W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Date was 2003-02-28 Re: Minutes of RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-02-24

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:27:39 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Correction to the date of the meeting.


At 08:25 11/03/2003 -0500, Eric Miller wrote:

>Minutes of RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-02-24
>Present: EMiller, GrahamKlyne, FrankM, jjc, DanBri, SteveP, DanC, bwm
>(chair), Mike_Dean, PatH, DaveB
>Regrets: Jos, Patrick
>DECISION: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-03
>is this is done (context:
>DECISION: An RDF graph is a set of triples, the term graph equality be
>changed to graph equivalence and this disposes of danc-01 (contex:
>New Action Items:
>ACTION: em to schedule tuesday teleconference for rdfcore (11th and
>18th)... find more info on rdfcore home page (context:
>ACTION: Gk to help respond to Vassillis's comments on datatypes
>(context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T15-48-40)
>ACTION: Brian to help respond to Karsten(sp?) question wrt collections
>(context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T15-49-17)
>ACTION: Gk to follow up on the concepts implication on pfps-15
>(context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-11-37)
>ACTION: Frank to review primer for 'namespace' (context:
>ACTION: danbri to review primer for 'namespace' (context:
>ACTION: dave to review ayntax for 'namespace' (context:
>ACTION: graham to review concepts for 'namespace' (context:
>ACTION: bwm to review semantics for 'namespace' (w/PatH) (context:
>ACTION: s to jjc to change text in concepts (context:
>ACTION: danc to convey resolution of danc-01 issue to PatH for
>semantics (context:
>ACTION: daveb to check test cases document and edit accordingly
>(context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-40-23)
>ACTION: frank to take a look at primer wrt danc-01 resolution and make
>any suggests neccessayr (context:
>Raw IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc.html
>15:00:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
>15:01:45 <em> zakim, this is rdf
>15:01:46 <Zakim> ok, em
>15:01:50 <em> zakim, who is here?
>15:01:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see EMiller
>15:01:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, gk, Zakim, em, DanC, bwm,
>danbri, logger
>15:02:07 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne
>15:02:13 <Zakim> +FrankM
>15:02:18 <Zakim> +??P0
>15:02:30 <em> zakim, ??P0 is jjc
>15:02:31 <Zakim> +jjc; got it
>15:02:31 <Zakim> +??P2
>15:02:40 <em> zakim, ??P2 is feerlessleader
>15:02:41 <Zakim> +feerlessleader; got it
>15:02:51 <jjc> jjc has joined #rdfcore
>15:02:55 <Zakim> +DanBri
>15:02:56 <bwm> zakim, feelessleader is bwm
>15:02:57 <Zakim> sorry, bwm, I do not recognize a party named
>15:03:01 <em> agenda + review
>15:03:31 <Zakim> +??P3
>15:03:41 <em> zakim, ??P3 is SteveP
>15:03:42 <Zakim> +SteveP; got it
>15:04:11 <jjc> Zakim, who is talking?
>15:04:22 <Zakim> jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the
>following: jjc (18%), FrankM (32%), feerlessleader (23%), SteveP (9%),
>EMiller (29%), GrahamKlyne (13%), DanBri (18%)
>15:04:31 <Zakim> -feerlessleader
>15:04:38 <jjc> Zakim, who is talking?
>15:04:40 <em> zakim, feerlessleader is bwm
>15:04:41 <Zakim> sorry, em, I do not recognize a party named
>15:04:49 <Zakim> jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the
>following: jjc (41%), FrankM (26%), SteveP (5%), EMiller (14%),
>GrahamKlyne (9%), DanBri (18%)
>15:04:58 <jjc> Zakim, who is talking?
>15:05:07 <em> agenda?
>15:05:09 <Zakim> jjc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the
>following: FrankM (15%), EMiller (54%)
>15:05:12 <Zakim> +DanC
>15:05:19 <em> zakim, who is on the call?
>15:05:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see EMiller, GrahamKlyne, FrankM, jjc,
>DanBri, SteveP, DanC (muted)
>15:05:33 <em> role call...
>15:06:07 <em> regrets: PatH, Jos
>15:06:25 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
>15:06:32 <bwm> get thru - go ahead without me whilst I keep trying
>15:06:54 <mdean> mdean has joined #rdfcore
>15:07:13 <Zakim> +??P4
>15:07:18 <bwm> zakim, ??p4 is bwm
>15:07:19 <Zakim> +bwm; got it
>15:07:25 <danbri> gk: is agenda correct, proposes a meeting on a
>15:07:39 <danbri> frank: according to our home page, we agreed some tues
>15:07:58 <danbri> bwm: yup, 11 Mar 2003 tues, "1hr later starting"
>15:08:19 <danbri> ... checks with Eric re whether bridges were booked,
>and longer for fridays
>15:08:24 <danbri> em: fridays done
>15:08:27 <danbri> ... tues not yet
>15:08:42 <DanC> I offer regrets for all the non-fri telcons
>15:08:49 <danbri> em: brian... I blanked re the tuesdays. Number,
>duration etc?
>15:08:55 <danbri> bwm: see wg homepage
>15:09:12 <bwm> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#microschedule
>15:09:25 <em> action: em to schedule tuesday teleconference for rdfcore
>(11th and 18th)... find more info on rdfcore home page
>15:09:31 <danbri> jeremy: requests distinctive email msgs about these
>15:09:35 <Zakim> +??P5
>15:09:47 <em> zakim, ??P5 is PatH
>15:09:48 <Zakim> +PatH; got it
>15:10:24 <em> regrets: Patrick, DaveB
>15:10:30 <danbri> and JosD
>15:12:34 <danbri> (some discussion of quorum in prior meetings)
>15:15:00 <danbri> wg approves prior minutes
>15:15:06 <danbri> (qualifier: ???)
>15:15:21 <DanC> last week, we RESOLVED the proposal under Item 12:
>Schedule for processing comments
>15:16:03 <em> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/
>15:16:05 <danbri> 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions
>15:16:20 <danbri> confirmed.
>15:16:35 <danbri> 7: XML Schema 1.1 Requirements
>15:16:40 <em> ok...
>15:16:51 <jjc> 10:45 - 12:15 Second morning session
>15:16:54 <danbri> waiting for Dave, joining us later. Moving on to 8.
>15:16:59 <danbri> 8: RDF in HTML
>15:16:59 <danbri> 2003-02-14#3  em  set up a discussion between RDFCore
>and (x)HTML
>15:16:59 <danbri>                   with the objective to understand
>each other on
>15:16:59 <danbri>                   the subject of RDF in HTML
>15:17:03 <jjc> Thu, 6 March 2003 (all day)
>15:17:12 <Zakim> +??P6
>15:17:18 <danbri> action is done.
>15:17:29 <em> zakim, ??P6 is daveb
>15:17:30 <Zakim> +daveb; got it
>15:17:45 <danbri> bwm: is this to be a large group session or a small
>breakout group?
>15:18:05 <danbri> em: after talking w/ ralph, large group, specific
>focussed qs, specific participants
>15:18:09 <danbri> bwm: who?
>15:18:34 <danbri> em: currently committed, steven pemberton +1, ralph
>swick, ... (em to get back to you...)
>15:18:45 <danbri> jeremy: who from rdf?
>15:18:48 <danbri> em: myself...
>15:19:06 <danbri> danc: or RalphS and those speakers he acks
>15:19:11 <danbri> bwm: seems a little odd
>15:19:20 <danbri> ...if this is between rdfcore and xhtml
>15:19:23 <danbri> danc: it isn't
>15:19:29 <danbri> bwn: between rdfcore and xhtml folks
>15:19:50 <danbri> danc: yup, the assembled company aren't making
>decisions that bind on behalf of their groups
>15:20:19 <danbri> danc: does anyone here really want to get in on this?
>15:20:28 <danbri> jeremy: I have an interest, but don't have much time
>15:21:00 <danbri> danc: dave, are you interested?
>15:21:06 <danbri> dajobe: yes but not attending...
>15:21:10 <danbri> ...and no plan for telecon
>15:21:27 <danbri> danc: but could arrange irc proxy, or phone chat maybe
>w/ ralph?
>15:21:59 <DaveB> DaveB has joined #rdfcore
>15:22:02 <DaveB> phew
>15:22:09 <danbri> danc: anyone else who is interested and has logistical
>15:22:20 <danbri> returning to 7.:
>15:22:24 <danbri> [[
>15:22:24 <danbri> 7: XML Schema 1.1 Requirements
>15:22:24 <danbri> 2003-02-14#1  daveB  respond immediately to XML Schema
>1.1 with a date for
>15:22:24 <em> item 7 - xml schema 1.1. requierments
>15:22:25 <danbri>                      " we'll get back to you"
>15:22:25 <danbri> 2003-02-14#2  daveB  liase with jjc to work up a
>response on the XML Schema
>15:22:25 <danbri>                      1.1 requirements
>15:22:28 <danbri> ]]
>15:22:33 <danbri> dave: apologies, lost that...
>15:22:37 <danbri> action continued for now.
>15:22:40 <danbri> Ah
>15:22:43 <danbri> Deadline is today.
>15:22:52 <danbri> danc: is it straightforward to ask for more time?
>15:23:30 <danbri> ah, no deadline today.
>15:23:34 <em> no deadline
>15:23:37 <em> for today
>15:23:42 <danbri> Dave: I'll look at this next week
>15:23:43 <danbri> Continued.
>15:24:31 <danbri> jjc: want to emphasise that we'd like to be able to
>refer to simple user defined types, and nothing else(?scribeconfusion)
>15:24:43 <danbri> jjc, can you clarify your comment for notes
>15:24:52 <danbri> coming back to this later.
>15:24:55 <em> agenda 9 status on Last Call Comments
>15:24:59 <danbri> 9: Status on Last Call Comments
>15:24:59 <em> concepts...
>15:25:12 <danbri> brian: a lot out there without issue number or closed
>15:25:13 <em> gk: one comment that jjc is planning on responding
>15:25:34 <gk>
>15:25:42 <DanC> (how is one expected to get to the last call comments
>list? e.g. path from agenda?)
>15:25:48 <em> gk: 6 comments for which i've repsonded, but havent
>finalized answer (not sure if go thtat right)
>15:26:12 <bwm> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/
>15:26:14 <DaveB> DanC: on the rdfcore page, an early link
>15:26:20 <em> gk:
>is personal record of issues and statges of responses
>15:27:29 <DanC> (no link to WG home from lc issues list?)
>15:28:01 <em> gk: in a couple of cases, waiting from responses from
>people who raised the issues, a couple waiting from chair to determine
>if these are open issues
>15:28:47 <em> bwm: wrt clarification on comments... if no response in
>general we close this issue
>15:29:12 <em> ... send message to list, saying such... and if people
>respond otherwise we ... ?
>15:30:05 <em> open this and respond formally
>15:30:40 <em> bwm: wrt clarification on comments...
>15:30:41 <DanC> "This is the issue tracking document of RDFCore Working
>Group." *the* issue tracking document? there's another one now. pls add
>a link from http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/ to
>15:31:34 <danbri> DanC, thats why we want StaticFunctionalProperty vs
>FunctionalProperty distnction in OWL ;)
>15:32:58 <em> if no response in general, we send a message to the list
>suggesting without further information we consider this issue closed. If
>additional information is presented, we then consider this an issue or
>not and address it accordingly.
>15:33:18 <em> If no response, this issue is considered closed.
>15:33:28 <em> frank: in good shape
>15:33:33 <em> ... wrt primer
>15:33:46 <em> DaveB: still need to respond to SusanL but thats about it
>15:34:22 <em> DanC: frank (if you had to guess on primer).. are you
>thinking substantive chages? or just editorial?
>15:34:33 <em> Frank: the reification seems substantive
>15:35:12 <em> removing sections ... is this substantive or not?
>15:35:27 <em> (diffictut to assess in the primer)
>15:36:53 <em> jjc: re concepts... there are 3 issues ... not clear if
>substantive or not... .deletion of section (possible social meaning) ,
>xml literal equality/connonicalization could be consider substantive
>15:37:38 <em> ... possible change of RDF URI reference to IRI... waiting
>for input
>15:37:45 <em> ... essentially editorial
>15:37:56 <em> ... but changes are potentially large
>15:38:06 <em> .. a substantial but textual change
>15:39:05 <em> jjc: i'm seeing stuff that causes me to think hard
>15:39:11 <em> re syntax...
>15:39:21 <em> anything that you think the test-cases are wrong
>15:39:34 <em> DaveB: yes... because we made a mistake in the manifest
>15:40:17 <em> DanC: sowhen we fix the test cases, you belive the code
>out there is correct?
>15:40:20 <em> DaveB: yes
>15:40:25 <em> ...
>15:40:27 <em> on to schema
>15:40:32 <em> danbri: ...
>15:40:40 <DaveB> danbri's todo:
>15:40:48 <em> i hope to get to half responses by thie weekend
>15:41:02 <em> .... nothing that raises red flags ...
>15:41:25 <em> ... there are a few issues that people are asking for.
>15:41:36 <em> DanC: i suggest you get the working group to help responsd
>15:41:51 <em> danbri... ICS forth group responses
>15:42:17 <em> danbri... s/RDF Schema / RDF Vocabulary Description...
>biggest change
>15:42:28 <em> danbri...
>15:42:48 <DaveB> q+ on syntax issues
>15:43:00 <em> i have the list that deserve rdf schema responses in
>15:43:25 <em> q+
>15:43:34 <danbri> re
>15:43:43 <danbri> FORTH comments,
>15:43:49 <Zakim> -PatH
>15:43:54 <danbri> mention datatypes. Could someone from Concepts handle
>15:44:22 <danbri> [[
>15:44:23 <danbri> Subject: Clarifications needed for the Collection
>15:44:23 <danbri>
>15:44:23 <danbri> ...which spec takes this one? Concepts??
>15:44:24 <danbri> ]]
>15:44:30 <em> DaveB... a few more comments from jjc and pps that i
>haven't factored in yet from previous to last-call period... heads up
>15:44:34 <danbri> zakim, q+ to ask about these two
>15:44:35 <Zakim> I see DaveB, em, danbri on the speaker queue
>15:44:50 <em> DanC: to suggest these are unfortunate timing but that
>these are not last call comments
>15:44:52 <DaveB> q-
>15:45:39 <em> q-
>15:45:53 <em> ack danbri
>15:45:54 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to ask about these two
>15:45:59 <em> danbri...
>15:46:30 <em> ICS forth group... dont feel qualifyed to respond... can i
>get someone from concepts to help (jjc?)
>15:46:55 <danbri> vassilis's comment:
>15:47:40 <danbri> 2nd q:
>15:47:53 <danbri> re
>"Clarifications needed for the Collection construct"
>15:48:20 <danbri> asking Is this RDFS?
>15:48:40 <em> action: Gk to help respond to Vassillis's comments on
>15:49:17 <em> action: Brian to help respond to Karsten(sp?) question wrt
>15:49:26 <em> test cases....
>15:49:29 <em> dave and Jan
>15:49:37 <em> DaveB: doing ok?
>15:49:39 <em> q+
>15:49:58 <em> q-
>15:50:24 <em> DaveB: test-case manifest is wrong ... we just recorded it
>15:51:18 <em> jjc: Reagle-03 should be closed... .
>15:51:28 <jjc>
>15:51:35 <DaveB> lol
>15:52:00 <em> summary...
>15:52:34 <em> does anyone think they can get to all of the comments by
>next thursday?
>15:52:42 <em> s/can/can't
>15:52:59 <em> jjc: i'm concerned the i18n group havent responded
>15:53:08 <em> jjc: as such nervous about the time scales
>15:56:15 <jjc>
>15:57:04 <jjc> just off now for a moment
>15:58:27 <em> ..
>15:58:29 <em> agenda 10
>15:58:32 <em> 10: Handling last call comments
>15:58:32 <em> What order do we want to do these in?
>15:58:54 <em> DanC: on behalf of PatH, he's proposal for danc-01 i think
>is fine
>15:59:17 <em> DaveB: rdf and html will have info from plenary... but for
>the rest i think these will be closed
>16:00:10 <jjc> back now
>16:00:32 <jjc> (family interrupt)
>16:03:06 <em> ..
>16:03:24 <danbri> <em> jjc: Reagle-03 should be closed... .
>16:03:24 <danbri> <jjc>
>16:03:28 <bwm>
>16:03:47 <em> proposal...
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-03 is this is
>16:04:02 <em> DanC: seconded
>16:04:13 <em> withdrawn reference
>16:04:41 <danbri> resolved.
>16:04:44 <em> all present agreed, resolved
>16:04:58 <em> ..
>16:05:21 <em> DaveB: wrt earlier question... 3/4 wil lbe ready by 11th
>of March
>16:05:55 <DaveB> the other pfps-19 is on this meeting agenda
>16:06:09 <DaveB> but I expect to have hendler-01 krech-01 hodder-01
>propose to resolve by 11 mar
>16:09:19 <em> Frank: pfps-15 and danc-03 will be ready by 11th of March
>16:09:49 <em> gk: pfps-15 i see as both concepts and primer
>16:10:17 <em> bwm: pfps-15 is not about concepts
>16:11:18 <Zakim> -SteveP
>16:11:23 <jjc> q+ I18N WG update
>16:11:32 <jjc> q+ to give I18N WG update
>16:11:37 <em> action: Gk to follow up on the concepts implication on
>16:11:40 <bwm> ack jjc
>16:11:41 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to give I18N WG update
>16:12:45 <jjc>
>16:13:23 <em> thanks jjc
>16:15:39 <em> jjc: i will propose reagle-01 reagle-02 by March 11
>16:16:08 <jjc> ACTION jjc propose close of reagle-01 and reagle-02 by
>Mar 11
>16:16:13 <em> gk: i should be able to get to look at issues and bring
>what i can
>16:17:10 <em> agenda 11
>16:17:15 <em> 11: Issue pfps-17,18,19,20,21
>16:17:22 <em>
>16:17:37 <bwm>
>16:19:50 <jjc>
>16:20:32 <jjc>  these URI prefix strings correspond to XML namespaces
>[XML-NS] associated with the RDF core vocabulary terms.
>16:21:48 <DaveB> "RDF namespace" in syntax:
>16:22:20 <bwm> [[[Definition:] An XML namespace is a collection of
>names, identified by a URI reference [RFC2396], which are used in XML
>documents as element types and attribute names.]]
>16:22:43 <bwm> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/
>16:22:52 <danbri> problem imho is that that XML Namespaces spec failed
>to introduce a new noun into Web community's terminology...
>16:26:57 <DanC> ACTION Frank: review primer for 'namespace'
>16:27:01 <DanC> ACTION danbri: review primer for 'namespace'
>16:27:14 <DanC> ACTION dave: review ayntax for 'namespace'
>16:27:27 <DanC> ACTION graham: review concepts for 'namespace'
>16:28:04 <DanC> dave: issue doesn't occur for test
>16:28:21 <DanC> ACTION bwm: review semantics for 'namespace' (w/PatH)
>16:28:37 <em> 12: Social Meaning
>16:29:22 <bwm>
>16:29:32 <bwm>
>16:29:35 <DanC>
>16:30:04 <em> DanC: i'm endorsing the proposal identified in
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0225.html as
>a response to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-01
>16:31:05 <DaveB> this one:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#section-rdf-graph ?
>16:31:14 <DaveB> "An RDF graph is a set of RDF triples."
>16:31:42 <DaveB> I think there is a dfn link somewhere
>16:32:42 <DaveB> dfn link:
>16:34:06 <jjc> jjc has joined #rdfcore
>16:34:18 <bwm> Proposal: An RDF graph is a set of triples and this
>disposes of danc-03.
>16:34:51 <bwm> s/danc-03/danc-01/
>16:35:39 <gk> gk has joined #rdfcore
>16:37:15 <bwm> Proposal: An RDF graph is a set of triples, the term
>graph equality be changed to graph equivalence and this disposes of
>16:37:35 <bwm> Proposal: An RDF graph is a set of triples, the term
>graph equality be changed to graph equivalence and this disposes of
>16:37:36 <gk> shouldn't that s/danc-03/danc-01/ ??
>16:38:05 <em> gk: seconded
>16:38:15 <em> no abjections
>16:38:26 <em> resolved!
>16:38:55 <em> actions: jjc to change text in concepts
>16:39:06 <DaveB> (test cases doesn't use graph isomorphism)
>16:39:19 <em> action: danc to convey resolution of danc-01 issue to PatH
>for semantics
>16:40:23 <em> action: daveb to check test cases document and edit
>16:41:07 <em> action: frank to take a look at primer wrt danc-01
>resolution and make any suggests neccessayr
>16:41:44 <em> 12: Social Meaning
>16:41:59 <em> jjc: leading section on social meeting at tech plen
>16:42:28 <em> bwm: anyone not going to tech plen have any additional
>views on this prior to the meeting
>16:42:29 <em> ?
>16:42:57 <DaveB> personally, I'm happy to remove sec4 - jang is too, I
>asked him
>16:43:00 <danbri>  on social meaning, imho Concepts says too much
>currently, I was happier with the original proposal at
>16:43:05 <em> gk: if recomendation for those assembled removed, i wont
>16:43:29 <em> DanC: i propose to thank Gk for going above and behold
>call of duty as editor... well done
>16:43:52 <em> on rdfms-assertion
>16:44:00 <danbri> 3rd'd!
>16:44:07 <em> woohoo! well done GK!
>16:44:11 <DaveB> lol
>16:46:27 <danbri> zakim, who is muted?
>16:46:28 <Zakim> I see no one muted
>16:46:36 <DaveB> social meaning vague irc chat started around
>16:47:22 <em> danbri, i'd like to strongly recommend the original
>paragraph still remain and thats its normative
>16:48:07 <em> danbri, its important that rdf is not just a datastructure
>and that it reflects real world descriptions
>16:48:12 <danbri> em s/,/:/
>16:48:17 <em> thanks
>16:48:57 <em> DanC: appologies for playing the tim card on this one a
>bit harder than i should have... we need to all agree as a wg
>16:49:49 <em> ...
>16:50:12 <danbri> Adjourned.
>16:50:12 <em> gk: there is a comment that came up at the CC/PP CR
>telecon id be happy to talk about after hours...
>16:50:18 <em> (after hours discussions)
>16:50:19 <danbri> oops sorry em
>16:50:22 <em> meeting adjourned...
>16:50:54 <DaveB> xsd 1.1 requiements chat...
>16:51:05 <DaveB> jjc: naming user defined top level datatypes
>16:51:09 <DaveB> is our main req
>16:51:21 <em> hmm..
>16:51:25 <DaveB> jjc: prioritisation - that is our #1
>16:51:26 <em> zakim, please disconnect me
>16:51:27 <Zakim> EMiller is being disconnected
>16:51:28 <Zakim> -EMiller
>16:52:28 <DaveB> DaveB: qnames maybe?
>16:52:54 <DaveB> names for ocmplex dataypes would be desireable
>16:53:00 <DaveB> (are they named by qnames - yes, I think)
>16:53:08 <DaveB> but lower priortity than simple DTs
>16:53:44 <DaveB> reference to a request to webont on DTs?  url anyone?
>16:54:11 <DaveB>
>16:54:46 <DanC>
>16:55:53 <DanC> agenda + identifying datatypes
>16:56:19 <danbri> danbri: we could note that
>owl:InverseFunctionalProperty values can help in situationts where
>things have identifying descriptions via properties, but no well known
>URIs. But also this is no excuse for not using uris!
>16:57:21 <jjc>
>16:58:01 <DaveB> minutes
>17:01:51 <danbri> zakim, drop me
>17:01:52 <Zakim> DanBri is being disconnected
>17:01:52 <Zakim> -DanBri
>17:07:40 <Zakim> -bwm
>17:07:41 <Zakim> -jjc
>17:07:42 <Zakim> -daveb
>17:07:44 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
>17:07:47 <Zakim> -FrankM
>17:07:53 <Zakim> -DanC
>17:07:55 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne
>17:07:55 <Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
>17:09:44 <gk> gk has joined #rdfcore
>17:12:20 <gk> zakim, who's here?
>17:12:21 <Zakim> sorry, gk, I don't know what conference this is;
>apparently SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
>17:12:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see gk, jjc, mdean, RRSAgent, Zakim, em, DanC,
>bwm, danbri, logger
>17:12:30 <gk> gk has left #rdfcore
>20:17:55 <danbri> danbri has left #rdfcore
>eric miller                              http://www.w3.org/people/em/
>semantic web activity lead               http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
>w3c world wide web consortium            http://www.w3.org/
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2003 09:26:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:04 UTC