Forwarded message 1
RDFCore telecon 2003-03-28 (2 hrs)
Summary of NEW actions:
ACTION: danbri review OWL Reference when published as Last Call
ACTION: Brian review OWL Reference when published as Last Call
ACTION: JanG review OWL Semantics when published as Last Call
ACTION: Brian to review CC/PP spec for next friday
ACTION: brian to put pointers on web page to Shadow TR
ACTION: brian to update shadow TR for Semantics
ACTION: Dave Beckett to get edits for Syntax from XML Schema review
ACTION: Jeremy to update Concepts in light of XML Schema LC review
ACTION: Frank to check for editorial actions on Primer from XML Schema LC reviewACTION: DanBri to check for editorial actions on Schema from XML Schema LC review
ACTION: gk send rseponse on macgregor-02
ACTION: jjc send rseponse on danc-01
ACTION: dave to check on whether status of 'notes' should be informative vs normative
ACTION: jeremy to add anchors to Concepts for def of canonicalistion, and for Impl Note
ACTION: jermemy update proposal on tex-01
ACTION jermemy to email i18n to get written confirmation re advice they give on
normal form C for IRIs (affirm, withdraw?)
Agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0163.html
Transcript:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0177.html
1.Volunteer Scribe:
===================
Jan Grant volunteered. Thanks Jan!
2: Roll Call
============
Regrets: Dan Connolly, Eric Miller
Participants:
DanBri (scribe)
Frank Manola
Graham Klyne
Mike Dean
Jeremy Carroll
Brian McBride
Dave Beckett
Jan Grant
3: Review Agenda
================
AOB: some discussion of the document that you get if
you HTTP GET on the RDF uri ref
danbri: is that M+S only or RDFS too?
dave: mostly former
4: Next telecon
===============
04 Apr 2003 1000 Boston Time
Volunteer Scribe:
Jan Grant volunteered. Thanks Jan!
5: Minutes of 21 Mar 2003 telecon
=================================
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0138.html
http://www.w3.org/2003/03/21-rdfcore-irc.html
Approved.
6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions
======================================
All recorded as DONE.
7: Last call review of webont docs
==================================
log:
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T15-08-43
Congratulations to WebOnt on their decision to go to LC
(except Test Cases, which will follow)
Jeremy: TC didn't go LC, as Tests are incorrect
brian: need to find reviewers for the reference document
they asked for Reference, Semantics, TestCases
...latter not appropriate (yet)
volunteers?
timescale: 24st april, draft review to list
see also:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0137.html
Reviewing Owl documents
From: Brian McBride (bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com)
Date: Mon, Mar 24 2003
danbri: I intend to review Reference, but am overloaded so is at risk.
Jang: I'll review semantics
brian: anyone else got time to commit to doing Reference?
jjc: since January, S+AS has improved in a linear fashion; Ref change was non-linear
brian: I'll review OWL Reference
ACTION: danbri review OWL Reference when published as Last Call
ACTION: Brian review OWL Reference when published as Last Call
ACTION: JanG review OWL Semantics when published as Last Call
8: Last call review of cc/pp doc
================================
Call for reviewers.
see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0162.html
log:
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T15-16-19
ACTION: Brian to review CC/PP spec for next friday
9: Editors Drafts
=================
see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0148.html
log: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T15-22-16
ACTION: brian to put pointers on web page to Shadow TR
ACTION: brian to update shadow TR for Semantics
brian:
...when we are sending responses, we should point to things that are in
the archived record.
...i'll point to current docs in shadow TR as editors WDs
...Pat, can I copy yours, put it up there/
10: Status on Incoming Last Call Comments
=========================================
log: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T15-40-21
discussion of 2003-03-14#1 (jang): take a final pass of the comments list
to identify remaining items that have not been dealt with
or been assigned process numbers
Jang: will get to this early next week
-Have editors reviewed the editorial comments from the xml schema WG?
ACTION: Dave Beckett to get edits for Syntax from XML Schema review
ACTION: Jeremy to update Concepts in light of XML Schema LC review
ACTION: Frank to check for editorial actions on Primer from XML Schema LC review
ACTION: DanBri to check for editorial actions on Schema from XML Schema LC review
Handling late comments.
brian: better shape than we were
...but new stuff just come in, SVG
dave: 4 weeks after LC ended, still ack'ing comments
...should say 'sorry but no'
danbri: obligation is for the period announced, but
...we can say 'we don't plan to treat this as a formal LC comment,
but we nevertheless value it and will bring to attention of the WG and
editors'
dave: do we have to handle comments forever? I close two, two more arrive...
jjc: i think it depends on the substance of the comment
...if it results in an improvement, we should look at it
...some are a waste of time
frank: two dimensions here
...if someone points out a ghastly error, we have to be responsible
...but process perspective is w.r.t. formal comments during LC
...we have to have a cut off date
dave: we're now two months after start of LC
...date should be today
brian: i disagree with this
...with having a fixed date
dave: hard to progress
brian: we have to balance a number of things ...have to get finished
...formally, process is that the Call ended
...WG has discretion to accept comments after the deadline
...in a sense dave is right, deadline was when set
...anything since, accepted out of goodness of our hearts
...as frank says, if glaring error we shouldn't ignore
...also politcal aspect, if we get comments from other WGs,
we should err on the accepting side
...as need to build relationships with other WGs
see logs for full discussion:
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T15-52-56
brian: is there support for taking view... be polite... receptive...
with comments from now on, we'll decide collectively whether to feed them
into LC process
danbri: what do you mean collectively? use telecon time to discuss whether to disucss...
pat: discuss on list, editors should be primary filter
brian: yup. default is still to accept
...editors can say 'this is a waste of time..., we can ignore this time'
danbri:
we have a standing invitation to the world to send RDF comments to www-rdf-comments. they're just trying to be helpful...
11: Status on responses to Last Call Comments
=============================================
log: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T15-58-35
Awaiting responses to:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#macgregor-01
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#macgregor-02
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-01
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-02
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-01 ??
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#williams-01
[missed detail of discussion]
ACTION: gk send rseponse on macgregor-02
ACTION: jjc send rseponse on danc-01
12: Schedule
============
log: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T15-59-52
brian:
current microschedule "now seems a tad optimistic :("
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#microschedule
Noting www 2003: http://www2003.org/ 20-24th May 2003
brian: WWW2003 looms
...a good thing to aim for, to stand up and say something 'good'
...such as 'we processed and integrated all LC review comments'
May 24th?
pat: that's reasonable
danbri: a reasoonable goal
jjc: as a goal, couldn't guarantee
gk: too long!
jjc: i can only spent 1.5-2 days / week on RDFCore currnetly
pat: have we more substnative things to do? dotting is and crossing ts and fixing little bugs
[...]
13: Issues reagle-01, reagle-02
===============================
log: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T16-07-20
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-01
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-02
Proposal from Jeremy:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0151.html
See:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/
jjc: we discussed this previously
essense of change... to present in the specs model in whuch
syntax spec does all the work + then add impl notes that
say one can be a valid implementation by not doing
the canonicalisation (?bad scribe notes?)
dave: general outline is good
jjc: implementation note in concepts is key point.
...impl are free to represent things in other forms (...)
jjc: ref to non-exclusive canonicalisaion gets dropped
ACTION: dave to check on whether status of 'notes' should be informative vs normative
dave: re reagle-01/2, is it 2 faced to say 'do it this way, but you don't have to'
ACTION: jeremy to add anchors to Concepts for def of canonicalistion, and for Impl Note
RESOLVED: accept jjc's proposal
(unanimously)
14: Issue pfps-04,pfps-05,pfps-06,pfps-07,pfps-10
=================================================
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-06
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-07
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-10
log: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T16-20-23
brian: who else could pick it up?
...jang, your review?
jang: basically positive. could be more explicit in a few places
context: review semantics editor's draft wrt
changed arising out of pfps-04 -05 -06 -07 -08 -10
brian: pat, you're off email until mid next week anyway
...may as well put it off another week. gk if you manage the
review, that'd be great. if not, we will have to go with the 1 we have.
15: Issue horrocks-01
=====================
log: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T16-26-26
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horrocks-01
See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0081.html
discussed action 2003-03-14#11 (path) produce words for a resolution to horrocks-01
pat: prob do thurs next week
16: Issue tex-01
================
log: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T16-26-49
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#tex-01
Jeremy's proposal to resolve:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0159.html
jjc: in a way quite sim to canon'n one ...sol'n is similar
...move effort into an impl note
...on other hand opposite
...should lang tag be normalised to lowercase?
...ab syntax suggests should lowercase
...an i18n reviewer (not a Group comment) was concerned that
lowercase norm'n was incorrect
...so should add a note saying 'only for purposes of abstract syntax that it is lc'
brian: why nromalise this way?
jjc: we wanted graph to be tidy with low effort
..if literals equal, need to be identical
...rfc3066 on lang tags, they're case insensitive
...tidyness violated by = instead of == test
...so we normalise
pat: we could normalise to uppercase
jjc: why not, we don't care
b: why not say isn't a case insensitive compare?
p: graphs become untidy
d: i don't like that
p: just say that component of the literal is a 'language tag', and
identity for those defined elsewhere
p: some doc somewhere should draw readers attention to lc caselesness
b: we were told not to normalise to lowercase
...why that not work for you, j?
j: we could say in 'lit equality, two lits compare equal if...'
j: I'll come back with that proposal
ACTION: jermemy update proposal on tex-01
17: Issue tex-02
================
irc: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T16-36-28-1
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#tex-02
Jeremy's proposal to postpone:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0155.html
[discussion]
danbri: i rec postponment, but being careful to track this and related
issues for drafting of future WG charters
brian: i think we should postpone
jang notes on a design:
http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T16-50-03-1
RESOLVED: accept http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0155.html
- amended to empaphasize that the proposed equals operation is inappropriate for the graph mechanism
(2 abstained)
18: Issue williams-02
=====================
log: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2003-03-28#T16-52-47
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#wiliams-02
Jeremy's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0154.html
jjc: I heard from MartinD, that i18n now no longer think normal form C good for IRIs
...they like it for Literals though
...but for IRIs, not mandatory or even suggested
jjc: we need an email from them saying that
...if we get that, and amend Concepts accordingly
...then our def of a URIref is same as Namespaces1.1's notion of an IRIref
jjc: message ref'd from agenda should use IRIref, not IRI
jjc: duplication not as good as reference...
ACTION jermemy to email i18n to get written confirmation re advice they give on normal form C for IRIs (affirm, withdraw?)
gk: stablitiy of IRI spec... it's still up for discussion
...how to deal w/ how chars such as SPACE, '>', '<' in an IRI are to
be encoded in (say) RDF/XML. Also note some discussion about
additional chars in IRIs noted at IETF URI BOF
..also gen concerns about stability of cited txt
...as it is a piece of text that says it'll itself be replaced at some point
danbri: do we know whether test cases need changes?
jjc: 3 or 4 testcases would have to change
jos: commenting on gk's....
...namespaces 1.1 is in CR, just point to that, whatever they do...
...i support idea of IRIrefs as used in CR
frank: i oppose notion of changing to say 'IRIs'
...i believe it might be appropriate to have a note that our syntax
for rdf urirefs is in fact an iri as defined in this doc
...but i prefer to have our pointer for such a basic concept not to be
to an XML spec, but to a web arch spec of some kind
pat: me too
danbri: q+ to express concern about URI2IRI
b: there isn't one that defines IRIs
as chair, mindful to avoid change unless well motivated
ADJOURNED.