W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2002

RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-01-24

From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:38:32 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020130143652.061a0200@localhost>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
note: urls are still needed for agenda and previous minutes; offline at 
moment but will send shortly.

RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-01-24

Transcript:
   (attached)

Agenda:
   @@ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/ @@

1: Allocate scribe:  Eric Miller

2: Roll call

Participants:
    - Daniel Brickley
    - Brian McBride (chair)
    - Eric Miller (scribe)
    - Dave Beckett
    - Frank Manola
    - Jeremey Carroll
    - Ron Daniels
    - Jos De Roo
    - Martyn Horner
    - Graham Klyne
    - Aaron Swartz
    - Pat Hayes
    - Patrick Stickler
    - Sergey Melnik
    - Mike Dean

Regrets:
    - Jan Grant
    - Dan Connolly
    - Stephen Petschulat

Absent:
    - Bill dehOra
    - Frank Boumphrey
    - Guha
    - KWON Hyung-Jin
    - Michael Kopchenov
    - Ora Lassila
    - Pierre G Richard
    - Rael Dornfest
    - Satoshi Nakamura
    - Yoshiyuki Kitahara

3: Review Agenda

Frank offered update on primer, but as it happens, we did not have
time... follow-up on list.


4: Next telecon - 10am EST, 2002-02-01


5: Please register for the face to face meeting.

See:
   http://cgi.w3.org/Register/selectUser.pl?_w3c_meetingName=techplenary2002


6: Review Minutes of 2002-01-18 with correction

See:
   @@ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/ @@

APPROVED


7: Confirm Status of Completed Actions

ACTION: 2001-12-14#2 Jos De Roo
Review Model Theory WD

see:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0127.html

Status: COMPLETED

ACTION: 2001-12-14#4 Patrick Stickler
Review Model Theory WD

see:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0131.html

Status: COMPLETED

ACTION: 2002-01-11#7 PatS
Write up datatyping proposal PD

see:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0118.html

Status: COMPLETED

ACTION: 2002-01-11#8 jeremy
Augment Patricks PD text with a more formal description

see:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0224.html

Status: COMPLETED

ACTION: 2002-01-18#1 DanC
provide an example that shows why reification works one way for him, but 
not the other.

see:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0157.html

Status: COMPLETED


8: Issues for the TAG

See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0188.html

ACTION: 2002-01-24#1 Brian
To send a response to the TAG for issues to consider along the lines of
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0188.html


9: Status of Test Cases WD

ACTION: 2001-11-30#3 Jan
Get access to test case areas of W3C site

Continued as Jan is on vacation

ACTION: 2002-01-11#2 Jan
Post summary of Test Cases WD outstanding updates to list.

Continued as Jan is on vacation

ACTION: 2002-01-11#1 Brian
persue CVS access for Jan with EM

Status (Per irc log):
 >Jan 25 09:50:55 * danbri sends request to w3c systems team re ACTION: 
2002-01-11#1  bwm  persue CVS access for Jan with EM


10: Model Theory WD

See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/att-0007/01-RDF_Model_Theory.htm
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0000.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0094.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0131.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0127.html


Status:

PatH: several of the comments were very penetrating; in order
to answer them, I find it necessary to work out the proofs. I plan on
folding these into a new model theory document, should have a new very
done by monday.

ACTION: 2002-01-24#2 Pat
To deliver next version of Model Theory working draft by next Tuesday 
(2001-01-29) with a goal to vote on this by following friday

ACTION: 2002-01-24#3 Jos, Jeremey, Graham, Patrick
Review new model theory document when availiable


(postposed discussion of Agenda 11, awaiting Sergey)
12: Reification

See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0218.html


Summary:

Discussion ensued around 3 different forms re reficiation

See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0236.html

Agreed the Option #2 was removed

Quick vote on 1 and 3

 > Jan 25 09:39:47 <jjc>	Vote: #1 = 8
 > Jan 25 09:39:53 <jjc>	Vote: #3 = 5
 > Jan 25 09:40:00 <jjc>	Vote can't live with 3 = 2
 > Jan 25 09:40:08 <jjc>	Vote can't live with 1 = 1
 > Jan 25 09:40:27 <em-scribe>	(general conclusion seems to be ... fix #1)

ACTION 2002-01-24#4 Jos, Pat
to explain why they can't live with reficiation view #1


11: Datatypes

ACTION 2002-01-11#6  miked
To drop an example of both approaches (implicit / explicit) to datatyping 
to the mailing list.

ACTION 2002-01-18#5 Sergey
Analyze both proposals against the desiderata

ACTION 2002-01-18#7  GK
Incorporate any new idioms/use-cases into the desiderata document

ACTION 2002-01-18#8  GK
Review "idioms" section of desiderata to clarify that these are
claimed examples of existing use, provide specific references where
possible.

Status.

See:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0109.html
   http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/TDL.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0118.html
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0224.html

Summary:

Sergey provided update on what happened last week

Quick vote on TDL and/or S

 > Jan 25 09:57:41 <em-scribe>	summary : lots of abstentions, some 
preference for S

ACTION 2002-01-24#4 Jerremy
notify the RDF interest, RDF logic and webont group of this current 
datatype positionsand synthesis the responses : responses to be synthesised 
by Feb 15th

 > Jan 25 10:06:34 <em-scribe>	sergey: can we poke the abstainers and get a 
response by next week?
 > Jan 25 10:07:07 <em-scribe>	bwm: the expectation for next week is to 
have a position on this

All people who abstained in vote be prepared for next weeks discussion
on this issue.

Meeting adjourned


Raw IRC Log

**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Fri Jan 25 08:50:47 2002

Jan 25 08:50:47 -->	em (~em@dhcp065-024-049-132.columbus.rr.com) has joined 
#rdfcore
Jan 25 08:54:13 <AaronSw>	+Aaron
Jan 25 08:57:04 <AaronSw>	+Frank
Jan 25 08:57:05 <AaronSw>	+Graham
Jan 25 08:57:07 <AaronSw>	+Martyn
Jan 25 08:57:26 <AaronSw>	+Bristol (noisy)
Jan 25 08:57:36 -->	gk (~GK@dyn83-32.sftm-212-159.plus.net) has joined #rdfcore
Jan 25 08:57:57 -->	bwm (~bwm@deimos.hpl.hp.com) has joined #rdfcore
Jan 25 08:58:30 -->	danbri (~danbri@h0050ba016e0d.ne.mediaone.net) has 
joined #rdfcore
Jan 25 08:58:56 <AaronSw>	logger_2, hello
Jan 25 08:58:56 *	logger_2 is already logging
Jan 25 09:00:02 <em>	+em
Jan 25 09:00:34 -->	jjc (~jjc@deimos.hpl.hp.com) has joined #rdfcore
Jan 25 09:01:32 <danbri>	+danbri
Jan 25 09:02:19 ---	You are now known as em-scribe
Jan 25 09:02:23 <em-scribe>	role call
Jan 25 09:02:25 <em-scribe>	danbri
Jan 25 09:02:26 <em-scribe>	brian
Jan 25 09:02:27 <em-scribe>	eric
Jan 25 09:02:28 <em-scribe>	dave
Jan 25 09:02:30 <em-scribe>	frank --
Jan 25 09:02:32 <em-scribe>	jerimy +
Jan 25 09:02:33 <em-scribe>	danc -
Jan 25 09:02:39 <em-scribe>	rond -
Jan 25 09:02:42 <em-scribe>	billd -
Jan 25 09:02:44 <em-scribe>	jos +
Jan 25 09:02:48 <em-scribe>	ron +
Jan 25 09:02:54 <em-scribe>	rael -
Jan 25 09:02:57 <em-scribe>	jan (r)
Jan 25 09:03:00 <em-scribe>	martin +
Jan 25 09:03:04 <em-scribe>	joshy -
Jan 25 09:03:07 <em-scribe>	ghram +
Jan 25 09:03:10 <em-scribe>	micheal k -
Jan 25 09:03:12 <em-scribe>	quan -
Jan 25 09:03:13 <em-scribe>	ora -
Jan 25 09:03:18 <em-scribe>	frank m +
Jan 25 09:03:23 <em-scribe>	natorish -
Jan 25 09:03:29 <em-scribe>	steve p (r) ?
Jan 25 09:03:34 <em-scribe>	pierre -
Jan 25 09:03:37 <em-scribe>	patrick +
Jan 25 09:03:38 <em-scribe>	aaron +_
Jan 25 09:03:44 <em-scribe>	mike (r)
Jan 25 09:03:46 <em-scribe>	guha -
Jan 25 09:03:47 <em-scribe>	pat +
Jan 25 09:03:52 <em-scribe>	sergey (not yet)
Jan 25 09:04:01 <em-scribe>	roll call end...
Jan 25 09:04:05 <em-scribe>	comments on agenda ...
Jan 25 09:04:13 <em-scribe>	frank: primer status update
Jan 25 09:04:32 <em-scribe>	daveb:completed actions done not in min
Jan 25 09:05:11 <em-scribe>	telcon: same time next week
Jan 25 09:06:18 *	em-scribe will bring vegimite for datatype discussions
Jan 25 09:06:24 <em-scribe>	minutes from last week: approved
Jan 25 09:06:37 <em-scribe>	compete actions:
Jan 25 09:06:44 <em-scribe>	all actions recorded as done
Jan 25 09:06:47 <em-scribe>	...
Jan 25 09:06:59 <em-scribe>	8: Issues for the TAG
Jan 25 09:08:04 <em-scribe>	action: to send a response to the TAG for 
issues to consider along the lines of 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0188.html to TAG
Jan 25 09:08:25 -->	DanCon 
(~connolly@adsl-208-190-202-70.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net) has joined #rdfcore
Jan 25 09:08:35 <DanCon>	oops... I got carried away answering Graham's mail.
Jan 25 09:08:50 *	DanCon wonders if we're meeting now
Jan 25 09:09:14 *	danbri nods
Jan 25 09:10:29 <em-scribe>	moving on...
Jan 25 09:10:55 *	DanCon tries to change the topic, loses
Jan 25 09:10:59 <em-scribe>	9: Status of Test Cases WD
Jan 25 09:11:14 <em-scribe>	jan is on holiday... eric to make sure he has 
access
Jan 25 09:11:24 <em-scribe>	10: Model Theory WD
Jan 25 09:11:31 <em-scribe>	Pat: should ahve done by monday
Jan 25 09:11:56 <DanCon>	PatH: several of the comments were very 
penetrating; in order to answer them, I find it necessary to work out the 
proofs.
Jan 25 09:11:59 <em-scribe>	(pat recieved comments, folding these into new 
model theory, should have a new very done by monday)
Jan 25 09:12:23 <DanCon>	DanCon: worth the wait
Jan 25 09:12:25 <em-scribe>	(roll call) danc +
Jan 25 09:12:49 <em-scribe>	Jos: is there another version planned after 
this one?
Jan 25 09:12:51 <em-scribe>	Pat: yes
Jan 25 09:13:01 <--	bwm has quit (Remote closed the connection)
Jan 25 09:13:31 <em-scribe>	Action: Pat to delivere next version of MT 
working draft by Next Tuesday
Jan 25 09:13:55 <DanCon>	(deadlines between meentings aren't all that 
interesting unless there's somebody on the other end of the action that 
intend to do something)
Jan 25 09:14:51 <em-scribe>	BWM: lots of review of this... can everyone 
(Jos, Jerrimy, Ghram, Patrick) to have review by Friday (before call)
Jan 25 09:15:20 <em-scribe>	Brian: hope to have vote on this by next friday
Jan 25 09:15:59 *	em-scribe skipping datatypes until sergey is online
Jan 25 09:16:03 <em-scribe>	12: Reification
Jan 25 09:16:18 <em-scribe>	Frank: good input from Dan
Jan 25 09:16:35 <em-scribe>	Frank: jan put out summary prposal... would be 
productive to focus on this as a start
Jan 25 09:16:48 <em-scribe>	Frank: goal to clarify proposal and then vote 
on them
Jan 25 09:16:54 <em-scribe>	DanCon: I suggest where there...
Jan 25 09:17:54 <em-scribe>	DC: prop 1 is what most people are using (but i 
dont find terribly useful), prop 2 is literal quoteing (withdraw), prop 3 
is to shoot this
Jan 25 09:18:55 <em-scribe>	DC: is iincomplete, but even if we complete it 
it will be a new thing and different from what the M&S work specified
Jan 25 09:19:13 <em-scribe>	DC: therefore propose to remove
Jan 25 09:19:42 <em-scribe>	Frank: Prop 1, seems to be a lot of way the 
people interprete the original M&S
Jan 25 09:20:17 <em-scribe>	(discsussion about taking prop 2 off the table)
Jan 25 09:20:28 <em-scribe>	Agreed: Proposal 2 is removed
Jan 25 09:21:09 <em-scribe>	Bwm: been working on P3P RDF Schema... a couple 
places where reification could have been useful
Jan 25 09:22:45 <em-scribe>	bwm: p3p defines an extension mechanisms which 
aren't in the base stadarnd... the extension component in place say these 
have to be correctly intpreted or punt; one could have used reficition for 
this , but i did not
Jan 25 09:22:51 <em-scribe>	bwm: the other case...
Jan 25 09:23:12 <em-scribe>	bwm: p3p has a way of defining datastructures
Jan 25 09:23:25 <em-scribe>	bwm: when represented in RDF that information 
is made into statusments
Jan 25 09:23:51 *	em-scribe more interested in listeing to this then 
effectively scribing... sorry
Jan 25 09:23:56 *	em-scribe will try to do best
Jan 25 09:24:35 <em-scribe>	bwm: patrick you also had use cases for 
reification, yes?
Jan 25 09:24:38 <em-scribe>	patrick: yes
Jan 25 09:25:00 <AaronSw>	bwm: <site> :collects [ a rdf:Statement ; 
rdf:property :birthdate] .
Jan 25 09:25:02 <em-scribe>	patrick: we need to have the mechnisms for 
reifiaction
Jan 25 09:25:17 <em-scribe>	thanks AaronSw
Jan 25 09:25:47 <em-scribe>	patrick: i'm building systems and i need / find 
this useful if not neccessary
Jan 25 09:26:04 <em-scribe>	DanCon: yes this is needed, but the the current 
means is a bit of a joke
Jan 25 09:26:50 *	em-scribe raises hand
Jan 25 09:26:53 <DanCon>	anyway... it is interesting to hear that Patrick 
is building systems with reification as specified.
Jan 25 09:27:55 <em-scribe>	pat: perhaps its useful to identify the 
particula tasks, and then to figure out if refication is the right way of 
doing this
Jan 25 09:28:32 <AaronSw>	jjc: getting rid of W3C reification lets other 
people create their own reification vocabulary
Jan 25 09:28:35 *	AaronSw nods strongly
Jan 25 09:28:44 <em-scribe>	jerrimy: i dont think voting for 3 precludes 
others from using other vocabularies for supporting re... (what aaron just 
typed)
Jan 25 09:28:55 <AaronSw>	jjc: the only thing they lose is syntactic 
support and interop
Jan 25 09:29:28 -->	sergey (melnik@Barnacle.Stanford.EDU) has joined #rdfcore
Jan 25 09:29:29 <em-scribe>	jjc: of course this dosent support 
interoperability across communities
Jan 25 09:29:40 <em-scribe>	queue: (danc, frank, em)
Jan 25 09:29:40 <AaronSw>	sergey, are you on the telecon?
Jan 25 09:29:55 <em-scribe>	...not on irc, may be on call
Jan 25 09:30:03 *	DanCon warns eric to claim to own the queue when he's not 
the chair
Jan 25 09:30:16 <AaronSw>	sergey just joined IRC
Jan 25 09:30:29 *	em-scribe is not, just noting for myself
Jan 25 09:30:55 <em-scribe>	frank: what exactly are we getting with the 
current reification mechanisms
Jan 25 09:32:53 <jjc>	em: the user community is not running away from the idea
Jan 25 09:33:07 <jjc>	em: the comm are having problems with lack of code 
lack of system supprot
Jan 25 09:33:13 <DanCon>	hmm... maybe I can't write down what I said.
Jan 25 09:33:20 <jjc>	em: the user cannot say what they want to say
Jan 25 09:33:29 <jjc>	em: particularly who said what
Jan 25 09:33:48 <DanCon>	DanCon: W3C recommended reification; at this 
point, if folks are using it and software out there supports it, it's our 
job to specify what they're doing. We can only remove it if nobody's really 
using it [in an interoperable way]
Jan 25 09:33:49 <jjc>	DanC did say that if users are using reification then 
W3C has an obligation to them
Jan 25 09:34:29 <jjc>	em: we tried to make it clear that there was an 
interoperable way to make provenance satatements
Jan 25 09:34:30 <em-scribe>	thanks dancon
Jan 25 09:34:39 <em-scribe>	thanks jjc
Jan 25 09:35:47 <em-scribe>	eric : 1
Jan 25 09:35:54 <em-scribe>	dave : 1
Jan 25 09:35:57 <em-scribe>	jjc : 1
Jan 25 09:36:08 <em-scribe>	dancon : prefer 3
Jan 25 09:36:09 <gk>	Pat said he was working on a proposal for contexts to 
perform the functions provided by reification.  I'd like to see this, but I 
think reification maybe can be used to implement contexts at some level.
Jan 25 09:36:11 <em-scribe>	ron : 1
Jan 25 09:36:18 <em-scribe>	jos : 3
Jan 25 09:36:22 <DanCon>	if you're going to record anything, pls record 
what folks cannot live with
Jan 25 09:36:27 <em-scribe>	jos : 3 (can't live with 1)
Jan 25 09:36:44 <em-scribe>	martin: (no use for 1) : abstain
Jan 25 09:37:06 <danbri>	em, (I said 3, though can live with anything so 
long as we make clear what the mechanism actually supports; could live with 1)
Jan 25 09:37:13 <em-scribe>	ghrahm: either is ok : slight pref for 1
Jan 25 09:37:21 <em-scribe>	thans danbri... wanst sure
Jan 25 09:37:24 <em-scribe>	frank : pref 1
Jan 25 09:37:39 <em-scribe>	patrick : 1 (hope with clarification) : cant 
live with 3
Jan 25 09:37:47 <em-scribe>	aaron : live with either : prefer 3
Jan 25 09:38:04 <em-scribe>	pat : can live with either : prefer 3
Jan 25 09:38:24 <danbri>	for the minutes, do we have a pointer for '1' and '3'?
Jan 25 09:38:24 <DanCon>	the problem is neither has consensus; i.e. there 
are "cannot live withs" on both sides.
Jan 25 09:38:57 <em-scribe>	sergey : cant live with 3
Jan 25 09:39:13 <em-scribe>	....
Jan 25 09:39:16 <gk>	DanC: I agree,  maybe if we can "fix" 1, can try poll 
again (later)??
Jan 25 09:39:18 <jjc> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0236.html
Jan 25 09:39:47 <jjc>	Vote: #1 = 8
Jan 25 09:39:53 <jjc>	Vote: #3 = 5
Jan 25 09:40:00 <jjc>	Vote can't live with 3 = 2
Jan 25 09:40:08 <jjc>	Vote can't live with 1 = 1
Jan 25 09:40:27 <em-scribe>	(general conclusion seems to be ... fix #1)
Jan 25 09:40:52 <em-scribe>	DanCon: oblication of people that can't live 
with 1 to explin their view
Jan 25 09:41:32 <gk>	Is there a difference between "can't live with" and 
"have no use for" ???  (re. Jos' action)
Jan 25 09:41:59 <em-scribe>	action jos: to explain why he can't live with 
view 1 reficiation
Jan 25 09:42:58 <em-scribe>	action jos, pat: to help explain why they can't 
live with view 1 of reficiation
Jan 25 09:43:19 <em-scribe>	...
Jan 25 09:43:20 <em-scribe>	11: Datatypes
Jan 25 09:43:26 <em-scribe>	(roll call) sergey +
Jan 25 09:43:48 <em-scribe>	sergey: (provides update on what happend last week)
Jan 25 09:44:29 <em-scribe>	sergey: added third view (SP) datatypes are 
represented as lexical token and values, but without being represented in graph
Jan 25 09:44:41 <em-scribe>	sergey: give analysis to various alternatives
Jan 25 09:45:09 <em-scribe>	sergey: reduces to 2 | 3 features .. backward 
compatability and local/global representation of datatypes
Jan 25 09:45:34 <em-scribe>	bmw: 2 propals on table... seem very similary
Jan 25 09:45:51 <em-scribe>	DanCon: seems futher apart to me..
Jan 25 09:46:22 <em-scribe>	DanCon: one of these; what you see in XML is 
the literal and literal value (R in MT)
Jan 25 09:46:31 <em-scribe>	DanCon: the other includes magic
Jan 25 09:46:57 <em-scribe>	bwm: one requires more URI's than the other
Jan 25 09:47:14 <gk>	I think in TDL:  literals denote <lex,val> pair, in S: 
literals denote a string value.
Jan 25 09:48:18 <gk>	Question to jjc:  what happens to <ex:someURI> 
rdf:value "10" . in TDL??
Jan 25 09:49:12 <DanCon>	I'm ready for a straw poll.
Jan 25 09:49:15 <mdean_>	Mike Dean just joined the telecon -- previous 
meeting broke up
Jan 25 09:49:23 <em-scribe>	(roll call) mdean +
Jan 25 09:49:28 <jjc>	To gk: it is ill-formed
Jan 25 09:49:31 *	em-scribe welcomes mdean_
Jan 25 09:49:52 <jjc>	To gk: that may be a mistake, perhaps we could allow 
uris to map to pairs.
Jan 25 09:50:55 *	danbri sends request to w3c systems team re ACTION: 
2002-01-11#1  bwm  persue CVS access for Jan with EM
Jan 25 09:50:56 <danbri>e	 --
Jan 25 09:51:03 <danbri>	(as an aside...)
Jan 25 09:52:41 <gk>	Sergey's point that S is tidy on literals:  any nodes 
labelled with same string denote the same thing (did I get that right?)
Jan 25 09:53:57 <em-scribe>	bwm: voting on TDL and/or S
Jan 25 09:54:01 <em-scribe>	danbri: abstain
Jan 25 09:54:06 <em-scribe>	eric : abstain
Jan 25 09:54:11 <em-scribe>	dave : abstain
Jan 25 09:54:26 <em-scribe>	jjc : vote for TDL (dont think i can live with S)
Jan 25 09:54:36 <em-scribe>	DanCon: cant live with TDL : prefer S
Jan 25 09:54:37 <DanCon>	jjc, you really can't live S?
Jan 25 09:54:41 <em-scribe>	Ron : abstain
Jan 25 09:55:01 <em-scribe>	Jos : prefer S (think can't live with TDL)
Jan 25 09:55:09 <em-scribe>	martin : prefer TDL (slightly)
Jan 25 09:55:23 <em-scribe>	ghram : think can live with both : light pref for S
Jan 25 09:55:34 <em-scribe>	frank : abstain
Jan 25 09:55:34 <DanCon>	I cannot believe that people don't requre the 
ability to conclude that "abc" = "abc".
Jan 25 09:55:52 <em-scribe>	patrick : prefer TDL : cannot live with S
Jan 25 09:56:09 <jjc>	Dan but it doesn't always - it depends on context
Jan 25 09:56:25 <em-scribe>	aaron : prefer S : TDL difficult
Jan 25 09:56:26 <DanCon>	jjc, you don't want to be able to conclude that a 
doc entails itself?
Jan 25 09:56:28 <em-scribe>	pat : abstain
Jan 25 09:57:13 <em-scribe>	sergey : prefer S : cant live with TDL
Jan 25 09:57:18 <em-scribe>	mikeD : abstain
Jan 25 09:57:41 <em-scribe>	summary : lots of abtintions, preference for S
Jan 25 09:57:42 <jjc>	* I do want a doc to entail itself, I haven't checked 
that one
Jan 25 09:57:51 <DanCon>	we need to notify The Director that we're at risk 
of not being able to get consensus on this.
Jan 25 09:58:31 <gk>	I think a doc does entail itself under TDL:  what 
interpretation satisfies one instance but not the other??
Jan 25 09:59:59 <DanCon>	sergey, have you put the "doc entials itself" 
point in the S document?
Jan 25 10:01:27 <gk>	I don't believe that going to the community will 
improve our chances of coming in on time on this.
Jan 25 10:02:46 <gk>	Please note that I put out an updated desiderata doc 
to the list just before this telecon
Jan 25 10:03:10 <em-scribe>	jjc : suggest pointing to the community of 
current datatypeing discussions
Jan 25 10:04:41 <em-scribe>	action jjc : notify the RDF interest and logic 
group of this work and synthesis the responses
Jan 25 10:05:02 <em-scribe>	action jjc : notify the RDF interest and logic 
group of this current datatype positionsand synthesis the responses
Jan 25 10:05:56 <em-scribe>	action jjc : notify the RDF interest, RDF logic 
and webont group of this current datatype positionsand synthesis the 
responses : responses to be synthesised by Feb 15th
Jan 25 10:06:34 <em-scribe>	sergey: can we poke the abstainers and get a 
response by next week?
Jan 25 10:07:07 <em-scribe>	bwm: the expectation for next week is to have a 
position on this
Jan 25 10:07:12 <em-scribe>	..........
Jan 25 10:07:34 <em-scribe>	meeting adjourned
Jan 25 10:07:37 <em-scribe>	..........
Jan 25 10:07:45 ---	You are now known as em
Jan 25 10:08:34 <--	sergey has quit ()
Jan 25 10:15:13 <DanCon>	say, pointer to TDL?
Jan 25 10:21:43 <em>	TDL ->  http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/TDL.html
Jan 25 10:25:13 <--	jjc has quit (Remote closed the connection)
Jan 25 10:26:11 <DanCon>	hmm... WG proceedings need to be archived.
Jan 25 10:26:20 <DanCon>	jjc just called me and said he's gonna copy it to 
www-archive
Jan 25 10:26:30 <DanCon>	before calling for input from the community
Jan 25 10:33:33 <--	gk has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
Jan 25 10:59:07 <--	logger_2 has quit (Remote closed the connection)
Jan 25 12:48:56 <--	AaronSw (aaronsw@mewtwo.espnow.com) has left #rdfcore
Jan 25 13:29:34 <--	mdean_ has quit ()
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Fri Jan 25 13:30:37 2002
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 14:35:05 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:44:03 EDT