14:21:26 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #sw-meaning
14:21:32 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
14:21:32 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2003/09/26-sw-meaning-irc#T14-21-32
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, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Sep/0109
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> +Sandro
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> +[UMD]
15:29:07 <sandro> zakim, [UMD] is Bijan
15:29:07 <Zakim> +Bijan; got it
15:29:16 <Zakim> +GrahamKlyne
15:29:37 <Norm> Zakim, what's the passcode?
15:29:37 <Zakim> the conference code is 7966, Norm
15:29:57 <Zakim> +Norm
15:30:22 <Zakim> +??P22
15:30:27 <Zakim> +PatH
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> +??P25
15:31:18 <Zakim> +DanBri
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> +Mike_Dean
15:32:06 <Zakim> +DanC
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> +JimH
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> -DanBri
15:34:40 <Zakim> +DanBri
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> See http://www.w3.org/2003/09/26-sw-meaning-irc#T15-38-05
15:38:13 <Zakim> +TimBL
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> Ah.
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> q?
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> -- http://www.xmlconference.org/xmlusa/
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> -JohnBlack
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> +JohnBlack
15:50:40 <scribe> Tim: say something small as soon as possible
15:50:56 <scribe> q+
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> q-
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> q+
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> q?
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> q+
15:55:03 <DanC> ethernet protocol clash ;-)
15:55:11 <sandro> q?
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> q?
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> -PatH
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> -Norm
16:00:25 <timbl-lex> q+ to agree and ask when we start
16:00:43 <timbl-lex> q-
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> q?
16:01:31 <timbl-lex> q+
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> q+
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> q?
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> q?
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> -Sandro
16:05:47 <DanC> -sandro???
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> +Sandro
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> +??P30
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> q+
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> q+
16:12:45 <pfps> q+
16:13:12 <scribe> timbl-lex: daml:imports is "all the statemstn in another document is true"
16:13:22 <Zakim> +Sandro.a
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> -Sandro
16:14:11 <JohnBlack> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> q+
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> q?
16:25:15 <sandro> okay
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> -JimH
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> q?
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> back
16:32:39 <sandro> q?
16:32:47 <sandro> ack DanC
16:32:47 <Zakim> DanC, you wanted to move to adjourn
16:33:20 <sandro> ADJOURN
16:33:21 <scribe> Motion to adjourn
16:33:27 <Zakim> -Bijan
16:33:28 <Zakim> -Stuart
16:33:33 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
16:33:42 <sandro> q?
16:33:48 <Zakim> -GrahamKlyne
16:34:00 <timbl-lex> Thanks to everyone who achired and/or scribed
16:34:09 <Zakim> -DanBri
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> -DanC
16:34:22 <Zakim> -Sandro.a
16:34:28 <Zakim> -TimBL
16:34:29 <Zakim> -PeterPS
16:34:38 <Zakim> -JohnBlack
16:34:49 <sandro> Plan for the next meeting: Bijan tries to understand Tim's view.
16:36:48 <Zakim> -IanHorrocks
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