RDF Core Working Group IRC logs for 2002-02-25

These are the logs from the RDF Core Working Group IRC chat.

Dave Beckett

[05:21:07] AaronSw
AaronSw has joined #rdfcore
[07:07:56] bwm
bwm has joined #rdfcore
[07:08:04] AaronSw
[07:09:22] bwm
You're up early
[07:09:26] bwm
[07:09:29] AaronSw
no, up late.
[07:09:35] AaronSw
[07:09:41] bwm
just finding out we are natted and ipsec does not work
[07:09:54] AaronSw
[07:09:59] bwm
i'm off to join the registration line
[07:10:03] bwm
back in mo'
[07:10:06] AaronSw
* AaronSw wanders off
[07:14:51] AaronSw
need some sleep. laters
[07:18:57] AaronSw
[BTW, did you get my email bwm?]
[07:21:28] AaronSw
i'd appreciate it if we discussed rdfms-fragments first on the telecon, because I have to leave early
[07:23:20] bwm
bwm has quit
[07:24:58] bwm
bwm has joined #rdfcore
[07:25:23] AaronSw
welcome back
[07:25:23] bwm
bwm has quit
[07:26:03] bwm
bwm has joined #rdfcore
[07:26:06] AaronSw
welcome back
[07:31:31] bwm
in the room now
[07:31:40] AaronSw
did you get my meail? i'd appreciate it if we discussed rdfms-fragments first on the telecon, because I have to leave early
[07:31:42] bwm
an i'm live
[07:31:49] AaronSw
[07:32:03] bwm
Didn't get your mail - remind me at the time - but sure
[07:32:13] AaronSw
* AaronSw is really off now
[07:42:40] bwm
am I still connected
[07:47:18] mdean_
mdean_ has joined #RDFCore
[07:47:19] bwm
bwm has quit
[07:47:49] mdean_
hi aaron -- wireless connections are a little flaky here, so we may come and go
[07:52:12] mdean_
meeting is starting
[07:52:25] mdean_
no great motivational speech
[07:52:43] mdean_
em: the restaurant around the corner has vegemite ...
[07:53:06] mdean_
brian: welcome
[07:54:30] mdean_
libby miller of ILRT is observing
[07:54:46] mdean_
objectives on agenda -- goal to get issues down to 0
[07:55:02] mdean_
brian: need to think about getting to last call and beyond
[07:57:49] libby
libby has joined #rdfcore
[07:57:49] mdean_
mdean_ has quit
[07:58:27] mdean_
mdean_ has joined #RDFCore
[07:59:06] mdean_
original call -- last call October 2001
[07:59:33] mdean_
issue: rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr
[08:00:21] mdean_
jeremy: rdf:ID on property elements always used for reification
[08:00:36] mdean_
dajobe: seconded
[08:07:26] mdean_
examples being entered to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/session1.html
[08:07:58] mdean_
dajobe: this will require change to test case 5 and probably others
[08:08:17] mdean_
ACTION: Jeremy formalize test case
[08:08:29] mdean_
ACTION: Jan update test cases document
[08:08:51] mdean_
with this test case
[08:09:17] mdean_
review other test cases for side effects (empty-property-elements 005)
[08:09:51] mdean_
23 issues to go
[08:10:24] mdean_
issue: rdfms-nested-bagIDs
[08:13:00] mdean_
paste example into W3C web site -- ARP does this right
[08:19:26] libby
dave's mailt to rdfcore: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0113.html
[08:19:26] mdean_
mdean_ has quit
[08:19:51] libby
is everyone happy with this :
[08:20:51] libby
a bag id reifies the property attributes of the same elemnt of the bag id, the typed node, and the property elements that are direct children of that node and nothing else (jeremy)
[08:21:02] mdean_
mdean_ has joined #RDFCore
[08:21:34] libby
in particular a prop element that itself has prop attributes, those attributes are not part of the bag
[08:21:34] mdean_
mdean_ has quit
[08:22:27] libby
'shallow as it can be'
[08:23:08] libby
(says jeremy)
[08:23:24] libby
jos: motivation?
[08:23:39] libby
dave: simplest answer
[08:24:08] libby
jos: in a sense not logical
[08:24:25] libby
...reify everything...
[08:24:34] libby
jos has a proble with this
[08:24:53] libby
...a bag of statement is a bag of statements, all of them
[08:26:14] libby
brian: look at orginal example
[08:26:23] libby
..this generates 2 bags
[08:26:51] mdean_
mdean_ has joined #RDFCore
[08:26:59] libby
(differs a bit from dave's example)
[08:27:08] libby
bag1 contains st1
[08:27:19] libby
bag2 constains st2
[08:27:25] libby
no typed node in this example
[08:27:49] libby
[08:28:13] libby
<rdf:Description about="a" bagID="bag1">
[08:28:29] libby
<some:prop rdf:ID="st1">
[08:28:38] libby
... see doc
[08:28:41] libby
[08:29:09] libby
[08:29:15] libby
dave to update the document
[08:29:52] libby
brian to review testcases tomorrow in detail
[08:30:36] mdean_
wireless connection seems much better now -- antenna has been moved
[08:31:24] JosD
JosD has joined #rdfcore
[08:32:59] libby
jjc generate more testcases
[08:33:06] em-cann
em-cann has joined #rdfcore
[08:33:14] libby
brian: closed issue, and also the provious one
[08:33:29] libby
2 down!
[08:33:57] mdean_
next issue: rdfms-rdf-names-use
[08:34:58] em-cann
[08:36:38] libby
brian: waiting to complete the test cases
[08:36:48] libby
...action on dave...
[08:37:01] libby
dave: infinite!
[08:39:27] libby
brain: do we restrict rdf/rdfs names which are not syntactic? no
[08:39:46] libby
jjc: rdf:foo e.g? things that arent currently used?
[08:40:01] libby
..but in the rdf ns
[08:40:20] libby
dave: resrve these
[08:40:26] libby
brain disagrees
[08:40:34] libby
[08:40:48] libby
...existing parsers will barf
[08:41:39] libby
jjc: parser issues warning then treats it as normal. can still call it illegal
[08:42:19] libby
gk: any definition nof meaning is reserved for a future wg
[08:42:28] libby
brain: what triples?
[08:42:49] libby
brian: I suggest allowed
[08:43:10] libby
ps: parsers dont have to die even if an error
[08:44:10] libby
gk: we dont want to commit its an error for all time. 'undefined' category for test cases?
[08:44:22] libby
dave: error
[08:44:27] libby
jjc: error
[08:44:30] libby
ps: warning
[08:44:41] libby
maryn: error
[08:44:45] libby
[08:44:55] libby
danc: error but dont care
* libby lost
[08:45:33] libby
eric: generate the triple
[08:46:30] libby
brain: m&S says rdf ns is reserved
[08:46:37] libby
danc: not important enough
[08:46:53] libby
brian: answer: generats the triple and should generate the warning
[08:47:02] libby
issue closed!
[08:47:08] libby
countem, 3!
[08:47:29] libby
action: daveb update syntax doc
[08:47:43] libby
jang ensure testcases created andf added to testcases doc
[08:48:04] libby
jjc: testcase manifest needs to eb able to say this testcase geneartes a warning
[08:48:18] libby
...currently doesnt do this
[08:48:46] mdean_
issue: rdfms-xml-base
[08:49:21] libby
jjc: needs to go to TAG. same doc references do not get proceesed wrt the base uri
[08:49:49] em-cann
em-cann has quit
[08:50:08] em-cann
em-cann has joined #rdfcore
[08:51:07] libby
lots of test cases available; they doesnt use rfc 2396 though; but is we use that rfc, rdf:ID becomes counter-intuitive
[08:53:29] libby
see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0516.html
[08:53:29] em-cann
em-cann has quit
[08:53:48] libby
test 8
[08:55:00] libby
jjc: not our problem, its a prob w 2396, maybe a TAG problem
[08:56:18] libby
brian: proposal is are the testcases with the same document erference acceptable
[08:56:40] libby
3 people have implementations which are affected
[08:56:57] libby
...or who want to, especially mike, who thinks this implementation makes sense
[08:57:09] libby
danc: we nede to ask the powers that be at last call
[08:57:41] libby
brian: approved!
[08:58:12] libby
actions: daveb update syntax doc;
[08:58:23] libby
jang update test cases
[08:59:01] libby
danc: we need to ask the editors of 2396 if this is ok: action danc
[08:59:38] libby
danc: syntax needs to express teh algorithm used
[08:59:40] gk
gk has joined #rdfcore
[08:59:45] libby
jjc: to write it up
[09:00:46] libby
danc: thinks this strategy will fail
[09:01:50] libby
em: can get different conclusions of rfc 2396
[09:01:50] libby
'reasonable peopel can disagree'
[09:02:32] libby
em: the best approach might not be to emphasise the differences
[09:02:54] DanC
DanC has joined #rdfcore
[09:02:55] libby
danc: in this context the exception doesnt apply
* DanC wonders if this channel is to be used for records
[09:03:25] libby
I've been making notes
[09:03:55] libby
[09:04:16] libby
em: suggests daveb write this, and persuade jjc to help; danc talk to rfc editiors
[09:05:20] libby
brian: action jjc write up the case that 2396 context is different to browsing
[09:05:36] libby
em: multiple codebases woudl help - mike?
[09:05:58] libby
mike uses jena/arp
[09:06:36] libby
not mutiple codebases
[09:06:44] libby
daveb will imleemnt this in raptor
[09:09:22] libby
jjc: we've solved the first of 4 issues in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0516.html
[09:10:24] libby
jjc: problem: base url has no end slash, fragment doesnt have a start slash. jjc reads 2396 to say no slash separator
[09:11:00] libby
...minor bug rather than change in intent
[09:11:13] libby
danc: recommends the same action as previously
[09:11:27] libby
gk: ask tthem if the slash is what they really meant
[09:11:42] libby
jjc: hold approval of testcase till checked w them?
[09:12:16] libby
brian: approve testcase, action to review it with the 2396 editors. danc will do this latter
[09:12:55] libby
testcases are sufficient
* DanC hears that Larry left; wonders where he went
[09:13:06] DanC
logger_3, pointer?
[09:13:06] DanC
See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-02-25#T09-13-06
[09:13:13] libby
testcase is approved and issue closed (brian)
[09:13:28] libby
testcase 11, that is from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0516.html
[09:14:31] libby
jjc next issue from the email: testcase 14
[09:15:34] libby
...2 occurances of rdf:ID="frag" in same doc is an error; propose if xml:base differ then allow it
[09:15:52] libby
dave: drop restriction that fragids be checked for uniqueness?
[09:16:06] libby
mike finds duplicate id detection v useful
[09:16:35] libby
jjc: kinda useful for reification
[09:16:43] libby
danc: thinks shoudl work like this
[09:17:04] libby
jjc: check for dups after extending the base
[09:17:15] libby
[09:17:38] libby
drop duplicate detection altogetther for efficincy sake?
[09:18:29] libby
jjc: people could use about in a v long doc
[09:19:11] libby
brian: keep id frag checking
[09:19:15] libby
no actions
[09:19:58] libby
danc duplicate ids is an error means not an rdf document
[09:20:06] libby
mike like sthe warning
[09:20:19] libby
jjc: arp will barf if strict flag
[09:20:24] libby
4th base issue
[09:21:01] libby
jjc: several error case: error1,2,3
[09:21:30] libby
...1 really is an error: 'mailto uri - no way to resolve this base
[09:21:36] libby
...not an rdf document
[09:21:52] libby
em disagrees
[09:22:11] libby
jjc: no, no algorithm to generate this
[09:22:27] libby
danc: cant merge the path here, because mailto no path. agree error
[09:23:35] libby
jjc :error case 2: a reasonable algorithm could generate this, but jjc thinks an error
[09:24:16] libby
...foo is a same document reference not a relative uri. these definitely different. rfc expliictly says
[09:25:25] libby
case 2 is dropped, action on jjc to create a positive testcase
[09:25:34] libby
error case 3:
[09:26:17] libby
same doc reference with a mailto uri. shoudl go the same way as error case 2
[09:26:29] libby
action jjc to craete positive case
[09:27:23] libby
brian: do rest of those testcases tomorrow morning
[09:27:50] libby
jjc: that's it with xml:base
[09:28:08] libby
jjc found the xml:base issues. we are stil on for doing xml:base.
[09:28:16] libby
only 20 issues left!
[09:28:22] libby
groups breaks for coffee
[09:29:08] libby
libby has quit
[09:57:32] libby
libby has joined #rdfcore
[09:58:11] libby
libby has quit
[10:00:04] libby
libby has joined #rdfcore
[10:04:34] libby
rdfms-seq-representation is done already
[10:04:34] libby
[10:04:34] libby
dave: we resolved on 11 jan not to change the rpoperty
[10:04:34] libby
brain: but what it means needs to be clarified in the context of datatypes
[10:05:04] libby
...a specific understanding of value for dts will break existing code
[10:05:51] libby
...proposes: no model theory for it, but its meaning is entirely app-dependent. suggested styles of using it
[10:05:55] libby
jjc seconded
[10:06:23] libby
ps would like it to be that this does not preclude it from being used in a datatyping idiom
[10:08:14] libby
danc would not be happy w putting 1.0 examples in here. woudl like real uses
[10:08:14] JosD
JosD has quit
[10:08:22] libby
dave: dublin core uses it
[10:08:40] libby
danc: does dc usage agree w 1.0 spec?
[10:09:29] libby
em: useful for UI
[10:09:46] libby
danc: who is going to write this use guide?
[10:09:54] libby
[10:10:12] libby
- frank is primer editor
[10:10:38] libby
brain: propose the wg resolve:
[10:10:53] libby
- rdf:value of a property defined in the rdf ns
[10:11:05] JosD
JosD has joined #rdfcore
[10:11:34] libby
that no model theory semantics is defined spceifcally for it
[10:12:17] libby
action em to ensure primer describes appropriate use of rdf:value
[10:12:38] libby
danc: likely that phayes will likely want to say soemthing about it
[10:13:55] libby
- model theory must state that rdf:value is a property
[10:15:29] libby
everyone is happy
[10:15:48] libby
action - bwm ensures phayes ensures in mt
[10:16:29] libby
[10:17:59] libby
danc: are we taking rdfs 1.0 forward or not..?
[10:17:59] libby
jjc: propose no v2 of rdf m&s? supceceded by testcase docs and primer, syntax doc and teh model theory
[10:18:16] libby
brian: proposed
[10:19:05] libby
danc primer discusses the other docs
[10:19:40] libby
[10:20:14] libby
issue continues: rdfms-editorial: typos, unclear language etc
[10:20:44] libby
brian: propose that those issues now not relevant and we close the issue
[10:21:22] libby
...the editors of teh docs would look at the detil of the issues so dont make the same mistakes again
[10:21:29] libby
danc: need an errata page
[10:22:44] libby
action em: update M&S errata to say that m&s will be superceded by the new documents
[10:23:21] libby
[10:24:25] libby
next issue: rdfms-fragments
[10:26:22] libby
gk: if it is an issue, fragment ids dont behave in quite the same way in rdf as with other web retrieval dodads
[10:27:32] libby
gk: orginal email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0559.html
[10:27:49] libby
...if you ahve different mime types, fragment ids are used in different ways
[10:28:13] libby
...proposal was to say that rdf uses the fragment identifier in its own way
[10:28:50] libby
dave: my rdf code doesnt do retrivel
[10:29:34] libby
brian: wording in spec or what peple expect
[10:30:02] libby
...2 cases fragment which is a class, for example. w mimetype we can contriol this in rdf
[10:30:33] libby
...second case: chapter 2 written by mike, etc
[10:30:56] libby
...semantics could mean a diffeent thing that what mean by it
[10:31:41] libby
danc: trying to create a testcase for it
[10:32:30] libby
...suppose wanted to point to second description in an rdf doc using xlink
[10:32:50] libby
...trying to write an rdf doc w the same uri erference, and see whether it works
[10:33:31] libby
danc: timbl I think thinks that one points to the think and one points to the reference to the thing - difference
[10:33:55] libby
gk: maybe if no testcases not important. doe sit work w uris with no hash fragments?
[10:34:08] libby
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt 4.1 fragment identifier
[10:34:48] libby
...'resources in rdf dont correpond to anything called resource son the wider web if no #...?
[10:35:35] libby
graham's proposal :http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0559.html
[10:37:14] libby
aaron has a proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0391.html
[10:37:33] libby
danc: doesnt like it; jjc, too big a change. wide disagreement
[10:37:47] libby
gk: use of hash fragments is too well established
[10:38:15] libby
brian: as aaron: changing eartly is better if have to change
[10:38:24] libby
gk: inelegant, but dont have to change
[10:39:13] libby
brian: has come up on mailing list
[10:41:01] libby
gk thinks has a testcase
[10:41:01] libby
also so does jjc
[10:41:19] libby
danc: cant serve rdf as text/xml, cos then fragids mean what they d in the rfc
[10:41:27] libby
(says timbl)
[10:41:44] libby
ditton the cuurent rdf mime proposal
[10:42:37] libby
gk: a doc in diff mime formats, and we want to make statements about fragments of the document independently of its mimetypes
[10:43:30] libby
jjc: similar test case, all text xml docs of diff sizes after content negotiation
[10:43:52] libby
....23rd element is different things in each document
[10:44:01] libby
...ill-defined because document is illdefined
[10:44:08] libby
danc: just dont do that
[10:45:23] libby
gk just want to flag the problem
[10:46:43] libby
[10:47:52] libby
brian: first case is repesentation idependent; second case (jjc, #23) is not
[10:49:48] libby
gk: can make true rdf statements about fragment ids, which makes no guarantss about what you get if you do a webretrieval
[10:49:48] JosD
JosD has quit
[10:49:56] libby
danc: that makes it false
[10:50:59] libby
jjc: possible workds thing: content negotiation means that your view of web is diferrent from mine. trye for you not necessarily true for me
[10:52:47] libby
em: heads up and move on? not changing documents
[10:53:49] libby
brian: does anyone support aaron's proposal?
[10:53:52] libby
[10:55:01] libby
gk: esssence of the proposal is first 2 paras of email
[10:56:06] libby
proposed: that fragmenmt identifiers when used with rdf are treated as simple extenion of the URI to which they apply, without having an interpretatiuon that is in any way dependant on the context in which they appear
[10:56:08] gk
Fragment identifiers and truth: different people may view documents-with fragment ids and get different values; thus the truth about an RDF statement using a frag id may not be universal to all Web users
[10:57:25] libby
dave: change 'context'
[10:58:09] libby
gk: something for the primer maybe?
[10:59:12] libby
brian: proposed: RDF uses URIs with fragment IDs to identify resources
[11:00:56] libby
action gk to draft somethign for the primer?
[11:02:43] libby
danc: this issue has been accepted by the TAG
[11:03:19] JosD
JosD has joined #rdfcore
[11:03:21] libby
danc: they've accepted qname-nm-mappings
[11:03:29] libby
...soirry, it's not on the TAG list
[11:04:06] libby
action danc: highlight this issue with TAG
[11:04:15] libby
- done for now on thios issue
[11:06:05] libby
-donr all issues for today except those on telecon, and datatyping after lunch
[11:06:10] libby
lets have lunch.
[11:06:15] libby
(says most people)
[11:07:28] libby
quick meeting re tomorrow
[11:08:35] libby
gk talked to micha last night
[11:09:14] libby
...problem of matching literals in different xml:langs
[11:11:32] gk
Problems misha raised (with JJC's proposal) were: (1) language of parts as well as whole, (2) language matching rules not so clear-cut, (3) ~fuzzy report~ issues with capturing subtle linguistic contexts
[11:13:04] gk
Sort-of example of that discussion: document --dc:title--> "The many meanings of 'chat'"
[11:13:31] gk
document --ex:subjectMatter--> "chat" .
[11:14:56] libby
ps: can we make it brutally clear that parsetype literal is in fact parsertype xml?
[11:16:41] libby
danc: reseralizing this bit of xml loses the xml part - get &lt; etc. then the bit in the xml stops being italian
[11:16:54] libby
...and turns into english (jjc)
[11:18:15] libby
danc could have xml(...) in ntriple
[11:19:45] libby
brian: aaron wanted to record the parsetype flag in the ntriple, preferably as a uri
[11:20:50] libby
...otherwise we lose information
[11:21:05] libby
[11:22:33] libby
brain suggests putting the thing in the parsetype inverted commas as the first part of teh ntriple
[11:22:40] libby
...later might be a uri
[11:22:55] libby
danc: people use literal in parsetype as a qname
[11:23:56] libby
em: consensus about somekind of indication
[11:26:44] libby
[11:27:01] libby
danc: nothing was promised to make parsetype an extensible mechanism
[11:28:15] libby
daml uses it; others use it as extensible machanism
[11:28:28] libby
brian: proposal: uri
[11:29:13] libby
...undecided for now
[11:29:49] libby
back 13.30
[11:29:54] libby
libby has quit
[11:34:13] gk
gk has quit
[11:50:47] DanC
DanC has quit
[11:50:47] JosD
JosD has quit
[11:52:54] mdean_
mdean_ has quit
[12:24:44] DanC
DanC has joined #rdfcore
[12:37:43] libby
libby has joined #rdfcore
[12:39:25] gk
gk has joined #rdfcore
[12:40:14] gk
I18N discussion continues...
[12:40:37] gk
PatStickler promises not to say anything of allowed to lurk!
[12:40:53] gk
in tomorrows meet with I18N group
[12:41:40] gk
Trying to clear up I18N issues *before* we go to last call.
[12:42:16] gk
Objectives of tomorrow#'s meeting?
[12:43:01] gk
Objectives of tomorrow#'s meeting?
[12:43:06] gk
jjc: 3 issues from charmod, identify what we're trying to do in broad terms, what to do with N-triples.
[12:44:01] gk
assues arise from our reading of charmod, want to check with I18N that our proposed resolutions will meet their requirements.
[12:44:30] gk
Also, they may have other issues for us, and we need to agree the boundaries on issues we can reasonably consider.
[12:45:27] danbri_
danbri_ has joined #rdfcore
[12:45:36] gk
E.g. literal matching proposed match only if string and lang tags are ==. But in linguistic terms, that's too, er, literal. How muchj of this is reasonably our problem to solve?
* gk Hi danbri
* danbri_ sneaks in through the irc backdoor, wonders how it's going
[12:46:04] libby
ahoyhoy danbri
* gk good, so far. Good number of issues settled.
[12:47:03] gk
jjc: we're trying to build a sound basis for RDF; that needs we well-defined concept of literal equality.
[12:47:03] danbri_
excellent news! so sorry not to be there... I'll lurk here, see if I can absorb some of the atmosphere...
[12:47:23] libby
I'll take some photos to help you
[12:47:32] gk
Beyond that it's less cear what we need to address in this WG.
[12:48:19] gk
PatS: queries may have deeper linguistic qualifications (e.g. recognizing that unequal literals to refer to some common idea).
[12:49:11] gk
jjc: Note - our spec is NOT RDF query.
[12:49:25] gk
(GK nods vigorously)
[12:49:29] mdean_
mdean_ has joined #rdfcore
[12:50:38] gk
jjc: Another issue... parsetype-literal ... sensitivity to language used inside a complex literal.
[12:50:55] gk
This is Hard Work.
[12:51:27] gk
Probably not entirely our problem.
[12:52:39] gk
GK expresses concern that we have parallel structuring mechanisms
[12:52:53] gk
PatS: extra triples suggested, but shot down
[12:52:57] JosD
JosD has joined #rdfcore
[12:53:50] gk
Who is going: to the I18N meeting? JJC, DaeB, Martyn, bwm, GK
[12:54:26] gk
====== Datatypes ========
[12:55:35] gk
PatS has produced a new proposal, since last Friday. Need to catch up.
[12:55:58] JosD
[12:56:12] gk
bwm: want to bring us all up to the same point, somehow, if we can.
[12:57:27] gk
bwm: taken a long time, but have produced a common proposal (one of several)
[12:58:30] gk
Last Friday we talked around it; specific questions: do we want the idion known as S-B (as syntax)? YES.
[12:59:15] gk
If we say in S-B syntax: <Mary> <age> "10" . Does "10" denote a number or a string? A: string.
[12:59:27] gk
Do we want to keep the so-called doubled idion? A: No
[12:59:51] gk
Do we want to keep the so-called triplet idion? A: YES
[13:00:11] gk
---- all thje abovre from last Fridays' telecon ---
[13:00:38] gk
New proposal from PatS, who was unhappy (at the time) that the requirements were in conflict.
[13:02:56] gk
DanC: wants to check real use-cases from real applications against proposals. But is appy with answers from Friday.
[13:05:53] gk
(Discussion about what point to move forward from...)
[13:06:35] gk
jjc (aka Unhappy of bristol) will put up his entailment case that he wants discussed.
[13:07:14] DanC
unhappy msg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0635.html
[13:09:59] gk
jjc: wants to entail equivalence across both forms of idiom
[13:17:31] gk
Trying to show how inference can be drawn ... looking at PatrickS email from Sunday: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0642.html
[13:34:15] libby
...arguing, shouting, jumping up....
[13:36:50] libby
jos: you could have 2 different ranges, one a drange then patrickS's proposal is ok
[13:37:20] libby
danc: end up with 2 property names for similar properties
[13:37:43] libby
brian: jjc's entailments will work if we have range and drange, we think
[13:38:09] libby
jjc will then take objection off the table
[13:38:26] libby
brain: then the inelegance is the 2 properties for similar things
[13:38:47] libby
patrickS thinks he has the solution why need only one
[13:39:06] libby
ps: classes contains members
[13:40:59] libby
...if a datatype name is only the value, we need to have somthuing to denote the lexical space; if some people want one and some want the other, cant use range property to denote both
[13:41:21] gk
Here's a rendering of what I think Patrick is trying to suggest...
[13:41:23] gk
# datatype triple idiom:
[13:41:23] gk
[13:41:23] gk
:x :p [ :d :l ] . // Tom ageA [ integer "10" ]
[13:41:23] gk
:d rdf:type rdfd:Datatype . // integer a Datatype
[13:41:23] gk
# :l rdf:type rdfs:Literal .
[13:41:24] gk
[13:41:26] gk
[13:41:28] gk
[13:41:30] gk
:x :p [ rdf:type rdfd:DatatypeValue ; // Tom ageA [ a Datatype Value ;
[13:41:32] gk
rdfd:datatype :d ; // datatype integer ;
[13:41:34] gk
rdfd:lexicalForm :l ] . // lexicalform "10" ] .
[13:41:36] gk
} .
[13:41:38] gk
# inline idiom:
[13:41:40] gk
[13:41:42] gk
:x :p :l . // Jenny ageB "10
[13:41:49] gk
:p rdfs:range :d . // ageB rdfs:drange integer .
[13:41:49] gk
:d rdf:type rdfd:Datatype . // integer a datatype
[13:41:49] gk
# :l rdf:type rdfs:Literal .
[13:41:50] gk
[13:41:52] gk
[13:41:54] gk
[13:41:56] gk
:x :p [ rdf:type rdfd:DatatypeValue ; // Jenny ageB [ a DataTypeValue ;
[13:41:58] gk
rdfd:datatype :d ; // datatype integer ;
[13:42:00] gk
rdfd:lexicalForm :l ] . // lexicalForm "10" ] .
[13:42:02] gk
} .
[13:42:23] libby
....rules disambibuate which is which
[13:43:24] libby
jjc: thinks might work apat form some baroque datatypes
[13:44:41] libby
jjc: "monday -> "monday"
[13:44:49] libby
.. "lundi" -> "monday"
[13:45:10] libby
..."tuesday" -> monday (in some language like klingon., say)
[13:45:49] libby
ps: values do not have canonical represtation in teh model theory
[13:45:57] libby
...people struggling a bit...
[13:46:42] libby
jjc: is this it:? likelihood with same lirteral on both sides is very unlikely?
[13:47:03] libby
brain: do we care about a corne case like that
[13:47:34] libby
jos: I care, because pat had good examples of why it might go wrong
[13:48:07] libby
danc: some consensus earlier (re 2 properties?) move on?
[13:48:27] libby
ps think this proble is crucial to understanding the problem
* libby not sure about this "below the line" stuff
[13:48:55] libby
"to the left of the line"?
[13:49:09] gk
I think ":below the line" is a way to refer things in the semantic domain rather than the syntactic domain
[13:49:26] libby
yeah, thought somethign like that
[13:49:45] libby
ericp does pat understand ps's problem?
[13:49:47] libby
ps - no
[13:50:01] gk
The "idioms" (A,B,etc.) are all purely syntactic. The specific denotations of values involved are semantic.
[13:52:07] libby
gk might have a better example...
[13:52:51] libby
brian: dancs point was that we have agreement, but we arguing over the detail of 1 or 2 properties
[13:53:47] libby
jjc: partially confinced: ps's example so ugly must be wrong but cant see how!
[13:54:12] libby
ditto danc
[13:54:29] libby
brian thinks breaks current model theory, requires lv to be a subset of ir
[13:56:11] libby
ps thinks 'for the users' one prop is better
* AaronSw wakes up, waves quietly
[13:56:28] libby
brian: all agree that _if_ we dont need drange, we dont want it
[13:56:32] libby
[13:57:21] libby
ps would need to 2 flahours of schema, one for each idiom
[13:58:20] libby
gk: 2 discssions: range, drange; and ageA and ageB
[14:03:22] gk
State of discussion: jeremy is now "less unhappy" of bristol, but still not overjoyed.
[14:03:33] libby
[14:04:59] gk
Progress: we think it *may* be possible to unify (entail between) S-A/S-B approaches with some additional rules along the lines suggested by Patrick
[14:06:36] gk
Jeremy is not unhappy about having two properties for the diferent idioms
[14:07:28] gk
Jos has proved that entailment is possible if different property names (ageA/ageB) are used.
[14:08:33] gk
Agreed that entailment between idioms must be possible.
[14:10:06] libby
jos cannot make jjc's entiaolment work with only one property
[14:10:15] gk
Jos has been unable so far to make entailment work with one property, without causing a conflict.
[14:11:20] libby
jjc the rules will be in the model theory ? yes
[14:11:37] libby
danc: ps: just one age propertry
[14:11:54] gk
Patrick thunks we can get by with just one age property, by alowing properties to have lexical and value space in range.
[14:12:19] gk
(i.e. datatype class has both lexical and value spaces as members)
[14:13:12] libby
jjc: near-unanimity that ps's suggestion is ugly ;)
[14:13:29] libby
danc: also ageA and ageB is ugly
[14:13:32] gk
However, there are different view about which of the possible solutions is uglier.
[14:14:35] gk
Also, Patrick thinks (with some support) we can do without drange.
[14:14:55] libby
danc: so costly to explain to users
[14:16:25] libby
martyn: intuition is ugly
[14:16:37] libby
jos: I would say mathematically inconsistent
[14:16:45] libby
bad patrick!
[14:17:22] gk
Jos says he thinks he will be able to find an inconsistency in Patrick's proposal, but has not yet been able to do so.
[14:19:11] gk
(at this stage, we're basically wordsmithing the conclusions on screen.)
* gk Hi aaron
* AaronSw waves
* gk we're just breaking for coffee 15:20 loal time
[14:21:00] gk
Back in 40mins? (maybe sooner -- some rambling discussion) Telecon at 16:00 local?
[14:21:27] AaronSw
My schedule says telecon in 40 min.
[14:21:50] AaronSw
yeah, so 1600
[14:21:58] libby
libby has quit
[14:22:57] gk
Aim to beback in the room 25mins... people leaving now
[14:47:09] gk
Wanders back into room ... DanC and PatrickS going hammer-and-tongs about someting on the whiteboard ...
[14:49:54] AaronSw
Heh. hammer-and-tongs?
[14:50:13] AaronSw
i asumme that means something like full-out/crazy
[14:50:46] gk
Yeah... English expression ;-)
[14:52:43] bwm
bwm has joined #rdfcore
[14:55:23] libby
libby has joined #rdfcore
[15:01:36] DanC
hi, anybody?
[15:01:41] AaronSw
[15:02:23] AaronSw
<Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started
[15:03:03] bwm
hi - zakim has not called us
[15:03:11] AaronSw
what's the number?
[15:03:15] AaronSw
<Zakim> +Manola
[15:03:15] AaronSw
<Zakim> +Guest P2 7332 - is perhaps PatH?
[15:03:20] bwm
Dan is wokring on it
[15:03:48] DanC
"Your request at 15:03Z to add TP-Iles-C to the Zakim bridge conference 7332 has been added to the queue."
[15:04:19] AaronSw
<Zakim> +TP-Iles-C
[15:04:40] AaronSw
<Zakim> -PatH?
[15:04:41] AaronSw
<Zakim> -TP-Iles-C
[15:05:03] AaronSw
<Zakim> +Guest P2 7332 - is perhaps PatH?
[15:05:03] AaronSw
<Zakim> +AaronSw
[15:05:32] DanC
hmm... we were there and then left?
[15:05:45] bwm
aaron - are you dialed in - please tell pat we are trying
[15:07:26] AaronSw
yep, we're making all the decisions ourselves
[15:07:46] bwm
cool - we can check if they are the same as ours
[15:08:15] AaronSw
We've come up with a new insult: "you bNode!"
[15:08:57] ircleuser
ircleuser has joined #rdfcore
* AaronSw waves to PatH?
[15:09:47] ircleuser
[15:09:54] DanC
we're experiencing dialing difficulties.
[15:10:21] ircleuser
ircleuser is now known as pathayes
[15:13:39] bwm
Hi pat
[15:13:47] AaronSw
<Zakim> +TP-Iles-C
[15:13:55] AaronSw
you guys sound like a busy signal
[15:14:02] AaronSw
<Zakim> -TP-Iles-C
* gk still problem dialling
[15:15:14] AaronSw
<Zakim> +TP-Iles-C
[15:15:18] AaronSw
same thing
[15:15:38] AaronSw
<Zakim> -TP-Iles-C
[15:15:49] AaronSw
you connect and all we hear is bleeeep bleeeep bleeeep bleeeep
[15:15:51] bwm
[15:17:07] AaronSw
we think the problem is that you've identified your telephone by using a fragment uri
[15:17:07] gk
I must tone down my language ;-)
* DanC chacls minutes so far
[15:24:46] DanC
I think it's silly that we don't conclude that thinks with the same subj/pred/obj are equal. I'd like to abstain.
[15:24:54] DanC
... if the logisitcs allow.
[15:25:52] DanC
I think this is available to the world now. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/20020225-am.html
[15:27:00] AaronSw
seems to be
[15:27:09] gk
DanC: it's -pm I cannot get to.
[15:27:15] DanC
I'm working on it...
[15:27:44] DanC
chair: pls see -am notes re fragments issue...
* DanC wonders who's the scribe
[15:28:31] DanC
aaron or pat, confirm you're looking at fragments notes from this morning? (i.e. what the chair is reading?)
[15:28:36] DanC
AaronSw: sounds good.
[15:28:42] AaronSw
* danbri_ tries to dial in
[15:28:52] AaronSw
"fragments may cause cancer in mice"
[15:29:11] DanC
pathayes: s/identifiy/denote/ ? or locate?
[15:29:39] DanC
path, you have an action to edit the model theroy spec as appropriate.
[15:29:57] DanC
(provided you accept; oops; recorded action was for the chair to ask you to do that)
[15:30:03] DanC
nak, pat. say again.
* danbri_ dissapears from bridge dialout queue; still waiting for phone to ring.
[15:30:46] DanC
pathayes: name?
[15:30:47] gk
--- fragment ids...
[15:30:52] gk
--- fragment ids...
* gk test
[15:31:06] DanC
EricM abstains.
[15:31:13] AaronSw
Aaron abstains.
[15:31:21] DanC
RESOLVED. (not sure where the real record is)
* DanC takes scribe duties
* danbri_ gives up on phone bridge dialout; returns to lurking
[15:32:53] DanC
RESOLVED: Proposed: RDF uses URI's with fragment ID's to name resources. this closes rdfms-fragments.
[15:33:03] DanC
RESOLVED: RDF uses URI's with fragment ID's to name resources. this closes rdfms-fragments.
[15:33:11] DanC
[15:33:13] DanC
Action: Graham draft text for the primer, including a "here be dragons" warning
[15:33:13] DanC
Action: DanC Highlight this issue with the TAG
[15:33:23] DanC
------- Datatypes
[15:33:40] gk
See -pm notes ... dan is working to fix protection
[15:33:44] DanC
chair: can you see the -pm notes?
[15:34:05] AaronSw
pat, aaron: no
[15:34:11] DanC
[15:34:13] JosD
[15:34:15] bwm
[15:34:42] bwm
We have agreed that some form of Jeremy's entailment is required (msg 0635 Feb)
[15:34:42] bwm
Patrick's entailment suggests that Jeremy's entailment works with Patrick's extra rules
[15:34:42] bwm
Jos has rules and a formal proof that Jeremy's entailment works with range and drange with ageA and ageB example - with extra rules
[15:34:42] bwm
Patrick suggests we only need one age property but this requires assuming a datatype class includes both value and lexical space members
[15:34:42] bwm
Patrick claims with some support from others that this also allows to do without drange
[15:34:44] bwm
Having to use two properties is ugly
[15:34:46] bwm
We have agreed that the datatype being a union of val and lex spaces is ugly
[15:34:50] AaronSw
we can see it online now
[15:35:08] DanC
[all can see now]
[15:35:15] DanC
chair: this summarizes the discussion earlier today.
[15:35:36] DanC
"Jeremy's entailment" refers to...
* DanC surfs...
[15:36:00] DanC
... PatS's rules [@@pointer pending] were discussed...
[15:36:01] gk
Jeremy's entailment was basically that the same info could be entailed from both idioms
[15:36:34] DanC
PatS's rules: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0642.html
[15:37:13] DanC
Jeremy's entailment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0635.html
[15:37:25] gk
Are you getting this ... bwm just read a key point?
[15:37:43] DanC
PatS grins cuz nobody's formally disputed the "you can get away with just one age property if you put both val and lex in the integer class".
[15:38:27] DanC
chair finishes discussiong.
[15:39:12] DanC
pathayes: why is it considered "ugly" to use ageA vs. ageB?
[15:39:25] DanC
DanC: for "ugly" read "hard to explain to users"
[15:40:09] DanC
pathayes: seems easy to explain to me; one property talks about numbers, the other about numerals.
[15:40:57] gk
DC folks get confused about properties -- sometimes simple values, sometimes have other values
[15:41:27] gk
pathayes: can define an RDFS superproperty that covers the two (literal+value) cases
[15:42:25] DanC
pathayes: has anybody looked at my latest? I think it handles Jeremy's case without getting into unions.
[15:42:36] DanC
JosD: yes, I agree.
[15:42:46] DanC
Jeremy: haven't read the latest yet...
[15:43:07] DanC
... this morning, I went from "you can't make my entaliment work" to...
[15:43:20] DanC
... "hmm... maybe you can"
[15:44:02] DanC
chair: the latest proposal wasn't the basis of the discussion today, unfortunately./
[15:44:30] DanC
chair: perhaps folks could read it[pointer?] tonight.
[15:44:36] JosD
read http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype23-02-2002.html
[15:44:47] DanC
chair: about this union idea, pat, you've seen problems?
[15:46:01] DanC
pathayes: if the datatypes, as classes, have the union of the [scribe in discussion]
[15:46:15] DanC
ppl will want to refer to the value space of the datatypes.
[15:47:14] DanC
chair: if someone wanted to say "the value space is the value space of integer", there's now way to do that.
[15:47:21] DanC
... is that the problem?
* DanC reminds all we've got a half-duples connection
* DanC doesn't hear anything worth scribing; just people re-re-re-re-stating their preference
[15:50:42] DanC
pathayes: we have all those inheritance problems...
[15:51:08] DanC
PatS: I'm aware of those problems; I pointed them out; I think those problems are lower costs than these.
[15:51:30] gk
I thought the real concern here was ageA/ageB rather than range/drange
[15:53:15] DanC
points of order are raised...
[15:53:24] DanC
... re difficulty of phone connection.
[15:53:25] DanC
[15:53:50] DanC
chair, pls re-iterate inheritance problem in email, path?
[15:54:12] DanC
RESOLVED: all to read pat's proposal:
[15:54:32] DanC
[15:54:38] DanC
[15:54:43] DanC
for tomorrow.
[15:54:53] DanC
moved to adjourn telcon 'till tomorrow,
[15:54:57] DanC
in hopes of better facilities.
[15:55:03] DanC
with thanks from the chair, telcon ADJOURNED>
[15:55:07] DanC
[15:55:59] pathayes
pathayes has left #rdfcore
[15:57:44] pathayes
pathayes has joined #rdfcore
[15:58:58] pathayes
pathayes has left #rdfcore
[16:00:25] gk
discussio nof the inheritance problem
[16:00:31] gk
intdec range decimaint
[16:00:34] gk
inoct range octalint
[16:00:51] gk
inoct subtype indec
[16:01:17] gk
allows us to conclude that the range of inoct is also range decimaint
[16:01:18] DanC
so it seems the problem is in claiming "Octint rdfs:subClassOf DecimalInt".
[16:01:42] gk
q whetere the example is ok
[16:02:14] gk
as long as we use range, we have this problem and we have to explain it to users in order to avoid this
[16:02:20] gk
with drange, this isn't so muich of a problem
[16:02:35] gk
bwm: we have a choice
[16:03:18] DanC
DanC: is that as bad as the inheritance problems get?
[16:03:22] DanC
[several]: yes.
[16:03:50] gk
earlier, noted this doesn't require/isn't caused by proposed union (val, lex)
[16:04:46] DanC
EricM: how about the case of W3C dates vs. ISO dates? does this problem show up there?
[16:04:56] DanC
[several]: doesn't seem like it.
[16:06:36] DanC
Jeremy: I apprecaite the aesthetic argument; clarity comes from using different symbols for different things. It seems that the "range" and "Datarange" concepts are different, so I can see the desire to use different symbols, but I can also see the cost to users. [not sure I got that right]
* DanC wonders if the chair-projector-owner would give a bit more screen space to this log
[16:07:28] gk
If people behave logically, there's no problem
[16:08:00] DanC
DanC: or, to put it another way: this might be the best formalism of what people do, in practice, when not constrained.
[16:09:23] gk
DanC: I disagree... looking at UAProf->CC/PP, I think that what people do when not constrained is don't specify how datatype mappings work. There's a right old mish-mash of property value formats used there.
[16:11:00] bwm
[16:11:20] bwm
inheritance problem is?
[16:11:24] bwm
[16:11:37] bwm
looks fine but a potential minefield (gk)
[16:12:16] bwm
em: inheritance powerful but datatypes tend to be a seaprate thing that thee users don't see, but are reused
[16:12:40] bwm
.. and the need to extend them seems less important than the need for new classes and properties
[16:13:35] bwm
... maybe have to sometimes have to pragmatically say that magic happens;datatypes might be one of this
[16:13:44] bwm
... keep it simple; keep it consitently simple
[16:13:56] bwm
... or, also do it wrong like others ahve done it wrong
[16:14:27] bwm
jjc: ugly (math) versus ugly (to users). The fromer means fragile honed by experience but might break later
[16:14:34] bwm
... a different sort of risk
[16:14:51] bwm
gk: we are trying to overload range with too much - subclassing and datatyping
[16:15:13] bwm
... less likely to get caught in the future if/when datatyping and classes need to go inslightly different directions
[16:15:41] bwm
ps: not overloaded, but not as preciese or explcit as could be
[16:16:09] bwm
.. range isn't overloaded, more not giving the precision of internal structure of datatypes
[16:16:57] bwm
miked: in daml+oil, we addressed some of this by having separate datatype properties and objet properties - seemed necessary, see this as some variation. Found a lot of cases where I foundthis distinction an issue (problem)
[16:17:25] bwm
em: we can do this by asking users for their feedback ont his diff. What did they say? Did they get it?
[16:17:32] bwm
miked: accepted it pretty well
[16:17:57] bwm
... sometimes had to backup to use Property
[16:18:12] bwm
... nice to not have to make this decision
[16:18:49] bwm
em: museum community want one type of property, have far richer semantics
[16:19:23] bwm
... the modellers also want few choices to model
[16:19:37] bwm
jjc: heard miked say having 2 types of prop was tricky?
[16:20:08] bwm
... think this is an argument for having drange
[16:20:28] bwm
gk: wandered off drange/range into two properties agea/ageb
[16:20:59] gk
DaveB: we could sell range/drange much more easily than two names for each property.
[16:21:09] bwm
jjc: drANGE/range only effects schema authors -e xpertes, but two properties affects all end uers
[16:21:25] bwm
JosD: we aren't proposing two properties
[16:21:42] bwm
em: what is the vlaue of drange?
[16:21:48] gk
jjc: previously, suggested that range/drange may be anough to avoid needing two names for each property. (Didn't catch why.. did I misunderstand?)
[16:22:10] bwm
em: in schemawg datatypes dropped..
[16:22:26] bwm
... now returning
[16:22:51] bwm
ps: range only versus datatypes as unions -
[16:22:59] bwm
.. then all rdffs range semantics remain the same
[16:23:07] bwm
... bt ca't say only value or only lex space
[16:23:18] bwm
... however with drange, can say what a datatypin class
[16:23:39] bwm
... from rdfd:drange it says
[16:23:50] danbri_
historical note: they were dropped by RDF Schema WG so we could wait to see what XML schema datatyping looked like
[16:23:56] bwm
... the object of a property with a drange is either a union of a daatvalue or a lexical space
[16:24:02] bwm
danbri_: yeah
[16:24:06] bwm
(dajobe btw)
[16:24:13] bwm
bwm is now known as dajobe-scribe
[16:24:20] dajobe-scribe
... dual view of datatype
[16:24:47] dajobe-scribe
jjc: if using drange then opposed using uris for datatype uris confusing if sometimes users have to use range, sometimes drange
[16:24:54] dajobe-scribe
... either range OR drange, not both
[16:24:59] dajobe-scribe
.. for datatyping
[16:25:23] dajobe-scribe
em: large confusion on users from datatyping, diff from a class, and how to model a datatype / class ..
[16:25:30] dajobe-scribe
... e.g. dewey, basically a float
[16:25:38] dajobe-scribe
... classes and subclasses with relationships
[16:25:45] dajobe-scribe
... but what about controleld vocab?
[16:25:55] dajobe-scribe
... (mon, tue, ... fri) a dataype or a set o clases?
[16:26:04] dajobe-scribe
... no pref, just there are oddities here
[16:26:24] dajobe-scribe
... there are a default set of datatypes that people like and they get confused in the diff/similaritiies#
[16:26:32] dajobe-scribe
... we have to explain clearly the fundamental differences
[16:26:38] dajobe-scribe
... degrees of ugliness again
[16:27:00] dajobe-scribe
... If they are different, we have to be clera when to use which symbol.
[16:27:25] dajobe-scribe
ps: one one hand have a min vocab ...
[16:27:44] dajobe-scribe
... they won't understand range/drange
[16:27:56] dajobe-scribe
(em: you agreein with me?
[16:27:58] dajobe-scribe
... yes
[16:28:29] dajobe-scribe
... if we give this union vocab, is simple enough. For others, additional machinery can be given for more powerful users
[16:28:39] dajobe-scribe
bwm: martyn - when do I use range, when drange?
[16:28:45] DanC
DanC has quit
[16:29:05] dajobe-scribe
bwm asks around the table
[16:29:54] dajobe-scribe
JosD: like daml datatype property; when you want to use xsd: things
[16:30:01] dajobe-scribe
... no free lunch
[16:30:22] dajobe-scribe
em: diff is when you do literals or resources for the values
[16:30:32] dajobe-scribe
... for age as an aexample
[16:30:40] dajobe-scribe
... we have two properties
[16:31:11] dajobe-scribe
jjc: drange when want to be a literal; range when want to it be an object
[16:31:29] dajobe-scribe
ps: in merging graphs of these two styles, get a type clash
[16:31:41] dajobe-scribe
... or always have to say drange
[16:31:53] dajobe-scribe
... get a range conflict
[16:34:18] dajobe-scribe
jjc writes an example
[16:34:43] dajobe-scribe
asked dajobe-scribe: no answer
[16:36:07] dajobe-scribe
bwm: wrap up
[16:36:43] dajobe-scribe
... need to do:
[16:36:56] dajobe-scribe
... 2) where are we gonna go tonight?
[16:37:11] dajobe-scribe
... 1) tomorows agenda
[16:38:40] dajobe-scribe
review of 26th agenda
[16:38:58] dajobe-scribe
mk: from webont perspsective xml:lang and cardinality constraints?
[16:39:04] dajobe-scribe
[16:39:09] dajobe-scribe
jjc: isn't that a webont q?
[16:39:24] dajobe-scribe
em: want to talk to you about this
[16:40:24] dajobe-scribe
em: vote for xml schema relationships 10 min
[16:45:06] dajobe-scribe
agenda review
[16:45:22] dajobe-scribe
bwm: try to fit more daatyping in
[16:46:01] dajobe-scribe
bwm: regret not bein able to go over pat's document during the meeting
[16:46:06] dajobe-scribe
general approval
[16:46:14] dajobe-scribe
bwm: read it tonight
[16:47:02] dajobe-scribe
[16:47:06] dajobe-scribe
dajobe-scribe is now known as bwm
[16:49:36] libby
libby has quit
[17:08:06] bwm
bwm has quit
[17:14:53] gk
gk has left #rdfcore
[17:14:53] JosD
JosD has quit
[17:28:57] mdean_
mdean_ has quit
[17:57:58] danbri_
danbri_ has left #rdfcore

Provided by Dave Beckett, Institute for Learning and Research Technology, University of Bristol