Chatlog 2009-05-27 special

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

<sandro> Guest: Andy Seaborn, http://www.hpl.hp.com/people/andy_seaborne/
<sandro> Guest: Pat Hayes, http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/
<sandro> Guest: Eric Prud'hommeaux, http://www.w3.org/People/Eric/
<sandro> Chair: AlanR
13:37:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl
13:37:43 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-owl-irc
13:38:28 <sandro> note-to-scribe --- we'll have to manually separate the IRC log of this meeting from that of the OWL telecon later today.
13:51:05 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl
13:51:11 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl
13:51:49 <baojie> is the call-in number 1.617.761.6200 (as in usual telcon)?
13:51:54 <sandro> yes
13:51:57 <baojie> thanks
13:52:51 <ericP> ericP has joined #owl
13:53:00 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office
13:53:00 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made
13:53:01 <Zakim> Team_(owl)13:37Z has now started
13:53:02 <Zakim> +EricP
13:57:48 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl
13:57:59 <Zakim> +??P3
13:58:10 <bmotik> Zakim, ??p3 is me
13:58:10 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it
13:59:14 <Zakim> +alanr
13:59:58 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
13:59:58 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
14:00:01 <alanr> alanr has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0184.html
14:00:02 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
14:00:17 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl
14:00:19 <alanr> zakim, who is here?
14:00:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, bmotik (muted), alanr, Peter_Patel-Schneider
14:00:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, alanr, ericP, bmotik, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, sandro, trackbot
14:00:32 <Zakim> + +1.978.805.aaaa
14:00:40 <baojie> Zakim, aaaa is baojie
14:00:40 <Zakim> +baojie; got it
14:00:42 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:01:35 <Zakim> +??P37
14:01:39 <AndyS> zakim, ??P37 is me
14:01:39 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
14:01:40 <bmotik> Just to let everybody know: I'll need to shoot off in 45 minutes.
14:01:54 <bmotik> Something came up unexpectedly at 5pm CET
14:01:58 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me
14:01:58 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted
14:02:07 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me
14:02:08 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted
14:02:31 <ericP> Zakim, who is here?
14:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, bmotik (muted), alanr, Peter_Patel-Schneider, baojie, Sandro, AndyS
14:02:33 <AndyS> What's the call length?  I have a cut off of +1hr
14:02:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, alanr, ericP, bmotik, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, sandro, trackbot
14:02:37 <sandro> 1hr
14:02:42 <ericP> scribenick: ericP 
14:03:10 <ericP> topic: set of language tags
14:03:04 <sandro> 1.  set of language tags
14:03:04 <alanr>  PROPOSED: We understand that when RDF Concepts referred to RFC
14:03:05 <alanr>     3066 it really meanted "RFC 3066 or its successor" (which is
14:03:05 <alanr>     currently BCP-47).  We'll add a note to this effect to this spec.
14:03:13 <alanr> +1
14:03:19 <baojie> +1
14:03:21 <sandro> +1
14:03:22 <ericP> ericP: +1
14:03:24 <pfps> +1
14:03:27 <bmotik> +1
14:03:32 <alanr>  RESOLVED: We understand that when RDF Concepts referred to RFC 3066 it really meanted "RFC 3066 or its successor" (which is currently BCP-47).  We'll add a note to this effect to this spec.
14:04:16 <ericP> topic: renaming of datatype
14:03:45 <alanr> PROPOSED: The datatype previously known as rdf:text should be called rdf:PlainLiteral
14:04:07 <ericP> ericP: there is a related i18n comment to DAWG: http://www.w3.org/mid/20070419132419.9ACF74BAD@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp
14:03:50 <alanr> +1
14:03:54 <AndyS> +1
14:03:55 <pfps> +0
14:03:55 <bmotik> +1
14:03:55 <sandro> +1
14:03:56 <baojie> +1
14:04:13 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl
14:04:17 <ericP> ericP: +1
14:04:23 <pfps> +0, as I don't care about the name
14:04:18 <alanr> RESOLVED: The datatype previously known as rdf:text should be called rdf:PlainLiteral
14:04:31 <ericP> topic: changing title of document
14:04:32 <alanr> PROPOSED: The title will no longer mention i18n.  It will be  something more like: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals
14:04:44 <sandro> i18n == internationalization
14:04:45 <bmotik> +1
14:04:47 <alanr> +1
14:04:50 <ericP> ericP: +1
14:04:50 <AndyS> no opinion
14:04:51 <sandro> +1
14:05:01 <pfps> +1, "current" name is good
14:05:05 <baojie> +0.75
14:05:06 <alanr> RESOLVED: The title will no longer mention i18n.  It will be something more like: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals
14:05:57 <ericP> topic: discussion of i18n
14:05:44 <alanr> PROPOSED: Pending approval from Michael Sperberg-McQueen, we'll  remove the 3rd intro paragraph (from LC version).  It talks about   xml:lang, etc
14:06:12 <ericP> sandro proposes that the 3rd para in the LC be removed
14:07:14 <ericP> sandro: i removed MSM's suggested bidi text from the wiki, but have not heard from MSM
14:07:38 <ericP> alanr: this is 'cause we're talking about plain literals, which are defined in another document
14:08:17 <alanr> PROPOSED: Pending approval from Michael Sperberg-McQueen, we'll  remove the 3rd intro paragraph (from LC version).  It talks about  xml:lang, etc. If he does't approve we're fine with leaving something in the document about this.
14:09:05 <sandro> PROPOSED: Pending approval from Michael Sperberg-McQueen, we'll  remove the 3rd intro paragraph (from LC version).  It talks about  xml:lang, etc. If he does't approve we'll keep it, with some reluctance.
14:09:30 <ericP> ericP: i am reluctant to have i18n text quasi-defining plain literals as it is confusing to have definitions in multile places
14:09:19 <sandro> +1
14:09:19 <alanr> +1
14:09:24 <Zakim> +IanH
14:09:25 <baojie> +1
14:09:31 <pfps> +1, as this implies that the paragraph is in (for now)
14:09:33 <ericP> ericP: +1
14:10:08 <sandro> RESOLVED: Pending approval from Michael Sperberg-McQueen, we'll  remove the 3rd intro paragraph (from LC version).  It talks about  xml:lang, etc. If he does't approve we'll keep it, with some reluctance.
14:10:43 <ericP> topic: discuss new abstract
14:10:58 <ericP> sandro: the current abstract is out of date
14:11:02 <pfps> the current abstract mentions "the dreaded i18n"
14:11:04 <alanr> q?
14:11:16 <ericP> ... we need a new one which reflects what we settle on
14:11:32 <alanr> PROPOSED: rdf:PlainLiterals will map 1-1 to RDF Plain Literals, so Plain Literals with and without language are both handled by  rdf:PlainLiteral.
14:11:33 <ericP> topic: narrowing datatype to language-tagged literals
14:11:39 <sandro> alanr: we're NOT narrowing this to only handle language-tagged literals.
14:11:57 <bmotik> But this is already so, so I'm confused.
14:12:02 <pfps> Huh?
14:12:17 <ericP> AndyS: not sure how you maintain 1:1 between rdf:PlainLiterals and xsd:strings
14:12:38 <ericP> sandro: i'm not proposing a change to pfpf and bmotik's plan
14:12:59 <ericP> alanr: the 1:1 mapping is in the value space
14:13:03 <bmotik> The value of each rdf:PlainLiteral literal will match one-to-one to the value of each plain RDF literal
14:13:25 <ericP> AndyS: i understand now. proposal didn't say that to me
14:13:35 <ericP> sandro: the value space overlaps with xsd:string
14:14:12 <alanr> PROPOSED: rdf:PlainLiterals will map 1-1 to RDF Plain Literals, so Plain Literals with and without language are both handled by rdf:PlainLiteral.
14:14:20 <sandro> sandro: see my e-mail of an hour ago ---  the idea is you can map to/from rdf:PlainLiteral without getting confused about what's an xs:string
14:14:14 <bmotik> +1
14:14:15 <ericP> +0
14:14:17 <baojie> 0
14:14:17 <AndyS> +0
14:14:21 <sandro> +1
14:14:23 <pfps> +1, as this is what has been true from the beginning
14:14:28 <alanr> +1
14:14:57 <alanr> RESOLVED: rdf:PlainLiterals will map 1-1 to RDF Plain Literals, so Plain Literals with and without language are both handled by  rdf:PlainLiteral.
14:14:42 <bmotik> Will this affect the document in any way? THat is, do I need to change anything in response? (Particularly given that this is how things work at present).
14:15:08 <ericP> sandro: i don't think so, barring editorial suggestions
14:15:22 <sandro> 7.  backward-compatibility goal
14:15:05 <bmotik> Great -- thanks!
14:15:35 <alanr> q?
14:15:36 <ericP> topic: backward compatibility
14:15:52 <ericP> sandro: i'm trying to get the first piece of the interop goal
14:16:03 <ericP> ... specifically, do users have to change anything?
14:16:18 <ericP> ... i believe we are not suggesting that RDF applications change
14:16:30 <pfps> q+
14:16:49 <alanr> ack pfps
14:16:58 <ericP> pfps: agreed
14:17:17 <ericP> ... until the LC, there was nothing in the doc that would indicate that apps should change
14:17:28 <ericP> ... i believe that the wiki version changes all RDF apps
14:17:41 <Zakim> -Sandro
14:17:49 <ericP> ... "rdf:text datatyped literals MUST not appear in RDF applications"
14:18:03 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:18:08 <ericP> ... adds policing requirement
14:18:12 <sandro> (sorry, pressed the wrong button on my phone.)
14:18:35 <alanr> q?
14:18:53 <ericP> sandro: the current state is not your understanding of our goal?
14:19:23 <ericP> pfps: it appears that folks are arguing this constraint in order to NOT change RDF apps
14:19:32 <Zakim> +PatH
14:19:53 <ericP> sandro: i think the only folks who should change are those who could get some benefit from it
14:20:55 <sandro> PROPOSED: We don't want any code out there to have to change because of this specification.    Only new systems specifically intending to use it (eg RIF and OWL2) are pushed to implement it.
14:20:56 <ericP> alanr: i understand pfps and PatH argue that the current text is too broad
14:21:12 <ericP> pfps: i'm just interpreting the current doc. not ready to say what i want
14:21:49 <ericP> PatH sent a draft yesterday
14:22:17 <bmotik> +1
14:23:01 <ericP> AndyS: screw case: system 1 pubs data with ^^rdf:text, and old system 2 reads it and can't make use of it 'cause it's not a plain literal
14:23:12 <ericP> sandro: i'd call that a push to change
14:23:21 <pfps> +0, we are not requiring code to change, but we *should* be encouraging code to change
14:23:47 <sandro> sandro: in my mind, if useful data is published using rdf:PlainLiteral, then consumers would be pushed.
14:23:51 <ericP> ericP: i argue for striking the second sentence
14:24:04 <sandro> PROPOSED: We don't want any code out there to have to change because of this specification. 
14:24:05 <alanr> PROPOSED: We don't want any code out there to have to change because of this specification.
14:24:10 <ericP> AndyS: would do for me. 2nd sentence gets into how systems expose the information
14:24:16 <pfps> q+
14:24:21 <alanr> ack pfps
14:24:31 <ericP> pfps: i disagree.
14:24:44 <ericP> ... even harsh wording in the wiki does not have this impact
14:25:05 <ericP> ... it allows rdf:text to appear *not* in the ^^ form
14:26:00 <sandro> pfps: if people use it as a range, then there's some motivation out there....
14:26:01 <ericP> ... this proposal prohibits rdf:text anywhere in a graph, e.g. <p> rdfs:range rdf:text .
14:26:35 <ericP> PatH: apart from its effect on plain literals, it's an ordinary datatype name
14:26:57 <ericP> pfps: i agree, but i think the proposal violates it
14:27:17 <ericP> sandro: ahh, even uttering the datatype encourages folks to implement it
14:27:56 <alanr> q?
14:28:01 <ericP> topic: how to meet interrop requirements
14:28:15 <sandro> (skipping point 8, going on to point 9, brainstorming...)
14:28:24 <ericP> PatH: propose a new flavor of RDF, Plain-Typed RDF
14:28:33 <ericP> ... +restrictions: 
14:28:46 <ericP> ... .. ^^rdf:text can't be uttered
14:29:00 <alanr> q+ alan to ask what relation of rdfs is to new language?
14:29:02 <ericP> ... .. rdf:text can be uttered as a datatype name
14:29:31 <ericP> ... by naminng this slightly modified RDF, folks can say "i conform to Plain-Typed RDF"
14:30:03 <ericP> ... allows impls and specs to refer to it
14:30:08 <alanr> q?
14:30:15 <ericP> ... e.g. OWL2 and RIF
14:30:51 <alanr> ack alan
14:30:51 <Zakim> alan, you wanted to ask what relation of rdfs is to new language?
14:30:57 <ericP> ... proposed spec defines the datatype and the inference
14:31:09 <ericP> AndyS: what's the status of deployed data?
14:31:38 <alanr> q+ alan
14:31:40 <ericP> PatH: existing RDF which doesn't (accidentally) use this datatype remains the same
14:31:46 <AndyS> q+ to ask about MIME type
14:31:53 <ericP> q+ to argue that branching has consequences
14:32:15 <ericP> alanr: how does this affect RDFS?
14:32:36 <ericP> ... noting that RDFS is based on RDF, and OWL extends RDFS
14:32:46 <ericP> PatH: in RDFS you have a new built-in datatype
14:32:56 <ericP> ... class, range, reasoning applies to it
14:33:53 <alanr> ack alan
14:33:57 <alanr> ack AndyS
14:33:57 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about MIME type
14:34:03 <ericP> ... one could say "using RDFS(Plain-Typed"
14:34:14 <ericP> AndyS: what about mime-types?
14:34:25 <ericP> ... i fear this may be too clever
14:34:42 <alanr> ack ericP
14:34:42 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to argue that branching has consequences
<ericP> scribenick AndyS
14:35:16 <AndyS> ericP: Caution against branching because of matrix of interactions
14:35:40 <AndyS> ... suggest langauge for doc for don't write ^^rdf:text"
14:37:32 <AndyS> ... may or may not want to prevent ^^rdf:text in RDF (no OWL, RIF systems around)
14:37:51 <AndyS> ... but then have to operate on the as-is form (no lang tag implications)
<ericP> scribenick ericP
14:38:14 <ericP> alanr: you (pfps) listed an order of preferences
14:39:07 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/mid/20090527.092010.00457379.pfps@research.bell-labs.com
14:39:10 <ericP> sandro: the six that pfps listed, which i characterized as steps in increasing restrictiveness
14:39:19 <ericP> ... starts with anyone can do anything
14:39:27 <ericP> ... 4 is a SHOULDn't
14:39:36 <ericP> ... 5 is a MUSTn't
14:39:54 <pfps> q+
14:40:37 <ericP> alanr: consequences of 1 seem to lose opportunities to interpret ^^rdf:text as a plain literals
14:40:54 <alanr> q?
14:41:01 <alanr> ack pfps
14:41:07 <pfps> q-
14:41:10 <ericP> pfps: sparql is already broken in this way. we're not breaking it further
14:41:21 <ericP> PatH: heard this argument many times
14:41:30 <ericP> ... A i think that's poor practice
14:41:36 <pfps> q+
14:41:49 <ericP> ... B the ways it broken are edge cases. this will turn out to be a central case
14:41:52 <pfps> q+
14:42:09 <alanr> ack pfps
14:42:21 <ericP> pfps: xsd:string has wide useage on the web
14:42:31 <ericP> ... it exhibits the same behavoir as rdf:text
14:42:41 <ericP> ... so we're not breaking it any further
14:43:06 <ericP> AndyS: filter functions were designed with xsd:string and plain literals being treated the same
14:43:11 <alanr> q?
14:43:34 <ericP> ... so implementations handle that case, while they would not for rdf:text
14:43:56 <ericP> pfps: i agree that some of the cruft in SPARQL is to paper over the problem in BGP matching
14:44:29 <ericP> alanr: when discussing backward-compatibility goal, was this examplar the main case?
14:44:51 <ericP> AndyS: my issue is new systems creating data which old systems don't understand
14:45:02 <ericP> alanr: that was my intended characterization
14:45:22 <alanr> My second preference would be to just change the OWL 2 mapping to RDF
14:45:22 <alanr> graphs document to map rdf:text datatyped literal into plain RDF
14:45:22 <alanr> literals.
14:45:26 <alanr> My= Peter
14:45:40 <pfps> Change OWL 2 mapping to RDF to map rdf:text datatyped literals into plain RDF literals.
14:45:48 <bmotik> I'm afraid I need to leave now. Bye!
14:45:52 <ericP> alanr: this is perhaps implicit in the current rdf:text doc
14:45:56 <Zakim> -bmotik
14:46:01 <alanr> q?
14:46:20 <ericP> PatH: seems sensible, if we can't do anything else
14:46:37 <ericP> ... but feels like putting a plug in a larger hole; we have more to worry about than RIF and OWL2
14:46:59 <pfps> That is the next two options.
14:47:01 <ericP> alanr: textual suggestion to make this apply to all analogous docs?
14:47:07 <ericP> PatH: i think so
14:47:10 <alanr> My third and fourth preferences would be to say that applications (and
14:47:10 <alanr> recommendations) that incorporate rdf:text may/should be nice to older
14:47:10 <alanr> applications (and recommendatations) and therefore may/should not emit
14:47:10 <alanr>  rdf:text datatyped literals in RDF syntaxes by changing them to plain
14:47:10 <alanr> literals.
14:47:44 <alanr> q?
14:47:57 <ericP> alanr: what are the (dis)advantages of MAY, SHOULD, MUST?
14:48:19 <ericP> pfps: i prefer MAY, can live with SHOULD, but MUST has a timelessness aspect to it
14:48:42 <ericP> sandro: looks like MUST is split across 5 and 6
14:48:56 <ericP> PatH: MUST it two strong
14:49:22 <ericP> AndyS: i think SHOULD lasts as long as MUST
14:49:50 <ericP> alanr: can we say "until an group chartered to modify RDF changes its mind"
14:50:03 <ericP> AndyS: would expect that to be part of RDF
14:50:19 <alanr> My fifth preference would be to say that in *syntaxes* for RDF graphs,
14:50:19 <alanr> e.g., RDF/XML and Turtle, (and related syntaxes, such as any syntaxes
14:50:19 <alanr> for SPARQL basic graph patterns, I guess) the syntax for rdf:text
14:50:19 <alanr> datatyped literals *is* the syntax for plain RDF literals.
14:50:24 <ericP> ericP: i would expect that to be in the "latest version" link to rdf:text
14:51:20 <ericP> AndyS: i feel there is advantage in talking about syntax as that is what exchanged
14:51:39 <ericP> PatH: [general approval, if ED understood it]
14:51:51 <ericP> pfps: this doesn't change RDF graphs is any way
14:52:15 <ericP> ... the underlying dicotomy remains, but you'd never notice unless RDF gets updated to reveal it
14:52:16 <sandro> pfps: this is kind of a cheat, a bandaid -- the graphs aren't fixed, but you can't see it.
14:52:25 <ericP> PatH: agreed
14:52:45 <ericP> ... does this propose that existing systems police ^^rdf:text?
14:52:52 <ericP> pfps: umm, no
14:53:38 <ericP> ... PatH's proposal changes RDF in a fundamental way
14:54:12 <ericP> q+ to say that i strongly support "syntax for rdf:text literals *is* plain literals'
14:54:27 <alanr> ack eric
14:54:27 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that i strongly support "syntax for rdf:text literals *is* plain literals'
14:54:39 <alanr> 1. nothing 2. change mapping 3. should emit 4. syntax
14:55:00 <alanr> 1. nothing 2. change mapping 3&4. should emit 5. syntax
14:55:21 <sandro> <alanr> 1. nothing 2. change mapping 3 may emit.  4. should not emit 5. syntax
14:55:40 <pfps> 1,2
14:55:45 <sandro> 4,5
14:55:50 <ericP> ericP: 5
14:55:51 <baojie> 4,5
14:55:51 <sandro> pat_hayes: 5,1
14:55:55 <AndyS> 5,4 s/should/must/
14:56:03 <alanr> 5,4
14:56:59 <sandro> strawpoll: we'll do option 5    
14:57:02 <sandro> +1
14:57:03 <pfps> +0
14:57:04 <ericP> ericP: +1
14:57:06 <alanr> +1
14:57:07 <AndyS> +1
14:57:07 <baojie> +1
14:57:22 <sandro> pat_hayes: +1
14:57:26 <sandro> strawpoll: we'll do option 4
14:57:30 <sandro> +1
14:57:32 <ericP> +.5
14:57:32 <pfps> +0
14:57:42 <AndyS> +0.75
14:57:56 <alanr> +.5
14:58:06 <sandro> pat_hayes: +0.8
14:58:20 <sandro> strawpoll: we'll do option 3
14:58:24 <sandro> pat_hayes: 0
14:58:25 <ericP> ericP: -1
14:58:27 <pfps> +0.5
14:58:28 <AndyS> - 0.5
14:58:29 <sandro> -=
14:58:31 <alanr> -.
14:58:32 <sandro> -0
14:58:34 <alanr> -0.5
14:58:34 <baojie> 0
14:59:10 <ericP> alanr: sentiment seems strongest for 5
14:59:24 <sandro> alanr: the sentiment seems to be on the fifth proposal....
14:59:34 <ericP> ... i don't believe PatH's has sufficient support given raised issues
14:59:52 <alanr> ok
15:00:56 <ericP> ACTION: pfps to suggest edits to the wiki page for options 5
15:00:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-337 - Suggest edits to the wiki page for options 5 [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-06-03].
15:02:13 <sandro> RRSAgent, make record public
15:02:29 <AndyS> Thx
15:02:37 <Zakim> -PatH
15:02:39 <Zakim> -alanr
15:02:42 <Zakim> -IanH
15:02:46 <Zakim> -baojie
15:02:52 <ericP> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:02:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-owl-minutes.html ericP
15:03:34 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
15:05:01 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
15:05:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, AndyS, Sandro
15:07:31 <Zakim> -AndyS
15:09:28 <AndyS> AndyS has left #owl