- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 17:58:41 +0000
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <22881.1013882321@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-15 --------------------------------------------- Transcript: -- http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-02-15.html (text version attached) Agenda: -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0388.html 1: Allocate scribe: Dave Beckett 2: Roll Call Participants: - Brian McBride (chair) - Eric Miller - Dave Beckett (scribe) - Dan Connolly - Ron Daniel - Jos De Roo - Jan Grant - Martyn Horner - Frank Manola - Stephen Petschulat - Patrick Stickler - Aaron Swartz - Pat Hayes - Sergey Melnik Regrets: - Daniel Brickley - Graham Klyne - Mike Dean Absent: - Frank Boumphrey - Jeremy Carroll - Bill dehOra - Rael Dornfest - Yoshiyuki Kitahara - Michael Kopchenov - KWON Hyung-Jin - Ora Lassila - Satoshi Nakamura - Pierre G Richard - Guha 3: Review Agenda AOB: none 4: Next telecon - 10am Boston time, 22 Feb 2002 5: Review Minutes of 2002-02-08 telecon See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0263.html Accepted 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions ACTION: 2001-11-16#7 Pat ACTION: 2002-02-08#1 bwm ACTION: 2002-02-08#5 Jeremy ACTION: 2002-02-08#6 FrankM Confirmed complete. 7: Face to face meeting See: http://cgi.w3.org/Register/selectUser.pl?_w3c_meetingName=techplenary2002 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f Received regrets for the F2f from Frank Manola Stephen Petschulat Aaron Swartz Ron Daniel Had a straw poll on interest in participating in the F2f by phone and/or IRC and got interest from several people for phone access. ACTION: 2002-02-15#1 EricM: Find details of phone access during F2F ACTION: 2002-02-15#2 Brian: Consider holding teleconference(s) during F2F 8: Model Theory WD OLD ACTION 2002-02-08#2: Publication of RDF Model Theory WD Completed: RDF Model Theory W3C W3C Working Draft 14 February 2002 http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-mt-20020214/ Congratulations were given to Pat and thanks to EricM for helping the with the publication process. 9: Status of Test Cases WD OLD ACTION: 2001-11-30#3 JanG Get access to test case areas of W3C site CONTINUED OLD ACTION: 2002-01-11#2 JanG Post summary of Test Cases WD outstanding updates to list. CONTINUED OLD ACTION: 2002-01-11#1 bwm Persue CVS access for Jan with EM CONTINUED Question was raised if Pat Hayes was subscribed to www-rdf-comments and its purpose. He wasn't so would look into subscribing. ACTION: 2002-02-15#3 Brian: Announce new Model Theory WD to appropriate lists: rdf-logic, interest, ... 10: WG Status Brian noted that the status of the working group needed to be considered since it is chartered to finish early 2002. At present, the group has approximaltey 28 open issues, 7 postponed and 26 closed. This will be on the agenda for the F2F. 11: Preparing for the f2f * rdfms-seq-representation: The ordinal property representation of containers does not support recursive processing of containers in languages such as Prolog. ACTION: 2002-02-15#4 PatH: Send a few paragraphs to the list to address this * rdfms-assertion: RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion. Brian said the director has an architectural requirement that we say something about this. PatH said that he was already down to do this ACTION: 2002-02-15#5 PatH, Graham: Will draft some appropriate words on the nature of assertions * Schema Issues Postponed, danbri not present * Contexts Pat Hayes noted that webont are discussion such things and if it was possible to say something on this, we should. This is mostly on how it could be fixed, could do, rather than must-do and would be more likely something for a future RDF Core WG with a new charter. ACTION: 2002-02-15#6 PatH: Draft something on contexts for the WG to consider in order to indicate to others our position 12: Issue rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr Clarify the interpretation of an ID attribute in the propertyElt production within a Description element with a distributive referrant. Propose: o the WG resolves that this issue be closed on the grounds that with the removal of rdf:aboutEachPrefix and rdf:aboutEach there are no distributive referrants and the issue is mute. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-propElt-id-with-dr -- APPROVED [scribe note: typo in proposal? "moot" not "mute"?] 13: Issue rdf-terminologicus The RDF community needs a precise terminology to enable it to discuss issues. (Martyn Horner) Propose: o the WG resolves that this issue is addressed by the primer and that this issue be closed. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-terminologicus -- Discussion later brought up the note that the current editors draft of the primer has no glossary section so original working amended to the above. APPROVED 14: Issue rdfms-graph Formal description of the properties of an RDF graph. Propose: o the WG resolve that the model theory is a formal description of the properties of an RDF graph and that this issue be closed. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-graph APPROVED 15: Issue rdf-formal-semantics The RDF Model and Syntax Rec and RDF Schema CR do not provide a formal specification of the semantics of RDF. Propose: o the WG resolves that the model theory defines formal semantics for RDF and that this issue be closed. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-formal-semantics APPROVED 16: Issue rdfms-fragments Propose: o The WG resolves that the meaning of absolute URI's with fragment ID's is a matter of web architecture and beyond the scope of this WG and that this issue be closed. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments -- This item was skipped. 17: Issue rdfms-literals-as-resources Consider replacing literals with resources whose URI uses the data: URI scheme. Propose: o the WG resolve that the proposed change would be a major change to the RDF specification and is out of scope for this WG. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literals-as-resources APPROVED 18: Issue rdfms-literalsubjects Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to be literals? Propose: o the WG resolves that the current syntaxes (RDF/XML, n-triples, graph syntax) do not allow literals as subjects. o the WG notes that it is aware of no reason why literals should not be subjects and a future WG with a less restrictive charter may extend the syntaxes to allow literals as the subjects of statements. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects -- The above resolution was updated (one word change from agenda text). Clarification was asked by DanC whether for any entailments in the model theory, statements ended up with literal subjects. DanC's example was does { <age> rdfs:range rdfs:Literal. <bob> <age> "23". } entail { "23" rdf:type rdfs:Literal } JanG and PatH responded that no, it would not happen and that there are guards in the model theory to stop the above case. APPROVED 19: Issue rdf-containers-otherapproaches The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various awkward features. Might these be augmented with a 'better' design? Propose: o the WG resolves this issue is out of scope for this WG but places the issue on the list of to be considered by a future WG. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches APPROVED 20: Issue rdfms-uri-substructure xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..? Clarification needed Propose: o the WG resolves to close this issue on the grounds that changing how resources are named on the web is a web architecture issue and beyond the scope of our charter. o Whereas: (a) the RDF 1.0 spec says that property and class names are computed from element and attribute names by concatenating their namespace names with their local names (b) it's useuful to be able to process RDF with XPath and XSLT, where even though concat(namespace-name(qname1), local-name(qname1)) is the same as concat(namespace-name(qname2), local-name(qname2)) the qnames themselves may not compare equal in XPath expressions. (c) lots of implementors have looked for advice on how to serialize RDF, and, in particular, how to compute a namespace name and localname from the name of a property or a class. the WG advises RDF schema/namespace/vocabulary designers (d) choose namespace names that end in non-xml-name-characters such as / # ? and we advise implementors of RDF serializers: (e) in order to break a URI into a namespace name and a local name, split it after the last XML non-name character. If the URI ends in a non-name-character throw a "this graph cannot be serialized in RDF 1.0" exception. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literals-as-resources http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0318.html -- The proposal in the agenda was amended in (e) in order to get the maximally-allowed XML name to be made from the characters at the end of the URI as Brian discussed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0420.html APPROVED ACTION: 2002-02-15#7 DaveB: Add sections addressing this resolution to the Syntax WD. ACTION: 2002-02-15#8 JanG: Add test cases based on those suggested by Dan in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0318.html 21: Issue rdfms-boolean-valued-properties No standard vocabulary is defined for representing boolean valued properties. The author of this suggestion proposes the introduction of two new properties, rdf:is and rdf:isNot. To represent the fact that someone likes chocolate, their resource could have the property rdf:is with a value of foo:ChocolateLover. Propose: The WG notes that since a boolean-valued property can be identified with a class, rdf:type can be used to represent boolean valued properties. Thus: <foo> <chocolateLover> <true> . <foo> <rdf:chocolateHater> <true> . can be represented by <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateLover> . <foo> <rdf:type> <ChocolateHater> . The WG notes that RDF(S) defines no built in mechanism for expressing that ChocolateLover and ChocolateHater are disjoint classes. The WEBONT WG are defining mechanisms for such expressions. The WG resolves to close this issue. See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-boolean-valued-properties http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0365.html -- The second of the alternative proposals in the agenda (above) was discussed. APPROVED 22: Model Theory for Containers Discussion of PatH's proposal for the semantics of rdf:Bag: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0072.html and DanC's noted an idea on bags (isn't really a bag, but a bag nearby) that he would write up for the group: ACTION: 2002-02-15#9 DanC: Write up rdf:Bag idea and send to list 23: Reification Items from FrankM's Reification "subagenda" in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0359.html 23.1 Entailment #1 Does? <stmt1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . <stmt1> <rdf:subject> <subject> . <stmt1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . <stmt1> <rdf:object> <object> . <stmt2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . <stmt2> <rdf:subject> <subject> . <stmt2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . <stmt2> <rdf:object> <object> . <stmt1> <property> <foo> . entail: <stmt2> <property> <foo> . Discussion of this entailment; FrankM proposed that the answer is NO. Some people are confused or don't care too much about it. APPROVED: Answer to above entailment is NO. 23.2 Interpretation of decision Discussion of what words to say about this, where and if reification syntax now has a meaning. No consensus on agreeing if the above entailment (and reification decision) was cast into English right. 23.3 Entailment #2 Does? <ex:subj> <ex:prop> <ex:obj> . entail _:r <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . _:r <rdf:subject> <ex:subj> . _:r <rdf:predicate> <ex:prop> . _:r <rdf:object> <ex:obj> . APPROVED: The answer is NO ACTION: 2002-02-15#10 JanG: Add both entailments #1 and #2 to the test case suite JanG noted he has to work with Jos on manifests and support for entailment tests in the test cases areas. 23.4 Not explicitly discussed. Sergey asked if we have a mechanism for reification or not, it seems we are deprecating it, so we should at least clarify a mechanism for serialising reified statements. DanC noted the syntax is still there and it is DaveB noted the mapping is described in the syntax WD. 24: Datatypes Review status and plan. Lots of discussion till meeting close and afterwards. DanC asked had S-B had gone away? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0411.html wants to constrain the string values of a statement to the lexical range of the datatypes. Discussion continued as the meeting closed. END OF MEETING Some sketchy post meeting chat notes: DanC's question and ways to implement it - new machinery / properties or can do with existing ideas? DanC wants to talk of the lexical space of the datatype. DanC gave this example: <foo> <dc:date> "apple" dc:date rdfs:range xsdt:date.lex would be datatype-illegal Somebody suggested xsd:date rdfs:range <xyz> would allow URI xyz to be used as the lex space of the xsd:date datatype but might need some MT tweaks (not rdfs:range but rdfs:drange?) Sergey replied to this later in more detail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0446.html Supporting only W3C XML Schema datatypes as built-ins. What does it mean to implement RDF datatypes as currently specified Renaming rdf:value - having opposite properties ---- [scribe: See attached IRC log for some notes, those after meeting end are more intermittent] Dave
14:28:03 <logger_3> logger_3 has joined #rdfcore 14:28:03 <carter.openprojects.net> topic is: RDF Core WG Meeting 15:00-16:00 UTC Friday Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0388.html 14:28:03 <carter.openprojects.net> Users on #rdfcore: logger_3 bwm @dajobe 14:28:19 <dajobe> dajobe has left #rdfcore 14:29:51 <jan_g> jan_g has joined #rdfcore 14:38:06 <bwm> bwm has quit 14:38:06 <jan_g> jan_g has quit 14:42:23 <dajobe-scribe> dajobe-scribe has joined #rdfcore 14:52:04 <em> em has joined #rdfcore 15:00:34 <dajobe-scribe> * dajobe-scribe waves 15:00:48 <em> * em waves 15:00:51 <em> * em dialing 15:01:04 <em> * em wonders where everyone is.... ? 15:04:14 <ircleuser> ircleuser has joined #rdfcore 15:04:14 <dajobe-scribe> meeting starts 15:04:16 <dajobe-scribe> roll call 15:04:22 <dajobe-scribe> -danbri 15:04:27 <dajobe-scribe> regrets danbri 15:04:31 <dajobe-scribe> +bwm +em 15:04:33 <dajobe-scribe> +daveb 15:04:34 <dajobe-scribe> -frankb 15:04:39 <dajobe-scribe> jc regrets 15:04:40 <dajobe-scribe> danc regrets 15:04:44 <dajobe-scribe> rond absent 15:04:48 <dajobe-scribe> billd absent 15:04:52 <dajobe-scribe> jos present 15:04:54 <dajobe-scribe> -rael 15:04:56 <dajobe-scribe> +jang 15:05:00 <dajobe-scribe> +martynh 15:05:05 <dajobe-scribe> -yoshiyuki 15:05:08 <dajobe-scribe> graham regets 15:05:16 <dajobe-scribe> michael absent 15:05:19 <dajobe-scribe> kwon absent 15:05:22 <dajobe-scribe> ora absent 15:05:25 <dajobe-scribe> frankm present 15:05:41 <dajobe-scribe> satoshi absent 15:05:44 <dajobe-scribe> stevep present 15:06:02 <dajobe-scribe> pierre absent 15:06:05 <dajobe-scribe> patrick present 15:06:12 <dajobe-scribe> aaron present 15:06:18 <dajobe-scribe> miked regrets 15:06:20 <dajobe-scribe> guha absent 15:06:23 <dajobe-scribe> path present 15:06:30 <dajobe-scribe> sergey absent 15:06:49 <dajobe-scribe> +rond 15:06:54 <dajobe-scribe> 3 review agenda 15:07:01 <dajobe-scribe> no aob 15:07:05 <dajobe-scribe> 4 next telecon 15:07:16 <dajobe-scribe> same time next week 15:07:20 <dajobe-scribe> item 5 prev minutes 15:07:24 <dajobe-scribe> approved 15:07:30 <dajobe-scribe> item 6 completed actions 15:07:36 <dajobe-scribe> approved 15:07:38 <dajobe-scribe> item 7 f2f register 15:07:40 <DanCon> DanCon has joined #rdfcore 15:07:47 <DanCon> * DanCon realizes he's late 15:07:57 <dajobe-scribe> please check list and send regrets if not comming to bwm: ACTION 15:08:03 <dajobe-scribe> or tell now 15:08:18 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: not coming, regrets 15:08:32 <dajobe-scribe> stevep: regrets 15:08:35 <dajobe-scribe> aaron: regrets 15:08:45 <dajobe-scribe> rond: regrets 15:08:56 <DanCon> are folks interested in participating in part of the ftf by phone? 15:09:00 <DanCon> and/or IRC? 15:09:15 <dajobe-scribe> * dajobe-scribe forwards Q 15:09:25 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: yes, if poss - exact times please 15:09:38 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: yes, me too 15:09:49 <dajobe-scribe> aaron, rond +1 each 15:09:51 <dajobe-scribe> prefer phone 15:09:54 <DanCon> how much time? I find 2 hrs is about the longest I can be productive by phone 15:10:06 <dajobe-scribe> * dajobe-scribe forwards that 15:10:19 <dajobe-scribe> bwm askes em to work out phone facility 15:10:28 <DanCon> the facilities are availble, EricM. 15:10:34 <dajobe-scribe> action em: phone link 15:10:49 <JosD> JosD has joined #rdfcore 15:10:52 <dajobe-scribe> bwm will think about this 15:11:16 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of time, timezones and f2f time w.r.t telecon 15:11:21 <dajobe-scribe> action bwm: think about 15:11:54 <dajobe-scribe> item 8 model theory wd 15:11:57 <DanCon> JosD, let's write some N3 rules about who's interested in which agenda items, when the sun is up where, etc. (hmm... actually, simmulated annealing is probably better for scheduling stuff) 15:11:58 <dajobe-scribe> published 15:12:01 <dajobe-scribe> well done pat 15:12:04 <dajobe-scribe> thanks to em 15:12:07 <DanCon> q+ 15:12:08 <dajobe-scribe> item 9 test cases wd 15:12:16 <dajobe-scribe> DanCOn: ? 15:12:25 <DanCon> oops... no zakim queue-manager 15:12:27 <dajobe-scribe> jang: cvs access now, working on it. will be done by f2f 15:12:40 <dajobe-scribe> wet towels 15:12:49 <dajobe-scribe> DANC now on telecon 15:13:04 <dajobe-scribe> danc notes path not subscribed to rdf-comments 15:13:19 <dajobe-scribe> action path: register on comments 15:13:33 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of status to www-rdf-comments 15:13:48 <JosD> Well, DanC, that't an excellent idea! 15:14:12 <dajobe-scribe> action path: announce to rdf-logic, interest, ... 15:14:35 <dajobe-scribe> "pat hayes'" model theory - no, the group model theory 15:14:53 <dajobe-scribe> above action on bwm not path 15:14:56 <dajobe-scribe> item 10 wg status 15:15:02 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: more at f2f 15:15:17 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: looking at issues list, 28 still open, 7 postponed, 26 cloed 15:15:30 <dajobe-scribe> and out of time - charter to finished early 2002 15:15:34 <dajobe-scribe> item 11 preparing for f2f 15:15:54 <dajobe-scribe> seq-representation issue 15:16:00 <dajobe-scribe> nneed volunteer 15:16:09 <dajobe-scribe> or put on next time list 15:16:18 <JosD> DanC, I meant to use N3 for that (not SA or GA) 15:16:43 <dajobe-scribe> path: will write para on that, or find it and send again 15:16:56 <dajobe-scribe> ACTION path: will send a few paragraphs to address this issue 15:17:03 <dajobe-scribe> issue rdfms-asseriton 15:17:16 <dajobe-scribe> the director needs something on this as an architectural requirement 15:17:36 <dajobe-scribe> action path, gk: already down to do this. On the nature of assertions 15:18:13 <dajobe-scribe> issue schemas 15:18:18 <dajobe-scribe> postponed, no danbri 15:18:20 <dajobe-scribe> issue contexts 15:18:34 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: broad support for moving on, but path got something? 15:19:28 <dajobe-scribe> path: big big storm on webont and if it were possible we could say something to calm waters, we should ... 15:19:40 <dajobe-scribe> ... but say something about how it could be fixed, would be useful at this point 15:19:50 <dajobe-scribe> ... would like to give us that chance, hold on 15:20:04 <AaronSw`> AaronSw` has joined #rdfcore 15:20:08 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: ok, labelled as could do rather than must-do 15:20:22 <dajobe-scribe> path: technically is can't do, but for next wg, could say something 15:20:41 <dajobe-scribe> action path: post something on contexts in order to indicate to others, future plans 15:20:45 <dajobe-scribe> item 12 15:20:57 <dajobe-scribe> propelt-id-with-dr 15:21:15 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: since abouteeach* gone, is moot - closed? 15:21:20 <dajobe-scribe> danc: seconded 15:21:24 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED 15:21:27 <dajobe-scribe> item 13 15:21:32 <dajobe-scribe> terminologicus 15:21:54 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: glossary in primer resolves this - closed? 15:22:05 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED 15:22:10 <dajobe-scribe> item 14 rdfms-graph 15:22:23 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: model theory is a formal desc of rdfms-graph - close? 15:22:38 <dajobe-scribe> path: comment, if model theory rewritten, then will track back to re-address this 15:22:58 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: want a category "Queued for closure" but just more work, rather nopt 15:23:02 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: propose again? 15:23:07 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED 15:23:35 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: resolution of 13 re glossary in a primer 15:23:41 <dajobe-scribe> ... but there isn't one now 15:23:59 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of glossary and where it is 15:24:32 <dajobe-scribe> proposal to change item 13 resolution s/the glossary in the// 15:25:24 <DanCon> _will_ be addressed by the primer, no? hmm... I suppose everpresent "_is_" is ok 15:25:38 <dajobe-scribe> bwM; approved ammended item1 3 resolution 15:25:43 <dajobe-scribe> item 15 rdf-formal-semantics 15:26:02 <dajobe-scribe> proposed resolution - MT defines it? 15:26:03 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED 15:26:08 <dajobe-scribe> item 16 rdfms-fragments 15:26:13 <dajobe-scribe> skipped 15:26:19 <dajobe-scribe> item 17 rdfms-literals-as-resources 15:26:31 <dajobe-scribe> (16 moved to later in agenda, bwm) 15:26:40 <dajobe-scribe> consider the proposal for 17 15:26:43 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED 15:26:48 <dajobe-scribe> item 18 rdfms-literal-subjects 15:27:16 <dajobe-scribe> bwm reads resolution in agenda 15:27:31 <dajobe-scribe> jang: amendment, s/resources/subject/ in 2nd paragraph 15:27:39 <dajobe-scribe> i.e. "not be subjects..." 15:28:04 <dajobe-scribe> danc: clarification re entailments in MT, do any of the MT entailments end up with literals as subjects 15:28:11 <dajobe-scribe> jang: no, not unless they start with literal subjects 15:29:08 <DanCon> { <age> rdfs:range rdfs:Literal. <bob> <age> "23". } => { "23" rdf:type rdfs:Literal } 15:29:36 <dajobe-scribe> path: ther eare guards to stop above happening 15:29:40 <dajobe-scribe> there are 15:29:43 <dajobe-scribe> danc: ok 15:29:49 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: call for dissent? 15:29:58 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED 15:30:01 <DanCon> hm... that pretty much blows S-B out of the water. 15:30:05 <dajobe-scribe> item 19 containers-other-approaches 15:30:27 <dajobe-scribe> propose to rule this out of scope for this wg, punt to later wg? 15:30:29 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED 15:30:35 <dajobe-scribe> item 20 rdfms-uri-substructure 15:30:50 <dajobe-scribe> ... long long summary .... :) 15:30:51 <em> DanCon, can you elaborate a bit on this?... are you saying that S-B is no longer feasible? 15:30:54 <ircleuser> No, I think S-B is OK, but you just can't use rdfs:Literal to any real extent. 15:31:02 <AaronSw`> ugh. phone died... 15:31:12 <dajobe-scribe> bwm reads proposing first para? 15:31:21 <dajobe-scribe> aaronsw: comments on para 1? 15:31:22 <ircleuser> Whoops, that's PatH called 'ircleuse' 15:31:40 <DanCon> try /nick PatH 15:31:53 <dajobe-scribe> +aaronsw (phone again) 15:32:09 <dajobe-scribe> bwm re-reads 1st para 15:32:26 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED 1st paragraph 15:32:32 <dajobe-scribe> (before "whereas...") 15:33:01 <ircleuser> nick PatH 15:33:09 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: need (e) change as previously posted to list,f rom bwm 15:33:33 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: deleted "and no other ..." 15:33:36 <dajobe-scribe> up to the comma 15:33:40 <AaronSw`> ircleuser, need a / in front of nick 15:34:05 <dajobe-scribe> change to "after the last non xml-name character" 15:34:11 <ircleuser> ircleuser is now known as PatH 15:34:30 <JosD> hi Pat!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15:34:35 <PatH> Hi Jos 15:34:36 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: maximally long name 15:34:42 <dajobe-scribe> dajobe: yeah, I think I get it 15:35:13 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED "whereas..." (a) .. (e) plus modifications 15:35:28 <dajobe-scribe> ACTION daveb: add to syntax wd 15:35:35 <dajobe-scribe> ACTION: test cases editor to add test cases based on dancs 15:35:41 <dajobe-scribe> item 21 booleanv-vallued-properties 15:35:50 <DanCon> order? shall we move on to reification/datatypes? 15:35:59 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: propose the 2nd of the two ("alternatively..>") 15:36:19 <dajobe-scribe> * dajobe-scribe notes DanC order 15:36:58 <dajobe-scribe> bwm proposes 15:37:00 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED 15:37:16 <dajobe-scribe> item 22 model theory containers 15:37:22 <AaronSw`> AaronSw` has quit 15:37:24 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: danc you have some ideas here? 15:37:42 <dajobe-scribe> danc: bag isn't really a bag, but a bag nearby, we can explain that 15:37:48 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: sounds interesting 15:38:03 <dajobe-scribe> ACTION danc: write up this up today 15:38:11 <dajobe-scribe> s/this/his idea on the explanation/ 15:38:13 <dajobe-scribe> item 23 reification 15:38:23 <dajobe-scribe> subagenda 15:38:28 <dajobe-scribe> reif item 1 15:38:35 <dajobe-scribe> (frankm) 15:38:42 <dajobe-scribe> entailment 1 15:38:50 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: do we agree the item is no? 15:39:03 <dajobe-scribe> some agreements 15:39:13 <dajobe-scribe> jos: i have a problem with this; subject should be more defined 15:39:18 <dajobe-scribe> * dajobe-scribe not recordign this well 15:39:41 <dajobe-scribe> jos: could say this entailment is true 15:39:47 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: I'm confused by this 15:40:03 <dajobe-scribe> the source that pathayes is refering to is the source of the original stratement 15:40:06 <dajobe-scribe> (path) yes 15:40:18 <dajobe-scribe> .. so I could write <stm1> <source> <uri> 15:40:27 <dajobe-scribe> ... why would I need that reification syntax anyway? 15:40:38 <dajobe-scribe> ... I could just make all teh statemsnts I want about that thing 15:40:38 <DanCon> JosD, as far as I'm concerned, this rdf:subj/pred/obj stuff is worthless, but as graham said, it's "mostly harmless". 15:40:43 <dajobe-scribe> path: talk about the subject 15:40:53 <dajobe-scribe> ... and provides an explict rdf map to the triple 15:40:59 <dajobe-scribe> ... oh, nevermind! 15:41:06 <AaronSw> AaronSw has joined #rdfcore 15:41:17 <dajobe-scribe> josd: I don't care too much. It could work but it is meaningless 15:41:31 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: if there is no actual dissent, lets decide and move on? 15:41:37 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: Agreed the answer is no? 15:41:43 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED entailment 1 answer is NO 15:41:50 <dajobe-scribe> reification agenda item 2 15:41:59 <DanCon> hmm... I'd like to suggest that reification gets no screen-space in the primer. 15:42:08 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: have we decided an isntance of rdf:Statement is a stating? 15:42:15 <dajobe-scribe> danc: what is the impact? 15:42:25 <dajobe-scribe> ... what docs will change? 15:42:35 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: some of the words in M&S seem to say the opposite 15:42:40 <dajobe-scribe> danc: where will we write this down? 15:42:50 <dajobe-scribe> ... in model theory / primer, that replace m&s 15:42:58 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: are we contradicting something int he current docs? 15:43:10 <dajobe-scribe> danc: my prefication is that we leave it in the syntax doc and that is all 15:43:20 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: in primer maybe for reassurance? 15:43:50 <dajobe-scribe> daveb: already in syntax doc, in simplest form 15:43:59 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: rdf community familiar with the Stating term 15:44:04 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: should be explained 15:44:12 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: an occurance of the statement 15:44:20 <dajobe-scribe> aaron: in the glossary 15:44:49 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: resolve to agree that they are statings? 15:45:05 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: are we clear on what we agreeing? 15:45:15 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: guidance for documetn writers 15:45:21 <dajobe-scribe> pathaes: something in MT doc 15:45:45 <dajobe-scribe> +sergey 15:45:48 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of what goes where 15:45:56 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: this vocab is undefined everywhere? 15:46:13 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: not discusing reification cvocab? 15:46:17 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: yes we are 15:46:27 <dajobe-scribe> danc: yes answer is they turn into non-magical properties 15:46:37 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: not meaningless, no special meaning 15:46:43 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: don't get the difference 15:47:17 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: want to make a decision on "the meaning of rdf:Statement" and seperate issue of the 4-triple vocab 15:47:45 <dajobe-scribe> rond: uncomfortable approving statment versus stating, want something more concrete 15:47:52 <DanCon> the most I can do with "an rdf:Statement represents a stating" is abstain. I don't think it's an interesting thing to decide. 15:48:12 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: talking about appearances of various things in rdf 15:48:34 <dajobe-scribe> jang: point2 is casting into English what is meant by the entailment in point 1 15:48:43 <dajobe-scribe> danc: hard to agree to that? 15:49:14 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: move on for now to reification item 3? 15:49:41 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: believe item 2 follows from 1 15:49:44 <dajobe-scribe> (sounds of dissent in bg) 15:49:49 <dajobe-scribe> reification item 3 15:49:55 <dajobe-scribe> and an entailment 15:50:01 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: do we agree the answer is NO? 15:50:22 <dajobe-scribe> ... does a triple entail it's reification? 15:51:04 <DanCon> action on the test case editor? 15:51:05 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED the answer is no to entailment 15:51:11 <dajobe-scribe> no 2 under item 3 15:51:25 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: no more reification issues left? 15:51:35 <dajobe-scribe> ACTION jang: add to test suite? 15:51:40 <dajobe-scribe> s/?// 15:52:09 <dajobe-scribe> jang: need to work with jos on this 15:52:15 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: do we have a mechanism for reification or not? 15:52:22 <dajobe-scribe> ... seems we are deprecating it 15:52:36 <dajobe-scribe> ... so we should at least clarify a mechanism for serialising reified statements 15:52:41 <dajobe-scribe> xfering across the network 15:52:48 <dajobe-scribe> danc: syntax still there 15:53:01 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: yes, but where is the connection between the original triple and the 4-triple reificaiton 15:53:07 <dajobe-scribe> danc: in teh syntax 15:53:36 <dajobe-scribe> daveb: yes, there is a section on this in the syntax 15:53:57 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: to sergey, move this to the list 15:54:10 <dajobe-scribe> .. use cases based on how do I do this? 15:54:31 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: something w.r.t. frank's point of identifiying the original triple 15:54:33 <DanCon> take what? 15:54:35 <DanCon> action on who? 15:54:37 <dajobe-scribe> s/frank/path/ 15:54:39 <DanCon> whatever. 15:54:56 <dajobe-scribe> item 24 main agenda - datatypes 15:55:19 <dajobe-scribe> still some bits incomplete in last thing (V3?) posted to list 15:55:22 <dajobe-scribe> (pathayes) 15:55:34 <dajobe-scribe> ... true local typing 15:56:06 <dajobe-scribe> ... magic triple asserts everything is local in item 3 15:56:07 <dajobe-scribe> (!) 15:56:18 <dajobe-scribe> ... gives the user more options 15:56:34 <dajobe-scribe> ... not more complexity, just draws users attention to more options 15:56:46 <dajobe-scribe> s/item 3/section 10 of v3 datatyping doc/ 15:56:54 <dajobe-scribe> danc: has S-B gone away? 15:57:09 <dajobe-scribe> danc: ie. range of this property is constrained to literals that are the lexical representation of dates 15:57:12 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: still there 15:57:26 <dajobe-scribe> for a datatype? 15:57:27 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: no 15:58:02 <dajobe-scribe> danc: such as one for the xsd:date 15:58:35 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: says yes 15:58:42 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: misunderstanding the Q? 15:58:57 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: <foo> <dc:date> "10" 15:59:05 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: <date> <rdange> <xsd:date> 15:59:08 <dajobe-scribe> and have xsd:date.lex 15:59:19 <dajobe-scribe> danc: not what I mean 15:59:35 <dajobe-scribe> ... want to constrain the strings you have as property values 15:59:44 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: how do you do that? 15:59:53 <dajobe-scribe> danc: want to constrain to the lexical range of the datatypes 16:00:03 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: no, can't do that - can't label lexical spaces of the datatypes 16:00:28 <dajobe-scribe> literals as subjects could do this 16:00:36 <dajobe-scribe> (danc, pathayes) 16:00:55 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: out of formal meeting time 16:01:08 <DanCon> ok; I already sent "where did S-B go?" mail. 16:01:09 <dajobe-scribe> ... ahve a document, try to use that as the basis for our datatypiung solutoion 16:01:19 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: and moving fwd 16:01:26 <dajobe-scribe> ... can continue to discuss here 16:01:38 <dajobe-scribe> END OF MEETING 16:01:45 <dajobe-scribe> ---- 16:01:53 <dajobe-scribe> datatypes chat: 16:02:54 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: literals as subject and untidy literals 16:03:16 <dajobe-scribe> two different properties prop1 and prop2 with two different ranges 16:03:19 <DanCon> p1 range decimalInteger 16:03:22 <dajobe-scribe> one is decimalInteger and other is octalInteger 16:03:25 <DanCon> p2 range octalInt. 16:03:28 <DanCon> x p1 "10". 16:03:32 <DanCon> y p2 "10". 16:04:10 <dajobe-scribe> - "10" is in lexical space of both datatypes (danc) 16:05:04 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: and an app that says give me triple and the property hanging of the literal node is going to g et the wrong value since the literal can be the wrong one - decmial or octal 16:05:25 <dajobe-scribe> danc: "10" is both an octal and a decimal numeral 16:05:55 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: but if you are doing a queyr and get back a literal node, and then ask for the peopreties of tat literal, you get both datatypes since literals are tidy 16:06:00 <dajobe-scribe> (am I recording this righ?) 16:06:17 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: you want literals to denote their values? 16:06:32 <dajobe-scribe> ..l. wwould the datatyping barf if given this? 16:06:37 <DanCon> * DanCon isn't too worried about the record 16:06:47 <dajobe-scribe> * dajobe-scribe will slow down then 16:06:53 <dajobe-scribe> discussion 16:08:57 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: if literals could be subjects... 16:08:57 <JosD> JosD has quit 16:09:40 <dajobe-scribe> danc: handy to give our users names for lexical spaces, mapping , ... 16:09:52 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: feedback from users, too complex to explain? 16:10:17 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: someone going to ask xsd to do it? 16:10:19 <dajobe-scribe> danc: we can do it 16:10:53 <DanCon> I'd be quite happy to make up a name for "the lexical space of a (property used as a) datatype" 16:11:07 <dajobe-scribe> discsuion of sergey's proposal for union 16:11:25 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: also like danc's proposal 16:11:45 <DanCon> dc:date rdfs:range [ is lexicaSpace of xsdt:date ]. 16:11:46 <dajobe-scribe> ... have the values and the lexical spaces 16:12:05 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: get rid of the value idiom? 16:12:57 <dajobe-scribe> wasn't that 4 months ago? 16:13:02 <dajobe-scribe> discussion 16:14:23 <dajobe-scribe> danc: let me build an expression for the property I want, need a lexicaSpaceof property 16:14:46 <dajobe-scribe> ... tricky since there are many "the ranges" for a datatype 16:15:42 <dajobe-scribe> danc: want to conclude <foo> <dc:date> "apple" is false 16:15:55 <dajobe-scribe> phahes: but no negation 16:16:03 <dajobe-scribe> danc: but datatypes give us this 16:17:21 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of rdf reasoners and datatypes 16:18:28 <dajobe-scribe> and application space 16:18:47 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: using the knowledge in rdf and doing more 16:20:31 <dajobe-scribe> * dajobe-scribe wonders what it means to implement RDF datatypes, as currently speciifed 16:21:37 <DanCon> to me, to implement datatypes is to parse a document and say "nope; that document is broken. it says 'apple' is in the range of the XML Schema date datatype" 16:22:32 <dajobe-scribe> so a document that generated <foo> <dc:date> "apple" (with datatype checks) would be illegal? 16:23:21 <DanCon> if that document also said dc:date rdfs:range xsdt:date.lex, then yes, it would be datatype-illegal 16:23:28 <dajobe-scribe> that's what I meant 16:23:51 <dajobe-scribe> datatype-illegal: hmm 16:29:59 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of just having xsd datatypes only 16:32:01 <dajobe-scribe> phayes: said, I think: the name for the lex space of the dc:date rdf:type of the range of the datatype 16:32:09 <dajobe-scribe> s/of the/is the/ 16:32:23 <dajobe-scribe> ugh, try 2 16:32:34 <dajobe-scribe> phayes: said, I think: the name for the lex space of the dc:date rdf:type is the rdfs:range of the datatype 16:36:21 <dajobe-scribe> examples based on xsd:date 16:36:27 <dajobe-scribe> danc: says as a property; patrick as a class 16:37:03 <dajobe-scribe> used with a pair (subject, object), danc interested in the range - the lexical space 16:37:57 <dajobe-scribe> so can make a property [xsd:date xsd:range xyz] 16:38:06 <dajobe-scribe> and xyz can be used as the lex space of the datatype 16:38:07 <dajobe-scribe> (all danc) 16:38:23 <dajobe-scribe> jang: but no guarantee that it is just what you want 16:38:32 <dajobe-scribe> danc: want that guarantee 16:38:35 <dajobe-scribe> phayes: could od this 16:38:59 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: not sure range does this 16:39:20 <dajobe-scribe> phayes: could but an extra condition, when it is a datatype 16:39:26 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: ugly? 16:40:10 <dajobe-scribe> ... but sometimes want to use the whole range [not sure about recording this right] 16:41:55 <DanCon> * DanCon takes another call briefly. 16:42:03 <DanCon> * DanCon returns 16:43:31 <DanCon> does DatatypeSummary3 say what the class extension of xsdt:date is? 16:44:51 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes doc: http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/DatatypeSummary3.html 16:47:24 <PatH> PatH has quit 16:47:44 <DanCon> * DanCon must run soon 16:47:56 <dajobe-scribe> several people want to rename rdf:value as used here for datatypes 16:49:19 <dajobe-scribe> telecon slot runs out in 10 mins I think 16:50:16 <dajobe-scribe> rdf:value and lform - opposite properties? 16:50:48 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes suggested ^ 16:51:00 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: some m&s examples wouldn't fit that? 16:51:18 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of what to call new property(s) 16:51:30 <dajobe-scribe> in order to stay away from rdf:value 16:52:55 <DanCon> ciao, all. 16:58:07 <dajobe-scribe> have we invented anonymous predicates? 16:58:22 <dajobe-scribe> dajobe-scribe has quit 16:59:34 <em> em has quit 16:59:49 <AaronSw> * AaronSw suspects that telecon is over... 16:59:51 <AaronSw> AaronSw has left #rdfcore
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2002 12:58:44 UTC