RDF Core Working Group IRC logs for 2002-02-25

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

Dave Beckett

[05:21:07] AaronSw

AaronSw has joined #rdfcore

[07:07:56] bwm

bwm has joined #rdfcore

[07:08:04] AaronSw

g'morning

[07:09:22] bwm

You're up early

[07:09:26] bwm

G'morning

[07:09:29] AaronSw

no, up late.

[07:09:35] AaronSw

:-/

[07:09:41] bwm

just finding out we are natted and ipsec does not work

[07:09:54] AaronSw

ugh

[07:09:59] bwm

i'm off to join the registration line

[07:10:03] bwm

back in mo'

[07:10:06] AaronSw

c'ya

[07:14:19]

* AaronSw wanders off

[07:14:51] AaronSw

need some sleep. laters

[07:18:57] AaronSw

[BTW, did you get my email bwm?]

[07:21:28] AaronSw

i'd appreciate it if we discussed rdfms-fragments first on the telecon, because I have to leave early

[07:23:20] bwm

bwm has quit

[07:24:58] bwm

bwm has joined #rdfcore

[07:25:23] AaronSw

welcome back

[07:25:23] bwm

bwm has quit

[07:26:03] bwm

bwm has joined #rdfcore

[07:26:06] AaronSw

welcome back

[07:31:31] bwm

in the room now

[07:31:40] AaronSw

did you get my meail? i'd appreciate it if we discussed rdfms-fragments first on the telecon, because I have to leave early

[07:31:42] bwm

an i'm live

[07:31:49] AaronSw

indeed

[07:32:03] bwm

Didn't get your mail - remind me at the time - but sure

[07:32:13] AaronSw

great

[07:35:48]

* AaronSw is really off now

[07:42:40] bwm

am I still connected

[07:47:18] mdean_

mdean_ has joined #RDFCore

[07:47:19] bwm

bwm has quit

[07:47:49] mdean_

hi aaron -- wireless connections are a little flaky here, so we may come and go

[07:52:12] mdean_

meeting is starting

[07:52:25] mdean_

no great motivational speech

[07:52:43] mdean_

em: the restaurant around the corner has vegemite ...

[07:53:06] mdean_

brian: welcome

[07:54:30] mdean_

libby miller of ILRT is observing

[07:54:46] mdean_

objectives on agenda -- goal to get issues down to 0

[07:55:02] mdean_

brian: need to think about getting to last call and beyond

[07:57:49] libby

libby has joined #rdfcore

[07:57:49] mdean_

mdean_ has quit

[07:58:27] mdean_

mdean_ has joined #RDFCore

[07:59:06] mdean_

original call -- last call October 2001

[07:59:33] mdean_

issue: rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr

[08:00:21] mdean_

jeremy: rdf:ID on property elements always used for reification

[08:00:36] mdean_

dajobe: seconded

[08:07:26] mdean_

examples being entered to http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/session1.html

[08:07:58] mdean_

dajobe: this will require change to test case 5 and probably others

[08:08:17] mdean_

ACTION: Jeremy formalize test case

[08:08:29] mdean_

ACTION: Jan update test cases document

[08:08:51] mdean_

with this test case

[08:09:17] mdean_

review other test cases for side effects (empty-property-elements 005)

[08:09:51] mdean_

23 issues to go

[08:10:24] mdean_

issue: rdfms-nested-bagIDs

[08:13:00] mdean_

paste example into W3C web site -- ARP does this right

[08:19:26] libby

dave's mailt to rdfcore: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0113.html

[08:19:26] mdean_

mdean_ has quit

[08:19:51] libby

is everyone happy with this :

[08:20:51] libby

a bag id reifies the property attributes of the same elemnt of the bag id, the typed node, and the property elements that are direct children of that node and nothing else (jeremy)

[08:21:02] mdean_

mdean_ has joined #RDFCore

[08:21:34] libby

in particular a prop element that itself has prop attributes, those attributes are not part of the bag

[08:21:34] mdean_

mdean_ has quit

[08:22:27] libby

'shallow as it can be'

[08:23:08] libby

(says jeremy)

[08:23:24] libby

jos: motivation?

[08:23:39] libby

dave: simplest answer

[08:24:08] libby

jos: in a sense not logical

[08:24:25] libby

...reify everything...

[08:24:34] libby

jos has a proble with this

[08:24:53] libby

...a bag of statement is a bag of statements, all of them

[08:26:14] libby

brian: look at orginal example

[08:26:23] libby

..this generates 2 bags

[08:26:51] mdean_

mdean_ has joined #RDFCore

[08:26:59] libby

(differs a bit from dave's example)

[08:27:08] libby

bag1 contains st1

[08:27:19] libby

bag2 constains st2

[08:27:25] libby

no typed node in this example

[08:27:49] libby

[[

[08:28:13] libby

<rdf:Description about="a" bagID="bag1">

[08:28:29] libby

<some:prop rdf:ID="st1">

[08:28:38] libby

... see doc

[08:28:41] libby

approved!

[08:29:09] libby

actions:

[08:29:15] libby

dave to update the document

[08:29:52] libby

brian to review testcases tomorrow in detail

[08:30:36] mdean_

wireless connection seems much better now -- antenna has been moved

[08:31:24] JosD

JosD has joined #rdfcore

[08:32:59] libby

jjc generate more testcases

[08:33:06] em-cann

em-cann has joined #rdfcore

[08:33:14] libby

brian: closed issue, and also the provious one

[08:33:29] libby

2 down!

[08:33:57] mdean_

next issue: rdfms-rdf-names-use

[08:34:58] em-cann

ping

[08:36:38] libby

brian: waiting to complete the test cases

[08:36:48] libby

...action on dave...

[08:37:01] libby

dave: infinite!

[08:39:27] libby

brain: do we restrict rdf/rdfs names which are not syntactic? no

[08:39:46] libby

jjc: rdf:foo e.g? things that arent currently used?

[08:40:01] libby

..but in the rdf ns

[08:40:20] libby

dave: resrve these

[08:40:26] libby

brain disagrees

[08:40:34] libby

s/brain/brian

[08:40:48] libby

...existing parsers will barf

[08:41:39] libby

jjc: parser issues warning then treats it as normal. can still call it illegal

[08:42:19] libby

gk: any definition nof meaning is reserved for a future wg

[08:42:28] libby

brain: what triples?

[08:42:49] libby

brian: I suggest allowed

[08:43:10] libby

ps: parsers dont have to die even if an error

[08:44:10] libby

gk: we dont want to commit its an error for all time. 'undefined' category for test cases?

[08:44:22] libby

dave: error

[08:44:27] libby

jjc: error

[08:44:30] libby

ps: warning

[08:44:41] libby

maryn: error

[08:44:45] libby

gk:warning

[08:44:55] libby

danc: error but dont care

[08:44:59]

* libby lost

[08:45:33] libby

eric: generate the triple

[08:46:30] libby

brain: m&S says rdf ns is reserved

[08:46:37] libby

danc: not important enough

[08:46:53] libby

brian: answer: generats the triple and should generate the warning

[08:47:02] libby

issue closed!

[08:47:08] libby

countem, 3!

[08:47:29] libby

action: daveb update syntax doc

[08:47:43] libby

jang ensure testcases created andf added to testcases doc

[08:48:04] libby

jjc: testcase manifest needs to eb able to say this testcase geneartes a warning

[08:48:18] libby

...currently doesnt do this

[08:48:46] mdean_

issue: rdfms-xml-base

[08:49:21] libby

jjc: needs to go to TAG. same doc references do not get proceesed wrt the base uri

[08:49:49] em-cann

em-cann has quit

[08:50:08] em-cann

em-cann has joined #rdfcore

[08:51:07] libby

lots of test cases available; they doesnt use rfc 2396 though; but is we use that rfc, rdf:ID becomes counter-intuitive

[08:53:29] libby

see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0516.html

[08:53:29] em-cann

em-cann has quit

[08:53:48] libby

test 8

[08:55:00] libby

jjc: not our problem, its a prob w 2396, maybe a TAG problem

[08:56:18] libby

brian: proposal is are the testcases with the same document erference acceptable

[08:56:40] libby

3 people have implementations which are affected

[08:56:57] libby

...or who want to, especially mike, who thinks this implementation makes sense

[08:57:09] libby

danc: we nede to ask the powers that be at last call

[08:57:41] libby

brian: approved!

[08:58:12] libby

actions: daveb update syntax doc;

[08:58:23] libby

jang update test cases

[08:59:01] libby

danc: we need to ask the editors of 2396 if this is ok: action danc

[08:59:38] libby

danc: syntax needs to express teh algorithm used

[08:59:40] gk

gk has joined #rdfcore

[08:59:45] libby

jjc: to write it up

[09:00:46] libby

danc: thinks this strategy will fail

[09:01:50] libby

em: can get different conclusions of rfc 2396

[09:01:50] libby

'reasonable peopel can disagree'

[09:02:32] libby

em: the best approach might not be to emphasise the differences

[09:02:54] DanC

DanC has joined #rdfcore

[09:02:55] libby

danc: in this context the exception doesnt apply

[09:03:15]

* DanC wonders if this channel is to be used for records

[09:03:25] libby

I've been making notes

[09:03:55] libby

..here

[09:04:16] libby

em: suggests daveb write this, and persuade jjc to help; danc talk to rfc editiors

[09:05:20] libby

brian: action jjc write up the case that 2396 context is different to browsing

[09:05:36] libby

em: multiple codebases woudl help - mike?

[09:05:58] libby

mike uses jena/arp

[09:06:36] libby

not mutiple codebases

[09:06:44] libby

daveb will imleemnt this in raptor

[09:09:22] libby

jjc: we've solved the first of 4 issues in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0516.html

[09:10:24] libby

jjc: problem: base url has no end slash, fragment doesnt have a start slash. jjc reads 2396 to say no slash separator

[09:11:00] libby

...minor bug rather than change in intent

[09:11:13] libby

danc: recommends the same action as previously

[09:11:27] libby

gk: ask tthem if the slash is what they really meant

[09:11:42] libby

jjc: hold approval of testcase till checked w them?

[09:12:16] libby

brian: approve testcase, action to review it with the 2396 editors. danc will do this latter

[09:12:55] libby

testcases are sufficient

[09:13:01]

* DanC hears that Larry left; wonders where he went

[09:13:06] DanC

logger_3, pointer?

[09:13:06] DanC

See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-02-25#T09-13-06

[09:13:13] libby

testcase is approved and issue closed (brian)

[09:13:28] libby

testcase 11, that is from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0516.html

[09:14:31] libby

jjc next issue from the email: testcase 14

[09:15:34] libby

...2 occurances of rdf:ID="frag" in same doc is an error; propose if xml:base differ then allow it

[09:15:52] libby

dave: drop restriction that fragids be checked for uniqueness?

[09:16:06] libby

mike finds duplicate id detection v useful

[09:16:35] libby

jjc: kinda useful for reification

[09:16:43] libby

danc: thinks shoudl work like this

[09:17:04] libby

jjc: check for dups after extending the base

[09:17:15] libby

:approved!

[09:17:38] libby

drop duplicate detection altogetther for efficincy sake?

[09:18:29] libby

jjc: people could use about in a v long doc

[09:19:11] libby

brian: keep id frag checking

[09:19:15] libby

no actions

[09:19:58] libby

danc duplicate ids is an error means not an rdf document

[09:20:06] libby

mike like sthe warning

[09:20:19] libby

jjc: arp will barf if strict flag

[09:20:24] libby

4th base issue

[09:21:01] libby

jjc: several error case: error1,2,3

[09:21:30] libby

...1 really is an error: 'mailto uri - no way to resolve this base

[09:21:36] libby

...not an rdf document

[09:21:52] libby

em disagrees

[09:22:11] libby

jjc: no, no algorithm to generate this

[09:22:27] libby

danc: cant merge the path here, because mailto no path. agree error

[09:23:35] libby

jjc :error case 2: a reasonable algorithm could generate this, but jjc thinks an error

[09:24:16] libby

...foo is a same document reference not a relative uri. these definitely different. rfc expliictly says

[09:25:25] libby

case 2 is dropped, action on jjc to create a positive testcase

[09:25:34] libby

error case 3:

[09:26:17] libby

same doc reference with a mailto uri. shoudl go the same way as error case 2

[09:26:29] libby

action jjc to craete positive case

[09:27:23] libby

brian: do rest of those testcases tomorrow morning

[09:27:50] libby

jjc: that's it with xml:base

[09:28:08] libby

jjc found the xml:base issues. we are stil on for doing xml:base.

[09:28:16] libby

only 20 issues left!

[09:28:22] libby

groups breaks for coffee

[09:29:08] libby

libby has quit

[09:57:32] libby

libby has joined #rdfcore

[09:58:11] libby

libby has quit

[10:00:04] libby

libby has joined #rdfcore

[10:04:34] libby

rdfms-seq-representation is done already

[10:04:34] libby

[10:04:34] libby

dave: we resolved on 11 jan not to change the rpoperty

[10:04:34] libby

brain: but what it means needs to be clarified in the context of datatypes

[10:05:04] libby

...a specific understanding of value for dts will break existing code

[10:05:51] libby

...proposes: no model theory for it, but its meaning is entirely app-dependent. suggested styles of using it

[10:05:55] libby

jjc seconded

[10:06:23] libby

ps would like it to be that this does not preclude it from being used in a datatyping idiom

[10:08:14] libby

danc would not be happy w putting 1.0 examples in here. woudl like real uses

[10:08:14] JosD

JosD has quit

[10:08:22] libby

dave: dublin core uses it

[10:08:40] libby

danc: does dc usage agree w 1.0 spec?

[10:09:29] libby

em: useful for UI

[10:09:46] libby

danc: who is going to write this use guide?

[10:09:54] libby

em/frank

[10:10:12] libby

- frank is primer editor

[10:10:38] libby

brain: propose the wg resolve:

[10:10:53] libby

- rdf:value of a property defined in the rdf ns

[10:11:05] JosD

JosD has joined #rdfcore

[10:11:34] libby

that no model theory semantics is defined spceifcally for it

[10:12:17] libby

action em to ensure primer describes appropriate use of rdf:value

[10:12:38] libby

danc: likely that phayes will likely want to say soemthing about it

[10:13:55] libby

- model theory must state that rdf:value is a property

[10:15:29] libby

everyone is happy

[10:15:48] libby

action - bwm ensures phayes ensures in mt

[10:16:29] libby

rdfms-editorial

[10:17:59] libby

danc: are we taking rdfs 1.0 forward or not..?

[10:17:59] libby

jjc: propose no v2 of rdf m&s? supceceded by testcase docs and primer, syntax doc and teh model theory

[10:18:16] libby

brian: proposed

[10:19:05] libby

danc primer discusses the other docs

[10:19:40] libby

approved.

[10:20:14] libby

issue continues: rdfms-editorial: typos, unclear language etc

[10:20:44] libby

brian: propose that those issues now not relevant and we close the issue

[10:21:22] libby

...the editors of teh docs would look at the detil of the issues so dont make the same mistakes again

[10:21:29] libby

danc: need an errata page

[10:22:44] libby

action em: update M&S errata to say that m&s will be superceded by the new documents

[10:23:21] libby

closed.

[10:24:25] libby

next issue: rdfms-fragments

[10:26:22] libby

gk: if it is an issue, fragment ids dont behave in quite the same way in rdf as with other web retrieval dodads

[10:27:32] libby

gk: orginal email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0559.html

[10:27:49] libby

...if you ahve different mime types, fragment ids are used in different ways

[10:28:13] libby

...proposal was to say that rdf uses the fragment identifier in its own way

[10:28:50] libby

dave: my rdf code doesnt do retrivel

[10:29:34] libby

brian: wording in spec or what peple expect

[10:30:02] libby

...2 cases fragment which is a class, for example. w mimetype we can contriol this in rdf

[10:30:33] libby

...second case: chapter 2 written by mike, etc

[10:30:56] libby

...semantics could mean a diffeent thing that what mean by it

[10:31:41] libby

danc: trying to create a testcase for it

[10:32:30] libby

...suppose wanted to point to second description in an rdf doc using xlink

[10:32:50] libby

...trying to write an rdf doc w the same uri erference, and see whether it works

[10:33:31] libby

danc: timbl I think thinks that one points to the think and one points to the reference to the thing - difference

[10:33:55] libby

gk: maybe if no testcases not important. doe sit work w uris with no hash fragments?

[10:34:08] libby

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt 4.1 fragment identifier

[10:34:48] libby

...'resources in rdf dont correpond to anything called resource son the wider web if no #...?

[10:35:35] libby

graham's proposal :http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0559.html

[10:37:14] libby

aaron has a proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0391.html

[10:37:33] libby

danc: doesnt like it; jjc, too big a change. wide disagreement

[10:37:47] libby

gk: use of hash fragments is too well established

[10:38:15] libby

brian: as aaron: changing eartly is better if have to change

[10:38:24] libby

gk: inelegant, but dont have to change

[10:39:13] libby

brian: has come up on mailing list

[10:41:01] libby

gk thinks has a testcase

[10:41:01] libby

also so does jjc

[10:41:19] libby

danc: cant serve rdf as text/xml, cos then fragids mean what they d in the rfc

[10:41:27] libby

(says timbl)

[10:41:44] libby

ditton the cuurent rdf mime proposal

[10:42:37] libby

gk: a doc in diff mime formats, and we want to make statements about fragments of the document independently of its mimetypes

[10:43:30] libby

jjc: similar test case, all text xml docs of diff sizes after content negotiation

[10:43:52] libby

....23rd element is different things in each document

[10:44:01] libby

...ill-defined because document is illdefined

[10:44:08] libby

danc: just dont do that

[10:45:23] libby

gk just want to flag the problem

[10:46:43] libby

....arguing....

[10:47:52] libby

brian: first case is repesentation idependent; second case (jjc, #23) is not

[10:49:48] libby

gk: can make true rdf statements about fragment ids, which makes no guarantss about what you get if you do a webretrieval

[10:49:48] JosD

JosD has quit

[10:49:56] libby

danc: that makes it false

[10:50:59] libby

jjc: possible workds thing: content negotiation means that your view of web is diferrent from mine. trye for you not necessarily true for me

[10:52:47] libby

em: heads up and move on? not changing documents

[10:53:49] libby

brian: does anyone support aaron's proposal?

[10:53:52] libby

no..

[10:55:01] libby

gk: esssence of the proposal is first 2 paras of email

[10:56:06] libby

proposed: that fragmenmt identifiers when used with rdf are treated as simple extenion of the URI to which they apply, without having an interpretatiuon that is in any way dependant on the context in which they appear

[10:56:08] gk

Fragment identifiers and truth: different people may view documents-with fragment ids and get different values; thus the truth about an RDF statement using a frag id may not be universal to all Web users

[10:57:25] libby

dave: change 'context'

[10:58:09] libby

gk: something for the primer maybe?

[10:59:12] libby

brian: proposed: RDF uses URIs with fragment IDs to identify resources

[11:00:56] libby

action gk to draft somethign for the primer?

[11:02:43] libby

danc: this issue has been accepted by the TAG

[11:03:19] JosD

JosD has joined #rdfcore

[11:03:21] libby

danc: they've accepted qname-nm-mappings

[11:03:29] libby

...soirry, it's not on the TAG list

[11:04:06] libby

action danc: highlight this issue with TAG

[11:04:15] libby

- done for now on thios issue

[11:06:05] libby

-donr all issues for today except those on telecon, and datatyping after lunch

[11:06:10] libby

lets have lunch.

[11:06:15] libby

(says most people)

[11:07:28] libby

quick meeting re tomorrow

[11:08:35] libby

gk talked to micha last night

[11:09:14] libby

...problem of matching literals in different xml:langs

[11:11:32] gk

Problems misha raised (with JJC's proposal) were: (1) language of parts as well as whole, (2) language matching rules not so clear-cut, (3) ~fuzzy report~ issues with capturing subtle linguistic contexts

[11:13:04] gk

Sort-of example of that discussion: document --dc:title--> "The many meanings of 'chat'"

[11:13:31] gk

document --ex:subjectMatter--> "chat" .

[11:14:56] libby

ps: can we make it brutally clear that parsetype literal is in fact parsertype xml?

[11:16:41] libby

danc: reseralizing this bit of xml loses the xml part - get &lt; etc. then the bit in the xml stops being italian

[11:16:54] libby

...and turns into english (jjc)

[11:18:15] libby

danc could have xml(...) in ntriple

[11:19:45] libby

brian: aaron wanted to record the parsetype flag in the ntriple, preferably as a uri

[11:20:50] libby

...otherwise we lose information

[11:21:05] libby

...arguing....

[11:22:33] libby

brain suggests putting the thing in the parsetype inverted commas as the first part of teh ntriple

[11:22:40] libby

...later might be a uri

[11:22:55] libby

danc: people use literal in parsetype as a qname

[11:23:56] libby

em: consensus about somekind of indication

[11:26:44] libby

..arguing...

[11:27:01] libby

danc: nothing was promised to make parsetype an extensible mechanism

[11:28:15] libby

daml uses it; others use it as extensible machanism

[11:28:28] libby

brian: proposal: uri

[11:29:13] libby

...undecided for now

[11:29:49] libby

back 13.30

[11:29:54] libby

libby has quit

[11:34:13] gk

gk has quit

[11:50:47] DanC

DanC has quit

[11:50:47] JosD

JosD has quit

[11:52:54] mdean_

mdean_ has quit

[12:24:44] DanC

DanC has joined #rdfcore

[12:37:43] libby

libby has joined #rdfcore

[12:39:25] gk

gk has joined #rdfcore

[12:40:14] gk

I18N discussion continues...

[12:40:37] gk

PatStickler promises not to say anything of allowed to lurk!

[12:40:53] gk

in tomorrows meet with I18N group

[12:41:40] gk

Trying to clear up I18N issues *before* we go to last call.

[12:42:16] gk

Objectives of tomorrow#'s meeting?

[12:43:01] gk

Objectives of tomorrow#'s meeting?

[12:43:06] gk

jjc: 3 issues from charmod, identify what we're trying to do in broad terms, what to do with N-triples.

[12:44:01] gk

assues arise from our reading of charmod, want to check with I18N that our proposed resolutions will meet their requirements.

[12:44:30] gk

Also, they may have other issues for us, and we need to agree the boundaries on issues we can reasonably consider.

[12:45:27] danbri_

danbri_ has joined #rdfcore

[12:45:36] gk

E.g. literal matching proposed match only if string and lang tags are ==. But in linguistic terms, that's too, er, literal. How muchj of this is reasonably our problem to solve?

[12:45:51]

* gk Hi danbri

[12:45:56]

* danbri_ sneaks in through the irc backdoor, wonders how it's going

[12:46:04] libby

ahoyhoy danbri

[12:46:12]

* gk good, so far. Good number of issues settled.

[12:47:03] gk

jjc: we're trying to build a sound basis for RDF; that needs we well-defined concept of literal equality.

[12:47:03] danbri_

excellent news! so sorry not to be there... I'll lurk here, see if I can absorb some of the atmosphere...

[12:47:23] libby

I'll take some photos to help you

[12:47:32] gk

Beyond that it's less cear what we need to address in this WG.

[12:48:19] gk

PatS: queries may have deeper linguistic qualifications (e.g. recognizing that unequal literals to refer to some common idea).

[12:49:11] gk

jjc: Note - our spec is NOT RDF query.

[12:49:25] gk

(GK nods vigorously)

[12:49:29] mdean_

mdean_ has joined #rdfcore

[12:50:38] gk

jjc: Another issue... parsetype-literal ... sensitivity to language used inside a complex literal.

[12:50:55] gk

This is Hard Work.

[12:51:27] gk

Probably not entirely our problem.

[12:52:39] gk

GK expresses concern that we have parallel structuring mechanisms

[12:52:53] gk

PatS: extra triples suggested, but shot down

[12:52:57] JosD

JosD has joined #rdfcore

[12:53:50] gk

Who is going: to the I18N meeting? JJC, DaeB, Martyn, bwm, GK

[12:54:26] gk

====== Datatypes ========

[12:55:35] gk

PatS has produced a new proposal, since last Friday. Need to catch up.

[12:55:58] JosD

http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype23-02-2002.html

[12:56:12] gk

bwm: want to bring us all up to the same point, somehow, if we can.

[12:57:27] gk

bwm: taken a long time, but have produced a common proposal (one of several)

[12:58:30] gk

Last Friday we talked around it; specific questions: do we want the idion known as S-B (as syntax)? YES.

[12:59:15] gk

If we say in S-B syntax: <Mary> <age> "10" . Does "10" denote a number or a string? A: string.

[12:59:27] gk

Do we want to keep the so-called doubled idion? A: No

[12:59:51] gk

Do we want to keep the so-called triplet idion? A: YES

[13:00:11] gk

---- all thje abovre from last Fridays' telecon ---

[13:00:38] gk

New proposal from PatS, who was unhappy (at the time) that the requirements were in conflict.

[13:02:56] gk

DanC: wants to check real use-cases from real applications against proposals. But is appy with answers from Friday.

[13:05:53] gk

(Discussion about what point to move forward from...)

[13:06:35] gk

jjc (aka Unhappy of bristol) will put up his entailment case that he wants discussed.

[13:07:14] DanC

unhappy msg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0635.html

[13:09:59] gk

jjc: wants to entail equivalence across both forms of idiom

[13:17:31] gk

Trying to show how inference can be drawn ... looking at PatrickS email from Sunday: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0642.html

[13:34:15] libby

...arguing, shouting, jumping up....

[13:36:50] libby

jos: you could have 2 different ranges, one a drange then patrickS's proposal is ok

[13:37:20] libby

danc: end up with 2 property names for similar properties

[13:37:43] libby

brian: jjc's entailments will work if we have range and drange, we think

[13:38:09] libby

jjc will then take objection off the table

[13:38:26] libby

brain: then the inelegance is the 2 properties for similar things

[13:38:47] libby

patrickS thinks he has the solution why need only one

[13:39:06] libby

ps: classes contains members

[13:40:59] libby

...if a datatype name is only the value, we need to have somthuing to denote the lexical space; if some people want one and some want the other, cant use range property to denote both

[13:41:21] gk

Here's a rendering of what I think Patrick is trying to suggest...

[13:41:23] gk

# datatype triple idiom:

[13:41:23] gk

{

[13:41:23] gk

:x :p [ :d :l ] . // Tom ageA [ integer "10" ]

[13:41:23] gk

:d rdf:type rdfd:Datatype . // integer a Datatype

[13:41:23] gk

# :l rdf:type rdfs:Literal .

[13:41:24] gk

}

[13:41:26] gk

log:implies

[13:41:28] gk

{

[13:41:30] gk

:x :p [ rdf:type rdfd:DatatypeValue ; // Tom ageA [ a Datatype Value ;

[13:41:32] gk

rdfd:datatype :d ; // datatype integer ;

[13:41:34] gk

rdfd:lexicalForm :l ] . // lexicalform "10" ] .

[13:41:36] gk

} .

[13:41:38] gk

# inline idiom:

[13:41:40] gk

{

[13:41:42] gk

:x :p :l . // Jenny ageB "10

[13:41:49] gk

:p rdfs:range :d . // ageB rdfs:drange integer .

[13:41:49] gk

:d rdf:type rdfd:Datatype . // integer a datatype

[13:41:49] gk

# :l rdf:type rdfs:Literal .

[13:41:50] gk

}

[13:41:52] gk

log:implies

[13:41:54] gk

{

[13:41:56] gk

:x :p [ rdf:type rdfd:DatatypeValue ; // Jenny ageB [ a DataTypeValue ;

[13:41:58] gk

rdfd:datatype :d ; // datatype integer ;

[13:42:00] gk

rdfd:lexicalForm :l ] . // lexicalForm "10" ] .

[13:42:02] gk

} .

[13:42:23] libby

....rules disambibuate which is which

[13:43:24] libby

jjc: thinks might work apat form some baroque datatypes

[13:44:41] libby

jjc: "monday -> "monday"

[13:44:49] libby

.. "lundi" -> "monday"

[13:45:10] libby

..."tuesday" -> monday (in some language like klingon., say)

[13:45:49] libby

ps: values do not have canonical represtation in teh model theory

[13:45:57] libby

...people struggling a bit...

[13:46:42] libby

jjc: is this it:? likelihood with same lirteral on both sides is very unlikely?

[13:47:03] libby

brain: do we care about a corne case like that

[13:47:34] libby

jos: I care, because pat had good examples of why it might go wrong

[13:48:07] libby

danc: some consensus earlier (re 2 properties?) move on?

[13:48:27] libby

ps think this proble is crucial to understanding the problem

[13:48:44]

* libby not sure about this "below the line" stuff

[13:48:55] libby

"to the left of the line"?

[13:49:09] gk

I think ":below the line" is a way to refer things in the semantic domain rather than the syntactic domain

[13:49:26] libby

yeah, thought somethign like that

[13:49:45] libby

ericp does pat understand ps's problem?

[13:49:47] libby

ps - no

[13:50:01] gk

The "idioms" (A,B,etc.) are all purely syntactic. The specific denotations of values involved are semantic.

[13:52:07] libby

gk might have a better example...

[13:52:51] libby

brian: dancs point was that we have agreement, but we arguing over the detail of 1 or 2 properties

[13:53:47] libby

jjc: partially confinced: ps's example so ugly must be wrong but cant see how!

[13:54:12] libby

ditto danc

[13:54:29] libby

brian thinks breaks current model theory, requires lv to be a subset of ir

[13:56:11] libby

ps thinks 'for the users' one prop is better

[13:56:25]

* AaronSw wakes up, waves quietly

[13:56:28] libby

brian: all agree that _if_ we dont need drange, we dont want it

[13:56:32] libby

yep

[13:57:21] libby

ps would need to 2 flahours of schema, one for each idiom

[13:58:20] libby

gk: 2 discssions: range, drange; and ageA and ageB

[14:03:22] gk

State of discussion: jeremy is now "less unhappy" of bristol, but still not overjoyed.

[14:03:33] libby

:)

[14:04:59] gk

Progress: we think it *may* be possible to unify (entail between) S-A/S-B approaches with some additional rules along the lines suggested by Patrick

[14:06:36] gk

Jeremy is not unhappy about having two properties for the diferent idioms

[14:07:28] gk

Jos has proved that entailment is possible if different property names (ageA/ageB) are used.

[14:08:33] gk

Agreed that entailment between idioms must be possible.

[14:10:06] libby

jos cannot make jjc's entiaolment work with only one property

[14:10:15] gk

Jos has been unable so far to make entailment work with one property, without causing a conflict.

[14:11:20] libby

jjc the rules will be in the model theory ? yes

[14:11:37] libby

danc: ps: just one age propertry

[14:11:54] gk

Patrick thunks we can get by with just one age property, by alowing properties to have lexical and value space in range.

[14:12:19] gk

(i.e. datatype class has both lexical and value spaces as members)

[14:13:12] libby

jjc: near-unanimity that ps's suggestion is ugly ;)

[14:13:29] libby

danc: also ageA and ageB is ugly

[14:13:32] gk

However, there are different view about which of the possible solutions is uglier.

[14:14:35] gk

Also, Patrick thinks (with some support) we can do without drange.

[14:14:55] libby

danc: so costly to explain to users

[14:16:25] libby

martyn: intuition is ugly

[14:16:37] libby

jos: I would say mathematically inconsistent

[14:16:45] libby

bad patrick!

[14:17:22] gk

Jos says he thinks he will be able to find an inconsistency in Patrick's proposal, but has not yet been able to do so.

[14:19:11] gk

(at this stage, we're basically wordsmithing the conclusions on screen.)

[14:19:25]

* gk Hi aaron

[14:19:33]

* AaronSw waves

[14:19:41]

* gk we're just breaking for coffee 15:20 loal time

[14:21:00] gk

Back in 40mins? (maybe sooner -- some rambling discussion) Telecon at 16:00 local?

[14:21:27] AaronSw

My schedule says telecon in 40 min.

[14:21:50] AaronSw

yeah, so 1600

[14:21:58] libby

libby has quit

[14:22:57] gk

Aim to beback in the room 25mins... people leaving now

[14:47:09] gk

Wanders back into room ... DanC and PatrickS going hammer-and-tongs about someting on the whiteboard ...

[14:49:54] AaronSw

Heh. hammer-and-tongs?

[14:50:13] AaronSw

i asumme that means something like full-out/crazy

[14:50:46] gk

Yeah... English expression ;-)

[14:52:43] bwm

bwm has joined #rdfcore

[14:55:23] libby

libby has joined #rdfcore

[15:01:36] DanC

hi, anybody?

[15:01:41] AaronSw

hello

[15:02:23] AaronSw

<Zakim> SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has now started

[15:03:03] bwm

hi - zakim has not called us

[15:03:11] AaronSw

what's the number?

[15:03:15] AaronSw

<Zakim> +Manola

[15:03:15] AaronSw

<Zakim> +Guest P2 7332 - is perhaps PatH?

[15:03:20] bwm

Dan is wokring on it

[15:03:48] DanC

"Your request at 15:03Z to add TP-Iles-C to the Zakim bridge conference 7332 has been added to the queue."

[15:04:19] AaronSw

<Zakim> +TP-Iles-C

[15:04:40] AaronSw

<Zakim> -PatH?

[15:04:41] AaronSw

<Zakim> -TP-Iles-C

[15:05:03] AaronSw

<Zakim> +Guest P2 7332 - is perhaps PatH?

[15:05:03] AaronSw

<Zakim> +AaronSw

[15:05:32] DanC

hmm... we were there and then left?

[15:05:45] bwm

aaron - are you dialed in - please tell pat we are trying

[15:07:26] AaronSw

yep, we're making all the decisions ourselves

[15:07:46] bwm

cool - we can check if they are the same as ours

[15:08:15] AaronSw

We've come up with a new insult: "you bNode!"

[15:08:57] ircleuser

ircleuser has joined #rdfcore

[15:09:38]

* AaronSw waves to PatH?

[15:09:47] ircleuser

hithere

[15:09:54] DanC

we're experiencing dialing difficulties.

[15:10:21] ircleuser

ircleuser is now known as pathayes

[15:13:39] bwm

Hi pat

[15:13:47] AaronSw

<Zakim> +TP-Iles-C

[15:13:55] AaronSw

you guys sound like a busy signal

[15:14:02] AaronSw

<Zakim> -TP-Iles-C

[15:14:39]

* gk still problem dialling

[15:15:14] AaronSw

<Zakim> +TP-Iles-C

[15:15:18] AaronSw

same thing

[15:15:38] AaronSw

<Zakim> -TP-Iles-C

[15:15:49] AaronSw

you connect and all we hear is bleeeep bleeeep bleeeep bleeeep

[15:15:51] bwm

k

[15:17:07] AaronSw

we think the problem is that you've identified your telephone by using a fragment uri

[15:17:07] gk

I must tone down my language ;-)

[15:21:57]

* DanC chacls minutes so far

[15:24:46] DanC

I think it's silly that we don't conclude that thinks with the same subj/pred/obj are equal. I'd like to abstain.

[15:24:54] DanC

... if the logisitcs allow.

[15:25:52] DanC

I think this is available to the world now. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/20020225-am.html

[15:27:00] AaronSw

seems to be

[15:27:09] gk

DanC: it's -pm I cannot get to.

[15:27:15] DanC

I'm working on it...

[15:27:44] DanC

chair: pls see -am notes re fragments issue...

[15:27:55]

* DanC wonders who's the scribe

[15:28:31] DanC

aaron or pat, confirm you're looking at fragments notes from this morning? (i.e. what the chair is reading?)

[15:28:36] DanC

AaronSw: sounds good.

[15:28:42] AaronSw

yes

[15:28:46]

* danbri_ tries to dial in

[15:28:52] AaronSw

"fragments may cause cancer in mice"

[15:29:11] DanC

pathayes: s/identifiy/denote/ ? or locate?

[15:29:39] DanC

path, you have an action to edit the model theroy spec as appropriate.

[15:29:57] DanC

(provided you accept; oops; recorded action was for the chair to ask you to do that)

[15:30:03] DanC

nak, pat. say again.

[15:30:04]

* danbri_ dissapears from bridge dialout queue; still waiting for phone to ring.

[15:30:46] DanC

pathayes: name?

[15:30:47] gk

--- fragment ids...

[15:30:52] gk

--- fragment ids...

[15:31:02]

* gk test

[15:31:06] DanC

EricM abstains.

[15:31:13] AaronSw

Aaron abstains.

[15:31:21] DanC

RESOLVED. (not sure where the real record is)

[15:31:53]

* DanC takes scribe duties

[15:32:48]

* danbri_ gives up on phone bridge dialout; returns to lurking

[15:32:53] DanC

RESOLVED: Proposed: RDF uses URI's with fragment ID's to name resources. this closes rdfms-fragments.

[15:33:03] DanC

RESOLVED: RDF uses URI's with fragment ID's to name resources. this closes rdfms-fragments.

[15:33:11] DanC

reiterate:

[15:33:13] DanC

Action: Graham draft text for the primer, including a "here be dragons" warning

[15:33:13] DanC

Action: DanC Highlight this issue with the TAG

[15:33:23] DanC

------- Datatypes

[15:33:40] gk

See -pm notes ... dan is working to fix protection

[15:33:44] DanC

chair: can you see the -pm notes?

[15:34:05] AaronSw

pat, aaron: no

[15:34:11] DanC

done.

[15:34:13] JosD

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/20020225-pm.html

[15:34:15] bwm

C:\User\w3c\WWW\2001\sw\RDFCore\20020225-f2f\20020225-pm.html

[15:34:42] bwm

We have agreed that some form of Jeremy's entailment is required (msg 0635 Feb)

[15:34:42] bwm

Patrick's entailment suggests that Jeremy's entailment works with Patrick's extra rules

[15:34:42] bwm

Jos has rules and a formal proof that Jeremy's entailment works with range and drange with ageA and ageB example - with extra rules

[15:34:42] bwm

Patrick suggests we only need one age property but this requires assuming a datatype class includes both value and lexical space members

[15:34:42] bwm

Patrick claims with some support from others that this also allows to do without drange

[15:34:44] bwm

Having to use two properties is ugly

[15:34:46] bwm

We have agreed that the datatype being a union of val and lex spaces is ugly

[15:34:50] AaronSw

we can see it online now

[15:35:08] DanC

[all can see now]

[15:35:15] DanC

chair: this summarizes the discussion earlier today.

[15:35:36] DanC

"Jeremy's entailment" refers to...

[15:35:39]

* DanC surfs...

[15:36:00] DanC

... PatS's rules [@@pointer pending] were discussed...

[15:36:01] gk

Jeremy's entailment was basically that the same info could be entailed from both idioms

[15:36:34] DanC

PatS's rules: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0642.html

[15:37:13] DanC

Jeremy's entailment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0635.html

[15:37:25] gk

Are you getting this ... bwm just read a key point?

[15:37:43] DanC

PatS grins cuz nobody's formally disputed the "you can get away with just one age property if you put both val and lex in the integer class".

[15:38:27] DanC

chair finishes discussiong.

[15:39:12] DanC

pathayes: why is it considered "ugly" to use ageA vs. ageB?

[15:39:25] DanC

DanC: for "ugly" read "hard to explain to users"

[15:40:09] DanC

pathayes: seems easy to explain to me; one property talks about numbers, the other about numerals.

[15:40:57] gk

DC folks get confused about properties -- sometimes simple values, sometimes have other values

[15:41:27] gk

pathayes: can define an RDFS superproperty that covers the two (literal+value) cases

[15:42:25] DanC

pathayes: has anybody looked at my latest? I think it handles Jeremy's case without getting into unions.

[15:42:36] DanC

JosD: yes, I agree.

[15:42:46] DanC

Jeremy: haven't read the latest yet...

[15:43:07] DanC

... this morning, I went from "you can't make my entaliment work" to...

[15:43:20] DanC

... "hmm... maybe you can"

[15:44:02] DanC

chair: the latest proposal wasn't the basis of the discussion today, unfortunately./

[15:44:30] DanC

chair: perhaps folks could read it[pointer?] tonight.

[15:44:36] JosD

read http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype23-02-2002.html

[15:44:47] DanC

chair: about this union idea, pat, you've seen problems?

[15:46:01] DanC

pathayes: if the datatypes, as classes, have the union of the [scribe in discussion]

[15:46:15] DanC

ppl will want to refer to the value space of the datatypes.

[15:47:14] DanC

chair: if someone wanted to say "the value space is the value space of integer", there's now way to do that.

[15:47:21] DanC

... is that the problem?

[15:48:14]

* DanC reminds all we've got a half-duples connection

[15:48:56]

* DanC doesn't hear anything worth scribing; just people re-re-re-re-stating their preference

[15:50:42] DanC

pathayes: we have all those inheritance problems...

[15:51:08] DanC

PatS: I'm aware of those problems; I pointed them out; I think those problems are lower costs than these.

[15:51:30] gk

I thought the real concern here was ageA/ageB rather than range/drange

[15:53:15] DanC

points of order are raised...

[15:53:24] DanC

... re difficulty of phone connection.

[15:53:25] DanC

2nded

[15:53:50] DanC

chair, pls re-iterate inheritance problem in email, path?

[15:54:12] DanC

RESOLVED: all to read pat's proposal:

[15:54:32] DanC

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0643.html

[15:54:38] DanC

http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype23-02-2002.html

[15:54:43] DanC

for tomorrow.

[15:54:53] DanC

moved to adjourn telcon 'till tomorrow,

[15:54:57] DanC

in hopes of better facilities.

[15:55:03] DanC

with thanks from the chair, telcon ADJOURNED>

[15:55:07] DanC

s/>/./

[15:55:59] pathayes

pathayes has left #rdfcore

[15:57:44] pathayes

pathayes has joined #rdfcore

[15:58:58] pathayes

pathayes has left #rdfcore

[16:00:25] gk

discussio nof the inheritance problem

[16:00:31] gk

intdec range decimaint

[16:00:34] gk

inoct range octalint

[16:00:51] gk

inoct subtype indec

[16:01:17] gk

allows us to conclude that the range of inoct is also range decimaint

[16:01:18] DanC

so it seems the problem is in claiming "Octint rdfs:subClassOf DecimalInt".

[16:01:42] gk

q whetere the example is ok

[16:02:14] gk

as long as we use range, we have this problem and we have to explain it to users in order to avoid this

[16:02:20] gk

with drange, this isn't so muich of a problem

[16:02:35] gk

bwm: we have a choice

[16:03:18] DanC

DanC: is that as bad as the inheritance problems get?

[16:03:22] DanC

[several]: yes.

[16:03:50] gk

earlier, noted this doesn't require/isn't caused by proposed union (val, lex)

[16:04:46] DanC

EricM: how about the case of W3C dates vs. ISO dates? does this problem show up there?

[16:04:56] DanC

[several]: doesn't seem like it.

[16:06:36] DanC

Jeremy: I apprecaite the aesthetic argument; clarity comes from using different symbols for different things. It seems that the "range" and "Datarange" concepts are different, so I can see the desire to use different symbols, but I can also see the cost to users. [not sure I got that right]

[16:07:28]

* DanC wonders if the chair-projector-owner would give a bit more screen space to this log

[16:07:28] gk

If people behave logically, there's no problem

[16:08:00] DanC

DanC: or, to put it another way: this might be the best formalism of what people do, in practice, when not constrained.

[16:09:23] gk

DanC: I disagree... looking at UAProf->CC/PP, I think that what people do when not constrained is don't specify how datatype mappings work. There's a right old mish-mash of property value formats used there.

[16:11:00] bwm

bwm:...

[16:11:20] bwm

inheritance problem is?

[16:11:24] bwm

fragility

[16:11:37] bwm

looks fine but a potential minefield (gk)

[16:12:16] bwm

em: inheritance powerful but datatypes tend to be a seaprate thing that thee users don't see, but are reused

[16:12:40] bwm

.. and the need to extend them seems less important than the need for new classes and properties

[16:13:35] bwm

... maybe have to sometimes have to pragmatically say that magic happens;datatypes might be one of this

[16:13:44] bwm

... keep it simple; keep it consitently simple

[16:13:56] bwm

... or, also do it wrong like others ahve done it wrong

[16:14:27] bwm

jjc: ugly (math) versus ugly (to users). The fromer means fragile honed by experience but might break later

[16:14:34] bwm

... a different sort of risk

[16:14:51] bwm

gk: we are trying to overload range with too much - subclassing and datatyping

[16:15:13] bwm

... less likely to get caught in the future if/when datatyping and classes need to go inslightly different directions

[16:15:41] bwm

ps: not overloaded, but not as preciese or explcit as could be

[16:16:09] bwm

.. range isn't overloaded, more not giving the precision of internal structure of datatypes

[16:16:57] bwm

miked: in daml+oil, we addressed some of this by having separate datatype properties and objet properties - seemed necessary, see this as some variation. Found a lot of cases where I foundthis distinction an issue (problem)

[16:17:25] bwm

em: we can do this by asking users for their feedback ont his diff. What did they say? Did they get it?

[16:17:32] bwm

miked: accepted it pretty well

[16:17:57] bwm

... sometimes had to backup to use Property

[16:18:12] bwm

... nice to not have to make this decision

[16:18:49] bwm

em: museum community want one type of property, have far richer semantics

[16:19:23] bwm

... the modellers also want few choices to model

[16:19:37] bwm

jjc: heard miked say having 2 types of prop was tricky?

[16:20:08] bwm

... think this is an argument for having drange

[16:20:28] bwm

gk: wandered off drange/range into two properties agea/ageb

[16:20:59] gk

DaveB: we could sell range/drange much more easily than two names for each property.

[16:21:09] bwm

jjc: drANGE/range only effects schema authors -e xpertes, but two properties affects all end uers

[16:21:25] bwm

JosD: we aren't proposing two properties

[16:21:42] bwm

em: what is the vlaue of drange?

[16:21:48] gk

jjc: previously, suggested that range/drange may be anough to avoid needing two names for each property. (Didn't catch why.. did I misunderstand?)

[16:22:10] bwm

em: in schemawg datatypes dropped..

[16:22:26] bwm

... now returning

[16:22:51] bwm

ps: range only versus datatypes as unions -

[16:22:59] bwm

.. then all rdffs range semantics remain the same

[16:23:07] bwm

... bt ca't say only value or only lex space

[16:23:18] bwm

... however with drange, can say what a datatypin class

[16:23:39] bwm

... from rdfd:drange it says

[16:23:50] danbri_

historical note: they were dropped by RDF Schema WG so we could wait to see what XML schema datatyping looked like

[16:23:56] bwm

... the object of a property with a drange is either a union of a daatvalue or a lexical space

[16:24:02] bwm

danbri_: yeah

[16:24:06] bwm

(dajobe btw)

[16:24:13] bwm

bwm is now known as dajobe-scribe

[16:24:20] dajobe-scribe

... dual view of datatype

[16:24:47] dajobe-scribe

jjc: if using drange then opposed using uris for datatype uris confusing if sometimes users have to use range, sometimes drange

[16:24:54] dajobe-scribe

... either range OR drange, not both

[16:24:59] dajobe-scribe

.. for datatyping

[16:25:23] dajobe-scribe

em: large confusion on users from datatyping, diff from a class, and how to model a datatype / class ..

[16:25:30] dajobe-scribe

... e.g. dewey, basically a float

[16:25:38] dajobe-scribe

... classes and subclasses with relationships

[16:25:45] dajobe-scribe

... but what about controleld vocab?

[16:25:55] dajobe-scribe

... (mon, tue, ... fri) a dataype or a set o clases?

[16:26:04] dajobe-scribe

... no pref, just there are oddities here

[16:26:24] dajobe-scribe

... there are a default set of datatypes that people like and they get confused in the diff/similaritiies#

[16:26:32] dajobe-scribe

... we have to explain clearly the fundamental differences

[16:26:38] dajobe-scribe

... degrees of ugliness again

[16:27:00] dajobe-scribe

... If they are different, we have to be clera when to use which symbol.

[16:27:25] dajobe-scribe

ps: one one hand have a min vocab ...

[16:27:44] dajobe-scribe

... they won't understand range/drange

[16:27:56] dajobe-scribe

(em: you agreein with me?

[16:27:58] dajobe-scribe

... yes

[16:28:29] dajobe-scribe

... if we give this union vocab, is simple enough. For others, additional machinery can be given for more powerful users

[16:28:39] dajobe-scribe

bwm: martyn - when do I use range, when drange?

[16:28:45] DanC

DanC has quit

[16:29:05] dajobe-scribe

bwm asks around the table

[16:29:54] dajobe-scribe

JosD: like daml datatype property; when you want to use xsd: things

[16:30:01] dajobe-scribe

... no free lunch

[16:30:22] dajobe-scribe

em: diff is when you do literals or resources for the values

[16:30:32] dajobe-scribe

... for age as an aexample

[16:30:40] dajobe-scribe

... we have two properties

[16:31:11] dajobe-scribe

jjc: drange when want to be a literal; range when want to it be an object

[16:31:29] dajobe-scribe

ps: in merging graphs of these two styles, get a type clash

[16:31:41] dajobe-scribe

... or always have to say drange

[16:31:53] dajobe-scribe

... get a range conflict

[16:34:18] dajobe-scribe

jjc writes an example

[16:34:43] dajobe-scribe

asked dajobe-scribe: no answer

[16:36:07] dajobe-scribe

bwm: wrap up

[16:36:43] dajobe-scribe

... need to do:

[16:36:56] dajobe-scribe

... 2) where are we gonna go tonight?

[16:37:11] dajobe-scribe

... 1) tomorows agenda

[16:38:40] dajobe-scribe

review of 26th agenda

[16:38:58] dajobe-scribe

mk: from webont perspsective xml:lang and cardinality constraints?

[16:39:04] dajobe-scribe

s/mk/mdean/

[16:39:09] dajobe-scribe

jjc: isn't that a webont q?

[16:39:24] dajobe-scribe

em: want to talk to you about this

[16:40:24] dajobe-scribe

em: vote for xml schema relationships 10 min

[16:45:06] dajobe-scribe

agenda review

[16:45:22] dajobe-scribe

bwm: try to fit more daatyping in

[16:46:01] dajobe-scribe

bwm: regret not bein able to go over pat's document during the meeting

[16:46:06] dajobe-scribe

general approval

[16:46:14] dajobe-scribe

bwm: read it tonight

[16:47:02] dajobe-scribe

CLOSE

[16:47:06] dajobe-scribe

dajobe-scribe is now known as bwm

[16:49:36] libby

libby has quit

[17:08:06] bwm

bwm has quit

[17:14:53] gk

gk has left #rdfcore

[17:14:53] JosD

JosD has quit

[17:28:57] mdean_

mdean_ has quit

[17:57:58] danbri_

danbri_ has left #rdfcore

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