- From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
- Date: 11 Mar 2003 08:25:44 -0500
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
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 Decisions: DECISION: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-03 is this is done (context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-03-47) 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: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-37-35) New Action Items: ACTION: em to schedule tuesday teleconference for rdfcore (11th and 18th)... find more info on rdfcore home page (context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T15-09-25) ACTION: Gk to help respond to Vassillis's comments on datatypes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0282.html (context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T15-48-40) ACTION: Brian to help respond to Karsten(sp?) question wrt collections http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html (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: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-26-57) ACTION: danbri to review primer for 'namespace' (context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-27-01) ACTION: dave to review ayntax for 'namespace' (context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-27-14) ACTION: graham to review concepts for 'namespace' (context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-27-27) ACTION: bwm to review semantics for 'namespace' (w/PatH) (context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-28-21) ACTION: s to jjc to change text in concepts (context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-38-55) ACTION: danc to convey resolution of danc-01 issue to PatH for semantics (context: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-39-19) 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: http://www.w3.org/2003/02/28-rdfcore-irc#T16-41-07) 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 'feelessleader' 15:03:01 <em> agenda + review http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0224.html 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 'feerlessleader' 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 tuesday? 15:07:39 <danbri> frank: according to our home page, we agreed some tues meeting... 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 challenges? 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> http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/RDF-Concepts-notes/index.html 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: http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/RDF-Concepts-notes/index.html 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/ 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: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt 15:43:25 <em> q+ 15:43:34 <danbri> re http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/rdfs-lc-todo.txt 15:43:43 <danbri> FORTH comments, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0282.html 15:43:49 <Zakim> -PatH 15:43:54 <danbri> mention datatypes. Could someone from Concepts handle that? 15:44:22 <danbri> [[ 15:44:23 <danbri> Subject: Clarifications needed for the Collection construct 15:44:23 <danbri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html 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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0282.html 15:47:40 <danbri> 2nd q: 15:47:53 <danbri> re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html "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 datatypes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0282.html 15:49:17 <em> action: Brian to help respond to Karsten(sp?) question wrt collections http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html 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 wrong 15:51:18 <em> jjc: Reagle-03 should be closed... . 15:51:28 <jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0185.html 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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2003Feb/0067.html 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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0185.html 16:03:28 <bwm> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-03 16:03:47 <em> proposal... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-03 is this is done 16:04:02 <em> DanC: seconded 16:04:13 <em> withdrawn reference http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0185.html 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 pfps-15 16:11:40 <bwm> ack jjc 16:11:41 <Zakim> jjc, you wanted to give I18N WG update 16:12:45 <jjc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-i18n-ig/2003Feb/0070.html 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> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-17 16:17:37 <bwm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0150.html 16:19:50 <jjc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#section-URIspaces 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: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Namespace 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> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-01 16:29:32 <bwm> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0112.html 16:29:35 <DanC> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0225.html 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: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#dfn-rdf-graph 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 danc-03. 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 danc-01. 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 accordingly 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html 16:43:05 <em> gk: if recomendation for those assembled removed, i wont object 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 http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-02-26.html#T20-31-27 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> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I4.3-Structured-Datatypes 16:54:46 <DanC> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I4.3-Structured-Datatypes 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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0265.html 16:58:01 <DaveB> minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0114.html 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 Tuesday, 11 March 2003 08:27:08 UTC