IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-02-14
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:55:03 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
- 14:56:03 [AaronSw]
- no he has, he just joins an hour before everyone else
- 14:56:26 [em]
- who owns logger?
- 14:56:31 [AaronSw]
- dajobe
- 14:56:31 [em]
- AaronSw, is he yours?
- 14:56:35 [em]
- thought so
- 14:56:52 [AaronSw]
- dajobe mentioned he's set up as a cron job
- 14:57:35 [DanC]
- logger, learn about chanops, ok?
- 14:57:37 [logger]
- I'm logging. I found 1 answer for 'learn about chanops, ok'
- 14:57:37 [logger]
- 0) 2003-02-14 14:57:35 <DanC> logger, learn about chanops, ok?
- 14:57:58 [AaronSw]
- heh
- 14:58:34 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started
- 14:58:41 [Zakim]
- +FrankM
- 14:59:01 [Zakim]
- +PatH
- 14:59:06 [Zakim]
- +??P15
- 14:59:21 [bwm]
- Zakim, ??p15 is bwm
- 14:59:23 [jang_scri]
- jang_scri has joined #rdfcore
- 14:59:23 [Zakim]
- +Bwm; got it
- 14:59:54 [Zakim]
- +??P16
- 15:00:00 [jang_scri]
- zakim, ??p16 is ilrt
- 15:00:01 [Zakim]
- +Ilrt; got it
- 15:00:09 [jang_scri]
- zakim, ilrt has jang daveb
- 15:00:11 [Zakim]
- +Jang, Daveb; got it
- 15:01:06 [Zakim]
- +EMiller
- 15:01:07 [Zakim]
- +AaronSw
- 15:01:49 [jang_scri]
- rdf lets you think anything about anything
- 15:01:53 [jang_scri]
- libel law prevents you saying it
- 15:02:13 [jang_scri]
- agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0111.html
- 15:02:18 [bwm]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 15:02:20 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see FrankM, PatH, Bwm, Ilrt, AaronSw, EMiller
- 15:02:20 [Zakim]
- Ilrt has Jang, Daveb
- 15:02:42 [jang_scri]
- regrets patrick danbri jjc
- 15:02:57 [jang_scri]
- scribe jan today...
- 15:03:16 [jang_scri]
- regrets danc
- 15:03:27 [jang_scri]
- frank: regrets gk?
- 15:03:34 [jang_scri]
- bwm: ah yes
- 15:03:45 [jang_scri]
- agenda:
- 15:03:48 [jang_scri]
- any aob?
- 15:03:51 [jang_scri]
- nope
- 15:04:09 [jang_scri]
- next telecon 28 feb (proposing a holiday next week)
- 15:04:24 [jang_scri]
- path: no objection: I'm away the week after.
- 15:04:43 [jang_scri]
- minuites last meeting:
- 15:04:57 [jang_scri]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0082.html
- 15:05:08 [jang_scri]
- plus: mike dean was there.
- 15:05:14 [jang_scri]
- scribe next meeting?
- 15:05:27 [jang_scri]
- eric: yep
- 15:05:48 [JosD]
- JosD has joined #rdfcore
- 15:05:54 [jang_scri]
- minutes APPROVED
- 15:06:15 [jang_scri]
- item 6, xml schema
- 15:06:26 [jang_scri]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0163.html
- 15:06:30 [Zakim]
- +??P9
- 15:06:34 [jang_scri]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0078.html
- 15:06:49 [jang_scri]
- uris for bits of schemas
- 15:06:50 [JosD]
- Zakim, ??P9 is JosD
- 15:06:52 [Zakim]
- +JosD; got it
- 15:07:03 [jang_scri]
- bwm: we should respond,
- 15:07:15 [jang_scri]
- daveb: the xml schema people aren't here, jjc, pats, maybe gk
- 15:07:19 [AaronSw]
- zakim, mute aaronsw
- 15:07:21 [Zakim]
- AaronSw should now be muted
- 15:07:27 [jang_scri]
- could we ask them to look at it?
- 15:07:36 [jang_scri]
- otherwise I'll have a look, although I'm not an expert
- 15:07:44 [jang_scri]
- make precise the requirement though
- 15:08:00 [jang_scri]
- bwm: we agree to the WD they've produced and respond to it from the rdf WG
- 15:08:09 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Dean
- 15:08:10 [jang_scri]
- daveb: ok, I'll review bits that seem relevant
- 15:08:19 [jang_scri]
- daveb: hasn't jjc said stuff?
- 15:08:27 [jang_scri]
- bwm: already, yes, think so... on this document?
- 15:08:32 [jang_scri]
- daveb: I recall that's the case
- 15:08:36 [mdean]
- mdean has joined #rdfcore
- 15:09:01 [jang_scri]
- ACTION daveb - liase with jjc to work up a response on schema 1.1 requirements
- 15:09:08 [JosD]
- should be about http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xmlschema-11-req-20030121/
- 15:09:37 [JosD]
- RQ23 endorsed
- 15:09:49 [jang_scri]
- daveb: I'll reply to their message immediately once I've absorbed it, give them a date we'll get back to them on.
- 15:10:02 [jang_scri]
- ACTION daveb give immediate response,
- 15:10:13 [jang_scri]
- ACTION daveb liase etc
- 15:10:27 [mdean]
- Mike is here too (phone and IRC) -- sorry I'm late
- 15:10:44 [jang_scri]
- item 7:
- 15:10:51 [jang_scri]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0103.html
- 15:10:55 [jang_scri]
- rdf in html
- 15:10:59 [jang_scri]
- dave's responded...
- 15:11:04 [jang_scri]
- some TAG activity on this
- 15:11:27 [jang_scri]
- daveb: this is one of the three threads in tag on multiple-namespaced documents
- 15:11:49 [jang_scri]
- bwm: my reading of the issue is that it's more to do with html than rdf
- 15:12:10 [jang_scri]
- daveb: we've already made the links on this
- 15:12:31 [jang_scri]
- bwm: the html guys also want to add syntax to html that can be used to represent some (subset) of rdf
- 15:12:42 [jang_scri]
- bwm: my initial reaction is that that's good news!
- 15:12:51 [jang_scri]
- em: do people have a view on that?
- 15:13:05 [jang_scri]
- em: I'm quite encouraged by this.
- 15:13:17 [jang_scri]
- stephen and I've had conversations in the past about this
- 15:13:26 [jang_scri]
- one of the big impediments at the moment is deployment
- 15:13:32 [jang_scri]
- eg, legacy editing environemnts
- 15:13:51 [jang_scri]
- it's like ntriples in html
- 15:13:58 [jang_scri]
- it's a really clear way of doing s/p/o
- 15:14:07 [jang_scri]
- but it'd certainly benefit from this group's review
- 15:14:25 [jang_scri]
- daveb, path, jang: are going to look at it.
- 15:14:39 [JosD]
- Zakim, who is here?
- 15:14:40 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see FrankM, PatH, Bwm, Ilrt, AaronSw (muted), EMiller, JosD, Mike_Dean
- 15:14:41 [Zakim]
- Ilrt has Jang, Daveb
- 15:14:42 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see mdean, JosD, jang_scri, RRSAgent, em, bwm, Zakim, AaronSw, DanC, logger
- 15:14:45 [jang_scri]
- it has the potential to bridge between html meta tags and the abstract model that we're defining
- 15:14:59 [jang_scri]
- daveb: I should point stephen at ntriples so that he sees it made concrete
- 15:15:04 [jang_scri]
- there's the ntriples/test.nt file
- 15:15:11 [jang_scri]
- that demonstrates the kind of things we want to say
- 15:15:32 [jang_scri]
- em: he's not proposing using bnodes, for example.
- 15:15:39 [jang_scri]
- path: we MUST look at this then!
- 15:15:56 [jang_scri]
- bwm: at the back of my mind there are a number of questions:
- 15:16:13 [jang_scri]
- is this html specific or is it a more general syntax that other specs might find easier to embed?
- 15:16:36 [jang_scri]
- another question: do they intend to represent arbitrary graphs or just a subset?
- 15:17:01 [jang_scri]
- em: this proposal doesn't exclude the rdf/xml embedding we've already talked about
- 15:17:01 [AaronSw]
- em: this is intermediate point between HTML and RDF
- 15:17:22 [jang_scri]
- bwm: em, what's the best way forward?
- 15:17:29 [jang_scri]
- em: (a) identify reviewers
- 15:17:49 [jang_scri]
- (b) if the group thinks it's important enough, make it a target of the upcoming tech plenary to get the right people in the room
- 15:18:09 [jang_scri]
- path: I'm going to be in cambridge throughout the plenary week, I can be avaiulable for this
- 15:18:28 [jang_scri]
- bwm: also wonder if we should invite stephen to a telecon, since dave can't be there?
- 15:18:38 [jang_scri]
- em: seconded,
- 15:18:46 [jang_scri]
- wonder if that's the right place though
- 15:18:57 [jang_scri]
- or if there's some specific meeting we can arrange to focus on that
- 15:19:05 [jang_scri]
- daveb: use this slot next week instead?
- 15:19:14 [jang_scri]
- "good idea"s all around
- 15:19:24 [jang_scri]
- daveb: can you contact them about this?
- 15:19:39 [jang_scri]
- em: we've been increasingly trying to affect each other's groups on this
- 15:19:46 [jang_scri]
- getting it on the html agenda is the first step
- 15:19:53 [jang_scri]
- I'm happy to keep pushing and pushing hard
- 15:20:01 [jang_scri]
- I'm potentially at risk next week...
- 15:20:08 [jang_scri]
- ...but it may be a good opportunity
- 15:20:14 [jang_scri]
- I can see if I can make it happen
- 15:20:27 [jang_scri]
- em: who'd want to attend?
- 15:20:34 [jang_scri]
- (for next week)
- 15:20:46 [jang_scri]
- path: yes, miked, yes, daveb yes
- 15:20:47 [jang_scri]
- jang yes
- 15:20:55 [jang_scri]
- em: ok
- 15:21:17 [jang_scri]
- ACTION em to set up a discussion between stephen and rdfcore , objective to understand each other on the subject of rdf in html
- 15:21:34 [jang_scri]
- bwm: done with rdf in html?
- 15:22:03 [jang_scri]
- item 8; webont update
- 15:22:29 [jang_scri]
- webont are reviewing our documents, generating a lot of discussion...
- 15:22:35 [jang_scri]
- update (pat maybe, mike?)
- 15:22:42 [jang_scri]
- social meaning:
- 15:22:46 [jang_scri]
- pat verbally blanches
- 15:23:05 [jang_scri]
- bwm: after a general "where webont are on reviewing our specs"
- 15:23:21 [jang_scri]
- path: the difficulty is more that webont's not sure what to say, agreement internally on that
- 15:23:30 [jang_scri]
- sociual meaning is the one that's causing the most debate
- 15:23:43 [jang_scri]
- most of the recent discussions don't appear to impinge on rdf
- 15:23:48 [jang_scri]
- there's an rdfs:comment issue
- 15:23:54 [jang_scri]
- because they don't want comments to be assertions
- 15:24:08 [jang_scri]
- JosD: annotations in general, not just comments
- 15:24:14 [jang_scri]
- there's a rather plsit issue here
- 15:24:17 [jang_scri]
- split, even
- 15:24:32 [jang_scri]
- I'm anxiously awaiting a test case that jjc is producing...
- 15:24:49 [jang_scri]
- path: in the weakened form that pfps' got it to, it shouldn't impact rdf at the moment
- 15:25:16 [jang_scri]
- path: the simpler owl languages don't have a good fit for classes of things that apply to individuals
- 15:25:23 [jang_scri]
- em: can you send me a link to that thread?
- 15:25:43 [jang_scri]
- JosD: not a particular thread, it's tied around everywhere
- 15:25:57 [jang_scri]
- em: i just don't want to take rdfcore time on this, I want to read up on it first
- 15:26:05 [jang_scri]
- JosD: I'll post a link to a good summary message now...
- 15:26:17 [jang_scri]
- daveb: I read the webont logs fairly regularly...
- 15:26:30 [jang_scri]
- there are some things that I'm not sure of, eg
- 15:26:34 [jang_scri]
- 1. why rdfs:class and owl: class
- 15:26:44 [jang_scri]
- and 2. why ban some rdf terms from owl?
- 15:26:52 [jang_scri]
- path: owl lite ban, maybe, not owl full
- 15:27:07 [jang_scri]
- daveb: I'm still not very happy with the owl three languages thing
- 15:27:09 [JosD]
- Pat's webont message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Feb/0197.html
- 15:27:13 [jang_scri]
- cheers jos
- 15:27:25 [JosD]
- :-)
- 15:27:30 [em]
- i also note - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003Feb/0000.html re OWL and RDF schema relationshop
- 15:27:40 [em]
- thanks JosD for the pointer
- 15:27:58 [jang_scri]
- bwm: where do people step up from rdfs?
- 15:28:03 [jang_scri]
- not owl light....
- 15:28:07 [JosD]
- right eric
- 15:28:22 [jang_scri]
- path: owl's got a bunch of clean sublanguages
- 15:28:34 [jang_scri]
- path: the other view is that owl full is just a large extension of rdf
- 15:28:40 [jang_scri]
- which you then constrain to get the full languages
- 15:28:52 [jang_scri]
- it depends on whether you see the smaller languages coming first, or last
- 15:29:23 [jang_scri]
- daveb: I see rdf, I see "sameindividual as", I'd like to use that. which owl am I using?
- 15:29:31 [jang_scri]
- path: safe option is to assume you're using owl full
- 15:30:07 [jang_scri]
- path: the other thing you ight find direct feedback on is about xmlliteral, which they really don't like
- 15:30:14 [jang_scri]
- jjc could say more about that
- 15:30:18 [jang_scri]
- JosD: much more, i'd guess(!)
- 15:30:21 [jang_scri]
- moving on
- 15:30:29 [jang_scri]
- item 9: actions from last week.
- 15:31:20 [jang_scri]
- bwm: summarising,
- 15:31:24 [jang_scri]
- concepts defines a triple
- 15:31:36 [jang_scri]
- the subject of a triple is a rdf uriref
- 15:31:57 [jang_scri]
- there was at one point some language in schema, primer that didn't conform to that
- 15:32:30 [jang_scri]
- ACTION daveb: same action as 2003-02-07#3
- 15:32:44 [jang_scri]
- frankm: there's another component of this:
- 15:32:57 [jang_scri]
- the corresponding s/p/o vocab applied to statements
- 15:33:33 [jang_scri]
- bwm: think danbri's got an action to check this
- 15:33:56 [jang_scri]
- path: one way to deal with this is "syntactic object", "semantic subject", etc.
- 15:34:06 [jang_scri]
- daveb: argh! please no
- 15:34:21 [jang_scri]
- ... a triple has three parts, called what: nodes? arcs?
- 15:34:35 [jang_scri]
- path: no, they're sets of triples
- 15:35:18 [jang_scri]
- bwm: the key thing is making sure that the subject of a triple is a uiriref
- 15:35:20 [jang_scri]
- not a resource
- 15:35:27 [jang_scri]
- ACTION bwm: check a resource
- 15:35:35 [jang_scri]
- daveb: taking out the word "labelled" - I've done this already
- 15:35:45 [jang_scri]
- daveb's action done.
- 15:35:54 [jang_scri]
- moving on
- 15:36:04 [jang_scri]
- 10. format of references in documents
- 15:36:31 [jang_scri]
- frank: in december we agreed the format of references
- 15:36:53 [jang_scri]
- what's in syntax (which jjc proposed we used) doesn't match what I thought we agreed on
- 15:37:00 [jang_scri]
- there's a mixture across these documents
- 15:37:15 [jang_scri]
- frank: let's all agree on one thing, please
- 15:37:31 [jang_scri]
- daveb: syntax wasn't consistent with what we agreed. Think we had a japanese name that didn't fit
- 15:37:58 [jang_scri]
- frankm: I can change the primer to agree with everyone else, but I think we should agree.
- 15:38:07 [jang_scri]
- path: I've changed at least twice.
- 15:38:12 [jang_scri]
- bwm: I'll pick one: what we said before
- 15:38:24 [jang_scri]
- it's not mandatory if the other docs change
- 15:38:31 [jang_scri]
- but it's low down the list of the things we have to do.
- 15:38:57 [jang_scri]
- please conform to the pattern in primer, semantics, if you DO tidy these up
- 15:39:12 [jang_scri]
- em: for all people putting links into documents, please point into the DATED documents
- 15:39:26 [jang_scri]
- a lot of people were putting pointers into the "latest" documetns
- 15:40:00 [em]
- - /tr/rdf-primer
- 15:40:05 [AaronSw]
- if you link to /TR/rdf-concepts/#foo then that might break when #foo becomes #5-foo
- 15:40:14 [jang_scri]
- ACTION em send a followup email on this
- 15:40:22 [jang_scri]
- moving on#
- 15:40:29 [jang_scri]
- 11 responses to comments
- 15:41:06 [jang_scri]
- there are quite a few comments languishing there with no responses
- 15:41:16 [jang_scri]
- primer, syntax, semantics ok
- 15:41:35 [jang_scri]
- LCComments end next week, be good to be on top of things at that time
- 15:41:59 [jang_scri]
- frank: the problem isn't in rapidly responding; it's the content of those comments wrt our agreed procedure
- 15:42:15 [jang_scri]
- frank: keeping the ball rolling...
- 15:42:23 [jang_scri]
- bwm: is ok. it's the ones that sit there I'm worried about.
- 15:43:31 [jang_scri]
- item 12:
- 15:43:36 [jang_scri]
- schedule for processing LC comments
- 15:43:42 [jang_scri]
- everyone had a chance to look?
- 15:43:54 [jang_scri]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0094.html
- 15:45:43 [jang_scri]
- bwm: goes through his schedule
- 15:45:52 [jang_scri]
- JosD: I'd guess plan for CR,
- 15:46:17 [jang_scri]
- bwm: I need to put together a message proposing to go to PR
- 15:46:20 [jang_scri]
- JosD: "plan a", ok
- 15:46:31 [jang_scri]
- bwm: extra telecons?
- 15:46:37 [jang_scri]
- path: I'm up for it, apart from 18th
- 15:46:40 [jang_scri]
- daveb:@ yes
- 15:46:45 [jang_scri]
- jang_scri: ok
- 15:46:48 [jang_scri]
- frank: ok
- 15:47:18 [jang_scri]
- 11, 14 are ok.
- 15:47:42 [jang_scri]
- bwm: the 18th...
- 15:47:48 [jang_scri]
- path: all dates next to that are out
- 15:48:07 [jang_scri]
- bwm: suggest we schedule 18th and avoid path's needed to being there if possible
- 15:49:08 [jang_scri]
- (times an hour later on tuesdays ok for everyone)
- 15:49:14 [jang_scri]
- two hours on the 21st... ok
- 15:49:19 [jang_scri]
- two hours on the 28th:...?
- 15:49:32 [jang_scri]
- path: iffy for me, probably ok, but maybe not network access.
- 15:49:39 [jang_scri]
- bwm: let's schedult ie, see how it goes.
- 15:50:04 [jang_scri]
- bwm: folks happy with that plan then?
- 15:50:28 [jang_scri]
- jang_scri: can't make 28th feb, alas
- 15:50:42 [jang_scri]
- bwm: don't have either concepts editors, crucial we have their agreement
- 15:50:49 [jang_scri]
- but at least for now that's the plan
- 15:51:05 [jang_scri]
- ACTION bwm update schedule page to reflect our current plan
- 15:51:20 [jang_scri]
- daveb: danb, danc be nice if they're there
- 15:51:52 [jang_scri]
- DanC: availability for lc comment review currently being discussed
- 15:51:55 [jang_scri]
- are you?
- 15:52:06 [DanC]
- want me to dial in?
- 15:52:22 [jang_scri]
- nah, we'll take to email
- 15:52:26 [jang_scri]
- ^^^ bwm
- 15:52:30 [DanC]
- k
- 15:52:31 [jang_scri]
- item 12 done,
- 15:52:35 [jang_scri]
- any aob?
- 15:52:46 [jang_scri]
- frank: eric, s+w has announced new 50-cal,
- 15:52:51 [jang_scri]
- if you need a "persuader"
- 15:53:15 [jang_scri]
- done, cheers, folks...
- 15:53:16 [jang_scri]
- ooh
- 15:53:21 [jang_scri]
- daveb: next weeks meeting
- 15:53:24 [jang_scri]
- heh
- 15:53:34 [jang_scri]
- em: will announce schedule for next week if there is one
- 15:53:35 [jang_scri]
- done
- 15:53:35 [Zakim]
- -JosD
- 15:53:37 [Zakim]
- -Bwm
- 15:53:37 [Zakim]
- -PatH
- 15:53:37 [Zakim]
- -Ilrt
- 15:53:38 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Dean
- 15:53:39 [Zakim]
- -FrankM
- 15:53:44 [Zakim]
- -AaronSw
- 15:53:52 [Zakim]
- -EMiller
- 15:53:52 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
- 15:54:44 [em]
- RRSAgent, pointer?
- 15:54:44 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2003/02/14-rdfcore-irc#T15-54-44
- 16:05:04 [AaronSw]
- AaronSw has left #rdfcore
- 16:17:07 [em]
- em has left #rdfcore
- 17:45:13 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #rdfcore
- 17:53:19 [DanC]
- DanC has left #rdfcore