W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

2001-07-27 rdfcore raw irc log

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:03:27 -0400 (EDT)
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0108011302070.14546-100000@tux.w3.org>

as yet unprocessed due to travel/conf, mailed for reference

Session Start: Fri Jul 27 14:52:52 2001
[14:52] *** Now talking in #rdfcore
[14:52] <danbri> hi brian!
[14:53] <bwm> G'Day
[14:53] * AaronSw wonders why agenda is CCed to "KWON, Hyung-Jin"
[14:54] <danbri> see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/members.html
[14:54] <bwm> A new member - I'm wasn't sure he had been subscribed to the list
so made sure he got the announcement
[14:54] <AaronSw> great!
[14:55] <AaronSw>  Phone Number: +1 630 536 3003 room #3003
[14:56] <AaronSw> (just in case you all don't have it on speed dial yet ;-))
[14:57] * em people dialing into bridge
[14:57] <barstow> +ArtB
[14:57] <danbri> +danbri
[14:58] <barstow> +EM
[14:58] <barstow> +Martyn
[14:58] <barstow> +Ora
[14:58] <bwm> +bwm
[14:58] <barstow> +Aaron
[14:59] <danbri> agenda:
[14:59] *** mdean has joined #rdfcore
[14:59] *** mdean is now known as mdean_
[14:59] <barstow> +Bill
[15:00] *** danbri is now known as danb_scribe
[15:00] <danb_scribe> roll call
[15:00] <barstow> Here: DanB, Art, Brian, Eric,
[15:00] <danb_scribe> danbri, bwm, eric, art,
[15:00] <danb_scribe> regrets from beckett, connolly
[15:00] <barstow> Regrets: DaveB, DanC
[15:00] <danb_scribe> regrets: ron
[15:00] <barstow> Here: Jos
[15:01] <danb_scribe> here: jos, bill, martin
[15:01] <barstow> Here: Ora, FrankM
[15:01] <danb_scribe> regrets: KWON, Hyung-Jin
[15:01] <barstow> Here: Mike, Aaron
[15:01] <danb_scribe> present: aaron, mike
[15:02] <danb_scribe> no sergey, guha
[15:02] <AaronSw> pat?
[15:02] <danb_scribe> + 2 regrets
[15:02] <danb_scribe> agenda review; plus add-in of Frank's review of DAML+OIL
[15:02] <danb_scribe> AOB? no
[15:03] <danb_scribe> two thing came in after agenda; one was DAML+OIL from
Frank; also Pat's model theory.
[15:03] <danb_scribe> +pat hayes
[15:03] <AaronSw>
[15:03] <danb_scribe> reviewing
[15:04] <danb_scribe> corrections: Renato resigned from WG
[15:04] * DanC_ hopes the required reading doesn't change this late
[15:05] <danb_scribe> correction: for character-encoding issue (em to irc
details for scribe)
[15:05] <danb_scribe> bwm: dropping this correction. [action] on em to write up
and send to list
[15:05] <danb_scribe> em -- pls clarify your action
[15:06] <danb_scribe> correction: WG accepted Brickley's recommended changes to
M+S re containers
[15:07] <danb_scribe> correction: re Bill's msg re his ascribed [action], bill
to send mail clarifying his action. Reviewing M+S w.r.t. what it says about
[15:08] <danb_scribe> Minutes of last week accepted with these corrections.
[15:08] <danb_scribe> actions completed
[15:08] <danb_scribe> ---------
[15:08] <danb_scribe> Frank has circulated draft response on coordination
[15:08] <danb_scribe> bwm wrote up Pat's notes, circulated.
[15:08] <danb_scribe> model theory refs: a time limited action. done.
[15:09] <danb_scribe> graham send thoughts/comments on identity of anon
resources: done
[15:09] <danb_scribe> graham: create xml:lang use cases. done.
[15:09] <danb_scribe> brian sent propoal on clarifying xml:lang
[15:09] <barstow> Graham's regrets
[15:09] <danb_scribe> all done.
[15:10] <danb_scribe> danbri: rdf schema: Continue
[15:10] <danb_scribe> danbri: rdfs issue test cases: Continue
[15:10] <danb_scribe> pat: strawman model theory -- Done!
[15:10] <barstow> Pat: I'm about 80% done
[15:10] <danb_scribe> pat: "theres a little bit more to be done; will send this
[15:11] <danb_scribe> eric "if you have deliverables looming, pls send in next
few hours; people are getting on plane"
[15:11] <danb_scribe> pat: I can do this in 4hrs
[15:11] <danb_scribe> ...probably
[15:11] * barstow can do it in 4 years :-)
[15:11] <danb_scribe> actions...
[15:11] <danb_scribe> pat to send point of view on anon resources; dropped (inc.
in model theory)
[15:12] <danb_scribe> graham, to summarise proposals. Done (said that Frank's
summary covered this).
[15:12] <danb_scribe> wg members to send regrets, done.
[15:13] <danb_scribe> sergey to summarise model theory refs, continued
[15:13] <danb_scribe> danbri, rdfs issues msg to list; continued (promised
[15:13] <danb_scribe> graham, to ask clarifying questions w.r.t anon resources.
[15:13] <danb_scribe> (duplicate of earlier item)
[15:14] <danb_scribe> frank, additional thoughts/comments on anon resources;
[15:14] <danb_scribe> Bill, xml:lang use case; to be reworded. Something on list
in next 2-3 hours.
[15:14] <danb_scribe> -----
[15:14] <danb_scribe> Brian: discuss Frank's draft response to DAML+OIL cttee
[15:14] <danb_scribe> ...no traffic on list to date
[15:15] <danb_scribe> any thoughts/comments?
[15:15] <barstow> Frank's draft:
[15:15] <danb_scribe> jos: I saw two docs. DAML+OIL required changes?
[15:15] <danb_scribe> (no, that's separate agenda item)
[15:15] <danb_scribe> frank: I sort of wishy-washed in writing this
[15:16] <danb_scribe> ...between writing this as official response of WG versus
my own comments. Generally opted towards latter for now.
[15:16] <danb_scribe> brian: that was really my only comment, that we ought to
make this more formal
[15:16] <danb_scribe> Frank: yes
[15:16] <barstow> FrankM's DAML+OIL Required Changes to RDF(S) -
[15:16] <danb_scribe> brian: we should go through frank's more personal
observations, see which we agree with
[15:17] <danb_scribe> frank: and confirm that those comments couched as WG are
agreed with!
[15:17] <danb_scribe> brian: we promised a response by end of month
[15:17] <danb_scribe> frank: what level of response do we think is appropriate?
we could certainly send a re-wordsmithed version of this back, ack'ing the
[15:17] <danb_scribe> ...not sure if that'd help a whole lot
[15:18] <barstow> FrankM's A Review of
[15:18] <barstow>      "Coordination points between RDF(S) and DAML+OIL" -
[15:18] <danb_scribe> ...it'd at least put a stake in the ground. To the extent
that this or some modification of it summarises the course of our discussions,
we could amplify that usefully for them.
[15:18] <danb_scribe> brian: given folk are travelling, is it possible for
people to comment in next week?
[15:18] <danb_scribe> danbri: is this critical re face-to-face
[15:19] <barstow> Pat: I don't think it is critical
[15:19] <danb_scribe> pat: I think this isn't critical for f2f; daml+oil ctte
would be grateful for feedback but not in a rush for feedback
[15:19] <danb_scribe> ...they wanted to give rdf wg feedback
[15:20] <danb_scribe> eric: agree w/ Pat. My u/standing was that we needed
feedback from d+o community about problems they've found. It was a valuable and
timely doc for us to receive.
[15:20] <danb_scribe> ...helps us clarify ambigs and misunderstanding of RDF
M+S. Any response beyond "thanks very much" isn't urgent
[15:20] <danb_scribe> danbri: i propose we revisit this after the face to face
[15:21] <danb_scribe> brian: we did say we'd get back to them
[15:21] <danb_scribe> decision: to postpone until after f2f
[15:21] <danb_scribe> ---
[15:21] <danb_scribe> F2F page
[15:21] <danb_scribe> scribe (url please!)
[15:21] <AaronSw>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/
[15:21] <danb_scribe> brian: there have been some additions, inc required readin
[15:22] <danb_scribe> pat: when was this most recently chaned
[15:22] <danb_scribe> brian: within last couple of days
[15:22] <danb_scribe> brian ...no req reading change in last 12 hours
[15:22] <danb_scribe> at least...
[15:22] <danb_scribe> Brian: the Required reading w.r.t. model theory now needs
to point to pat's material
[15:23] <danb_scribe> [action] brian to update to point to Pat's model theory
[15:23] <danb_scribe> art: the presentations at f2f, these can be pretty
[15:23] <danb_scribe> brian: yes, and they may not happen, ie. they're the soft
spot in the agenda
[15:23] <danb_scribe> art: status of internet connections at meeting?
[15:23] <danb_scribe> em: have been informed we'll have both wireless and wired
ethernet in room
[15:24] <danb_scribe> em: (to brian) even if presentation slots are subject to
being cut; the people who have agreed to talk, should still be prepared to talk
about pitfalls encountered
[15:25] <danb_scribe> ...we talk about test cases a lot. But talk about
real-world app test cases, even more valuable. Identifying the real probs people
have hit hugely important. If this gets squeezed during any last-minute
rescheduling, at least have problems ready to describe.
[15:25] <danb_scribe> brian: Potentially an action for everyone to try to
circulate on mailing list the key points they've hit in using RDF
[15:26] <danb_scribe> ...let's try to take this at face to face; people
travelling too soon to ask for mail.
[15:26] <danb_scribe> --
[15:26] <danb_scribe> jos: w.r.t. required reading, is Ntriples required?
[15:26] <danb_scribe> brian: that should be on list. [action] brian to correct
reading list, adding NTriples
[15:27] <danb_scribe> ---
[15:27] <danb_scribe> xml:lang
[15:27] <danb_scribe> brian: any comments on my note?
[15:27] <DanC_> did anybody see Uche's comment in rdf-interest on xml:lang?
[15:28] <danb_scribe> martin: of 3 test cases, mine showed no interest in
xml:lang issue. We found it wasn't a major block to implementation. You
reflected this fairly in summary.
[15:28] <AaronSw> On xml:lang?
[15:28] <AaronSw> danc
[15:28] <em> appologies in advance... i need to cut off for abuot 10 min
[15:28] <danb_scribe> brian: I propose "xml lang as defined in m+s is useful.
would be wrong to change ntriple and model theory until we've considered
[15:28] <danb_scribe> (nods)
[15:29] <danb_scribe> no sergey
[15:29] <danb_scribe> moving to Identity & Anon Resources issue.
[15:29] <danb_scribe> brian: we've seen 160+ msgs. Where do we stand on this?
[15:29] <danb_scribe> (no graham either)
[15:30] <danb_scribe> jos: In my opinion, we (I?) have clear view on this, from
Pat's doc.
[15:30] <danb_scribe> ... pat has collected all the different positions and
unified them in one nice document. Perhaps not final but at least tangible. The
StrawDog doc of yesterday.
[15:30] <danb_scribe> ie. the model theory doc.
[15:30] <danb_scribe> (scribe: url please)
[15:31] <danb_scribe> brian: is that the general view?
[15:31] <barstow> Pat's Revised model theory -
[15:31] <danb_scribe> pat: Frank's msg summarised a number of alterantives
pretty usefully
[15:31] <danb_scribe> frank: two sub-threads here. Getting straight what the
interpretation of anonymous nodes will be. And also deciding what to  do whether
have URIs or not.
[15:32] <danb_scribe> Jos: we at least have description of the tradeoffs now
[15:32] <danb_scribe> pat: what the model theory does, is make the alternatives
clearer, but doesn't decide between them.
[15:32] <danb_scribe> ...someone has to decide which way to go. Either way makes
sense; i've no strong feeling.
[15:32] <danb_scribe> brian: the thing worrying me. I can't see a framework for
how we make that decision
[15:33] <danb_scribe> pat: i volunteer in time for my f2f presentation, to draw
up list of pros and cons of the two main alternatives and their utility.
Everything I can think of in a little table.
[15:33] <danb_scribe> [pat action'd]
[15:34] <danb_scribe> frank: I recently went back to revisit TimBL's notes on
Axioms of URIs. One of the relationships that exists here is between this issue
and what our interpretation of URIs is.
[15:34] <danb_scribe> ...and in particular, how persistent we believe the URI
should be, or possibly the relationship between URI identifier and the thing
[15:34] <barstow> Tim's Axioms of Web Arch -
[15:34] <danb_scribe> ...if you believe as per TimBLs axioms that these are
relatively permenant, you may come to a different view
[15:35] <danb_scribe> pat: good point, pls send reference
[15:35] <danb_scribe> done: see URL above
[15:35] <danb_scribe> frank: ...of course you don't have to take those as
[15:35] <danb_scribe> brian: any other observations we ought to consider?
[15:35] <danb_scribe> (none offered!)
[15:36] <danb_scribe> brian: I can't think of anything more we can do to prepare
on this right now pre f2f.
[15:36] <danb_scribe> ---
[15:36] <danb_scribe> URI substructure.
[15:36] <danb_scribe> (no sergey (yet))
[15:37] <danb_scribe> scribe: url for sergey's proposal pls
[15:37] <barstow> Sergey's proposal:
[15:37] <danb_scribe> brian: sergey proposes resources should be identified by
pair of strings not URIs
[15:37] <danb_scribe> brian: I feel torn by this; I'm drawn to it, but feels
like a fundamental shift from Web Architecture. Using something other than URis
to identify things beyond our scope?
[15:38] <danb_scribe> (postponed)
[15:38] <danb_scribe> --
[15:38] <danb_scribe>  #rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure
[15:38] <danb_scribe> bill: i'd like to send a big doc to list in next 2-3 hours
[15:39] <danb_scribe> ...not to sure how far we can get by sying
parseType=Literal parses to Infoset until we know what existing M+S says. I
quite like the infoset proposal but not sure if that's in scope.
[15:40] <danb_scribe> aaron: ...even somethign trhat could be converted into an
infoset, eg. something with namespaces etc attached so the needed info is
[15:40] <danb_scribe> bill: ...section 2 suggests we simply treat literals as
strings. then you get into M+S and realise literals implicitly a structured
object, xml:lang etc, language like "is part of the literal"
[15:41] <danb_scribe> Bill: ...I won't be at f2f, would like to see discussion
of literals as infoset. I think probably a godo thing
[15:41] <danb_scribe> pat: i agree, merely being strings is too restrictive
[15:41] <danb_scribe> jos: agree, recommend people look at TimBL's design issues
on Interpretation Properties
[15:41] <barstow> TBL's Interpretation properties:
[15:41] * danb_scribe makes mental note never to scribe using a Libretto 100CT
[15:41] * danb_scribe thanks art
[15:42] <danb_scribe> brian: I'll add to recommended reading list
[15:42] <danb_scribe> danbri/pat: ...not under Obligatory reading; too late to
do that
[15:42] <danb_scribe> brian: sure
[15:43] <danb_scribe> bill: if you take RDF's simplest "hello world" Ora
example, _what does that mean_ ?
[15:43] <danb_scribe> ...a literal is something that denotes or evaluates to
itself? eg. if you have foo:creator = <some infoset>, do we mean the infoset
created it? Or rely on the application semantics?
[15:44] <danb_scribe> (?scribe missing detail)
[15:44] <danb_scribe> ...is the string itself the creator versus the thing
denoted by the string
[15:44] <AaronSw> example at the beginning of M&S seems like a simple natural
language sentence
[15:44] <danb_scribe> ...can you discuss this (in the bar?) at f2f?
[15:44] <AaronSw> ...gets parsed into some thing...
[15:45] <danb_scribe> bill: my doc in next 2-3 hours addresses this in more
[15:45] <danb_scribe> ---
[15:45] <danb_scribe> skipping rdf-ms-graph
[15:45] <danb_scribe> --
[15:45] <danb_scribe> responses to Pat's Model Theory
[15:45] <danb_scribe> brian: everyobody loves it, done deal, next!? ;-)
[15:46] <danb_scribe> pat: Q w.r.t Ntriple. Is the sense of the group that
Ntriple will be offered to world as a sort of standard notation for rdf? or just
for us? or undecided?
[15:46] <danb_scribe> bill: last week i think we said it'd go in as an appendix
[15:47] <danb_scribe> brian: ntriple started off as a way of doing test cases; a
concrete syntax for representing triples for machine processing, comparing
results etc
[15:47] <danb_scribe> ...i've been suggesting / asking the question, can we make
nntriple like the core of all these specs; defining syntax in terms of transform
into ntriple, and model theory over ntriples?
[15:47] <danb_scribe> pat: makes sense to me; i'm from a tradition that prefres
textual language
[15:48] <danb_scribe> ...but if we're going to ffer this to world, may want to
rethink certain design decisions (eg. line syntax clunky)
[15:48] <danb_scribe> brian: we're not proposing this to the world as a
mechanism for interchanging RDF
[15:48] <danb_scribe> pat: ok, makes sense
[15:48] <danb_scribe> brian: we're not doing it as "a new syntax"; enough to do,
already running late so don't want to do things beyond charter
[15:49] <danb_scribe> aaron: but if we happen to do one "in passing", nobody'll
[15:49] * danb_scribe misses detail of this point
[15:50] <danb_scribe> w.r.t. meaning of a URI being common across all
[15:50] <danb_scribe> pat: issue is whether interpretation works over all
[15:51] <danb_scribe> ...danger of using up all names at once
[15:51] *** danb_scribe has quit IRC (Read error to
danb_scribe[h0050ba016e0d.ne.mediaone.net]: Connection reset by peer)
[15:51] <AaronSw> Pat: names exist for a single interpretation
[15:51] <AaronSw> brian: one does lose something... can we get it back?
[15:51] <AaronSw> ...without going the whole way...
[15:51] <AaronSw> can we represent the relationship between interpetations?
[15:52] <AaronSw> brian: does http://foo mean the same thing in all
[15:52] <AaronSw> pat: only thing that means the same are literals, and probably
rdf:subject ,etc.
[15:52] <AaronSw> other URIs are open to mean different things
[15:52] *** danb_scribe has joined #rdfcore
[15:53] <AaronSw> frank: do you distinguish between web uris and other uris
[15:53] <AaronSw> pat: no
[15:53] <danb_scribe> brian: (to pat) Is there way of representating the
specialness of URIs, ie that all interpreations need to treat URIs as
constrained w.r.t. what they denote, without making the grand claim that there
is just one interpretation. pat: only thing currently is that literals mean same
thing in all interpretations. All other URIs are open; mean one thing in one
interpretation, other in others. Frank: pat do you distinguish URIs for "web
[15:53] <danb_scribe> ...if they do need to be treated specially, this isn't the
sort of thing model theory has machinery for. we could hack it.
[15:53] <danb_scribe> I'm treating all URIs as logical names.
[15:54] <danb_scribe> danbri: that seems right to me. No fast line between 'web'
and real world resources. Books, java classes, telephones etc
[15:54] <danb_scribe> frank: things named 'on the web' seem at least to have
some constant interpretation. Other uses of URIs for non webby things don't seem
so consrtained.
[15:55] <danb_scribe> pat: one way to talk about this is to talk about two
theories, documents, sets of rdf, being or sharing ...
[15:55] <danb_scribe> ...the web would be some shared core of interpretation;
one big world-wide interpretation. Those URIs that have a common meaning that
everyone accepts.
[15:56] <danb_scribe> danbri: pat, could you email this? I like the way
[15:56] <em> +em returns... sorry again for having to cut off
[15:56] <danb_scribe> pat: my mouth running away with my brain... :)
[15:56] <AaronSw> reminds me of http://www.w3.org/Architecture/state
[15:57] <danb_scribe> frank: there's a belief that if its on the Web, everybody
shares it
[15:57] <AaronSw> """
[15:57] <AaronSw> ... the Web is a sort of mass
[15:57] <AaronSw> hallucination shared among all the people and machines
[15:57] <AaronSw> distributed around the globe who accept the principles
[15:57] <AaronSw> of Web Architecture, much the way businesses and
[15:57] <AaronSw> consumers accept the principles of an economy based
[15:57] <AaronSw> on paper currency. By and large, we agree that there is
[15:57] <AaronSw> one http://www.w3.org/xyz, even though each of us
[15:57] <AaronSw> has slightly different experiences of it, much like by and
[15:57] <AaronSw> large, people in the U.S. have a shared concept of the
[15:57] <AaronSw> value of a dollar, even though in fact each p
[15:57] <AaronSw> erson has a
[15:57] <AaronSw> slightly different perspective on what they're willing to
[15:57] <AaronSw> trade for one. The large scale effect is the result of each
[15:57] <AaronSw> participant following the same principles when they
[15:57] <danb_scribe> pat: I know URL is no longer an encouraged term, but the
URIs machines use for getting web pages... have a fixed interpretation
[15:57] <AaronSw> communicate and interact with each other. """
[15:58] <danb_scribe> ...but you might find on those pages URIs that can denote
anything on the planet; even unicorns. Seems a real disconnect between the
"global address" view of URI vs "global name" view. Maybe these need separating
a bit.
[15:58] <danb_scribe> ---
[15:58] <danb_scribe> next meeting: August 10th, after f2f on Aug 1st (or
evening before)
[15:58] <danb_scribe> [adjourned]
[15:59] <AaronSw> http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-07-27.txt
[15:59] <AaronSw> logs
Session Close: Fri Jul 27 15:59:56 2001
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 13:03:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:50 UTC