W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2002

results of untidy experiment

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:41:54 +0200
To: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF3F37280D.11090431-ONC1256C41.00541908-C1256C41.00563C06@agfa.be>

according to what DanC asked at the second line of the piece
I further inserted and which is extracted from our IRC log
-- http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-09-27.txt
we did make an implementation test where all literal occurences
were untidy i.e. :s :p "o" as :s :p _a:"o" and just ran all of
our 100 or so testcases
the result was lots and lots of "No Proof Founds"
which is not bad in a sense, just incompleteness
so then we went on with all kinds of what I would
call "extra wires" and that was the nightmare
(and certainly not fulfilling our k.i.s.s. requirement)
the only thing that is reasonable is make it
<#foo> <#bar> (<#bar> "abc")
but only for <#bar> a rdfs:Datatype .
as I briefly explained in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0342.html


[[[
14:59:30 <gk-scribe> JosD:  done as experiment -- is a nightmare.
14:59:35 <DanC> Jos, if you could mail the results of your untidy
experiemnt, that would be nifty.
15:00:03 <gk-scribe> Sergey:  hard to assess with 24000 lines of code that
assume tidiness.
15:00:41 <danb_lap> q+ to comment on mozilla api
15:00:42 <Zakim> * Zakim sees DanC, Danb on the speaker queue
15:00:43 <jang> summary: API changes are easy, application changes are hard
15:00:49 <gk-scribe> ... Do it in the API is one thing (easy?), do it in
the calling application is harder
15:00:55 <danb_lap> q-
15:00:56 <Zakim> * Zakim sees DanC on the speaker queue
15:00:56 <DanC> * DanC q-
15:00:57 <Zakim> * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
15:01:01 <JosD> well DanC the whole point is that I got nothing but "No
Proof Founds" so there is not much to explain further
15:01:03 <Zakim> -Guha
15:01:05 <gk-scribe> ACTION, Sergey, write up what he just said
15:01:24 <Zakim> -JJC.
15:01:29 <gk-scribe> --------meeting closed------
15:01:33 <DanC> yes, well, showing all the "no proof found" stuff is likely
to help folks understand.
15:02:03 <Zakim> -DanC
15:02:14 <JosD> ...I tried to fix by all kinds of "extra wires" and that
was the nightmare
15:02:32 <DanC> again, very useful implementation experience to share.
15:03:08 <em> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see DaveB, Bwm, PatrickS, GK (muted), JosD,
EricM, JanG, Manola, Sergey, Mike_Dean, DanBri
15:04:12 <JosD> ... the only thing that is reasonable is make it <#foo>
<#bar> (<#bar> "abc") but only for <#foo> a rdfs:Datatype .
15:04:55 <bwm> JosD: what if there were a common superproperty for all rdf
properties
15:04:56 <Zakim> -JosD
15:05:34 <JosD> oops, sorry Brian I had to hang up, but w.r.t. your questio
15:06:07 <danb_lap> * danb_lap has to head off; cu
15:06:21 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
15:06:30 <danb_lap> danb_lap has left #rdfcore
15:07:14 <JosD> ... I don't think that is a problem at all i.e. it is not
breaking inferencing, but I think further and put something on the list
15:08:06 <bwm> it means that <a> <b> "foo" entails <a> <superproperty>
"foo" for all <b>, and hence all must have some datatype
15:08:15 <gk-scribe> zakim, unmute gk
15:08:15 <Zakim> GK should no longer be muted
15:12:32 <JosD> OK I see your point but <b> is a Datatype and so are it's
superproperties; Ireally think this is no problem
15:12:35 <Zakim> -DanBri
15:13:25 <DaveB> * DaveB drops out, bye chaps
15:13:29 <Zakim> -DaveB
15:13:31 <jang> xsd:integer"10" =? xsd:integer"010"
15:14:20 <JosD> ... at least according to our tests using
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules
]]]

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 11:42:29 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:05 EDT