IRC log of webont on 2002-04-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:50:52 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #webont

07:51:42 [libby]

logger1 is logging to http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/webont/2002-04-08.txt

07:53:25 [jhendler]

RRSAgent, where is the log

07:53:25 [jhendler]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'where is the log', jhendler. Try /msg RRSAgent help

07:53:54 [jhendler]

RRSAgent bookmark

07:54:04 [jhendler]

RRSAgent, bookmark

07:54:04 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2002/04/08-webont-irc#T07-54-04

07:54:23 [jhendler]

jhendler has changed the topic to: Web Ontology WG - f2f: - log - http://www.w3.org/2002/04/08-webont-irc#T07-54-0

07:54:49 [nmg]

fvh: starting from proposal from 19 Mar 2002 (first proposal for OWL)

07:55:35 [JosD]

Frank's presentation is at http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/FOWL-proposal.pdf

07:55:39 [nmg]

thanks

07:56:01 [GuusS]

GuusS has joined #webont

07:59:28 [nmg]

jjc: is the difference between primitive and defined classes understandable by users?

08:00:18 [nmg]

guus: we dropped 'primitive' from PrimitiveClass in our use (understandable to OO peopole)

08:01:40 [nmg]

fvh: difference is buried in DAML+OIL (PrimitiveClass == subClassOf, DefinedClass == sameClassAs)

08:04:32 [DavidTras]

DavidTras has joined #webont

08:05:36 [nmg]

fvh: or, PrimitiveClass == sufficient, DefinedClass == necessary and sufficient

08:05:38 [GuusS]

ISSUE: is "defined-class" core or advanced feature

08:09:26 [nmg]

jhendler: why is multiple-valued the default for slots (and not single-valued, as in other languages)

08:10:03 [nmg]

fvh: single-valued is a tighter constraint, looser (multiple) taken as default.

08:10:43 [nmg]

ISSUE: default cardinality for slots (single/multi)

08:13:16 [nmg]

fvh: (answering question from PatH) Enumerated Class is necessary and sufficient definition

08:14:13 [nmg]

guus: EnumeratedClasses may also have slots (cf. Mozart opera example from UML/OWL document)

08:15:43 [nmg]

http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/docs/owl-uml/owl-uml.html

08:15:57 [nmg]

fvh: EnumeratedClass is also closed defn

08:17:41 [nmg]

fvh: also, no need to define (individuals) before first use - EnumeratedClass defines individuals in extension of class

08:18:15 [nmg]

ISSUE: global and local ranges (mike dean)

08:18:36 [nmg]

mdean: perhaps we could do away with global ranges?

08:19:54 [nmg]

fvh: TransitiveProperty is global defn

08:22:28 [nmg]

pfps: (datatyping) DAML+OIL does not explicitly specify type of a literal value

08:23:33 [nmg]

PatH: rdf-core approach to datatypes involves (is likely to involve?) bNodes with datatype properties (xsd:integer, eg)

08:24:05 [nmg]

ISSUE: datatyping

08:25:56 [nmg]

mdean: syntax for individual only takes one class name

08:26:07 [nmg]

fvh/pfps: compatability with RDF syntax

08:26:14 [jhendler]

issue - if same thing is class and instance, what does that imply

08:28:17 [nmg]

guus: problem with datatype values - often need to know/specify units of measurement

08:28:37 [nmg]

fvh: complex datatype, or anonymous individual

08:28:57 [nmg]

guus: need to show realistic examples for this

08:30:13 [jjc]

Jim: "I am not doing this" - I observe this is necessarily the liar paradox

08:30:58 [jhendler]

jjc - show it to me in RDFS :->

08:32:23 [jjc]

<#Jim> <doing> _:x .

08:32:25 [nmg]

fvh: equalities and inequalities of classes, properties and individuals are in FOWL core

08:32:41 [jjc]

No I give up

08:34:38 [nmg]

jimh: equivalentTo (super of above three relations) often useful in ontology mapping - mapping classes to instances, eg

08:35:59 [nmg]

ISSUE: equivalentTo (class<->instance, etc)

08:37:08 [nmg]

fvh: Full FOWL

08:39:02 [nmg]

fvh: qualified cardinality (from DAML+OIL) not in FOWL

08:41:30 [nmg]

Full FOWL as super-production of Core FOWL?

08:46:23 [nmg]

jimh: (on relation between Full and Core), some equivalent constructs appear in different ways (single/multivalue slots vs. min/max cardinality). no clear rationale behind this

08:46:55 [nmg]

ISSUE: relation between equivalent constructs in Full FOWL and Core FOWL

08:53:28 [nmg]

fvh: (comparison with DAML+OIL) inverseOf not in FOWL

08:54:03 [nmg]

pfps: removal of inverseOf was on the basis of complexity of inference

08:55:46 [nmg]

fvh: further issues raised on email (summarised in http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/frame.html)

08:58:55 [nmg]

*** session ends

09:20:54 [Herman]

Herman has joined #webont

09:21:44 [libby]

http://swordfish.rdfweb.org/photos/2002/04/07/001775.JPG

09:21:58 [libby]

- picture form last night

09:24:30 [pfps]

pfps has joined #Webont

09:25:35 [Herman]

Herman has left #webont

09:26:07 [Herman]

Herman has joined #webont

09:31:22 [nmg]

*** session starts

09:31:53 [nmg]

*** 11.00-12.30 DAML+OIL comparison, preliminary decision on core features, initial language issue list

09:32:41 [nmg]

jimh: core should be defined as language features, not syntax

09:35:27 [mdean]

Peter, etc.: What's a DatatypeRestriction? I couldn't find it in daml+oil.daml

09:37:35 [nmg]

jimh: compare FOWL Core proposal to DAML+OIL (Mar 2001 - http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference)

09:40:26 [jono]

jono has joined #webont

09:45:30 [nmg]

jimh: triage language features into 'do it the way daml does' or 'discuss further'

09:46:40 [nmg]

POLL: cardinality (B - some objections, majority in favour)

09:47:32 [nmg]

POLL: cardinalityQ (minority in favour)

09:48:36 [nmg]

POLL: class (A - in favour)

09:51:09 [nmg]

POLL: complementOf (B)

09:52:25 [nmg]

jimh: poll is for FOWL as a whole (not ness just Core)

09:52:53 [nmg]

jjc: concentrate only on Core at this stage, leave Full for later?

09:53:11 [nmg]

sbuswell: make assumption that there are two languages...

09:55:40 [nmg]

jimh: proposal: next WD will be Core language (features, syntax, etc), further progression to Full depends on schedule

09:57:01 [nmg]

sbuswell: not Core, but earlier version

09:57:10 [nmg]

fvh: *contents* correspond to Core

09:58:32 [nmg]

sbuswell/jjc: would change previous votes if this proposal were adopted.

10:07:23 [nmg]

dtrastour: subtractive rather than additive approach to deciding language features (start with DAML+OIL, pick elements to remove)

10:07:58 [nmg]

fvh: reinvention of wheel? language proposal for FOWL Core/Full does much of this work

10:08:19 [nmg]

jjc: agree, HP ontologists would prefer to start from co

10:08:34 [nmg]

ianh: disagree, one language starting from full

10:09:53 [nmg]

jimh: three options: start from fowl core, start from fowl full, start from daml+oil

10:10:25 [nmg]

path: other option raised by deborah mcguinness, start from smaller language than core

10:10:41 [nmg]

jimh: minimal start from rdfs

10:12:04 [nmg]

STRAW POLL: choice between above options

10:14:18 [nmg]

RESULT: start from RDFS (2), start from core (10), start from full (9), start from daml+oil (2)

10:14:38 [nmg]

RESULT (after removing RDDFS/daml+oil): start from core (14), start from full (10)

10:20:47 [nmg]

RESULT (after adding cardinality to core): start from core (13), start from full (10)

10:21:39 [nmg]

guus: other approach, take all constructs from full but only allow named classes

10:28:41 [nmg]

path: why named classes in core, class expressions in full

10:29:34 [nmg]

fvh: class expressions (slot restrictions, etc) not a natural way of thinking for most users and also raises issues with tool support (representation in UI?) and roundtripping

10:29:54 [jhendler]

jhendler has joined #webont

10:33:52 [nmg]

jjc: define URI prefix in spec for defn of unnamed class names (locally scoped names?)

10:34:19 [nmg]

path: cf. skolemfunctions in KIF

10:36:00 [nmg]

enrico: unnamed classes comparatively rare

10:38:01 [nmg]

STRAW POLL: full functionality for named classes vs full functionality

10:39:00 [nmg]

rklein: appeal of core language was that inference in core language was easier than in full language

10:39:43 [nmg]

ianh: not the case - equivalent complexity

10:41:26 [nmg]

RESULT: full for named class (14), full (0)

10:41:49 [nmg]

sorry, full for named classes (14), full (9)

10:47:06 [nmg]

[scattered comments hard to scribe]

10:47:44 [nmg]

ianh: difference between two proposals now very small, basically unnamed classes (agreement from enrico)

10:48:51 [nmg]

jimh: need to distinguish proposals in different manner to achive consensus

10:49:04 [nmg]

*** session breaks for lunch

12:34:34 [libby]

libby has joined #webont

12:37:10 [jhendler]

jhendler has joined #webont

12:39:42 [ora]

ora has joined #webont

12:55:25 [herman]

herman has joined #webont

13:12:46 [ora]

ora has joined #webont

13:17:16 [em]

em has joined #webont

13:41:39 [heflin]

heflin has joined #webont

13:42:00 [heflin]

Hi everyone. Just thought I'd check in and see how things are going.

13:42:20 [jd]

jd has joined #webont

13:49:13 [DavidTras]

DavidTras has joined #webont

13:58:41 [em]

em has joined #webont

14:00:36 [connolly]

connolly has joined #webont

14:08:45 [JosD]

JosD has joined #webont

14:15:57 [jjc]

jjc has joined #webont

14:16:39 [jjcscribe]

JimH - I will be strict about departures from D+O

14:17:00 [jjcscribe]

The full language needs to be close to D+O or we will never finish

14:17:13 [jjcscribe]

Issue list must be manageable size

14:18:20 [jjcscribe]

We must take seriously that we start from an existing thing

14:19:29 [jjcscribe]

JimH: I am less confortable about presentation syntax if we are doing this complex thing

14:19:32 [pfps]

pfps has joined #Webont

14:20:36 [jjcscribe]

(Prior to scribing - suggestion of two layers)

14:20:50 [jjcscribe]

Guus: which construct goes into which layer

14:21:07 [jjcscribe]

Suggested lit

14:21:11 [jjcscribe]

? * cardinality

14:21:19 [jjcscribe]

X * cardinalityQ

14:21:24 [jjcscribe]

R * class

14:21:28 [jjcscribe]

2 * complementOf

14:21:29 [FvH]

FvH has joined #webont

14:21:36 [jjcscribe]

R * datatype

14:21:41 [jjcscribe]

1 * datatypeProeprty

14:21:47 [jjcscribe]

2 * DatatypeRestrictiron

14:21:55 [jjcscribe]

?? * DatatypeVlaue

14:22:05 [jjcscribe]

1 * differentIn

14:22:11 [jjcscribe]

dividaulFreom

14:22:15 [jjcscribe]

? * Disjoint

14:22:36 [jjcscribe]

X * disjointUnionOf

14:22:46 [jjcscribe]

? * disjointWith

14:22:51 [jjcscribe]

R * domain

14:22:59 [jjcscribe]

? * equivalemntTO

14:23:04 [jjcscribe]

1 * hasClass

14:24:10 [jjcscribe]

JimH: most implementors of D+O are implementing their own subsets

14:25:03 [jjcscribe]

Guus: many people say some lighter version should be available

14:27:28 [jjcscribe]

Jeremy: I am unhappy since we seem to be starting at D+O not full

14:27:56 [jjcscribe]

JimH: the full version allows you to scatter information

14:31:25 [jjcscribe]

Enrico: I thought there were going to be semantic differentces between D+O and OWL

14:34:32 [nmg]

nmg has joined #webont

14:36:07 [jjcscribe]

Objectives + Requirements satsisfactoin?

14:36:17 [jjcscribe]

Frank: most objectives not, nohopers

14:36:53 [jjcscribe]

Most requirements met by split - boolean combinations point of contention

14:38:08 [jjcscribe]

Guus: Proposal: do both 1 and 2, and see them as separate requirement levels

14:38:25 [jjcscribe]

^requirements^conformance

14:39:32 [jjcscribe]

Ian: I disagree, its two different languages

14:40:40 [jjcscribe]

Pat: it is not two language, JimH: it is a proper subset

14:41:04 [jjcscribe]

Ora: I don'tlike subsetting, but defining a subset controls a process that will happen anyway

14:42:07 [jjcscribe]

Proposal carried

14:45:11 [jjcscribe]

JonatahnBowden we have now met the LAYERRING objective

14:47:48 [jhendler]

jhendler has joined #webont

14:47:59 [jhendler]

zakim, who is here?

14:48:47 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #webont

14:48:53 [jhendler]

zakim, who is here?

14:48:54 [Zakim]

sorry, jhendler, I don't know what conference this is

14:49:16 [jhendler]

zakim, this is WOWG

14:49:18 [Zakim]

sorry, jhendler, I do not see a conference named 'WOWG'

14:49:30 [jhendler]

zakim, create wowg

14:49:33 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'create wowg', jhendler. Try /msg Zakim help

14:49:52 [jhendler]

zakim, this is sw_webont

14:49:53 [Zakim]

ok, jhendler

14:50:05 [jhendler]

zakim, who is here?

14:50:05 [jjcscribe]

technical problems with telcon

14:50:06 [Zakim]

I see ??P13, ??P2, ??P3

14:50:58 [jjcscribe]

JimH: let's move speaker phone, and speakers come up to it

14:51:30 [jjcscribe]

Deb: I can hear someone maybe Jim very distance

14:51:36 [jjcscribe]

(Jim is right next to phone)

14:52:29 [jjcscribe]

Jeff: are you on the telecon?

14:53:16 [jjcscribe]

Pat: this is pat shouting one inch from the microphone

14:53:20 [jjcscribe]

Pat: can you hear this

14:53:25 [jjcscribe]

Deb: yes very well

14:55:01 [heflin]

Hi, I can't join the telecon because I have office hours right now,

14:55:15 [jjcscribe]

OK - thanks

14:55:17 [heflin]

but I'll watch the chat periodically

14:55:37 [jhendler]

that is okay Jeff, you wouldn't hear it anyway (phone problems) - but we are about to attack the RDF v. XML issue

14:55:42 [jjcscribe]

Ro Call

14:55:44 [jjcscribe]

Deb

14:55:46 [jjcscribe]

Larry

14:55:55 [jjcscribe]

and f2f participants

14:56:11 [heflin]

and Jeff

14:56:35 [jjcscribe]

Guus: telecon is about syntax

14:56:49 [jjcscribe]

Guss whispers "I am not talking loud enough"

14:57:29 [jjcscribe]

Deb: I heard Jim asking if we can hear Guus - I couldn't hear Guus

14:58:53 [jjcscribe]

Pat: yelling is embarrasing for some of us, myself excluded

14:59:09 [jjcscribe]

Guus: two competing viewpoints

14:59:19 [jjcscribe]

1: based on RDF/XML syntax

14:59:29 [jjcscribe]

(charter, political)

15:00:26 [jjcscribe]

Guus: I am not the person who shouts

15:00:36 [jjcscribe]

Pat takes over shouting

15:00:53 [jjcscribe]

Pat: can you hear me

15:00:58 [jjcscribe]

Larry: yes fine

15:01:52 [jjcscribe]

2: a new syntax

15:02:05 [jjcscribe]

compliance in favour of 1

15:02:12 [jjcscribe]

for 2 (against 1)

15:02:20 [jjcscribe]

expressability and ease of presentation

15:02:55 [jjcscribe]

Guus: option 2 makes life very hard for 2

15:03:25 [jjcscribe]

Option 2 needs a lot of justifying arguments

15:03:44 [jjcscribe]

Larry I am neutral

15:05:14 [jhendler]

Jeremy - many ways to be "RDF/XML compliant" -- like CC/PP and others, RDF syntax is used, but not total of RDF

15:06:05 [jjcscribe]

Guus: option of lcosed list is now on RDF cores issue lsit

15:06:53 [jjcscribe]

PatH: we assume that RDF core will provide terminated lists

15:08:10 [jjcscribe]

Deb: I thought we had bought into building on RDF

15:08:17 [DanC]

the main reason for using RDF/XML syntax is the partial understanding bit, i thnk.

15:08:27 [jjcscribe]

Guus: from outside RDF schema looks like compliance level 0

15:08:55 [DeborahMc]

DeborahMc has joined #webont

15:09:37 [jjcscribe]

Guus: hence we should conform to RDF syntax

15:10:39 [jjcscribe]

Frank: technically I don't like it, but politically I can go with

15:11:11 [jjcscribe]

Ora: no one thinks RDF syntax is nice (jiomh matters disagreememt)

15:11:50 [ora]

I was referring to the XML serialization, of course

15:12:43 [jjcscribe]

Jeremy: lets design good XML and then tionker it into RDF triples

15:13:17 [jjcscribe]

Deb: politcial benefits of that may be high

15:13:35 [jjcscribe]

JonathanB: properly constructed good technical XML can be RDF

15:13:46 [jjcscribe]

jb: it may look like DAML+OIL

15:14:02 [jjcscribe]

jb: I look at elements as content, attribute as additional info

15:14:11 [jjcscribe]

jb: a few parseTypes don't bother me

15:14:19 [jjcscribe]

jb: using IDs is good

15:14:39 [jjcscribe]

jb: some compromises will be necessary

15:14:53 [jjcscribe]

jb: I don't believe the necessary compromises are that great

15:15:26 [jhendler]

JimH points out that Guus is chairing this session and he (JimH) will be a participant.

15:16:18 [jjcscribe]

jb: good XML it will be able to put into RDF

15:17:26 [jjcscribe]

JimH: we should start at D+O syntax

15:17:40 [jjcscribe]

JimH: becuse D+O users are familiar with them

15:17:57 [jjcscribe]

JimH; lots of people have bought into D+O syntax

15:18:30 [jjcscribe]

Ora: politically our existence is controversial

15:18:50 [heflin]

I get the feeling that a lot of users are unhappy with D+O syntax.

15:18:52 [jjcscribe]

Ora: we may lose creditabilty if we focus on this issue

15:19:59 [jjcscribe]

Larry: we might get bogged down in this issue

15:20:22 [jjcscribe]

Deb: all of us can live with RDF syntax, but what about broader user base

15:21:17 [heflin]

Maybe someone should survey current D+O users to see how they feel about RDF syntax?

15:21:18 [jjcscribe]

Frank: disagree wtih Jim that we should not diverge from D+O syntax

15:21:33 [jjcscribe]

Frank: core OWL proprofsal synatx was liked because of divergenet

15:25:31 [jjcscribe]

Mike: are negative reactions from XML literate people or non-XML literate

15:25:51 [jjcscribe]

Mike: is this negative about XML or negative about RDF

15:26:04 [jjcscribe]

Frank: it is XML literate poeple

15:26:13 [jjcscribe]

Deb: are frame literate people

15:26:25 [jjcscribe]

Deb: are XML literate people without RDF or DL

15:26:54 [jjcscribe]

Larry: I though OWL litewas going to fix that

15:27:31 [jjcscribe]

Pat: we seem to have two splits

15:27:43 [jjcscribe]

Pat presentation vs under the hood syntax

15:27:52 [jjcscribe]

Pat: XML serialization vs anything else

15:28:20 [jjcscribe]

Jb: motivation for using XML or RDF is that it is less work

15:28:23 [heflin]

Does Pat mean RDF XML serialization, or some other XML serialization?

15:28:29 [jjcscribe]

jb: syntax is already defined,

15:29:28 [jhendler]

pat - RDF/XML

15:30:02 [heflin]

I am not in favor of just anything else.

15:30:24 [jhendler]

"just anything else" than what?

15:30:25 [heflin]

I'm for RDF for data, other XML syntax for ontologies.

15:31:04 [jjcscribe]

Guus: proposed that underlying syntax is ugly

15:31:12 [heflin]

Above I was referring to scribes wording of Pat's statement. It sounds like non-XML was included there.

15:31:44 [jjcscribe]

(asside Pat did seem to be letting that)

15:32:28 [jjcscribe]

(I am a bit lost)

15:33:15 [heflin]

(I wish I could be on the telecon, but the moment I phone in, a student is bound to walk into my office.

15:33:29 [jjcscribe]

Peter: e.g. RSS can be roundtripped as RDF but then the meaning changes, because its meaning is XML

15:33:53 [jjcscribe]

JimH: I strongly feel that the meaning is in terms of the treiple

15:37:28 [jjcscribe]

(discussion missed)

15:37:46 [jjcscribe]

JimH: triples have well established history

15:37:58 [Zakim]

+??P55

15:39:13 [jjcscribe]

JimH: my infrastructure likes that model

15:39:23 [jjcscribe]

Jeff hefflin joint

15:39:37 [jjcscribe]

Zakim, P55 is jeff_hefflin

15:39:38 [Zakim]

sorry, jjcscribe, I do not recognize a party named 'P55'

15:39:40 [jhendler]

s/joint/joins

15:40:14 [jjcscribe]

Zakim,??P55 is jeff_hefflin

15:40:39 [jjcscribe]

Zakim,??P55 is jeff_heflin

15:41:03 [jhendler]

zakim, who is here?

15:41:05 [Zakim]

I see ??P13, ??P2, ??P3, ??P55

15:41:20 [jjcscribe]

Guus: can we technically live with RDF triples

15:41:32 [DeborahMc]

i do not know my number on zakim, but deborah mcguinness is on the line

15:42:43 [jjcscribe]

jb: dark triples?

15:43:37 [jhendler]

Pat - looks like dark triples may be resolved in some simpler way

15:43:42 [jjcscribe]

Pat: Peter and I have stolen an idea from Jos to have dark trriples with no changes to RDF

15:44:17 [Zakim]

-??P55

15:44:28 [heflin]

I had to hang up. A student's here...

15:44:50 [jjcscribe]

Pat: the trick is incorporate the unasserted triples in another document and refer to them

15:46:08 [jjcscribe]

Guus: is there a technical hurdle that cannot be overcome with RDF triples

15:48:02 [jjcscribe]

Frank: round tripping

15:48:27 [jjcscribe]

Jeremy: let's have preferred presentation syntax giving a preferred serialization of an RDF graph

15:48:49 [jjcscribe]

over an above a different serialization

15:49:10 [heflin]

Is the telecon almost over, or should I still rejoin?

15:49:42 [DeborahMc]

the conversation is still going strong

15:51:20 [heflin]

apparenty the conference is "restricted." Have we reached the limit of attendees?

15:51:44 [jjcscribe]

no

15:51:50 [jhendler]

we may have gone over time limit - Massimo?

15:52:23 [heflin]

Maybe it won't let anyone join after 11:45 ET?

15:53:10 [jjcscribe]

jb: propose postponing the req for round tripping

15:55:03 [jjcscribe]

Steven Buswell: wif we have two serializations which one is the reference syntax

15:55:19 [jjcscribe]

for pragmatic reasons the reference syntax is RDF

15:56:05 [jjcscribe]

Frank: people like fram in OWL lite; Jim I don't

15:57:11 [jjcscribe]

Massimo: are there any technical problems with RDF as a syntax here?

15:57:45 [heflin]

Layering issues, raised by Peter.

15:58:11 [DeborahMc]

just to add a vote, i have a number of comments from potential users supporting a frame syntax.

15:58:28 [jjcscribe]

jb: you could include the whole source ontology as an XML literal

15:59:32 [jjcscribe]

xml literal is value of parseType="literal"

16:01:02 [heflin]

I think that using triples for ontology also opens you up to problems where people could redefine your ontology building vocabulary (e.g., change the meaning of intersectionOf)

16:01:08 [jjcscribe]

guus: propose that there is a presentation syntax and an underlying syntax and a transform

16:01:28 [jjcscribe]

guus: some form of preservation of presentation syntax is requirement

16:02:19 [jjcscribe]

guus: propose also RDF is underlying syntax

16:04:40 [jjcscribe]

deb we should present our solution in a way that makes XML and antiRDF people happy

16:05:30 [jjcscribe]

guus: propose that the presentation syntax is in XML

16:05:39 [jjcscribe]

(last bit seems controversial)

16:07:02 [jjcscribe]

ora; M&S says RDF/XML is one serialization

16:07:37 [ora]

"only one" serialization, others may exist

16:07:52 [ora]

not "the only one"

16:08:19 [DanC]

but until lots of consumers grok another RDF syntax, it is the only one

16:08:24 [jjcscribe]

AGREEMENT: to the bullers 1-3 of above proposal, (not that presentation syntax is XML - but the other ones)

16:08:43 [ora]

N3 is popular, yes?

16:09:11 [DanC]

N3 is a popular text-editor-based authoring tool for RDF/XML, yes.

16:09:22 [JosD]

definitely!

16:09:56 [jjcscribe]

jb: we should register a mime media type

16:11:54 [Zakim]

-??P2

16:11:54 [Zakim]

-??P3

16:11:55 [Zakim]

-??P13

16:11:58 [Zakim]

SW_WebOnt()10:45AM has ended

16:19:36 [heflin]

heflin has left #webont

16:56:38 [Deborah]

Deborah has joined #webont

17:37:15 [DanC]

by the way... with all the questions about logistics and such, maybe we didn't advertise the meeting home page enough http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf2.html

17:48:39 [timfinin]

timfinin has joined #webont

18:06:05 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #webont

18:18:31 [timfinin]

timfinin has left #webont