- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 17:05:56 +0100
- To: www-archive@w3.org
16:51:07 <logger_1> logger_1 has joined #rdfcore 16:51:07 <sagan.openprojects.net> Users on #rdfcore: logger_1 DanC_ Aaron-F2F 16:51:09 <dajobe> dajobe has joined #rdfcore 16:51:19 <Aaron-F2F> * Aaron-F2F waves to logger_1 16:51:35 <dajobe> who is op here and can set topic? 16:51:39 <Aaron-F2F> Danbri 16:54:04 <Aaron-F2F> Issue List: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/ 16:58:20 <danbri-f2f> danbri-f2f has joined #rdfcore 17:01:06 <gk> gk has joined #rdfcore 17:01:45 <gk> gk is now known as GK-f2f 17:03:20 <DanC_> er... none of us has op privileges. we can't kick out wierdos that wander in. if that bothers anybody, we'll all have to leave and rejoin 17:03:34 <DanC_> I can't set the topic 17:03:51 <DanC_> ====== EricM presents T-shirts, courtesy of HP 17:04:01 <Aaron-F2F> Only danbri can set the topic, danc. 17:04:06 <Aaron-F2F> I came in first and it deopped me. 17:04:08 <danbri-f2f> that's my fault or the opennetworks bot; the password i set i either forgot or it broke 17:05:12 <danbri-f2f> * danbri-f2f suggests we might move to #rdfcore-meet 17:05:12 <Aaron-F2F> danbri, you probably need to change your nick to plain danbri 17:05:24 <DanC_> the logger is here, though, danbri 17:06:05 <barstow> barstow has joined #rdfcore 17:06:12 <DanC_> * DanC_ thanks the host for the great net connectivity 17:06:16 <Aaron-F2F> Aaron-F2F is now known as AaronSw 17:06:43 <DanC_> BLURB: RDF Core WG convenes in Sebastepol CA 17:07:17 <DanC_> er... where's the chump? 17:07:23 <DanC_> meeting home: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/ 17:07:25 <AaronSw> in the other room, DanC 17:07:25 <dajobe> not on this channel 17:07:38 <dajobe> we could move there but might get distracted 17:07:38 <DanC_> * DanC_ blushes... wrong channel 17:08:27 <DanC_> * DanC_ suggests Somebody make a link from the meeting home page to the log of this channel 17:09:34 <danbri-f2f> dave, url for logs? 17:09:37 <AaronSw> see http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-08-01.txt 17:09:57 <dajobe> * dajobe scribes 17:10:05 <AaronSw> ---- ROLL CALL 17:10:05 <dajobe> bwm introductions 17:10:22 <dajobe> +art barstow 17:10:24 <AaronSw> Art Barstow, W3C, visiting engineer from HP 17:10:28 <dajobe> +dan connolly 17:10:43 <dajobe> jos de roos 17:10:45 <dajobe> dave beckett 17:10:47 <dajobe> rael dpnrfest 17:10:49 <dajobe> dan brickley 17:10:53 <dajobe> martyn horner 17:10:54 <dajobe> pat hayes 17:10:57 <dajobe> frank manola 17:11:02 <dajobe> ron daniel 17:11:12 <dajobe> sergey melnik 17:11:23 <dajobe> kwon, national ., korea 17:11:25 <dajobe> mike dean 17:11:27 <dajobe> eric miller 17:11:31 <dajobe> graham klyne 17:11:40 <dajobe> stephen p 17:11:50 <dajobe> jan grant 17:11:53 <dajobe> aaron swartz 17:12:00 <dajobe> brian mcbride (chair) 17:12:43 <dajobe> ... logistics ... 17:14:52 <danbri-f2f> * danbri-f2f adds quick link to raw irc log from meeting page, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/ 17:14:53 <dajobe> f2f page: 17:15:06 <dajobe> bwm: intro 17:15:21 <dajobe> agenda review 17:16:47 <dajobe> first section - context from users of rdf, get some problems from apps 17:16:50 <dajobe> (bwm) 17:17:16 <DanC_> agenda review: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/#agenda 17:17:52 <dajobe> changed to proposed schedule 17:18:47 <dajobe> forfeit if we actually get through the schedule... 17:18:58 <dajobe> emiller goads us to complete it :-) 17:19:10 <dajobe> review of Wed 17:19:29 <dajobe> gk: review of issues list? 17:19:59 <dajobe> emiller: user stories can help us prioritise 17:20:17 <dajobe> artb: non-listed issue - xml:lang 17:20:41 <dajobe> bwm: progress made but will make in context of parsetype literal discussions rather than alone 17:21:20 <dajobe> END REVIEW OF AGENDA 17:21:55 <dajobe> rael dornfest RSS 17:22:23 <dajobe> rss is a syndication format and site descr. format 17:22:39 <DanC_> who's got the display? how about putting some RSS sites/stuff on screen? 17:22:41 <dajobe> review of rss 1.0 history 17:22:52 <dajobe> 1.0 now out 17:23:03 <dajobe> interesting rss1.0 places used 17:23:11 <dajobe> rss091 used more but uptake slowing 17:23:37 <dajobe> examples slashcode 17:23:51 <dajobe> uses a lot of rss1.0 behind it to return all query results 17:23:52 <DanC_> slashcode is an rss 1.0 example, that is 17:24:02 <dajobe> see http://slashcode.com/ (or .org?) 17:24:09 <dajobe> rpc-like interfaces 17:24:22 <dajobe> http://slashcode.net/slashcode.rss is rss1.0 version 17:24:27 <dajobe> useperl.org 17:24:40 <dajobe> any data-peeks are avaialble as rss1.0 17:24:45 <DanC_> * DanC_ notes the creator is an email address... as if the mailbox created the page. 17:25:07 <dajobe> ximian's red-carpet package update system 17:25:13 <dajobe> very close to rss1.0 17:25:22 <dajobe> talking to them 17:25:22 <AaronSw> send them an email, DanC ;-) 17:25:41 <dajobe> subscribe to package feeds of softrware updates 17:25:43 <DanC_> that would oblige me to answer any questions they have. I have previous obligations. 17:26:10 <dajobe> axkit.org - matt sergent 17:26:10 <dajobe> axkit app - take23.org 17:26:10 <Seth> Seth has joined #rdfcore 17:26:12 <dajobe> ... site for mod_perl and all feeds built out of rss 1.0 17:26:17 <DanC_> anybody sitting near EricM? can you paste the addresses of the pages he's showing? 17:26:21 <dajobe> to create the portal 17:26:26 <AaronSw> http://take23.org/ 17:26:40 <dajobe> RSS BOF at OSCON - yahoo! finance using rss1.0 internally 17:27:07 <dajobe> ... spoke to about exporting that, need consider business issues 17:27:28 <dajobe> OSCOn .. ave wrigely ITN news feed and used a lot internally 17:27:34 <dajobe> fascinating uses ... 17:27:42 <dajobe> rael's meerkat - meerkat.oreillnet.com 17:27:44 <AaronSw> http://meerkat.oreillynet.com/ 17:27:53 <dajobe> aggregator of tech-related feeds 17:28:16 <dajobe> various views as rss, n3 now! 17:28:29 <dajobe> AaronSw: can you do url-pasting for me 17:28:47 <dajobe> rael demos n3, rss versions 17:28:56 <AaronSw> sure, dajobe 17:28:56 <dajobe> can search by dc attributes 17:29:11 <AaronSw> http://meerkat.oreillynet.com/?_fl=n3 - N3 version 17:29:17 <AaronSw> http://meerkat.oreillynet.com/?_fl=rss10 - rdf version 17:29:18 <dajobe> demo of seraching 17:29:23 <AaronSw> can also search by dublin core data 17:29:31 <dajobe> shows dc createor and language, format etc. 17:29:39 <dajobe> ... lots going on in rss1.0 land.. 17:29:51 <dajobe> .. good thing, easy gateway into rdf 17:30:02 <dajobe> ... without making them scream 17:30:24 <dajobe> problems: ns-prefixes sort-of 17:30:44 <dajobe> like to see more rdf engines that can allow him to make meerkat an rdf system 17:30:47 <dajobe> e.g. provenance 17:31:04 <dajobe> where did e.g. a certain title came from 17:31:18 <dajobe> would be greate to get such an engine out there 17:31:38 <dajobe> can't build it at present with curent tools 17:31:49 <dajobe> don't caare about reification for this app 17:32:20 <dajobe> issue of squishing is greate, need to unsquish 17:32:38 <dajobe> danc: tims' python code knows about provenance 17:32:56 <dajobe> rael: daves' redland big enough needs provenance 17:33:09 <dajobe> rael: impl. stuff people can use and get it right later. hackers aren't reading the spec 17:33:22 <dajobe> END RAEL 17:33:37 <dajobe> frankm: if we take that approach... 17:33:55 <dajobe> ... need to make sure we don't have to keep that stuff in if we later try to do it right... 17:34:12 <dajobe> emiller: would love to have that problem 17:34:32 <dajobe> frankm: keep in mind balancing act 17:34:59 <dajobe> rael: would like something just to work, if later "correct" api turns up later, great 17:35:29 <dajobe> nat torrington (perl6) - got contact, no tool to show him 17:35:39 <dajobe> jos: syndication - what do you mean? 17:35:55 <dajobe> rael: an xml representation of your site that someone can take up and carry off (basically) 17:36:10 <dajobe> ... site description. Aggregating. syndicating links 17:36:21 <dajobe> RON DANIEL - PRISM 17:36:32 <dajobe> ron: a metadata spec for the magazine publishing industry 17:37:02 <dajobe> ... a spec for exchanging descriptive metadata 17:37:11 <dajobe> came from big project from mag publisher 17:37:20 <dajobe> ... intergrating materials from multiple mags 17:37:34 <dajobe> ... found hard. wanted to reuse content 17:37:56 <dajobe> ... had no metadata. formed prism group june 99 17:38:15 <dajobe> founders are time, getty, sothebys, lots (see web site) 17:38:20 <dajobe> released 1.0 april 2001 17:38:26 <AaronSw> http://www.prismstandard.org 17:38:41 <dajobe> working onimpl. projects 17:39:03 <dajobe> goal is to help pubs deal with customers to do better search, personalisation, aleters, better portals, intranets 17:39:19 <dajobe> ... for print and web. also for internally 17:40:06 <dajobe> Arno Gourdol from adobe enters... 17:40:18 <dajobe> rond: rights management 17:40:43 <dajobe> interested in much simpler problems too 17:41:25 <dajobe> example of vogue syndication of content to france... 17:41:51 <dajobe> ... marking up bits of content using PDF annotations by hand ... 17:42:16 <dajobe> ... contract searches, messy, sucks 17:42:24 <dajobe> interopability of toos to use/create metadata 17:42:27 <dajobe> s/toos/tools/ 17:43:03 <crunch> crunch has joined #rdfcore 17:43:14 <dajobe> other aps for business needs 17:43:30 <dajobe> ... prism spec for marking companies, places, people 17:43:35 <crunch> crunch has left channel 17:43:46 <dajobe> ... stock ticker symbols 17:44:05 <dajobe> ... also can be used by business (ad sales) as well as web site 17:44:41 <dajobe> ... assisting ad sales; additional applications will emerge 17:44:54 <dajobe> prism designed not to reinvent wheel - using xml, rdf, dublin core 17:45:05 <dajobe> recommends iso8601, country couds, industry codes 17:45:20 <dajobe> standard is for interchange 17:45:32 <dajobe> no behaviour specified 17:45:50 <dajobe> ... mona lisa problem: GIF image of mona lisa. Who is creator? 17:46:09 <dajobe> ... leonardo, photographer, scanner, file formatter ... 17:46:15 <dajobe> ... can say any of these 17:46:45 <dajobe> ... so who cares, people can search for leo 17:46:56 <dajobe> .... overview of contents 17:47:15 <dajobe> ... controlled vocabs 17:47:30 <dajobe> ... vendors++ 17:47:41 <dajobe> problems: what is the audience of the rdf spec? 17:48:03 <dajobe> ... not for end users. Intended users are metadata designers 17:48:17 <dajobe> ... who are designing such things as prism and solving things for particiular reasons 17:48:33 <dajobe> ... e.g. doing structured values - how? 17:48:49 <dajobe> problem: difficult to extend if you don't know what is going on 17:49:42 <dajobe> example of editmode 17:49:50 <dajobe> and might have been modelled wrong 17:50:04 <dajobe> END RON 17:50:32 <dajobe> danc: you are using lots of namespaces. Did they have issues with lots of nspaces? 17:50:53 <dajobe> rond: publishers didn't care if it did the job ... 17:50:58 <dajobe> ... tech group were OK with it 17:51:23 <dajobe> danc: prism and newsml? 17:51:38 <dajobe> rond: got along pretty OK 17:51:51 <dajobe> ... taking prism elements so can be used in newsml 17:51:58 <dajobe> emiller: how about prism in rss? 17:52:12 <dajobe> rond: emiller noted this 17:52:33 <dajobe> emiller: oclc robots noting rdf told emiller 17:52:40 <dajobe> ... noted news feeds appearing 17:53:01 <dajobe> ... can syndicate prism with rss easily 17:53:14 <dajobe> ... unexpected and nice pleasure 17:53:19 <dajobe> MIKE DEAN - DAML+OIL 17:54:12 <dajobe> users of daml+OIL 17:54:26 <dajobe> ... fundede researchers under daml program and eu sw program - ontoweb and wonderweb, .... 17:54:28 <DanC_> * DanC_ thinks prism is nifty... should be more visible from W3C RDF pages 17:54:39 <dajobe> prism - yeah 17:55:11 <dajobe> ... lots of volunteers 17:55:22 <dajobe> ... lots of students 17:55:30 <dajobe> biomed community 17:55:50 <dajobe> near term users: other darpa programs, military users 17:56:10 <dajobe> Semantic Web for military 17:56:46 <dajobe> ACTION MikeD: mention public URL 17:57:01 <dajobe> daml+oil apps 17:57:04 <dajobe> lots of tools 17:57:13 <dajobe> lots of specific tools 17:57:40 <dajobe> lifecycle- language, ontologies, back end etc. 17:57:58 <dajobe> (mikeD speaking BTW) 17:58:13 <dajobe> ... rather loose categories 17:58:35 <dajobe> ... kind of worried about front-end empasis, but good to see more back end stuff emerging 17:58:44 <dajobe> ... reasoning 17:58:58 <dajobe> ... lots of groups in project doin reasoning 17:59:37 <dajobe> end-to-end apps 17:59:37 <dajobe> ... see http://www.daml.org/applications/ 17:59:50 <dajobe> ... ittalks 17:59:56 <dajobe> "dog fooding" 18:00:16 <dajobe> web pages generated from DAML, via XSLT 18:00:33 <dajobe> requests from DAML to RDF-Core WG 18:02:32 <dajobe> ... coordination points doc - Frank vH, Peter P-S, .. 18:02:32 <dajobe> bwm: key things? 18:02:32 <dajobe> miked: schema domain & ranges, subclass 18:02:32 <dajobe> ... daml+oil doesn't address reification 18:02:32 <dajobe> ... would liek to use tagging of sources of information (provenance) 18:02:39 <dajobe> ... not quoting 18:02:54 <dajobe> phayes: careful with clumps 18:03:02 <dajobe> mike: individual arcs/statements 18:03:23 <dajobe> phayes: tagging 1 statement, both OK 18:03:35 <dajobe> miked: rest of doc things are user experience things being addressed 18:03:58 <dajobe> frankm: some daml+oil things were done some way that clashes are obvious indicating required changes 18:04:11 <dajobe> ... other places daml+oil way is consisntent since rdf is vague in that place 18:04:32 <dajobe> miked: daml+oil collection parsetype 18:04:38 <dajobe> ... or "closed collection" 18:05:36 <dajobe> phayes: 3 cats;1) rdf problems - didn't care what rdf meant... 18:05:47 <dajobe> 2) did care eg rdf class cycles and thougt rdf wrong 18:05:58 <dajobe> 3) stuff not in rdf, can do ourselves 18:06:08 <dajobe> ... middle one is issue 18:06:19 <dajobe> ... e.g. RDF use of URIs doesn't matter too much to daml 18:06:21 <dajobe> miked: aggreed 18:06:34 <dajobe> phayes: keen to see this 18:06:42 <dajobe> miked: xml schema datatypes for rdf - key 18:06:59 <dajobe> artb: long term plans? 18:07:14 <dajobe> miked: continuing daml work for 2-3 years likely 18:07:26 <dajobe> gklyne: xml schema datatypes? 18:07:41 <dajobe> miked: e.g. value of property is a float 18:07:54 <dajobe> gklyne: something like this in CC/PP 18:08:08 <dajobe> rdaniel: apps you are trying to address? 18:08:46 <dajobe> miked: some portal apps, int community, search, structured data 18:08:59 <dajobe> ... not stressing agent aspects 18:09:48 <AaronSw> http://www.daml.org/2001/02/rdfcore-f2f/ 18:09:52 <dajobe> ARNOT: RDF 18:10:01 <dajobe> RDF in ADobe 18:10:06 <dajobe> (wearing RDF t-shirt) 18:10:11 <AaronSw> Hmm, that URL 404s... 18:10:26 <dajobe> ... customers as they need more pdfs and files ... 18:10:37 <dajobe> ... want to have better searching 18:10:38 <DanC_> pdfs and files.... "assets" in their lingo. 18:11:05 <dajobe> ... want richer associated metadata (although tey might not put it that way) 18:11:31 <dajobe> ... get metadata available in workflow 18:11:44 <dajobe> ... codename product ZAP - targeting for seybold 18:12:13 <danbri-f2f> s/ZAP/XAP/ i think 18:12:39 <dajobe> ... make the metadata associated with the asset 18:12:52 <dajobe> ... joining them together 18:12:57 <dajobe> ... file format neutral 18:13:10 <dajobe> ... some are pdf, other such as jpg, gif 18:13:25 <dajobe> ... might be others e.g. quark, other products 18:13:31 <dajobe> s/other/other companies/ 18:13:50 <dajobe> ... xml packets which can identify xml inside a binary stream 18:13:59 <dajobe> ... scanned and extracted that can be used 18:14:39 <dajobe> ... rdf, several schemas - 1) Dublin Core 2) PDF 3) graphic files 4) ... 18:14:46 <dajobe> ... want to be neutral on schemas also 18:15:09 <dajobe> ... pdf schema uses author mapped to dc:creator 18:15:29 <dajobe> ... so if you know DC, you will get answers if you don't know the pdf schema 18:15:44 <dajobe> ... using existing open standards 18:15:54 <dajobe> ... public (or is that public-er?) at seybold 18:16:00 <DanC_> * DanC_ thinks this is cool! subPropertyOf in actions! 18:16:02 <dajobe> ... howto do xml-packet 18:16:17 <dajobe> ... tools 18:16:44 <dajobe> ... kindof already shipped in one form 18:16:50 <dajobe> ... has been shipping with acrobat 5 18:17:00 <dajobe> ... acrobat5 files today already have rdf 18:17:08 <dajobe> ... moving forward to other apps 18:17:22 <dajobe> ... e.g. illustrator 18:18:08 <barstow> XAP: http://www.gca.org/papers/xmleurope2001/papers/html/sid-03-9b.html 18:18:18 <dajobe> ... Interested in rdf community about application classes 18:18:33 <dajobe> ... and way to describe schemas 18:18:50 <dajobe> ... input into schema description and on-the-fly guis for schema data entry 18:18:58 <dajobe> ... stronger datatypeing 18:19:17 <dajobe> ... additional UI interface - human readable labels 18:19:24 <dajobe> ... (might be just for us) 18:19:37 <dajobe> ... no good solutions yet, working on 18:19:50 <dajobe> ... incremental approach with acrobat5, XAP release, evolving 18:19:54 <DanC_> * DanC_ thinks RDF schema properties for documentation/UI are an interesting thing to persue: a forExample property is something I've made up a few times. 18:20:00 <dajobe> seybold is end of september 18:20:02 <dajobe> END 18:20:40 <dajobe> jos: jdf? 18:20:45 <dajobe> (need refernece) 18:21:05 <dajobe> arnot: once we have rdf, lots of interesting things can happen 18:21:10 <dajobe> ... workflow 18:21:29 <dajobe> bwm: problems 18:21:40 <dajobe> arnot: don't want to have to support reficiation 18:22:14 <danbri-f2f> danbri notes on dublin core: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Aug/0000.html 18:22:21 <dajobe> jdf - job description format 18:22:27 <AaronSw> Dan Brickley's notes on Dublin Core: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Aug/0000.html 18:22:31 <dajobe> DANBRI - DUBLIN CORE 18:23:01 <dajobe> DC since 95, nearly finished 18:23:13 <dajobe> specs going through - DC in XML (actually is RDF) 18:23:16 <DanC_> perhaps relevant to JDF? The Open Source JDF Parser Project http://www.gca.org/papers/xmleurope2001/papers/html/sid-03-4.html 18:23:33 <dajobe> sometimes hurts - xml and rdf tools pull different ways 18:23:41 <dajobe> also doc - dc in rdf model 18:23:56 <dajobe> with community extensions 18:24:01 <dajobe> which have been tricky to do in DC 18:24:04 <dajobe> ... getting there 18:24:26 <dajobe> ... 2 user communities - metadata, more tighthy focussed needs 18:24:52 <dajobe> ... now in DC using more schema stuff rather than fussy XML element stuff 18:25:07 <dajobe> ... want decentralised community extensions - namespaces give this 18:25:15 <dajobe> ... endorsing of certain things for communities 18:25:23 <dajobe> ... xml:lang issue important 18:25:31 <dajobe> ... issue: rdf versus xml - xml schema. 18:25:52 <dajobe> ... dcarch - need xml schema / rdf schema story 18:26:05 <dajobe> ... percieived syntactic uglyless and lack of tools 18:26:11 <dajobe> ... test cases is great for dc 18:27:10 <dajobe> ... containers - names of things, lists of things mixed up and confusing - when to use container machinery or other stuff e.g. createor ordering 18:27:30 <dajobe> ... clearer advice on when to use rdf:Seq etc. 18:27:40 <dajobe> ... like: a common structure to make dist. apps easier 18:27:52 <dajobe> ... e.g. rss1.0 =could just use it, not need to do DTD merging nightmare 18:27:57 <dajobe> ... want something soon 18:28:14 <dajobe> ... DC mostly biblio circles, rdf has gone too much to KR/AI 18:28:23 <dajobe> ... soon, simple and basic for creating dc vocabs 18:28:32 <dajobe> END DANBRI 18:29:00 <dajobe> phayes: entangled in AI means what? 18:29:10 <dajobe> danc: not addressing practical problems maybe? 18:29:15 <dajobe> phayes: not seems to me 18:29:20 <dajobe> emiller: working in the mid point ... 18:29:45 <dajobe> ... e.g. sitemaps, theasauri (from 97) etc. not yet delivered 18:30:01 <dajobe> phayes: not being delivered is clear advice 18:30:19 <dajobe> emiller: DC people just want to use spec. 18:30:27 <dajobe> danbri: want numbners and data datatypes 18:31:36 <dajobe> emiller: and onwards to other things such as dewey numbers 18:31:45 <dajobe> danc: which may not be datatypes by the XML schema spec 18:32:00 <dajobe> emiller: functional requirements and advice 18:32:12 <dajobe> ... where to use xml schema datatypes, where not etc. 18:32:18 <dajobe> ... expect standards group to indicate this 18:32:35 <dajobe> bwm: summing up ... 18:32:57 <dajobe> ... wide spectrum of users - hackers, industrial standard (prism), daml, adobe product, dublin core, ... 18:33:04 <DanC_> * DanC_ noodles on this a bit... perhaps it's time to put the issues list we've got aside and start assigning WG members to put together example/HOW-TO stuff. on dates, collections, provenance, etc. 18:33:09 <dajobe> ... some commonalityu of problems 18:33:28 <dajobe> ... broad spectrum to satisfy rather than just one set of users 18:33:35 <DanC_> * DanC_ noodles... or start offering t-shirts to folks in the IG who write up solutions to these. 18:33:38 <dajobe> gklyne: provenace came out clearly and not reification ... 18:33:49 <dajobe> ... or what has been called it 18:33:57 <dajobe> mike: 4xstatements is not good 18:34:09 <dajobe> gklyne: design of reification in rdf was aiming at wrong target? 18:34:15 <dajobe> rdaniel: bad solution to right problem? 18:34:17 <DanC_> * DanC_ wonders why 4xstatements is so scary 18:34:33 <dajobe> ... round tripping, is-asserted 18:34:39 <dajobe> jang: not sure if it is so bad 18:34:57 <dajobe> ... can be represented without huge explosion of triples 18:35:04 <dajobe> emiller: test cases 18:35:18 <dajobe> BREAK 18:35:28 <DanC_> thru 11:45 18:46:48 <dajobe> dajobe is now known as jang 18:47:17 <jang> recommencing 18:47:39 <jang> pat hayes 18:47:52 <jang> model theory presentation (formal semantics) 18:48:13 <jang> pat's presentatino: URI forthcomin 18:48:43 <jang> AP: get pa's production online (PAT + others) 18:49:25 <danbri-f2f> danbri-f2f has quit 18:49:37 <jang> Te aim: to give a mathematical characterisation of the meaning of expressions in the lnguage 18:50:24 <jang> (I'm only going to record stuff that isn't in the presentation here) 18:52:01 <jang> aside: PH you can do this for anything (eg a model theory for "maps") 18:52:07 <danbri-f2f> danbri-f2f has joined #rdfcore 18:52:19 <jang> [ap: pat can you supply a pointer to this as an interesting example/aside?] 18:54:09 <DanC_> 27Jul draft of MT, from PatH http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0437.html 18:54:45 <jang> PH stresses model theory supplies _just enough_ detail for the interpretation to be useful 18:54:46 <DanC_> my transcription (of a slightly refined theory, after chatting with Pat) to larch http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/RDFCoreMT.lsl 18:55:46 <jang> "Basic model theory for RDF" slide: 18:56:41 <jang> danc: why is IR nonempty? 18:56:55 <jang> ph: for RDF we could omit that condition 18:57:26 <jang> ph: handy for handling universal quantifiers. But pragmatically: will we ever _wnat_ an empty universe? 18:57:41 <jang> aaron: we could have an empty document 18:57:53 <jang> ph: an empty document is true in this MT 18:58:25 <jang> an interpretation can apply to a larger universe than the document it's applied to 18:58:59 <jang> ph: also stresses IR and LV (literal values) could overlap 19:00:16 <jang> ph: don't read too much into the fact the MT calls a particular set LV 19:01:24 <jang> ph: indicates that we might want to have unasserted triples in the future 19:01:43 <jang> AP: whoever puts PH's slides on the web to include the example from the email 19:02:39 <AaronSw> Pat takes the action 19:02:49 <jang> PH: clarifies "subject" and "Object" are shorthand for "subject of the triple" or "subject of the interpretation" etc. depending on context 19:03:53 <GK-f2f> A trivvial example of Pat's model theory is contained in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0437.html 19:04:43 <DanC_> (trivial but very useful for understanding) 19:05:15 <jang> PH: stresses the exsistential quantification for anon nodes in a document 19:06:38 <jang> SP: doesn't see the benefit of anon nodes as done here. 19:07:25 <jang> PH: you're talking about satisfiability. There are other uses of MT, for example: when can we infer X from Y? 19:07:38 <jang> This is entailment (which talks about _all possible_ interpretations) 19:08:09 <jang> SP: still doesn't see there is a complete justification that we _need_ ann nodes 19:08:40 <jang> PH: I've actually included both uses of anon nodes here 19:08:53 <jang> i a "set of triples" an anon nodes are "anonymous uris" 19:09:09 <jang> in a document, we use the existential quantification 19:09:57 <jang> SP: you could have another object, and an interpretation for such a "pumpkin" of triples 19:10:06 <jang> ... that are universally quantified 19:10:29 <jang> PH: you could, but what I've done here is cover what's been debated thus far 19:10:47 <jang> Brian: we're going to have a precise definition of the options, and discuss this this afternoon 19:11:59 <jang> FM: expands on what Pat just said 19:12:45 <jang> Danbri: agrees with sergei, we need concrete examples 19:13:42 <jang> ora lassila example "ora wrote this docuemtn" happens 19:13:47 <jang> (ora just arrived) 19:16:01 <AaronSw> Graham draws an example on the board: 19:16:21 <AaronSw> Vocab (set of things in the universe): Red, Ron, dc:creator 19:16:27 <AaronSw> Pat Hayes comes up to help 19:16:46 <AaronSw> vocab is just symbols, actual thing exists at table 19:16:51 <AaronSw> we'll call them a and b. 19:17:11 <jang> danc proposes the example "ron wrote this book" 19:17:20 <AaronSw> ... no wait, draws a stick person and little book 19:17:36 <AaronSw> and property p 19:17:44 <jang> we attempt to embed ron and the book into the whiteboard (for this interpretation) 19:18:54 <jang> AARON: can you just photograph this once pat's done? 19:19:14 <AaronSw> sure... but i think the explanation will be lost 19:19:19 <AaronSw> IS maps between symbols and thingies 19:19:47 <jang> pat shows the interpretation of the symbols "ron" "dc:creator" and "red" (the book) 19:19:59 <jang> then: 19:20:05 <jang> red dc:creator ron 19:20:10 <jang> is true in this interpretation 19:20:32 <jang> because I(red), I(ron) is in the extension of IP(DC:creator) 19:20:48 <jang> red dc:creator _:somebody 19:21:53 <jang> going back a step.. 19:22:01 <jang> I(red dc:creator ron) = true 19:23:57 <jang> SP: if I does many things, why doesn't it have multiple names? 19:24:04 <jang> danc: I is a polymorphic function 19:24:13 <AaronSw> SP? s/SP/SM/ no? 19:24:23 <jang> yes, sorry 19:24:43 <jang> PH: I is the interpretation we're talking about here 19:25:51 <danbri-f2f> danbri-f2f has quit 19:25:59 <jang> PH: you don't generally include truth values in your universe 19:26:24 <jang> ...because they then come under the scope of quantifiers 19:26:46 <jang> going on with the example.... 19:27:12 <jang> adding _:somebody to the vocab, and mapping it to pat 19:27:25 <jang> then I(red dc:creator _:somebody) = false 19:27:53 <jang> PH: however, if we make a document ou of these things... 19:28:16 <jang> then I( 19:28:23 <jang> red dc:creator ron 19:28:29 <jang> red dc:creator _:somebody 19:28:33 <jang> )= true 19:29:36 <jang> or ratehr i[A] (...) = true for the A that maps _:somebody to ron (that s, ron in the world rather than the symbol "ron" in the vocab) 19:32:32 <jang> talk moves on: 19:33:18 <jang> PH explains why I(p) for a property p doesn't map directly onto the extension of the interpretation of the property 19:33:28 <jang> ... so you can apply a property to itself. 19:34:42 <danbri-f2f> danbri-f2f has joined #rdfcore 19:35:30 <jang> PH talks about the usefulness of the IEXT indirection 19:35:44 <jang> PH also talks about set theories that permit sets to contain themselves 19:35:56 <jang> slideshow carris on: a fe lemmas 19:36:11 <jang> definitions of "satifsfies" and "entails" 19:36:31 <jang> * jang apologises for bouncing ketbroad and trying mistakes 19:37:49 <jang> pat sketches proofs tof the lemmas 19:38:06 <jang> eg. lemma 1 any rdf expression has a satisfying interpretation 19:38:11 <jang> [ after herbrand] 19:39:15 <jang> typing mistake in lemma 3: 19:39:21 <jang> E entails its subsets 19:41:26 <jang> SM: asks for examples for lemmas 3->5 19:42:11 <jang> danc: ron wrote red & red is called "the little red book" 19:42:23 <jang> it's safe to conclude simply "ron wrote red" 19:42:25 <jang> (example due to danc) 19:44:33 <jang> SM: complaint: you can't ever connect anon nodes in one document with another 19:46:58 <jang> SM: doesn't believe in anonymous nodes 19:48:39 <jang> confusion between labels for anon nodes and the nodes 19:51:16 <jang> danc: an anon nodes is identified by the (docent, node label) pair 19:51:26 <jang> SM: what happens when I parse the same document twice? 19:51:38 <jang> (I supose the answer is: each parsing of the ocument is distinct) 19:52:33 <jang> we note there are issues about anon node identity issues 19:54:05 <jang> PH: deliver me a BNF together with a proper categorisation of what's going on, I'll attach a model theory to it 19:54:14 <jang> PH moves on: skolemisation 19:56:45 <jang> next slide: what does it mean to publish some RDF? 19:57:51 <jang> Pat shows that queryng and assertion can both be done with this 19:59:25 <jang> next slide: 19:59:34 <jang> shared content/relative entailment 20:00:00 <jang> (PH talks about the buyer/seller example BmcB gave onthe list) 20:00:45 <jang> (this is such good stuff we carry on into lunchtime!) 20:01:04 <jang> ^^^ not facetious. thank goodness for this (scribe's opinion here) 20:02:32 <jang> PH talks about the "google" interpretati example (bt all the content here is already in the slide) 20:03:24 <jang> next slide: rdfs interpretations 20:03:39 <jang> pat adds a class to the whiteboard example 20:04:12 <jang> and shows about ICEXT: IC -> 2^(IR + LV) 20:04:55 <jang> rest of the slide shows rdfs (without reification and collections) 20:06:04 <jang> pat points out the interpretation of rdfs:Resource here currently means "the resources in the universe of this interpretation" 20:06:34 <jang> PH: possible to do something "larger" but it makes me slihtly nervous 20:07:20 <jang> danc: does everyone who extends RDF have to do model theory? 20:07:33 <ambient> ambient has joined #rdfcore 20:07:38 <jang> PH: yes, really, otherwise they are saying something without telling us what it means 20:08:17 <jang> PH: ... but this isn't hard, or too onerous, once you get used to it. 20:08:36 <jang> PH: interesting question as to how little of this you can get away with and derive everything else 20:09:56 <jang> PH: I'm not telling you what this means: just renderig it into mathematics 20:11:04 <jang> ron: are there tings popping up in this process that you thinkneed fixing? 20:11:10 <jang> PH; yes: domain in particular 20:11:33 <jang> (reiterates the DAML reedback) 20:13:09 <jang> danbri: does this differ majorly from the DAML+OIL work? 20:13:14 <jang> PH: only with the IEXT stuff 20:13:30 <jang> PH: but we could probably trasnscribe DAML+OIL into this without problems 20:13:48 <jang> (unchecked assertion) 20:14:48 <jang> danc: "rdfs:Class is a class" - how can I include that from these? 20:15:00 <jang> PH:oops, that's missing 20:15:58 <jang> SM: the rdfs spec includes an RDF document that gives this to you 20:16:39 <jang> PH: yes, it's still an omission: the idea is that with this, you don't need to refer back to the spec 20:18:17 <jang> PH: classes ar treated intensionally here 20:19:11 <jang> ie, we can have I(c1) = c1', I(c2) = c2' and ICEXT(c1') = ICEXT(c2') with c1'<> c2' 20:19:25 <jang> next slide: reification 20:20:35 <danbri-f2f> aside from http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema : 20:20:36 <jang> next slide: simplifying reification 20:20:49 <danbri-f2f> <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Class"> 20:20:49 <danbri-f2f> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Class</rdfs:label> 20:20:49 <danbri-f2f> <rdfs:label xml:lang="fr">Classe</rdfs:label> 20:20:49 <danbri-f2f> <rdfs:comment>The concept of Class</rdfs:comment> 20:20:49 <danbri-f2f> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Resource"/> 20:20:50 <danbri-f2f> </rdfs:Class> 20:21:09 <danbri-f2f> * danbri-f2f stresses this wasn't from the slides, just cropped up in discussion 20:23:44 <jang> SM: clarification question about "Reifcation of V" slide; why is syntax the domain of REIF? 20:23:59 <jang> why not IR? 20:25:58 <jang> SM: my view is that REIF: IR -> IR 20:27:31 <jang> dan: move this discussion to lunch an report result. 20:28:23 <jang> AP: SM to discuss the eification interpretation alternatives (if any) with PH 20:29:03 <jang> last slide: till to come 20:29:25 <jang> aboutEachPrefix (it's gone; PH: "good") 20:29:52 <jang> DANC: we don't need to worry about relative URIs 20:30:04 <jang> PH: ok, but it intrigues me so I'd like to think about it 20:30:36 <jang> PH: alt is "a weaselly way of extending the syntax" 20:44:44 <tim> tim has joined #rdfcore 20:45:05 <tim> * tim lurking as invited 20:48:48 <danbri-f2f> danbri-f2f has quit 20:49:24 <jang> "good") 20:49:25 <jang> [21:27] <jang> DANC: we don't need to worry about relative URIs 20:49:25 <jang> [21:27] <jang> PH: ok, but it intrigues me so I'd like to think about it 20:49:25 <jang> [21:27] <jang> PH: alt is "a weaselly way of extending the syntax" 20:49:29 <jang> oops! 21:04:55 <danbri-f2f> danbri-f2f has joined #rdfcore 21:05:03 <danbri-f2f> danbri-f2f is now known as danb-scribe 21:05:23 <danb-scribe> brian: following on from model theory discussion... 21:05:42 <danb-scribe> "is this the sort of thing the WG think they want? We have a need for more precision, for specs that build on top... 21:06:07 <danb-scribe> "there may be other options for how we do that. Don't want to just assume the WG buys into use of model theory. So: What do you think? 21:06:22 <danb-scribe> rond: what we use as a tool vs what gets published is an important distinction 21:06:33 <danb-scribe> "my audience would be scared away by the model theory 21:06:35 <danb-scribe> pat: amen 21:06:43 <danb-scribe> "a separate spec perhaps would be better 21:06:47 <danb-scribe> martin, steve: yup 21:07:04 <danb-scribe> pat: yes but... other communities _would_ find this useful in a spec 21:07:22 <danb-scribe> agenda 2pm: Abstract model / issues 21:07:39 <danb-scribe> rond: who is the audience for this spec? there are several, would be poorly served by all in one spec 21:07:43 <danb-scribe> danc + others: amen 21:07:55 <danb-scribe> rond: 1st time around did poor analysis 21:08:00 <danb-scribe> pat: one doc with many appendices? 21:08:04 <danb-scribe> rond: Nope! 21:08:11 <danb-scribe> brian: concern noted; moving on... 21:08:30 <danb-scribe> brian: when you say 'shouldn't be part of the spec, should it be normative' 21:08:38 <danb-scribe> rond: we could have a dtd or a schema or a dtd or... 21:08:46 <danb-scribe> danc: that's same question; spec = normative 21:08:51 <danb-scribe> brian: would you object to it being normative 21:09:04 <danb-scribe> graham + jos: a dtd won't capture what a model theory tells you 21:09:15 <danb-scribe> pat: the model theory renders into math the content of our prose 21:09:41 <jang> jang is now known as dajobe 21:09:47 <danb-scribe> "i'll try this... would make content more accessible to non mathematicians 21:10:04 <danb-scribe> "just a matter of back-translating it. would like somewhat like current m+s minus bugs 21:10:24 <danb-scribe> frank: caution not to overload the term 'specification', there are other things such as illustrative figures that WGs produce 21:10:51 <danb-scribe> "...ron's right that we must consider our audience. we must note that some of these audiences are consumers of the tech, but not of the spec 21:11:02 <danb-scribe> danc: "what does that tell us about how to proceed? 21:11:20 <danb-scribe> frank: "yes, we can consider whether the primary purpose of the doc is specifying with some degree of precision 21:11:35 <danb-scribe> "...ie. what the M+S is versus our intentions about how it'll be used" 21:11:40 <danb-scribe> * danb-scribe not sure captured that point 21:11:55 <danb-scribe> brian: I'm hearing that the model theory is perceived by the WG as a useful tool 21:12:01 <danb-scribe> (many nods, yeps) 21:12:13 <danb-scribe> pat: shouldn't be the case that RDF users are all forced to read the model theory 21:12:25 <danb-scribe> brian: we captured some issues from this morning 21:12:35 <danb-scribe> - parsing the same document twice 21:12:52 <danb-scribe> - question of splitting a doc into two, are the anonymous nodes in the split portions the same? 21:13:06 <danb-scribe> - issue around an alternative interpretation of reification 21:13:25 <danb-scribe> - no syntactic representation of a doc (mentioned during pat's talk), bracketing a lump of ntriple 21:13:32 <danb-scribe> From issue list: 21:13:35 <danb-scribe> - formal sematnics 21:13:38 <danb-scribe> - anon resources 21:13:39 <danb-scribe> - nature of graph 21:13:43 <danb-scribe> - uri substructure 21:13:51 <danb-scribe> - literal as an xml structure 21:14:03 <danb-scribe> brian: "we've got to tackle these in some sort of order. which to take them in? 21:14:24 <danb-scribe> danc: no rush w/ reification 21:14:32 <danb-scribe> emiller: yes, that's not urgent 21:14:53 <danb-scribe> danbri: would like to hear views on literals as xmls 21:15:05 <danb-scribe> emiller: can we use this morning's intros as a guide? 21:15:21 <danb-scribe> ...folks who presented this morning: are the issues here ones you've grappled with 21:15:45 <danb-scribe> danc: does uri substructure bother folk? 21:15:48 <danb-scribe> graham: yes but 21:16:01 <danb-scribe> emiller: literals/xmls crops up a lot for DC 21:16:18 <danb-scribe> brian: anon resources takes up a lot of time on list... perhaps use f2f time to progressthis 21:16:41 <danb-scribe> emiller: w.r.t. rdfs:range/domain, i have sense that we all agree this is a low hanging fruit... we all agree... 21:17:13 <danb-scribe> brian: we have time for that tommorrow; i'd prefer to focus on base model theory 21:17:44 <danb-scribe> graham: without going into detail, could we go for a quick Y/N on whether folk want a syntactic representation of docs 21:17:51 <danb-scribe> summary: 21:18:04 <danb-scribe> literals as xml struct; anon resources; syntactic representation of doc 21:18:19 <danb-scribe> brian: starting with literal as xml struct 21:18:52 <danb-scribe> ron: i felt we came to an acceptable compromise on list... 21:19:40 <danb-scribe> ..."basic result was that these things would be treated as strings, and we'd know they'd had a parsetype as a string. But the first character might be an opening anglebracket. There'd be some extra info that'd let you know it was parseType literal, so you could go off and xml parse it" 21:19:57 <danb-scribe> danc: there are 1000 details to work out, but broadly agree. I'd like to see 100 test cases. 21:20:11 <danb-scribe> dave: for a literal, would be a sequence of characters plus the parseType 21:20:24 <danb-scribe> ron: we have to have namespace info available 21:21:28 <danb-scribe> danbri: RDFS says that we consider literals to be members of rdfs:class-es 21:21:48 <danb-scribe> emiller: people feel they can "just stick html in there" w/ parseType=Literal 21:21:59 <danb-scribe> dave: this is 'mere detail' 21:22:10 <danb-scribe> danc: i don't want a decision w/out test cases 21:22:14 <danb-scribe> dave: we can't do that here and now 21:22:21 <danb-scribe> danc: we certainly can! 21:22:37 <danb-scribe> dave: <sighs>, encoding formats... entities... 21:23:01 <danb-scribe> ron: in addition, flag if wellformed? 21:23:09 <danb-scribe> danc: that's impossible, must be wellformed 21:23:16 <danb-scribe> danbri: could come in via n3 21:23:20 <danb-scribe> danc: don't do that! 21:23:32 <AaronSw> i believe danc said, you can't do that. 21:23:40 <danb-scribe> ??: is it important to reflect in daml parsetype 21:23:45 <danb-scribe> ron: eg use a qname 21:23:51 <danb-scribe> aaron: ack'd. yes. 21:24:04 <danb-scribe> brian: are there any components we're missing? 21:24:12 <danb-scribe> jang: xml carries a base URI 21:24:32 <danb-scribe> danc: to be complete, its all the info you can have about that xml 21:24:34 <danb-scribe> dave: a serialised infoset 21:24:39 <danb-scribe> danb: yeah 21:24:49 <danb-scribe> brian: is this what we want to do (now) 21:24:55 <danb-scribe> dan: ...not sure 21:25:05 <danb-scribe> brian: do we want to take the time and work out at least an initial set of test cases 21:25:17 <danb-scribe> sergey: could you remind me what the motiviation is to be doing this w/ xml literals 21:25:29 <danb-scribe> dan: for example, markup inside rss 21:25:43 <danb-scribe> sergey: why not just write it as CDATA 21:25:53 <danb-scribe> dan: then xml parser misses out xml wellformedness errors 21:25:53 <danb-scribe> sergey: big deal! 21:26:04 <danb-scribe> dan: it _is_ a big deal... these things need to play well 21:26:24 <danb-scribe> mike: this connects strongly to literal value typing too 21:26:51 <danb-scribe> rond: i want to find where we'd gotten to on this issue; next stage would be making test cases (which we needn't do here). put a piton in the cliff face... 21:27:37 <danb-scribe> sergey: this whole issue is closely coupled to assumptions w.r.t. whether this is the one single rdf syntax 21:27:46 <danb-scribe> dan: we have at least to deal with the currnt syntax 21:27:55 <danb-scribe> * danb-scribe misses a few lines trying to participate 21:28:09 <danb-scribe> dan: straightforward way is to say all this is represented w/ triples 21:28:23 <danb-scribe> rond: yeah but that's not what any current M+S 1.0 processors are doing 21:28:29 <ora> ora has joined #rdfcore 21:28:29 <danb-scribe> dan; they're all consistent with that 21:28:46 <danb-scribe> ron: but they're not implementing that. what they're exchanging doesn't incdicate they're doing that 21:29:00 <danb-scribe> ..."current stuff isn't decorated w/ namespaces etc 21:29:16 <danb-scribe> sergey: my experience... A year ago i trashed parseType=literal in parser 21:29:32 <danb-scribe> ron: but I use that in things i'm doing. Often I need multi-parag definitions, need html tags 21:29:53 <danb-scribe> emiller: there are people that complained (about dropping parseType=literals) 21:30:05 <danb-scribe> ron: i use rdffilter, megginsons parser, it tells me these things are xml literals 21:30:21 <danb-scribe> ...you don't get explicit treatment of namespaces in a srtuct, though that info can be gotten 21:30:29 <danb-scribe> sergey: can you get the string itself as a dom object? 21:30:37 <danb-scribe> ron: it's a callback, for literal xml content 21:30:42 <danb-scribe> sergey: so you can get the string 21:30:50 <danb-scribe> ron: one of the args of the callback is a string 21:30:59 <danb-scribe> sergeyt: sounds fair enough to me; if a string then its a literal 21:31:11 <danb-scribe> "a convention that all namespaces must be local in this xml piece... 21:31:38 <danb-scribe> brian: possible solutions... if you're going to put any xml in a parsetype literal it is very minimal. m+s examples break this. 21:31:44 <danb-scribe> danbri: makes instance data verbose 21:31:51 <AaronSw> AaronSw has quit 21:32:05 <danb-scribe> ron; if we're advising implementors 'make sure namespaces are there' is ok. but we still need an ntriples representation of this 21:32:31 <danb-scribe> brian: there's a solution here... 21:32:38 <danb-scribe> danbri: is 'user' hear a parser writer or content creator 21:32:49 <danb-scribe> ron and brian: opposite replies (forget which way) 21:33:30 <danb-scribe> * danb-scribe requests clarification on last point w.r.t. whose view is which 21:33:30 <danb-scribe> brian notes options: 21:33:30 <danb-scribe> - standalone xml 21:33:32 <danb-scribe> - parser adds namespaces 21:33:49 <danb-scribe> - (danc's suggestion of) represent entire infoset as xml 21:33:57 <danb-scribe> dave: some of these are not going to work. 21:34:05 <danb-scribe> ..."there's also xml fragments w3c work 21:34:13 <danb-scribe> ..."which is incmpleete 21:34:26 <danb-scribe> - Aaron 21:34:48 <danb-scribe> * danb-scribe misses detail of dave's point 21:35:03 <danb-scribe> dave: "we'd have to keep adding in new stuff the xml specs invent"(?) 21:35:49 <danb-scribe> brian: byu 'standalone xml' i mean the content creator has to include it 21:35:49 <danb-scribe> dave: but this often can't be included many times in body of xml doc. therefore doesn't work. charsets etc. 21:35:49 <danb-scribe> another option... 21:35:52 <danb-scribe> - a serialised infoset 21:36:49 <danb-scribe> sergey: what's a serialised infoset? 21:36:49 <danb-scribe> dave: an xml file representing the structure of a parsed xml doc 21:36:49 <danb-scribe> dan: sounds like fragments 21:36:49 <danb-scribe> sergey: is this standardised 21:36:55 <danb-scribe> dan: the value of a property doesn't have to be an xml element with only one root... xml frag spec addresses this... how to make it standalone 21:37:07 <danb-scribe> * danb-scribe seeks a uri for fragments spec (cand rec) 21:37:24 <danb-scribe> brian: we have a list of possible options, not really in a position to make much progress? 21:38:37 <danb-scribe> dan: <offers to draw up some examples for discussion> 21:38:38 <danb-scribe> 20 mins (until 3pm) 21:38:38 <danb-scribe> dan: <grabbing example from spec> 21:38:38 <danb-scribe> 7.5 from spec 21:39:07 <danb-scribe> dan on 7.5 example... [[[ 21:39:21 <danb-scribe> (this is the mathmpl example) 21:39:27 <danb-scribe> "anyone want to suggest what this looks like in ntriples? 21:39:35 <danb-scribe> "i'll start writing, see who objects... 21:40:49 <danb-scribe> (danc+emiller edit example on emiller's laptop, @@TODO: grab for permenant record) 21:42:25 <danb-scribe> * danb-scribe doesn't try to re-capture ntriples from the overhead projector 21:43:07 <danb-scribe> dan: this example... <apply><power/> don't within the parsetype/literal have namespaces attached? should they in the ntriple? (folk seeem to agree) 21:44:05 <danb-scribe> (dan adds xmlns stuff scattered throughout; draws analogy with typical output of an xslt transformation) 21:44:20 <danb-scribe> graham: i have a potential objection... if this is signed xml, you'll break the signature 21:44:26 <danb-scribe> dan: is this an objection or not? 21:44:45 <danb-scribe> graham: if it was signed, if you change the content of the literal, you break it 21:45:11 <danb-scribe> dan: there are ways i _can_ change it (eg adding whitespace between attributes) that don't change the canonicalised form 21:45:30 <danb-scribe> (some discussion about whether canonicalisation is mandatory in xml sig @@TODO: ref to spec) 21:46:18 <danb-scribe> dave: this is acceptable to me 21:46:23 <danb-scribe> emiller: i might quibble 21:47:29 <danb-scribe> danbri: where you have 'Literal' i'd like a full uri; we have an opportunity to clarify from the un-uri'd M+S style at this point 21:48:08 <danb-scribe> dan: i don't know how to address graham's objection; don't know how to parse xml through rdf tools keeping it intact... hmm... Actually fragments would do that. 21:48:15 <danb-scribe> dan: should I continue with this exercise? 21:48:35 <danb-scribe> jos: this ntriple notation w/ round brackets 21:48:48 <danb-scribe> dave: some of this not ntriple 21:48:58 <danb-scribe> dan: i'm trying to demonstrate how ugly this is! 21:49:05 <danb-scribe> dave: i see entities all the time in RSS 21:49:20 <danb-scribe> dan: are they declared (or are we seeing a lot of broken xml in that regard) 21:49:39 <danb-scribe> example: ampersand... 21:49:46 <danb-scribe> rael: apostrophe, quote 21:49:56 <danb-scribe> dave: is common 21:50:21 <danb-scribe> dan: apostrophe, quote are builtins for xml, wouldn't expect probs there. For it needs to be declared 21:50:45 <danb-scribe> jos: i'm thinking about an expression usign interpretation propeerites... 21:51:15 <danb-scribe> dan: (not replying to jos' point, i tihnk) i'd expect to end up with   etc in the ntriple 21:51:37 <danb-scribe> emiller: we've had some people say these are ok... anything we can do to win over others to this approach? 21:51:51 <danb-scribe> dan: i think xml fragments will make these probs go away... 21:51:58 <barstow> XML fragment spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-fragment 21:52:13 <danb-scribe> "...if you have a piece of what they call 'well balanced xml', ie xml minuse root element, and want to ship it around... 21:52:29 <danb-scribe> "it is basically a dummy root element whose sole purpose is to provide a single root for multiple sub-docs 21:52:34 <danb-scribe> (noises of approval) 21:52:44 <danb-scribe> dave: didn't realise its a CR, thought was less mature 21:53:38 <danb-scribe> dan: its (been) in the 'nice idea, why do people care' category 21:53:38 <danb-scribe> dave; i wonder if theres an impact on apps 21:53:38 <danb-scribe> dan: almost cdertainly 21:53:39 <danb-scribe> sergey: we noted earlier its important to take advantage of the xml parser (ie the CDATA comment above) 21:54:03 <danb-scribe> "...so this isn't really enough. I think that it would be helpful in a specific implementation.... if we could say 'i know this is a special kind of literal so give me a specific implementation', eg. getObject() returning a DOM tree or something 21:54:17 <danb-scribe> "...otherwise it doesn't make much sense, if we get back an xml string all the time 21:54:33 <danb-scribe> dan: yeah... the way we're looking at this through ntriple glasses may not be helping here 21:54:46 <danb-scribe> sergey: seems that this is very much an artifcat of the current XML serialisation 21:54:57 <danb-scribe> dan: for ntriples, another idea is something like... 21:55:35 <danb-scribe> (dan shows an blob of xml quoted in ntriple with *xml1 ....angle brackets... *xml1 escaping) 21:55:47 <danb-scribe> jos: is the triplequote mechanism (from python) useful here? 21:55:56 <danb-scribe> dan: i think as that as more like general string quoting 21:56:06 <danb-scribe> ..."or maybe ntriple docs have somethnig like an XML appendix" 21:56:15 <danb-scribe> brian: I'm not sure this is going anywhere fast. 21:56:32 <danb-scribe> ..."theres a spec out there, fragments, that I at least don't feel sufficiently familiar with. 21:56:51 <danb-scribe> "suggest we hold discussion for now. Action Connolly to investigate Fragments approach 21:57:01 <danb-scribe> dan: except i don't like that, i prefer doing it all with triples 21:57:15 <danb-scribe> graham: (...) say we're doing this from N3 (or another syntax)... 21:57:30 <danb-scribe> emiller: we have, for better or worse, based this stuff around our main XML serialisation 21:57:44 <danb-scribe> dan: the reason N3 is there is to allow us to ask conformance questions 21:57:55 <danb-scribe> ...how do we ask conformance questions about this current example? 21:58:27 <danb-scribe> Pat: indep of N3, graham's point about incorporating 'all of xml' into RDF... DAML folk would likely share this concern. Too much to take on board 21:58:51 <danb-scribe> dan: that's why simply saying 'use triples; there are uris for xml stuff' 21:59:06 <danb-scribe> dan: anyone want to look into using fragments? 21:59:26 <danb-scribe> sergey: pls write down another proposal in list above: deprecate and use CDATA 21:59:43 <danb-scribe> dave: i commented on 1st one. add namespaces proposal also incomplete 22:00:04 <danb-scribe> brian: nobody is willing to look into applicability of fragments 22:00:16 <danb-scribe> dan: does anyone even think its a good idea? 22:00:33 <danb-scribe> brian: we're at an impass here; we'll come back to it. 22:00:50 <danb-scribe> --- 22:00:52 <danb-scribe> next issue: 22:01:00 <danb-scribe> Syntactic Representation of the document. 22:01:18 <danb-scribe> dan: i thought he chose ntriple-doc, what's the issue? 22:01:29 <danb-scribe> dave: he wanted to model multiple docs in an ntriple style 22:01:44 <danb-scribe> dan: but that doesn't mean we need two docs in one ntriple doc 22:01:59 <danb-scribe> pat: when i did the model theory i overloaded the term 'document' in a new way 22:02:06 <danb-scribe> ..."feel free to un-overload that" 22:02:43 <danb-scribe> brian: (sans chair hat) I propose we add a bracketing syntax 22:02:44 <danb-scribe> dan: No! you can't put that back into an rdf doc 22:03:01 <danb-scribe> pat: answer is, yes you can: you choose how to do it. you can decide its meaningless in rdf (a decision w.r.t. anon nodes) 22:03:16 <danb-scribe> graham: its decided, an rdf document begins rdf:RDF etc 22:03:25 <danb-scribe> dan: but you can't have two of those in one doc 22:04:28 <danb-scribe> pat: you can put documents in document 22:04:29 <danb-scribe> danbri; you can put rdf:rdf in head and in body of an xhtml doc 22:06:06 <danb-scribe> pat: my u/standing is that with RDF, certtainly ntriples, theres a notion of a document... and that a document cannot contain another document. 22:06:12 <danb-scribe> brian: what you needed for model theory was a scoping for quantifiers 22:06:12 <danb-scribe> brian: i'm proposing add bracketing into ntriple syntax 22:06:12 <danb-scribe> pat: there's no syntactic mark in ntriple forgrouping 22:06:12 <danb-scribe> dan: this would harm, the existing syntax would be expensive; we have a body of code for ntriple... 22:06:12 <danb-scribe> "not a huge deal but a pain. if what you've done works, lets move on." 22:06:12 <danb-scribe> dan: its fundamental that an rdf doc has exactly one scope 22:06:20 <danb-scribe> pat: what's missing there's no syntax for 'set of triples' as opposed to document 22:06:24 <danb-scribe> dan: and we don't need one 22:06:37 <danb-scribe> frank: where/what's the synyax for an rdf document? rdf:RDF etc? 22:06:54 <danb-scribe> dan: you/we intuit that from spec, in fact not really clear 22:07:11 <danb-scribe> graham: section 6 of M+S explains this usage 22:07:22 <danb-scribe> dan: but does it exactly say 'this is syntax for An RDF Document' 22:07:30 <danb-scribe> dave: since its optional 22:07:53 <danb-scribe> dan: Where does it say its optional? 22:08:01 <danb-scribe> danbri: its in there; p3p wanted it... 22:08:21 <danb-scribe> sergey: i'm unsure what the scope of ntriple is... first i thought it was a convention for exchanging in email.. 22:08:32 <danb-scribe> "then it turned out to be machine-readable..." 22:09:00 <danb-scribe> "i think these are 2 distinct issues. The expectations are different. For one you want a complex syntax; for the other you don't necc want such precision... 22:09:46 <danb-scribe> "the human readable way... different variants, with square/angle/whatever brackets, we generally can read it. But for machine exchange, there are bunch of simple requirements for syntactic exchange. It should embeddable in a doc, streamable, quickly hackable in perl. 22:09:57 <danb-scribe> "but nobody will ever try to encode this in email as too verbose 22:10:05 <tim> tim has quit 22:10:11 <danb-scribe> dan: theres an existence proof that this is false; there are many cases where we've done justr that 22:10:18 <danb-scribe> sergey: this is a problem, we shouldn't be doing that 22:10:27 <danb-scribe> dan: puropse of ntriples is for conformance testing 22:10:42 <danb-scribe> sergey: there's a tradoff between these two roles, they pull in diffent directions 22:10:56 <danb-scribe> sergey: would prefer to use different for humans and machines 22:11:31 <danb-scribe> ...it doesn't make sense to use ... 22:11:52 <danb-scribe> dan: its for conformance testing 22:12:25 <danb-scribe> danbri: our ambitions for ntriple grew; intially it was for 'how many triples come out' then 'lossless represeentation of the data', now 'very very lossless ;-)'.... 22:12:48 <danb-scribe> frank: we're using 'scope' in two ways here; (ntriple scope creep versus scope of document production and model theory) 22:13:22 <danb-scribe> frank: (...) ntriple has clarified a lot of stuff which the rdf reprsentation has made less clear 22:13:42 <danb-scribe> ..."but they don't clarify much w.r.t. notion of a document 22:13:45 <danb-scribe> pat: agree 22:14:01 <danb-scribe> brian: Pat this morning gave us a model theory based on "here's the ntriple, here's what it means" 22:14:23 <danb-scribe> .."as he did this, he said: i have trouple finding a hook to represent notion of a statement block 22:14:33 <danb-scribe> "do we want characters added into ntriple for this 22:15:15 <danb-scribe> frank: extend this, do we want to put something into all our notatoins to do this? 22:15:15 <danb-scribe> ..."ie we want it in all the notations 22:15:31 <danb-scribe> dan: so, certainly we want this in future RDF syntaxes. But i don't propose to put it in 1.0 syntax, and hence not into ntriple 22:15:47 <danb-scribe> graham: i'd argue this is in there really, ie the wrapper element from rdf's bnf 22:15:57 <danb-scribe> dan: if there's only one it doesn't really matter 22:16:25 <danb-scribe> pat: there's a real issue: Whether RDF in whatever form... can be broken up into collections of isolated triples, and then put back together again. 22:16:35 <danb-scribe> "can one put in sets of triples and have them retain their meaning 22:16:50 <danb-scribe> "in order to maintain the distinction that i relied on in the model theory, you'd need to ... 22:16:58 <danb-scribe> * danb-scribe misses detail 22:17:16 <danb-scribe> dan: example... 22:17:49 <dajobe> pat said: could replace the two things with one. i.e. from 1) set of triples and 2) document -> one concept, pick one 22:17:50 <danb-scribe> "ron wrote something. then you write another doc, which says 'something wrote moby dick'... (@@TODO; get detail) 22:17:54 <danb-scribe> thanks. 22:18:30 <danb-scribe> pat: could say, "a doc isn't a marked entity, but a set of triples plus assumption that its anon nodes are distinct from those of other triplesets" and then take care when merging. 22:18:37 <danb-scribe> pat: if two sets don't contain the same anon nodes... 22:19:40 <GK-f2f> I have made some comments about this at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0397.html 22:19:41 <danb-scribe> ...its only when you get the same anon node in diff docs you get a problem 22:19:41 <danb-scribe> dan: you asked about splitting and remerging in api terms... does this answer it for you? (to sergey) 22:19:41 <danb-scribe> mike: we're adding a lot of hair here to just qualify anon nodes 22:19:41 <danb-scribe> ...all implementations i see qualify wr..t. uri of source doc 22:20:16 <danb-scribe> (danc comment missed) 22:20:16 <danb-scribe> pat: if we tweak the ntriple syntax on this we can leave the ntriples alone 22:20:16 <danb-scribe> dan: my udnersanding is that ntriple rperesentss the rdf/xml syntax, and we can't redo that 22:20:35 <danb-scribe> pat: assumption that...you can't have two diff docs w/ same anon node (for all conceivable syntaxes) 22:20:41 <danb-scribe> danbri: i think we need that 22:21:12 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f but we already it that not all RDF "models" can be represented in the XML syntax 22:21:12 <danb-scribe> sergey: that's bad... violates assumption that anyone can say anything about anything 22:21:16 <danb-scribe> pat: you can't use my anonymous-name for it 22:21:32 <danb-scribe> dan: there are cases where you can say something about something described in a doc 22:21:38 <danb-scribe> ...but you can still talk about them 22:21:58 <danb-scribe> sergey: if you're referring to the same thing... 22:22:09 <danb-scribe> dan: in the general case, maybe not a way to get a handle on it 22:22:33 <barstow> danbri: the phrase annon node is a mis-nomer, it should be "unknown" 22:22:41 <danb-scribe> danbri: the term anonymous node does us no favours 22:22:56 <ora> ora has quit 22:23:02 <ora> ora has joined #rdfcore 22:23:33 <barstow> * barstow thinks N-Triples does what Mike is asking for 22:23:33 <danb-scribe> mike: you can refer to a node in another doc... my suggestion is that we make a standard syntax for naming anon nodes, even if don't define that you get the same name in same context 22:23:33 <danb-scribe> pat: yes 22:23:56 <danb-scribe> mike: two parsers would output different generated names, but in a common style/syntax 22:24:00 <ora> ora has left channel 22:24:16 <danb-scribe> frank: important to have a more thorough treatment of scoping issues...(?) 22:24:22 <danb-scribe> pat: don't worry, not a trick, sanctioned by almost any variety of model theory 22:24:38 <danb-scribe> frank: for dealing with this... concern is whether this covers other issuesw.r.t. scoping problem 22:25:06 <danb-scribe> pat: the only qualification i'd make: you'd have to make your anon nodes public 22:25:26 <danb-scribe> dan: i disagree. someone could come back and prove it false 22:25:32 <danb-scribe> pat: but they can't bind to your variables 22:25:40 <danb-scribe> jos: they're identified by their content (?) 22:25:54 <danb-scribe> pat: the content picked out by eg '?x' 22:26:17 <danb-scribe> ... 22:26:32 <danb-scribe> pat: there'd be no way to refer to them 22:26:41 <danb-scribe> ..."we need to be clear on this 22:27:03 <danb-scribe> emiller: why do we need to be clear on this? at a certain level, we want to try to enable fact of making simple things simple, comlex things possible... 22:27:23 <danb-scribe> "if we can agreee on name of node, good; if not, we need some additional things handy 22:27:48 <danb-scribe> pat: this isn't hard; we just need to decide which of the story parts to through away 22:27:57 <danb-scribe> pat: if rdf just amounts to sets of triples 22:28:26 <danb-scribe> ...you could get acccidental collisions 22:28:46 <danb-scribe> danbri: can't we just use uuids and move on? 22:28:56 <danb-scribe> pat: but then you can't use RDF docs in "query mode" 22:29:05 <danb-scribe> danbri: fine by me, i use another language for that 22:29:19 <danb-scribe> pat: two files in assertion mode can be merged 22:29:40 <danb-scribe> ..."query mode: someone publishes a question, someone publsihes some statements; a service notices that one matches the other 22:30:14 <danb-scribe> danb-scribe has quit 22:30:14 <ambient> ambient has quit 22:30:14 <dajobe> dajobe has quit 22:31:33 <dajobe> dajobe has joined #rdfcore 22:31:33 <ambient> ambient has joined #rdfcore 22:31:33 <danb-scribe> danb-scribe has joined #rdfcore 22:31:38 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f test 22:35:10 <db> db has joined #rdfcore 22:36:30 <danb-scribe> danb-scribe has quit 22:36:30 <ambient> ambient has quit 22:36:30 <dajobe> dajobe has quit 22:37:56 <dajobe> dajobe has joined #rdfcore 22:37:56 <danb-scribe> danb-scribe has joined #rdfcore 22:38:09 <db> db has quit 22:39:08 <Seth> Seth has quit 22:39:08 <barstow> barstow has quit 22:39:08 <GK-f2f> GK-f2f has quit 22:39:28 <GK-f2f> GK-f2f has joined #rdfcore 22:39:28 <barstow> barstow has joined #rdfcore 22:39:28 <Seth> Seth has joined #rdfcore 22:47:17 <Seth> Seth has quit 22:47:17 <barstow> barstow has quit 22:47:17 <GK-f2f> GK-f2f has quit 22:47:37 <GK-f2f> GK-f2f has joined #rdfcore 22:47:37 <barstow> barstow has joined #rdfcore 22:47:37 <Seth> Seth has joined #rdfcore 22:48:26 <danb-scribe> repeating content from earlier lost due to irc netsplit: 22:48:27 <danb-scribe> [[[ 22:48:28 <danb-scribe> pat: if rdf just amounts to sets of triples 22:48:28 <danb-scribe> <danb-scribe> ...you could get acccidental collisions 22:48:28 <danb-scribe> <danb-scribe> danbri: can't we just use uuids and move on? 22:48:28 <danb-scribe> <danb-scribe> pat: but then you can't use RDF docs in "query mode" 22:48:29 <danb-scribe> <danb-scribe> danbri: fine by me, i use another language for that 22:48:31 <danb-scribe> <danb-scribe> pat: two files in assertion mode can be merged 22:48:33 <danb-scribe> <danb-scribe> ..."query mode: someone publishes a question, someone publsihes some statements; a service notices that one matches the other 22:48:36 <danb-scribe> <danb-scribe> 22:48:38 <danb-scribe> ]] 22:48:40 <danb-scribe> --- 22:48:42 <danb-scribe> coffee break 22:48:44 <danb-scribe> ---- 22:53:50 <Seth> Seth has quit 22:53:50 <barstow> barstow has quit 22:53:50 <GK-f2f> GK-f2f has quit 22:53:51 <GK-f2f> GK-f2f has joined #rdfcore 22:53:51 <barstow> barstow has joined #rdfcore 22:54:05 <danb-scribe> danb-scribe is now known as danb-notscribe 22:54:32 <ora> ora has joined #rdfcore 22:55:38 <dajobe> meeting continues 22:55:38 <dajobe> bwm: reagendaing 22:55:48 <danb-notscribe> danb-notscribe is now known as danbri 22:56:22 <dajobe> bwm: have 2 questions 22:57:09 <dajobe> 1) if I get some rdf/xml which has <rdf:Description/> can I tell that apart from <rdf:Description rdf:about="someuri"/> ? 22:57:27 <dajobe> ... difference between nodes with URis and without 22:58:11 <dajobe> frankm: do generated identifiers have a disting. representation? 22:58:24 <dajobe> bwm: cannot use words anonymous resource, just don't know their name 22:58:41 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f For anon nodes, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0397.html 22:58:51 <dajobe> 2) If I can tell these things apart, in the model theory does does it become a variable with an extensistential 22:58:57 <DanC_> re cannot use words anonymous nodes: we should put that in the errata right away. 22:58:59 <dajobe> path: if so, where is the ext.# 22:59:08 <dajobe> bwm: is this a resonable way forward 22:59:10 <dajobe> general agreement 23:00:09 <dajobe> Q: are there going to be anon nodes at all? 23:00:24 <dajobe> If no, zap _:names else .. 23:00:31 <dajobe> straw poll 23:00:54 <dajobe> taking poll... 23:01:09 <dajobe> most people say yes 23:01:20 <dajobe> ask people who say no, ask why 23:01:33 <dajobe> path: because they serve no purpose, if asserting rdf, conceptual confusion 23:01:43 <dajobe> ... if not then it is rdf++ 23:02:00 <dajobe> path: they are not needed for assertions, hence not needed 23:02:16 <dajobe> sergey: agrees, also wants: demonstrate they are needed 23:02:16 <ora> ora has left channel 23:02:32 <dajobe> ... suggestion to make table with two approaches and criteria 23:02:50 <dajobe> bwm: reasons for why they aren't in the model, got 1 (not useful) 23:02:55 <dajobe> ... what are their use? 23:03:12 <dajobe> gk: easier and more compact and dependable than generating unique IDs 23:03:22 <dajobe> ... alternative is to generate unique IDs 23:03:28 <dajobe> sergey: for what purpose,use case 23:03:54 <dajobe> danc: for what purpose? 23:04:01 <dajobe> gk: in order to create n-triples 23:04:18 <dajobe> ... rdf/xml permits description of resources that have no name 23:04:36 <dajobe> ... parser has to generate names, it is easier to generate names that are not globally unique 23:05:01 <dajobe> miked: 2 uses that may be different - 1) variable, an objet that has this property 2) just want to generate some structure, don't care about name 23:05:19 <dajobe> bwm: lazyness argument? 23:05:22 <dajobe> +ericm 23:05:47 <dajobe> bwm: daml:collection having parsed in, cannot be n-triple written because anon has been lost 23:06:07 <dajobe> path: don't follow, explain more 23:07:05 <dajobe> bwm: if you read in rdf with daml:collection and a load of anon nodes and you assign uris for them in the model, and later you want to write it out, the 23:07:12 <dajobe> ...(looses it) 23:07:27 <dajobe> gk: make distinguisable and globally unique? 23:07:31 <dajobe> bwm: can yo tell them apart? 23:08:05 <dajobe> danbri: why we want them. If I make an assertion, critical part is which names I used and which are machine generated - information loss if we can't keep that clear. 23:08:09 <dajobe> bwm: information loss 23:08:41 <dajobe> path: argument and need yes but is not anon nodes, is to do with tracking rather than anonymity. anon nodes is a hack 23:09:35 <dajobe> fmanola: not needed for assertions - clarify. wasn't about replacing existentially quant variables with skolemisation, ... 23:10:19 <dajobe> ... are we intro alternative semantics in q 23:10:30 <dajobe> ... do generated identifiers have a distinguished represetnation? 23:10:37 <dajobe> (rather than anon characteristic) 23:10:58 <dajobe> bwm: summarises 23:11:55 <dajobe> path: new topics about anon nodes, used for a number of things 23:12:01 <dajobe> ... only considering them as part of assertions 23:12:12 <dajobe> danbri: was using assertions 23:12:39 <dajobe> path: serve no utility 23:12:47 <dajobe> fmanola: want to change vote 23:13:10 <dajobe> ... was thinking about generated identifiers rather than anon nodes 23:13:17 <dajobe> ... want to tell skolem identifers from URIs 23:13:22 <dajobe> danc: don't understand? 23:13:43 <dajobe> bwm: two categories of names? 23:13:57 <dajobe> path: two recognisable subsets of URIs? danc: says no 23:14:53 <dajobe> danbri: two categories of names - URIs we all know, ones we locally use in software (capturing this?) 23:14:57 <dajobe> ... species of name 23:15:07 <dajobe> path: if species of name - yes 23:16:04 <dajobe> sergey: syntax stuff. If we have a MT, do these things have special represetnations 23:16:30 <dajobe> danbri: yes we have two distinguished species of names and track them 23:16:38 <dajobe> just asking can we tell the names apart? 23:17:07 <dajobe> bwm: restating questions recorded above 23:18:30 <dajobe> AGREED: answer to 1) YES with 2 abstentions 23:18:37 <dajobe> bwm: on toq2 23:19:12 <DanC_> re recognizable subsets of URIs: cf "The Opacity Axiom" in "Universal Resources Identifiers -- Axioms of Web Architecture" 23:19:18 <DanC_> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque 23:19:20 <dajobe> sergey: from the MT, not the syntax, there are special roles for anon nodes ... 23:19:23 <dajobe> ... we don't need this 23:19:53 <dajobe> bwm: q is - are these distinguished nodes? 23:20:02 <dajobe> ... from the nodes that are identified from the URIs 23:20:33 <dajobe> are the distinguished nodes that come from the description elements with/without the about treated differentely from the nodes... 23:20:55 <dajobe> ... that are identified by a URI in the MT 23:21:36 <dajobe> straw poll: yes, no, abstain mostly equal 23:21:52 <dajobe> gk: brings up resource/uri question... 23:22:22 <dajobe> mike: preference for no difference, no compelling reason 23:22:30 <dajobe> bwm: for those people see a diff, why? 23:22:38 <dajobe> danc: example.. 23:23:10 <dajobe> ... rdf/xml with description, two properties and no about or URI ... 23:23:32 <dajobe> ... "there exists something with properties ... of it etc." 23:23:47 <dajobe> ... seems like a there exists 23:23:58 <dajobe> path: not that simple, 23:24:20 <dajobe> ... involves introducing a document 23:24:32 <dajobe> path: doc is not a set of triples? 23:24:43 <dajobe> bwm: reads as there exists, what for? 23:24:53 <dajobe> danc: use case as above 23:25:13 <dajobe> ... real life 23:25:33 <dajobe> ... there exists is what I'm using it for inside W3C 23:26:25 <dajobe> frankm: considering two inconsistent ideas 23:26:41 <dajobe> ... idea is making generated identifiers behave like URIs 23:27:18 <dajobe> ... if this is the case (i.e. be URIs) then whatever generates them is committing to making them have URI behaviour 23:27:25 <dajobe> ... which may not turn out to be a good thing 23:27:28 <dajobe> bwm: yes 23:27:55 <dajobe> danbri: try to prise apart ; happy with there exists, not convinced it has to be different with/without 23:28:25 <dajobe> danbri: agreed want to preserve whether a uri was supplied or not 23:28:38 <dajobe> ... q1: if existential was supplied or not 23:28:43 <dajobe> ... q2: if it had a URI 23:28:47 <dajobe> general confusion (!) 23:29:42 <dajobe> path: distinction between there exists, and there exists with a genid 23:29:48 <dajobe> i.e. an actual name 23:30:17 <dajobe> bwm: danc would be unhappy if a system assigned a name to an unnamed description? 23:30:36 <dajobe> danc: object to saying my document entails their document 23:30:43 <dajobe> bwm: drilling down 23:31:06 <dajobe> ... machine generated, distinguishable name, can be differentiated from your name? 23:31:14 <dajobe> ... or maybe not 23:31:28 <dajobe> * dajobe looses it again 23:31:43 <dajobe> path: refering to at-present off-line examples 23:32:13 <dajobe> ... if in publishing the existential name, do you supply a name or refuse to do it? 23:32:21 <dajobe> danc: no; q is did rdf 1.0 do it? 23:32:29 <dajobe> phayes: vague 23:32:30 <dajobe> danc: no 23:32:55 <dajobe> bwm: examples where it makes a difference 23:33:25 <dajobe> jang: if we use skolemisation and we are still using existential assertions, same amout of work from genids 23:33:34 <dajobe> ... not requiring genids is cleaner 23:34:03 <dajobe> ... have to do the same kind of thing 23:34:11 <dajobe> danc: make this closer to what Impls. have to do 23:34:25 <dajobe> phayes: have to make MT match what impl. do 23:34:44 <dajobe> fmanola: I got get rdf and ge agenerated id for the person 23:35:10 <dajobe> ... is it expected that tomorrow I when I have addition info about genid:foo, can I say more? 23:35:15 <dajobe> danc: no, not in general case 23:35:34 <dajobe> ... since systems can decide not to keep that around 23:35:52 <dajobe> fmanola: from URIs, we understand that genid:foo is not a URI 23:36:10 <dajobe> ... an argument from telling them apart, since we must be able to tell them apart and can use later 23:36:39 <dajobe> ... very important for issue 23:36:49 <dajobe> bwm: examples please where difference matters? 23:37:07 <dajobe> ... this is one - I have something with a name, can I go back later and get more/say more or pass on? 23:37:12 <dajobe> ... that is a difference 23:37:23 <dajobe> sergey: where is the difference? 23:38:05 <dajobe> danc: looking at examples again, get a non-URI genid for unnamed node 23:38:26 <dajobe> ... doesn't want that 23:38:54 <dajobe> ... published rdf/xml with no genid so don't want it invented 23:39:15 <dajobe> phayes: cannot have anon nodes and make description with no id, illegal 23:39:34 <dajobe> danc: graph may differ from xml 23:40:32 <dajobe> fmanola: whatever I get back from source whether its a node without URI, it is still something I can point to ... 23:41:09 <barstow> * barstow thinks that Ora created this mess and thus he'd like to hear his position :-) 23:41:54 <DanC_> * DanC_ is having trouble following 23:41:58 <dajobe> ... if it is making a commitment that it is a URI, that is one thing, otherwise if a non-URI with commitments, we need to enumerate this commitment 23:42:06 <dajobe> s/this/these/ 23:42:29 <dajobe> bwm: if I send you some rdf with a node that I want to refer again, it must have a name that I send you ... 23:42:38 <dajobe> ... what if I don't give a URI, why would I want to do that? 23:42:51 <dajobe> ... that I can never refer to it again 23:43:25 <dajobe> jos: test cases I have are mostly assertions with nesting ... 23:43:34 <dajobe> ... small bit is non-assertional and I don't want to loose that 23:43:38 <dajobe> ... use case is query i.e. 23:43:41 <DanC_> 1741 uses cases, Jos said. 23:43:50 <DanC_> er... 1741 test cases. 23:44:12 <dajobe> jos: same thing could be asserted and used as aquery ... 23:44:31 <dajobe> ... rdf should not commit to one only 23:44:44 <dajobe> bwm: when youare using anon disting nodes for assertions, does it make a difference? 23:45:06 <DanC_> * DanC_ is interested in the query (non-assertional) case too, but doesn't expect to convince the WG that it's part of RDF 1.0 23:45:08 <dajobe> jos: I am using internal Java null for subjects 23:45:57 <dajobe> phayes: take care between the two cases when language is assertional and for queryies 23:46:13 <dajobe> bwm: is the q that RDF should be able to represent queries and itnerpret queries? 23:46:32 <dajobe> danbri: many cases I don't supply a URI when I don't have one 23:46:46 <dajobe> ... I don't know any URI for that node 23:46:56 <dajobe> phayes: could make one 23:47:04 <dajobe> various comments - is impractical to gen them 23:47:27 <dajobe> fmanola: and keeping around, check for reuse etc. 23:47:40 <dajobe> sergey: they are some abbrev mechanism for rdf/xml typing 23:48:25 <dajobe> ... if you need this mechanism, specify an algorithm for this 23:48:30 <dajobe> ... and everything remains the same 23:49:00 <dajobe> danc: I have use cases that convince me 23:49:23 <dajobe> bwm: can I get a set of use cases we can put to convince people? 23:49:43 <dajobe> jang: people (me) don't have URIs - aesthetic/may be illegal in URIs 23:49:48 <dajobe> s/in URIs/to have URIs/ 23:50:00 <dajobe> danc: use cases W3C ... 23:50:11 <dajobe> ... people connected with tel, home pages, deployed with no 23:50:15 <dajobe> ... uris for people 23:50:27 <dajobe> ... ditto no uris for wgs 23:50:42 <dajobe> ... ditto goals for w3c documents, visualised, joined with no URIs for concepts 23:51:01 <dajobe> bwm: interested in they *had* to have no URIs? 23:51:22 <dajobe> danc: no; I can do what I did in rdf 1.0 23:51:41 <dajobe> ... travel constraints with no URIs for large document merge 23:52:01 <dajobe> ... query use case, not sure I can convince using this evidence? 23:52:18 <dajobe> ... system for mapping rdf -> pics, many examples with no URIs 23:52:25 <dajobe> ... Could I have made URIs? No. 23:52:42 <dajobe> ... If forced? Then the apps wouldn't have happened at all, or so quick. 23:52:45 <dajobe> phayes: if done auto? 23:52:51 <dajobe> danc: not likely 23:53:25 <dajobe> danbri: use case is not having 2000 year old discussions. Question of URis for things is something we shouldn't go down 23:53:33 <dajobe> ... not within the scope of this group 23:54:10 <dajobe> jang: limited this to the assertional case ... 23:54:19 <dajobe> ... which is great, argumetns are taste and deployed apps 23:54:31 <danbri> aside: my uri use case is exemplified in data such as http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jul/0066.html 23:54:47 <danbri> ie not knowing the URI names for many entities i'm describing 23:54:48 <dajobe> jang: phayes is right from assertional point of view 23:54:59 <dajobe> ... but there is more to it than that 23:55:18 <dajobe> gk: I have two cases one with URIs, other with a distinguished identifer form (in N3) 23:55:45 <DanC_> * DanC_ suggests a practial problem with the "phayes is right" i.e. "in the assertional case it doesn't matter" position: keeping the generated URIs from ever being used again is a real, practical problem. 23:55:55 <dajobe> * dajobe nods 23:56:13 <dajobe> (can someone paste URI) 23:56:15 <danbri> * danbri nods too 23:56:17 <danbri> will do 23:56:38 <danbri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Aug/0002.html 23:56:42 <dajobe> gk: in 2nd case, the statements are applied to the same subject are being used in different docs... 23:57:08 <dajobe> ... do we want these statements to be about different subjects 23:57:35 <dajobe> emiller: does anyone think first case is talking about the same thing? 23:57:37 <dajobe> might? 23:57:50 <dajobe> bwm: they might be talking about something different? 23:58:06 <dajobe> phayes: same thing if same string 23:58:18 <dajobe> ... else not, we need a mechanism to make sure this happens 23:58:25 <dajobe> danc: which line of model theory applies? 23:59:13 <dajobe> discussion... 23:59:14 <DanC_> PatH agreed that the question of which model theory line to apply is the question of _:bob in one document denotes something different from _:bob in another. 23:59:22 <dajobe> sergey: in rdf/xm, this is n3/ntriples 23:59:39 <dajobe> fmanola: ambiguity based on particular form of identifier used 23:59:53 <dajobe> ... if source doc ID was there somewhere, would have been unique
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 12:08:45 UTC