W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2001

RDF Core Telecon IRC Log

From: <aaronswartz@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20010713182603.16716.qmail@web13904.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-archive@w3.org
Here's another...

 - Aaron

Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
13:00:03 <logger_1> logger_1 (rdfcore-lo@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk) has joined #rdfcore
13:00:03 <sagan.openprojects.net> Users on #rdfcore: @logger_1 
13:00:03 <ChanServ> ChanServ has changed the topic to: 
13:00:03 <ChanServ> This channel has been registered with ChanServ.
13:18:56 <AaronSw> AaronSw (Snak@c930384-a.hlndpk1.il.home.com) has joined #rdfcore
13:40:00 <dajobe> dajobe (jan.grajnt@phobos.hpl.hp.com) has joined #rdfcore
13:40:30 <AaronSw> Hello
13:40:42 <AaronSw> I'm confused - is this dajobe or jan.grant?
13:40:47 <dajobe> hi - dave
13:40:49 <dajobe> brb
13:40:51 <dajobe> dajobe has left channel
13:41:18 <dajobe> dajobe (dave.becke@phobos.hpl.hp.com) has joined #rdfcore
13:57:40 <spetschu> spetschu (spetschu@cr660071-a.rct1.bc.wave.home.com) has joined #rdfcore
13:57:49 <bwm> bwm (bwm@phobos.hpl.hp.com) has joined #rdfcore
13:58:30 <AaronSw> * AaronSw dials
13:58:41 <dajobe> * dajobe dialing
13:58:51 <AaronSw> +Aaron
13:59:06 <dajobe> +danbri
13:59:19 <AaronSw> +Frank
13:59:25 <AaronSw> danbri?
13:59:28 <dajobe> delete that +danbri
13:59:44 <gk> gk (GK@ has joined #rdfcore
13:59:59 <AaronSw> +Steve
14:00:08 <mdean> mdean (mdean@hh1114013.direcpc.com) has joined #rdfcore
14:00:32 <mdean> mdean is now known as mdean_
14:00:57 <AaronSw> Note to Scribe: Attach IRC Log to bottom
14:01:02 <AaronSw> of minutes
14:01:40 <AaronSw> +GK
14:01:43 <AaronSw> +Ora
14:02:18 <AaronSw> +Bill, Mike, Jos
14:02:30 <AaronSw> WELCOME, ROLL CALL, SCRIBE 
14:03:03 <AaronSw> regrets: danbri
14:03:05 <AaronSw> bwm present
14:03:11 <AaronSw> regrets from eric
14:03:17 <AaronSw> regrets from artb
14:03:20 <AaronSw> daveb present
14:03:24 <AaronSw> frankb missing
14:03:29 <AaronSw> danc regrets
14:03:32 <AaronSw> ron daniel missing
14:03:38 <AaronSw> bil dehora present
14:03:41 <AaronSw> jos de roo, present
14:03:44 <AaronSw> rael missing
14:03:48 <AaronSw> jang regrets
14:03:58 <AaronSw> martyn horner regrets
14:04:08 <AaronSw> yoshiyuki, regrets
14:04:10 <AaronSw> gk present
14:04:17 <AaronSw> kopchenov missing
14:04:24 <AaronSw> ora, manola present
14:04:28 <AaronSw> nakimura regrets
14:04:32 <AaronSw> steve present
14:04:36 <AaronSw> pierre missing
14:04:39 <AaronSw> aaron here
14:04:44 <AaronSw> miked present
14:04:54 <AaronSw> guha, phayes, sergey missing
14:05:07 <AaronSw> REVIEW AGENDA
14:05:15 <dajobe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0114.html
14:05:27 <AaronSw>  - Agenda
14:05:32 <AaronSw> REVIEW MINUTES OF MEETING on 6th July 2001
14:05:33 <AaronSw>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0052.html
14:05:40 <AaronSw> no objections
14:05:46 <AaronSw> approved
14:05:51 <AaronSw> +Pat Hayes
14:06:06 <AaronSw> REVIEW AGENDA
14:06:17 <AaronSw> Frank has item about DAML joint comitte
14:06:24 <AaronSw> coming early in the meeting
14:06:58 <AaronSw> 2001-06-29#5, 2001-06-08#2 - done
14:07:10 <AaronSw> JUN-01-01-#9 - CONTINUED, next week
14:07:19 <AaronSw> 2001-07-06#1 - DONE
14:07:27 <AaronSw> 2001-06-22#5 - CONTINUED
14:07:39 <AaronSw> 2001-07-06#2 - CONTINUED
14:07:50 <AaronSw> 2001-07-06#3 - continued, sergey missing
14:09:04 <bwm> http://www.daml.org/2001/07/RDFS-DAML+OIL-coordination.html
14:10:50 <AaronSw> person to read thru, compare with our issues list
14:10:57 <AaronSw> get agreement with the working group
14:10:59 <AaronSw> and send response to DAML
14:11:24 <AaronSw> frankm: many technical issues already have had technical discussion
14:11:33 <AaronSw> considerable technical discussion
14:11:44 <AaronSw> bwm: two things - an acknowledgement and an assesment
14:11:45 <sergey> sergey (melnik@Barnacle.Stanford.EDU) has joined #rdfcore
14:12:15 <AaronSw> ACTION bwm: acknowledge receipt
14:12:27 <AaronSw> ACTION frankm: Draft an assesment
14:12:43 <AaronSw> bwm: should I indicate a timeframe for assessment?
14:13:16 <AaronSw> gk: should be done fairly quickly -- don't need solutions, just issue pointers
14:13:22 <AaronSw> bwm: by the end of the month, i'll say
14:14:35 <AaronSw>  - Formalizing N-Triples (5 mins)
14:14:39 <AaronSw>   http://purl.org/net/dajobe/2001/06/ntriples/
14:14:59 <AaronSw> bwm proposes:
14:15:00 <AaronSw>   o this becomes the 'official' definition of n-triples
14:16:00 <AaronSw> few comments
14:16:18 <AaronSw> bill dehora: in spec as an appendix
14:16:21 <AaronSw> bwm: key part
14:16:28 <AaronSw> ??: key phrase is working document
14:16:33 <AaronSw> sergey: modified as we go along?
14:16:40 <AaronSw> yes, that's the intention
14:16:50 <AaronSw> any objections?
14:16:53 <AaronSw> none.
14:16:59 <AaronSw>   o call for a maintainer
14:17:10 <AaronSw> suggestion: dave and art get together
14:17:24 <AaronSw> ACTION dave: resolve who will maintain document
14:17:37 <AaronSw> aaron: can this be put in w3c space?
14:17:42 <AaronSw> bwm, dave: yes
14:17:46 <gk> Aaron: if this is to be an official doc, it shoiuld be in W3C space
14:18:01 <AaronSw> bwm: yes, it would move w/ a copyright notice, etc.
14:18:34 <AaronSw> ACTION bwm: mail out message announcing registration
14:18:49 <AaronSw> re: ACTION  2001-06-08#2: (5 mins)
14:18:56 <AaronSw> Propose to update the issues list to point to this text.
14:19:06 <AaronSw> no feedback from the list
14:19:12 <AaronSw> any objections?
14:19:20 <AaronSw> done
14:20:10 <AaronSw> gk: not in a position to agree as a resolution, not studied it
14:20:15 <AaronSw> bwm: people need more time to study?
14:20:20 <dajobe> talking about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0039.html
14:20:24 <AaronSw> gk: yes
14:20:33 <AaronSw> ACTION all: review the document
14:20:39 <AaronSw> it will return on next week's document
14:20:41 <AaronSw> err agenda
14:21:02 <AaronSw> Preparing for the f2f:  (10 minutes)
14:21:10 <AaronSw> registration above refers to f2f
14:21:38 <AaronSw> sergey sent out email, ordering people agreed upon mostly
14:21:53 <AaronSw> issue of scope: what needs to be done, what is expected result
14:22:09 <AaronSw> people weren't sure aboout where to place it in priorities
14:22:15 <AaronSw> all items are expensive topics
14:22:24 <dajobe> sergey's email - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0033.html
14:22:32 <AaronSw> the consensus seems that it's a first-cut summary of the three priorities
14:23:11 <AaronSw> open mic = open microphone
14:23:27 <AaronSw> brian: proposed the summarization, and divided the open issues
14:23:29 <dajobe> brian's list: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0072.html
14:23:39 <AaronSw> top group was priority because it affected abstract syntax
14:23:47 <AaronSw> bottom group somewhat deemphasized
14:24:08 <AaronSw> any other issues that affect abstract syntax?
14:24:11 <AaronSw> please speak up
14:24:20 <AaronSw> sergey: I'm raising namespaces
14:24:27 <AaronSw> ACTION bwm: Open the namespaces issue
14:24:31 <AaronSw> sergey is owner for issue
14:25:27 <AaronSw> bwm: if we had a model theory, it'd be easy to answer questions
14:25:39 <AaronSw> ... seems we have some logicians, so lets invite them to give a strawman
14:25:47 <AaronSw> ... gives us a focus for discussion
14:25:55 <AaronSw> gk: i agree
14:26:06 <AaronSw> frank: second, jos: third
14:26:19 <AaronSw> sergey: several times, discussion of common terms
14:26:23 <AaronSw> seems very serious
14:26:38 <AaronSw> before we have detailed discussions on model, we need to know about terms
14:26:54 <AaronSw> some sort of itemized list of discussion
14:27:19 <AaronSw> gk: put out a message reminding of terminology doc
14:27:25 <AaronSw> started while back in rdfinterest
14:27:44 <dajobe> graham http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jan/att-0064/01-RDFTerminologyConcepts.html
14:27:53 <mdean_> sorry -- i thought i had a call waiting beep
14:28:10 <AaronSw> phayes: i've volunteered to put together straw model theory
14:28:15 <AaronSw> ... probably incomplete
14:28:27 <AaronSw> bwm: incomplete is fine, something to get started
14:28:44 <AaronSw> hayes: i have to agree with term problem, but doing formalizing is way of getting definitions clear
14:28:49 <dajobe> * dajobe agrees
14:28:52 <AaronSw> ... do them in parallel, not one before another.
14:29:10 <AaronSw> frankm, gk, sergey: agree
14:29:37 <AaronSw> aaron: also make sure that we answer the question
14:29:49 <AaronSw> hayes: model theory is a sandbox, focuses the questions
14:30:01 <AaronSw> i agree - let's not replace answering the questions
14:30:09 <gk> Pat:  absolutrely -- think of the model theory as a mathematical sandbox to try out the answers
14:30:10 <AaronSw> manola: an excercise in answering the question
14:30:26 <AaronSw> pat: it gives us more detailed answers
14:30:44 <AaronSw> action pat: produce the strawman
14:30:56 <AaronSw> Review status of #rdfms-identity-anon-resources (15 mins)
14:31:06 <AaronSw> brian: reviewing issues with high priority
14:31:24 <AaronSw> about 50 mail messages on this topic
14:31:28 <AaronSw> i hope there is some progress
14:31:46 <AaronSw> gk: i think there is progress, recent exchange with frank, want to hear danc's comments
14:32:27 <AaronSw> w/ frank we've narrowed issue down to one of query on one side and and issue of generation of a variable to capture semantics of there exists
14:32:40 <AaronSw> other comments fit within that spectrum
14:32:44 <AaronSw> (gk, am i getting this right?)
14:33:16 <AaronSw> hayes: your dismissal of query, while correct, will not be accepted so well -- for many people its curcial
14:33:27 <AaronSw> gk: ok, i suppose I have to wait for an argument
14:33:33 <AaronSw> hayes: just a heads-up
14:34:09 <AaronSw> manola: if this is an issue, and one of the clarifications to go in the m&s
14:34:43 <AaronSw> query draws on semantics not inherent in rdf core
14:34:46 <AaronSw>  - gk
14:34:53 <AaronSw> gk: can we broaden the discussion?
14:35:04 <AaronSw> hayes: it would be useful if the documentation had explicit warnings
14:35:10 <AaronSw> saying things are out of scope
14:35:25 <AaronSw> in DAML we said in the spec things that people misunderstand
14:35:34 <AaronSw> we're going to flag warning signs
14:35:41 <AaronSw> frank: i agree, two basic approaches
14:36:11 <AaronSw> 1) we recognize sending rdf expression to agent as query
14:36:25 <AaronSw> people are afraid to assign query semantics, those are not mandated
14:36:29 <AaronSw> query folks are on their own
14:36:29 <AaronSw> 2
14:36:43 <AaronSw> 2) we could do the extension ourselves - not advocating, but a possibility
14:37:01 <AaronSw> gk: basically agree -- all for warnings
14:37:06 <AaronSw> be careful - don't stray too far
14:37:23 <AaronSw> don't get stuck on difficult discussion
14:37:52 <AaronSw> bwm as techie: gk, you think we have a resolution? what is it?
14:38:33 <AaronSw> gk: current spec suggests key idea is that anon resources say "there exists something with these properties"
14:38:39 <AaronSw> jos: 1 or only one, or more than one?
14:38:48 <AaronSw> gk: not limited to being a single thing
14:39:00 <AaronSw> i refer folks to frank's recent message
14:39:06 <AaronSw> there is more precise wording
14:39:17 <AaronSw> seems to come down to 2 ways of expressing idea
14:39:27 <AaronSw> 1) skolemization - creating identifier
14:39:45 <AaronSw> 2) introduction of some scoped variable, something which is more explicit
14:39:53 <AaronSw>  - an existentially quantified variable
14:40:20 <AaronSw> bwm: which way
14:40:24 <AaronSw> gk: problems each way
14:40:34 <AaronSw> 1: how do we generate it
14:40:38 <AaronSw> 2: how do we scope it?
14:40:50 <AaronSw> not clear to me how we scope a variable in the abstract syntax
14:40:58 <AaronSw> without collection of statements
14:41:05 <AaronSw> bwm: link to the graph issue
14:41:12 <AaronSw> gk: right, important point to capture
14:41:29 <AaronSw> bwm-techie: on the genid approach, do you thinnk you'd recognize names as being "different"
14:41:35 <AaronSw> or would it be indistinguishable
14:41:53 <AaronSw> gk: my thinking is indistinguishable, but concepts having uid that's distinguishable....
14:41:59 <AaronSw> ... somewhat sitting uncomfortably
14:42:13 <AaronSw> don't have a particularly strong view, slight preference towards scoped variable
14:42:23 <AaronSw> jos: scope could be in the document itself
14:42:32 <AaronSw> ntriples makes it quite clear
14:42:39 <AaronSw> _:things are variable names
14:42:51 <AaronSw> gk: i have a problem with scope=document -- what happens when you combine documents?
14:43:02 <AaronSw> you need way of capturing boundaries
14:43:08 <AaronSw> within the abstract syntax
14:43:41 <AaronSw> frankm: issues to resolve include whether it's a syntactic exercise or something more substantial
14:44:08 <AaronSw> if i merge two logic statemnts, variables don't refer to the same thing
14:44:43 <AaronSw> hayes: have to rename variables for no clashes
14:44:49 <AaronSw> i thought that's what URIs were supposed to do
14:45:02 <AaronSw> why not just say they're URIs?
14:45:24 <AaronSw> frank: let's be clear
14:45:38 <AaronSw> bwm: need to move on w/ process and actions
14:45:48 <AaronSw> sounds like good deal of progress
14:45:55 <AaronSw> gk, what do you need?
14:46:21 <AaronSw> gk: need to clarify choices
14:46:29 <AaronSw> what pat says was what i saw as skolemization
14:47:40 <AaronSw> ACTION frankm: clarify choices for anonymous resources with some ramifications
14:47:58 <AaronSw> action on pat?
14:48:24 <AaronSw> hayes: question about creating the 'same' genids?
14:48:51 <AaronSw> ACTION graham: collect proposals from pat, frank, and any others
14:49:35 <AaronSw> ACTION pat: provide his point of view
14:49:47 <AaronSw> gk: i think after this we'll be ready to move on
14:50:07 <AaronSw> bwm: some colleagues here are using anon resources and they believe it matters
14:50:17 <AaronSw> ACTION bwm: write up summary of what they're doing
14:50:36 <AaronSw> gk: whn i sent summary, there were several parts
14:50:42 <AaronSw> one section was "goals for anon resources"
14:50:46 <AaronSw> are there other goals?
14:51:10 <AaronSw> ACTION all: submit anonymous resource use cases
14:51:22 <AaronSw> ready to move on?
14:51:26 <AaronSw> Review status of #rdfms-xmllang (10 mins)
14:51:39 <AaronSw> sent summary late last night
14:51:48 <AaronSw> three use cases
14:52:00 <dajobe> brian's summary http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0122.html
14:52:36 <AaronSw> bwm: M&S is quite clear on this
14:52:45 <AaronSw> it describes it as being part of a literal twice
14:52:56 <AaronSw> there may be contradictions elsewhere
14:53:11 <AaronSw> jang: his implementation used it the way M&S described, preferred that
14:53:33 <AaronSw> martyn: sales and services says we don't model it that way -- we represent the concept with anonymosu resource
14:53:46 <AaronSw> just wouldn't use M&S's way
14:54:22 <AaronSw> ericm: provided seemingly similar use case -- couldn't determine whether m&s solution met requirements
14:54:29 <AaronSw> think it probably would, but better followup
14:54:49 <AaronSw> ACTION bwm: followup with eric on whether M&S meets his reqs
14:54:57 <gk> * gk losrt my telephione link for a minute or so
14:55:11 <AaronSw> some questions:
14:55:15 <AaronSw>   o Do we understand what M&S says about xml:lang?
14:55:18 <AaronSw> Yes
14:55:27 <AaronSw>   o Is what M&S describes broken - is there some fatal flaw that must be
14:55:27 <AaronSw>     fixed?
14:55:54 <AaronSw> hayes: clearly not, since some have implemented it
14:55:59 <AaronSw> aaron: timbl and danc have problems with it
14:56:10 <AaronSw> hayes: timbl is quite clear, xmllang is a mistakr
14:56:37 <AaronSw> hayes: uses term brain-damaged
14:56:51 <AaronSw> s/hayes/gk/ 2 above
14:57:07 <AaronSw> bwm: do we fix it or should we leave it?
14:57:24 <AaronSw> gk: i see 3 possible ways -- 
14:57:33 <AaronSw> 1) idea of literals as complex entities
14:57:36 <AaronSw> 2) model it in the graph
14:57:45 <AaronSw> 3) adopt both of those
14:57:52 <AaronSw> bwm: let the market decide?
14:58:01 <AaronSw> gk: maybe, let a thousand flowers bloom
14:58:16 <AaronSw> hayes: something a little weird to represent it two different ways
14:58:33 <AaronSw> might get contradictions
14:58:37 <AaronSw> frank: sounds likely to happen
14:58:50 <AaronSw> bwm: two minutes left
14:59:02 <AaronSw> like graham's suggestion about writing up alternatives with pros and cons
14:59:18 <AaronSw> i'd be happy to give the action to someone else
14:59:41 <AaronSw> ACTION bwm: do a writeup
14:59:44 <AaronSw> running out of time
14:59:50 <AaronSw> meeting same time same place next week
14:59:56 <AaronSw> hayes: same time as daml pi meeting
14:59:58 <AaronSw> i'll send email
15:00:07 <AaronSw> bwm: i'll bear that in mind for agenda
15:00:09 <AaronSw> any other comments?
15:00:17 <AaronSw> CLOSE OF MEETING
15:00:38 <bwm> thanks aaron
15:00:43 <AaronSw> no problem
15:00:51 <AaronSw> btw, does anyone know where eric is?
15:00:53 <dajobe> back later
15:00:55 <dajobe> dajobe has quit (Leaving)
15:00:58 <sergey> sergey has left channel
15:01:14 <gk> gk has left channel
15:02:31 <spetschu> spetschu has left channel

Received on Friday, 13 July 2001 14:26:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:37 UTC