IRC log of dawg on 2006-09-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:27:10 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #dawg
14:27:10 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc
14:27:48 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ convene
14:27:48 [Zakim]
agendum 1 added
14:27:55 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ action items
14:27:55 [Zakim]
agendum 2 added
14:28:01 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ contradictoryKB
14:28:01 [Zakim]
agendum 3 added
14:28:08 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ formsOfDistinct
14:28:08 [Zakim]
agendum 4 added
14:28:11 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started
14:28:16 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ unbound variables in FILTER
14:28:16 [Zakim]
agendum 5 added
14:28:18 [Zakim]
+??P4
14:28:31 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ open world and other value tests
14:28:31 [Zakim]
agendum 6 added
14:28:47 [kendallclark]
zakim, agenda+ rq24 wording about underlying issues
14:28:47 [Zakim]
agendum 7 added
14:28:52 [Zakim]
+??P5
14:28:53 [SimonR]
zakim, ??P4 is me
14:28:54 [Zakim]
+SimonR; got it
14:28:55 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P5 is me
14:28:55 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:29:19 [EliasT]
EliasT has joined #dawg
14:29:38 [Zakim]
+Kendall_Clark
14:29:43 [FredZ]
FredZ has joined #dawg
14:30:41 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the call?
14:30:41 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, Kendall_Clark
14:30:47 [LeeF]
zakim, phone number?
14:30:47 [Zakim]
I am sorry, LeeF; I do not know a number for number?
14:30:50 [LeeF]
zakim, passcode?
14:30:50 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7333 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), LeeF
14:30:53 [LeeF]
thanks, Zakim
14:31:00 [Zakim]
+Elias_Torres
14:31:08 [EliasT]
Zakim, Elias_Torres is me
14:31:08 [Zakim]
+EliasT; got it
14:31:13 [Zakim]
+Fred_Zemke
14:31:15 [Zakim]
+[IBMCambridge]
14:31:23 [LeeF]
Zakim, IBMCambridge is me
14:31:25 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
14:31:28 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the call?
14:31:31 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, Kendall_Clark, EliasT, Fred_Zemke, LeeF
14:32:18 [EliasT]
Scribe: EliasT
14:32:22 [Zakim]
-LeeF
14:32:29 [EliasT]
Meeting: DAWG Weekly Meeting
14:32:31 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:32:31 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "convene" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:32:35 [EliasT]
Chair: kendallclark
14:32:44 [EliasT]
Zakim, Kendall_Clark is kendallclark
14:32:44 [Zakim]
+kendallclark; got it
14:32:45 [Zakim]
+[IBMCambridge]
14:32:46 [kendallclark]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0236.html
14:32:51 [LeeF]
Zakim, IBMCambridge is me
14:32:51 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
14:33:14 [EliasT]
Regrets: none
14:33:33 [kendallclark]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0241.html
14:33:34 [EliasT]
Present: LeeF, FredZ, kendallclark, LeeF, SteveH, SimonR, bijan, AndyS
14:34:36 [kendallclark]
zakim, pick a scribe
14:34:36 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose LeeF
14:34:43 [AndyS]
regrets for next time (26 Sept)
14:35:02 [SimonR]
I might be unable to attend next week; I'll be at a conference.
14:35:22 [AndyS]
I'll be talking about SPARQL to W3C in the UK :-)
14:35:33 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
14:35:37 [bijan]
zakim, ipcaller is me
14:35:37 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
14:35:41 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
14:35:41 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
14:36:43 [SimonR]
Proposed to skip next week and have the next meeting on Oct 3rd, with AndyS as scribe.
14:37:58 [EliasT]
RESOLVED to meet again on Oct 3rd, with AndyS as scribe
14:38:10 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:38:10 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "action items" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:38:32 [kendallclark]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0238.html
14:39:24 [ericP]
zakim, please dial ericP-617
14:39:24 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:39:25 [Zakim]
+EricP
14:39:42 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
14:39:42 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
14:39:53 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
14:39:53 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
14:39:57 [LeeF]
Elias's action was withdrawn immediately after issued last week
14:41:08 [kendallclark]
A
14:41:46 [EliasT]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0248.html
14:42:10 [SimonR]
Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0241.html
14:42:33 [EliasT]
ACTION: ericP to send mail describing how [VTV] and [BTV] (posted [PST]) illustrate basic graph matching conflicts between LC1 and LC2 semantics [CONTINUES]
14:42:43 [EliasT]
ACTION: BijanP to to propose some editorial clarification text around DATATYPE [CONTINUES]
14:42:51 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
14:42:51 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "contradictoryKB" taken up [from kendallclark]
14:43:00 [EliasT]
ACTION: ericP effect: DATATYE (RDF term) => IRI | "" => xsd:string, ""@foo => error, ""^^X => X, blank node => error, IRI => error [DONE]
14:43:11 [EliasT]
ACTION: EliasT to follow up w/ Andy on "the idiom" for plain literals/string literals [DONE]
14:43:20 [EliasT]
ACTION: bijan to write some text on the D-entailment issue [CONTINUES]
14:43:23 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
14:43:23 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
14:44:14 [EliasT]
RRSAgent, what are the action items?
14:44:14 [RRSAgent]
I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-actions.rdf :
14:44:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ericP to send mail describing how [VTV] and [BTV] (posted [PST]) illustrate basic graph matching conflicts between LC1 and LC2 semantics [CONTINUES] [1]
14:44:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T14-42-33
14:44:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: BijanP to to propose some editorial clarification text around DATATYPE [CONTINUES] [2]
14:44:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T14-42-43
14:44:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: ericP effect: DATATYE (RDF term) => IRI | "" => xsd:string, ""@foo => error, ""^^X => X, blank node => error, IRI => error [DONE] [3]
14:44:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T14-43-00
14:44:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: EliasT to follow up w/ Andy on "the idiom" for plain literals/string literals [DONE] [4]
14:44:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T14-43-11
14:44:14 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: bijan to write some text on the D-entailment issue [CONTINUES] [5]
14:44:14 [RRSAgent]
recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T14-43-20
14:45:24 [EliasT]
DONE: ericP effect: DATATYE (RDF term) => IRI | "" => xsd:string, ""@foo => error, ""^^X => X, blank node => error, IRI => error [DONE]
14:45:24 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
14:45:24 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
14:45:34 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
14:45:34 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
14:45:36 [EliasT]
DONE: EliasT to follow up w/ Andy on "the idiom" for plain literals/string literals
14:46:27 [bijan]
a p ">"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
14:46:39 [bijan]
a p ">".
14:46:53 [bijan]
p range rdf:XMLLiteral
14:47:48 [ericP]
in SGML, and perhaps XML, '>' is allowed, so '<' may be a better choice
14:48:07 [EliasT]
bijan: The only contradiction cases come with data types in RDF.
14:48:18 [EliasT]
kendallclark: So if we don't use data types, we have no contradictions.
14:48:33 [EliasT]
bijan: data types are built-in to RDF.
14:48:37 [kendallclark]
hmm, not what I said, but -shrug-
14:48:57 [ericP]
s/data types/entailment/
14:49:12 [EliasT]
kendallclark: If we don't support RDFS then we don't have a contradictory KB issue.
14:49:27 [kendallclark]
elias? I didn't say that either!
14:49:28 [kendallclark]
:)
14:49:44 [EliasT]
:-)
14:49:49 [kendallclark]
:)
14:49:51 [EliasT]
kendallclark: loves mochi
14:49:54 [kendallclark]
heh
14:50:22 [kendallclark]
Straw poll:
14:50:31 [kendallclark]
1. say nothing about contradictory KBs at all
14:50:51 [kendallclark]
2. say explicitly that how contradictory KBs are handled is implementation-defined
14:51:27 [kendallclark]
3. say explicitly what implementatons must do when querying contradictory KBs
14:52:45 [LeeF]
FROM <A> FROM <B> A and B get RDF Merged
14:53:00 [EliasT]
FredZ: what if two graphs are consistent independently but not merged in the case of FROM <A> FROM <B>
14:54:15 [EliasT]
bijan: in RDF Semantics all ill-formed literals are mapped to another resource not of that type to avoid the contradiction.
14:54:59 [EliasT]
FredZ: could we throw an error if we find an inconsistency?
14:55:42 [EliasT]
SimonR: We would have to use a specific logic to resolve consistencies but that will not happen.
14:56:36 [EliasT]
bijan: as I read the SPARQL document, it said that we support D-entailment then we need to say something about contradictions.
14:56:58 [patH]
patH has joined #dawg
14:57:10 [AndyS]
4.8 has been removed.
14:57:27 [AndyS]
I de-D-entailed rq24.
14:57:32 [bijan]
:)
14:58:10 [Zakim]
+PatH
14:58:19 [EliasT]
Present: PatH
14:58:37 [patH]
sorry im late.
14:58:48 [SimonR]
How about: "say explicitly what implementatons MAY do when querying contradictory KBs"?
14:58:50 [EliasT]
Present, but late: PatH
14:59:37 [kendallclark]
audio bad :)
15:00:05 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:00:05 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:00:27 [ericP]
bijan, the sound just got better
15:00:49 [bijan]
q+
15:00:51 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:00:51 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:01:04 [ericP]
ack bijan
15:01:31 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:01:33 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:02:36 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:02:36 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:02:38 [patH]
sorry, can anyone point out the 1/2/3 options? URI?
15:02:46 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:02:49 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:02:53 [EliasT]
10kendallclark: 01Straw poll:
15:02:53 [EliasT]
10kendallclark: 011. say nothing about contradictory KBs at all
15:02:53 [EliasT]
10kendallclark: 012. say explicitly that how contradictory KBs are handled is implementation-defined
15:02:53 [EliasT]
10kendallclark: 013. say explicitly what implementatons must do when querying contradictory KBs
15:02:55 [bijan]
RRSAgent, where am I?
15:02:55 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T15-02-55
15:02:59 [AndyS]
10kendallclark: 011. say nothing about contradictory KBs at all
15:02:59 [AndyS]
10[15:50] kendallclark: 012. say explicitly that how contradictory KBs are handled is implementation-defined
15:02:59 [AndyS]
10[15:51] kendallclark: 013. say explicitly what implementatons must do when querying contradictory KBs
15:02:59 [bijan]
See that uri
15:03:21 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:03:21 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:03:25 [patH]
That URI is forbidden
15:03:32 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:03:32 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:03:39 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the call?
15:03:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, kendallclark, EliasT, Fred_Zemke, LeeF, bijan (muted), EricP, PatH
15:03:51 [ericP]
patH, on it...
15:04:53 [EliasT]
SimonR: 1 would lead to confusion, 3 is too hard right now, so 2 is the closest to what's acceptable.
15:05:27 [ericP]
patH, fixed
15:05:36 [patH]
Ta.
15:05:40 [kendallclark]
AndyS: prefers (2) explicitly saying that it's app/imple-defined
15:06:10 [kendallclark]
Elias: prefer (2)
15:06:29 [AndyS]
against 3, OK with 1 and 2
15:07:20 [kendallclark]
FredZ: (2) only reasonable choice
15:07:37 [SimonR]
We'd almost want release the current document as specifying what happens in the case of simple entailment, and perhaps a later extension defining how we deal with stronger entailment regimes, including the issues of inconsistency which then arise.
15:07:50 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:07:50 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:08:06 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:08:06 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:08:25 [EliasT]
bijan: I like 3, but 2 is good since it mentions at least.
15:08:43 [EliasT]
ericP: I'm happy with 1 and 2.
15:09:19 [ericP]
looks like 2s have it
15:09:21 [EliasT]
patH: 1 dishonest, 3 ambitious and 2 is fine.
15:10:00 [bijan]
I'll take an action to write up a 2
15:10:14 [bijan]
Take a vote then
15:10:45 [AndyS]
I'd like to write it into the pub version in section 5 (which can be wordsmithed later like anything else)
15:11:19 [bijan]
sorry, someone at the door
15:11:32 [ericP]
PROPOSED: @@someplace near semantic or implication@@ [[Logical entailment may result in inconsistent RDF graphs. Theresult of queries on an inconsistent graph is implementation-defined.]]
15:11:49 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:11:49 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:12:07 [AndyS]
"result of queries on contradictory KBs are implementation-defined" Discuss contradictory. Mention possible outcomes as error, nothing, some results.
15:12:12 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:12:12 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:12:13 [bijan]
Yep
15:12:17 [bijan]
That's what I had in mind
15:12:23 [bijan]
Bit about RDFS/D-Entailment
15:12:26 [AndyS]
also not necessarily the same each time.
15:12:55 [bijan]
Maybe a bit about how future specs might constrain this
15:12:55 [ericP]
PROPOSED: [[Logical entailment may result in inconsistent RDF graphs. Theresult of queries on an inconsistent graph is implementation-defined.]]
15:13:36 [bijan]
I like this because it gives the community a heads up on that it is an issue and implemetners and users some thoughts about what they might do
15:14:11 [SimonR]
Do we provide any facility (error code, etc) for the implementation to signal the condition, should it choose?
15:14:21 [bijan]
Can we wordsmith later?
15:14:24 [AndyS]
Only error 500
15:14:24 [bijan]
I don't like that
15:14:31 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:14:31 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:15:16 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:15:16 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:16:06 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:16:06 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:17:47 [AndyS]
error => "outside the QL spec"
15:18:02 [AndyS]
that's been what we've done before.
15:18:36 [LeeF]
The only errors mentioned are in the protocol document (and in FILTER evaluations, but that's neither here nor there for this issue), AFAIK.
15:18:43 [bijan]
That's 3
15:19:10 [ericP]
PROPOSED: [[Logical entailment may result in inconsistent RDF graphs. For example, "-1"^^xsd:positiveInteger is inconsistent with respect to D-entailment [INFORMATIVE]. The result of queries on an inconsistent graph is implementation-defined.]]
15:20:13 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:20:13 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:21:13 [bijan]
Can we say that it is an error?
15:21:15 [bijan]
(not returns)
15:22:04 [bijan]
Yep
15:22:06 [bijan]
I yeild
15:22:53 [bijan]
As long as we can bulk up the first sentences with some specific mention of RDF and RDFS and pointers to RDFS
15:23:16 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:23:16 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:23:23 [kendallclark]
s/is implementation-defined/is outside the scope of this document/g
15:23:31 [AndyS]
What is Eric's example not covering?
15:23:43 [EliasT]
bijan: what's the mechanism for returning errors?
15:23:54 [EliasT]
ericP: we don't have any mechanisms in the QL for returning errors
15:24:05 [EliasT]
ericP: the mechanism is in the protocol.
15:24:20 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:24:20 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:25:35 [ericP]
PROPOSED: [[Logical entailment may result in inconsistent RDF graphs. For example, "-1"^^xsd:positiveInteger is inconsistent with respect to D-entailment [INFORMATIVE]. The result of queries on an inconsistent graph is outside this specification.]]
15:27:25 [kendallclark]
With the proviso that this ought not be intepreted as precluding the possibility of returning errors
15:28:04 [AndyS]
"The outcome of a query on a incon..."
15:28:14 [patH]
The effect of a query
15:28:18 [patH]
?
15:28:27 [LeeF]
"it might even blow up THE SUN!"
15:28:29 [ericP]
RESOLVED
15:28:48 [SimonR]
The results of logical entailment may be outside this specification -- that seems to accurately reflect the situation.
15:29:01 [kendallclark]
ACTION KendallC: close contradictoryKB issue
15:29:21 [kendallclark]
zakim, take up next agendum
15:29:21 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "formsOfDistinct" taken up [from kendallclark]
15:29:22 [patH]
I have problems with the phrase 'results of logical entailment', will fix in email.
15:30:12 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:30:12 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:30:24 [kendallclark]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0200.html
15:30:24 [kendallclark]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#formsOfDistinct
15:30:31 [patH]
"logical entailment may'//"The use of richer/stronger/other entailment regimes may" (?)
15:31:01 [AndyS]
Can we make sure we cover publishing process today? Just to make sure there are no blocks in the next 2 weeks.
15:31:26 [EliasT]
Zakim, mute me
15:31:26 [Zakim]
EliasT should now be muted
15:32:11 [kendallclark]
Andy: yes
15:32:21 [AndyS]
Ta
15:32:43 [ericP]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050721/#modDistinct
15:33:10 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:33:10 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:33:40 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:33:40 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:33:47 [AndyS]
That is also the text in rq24 (I restored an HTML error as I noted). Not sure when it happened.
15:34:23 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:34:23 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:34:41 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:34:41 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:34:52 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:34:52 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:35:14 [bijan]
First choice:
15:35:17 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:35:17 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:35:46 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:35:46 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:36:07 [bijan]
First
15:36:11 [bijan]
1) one form of distinct
15:36:13 [bijan]
2) more than one
15:36:23 [bijan]
Second if 1) which:
15:36:28 [bijan]
A) term distinct
15:36:32 [bijan]
b) answer distinct
15:36:51 [bijan]
c) source distinct
15:37:02 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:37:02 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:40:58 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:40:58 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:41:53 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:41:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, kendallclark, EliasT (muted), Fred_Zemke, LeeF, bijan (muted), EricP, PatH
15:42:14 [kendallclark]
Which form(s) of distinct do you prefer:
15:42:23 [kendallclark]
Path: prefer (a), no strong view, will go w/ flow
15:42:31 [kendallclark]
Eric: (a)
15:42:44 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:42:44 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:42:48 [EliasT]
Zakim, unmute me
15:42:48 [Zakim]
EliasT should no longer be muted
15:43:04 [kendallclark]
bijan: (a) and (b)
15:43:10 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:43:10 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:43:33 [kendallclark]
Leef: (a) suffices, but sees appeal to (b) and (c)
15:44:18 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:44:18 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:44:35 [kendallclark]
FredZ: ^(c)
15:44:36 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:44:36 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:45:09 [bijan]
Ooo, nice point
15:45:14 [bijan]
hadn't thought of that
15:45:17 [kendallclark]
Elias: (a)
15:45:20 [patH]
indeed.
15:45:40 [kendallclark]
Andy: (a) only
15:45:40 [ericP]
that's the danger of wearing the geek hat all the time
15:45:50 [kendallclark]
Simon: no opinion
15:45:53 [bijan]
(Some examples of B and C: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bparsia/2006/row-tutorial/#slide35 )
15:45:59 [kendallclark]
kendall: (a)
15:46:04 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:46:04 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:46:09 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:46:09 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:46:23 [bijan]
q+
15:46:31 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:46:31 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:47:34 [EliasT]
bijan: if we are going to do A, I'd like to have some text that explain it a bit more.
15:48:13 [ericP]
+1
15:48:21 [patH]
+2
15:48:29 [ericP]
--
15:48:31 [ericP]
=3
15:48:38 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:48:38 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:49:57 [patH]
suggest it is worth spoending some informative time in spec to get this clear, as its one of the new topics that folk will be having new kinds of trouble with.
15:50:23 [ericP]
yes
15:50:26 [bijan]
Actually, as an artsy fartsy postmodernist, i resist hemogenistic attempst to "limit" the inscription of reality
15:50:35 [bijan]
That's waht I would suggest
15:50:44 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:50:44 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:50:50 [patH]
Ah, I knew I could smell derrida somewhere.
15:50:52 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:50:52 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
15:51:51 [AndyS]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24.html#modDistinct is the current text. It uses set= : the = will tie to sameTerm for the RDF tem part of bindings in a set.
15:51:52 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:51:52 [Zakim]
bijan was already muted, bijan
15:51:55 [SimonR]
There's a certain parallel here to our earlier discussions about literals, compared by either syntactic form or by value.
15:52:01 [kendallclark]
PROPOSAL: To close formsOfDistinct by defining distinctness in terms of term equality, and for BP to provide informative text to guide reader's expectations
15:52:13 [ericP]
"01"^^xsd:integer "1"^^xsd:integer
15:52:14 [SimonR]
(i.e. we're debated which sense of equality to use.)
15:52:17 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
15:52:17 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
15:52:22 [bijan]
q+
15:52:31 [kendallclark]
(for the record: our earlier decision re: contradictoryKB also closes that issue)
15:53:02 [AndyS]
Ack to the closing thereof.
15:53:08 [kendallclark]
PROPOSE: to extend meeting 10 minutes
15:53:17 [AndyS]
Seconded
15:53:19 [kendallclark]
thx
15:55:02 [bijan]
For datatyped literals, a binding is equal either if
15:55:12 [bijan]
1) they are term-equal
15:55:26 [bijan]
2) they are = according to the datatype equality defined in value testing
15:56:13 [AndyS]
{ :x :p 1 }
15:56:19 [kendallclark]
+3 to that symmetry
15:56:24 [kendallclark]
if i grok it
15:56:46 [bijan]
3) they are - according to filter equality
15:56:50 [bijan]
"filter equality"
15:57:27 [Zakim]
-EliasT
15:58:10 [ericP]
+ a zillion
15:58:22 [bijan]
1) they are term-equal
15:58:27 [bijan]
2) they are equal by some other measure
15:58:44 [kendallclark]
zakim, who's on the phone?
15:58:44 [Zakim]
On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, kendallclark, Fred_Zemke, LeeF, bijan, EricP, PatH
15:58:46 [bijan]
3) both
15:59:55 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:59:55 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:00:33 [bijan]
Term-distinct wrt bnodes
16:01:25 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
16:01:25 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
16:01:29 [AndyS]
chnage it to "term/literal value (to be refined)"
16:01:30 [ericP]
PROPOSED: to support some form of term-distinction
16:01:53 [kendallclark]
PROPOSED: to support term distinctness w/r/t URIs and bnodes
16:02:36 [bijan]
+1 to fred
16:02:47 [bijan]
One of my objections to source distinct
16:02:58 [bijan]
Conceptual
16:03:02 [bijan]
No that wasn't the problem :0
16:03:06 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:03:06 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:03:15 [kendallclark]
PROPOSED: to support term distinctness w/r/t URIs and bnodes, with literals to be decided
16:03:40 [ericP]
RESOLVED
16:03:46 [bijan]
Sorry
16:03:50 [bijan]
I abstain
16:03:51 [bijan]
tyes
16:04:03 [kendallclark]
RESOLVED, with BP abstaining
16:04:16 [kendallclark]
ACTION KendallC: to update formsOfDistinct issue to show progress
16:04:44 [ericP]
kendallclark, could you type "RRSAgent, please draft minutes\nRRSAgent, make logs world-access" after you adjourn? i have to run
16:05:14 [bijan]
I am also supposed to "Quick skim" review
16:05:57 [patH]
possibly? literals are not distinct if the datatype recognizes a normal form and they are the same when normalized (?) Weak but handles Fred-style cases.
16:06:22 [bijan]
Hmm
16:06:44 [bijan]
That seems to work, though I regret that I shall have to spelunk into XML Schema to find out what has normal forms
16:07:07 [patH]
What else can be done, though? Its really seems to be up to the DT to make this decision.
16:07:14 [bijan]
sure
16:07:16 [patH]
Eg consider date formats.
16:07:23 [bijan]
I would meet next week jus tto publish
16:07:38 [ericP]
I have removed the DISTINCT issue from the document
16:07:39 [bijan]
me!
16:08:18 [bijan]
I'll need a day to review
16:08:31 [bijan]
OR an hour
16:08:33 [bijan]
or something :)
16:08:41 [patH]
minute?
16:08:42 [AndyS]
I'd like to be there if its a review.
16:08:54 [Zakim]
-EricP
16:09:13 [bijan]
It's just supposed to be a sanity check, so I was going to send email message
16:09:20 [kendallclark]
right
16:09:22 [Zakim]
-bijan
16:09:45 [kendallclark]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:09:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-minutes.html kendallclark
16:09:51 [Zakim]
-LeeF
16:09:55 [kendallclark]
RRSAgent, make logs world-access
16:09:59 [FredZ]
bye
16:09:59 [Zakim]
-SimonR
16:10:01 [Zakim]
-PatH
16:10:05 [Zakim]
-Fred_Zemke
16:10:05 [kendallclark]
god, i hate a bot you have to say "please" to... that's absurd :)
16:10:06 [Zakim]
-AndyS
16:10:19 [AndyS]
AndyS has left #dawg
16:10:32 [Zakim]
-kendallclark
16:10:33 [Zakim]
SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended
16:10:34 [Zakim]
Attendees were SimonR, AndyS, EliasT, Fred_Zemke, LeeF, kendallclark, bijan, EricP, PatH