IRC log of sw-meaning on 2003-09-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:21:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #sw-meaning
14:21:32 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
14:21:32 [RRSAgent]
14:21:35 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #sw-meaning
14:21:39 [sandro]
zakim, this will be SW_Meaning
14:21:39 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled near this time, sandro
14:21:52 [sandro]
soon enough, zakim.
14:25:46 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #sw-meaning
14:41:09 [JohnBlack]
JohnBlack has joined #sw-meaning
14:42:25 [JohnBlack]
I just wanted to be sure I had this right.
14:57:01 [sandro]
zakim, this will be SW_Meaning
14:57:01 [Zakim]
ok, sandro; I see SW_Meaning()11:30AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes
14:57:40 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to: SW_Meaning 11:30-1:00 Boston Time,
15:11:32 [Stuart]
Sandro et. al.... my wife has just reminded me of a somestic commitment I made which means that I will miss the start of the call. Will join as soon as I can. Sincere apologies.
15:11:58 [sandro]
Understood, Stuart. Thanks.
15:26:42 [gk-scribe]
gk-scribe has joined #sw-meaning
15:27:06 [sandro]
Volunteering to scribe, Graham??
15:27:29 [gk-scribe]
No, that's the meeting I;ve just done... I;'m not doing *two* today!!
15:27:31 [sandro]
zakim, what is the code?
15:27:31 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7966, sandro
15:27:37 [Zakim]
SW_Meaning()11:30AM has now started
15:27:43 [Zakim]
15:27:49 [sandro]
ah, well. :-)
15:27:54 [Norm]
Norm has joined #sw-meaning
15:28:31 [sandro]
howdy, Norm.
15:28:47 [Zakim]
15:29:07 [sandro]
zakim, [UMD] is Bijan
15:29:07 [Zakim]
+Bijan; got it
15:29:16 [Zakim]
15:29:37 [Norm]
Zakim, what's the passcode?
15:29:37 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7966, Norm
15:29:57 [Zakim]
15:30:22 [Zakim]
15:30:27 [Zakim]
15:30:39 [bijan]
bijan has joined #sw-meaning
15:31:09 [sandro]
zakim, ??P22 is PeterPS
15:31:09 [Zakim]
+PeterPS; got it
15:31:13 [Zakim]
15:31:18 [Zakim]
15:31:30 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P25 is IanHorrocks
15:31:30 [Zakim]
+IanHorrocks; got it
15:31:33 [danbri_desk]
danbri_desk has joined #sw-meaning
15:31:42 [DanC]
DanC has joined #sw-meaning
15:32:00 [Zakim]
15:32:06 [Zakim]
15:32:07 [JohnBlack]
JohnBlack has joined #sw-meaning
15:32:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.434.964.aaaa
15:32:12 [pfps]
pfps has joined #sw-meaning
15:32:27 [danbri_desk]
zakim, mute danbri
15:32:27 [Zakim]
DanBri should now be muted
15:32:31 [sandro]
zakim, +1.434.964.aaaa is JohnBlack
15:32:31 [Zakim]
+JohnBlack; got it
15:32:42 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:32:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, Bijan, GrahamKlyne, Norm, PeterPS, PatH, IanHorrocks, DanBri (muted), Mike_Dean, JohnBlack, DanC
15:33:20 [danbri_desk]
people sound like they're underwater... my phone?
15:33:37 [danbri_desk]
zakim, unmute danbri
15:33:37 [Zakim]
DanBri should no longer be muted
15:34:09 [Zakim]
15:34:10 [Norm]
Yes, it's your phone danbri_desk
15:34:24 [danbri_desk]
zakim, drop danbri
15:34:24 [Zakim]
DanBri is being disconnected
15:34:25 [Zakim]
15:34:40 [Zakim]
15:35:00 [sandro]
ack JimH
15:35:16 [danbri_desk]
zakim, mute danbri
15:35:17 [Zakim]
DanBri should now be muted
15:35:47 [DanC]
------- Convene
15:35:48 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:35:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, Bijan, GrahamKlyne, Norm, PeterPS, PatH, IanHorrocks, DanBri (muted), Mike_Dean, JohnBlack, DanC, JimH (muted)
15:36:22 [mdean]
mdean has joined #sw-meaning
15:36:58 [timbl-lex]
timbl-lex has joined #sw-meaning
15:37:09 [timbl-lex]
Zakim, what is the passcode?
15:37:09 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7966, timbl-lex
15:37:14 [sandro]
zakim, pick a scribe?
15:37:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, sandro.
15:37:18 [sandro]
zakim, pick a scribe
15:37:18 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Bijan
15:38:05 [DanC]
RRSAgent, pointer?
15:38:05 [RRSAgent]
15:38:13 [Zakim]
15:38:30 [scribe]
Agenda review: We'll go with it.
15:38:51 [scribe]
Sandro: Expectations for future meeetings
15:39:26 [scribe]
Sandro: Plan 2 more dates on a twice a month secdule for the next two months.
15:39:32 [DanC]
I'm available 10, 31 Oct at this time
15:39:47 [scribe]
Sandro: check Oct 10 and 31 this time slot for availability
15:39:51 [Norm]
Not available 10 Oct, am available 31 Oct
15:39:57 [pfps]
10/10 and 31/10 are OK by me
15:40:03 [scribe]
Pat is ok for both dates
15:40:03 [gk]
Currently, I'm free 10/31 Oct
15:40:04 [danbri_desk]
I can do 31 oct, tentatively
15:40:17 [JohnBlack]
both ok
15:40:24 [scribe]
Scribe: Bijan believes himself to be free those dates
15:40:27 [timbl-lex]
I am available 10th and 31st
15:41:30 [DanC]
RESOLVED: to meet 10, 31 Oct
15:41:32 [scribe]
Sandro: No objectiton? Good, meetings so scheduled
15:41:36 [scribe]
15:41:39 [scribe]
I was working on it
15:42:08 [scribe]
Sandro: Text for the TAG
15:42:15 [scribe]
PFPS: We can do way better.
15:42:31 [gk]
I'd like to see something emerge sooner
15:42:58 [scribe]
General debate about timeline for the "something"
15:43:17 [scribe]
Sandro: Two bits, what's our goal (produce somethign "acceptible to the tag") and timeline
15:43:24 [scribe]
danC(?): hoping for more
15:43:44 [scribe]
pfps: i would agree with the goal
15:43:58 [scribe]
path: nervous about getting acceptibily from the tag
15:44:01 [gk]
Would the first goal be some kind of consensus in this group?
15:44:10 [scribe]
pfps: tag's not darpa, failure alloed
15:44:23 [sandro]
15:44:36 [scribe]
Sandro: consensus on goal, how about timeline?
15:45:14 [scribe]
Danc: other dates, ISWC in october, XML conference in (dec), and tech plenary in (march)
15:45:33 [scribe]
DanC; F2f possibilities for these dates (also presentations)
15:45:46 [scribe]
scribe dies in line noise
15:45:52 [DanC]
that was danbri saying he'll be at XML thingy in PA
15:46:10 [scribe]
DanC: These are release ops
15:46:39 [Norm]
7-12 Dec
15:46:44 [scribe]
PFPS: I'd go to philly (XML conf)
15:46:48 [scribe]
BIjan: Me too
15:46:56 [DanC]
15:47:09 [scribe]
PatH: Tight date
15:47:21 [scribe]
DanC: Not much different than end of the year.
15:47:35 [scribe]
Sandro: Consensus on end of hte year as a "get somethign out" date
15:47:54 [scribe]
NOTED: Get something out by the end of the years
15:48:09 [DanC]
... was agreed by many
15:48:15 [DanC]
... as a goal
15:48:18 [scribe]
sandro: working style
15:48:56 [scribe]
sandro: Issues list and requirements list, or test driven approach, or something looser.
15:49:11 [Norm]
Zakim, who's talking?
15:49:17 [timbl-lex]
Zakim, who is talking?
15:49:18 [Zakim]
15:49:22 [Zakim]
Norm, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (4%), PeterPS (4%), PatH (28%), IanHorrocks (50%), JohnBlack (57%), TimBL (14%)
15:49:40 [sandro]
it was probably you, John....
15:49:43 [Zakim]
timbl-lex, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (56%), PatH (79%), IanHorrocks (4%), TimBL (4%)
15:50:16 [scribe]
PatH: Fixing an issue list too soon can be destructive or inhibiting
15:50:17 [gk]
Do we truly have more than one issue?
15:50:25 [DanC]
good question, gk.
15:50:25 [Zakim]
15:50:40 [scribe]
Tim: say something small as soon as possible
15:50:56 [scribe]
15:51:01 [sandro]
Tim: ... then go on to Best Practices, etc.
15:51:11 [scribe]
PatH: Danger of the small messing up the rest
15:51:13 [sandro]
ack DanC
15:51:13 [scribe]
15:51:18 [scribe]
+1 to PatH
15:51:37 [scribe]
DanC: issue list pitfalls
15:51:54 [scribe]
DanC: Issue list ok if its short
15:51:57 [scribe]
15:51:58 [sandro]
DanC: 3 or 5 issues is fine --- I dont want important issues to get burried
15:52:07 [scribe]
PFPS: Endorsed danc with bells
15:52:17 [DanC]
ack scribe
15:52:19 [sandro]
ack scribe
15:52:32 [sandro]
Bijan: 1 issue is too small, 37 is too big
15:52:45 [sandro]
Bijan: Separating concerns *is* important
15:53:21 [sandro]
Bijan: Some issues might route to differennt groupd -- 5-10 issues
15:53:39 [sandro]
15:53:58 [scribe]
Sandro: how to do test cases or use cases in the subject area
15:54:05 [scribe]
DanC: Like the idea, don't know how to do it
15:54:11 [scribe]
Molly and Sally rule!
15:54:43 [scribe]
Tim: danger is the examples are small but we need to understand the large. Synoptic view critical
15:54:43 [gk]
q+ to ask does the molly and sally test any formal/social interaction?
15:54:49 [scribe]
15:55:03 [DanC]
ethernet protocol clash ;-)
15:55:11 [sandro]
15:55:15 [sandro]
ack gk
15:55:15 [Zakim]
gk, you wanted to ask does the molly and sally test any formal/social interaction?
15:55:46 [scribe]
gk: About Molly & Sally, does it expore formal reasoning process vs. social meaning something the scribe didn't get
15:55:58 [scribe]
PatH: yes!
15:56:05 [DanC]
PatH: yes 1/2 ;-)
15:56:21 [sandro]
Pat: these are examples, not test cases. we're not there yet.
15:56:26 [scribe]
PatH: Test case is about getting the precise case exactly
15:56:37 [sandro]
Pat: example help clarify vocabulary at least; thought experiment
15:56:37 [timbl-lex]
g/me thought experiments
15:56:56 [gkgk]
gkgk has joined #sw-meaning
15:57:50 [sandro]
Bijan: Tim's issue Raising, Intuition Pump example, .... Tim's level doesnt help me.
15:58:21 [sandro]
Bijan: "Will my software become non-complaint if...."
15:58:34 [sandro]
15:59:15 [sandro]
Pat: some people want things to be said; others want foolish things NOT said. it would be good for people to get their goals clear.
15:59:19 [scribe]
PatH: Some folks want to get things said; other people want to prevent stuff getting said; might be useful for people to make their agenda clear
15:59:23 [Zakim]
15:59:31 [sandro]
ack scribe
15:59:32 [DanC]
ack jimh
15:59:33 [sandro]
ack jimh
16:00:17 [sandro]
JimH: turning it into two different behaviors is important.
16:00:19 [scribe]
JimH: Question - whatever we call them, it's too easy to discuss things with no practical value at great left; nice to operationalize the results of decisions
16:00:23 [Zakim]
16:00:25 [timbl-lex]
q+ to agree and ask when we start
16:00:43 [timbl-lex]
16:00:47 [scribe]
Sandro: moving on
16:01:02 [gkgk]
Pat Hayes send a (long) message to the list about a commerce scenario that for me captured many concerns
16:01:13 [scribe]
Sandro: One issue on the list, tim's "straw man"
16:01:29 [sandro]
16:01:31 [timbl-lex]
16:01:43 [scribe]
Sandro: Tim just sent stuff to the list just recently
16:01:49 [sandro]
ack DanC
16:01:49 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to endorse "We can define a *protocol* in which ..."
16:02:28 [scribe]
DanC: use of URI imply committment; tim sez that's silly question; we can define protocol
16:02:31 [scribe]
16:03:08 [scribe]
DanC: RDF compliant. Well, two things define, parsers, and trivial reasoners
16:03:19 [scribe]
DanC: So RDF compliance uninteresting
16:03:56 [scribe]
DanC: Encourage behaviors, not require stuff
16:03:56 [sandro]
16:03:59 [sandro]
ack timbl-lex
16:04:36 [scribe]
timbl-lex: restate my position; your software would be required to do stuff but I never meant that
16:05:15 [scribe]
timbl-lex: we going to model somethings and not others
16:05:19 [sandro]
16:05:30 [DanC]
(I think it would be fascinating to model society... a certain amount of information theory and economics... an interesting PhD ;-)
16:05:36 [Zakim]
16:05:47 [DanC]
16:06:00 [gkgk]
Re: DanC's comments, Pat Hayes also noted "... that the performance of valid inferences can itself be considered to be taking a stance, and the conclusions may be at risk even if the sources are trusted and the inferences are valid."
16:06:30 [Zakim]
16:06:34 [scribe]
scribe: lost the thread of tim's comments...can anyone fill the gap
16:07:26 [scribe]
tim: we must not loose focus on the "simple goal" of what an RDF document mean
16:07:38 [scribe]
timbl-lex: even if we may want to move on to more complex things
16:07:49 [scribe]
gkgk: more that rdf?
16:08:08 [scribe]
timbl-lex: we could define new specs for "more friendly" rdf
16:08:26 [DanC]
ack scribe
16:08:38 [DanC]
Bijan: re RDF compliance...
16:09:02 [timbl-lex]
We could define a FriendlyARDFDocument as having specialpropertryeis ... but lets define RDF first"
16:09:04 [gkgk]
TimBL: e.g. "Friendly rdf document" works interestingly with "closure" of RDF classes and predicates" (?)
16:09:09 [Zakim]
16:09:09 [DanC]
... I think it does matter; if you have to import the ontological closure, then ...
16:09:29 [DanC]
... that's an observable behaviour
16:09:35 [Stuart]
zakim, ??P30 is me
16:09:35 [Zakim]
+Stuart; got it
16:09:54 [DanC]
DanC: I don't think anybody's talking about any requirement that all RDF software must read all
16:10:05 [DanC]
linked stuff
16:10:15 [gkgk]
Does anybody thing dereferencing all URIs is required? Nobody says so.
16:10:20 [DanC]
straw poll: does anyone feel there's such a requirement?
16:10:33 [DanC]
No, noone does.
16:10:59 [JohnBlack]
no but ontological closure will be highly desirable and the marketplace will drive it
16:11:04 [DanC]
Bijan: then, onto imports... if you refer to cyc:Dog, do you have to load all of cyc?
16:11:31 [DanC]
Bijan: it's very hard to describe [loading something smaller than the document]
16:11:34 [timbl-lex]
16:11:49 [DanC]
ack timb
16:12:32 [scribe]
timbl-lex: owl:imports is a distractions; there is a committment to an ontology, and if you are only committed to the content daml:imports; daml:imports is just about saving bytes
16:12:37 [scribe]
16:12:45 [pfps]
16:13:12 [scribe]
timbl-lex: daml:imports is "all the statemstn in another document is true"
16:13:22 [Zakim]
16:13:23 [gkgk]
q+ to say I think that ontological closure is an interesting idea, but that there are more basic ideas to find consensus about .. the interaction between formally derived meaning and social behaviours
16:13:31 [DanC]
ack scribe
16:13:38 [timbl-lex]
I see daml:imports as a distraction.
16:13:41 [Zakim]
16:14:11 [JohnBlack]
16:14:17 [DanC]
Bijan: without a definiton of "commitment" ala "I believe what's in the imported ontology" then I'm confused
16:14:44 [DanC]
... Can I use somebody's ontology and supply my own definition
16:14:45 [DanC]
16:14:52 [DanC]
... and my answer is: sure, why not?
16:14:55 [timbl-lex]
16:15:07 [DanC]
ack danc
16:15:07 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to cyc
16:16:09 [scribe]
DanC: why can't do that? Because the resulting ontology is uninteresting. Hyperlink example
16:16:43 [DanC]
resulting systems
16:17:04 [pfps]
I'll scribe as Bijan is saying what I want to
16:17:25 [pfps]
Bijan: Why not allow divergence?
16:17:43 [pfps]
Bijan: I should be able to use someone else's terms without committing to (all) of their definitions.
16:18:34 [DanC]
if Sally agrees she made a mistake, you should get her to change the RDF she publishes. If she doesn't agree, you have to use a different URI
16:18:39 [pfps]
Bijan: There are reasons for this - mistakes (both trival and non-trivial) - differences in opinion - change in the world - lack of response
16:19:10 [pfps]
TimBL: we should define something that works when everything works well
16:19:14 [pfps]
16:19:15 [gkgk]
TimBL: 2 levels, naive protocol, then more complex things layered on it
16:19:42 [pfps]
TimBL: and then go on to more difficult cases
16:20:43 [pfps]
Bijan: test case - RDF spec should provide some clue for untangling meaning
16:21:19 [DanC]
ack pfps
16:21:32 [pfps]
Bijan: however, understanding Molly (who disagrees with Sally) should not require use of Sally's document
16:21:33 [DanC]
ack gkgk
16:21:33 [Zakim]
gkgk, you wanted to say I think that ontological closure is an interesting idea, but that there are more basic ideas to find consensus about .. the interaction between formally
16:21:35 [scribe]
pfps: Bijan said what I wanted to say :)
16:21:36 [Zakim]
... derived meaning and social behaviours
16:21:58 [timbl-lex]
q+ to say The simpler level is not "look it up on the web" but "identified by a URI"
16:22:04 [scribe]
gkgk: Ontology closure is interesting, but I don't see the relationship between it and what we're tryign to capture that caused problems with early RDF Drafts
16:22:29 [scribe]
gkgk: relationship between formal meaning and social meaning
16:22:31 [scribe]
16:22:37 [DanC]
ack john
16:22:39 [sandro]
sandro has joined #sw-meaning
16:23:10 [scribe]
JohnBlack: Rather than comm to closure, everyone's self-interest will drive them to do as much onto comm as possible
16:23:25 [DanC]
ooh... good point.
16:23:28 [scribe]
JohnBlack: Power of URIs derives from agreement
16:23:31 [DanC]
ack timbl-lex
16:23:31 [Zakim]
timbl-lex, you wanted to say The simpler level is not "look it up on the web" but "identified by a URI"
16:24:08 [scribe]
timbl-lex: The simple statement is "the meaning of the term is identified by the URI'
16:24:35 [scribe]
timbl-lex: RDF leaves it at that. HTTP intervenes
16:24:57 [sandro]
I think I'm back.
16:25:01 [sandro]
16:25:15 [sandro]
16:25:57 [gkgk]
TimBL: web retrieval provides basis for a good argument concerning the meaning, rather than specifying retrieval as part of the definition of meaning (?)
16:26:22 [Zakim]
16:26:27 [sandro]
ack scribe
16:27:00 [DanC]
TimBL: [lots of stuff that wasn't very well understood by the meeting]
16:27:39 [timbl-lex]
The Semantic Web is a lot. The bit of RDF is small.
16:27:55 [gkgk]
Bijan: having problems undersanding what TimBL is really asserting, would like to spend some effort pinning this down
16:27:58 [sandro]
Bian: I don't really understand what Tim is saying: it sometimes seems simple, sometimes not
16:28:27 [sandro]
16:28:51 [sandro]
Bijan: if I talk with Tim a LOT I might be able to understand it and restate it in a form people like me can understand
16:29:08 [sandro]
ack DanC
16:29:08 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to note that doing it in this forum is very valuable, to me
16:30:36 [sandro]
Bijan: this may take a very careful line-by-line discussion
16:30:39 [scribe]
timbl-lex: I'm encouraged that PatH and I did off into the weeds and came back, so maybe Bijan and i can do it
16:32:18 [scribe]
DanC: PatH's recent message seems to go bac
16:32:20 [gkgk]
(DanC says Pat's recent message was 3 steps back ... I'm not so sure as I think he did ack the debate with Tim)
16:32:21 [scribe]
16:32:39 [sandro]
16:32:47 [sandro]
ack DanC
16:32:47 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to move to adjourn
16:33:20 [sandro]
16:33:21 [scribe]
Motion to adjourn
16:33:27 [Zakim]
16:33:28 [Zakim]
16:33:33 [Zakim]
16:33:42 [sandro]
16:33:48 [Zakim]
16:34:00 [timbl-lex]
Thanks to everyone who achired and/or scribed
16:34:09 [Zakim]
16:34:13 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:34:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see PeterPS, IanHorrocks, DanC, TimBL, JohnBlack, Sandro.a
16:34:21 [Zakim]
16:34:22 [Zakim]
16:34:28 [Zakim]
16:34:29 [Zakim]
16:34:38 [Zakim]
16:34:49 [sandro]
Plan for the next meeting: Bijan tries to understand Tim's view.
16:36:48 [Zakim]
16:36:49 [Zakim]
SW_Meaning()11:30AM has ended
16:37:18 [pfps]
pfps has left #sw-meaning
16:39:56 [gkgk]
Dan, you still here?
16:40:18 [gkgk]
Pat's message contained this:
16:40:19 [gkgk]
16:40:20 [gkgk]
6. Following on the debate about URIs having a unique meaning, in discussions with Tim (and others, notably Patrick Stickler) I think Tim and I kind of agreed on the following. Observe that people communicate successfully when they use words with a shared meaning, and often fail to communicate when one has a meaning in mind different from that understood by the other, particularly when the word is a simple name and they don't have the same referent in mind.
16:40:23 [gkgk]
16:43:10 [DanC]
oh... hi.
16:45:03 [DanC]
yes, saw that. that's good.
17:26:05 [Norm]
Norm has left #sw-meaning
17:43:05 [gkgk]
gkgk has left #sw-meaning
19:05:11 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #sw-meaning
19:10:05 [DanC]
DanC has left #sw-meaning