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
Users on #rdfcore: logger_1 DanC_ Aaron-F2F
[16:51:09] dajobe
dajobe has joined #rdfcore
* Aaron-F2F waves to logger_1
[16:51:35] dajobe
who is op here and can set topic?
[16:51:39] Aaron-F2F
[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
* 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
* 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
* DanC_ blushes... wrong channel
* 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
* dajobe scribes
[17:10:05] AaronSw
[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 ...
* 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
[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
[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
[17:24:40] dajobe
any data-peeks are avaialble as rss1.0
* 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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[17:54:12] dajobe
users of daml+OIL
[17:54:26] dajobe
... fundede researchers under daml program and eu sw program - ontoweb and wonderweb, ....
* 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
[18:09:52] dajobe
[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
* 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
* 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
[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
[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
[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, ...
* 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
* 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?
* 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
[18:35:28] DanC_
thru 11:45
[18:46:48] dajobe
dajobe is now known as jang
[18:47:17] jang
[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
[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"
* 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
* 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
* tim lurking as invited
[20:48:48] danbri-f2f
danbri-f2f has quit
[20:49:24] jang
[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
[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"
* 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
[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
* 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)
* 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
* 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
* 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)
* 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: &nbsp; is common
[21:50:21] danb-scribe
dan: apostrophe, quote are builtins for xml, wouldn't expect probs there. For &nbsp; 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 &#160; 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 ...
* 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
[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
* 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
* 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
* 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
[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
* 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
[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_
[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
* 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 ...
* barstow thinks that Ora created this mess and thus he'd like to hear his position :-)
* 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
[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?
* 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)
* 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.
* dajobe nods
[23:56:13] dajobe
(can someone paste URI)
* danbri nods too
[23:56:17] danbri
will do
[23:56:38] danbri
[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
[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