IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-03-14
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:01:39 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore
- 15:01:48 [em]
- em has changed the topic to: rdfcore 2003-03-14 teleconference
- 15:01:53 [em]
- zakim, this is rdf
- 15:01:53 [Zakim]
- ok, em
- 15:01:57 [em]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:01:57 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see ??P2, PatH, Manola, EMiller, ??P10
- 15:01:58 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, DaveB, em, gk, bwm, AaronSw, logger
- 15:02:08 [DaveB]
- Zakim, ??P10 is probably ILRT
- 15:02:08 [Zakim]
- +ILRT?; got it
- 15:02:11 [Zakim]
- +GrahamKlyne
- 15:02:13 [DaveB]
- Zakim, ILRT has daveb, jang
- 15:02:13 [Zakim]
- +daveb, jang; got it
- 15:02:29 [em]
- zakim, ??P2 is bwm
- 15:02:29 [Zakim]
- +bwm; got it
- 15:03:33 [bwm]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 15:03:33 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see bwm, PatH, Manola, EMiller, ILRT?, GrahamKlyne
- 15:03:34 [Zakim]
- ILRT has daveb, jang
- 15:03:35 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Dean
- 15:03:48 [mdean]
- mdean has joined #rdfcore
- 15:04:36 [DaveB]
- meeting starts
- 15:04:41 [Zakim]
- +EricP
- 15:04:44 [DaveB]
- Zakim, who's on the phone
- 15:04:44 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who's on the phone', DaveB
- 15:04:44 [danbri]
- danbri has joined #rdfcore
- 15:04:56 [danbri]
- zakim, EricP is temporarily DanBri
- 15:04:56 [Zakim]
- +DanBri; got it
- 15:05:04 [DaveB]
- Zakim, who is on the phone?
- 15:05:04 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see bwm, PatH, Manola, EMiller, ILRT?, GrahamKlyne, Mike_Dean, DanBri
- 15:05:07 [Zakim]
- ILRT has daveb, jang
- 15:05:12 [DaveB]
- roll call above correct
- 15:05:13 [DaveB]
- agenda
- 15:05:15 [jang_scribe]
- jang_scribe has joined #rdfcore
- 15:05:16 [DaveB]
- no aob
- 15:05:19 [jang_scribe]
- scribing
- 15:05:32 [jang_scribe]
- tuesday telecon, at risk
- 15:05:37 [jang_scribe]
- bwm can't make it
- 15:05:47 [gk]
- gk can't make it
- 15:05:49 [jang_scribe]
- turnout for this week's wasn'ty that great; pat can't make it next week
- 15:06:31 [jang_scribe]
- em: bwm is a mission-critical resource for this
- 15:06:47 [jang_scribe]
- next tuesday's telecon is cancelled; next telecon this time, next week
- 15:06:51 [jang_scribe]
- two hours ok for everyone?
- 15:07:02 [jang_scribe]
- (gk can't make it, travelling)
- 15:07:15 [jang_scribe]
- em: jjc making it next week?
- 15:07:41 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: ok, 120 minutes next friday
- 15:07:45 [jang_scribe]
- volunteer to scribe?
- 15:07:47 [jang_scribe]
- daveb steps up
- 15:08:15 [jang_scribe]
- moving on, minutes of last friday's telecon...
- 15:08:20 [jang_scribe]
- [pointer anyone?]
- 15:08:24 [jang_scribe]
- approved
- 15:08:33 [danbri]
- [
- 15:08:33 [danbri]
- 5: Minutes of 28 Feb 2003 telecon
- 15:08:33 [danbri]
- See:
- 15:08:33 [danbri]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0053.html
- 15:08:34 [danbri]
- ]
- 15:08:40 [danbri]
- [
- 15:08:40 [danbri]
- 6: Minutes of 11 Mar 2003 telecon
- 15:08:40 [danbri]
- See:
- 15:08:40 [danbri]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0068.html
- 15:08:42 [danbri]
- ]
- 15:08:42 [jang_scribe]
- minutes of tuesday's telecon?
- 15:09:02 [jang_scribe]
- also approved
- 15:09:06 [jang_scribe]
- completed actions:"
- 15:09:11 [jang_scribe]
- long list, anyone unhappy?
- 15:09:22 [jang_scribe]
- confirmed
- 15:09:35 [jang_scribe]
- item 8: daveb, xml schema 1.1 requirements
- 15:10:06 [jang_scribe]
- daveb responded immediately, that's done;
- 15:10:34 [jang_scribe]
- the second action continues; hopefully jjc can pick up daveb's comments and add his concerns
- 15:10:45 [jang_scribe]
- uris for as many datatypes as they can
- 15:10:50 [jang_scribe]
- raising the priority for this
- 15:10:54 [jang_scribe]
- webont also keen for this
- 15:11:17 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: leave this until next week; hopefully we'll have comments by then
- 15:11:28 [jang_scribe]
- if comments complete by middle of next week we should send it then.\
- 15:12:16 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: I'll reraise this next week, if people are keen please look at this asap
- 15:12:39 [jang_scribe]
- item 9: handling lc comments
- 15:13:02 [jang_scribe]
- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#microschedule
- 15:13:10 [jang_scribe]
- danbri: I've about a dozen left to deal with
- 15:13:26 [jang_scribe]
- expect reasonable progress by next week
- 15:14:45 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: can anyone pitch in to help danbri with this?
- 15:15:20 [jang_scribe]
- danbri:there are things where people talk about schema but there's a large semantics overlap
- 15:15:32 [jang_scribe]
- path: talk to me via email about it, I can help there
- 15:16:40 [jang_scribe]
- jang_scribe: give me a yell monday, we'll divvy the work up
- 15:16:57 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: what about other docs, are we up to date on these?
- 15:17:03 [danbri]
- zakim, mute danbri
- 15:17:03 [Zakim]
- DanBri should now be muted
- 15:17:10 [jang_scribe]
- that is, has every comment been handled as editorial discretion or in the issues list?
- 15:17:21 [jang_scribe]
- frankm: there's one against the primer raised by eric p
- 15:17:33 [jang_scribe]
- we talked at the plenary about it, not heard officially about this yes
- 15:17:39 [jang_scribe]
- my intent is to handle it editorially
- 15:17:49 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: other docs?
- 15:18:05 [jang_scribe]
- gk: (looks at todo list...)
- 15:18:35 [jang_scribe]
- gk: I've a couple in limbo, should be ok I think
- 15:18:43 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: daveb: spotted chaals' messages?
- 15:18:56 [jang_scribe]
- saying what happened to aboutEach, aboutEachPrefix?
- 15:19:20 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: just noticed reagle's "wrapping xml literal" too
- 15:19:27 [jang_scribe]
- I'm up to date I think
- 15:19:51 [jang_scribe]
- ACTION jang: take another trawl through -comments for dripped issues
- 15:20:09 [jang_scribe]
- gk: comments from susan lesch on concepts...
- 15:20:16 [DaveB]
- chaals's msg, for syntax, yet todo http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0501.html
- 15:20:19 [jang_scribe]
- I was assuming those are editorial, I'm kind of uncertain
- 15:20:37 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: if editorial, deal with them as editorial
- 15:20:41 [DaveB]
- reagle on rdf-wrapper, not responded (concepts?) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0434.html
- 15:20:51 [jang_scribe]
- em: that's susan's job: she's the w3c's style guide.
- 15:21:45 [jang_scribe]
- action bwm: series editor to review susan's comments for cross-document consistence
- 15:22:10 [jang_scribe]
- gk: I've another... comments from eric P about canonicalisation, no record of it being tied in with anything else
- 15:22:28 [jang_scribe]
- it's still sitting needing a process ID or something
- 15:22:55 [gk]
- Eric P comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0240.html
- 15:24:10 [jang_scribe]
- ACTION bwm (pp gk, jjc) chase eric P's message, get a process resolution for it
- 15:24:24 [jang_scribe]
- any other incoming lccs?
- 15:24:27 [jang_scribe]
- gk: another one...
- 15:24:41 [jang_scribe]
- aaron commented on the use of 404 not found http responses...
- 15:24:51 [jang_scribe]
- ... hang on, I think this fits in with the other social issue stuff
- 15:25:00 [jang_scribe]
- path: yes, think we've dealt with that.
- 15:25:10 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: please ensure aaron gets a response for this.
- 15:25:13 [danbri]
- AaronSw?
- 15:25:15 [jang_scribe]
- AaronSw: still here?
- 15:25:28 [gk]
- Aaron, is this response OK: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0412.html
- 15:26:01 [jang_scribe]
- action: gk, please chase aaron's message ensure he's ok with response
- 15:26:09 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: any other incoming comments?
- 15:26:12 [DanC]
- DanC has joined #rdfcore
- 15:26:15 [jang_scribe]
- then moving on to item 10...
- 15:26:31 [jang_scribe]
- pfps issues 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 10043, 23819329
- 15:26:43 [jang_scribe]
- acked danc\
- 15:27:17 [jang_scribe]
- pfps was happy with frankm's response on this, said it'd work for the other docs too
- 15:27:43 [jang_scribe]
- proposal from agenda outlined by bwm...
- 15:27:49 [jang_scribe]
- objections? comments?
- 15:27:51 [jang_scribe]
- approved.
- 15:28:03 [jang_scribe]
- next, item 11. macgregor-01, macgregor-02
- 15:28:13 [jang_scribe]
- comments on section 4 of concepts, which has gone, I think
- 15:28:22 [jang_scribe]
- gk: possibly a residual issue with -01 here...
- 15:28:34 [jang_scribe]
- it asks how statements may or may not be asserted
- 15:28:49 [jang_scribe]
- I responded early on this and pfps came back and asked if that addressed all the issues.
- 15:29:16 [DaveB]
- macgregor msg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0453.html
- 15:30:58 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: did we refer anywhere to distinguishing between asserted and nonasserted forms?
- 15:31:19 [jang_scribe]
- path: it'd be in the spirit of the social meaning discussion/resolution to purge these comments too
- 15:31:43 [jang_scribe]
- gk: ok, I've raised the point against that.
- 15:31:51 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: @asserted@ only appears in section 4 of concepts
- 15:32:52 [jang_scribe]
- gk: do we close this or hang onto it unless it pops up again?
- 15:33:02 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: I'm ok with jjc's proposal to close...
- 15:33:49 [jang_scribe]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0040.html
- 15:34:10 [bwm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0040.html
- 15:34:16 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: grepped in wds for assertion, a few times in lbase, concepts, primer, often in semantics (obviously)
- 15:35:09 [jang_scribe]
- gk: ok with jjc's proposal
- 15:35:20 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: not hesitating, just saying there's action required.
- 15:35:36 [jang_scribe]
- proposal: to close this, with actions on editors to review for use of the term @asserted@ in light of these comments
- 15:35:39 [jang_scribe]
- any comments...?
- 15:35:50 [jang_scribe]
- [excuse @, american keyboard]
- 15:36:01 [jang_scribe]
- ok, proposed... any dissent?
- 15:36:12 [jang_scribe]
- this is wrt macgregor-01 and macgregor-02...
- 15:36:44 [jang_scribe]
- frankm: strictly speaking macgregor-02 references concepts, he agrees with my proposal to deal with this in the primer
- 15:37:10 [jang_scribe]
- back t the proposal to close:
- 15:37:24 [jang_scribe]
- no dissent, no abstentions?
- 15:37:29 [jang_scribe]
- resolved, actions arising:
- 15:37:56 [jang_scribe]
- action gk: respond wrt macgregor-01, macgregor-02
- 15:38:10 [jang_scribe]
- action: all editors, check for use of term @asserted@ and modify in the light of this comment
- 15:38:37 [jang_scribe]
- frankm: gk should include in his response the information that the other documents are being checked too
- 15:38:40 [jang_scribe]
- moving on...
- 15:38:52 [jang_scribe]
- item 12, reagle-01, reagle-02, skipping in the absence of jjc...?
- 15:39:02 [jang_scribe]
- item 13, williams-01
- 15:39:09 [jang_scribe]
- gk's proposal:
- 15:39:19 [jang_scribe]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0059.html
- 15:41:08 [jang_scribe]
- gk: I've put a sketch of words in proposal given,
- 15:41:23 [jang_scribe]
- main proposal is that this is addressed by the terminological approach suggested by pat
- 15:42:12 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: this issue is @what is a node in an rdf graph?@
- 15:42:59 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: recently decided that an rdf graph IS a set of triples, etc.
- 15:43:09 [jang_scribe]
- some of the text still refers to nodes in a graph
- 15:43:17 [jang_scribe]
- this is asking about that use of terminology
- 15:43:31 [jang_scribe]
- gk's response here is sensible, referring to danc-01
- 15:43:53 [jang_scribe]
- this is an editorial cleanup which we'll use consistently throughout.
- 15:43:58 [jang_scribe]
- proposal, then:
- 15:44:09 [gk]
- [[
- 15:44:10 [gk]
- I propose that this issue is addressed by following the terminological
- 15:44:10 [gk]
- approach suggested by Pat in another message:
- 15:44:10 [gk]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0152.html
- 15:44:11 [gk]
- ]]
- 15:44:41 [jang_scribe]
- davceb: isn't that already in concepts?
- 15:44:56 [jang_scribe]
- is the response not, @yes this is the case, see these sections of concepts@
- 15:45:34 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: I'd like to see, @I'm going to fix these sections of concepts@ if what's there already isn't exactly what we're going to finish with
- 15:45:58 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: this should be in concepts; if concepts is currently wrong then I'd like to see the fixed words in the proposal
- 15:46:24 [jang_scribe]
- gk: proposal is that we make editorial changes in line with pat's suggestion
- 15:46:48 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: ONE document should give the definition, everything else points to that
- 15:47:07 [jang_scribe]
- if you need to explain more in an email then the email contents belong in concepts
- 15:48:36 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: so your answer is, @yes, an rdf graph is a set of triples, see concepts section X@
- 15:49:08 [jang_scribe]
- concepts doesn't mention nodes in a graph; (gk: section 6 does)
- 15:49:16 [jang_scribe]
- or parts of a triple
- 15:49:51 [jang_scribe]
- frankm: primer starts off with graphs that are pictures.
- 15:50:11 [jang_scribe]
- path: that's fine. we can say, this is a picture of an rdf graph, and the pictures have nodes in them
- 15:50:56 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: 3.2 in concepts looks a bit iffy, that's the one stuart was complaining about
- 15:51:53 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: the subject of a triple is a uri (or a bnode): that's the terminology we decided to use
- 15:52:04 [jang_scribe]
- s/uri/uriref
- 15:52:54 [jang_scribe]
- path: somewhere prominently we have a section that gives definitions, we can say, we use the term @node@ to apply to subjects and objects, this is a terminological convenience
- 15:53:48 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: it's handy to have a general term instead of saying, @uriref or literal or typed literal or...@
- 15:54:12 [jang_scribe]
- path: if we have a shorthand terminology it belongs in concepts with the rest of these definitions
- 15:54:29 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: reads 6.2 @the nodes in an rdf graph consists of...@
- 15:54:54 [jang_scribe]
- path: could add a note to the effect that the node IS the uriref
- 15:55:43 [jang_scribe]
- stuarts wording suggested @labelled with@ which has been excised
- 15:56:17 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: don't think this response is cooked
- 15:56:31 [jang_scribe]
- gk: agree, need to go round again and come back with a firmer proposal
- 15:56:41 [jang_scribe]
- agreed, moving on.
- 15:56:50 [jang_scribe]
- item 14: pfps-03
- 15:57:08 [jang_scribe]
- path: oh, that's trivial, I've taken it on as editorial
- 15:57:28 [jang_scribe]
- the lbase translations weren't accurate, he's right, but I'm putting this off until the semantics settles down
- 15:57:52 [jang_scribe]
- my comment to pfps was @this will be fixed once the rest ofthe document has been signed off@
- 15:58:15 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: I think we need to leave it open until it's fixed, then
- 15:58:19 [jang_scribe]
- path: fine, ok.
- 15:58:30 [jang_scribe]
- item 15:L pfps-04, -05, -06, -07, -10
- 15:58:46 [jang_scribe]
- path: all of those are genuine bugs pfps found which have been corrected in the editor's draft
- 15:59:12 [jang_scribe]
- proposal: accept these comments, close the issues, refer pfps to the updated editor's draft.
- 15:59:32 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: we need someone to review these changes?
- 16:00:22 [jang_scribe]
- path: the issue is if these changes have any unexpected side-effects
- 16:00:37 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: gk, can you review these?
- 16:00:55 [jang_scribe]
- gk: yes, providing the action's clear what it is I have to review and it's not required by next week
- 16:01:26 [DaveB]
- pat's draft http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_Editors.html
- 16:01:33 [jang_scribe]
- jang_scribe: I'll do it too...
- 16:02:21 [jang_scribe]
- path: there's a chunk of missing machinery dealing with lang tags on dted literals
- 16:02:30 [jang_scribe]
- action: gk - review path's changes to semantics
- 16:02:38 [jang_scribe]
- action jang: review path's changes to semantics
- 16:03:02 [jang_scribe]
- (changes... arising out of pfps 05 06 07 10)
- 16:03:07 [jang_scribe]
- (and 04)
- 16:03:14 [jang_scribe]
- ^^^ amend action text
- 16:03:27 [jang_scribe]
- moving on,
- 16:03:34 [jang_scribe]
- item 16: pfps-08
- 16:03:59 [jang_scribe]
- path; that belongs with the others, another tweak
- 16:04:08 [jang_scribe]
- ^^^ action add pfps-08
- 16:04:48 [jang_scribe]
- path's dealing with pfps-08 was about xmlliteral
- 16:05:22 [jang_scribe]
- xmlliteral is a bit odd, an owl reasoner could decide eg:x === xmlliteral
- 16:05:37 [jang_scribe]
- then should a dt typed with eg:x behave like it was typed with xmlliteral?
- 16:05:41 [jang_scribe]
- the answer is, no.
- 16:05:47 [jang_scribe]
- pfps thinks that's a mistake, I disagree.
- 16:06:11 [jang_scribe]
- that's the outcome of that issue; the mt has no alterations to make it work like pfps thinks it should in this respect
- 16:06:18 [jang_scribe]
- the text has been changed to clarify this
- 16:06:50 [jang_scribe]
- outcome: owl has to treat xmlliteral as a special case.
- 16:07:22 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: so, then what is the closing resolution?
- 16:07:47 [jang_scribe]
- path: the behaviour described is not an error. the document has been clarified in this respect
- 16:08:13 [jang_scribe]
- so the comment is NOT accepted in spirit
- 16:08:43 [bwm]
- Propose: RDFCore do not accept this comment. The semantics are as intended. The text has been clarified to make this clearer.
- 16:08:44 [jang_scribe]
- [bwm types proposal]
- 16:09:19 [jang_scribe]
- path proposes, daveb seconds, dissent? no abstentions? no
- 16:09:21 [jang_scribe]
- resolved
- 16:09:26 [jang_scribe]
- (just like the UN!)
- 16:10:00 [jang_scribe]
- action: bwm - update issue list to opint to path's response to peter onthis
- 16:10:04 [jang_scribe]
- moving on
- 16:10:11 [jang_scribe]
- item 17, qu-01, path...?
- 16:10:33 [jang_scribe]
- should the domain of rdfs:member be rdfs:Container?
- 16:10:54 [jang_scribe]
- the rdfcore decided otherwise.
- 16:11:28 [jang_scribe]
- danc commented, incidentally, that there should be an rdf:member between collections and their member
- 16:12:03 [jang_scribe]
- path: he thought we'd forgotten to say it, we respond, thanks, but nope.
- 16:12:59 [jang_scribe]
- frankm: worthwhile pointing out explicitly somewhere that one of these properties used in a triple somewhere does NOT imply that the subject is a container?
- 16:13:42 [jang_scribe]
- proposal: the use of a container membership property or rdfs:member in a triple should not be taken as a claim that the subject of the triple is a container.
- 16:13:58 [jang_scribe]
- (so this comment is rejected)
- 16:14:10 [jang_scribe]
- proposer: frankm; seconder: gk.
- 16:14:16 [jang_scribe]
- dissent? nope. abstains? nope
- 16:14:21 [jang_scribe]
- so resolved.
- 16:14:32 [jang_scribe]
- path: is there a recorded decision from earlier?
- 16:14:41 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: the term @decided@ in the agenda might have been too strong
- 16:14:54 [jang_scribe]
- [is there an xmodmap for osx?]
- 16:15:07 [jang_scribe]
- actions: path to respond; nothing else need doing
- 16:15:10 [jang_scribe]
- moving on.
- 16:15:17 [jang_scribe]
- item 18, qu-02
- 16:15:27 [jang_scribe]
- rdfs:member a functional property?
- 16:15:45 [jang_scribe]
- rdf doesn't have a functional property. This is in owl's domain.
- 16:15:49 [jang_scribe]
- ^^^ path
- 16:15:54 [danbri]
- zakim, unmute danbri
- 16:15:55 [Zakim]
- DanBri should no longer be muted
- 16:16:16 [jang_scribe]
- danbri: there are lots of things we can't effect formally we can express in prose
- 16:16:59 [jang_scribe]
- any other opinions on this, should rdfs:member BE functional?
- 16:17:14 [jang_scribe]
- not member, rdf:_1, etc
- 16:18:34 [jang_scribe]
- frankm: this situation is akin to what we've said about collection
- 16:18:54 [jang_scribe]
- if you use parsetype collection, you get this neat form; if you write it by hand you can make other odd datastructures
- 16:19:07 [jang_scribe]
- frankm: how are you going to check it?
- 16:19:21 [jang_scribe]
- gk: I broadly agree with path; there's a way this is visible with rdf entailment
- 16:19:32 [bwm]
- [[To represent a collection c, create a triple {RDF:type, c, t} where t is one of the three collection types RDF:Seq, RDF:Bag, or RDF:Alt. The remaining triples {RDF:_1, c, r1}, ..., {RDF:_n, c, rn}, ... point to each of the members rn of the collection. For a single collection resource there may be at most one triple whose predicate is any given element of Ord and the elements of Ord must be used in sequence starting with RDF:_1. For resources
- 16:19:33 [bwm]
- that are instances of the RDF:Alt collection type, there must be exactly one triple whose predicate is RDF:_1 and that is the default value for the Alternatives resource (that is, there must always be at least one alternative).]]
- 16:19:47 [jang_scribe]
- this is the thing daml tries to express, so we should try to avoid addressing it.
- 16:19:57 [jang_scribe]
- path: so again, we say, thanks bu tno thanks.
- 16:20:53 [jang_scribe]
- path: we've abandoned all such syntactic constraints on graphs, right?
- 16:21:15 [danbri]
- rdf:Alt is useless clutter imho
- 16:21:37 [jang_scribe]
- path: this currently isn't broken
- 16:22:18 [jang_scribe]
- so path proposaes, gk seconds... anyone against?
- 16:22:33 [jang_scribe]
- propose then, not to accept qu-02.
- 16:22:34 [jang_scribe]
- reason:
- 16:22:57 [jang_scribe]
- - it's not necessary; - it might damage behaviour of existing code (mozilla)
- 16:23:31 [jang_scribe]
- proposer: path; seconded: gk.
- 16:23:39 [jang_scribe]
- against? none. abstain? none
- 16:23:41 [jang_scribe]
- resolved.
- 16:23:46 [jang_scribe]
- actions: path to respond to qu
- 16:23:53 [jang_scribe]
- ...wrt qu-02
- 16:23:59 [jang_scribe]
- moving on
- 16:24:05 [jang_scribe]
- item 19, xmlsch-08
- 16:24:14 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: has a proposal
- 16:24:38 [jang_scribe]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0077.html
- 16:24:47 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: why not use xsi:type?
- 16:25:24 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: we chose not to for these reasons...
- 16:25:28 [jang_scribe]
- they express concern
- 16:25:42 [jang_scribe]
- we chose not to use xsi:type because THAT would be confusing, it's an overloading of the semantics
- 16:26:04 [jang_scribe]
- eg, there's a difference between uri(refs) and qnames
- 16:26:52 [jang_scribe]
- we accept that there are good reasons; here are a couple more
- 16:27:15 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: ... and if they've any other suggestions we'd be glad to hear them
- 16:27:29 [em]
- +1
- 16:28:16 [jang_scribe]
- em: these guys are really trying hard to work with us, we need to be as appreciative as possible
- 16:28:27 [jang_scribe]
- general consent from path, admiration of their efforts
- 16:28:49 [jang_scribe]
- gk: is it _legal_ to have a literal with an xsi:type in an rdf graph?
- 16:29:10 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: and xml literal? if it's properly declared, there's no restriction if it's properly declared
- 16:30:41 [jang_scribe]
- questions on the syntactic legality of xsi:types at various points in rdf/xml syntax
- 16:31:01 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: you couldn't accidentally use it, I'll consider adding that to the response
- 16:31:18 [jang_scribe]
- but listing bad examples in our dopuments, I think, isn't the route to go down
- 16:31:46 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: so, show why we don't use xsi:type
- 16:31:53 [jang_scribe]
- give an example
- 16:32:21 [jang_scribe]
- we chose not to use xsi:type because THAT would be confusing, it's an overloading of the semantics
- 16:32:21 [jang_scribe]
- <jang_scribe>eg, there's a difference between uri(refs) and qnames
- 16:32:29 [jang_scribe]
- ^^^ daveb's suggested resolution
- 16:32:44 [jang_scribe]
- gk: I'm not unhappy; I'm still trying to think if xsoi;type might appear in rdf/xml
- 16:32:54 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: you can't use it that way in rdf/xml
- 16:34:59 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: do we need towait for gk to think on this more? he's got a niggle about pathological examples
- 16:35:28 [jang_scribe]
- gk: don't think it affects the outcome, i'll try to get an example gk's after
- 16:35:37 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: I think we can decide this now.
- 16:36:09 [jang_scribe]
- proposal: we accept the comment, but in responding, daveb points out the reasons why xsi:type can't be used (their reasons, plus at least one more)
- 16:36:33 [jang_scribe]
- also point at the explanation, give an example of how if someone uses xsi:type by mistake, an rdf/xml parser would pick up the error
- 16:36:40 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: propose; gk: seconds
- 16:36:45 [jang_scribe]
- against? 0-. abstains? 0
- 16:36:48 [jang_scribe]
- done, resolved.
- 16:37:23 [jang_scribe]
- DaveB: suggeswt jumping to horrocks-01
- 16:37:29 [jang_scribe]
- item 24, horrocks-01
- 16:37:53 [jang_scribe]
- ian wants to add genuine comments to an ontology
- 16:38:06 [jang_scribe]
- that is, you add it it doesn't affect the logical entailment in any way whatsoever
- 16:38:16 [jang_scribe]
- so changing the comment in rdf changes the entailments
- 16:38:41 [jang_scribe]
- the compromise position we arrived at was,
- 16:38:57 [jang_scribe]
- if we @trivialise@ the comments by being true in every entailment
- 16:39:04 [jang_scribe]
- then inference engines can ignore them
- 16:39:13 [jang_scribe]
- so we add that as a semantic condition on rdfs:comment
- 16:39:29 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: example, maybe, of a harmful entailment?
- 16:39:44 [jang_scribe]
- path: changging a comment changes the formal entailment.
- 16:40:21 [jang_scribe]
- jang_scribe: eg, spellchecking comments will break entailed conclusions
- 16:40:40 [gk]
- An example from Pat's message:
- 16:40:42 [jang_scribe]
- path: one option suggested was, why not just get your checker to ignore comments?
- 16:40:43 [gk]
- [[
- 16:40:46 [gk]
- eg by
- 16:40:46 [gk]
- virtue of there only being three comments in the graph, a cardinality
- 16:40:46 [gk]
- constraint applying to a superproperty of rdf:comment and an
- 16:40:46 [gk]
- assertion that rdf:comment was functional could produce an
- 16:40:46 [gk]
- inconsistency
- 16:40:48 [gk]
- ]]
- 16:40:53 [jang_scribe]
- the response was, if we ignore it, it should be ignored in the semantics
- 16:41:56 [jang_scribe]
- gk: if I read the comment you made in your message to the group (quoted above)
- 16:41:59 [danbri]
- zakim, q+ to recall RDFS WG design
- 16:41:59 [Zakim]
- I see danbri on the speaker queue
- 16:42:33 [jang_scribe]
- path: it's true that owl can give propositions more complex and wide-ranging effects than it has in rdf
- 16:43:09 [jang_scribe]
- in principle, you could set up an owl definition that becomes inconsistent by virtue of not havoing enough comments in it!
- 16:43:19 [em]
- q
- 16:43:21 [em]
- q?
- 16:43:30 [gk]
- q+ to ask if the problem is with rdfs:commetn per se, or that lack of a property immune to these effects
- 16:43:55 [em]
- lol
- 16:44:03 [em]
- +1
- 16:44:28 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: this might hurt in owl, @well, don't do that then@
- 16:44:48 [jang_scribe]
- there amy be subproperties of comment, for instance
- 16:44:51 [jang_scribe]
- ^^^ path
- 16:45:00 [jang_scribe]
- ian's worry is that such tricks might bite people in unexpected ways
- 16:45:16 [jang_scribe]
- danbri:
- 16:45:21 [em]
- ack danbri
- 16:45:22 [Zakim]
- danbri, you wanted to recall RDFS WG design
- 16:45:24 [jang_scribe]
- zakim, ack danbri
- 16:45:24 [Zakim]
- I see gk on the speaker queue
- 16:45:35 [bwm]
- ack danbri
- 16:46:05 [jang_scribe]
- the rdf schema design discussions ...
- 16:46:29 [jang_scribe]
- ... we anticipated things that came along with @real@ semantics like domain range, and @empty@ things, ie, more like comment
- 16:47:10 [jang_scribe]
- one of the comments I've yet to respond to was a request for better commenting machinery
- 16:47:25 [jang_scribe]
- path: the natural response might be,
- 16:47:42 [jang_scribe]
- we know this should be replaced in the future, and this is what we've currently got
- 16:48:14 [jang_scribe]
- owl has a class of annotation properties
- 16:48:24 [jang_scribe]
- danbri: my next proposal was that owl did that, not us
- 16:48:29 [jang_scribe]
- so, great.
- 16:48:30 [gk]
- q?
- 16:49:14 [jang_scribe]
- gk: is Ian's problem with the existence of rdfs:comment or the lack of a @real@ commenting mechanism?
- 16:49:23 [jang_scribe]
- path: both. he needs a commenting mechanism, but this is too loose.
- 16:49:40 [danbri]
- em, sure
- 16:49:43 [em]
- thanks
- 16:49:43 [jang_scribe]
- owl could do that for itself if it wanted to
- 16:49:48 [em]
- q+
- 16:50:04 [danbri]
- q+ to ask whether their problem extends to any unknown properties appearing in a vocab/schema
- 16:50:09 [jang_scribe]
- gk: owl could define for itself an owl:comment with the constraint that A owl:comment b is always true?
- 16:50:19 [bwm]
- ack gk
- 16:50:19 [Zakim]
- gk, you wanted to ask if the problem is with rdfs:commetn per se, or that lack of a property immune to these effects
- 16:50:22 [jang_scribe]
- path: yes, or it could apply additional constraints of the same ilk on rdfs:comment
- 16:50:25 [bwm]
- ack em
- 16:50:46 [jang_scribe]
- em: there's already a lot of confusion about when to use what. owl:Class, rdfs:Class\
- 16:50:59 [jang_scribe]
- there's a communication aspect that needs fl[ue]shing out here
- 16:51:16 [jang_scribe]
- I like danbri's suggestion about owl addition additional information to these particular properties\
- 16:51:26 [jang_scribe]
- but the reduplication of these things as a slight means of constraining it
- 16:51:39 [jang_scribe]
- when trying to go out and explain this to folks seems as a problme
- 16:51:42 [bwm]
- q?
- 16:51:55 [jang_scribe]
- path: I don't see that we'll always be available to avoid two versions of some things, it's inevitable
- 16:51:59 [bwm]
- ack danbri
- 16:51:59 [Zakim]
- danbri, you wanted to ask whether their problem extends to any unknown properties appearing in a vocab/schema
- 16:52:08 [Zakim]
- -EMiller
- 16:52:10 [jang_scribe]
- em: in that case we should be super-cautious when playing that card
- 16:53:01 [jang_scribe]
- path: what bothers ian is that something CALLEd comment with the INTENDED PURPOSE of attaching comments should have real semantic import\
- 16:53:17 [jang_scribe]
- danbri: so is this just a philosophical clash?
- 16:53:39 [jang_scribe]
- path: ian's made a genuine engineering comment, that teams of people collaborating over time
- 16:53:49 [jang_scribe]
- on an ontology, will NEED (absolutely) comments
- 16:53:57 [jang_scribe]
- they're critical for the management of a large effort like that
- 16:54:14 [jang_scribe]
- just like you need them in software engineering
- 16:54:29 [jang_scribe]
- without those comments getting in the way of formal machinery you're using to check the real axioms
- 16:54:52 [jang_scribe]
- it's be a mistake to dismiss this use case, since we expect that people WILL use rdf and DAML and OWL to create large-scale ontologies
- 16:55:11 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: firstly, I'm really not sure what the problem is...
- 16:55:22 [jang_scribe]
- secondly, when I think about writing comments in the small ontologies I deal with,
- 16:55:35 [jang_scribe]
- I think of them not necessarily as comments to the user of a schema, but as showing up in a UI
- 16:55:41 [jang_scribe]
- in ontology tools
- 16:55:53 [jang_scribe]
- path: that's jimh's point of view, that's why he wants them to be retained
- 16:56:04 [jang_scribe]
- to be fair to ian, we don't provide what ian needs
- 16:56:17 [jang_scribe]
- frankm:
- 16:56:29 [jang_scribe]
- pat, did you see my response on wednesday?
- 16:56:33 [jang_scribe]
- it seems to me that
- 16:56:40 [jang_scribe]
- 9a) this is much like the class/instance distinction
- 16:56:40 [DanC]
- I think we should seriously consider an rdfs:noop or rdfs:triviallyTrue property, ala Jeremy's c14n/signature stuff.
- 16:57:07 [jang_scribe]
- why are we precluding people from doing tricks/useful things from comments at the rdf level
- 16:57:16 [jang_scribe]
- as opposed to people building it in in a specialised language
- 16:57:17 [jang_scribe]
- and
- 16:57:19 [danbri]
- From RDFS WG archives (with Guha's permission):
- 16:57:20 [danbri]
- [[
- 16:57:21 [DanC]
- but to trivialize rdfs:comment is no fair, at this stage of deployment.
- 16:57:21 [danbri]
- Message-ID: <35673B2B.5FCE@netscape.com>
- 16:57:21 [danbri]
- Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 14:10:03 -0700
- 16:57:21 [danbri]
- From: guha@netscape.com (Ramanathan Guha)
- 16:57:21 [danbri]
- To: singer@almaden.ibm.com
- 16:57:22 [danbri]
- CC: w3c-rdf-schema-wg@w3.org
- 16:57:24 [danbri]
- Subject: Re: Open Issue #18
- 16:57:26 [danbri]
- Here is one factor to consider before we decide
- 16:57:28 [danbri]
- to postpone this --- pretty much everyone who
- 16:57:30 [danbri]
- uses RDF Schemas will come up with some property
- 16:57:32 [danbri]
- type to hold a human readable description. This
- 16:57:34 [danbri]
- is just going to happen. Wouldn't it be better
- 16:57:36 [danbri]
- if everyone used the same property type (even
- 16:57:38 [danbri]
- if it were not 100% perfect?)
- 16:57:40 [danbri]
- Guha
- 16:57:43 [danbri]
- ]]
- 16:57:44 [danbri]
- (sorry to interrupt Jang)
- 16:57:46 [danbri]
- --http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-rdf-schema-wg/1998AprJun/0211.html
- 16:57:46 [jang_scribe]
- (b) we need facilities for people building large ontologies; is rdfs:comment used for that?
- 16:57:57 [jang_scribe]
- miked: rdfs:comment is used usually as a description
- 16:58:14 [jang_scribe]
- frankm: right, a software engineering discipling would need structured kinds of comments
- 16:58:22 [jang_scribe]
- dabnbri: guha's comment...
- 16:58:34 [DanC]
- yes, 'comment' was poorly chosen. but the community groks it (and uses it) as designed, i.e. as description. No fair to change it now.
- 16:59:05 [jang_scribe]
- we built something useful to a lot of people, we need to stand by that
- 16:59:13 [danbri]
- DanC, we're out of time. Please send by email.
- 16:59:17 [jang_scribe]
- path: this isn't getting a very sympathetic hearing.
- 16:59:56 [jang_scribe]
- path: the only option is to say @sorry@ or to do the formal trick I mentioned in the email
- 17:00:00 [DanC]
- roger, danbri.
- 17:00:06 [jang_scribe]
- which means that an empty graph entails every single comment
- 17:00:43 [jang_scribe]
- gk: in proposing to reject it we must'nt be seen as being totally dismissinve of the concerns expressed here
- 17:00:53 [jang_scribe]
- path: yes, I'd come back to the gropu with words for this
- 17:01:07 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: danbri, do you have wording on this?
- 17:01:25 [DanC]
- danbri, are you really out of time, it seems the discussion continues.
- 17:01:37 [jang_scribe]
- postponed until next week
- 17:01:42 [jang_scribe]
- bwm: we'll wordsmith offline
- 17:01:49 [DanC]
- ah. ok.
- 17:02:07 [jang_scribe]
- action: path - produce the words of the decision for this
- 17:02:15 [jang_scribe]
- closed
- 17:02:17 [jang_scribe]
- NEXT MEETING friday!
- 17:02:19 [danbri]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 17:02:19 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2003/03/14-rdfcore-irc#T17-02-19
- 17:02:35 [Zakim]
- -PatH
- 17:02:37 [Zakim]
- -Manola
- 17:02:39 [Zakim]
- -DanBri
- 17:02:40 [Zakim]
- -ILRT?
- 17:02:44 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Dean
- 17:02:57 [Zakim]
- -bwm
- 17:03:01 [Zakim]
- -GrahamKlyne
- 17:03:03 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended
- 17:03:32 [danbri]
- http://www.w3.org/2003/03/14-rdfcore-irc.html etc should be public soon. I changed it, waiting for ACLs to mirror.
- 17:05:37 [danbri]
- http://www.w3.org/2003/03/14-rdfcore-irc.html public now.
- 17:05:39 [danbri]
- danbri has left #rdfcore