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

RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-09-21 Minutes

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 12:10:11 -0500
Message-Id: <200109231713.f8NHDr827525@theinfo.org>
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-09-21 Minutes
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-

Executive Summary (non-normative)

Meet again same time, next week.
Remove restriction against cycles in subClassOf, defining such 
cycles as equivalencies
Publish the Model theory Working Draft (with possible minor 
cosmetic changes)
amp-in-url/error001.rdf is approved with below caveat
amp-in-url/test001.rdf is approved with below caveat

Eric Miller: Try to publish primer table of contents, organize 
telecon fi needed
Dan Connolly: Place rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf test case in 
proper directory
Pat Hayes: Take the subClassOf decision back to DAML Joint Committee.
Frank Manola: Present similar proposal and test case for 
subPropertyOf cycles
Dan Connolly: Act as staff contact for model theory working draft
Jeremy Carroll: Add a comment to explain his amp-in-url/error1 test case
Art Barstow: Add a comment to amp-in-url/test001.rdf to explain 
the test case
Jos de Roo: Write up something to describe these entailment 
tests (with help from Pat)
Jan Grant: Write up proposal for an RDF test case manifest
Art Barstow: Collect the above materials for inclusion the RDF 
Test Cases WD
Bill DeHora: Take proposal to the list next week on parseType QNames
Bill DeHora: Annoy Pat Hayes until there's a Model Theory 
section in the primer

** Roll Call
  - Art Barstow
  - Dave Beckett
  - Jeremy Carroll
  - Dan Connolly
  - Mike Dean
  - Eric Miller
  - Jos de Roo
  - Bill DeHora
  - Jan Grant
  - Pat Hayes
  - Ora Lassila
  - Frank Manola (part time)
  - Sergey Melnik
  - Stephen Petschulat
  - Aaron Swartz (scribe)

Regrets: Dan Brickley, Martyn Horner, Graham Klyne
Absent: Boumphrey, Daniel, Dornfest, Kitahara, Kopchenov, Kwon, 
Nakamura, Richards, Guha

** Next Telecon
DECISION: Meet again same time, next week.

** Review of Completed Actions

All actions were considered completed.

** Progress on Primer Subgroup
EricM explained he spent some time putting together an outline, 
pointing to core documents. He hopes to have people to meet 
together on a telecon. DanC thought it'd be fine if it was 
discussed on the normal RDF Core time. The time Eric proposed 
was Wednesday at 10AM, which did not work for at least one of 
the primer subgroup members (Aaron).

ACTION 2001-09-21#1: Eric Miller / Try to publish a TOC of primer stuff
ACTION 2001-09-21#1: Eric Miller / Organize telecon if needed, 
and all interested parties can participate, if not, ask for 
telecon time

** Issue: rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf

Sergey decided that he was OK with dropping this restriction.

DECISION: To resolve issue rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf by 
deleting the restriction prohibiting cycles of subClassOf 
properties.  The meaning of a cycle of subClassOf properties 
being an assertion that the classes involved have the same 
members.  A more formal specification of the meaning will be 
given in the model theory.

Pat agreed to bring this decision back to the DAML Joint 
Committee. We decided to put off approval of the test case until 
next week when we had a better handle on how to structure the 
test case directories. We decided next week we should look at 
removing the restriction on subPropertyOf when Frank puts 
together a similar proposal together.

ACTION 2001-09-21#3: Dan Connolly / Place 
rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf in proper place in directory 
structure once that place is decided.
ACTION 2001-09-21#4: Pat Hayes / Take the subClassOf decision 
back to DAML Joint Committee.
ACTION 2001-09-21#5: Frank Manola / Present similar proposed 
resolution and test case for subPropertyOf cycles

** Model Theory Working Draft

We discussed that this doesn't change the current set of specs 
any more than decisions the WG has already made, but merely 
formalizes the text of the specs. We also agreed that this does 
not mean we've formally agreed on everything in the draft, 
merely that we feel it is ready to stay on the Web forever, and 
that we're obliged to accept comments on that.

DECISION: Publish the Model theory Working Draft (with possible 
minor cosmetic changes)
ACTION 2001-09-21#6: Dan Connolly / Act as staff contact for 
publication of Model Theory Working Draft

** RDF Schema Status

While DanBri was absent, we noted that he reported by email that 
he planned to have the WD next Wednesday for review. It might be 
too late for us to review it by Friday, but it will go on the 
agenda if it arrives.

** Propose test case 

Jeremy explained that this was an XML error to catch those that 
didn't use established MXL infrastructure. A number of people 
looked at the test case and said it was fine.

ACTION 2001-09-21#7: Jeremy Carroll / Add a comment to explain 
the error in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-
DECISION: Approve 
wg/2001Sep/att-0109/01-error001.rdf with above caveat
ACTION 2001-09-21#8: Art Barstow / Update 
url/test001.rdf to include an explanation of the test case 
(especially for those whose browsers convert &amp; to & for 
DECISION: Approve http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
tests/rdfcore/amp-in-url/test001.rdf with above caveat

** Test cases that don't fit the RDF/XML -> N-Triples paradigm

Jos volunteered to write up a proposal of entailment tests, he 
felt that it was a simple problem. Jan Grant suggested we use an 
RDF manifest (manifest.rdf) of the tests to explain things to 
automated tools.

ACTION 2001-09-21#9: Jos de Roo / Write up something to describe 
these entailment tests (with help from Pat)
ACTION 2001-09-21#10: Jan Grant / Write up proposal for an RDF 
test case manifest
ACTION 2001-09-21#11: Art Barstow / Collect the above materials 
for inclusion the RDF Test Cases WD

** parseType QNames

Bill explained he was writing up another version of his 
proposal, which should be on the list Monday. We should have a 
yes/no vote on Friday. He explained the proposal only affected 
future parseType's. There was some discussion about 
incompatibility with some daml:collection parsers, but we seemed 
to agree this was a minor point. (Note to those who have 
daml:collection parsers, please make your parsers understand 
this as a QName, not a fixed literal.)

ACTION 2001-09-21#11: Bill DeHora / Take proposal to the list 
next week on parseType QNames

** Other discussions

ACTION 2001-09-21#12: Bill DeHora / Annoy Pat Hayes until 
there's a Model Theory section in the primer

** Meeting Closed

IRC Log of meeting follows (from 

13:01:03 <logger_1> logger_1 has joined #rdfcore
13:01:03 <asimov.openprojects.net> Users on #rdfcore: @logger_1
13:01:03 <ChanServ> ChanServ has changed the topic to:
13:01:03 <ChanServ> This channel has been registered with ChanServ.
13:22:32 <jan> jan has joined #rdfcore
13:41:02 <bwm> bwm has joined #rdfcore
13:43:12 <Jema> Jema has joined #rdfcore
13:43:12 <Jema> Hi.  I'm Jema, the Jena meeting assistant
13:43:42 <bwm> -open
13:43:44 <Jema> RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-09-21 is now open
13:43:44 <Jema> The agenda can be found at 
13:43:44 <Jema> Agenda item 1: Allocate scribe
13:44:23 <Jema> Jema has quit
13:51:41 <AaronSw> AaronSw has joined #rdfcore
13:51:43 <AaronSw> * AaronSw waves
13:51:59 <AaronSw> * AaronSw waves
13:57:15 <spetschu-scribe> spetschu-scribe has joined #rdfcore
13:58:18 <spetschu-scribe> spetschu-scribe is now known as spetschu
13:58:29 <spetschu> ... don't want to give anyone ideas ;)
13:58:50 <AaronSw> :-)
13:59:07 <bwm> I's a watchin'
13:59:13 <jan> jan is now known as dajobe
13:59:19 <DanC> DanC has joined #rdfcore
13:59:29 <DanC> hmm... no ops.
13:59:32 <Jema> Jema has joined #rdfcore
13:59:32 <Jema> Hi.  I'm Jema, the Jena meeting assistant
13:59:38 <DanC> Jema, help
13:59:43 <AaronSw> yeah, danbri registered the channel and 
didn't give any of us access.
13:59:44 <dajobe> DanC: remember danbri forgot the password :)
13:59:44 <AaronSw> -help
13:59:46 <Jema> Jema recognises the following commands:
13:59:46 <Jema>   -hi                   // tests whether Jema is alive
13:59:46 <Jema>   -help                 // prints this help message
13:59:46 <Jema>   -open                 // begin the meeting
13:59:46 <Jema>   -close                // close the meeting
13:59:47 <Jema>   -agenda [next|prev|n] // next|prev|nth agenda item
13:59:49 <Jema>   -aob  ...             // add an item of 
another business
13:59:51 <Jema>   -action owner/...     // record an action item
13:59:53 <Jema>   -decision ...         // record a decision
14:00:08 <AaronSw> danbri forgot his password? sheesh
14:00:17 <AaronSw> perhaps we should ask the server ops for help....
14:00:34 <DanC> or pick another channel... say #rdf-core
14:00:53 <DanC> -agenda 1
14:01:44 <AaronSw> * AaronSw dials
14:01:48 <em> em has joined #rdfcore
14:01:50 <AaronSw> Phone: +1 630 536 3003 room #3003
14:01:58 <ArtB> ArtB has joined #rdfcore
14:02:03 <AaronSw> +Aaron
14:02:27 <AaronSw> AaronSw is now known as scribe-Aaron
14:02:32 <DanC> phpht. can't set topic
14:02:36 <scribe-Aaron> ROLL CALL
14:02:41 <scribe-Aaron> danbri, regrets
14:02:45 <scribe-Aaron> eric, absent
14:02:52 <dajobe> art? you in telecon?
14:02:55 <ArtB> +ArtB
14:02:58 <DanC> tentative regrets from me.. not sure which 
telcon to attend.
14:03:02 <scribe-Aaron> artb, present
14:03:11 <scribe-Aaron> +daveb
14:03:16 <scribe-Aaron> -frankb
14:03:17 <Jema> command not recognised
14:03:19 <scribe-Aaron> jeremy, here
14:03:22 <scribe-Aaron> danc, regrets
14:03:24 <DanC> * DanC recommends waiting a bit to call roll... 
it's not possible to join a W3C telcon early, so it's not really 
fair to consider folks late until at least xx:05
14:03:55 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: we'll pick up missing at the end
14:04:03 <scribe-Aaron> rond, absent, bill, jos here
14:04:09 <scribe-Aaron> rael, absent
14:04:16 <scribe-Aaron> jang present; ora present
14:04:19 <mdean> mdean has joined #rdfcore
14:04:24 <scribe-Aaron> martyn, regrets
14:04:25 <mdean> mdean is now known as mdean_
14:04:30 <scribe-Aaron> ykitahara, absent
14:04:32 <scribe-Aaron> gk, regrets
14:04:40 <scribe-Aaron> kopchenov, kwon, absent
14:04:42 <scribe-Aaron> ora, present
14:04:45 <scribe-Aaron> manola, present
14:04:52 <scribe-Aaron> nakamura, absent
14:04:55 <scribe-Aaron> petschulat, present
14:04:58 <scribe-Aaron> pierre, absent
14:05:00 <scribe-Aaron> aaron, scribe
14:05:05 <scribe-Aaron> miked, present
14:05:08 <scribe-Aaron> guha, missing
14:05:13 <scribe-Aaron> pat hayes, missing?!
14:05:23 <scribe-Aaron> sergey, missing
14:05:37 <scribe-Aaron> eric miller, present
14:05:55 <bwm> -aob rdf:rdf
14:06:12 <scribe-Aaron>  - Dave Beckett
14:06:44 <scribe-Aaron> jema has crashed...
14:06:49 <scribe-Aaron> Next telecon: same time, next week
14:06:53 <scribe-Aaron> review minutes
14:07:00 <scribe-Aaron> APPROVED
14:07:19 <scribe-Aaron> review of actions
14:07:45 <scribe-Aaron> billD: questions 2001-09-07#6
14:07:59 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: you've done the action, we can 
perhaps do another item in AOB
14:08:01 <DanC> * DanC joins the telcon
14:08:25 <scribe-Aaron> All actions considered completed
14:09:08 <scribe-Aaron> discussion of agenda items w/ sergey, 
pat missing...
14:09:16 <scribe-Aaron> moving to progress with PRIMER subgroup
14:09:44 <scribe-Aaron> eric: spent some time putting together 
outline, identifying core documents
14:09:54 <scribe-Aaron> ... hoping to get group of interested 
people on telecon
14:10:04 <scribe-Aaron> ... wants to get information out first
14:10:10 <scribe-Aaron> Trying to get people to own portions of 
the primer
14:10:23 <scribe-Aaron> Wednesay at 10AM
14:10:27 <scribe-Aaron> does not work for aaron
14:10:33 <ora> ora has joined #rdfcore
14:10:36 <scribe-Aaron> works for billd, frank manola
14:10:55 <scribe-Aaron> eric: separate telecon to kick it off, 
might be a large chunk of time
14:11:06 <scribe-Aaron> ... thought it'd be better use of time, 
report back to larger group
14:11:12 <scribe-Aaron> danc: rather do it here, at this telecon
14:11:16 <sergey> sergey has joined #rdfcore
14:11:23 <scribe-Aaron> ... recommend people volunteer by writing stuff
14:11:28 <mdean_> mdean_ has quit
14:11:32 <ora> ora has quit
14:11:50 <scribe-Aaron> eric: trying to build a table of contents
14:12:01 <scribe-Aaron> ... willing to do it here, if chair wants
14:12:03 <scribe-Aaron> ... want to make sure we all agree on outline
14:12:15 <scribe-Aaron> ... might be more time than chair might 
have wished
14:12:24 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: I'd like it here.
14:12:33 <OL> OL has joined #rdfcore
14:12:47 <scribe-Aaron> jeremy: prefer not to have it in core 
telecon time
14:13:22 <scribe-Aaron> eric: not saying we'll have a separate 
list... just a kickoff conferenece
14:13:27 <scribe-Aaron> ... of course reporting back at core meeting
14:14:02 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: try and find a time that works for 
all, if not, we'll allocate a chunk of time
14:14:32 <scribe-Aaron> frankm: in addition, we can have a good 
amount of dialog via email, and drafting text
14:14:52 <scribe-Aaron> ... bit theoretical to divide ahead of time
14:15:07 <scribe-Aaron> ... can have some concrete stuff to go on
14:15:17 <scribe-Aaron> eric: i absolutely agree
14:15:28 <scribe-Aaron> ... just hoping to get it out, and we 
establish common base
14:15:41 <scribe-Aaron> ... using list with PRIMER: syntax and 
get writing
14:15:50 <DanC> * DanC missed a lot of stuff from last week... 
goes to re-read minutes...
14:16:17 <scribe-Aaron> -action Eric Miller / Get out TOC of 
primer stuff
14:16:18 <Jema> Jema notes action 2001-09-21#1
14:16:19 <DanC> I hope the primer TOC has pointers to existing 
14:17:11 <em> DanC, yes thats the goal
14:17:13 <scribe-Aaron> -action Eric Miller / Organize 
teleconference if needed, if not, ask for telecon time
14:17:14 <Jema> Jema notes action 2001-09-21#2
14:17:24 <scribe-Aaron> +Sergey
14:17:36 <DanC> I can't find this decision about discussing the 
primer on the list in last week's minutes.
14:17:44 <scribe-Aaron> 7: Issue: rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf 
Frank Manola
14:17:52 <scribe-Aaron> -item 7
14:17:53 <Jema> command not recognised
14:17:56 <scribe-Aaron> -help
14:17:56 <Jema> Jema recognises the following commands:
14:17:56 <Jema>   -hi                   // tests whether Jema is alive
14:17:56 <Jema>   -help                 // prints this help message
14:17:57 <Jema>   -open                 // begin the meeting
14:17:57 <Jema>   -close                // close the meeting
14:17:57 <Jema>   -agenda [next|prev|n] // next|prev|nth agenda item
14:17:59 <Jema>   -aob  ...             // add an item of 
another business
14:18:01 <Jema>   -action owner/...     // record an action item
14:18:02 <scribe-Aaron> -agenda 7
14:18:03 <Jema>   -decision ...         // record a decision
14:18:18 <scribe-Aaron> Sergey: at F2F, I argued against 
dropping the restriction... company relied on it
14:18:28 <scribe-Aaron> came to conclusion that having the 
restriction is not essential
14:18:40 <scribe-Aaron> ... the tool can have a policy 
independent of the language
14:18:50 <scribe-Aaron> ... enforced by the specific application
14:18:58 <scribe-Aaron> ... Now, i'd go ahead with removing restriction
14:19:03 <DanC> * DanC cheers
14:19:13 <scribe-Aaron> Proposal: to resolve issue 
rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf by allowing cycles
14:19:13 <scribe-Aaron> of subClassOf properties.  The meaning 
of a cycle of subClassOf
14:19:13 <scribe-Aaron> properties being an assertion that the 
classes involved have the same
14:19:13 <scribe-Aaron> members.  A more formal specification of 
the meaning will be given
14:19:13 <scribe-Aaron> in the model theory.
14:19:48 <scribe-Aaron> +Pat
14:20:08 <DanC> * DanC seconds the proposal
14:20:24 <scribe-Aaron> Frank: slight change to the wording, 
after talking to Pat
14:20:39 <scribe-Aaron> s/allowing cycles/deleting restriction 
prohibiting cycles/
14:21:10 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: test cases decision separate from wording
14:21:13 <scribe-Aaron> Any dissent?
14:21:23 <scribe-Aaron> Any dissent to the no dissent?
14:21:32 <scribe-Aaron> Unanimous decision.
14:21:37 <scribe-Aaron> No abstentions.
14:21:47 <DanC> RESOLVED.
14:21:49 <scribe-Aaron> -decision restriction subclass cycles 
are removed
14:21:59 <OL> * OL congratulates the wg
14:22:05 <em> * em raises hand
14:22:39 <em> * em just wants to make sure Pat will reflect this 
decision back to the JC
14:22:42 <scribe-Aaron> jeremy: syntactic issues should be 
separate from semantic ones
14:22:50 <scribe-Aaron> ... now just looks like a syntactic issue
14:22:53 <scribe-Aaron> * scribe-Aaron agrees
14:23:14 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: let's separate approval of test 
case, from test case directory structure
14:23:22 <scribe-Aaron> danc: except that test case includes its name
14:23:29 <OL> * OL is sure that Pat and Ora both will (reflect 
the decision, that is)
14:23:31 <scribe-Aaron> ... bit weird to approve it and then 
change it's name...
14:23:43 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: editorial change not much of a problem
14:24:10 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: would sure be nice to have.... 
kinda hard to ascertain status from minutes, and links, etc.
14:24:16 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: let's put it off to next week
14:24:41 <scribe-Aaron> daveb, frankm, jos, i agree
14:24:45 <scribe-Aaron> jos: perhaps a more complex cycle
14:25:17 <scribe-Aaron> -action DanC / Place testcase in the 
proper place in directory structure once that place is decided
14:25:18 <Jema> Jema notes action 2001-09-21#3
14:26:06 <scribe-Aaron> -action Pat Hayes / Take the subclassof 
decision back to DAML Joint Committee
14:26:06 <Jema> Jema notes action 2001-09-21#4
14:26:30 <scribe-Aaron> pat: were loops in subpropertyof prohibited?
14:26:42 <scribe-Aaron> danc: i think so...
14:27:03 <DanC> "A property can never be declared to be a 
subproperty of itself, nor of any of
14:27:03 <scribe-Aaron> A property can never be declared to be a 
subproperty of itself, nor of any of its own subproperties.
14:27:03 <DanC> its own subproperties. " -- 
14:27:32 <scribe-Aaron> the subpropertyOf decision should also 
be removed... needs testcase and formal proposal
14:27:46 <scribe-Aaron> -action Frank Manola / present similar 
resolution and test case for subPropertyOf cycles
14:27:47 <Jema> Jema notes action 2001-09-21#5
14:27:57 <scribe-Aaron> -next
14:28:00 <Jema> command not recognised
14:28:04 <scribe-Aaron> -agenda next
14:28:17 <scribe-Aaron> 8: Model Theory WD
14:28:17 <scribe-Aaron> Propose: Authorize publication of the 
Model theory WD at:
14:28:25 <scribe-Aaron> sergey: what does this change?
14:28:32 <scribe-Aaron> danc: we all have different ideas of the 
current situation
14:28:43 <scribe-Aaron> ... is there an explicit enumeration of 
changes to the spec?
14:28:54 <scribe-Aaron> Pat: I don't think it changes the spec 
at all... afaik
14:29:32 <scribe-Aaron> ... it says that treatment of domain and 
range is different than RDFS, but we've agreed that should change
14:29:48 <scribe-Aaron> JanG: the model theory is in agreement 
with the previous point we agreed on
14:30:06 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: we'll have it on the web forever, 
and obliged to accept comments on it
14:30:11 <scribe-Aaron> Pat: perfectly happy with that
14:30:28 <scribe-Aaron> FrankM: One comment people might make is 
inconsistency with MT and specs
14:30:38 <scribe-Aaron> Pat: later versions OK?
14:30:40 <scribe-Aaron> Absolutely.
14:30:46 <scribe-Aaron> BillD: Will this be a REC?
14:31:15 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: you get questions from weirdos in 
14:31:19 <scribe-Aaron> Pat: I'm used to that.
14:31:34 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: I hope this eventually replaces 
RDF M&S 1.0...
14:31:42 <scribe-Aaron> Sergey: I think I got it... it's early 
in the morning, tho
14:31:58 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: Purpose of W3C is to get people to 
put there names on documents
14:32:08 <scribe-Aaron> FrankM: you can go on another vacation, sergey
14:32:13 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: anyone not happy publishing?
14:32:20 <scribe-Aaron> -decision publish the model theory draft
14:32:21 <scribe-Aaron> Woohoo!
14:32:24 <ArtB> * ArtB applauds Pat!
14:32:35 <scribe-Aaron> ...might need a slightly better drawing, 
some say
14:32:44 <scribe-Aaron> Bwm: a work of art, no changes!
14:33:02 <scribe-Aaron> -action DanC / Take Model Theory thru 
publication process as Staff Content
14:33:02 <Jema> Jema notes action 2001-09-21#6
14:33:17 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: Acknowledgements can't be on top 
of the document
14:33:24 <scribe-Aaron> ... minor tidying up
14:33:40 <scribe-Aaron> ... don't expect it out today, probably 
Wednesday... but maybe today
14:34:24 <scribe-Aaron> Pat: prettier picture is just fine
14:34:39 <scribe-Aaron> -decision minor editorial changes are 
allowed to MT before publication
14:34:42 <scribe-Aaron> -agenda 10
14:34:55 <scribe-Aaron> DanBri, absent... did report by email
14:35:05 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: reported that he expected to have 
WD next weds...
14:35:09 <scribe-Aaron> may be too late to review it on Fri
14:35:19 <scribe-Aaron> ... will go on agenda, if it arrives
14:35:23 <scribe-Aaron> -agenda 11
14:35:33 <scribe-Aaron> 11: Propose: approve test case given in
14:35:34 <scribe-Aaron>   
14:35:43 <scribe-Aaron> Jeremy: it's an XML error, rather than 
an RDF error
14:35:53 <scribe-Aaron> ... should have a few to catch people 
who don't use XML infrastructure
14:36:05 <scribe-Aaron> jos, daveb, bwm have looked at test case
14:36:22 <scribe-Aaron> aaron has looked at test case
14:36:40 <scribe-Aaron> -action Jeremy Caroll / Add a comment to 
explain why it's an error in 
14:36:41 <Jema> Jema notes action 2001-09-21#7
14:36:50 <scribe-Aaron> -decision test case 
wg/2001Sep/att-0109/01-error001.rdf is approved
14:37:01 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: is the complementing test case approved
14:37:05 <scribe-Aaron> ... apparently so
14:37:50 <scribe-Aaron> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
tests/amp-in-url/test001 is approved
14:38:17 <scribe-Aaron> err, http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
14:39:45 <scribe-Aaron> FrankM leaves
14:40:10 <scribe-Aaron> -action Art Barstow / action to update 
url/test001.rdf to include comment explaining that & needs to be 
viewed as &amp;
14:40:11 <Jema> Jema notes action 2001-09-21#8
14:40:15 <scribe-Aaron> -decision http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
tests/rdfcore/amp-in-url/test001.rdf is approved with above 
14:40:21 <scribe-Aaron> no dissent
14:40:33 <DanC> RESOLVED unanimously.
14:40:33 <scribe-Aaron> -agenda 12
14:40:42 <scribe-Aaron> 12: Test cases that don't fit the RDF/XML to
14:40:43 <scribe-Aaron> paradigm.
14:40:43 <DanC> does jema note decisions?
14:40:43 <scribe-Aaron> Jos has volunteered to write up a 
proposal for entailment tests.
14:40:57 <scribe-Aaron> yes, apparently ... they get emailed to 
the list after the meeting
14:41:16 <scribe-Aaron> Jos: I think this is a simple problem... 
i guess we need some conventions
14:41:21 <DanC> have you been telling jema about decisions we're making?
14:41:29 <scribe-Aaron> yes.
14:41:33 <scribe-Aaron> ... i'm so glad we have model theory to refer to
14:41:46 <scribe-Aaron> ... we just need some way to combine the 
pieces together... we need a way to describe that
14:42:03 <scribe-Aaron> Pat: when you use the model theory in 
this context, you need to be careful about RDF/RDFS distinciton
14:42:26 <scribe-Aaron> ... just replied to Jeremy Carroll about 
RDFS entailments which are not RDF entailments
14:42:40 <scribe-Aaron> Jos: I understand... added -rdfcore 
switch to do that in our software
14:42:58 <scribe-Aaron> ... the structure we have now has no problem
14:43:11 <scribe-Aaron> ... schema issues require this kind of 
functionality in my opinion
14:43:19 <scribe-Aaron> ... lots of cross combinations
14:43:41 <scribe-Aaron> ... we need to reuse things... just need 
descriptions of entailment
14:43:45 <scribe-Aaron> ... and tools with the same interface
14:44:02 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: my reaction was that meaning is not 
obvious to me, not a logic geek
14:44:08 <scribe-Aaron> ... I was asking "what is this?"
14:44:46 <scribe-Aaron> Jos: the abstraction of the axioms was confusing
14:44:56 <scribe-Aaron> ... we just need 1, 2, 3, 4... with 
different range and domain
14:45:02 <scribe-Aaron> ... and say it's valid... it's possible
14:45:11 <scribe-Aaron> Bwm: I just want you to write up clearly 
how they work
14:45:29 <scribe-Aaron> Jos: two steps... 1-1 mapping
14:45:50 <scribe-Aaron> ... I agree... machine understanable description
14:46:12 <scribe-Aaron> Jeremy: I have a program that goes thru 
the zip and knows what to do
14:46:26 <scribe-Aaron> ... if we have different instructions... 
clear to a program... it's much hard to write regression test 
14:46:33 <scribe-Aaron> ... we need this for high quality RDF tools
14:46:37 <scribe-Aaron> ... it's a must
14:46:53 <scribe-Aaron> Jos: description of A, B, C entails D... 
not too difficult
14:46:56 <scribe-Aaron> ... we need that, tho
14:47:06 <scribe-Aaron> JanG: we need machine-readable manifest
14:47:12 <scribe-Aaron> ... to see if it's parser tests, or entailment
14:47:23 <ArtB> ArtB has quit
14:47:23 <bwm> bwm has quit
14:47:23 <scribe-Aaron> scribe-Aaron has quit
14:47:23 <OL> OL has quit
14:47:23 <Jema> Jema has quit
14:47:23 <dajobe> dajobe has quit
14:47:23 <spetschu> spetschu has quit
14:47:42 <ArtB> ArtB has joined #rdfcore
14:47:42 <OL> OL has joined #rdfcore
14:47:42 <scribe-Aaron> scribe-Aaron has joined #rdfcore
14:47:42 <bwm> bwm has joined #rdfcore
14:47:44 <dajobe> dajobe has joined #rdfcore
14:47:44 <spetschu> spetschu has joined #rdfcore
14:47:46 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: seems like two issues. one is what 
they are and how they work
14:48:02 <scribe-Aaron> Jos: it refers to the model theory.... i 
think it's good for the model theory
14:48:35 <scribe-Aaron> -action Jos / write up something to 
describe these entailment tests (with help from Pat)
14:48:45 <scribe-Aaron> Jeremy: quite happy with Jan's proposal 
to have a manifest
14:49:02 <scribe-Aaron> JanG: just have a machine readable 
manifest with a list of parser tests
14:49:12 <scribe-Aaron> ... could call it manifest.rdf ... it 
could be in RDF!
14:49:21 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: we need someone to work this up
14:49:25 <scribe-Aaron> ... art?
14:49:38 <scribe-Aaron> Art: can jan do a proposal
14:49:40 <scribe-Aaron> jan: sure
14:49:49 <scribe-Aaron> -action Jan Grant / write up a proposal 
for a parser test manifest
14:50:08 <scribe-Aaron> daveb, i have some stuff with the parser 
tests work
14:50:16 <scribe-Aaron> Aaron: I have some software
14:50:29 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: I'd like Art to collect the stuff 
and point to it from test cases spec
14:51:25 <OL> * OL thinks it is the RDF stalker
14:51:47 <scribe-Aaron> bwm: end of the agenda... i didn't give 
you enough work to do
14:51:53 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: Chair is to be congratulated!
14:52:14 <scribe-Aaron> AOB: Bill on parseTypes
14:52:26 <scribe-Aaron> ... sent to the list, had some feedback 
(mainly from GK)
14:52:33 <scribe-Aaron> ... want to write it up now, in a 
less-featured form
14:52:43 <scribe-Aaron> ... it should be on the list Mon, we 
should have a yes/no on Friday
14:53:39 <scribe-Aaron> BillD: What we have in current M&S stands
14:53:46 <scribe-Aaron> ... future implementors namespace-qualify
14:53:51 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: just for new parseTypes?
14:54:02 <scribe-Aaron> BillD: yes... or make it look so
14:54:10 <scribe-Aaron> Jeremy: might influence daml:collection
14:54:18 <scribe-Aaron> BillD: Is that a namespace?
14:54:36 <scribe-Aaron> Jeremy: parsers tend to hard-code the 
prefix 'daml:'
14:54:47 <scribe-Aaron> ... whatever the current state of the 
namespace binding... they tend to do that
14:54:56 <scribe-Aaron> ... the proposal changes the behavior, 
as I understand it
14:55:06 <scribe-Aaron> ... it needs to look at the namespace binding
14:55:12 <scribe-Aaron> ... i'm happy, but it is a significant change
14:55:24 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: You've actually seen code?
14:55:32 <scribe-Aaron> Jeremy: I've written it
14:55:39 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: that's a sin against the world!
14:55:53 <scribe-Aaron> BillD: I haven't find anything that says 
it is namespace-qualified
14:56:08 <scribe-Aaron> Jeremy: it never says anything about namespace
14:56:27 <scribe-Aaron> DanC:.. yuck, it does say that... that's 
a crime!
14:56:44 <scribe-Aaron> Pat: I don't think there's a great deal 
of code that this will destroy
14:56:54 <scribe-Aaron> Pat: I think the JC will say "What?"
14:57:10 <scribe-Aaron> MikeD: there are about 7 parsers... i 
think they hard-code it
14:57:20 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: parser at W3C doesn't hard code it
14:57:48 <scribe-Aaron> DaveB: daml:collection space was donated 
to my parser by a DAML researcher
14:58:27 <scribe-Aaron> Pat: I wanted to as Mike if he thinks 
parsers are in deep dodo
14:58:34 <scribe-Aaron> Mike: probably relatively easy to fix
14:58:55 <scribe-Aaron> DanC: if daml is bound to something 
else, you can't pay attention to it!
14:59:13 <scribe-Aaron> -action BillD / Take proposal to the 
list next week on parseType
14:59:21 <scribe-Aaron> BillD: are you busy next week, Pat?
14:59:25 <scribe-Aaron> Pat: What a silly question...
14:59:35 <scribe-Aaron> BillD: I'd like a model theory bit for 
the primer
14:59:52 <scribe-Aaron> Pat: tried to find a web resource, but 
couldn't find a good one... all too simple or too esoteric
15:00:16 <scribe-Aaron> -action BillD / annoy pat until there's 
a Model theory primer piece
15:00:20 <sergey> sergey has quit
15:00:23 <scribe-Aaron> -close
15:00:28 <scribe-Aaron> scribe-Aaron has quit
15:00:41 <ArtB> -help
15:01:27 <bwm> she's not listening - she's trying to connect to 
the mail server - our mail servers have recently ben failing 
15:04:55 <bwm> -help
15:04:59 <bwm> -hi
15:05:03 <bwm> -close
15:05:05 <bwm> -close
15:05:07 <bwm> -close
15:05:19 <dajobe> dajobe has left #rdfcore
15:14:12 <bwm> bwm has quit
15:15:59 <spetschu> spetschu has quit
15:17:08 <DanC> DanC has left #rdfcore
15:17:55 <ArtB> ArtB has left #rdfcore
15:22:32 <OL> OL has left #rdfcore
15:52:48 <em> em has left #rdfcore
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2001 13:10:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC