- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 17:07:29 +0100
- To: www-archive@w3.org
00:00:26 <dajobe> phayes: publishing a doc that erfers to anon _:bob and really want to do that 00:00:40 <dajobe> ... if I can't mean the same thing by the same name, that name is no use of all 00:00:52 <dajobe> danc: nature is that there is no name in rdf/xml and can't refer to it 00:01:03 <dajobe> phayes: then I shouldn't generate _:bob 00:01:22 <dajobe> danc: yes, but this is ntriples and _:bob can't be seen outside 00:01:41 <dajobe> fmanola: then this can't come up? 00:01:56 <dajobe> phayes: are you allowed to use _:bob 00:02:04 <dajobe> danc: no, you use "something" 00:02:14 <dajobe> phayes: then I cannot refer it to you directly 00:02:23 <dajobe> danc: yes, you have to use other mechanism 00:02:50 <dajobe> jang: there are transient docs on the web and fetch them, _:bob etc. are transient identifers you want them to behave lie that 00:03:10 <danbri> * danbri scribes 00:04:03 <danbri> frank: it is one thing to talk about two '_bobs'... It is a very different use case if I, perusing doc1 and getting a genid _bob, returns to source and say "hey, you know that thing you called _bob"... 00:04:16 <danbri> pat: thats the case i had in mind 00:04:35 <danbri> sergey: suggestion... Don't use N3 please. We've barely a grip on RDF/XML. 00:05:00 <danbri> dan: we didn't see these disagreements until we had ntriple to make situation explicit 00:05:43 <danbri> emiller: <shows example with /2001/08/01-ex1 and -ex2.> (@todo: link to doc from em) 00:05:50 <danbri> ... 00:06:03 <danbri> jan: theres a mechanism question w.r.t. what pat's sayinh 00:06:19 <danbri> "we have _bob from 2 docs... we want to go back and say more stuff about 'it'" 00:06:40 <danbri> "you can use identifying properties about it 00:06:58 <danbri> * danbri disagrees (quietly) 00:07:20 <danbri> graham: the reason i showed example in ntriples was cos we've decided to use this to describe what parsers do 00:07:36 <danbri> "the unfortunate part of the example was my writing _bob instead of _243234234234324 00:07:45 <danbri> "parser needs to write some kind of labelling for the ntriple for. 00:08:00 <danbri> "now if two docs happen to parse to same ntriple form, incl. genids... 00:08:19 <danbri> "are we going to make parsers responsible for making globally unique genids 00:08:32 <danbri> "or do we couch this in terms of ids relative to a document 00:09:38 <danbri> frank: a query rather than an assertion: "let's pop the stack... seems we've gone in a fairly complicated manner discussing a number of relevant topics. But we started out here with some pretty straightforward questions, ie. firstly whether we want generated identifiers, then whether we want to distinguish them from URIs (either semantically or syntactically) 00:09:57 <danbri> "i don't know that we've done much to answer those questions, or to answer their converse: if we don't like something is the result any better? 00:10:15 <danbri> "if we don't like generated identifiers, we have things that aren't identified, what do we do 00:10:24 <danbri> brian: we've decided that 00:10:37 <danbri> dan: we didn't decide they were URI 00:10:52 <danbri> brian: i thought we had made progress 00:11:12 <danbri> ..."that we agreed we can distinguish these things 'in the model' 00:11:30 <danbri> frank: did we decide that they had the characteristics of URIs 00:11:37 <danbri> pat: decisions was... 00:11:54 <danbri> "we agreed there wouldbe a way of distinguishing the 'distinguished nodes' from 'undistinguished ones' 00:12:00 <danbri> dan: i didn't agree to new syntax for this 00:12:05 <danbri> pat: some way... 00:12:09 <danbri> brian: to tell them apart 00:12:16 <danbri> pat: ...syntactically... 00:12:30 <danbri> emiller: we have 3 interpretations on the overhead 00:13:10 <danbri> dan: make the first one a non-URI, 00:13:26 <danbri> emiller: some way of uniquely identifying it, that is or isn't or looks like a uri 00:13:45 <danbri> dan: the wg has ruled out the 3rd situation 00:13:56 <danbri> ..."i heard that you could tell the difference in the output 00:14:15 <danbri> "since seeing http://blah in output couldn've been there in the input 00:14:40 <danbri> pat: what's wrong with saying because it contains 'genid' in it 00:14:44 <danbri> dan: not without talking to god 00:15:03 <danbri> ..."not in our charter" 00:15:42 <danbri> emiller: (to pat) a lot of us are coming to this from a web architecture p.o.v.... 00:15:50 <danbri> brian: dave has the words from previous decision 00:16:16 <danbri> frank: there's a reverse side of it... When you generated this thing that's clearly distinguishable from a URI... Is it therefore _not_ a URI? 00:16:34 <danbri> ..."what are its characteristics? 00:16:38 <dajobe> question was: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-08-01.html#T22-57-09 00:16:39 <danbri> frank: yes, acc to the URI spec 00:16:48 <danbri> dave reads from logs: 00:18:02 <danbri> emiller: some people are thinking they can peek inside syntactic substructure of uris 00:18:38 <dajobe> answer was: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-08-01.html#T23-18-30 00:19:33 <danbri> dan: the words he wrote rule out interpretation 3 00:19:40 <danbri> (someone pls post the 3rd example) 00:20:32 <danbri> pat: similar to one saying, i'll write an axiom in logic with a relation name called 'Not' 00:20:50 <danbri> dan: the text he read says we can tell these apart 00:20:53 <danbri> * danbri now agrees 00:21:17 <danbri> dan: this info is not enough to tell us 00:21:28 <danbri> pat: why can't we say what the rules of the language are? 00:21:55 <danbri> dan: nowhere in rdf 1.0 does it say we can't have http://purl.org/var/.... is not allowed... 00:22:03 <danbri> "now into the opacity argument for not inspecting URI substrings 00:22:15 <danbri> graham: URIs are not our language (ie. IETF spec) 00:22:17 <danbri> --- 00:22:18 <danbri> break 00:22:19 <danbri> --- 00:33:31 <danbri> dan: some issues are kinda arbitrary, we owe to world to flip coins 00:33:42 <danbri> ...i feel this is a non-arbitrary decisions, needs doing properly 00:34:05 <danbri> (discussion of Vegemite-based incentives) 00:34:13 <danbri> dan: i'm happy to defer to another issue 00:34:23 <danbri> emiller: i'd like to end with something we can accomplish 00:34:32 <danbri> ...do you think we can do that in 30 mins 00:34:48 <danbri> pat: i voted no and caused a bunch of trouble 00:35:13 <danbri> ..."i'd be happy to change and say yes, so long as we ack that we need to introduce notion of scoping, and be crystal clear 00:35:32 <danbri> "it'd be a mistkae to say they have an existential interpretation and have vagueness about their scope 00:35:48 <danbri> sergey: i want to support your (dan's) suggestion by proposing another use case 00:36:05 <danbri> emiller: pat, dan, sergey agreeing...??! 00:36:23 <danbri> sergey: "the case i'm suggesting... trying to factor out all the different concepts we have in our mind... 00:36:45 <danbri> "if we have something we think are anonymous nodes in the document... is there a way to point to this thing in another document? 00:37:08 <danbri> dan: my answer is 'no' 00:37:25 <danbri> sergey: there's this axiom of the web, that rdf allows folk to say anything about it 00:37:48 <danbri> graham: it doesn't, you can talk about the same entity 00:38:09 <danbri> jan: you _can_ providing you're talkikng about a sub-document... ie. make an instantiation of the document... you know what the anonymous resource is... 00:38:32 <danbri> ..."database analogy: run a query on a db, you can tell its identity in the database. but i can't publish the private id as a uri 00:39:04 <danbri> pat: a realisation... i think jos said all along... "you can publish a document... if someone can 00:39:28 <danbri> pat: if the original document _is_ enough to pick it out, (jos: by value) then yes you _can_ describe it further 00:39:48 <danbri> brian: my worry, we spent a whole bunch of time on anon nodes... we set out questions... 00:40:12 <danbri> "once a node gets into the model, can i tell it apart, we had that questoin... I want to make sure. Can we confirm we said "yes!" 00:40:30 <danbri> danc: we've only answered it if we rule out 3rd interpretation (@todo: url overhead) 00:40:57 <danbri> brian: <rdf:Description><foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar></rdf:Description> ...->... _ <foo.bar> "foobar" 00:41:32 <danbri> questoin: what goes here< after the '_' 00:41:32 <danbri> dan: ??? (missed) 00:41:32 <danbri> pat: nobody reading any document generated from the xml would ever be able to get hold of the id 00:41:45 <danbri> pat: of course in ntriples it looks public 00:42:03 <danbri> pat: but if in the egs we use 'http:' it sure looks public 00:42:11 <danbri> brian: notion of public doesn't feel quite precise enough 00:42:20 <danbri> ..."same question as sergeys 3rd... 00:42:40 <danbri> brian: there are 3 things that could go in here... 00:42:49 <danbri> "___ <foo.bar> "foobar" 00:43:07 <danbri> brian: dan is asking that we don't allow URIs here 00:43:31 <danbri> strawpolll: can it be a uri 00:43:33 <danbri> most folk: no 00:43:36 <danbri> pat: don't care 00:43:44 <danbri> mike: i'd like it to be a uri and parse substructure 00:43:56 <danbri> sergey: we can have a special namespace 00:45:13 <danbri> danbri: dan persuade me. folk might write bad RDF/XML that used our magic namespace for genids. therefore we can't gurnatee the distinction 00:45:15 <dajobe> danc also said - no, you can't lok inside URI 00:45:24 <danbri> * danbri nods 00:45:25 <dajobe> miked then said - want to parse fragment ids 00:45:34 <danbri> brian: so it can't be a uri 00:45:39 <danbri> Capturing this: 00:45:49 <danbri> we agree it can't be a URI. 00:46:12 <danbri> frank: generated identifiers have a distinguished representation from URIs 00:46:46 <danbri> mike: i'd like to see us say 'we reserve any fragments beginning with an underscore 00:46:59 <danbri> ...that way you might know eg what doc it came from 00:47:02 <danbri> ...in rdf:ID 00:47:14 <danbri> dan: then you lose expressive power; you lose ability to say 'there exists' 00:47:24 <danbri> marK: maybe you want several types of genids 00:47:31 <danbri> pat: please please don't use a variable as a name 00:47:52 <danbri> jan: this ... doesn't really work. you go to a source, get a doc back; you do again, you get it back. these things are transient in the web. 00:48:08 <danbri> mike: there's nothing to keep the parser from providing an id 00:48:13 <danbri> dan: i suggest thats a bug 00:48:46 <danbri> brian: as i udnerstand the issue with the rdf:ID="_id43454" solution... if i read it in twice, i'm going to geneate the same URI 00:48:53 <danbri> mike: if you use same tool 00:49:16 <danbri> brian:...but you have no way to know that that's about theS same rsource 00:49:27 <danbri> ...you're parser is asserting identity when has no right to do so 00:49:41 <danbri> mike: [...] can use daml:equiv... 00:49:55 <danbri> * danbri (didn't capture that) 00:50:02 <danbri> pat: that was what bothered me about _bob 00:50:07 <danbri> ...someone else might use it 00:50:18 <danbri> mike: i'd want them to use full URI for doc 00:50:20 <danbri> martin: yes 00:50:40 <danbri> dan: i use '_bob' here, i can't use that _thing_ in any other formula 00:51:00 <danbri> pat: if you were to write that in rdf/xml you'd not see '_bob' 00:51:14 <danbri> dan: in ntriples: an implicit backwards E in front of _: 00:51:35 <danbri> martin: these bobs can't be matched across documents 00:51:58 <DanC_> * DanC_ wonders when the meeting is scheduled to adjourn 00:52:02 <danbri> emiller: i'm a little confused about this convesation... 00:52:45 <DanC_> on opacity, is Mike Dean or PatH here on IRC? the opacity axiom is documented, in draft form, at http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque 00:53:00 <danbri> ..."we've had compelling test cases / experiences in last few years. W.r.t. serey's point. While we say anyone can say anything about anything, here perhaps we can't. Possible, quite probably, that some things may not have names. Those things without may be difficult to further describe 00:53:23 <danbri> "given our current focus, rdfcore, if you give something an ID, you have good chance of merging data... 00:53:44 <danbri> "for those things that don't... not our business to standardise stuff best done in privacy of own computer 00:54:00 <danbri> em: we might eg like sha1 digests, but not our business to specify 00:54:21 <danbri> pat: that's not the issue. Not about knowing 'the' name, but a name. 00:54:40 <danbri> pat: is the act of giving something a name that big a burden that we can't ask them to do it 00:54:46 <danbri> dan: rdf 1.0 did not make that burden 00:54:58 <danbri> "question is, how do we interpret the doc in our 1.0 syntax 00:55:11 <danbri> pat: rdf m+s text is utterly unclear about notion of anon nodes/resources 00:55:29 <danbri> dan: but we DID tell people to write rdf/xml in this form 00:56:09 <danbri> emiller: the 1st intepretation is what we meant first time round; "i feel terrible for setting community back 4 years, not beating the s**t out of editors/WG 1st time round, but that's the situation 00:56:15 <danbri> ora: it's not all your fault! 00:56:29 <danbri> emiller: so, clean up our mess. That's where we're at... 00:56:34 <danbri> dan: problem is that the implementors have done 2nd/3rd thing 00:56:44 <danbri> frank: can someone clarify diff between 1st and 2nd? 00:56:55 <danbri> * danbri requests emiller's doc for the records. URL please! 00:57:38 <danbri> frank: "if point is to interpret the 1st one as an existential qunatifier... what's the difference between my wanting to refer to that something, that ?x, versus referring to some arbitrary named genid. I think there's a difference. 00:57:42 <barstow> * barstow is enjoying this discussion and would love to see it continue but I'm wondering if we have to stop at the top of the hour because the published schedule said the meeting would end at 6:00pm ... 00:58:00 <danbri> dan: pat made this crystal clear. In assertional case same entailment; in query case, nontrivially different 00:58:09 <danbri> dan: we can't go into queries 00:58:11 <danbri> frank: yes... 00:58:21 <danbri> -- 00:58:48 <danbri> pat: (attemptign to sum up) 00:59:07 <danbri> "suppose we have existntials, not generated names, there's no real difference logically. what's thefunctional difference? 00:59:34 <danbri> "you lose a little functionality. if there's a handle provided for every existential. if there's no handle, you lose a little functionality. 00:59:49 <danbri> dan: if we want a handle, make it a uri 00:59:53 <danbri> pat: yes, you could take that line 01:00:30 <danbri> ADJOURNED. 01:00:32 <danbri> --- 01:00:48 <danbri> chat... 01:00:50 <barstow> barstow has left channel 01:00:57 <danbri> emiller: i feel progress from last few years... 01:01:03 <danbri> pat: issues are becoming clearer... 01:01:07 <danbri> dinner! 01:01:23 <GK-f2f> GK-f2f has left channel 01:01:31 <danbri> danbri has quit 01:04:29 <dajobe> dajobe has left channel 01:11:09 <DanC_> DanC_ has quit 04:58:16 <AaronSw> AaronSw has joined #rdfcore 14:48:45 <jhendler> jhendler has joined #rdfcore 14:49:26 <jhendler> * jhendler lurking (Invite as member of W3-SW-CG) 14:56:31 <DanC_> DanC_ has joined #rdfcore 14:57:46 <DanC_> * DanC_ wonders if the WG came to any conclusion on anon-resource etc. 14:58:04 <AaronSw> Doesn't seem like it from the logs... 15:02:11 <DanC_> DanC_ has left channel 16:12:07 <barstow> barstow has joined #rdfcore 16:12:35 <barstow> Ora: Pat and I have been thinking and we agree 16:12:40 <barstow> barstow is now known as scribe 16:12:59 <scribe> ... we are concenred about the identity of anon nodes 16:13:10 <scribe> ... we do know the identity of the annonnodes 16:13:24 <scribe> ... the distictness is reserved. 16:13:40 <scribe> Node -a-> 1 16:13:46 <scribe> Node -b->2 16:14:18 <scribe> Yes 16:14:37 <scribe> In the serialization syntax, we give no names to these nodes 16:15:14 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfcore 16:15:50 <scribe> Pat: the realization that I have, if I do the MT as attached to the graph, then issues like scope of exist quant go away becauset there are no scopes in the graph 16:16:48 <scribe> ... ... In N-Trpiles, annonNodes have ttheir own syntax. The annonNode is unique. 16:17:52 <scribe> ACTION: Pat - I'll re-word the MT wrt my new insight. 16:18:37 <scribe> Pat: wrt entailment, if two nodes have same URI, they can be merged; if they do not, they must not be merged. 16:18:47 <jhendler> (err, I mean what school do you attend) 16:19:19 <scribe> Pat: there is no way in [core] RDF to do the graph merging that Eric showed yesterday. 16:19:37 <scribe> EricM: you are correct, it can be done with additional rules - is not part of core RDF 16:20:20 <scribe> Pat: this resolves wether things are public or private [Brian's issue] 16:20:35 <scribe> Pat: this resolves DanC's issue with existen quantifier 16:20:56 <scribe> Pat: the annonNodes do have ID but this has nothing to do with the graph 16:22:24 <scribe> Frank: if you think of the model as being the graph, the nodes in the ggraph have identify; if I merge the graph, the nodes still have identity; the annonNodes just don't have URI. 16:23:21 <scribe> Frank: wrt serialization syntax, what characteristics do the annonNodes have? 16:24:46 <scribe> Pat: with N-Triples, annonNode are identified by their unique syntax 16:25:25 <scribe> Frank: if you try to merge multiple N-Triple docs, the app must keep info about where the triples came from 16:25:57 <scribe> Steve: N-Trples therefore is not a good syntax 16:27:49 <ASwartz> ASwartz has joined #rdfcore 16:27:52 <AaronSw> AaronSw has quit 16:28:00 <scribe> Graham: 2 vars are distinct if they have diff tags or if they appear in diff n-triples expressions 16:28:15 <ASwartz> ASwartz is now known as AaronSw 16:28:43 <scribe> ... when combining 2 ntriple expressions, all of the tag nodes are assigned arbitrary tags such that distinct nodes always have disnt tags in the resulting expression 16:28:47 <GK-f2f> GK-f2f has joined #rdfcore 16:28:57 <scribe> mike: I'm worried about exposing internal names 16:29:13 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f I think words to cover this are in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0397.html 16:29:41 <scribe> Pa: must differentiate naming the node and giving a name to the thing the node denotes 16:29:51 <scribe> s/Pa:/Pat:/ 16:30:04 <scribe> Ora: this is NO change to the M&S spec! 16:30:11 <scribe> Pat: I agree! 16:30:52 <scribe> Mike: in the case where internal names need to be exposed, you will loose the fact that it was anon? 16:30:55 <scribe> Pat: yes. 16:31:33 <scribe> Eric: what does this say about the issue - are these thing distinguishable? 16:31:54 <scribe> Pat: Yes. 16:32:34 <scribe> DaveB: I don't understand the need to add scoping N-Triples. 16:32:46 <scribe> Pat: if you merge on the graphs, there is no problem. 16:32:56 <scribe> DaveB: you merge graphs, not N-Triples. 16:33:51 <scribe> ... [not n-triples docs] 16:34:04 <scribe> Jan: we've said scope of N-Triples is the N-Triples doc. 16:34:04 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f so I have a program that reads two different N-triples documents, and spits out N-triples thayt bresult from merging their graphs -- I'd describe that as merging the N-triples documents 16:34:22 <scribe> Steve: I think we still have to deal with the scoping issue. 16:34:36 <scribe> ... Ntriples are forcing us to do that. 16:35:13 <scribe> Arno: we ran into this issue at Adobe. 16:35:43 <scribe> ... We have diff docs and compound docs. We solved it by 16:36:07 <scribe> ... first thinking not about annonNodes but implicitly named [have a name, wwee dont know what it is] 16:36:25 <scribe> ... We have a mechanism to refer to them. 16:36:54 <scribe> ... What we've said is consistent with our design. 16:37:11 <scribe> Graham: Ntriples is a syntax. 16:37:59 <scribe> Brian: I think we have some agreement but need to test if we are talking about the same thing. 16:38:25 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f and a "document" is a character string that matches poroductiions from the "distinguished symbol" of the N-truiples grammar ... i.e. a "sentence" of the Np-triples syntax. 16:38:36 <scribe> ... I think Ora and Pat said: 16:38:48 <scribe> ... the fundamental model is the GRAPH MODEL! 16:39:06 <scribe> ... Ntriples is a syntax for a graph [a serialization foor a graph] 16:39:30 <scribe> ... We can have more than one graph. 16:39:35 <scribe> Pat: yes! 16:40:27 <scribe> Brian: when I merge ntriples, the semantics is that I'm merging the graphs. 16:41:28 <scribe> ... If we have the two graphs, we can't just concatentate the corresponding n-triples; must first change some names 16:41:58 <scribe> Brian: does the MT theory, Pat? 16:42:21 <scribe> Pat: yes, the MT must be based on the graph, not on N-Triples. 16:42:40 <scribe> ... won't need the set of triples in a document. 16:43:09 <scribe> Brian: we have an RDF serialization 16:43:17 <scribe> ... we will also have a grammar 16:43:43 <scribe> ... we will define semantics by defining a mapping from serialization to n-triples 16:43:58 <scribe> ... from n-triples, we have a MT 16:44:15 <scribe> ... Why do we have to change that? 16:45:03 <scribe> Pat: the arrow from ntriples to MT must now go through the graph 16:45:09 <scribe> ... the graph has a MT 16:45:25 <scribe> ... the advant: separates some issues 16:46:01 <scribe> Graham: will we have a MT based on the graph [not the ntriples] 16:46:52 <scribe> Ron: want the graph in the middle; put MT in an arc; put n-triples as an arc, put RDF/XML as a arc 16:47:32 <scribe> Ron: if we split an ntriples doc, how to put it back together? 16:47:57 <scribe> Pat: we can break up graphs. 16:48:28 <scribe> ... In the graph, nodes are nodes. 16:50:14 <scribe> Ron: use case is controlled vocabularies 16:50:33 <scribe> ... a node may have lots of info 16:50:41 <scribe> ... may only want to send some of the info 16:50:52 <scribe> ... can send the identity of the node 16:51:39 <scribe> jan: if you need to talk about it, give it a URI! 16:54:07 <scribe> Sergey: I'm not convinced we're all talking about the same thing. 16:55:37 <scribe> ... want to explore using annonNodes as existential quantifiers, etc. 16:56:06 <scribe> ... By looking at these other approaches, we could get more. 16:57:23 <scribe> danbri: I would like to hear Sergey's view. 16:57:50 <scribe> ... I would be willing to give up some RDFS time. 16:58:32 <AaronSw> * AaronSw thinks you're going around in circles 16:59:00 <scribe> ---- Sergey ----- 16:59:46 <scribe> [Sergey projects a document that contains his model.] 17:00:02 <scribe> ACTION: Sergey - send this document to the WG mail list 17:00:27 <scribe> Annon nodes as existential variables 17:00:46 <scribe> URI constants: c = {c1,...,cN,...} 17:00:53 <scribe> { exists, & } 17:01:04 <scribe> Variables: {x1,...,xN,...} 17:01:26 <scribe> graph/document = formula without free variab les (most general consensus?) 17:01:51 <scribe> Applications exchange documents in intermediate format (BLOB), but get formulae (graphs) in the end 17:02:28 <scribe> d1 = t(c1, c2, ce) 17:02:28 <scribe> d2 = exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1) 17:02:35 <scribe> d3 = exists x1 [ t(c1, c2, x1) & t(x1, c3, c4) ] 17:02:43 <scribe> Equivalence: 17:02:55 <scribe> Let -> be entailment 17:03:09 <scribe> d1 = d2 <=> d1 -> d2 and d1 -> d1 17:04:21 <scribe> ad 0): t(c1, c2, c3) -> exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1) [Inference that DanC want] 17:04:36 <scribe> ad 1): d1 = exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1) 17:04:54 <scribe> d2 = exists x2 t(c1, c2, x2) 17:05:21 <scribe> d1 -> d2 and d2 -> d1 => d1 = d1 (fine) 17:06:03 <scribe> ad 2): d1 = exists x [ t(c1, c2, x) & t(x, c3, c4)] 17:06:16 <scribe> How split? 17:06:43 <scribe> [ed note: ... d1=>d1=d2 above] 17:07:02 <scribe> d1' : exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1) 17:07:26 <scribe> d1'' : exists x2 t(x2, c3, c4) 17:08:03 <scribe> Merge: d1''' = exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1) & exists x2 t(x2, c3, c4) 17:08:34 <scribe> d1 -> d1''', but d1''' -/-> d1 => d1 != d1''' 17:08:58 <scribe> irrerversibel change when docs are split and merged (bad?) 17:09:21 <scribe> ad 3: impossible to refer to anon. node in another document withing the model 17:09:40 <scribe> d1 = exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1) 17:09:59 <scribe> d2 = exists x2 t(c1, c2, x2) 17:10:15 <scribe> no way to ask: is x1 in d1 same as x2 in d2? 17:10:28 <scribe> Anonymous nodes as local constants: 17:10:41 <scribe> (Implementaiton perspective) 17:10:57 <scribe> URI constants: C = {c1,...,cn,...} 17:11:57 <scribe> Local constatns: PRG1 = {l1_1,...l1_N,lll}, PRG2 = {l2_1,...,l2_N,...} 17:12:11 <scribe> Rule: prg1 cannot see constants in document 17:12:41 <scribe> ad 0): t(c1,c2,c3) -/->, <-/- t(c1,c2,l1) [fine] 17:13:08 <scribe> ad 1): d1 = t(c1, c2, l1_1), second parse d2 = t(c1,c2,l1_2) 17:13:18 <scribe> d1 != d2 [bad?] 17:14:13 <scribe> ... 17:14:35 <scribe> [ed. note: I give up - assume Sergey will post this his file to the list ...] 17:16:06 <scribe> ... 17:16:17 <scribe> Observations: 17:17:38 <scribe> o A does not caont URI (disjoing) If A and C overlap, we cannot distinguish anon. nodes from the others. But: since the same procedure for assigingin constants from A, this is irrelevant. A can be viewed as subset of C that is extremely unlikely to be used 17:18:25 <scribe> o Application that neeed not communicate may not local IDs. If communicate using syntax that contains "holes", fine. No global autogeneration algorithm required. 17:19:01 <scribe> o If no standard assignment algorithm is required, ad 1) is still violated (parsing twice) 17:20:46 <scribe> .... 17:21:13 <scribe> Sergey: there can be a formal mechanism to help base arguments about anon. nodes. 17:21:41 <scribe> ... point 2: there are multiple options for implementing anon. nodes [they all have advantages and disadvantages] 17:22:45 <scribe> ... want to ground the decisoion. This also helps define the application semantics. 17:22:55 <scribe> Jan: this is very useful. However, your existance proof is false. 17:23:28 <scribe> ... You have no way of knowing where things come from. 17:23:56 <scribe> ... The algorithm doesn't reflect that a URI may return the same thing through time. 17:25:14 <scribe> Pat: the question is what is the semantics. Is is temporary [the doc]? 17:25:26 <scribe> ... M&S is talking about graphs. 17:27:09 <scribe> Sergey: I think explicit genids would be useful. 17:27:34 <jhendler> jhendler has quit 17:28:03 <scribe> Brian: if you parse the same doc, should an anon description have the same identity? 17:30:25 <scribe> Ron: if everyone generates the same identifier for an anon node, it could be useful but it also could be dangerous. 17:30:37 <scribe> ... That's the choice: useful vs dangerous. 17:30:54 <scribe> danbri: it is very dangerous. 17:31:22 <scribe> Brian: can you do more things this way? 17:32:07 <scribe> Ron: you can do more things because then you can hang additional stuff off of it. 17:32:19 <scribe> Jan: there are better ways to do this. 17:32:39 <scribe> Frank: what exactly is the question? 17:33:27 <scribe> Brian: do you need everyone to use the same algorithm? 17:33:49 <scribe> Ron: if folks agree on an algorithm, you can do additional stuff. 17:35:49 <scribe> Pat: I don't think these examples are helpful. They introduces more confustion. It doesn't talk about the graph. 17:36:21 <scribe> ... We don't need to introduce the variables. 17:37:32 <scribe> Eric: we need to put a stake in the ground and move on. We need to focus on the graph to agree on stuff. 17:38:38 <scribe> Pat: I'll update the MT based on the graph within a week. 17:58:11 <scribe> ======== Break Over ========= 18:00:20 <GK-f2f> RDF Syntax -- Dave Beckett Leads 18:01:51 <GK-f2f> http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/people/cmdjb/talks/rdfcore-sebastopol/ 18:02:57 <GK-f2f> slide 2 18:03:18 <GK-f2f> slide 3 18:03:24 <GK-f2f> (ntriplesreview) 18:03:27 <GK-f2f> GK-f2f has quit 18:03:31 <jang> jang has joined #rdfcore 18:04:34 <jang> (talks about benefits of ntrlpes as simple serialisation) 18:04:41 <jang> slide 4 18:04:50 <DanCon> DanCon has joined #rdfcore 18:05:21 <jang> dave'd been looking at reexpressing the grammer in terms of the infoset, rather than '<' etc 18:05:39 <jang> grammar looks simpler, smaller 18:06:23 <jang> we o xml syntax -> ntriples -> graph -> MT 18:06:27 <jang> s/o/go 18:06:39 <jang> points at: 18:06:57 <jang> http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/ 18:07:16 <jang> dave points out, as an example, the 6.3 entry in the table 18:07:40 <jang> dve's had to invent a syntax for expressing XML infoset 18:07:57 <jang> slide 5 18:08:31 <jang> change to slide: <=> "the graph" in each case 18:08:50 <jang> dave mentions other formal proposals for syntax notations 18:08:55 <jang> slide 6 18:09:09 <jang> answer to "is ntriples sufficient?" DB: yes 18:09:15 <jang> (db = dave beckeytt) 18:09:36 <jang> still open on question 2: what formalisms should be used to express grammar 18:09:45 <jang> => slide 8 18:09:47 <jang> and done 18:10:01 <jang> wy is BNF so bad? 18:10:27 <jang> we can use BNF, but sould be expressed in terms of infoset, not <, & etc 18:11:04 <jang> PH: ntriples syntax may bem misleading 18:11:14 <jang> URIRef and anonnode should be changed 18:11:19 <jang> DB: I've already changed that 18:11:52 <jang> brian: 18:11:57 <jang> there are two questions 18:12:05 <jang> 1. how we repsent the grammar formally and precisely 18:12:12 <GK-f2f> GK-f2f has joined #rdfcore 18:12:17 <jang> 2. how do we define the transform from rdf/xml into core representation 18:12:27 <jang> (and is it mechanically executable) 18:12:46 <jang> closest bri has are attribute grammars 18:12:54 <jang> danbri: schematron is the closest I've seen 18:13:11 <AaronSw> * AaronSw (informally) proposes XSLT 18:13:14 <jang> db: uneasy about it's completeness 18:13:33 <jang> restating question about transformation: 18:13:44 <jang> rdfxml must be translated by a parser into some representation of the graph 18:14:02 <jang> is there a way of describing this transformation mechanically and executably? 18:14:13 <jang> SM: there's a new parser that uses javacc 18:14:25 <jang> javacc ives you the grammar definition 18:14:35 <jang> you can introduce bits of code into the grammar it uses 18:14:51 <jang> bri: that's basically an attribute grammar with java as the attributions 18:15:05 <jang> danbri: we sould note xslt has been used for this 18:15:21 <jang> bri: tried it, it was very large, not a good way of descibing the transformation to an implementor 18:15:30 <jang> danc has also got an xslt parser, danbri knows of another 18:15:35 <jang> (can't remember who by) 18:15:52 <jang> bri: wants a compact gramamr that can be transformed into xslt, for instance 18:15:57 <jang> danbri: that's what schematron does. 18:16:06 <jang> bri: talks about jeremy's parser 18:16:25 <jang> he had the problems due to M+S talking about characters. 18:16:26 <danbri> the other rdf xslt parser was by jason diamond 18:16:33 <jang> so he did javacc with a grammar in terms of SAX events 18:16:48 <jang> this is pretty handy 18:17:05 <jang> dave's looking for suggestions; he's stil inthe investigation phase 18:17:15 <danbri> xslt parsers: see http://www.xmlhack.com/read.php?item=757 18:17:34 <jang> art: is the WG constrained to using w3c or other standard? 18:17:44 <jang> are we bound to standardised mechanisms? 18:18:12 <jang> em: i don't think so. We must be able to represent the grammar in something that's as familiar as possible to the other xml techs 18:18:33 <jang> em: likes XDuce; but if it's one of equals he'd prefer sometng else 18:18:39 <jang> dan: relaxng looks promising too 18:19:03 <jang> danri: if we want others to have a good look at our spec, we should extend them the same courtesy 18:19:23 <jang> em: only a few people from, eg, DC will be interested in reading the spec? 18:19:33 <danbri> (re politeness: specifically within the w3c xml family of specs) 18:19:35 <jang> daveb: we want a single normative mechanism 18:19:46 <jang> em: ebnf, for example. 18:19:54 <jang> daveb: it's basically in terms of characters 18:20:06 <jang> sm: can xslt produce non-xml docuemnts? 18:20:08 <jang> all: yes 18:20:35 <jang> sm: asks for smple syntax 18:20:45 <jang> dave: we've got ntriples, that's what we've been using 18:21:03 <jang> sm: what about dealing with reification, literls, etc.? it's going to keep growing 18:21:23 <jang> brian: is ntriple broken? do we anticipate it stopping working? 18:21:34 <jang> ph: the only possible problem is scoping, i think we've resolved that 18:21:46 <jang> bri: then we stick with ntriple until it's demonstrated that it's broken 18:22:12 <jang> jang volounteers to help dave with the investigation 18:22:19 <jang> dave asks: can we include jeremy? 18:22:25 <jang> art: also interested 18:22:32 <jang> brian: AP! ask jeremy about this 18:22:42 <jang> dan: suggests schematron to invesigate 18:22:59 <jang> AP: ang, dave, art to investigate and come back with a reccommendation 18:23:16 <jang> Graham: let's be absolutely clear wat we consider the primary audience? 18:23:40 <jang> graham: i ask because XSLT exists and may be very good, but it is probably not very good at expressing the concepts to a human reader 18:23:48 <jang> is the human developer the primay audience? 18:23:50 <jang> bri: yes 18:24:02 <jang> sm: s ntriple going to be xmlised? 18:24:05 <jang> bri: no plans yet 18:24:12 <jang> sm: then we can't use xslt? 18:24:21 <jang> al: no, it can produce anything including text files 18:24:30 <jang> em: it can do tree transforms to text 18:24:40 <jang> steveP: what is the role of the ntriples syntax? 18:24:46 <jang> normative or for testing? 18:24:54 <jang> I'd be opposed (I think) to it being normative 18:25:13 <jang> bri: we need a way to represent the graph. we have to be able to write down the graph transformation 18:25:20 <jang> bri: in mymind, ntriples is for that 18:25:24 <jang> steve: but it's not a graph 18:25:37 <jang> ph: we could draw pictures in the spec 18:25:54 <jang> we need ntriples for testing, not for the defintiion 18:26:11 <jang> brian: I need some way of writing down my test-cases 18:26:25 <jang> I'd rather use one representation of a gaph 18:26:30 <jang> graph, even 18:26:56 <jang> dave: we've got a mixture of text and formalisms at the moment 18:27:04 <jang> ph: software exists to construct and transmit graphs. 18:27:23 <jang> ph: wy don't we make the exposition in the definitive document conform to the graph directly? 18:27:40 <jang> every time a graph is pictures, we can give the ntriples representation 18:28:02 <jang> danbri: i aree largely, but I'd be concerned if we say all sorts of wooly non-normative thngs about ntriples 18:28:08 <jang> it's as normative as the rest of the spec 18:28:28 <jang> ph: I was responding to brian's desire that ntriples be the way graphs are described 18:29:19 <jang> fm: one role ntriple could play in the exposition is to illustrate some of th epotential misunderstandings they may experience 18:29:47 <jang> people have been sending ntriple-ish stuff back and forward for disambiguation by email 18:29:57 <jang> so ntriples could be used as an example of a serialisation 18:30:02 <danbri> * danbri agrees 18:30:08 <jang> to make the point that the graph model is the central issue 18:30:32 <jang> brian: when I think of ntriple, i think it behaves exatly like a graph 18:30:46 <jang> ph: all the issues of name scoping have not been properly articulated 18:31:09 <jang> graham: the advantage of using graphs directly: it'll prevent opthers from falling into the same mental trap 18:31:32 <jang> em: we've been trynig to do this for 4 years, unsuccessfully: saying "it's the graph stupid" 18:31:46 <jang> people understand the serialisation more than the abstract notion 18:31:53 <DanCon> DanCon has left channel 18:31:54 <jang> ora: I don't think that's true. 18:32:19 <jang> people see the serialisation and don't understand it represents a graph 18:32:28 <jang> em: eg,xml people see it as an xml document 18:32:50 <jang> graham: we should do everything twice in the document: once as a graph and once as ntriples 18:33:17 <jang> ora: in some sense, choosing xml was a mistake. people see xml and consider it to be just xml, not a graph 18:33:38 <jang> every time i speak about the graph, people get it though. I've stopped talking about xml and people just get it 18:33:46 <jang> em: I've seen exacty the opposite 18:34:03 <jang> people ask, "but what does it look like?" meaning, where are the angle-brackets 18:34:41 <jang> em: people are deploying a lot of apps that just happen to be rdf-friendly, eg, rss - most users just consider it to be an xml document 18:35:12 <jang> dan: what are we trying to achieve? we're not trying to write the rdf tutorial or do modelling 18:35:57 <jang> we're not trying to write the tutorial here - in that context, does anyone have anything else to add? 18:36:20 <jang> mike d: we've produced another serialisation for rdf. if we play it up, won't people start using it? 18:36:36 <jang> how important is it to emphasise that the xml serialisation is the preferred syntax 18:36:45 <jang> bri: we're not chartered to develop a new synta 18:37:00 <jang> mike: it's becoming bigger. it's for test cases basically 18:37:24 <jang> ph: it sends a good messge - there are at least two maybe more serialisations of rdf 18:37:35 <jang> M+S doesn't hammer this home sufficiently 18:37:54 <jang> arno: this can create some confusion. eg, DC has multiple representations 18:38:14 <jang> documents that have different forms tend to be interpreted differently 18:38:36 <jang> em: let's not go there yet. it is non-trivial to convince people to deploy multiple syntaxes 18:38:58 <jang> ph: we either say, there is one preferred syntax, and not mention any others, or we shoud say 18:39:06 <jang> rdf is about graphs and there may be muktiple syntaxes 18:39:24 <jang> danbri: this has been very important to exaplin to people. 18:39:50 <jang> em: I want that, yes: we're building on the first M+S 18:40:16 <jang> this diagram (referring to the graph -> MT, ntriples, serialisation diagram) is really importnat 18:40:35 <jang> e: priority should be to clarify the model (graph) and focus on the rdf xml serialisation 18:41:12 <jang> ora: says "S-expressions" and gets lynched 18:41:12 <jang> brian: moving on to schema 18:41:12 <jang> minute break, back in a tick... 18:55:51 <jang> back: rdf schema issues 18:56:00 <jang> danbri to lead, brian to timekeep + chair 18:56:15 <jang> eric has noes on laptop 18:56:21 <AaronSw> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Aug/0003.html 18:56:30 <AaronSw> - notes 18:56:32 <jang> ap: eric/danbri to ensure dan's document goes online 18:56:41 <scribe> ======== DanBri - RDFSchema ======== 18:57:57 <jang> w3c think rdfsch is more or less done 18:58:06 <jang> we've had feedback... particularly from daml+oil 18:58:36 <jang> rdfschema work stopped waiting for xml schema - that's now done 18:58:49 <jang> we need to take the useful bits ( datatypes) into rdf schema 18:59:08 <shellac> shellac has joined #rdfcore 19:00:01 <jang> WG sucessor (web-ontology) is planned 19:00:55 <jang> dan points out: what we decide/do next doesn' have to be writen in stone, so we make pragmatic ecisions on what the next WD looks like 19:01:55 <jang> domain + range is an open issue; dan proposes we skip over this because there's a good answer 19:02:19 <jang> this is a no-brainer 19:02:47 <jang> ora gives a bit of background to rdfschema; we're after an OO extensible type system to rdf 19:03:02 <jang> we're after very little. 19:03:54 <jang> ora: te properties of properties are global - no class-specific constraints 19:03:59 <jang> we fixed this in daml 19:04:17 <jang> domain + range: this is the open issue 19:05:12 <jang> dan talks about daml work getting pushed into schema/web-ont - we don't know or care yet what's going to ahappen about this 19:05:23 <jang> dan: ora - class-contextualised constraints may come later 19:05:50 <jang> dan: any dissent to conjunctive interpretation of range+domain? 19:07:04 <jang> art: is there any evidence that people are using current semantics? 19:07:07 <jang> jan: I've seen some 19:07:14 <jang> AP: jan to write up the fix/workaround for this 19:07:36 <jang> ron: possible to change the namespace to not break stuff for people? 19:07:55 <jang> dan: yes, it's possible, my preferred take: 19:08:15 <jang> there is a thing called rdf:domain which the rdfschema people have previously made an erroneous statement about 19:08:36 <jang> ph: introducing a new namespace isn't always the most painful thing 19:08:53 <jang> AP: rdf schema editor to fold conjunctive decision into the raph 19:09:53 <jang> APPROVED: multiple domains, ranges, with conjunctive semantics 19:10:01 <jang> pretty much carried unanimously 19:11:21 <jang> approved by ora, brian, art, jos, dave b, martin, ph, ron d, frank m, sergei, kwon, em, arno, stephen p, jan, raham, 19:11:31 <jang> we record no objections: ron daniel abstained 19:11:44 <jang> (danbri also voted in favour) 19:12:26 <jang> rdfs:domain & rang constraingts or rdfs:domain were missing from the schema - this is just a typo 19:12:33 <jang> proposal to fix this 19:13:17 <jang> ron: was the editorial oversight due to non-discussion/ non-decision or was a decision recorded 19:13:24 <jang> but didn't make it to the doc? 19:13:37 <jang> dan: not certain; but the pictures we had show these values 19:13:46 <jang> proposal: editor to fold these into the next WD 19:14:36 <jang> all in favour, no abstentions, no against 19:14:40 <jang> APPROVED 19:15:15 <jang> subclassing containers... 19:15:36 <jang> dan: a compelling case for this was not allowed 19:15:41 <jang> s/allowed/made 19:15:47 <jang> for the next wd, we say: future work 19:16:18 <jang> AP: jan to provide explanation of how we'd add this 19:17:35 <jang> proposal: no change on this issue in next draft of rdfs 19:17:50 <jang> we take as resolved on the issues list 19:18:13 <jang> (recording accurately the nature of the resolution) 19:19:50 <jang> all in favour: abstain frank, no against 19:19:55 <jang> APPROVED 19:20:34 <jang> datatyping.... 19:21:56 <jang> ron: originally we discussed this and decided to wait for xml:schema 19:22:12 <jang> proposal is to take in what DAML+OIL did, throw it in and then argue abot ti later 19:22:19 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f INFO: CC/PP uses XML schema datatypes - http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/ 19:22:41 <jang> this sin't for the next WD, just as the next step 19:23:11 <jang> proposal (refined) 19:23:25 <jang> we expect to work in this area, informed by the daml+oil work 19:25:41 <jang> AP: graham to send to working group how CCPP does datatypes 19:26:01 <jang> AP: ajn to do the same with the EASEL approach 19:26:20 <jang> ora: the daml+oil approach is clever because if you don't care, you don't get hurt 19:26:49 <jang> proposal: to go away and investigate and report back to the group 19:27:00 <jang> dan: taskforce to consider the adoption of... 19:27:43 <jang> adopt daml+oil/xml datatypes as initial foray into the issue 19:27:55 <jang> we don't consider closure on this issue a must-have for the next WD 19:28:18 <jang> drop the "adopt" 19:28:30 <jang> final proposal should come from EM's document, he's editing it now 19:29:22 <jang> volounteers: danbri graham, martin, jan 19:30:15 <jang> all in favour of the taskgroup 19:32:10 <jang> brian leaves to order pizza 19:33:48 <jang> rdfs-primitive-properties 19:36:28 <jang> AP: pat to go into some more detail on why the know-tying at the top of the hierarchy in rdfs is not a set-theoretical hole 19:37:14 <shellac> shellac has quit 19:37:20 <jang> s/know-tying/knot-tying 19:38:04 <jang> proposal: we don't think this is a problem 19:38:32 <jang> so we close the issue, with the expositional urden associated 19:39:52 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f INFO: Horrocks, et al paper is at http://www.semanticweb.org/SWWS/program/full/paper40.pdf 19:40:20 <jang> dan explains how we go around answering this (process issues) 19:40:30 <jang> we're obliged to respond to feedback 19:40:57 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f Last URI was wrong one ... still looking 19:41:42 <jang> all in favour. no abstain, no against (brian absent) 19:41:59 <jang> cycles in subclassof 19:42:02 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f I think this is the right one: http://www.semanticweb.org/SWWS/program/full/paper11.pdf 19:42:36 <jang> daml+oil didn't like this 19:42:58 <jang> dan: personal bias towards what we've got is a bad usability problem explaining it to people 19:43:25 <jang> graham: one reason to change is that this is one of those things that can't be described within the schema framework 19:43:27 <jang> thus we drop it 19:43:46 <jang> ora: doesn'tcare 19:44:05 <jang> dave: biggest implementation in this area doing this already? will we break something? 19:44:17 <jang> dan: opens floodgates 19:44:34 <jang> ron: recalls experience was that people wouldn't want cycles in te subgraph relationship 19:45:00 <jang> this will break a lot of implementations if we use this. in particular, stuff out there won't be doing cycle detection 19:45:12 <jang> danbri: the system is gullible if it's not checking this restriction 19:45:33 <jang> ron: no, that's not fair - if the spec tells you there are no cycles, then there is a performance optimisationto not bother checking 19:46:01 <jang> frank: that argument can be ade for any syntactic description. this is absurd if taken to its extreme conclusion 19:46:20 <jang> dan: I was going to ask someone from DAML how strongly they care 19:46:36 <jang> graham: we need to make the change ASAP if we're going to hurt as few people as possible 19:47:11 <jang> dave: rather than do nothing, I want to know now what we're doing, are we gogin 19:47:17 <jang> to change it 19:47:51 <jang> PH recalls why daml people wanted this - it was fought hard over 19:48:01 <jang> ora: frank + ian do class equality doing this 19:48:01 <jhendler> jhendler has joined #rdfcore 19:48:10 <jang> which frees them from having another relationship 19:48:16 <jang> and that this is DL accepted practice 19:48:58 <jang> frank: I did circulate a paper sumarising the major arguments for this change from DAML 19:49:11 <jang> people are going to write these; what do we want to happen? 19:49:56 <jang> do we barf, notice this, flag it up as a possible problem, etc? 19:50:11 <jang> frank: there are a number of large-scale ontologies with cycles. 19:50:52 <jang> PH: the critical case for DAML+OIL thinking was that subsetting relationship might be made by multiple people 19:51:12 <jang> the logical conclusion is that the two classes are co-extensive 19:51:47 <jang> PH: the issue is, is subclassof lessthan or lessthanorequal 19:52:00 <jang> one has cycles, one doesn't; we really need both 19:52:34 <jang> EM: when merging large ontologies, we can't prohibit cycles from happening 19:52:40 <jang> the issue is, what does it mean? (PH) 19:53:09 <jang> this is the only place where two ontologies could contradict each oter (in rdf + rdfs) 19:53:20 <jang> dan tries to close this 19:53:37 <jang> can we resolve that people who care about this go away and come back with some advice? 19:53:56 <jang> ron would like a vote 19:54:14 <jang> brian returns at this point. 19:55:09 <jang> em: options: taskforce, or discuss now (useful) 19:55:18 <jang> ron: third option: strawpoll? 19:57:23 <jang> dave: programmers from OO languages dont like this 19:58:27 <jang> non-binding strawpoll 19:58:45 <jang> insufficient consensus on this 19:58:54 <jang> dan stresses we're only talking about the next WD 19:59:52 <jang> sergei says why he's against (because of dave's point) 20:00:58 <jang> ron: suggests we record this that we insert a question into the next WD 20:01:04 <jang> asking for feedback 20:01:10 <jang> this now becomes the proposal.... 20:01:23 <jang> ORA: AP - talk to ian +frank t get the background on this 20:02:55 <jang> proposal: we stick something in the WD saying "we're looking for feedback - we're going to pull this - how badly does it hurt?" 20:03:11 <jang> PH: daml will invent daml:subclassof f you don't take this out 20:03:44 <jang> frank: the daml+OIL people gave us explicit feedback, which strongly mentioned this 20:04:27 <jang> frank: also want explicitly recognised that frank sent the feedback t the WG list 20:04:41 <jang> this shouldn't be news to us we HAVE feedback already!) 20:05:36 <jang> ron: by nserting this in the document then this becomes a resonse to the DAML+OIL people 20:05:44 <jang> PH: that sounds perfectly fine 20:06:09 <jang> jos: we're discussing subpropertyof too 20:06:23 <jang> danbri: yes, we take this to be the case 20:06:45 <jang> can frank modify his document into something to put in the next WD? 20:07:30 <jang> em: propose flaed in the next draft 20:07:48 <jang> also: someone (frank) to go back to the DAML+OIL people and ask for moe convincing arguments 20:08:21 <jang> AP: pat to take this back to the DAML people at the next telecon and bring the feedback to us 20:09:02 <jang> summary: OO programmers are confused, people are trying to code-generate classes (java) for this 20:09:06 <jang> thus we have to go back 20:09:39 <jang> proposal: open the issue, take the stuff to DAML (PH) and continue the discussion 20:10:03 <AaronSw> * AaronSw (informally) notes java doesn't even have multiple inheritance, so it's not really a good example 20:10:08 <jang> frank to own this issue. 20:10:22 <jang> aaron: it has multiple inheritance of interfaces 20:10:30 <jang> (after a particular fashion) 20:10:38 <jang> not of implementations 20:10:56 <AaronSw> * AaronSw scrunches his face up...well, yeah 20:12:21 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f Java no MI of classes, true, but it does have MI iknterfaces 20:12:22 <AaronSw> * AaronSw notes (informally) that python allows inheritance cycles 20:12:30 <jang> propose: open issue (frank owns ) plus PH, ora to take back to DAML any feedback from this 20:12:35 <jhendler> jhendler has left channel 20:21:49 <jimH-lurk> jimH-lurk has joined #rdfcore 20:42:20 <scribe> scribe has quit 20:44:10 <barstow_> barstow_ has joined #rdfcore 20:50:25 <jang> back after lunch 20:50:47 <jang> plan: finish schema, open mike 20:50:51 <jang> danbri... 20:51:25 <jang> spo semantics (inheritance) 20:51:35 <jang> inheritance of range+domanin 20:51:48 <jang> seem to have fixed a lot of this with range & domain 20:53:16 <jang> jan: subproperties should inherit conjunctively the range+domain of their superproperties 20:53:24 <jang> ron: is there a clarification that's been asked for? 20:54:48 <jang> general agreement with jan's statement of this 20:55:24 <jang> AP: dan clarify prose to reflect this position accurately 20:56:03 <jang> then issue closes 20:56:30 <jang> subclass of a subproperty 20:56:40 <jang> (previous issue RESOLVED) 20:57:30 <jang> are rdfs:Class and rdfs:Property disjoint? 20:57:45 <jang> ora has seen an instanc of this 20:57:58 <jang> didn't see any reason why this shouldn't be permitted 20:58:28 <jang> dan talks about rss:image 20:58:47 <jang> PH: the real question is "what does this mean?" 20:59:15 <jang> em: finds it very confusing 20:59:41 <jang> dan: default thing is to do nothing; the spec's silent on this 20:59:56 <jang> dan's candidate meaning is "coincidence" - ph's MT does this 21:00:44 <jang> proposal: can we restate this as "are Property and Class disjoint?" 21:01:07 <jang> the proposal is to record this issue in this style 21:01:54 <jang> and to do nothing in the next WD 21:03:56 <jang> we move on 21:04:23 <barstow_> * barstow_ notes to GK that MIT [thus W3C] is experiencing network problems ... 21:04:37 <jang> (this is our resolution) 21:04:52 <jang> onlie char encoding 21:05:12 <jang> proposal: editor to fix this 21:05:16 <jang> RESOLVED 21:05:25 <jang> (we don't want to rathole on this nobrainer) 21:05:30 <jang> versioning: 21:05:36 <jang> known and had problem 21:05:40 <jang> s/had/hard 21:05:59 <jang> this is very very difficult. Nobody really appears to know how to do this. Open research issue 21:06:17 <AaronSw> * AaronSw doesn't think so 21:06:41 <jang> Proposal: note this is very hard, close the issue. 21:07:30 <jang> PH: proposal "wepropose to not answer this!" 21:07:57 <jang> in other words, we leave the spec as it is 21:08:11 <AaronSw> * AaronSw is vehemently opposed to that proposal 21:08:15 <jang> moving on 21:08:22 <jang> you're not here; take it to email 21:08:49 <jang> transitive subproperty 21:09:35 <GK-f2f> Jan: Counter-example sisterOf subproperty of siblingOf 21:09:50 <jang> proposal: the answer is "no" it's not transitive 21:10:13 <jang> AP on anyone who cares: find an explanatory piece of prose on this 21:10:17 <jang> AP on JAN to do this 21:10:41 <jang> AP on editor: chase jan on this 21:12:32 <jang> movin on 21:12:46 <jang> (ron notes that he's not convinced in this case) 21:12:56 <jang> we make no changes to the next draft; this issue remains open 21:13:33 <jang> we do that. frank, steve P abstain 21:13:37 <jang> next 21:13:44 <jang> subclassof and instance clarification 21:16:03 <jang> frank: we must ensure that we consider the original email messages, not a summary of the issues 21:17:08 <jang> that and the next two issues (isDefinedBy semantics and editorial) 21:17:28 <jang> no action on tehse before the next WD 21:17:44 <jang> carried; a couple of abstentions (jan, steve P) 21:19:08 <jang> we leave these until later 21:22:44 <jang> new WD in one month 21:22:44 <jang> new WD of rdfs due on september sixth 21:24:16 <jang> jan notes he has acounterexample to the transitive subproperty of subproperty question 21:29:58 <jang> we go on to "where next"? 21:30:05 <jang> schema new WD by sept 6 21:30:17 <jang> syntax: we have a taskforce 21:30:27 <jang> model: pat has an action on him 21:30:45 <jang> also: second half - sergei's mechanisms for implication analysis 21:31:12 <danbri> danbri has quit 21:32:01 <jang> ron especialy points out that splitting is not a requirement, merely something to consider 21:33:04 <jang> steve p asks : can we actually get a proposal out of this? 21:34:01 <jang> PH; two pieces of rdf are identical iff they map to the same graph 21:35:23 <jang> s/identical/equivalent 21:36:02 <jang> two rdf documents are equivalent iff they map to teh same RDF graph 21:37:41 <jang> two rdf graphs are the same when : 21:37:51 <jang> 1. they are graph isomorphic 21:38:03 <jang> 2. no two nodes are labelled with the same URI 21:42:18 <AaronSw> * AaronSw doesn't get point 2 at all 21:43:43 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f stuff on graph theory at: http://www.math.fau.edu/locke/graphthe.htm 21:44:14 <jang> we can't specify this precisely 21:44:14 <jang> so we agree that this needs more thinking about 21:44:14 <jang> we HAVE agreed that the graph is the central idea to RDF 21:45:42 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f see in particular 1st para of http://www.math.fau.edu/locke/graphmat.htm 21:45:46 <jang> ron: the graph is the central concept for RDF, there are multiple graphs 21:46:15 <jang> ron reads out a whole bunch of statements that indicate we need to think 21:46:22 <jang> AP: ron to send this to the list 21:47:01 <jang> frank: as a matter of exposition, the graph model is central and the other representations are to be interpreted n that light 21:47:06 <shellac> shellac has joined #rdfcore 21:47:06 <AaronSw> * AaronSw knows what isomorphism is... not sure why RDF needs a special requrement though 21:47:11 <jang> the current text doesn't really make this clear throughout 21:47:53 <jang> in the course of making these points, we have to be careful that the message is carried throughout the whole document 21:48:26 <jang> brian: agrees; we're lookig fora rewrite, not an editing job. 21:50:00 <jang> we look at te schedule 21:50:34 <jang> we're running a lttle behind :-) 21:51:10 <jang> are there better notions of what revised dates we should commit to? 21:51:30 <jang> em: we should discuss what our delivrables are 21:51:38 <jang> we know one:rdfs, we have a date 21:52:08 <jang> re: pat's attempts aove: jang greed they had the same logical entailment, but that that was not where teh anon node issue lied 21:52:14 <jang> s/lied/lay 21:52:25 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfcore 21:53:57 <jang> we ask how many people would be interested in focussing on a document 21:54:23 <AaronSw> * AaronSw signals agreement 21:55:05 <jang> if we had to pick to each of: 21:55:11 <jang> primer, model, df/xml, schema 21:55:20 <jang> which would they be? 21:55:41 <jang> we add "test case repository" as a deliverable 21:56:48 <jang> interested in primer: 5 21:56:57 <jang> model: 8 21:57:07 <jang> syntaxL 4 21:57:13 <jang> schema: 4 21:57:17 <AaronSw> * AaronSw volunteers for primer 21:57:22 <jang> test cases: 2 21:57:45 <danbri> aaron/primer: :) 21:58:32 <jang> AP; (repeated) action item to get rdfs done 21:58:43 <jang> some of these depend on pats revised model 22:00:19 <jang> danri: we can get the telecon bridge available at other times too 22:01:59 <jang> ora: are we issuing a version of the existing spec or a new spec? 22:02:37 <jang> as comparison, there is a new XML spec. 22:03:24 <jang> ora notes that we tried to originally eparate model and syntax, and it was too hard 22:03:49 <jang> pat: is the document primarily definitive or understandable? 22:04:57 <jang> em/ora: why we smushed the documents together originally 22:05:18 <jang> we were looking for primer and spec and al sort of things 22:05:32 <jang> dave: document format is to be left ntil much later, let's produce the pieces first 22:07:13 <jang> ow many people are interested in being the editor/document layout person 22:07:14 <jang> graham is 22:07:38 <danbri> danbri is 22:07:51 <jang> graham: i sense there's significant support for the idea that model and syntax be separated 22:07:56 <AaronSw> * AaronSw is interested in nitpicking 22:08:06 <danbri> (danbri is...interested in being on any group working on document partitioning) 22:08:21 <jang> good, but people are talking - I'm not going to butt in with this one (to email, you'll not be left out) 22:08:56 <jang> dave:do we need coordination? 22:09:13 <jang> em: yes, really. I'm looking for where this can take place/be centered 22:09:23 <jang> s/centered/centred 22:09:58 <jang> ron: proposal to identify a team leader for each of the items, including overall documen structure 22:10:06 <jang> this is har work, but I think that's what we need 22:10:57 <GK-f2f> brian M suggests pick a leader for the overall breakdown, and defer selecting others 22:11:40 <jang> brian proposes to take the document leader job - it's the chair's jo 22:11:44 <jang> hear, hears 22:12:02 <jang> that is document structure ONLY 22:12:21 <jang> AP: brian to take the list of sections and come back with something more cocrete to look for volounteers 22:12:55 <jang> frank: could we consider structuring theseas web things instead of PODs? 22:13:06 <jang> there, we close. 22:13:27 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f I think the docs should be printable as PODs if required 22:13:42 <jang> reopen: schedule rearrangement 22:13:42 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f (POD = plain old document?) 22:13:45 <jang> yep 22:14:13 <jang> brian thinks that www11 would be a good place to annonce rec 22:14:14 <AaronSw> * AaronSw thinks web things == goodness 22:14:35 <jang> hard narrative stuff and hard to print out to read onthe plane :-) 22:14:58 <jang> www11 is in may 2002 22:15:25 <AaronSw> * AaronSw thinks web things != no print version 22:16:15 <GK-f2f> * GK-f2f yes, but I woukld want it to be a single printable doc, not lots of separate web "pages" 22:16:41 <AaronSw> * AaronSw thinks that this is what XML is for -- one XML document can be distributed in multiple versions 22:16:58 <AaronSw> * AaronSw also likes one-document specs, FWIW 22:18:30 <jang> AGREED: to announce REC at www2002 22:18:35 <jang> (or aim for that) 22:19:23 <jang> kwon's presentations 22:19:23 <jang> AP: kwon to get this on the web 22:22:30 <danbri> (hmm... agreed: We would really really like to announce REC at www2002...) 22:25:46 <jang> kwon's questions.... 22:25:55 <jang> (from last side) 22:26:10 <jang> PH: rdf useful within machines for storing metadata 22:26:21 <jang> is this an "in" for getting RDF involved? 22:26:54 <jang> kwon's wg chair wants to go with rdf 22:27:00 <jang> but they're suffering from tool availablility 22:27:25 <jang> metametadata storage is still currently hard, esp. with rdfs in its current state 22:27:39 <jang> em: lots of people are squeamish because rdfs is not a rec 22:28:05 <jang> em: thus I'd really like to get rdfs out the door asap 22:28:28 <jang> ph: it's startling that ean entire country waiting for us to make up our minds 22:28:49 <jang> em: there are now 6 countries that have mandated DC metadata in xml/rdf in all govt produced documents 22:29:12 <jang> so the frivolous question of pat's is actually very accurate 22:29:29 <jang> dan: people see us getting interested in AI/KR issues, theyr'e worried by this 22:29:44 <jang> ron: "are we supporting the austrailian DC standard?" 22:29:50 <jang> we get these issues all the time 22:30:06 <jang> em: yes, a lot of tese people are simply waiting on a REC 22:30:52 <jang> (now dajobe scribe) 22:31:03 <jang> arnot - adobe 22:31:14 <jang> ... toolkit and specification now available 22:31:21 <jang> ... invite anyone interested to join program 22:31:45 <jang> ... c++ and source available under an open license, probably open source 22:32:05 <jang> bwm: to kwan 22:32:12 <jang> s/kwan/kwon/ 22:32:42 <jang> ... toolkits - redland, raptor by daveb, rdf api - sergey, jena - bwm 22:32:52 <jang> ... cslisp - ora, kinda-perl - dan 22:33:00 <jang> ... help available, please ask 22:33:13 <jang> jang is now known as dajobe 22:33:39 <dajobe> rond: demo 22:33:56 <dajobe> ... presentation to time 22:34:47 <danbri> aside, danbri's perl rdf stuff: http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/06/rdfperl/ 22:34:50 <dajobe> ... visual maps 22:35:01 <dajobe> ... tim bray's antarti.ca 22:35:27 <dajobe> ... demo contains interwoven-generated time info 22:35:37 <shellac> shellac has left channel 22:35:50 <II> II has joined #rdfcore 22:36:02 <dajobe> ... stories visualised in map form 22:36:17 <dajobe> ... number of articles is area 22:36:27 <dajobe> ... 'importance' by how titles are visualised 22:36:44 <dajobe> .... separate view on content using SIC codes 22:37:27 <dajobe> ... example of rdf 'stuff' sent off to a different company, made into a demo 22:37:46 <dajobe> em: can you make this public? 22:37:48 <dajobe> rond: have to see 22:39:08 <dajobe> dajobe: maps.net taken rdf from dmoz too 22:39:17 <dajobe> em: short turnaround, fantastic story 22:39:41 <dajobe> --- 22:40:13 <dajobe> em: until I got tools that knew daml+oil, did it dawn to me what daml+oil was up to 22:40:27 <dajobe> ... workflow for w3c was really interesting with model and merging, equilvanentTo 22:40:29 <II> II has left channel 22:41:04 <dajobe> phayes: simple stuff in daml+oil has biggest bang-for-buck 22:41:18 <dajobe> ... which is what we find. Nobody much uses the advanced stuff 22:42:05 <dajobe> emiller giving w3 demo 22:42:45 <dajobe> wg chair visualising 22:43:00 <dajobe> ... object of type 'chair', make it a square ... 22:43:26 <dajobe> .. chairs really don't know the unique ID of WG and don't care 22:43:41 <dajobe> ... but know name and its email address etc 22:44:07 <dajobe> ... tere is no unique ID for wg 22:44:18 <dajobe> ... some may use homepage, email address or charter (danbri) 22:44:23 <dajobe> ... and all of those are OK 22:44:49 <dajobe> ... don't want to impose new requirements, but let them describe as they see them 22:44:56 <dajobe> ... and ground in what they know 22:45:19 <dajobe> http://www.w3.org/Talks/2001/07/30-swws/slide36-1.html 22:45:30 <dajobe> (url typed by hand) 22:46:04 <dajobe> .. people waned to know announcements by activity eg.. everyting by XML activity 22:46:04 <dajobe> ... and the WG chairs don't need to add this 22:46:19 <dajobe> ... people who describe activity structure have different anmes than the chairs do for wgS 22:46:27 <dajobe> ... they can make their descriptions in a different way 22:46:48 <dajobe> ... so long as they agree on the id for the entity, they can merge (e.g. mail addr) 22:47:08 <dajobe> ... so without the notion of the contact:mailbox as daml:equilalent we couldn't merge 22:47:20 <dajobe> ... so need daml peroperties to do this 22:47:38 <dajobe> ... interesting to see how processing this info wtih different levels of tools became a powerful thing 22:47:55 <dajobe> ... and these things can be incremenetly layered. Int his case I needed damil:equiv 22:48:00 <dajobe> ... but in other forms, I didn't 22:48:07 <dajobe> (slide 39-1.html) 22:48:35 <dajobe> ... some get merged because of unique ids, some from daml:equivalent too 22:49:07 <dajobe> ... we can do this by graph merging mostly and sometimes need daml 22:49:21 <dajobe> ... incrementaly layering functionality 22:49:30 <dajobe> ... greate experience to get hands on the tools for this 22:49:43 <dajobe> ... and sometimes we realise we can weave into the workflow assigning unique ids for these 22:50:00 <dajobe> ... lwo hanging fruit for daml is uniqueproperty, damlequivalent, ... (lost 3rd) 22:50:13 <dajobe> ... very powerful 22:50:34 <dajobe> 3rd was daml:unambiguous 22:50:56 <dajobe> -- 22:51:12 <dajobe> ora: was mandated in daml program for all participants to use daml on their pages 22:51:31 <dajobe> ... if you looked at the feature usage, most people just used rdf schema, very few daml bits 22:51:52 <dajobe> phayes: if you looka t daml+oil working at daml reseacher level 22:51:53 <dajobe> ... 22:52:06 <dajobe> ... they are running into limitations of daml+oil 22:52:17 <dajobe> ... and hence has divergent pulls to simplicity, complexity 22:52:26 <dajobe> danbri: I've run into those concernts, more of a spectrum 22:53:01 <dajobe> ... data merging is critical, before daml I had something monoproperty. daml properties don't license all the merging done in em's demo 22:53:10 <dajobe> monoproperty was 'same for all time' 22:53:18 <dajobe> em: rdf notion of layering 22:53:29 <dajobe> ... daml may require more layers, but if done in this way, remains useful and power 22:53:38 <dajobe> danbri: sw-cg job is to get thesecharters layered 22:53:48 <dajobe> s/charters/components/ 22:54:10 <dajobe> phayes: what this community needs is a combination of things from KR ... 22:54:20 <dajobe> ... GOFK(???) ... 22:54:30 <dajobe> ... some features that are pathetical easy from 1956 or something 22:54:39 <dajobe> ... and some things so hard we put them off ... 22:54:49 <dajobe> ... "full temporal sensitivity in changing worlds" ... 22:54:58 <dajobe> ... exciting ... 22:55:07 <dajobe> ... redirecting our attention to problems we put off 22:55:21 <dajobe> ... and can't put off to the next millenium. Must do now, or yesterday. 22:55:29 <dajobe> bwm: pat is excited! 22:55:34 <dajobe> ... wrap up 22:55:38 <dajobe> ... thanks to everyone 22:55:45 <dajobe> thanks to brian 22:55:47 <dajobe> * dajobe claps 22:55:54 <dajobe> thanks scribes 22:56:03 <dajobe> more free gifts... 22:56:11 <AaronSw> * AaronSw claps, grabs free gifts 22:56:14 <dajobe> XML schema f- the guide to w3c xml schema 22:56:20 <dajobe> MEETING CLOSED 22:56:25 <dajobe> DONM - months away :-) 22:56:30 <jimH-lurk> jimH-lurk has left channel 22:56:50 <dajobe> AaronSw: will try to grab one for you. mostly xml.com articles in a book 22:56:54 <GK-f2f> Yes, done!!!! 22:57:04 <AaronSw> thanks, dajobe 22:57:10 <AaronSw> Good work everyone! 22:57:35 <dajobe> logger here will be closing shortly... over to #rdfig 22:57:39 <GK-f2f> I think the acronym above was GOFAI 22:57:54 <GK-f2f> (Good Old Fashioned AI) 22:58:00 <AaronSw> GOFKR ;-) 22:58:13 <barstow_> barstow_ has left channel
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 12:10:19 UTC