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