- From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:38:32 -0500
- 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 UTC