RDF Core Working Group IRC logs for 2001-08-01

These are the logs from the RDF Core Working Group IRC chat.

With thanks to Dave Beckett who developed the logging software that produced them.

You are here: Logs Home / 2001-08-01

[16:51:07] logger_1

logger_1 has joined #rdfcore

[16:51:07]

Users on #rdfcore: logger_1 DanC_ Aaron-F2F

[16:51:09] dajobe

dajobe has joined #rdfcore

[16:51:19]

* Aaron-F2F waves to logger_1

[16:51:35] dajobe

who is op here and can set topic?

[16:51:39] Aaron-F2F

Danbri

[16:54:04] Aaron-F2F

Issue List: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/

[16:58:20] danbri-f2f

danbri-f2f has joined #rdfcore

[17:01:06] gk

gk has joined #rdfcore

[17:01:45] gk

gk is now known as GK-f2f

[17:03:20] DanC_

er... none of us has op privileges. we can't kick out wierdos that wander in. if that bothers anybody, we'll all have to leave and rejoin

[17:03:34] DanC_

I can't set the topic

[17:03:51] DanC_

====== EricM presents T-shirts, courtesy of HP

[17:04:01] Aaron-F2F

Only danbri can set the topic, danc.

[17:04:06] Aaron-F2F

I came in first and it deopped me.

[17:04:08] danbri-f2f

that's my fault or the opennetworks bot; the password i set i either forgot or it broke

[17:05:12]

* danbri-f2f suggests we might move to #rdfcore-meet

[17:05:12] Aaron-F2F

danbri, you probably need to change your nick to plain danbri

[17:05:24] DanC_

the logger is here, though, danbri

[17:06:05] barstow

barstow has joined #rdfcore

[17:06:12]

* DanC_ thanks the host for the great net connectivity

[17:06:16] Aaron-F2F

Aaron-F2F is now known as AaronSw

[17:06:43] DanC_

BLURB: RDF Core WG convenes in Sebastepol CA

[17:07:17] DanC_

er... where's the chump?

[17:07:23] DanC_

meeting home: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/

[17:07:25] AaronSw

in the other room, DanC

[17:07:25] dajobe

not on this channel

[17:07:38] dajobe

we could move there but might get distracted

[17:07:38]

* DanC_ blushes... wrong channel

[17:08:27]

* DanC_ suggests Somebody make a link from the meeting home page to the log of this channel

[17:09:34] danbri-f2f

dave, url for logs?

[17:09:37] AaronSw

see http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-08-01.txt

[17:09:57]

* dajobe scribes

[17:10:05] AaronSw

---- ROLL CALL

[17:10:05] dajobe

bwm introductions

[17:10:22] dajobe

+art barstow

[17:10:24] AaronSw

Art Barstow, W3C, visiting engineer from HP

[17:10:28] dajobe

+dan connolly

[17:10:43] dajobe

jos de roos

[17:10:45] dajobe

dave beckett

[17:10:47] dajobe

rael dpnrfest

[17:10:49] dajobe

dan brickley

[17:10:53] dajobe

martyn horner

[17:10:54] dajobe

pat hayes

[17:10:57] dajobe

frank manola

[17:11:02] dajobe

ron daniel

[17:11:12] dajobe

sergey melnik

[17:11:23] dajobe

kwon, national ., korea

[17:11:25] dajobe

mike dean

[17:11:27] dajobe

eric miller

[17:11:31] dajobe

graham klyne

[17:11:40] dajobe

stephen p

[17:11:50] dajobe

jan grant

[17:11:53] dajobe

aaron swartz

[17:12:00] dajobe

brian mcbride (chair)

[17:12:43] dajobe

... logistics ...

[17:14:52]

* danbri-f2f adds quick link to raw irc log from meeting page, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/

[17:14:53] dajobe

f2f page:

[17:15:06] dajobe

bwm: intro

[17:15:21] dajobe

agenda review

[17:16:47] dajobe

first section - context from users of rdf, get some problems from apps

[17:16:50] dajobe

(bwm)

[17:17:16] DanC_

agenda review: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/#agenda

[17:17:52] dajobe

changed to proposed schedule

[17:18:47] dajobe

forfeit if we actually get through the schedule...

[17:18:58] dajobe

emiller goads us to complete it :-)

[17:19:10] dajobe

review of Wed

[17:19:29] dajobe

gk: review of issues list?

[17:19:59] dajobe

emiller: user stories can help us prioritise

[17:20:17] dajobe

artb: non-listed issue - xml:lang

[17:20:41] dajobe

bwm: progress made but will make in context of parsetype literal discussions rather than alone

[17:21:20] dajobe

END REVIEW OF AGENDA

[17:21:55] dajobe

rael dornfest RSS

[17:22:23] dajobe

rss is a syndication format and site descr. format

[17:22:39] DanC_

who's got the display? how about putting some RSS sites/stuff on screen?

[17:22:41] dajobe

review of rss 1.0 history

[17:22:52] dajobe

1.0 now out

[17:23:03] dajobe

interesting rss1.0 places used

[17:23:11] dajobe

rss091 used more but uptake slowing

[17:23:37] dajobe

examples slashcode

[17:23:51] dajobe

uses a lot of rss1.0 behind it to return all query results

[17:23:52] DanC_

slashcode is an rss 1.0 example, that is

[17:24:02] dajobe

see http://slashcode.com/ (or .org?)

[17:24:09] dajobe

rpc-like interfaces

[17:24:22] dajobe

http://slashcode.net/slashcode.rss is rss1.0 version

[17:24:27] dajobe

useperl.org

[17:24:40] dajobe

any data-peeks are avaialble as rss1.0

[17:24:45]

* DanC_ notes the creator is an email address... as if the mailbox created the page.

[17:25:07] dajobe

ximian's red-carpet package update system

[17:25:13] dajobe

very close to rss1.0

[17:25:22] dajobe

talking to them

[17:25:22] AaronSw

send them an email, DanC ;-)

[17:25:41] dajobe

subscribe to package feeds of softrware updates

[17:25:43] DanC_

that would oblige me to answer any questions they have. I have previous obligations.

[17:26:10] dajobe

axkit.org - matt sergent

[17:26:10] dajobe

axkit app - take23.org

[17:26:10] Seth

Seth has joined #rdfcore

[17:26:12] dajobe

... site for mod_perl and all feeds built out of rss 1.0

[17:26:17] DanC_

anybody sitting near EricM? can you paste the addresses of the pages he's showing?

[17:26:21] dajobe

to create the portal

[17:26:26] AaronSw

http://take23.org/

[17:26:40] dajobe

RSS BOF at OSCON - yahoo! finance using rss1.0 internally

[17:27:07] dajobe

... spoke to about exporting that, need consider business issues

[17:27:28] dajobe

OSCOn .. ave wrigely ITN news feed and used a lot internally

[17:27:34] dajobe

fascinating uses ...

[17:27:42] dajobe

rael's meerkat - meerkat.oreillnet.com

[17:27:44] AaronSw

http://meerkat.oreillynet.com/

[17:27:53] dajobe

aggregator of tech-related feeds

[17:28:16] dajobe

various views as rss, n3 now!

[17:28:29] dajobe

AaronSw: can you do url-pasting for me

[17:28:47] dajobe

rael demos n3, rss versions

[17:28:56] AaronSw

sure, dajobe

[17:28:56] dajobe

can search by dc attributes

[17:29:11] AaronSw

http://meerkat.oreillynet.com/?_fl=n3 - N3 version

[17:29:17] AaronSw

http://meerkat.oreillynet.com/?_fl=rss10 - rdf version

[17:29:18] dajobe

demo of seraching

[17:29:23] AaronSw

can also search by dublin core data

[17:29:31] dajobe

shows dc createor and language, format etc.

[17:29:39] dajobe

... lots going on in rss1.0 land..

[17:29:51] dajobe

.. good thing, easy gateway into rdf

[17:30:02] dajobe

... without making them scream

[17:30:24] dajobe

problems: ns-prefixes sort-of

[17:30:44] dajobe

like to see more rdf engines that can allow him to make meerkat an rdf system

[17:30:47] dajobe

e.g. provenance

[17:31:04] dajobe

where did e.g. a certain title came from

[17:31:18] dajobe

would be greate to get such an engine out there

[17:31:38] dajobe

can't build it at present with curent tools

[17:31:49] dajobe

don't caare about reification for this app

[17:32:20] dajobe

issue of squishing is greate, need to unsquish

[17:32:38] dajobe

danc: tims' python code knows about provenance

[17:32:56] dajobe

rael: daves' redland big enough needs provenance

[17:33:09] dajobe

rael: impl. stuff people can use and get it right later. hackers aren't reading the spec

[17:33:22] dajobe

END RAEL

[17:33:37] dajobe

frankm: if we take that approach...

[17:33:55] dajobe

... need to make sure we don't have to keep that stuff in if we later try to do it right...

[17:34:12] dajobe

emiller: would love to have that problem

[17:34:32] dajobe

frankm: keep in mind balancing act

[17:34:59] dajobe

rael: would like something just to work, if later "correct" api turns up later, great

[17:35:29] dajobe

nat torrington (perl6) - got contact, no tool to show him

[17:35:39] dajobe

jos: syndication - what do you mean?

[17:35:55] dajobe

rael: an xml representation of your site that someone can take up and carry off (basically)

[17:36:10] dajobe

... site description. Aggregating. syndicating links

[17:36:21] dajobe

RON DANIEL - PRISM

[17:36:32] dajobe

ron: a metadata spec for the magazine publishing industry

[17:37:02] dajobe

... a spec for exchanging descriptive metadata

[17:37:11] dajobe

came from big project from mag publisher

[17:37:20] dajobe

... intergrating materials from multiple mags

[17:37:34] dajobe

... found hard. wanted to reuse content

[17:37:56] dajobe

... had no metadata. formed prism group june 99

[17:38:15] dajobe

founders are time, getty, sothebys, lots (see web site)

[17:38:20] dajobe

released 1.0 april 2001

[17:38:26] AaronSw

http://www.prismstandard.org

[17:38:41] dajobe

working onimpl. projects

[17:39:03] dajobe

goal is to help pubs deal with customers to do better search, personalisation, aleters, better portals, intranets

[17:39:19] dajobe

... for print and web. also for internally

[17:40:06] dajobe

Arno Gourdol from adobe enters...

[17:40:18] dajobe

rond: rights management

[17:40:43] dajobe

interested in much simpler problems too

[17:41:25] dajobe

example of vogue syndication of content to france...

[17:41:51] dajobe

... marking up bits of content using PDF annotations by hand ...

[17:42:16] dajobe

... contract searches, messy, sucks

[17:42:24] dajobe

interopability of toos to use/create metadata

[17:42:27] dajobe

s/toos/tools/

[17:43:03] crunch

crunch has joined #rdfcore

[17:43:14] dajobe

other aps for business needs

[17:43:30] dajobe

... prism spec for marking companies, places, people

[17:43:35] crunch

crunch has left channel

[17:43:46] dajobe

... stock ticker symbols

[17:44:05] dajobe

... also can be used by business (ad sales) as well as web site

[17:44:41] dajobe

... assisting ad sales; additional applications will emerge

[17:44:54] dajobe

prism designed not to reinvent wheel - using xml, rdf, dublin core

[17:45:05] dajobe

recommends iso8601, country couds, industry codes

[17:45:20] dajobe

standard is for interchange

[17:45:32] dajobe

no behaviour specified

[17:45:50] dajobe

... mona lisa problem: GIF image of mona lisa. Who is creator?

[17:46:09] dajobe

... leonardo, photographer, scanner, file formatter ...

[17:46:15] dajobe

... can say any of these

[17:46:45] dajobe

... so who cares, people can search for leo

[17:46:56] dajobe

.... overview of contents

[17:47:15] dajobe

... controlled vocabs

[17:47:30] dajobe

... vendors++

[17:47:41] dajobe

problems: what is the audience of the rdf spec?

[17:48:03] dajobe

... not for end users. Intended users are metadata designers

[17:48:17] dajobe

... who are designing such things as prism and solving things for particiular reasons

[17:48:33] dajobe

... e.g. doing structured values - how?

[17:48:49] dajobe

problem: difficult to extend if you don't know what is going on

[17:49:42] dajobe

example of editmode

[17:49:50] dajobe

and might have been modelled wrong

[17:50:04] dajobe

END RON

[17:50:32] dajobe

danc: you are using lots of namespaces. Did they have issues with lots of nspaces?

[17:50:53] dajobe

rond: publishers didn't care if it did the job ...

[17:50:58] dajobe

... tech group were OK with it

[17:51:23] dajobe

danc: prism and newsml?

[17:51:38] dajobe

rond: got along pretty OK

[17:51:51] dajobe

... taking prism elements so can be used in newsml

[17:51:58] dajobe

emiller: how about prism in rss?

[17:52:12] dajobe

rond: emiller noted this

[17:52:33] dajobe

emiller: oclc robots noting rdf told emiller

[17:52:40] dajobe

... noted news feeds appearing

[17:53:01] dajobe

... can syndicate prism with rss easily

[17:53:14] dajobe

... unexpected and nice pleasure

[17:53:19] dajobe

MIKE DEAN - DAML+OIL

[17:54:12] dajobe

users of daml+OIL

[17:54:26] dajobe

... fundede researchers under daml program and eu sw program - ontoweb and wonderweb, ....

[17:54:28]

* DanC_ thinks prism is nifty... should be more visible from W3C RDF pages

[17:54:39] dajobe

prism - yeah

[17:55:11] dajobe

... lots of volunteers

[17:55:22] dajobe

... lots of students

[17:55:30] dajobe

biomed community

[17:55:50] dajobe

near term users: other darpa programs, military users

[17:56:10] dajobe

Semantic Web for military

[17:56:46] dajobe

ACTION MikeD: mention public URL

[17:57:01] dajobe

daml+oil apps

[17:57:04] dajobe

lots of tools

[17:57:13] dajobe

lots of specific tools

[17:57:40] dajobe

lifecycle- language, ontologies, back end etc.

[17:57:58] dajobe

(mikeD speaking BTW)

[17:58:13] dajobe

... rather loose categories

[17:58:35] dajobe

... kind of worried about front-end empasis, but good to see more back end stuff emerging

[17:58:44] dajobe

... reasoning

[17:58:58] dajobe

... lots of groups in project doin reasoning

[17:59:37] dajobe

end-to-end apps

[17:59:37] dajobe

... see http://www.daml.org/applications/

[17:59:50] dajobe

... ittalks

[17:59:56] dajobe

"dog fooding"

[18:00:16] dajobe

web pages generated from DAML, via XSLT

[18:00:33] dajobe

requests from DAML to RDF-Core WG

[18:02:32] dajobe

... coordination points doc - Frank vH, Peter P-S, ..

[18:02:32] dajobe

bwm: key things?

[18:02:32] dajobe

miked: schema domain & ranges, subclass

[18:02:32] dajobe

... daml+oil doesn't address reification

[18:02:32] dajobe

... would liek to use tagging of sources of information (provenance)

[18:02:39] dajobe

... not quoting

[18:02:54] dajobe

phayes: careful with clumps

[18:03:02] dajobe

mike: individual arcs/statements

[18:03:23] dajobe

phayes: tagging 1 statement, both OK

[18:03:35] dajobe

miked: rest of doc things are user experience things being addressed

[18:03:58] dajobe

frankm: some daml+oil things were done some way that clashes are obvious indicating required changes

[18:04:11] dajobe

... other places daml+oil way is consisntent since rdf is vague in that place

[18:04:32] dajobe

miked: daml+oil collection parsetype

[18:04:38] dajobe

... or "closed collection"

[18:05:36] dajobe

phayes: 3 cats;1) rdf problems - didn't care what rdf meant...

[18:05:47] dajobe

2) did care eg rdf class cycles and thougt rdf wrong

[18:05:58] dajobe

3) stuff not in rdf, can do ourselves

[18:06:08] dajobe

... middle one is issue

[18:06:19] dajobe

... e.g. RDF use of URIs doesn't matter too much to daml

[18:06:21] dajobe

miked: aggreed

[18:06:34] dajobe

phayes: keen to see this

[18:06:42] dajobe

miked: xml schema datatypes for rdf - key

[18:06:59] dajobe

artb: long term plans?

[18:07:14] dajobe

miked: continuing daml work for 2-3 years likely

[18:07:26] dajobe

gklyne: xml schema datatypes?

[18:07:41] dajobe

miked: e.g. value of property is a float

[18:07:54] dajobe

gklyne: something like this in CC/PP

[18:08:08] dajobe

rdaniel: apps you are trying to address?

[18:08:46] dajobe

miked: some portal apps, int community, search, structured data

[18:08:59] dajobe

... not stressing agent aspects

[18:09:48] AaronSw

http://www.daml.org/2001/02/rdfcore-f2f/

[18:09:52] dajobe

ARNOT: RDF

[18:10:01] dajobe

RDF in ADobe

[18:10:06] dajobe

(wearing RDF t-shirt)

[18:10:11] AaronSw

Hmm, that URL 404s...

[18:10:26] dajobe

... customers as they need more pdfs and files ...

[18:10:37] dajobe

... want to have better searching

[18:10:38] DanC_

pdfs and files.... "assets" in their lingo.

[18:11:05] dajobe

... want richer associated metadata (although tey might not put it that way)

[18:11:31] dajobe

... get metadata available in workflow

[18:11:44] dajobe

... codename product ZAP - targeting for seybold

[18:12:13] danbri-f2f

s/ZAP/XAP/ i think

[18:12:39] dajobe

... make the metadata associated with the asset

[18:12:52] dajobe

... joining them together

[18:12:57] dajobe

... file format neutral

[18:13:10] dajobe

... some are pdf, other such as jpg, gif

[18:13:25] dajobe

... might be others e.g. quark, other products

[18:13:31] dajobe

s/other/other companies/

[18:13:50] dajobe

... xml packets which can identify xml inside a binary stream

[18:13:59] dajobe

... scanned and extracted that can be used

[18:14:39] dajobe

... rdf, several schemas - 1) Dublin Core 2) PDF 3) graphic files 4) ...

[18:14:46] dajobe

... want to be neutral on schemas also

[18:15:09] dajobe

... pdf schema uses author mapped to dc:creator

[18:15:29] dajobe

... so if you know DC, you will get answers if you don't know the pdf schema

[18:15:44] dajobe

... using existing open standards

[18:15:54] dajobe

... public (or is that public-er?) at seybold

[18:16:00]

* DanC_ thinks this is cool! subPropertyOf in actions!

[18:16:02] dajobe

... howto do xml-packet

[18:16:17] dajobe

... tools

[18:16:44] dajobe

... kindof already shipped in one form

[18:16:50] dajobe

... has been shipping with acrobat 5

[18:17:00] dajobe

... acrobat5 files today already have rdf

[18:17:08] dajobe

... moving forward to other apps

[18:17:22] dajobe

... e.g. illustrator

[18:18:08] barstow

XAP: http://www.gca.org/papers/xmleurope2001/papers/html/sid-03-9b.html

[18:18:18] dajobe

... Interested in rdf community about application classes

[18:18:33] dajobe

... and way to describe schemas

[18:18:50] dajobe

... input into schema description and on-the-fly guis for schema data entry

[18:18:58] dajobe

... stronger datatypeing

[18:19:17] dajobe

... additional UI interface - human readable labels

[18:19:24] dajobe

... (might be just for us)

[18:19:37] dajobe

... no good solutions yet, working on

[18:19:50] dajobe

... incremental approach with acrobat5, XAP release, evolving

[18:19:54]

* DanC_ thinks RDF schema properties for documentation/UI are an interesting thing to persue: a forExample property is something I've made up a few times.

[18:20:00] dajobe

seybold is end of september

[18:20:02] dajobe

END

[18:20:40] dajobe

jos: jdf?

[18:20:45] dajobe

(need refernece)

[18:21:05] dajobe

arnot: once we have rdf, lots of interesting things can happen

[18:21:10] dajobe

... workflow

[18:21:29] dajobe

bwm: problems

[18:21:40] dajobe

arnot: don't want to have to support reficiation

[18:22:14] danbri-f2f

danbri notes on dublin core: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Aug/0000.html

[18:22:21] dajobe

jdf - job description format

[18:22:27] AaronSw

Dan Brickley's notes on Dublin Core: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Aug/0000.html

[18:22:31] dajobe

DANBRI - DUBLIN CORE

[18:23:01] dajobe

DC since 95, nearly finished

[18:23:13] dajobe

specs going through - DC in XML (actually is RDF)

[18:23:16] DanC_

perhaps relevant to JDF? The Open Source JDF Parser Project http://www.gca.org/papers/xmleurope2001/papers/html/sid-03-4.html

[18:23:33] dajobe

sometimes hurts - xml and rdf tools pull different ways

[18:23:41] dajobe

also doc - dc in rdf model

[18:23:56] dajobe

with community extensions

[18:24:01] dajobe

which have been tricky to do in DC

[18:24:04] dajobe

... getting there

[18:24:26] dajobe

... 2 user communities - metadata, more tighthy focussed needs

[18:24:52] dajobe

... now in DC using more schema stuff rather than fussy XML element stuff

[18:25:07] dajobe

... want decentralised community extensions - namespaces give this

[18:25:15] dajobe

... endorsing of certain things for communities

[18:25:23] dajobe

... xml:lang issue important

[18:25:31] dajobe

... issue: rdf versus xml - xml schema.

[18:25:52] dajobe

... dcarch - need xml schema / rdf schema story

[18:26:05] dajobe

... percieived syntactic uglyless and lack of tools

[18:26:11] dajobe

... test cases is great for dc

[18:27:10] dajobe

... containers - names of things, lists of things mixed up and confusing - when to use container machinery or other stuff e.g. createor ordering

[18:27:30] dajobe

... clearer advice on when to use rdf:Seq etc.

[18:27:40] dajobe

... like: a common structure to make dist. apps easier

[18:27:52] dajobe

... e.g. rss1.0 =could just use it, not need to do DTD merging nightmare

[18:27:57] dajobe

... want something soon

[18:28:14] dajobe

... DC mostly biblio circles, rdf has gone too much to KR/AI

[18:28:23] dajobe

... soon, simple and basic for creating dc vocabs

[18:28:32] dajobe

END DANBRI

[18:29:00] dajobe

phayes: entangled in AI means what?

[18:29:10] dajobe

danc: not addressing practical problems maybe?

[18:29:15] dajobe

phayes: not seems to me

[18:29:20] dajobe

emiller: working in the mid point ...

[18:29:45] dajobe

... e.g. sitemaps, theasauri (from 97) etc. not yet delivered

[18:30:01] dajobe

phayes: not being delivered is clear advice

[18:30:19] dajobe

emiller: DC people just want to use spec.

[18:30:27] dajobe

danbri: want numbners and data datatypes

[18:31:36] dajobe

emiller: and onwards to other things such as dewey numbers

[18:31:45] dajobe

danc: which may not be datatypes by the XML schema spec

[18:32:00] dajobe

emiller: functional requirements and advice

[18:32:12] dajobe

... where to use xml schema datatypes, where not etc.

[18:32:18] dajobe

... expect standards group to indicate this

[18:32:35] dajobe

bwm: summing up ...

[18:32:57] dajobe

... wide spectrum of users - hackers, industrial standard (prism), daml, adobe product, dublin core, ...

[18:33:04]

* DanC_ noodles on this a bit... perhaps it's time to put the issues list we've got aside and start assigning WG members to put together example/HOW-TO stuff. on dates, collections, provenance, etc.

[18:33:09] dajobe

... some commonalityu of problems

[18:33:28] dajobe

... broad spectrum to satisfy rather than just one set of users

[18:33:35]

* DanC_ noodles... or start offering t-shirts to folks in the IG who write up solutions to these.

[18:33:38] dajobe

gklyne: provenace came out clearly and not reification ...

[18:33:49] dajobe

... or what has been called it

[18:33:57] dajobe

mike: 4xstatements is not good

[18:34:09] dajobe

gklyne: design of reification in rdf was aiming at wrong target?

[18:34:15] dajobe

rdaniel: bad solution to right problem?

[18:34:17]

* DanC_ wonders why 4xstatements is so scary

[18:34:33] dajobe

... round tripping, is-asserted

[18:34:39] dajobe

jang: not sure if it is so bad

[18:34:57] dajobe

... can be represented without huge explosion of triples

[18:35:04] dajobe

emiller: test cases

[18:35:18] dajobe

BREAK

[18:35:28] DanC_

thru 11:45

[18:46:48] dajobe

dajobe is now known as jang

[18:47:17] jang

recommencing

[18:47:39] jang

pat hayes

[18:47:52] jang

model theory presentation (formal semantics)

[18:48:13] jang

pat's presentatino: URI forthcomin

[18:48:43] jang

AP: get pa's production online (PAT + others)

[18:49:25] danbri-f2f

danbri-f2f has quit

[18:49:37] jang

Te aim: to give a mathematical characterisation of the meaning of expressions in the lnguage

[18:50:24] jang

(I'm only going to record stuff that isn't in the presentation here)

[18:52:01] jang

aside: PH you can do this for anything (eg a model theory for "maps")

[18:52:07] danbri-f2f

danbri-f2f has joined #rdfcore

[18:52:19] jang

[ap: pat can you supply a pointer to this as an interesting example/aside?]

[18:54:09] DanC_

27Jul draft of MT, from PatH http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0437.html

[18:54:45] jang

PH stresses model theory supplies _just enough_ detail for the interpretation to be useful

[18:54:46] DanC_

my transcription (of a slightly refined theory, after chatting with Pat) to larch http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/RDFCoreMT.lsl

[18:55:46] jang

"Basic model theory for RDF" slide:

[18:56:41] jang

danc: why is IR nonempty?

[18:56:55] jang

ph: for RDF we could omit that condition

[18:57:26] jang

ph: handy for handling universal quantifiers. But pragmatically: will we ever _wnat_ an empty universe?

[18:57:41] jang

aaron: we could have an empty document

[18:57:53] jang

ph: an empty document is true in this MT

[18:58:25] jang

an interpretation can apply to a larger universe than the document it's applied to

[18:58:59] jang

ph: also stresses IR and LV (literal values) could overlap

[19:00:16] jang

ph: don't read too much into the fact the MT calls a particular set LV

[19:01:24] jang

ph: indicates that we might want to have unasserted triples in the future

[19:01:43] jang

AP: whoever puts PH's slides on the web to include the example from the email

[19:02:39] AaronSw

Pat takes the action

[19:02:49] jang

PH: clarifies "subject" and "Object" are shorthand for "subject of the triple" or "subject of the interpretation" etc. depending on context

[19:03:53] GK-f2f

A trivvial example of Pat's model theory is contained in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0437.html

[19:04:43] DanC_

(trivial but very useful for understanding)

[19:05:15] jang

PH: stresses the exsistential quantification for anon nodes in a document

[19:06:38] jang

SP: doesn't see the benefit of anon nodes as done here.

[19:07:25] jang

PH: you're talking about satisfiability. There are other uses of MT, for example: when can we infer X from Y?

[19:07:38] jang

This is entailment (which talks about _all possible_ interpretations)

[19:08:09] jang

SP: still doesn't see there is a complete justification that we _need_ ann nodes

[19:08:40] jang

PH: I've actually included both uses of anon nodes here

[19:08:53] jang

i a "set of triples" an anon nodes are "anonymous uris"

[19:09:09] jang

in a document, we use the existential quantification

[19:09:57] jang

SP: you could have another object, and an interpretation for such a "pumpkin" of triples

[19:10:06] jang

... that are universally quantified

[19:10:29] jang

PH: you could, but what I've done here is cover what's been debated thus far

[19:10:47] jang

Brian: we're going to have a precise definition of the options, and discuss this this afternoon

[19:11:59] jang

FM: expands on what Pat just said

[19:12:45] jang

Danbri: agrees with sergei, we need concrete examples

[19:13:42] jang

ora lassila example "ora wrote this docuemtn" happens

[19:13:47] jang

(ora just arrived)

[19:16:01] AaronSw

Graham draws an example on the board:

[19:16:21] AaronSw

Vocab (set of things in the universe): Red, Ron, dc:creator

[19:16:27] AaronSw

Pat Hayes comes up to help

[19:16:46] AaronSw

vocab is just symbols, actual thing exists at table

[19:16:51] AaronSw

we'll call them a and b.

[19:17:11] jang

danc proposes the example "ron wrote this book"

[19:17:20] AaronSw

... no wait, draws a stick person and little book

[19:17:36] AaronSw

and property p

[19:17:44] jang

we attempt to embed ron and the book into the whiteboard (for this interpretation)

[19:18:54] jang

AARON: can you just photograph this once pat's done?

[19:19:14] AaronSw

sure... but i think the explanation will be lost

[19:19:19] AaronSw

IS maps between symbols and thingies

[19:19:47] jang

pat shows the interpretation of the symbols "ron" "dc:creator" and "red" (the book)

[19:19:59] jang

then:

[19:20:05] jang

red dc:creator ron

[19:20:10] jang

is true in this interpretation

[19:20:32] jang

because I(red), I(ron) is in the extension of IP(DC:creator)

[19:20:48] jang

red dc:creator _:somebody

[19:21:53] jang

going back a step..

[19:22:01] jang

I(red dc:creator ron) = true

[19:23:57] jang

SP: if I does many things, why doesn't it have multiple names?

[19:24:04] jang

danc: I is a polymorphic function

[19:24:13] AaronSw

SP? s/SP/SM/ no?

[19:24:23] jang

yes, sorry

[19:24:43] jang

PH: I is the interpretation we're talking about here

[19:25:51] danbri-f2f

danbri-f2f has quit

[19:25:59] jang

PH: you don't generally include truth values in your universe

[19:26:24] jang

...because they then come under the scope of quantifiers

[19:26:46] jang

going on with the example....

[19:27:12] jang

adding _:somebody to the vocab, and mapping it to pat

[19:27:25] jang

then I(red dc:creator _:somebody) = false

[19:27:53] jang

PH: however, if we make a document ou of these things...

[19:28:16] jang

then I(

[19:28:23] jang

red dc:creator ron

[19:28:29] jang

red dc:creator _:somebody

[19:28:33] jang

)= true

[19:29:36] jang

or ratehr i[A] (...) = true for the A that maps _:somebody to ron (that s, ron in the world rather than the symbol "ron" in the vocab)

[19:32:32] jang

talk moves on:

[19:33:18] jang

PH explains why I(p) for a property p doesn't map directly onto the extension of the interpretation of the property

[19:33:28] jang

... so you can apply a property to itself.

[19:34:42] danbri-f2f

danbri-f2f has joined #rdfcore

[19:35:30] jang

PH talks about the usefulness of the IEXT indirection

[19:35:44] jang

PH also talks about set theories that permit sets to contain themselves

[19:35:56] jang

slideshow carris on: a fe lemmas

[19:36:11] jang

definitions of "satifsfies" and "entails"

[19:36:31]

* jang apologises for bouncing ketbroad and trying mistakes

[19:37:49] jang

pat sketches proofs tof the lemmas

[19:38:06] jang

eg. lemma 1 any rdf expression has a satisfying interpretation

[19:38:11] jang

[ after herbrand]

[19:39:15] jang

typing mistake in lemma 3:

[19:39:21] jang

E entails its subsets

[19:41:26] jang

SM: asks for examples for lemmas 3->5

[19:42:11] jang

danc: ron wrote red & red is called "the little red book"

[19:42:23] jang

it's safe to conclude simply "ron wrote red"

[19:42:25] jang

(example due to danc)

[19:44:33] jang

SM: complaint: you can't ever connect anon nodes in one document with another

[19:46:58] jang

SM: doesn't believe in anonymous nodes

[19:48:39] jang

confusion between labels for anon nodes and the nodes

[19:51:16] jang

danc: an anon nodes is identified by the (docent, node label) pair

[19:51:26] jang

SM: what happens when I parse the same document twice?

[19:51:38] jang

(I supose the answer is: each parsing of the ocument is distinct)

[19:52:33] jang

we note there are issues about anon node identity issues

[19:54:05] jang

PH: deliver me a BNF together with a proper categorisation of what's going on, I'll attach a model theory to it

[19:54:14] jang

PH moves on: skolemisation

[19:56:45] jang

next slide: what does it mean to publish some RDF?

[19:57:51] jang

Pat shows that queryng and assertion can both be done with this

[19:59:25] jang

next slide:

[19:59:34] jang

shared content/relative entailment

[20:00:00] jang

(PH talks about the buyer/seller example BmcB gave onthe list)

[20:00:45] jang

(this is such good stuff we carry on into lunchtime!)

[20:01:04] jang

^^^ not facetious. thank goodness for this (scribe's opinion here)

[20:02:32] jang

PH talks about the "google" interpretati example (bt all the content here is already in the slide)

[20:03:24] jang

next slide: rdfs interpretations

[20:03:39] jang

pat adds a class to the whiteboard example

[20:04:12] jang

and shows about ICEXT: IC -> 2^(IR + LV)

[20:04:55] jang

rest of the slide shows rdfs (without reification and collections)

[20:06:04] jang

pat points out the interpretation of rdfs:Resource here currently means "the resources in the universe of this interpretation"

[20:06:34] jang

PH: possible to do something "larger" but it makes me slihtly nervous

[20:07:20] jang

danc: does everyone who extends RDF have to do model theory?

[20:07:33] ambient

ambient has joined #rdfcore

[20:07:38] jang

PH: yes, really, otherwise they are saying something without telling us what it means

[20:08:17] jang

PH: ... but this isn't hard, or too onerous, once you get used to it.

[20:08:36] jang

PH: interesting question as to how little of this you can get away with and derive everything else

[20:09:56] jang

PH: I'm not telling you what this means: just renderig it into mathematics

[20:11:04] jang

ron: are there tings popping up in this process that you thinkneed fixing?

[20:11:10] jang

PH; yes: domain in particular

[20:11:33] jang

(reiterates the DAML reedback)

[20:13:09] jang

danbri: does this differ majorly from the DAML+OIL work?

[20:13:14] jang

PH: only with the IEXT stuff

[20:13:30] jang

PH: but we could probably trasnscribe DAML+OIL into this without problems

[20:13:48] jang

(unchecked assertion)

[20:14:48] jang

danc: "rdfs:Class is a class" - how can I include that from these?

[20:15:00] jang

PH:oops, that's missing

[20:15:58] jang

SM: the rdfs spec includes an RDF document that gives this to you

[20:16:39] jang

PH: yes, it's still an omission: the idea is that with this, you don't need to refer back to the spec

[20:18:17] jang

PH: classes ar treated intensionally here

[20:19:11] jang

ie, we can have I(c1) = c1', I(c2) = c2' and ICEXT(c1') = ICEXT(c2') with c1'<> c2'

[20:19:25] jang

next slide: reification

[20:20:35] danbri-f2f

aside from http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema :

[20:20:36] jang

next slide: simplifying reification

[20:20:49] danbri-f2f

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Class">

[20:20:49] danbri-f2f

<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Class</rdfs:label>

[20:20:49] danbri-f2f

<rdfs:label xml:lang="fr">Classe</rdfs:label>

[20:20:49] danbri-f2f

<rdfs:comment>The concept of Class</rdfs:comment>

[20:20:49] danbri-f2f

<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Resource"/>

[20:20:50] danbri-f2f

</rdfs:Class>

[20:21:09]

* danbri-f2f stresses this wasn't from the slides, just cropped up in discussion

[20:23:44] jang

SM: clarification question about "Reifcation of V" slide; why is syntax the domain of REIF?

[20:23:59] jang

why not IR?

[20:25:58] jang

SM: my view is that REIF: IR -> IR

[20:27:31] jang

dan: move this discussion to lunch an report result.

[20:28:23] jang

AP: SM to discuss the eification interpretation alternatives (if any) with PH

[20:29:03] jang

last slide: till to come

[20:29:25] jang

aboutEachPrefix (it's gone; PH: "good")

[20:29:52] jang

DANC: we don't need to worry about relative URIs

[20:30:04] jang

PH: ok, but it intrigues me so I'd like to think about it

[20:30:36] jang

PH: alt is "a weaselly way of extending the syntax"

[20:44:44] tim

tim has joined #rdfcore

[20:45:05]

* tim lurking as invited

[20:48:48] danbri-f2f

danbri-f2f has quit

[20:49:24] jang

"good")

[20:49:25] jang

[21:27] <jang> DANC: we don't need to worry about relative URIs

[20:49:25] jang

[21:27] <jang> PH: ok, but it intrigues me so I'd like to think about it

[20:49:25] jang

[21:27] <jang> PH: alt is "a weaselly way of extending the syntax"

[20:49:29] jang

oops!

[21:04:55] danbri-f2f

danbri-f2f has joined #rdfcore

[21:05:03] danbri-f2f

danbri-f2f is now known as danb-scribe

[21:05:23] danb-scribe

brian: following on from model theory discussion...

[21:05:42] danb-scribe

"is this the sort of thing the WG think they want? We have a need for more precision, for specs that build on top...

[21:06:07] danb-scribe

"there may be other options for how we do that. Don't want to just assume the WG buys into use of model theory. So: What do you think?

[21:06:22] danb-scribe

rond: what we use as a tool vs what gets published is an important distinction

[21:06:33] danb-scribe

"my audience would be scared away by the model theory

[21:06:35] danb-scribe

pat: amen

[21:06:43] danb-scribe

"a separate spec perhaps would be better

[21:06:47] danb-scribe

martin, steve: yup

[21:07:04] danb-scribe

pat: yes but... other communities _would_ find this useful in a spec

[21:07:22] danb-scribe

agenda 2pm: Abstract model / issues

[21:07:39] danb-scribe

rond: who is the audience for this spec? there are several, would be poorly served by all in one spec

[21:07:43] danb-scribe

danc + others: amen

[21:07:55] danb-scribe

rond: 1st time around did poor analysis

[21:08:00] danb-scribe

pat: one doc with many appendices?

[21:08:04] danb-scribe

rond: Nope!

[21:08:11] danb-scribe

brian: concern noted; moving on...

[21:08:30] danb-scribe

brian: when you say 'shouldn't be part of the spec, should it be normative'

[21:08:38] danb-scribe

rond: we could have a dtd or a schema or a dtd or...

[21:08:46] danb-scribe

danc: that's same question; spec = normative

[21:08:51] danb-scribe

brian: would you object to it being normative

[21:09:04] danb-scribe

graham + jos: a dtd won't capture what a model theory tells you

[21:09:15] danb-scribe

pat: the model theory renders into math the content of our prose

[21:09:41] jang

jang is now known as dajobe

[21:09:47] danb-scribe

"i'll try this... would make content more accessible to non mathematicians

[21:10:04] danb-scribe

"just a matter of back-translating it. would like somewhat like current m+s minus bugs

[21:10:24] danb-scribe

frank: caution not to overload the term 'specification', there are other things such as illustrative figures that WGs produce

[21:10:51] danb-scribe

"...ron's right that we must consider our audience. we must note that some of these audiences are consumers of the tech, but not of the spec

[21:11:02] danb-scribe

danc: "what does that tell us about how to proceed?

[21:11:20] danb-scribe

frank: "yes, we can consider whether the primary purpose of the doc is specifying with some degree of precision

[21:11:35] danb-scribe

"...ie. what the M+S is versus our intentions about how it'll be used"

[21:11:40]

* danb-scribe not sure captured that point

[21:11:55] danb-scribe

brian: I'm hearing that the model theory is perceived by the WG as a useful tool

[21:12:01] danb-scribe

(many nods, yeps)

[21:12:13] danb-scribe

pat: shouldn't be the case that RDF users are all forced to read the model theory

[21:12:25] danb-scribe

brian: we captured some issues from this morning

[21:12:35] danb-scribe

- parsing the same document twice

[21:12:52] danb-scribe

- question of splitting a doc into two, are the anonymous nodes in the split portions the same?

[21:13:06] danb-scribe

- issue around an alternative interpretation of reification

[21:13:25] danb-scribe

- no syntactic representation of a doc (mentioned during pat's talk), bracketing a lump of ntriple

[21:13:32] danb-scribe

From issue list:

[21:13:35] danb-scribe

- formal sematnics

[21:13:38] danb-scribe

- anon resources

[21:13:39] danb-scribe

- nature of graph

[21:13:43] danb-scribe

- uri substructure

[21:13:51] danb-scribe

- literal as an xml structure

[21:14:03] danb-scribe

brian: "we've got to tackle these in some sort of order. which to take them in?

[21:14:24] danb-scribe

danc: no rush w/ reification

[21:14:32] danb-scribe

emiller: yes, that's not urgent

[21:14:53] danb-scribe

danbri: would like to hear views on literals as xmls

[21:15:05] danb-scribe

emiller: can we use this morning's intros as a guide?

[21:15:21] danb-scribe

...folks who presented this morning: are the issues here ones you've grappled with

[21:15:45] danb-scribe

danc: does uri substructure bother folk?

[21:15:48] danb-scribe

graham: yes but

[21:16:01] danb-scribe

emiller: literals/xmls crops up a lot for DC

[21:16:18] danb-scribe

brian: anon resources takes up a lot of time on list... perhaps use f2f time to progressthis

[21:16:41] danb-scribe

emiller: w.r.t. rdfs:range/domain, i have sense that we all agree this is a low hanging fruit... we all agree...

[21:17:13] danb-scribe

brian: we have time for that tommorrow; i'd prefer to focus on base model theory

[21:17:44] danb-scribe

graham: without going into detail, could we go for a quick Y/N on whether folk want a syntactic representation of docs

[21:17:51] danb-scribe

summary:

[21:18:04] danb-scribe

literals as xml struct; anon resources; syntactic representation of doc

[21:18:19] danb-scribe

brian: starting with literal as xml struct

[21:18:52] danb-scribe

ron: i felt we came to an acceptable compromise on list...

[21:19:40] danb-scribe

..."basic result was that these things would be treated as strings, and we'd know they'd had a parsetype as a string. But the first character might be an opening anglebracket. There'd be some extra info that'd let you know it was parseType literal, so you could go off and xml parse it"

[21:19:57] danb-scribe

danc: there are 1000 details to work out, but broadly agree. I'd like to see 100 test cases.

[21:20:11] danb-scribe

dave: for a literal, would be a sequence of characters plus the parseType

[21:20:24] danb-scribe

ron: we have to have namespace info available

[21:21:28] danb-scribe

danbri: RDFS says that we consider literals to be members of rdfs:class-es

[21:21:48] danb-scribe

emiller: people feel they can "just stick html in there" w/ parseType=Literal

[21:21:59] danb-scribe

dave: this is 'mere detail'

[21:22:10] danb-scribe

danc: i don't want a decision w/out test cases

[21:22:14] danb-scribe

dave: we can't do that here and now

[21:22:21] danb-scribe

danc: we certainly can!

[21:22:37] danb-scribe

dave: <sighs>, encoding formats... entities...

[21:23:01] danb-scribe

ron: in addition, flag if wellformed?

[21:23:09] danb-scribe

danc: that's impossible, must be wellformed

[21:23:16] danb-scribe

danbri: could come in via n3

[21:23:20] danb-scribe

danc: don't do that!

[21:23:32] AaronSw

i believe danc said, you can't do that.

[21:23:40] danb-scribe

??: is it important to reflect in daml parsetype

[21:23:45] danb-scribe

ron: eg use a qname

[21:23:51] danb-scribe

aaron: ack'd. yes.

[21:24:04] danb-scribe

brian: are there any components we're missing?

[21:24:12] danb-scribe

jang: xml carries a base URI

[21:24:32] danb-scribe

danc: to be complete, its all the info you can have about that xml

[21:24:34] danb-scribe

dave: a serialised infoset

[21:24:39] danb-scribe

danb: yeah

[21:24:49] danb-scribe

brian: is this what we want to do (now)

[21:24:55] danb-scribe

dan: ...not sure

[21:25:05] danb-scribe

brian: do we want to take the time and work out at least an initial set of test cases

[21:25:17] danb-scribe

sergey: could you remind me what the motiviation is to be doing this w/ xml literals

[21:25:29] danb-scribe

dan: for example, markup inside rss

[21:25:43] danb-scribe

sergey: why not just write it as CDATA

[21:25:53] danb-scribe

dan: then xml parser misses out xml wellformedness errors

[21:25:53] danb-scribe

sergey: big deal!

[21:26:04] danb-scribe

dan: it _is_ a big deal... these things need to play well

[21:26:24] danb-scribe

mike: this connects strongly to literal value typing too

[21:26:51] danb-scribe

rond: i want to find where we'd gotten to on this issue; next stage would be making test cases (which we needn't do here). put a piton in the cliff face...

[21:27:37] danb-scribe

sergey: this whole issue is closely coupled to assumptions w.r.t. whether this is the one single rdf syntax

[21:27:46] danb-scribe

dan: we have at least to deal with the currnt syntax

[21:27:55]

* danb-scribe misses a few lines trying to participate

[21:28:09] danb-scribe

dan: straightforward way is to say all this is represented w/ triples

[21:28:23] danb-scribe

rond: yeah but that's not what any current M+S 1.0 processors are doing

[21:28:29] ora

ora has joined #rdfcore

[21:28:29] danb-scribe

dan; they're all consistent with that

[21:28:46] danb-scribe

ron: but they're not implementing that. what they're exchanging doesn't incdicate they're doing that

[21:29:00] danb-scribe

..."current stuff isn't decorated w/ namespaces etc

[21:29:16] danb-scribe

sergey: my experience... A year ago i trashed parseType=literal in parser

[21:29:32] danb-scribe

ron: but I use that in things i'm doing. Often I need multi-parag definitions, need html tags

[21:29:53] danb-scribe

emiller: there are people that complained (about dropping parseType=literals)

[21:30:05] danb-scribe

ron: i use rdffilter, megginsons parser, it tells me these things are xml literals

[21:30:21] danb-scribe

...you don't get explicit treatment of namespaces in a srtuct, though that info can be gotten

[21:30:29] danb-scribe

sergey: can you get the string itself as a dom object?

[21:30:37] danb-scribe

ron: it's a callback, for literal xml content

[21:30:42] danb-scribe

sergey: so you can get the string

[21:30:50] danb-scribe

ron: one of the args of the callback is a string

[21:30:59] danb-scribe

sergeyt: sounds fair enough to me; if a string then its a literal

[21:31:11] danb-scribe

"a convention that all namespaces must be local in this xml piece...

[21:31:38] danb-scribe

brian: possible solutions... if you're going to put any xml in a parsetype literal it is very minimal. m+s examples break this.

[21:31:44] danb-scribe

danbri: makes instance data verbose

[21:31:51] AaronSw

AaronSw has quit

[21:32:05] danb-scribe

ron; if we're advising implementors 'make sure namespaces are there' is ok. but we still need an ntriples representation of this

[21:32:31] danb-scribe

brian: there's a solution here...

[21:32:38] danb-scribe

danbri: is 'user' hear a parser writer or content creator

[21:32:49] danb-scribe

ron and brian: opposite replies (forget which way)

[21:33:30]

* danb-scribe requests clarification on last point w.r.t. whose view is which

[21:33:30] danb-scribe

brian notes options:

[21:33:30] danb-scribe

- standalone xml

[21:33:32] danb-scribe

- parser adds namespaces

[21:33:49] danb-scribe

- (danc's suggestion of) represent entire infoset as xml

[21:33:57] danb-scribe

dave: some of these are not going to work.

[21:34:05] danb-scribe

..."there's also xml fragments w3c work

[21:34:13] danb-scribe

..."which is incmpleete

[21:34:26] danb-scribe

- Aaron

[21:34:48]

* danb-scribe misses detail of dave's point

[21:35:03] danb-scribe

dave: "we'd have to keep adding in new stuff the xml specs invent"(?)

[21:35:49] danb-scribe

brian: byu 'standalone xml' i mean the content creator has to include it

[21:35:49] danb-scribe

dave: but this often can't be included many times in body of xml doc. therefore doesn't work. charsets etc.

[21:35:49] danb-scribe

another option...

[21:35:52] danb-scribe

- a serialised infoset

[21:36:49] danb-scribe

sergey: what's a serialised infoset?

[21:36:49] danb-scribe

dave: an xml file representing the structure of a parsed xml doc

[21:36:49] danb-scribe

dan: sounds like fragments

[21:36:49] danb-scribe

sergey: is this standardised

[21:36:55] danb-scribe

dan: the value of a property doesn't have to be an xml element with only one root... xml frag spec addresses this... how to make it standalone

[21:37:07]

* danb-scribe seeks a uri for fragments spec (cand rec)

[21:37:24] danb-scribe

brian: we have a list of possible options, not really in a position to make much progress?

[21:38:37] danb-scribe

dan: <offers to draw up some examples for discussion>

[21:38:38] danb-scribe

20 mins (until 3pm)

[21:38:38] danb-scribe

dan: <grabbing example from spec>

[21:38:38] danb-scribe

7.5 from spec

[21:39:07] danb-scribe

dan on 7.5 example... [[[

[21:39:21] danb-scribe

(this is the mathmpl example)

[21:39:27] danb-scribe

"anyone want to suggest what this looks like in ntriples?

[21:39:35] danb-scribe

"i'll start writing, see who objects...

[21:40:49] danb-scribe

(danc+emiller edit example on emiller's laptop, @@TODO: grab for permenant record)

[21:42:25]

* danb-scribe doesn't try to re-capture ntriples from the overhead projector

[21:43:07] danb-scribe

dan: this example... <apply><power/> don't within the parsetype/literal have namespaces attached? should they in the ntriple? (folk seeem to agree)

[21:44:05] danb-scribe

(dan adds xmlns stuff scattered throughout; draws analogy with typical output of an xslt transformation)

[21:44:20] danb-scribe

graham: i have a potential objection... if this is signed xml, you'll break the signature

[21:44:26] danb-scribe

dan: is this an objection or not?

[21:44:45] danb-scribe

graham: if it was signed, if you change the content of the literal, you break it

[21:45:11] danb-scribe

dan: there are ways i _can_ change it (eg adding whitespace between attributes) that don't change the canonicalised form

[21:45:30] danb-scribe

(some discussion about whether canonicalisation is mandatory in xml sig @@TODO: ref to spec)

[21:46:18] danb-scribe

dave: this is acceptable to me

[21:46:23] danb-scribe

emiller: i might quibble

[21:47:29] danb-scribe

danbri: where you have 'Literal' i'd like a full uri; we have an opportunity to clarify from the un-uri'd M+S style at this point

[21:48:08] danb-scribe

dan: i don't know how to address graham's objection; don't know how to parse xml through rdf tools keeping it intact... hmm... Actually fragments would do that.

[21:48:15] danb-scribe

dan: should I continue with this exercise?

[21:48:35] danb-scribe

jos: this ntriple notation w/ round brackets

[21:48:48] danb-scribe

dave: some of this not ntriple

[21:48:58] danb-scribe

dan: i'm trying to demonstrate how ugly this is!

[21:49:05] danb-scribe

dave: i see entities all the time in RSS

[21:49:20] danb-scribe

dan: are they declared (or are we seeing a lot of broken xml in that regard)

[21:49:39] danb-scribe

example: ampersand...

[21:49:46] danb-scribe

rael: apostrophe, quote

[21:49:56] danb-scribe

dave: &nbsp; is common

[21:50:21] danb-scribe

dan: apostrophe, quote are builtins for xml, wouldn't expect probs there. For &nbsp; it needs to be declared

[21:50:45] danb-scribe

jos: i'm thinking about an expression usign interpretation propeerites...

[21:51:15] danb-scribe

dan: (not replying to jos' point, i tihnk) i'd expect to end up with &#160; etc in the ntriple

[21:51:37] danb-scribe

emiller: we've had some people say these are ok... anything we can do to win over others to this approach?

[21:51:51] danb-scribe

dan: i think xml fragments will make these probs go away...

[21:51:58] barstow

XML fragment spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-fragment

[21:52:13] danb-scribe

"...if you have a piece of what they call 'well balanced xml', ie xml minuse root element, and want to ship it around...

[21:52:29] danb-scribe

"it is basically a dummy root element whose sole purpose is to provide a single root for multiple sub-docs

[21:52:34] danb-scribe

(noises of approval)

[21:52:44] danb-scribe

dave: didn't realise its a CR, thought was less mature

[21:53:38] danb-scribe

dan: its (been) in the 'nice idea, why do people care' category

[21:53:38] danb-scribe

dave; i wonder if theres an impact on apps

[21:53:38] danb-scribe

dan: almost cdertainly

[21:53:39] danb-scribe

sergey: we noted earlier its important to take advantage of the xml parser (ie the CDATA comment above)

[21:54:03] danb-scribe

"...so this isn't really enough. I think that it would be helpful in a specific implementation.... if we could say 'i know this is a special kind of literal so give me a specific implementation', eg. getObject() returning a DOM tree or something

[21:54:17] danb-scribe

"...otherwise it doesn't make much sense, if we get back an xml string all the time

[21:54:33] danb-scribe

dan: yeah... the way we're looking at this through ntriple glasses may not be helping here

[21:54:46] danb-scribe

sergey: seems that this is very much an artifcat of the current XML serialisation

[21:54:57] danb-scribe

dan: for ntriples, another idea is something like...

[21:55:35] danb-scribe

(dan shows an blob of xml quoted in ntriple with *xml1 ....angle brackets... *xml1 escaping)

[21:55:47] danb-scribe

jos: is the triplequote mechanism (from python) useful here?

[21:55:56] danb-scribe

dan: i think as that as more like general string quoting

[21:56:06] danb-scribe

..."or maybe ntriple docs have somethnig like an XML appendix"

[21:56:15] danb-scribe

brian: I'm not sure this is going anywhere fast.

[21:56:32] danb-scribe

..."theres a spec out there, fragments, that I at least don't feel sufficiently familiar with.

[21:56:51] danb-scribe

"suggest we hold discussion for now. Action Connolly to investigate Fragments approach

[21:57:01] danb-scribe

dan: except i don't like that, i prefer doing it all with triples

[21:57:15] danb-scribe

graham: (...) say we're doing this from N3 (or another syntax)...

[21:57:30] danb-scribe

emiller: we have, for better or worse, based this stuff around our main XML serialisation

[21:57:44] danb-scribe

dan: the reason N3 is there is to allow us to ask conformance questions

[21:57:55] danb-scribe

...how do we ask conformance questions about this current example?

[21:58:27] danb-scribe

Pat: indep of N3, graham's point about incorporating 'all of xml' into RDF... DAML folk would likely share this concern. Too much to take on board

[21:58:51] danb-scribe

dan: that's why simply saying 'use triples; there are uris for xml stuff'

[21:59:06] danb-scribe

dan: anyone want to look into using fragments?

[21:59:26] danb-scribe

sergey: pls write down another proposal in list above: deprecate and use CDATA

[21:59:43] danb-scribe

dave: i commented on 1st one. add namespaces proposal also incomplete

[22:00:04] danb-scribe

brian: nobody is willing to look into applicability of fragments

[22:00:16] danb-scribe

dan: does anyone even think its a good idea?

[22:00:33] danb-scribe

brian: we're at an impass here; we'll come back to it.

[22:00:50] danb-scribe

---

[22:00:52] danb-scribe

next issue:

[22:01:00] danb-scribe

Syntactic Representation of the document.

[22:01:18] danb-scribe

dan: i thought he chose ntriple-doc, what's the issue?

[22:01:29] danb-scribe

dave: he wanted to model multiple docs in an ntriple style

[22:01:44] danb-scribe

dan: but that doesn't mean we need two docs in one ntriple doc

[22:01:59] danb-scribe

pat: when i did the model theory i overloaded the term 'document' in a new way

[22:02:06] danb-scribe

..."feel free to un-overload that"

[22:02:43] danb-scribe

brian: (sans chair hat) I propose we add a bracketing syntax

[22:02:44] danb-scribe

dan: No! you can't put that back into an rdf doc

[22:03:01] danb-scribe

pat: answer is, yes you can: you choose how to do it. you can decide its meaningless in rdf (a decision w.r.t. anon nodes)

[22:03:16] danb-scribe

graham: its decided, an rdf document begins rdf:RDF etc

[22:03:25] danb-scribe

dan: but you can't have two of those in one doc

[22:04:28] danb-scribe

pat: you can put documents in document

[22:04:29] danb-scribe

danbri; you can put rdf:rdf in head and in body of an xhtml doc

[22:06:06] danb-scribe

pat: my u/standing is that with RDF, certtainly ntriples, theres a notion of a document... and that a document cannot contain another document.

[22:06:12] danb-scribe

brian: what you needed for model theory was a scoping for quantifiers

[22:06:12] danb-scribe

brian: i'm proposing add bracketing into ntriple syntax

[22:06:12] danb-scribe

pat: there's no syntactic mark in ntriple forgrouping

[22:06:12] danb-scribe

dan: this would harm, the existing syntax would be expensive; we have a body of code for ntriple...

[22:06:12] danb-scribe

"not a huge deal but a pain. if what you've done works, lets move on."

[22:06:12] danb-scribe

dan: its fundamental that an rdf doc has exactly one scope

[22:06:20] danb-scribe

pat: what's missing there's no syntax for 'set of triples' as opposed to document

[22:06:24] danb-scribe

dan: and we don't need one

[22:06:37] danb-scribe

frank: where/what's the synyax for an rdf document? rdf:RDF etc?

[22:06:54] danb-scribe

dan: you/we intuit that from spec, in fact not really clear

[22:07:11] danb-scribe

graham: section 6 of M+S explains this usage

[22:07:22] danb-scribe

dan: but does it exactly say 'this is syntax for An RDF Document'

[22:07:30] danb-scribe

dave: since its optional

[22:07:53] danb-scribe

dan: Where does it say its optional?

[22:08:01] danb-scribe

danbri: its in there; p3p wanted it...

[22:08:21] danb-scribe

sergey: i'm unsure what the scope of ntriple is... first i thought it was a convention for exchanging in email..

[22:08:32] danb-scribe

"then it turned out to be machine-readable..."

[22:09:00] danb-scribe

"i think these are 2 distinct issues. The expectations are different. For one you want a complex syntax; for the other you don't necc want such precision...

[22:09:46] danb-scribe

"the human readable way... different variants, with square/angle/whatever brackets, we generally can read it. But for machine exchange, there are bunch of simple requirements for syntactic exchange. It should embeddable in a doc, streamable, quickly hackable in perl.

[22:09:57] danb-scribe

"but nobody will ever try to encode this in email as too verbose

[22:10:05] tim

tim has quit

[22:10:11] danb-scribe

dan: theres an existence proof that this is false; there are many cases where we've done justr that

[22:10:18] danb-scribe

sergey: this is a problem, we shouldn't be doing that

[22:10:27] danb-scribe

dan: puropse of ntriples is for conformance testing

[22:10:42] danb-scribe

sergey: there's a tradoff between these two roles, they pull in diffent directions

[22:10:56] danb-scribe

sergey: would prefer to use different for humans and machines

[22:11:31] danb-scribe

...it doesn't make sense to use ...

[22:11:52] danb-scribe

dan: its for conformance testing

[22:12:25] danb-scribe

danbri: our ambitions for ntriple grew; intially it was for 'how many triples come out' then 'lossless represeentation of the data', now 'very very lossless ;-)'....

[22:12:48] danb-scribe

frank: we're using 'scope' in two ways here; (ntriple scope creep versus scope of document production and model theory)

[22:13:22] danb-scribe

frank: (...) ntriple has clarified a lot of stuff which the rdf reprsentation has made less clear

[22:13:42] danb-scribe

..."but they don't clarify much w.r.t. notion of a document

[22:13:45] danb-scribe

pat: agree

[22:14:01] danb-scribe

brian: Pat this morning gave us a model theory based on "here's the ntriple, here's what it means"

[22:14:23] danb-scribe

.."as he did this, he said: i have trouple finding a hook to represent notion of a statement block

[22:14:33] danb-scribe

"do we want characters added into ntriple for this

[22:15:15] danb-scribe

frank: extend this, do we want to put something into all our notatoins to do this?

[22:15:15] danb-scribe

..."ie we want it in all the notations

[22:15:31] danb-scribe

dan: so, certainly we want this in future RDF syntaxes. But i don't propose to put it in 1.0 syntax, and hence not into ntriple

[22:15:47] danb-scribe

graham: i'd argue this is in there really, ie the wrapper element from rdf's bnf

[22:15:57] danb-scribe

dan: if there's only one it doesn't really matter

[22:16:25] danb-scribe

pat: there's a real issue: Whether RDF in whatever form... can be broken up into collections of isolated triples, and then put back together again.

[22:16:35] danb-scribe

"can one put in sets of triples and have them retain their meaning

[22:16:50] danb-scribe

"in order to maintain the distinction that i relied on in the model theory, you'd need to ...

[22:16:58]

* danb-scribe misses detail

[22:17:16] danb-scribe

dan: example...

[22:17:49] dajobe

pat said: could replace the two things with one. i.e. from 1) set of triples and 2) document -> one concept, pick one

[22:17:50] danb-scribe

"ron wrote something. then you write another doc, which says 'something wrote moby dick'... (@@TODO; get detail)

[22:17:54] danb-scribe

thanks.

[22:18:30] danb-scribe

pat: could say, "a doc isn't a marked entity, but a set of triples plus assumption that its anon nodes are distinct from those of other triplesets" and then take care when merging.

[22:18:37] danb-scribe

pat: if two sets don't contain the same anon nodes...

[22:19:40] GK-f2f

I have made some comments about this at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0397.html

[22:19:41] danb-scribe

...its only when you get the same anon node in diff docs you get a problem

[22:19:41] danb-scribe

dan: you asked about splitting and remerging in api terms... does this answer it for you? (to sergey)

[22:19:41] danb-scribe

mike: we're adding a lot of hair here to just qualify anon nodes

[22:19:41] danb-scribe

...all implementations i see qualify wr..t. uri of source doc

[22:20:16] danb-scribe

(danc comment missed)

[22:20:16] danb-scribe

pat: if we tweak the ntriple syntax on this we can leave the ntriples alone

[22:20:16] danb-scribe

dan: my udnersanding is that ntriple rperesentss the rdf/xml syntax, and we can't redo that

[22:20:35] danb-scribe

pat: assumption that...you can't have two diff docs w/ same anon node (for all conceivable syntaxes)

[22:20:41] danb-scribe

danbri: i think we need that

[22:21:12]

* GK-f2f but we already it that not all RDF "models" can be represented in the XML syntax

[22:21:12] danb-scribe

sergey: that's bad... violates assumption that anyone can say anything about anything

[22:21:16] danb-scribe

pat: you can't use my anonymous-name for it

[22:21:32] danb-scribe

dan: there are cases where you can say something about something described in a doc

[22:21:38] danb-scribe

...but you can still talk about them

[22:21:58] danb-scribe

sergey: if you're referring to the same thing...

[22:22:09] danb-scribe

dan: in the general case, maybe not a way to get a handle on it

[22:22:33] barstow

danbri: the phrase annon node is a mis-nomer, it should be "unknown"

[22:22:41] danb-scribe

danbri: the term anonymous node does us no favours

[22:22:56] ora

ora has quit

[22:23:02] ora

ora has joined #rdfcore

[22:23:33]

* barstow thinks N-Triples does what Mike is asking for

[22:23:33] danb-scribe

mike: you can refer to a node in another doc... my suggestion is that we make a standard syntax for naming anon nodes, even if don't define that you get the same name in same context

[22:23:33] danb-scribe

pat: yes

[22:23:56] danb-scribe

mike: two parsers would output different generated names, but in a common style/syntax

[22:24:00] ora

ora has left channel

[22:24:16] danb-scribe

frank: important to have a more thorough treatment of scoping issues...(?)

[22:24:22] danb-scribe

pat: don't worry, not a trick, sanctioned by almost any variety of model theory

[22:24:38] danb-scribe

frank: for dealing with this... concern is whether this covers other issuesw.r.t. scoping problem

[22:25:06] danb-scribe

pat: the only qualification i'd make: you'd have to make your anon nodes public

[22:25:26] danb-scribe

dan: i disagree. someone could come back and prove it false

[22:25:32] danb-scribe

pat: but they can't bind to your variables

[22:25:40] danb-scribe

jos: they're identified by their content (?)

[22:25:54] danb-scribe

pat: the content picked out by eg '?x'

[22:26:17] danb-scribe

...

[22:26:32] danb-scribe

pat: there'd be no way to refer to them

[22:26:41] danb-scribe

..."we need to be clear on this

[22:27:03] danb-scribe

emiller: why do we need to be clear on this? at a certain level, we want to try to enable fact of making simple things simple, comlex things possible...

[22:27:23] danb-scribe

"if we can agreee on name of node, good; if not, we need some additional things handy

[22:27:48] danb-scribe

pat: this isn't hard; we just need to decide which of the story parts to through away

[22:27:57] danb-scribe

pat: if rdf just amounts to sets of triples

[22:28:26] danb-scribe

...you could get acccidental collisions

[22:28:46] danb-scribe

danbri: can't we just use uuids and move on?

[22:28:56] danb-scribe

pat: but then you can't use RDF docs in "query mode"

[22:29:05] danb-scribe

danbri: fine by me, i use another language for that

[22:29:19] danb-scribe

pat: two files in assertion mode can be merged

[22:29:40] danb-scribe

..."query mode: someone publishes a question, someone publsihes some statements; a service notices that one matches the other

[22:30:14] danb-scribe

danb-scribe has quit

[22:30:14] ambient

ambient has quit

[22:30:14] dajobe

dajobe has quit

[22:31:33] dajobe

dajobe has joined #rdfcore

[22:31:33] ambient

ambient has joined #rdfcore

[22:31:33] danb-scribe

danb-scribe has joined #rdfcore

[22:31:38]

* GK-f2f test

[22:35:10] db

db has joined #rdfcore

[22:36:30] danb-scribe

danb-scribe has quit

[22:36:30] ambient

ambient has quit

[22:36:30] dajobe

dajobe has quit

[22:37:56] dajobe

dajobe has joined #rdfcore

[22:37:56] danb-scribe

danb-scribe has joined #rdfcore

[22:38:09] db

db has quit

[22:39:08] Seth

Seth has quit

[22:39:08] barstow

barstow has quit

[22:39:08] GK-f2f

GK-f2f has quit

[22:39:28] GK-f2f

GK-f2f has joined #rdfcore

[22:39:28] barstow

barstow has joined #rdfcore

[22:39:28] Seth

Seth has joined #rdfcore

[22:47:17] Seth

Seth has quit

[22:47:17] barstow

barstow has quit

[22:47:17] GK-f2f

GK-f2f has quit

[22:47:37] GK-f2f

GK-f2f has joined #rdfcore

[22:47:37] barstow

barstow has joined #rdfcore

[22:47:37] Seth

Seth has joined #rdfcore

[22:48:26] danb-scribe

repeating content from earlier lost due to irc netsplit:

[22:48:27] danb-scribe

[[[

[22:48:28] danb-scribe

pat: if rdf just amounts to sets of triples

[22:48:28] danb-scribe

<danb-scribe> ...you could get acccidental collisions

[22:48:28] danb-scribe

<danb-scribe> danbri: can't we just use uuids and move on?

[22:48:28] danb-scribe

<danb-scribe> pat: but then you can't use RDF docs in "query mode"

[22:48:29] danb-scribe

<danb-scribe> danbri: fine by me, i use another language for that

[22:48:31] danb-scribe

<danb-scribe> pat: two files in assertion mode can be merged

[22:48:33] danb-scribe

<danb-scribe> ..."query mode: someone publishes a question, someone publsihes some statements; a service notices that one matches the other

[22:48:36] danb-scribe

<danb-scribe>

[22:48:38] danb-scribe

]]

[22:48:40] danb-scribe

---

[22:48:42] danb-scribe

coffee break

[22:48:44] danb-scribe

----

[22:53:50] Seth

Seth has quit

[22:53:50] barstow

barstow has quit

[22:53:50] GK-f2f

GK-f2f has quit

[22:53:51] GK-f2f

GK-f2f has joined #rdfcore

[22:53:51] barstow

barstow has joined #rdfcore

[22:54:05] danb-scribe

danb-scribe is now known as danb-notscribe

[22:54:32] ora

ora has joined #rdfcore

[22:55:38] dajobe

meeting continues

[22:55:38] dajobe

bwm: reagendaing

[22:55:48] danb-notscribe

danb-notscribe is now known as danbri

[22:56:22] dajobe

bwm: have 2 questions

[22:57:09] dajobe

1) if I get some rdf/xml which has <rdf:Description/> can I tell that apart from <rdf:Description rdf:about="someuri"/> ?

[22:57:27] dajobe

... difference between nodes with URis and without

[22:58:11] dajobe

frankm: do generated identifiers have a disting. representation?

[22:58:24] dajobe

bwm: cannot use words anonymous resource, just don't know their name

[22:58:41]

* GK-f2f For anon nodes, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0397.html

[22:58:51] dajobe

2) If I can tell these things apart, in the model theory does does it become a variable with an extensistential

[22:58:57] DanC_

re cannot use words anonymous nodes: we should put that in the errata right away.

[22:58:59] dajobe

path: if so, where is the ext.#

[22:59:08] dajobe

bwm: is this a resonable way forward

[22:59:10] dajobe

general agreement

[23:00:09] dajobe

Q: are there going to be anon nodes at all?

[23:00:24] dajobe

If no, zap _:names else ..

[23:00:31] dajobe

straw poll

[23:00:54] dajobe

taking poll...

[23:01:09] dajobe

most people say yes

[23:01:20] dajobe

ask people who say no, ask why

[23:01:33] dajobe

path: because they serve no purpose, if asserting rdf, conceptual confusion

[23:01:43] dajobe

... if not then it is rdf++

[23:02:00] dajobe

path: they are not needed for assertions, hence not needed

[23:02:16] dajobe

sergey: agrees, also wants: demonstrate they are needed

[23:02:16] ora

ora has left channel

[23:02:32] dajobe

... suggestion to make table with two approaches and criteria

[23:02:50] dajobe

bwm: reasons for why they aren't in the model, got 1 (not useful)

[23:02:55] dajobe

... what are their use?

[23:03:12] dajobe

gk: easier and more compact and dependable than generating unique IDs

[23:03:22] dajobe

... alternative is to generate unique IDs

[23:03:28] dajobe

sergey: for what purpose,use case

[23:03:54] dajobe

danc: for what purpose?

[23:04:01] dajobe

gk: in order to create n-triples

[23:04:18] dajobe

... rdf/xml permits description of resources that have no name

[23:04:36] dajobe

... parser has to generate names, it is easier to generate names that are not globally unique

[23:05:01] dajobe

miked: 2 uses that may be different - 1) variable, an objet that has this property 2) just want to generate some structure, don't care about name

[23:05:19] dajobe

bwm: lazyness argument?

[23:05:22] dajobe

+ericm

[23:05:47] dajobe

bwm: daml:collection having parsed in, cannot be n-triple written because anon has been lost

[23:06:07] dajobe

path: don't follow, explain more

[23:07:05] dajobe

bwm: if you read in rdf with daml:collection and a load of anon nodes and you assign uris for them in the model, and later you want to write it out, the

[23:07:12] dajobe

...(looses it)

[23:07:27] dajobe

gk: make distinguisable and globally unique?

[23:07:31] dajobe

bwm: can yo tell them apart?

[23:08:05] dajobe

danbri: why we want them. If I make an assertion, critical part is which names I used and which are machine generated - information loss if we can't keep that clear.

[23:08:09] dajobe

bwm: information loss

[23:08:41] dajobe

path: argument and need yes but is not anon nodes, is to do with tracking rather than anonymity. anon nodes is a hack

[23:09:35] dajobe

fmanola: not needed for assertions - clarify. wasn't about replacing existentially quant variables with skolemisation, ...

[23:10:19] dajobe

... are we intro alternative semantics in q

[23:10:30] dajobe

... do generated identifiers have a distinguished represetnation?

[23:10:37] dajobe

(rather than anon characteristic)

[23:10:58] dajobe

bwm: summarises

[23:11:55] dajobe

path: new topics about anon nodes, used for a number of things

[23:12:01] dajobe

... only considering them as part of assertions

[23:12:12] dajobe

danbri: was using assertions

[23:12:39] dajobe

path: serve no utility

[23:12:47] dajobe

fmanola: want to change vote

[23:13:10] dajobe

... was thinking about generated identifiers rather than anon nodes

[23:13:17] dajobe

... want to tell skolem identifers from URIs

[23:13:22] dajobe

danc: don't understand?

[23:13:43] dajobe

bwm: two categories of names?

[23:13:57] dajobe

path: two recognisable subsets of URIs? danc: says no

[23:14:53] dajobe

danbri: two categories of names - URIs we all know, ones we locally use in software (capturing this?)

[23:14:57] dajobe

... species of name

[23:15:07] dajobe

path: if species of name - yes

[23:16:04] dajobe

sergey: syntax stuff. If we have a MT, do these things have special represetnations

[23:16:30] dajobe

danbri: yes we have two distinguished species of names and track them

[23:16:38] dajobe

just asking can we tell the names apart?

[23:17:07] dajobe

bwm: restating questions recorded above

[23:18:30] dajobe

AGREED: answer to 1) YES with 2 abstentions

[23:18:37] dajobe

bwm: on toq2

[23:19:12] DanC_

re recognizable subsets of URIs: cf "The Opacity Axiom" in "Universal Resources Identifiers -- Axioms of Web Architecture"

[23:19:18] DanC_

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque

[23:19:20] dajobe

sergey: from the MT, not the syntax, there are special roles for anon nodes ...

[23:19:23] dajobe

... we don't need this

[23:19:53] dajobe

bwm: q is - are these distinguished nodes?

[23:20:02] dajobe

... from the nodes that are identified from the URIs

[23:20:33] dajobe

are the distinguished nodes that come from the description elements with/without the about treated differentely from the nodes...

[23:20:55] dajobe

... that are identified by a URI in the MT

[23:21:36] dajobe

straw poll: yes, no, abstain mostly equal

[23:21:52] dajobe

gk: brings up resource/uri question...

[23:22:22] dajobe

mike: preference for no difference, no compelling reason

[23:22:30] dajobe

bwm: for those people see a diff, why?

[23:22:38] dajobe

danc: example..

[23:23:10] dajobe

... rdf/xml with description, two properties and no about or URI ...

[23:23:32] dajobe

... "there exists something with properties ... of it etc."

[23:23:47] dajobe

... seems like a there exists

[23:23:58] dajobe

path: not that simple,

[23:24:20] dajobe

... involves introducing a document

[23:24:32] dajobe

path: doc is not a set of triples?

[23:24:43] dajobe

bwm: reads as there exists, what for?

[23:24:53] dajobe

danc: use case as above

[23:25:13] dajobe

... real life

[23:25:33] dajobe

... there exists is what I'm using it for inside W3C

[23:26:25] dajobe

frankm: considering two inconsistent ideas

[23:26:41] dajobe

... idea is making generated identifiers behave like URIs

[23:27:18] dajobe

... if this is the case (i.e. be URIs) then whatever generates them is committing to making them have URI behaviour

[23:27:25] dajobe

... which may not turn out to be a good thing

[23:27:28] dajobe

bwm: yes

[23:27:55] dajobe

danbri: try to prise apart ; happy with there exists, not convinced it has to be different with/without

[23:28:25] dajobe

danbri: agreed want to preserve whether a uri was supplied or not

[23:28:38] dajobe

... q1: if existential was supplied or not

[23:28:43] dajobe

... q2: if it had a URI

[23:28:47] dajobe

general confusion (!)

[23:29:42] dajobe

path: distinction between there exists, and there exists with a genid

[23:29:48] dajobe

i.e. an actual name

[23:30:17] dajobe

bwm: danc would be unhappy if a system assigned a name to an unnamed description?

[23:30:36] dajobe

danc: object to saying my document entails their document

[23:30:43] dajobe

bwm: drilling down

[23:31:06] dajobe

... machine generated, distinguishable name, can be differentiated from your name?

[23:31:14] dajobe

... or maybe not

[23:31:28]

* dajobe looses it again

[23:31:43] dajobe

path: refering to at-present off-line examples

[23:32:13] dajobe

... if in publishing the existential name, do you supply a name or refuse to do it?

[23:32:21] dajobe

danc: no; q is did rdf 1.0 do it?

[23:32:29] dajobe

phayes: vague

[23:32:30] dajobe

danc: no

[23:32:55] dajobe

bwm: examples where it makes a difference

[23:33:25] dajobe

jang: if we use skolemisation and we are still using existential assertions, same amout of work from genids

[23:33:34] dajobe

... not requiring genids is cleaner

[23:34:03] dajobe

... have to do the same kind of thing

[23:34:11] dajobe

danc: make this closer to what Impls. have to do

[23:34:25] dajobe

phayes: have to make MT match what impl. do

[23:34:44] dajobe

fmanola: I got get rdf and ge agenerated id for the person

[23:35:10] dajobe

... is it expected that tomorrow I when I have addition info about genid:foo, can I say more?

[23:35:15] dajobe

danc: no, not in general case

[23:35:34] dajobe

... since systems can decide not to keep that around

[23:35:52] dajobe

fmanola: from URIs, we understand that genid:foo is not a URI

[23:36:10] dajobe

... an argument from telling them apart, since we must be able to tell them apart and can use later

[23:36:39] dajobe

... very important for issue

[23:36:49] dajobe

bwm: examples please where difference matters?

[23:37:07] dajobe

... this is one - I have something with a name, can I go back later and get more/say more or pass on?

[23:37:12] dajobe

... that is a difference

[23:37:23] dajobe

sergey: where is the difference?

[23:38:05] dajobe

danc: looking at examples again, get a non-URI genid for unnamed node

[23:38:26] dajobe

... doesn't want that

[23:38:54] dajobe

... published rdf/xml with no genid so don't want it invented

[23:39:15] dajobe

phayes: cannot have anon nodes and make description with no id, illegal

[23:39:34] dajobe

danc: graph may differ from xml

[23:40:32] dajobe

fmanola: whatever I get back from source whether its a node without URI, it is still something I can point to ...

[23:41:09]

* barstow thinks that Ora created this mess and thus he'd like to hear his position :-)

[23:41:54]

* DanC_ is having trouble following

[23:41:58] dajobe

... if it is making a commitment that it is a URI, that is one thing, otherwise if a non-URI with commitments, we need to enumerate this commitment

[23:42:06] dajobe

s/this/these/

[23:42:29] dajobe

bwm: if I send you some rdf with a node that I want to refer again, it must have a name that I send you ...

[23:42:38] dajobe

... what if I don't give a URI, why would I want to do that?

[23:42:51] dajobe

... that I can never refer to it again

[23:43:25] dajobe

jos: test cases I have are mostly assertions with nesting ...

[23:43:34] dajobe

... small bit is non-assertional and I don't want to loose that

[23:43:38] dajobe

... use case is query i.e.

[23:43:41] DanC_

1741 uses cases, Jos said.

[23:43:50] DanC_

er... 1741 test cases.

[23:44:12] dajobe

jos: same thing could be asserted and used as aquery ...

[23:44:31] dajobe

... rdf should not commit to one only

[23:44:44] dajobe

bwm: when youare using anon disting nodes for assertions, does it make a difference?

[23:45:06]

* DanC_ is interested in the query (non-assertional) case too, but doesn't expect to convince the WG that it's part of RDF 1.0

[23:45:08] dajobe

jos: I am using internal Java null for subjects

[23:45:57] dajobe

phayes: take care between the two cases when language is assertional and for queryies

[23:46:13] dajobe

bwm: is the q that RDF should be able to represent queries and itnerpret queries?

[23:46:32] dajobe

danbri: many cases I don't supply a URI when I don't have one

[23:46:46] dajobe

... I don't know any URI for that node

[23:46:56] dajobe

phayes: could make one

[23:47:04] dajobe

various comments - is impractical to gen them

[23:47:27] dajobe

fmanola: and keeping around, check for reuse etc.

[23:47:40] dajobe

sergey: they are some abbrev mechanism for rdf/xml typing

[23:48:25] dajobe

... if you need this mechanism, specify an algorithm for this

[23:48:30] dajobe

... and everything remains the same

[23:49:00] dajobe

danc: I have use cases that convince me

[23:49:23] dajobe

bwm: can I get a set of use cases we can put to convince people?

[23:49:43] dajobe

jang: people (me) don't have URIs - aesthetic/may be illegal in URIs

[23:49:48] dajobe

s/in URIs/to have URIs/

[23:50:00] dajobe

danc: use cases W3C ...

[23:50:11] dajobe

... people connected with tel, home pages, deployed with no

[23:50:15] dajobe

... uris for people

[23:50:27] dajobe

... ditto no uris for wgs

[23:50:42] dajobe

... ditto goals for w3c documents, visualised, joined with no URIs for concepts

[23:51:01] dajobe

bwm: interested in they *had* to have no URIs?

[23:51:22] dajobe

danc: no; I can do what I did in rdf 1.0

[23:51:41] dajobe

... travel constraints with no URIs for large document merge

[23:52:01] dajobe

... query use case, not sure I can convince using this evidence?

[23:52:18] dajobe

... system for mapping rdf -> pics, many examples with no URIs

[23:52:25] dajobe

... Could I have made URIs? No.

[23:52:42] dajobe

... If forced? Then the apps wouldn't have happened at all, or so quick.

[23:52:45] dajobe

phayes: if done auto?

[23:52:51] dajobe

danc: not likely

[23:53:25] dajobe

danbri: use case is not having 2000 year old discussions. Question of URis for things is something we shouldn't go down

[23:53:33] dajobe

... not within the scope of this group

[23:54:10] dajobe

jang: limited this to the assertional case ...

[23:54:19] dajobe

... which is great, argumetns are taste and deployed apps

[23:54:31] danbri

aside: my uri use case is exemplified in data such as http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jul/0066.html

[23:54:47] danbri

ie not knowing the URI names for many entities i'm describing

[23:54:48] dajobe

jang: phayes is right from assertional point of view

[23:54:59] dajobe

... but there is more to it than that

[23:55:18] dajobe

gk: I have two cases one with URIs, other with a distinguished identifer form (in N3)

[23:55:45]

* DanC_ suggests a practial problem with the "phayes is right" i.e. "in the assertional case it doesn't matter" position: keeping the generated URIs from ever being used again is a real, practical problem.

[23:55:55]

* dajobe nods

[23:56:13] dajobe

(can someone paste URI)

[23:56:15]

* danbri nods too

[23:56:17] danbri

will do

[23:56:38] danbri

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Aug/0002.html

[23:56:42] dajobe

gk: in 2nd case, the statements are applied to the same subject are being used in different docs...

[23:57:08] dajobe

... do we want these statements to be about different subjects

[23:57:35] dajobe

emiller: does anyone think first case is talking about the same thing?

[23:57:37] dajobe

might?

[23:57:50] dajobe

bwm: they might be talking about something different?

[23:58:06] dajobe

phayes: same thing if same string

[23:58:18] dajobe

... else not, we need a mechanism to make sure this happens

[23:58:25] dajobe

danc: which line of model theory applies?

Provided by Dave Beckett, Institute for Learning and Research Technology, University of Bristol