IRC log of swbp on 2005-03-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:18:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swbp
13:18:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:18:44 [RalphS]
Meeting: SemWeb Best Practices & Deployment
13:19:26 [RalphS]
13:20:02 [RalphS]
-> irc log from day 1
13:20:12 [danbri2]
danbri2 has joined #swbp
13:20:26 [RalphS]
rrsagent, please make logs world-visible
13:45:10 [Yoshio]
Yoshio has joined #swbp
13:49:16 [ivan]
ivan has joined #swbp
13:56:40 [RalphS]
RalphS has joined #swbp
13:56:52 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swbp
13:56:57 [RalphS]
zakim, this will be swbp
13:56:57 [Zakim]
ok, RalphS; I see SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
13:57:14 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
13:57:26 [RRS]
RRS has joined #swbp
13:57:29 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #swbp
13:58:51 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM has now started
13:58:59 [Zakim]
13:59:21 [JeffP]
13:59:49 [danbri-laptop]
danbri-laptop has joined #swbp
14:01:23 [PhilT]
PhilT has joined #swbp
14:01:59 [JeffP]
I got it, thanks
14:02:32 [libby]
libby has joined #swbp
14:04:03 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
14:04:25 [Zakim]
14:04:26 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM has ended
14:04:27 [Zakim]
Attendees were
14:05:14 [guus]
guus has joined #swbp
14:06:16 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
14:06:34 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
14:06:44 [jjc]
14:06:58 [JeffP]
Hi Jeremy
14:07:45 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM has now started
14:07:52 [Zakim]
14:09:11 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.568.aaaa
14:09:54 [RalphS]
zakim, ??p0 is Jeff_Pan
14:09:54 [Zakim]
+Jeff_Pan; got it
14:10:06 [RalphS]
zakim, aaaa is SWBPD_MeetingRoom
14:10:06 [Zakim]
+SWBPD_MeetingRoom; got it
14:10:51 [RalphS]
-> Re: XML Schema Datatypes and the Semantic Web [Dave Peterson 2005-01-31]
14:10:55 [pepper]
pepper has joined #swbp
14:12:34 [MSM]
MSM has joined #swbp
14:12:42 [RalphS]
zakim, SWBPD_MeetingRoom has Jeremy, Guus, DavidW, TomB, Libby, Fabien, BillM, Evan, Phil, Mike, Chris, Andreas, Ralph
14:12:42 [Zakim]
+Jeremy, Guus, DavidW, TomB, Libby, Fabien, BillM, Evan, Phil, Mike, Chris, Andreas, Ralph; got it
14:12:53 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #swbp
14:13:37 [RalphS]
zakim, SWBPD_MeetingRoom also has Michael_SperbergMcQueen, Patrick_Stickler, David_Provost
14:13:37 [Zakim]
+Michael_SperbergMcQueen, Patrick_Stickler, David_Provost; got it
14:14:05 [RalphS]
zakim, SWBPD_MeetingRoom also has Alistair
14:14:05 [Zakim]
+Alistair; got it
14:14:17 [MSM]
14:14:17 [PatrickS]
PatrickS has joined #swbp
14:14:26 [ivan]
scribe: ivan
14:14:39 [ivan]
--- xml schema problems ----
14:14:55 [RRS]
-> XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL
14:15:17 [ivan]
jc: document has not changed much since the first version
14:15:28 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
14:15:34 [ivan]
... has been editorial changes, except for when to use what
14:15:40 [ivan]
... that is the only major change
14:15:59 [ivan]
... question: do we publish it?
14:16:01 [wdmcdaniel]
wdmcdaniel has joined #swbp
14:16:13 [ivan]
... two comments: hayes' dawg review
14:16:26 [ivan]
... one small comment from peterson on a mistake i made
14:17:16 [ivan]
... the document was initially was for review the datatypes and to when are two values equal?
14:17:34 [ivan]
... the rdf and owl semantics do not specify that (for float and ints for example)
14:17:47 [ivan]
... xquery/xslt had a problem for the duration
14:18:15 [ivan]
... they were pulled out from the rdf/owl, but xpath2 solves that and the text refers to that
14:18:35 [ivan]
... section 5 is on the use of numeric types is for a different set of readers
14:18:52 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swbp
14:18:53 [ivan]
... it gives some suggestion on when to choose what
14:19:37 [ivan]
... on the user dfeined datatypes the problem is: xml schema gives a mechanism to define his/her own datatypes
14:20:03 [ivan]
... owl/rdf design requires to identify datatypes with URI-s, xml schema do not necessarily do that
14:20:11 [ivan]
... the two will not work together
14:20:29 [ivan]
... we decided to postpone this problem
14:21:02 [ivan]
... there are ways to address this, the issue is more that it covers too many specs
14:21:51 [RalphS]
definitino of adultAge just prior to
14:21:57 [RalphS]
14:21:57 [ivan]
... daml+oil uses the name of a schema type uses the URI of the document plus # and the name to address an element
14:22:25 [ivan]
... that works, there are implementations, it is seriously non aligns with recs
14:23:00 [ivan]
... the problem is what is the frag id in general;, the architecture says that it is up to the document what the frag id is
14:23:35 [danbri2]
danbri2 has joined #swbp
14:23:36 [ivan]
... the daml+oil is nowhere close to what the xml or the xml schema solution might be.
14:24:02 [ivan]
... the second solution is to use xml schema component designators from the xml schema group, currently a stable working draft
14:24:21 [ivan]
msm: the binding vote should be close, close to be in last call
14:24:56 [ivan]
jc: what we trying to do is a pretty basic use case to the xml schema component designator
14:25:09 [MSM]
Current SCDs draft:
14:25:18 [MSM]
s/draft/editors' draft/
14:25:30 [aliman]
aliman has joined #swbp
14:25:36 [ivan]
... however, because of the generality of the solution, the frag id is pretty complex (based on xpointer)
14:25:54 [ivan]
(jc shows the example in the document)
14:26:28 [ivan]
msm: the change we have made is to make the expression a bit simpler, it will look much more like an xpath expression
14:26:55 [RalphS]
zakim, SWBPD_MeetingRoom also has DanBri, Yoshio_Fukushige
14:26:55 [Zakim]
+DanBri, Yoshio_Fukushige; got it
14:27:04 [RalphS]
zakim, SWBPD_MeetingRoom also has TimBL
14:27:04 [Zakim]
+TimBL; got it
14:27:20 [ivan]
jc: this is still more complicated than the daml+oil solution, and has difficulties when using n3 which uses qnames
14:27:48 [ivan]
... after the ':' n3 requires n3 names, which does not include '(' and others
14:27:53 [MSM]
...#xscd(/type(adultAge)) becomes ...#xscd(/type::adultAge) -- or, if the type adultAge is assigned to a namespace bound to prefix 'p', ...#xscd(/type::p:adultAge)
14:28:04 [ivan]
... so it will lead to problems with deployed formats
14:28:21 [ivan]
... so it is ugly, but the generality is attractive
14:29:29 [ivan]
jc: there is an issue which is at the hear of pat's comment: according to xsd the component designators are for the simple type definitions
14:29:53 [ivan]
msm: no, the simple type definion is an abstraction
14:30:19 [PatrickS]
Does it identify something that is a member of rdf:Datatype?
14:30:48 [ivan]
the abstractions are what a schema is made of
14:31:20 [ivan]
... the reason it took so long is that the theological work to say that we are pointing at the abstraction and not the xml
14:31:37 [ivan]
... i am not sure whether it was crucial but this is it
14:32:06 [RalphS]
MSM: specifically, the phrase "i.e. referring to the definition rather than to the type defined." is wrong
14:32:49 [ivan]
jc: what is clear is that the way rdf/owl talks on datatypes means that the theological debate is probably unnecessary
14:32:58 [ivan]
... the simple case shouild work
14:33:18 [ivan]
... it does not seem that hard
14:33:46 [ivan]
... i have looked at the xml schema solution and the daml+oil
14:34:11 [MSM]
The "simple type definition" is an abstraction (name, base type definition, facets); we call it a "definition" to distinguish it from the value and lexical space which follow logically from the base type and facets. (Distinction between intension / extension)
14:34:17 [ivan]
... the rfc2316 says you take the url, you get a document with a mime type, and that tells you how to interpre the frag id
14:34:25 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
14:35:05 [ivan]
... the xml schema documents are xml documents (appl+xml) the mime type permits a bare name, there is a certain amount of deployed experience
14:35:38 [ivan]
... with bnare name, with a name after the '#' and that is an xml id, and that the frag id refers to the xml element
14:35:56 [RalphS]
14:35:59 [ivan]
... we could modify the xml schema to put an id on
14:36:33 [ivan]
... then the daml+oil solution is close to a solution. At least to me it does not seem to be so theologically unsound to do that
14:36:56 [ivan]
to use the the same uri to address the datatype described with that portion of xml
14:37:20 [ivan]
... pat's makes a difference between the xml datatype and the note in the rdf semantics
14:37:25 [gmckenzi]
gmckenzi has joined #swbp
14:38:04 [ivan]
.. in my view the id solution is probably a good solution. the xml schema designators one is the general solution, but if you own the xml schema file, than using id seems to be better
14:38:18 [ivan]
... however, there is a theological debate around this
14:38:25 [ivan]
.. that is the issue
14:39:02 [ivan]
guus: you propose is to say in our document is to stick an id into the xml schema if you own it
14:39:09 [RalphS]
-> Jeremy's reply to Pat Hayes' comments
14:39:36 [ivan]
jc: the document seeks opinions. My personal opinion is that the use of the id and the designator solution is optimal
14:40:01 [ivan]
timbl: rdf/xml says that its ID overrides the xml things
14:40:06 [HiroyukiS]
HiroyukiS has joined #SWBP
14:40:09 [ivan]
... schema would do the same thing
14:40:13 [RalphS]
-> Pat Hayes' comments
14:40:27 [ivan]
... so you cannot use the bare names you could not use it to refer to a chunk of xml
14:40:51 [ivan]
... would that be such a departure that it would horrify
14:40:55 [RalphS]
TimBL: a schema could have a MIME type definition which defines that the fragids identify the type, not definition of it (like for rdf/xml)
14:41:25 [ivan]
msm: what could help the working group: what has thus far kept us to go is that registering a mime type is a mine field
14:41:44 [ivan]
.. the procedure is now shorter, so that may be feasible, and I can take that back to the group
14:42:12 [ivan]
... but there is a concern: i can imagine wanting to talk about simple type definiton and the xml element used to declare it
14:42:37 [ivan]
if we make the ability to point depending to the mime type i loose the ability to refer to the xml element itself
14:43:19 [ivan]
... jc's id solution means refers not to what we have but to something that is adjacent, because you know what it means
14:43:31 [ivan]
... in the strict sense it relies on a processor
14:43:44 [guus]
14:44:42 [ivan]
... i would suggest that strictly speaking all of the bits in the scud (schema component designator): it is a problem that it is longer via xscd, but this tells you exactly via the xpointer mechanism what the exact id is
14:45:02 [ivan]
... it addresses the fact that it refers to an element adultAge.
14:45:32 [ivan]
... in any practical context, they add a prefix to distinguish a prefix to avoid name collision
14:45:55 [ivan]
... so I agree it is longer, but it is semantically simpler
14:46:24 [ivan]
patrick: i am all for to have semantically meaningful, can we handle that using a namespace
14:46:27 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
14:46:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Jeff_Pan, SWBPD_MeetingRoom
14:46:28 [Zakim]
SWBPD_MeetingRoom has Jeremy, Guus, DavidW, TomB, Libby, Fabien, BillM, Evan, Phil, Mike, Chris, Andreas, Ralph, Michael_SperbergMcQueen, Patrick_Stickler, David_Provost, Alistair,
14:46:30 [Zakim]
... DanBri, Yoshio_Fukushige, TimBL
14:46:34 [RalphS]
14:46:38 [ivan]
jc: in rdf/xml you can use entities, and that works fine
14:46:54 [ivan]
... but in n3 does not have qname abbreviation
14:47:02 [ChrisW]
jeff - we're hearing background noise
14:47:06 [ChrisW]
can you mute?
14:47:14 [ivan]
.. if the last character is not a proper one
14:47:25 [ivan]
patrick: is there a way around that, updating n3?
14:47:26 [JeffP]
14:48:14 [ivan]
timbl: ')' is used for punctuation, you could put an entirely URI there, you could talk to ROy to see how that framework works
14:48:16 [timbl]
q+ to suggest that regarding a schema as a higher-level langauge than an XML document is
14:49:02 [ivan]
patrick: it is really important not to loose focus on how people using datatypes can do that
14:49:16 [MSM]
One possibly relevant fact: like XPath, SCDs will have short-forms, so "/type::p:adultAge" can be abbreviated to "/~p:adultAge" and "/attribute::p:adultAge" can be abbreviated to "/@p:adultAge"
14:49:22 [ivan]
... the best practice using xml schemas should fit in a larger way of using datatypes in general
14:49:51 [ivan]
... you can use some other mechanism (java etc), we should also talk about abstractions and not only that particular processor
14:49:58 [timbl]
q+ to suggest that regarding a schema as a higher-level langauge than an XML document is sensible. One can't and shouldn't keep all the layers visible. A similar comparison could be made between plain text and xml. The use of the # name also allows content negotation among many languages
14:50:19 [Zakim]
timbl, you wanted to suggest that regarding a schema as a higher-level langauge than an XML document is and to suggest that regarding a schema as a higher-level langauge than an
14:50:22 [Zakim]
... XML document is sensible. One can't and shouldn't keep all the layers visible. A similar comparison could be made between plain text and xml. The use of the # name also
14:50:24 [Zakim]
... allows content negotation among many languages
14:50:45 [danbri2]
(I'm v intrigued by "The use of the # name also allows content negotation among many languages")
14:50:48 [ivan]
timbl: you can look at schema represents an infoset
14:51:02 [ivan]
... you can always go back to the source and make a link
14:51:33 [ivan]
... the schema defines types, it is not xml it is a schema language
14:51:46 [ivan]
... if they want to use it as xml, then it could be served as xml
14:52:25 [ivan]
(scribe has given up...)
14:53:09 [ivan]
msm: as long as there is a way to get 'back', you want to optimize and choose the opt. points wisely, so optimizing chooising the declaration rather than xml is o.k.
14:53:20 [ivan]
... but tehre are some unexploded mines:-(
14:54:23 [RalphS]
MSM: typo in 2.4 -- should be base="xsd:integer"
14:54:24 [ivan]
... consider your example it points to another type (integer) for the restriction
14:54:40 [ivan]
... any processor would have a complete udnerstanding of adultAge
14:54:57 [ivan]
... the problem is when the base is not integer, but my:humanAge, for example
14:55:09 [ivan]
... if humanAge is declared in another schema document
14:55:30 [ivan]
... then depending how this is done, I may end up combining this with version 1 or version 2
14:55:50 [ivan]
... so the result is that the source declaration can end up with different interpreations
14:55:55 [PatrickS]
14:56:08 [PatrickS]
14:56:16 [ivan]
... strictly speaking the definition defines adultAge in context of the full schema
14:56:32 [ivan]
... we do not have version solution, so we do not have a good solution for this
14:56:51 [ivan]
.. if the base type is an xsd: one or is in the same document, you do not ahve a problem
14:57:31 [ivan]
patricks: in the example you give, I would assert that is not a problem as long as you use different names
14:57:39 [ivan]
... you are talking about two different abstractions
14:57:59 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to ask TimBL to what degree the semantics are designated by the mime type vs. namespaces
14:58:55 [ivan]
ralphs: tim's notion to use mime types to explain the semantics of the document is fine, but maybe there may be a tag issue on whether the semantics are carried through the namespaces
14:59:20 [ivan]
14:59:31 [MSM]
Patrick, yes, in principle. But consider situations like that of the HTML namespace. The abstraction 'p element' is (according to community practice) regarded as a single abstraction. But the legal contents are specified one way in the transitional definition, and a different way in the strict definition.
15:00:25 [RalphS]
IvanH: do you want to use xml:id rather than id ?
15:00:28 [timbl]
15:00:38 [ivan]
ivan: you may want to use xml:id
15:00:38 [danbri2]
(tim's right; it's a philosophical not theological discussion)
15:00:51 [ivan]
jc: second issue is practially more difficult
15:01:03 [ivan]
.. is the comparison of floats and decimals
15:01:39 [ivan]
... within xml schema there primitive types and the other simple types that are derived by restriction
15:01:41 [RalphS]
15:01:50 [ivan]
... eg decimal is arbitrary long
15:02:09 [ivan]
... there are around 17 primitive tupes
15:02:35 [ivan]
... all the relevant specs are clear that when you derive from a type the underlying semantics does not change
15:02:57 [ivan]
... rdf/xml are agnostic on the issue whether 1.0 integer is the same as an 1.0 decimal
15:03:20 [ivan]
... xml schema is geared to a specific use case: schema processing
15:03:29 [ivan]
... in that case it is fine
15:03:43 [ivan]
msm: we are required to describe validation precisely
15:04:22 [ivan]
... the schema position is: yes these are quantitative values, 1.0 has obvious relationsships to 1
15:04:32 [ivan]
... they are not identical for schema purposes
15:04:57 [ivan]
...and applications may (eg, xpath2.0 operators) do more
15:05:10 [ivan]
... schema is a bit like an assembly language
15:05:41 [ivan]
... nothing prevents an application to define casting
15:05:46 [ivan]
... rdf can do that
15:06:14 [ivan]
jc: solution #1: to do exactly waht schema does, ie, they are different
15:06:49 [ivan]
solution #3: xml schema gives you a mathematical specification
15:07:08 [ivan]
use that
15:07:28 [ivan]
... that would also be a very purist line, but may not be useful, it has surprises
15:07:56 [ivan]
... solution #2: xpath has solved the problem, they have defined 'eq', so use that
15:08:13 [ivan]
... although there are surprises because 'eq' is not transitive, for example
15:08:22 [ivan]
... it might be a show stopper
15:08:40 [ivan]
... at some level a choice has to be made
15:08:54 [ivan]
... we may be lucky and get a good feedback
15:09:06 [ivan]
guus: the schema people would prefer #1?
15:09:25 [danbri2]
q+ to ask how this relates to RDFS range of eg:ageInYears
15:09:25 [ivan]
msm: none of the 3 solution would cause a problem for us
15:10:08 [danbri2]
15:10:30 [ivan]
15:10:56 [RalphS]
IvanH: DAWG has chosen the XPath solution
15:11:09 [RalphS]
... it would be nice if SWBPD did not give totally different advice than DAWG
15:11:25 [RalphS]
JJC: DAWG is doing something slightly different; they're specifying semantics of a query language, not of the underlying data
15:11:33 [danbri2]
q+ to ask which xpath (1.0 or 2.0 datamodel) DAWG use, and whether that matters here?
15:11:45 [RalphS]
IvanH: they're defining a quality of the underlying resources
15:12:00 [RalphS]
JJC: this may rule out the purist option
15:12:41 [ivan]
msm: strictly speaking what qt does is to define an operator called 'eq' and you may define it as you want
15:13:03 [guus]
ack danbri
15:13:03 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to ask which xpath (1.0 or 2.0 datamodel) DAWG use, and whether that matters here?
15:13:12 [ivan]
danbri: the dawg guys are commited xpath 1 or 2?
15:13:21 [RalphS]
s/commited/commited to/
15:13:23 [ivan]
jc: 2, they are using the operators of xpath2
15:13:37 [ivan]
guus: does not that influence your choice?
15:13:58 [ivan]
jc: it will make it the xpath solution more attractive, but may not be the only one
15:14:17 [ivan]
guus: but it would be very strange if there are two different interpretations
15:14:29 [ivan]
... might be useful to talk to the dawg people on that
15:14:41 [ivan]
jc: i had already some discussions, but not conclusive yet
15:14:45 [PatrickS]
15:15:03 [ivan]
... maybe we can add some indication of preference saying that a direction works better on sparql than some other
15:15:26 [ivan]
... but it would good to publish this soon
15:15:55 [ivan]
patricks: when you look at the options, it is important to get the best solution without breaking of owl
15:16:10 [RalphS]
s/owl/owl reasoners/
15:16:15 [ivan]
... if you choose only those that are safe for owl that would be good
15:16:31 [ivan]
... this chunk of useful equivalence is safe for our reasoner
15:16:40 [RalphS]
15:16:52 [ivan]
... i would encourage those that are involved in owl reasoners to comment
15:17:36 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
15:17:48 [ivan]
jc: i think we could comment what we got after getting the comments of today
15:17:57 [ivan]
guus: I would like to publish now
15:18:08 [ivan]
... we could get general feedback
15:18:39 [ivan]
action jc: incorporate the comments + pats' comments + peterson's comments
15:19:27 [ivan]
jc: we could slightly change the intent saying that 'currently solution this or that is best'
15:19:43 [ivan]
guus: it might be clearer for feedback if editorial prefernce is listed
15:19:54 [ivan]
15:20:41 [ivan]
evin sould review again
15:20:54 [RalphS]
15:21:05 [ivan]
jc: realisticaly I would hope to get back end of next week
15:21:43 [ivan]
guus: would be nice to make a decision on publishing on the next telco
15:23:45 [jjc-scribe]
Bijan is given floor
15:24:37 [jjc-scribe]
Speaking about WSDL => RDF mapping
15:24:37 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
15:24:54 [jjc-scribe]
Primary thing being mapped is abstract component model of wsdl
15:24:55 [RalphS]
Topic: Mapping abstract model of WSDL
15:25:30 [jjc-scribe]
components have component properties that relate them to
15:25:38 [jjc-scribe]
sets of components or components
15:26:02 [Zakim]
15:27:04 [jjc-scribe]
either a straight mapping where all the details of wsdl component model
15:27:10 [jjc-scribe]
are expressed in RDF/OWL
15:27:46 [jjc-scribe]
OR create a simpler model that glosses over some of the details of the wsdl model
15:27:57 [ChrisW]
15:27:58 [jjc-scribe]
but expresses the key concepts adequately
15:28:03 [guus]
15:28:29 [PatrickS]
15:29:05 [HiroyukiS]
HiroyukiS has changed the topic to: <jjc-scribe> Bijan is given floor
15:29:47 [jjc-scribe]
using the more faithful mapping wsdl-straight requires good blank node supports
15:29:50 [guus]
ack ChrisW
15:30:43 [jjc-scribe]
in wsdl-straight property names tend to relate to plurals, whereas in wsdl-ont-nice a property name links
15:30:52 [jjc-scribe]
to a single component
15:31:02 [jjc-scribe]
Patrick: on cc/pp
15:31:04 [guus]
ack PatrickS
15:31:13 [jjc-scribe]
do not underestimate impact of model on query
15:31:30 [jjc-scribe]
nice approach makes it easy to write queries
15:31:38 [jjc-scribe]
15:31:54 [HiroyukiS]
*I did wrong IRC operation
15:33:01 [libby]
libby has changed the topic to: SWBP F2F, agenda:
15:33:28 [PatrickS]
15:33:43 [jjc-scribe]
15:34:11 [guus]
ack jjc
15:34:21 [PatrickS]
15:34:35 [jjc-scribe]
jjc: the difference is only mapping of forall contains
15:34:40 [guus]
ack P
15:34:59 [jjc-scribe]
bijan: but then the english definition text differs from RDF model
15:35:04 [timbl]
q+ to suppor the nice format, agreeing with Patrick.
15:35:58 [ChrisW]
15:36:17 [jjc-scribe]
timbl: keep it simple stupid, make mapping automatic,
15:36:25 [timbl]
15:36:25 [jjc-scribe]
timbl: strip out all the sets
15:36:48 [jjc-scribe]
chrisw: why left hand side chosen?
15:36:58 [jjc-scribe]
i.e. the wsdl-striaght
15:37:20 [jjc-scribe]
there is also a Z notation for wsdl-straight
15:37:42 [jjc-scribe]
bijan: issues to do with faithful as in as close to transciption as possible
15:39:13 [jjc-scribe]
bijan: possible way forward use nice model with straight model as informative appendix
15:40:47 [sh1mmer]
sh1mmer has joined #swbp
15:47:36 [bijan]
bijan has joined #swbp
15:51:12 [Yoshio]
zakim, pointer?
15:51:12 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, Yoshio.
15:52:02 [bijan]
bijan has joined #swbp
15:55:08 [HiroyukiS]
HiroyukiS has joined #SWBP
15:58:51 [RalphS]
Guus: breakout topics ...
15:59:10 [pepper]
slides for RDFTM:
16:00:03 [RalphS]
... TAG issues, application & demos, OEP
16:00:39 [PatrickS]
PatrickS has joined #swbp
16:00:47 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
16:01:22 [RalphS]
zakim, who's on the phone?
16:01:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SWBPD_MeetingRoom
16:01:23 [Zakim]
SWBPD_MeetingRoom has Jeremy, Guus, DavidW, TomB, Libby, Fabien, BillM, Evan, Phil, Mike, Chris, Andreas, Ralph, Michael_SperbergMcQueen, Patrick_Stickler, David_Provost, Alistair,
16:01:25 [Zakim]
... DanBri, Yoshio_Fukushige, TimBL
16:02:41 [RalphS]
zakim, swbpd_meetingroom also has Valentina_Presutti
16:02:41 [Zakim]
+Valentina_Presutti; got it
16:02:58 [RalphS]
(Valentina is a new member of the WG)
16:04:11 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swbp
16:05:03 [danbri2]
16:05:08 [RalphS]
Steve: estimated size of audience for the survey is 50 people
16:06:22 [scribe]
...size of audience for guidelines will be > 50K
16:06:59 [scribe]
...test cases not complete nor intended to be
16:07:55 [scribe]
...overview of previous proposals for RDF TM interop
16:09:36 [scribe]
...overview of evaluation criteria
16:09:44 [scribe] considered important
16:10:31 [RalphS]
-> snapshot of Steve & Valentina's slides for RDFTM discussion
16:10:45 [danbri2]
(hi-fi vs low-fi slide is useful; low-fi is a lowercase-r-reification of Tm structures, rather than RDF that carries the sense of the original TM)
16:11:32 [scribe]
...conclusion semantic mapping more important
16:12:39 [scribe]
...survey vs. tutorial focus
16:12:43 [scribe]
mikeU: have a few statements and references
16:12:48 [scribe]
Steve: OK
16:13:37 [scribe]
...Coverage of OWL?
16:14:05 [scribe]
...used as it can help with translation
16:14:28 [scribe]
steveW: was OWL considered in any of the other work?
16:14:38 [scribe]
SteveP: no OWL in surveyed work
16:14:55 [scribe]
steveW: Then not covering OWL is OK
16:15:18 [danbri2]
q+ to note that introducing OWL concepts/facilities to TM community (and v-versa) would be a useful contribution
16:15:19 [scribe]
...if OWL can address open issues then say that
16:15:27 [scribe]
16:15:40 [scribe]
ack ChrisW
16:16:21 [scribe]
SteveW: want to ensure that "constraint languages" (Topic Maps) interoperate with OWL
16:16:22 [danbri2]
ack danbri
16:16:22 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to note that introducing OWL concepts/facilities to TM community (and v-versa) would be a useful contribution
16:16:36 [RalphS]
Steve: Topic Maps Constraint Language is a current work item in ISO
16:17:14 [scribe]
...feel that "Introducing OWL to TM" would be out of scope
16:17:39 [DavidW]
16:17:48 [scribe]
...for guidelines that is useful, but not the survey
16:17:57 [scribe]
ack RalphS
16:17:57 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to say this isn't a tutorial
16:18:32 [scribe]
Ralph: note that OWL might have helped somewhere, (as said above)
16:18:48 [scribe]
SteveP: OK to mention commercial implementations?
16:19:00 [RalphS]
put a sentence in the appropriate places for each approach where it could have been improved by using something from OWL
16:20:10 [danbri2]
q+ to comment re implementations
16:20:12 [scribe]
RalphS: matter of degree. OK to say at least once that there are implementation and cite them,
16:20:20 [scribe]
...but repeated reference may be overboard
16:21:46 [scribe]
DavidW: for commercial implementations "see this reference" as opposed to mentioning it inline,
16:21:54 [danbri2]
danbri2 has changed the topic to: SWBP F2F, agenda:
16:22:01 [scribe]
...esp. given editor is from the company mentioned
16:22:18 [danbri2]
danbri2 has changed the topic to: SWBP F2F, agenda:
16:22:21 [danbri2]
16:22:32 [scribe]
scribe realizes he was using SteveW instead of DavidW above
16:23:01 [scribe]
ah - thanks David, sorry about that
16:23:23 [DavidW]
16:23:28 [scribe]
discussion of objectivity given mentioning of commerical implementations
16:23:30 [RalphS]
zakim, BenA just arrived in swbpd_meetingroom
16:23:30 [Zakim]
+BenA; got it
16:24:12 [scribe]
guus: shoudl be very clear that its an opinion section, separate from "objective" section
16:24:38 [scribe]
steve: will look at specific sections that seemed subjective and discuss
16:24:48 [RalphS]
-> Natasha'smail
16:25:01 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
16:25:58 [scribe]
steve: will ask Natasha for specific sections
16:26:06 [guus]
16:26:10 [scribe]
dan: important to be fair,
16:26:11 [guus]
16:26:19 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to comment re implementations
16:26:22 [wdmcdaniel]
wdmcdaniel has joined #swbp
16:27:10 [RalphS]
DanBri: the document could explicitly solicit pointers to other implementations via the mailing list, which would increase openness
16:27:13 [scribe]
steve: would like to consider input that has been published
16:27:22 [RalphS]
Steve: I think we know about everything that's out there
16:27:40 [scribe]
...anyone not convinced for semantic mapping (one conclusion)
16:28:15 [scribe]
davidW: i buy the argument, but unclear on editors position after survey
16:28:27 [scribe] far could semantic mapping go in addressing problems
16:28:42 [danbri2]
q+ to distinguish 2 kinds of semantic mapping
16:28:46 [scribe]
steve: semantic mapping is the only way to go, but don't know if 100% complete
16:28:53 [scribe]
...not sure a top priority
16:29:19 [scribe]
danb: one style uses same namespace URI, the other shadows a similar one
16:29:50 [scribe]
steve: reusing vocabs and therefore URIs seemed preferable
16:30:06 [danbri2]
ack danbri
16:30:06 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to distinguish 2 kinds of semantic mapping
16:30:41 [scribe]
guus: on objectivity treat it in a mechanical fashion - this is our job, this is our approach - helps remove subjectivity
16:30:57 [scribe]
...can't imagine a solution approach in which OWL would not be helpful
16:31:13 [scribe]
Steve: agree
16:31:56 [scribe]
review of PFPS comments from 2001
16:32:03 [Nicola]
Nicola has joined #swbp
16:32:53 [scribe]
<scribe zoned out>
16:33:31 [PatrickS]
PatrickS has joined #swbp
16:33:48 [RalphS]
-> RE: On the integration of Topic Maps and RDF [Peter Patel-Schneider 2001-08-01]
16:33:56 [scribe]
steve: shoudl two test cases have indentical information content
16:34:07 [scribe]
...think so, danB will write some
16:34:15 [RalphS]
-> RE: On the integration of Topic Maps and RDF [Patel-Schneider 2001-08-21]
16:34:37 [scribe]
mikeU: may be forced to constrain one side based on the expressiveness of the other
16:34:55 [scribe]
guus: danger of having contrived test cases
16:35:00 [RalphS]
-> RE: On the integration of Topic Maps and RDF [Martin Lacher 2001-08-23]
16:35:24 [scribe]
steve: test cases in survey intended to be informative regarding naturalness
16:35:59 [scribe]
...danb shoudl be able to do a good job about expressing knowledge in RDF "naturally"
16:36:30 [scribe]
mikeU: could have middle ground by having same core example, and then growing the example in multiple directions depending on capabilities
16:36:40 [scribe]
steve: want to keep examples short for survey
16:36:57 [guus]
16:37:14 [scribe]
ralph: like shortness
16:37:27 [scribe]
steve: started to develop some guidelines test cases
16:37:56 [RalphS]
brief examples are fine to illustrate each of the approaches. for the final summary and choice of preferred approach, then it would be good to have a more complete example
16:38:19 [scribe]
danbri: even small examples can explore huge problems (from experience)
16:38:57 [scribe]
...some difficulties arise when using datatypes or URIs
16:39:32 [scribe]
ralph: some of hte approaches are so obviously flawed that it doesn't make sense to beat on them with test cases
16:39:51 [scribe]
steve: consider moving test case results to separate document?
16:40:06 [scribe]
...prefer leaving them in
16:40:08 [RalphS]
s/beat on them with test cases/beat on them with test cases that include data typing, etc./
16:40:33 [scribe]
ralph, guus: up to you
16:40:42 [scribe]
ralph, guus: up to editor
16:41:22 [scribe]
steve: are issues identified "requirements", if not what are they and where should they be documented?
16:41:29 [RalphS]
for the purposes of this survey, if the audience is really 50 people, moving test results to a separate document feels like editorial busy-work to me
16:41:39 [scribe]
mikeU: nice to keep requirements separate
16:41:54 [anthony]
anthony has joined #swbp
16:41:56 [scribe]
...but OK to start with looser ones and tighten up close to finishing
16:42:33 [scribe]
steve: starting to understand what issues will lead to requirements
16:43:44 [scribe]
...for example range/domain constraints not in topic maps, in RDF, how to we address those
16:43:57 [scribe]
... prefer to wait a bit and let the requirements arise as we work
16:44:50 [scribe]
mikeU: themes in considerations that are already there in document, could serve to capture that explicitly and introduce them in the beginning
16:45:06 [scribe]
...proposed a similar thing in classes as values note
16:45:18 [scribe]
...minor presentation thing to make easier to read
16:45:20 [scribe]
steve: OK
16:45:53 [scribe]
steve: importance of "naturalness" and "fidelity" (are they the same thing)?
16:46:32 [scribe]
...naturalness is "faithfullness" to the paradigm
16:46:42 [scribe] the correctness of the translation
16:47:25 [guus]
16:47:35 [scribe]
mikeU: agree with idea of naturalness, but not made explicit in document. The word doesn't capture what you mean
16:47:57 [scribe]
...deeper problem is readability, when you use "semantic hacks" they don't translate well
16:48:03 [danbri2]
q+ to prefer "natural" (or "faithful") over "fidelity", since latter appeals more strongly to concept of truth
16:48:09 [scribe]
...naturalness is not that important
16:48:17 [scribe]
guus: also much more subjective
16:48:26 [scribe] do you measure that
16:48:38 [scribe]
steve: can you measure readability?
16:49:12 [scribe]
...agree w/ Mike, added a paragraph that discusses interoperability as it is impacted by "naturalness"
16:49:22 [scribe]
...e.g. using semantic hacks
16:50:46 [scribe]
danb: hard to measure a lot of these things, and good idea to focus on the terminology here
16:51:12 [danbri2]
ack danbri
16:51:12 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to prefer "natural" (or "faithful") over "fidelity", since latter appeals more strongly to concept of truth
16:51:20 [scribe]
steve: ok
16:51:37 [scribe]
steve: acceptable to require mapping information?
16:51:53 [scribe]
...key problem is that TM and RDF have different levels of semantics
16:52:06 [scribe]
...any triple could map to 6 different things in a TM
16:52:17 [scribe]
...can't know which unless you "understand" the predicate
16:52:33 [scribe]
...can get some information from the nodes
16:53:24 [scribe]
...acceptable to require mapping information? some believe can't be done w/o that
16:53:25 [dlm]
dlm has joined #swbp
16:53:50 [scribe]
...sometimes can get information from a RDFS or OWL ontology
16:53:54 [danbri2]
q+ to speak in favour of putting work onto schema authors over app developers and content consumers
16:54:17 [scribe] we need to be generic, ie applies to any rdf model, or require some semantics (ie in RDFS or OWL)
16:54:29 [dlm]
*i can not call in but will monitor irc for the next hour if you are still planning on covering odm now
16:54:38 [scribe]
ralph: "required" is a difficult SW thing
16:55:30 [scribe]
...can discussed where this information might be if present,
16:55:48 [danbri2]
ack ralphs
16:55:48 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to raise a procedural issue (at the end)
16:55:54 [scribe] in the namespace document
16:56:12 [scribe]
...but requiring it doesn't seem so good
16:57:07 [scribe]
steve: take foaf:name - w/o semantic information would map wrong using a default mapping
16:57:25 [scribe]
...but if foaf:name was a subproperty of rdfs:label, would work better
16:57:36 [danbri2]
16:57:44 [scribe]
jjc: two issues I see
16:58:29 [scribe]
...wrong means (to me) contradictory, not "not the best"
16:59:12 [scribe]
...annotation on a schema may be third party, keep in mind open world about where annotations come from
16:59:23 [scribe]
danb: good point, grddl does this
16:59:58 [scribe]
...we are deciding who to make work for, vocab owners, app builders,
17:00:04 [scribe]
...prefer to focus on smaller group
17:00:32 [scribe]
...happy to require mappings, making sure they are consistent
17:00:57 [scribe]
guus: OK 12:00
17:01:08 [RalphS]
when work has to be done, it's better to require it of the vocabulary owners not the (more abundant) vocabulary users
17:01:17 [danbri2]
(dlm, we're discussing what/when issues now...)
17:01:31 [scribe]
need to decide between going to lunch now and having breakouts later, or
17:01:35 [scribe]
sticking to schedule
17:01:43 [scribe]
yesterday lunch was gone by 1PM
17:01:56 [scribe]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:01:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SWBPD_MeetingRoom
17:01:58 [Zakim]
SWBPD_MeetingRoom has Jeremy, Guus, DavidW, TomB, Libby, Fabien, BillM, Evan, Phil, Mike, Chris, Andreas, Ralph, Michael_SperbergMcQueen, Patrick_Stickler, David_Provost, Alistair,
17:02:00 [Zakim]
... DanBri, Yoshio_Fukushige, TimBL, Valentina_Presutti, BenA
17:02:00 [Zakim]
17:03:11 [dlm]
i can monitor irc either now 9am pacific or 10am pacific but can not call in either time.
17:03:45 [scribe]
deb -
17:03:55 [scribe]
guus is going to talk to elisa directly
17:03:57 [Zakim]
17:04:05 [scribe]
the ODM discussion has been cancelled
17:04:38 [scribe]
continuing TM discussion
17:04:54 [scribe]
then going to lunch, breakouts have been moved to after lunch
17:05:22 [scribe]
steve: would like to finish survey and move to guidelines quickly
17:06:04 [dlm]
ok - thx
17:06:09 [scribe]
guus: timeline for survey
17:06:45 [scribe]
...get consensus by next telecon (Mar 24)
17:07:14 [scribe]
...think its important to get TM feedback
17:07:30 [RalphS]
release a new editor's draft a week before the telecon -- i.e. 17 March
17:07:33 [scribe]
steve: mar 17 is doable
17:07:49 [scribe]
guus: once that is in WD, OK to work on guidelines
17:08:11 [scribe]
...parallel is OK, too, can start today
17:08:51 [Valentina]
Valentina has joined #swbp
17:09:14 [scribe]
...make finishing survey a top priority
17:09:21 [scribe]
steve: OK. That's our goal
17:10:15 [scribe]
ralph: concerned that fabio has not been a visible WG participant but is listed as an author
17:10:34 [scribe]
...need evidence that he approves of this
17:10:47 [scribe]
valentina: will communicate this back to fabio
17:11:05 [scribe]
ralph: needs to be in mail archive
17:11:38 [scribe]
jjc: would rather have TF discussions on list, even in italian
17:12:21 [scribe]
jjc: responds in italian w/o using colorful italian idioms
17:12:43 [scribe]
guus: important to make clear that process is open
17:13:16 [scribe]
steve: OK - partially due to under-familiarity with process
17:14:30 [scribe]
danb: skos has its own mailing list but archived at w3c
17:15:05 [scribe]
steve: thanks. Our goal to have guidelines ready for "extreme markup" conference in Aug
17:15:28 [danbri2]
(we didn't discuss relation to ... maybe at lunch?)
17:15:29 [danbri2]
ack danbri
17:15:29 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to speak in favour of putting work onto schema authors over app developers and content consumers
17:15:30 [scribe]
guus: break for lunch
17:15:38 [scribe]
...back at 1:30
17:20:14 [aliman]
.. re subject indicators also see
17:23:12 [Valentina]
hai seguito la discussione? Potevi chiamare... :)
17:24:08 [Valentina]
17:27:56 [Elise]
Elise has joined #swbp
17:45:26 [MSM]
MSM has joined #swbp
18:19:07 [bijan]
bijan has joined #swbp
18:22:42 [PatrickS]
PatrickS has joined #swbp
18:26:58 [Yoshio]
Yoshio has joined #swbp
18:27:23 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
18:31:39 [HiroyukiS]
HiroyukiS has joined #SWBP
18:31:55 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has left #swbp
18:34:14 [anthony]
anthony has joined #swbp
18:34:20 [anthony]
anthony has left #swbp
18:35:29 [sh1mmer]
sh1mmer has joined #swbp
18:40:07 [aliman_scribe]
discussion of http range
18:40:41 [aliman_scribe]
everybody agrees that when you do a GET on an http URI you get a representation of a resource
18:40:47 [aliman_scribe]
(jjc talking)
18:41:32 [aliman_scribe]
... dc:creator is a URI without a #
18:42:35 [DavidW]
TOPIC: TAG Issues.
18:42:55 [DavidW]
SUBTOPIC: HTTP range (# vs. /)
18:43:10 [aliman_scribe]
... one school of thought says that, because slash URI is gettable, it necessarily ... scribe lost
18:44:05 [aliman_scribe]
timbl: http scem is a scheme of documents ...
18:46:04 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: can slash URIs be used for abstract things ?
18:46:37 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: for this group the issue is important because dc & foaf use slash, but if http range goes with hash these things are broken
18:47:12 [aliman_scribe]
timbl: http slash uris necessarily denote documents (information resource)
18:47:25 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: interested in published subjects
18:48:16 [aliman_scribe]
... http range decision breaks pubsub
18:48:21 [aliman_scribe]
aliman: says no it doesn't
18:48:27 [DavidW]
The TAG refers to this issues as "HTTP Range 14":
18:48:37 [aliman_scribe]
pepper: we have one class of things: resources (RDF speak)
18:48:48 [aliman_scribe]
... other class of things that have location (addresses)
18:49:00 [aliman_scribe]
timbl: information objects have information content
18:49:17 [aliman_scribe]
pepper: information resources necessarily have an address
18:49:27 [aliman_scribe]
timbl: but does the bible have an address?
18:49:38 [aliman_scribe]
info resource is not necessarily addressable
18:49:54 [aliman_scribe]
18:50:16 [aliman_scribe]
pepper: direct and indirect identification of subjects
18:50:25 [aliman_scribe]
... but web has no mechanism for disctinction
18:50:35 [aliman_scribe]
timbl: no, indirect idneitification we can do
18:50:36 [aliman_scribe]
18:50:44 [aliman_scribe]
example of the man who's name is fred
18:51:06 [aliman_scribe]
cf. use the URI to directly denote fred
18:51:15 [ericP]
ericP has joined #swbp
18:51:32 [aliman_scribe]
davidw: if swbpwg has consensus on this issue, then tim needs to come in a defend his position
18:51:43 [aliman_scribe]
... if tim not available, who can prozxy?
18:51:50 [aliman_scribe]
... actually probably me (davidw) ...
18:51:59 [aliman_scribe]
when we looked at this in tucana ...
18:52:31 [aliman_scribe]
we used hash uris ... but practical issue how to deal with mature vocabs that wouuld be invalidated
18:52:58 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: also problem of large vocabs - large download problem
18:53:18 [aliman_scribe]
timbl: no reason to break up that document
18:53:30 [aliman_scribe]
... suggest you use sparql
18:53:43 [aliman_scribe]
or here's the algorithm to get a bit
18:53:57 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: so we could break up wordnet to make retrieval doable ...
18:54:05 [aliman_scribe]
but this seems to misrepresent knowledge
18:54:33 [aliman_scribe]
timbl: no keep the same namespace e.g. cyc can be broken up into chunks
18:54:44 [aliman_scribe]
david: way to subdivide the namespace?
18:54:56 [aliman_scribe]
q+ to ask very practical question
18:55:18 [aliman_scribe]
david: jjc said if you want to further divide a namespace you use a slash
18:55:33 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: if we define wordnet namespace with a slash ... (lsot)
18:55:44 [aliman_scribe]
timbl: in webarch uris identify the files ...
18:55:51 [aliman_scribe]
in semweb architecture uris identify concepts
18:56:43 [pepper]
q+ to show two diagrams on the screen
18:57:08 [DavidW]
ack aliman
18:57:08 [Zakim]
aliman_scribe, you wanted to ask very practical question
18:57:25 [DavidW]
q+ PhilT
18:58:06 [DavidW]
ack PhilT
18:58:23 [aliman_scribe]
phil: we're saying there's no space for duplicity ....
18:58:54 [aliman_scribe]
e.g. MIME type, interpretation depends on context
18:59:17 [aliman_scribe]
timbl: URI identifies one thing only
18:59:32 [DavidW]
ack pepper
18:59:32 [Zakim]
pepper, you wanted to show two diagrams on the screen
18:59:47 [DavidW]
q+ jjc
18:59:48 [danbri-laptop]
danbri-laptop has joined #swbp
18:59:54 [aliman_scribe]
pepper: shows slides how single URIref can be used to identify two different things ...
19:00:07 [aliman_scribe]
information resource is by definition network addressable ...
19:00:20 [aliman_scribe]
therefore you can use the network adress as the identifier
19:00:37 [aliman_scribe]
but can also use the same URI as subject indicator ...
19:01:01 [aliman_scribe]
... whatever you mandate people will use both hash and slash
19:01:18 [jose]
jose has joined #swbp
19:01:27 [Valentina]
Valentina has joined #swbp
19:01:30 [aliman_scribe]
q+ what if http mandate is not enforceable?
19:01:43 [aliman_scribe]
q+ to ask what if http mandate is not enforceable?
19:02:18 [ericP]
q+ to note that inverse functional properties are like subject identifiers
19:02:28 [ericP]
ooh, are observers allowed on the queue?
19:02:53 [aliman_scribe]
timbl: wants to define a transition strategy to move foaf & dc to use a hash
19:03:10 [aliman_scribe]
... even if it involves building those two URIs into every single RDF parser
19:03:28 [aliman_scribe]
danrbi: if WG writes note, would tag review it?
19:03:44 [aliman_scribe]
timbl: one of tag issues is written up as an argument tree ...
19:03:59 [aliman_scribe]
so there should be a paragraph number for your position
19:04:13 [aliman_scribe]
... so tell me where you got to.
19:04:21 [ericP]
19:04:35 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #swbp
19:05:01 [aliman_scribe]
davidw: tim has a string opinioin which he has documented and which he has persuaded others in TAG ...
19:05:11 [aliman_scribe]
... all has been dealt with ad nauseum ...
19:05:25 [RRSAgent]
19:05:34 [aliman_scribe]
... therefore we should read the existing decision tree and read all other arguments before we re-invent the argument wheel ...
19:06:00 [aliman_scribe]
... so before we take a position we should read everything !!!!!
19:06:07 [DavidW]
19:06:16 [DavidW]
q+ patrick
19:06:19 [aliman_scribe]
tomb: tim's proposal would invalidate so many things for DCMI ...
19:06:31 [pepper]
q+ to ask what happened to fragments
19:06:40 [aliman_scribe]
lots of guidance documentation would have to be rewrittemn
19:07:04 [DavidW]
ack jjc
19:07:07 [PhilT]
19:07:10 [aliman_scribe]
therefore tomb says timbl's strategy would invalidate lots of DCMI
19:07:21 [danbri-laptop]
anyone got the url for timbl's position tree diagram?
19:07:52 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: anyone else feel they are up on the issue>
19:08:10 [DavidW]
ack aliman
19:08:10 [Zakim]
aliman_scribe, you wanted to ask what if http mandate is not enforceable?
19:08:12 [aliman_scribe]
david: we should review the decision tree
19:09:02 [danbri-laptop]
(background: "What do HTTP URIs Identify?" )
19:09:03 [RalphS]
Alistair: I've recreated all these points over the past 6 months
19:09:33 [RalphS]
... I'm worried about the social process of getting everyone to adopt a new solution
19:09:47 [RalphS]
... each of the 3 philosophies feels consistent to me
19:09:48 [RalphS]
... 1. Tim's
19:09:52 [RalphS]
... 2. published subjects
19:10:00 [pepper]
(tm background:
19:10:20 [RalphS]
... 3. "you can identify anything with http: but if it's not an information resource you should do a redirect'
19:10:40 [aliman_scribe]
david: philosophical issue: should w3c follow or lead?
19:10:48 [danbri-laptop]
(SWBP might take the position that dc:title and foaf:Person terms _are_ information resources)
19:11:06 [danbri-laptop]
19:11:12 [DavidW]
ack ericP
19:11:14 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to note that inverse functional properties are like subject identifiers
19:11:41 [aliman_scribe]
eric: subject identifiers are pretty close to IFPs in OWL
19:12:02 [aliman_scribe]
q+ in SKOS Core to say about skos:subjectIndicator
19:12:12 [aliman_scribe]
q+ to say in SKOS Core to say about skos:subjectIndicator
19:12:14 [DavidW]
ack patrick
19:12:42 [aliman_scribe]
patrick: reiterate that all of the options are coherent, selfconsitent models ...
19:12:49 [danbri-laptop]
q+ to propose exploring position that vocabulary terms are "information resources" in just the sense of timbl's
19:12:49 [aliman_scribe]
are all consistnet with current webarch also ...
19:12:57 [aliman_scribe]
question is not whether they are reasonable ...
19:13:20 [aliman_scribe]
but whether if we choose one over the other what will we break and what will we improve
19:13:59 [aliman_scribe]
bottom line is that industry has already decided - the semweb poster examples all use slash
19:14:03 [ericP]
apologies, on speaker queue in earl f2f
19:14:17 [aliman_scribe]
and tim's approach to go to hash only is just far too expensive
19:14:29 [DavidW]
ack pepper
19:14:29 [Zakim]
pepper, you wanted to ask what happened to fragments
19:14:46 [aliman_scribe]
so issue should be finally decided in favour of slash
19:14:59 [tbaker]
19:15:13 [aliman_scribe]
pepper: it's a mess, too late to fix it, pragmatic issue, cannot force people to do something else ...
19:15:41 [aliman_scribe]
what happened to fragments? how to identify a fragment of a document? this is what the hash was designed for.
19:16:11 [DavidW]
ack RalphS
19:16:11 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to comment re: invalidation and transition strategy
19:16:26 [aliman_scribe]
ralph: sympathise with tim's pain ...
19:16:42 [aliman_scribe]
conversation seven years ago, tried to persuade tim to tell us what he thought we should do ...
19:17:06 [libby]
libby has joined #swbp
19:17:07 [aliman_scribe]
answer led me to encourage model & syntax WG to use whatever they wanted to use ...
19:17:20 [aliman_scribe]
but our understanding of these architectures evolves over time ...
19:17:43 [aliman_scribe]
tim has articulated a new position since seven years ago ...
19:17:45 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
19:17:52 [aliman_scribe]
things have tightened up since then ...
19:17:55 [jjc]
q+ to request straw poll
19:18:04 [danbri-laptop]
note: Adobe XMP use /, see example
19:18:23 [aliman_scribe]
tag has not yet reached consensus because has representatives for lots of communities ...
19:18:26 [danbri-laptop]
xmlns:xap='" xmlns:pdf='' ...
19:18:51 [jjc]
19:18:57 [aliman_scribe]
... perhaps strategy fwd for us is to recognise (1) there are existing applications that have made choices, and it would be unwise to try to get them to change ...
19:19:02 [jjc]
<pdf:Producer>Acrobat Distiller 6.0.1 (Windows)</pdf:Producer>
19:19:32 [aliman_scribe]
(2) but can say : from some time fwd the best practise is foo
19:19:50 [aliman_scribe]
... but still don't force people to change
19:20:04 [aliman_scribe]
pepper: but what about fragments?
19:20:18 [aliman_scribe]
ralph: not our problem
19:20:48 [aliman_scribe]
danbri: would we begin best practise or would we declare best practise
19:21:05 [aliman_scribe]
ralph: our responsibility to look very carefully at tag record
19:21:18 [aliman_scribe]
david: one option to start a TF?
19:21:22 [danbri-laptop]
19:21:24 [aliman_scribe]
ralph: joint TF?
19:21:25 [DavidW]
ack PhilT
19:21:36 [aliman_scribe]
phil: these are observations: ...
19:21:43 [aliman_scribe]
the point about fragments is very relevant ...
19:21:57 [aliman_scribe]
because you can conceptualise a fragent of a document to be a concept ...
19:22:05 [aliman_scribe]
(can see merit in tim's point) ...
19:22:12 [aliman_scribe]
second point relates to lead or follow ...
19:22:25 [aliman_scribe]
we are a community of leaders ... cf. community of users (follows) ...
19:22:47 [aliman_scribe]
we should look at the community of leaders ... examine their position.
19:22:54 [aliman_scribe]
david: there are times to lead and times to follow
19:23:03 [DavidW]
ack aliman
19:23:03 [Zakim]
aliman_scribe, you wanted to say in SKOS Core to say about skos:subjectIndicator
19:23:13 [PhilT]
19:23:18 [DavidW]
ack danbri
19:23:18 [Zakim]
danbri-laptop, you wanted to propose exploring position that vocabulary terms are "information resources" in just the sense of timbl's
19:23:26 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: tag is divided
19:23:41 [aliman_scribe]
danbri: two things to say: ...
19:23:58 [aliman_scribe]
1. if we get this wrong we have a deployment disaster on our hands ...
19:24:04 [aliman_scribe]
lots of stuff has been written ...
19:24:20 [aliman_scribe]
cf. experience of dc namespace change and how long it took for chnage to propagate ..
19:24:40 [aliman_scribe]
dc dcterms foaf foaf-extension adobe xmp creative commons all use slash
19:24:44 [pepper]
q+ to mention another problem with hash (based on experience in Amsterdam)
19:24:56 [aliman_scribe]
2/3 - 3/4 of deployed semweb already uses slash
19:24:59 [RalphS]
DanBri: XMP, RSS, ...
19:25:13 [aliman_scribe]
if we say: "change" without a compelling story we look stupid
19:25:18 [aliman_scribe]
david: and we slow down deploymnent
19:25:35 [aliman_scribe]
danbri: foaf files are interesting because they link to lots of other vocabs ...
19:25:53 [aliman_scribe]
could possibly get foaf users to change foaf, but then all the others too ... ?
19:26:17 [aliman_scribe]
jjc: but there is no compelling story
19:26:34 [aliman_scribe]
danrbi: we need to appreciate the scale of the problem, several people fulltime for at least a year ...
19:26:45 [aliman_scribe]
if we get it wrong we hurt semweb ...
19:26:49 [aliman_scribe]
19:27:04 [aliman_scribe]
alot of foaf stuff comes from perl scripts ...
19:27:29 [aliman_scribe]
but adobe have shipped applications - cost of change huge for them ...
19:27:36 [aliman_scribe]
19:27:45 [aliman_scribe]
phil: if we get it wrong and we get it late we hurt semweb
19:28:04 [aliman_scribe]
danbri: compromise position: fresh start for new namespaces
19:28:21 [aliman_scribe]
... also this topic is discussed in other fora ...
19:28:42 [aliman_scribe]
we are only concerned with uris for terms in semweb vocabs ...
19:29:09 [aliman_scribe]
could say that dc title and foaf terms are possibly information resources ...
19:29:39 [aliman_scribe]
david: summarise ... it's too late to lead ...
19:29:54 [DavidW]
ack tbaker
19:29:56 [aliman_scribe]
live with what we have, if we force into lead then none would follow .
19:30:20 [aliman_scribe]
tom: remember when we established namespace poloicy ...
19:30:33 [aliman_scribe]
wanted to establish it without the 1.1 not in the URI string ...
19:30:54 [aliman_scribe]
but without that comment was we would compromise the integrity of dc, evidence for instabliity etc.
19:31:10 [aliman_scribe]
so trying to explain a change of this magnitude would be *extremely* difficult ...
19:31:29 [aliman_scribe]
it's a philosophical argument, would take alot of resources ...
19:31:46 [DavidW]
ack Patrick
19:31:47 [aliman_scribe]
to make a change, but it would be a waste of resources, we have more important things to do ....
19:31:49 [aliman_scribe]
19:31:52 [PhilT]
19:32:27 [aliman_scribe]
patrick: 1: (melodrama) if we say: though shalt use hash, this would require significant corporate support ...
19:32:43 [aliman_scribe]
but it would receive significant corporate obstruction from not just nokia ...
19:32:56 [aliman_scribe]
its about efficient access esp for low bandwidth devices ...
19:33:17 [aliman_scribe]
2: the way you present you document makes the difference ...
19:33:27 [aliman_scribe]
WG should do a 'not bad practise note' ...
19:33:52 [aliman_scribe]
say: look, there are proven, well established practises in semweb, here are usecases and benefits for each solution,
19:34:01 [aliman_scribe]
because question isL what is best when?
19:34:07 [aliman_scribe]
(not either or)
19:34:23 [aliman_scribe]
Nokia's position is that http URI can be used to identify anything ..
19:34:31 [aliman_scribe]
and should not be any redirection ...
19:34:57 [DavidW]
ack jjc
19:34:57 [Zakim]
jjc, you wanted to request straw poll
19:35:02 [aliman_scribe]
so need eficient representation mecahnsim.
19:35:14 [DavidW]
ack ralph
19:35:14 [Zakim]
RalphS, you wanted to respond re: deployment disaster
19:35:28 [jjc]
jjc: proposed straw poll
19:35:30 [aliman_scribe]
ralph: danbri said deployment disaster ...
19:35:34 [jjc]
chasir: said straw poll at 2.45
19:35:44 [aliman_scribe]
but we should distinguish between those changes that would require existing deployment to change ...
19:35:54 [aliman_scribe]
and those that don't
19:35:56 [aliman_scribe]
19:36:01 [aliman_scribe]
but the other side is ...
19:36:27 [aliman_scribe]
in what ways would existing deployemtn break if we recommend a new model ...?
19:36:39 [aliman_scribe]
exiting apps would continue to function ...
19:36:41 [RalphS]
architectural truth and beauty vs. engineering pragmatics
19:37:11 [aliman_scribe]
question is architectural truth and beauty vs. practical engineering
19:37:20 [danbri-laptop]
(my point on 'looking stupid' is not w3c group losing face, but the knock-on effect for the larger community around us who have championed the use of RDF these last 7+ years; they will feel betrayed, i fear...)
19:37:27 [aliman_scribe]
timbl is about truth & beauty & model theoretic consistency
19:37:36 [aliman_scribe]
but its the engineers that build the thing ...
19:37:55 [scribe]
scribe has joined #swbp
19:37:59 [jjc]
19:38:16 [aliman_scribe]
patrick: don;t think generalised view is not just truth & beauty, its about a particular truth & beauty
19:38:23 [aliman_scribe]
each one is consistent in itself
19:38:25 [aliman_scribe]
and ...
19:38:34 [aliman_scribe]
19:38:48 [DavidW]
ack pepper
19:38:48 [Zakim]
pepper, you wanted to mention another problem with hash (based on experience in Amsterdam)
19:39:22 [aliman_scribe]
pepper: problem with hash: server-side processing cannot be done with hash ...
19:39:42 [aliman_scribe]
recent project defined 75000 terms ....
19:40:04 [jjc]
Proposed question for straw poll: can an http URI (without a hash) identify an RDF property?
19:40:13 [aliman_scribe]
went with slash because you can do server side processing, so cannot resolve these things
19:40:20 [aliman_scribe]
(ralph: tim admits that this is the bug)
19:40:22 [DavidW]
ack PhilT
19:40:29 [RalphS]
like metadata vs data -- what is an insignificant difference to one community might be another community's important data
19:40:37 [danbri-laptop]
+q to pepper's point; same happens w/ wordnet-as-classes
19:40:45 [danbri-laptop]
er +1 i meant
19:40:51 [DavidW]
ack danbri
19:40:51 [danbri-laptop]
ack danbri
19:40:52 [aliman_scribe]
phil: observation: lots of past good work, but here too much discussion about the past and not enough discussion about the future, so beware!!!
19:41:33 [aliman_scribe]
ralph: diff communities have different priorities
19:41:44 [aliman_scribe]
david: consider jjc's question ...
19:43:36 [DavidW]
"MAY" to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].
19:43:38 [RalphS]
JJC: rephrase as "Should the WG say an http URI (without a hash) MAY identify an RDF property in a conformant way"?
19:43:42 [danbri-laptop]
"May ... identify in terms of (Berners-Lee et al) "
19:43:55 [aliman_scribe]
patrick: is it proper, given current standards & webarch, to use a slash uri to identify an RDF prop
19:43:58 [aliman_scribe]
19:44:29 [aliman_scribe]
19:44:36 [aliman_scribe]
(including observers)
19:44:52 [aliman_scribe]
yes: 11
19:45:00 [aliman_scribe]
no: 0
19:45:07 [aliman_scribe]
what does conformance mean?
19:45:53 [aliman_scribe]
david: wg reconvenes, session on tag issue is adjourned
19:53:12 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swbp
19:56:08 [libby]
libby has joined #swbp
19:56:55 [gmckenzi]
gmckenzi has joined #swbp
19:58:51 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #swbp
19:59:45 [ChrisW]
do we have/need a scribe?
20:00:03 [DavidW]
DavidW has joined #swbp
20:00:30 [gmckenzi]
gmckenzi has joined #swbp
20:03:44 [PatrickS]
PatrickS has joined #swbp
20:04:22 [RalphS]
David: several points were made about server-side processing and the impact of certain URI usage
20:04:23 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
20:04:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SWBPD_MeetingRoom
20:04:24 [Zakim]
SWBPD_MeetingRoom has Jeremy, Guus, DavidW, TomB, Libby, Fabien, BillM, Evan, Phil, Mike, Chris, Andreas, Ralph, Michael_SperbergMcQueen, Patrick_Stickler, David_Provost, Alistair,
20:04:26 [Zakim]
... DanBri, Yoshio_Fukushige, TimBL, Valentina_Presutti, BenA
20:06:54 [timbl]
Zakim, SWBPD_MeetingRoom does not hold TimBL
20:06:54 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'SWBPD_MeetingRoom does not hold TimBL ', timbl
20:07:30 [RalphS]
zakim, swbpd_meetingroom no longer has timbl
20:07:30 [Zakim]
-TimBL; got it
20:07:37 [RalphS]
(TimBl left a while ago)
20:08:29 [danbri-laptop]
draft idea: The WG believes that the practice of identifying RDF/OWL terms and vocabularies with non-# HTTP-URIs is consistent with and RFC 3986. It notes that such practice is very widespread, but that there remains some uncertainty in the W3C community on this topic and that this uncertainty is having a damaging effect on SW deployment efforts.
20:08:37 [RalphS]
ACTION: Jeremy draft text for statement to TAG reflecting the opinion of the httpRange-14 breakout discussion
20:08:55 [danbri-laptop]
ref also http-range-14
20:09:05 [RalphS]
zakim, swbpd_meetingroom no longer has michael_sperbergmcqueen
20:09:05 [Zakim]
-Michael_SperbergMcQueen; got it
20:09:07 [FabGandon]
Scribing for the ADTF break-out session. (In French English :-) ) ...
20:09:09 [FabGandon]
Guus: Have a specific problem to be addressed: session at W3Conf -> need presentation showing two applications.
20:09:10 [FabGandon]
Fabien: I provide presentation with recorded demos of a number of applications present in the blog.
20:09:12 [FabGandon]
Steven Harris: a list of projects is available at
20:09:13 [FabGandon]
Guus: should we go for a DOAP format?
20:09:14 [danbri-laptop]
20:09:14 [RalphS]
zakim, swbpd_meetingroom no longer has david_provost
20:09:14 [Zakim]
-David_Provost; got it
20:09:15 [FabGandon]
Libby: criteria are really needed and should be clear (also opinion of Eric Miller) example : open source only - may be too restrictive. Should we include resources for developers only? Resources for promotional exercise? Just examples in general? Is it possible to constrain the audience? Guus you are the one to use it a lot?
20:09:16 [FabGandon]
Guus: Distinction like Company uses semantic web for internal systems. (close environment) versus used in open web environment.
20:09:18 [FabGandon]
20:09:19 [FabGandon]
Ivan: Fujitsu report is internal for instance?
20:09:21 [FabGandon]
Guus: Aerospace industry example ... no longer existing.
20:09:22 [FabGandon]
Bill: the internal vs. external distinction may not be relevant because an internal application may be affecting hundreds of peoples behind the firewall of the company.
20:09:24 [FabGandon]
Steven: a distinction could be "do you control the data?"
20:09:26 [FabGandon]
Libby: the real problem is to define the criteria for including/excluding someone in/from the repository
20:09:28 [FabGandon]
Gavin: it seems we are still trying to find criteria to narrow the scope. We must make the difference with finding criteria/attribute to view/navigate/sort database.
20:09:31 [FabGandon]
Libby: provide the list in OWL/RDF and readable format => list is unreadable => facetted browser would be much better. Not even sure we have to scale it down really.
20:09:34 [FabGandon]
Guus: application domain is another criterion.
20:09:36 [FabGandon]
Bill: yes it's natural / sensible ... for instances application is doing data mining / etc.
20:09:38 [FabGandon]
Guus: yes but also application domains e.g. medical domain / product selling / ...
20:09:41 [FabGandon]
Bill: protect privacy, etc.
20:09:42 [FabGandon]
Fabien: I use the application domain to answer questions for instance for the W3C communication (I am meeting wit someone in Bioinformatics, what semantic web applications do you have in this domain?)
20:09:45 [FabGandon]
Gavin: aren't there other directories we could learn from, the way they categorize, from their schemas, etc.
20:09:46 [timbl]
Jeremy, the note will presumably describe an alternative architecture, and how it affects existing applications?
20:09:47 [FabGandon]
Ivan: there are some e.g. Semantic Web Board, etc. afraid of duplicating
20:09:49 [FabGandon]
Ivan: Dangerous path to count too much on W3C endorsement, and what happens when the TF stops?
20:09:51 [FabGandon]
Guus: ok let's stop the TF :-)
20:09:53 [FabGandon]
Ivan: who will maintain?
20:09:55 [FabGandon]
Libby: use DOAP and leave it to the users to maintain it.
20:09:57 [FabGandon]
Gavin: why do we need this repository?
20:09:59 [FabGandon]
Guus: a list of application is the most frequently asked question by people!
20:09:59 [RalphS]
zakim, swbpd_meetingroom no longer has valentina_presutti
20:09:59 [Zakim]
-Valentina_Presutti; got it
20:10:01 [FabGandon]
Ivan: is it possible with DOAP to build a web site that is maintained via some community effort?
20:10:03 [FabGandon]
Steven: that's what we do in our project (AKT project) list of URL of descriptions scanned every night.
20:10:05 [FabGandon]
Bill: we want no maintenance.
20:10:10 [FabGandon]
Libby: we may be too ambitious. Small descriptions (a pointer and a sentence) only with a pointer and people can use it to harvest.
20:10:10 [FabGandon]
Ivan: but somebody has to do it? What will happen in three years?
20:10:12 [FabGandon]
Fabien: two different problems: get a list and find a way to maintain it after the end of the TF/WG.
20:10:14 [FabGandon]
Libby: may be we won't need it in three years. :-)
20:10:16 [FabGandon]
Gavin: for the description how we get it?
20:10:18 [FabGandon]
Fabien: just from the form to generate your DOAP file.
20:10:20 [FabGandon]
Gavin: simple interface to accept the submission that could be used by someone else in three years.
20:10:22 [FabGandon]
Ivan: if this something that could lead to a significant collection not only for us geeks?
20:10:24 [FabGandon]
People are not interested in geeky stuff like FOAF, they are interested in the Photoshop example.
20:10:26 [FabGandon]
Gavin: distinction between project and products. Our product line use XMP can I put everything inside?
20:10:28 [FabGandon]
Ivan: as an admin I would say please put only one item.
20:10:30 [FabGandon]
Gavin: pointer to a technology vs. project vs. product
20:10:33 [FabGandon]
Guus: is there a particular type of selection to show the added value?
20:10:34 [FabGandon]
Ivan: still in the phase where we have to convince people that there are a lot of applications out there.
20:10:36 [FabGandon]
Libby: may be we should just focus on getting a number of them in the list. First priority.
20:10:41 [FabGandon]
Gavin & Ivan: only members should be able to put commercial products.
20:10:41 [FabGandon]
Libby: if require the RDF description that may slow-down the flow of descriptions.
20:10:42 [FabGandon]
Also recall that the criteria have to be precise.
20:10:44 [FabGandon]
Gavin: true if we could come up with the right criteria in the first place, but that won't happen. So it is not that important.
20:10:47 [FabGandon]
Libby: RDF and OWL applications only?
20:10:49 [FabGandon]
Ivan: for the time being only RDF and OWL.
20:10:51 [FabGandon]
Guus: I agree.
20:10:53 [FabGandon]
Bill: concerning the classification, right now we have not so many applications, so we may be trying to classify in the vacuum.
20:10:57 [FabGandon]
Fabien: an extensible flat list where users can add missing domains would be ok, if it grows then we can reorganize it latter (topic ontology :-))
20:10:59 [FabGandon]
Libby: summarizing = we stay with web log + we try to set up some tools for task force administration tasks (accept a description) + provide support for DOAP + maintain a simple list of DOAP files in the blog.
20:11:02 [FabGandon]
Andreas: will the list be available in RDF.
20:11:04 [FabGandon]
Ivan & Libby: Yes
20:11:08 [FabGandon]
Andreas, Ivan and Stephen: RSS is not really an RDF application since there are syntaxes in just XML (not in RDF)
20:11:11 [FabGandon]
Guus: but it cannot be ignored as an application that uses RDF.
20:11:13 [FabGandon]
Bill: cannot submit just an ontology; the application submitted must actually do something.
20:11:14 [dom]
dom has joined #swbp
20:11:15 [FabGandon]
Ivan: with Mozilla it's your private data in RDF.
20:11:49 [PatrickS]
PatrickS has joined #swbp
20:11:50 [pepper]
q+ to ask (again) if TM apps qualify :-)
20:12:56 [Zakim]
pepper, you wanted to ask (again) if TM apps qualify :-)
20:14:38 [danbri-laptop]
q+ to sympathise with the TM case, but note that plain XML, MathML, KIF, Prolog, all have a case for this
20:14:43 [RalphS]
Ralph: I propose that any Topic Maps application that supports our translation mechanism be accepted to the ADTF index
20:14:55 [ChrisW]
20:15:42 [danbri-laptop]
...UML, LDAP, ...
20:15:53 [DavidW]
20:16:29 [FabGandon]
q+ to talk about CG
20:16:48 [danbri-laptop]
20:17:01 [DavidW]
q+ to ask Libby about the definition of "free"
20:17:10 [Zakim]
danbri-laptop, you wanted to sympathise with the TM case, but note that plain XML, MathML, KIF, Prolog, all have a case for this
20:19:38 [danbri-laptop]
(I might've also noted that RDF itself could grow and mature... an RDF 2 might have strong KIF/CommonLogic, CG and TM influences... but RDF remains the architectural focus)
20:19:44 [RalphS]
Chris: believe the ADTF page should be limited to apps that work with RDF & OWL
20:19:51 [Zakim]
FabGandon, you wanted to talk about CG
20:19:53 [jjc]
jjc has joined #swbp
20:19:58 [guus]
guus has joined #swbp
20:20:11 [guus]
20:20:18 [jjc]
how about restricting to applications have web pages that validate as (X)HTML?
20:20:28 [jjc]
or provide correct use of language tags?
20:20:40 [jjc]
(jjc asides above)
20:20:52 [RalphS]
Fabien: if we include Topic Maps apps in this list I will not be able to maintain my position to the Conceptual Graph community that they must support RDF & OWL
20:20:57 [Zakim]
DavidW, you wanted to ask Libby about the definition of "free"
20:21:12 [RalphS]
David: what is "free" -- as in "speech" or as in "beer" ?
20:21:13 [tvraman]
tvraman has left #swbp
20:21:21 [RalphS]
Libby: "free" meant "not costing money"
20:22:06 [RalphS]
Phil: feel there is space for a soft line
20:22:15 [RalphS]
... we could talk about the "Web of meaning"
20:22:25 [RalphS]
... in WOM there is space for other stuff
20:22:34 [RalphS]
Chris: this is exactly what I would like to avoid
20:22:58 [Gavin]
20:23:26 [danbri-laptop]
some W3C Activity statement excerpts: "The goal of the Semantic Web initiative is as broad as that of the Web: to create a universal medium for the exchange of data. It is envisaged to smoothly interconnect personal information management, enterprise application integration, and the global sharing of commercial, scientific and cultural data" ... "The principal technologies of the Semantic Web fit into a set of layered specifications. The current componen
20:23:27 [danbri-laptop]
ts are the Resource Description Framework (RDF) Core Model, the RDF Schema language and the Web Ontology language (OWL). " "The Topic Map (XTM) and UML communities have been finding increasing synergy with the RDF family of technologies." --
20:23:28 [jjc] (draft MSG)
20:23:43 [RalphS]
Chris: a lot of people in this WG are working on other technologies that are not specifically RDF&OWL but that are related; e.g. KIF
20:23:59 [RalphS]
... you expand the charter of the applications page significantly if you force them to deal with these issues
20:24:42 [RalphS]
Mike: could avoid the issue by titling the page "RDF And OWL Applications"
20:25:06 [pepper]
q+ to ask if the line could be drawn at semantic technologies based on XML and URIs
20:25:18 [RalphS]
... as a theoretical point of view, there is no reasonable grounds for saying something that is not RDF & OWL is not the Semantic Web
20:25:47 [RalphS]
Gavin: will there be a discussion 6 months from now on what goes on a "Semantic Web Applications" page?
20:26:23 [RalphS]
... have we done anyone any service by taking off the label "Semantic Web"?
20:26:24 [danbri-laptop]
20:26:43 [Zakim]
pepper, you wanted to ask if the line could be drawn at semantic technologies based on XML and URIs
20:27:03 [Gavin]
20:27:04 [RalphS]
Steve: I joined the WG specifically because the W3C Activity Lead wanted my community to be part of the Semantic Web
20:27:16 [pauld]
pauld has joined #swbp
20:27:56 [RalphS]
Mike: it's not practical to say we can draw the line to include Topic Maps [and exclude others]
20:28:09 [RalphS]
... RDFTM is a Task Force in this WG so therefore this is being considered
20:28:45 [RalphS]
... we can choose to catalog just RDF/OWL applications as a way of bounding our work
20:29:09 [ChrisW]
20:29:12 [RalphS]
Gavin: this would solve the immediate problem but not solve the larger problem of what the Semantic Web is and isn't
20:29:18 [DavidW]
ack danbri
20:29:28 [RalphS]
DanBri: this is not a static situation
20:29:45 [RalphS]
... EricM is a very inclusive fellow; he and others go around trying to connect communities
20:30:04 [RalphS]
... considerations from Topic Maps and others influence what the Semantic Web is
20:30:16 [RalphS]
... the context we are chartered in is RDF, RDF Schema, and OWL
20:30:38 [RalphS]
... the future of the Semantic Web will be more "Topic Mappy"
20:30:42 [RalphS]
... you're here to do the mapping
20:30:53 [RalphS]
Steve: does every Topic Map application have to support RDF directly?
20:30:59 [dom]
20:31:10 [Gavin]
20:31:12 [RalphS]
DanBri: once we have a WD out we can say the entire universe of Topic Map activity joins RDF
20:31:32 [RalphS]
Gavin: when talking about mapping into Semantic Web, what does this mean?
20:31:39 [wdmcdaniel]
wdmcdaniel has joined #swbp
20:31:41 [FabGandon]
sees Dom's Hand
20:31:47 [RalphS]
DanBri: being able to run SPARQL queries against data that was published as a Topic Map
20:32:12 [RalphS]
Gavin: does this make Topic Map part of the Semantic Web or the transform part of the Semantic Web?
20:32:25 [RalphS]
... if GRDDL is adopted, does HTML become part of the Semantic Web ?
20:32:56 [RalphS]
... I'm trying to understand whether it is the transformation that becomes part of the Semantic Web or the technology that was formerly outside?
20:33:23 [RalphS]
Guus: I prefer to stick with RDF/RDFS/OWL defining the scope of ADTF
20:33:33 [danbri-laptop]
aside: the phrase 'lowercase semantic web' is being used by some for XSLT-able xhtml markup that carries semantics, eg see
20:33:41 [danbri-laptop]
(Tantek was here yesterday)
20:33:43 [RalphS]
Guus: PROPOSE that ADTF registry be limited to RDF/RDFS/OWL applications
20:33:55 [dom]
20:34:01 [RalphS]
... and we discuss on a future telecon what is
20:34:06 [TomC]
TomC has joined #swbp
20:34:08 [RalphS]
... and we discuss on a future telecon what is "part of" the Semantic Web
20:34:18 [dom]
I just wanted to note that the log of applications is also limited to "free" applications
20:34:30 [dom]
... which isn't saying that non-free applications are not part of the SW
20:34:31 [RalphS]
Chris: my goal was to scope the work of the ADTF
20:34:40 [dom]
... that's only called scoping a problem, AFAICT
20:34:49 [jjc]
s/primary concerns are/primary concern is/ in DRAFT msg
20:36:30 [jjc]
q+ to mention Jeff Pan
20:36:47 [RalphS]
Topic: location & time of next f2f
20:37:08 [RalphS]
Mike: prefer Seattle area or Galway (concurrent w/Sem Web conf)
20:37:16 [guus]
20:37:19 [RalphS]
Jeremy: prefer to have it outside the US
20:37:37 [RalphS]
... due to one member not being able to attend this meeting due to visa issues
20:37:43 [guus]
20:37:51 [guus]
20:37:51 [PatrickS]
PatrickS has joined #swbp
20:37:52 [RalphS]
Steve: Montreal in August is one possibility
20:37:54 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swbp
20:37:57 [danbri-laptop]
+1 w/ jjc's concern
20:38:07 [RalphS]
... w/Extreme Markup conf
20:38:22 [RalphS]
Gavin: Ottawa is another option
20:38:23 [libby]
+1 on extreeeeme
20:38:43 [RalphS]
Gavin: my office is in Ottawa
20:39:03 [RalphS]
Mike: I can look into hosting in Vancouver
20:40:41 [danbri-laptop]
(I abstain re whether i can attend any non-Europe travel: funding uncertainties... I can pay my own way to Galway happily enough I think)
20:40:51 [RalphS]
Andreas: DERI would likely be willing to host in Galway
20:41:46 [aharth]
aharth has joined #swbp
20:41:50 [danbri-laptop]
20:42:40 [danbri-laptop]
(for bar discussion: if uses Javascript for hyperlinks, is it a Semantic website?)
20:43:11 [dom]
(I would argue that they don't use enough declarative sematics to qualify as such)
20:43:25 [RalphS]
Mike: is November too late considering the WG charter ends 31 Jan ?
20:43:32 [RalphS]
Guus: October would be nice
20:43:44 [jjc]
I will find it easier in November,
20:44:00 [RalphS]
Guus: I'll do Web poll on Vancouver & Galway
20:44:05 [RalphS]
20:45:13 [pepper]
q+ to add the rape of the concept of "fragment" to the list of other important concerns
20:45:51 [aliman]
q+ to comment on language
20:46:02 [danbri-laptop]
20:46:18 [guus]
20:46:32 [Zakim]
pepper, you wanted to add the rape of the concept of "fragment" to the list of other important concerns
20:46:57 [RalphS]
JJC: I would object to adding fragments to this as it gets more philosphical
20:47:10 [RalphS]
Steve: inability to identify document fragments is an issue
20:47:47 [RalphS]
Dave: it's less important for us to address Web Architecture issues than to address Semantic Web issues
20:47:51 [dom]
[I don't see why this makes it impossible to identify document fragments]
20:47:56 [RalphS]
... I don't want to cloud the issue with things that are not crystal clear
20:48:08 [RalphS]
DanBri: the more we can do to narrow down to a closeable part of the problem space, the better
20:48:19 [sh1mmer]
sh1mmer has joined #swbp
20:48:27 [RalphS]
... we don't care whether cars and airplanes can be identified with http: URIs; this is about RDF properties
20:48:33 [Zakim]
aliman, you wanted to comment on language
20:49:01 [RalphS]
Alistair: the tone of this message will make people on the other side of the debate dig in their heels
20:49:12 [RalphS]
... the issue needs to transcend the opposition
20:49:50 [RalphS]
Guus: this is a very factual message
20:50:29 [RalphS]
Chris: suggest dropping "failure to resolve" and just leave "This issue is impactin..."
20:51:04 [jjc]
Suggestion to drop final para
20:51:58 [RalphS]
DanBri: this debate should not be allowed to go on for another 2-3 years
20:52:06 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #swbp
20:52:17 [aliman]
q+ to back up danbri
20:55:03 [aliman]
20:55:14 [DavidW]
q+ tbaker
20:55:24 [DavidW]
ack tbaker
20:55:34 [PatrickS]
20:56:27 [jjc]
20:56:29 [RalphS]
Guus: we may not be able to reach consensus on this today
20:56:31 [jjc]
20:56:35 [RalphS]
... may need to postpone to a future telecon
20:57:11 [RalphS]
BenA: my impression is that any argument we give that is based on "it would be hard to redeploy" would not help -- Tim would not be receptive
20:57:23 [RalphS]
... technical arguments would make a stronger point
20:57:43 [RalphS]
Guus: my assignment is to chair a deployment group
20:57:59 [RalphS]
... if deployment issues don't count, why are we here?
20:58:13 [RalphS]
David: this message is going to the TAG, not specifically to TimBL
20:58:22 [guus]
20:58:24 [RalphS]
Patrick: this is a request to the TAG for closure, not consensus
20:59:21 [RalphS]
... the TAG can close on the issue with dissent (if necessary)
21:00:04 [RalphS]
---- closing summaries ---
21:00:16 [RalphS]
Guus: there were 17 documents on the reading list for this f2f
21:00:34 [RalphS]
... we should all be glad with the progress over the last 4 months
21:00:41 [RalphS]
... we should look forward to closing some of our Task Forces; this would be a positive
21:00:53 [RalphS]
... glad to see nice collaboration on UML and Topic Maps
21:01:26 [RalphS]
PROPOSE to cancel 10 March telecon, next telecon 24 March
21:01:42 [RalphS]
... make 24 March a 2-hour telecon?
21:01:48 [RalphS]
21:01:52 [RalphS]
21:02:00 [danbri-laptop]
21:17:53 [RRS]
RRS has left #swbp
21:18:33 [Zakim]
21:18:34 [Zakim]
SW_BPD(TP)9:00AM has ended
21:18:35 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.617.568.aaaa, Jeff_Pan, Jeremy, Guus, DavidW, TomB, Libby, Fabien, BillM, Evan, Phil, Mike, Chris, Andreas, Ralph, Michael_SperbergMcQueen, Patrick_Stickler,
21:18:37 [Zakim]
... David_Provost, Alistair, DanBri, Yoshio_Fukushige, TimBL, Valentina_Presutti, BenA, Elisa_Kendall
21:25:46 [dom]
dom has joined #swbp
21:26:31 [dom]
dom has left #swbp
21:34:02 [RalphS]
rrsagent, bye
21:34:02 [RRSAgent]
I see 2 open action items:
21:34:02 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: jc to incorporate the comments + pats' comments + peterson's comments [1]
21:34:02 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
21:34:02 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Jeremy draft text for statement to TAG reflecting the opinion of the httpRange-14 breakout discussion [2]
21:34:02 [RRSAgent]
recorded in