. unasserted triples - no identification, etc.) [15:48] Jos: thinks the request will be for the flag to apply to a document as a whole. [15:48] jjc: thinks this is the minimum they would be able to use, not necessarily will request [15:49] q+ [15:49] * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue [15:49] q- [15:49] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue [15:49] q+ [15:49] * Zakim sees Danbri on the speaker queue [15:49] DanBri: asserted by whom? [15:50] chair acks danbri [15:50] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue [15:50] jjc: the minimum case merely allows webont to assign a meaning that cannot be in conflict with an RDF-assigned meaning [15:51] * danbri revisits http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion [15:51] bwm: question: was this the only solution-to-problem that webont discussed? [15:51] jjc: there was an alternatiove solution, but proposal was withdrawn [15:51] q+ (requesting brief update on status of rdfms-assertion) [15:52] * Zakim sees (requesting, Brief, Update, On, Status, Of, Rdfms-assertion) on the speaker queue [15:52] ... withdrawn for reasons of preference of entailments [15:52] eek, sorry zakim [15:52] bwm: was RDF WG aware/cognisant of RDFcore's need to complete? [15:52] * gk-scribe now DanBri's apologizing to a robot :-) [15:54] * danbri has a hunch Zakim is really Ralph Swick in disguise [15:54] :) [15:54] * gk-scribe the ultimate turing test? [15:55] Jos notes there's an outstanding action to clarify with SWCG the role of RDF(S)... [15:56] if webont labels rdfs as level 0, what is rdf alone? [15:56] -AaronSw [15:56] command not recognised [15:56] I thought assertion issue was closed [15:56] ... "relationshipo between WebOnt and RDFS must be made very clear [15:57] ... RDFS as level 0 language, or a vocabulary-defining toolkit? [15:57] * danbri didn't hear an answer re rdfms-assertion status [15:58] -action em/stimulate discussion with TBL on rdfms-assertion [15:58] Jema notes action 2002-04-12#6 [15:58] +AaronSw [15:59] (suggestion that unasserted triples may be in conflict with this rdfms-assertion issue.) [16:00] Lot's of WebOnt people have volunteered to "join conversation with RDFcopre" about WebOnt requirements on RDFcore (dark triples, closing lists) [16:02] bwm: would prefer these discussions on webont mailing list [16:02] jjc: for this, we should give a sense of our preferences (to trigger debate?) [16:02] bwm: would like to understand the problem, before trying to fix it [16:03] There is a note coming to rdfcore from webong to describe the problem. We'll see if it is enough for brian to understand. [16:04] em: wants clear requirements; hears fuzzy requirements and clear solutions, doesn't grok [16:04] -action jjc/post message to rdfcore with motivating example [16:04] Jema notes action 2002-04-12#7 [16:05] -next [16:05] command not recognised [16:05] -agenda next [16:05] Agenda item 16: daml:collection [16:05] See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation [16:05] Jos: No decision yet. Comments have been made. [16:06] Jos: yesterday, DanC was taking up this problem; expect something soon. [16:06] -agenda 10 [16:06] Agenda item 10: Mime type Registration - handling feedback [16:06] q+ [16:06] * Zakim sees (requesting, Brief, Update, On, Status, Of, Rdfms-assertion), Gk-scribe on the speaker queue [16:07] q- (requesting Brief Update On Status Of Rdfms-assertion) [16:07] * Zakim sees Gk-scribe on the speaker queue [16:07] chair acks gk-scribe [16:08] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue [16:09] GK notes that Ned Freed recommends that the MIME type draft is initially published as informational RFC [16:09] (Can later request standards-track if there is an IETF protocol that references it.) [16:10] -help [16:10] Jema recognises the following commands: [16:10] -hi // tests whether Jema is alive [16:10] -help // prints this help message [16:10] -open // begin the meeting [16:10] -close // close the meeting [16:10] -agenda [next|prev|n] // next|prev|nth agenda item [16:10] -aob ... // add an item of another business [16:10] -action owner/... // record an action item [16:10] -decision ... // record a decision [16:10] * gk-scribe IS THE MEETING NOW CLOSED??? [16:10] -close [16:10] The meeting is closed [16:10] the action/decision list has been mailed [16:11] -RonD [16:11] command not recognised [16:11] -Jjc [16:11] command not recognised [16:11] -JosD [16:11] -AaronSw [16:11] -ILRT [16:11] command not recognised [16:11] command not recognised [16:11] command not recognised [16:12] *** jang has quit IRC (Leaving) [16:13] -Bwm [16:13] -PatrickS [16:13] *** JosD has quit IRC (EOF From client) [16:13] command not recognised [16:13] command not recognised [16:13] -GrahamK [16:13] command not recognised [16:14] *** DaveB has quit IRC (Leaving) [16:14] zakim, who is here? [16:14] I see FrankM, EricM, DanBri