IRC log of swarch on 2003-03-06

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:01:24 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #swarch
14:01:30 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swarch
14:01:45 [em-lap]
em-lap has changed the topic to: semweb arch tech plen meeting - 2002-03-06
14:01:51 [DanC]
DanC has joined #swarch
14:02:10 [DanC]
RRSAgent, pointer?
14:02:10 [RRSAgent]
14:03:11 [DaveB]
14:05:00 [DaveB]
do the bots need/want op?
14:05:33 [DanC]
don't think so.
14:05:51 [DanC]
agenda + zakim how-to
14:06:06 [DanC]
Zakim, who's here?
14:06:07 [Zakim]
sorry, DanC, I don't know what conference this is
14:06:09 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DanC, Zakim, RRSAgent, em-lap, DaveB
14:06:16 [DanC]
Zakim, this is SWARCH
14:06:17 [Zakim]
sorry, DanC, I do not see a conference named 'SWARCH'
14:06:22 [DanC]
Zakim, list
14:06:22 [Zakim]
I see WS_XMLP(tp)8:00AM, Team_Ralph's(test)
14:07:37 [bh]
bh has joined #swarch
14:08:01 [pfps]
pfps has joined #swarch
14:08:12 [timbl__]
timbl__ has joined #swarch
14:08:22 [timbl__]
Hi everyone
14:08:55 [JosD__]
JosD__ has joined #swarch
14:09:05 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swarch
14:09:21 [DanC]
EricM convenes the meeting...
14:09:33 [DanC]
NOTICE: records of the meeting are public.
14:10:02 [horrocks]
horrocks has joined #swarch
14:10:23 [bwm-scrib]
ericm: welcome
14:10:51 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #swarch
14:10:51 [PStickler]
PStickler has joined #swarch
14:11:06 [sandro]
sandro has joined #swarch
14:11:12 [mdean]
mdean has joined #swarch
14:11:19 [bwm-scrib]
this is an experiment in bringing people with different backgrounds together
14:11:40 [DanC]
em presents
14:12:08 [bwm-scrib]
em-lap: accomplished a lot in last two years
14:12:20 [sandro]
sandro has joined #swarch
14:12:24 [bwm-scrib]
conferences dedicated to sw
14:12:25 [bwm-scrib]
14:12:40 [bwm-scrib]
em can't keep up with number of new tools
14:12:57 [bwm-scrib]
areas where less successful - areas that need more work
14:13:11 [bwm-scrib]
discussing these over next two days
14:13:20 [sandro]
sandro has joined #swarch
14:13:25 [bwm-scrib]
goal: identifying barriers to adoption
14:13:45 [bwm-scrib]
input to w3c on where to focus phase two of the activity
14:14:18 [bwm-scrib]
meeting nodes are public
14:14:57 [bwm-scrib]
em thanks danc for helping put agenda together
14:15:04 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
14:15:04 [RRSAgent]
14:15:24 [bwm-scrib]
em goes over agenda
14:16:29 [bwm-scrib]
14:18:58 [bwm-scrib]
?? announces bof - sorry forgot your name
14:19:22 [bwm-scrib]
em hands over to DanC
14:19:38 [timbl__]
Benjamin Grosof announced the BOF this evening
14:19:43 [timbl__]
14:20:17 [DanC]
danc: presenting on w3c
14:20:32 [DanC]
14:20:47 [PStickler]
What is the topic of the BOF? SW Arch?
14:20:52 [sandro]
[Note that this logger, unlike #rdfig's logger, does NOT record /me actions.]
14:21:15 [sandro]
Surely the BOF is about RuleML.
14:22:44 [bwm-scrib]
dan talks about w3c organisation
14:23:12 [bwm-scrib]
danc talks about w3c history html, style sheets, ...
14:24:31 [bwm-scrib]
danc wonders how much people want to know about process
14:24:45 [bwm-scrib]
danc tells them anyway
14:26:52 [sandro] I think
14:28:52 [bwm-scrib]
danc shows process diagram generated from rdf model of w3c process
14:28:57 [DanC]
14:30:17 [ArtB]
ArtB has joined #swarch
14:30:34 [bwm-scrib]
timbl notes the graph is not to scale, when discussing participation
14:32:52 [bwm-scrib]
timbl observes that the process looks like the choreography of a bunch of services
14:33:11 [bwm-scrib]
DanC asks what people mean when they talk about sw services
14:33:24 [ircleuser]
ircleuser has joined #swarch
14:34:15 [bwm-scrib]
danc moves on to web architecture
14:34:49 [bwm-scrib]
14:35:46 [bwm-scrib]
oh he switched http:///
14:36:26 [bwm-scrib]
a lot of what sw architecture is to take db and kr technologies and take names and turn them into uri's and see what happens
14:36:45 [sandro]
I'd call them Naming, Knowledge Representation, and Data Transfer.
14:37:05 [bwm-scrib]
sandro refers to the tripod of web architecture, I think
14:37:59 [bwm-scrib]
danc complains that user defined xml schema datatypes don't have a uri
14:38:08 [PStickler]
Identified by URI or URIref? ;-)
14:39:11 [bwm-scrib]
path requests permission to beat on danc
14:39:28 [sandro]
PStickler, DanC, TimBL, and the TAG use the term "URI" the way the RDF specs use the word "URIRef".
14:39:30 [jhendler_]
jhendler_ has joined #swarch
14:40:04 [PStickler]
Should the term URIref be deprecated and just use URI?
14:40:22 [bwm-scrib]
path says there is a difference between addressing (location) and naming (denotation)
14:40:48 [bwm-scrib]
sandro: notes that we are using the term URI to mean URI REF
14:41:05 [bwm-scrib]
pfps notes we don't own the terms URI and URIREF
14:41:28 [bwm-scrib]
tag is proposing people should use xml
14:41:42 [bwm-scrib]
running xslt on rdf hurts
14:42:18 [bwm-scrib]
jjc: we tend to use qnames as an abbreviation for URIREFS's which does not fit with xml usage
14:42:23 [bwm-scrib]
DanC: issue 8 on the tag list
14:42:41 [bwm-scrib]
now on slide 6 of 9
14:43:06 [bwm-scrib]
separate presentation from semantics
14:43:24 [bwm-scrib]
slide 8
14:43:58 [bwm-scrib]
another way to look at sw architecture is what happens when you take formal langauges and descriptions and connect that to the web
14:44:25 [bwm-scrib]
danc closes with demo
14:45:04 [RalphS]
RalphS has joined #swarch
14:45:21 [bwm-scrib]
danc has 200+lines of python that takes any sql database to produce RDF and then styled client side
14:46:10 [bwm-scrib]
uses xslt script to format the rdf
14:46:27 [bwm-scrib]
roll call
14:46:39 [bwm-scrib]
14:46:45 [bwm-scrib]
14:47:04 [bwm-scrib]
14:47:09 [bwm-scrib]
14:47:16 [bwm-scrib]
14:47:17 [bwm-scrib]
14:47:21 [bwm-scrib]
14:47:24 [bwm-scrib]
14:47:24 [bwm-scrib]
14:47:36 [bwm-scrib]
14:47:36 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swarch
14:47:39 [bwm-scrib]
14:47:42 [bwm-scrib]
14:48:00 [bwm-scrib]
14:48:22 [bwm-scrib]
14:48:51 [bwm-scrib]
14:49:00 [bwm-scrib]
14:49:05 [bwm-scrib]
14:49:08 [bwm-scrib]
miller, libby
14:49:15 [bwm-scrib]
miller, eric
14:49:23 [bwm-scrib]
14:49:27 [bwm-scrib]
14:49:47 [bwm-scrib]
14:49:48 [bwm-scrib]
14:49:54 [bwm-scrib]
not schmidt
14:50:08 [bwm-scrib]
14:50:19 [bwm-scrib]
14:50:26 [bwm-scrib]
14:50:34 [bwm-scrib]
14:50:38 [bwm-scrib]
14:50:39 [bwm-scrib]
14:51:15 [bwm-scrib]
14:51:35 [bwm-scrib]
grossof at bit
14:51:38 [bwm-scrib]
14:51:41 [Bernard]
horan is here
14:52:02 [bwm-scrib]
benjamin grosof (bgrosof@mit)
14:52:04 [sandro]
14:52:31 [sandro]
timbl is here but was not on that list
14:52:31 [bwm-scrib]
timbl also present
14:52:42 [jhendler_]
Hendler monitoring IRC, apologies for not being able to be there in person.
14:52:49 [bwm-scrib]
TimBL takes stage
14:53:00 [JosD__]
TimBL talking about
14:53:35 [sandro]
I'm surprised at how many people are absent. WIll they be here later, or is this a reflection of the difference between intent and reality.
14:54:22 [bwm-scrib]
some discussion of taking a break
14:54:26 [JosD__]
Jim, this is really great!
14:54:32 [bwm-scrib]
html working planning to join us at 10.45
14:54:39 [libby]
libby has joined #swarch
14:54:44 [bwm-scrib]
break till 1005
14:54:58 [bwm-scrib]
i.e. 15 minute break
14:55:34 [DaveB]
I cited it; was good for waving arms about "the beach" saying where things are
15:00:43 [shellac]
shellac has joined #swarch
15:06:51 [emmanuel]
emmanuel has joined #swarch
15:07:25 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #swarch
15:12:01 [DaveB]
15:13:02 [sanScribe]
TimBL talking about
15:14:05 [sanScribe]
TimBL: Layer cake on left, from bottom: Markup, Data, Ontology, Rules, Proof (and using crypto, to bootstrap a secure system)
15:14:54 [sanScribe]
...: Markup gave you Interop with an App (Application Domain)
15:15:17 [sanScribe]
...: RDF gives you cross-app interop, so your bank statement works in your calendar.
15:16:41 [sanScribe]
...: across top: Researchy, Common FOrmats, Web Standards, Wide Deployment
15:17:26 [sanScribe]
..: (when you start writing lots of converters between the common formats, it's time to join a WG to establish a web-standard format.)
15:18:21 [sanScribe]
...: webizing KIF is a pretty cool idea, etc
15:18:49 [sanScribe]
...: THe "semantic web wave" is to make the whole stack reach wide deployment.
15:19:22 [sanScribe]
...: THe front lines: wide deployment of RDF, Standardization of OWL, common formats for rules, research for proofs.
15:20:00 [sanScribe]
(that is, the backslash diagonal.)
15:20:46 [JosD__]
JosD__ has joined #swarch
15:21:02 [sanScribe]
...: It would be nice if there were already published rules in many domains. (Rules == Derivation Rules/Axioms, ...?)
15:21:25 [sanScribe]
...: we'll need to index all the rules, pick them up on the fly, etc.
15:21:26 [DanC]
time zone data in RDF, FY:
15:21:35 [sanScribe]
...: But I'm probably preaching to the converted.
15:21:59 [sanScribe]
Jos: How does this connect to the semantic web bus?
15:22:47 [sanScribe]
TimBL: That's another picture.
15:22:59 [sanScribe]
...: Layer cake uses Resistor Color Coding.
15:24:03 [ArtB]
what's the URI for the SW bus slide?
15:24:15 [sanScribe]
...: lower bus (data/ont) is wide interoperability; higher bus (rules/logic) is less so -- may not expect other engines to infer same things
15:24:46 [sanScribe]
...: BUT please don't bring heurisitcs, etc, down to lower DATA bus.
15:24:53 [sanScribe]
...: Just index the metadata.
15:25:21 [sanScribe]
Jeremy: How do you do signatures for RDF?
15:25:39 [sanScribe]
...: (or do we need it?)
15:25:53 [sanScribe]
TimBL: Do we want a canonical RDF?
15:26:00 [bwm]
that's rdf graphs - not the serialization
15:26:04 [Nobu]
Nobu has joined #swarch
15:26:08 [JosD__]
sweb-bus is at
15:26:37 [sanScribe]
Jeremy: We have a theoretical solution at HP on canonicalization; do we need it?
15:26:49 [sanScribe]
DanC cuts discussion off here.
15:27:14 [sanScribe]
15:27:30 [sanScribe]
List of RDF Vocabularies, Applications, ....
15:29:26 [sanScribe]
DanC uses: DC, FOAF, swap/contact, cyc travel, swap log, swap math, ....
15:29:31 [sanScribe]
adding from other people
15:29:39 [sanScribe]
ANnotea, EARL,
15:29:53 [sanScribe]
Test Vocabls for RDF
15:30:07 [sanScribe]
15:30:11 [sanScribe]
15:30:15 [sanScribe]
15:30:18 [sanScribe]
15:30:21 [sanScribe]
15:30:22 [sanScribe]
15:30:24 [chaalsBOS]
chaalsBOS has joined #swarch
15:30:31 [sanScribe]
15:30:54 [sanScribe]
Art and Architecture Thesaurus
15:31:17 [sanScribe]
MIT Process Handbook
15:31:25 [sanScribe]
& contracting ontology
15:31:33 [sanScribe]
(Ben Grosof)
15:31:54 [sanScribe]
Union List of Artists Names (Guus)
15:32:00 [sanScribe]
QFX (tim)
15:32:27 [sanScribe]
MathIntOnt (international mathemantical ontology) Harold
15:32:45 [sanScribe]
rdf:type (DanBri)
15:32:50 [jhendler_]
National Cancer Institute Vocabulary to be released soon in OWL Lite
15:32:52 [sanScribe]
15:33:21 [sanScribe]
Jim these are vocabularies You Actually Use
15:33:30 [sanScribe]
Sun Product extension to DC
15:33:35 [libby]
might this be useful? - stats from my crawler
15:33:39 [sanScribe]
Technology Area (also sun)
15:34:04 [sanScribe]
15:34:56 [jhendler_]
15:35:06 [sanScribe]
15:35:08 [mdean]
DAML Services
15:35:21 [sanScribe]
DanBri -- Mozilla uses some vocabulary internally
15:35:39 [mdean]
15:36:01 [sanScribe]
DanBri: So how do we scale up this excersise to the web?
15:36:05 [mdean]
various datasets (instances) at, particularly countries
15:36:32 [bwm]
bwm uses vcard and some home grown - actions, calendar, filesys, meeting
15:37:19 [sanScribe]
...: RDF gets fun when it's all linked together and on the web. Crawling them is great!
15:37:40 [sanScribe]
...: (showing Daniel Krech's stuff.)
15:37:44 [sanScribe]
...: top of the pops
15:38:11 [JosD__]
dunno if that one counts [orthopaedics leg length discrepancy measurement|]
15:38:12 [sanScribe]
...: My home page uses lots of vocabs.
15:39:01 [JosD__]
also rdf & owl testcase vocabulary
15:39:23 [sanScribe]
...: All you need is rdfs:seeAlso
15:39:30 [jhendler_]
we use the computer science ontologies first developed for SHOE and then ported to DAML and now OWL a lot
15:39:37 [sanScribe]
...: (
15:40:47 [jhendler_]
a new "currency ontology" was just added to Daml library, we've started to use that
15:41:06 [sanScribe]
...: So what to do with what you find? List of known ontologies, NOT based on any central registry.
15:41:07 [JosD__]
any pointer Jim?
15:41:25 [sanScribe]
15:42:20 [sanScribe]
...: ... of course there are plenty of RDF islands that wont be found by this crawler.
15:42:39 [jhendler_]
15:42:45 [sanScribe]
15:43:04 [sanScribe]
DanC: if you added DAML, this would bog down.
15:43:16 [DaveB]
sanScribe: who was talking above, danbri?
15:43:25 [sanScribe]
Yes, DanBri.
15:43:52 [sanScribe]
Sun-person: How do you know what the meaning of these vocab terms is???
15:44:15 [sanScribe]
DanC: Each of these is linked to a schema, PLUS you can see how it's used and try to figure it out backwards.
15:45:03 [sanScribe]
TimBL: If you use a vocab in the public, there's an expectation that you'll provide a schema answering people's questions about it.
15:45:32 [DaveB]
(I note rss 1.0 breaks that - 404 on all vocab terms)
15:45:36 [sanScribe]
DanBri: I'm hopinh we can measure the adoption of language features this way.
15:46:17 [sanScribe]
============== Waiting for HTML Delegation
15:46:48 [sanScribe]
10 or so HTML folks come in.
15:47:25 [sanScribe]
DanC: How many people have tried to put RDF in HTML and found it hurts? [ a few hands ]
15:47:30 [DaveB]
I briefed danbri on stuff rdf/html for me
15:48:06 [sanScribe]
DanC: Some people are paying attention to RDF inside comments inside HTML!
15:48:19 [DaveB]
DanC: yes, movable type, CC
15:48:25 [sanScribe]
Actually only 3 HTML folk come in -- others are getting coffee.
15:48:33 [RalphS]
15:49:41 [sanScribe]
Ralph: Thanks to Steven and HTML folks for coming over for this.
15:49:45 [mdubinko]
mdubinko has joined #swarch
15:50:17 [sanScribe]
Ralph: The situation is hurting us all. It hurts me personally.....
15:50:20 [sanScribe]
I'm okay, DanC.
15:50:24 [DanC]
15:50:41 [sanScribe]
Ralph: At DC meetings year ago this came up, and we still haven't solved it.
15:50:58 [DaveB]
hmm, above page links neither to the relevant TAG issue, or rdf core LC issue
15:51:26 [sanScribe]
======= Introductory remarlks from folks ----------
15:51:32 [DaveB]
or what I actually wrote in the rdf/xml spec
15:51:36 [sanScribe]
Steven Pemberton: Our prefered requirements
15:51:38 [danbri]
daveb, can you post those urls pls?
15:51:56 [sanScribe]
...: HTML needs to be DTD validatable. (A consensus position in our group.)
15:51:56 [rjw]
15:52:07 [DanC]
I disagree that XHTML needs to be DTD-validatable.
15:52:33 [sanScribe]
...: A possible representation of RDF ....
15:52:33 [DaveB]
RDF in HTML RDFCore last call issue:
15:52:41 [DaveB]
(for tracking)
15:52:47 [sanScribe]
...: <meta rdf:about="http:....>
15:53:07 [sanScribe]
...: <meta name="dc:title">RDF/XML Syntax
15:53:54 [sanScribe]
...: <meta name="ex:editor">
15:53:54 [sanScribe]
...:etc an RDF syntax which is HTML/Meta friendly.
15:53:56 [DaveB]
TAG issue: RDF in XHTML-35
15:54:06 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swarch
15:54:15 [sanScribe]
Brian: Is it a goal to represent an arbitrary RDF graph, or only some of RDF.
15:55:24 [sanScribe]
Steven: All of RDF.
15:55:44 [Patrick_S]
Patrick_S has joined #swarch
15:55:51 [danbri]
aside: are there other XML languages that share RDF's unpredictability, ie. use of words from content domain ('Person' etc) as XML element names?
15:55:51 [RalphS]
RalphS has joined #swarch
15:56:15 [bwm_]
bwm_ has joined #swarch
15:56:25 [shinichi_]
shinichi_ has joined #swarch
15:56:42 [DanC]
in the TAG, a relevant issue is assigned to me: RDFinXHTML-35 : Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in XHTML
15:57:03 [DaveB]
all of rdf would be very tricky - xml literals, datatypes, bnodes ...
15:58:26 [danbri]
a previous similar design (1995, timbl, raggett):
15:58:36 [DaveB]
somebody scribing?
15:58:40 [timbl__]
"There are two specs, XSLT and Schema, which do not agree on the meaning of QNames in attribute values. " <---- hmm.
15:58:47 [Nobu]
Nobu has joined #swarch
15:58:53 [DanC]
on behalf of Jim Gettys, I note that putting metadata at the top puts it in the critical path re user-perceived latency. consider allowing it at the end too
15:59:03 [bwm_]
em asks about embedding svg in html and how that relates
15:59:07 [sanScribe]
sanScribe has joined #swarch
15:59:17 [bwm_]
jjc: two considerations
15:59:23 [Tantek]
Tantek has joined #swarch
15:59:33 [bwm_]
jjc:whatever is done for xhtml should be reusable elsewhere
15:59:38 [DanC]
se lost our scribe due to flood rules or some such. ouch.
15:59:43 [DanC]
15:59:53 [bwm_]
brian is scribing for now
16:00:06 [DanC]
16:00:33 [bwm_]
links from rdf meta to the html
16:01:01 [bwm_]
sp: good approach - use markup and say that it is also rdf information
16:01:04 [DanC]
jeremy offered to cite work by van Harmelen et. al on the sort of linking he mentioned.
16:01:07 [sandro]
sandro has joined #swarch
16:01:26 [bwm_]
timbl__: concerned that is fancy and exciting but will increase complexity
16:01:41 [bwm_]
jjc: goal is to improve consistency by writing stuff once.
16:02:11 [bwm_]
sandro: if we embed rdf in html what are the semantics of frag ids
16:02:20 [bwm_]
sp:defined by the mime type
16:02:39 [bwm_]
em-lap: many communities are grappling with how to embed meta data into html
16:02:43 [DanC]
hmm... xpath-based "macros" in RDF would be handy for going from dc:title to html <title> here; the idea came up in DAML+OIL design discussions too.
16:02:56 [reagleMIT]
reagleMIT has joined #swarch
16:03:21 [sandro]
em: Mostly I was going to say why this is important, but lets get on with how to solve it.
16:03:35 [reagleMIT]
what's the content model of xhtml:meta ?
16:03:42 [sandro]
Ralph: Let's stipulate there is a need to put RDF in HTML documents. Any debate?
16:03:43 [reagleMIT]
can it take element content?
16:03:46 [reagleMIT]
if so, why not?
16:03:55 [DaveB]
reagleMIT: currently an empty eleemnt IIRC
16:04:16 [sandro]
Mike Dean: It's still valuable, but it's easy for outsiders/newcomers to over estimate the value.
16:04:18 [chaalsBOS]
reagleMIT: Was asked and stephen said that would break DTD validity, which is a requirement of the HTML group
16:04:39 [sandro]
Steven: I think you'll get far greater use of RDF if it's exposed to the public in HTML.
16:04:47 [danbri]
(danbri claps)
16:04:53 [reagleMIT]
if Steven has to make a change, is there a DTD featuring corresponding to xsd:any ?
16:05:05 [sandro]
em: That's my experience as well. It's required by law in 6 countries!
16:05:07 [reagleMIT]
ah, thanks charles
16:05:31 [mdubinko]
reagleMIT, no, no such thing in DTD-land
16:05:35 [sandro]
TimBL: If it's in HTML meta tag, you wont be able to cut and paste this stuff.
16:05:58 [DanC]
yes, people *ARE* getting RDF/XML from XHTML via XSLT.
16:06:24 [sandro]
Ralph: As soon as your open up the question of radical changes to syntax, ... you're outside the scope of any WG.
16:06:45 [sandro]
JJC: If there's a good RDF serialization for HTML Heads, it shiould be the primary syntax.
16:06:54 [sandro]
DanBri: WHat about N-triples?
16:07:04 [Steven]
Steven has joined #swarch
16:07:21 [DanC]
yes, people *ARE* getting RDF/XML from XHTML via XSLT.
16:07:24 [danbri]
...ntriples as groundwork for potentially doing an n-triples in angle brackets
16:07:49 [sandro]
Brian: Is there any support from eg Adobe. (HTML authoriing tools vendors)
16:07:57 [Steven]
My example is available at
16:08:14 [DaveB]
my (+Arts) ntriples syntax (as a subset of n3 + stuff) is essentially the rdf graph concretized
16:08:18 [sandro]
DanC: Back when I was chair of HTML WG, they surel;y wanted to know how to put the document author in the HTML metadata.
16:08:34 [sandro]
Thanks, Steven.
16:08:46 [DanC]
author name
16:09:17 [sandro]
16:09:17 [danbri]
(side talk: danbri asks Steven if DTD validation important for HTML because of entities; Steven replies: 'several issues')
16:09:48 [sandro]
Ralph: How is DTD for MathML solved....? THeir slide had no doctype? html+math
16:09:56 [sandro]
Steven: html+math
16:10:12 [sandro]
...: We have a profile for html+math+svg
16:10:26 [sandro]
...: We had to rename entities before we could combine them.
16:10:34 [sandro]
DanC: No doctype?
16:10:46 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #swarch
16:11:06 [sandro]
Steven: There is a doctype coming. People will have to use the HTML+Math+SVG doctype.
16:11:53 [sandro]
DanC: I do not agree there a requirement for entities.
16:12:37 [sandro]
Steven: MathML is geared around entities.
16:12:50 [sandro]
DanC: But MathML would be fine without entities.
16:13:01 [sandro]
..: It would be a smaller change. Just use UTF-8.
16:13:08 [DanC]
or <mchar>
16:13:20 [sandro]
TimBL: Could we put a wrapper in? SOmething with "any" as the content model.
16:13:33 [Stuart]
Stuart has joined #swarch
16:14:10 [sandro]
Steven: You can say "any" and it means "anything defined in the DTD". In Schema there is a more broad "any" that means "any well-formed XML".
16:14:39 [sandro]
...: It's a load of work (amazing we did it) to do namespaces in DTDs.
16:15:00 [sandro]
...: If we had entity-functionaly elsewhere, we would no longer need DTDs.
16:15:10 [sandro]
...: (IE we could switch to Schema.)
16:15:50 [sandro]
Daniel Austin: one approach is to use Schema + DOCType *onyl* for entities, not for validation.
16:16:10 [sandro]
danbri: How responsive is XML Schema WG on this?
16:16:17 [sandro]
Steven: I'm not optimistic.
16:16:31 [sandro]
DanC: It has to be fixed in the XML, not XML Schema.
16:16:37 [JosD___]
JosD___ has joined #swarch
16:17:02 [sandro]
DA: My impression in XML Core WG is planning to take up entities.
16:17:33 [sandro]
TimBL: WHat would HTML WG say about that half-way route? (DA's above)
16:17:45 [sandro]
Steven: I don't know. It might be possible to be accepted.
16:17:58 [sandro]
Ralph: Can you please explore that question more?
16:18:00 [sandro]
Steven: Yes.
16:18:30 [sandro]
=======Mimasa takes podium
16:18:31 [DaveB]
what was the half-way route?
16:19:04 [sandro]
/DTD XHTML 1.1 plus MAthML 2.0 plus SVCS 1.1//EN
16:19:20 [sandro]
M: I don't like this, but it's what we have to do at the moment.
16:20:16 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swarch
16:21:05 [sandro]
jjc: Do you have to use the default namespace?
16:21:24 [sandro]
[ there's some magic to getting namespaces to work in DTDs ]
16:22:12 [sandro]
Steven: In DTD you have to say which prefixes you're going to use.
16:22:52 [sandro]
em: This is a good example of embedding SVG in HTML, but SVG has a metadata tag, ... but that's lost here?
16:23:10 [sandro]
M,SP: Yes. It's lost. You can't do wide-open "any" in DTDs.
16:23:18 [DanC]
mimasa sorta answered jjc's questions about namespaces+DTD by showing parts of
16:23:28 [sandro]
Ralph: So this is not the full SVG.
16:23:33 [sandro]
Steven: RIght.
16:23:56 [sandro]
Dan Austin: Schema has several levels of "any".
16:23:57 [danbri]
steven: SVG DTD's notion of ANY isn't that of SVG XML Schema, so SVG DTD is partial representation
16:24:43 [danbri]
(meeting process questions)
16:24:48 [danbri]
steven: this is brainstorming really
16:25:36 [DanC]
sandro: how about [basically, treating RDF as foreign string data, ala script]
16:25:48 [DanC]
rrs: not just now...
16:26:43 [danbri]
jjc: process point; steven's msg was Member-only, this is a public visible meeting
16:26:47 [sandro]
Steven: So my proposal is something HTML authors will easily understand and be able to use.
16:26:49 [danbri]
steven: I have no objection
16:26:54 [danbri] it being public
16:27:16 [danbri]
danc: re steven's proposal, we need to distinguish between uris, and things that look like uris that are strings
16:27:19 [sandro]
DanC: How will I know if the homepage was meant as a string or a URI?
16:27:29 [sandro]
Steven: uh, yeah.
16:27:48 [sandro]
Dan Austin: Why not just put the RDF in a string?
16:28:05 [DaveB]
ah, the <script> approach?
16:28:07 [sandro]
DanC: yes -- like <script>
16:28:33 [sandro]
DanC: Then the tools -- eg SAX processors -- wont get it.
16:29:40 [danbri]
jjc: nodeID, datatype literals, uri-vs-string
16:29:47 [danbri]
...missing, would need adding
16:30:44 [sandro]
DanBri: How about we make a regular syntax for RDF?
16:31:27 [sandro]
DanC: this is implicit parsetype=Resource..........
16:32:08 [sandro]
jjc: this syntax would support a QNAMEs in string
16:32:50 [sandro]
jjc: nameQname, nameURI, etc. needed.
16:32:58 [sandro]
...: 6 o r7
16:33:05 [sandro]
TImBL: probably NOT a prime number. :-)
16:33:38 [sandro]
Ralph's amaya drops into the debugger.
16:33:45 [DanC]
[rrs's Amaya is running from a debugger... nifty ;-]
16:34:20 [sandro]
DanBri: THere are lots of possible RDF sytnax. This is not far from Query/RUles syntaxes, which need to flag their variables.
16:34:50 [sandro]
TimBL: Conversely, a lot of the R.*L languages are not XML and wouold embed in HTML very easily.
16:34:52 [eikeon]
eikeon has joined #swarch
16:34:56 [DanC]
(it seems pretty far from a query/rules/formula syntax, to me)
16:35:03 [em-lap]
16:35:18 [sandro]
...: Or if you go XML, you could sort of reify everything, like in RUleML;'s RDF syntax.
16:35:41 [sandro]
JJC: XML Literals are also a problem with these syntaxes.
16:35:59 [JosD___]
(quite far froof proof as well)
16:36:01 [sandro]
...: I use them a lot of puting HTML inside RDF
16:36:15 [JosD___]
16:36:20 [sandro]
...: That wont fit in DTD world.
16:36:22 [Steven]
Steven has joined #swarch
16:37:31 [danbri]
(thinking about this more, steven's proposal is uncannily close to recent rulemarkup ideas... --> fwd reference to Harold's presentation in a later session)
16:38:08 [sandro]
sandro: We either need: get rid of DTDs, use literal, make new RDF syntax.
16:38:55 [sandro]
TimBL: we're turning this all backwords, breaking our document format, because our tools (DTDs) are broken.
16:39:11 [sandro]
jjc: long URIs
16:39:17 [sandro]
mike dean: use entities! :-)
16:39:43 [danbri]
I think two paths: migrate from DTDs so we can use XML Schema 'ANY'; and also do an ntriples-in-xml (done w/ rules in mind).
16:39:59 [sandro]
DanC: Surpreme Irony. XML folks keep wanting this kind of thing.
16:40:14 [sandro]
TimBL: I have an element called element and and attribute called attribute.
16:40:22 [danbri]
16:40:23 [danbri]
16:40:24 [danbri]
<resource href="mydoc">
16:40:24 [danbri]
<link rel="content-language-specific" href="mydoc.eng">
16:40:24 [danbri]
<link rel="content-language-specific" href="">
16:40:24 [danbri]
16:40:26 [danbri]
16:40:30 [sandro]
Dan Austin: What about embedding the HTML inside the RDF.
16:40:31 [danbri]
16:40:42 [sandro]
TimBL: It would work quite well, but might be insentivive.
16:41:15 [sandro]
DanC: nealry all browsers would work fine.
16:41:22 [mdubinko]
would the documents be delivered with a media type of HTML or RDF?
16:41:22 [sandro]
TImBL: It's valid RDF!
16:41:48 [sandro]
DanC: but what media type......
16:41:55 [sandro]
Stickler: rdf+html ?
16:42:28 [sandro]
Chaals: Sidesteps DTD validations by not doing it.
16:43:15 [sandro]
DanC: you could put entities in the RDF document's internal subset.
16:43:35 [sandro]
Brian: People want to be able to syn-validate RDF, as like DTDs.
16:43:42 [DanC]
(bwm, do you tell them you *can* do XML schema validation of RDF?)
16:44:10 [sandro]
JJC: (misssed)
16:44:14 [DaveB]
you can XSD-validate, to a certain degree, fixed rdf/xml profiles
16:44:41 [bwm_]
bwm agrees with DaveB
16:45:32 [danbri]
yup, to a modest agree
16:45:37 [DanC]
JJC: name="dc:title" might be DTD-ok, but no good cuz dc: isn't bound.
16:45:50 [danbri]
I want to hear more about why folk want DTD validation, apart from entities.
16:46:48 [DanC]
I hear some folks rely on DTD-happy systems, and alternatives aren't sufficienty mature.
16:46:59 [Steven]
dc: would be bound in the document
16:47:33 [Steven]
(See remark dc: isn't bound abouve; not = Dan Connolly :-)
16:48:08 [sandro]
Ralph: DTDs and Open Vocabularies seem to clash -- we haven't figured out how to put them together.
16:48:43 [sandro]
TimBL: Would Schema solve this?
16:48:58 [sandro]
DanC: It's not possible to write one-last-true-schema for RDF/XML.
16:49:27 [sandro]
...: For each property you have to say whether you're going to use it as an element or an attribute. Or at least it's very very hard.
16:49:57 [DanC]
pf of "not possible to write one-last-true-schema for RDF/XML": consider rdf:_1, rdf:_2.... QED.
16:49:59 [sandro]
Mimasa: If we forget about DTD and schema. Modular Namespaces....
16:50:11 [sandro]
....: In RelaxNG
16:50:39 [em-lap]
16:50:52 [em-lap]
16:51:20 [sandro]
Steven: Relax took modularization to heart.
16:52:42 [sandro]
Joseph: I consider Schema's "any" feature dangerous, because of its need for deterministic parsing, when you extend (eg merging in another namespace) the schema, it breaks.
16:52:50 [sandro]
...: Relax does much better here.
16:53:04 [bwm_]
bwm claims prize for embedding html in RDF and displaying in browser
16:53:29 [Steven]
16:53:40 [sandro]
Ralph/DanC: "equivalence class" in XML Schema. No "any element can appear here", but "any element whose type is X can appear here."
16:54:00 [DaveB]
surely some proposed rddl solutions are html in rdf
16:54:04 [DanC]
where X is, e.g., rdf property element
16:54:20 [sandro]
scribe sees bwm's document.
16:55:06 [sandro]
TimBL: first do a pass, for every namespace, of gathering data and making a DTD.
16:55:20 [sandro]
Dan Austin: that would only validate local chunks, not the document as a whole.
16:55:32 [em-lap]
bwm, do you want to show this?
16:55:43 [sandro]
DanBri: I want to hear more about why people want to stick with DTDs.
16:55:53 [sandro]
Steven: Existing tools.....
16:56:11 [sandro]
em-lap, bwm is trying to send it to an archive.
16:57:26 [sandro]
Steven: time check.....?
16:57:35 [sandro]
em: Next steps?
16:58:07 [shinichi_]
shinichi_ has left #swarch
16:58:35 [sandro]
NOT-REAL ACTION: Steven push back on alternatives to DTDs
16:58:56 [sandro]
Steven: I'm not optimisitics
16:59:15 [sandro]
TimBL: Until then, we'll just put our HTML inside RDF. :-)
16:59:33 [sandro]
Ralph: What about this meta/meta proposal?
16:59:38 [DaveB]
can't say I'm happy with that, as rdf/xml spec editor
16:59:47 [DaveB]
- the html in RDF/XML that is
16:59:53 [DaveB]
DanC: yes
17:00:08 [sandro]
DaveB -- it's as XML literlas, I think.
17:00:27 [DaveB]
sandro: ok
17:00:46 [DanC]
DanC: DaveB is willing to help the HTML WG with the <meta name="dc:title"> idea
17:00:51 [sandro]
Several people express interest in helping HTML WG make a better meta syntax.
17:01:20 [DaveB]
17:01:30 [DanC]
groan? did I misunderstand?
17:01:31 [DaveB]
helping? :)
17:01:48 [DaveB]
I'd prefer a few people helping ;)
17:02:00 [sandro]
em makes a strong pitch for solving this problem together
17:02:13 [sandro]
TimBL: If you do meta/meta, you have to show at least how it maps to RDF.
17:02:55 [sandro]
Steven: Even now you see dc.title...... Thjere';s presure here.
17:03:01 [danbri]
for record, i volunteer to review proposals, and have a specific interest in commonalities between new rdf dump syntax and work on rule/query markup
17:03:01 [sandro]
em: that's mine and I hate it!
17:03:10 [DaveB]
ha ha
17:03:27 [sandro]
Jos: If you can't do it by value, due it by reference
17:03:28 [danbri]
timbl: if you don't say it is rdf, you create a whole new space of html meta property uris
17:03:28 [DaveB]
17:03:47 [sandro]
TimBL: href="data:application/rdf+xml; ...." (sandro's solution)
17:04:18 [DanC]
DanC: I may have misrepresented DaveB's offer
17:04:30 [sandro]
but today's talk is about embedding.
17:04:46 [sandro]
Dan Austin: Can you put it at the end?
17:04:49 [DanC]
DanC: ... so I'm not quite sure what he's offering.
17:04:57 [DaveB]
DanC: I'm offering to work with html wg
17:05:09 [sandro]
TimBL: You may need to keep it in the <head> to get nice behavior from old browsers.
17:05:31 [sandro]
17:05:44 [sandro]
[ do that ever read the HTTP-EQUIV meta...?????????? wonders sandro ]
17:06:14 [sandro]
DanBri: Markup in body, use case: [didnt get it]
17:06:31 [DaveB]
DanC: I was just cautious about having lots of helpers. I claim I'm an expert on RDF and XML, I'd want helpers who were too (+HTML)
17:06:44 [sandro]
17:08:01 [sandro]
17:08:01 [sandro]
(for presentations on semantic layering)
17:08:18 [PStickler]
PStickler has joined #swarch
17:08:46 [mdean]
mdean has joined #swarch
17:08:57 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swarch
17:11:06 [micah]
micah has joined #swarch
17:12:21 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swarch
17:12:26 [bwm]
17:12:33 [sandro]
17:18:37 [mdubinko]
mdubinko has joined #swarch
17:19:07 [danbri]
18:04:18 [DaveB]
DaveB has joined #swarch
18:22:50 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swarch
18:25:17 [libby]
libby has joined #swarch
18:26:32 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swarch
18:27:27 [libby]
"This is a little fancy that lets other users (on the same subnet) find out about you"
18:27:34 [libby]
(tiny download)
18:27:53 [libby]
assuming you want to be found out about of course
18:29:38 [RalphS]
RalphS has joined #swarch
18:29:42 [mdean]
mdean has joined #swarch
18:30:25 [simonSNST]
simonSNST has joined #swarch
18:32:05 [lasf2f]
lasf2f has joined #swarch
18:33:10 [ircleuser]
ircleuser has joined #swarch
18:34:03 [bwm]
pat begins
18:34:12 [DanC]
18:34:13 [bwm]
appologies for unreadability of slides
18:34:22 [DanC]
=== 13:30 - 15:30 First afternoon session
18:34:22 [DanC]
Semantic Layering. presentation by Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Pat Hayes
18:34:24 [danbri]
(just found -- kendall clark on social meaning)
18:34:51 [bwmscribe]
pat adjusts magnification of the slides
18:34:54 [DanC]
note to self: get pat's jpg file into http space
18:35:05 [bwmscribe]
no url to refer to
18:35:18 [bwmscribe]
a picture of an rdf universe
18:35:30 [JosD___]
JosD___ has joined #swarch
18:35:35 [bwmscribe]
no constraints on anything - classes can contain themselves etc
18:35:43 [bwmscribe]
owl has a very different picture
18:36:02 [bwmscribe]
owl is neater
18:36:40 [bwmscribe]
an owl dl universe is neat; segregated; separation between classes and individuals etc
18:36:52 [bwmscribe]
classifcal fol way of building an interpretation
18:37:11 [bwmscribe]
pat has fun zooming slide
18:37:30 [bwmscribe]
owl full says scruffy is the way to go
18:37:49 [bwmscribe]
owl classes as rdf classes etc
18:37:58 [bwmscribe]
just use the owl vocabulary freely in rdf
18:38:16 [las]
las has joined #swarch
18:38:27 [Tantek]
Tantek has joined #swarch
18:38:29 [bwmscribe]
a different way to do this is to retain the neatness of the owl picture
18:38:59 [bwmscribe]
s/owl/owl dl/
18:39:17 [bwmscribe]
some classes are owl dl classes, similarly for properties etc
18:40:26 [bwmscribe]
owl lets you reason about the number of things in a set
18:41:20 [bwmscribe]
the process of embedding the more complex owl syntax into triples introduces things into the owl universe, e.g. lists, which don't bother RDF but do bother owl dl.
18:41:52 [bwmscribe]
jos asks what the compliment of owl:thing would be in the diagram
18:42:15 [bwmscribe]
there is a class called owl:nothing which cannot contain owl:things but can contain other things.
18:42:30 [bwmscribe]
pfps: owl:nothing is the empty set
18:43:22 [chaalsBOS]
chaalsBOS has joined #swarch
18:43:57 [bwmscribe]
if you stick to the appropriate subset of rdf you can be neat and work in owl dl
18:44:17 [bwmscribe]
within that subset the semantics of owl dl and owl full are equivalent
18:44:36 [bwmscribe]
problems is its hard to determine if you are in this subset.
18:45:05 [bwmscribe]
folks think you just check the syntax, but that isn't good enough because entailments can take you out of the subset.
18:45:53 [bwmscribe]
why bother?
18:46:13 [bwmscribe]
reasoning about owl dl is a more comfortable place to be
18:46:34 [bwmscribe]
neatness guaratees powerful efficient reasoning engines
18:47:07 [bwmscribe]
pat didn't expect the equivalence to work - and its not too outragously complicated
18:47:30 [bwmscribe]
pat shows rdf, rdfs and rdf-dt in lbase
18:47:53 [bwmscribe]
and owl as well, I think - not sure
18:47:59 [DanC]
ACTION: PatH send 'OWL, RDFS, RDF in lbase' to connolly, em, www-archive
18:48:23 [Nobu]
Nobu has joined #swarch
18:48:40 [bwmscribe]
danbri: would this be easier in owl abstract syntax rather than rdf representation
18:48:55 [bwmscribe]
patH: yes it would be a standard translation of a DL into fols
18:48:58 [bwmscribe]
18:49:32 [bwmscribe]
PatH hands over pfps
18:49:48 [DaveB]
but OWL's abstract syntax is triples
18:50:45 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #swarch
18:50:57 [JosD___]
Brian, it's called LBASE-new.html
18:51:36 [sanScribe]
And now PFPS with the glass half-empty view of layering......
18:52:04 [sanScribe]
pfps: (there's ONLY ONE DROP of beer in the glass.)
18:52:39 [sanScribe]
...: We did the impossible. Why did we have to do research here?
18:52:57 [danbri]
dancon: because they wouldn't let me close the WG
18:53:23 [jhendler_]
we had to do research because the neats couldn't live with the scruffiness of Owl Full
18:53:24 [sanScribe]
...: Logic layering (proposition, DL, Prop-modal, FOL, HOL) is old.
18:53:36 [sanScribe]
...: (many branches, some dont layer)
18:53:50 [sanScribe]
...: (bump around modal)
18:53:56 [danbri]
p: "modal sorta sits off to the side"
18:54:45 [sanScribe]
...: Different syntax for logics, compatible semantics.
18:55:00 [sanScribe]
...: eg FOL does *not* allow p ^ q
18:55:02 [bwmscribe]
pats lbase doc:
18:55:13 [sanScribe]
...: I can write a parse for any of these (in a day or so).
18:55:37 [sanScribe]
...: But in SemWeb, we need to use the same syntax?!
18:56:30 [em-lap]
18:56:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #swarch
18:56:46 [sanScribe]
...: Traditionally, compatible is just fine. Same-syntax is not needed.
18:57:15 [sanScribe]
...: Of course there are lots of other langs, like Montague, that are the result of a philosopher getting too much rope and hanging himself.
18:58:09 [sanScribe]
...: Montague wanted to write the ultimate logic. It's the spruce goose. :-)
18:58:44 [sanScribe]
...: SemWeb side is like working in a straightjacket.
18:58:51 [sanScribe]
[ This is all slide 2 ]
18:59:13 [bwmscribe]
bwm wonders why these syntactic constraints were imposed
18:59:44 [sanScribe]
19:00:37 [sanScribe]
DanC: WebOnt decided on the straightjacket, biased by the charter.
19:01:00 [DanC]
JJC actually said that, but I agree.
19:01:07 [sanScribe]
pfps: Allowing extensions to the syntax would have gotten us out of straightjacket.
19:01:21 [sanScribe]
timbl: all the rules languages extend syntax.
19:01:46 [sanScribe]
pfpfs: We were able to do this because OWL doesnt need variables. Ohhh, can we do FOL without variables?
19:01:52 [sanScribe]
ph: don't go there!
19:02:29 [danbri]
I really don't think 'every layer (above XML) must use RDF triples' is accepted even amongst RDF-enthusiasts.
19:02:37 [sanScribe]
jjc: I challenge that semantic compatibile is rosy. They took a 100 years, we took one.
19:03:28 [DanC]
I expect RDF syntax to grow forAll/variables. i.e. not just triples-as-are... but I didn't think the ontology layer was the layer in which to do it.
19:03:54 [sanScribe]
Ian: RDF is not such a simple, well-understood layer as Proposition Logic.
19:05:05 [sanScribe]
pfps: 1. syntax of triples is so impoverished (a,b,c) and each term has to denote, all in a set.
19:05:22 [sanScribe]
.... (4 problems with RDF)
19:05:51 [sanScribe]
...: * every triple denotes, it has its own little say.
19:06:16 [sanScribe]
...: (see Dark Triples.)
19:06:36 [RalphS]
PatH: we got along fine with this restricted syntax in lisp
19:07:06 [sanScribe]
...: Rephrase: 1a Every Triple has it say, 1b Every term has to denote.
19:07:39 [em-lap]
19:07:52 [sanScribe]
...: Literals denote kind of like a built-in functional term.
19:08:07 [em-lap]
ack danc
19:08:08 [Zakim]
DanC, you wanted to say that syntactic interoperability is a constraint derived from the principle of partial understanding
19:08:22 [sanScribe]
...: 1. Syntax is confiding, 2 semantics of terms in confing, 3. semantics of triples-asserted is confining.
19:08:32 [sanScribe]
DanC: Lack of n-ary in RDF hurts a lot.
19:08:54 [sanScribe]
DanC: Shared Syntax comes from a need for partial understanding.
19:09:22 [sanScribe]
pfps: I don't believe that fixing the syntax helps partial understanding.
19:10:18 [sanScribe]
..: Because then you have to encoded other things (eg disjunctions) in a way which is inscrutible.
19:10:47 [sanScribe]
DanC: We didnt need universals for OWL. When we need them, I expect we'll extend the syntax.
19:11:09 [sanScribe]
jjc: own has disjunctions
19:11:25 [sanScribe]
pfps: it has a certain kind of disjunctive expression
19:12:13 [timbl]
timbl has joined #swarch
19:12:14 [sanScribe]
slide 5.
19:12:59 [sanScribe]
19:14:12 [RalphS]
pfps: the "myFavoriteMartian" property [might] contribute something to the meaning of the restriction but you don't know what
19:14:14 [sanScribe]
skipping up to slide 11
19:14:27 [RalphS]
... but you can't ignore it
19:14:30 [sanScribe]
19:16:16 [las]
las has joined #swarch
19:16:27 [sanScribe]
pfps: You need comprehension principles; from nothing you can infer the existence of every list..
19:16:27 [sanScribe]
DanC: section 2 of kiff says all lists exist. This is not odd.
19:16:34 [RalphS]
RalphS has joined #swarch
19:16:51 [sanScribe]
ph: I don't mind comprehension priniciples!
19:17:14 [sanScribe]
pfps: people often hang themselves with these.
19:17:51 [simon]
simon has joined #swarch
19:17:53 [bwmscribe]
bwmscribe has joined #swarch
19:18:05 [sanScribe]
: Because everything is at the top level, ... you can have loops, liar paradox
19:18:40 [sanScribe]
...: comprehension principles might encompass liar paradox; trivial theory
19:18:47 [sanScribe]
...: bad
19:18:59 [sanScribe]
19:19:19 [sanScribe]
..: So we'll violate RDF and say *ONLY* the tree-structured statements exist.
19:19:43 [sanScribe]
...: So some inferences you might think exist do not.
19:20:04 [Nobu]
Nobu has joined #swarch
19:21:07 [Nobu]
Nobu has joined #swarch
19:21:11 [sanScribe]
jjc: you can wait until someone asks....
19:21:19 [sanScribe]
pfps: thank you Socrates
19:21:40 [sanScribe]
jjc: infinite stuff makes some implementation approaches impossible.
19:22:02 [sanScribe]
jjc: you can't list all the conclusions of an owl KB
19:22:06 [sanScribe]
ian: no, of course not.
19:22:21 [sanScribe]
pfps: concluding with slide 8. my proposal.....
19:22:31 [sanScribe]
...: weakest version
19:22:42 [sanScribe]
...: You can change the semantics as long as it works out right in the end.
19:22:55 [sanScribe]
...: That's wrong for the SemWeb.
19:23:03 [sanScribe]
(slide 9)
19:23:18 [sanScribe]
...: We want the language to be in the superset relation, as in FOL and HOL.
19:24:18 [sanScribe]
...: Weak semantic corresopnence. [Unclear]. As in modal and DL, which act the same even when they look the same inside.
19:24:30 [sanScribe]
PFPS: we should break straightjacket by
19:24:36 [sanScribe]
...: 1) allow syntactic extensions
19:24:46 [sanScribe]
...: 2) allow expansions of semantics.
19:24:50 [ryanlee]
ryanlee has joined #swarch
19:25:43 [sanScribe]
Brian: RDF is for stating simple facts. We also need a language for describing types and classes. WHy use the same?
19:26:07 [sanScribe]
pfps: There is a strange attractiveness to eating your own dogfood.
19:26:17 [sanScribe]
Brian: I make frames for pictures, but I don't eat them.
19:26:41 [sanScribe]
DanC: why is less-than-is-transitive anything other than a simple fact.
19:26:54 [sanScribe]
Ian: For 100 years people figured out it was a bad idea!
19:27:02 [sanScribe]
PH: No no, it's fine. We got it to work!
19:27:15 [sanScribe]
PH: Even God has had model theories!
19:27:30 [DanC]
"... even God has to have model theories ..." -- PatH
19:27:37 [sanScribe]
PFPS: Given you had to do the stuff on the side, what's the benefit of having the syntaxes the same.
19:28:23 [sanScribe]
PH wearing JH's had: Pragmatic Utility to passing complex RDF through simple RDF parsers. It's not a miracle, but you can get down a pipe.
19:28:35 [sanScribe]
pfps: Let's make the pipe bigger.
19:29:09 [sanScribe]
Lynn: You don';t get to make the pipe -- you need to pick one existing pipe.
19:29:15 [sanScribe]
pfps: My pipe is a string of bits.
19:29:31 [sanScribe]
Lynn: there are some pipes out there which we want to use.
19:29:45 [sanScribe]
PFPS: I'd be relatively happy picking XML as my pipe.
19:30:38 [em-lap]
q+ ian
19:30:42 [em-lap]
q+ path
19:30:44 [sanScribe]
EricP: WHen you encode you HOL's in a simple graph, you need to hide certain bits from the simple graph. Need reification or something. [ discomfort from PH and PFPS ] What subset have you had to hide from naive processors?
19:30:44 [em-lap]
19:31:09 [sanScribe]
pfps: Hiding wasn't allowable, so we hid it in a blizzard.
19:31:26 [sanScribe]
Ian: More on pipe analogy. We didnt pick it, it chose us.
19:31:34 [danbri]
fair comment!
19:31:37 [em-lap]
ack ian
19:31:40 [em-lap]
ack path
19:31:56 [sanScribe]
PH: EricP's way is misleading. We didnt have to hide anything.
19:33:50 [sanScribe]
ericP: would a quote operator have helped?
19:33:58 [Bernard]
Bernard has joined #swarch
19:34:10 [sanScribe]
pfps: In OWL we never have to write down those primitive triples.
19:35:14 [sanScribe]
ph: If you come to this world from logic, it's like falling down the rabbit hole.... 3 of them. Cherry picker holding cherry picker holding holder.
19:35:37 [RalphS]
Sandro: I did unification back in August using reification
19:36:11 [RalphS]
PatH: the truth predicate that you then need for de-reification is scary
19:36:49 [shellac]
shellac has joined #swarch
19:40:17 [sanScribe]
DanC: Peter, will you write up what you said in 5-page form?
19:41:25 [sanScribe]
Ben Grosof: Problems/opportunities in layer. RDF syntax as encoding as RuleML.
19:41:53 [sanScribe]
...: OWL fits in more naturally....
19:42:43 [sanScribe]
PFPS: sounds like Owl-DL philosophy
19:43:38 [sanScribe]
TimBL: You're talking about reification -- the RDF your describting your expression with is different from the instance RDF -- tool reuse is nice, but they don't really connect.
19:44:26 [sanScribe]
BG: What about rules which can talk about RDF triples only.....?
19:44:49 [sanScribe]
TimBL: (misssed)
19:45:07 [danbri]
timbl said that lots of folk have a 'triples plus ...<something>' language on top of rdf
19:45:09 [sanScribe]
Ian: Partial fix perhaps: stratified semantics for RDF, instead of recursive semantics.
19:46:32 [sanScribe]
BG: second. RDF and RDFS are sufficiently rich ............(lost)
19:46:42 [sanScribe]
em: strata == modules?
19:46:54 [sanScribe]
em: separate namespaces, specific strata, ....?
19:46:56 [DaveB]
I assume Ian's refering to rdfs(fa), 2 years too late IMHO
19:47:21 [sanScribe]
Ian: Layer1-class, Layer2-class, .... no looping.
19:47:30 [sanScribe]
PH: You could use owl:Class and owl:Property
19:47:46 [sanScribe]
Ian: you might be able look at it.
19:47:53 [sanScribe]
DanC: like ML type checker.
19:48:07 [sanScribe]
TimBL: does that work on unbounded, open, semantic web.
19:48:14 [sanScribe]
PH: You're safe until you pull in more data.
19:48:26 [sanScribe]
TimBL: when you publish, OTHER PEOPLE combine you.
19:48:46 [sanScribe]
...: Different views.
19:48:53 [sanScribe]
Ian: <nods>
19:49:30 [sanScribe]
TimBL: Loops can emerge from different parts.
19:49:56 [sanScribe]
DanC: Does there have to be a bottom layer.
19:50:15 [timbl]
I said pointed out that BenG's use of RDF with RuleML he was describing was to use RDF to describe the otheer langauge, keeping RDF on a completely different level, making no connection netween assertions and object sin RDF and in teh other language.
19:50:42 [sanScribe]
Ian: Two things in same strata....
19:50:58 [sanScribe]
...: If you fixed names, class0, ......
19:51:08 [sanScribe]
PH: there are better things than stratified type theory.
19:51:27 [sanScribe]
Ian: What's "works"
19:53:20 [sanScribe]
BG: start with simple case -- first stratum -- classes do not have classes or proptiers or instances, ... DL constraint -- Simple==no constraints so Higher Order, vs Simple==clear constaints for tractability.
19:54:55 [sanScribe]
...: It doesnt make sense to treat the whole web as scopeless, as one KB.
19:55:56 [sanScribe]
[ bit about lists ]
19:56:21 [sanScribe]
TimBL: it's reasonable to have granularity, but the web works by people combining KBs.
19:56:49 [sanScribe]
BG: Sure - if you have 3 KBs meeting DL restriction, you know the merge of them also meets it.
19:57:01 [sanScribe]
TimBL: you migth pick up KBs out of google.
19:57:24 [sanScribe]
19:57:58 [sanScribe]
PH: it should be up the READER to check cohernece.
19:58:36 [sanScribe]
BG: Inferential machinery constructs a 3rd (perhaps virtual) KB. It has finite scope.
19:58:52 [sanScribe]
TimBL: what if 3rd KB barfs?
19:59:12 [sanScribe]
BG: an ecology will support people publ;ishing KBs which can be combined well!
19:59:42 [sanScribe]
...: Advertize that you are recursion free, etc, etc, quadtatic, etc. ...
20:00:04 [sanScribe]
PH: Or even which heuristics are likely to work. Little hacks, repairs.
20:01:12 [sanScribe]
Frank: This is no different from Data Sources on the web. One says Foo, another says Not Foo; you require that the party finding both to find out who to believe, etc.
20:01:51 [sanScribe]
TimBL: sure, one of them is wrong.
20:02:50 [sanScribe]
20:02:59 [sanScribe]
em: WHat about real systems>
20:03:09 [sanScribe]
Ian: My system detects conflicts.
20:03:26 [sanScribe]
TimBL: we're talking about constraints on class hierarchy cycles.
20:04:10 [sanScribe]
pfps: You beleive either class A is below, above, or we have a cycle. Like Each source is right or wrong.
20:04:47 [sanScribe]
ph: some rdf-fcomments requesting stratifivcation.
20:05:10 [sanScribe]
DanC: we could have a note which said " Here is a way to do stratified. "
20:05:35 [sanScribe]
JJC: stratified RDF is just intersection of RDFS & OWL Lite.
20:05:47 [sanScribe]
Ian: THat's PFPS trivial 2-layer strat.
20:05:58 [RalphS]
JJC: the stratified RDFS is simply the intersection of RDFS and OWL lite
20:06:01 [sanScribe]
DanC: But that's editoriallly expensive. Hard tor read it all.
20:06:13 [RalphS]
PatH: agree
20:06:25 [sanScribe]
ian; Syntax of owl-lite is another layer.
20:07:15 [sanScribe]
PH: just use OWL vocabularies without OWL meanings! :-)
20:08:49 [sanScribe]
PH: Who uses OWL terms without importing OWL semantics?
20:09:01 [sanScribe]
[ various hands, including TimBLs to everyeone's surprise. ]
20:11:20 [sanScribe]
RRSAgent, pointer?
20:11:20 [RRSAgent]
20:11:45 [sanScribe]
20:11:49 [sanScribe]
RECESS for 45 minutes
20:52:01 [sanScribe]
20:52:56 [libby]
libby has joined #swarch
20:53:03 [bwm]
bwm has joined #swarch
20:55:30 [JosD___]
JosD___ has joined #swarch
20:57:06 [pfps]
pfps has joined #swarch
20:57:47 [danbri]
20:57:52 [danbri]
irc seems ok to me
20:58:06 [bwm]
me too
20:58:54 [danbri] -- some early text from pathayes & me that became (prev version) 'social meaning' section of Concepts
20:59:09 [bwmscribe]
neg comments about section 4 of rdf concepts doc
20:59:28 [bwmscribe]
it would be nice if the protagonists could beat each other up instead of the editors
21:00:04 [bwmscribe]
desired output from this meeting is advice for the rdfcore wg
21:00:20 [danbri] -- jjc's agenda for 'social meaning' discussion here
21:00:27 [bwmscribe]
it is not an objective to make changes to the doc
21:00:41 [bwmscribe]
21:00:48 [bwmscribe]
accept section 4
21:00:54 [bwmscribe]
cut section 4
21:00:58 [bwmscribe]
edit section 4
21:00:59 [DaveB]
who's speaking?
21:01:02 [bwmscribe]
end of list
21:01:06 [bwmscribe]
21:01:15 [bwmscribe]
jjc leading section
21:01:47 [bwmscribe]
bijan identified issuettes
21:02:37 [bwmscribe]
jjc suggests straw polls on issuettes questions
21:03:53 [bwmscribe]
danc: is this a live with thing or a preference
21:03:56 [bwmscribe]
jjc: preference
21:05:10 [bwmscribe]
Section 4 as a whole:
21:05:20 [bwmscribe]
accept: 1
21:05:34 [bwmscribe]
cut: 7
21:06:25 [bwmscribe]
aggressive edit: 6
21:06:54 [bwmscribe]
who can't live with:
21:07:18 [bwmscribe]
endorsing: 4
21:07:28 [bwmscribe]
cut: 2
21:08:13 [bwmscribe]
major edit: 2
21:08:19 [bwmscribe]
endorsing s/4/6/
21:10:54 [bwmscribe]
authoritive definition of URI's: i.e. who gets to say what a URI denotes
21:12:48 [danbri]
something like "RDF graphs have propositional content. Their meaning is fixed by a bunch of hairy stuff only partly understood and documented (eg. implicit theory of reference associated with URIs). Minor health warning. The End."
21:12:53 [danbri]
...would satisfy me.
21:14:03 [bwmscribe]
who wants the sentence [[The social conventions surrounding use of RDF assume that any RDF URI reference gains its meaning from some defining individual, organization or context. ]]
21:14:26 [PStickler]
Sounds fine to me
21:14:30 [bwmscribe]
A: no substanstive change:6
21:14:36 [bwmscribe]
C: cut: 4
21:14:40 [bwmscribe]
21:14:54 [bwmscribe]
cant live iwth:
21:14:58 [bwmscribe]
as is: 4
21:15:00 [bwmscribe]
cut: 2
21:15:16 [danbri]
My 'E' vote meant "we should note the importance of reference in the task of fixing meaning"
21:15:19 [bwmscribe]
more work: 2
21:16:00 [PStickler]
My 'E' vote is wanting the simple clarification that the URI and URIREG conventions indicate *who* assigns meaning, not what the meaning is.
21:16:44 [bwmscribe]
defining information: [[An RDF graph may contain "defining information" that is opaque to logical reasoners. This information may be used by human interpreters of RDF information, or programmers writing software to perform specialized forms of deduction in the Semantic Web.]]
21:17:14 [bwmscribe]
a: is ok 1
21:17:21 [bwmscribe]
c: cut: 8
21:17:27 [bwmscribe]
eikeon: more work 2
21:17:37 [bwmscribe]
cant live
21:17:45 [bwmscribe]
as is: 8
21:17:50 [bwmscribe]
cut: 2
21:17:54 [bwmscribe]
more work: 2
21:18:25 [bwmscribe]
s/eikeio/ edit
21:18:34 [bwmscribe]
asserting rdf
21:20:45 [bwmscribe]
[[RDF/XML expressions, i.e. encodings of RDF graphs, can be used to make claims or assertions. Not every RDF/XML expression is asserted. ]] about the 'real' world. Such expressions are said to be asserted.
21:21:04 [bwmscribe]
21:21:20 [bwmscribe]
a: its ok - 3
21:21:32 [bwmscribe]
cut: 4
21:21:34 [bwmscribe]
edit: 2
21:21:46 [bwmscribe]
can't live with:
21:22:57 [las]
las has joined #swarch
21:23:25 [Bernard]
Bernard has joined #swarch
21:23:35 [bwmscribe]
as is: 1
21:23:49 [em-lap]
em-lap has joined #swarch
21:23:56 [bwmscribe]
21:24:09 [bwmscribe]
cant live: 1
21:24:12 [bwmscribe]
more work: 0
21:24:50 [ericP]
ericP has joined #swarch
21:25:12 [bwmscribe]
relationship to http, ignoring the 404
21:25:26 [bwmscribe]
keep: 2
21:25:34 [bwmscribe]
cut: 6
21:25:38 [chaalsBOS]
chaalsBOS has joined #swarch
21:25:44 [bwmscribe]
edit: 0
21:25:52 [bwmscribe]
21:25:55 [bwmscribe]
cut live
21:25:58 [bwmscribe]
as is: 3
21:26:14 [bwmscribe]
cut 0
21:26:20 [bwmscribe]
more work 1
21:26:25 [Tantek]
Tantek has joined #swarch
21:27:17 [bwmscribe]
mechanical inference and social meeting [[Human publishers of RDF content commit themselves to the mechanically-inferred social obligations.
21:27:17 [bwmscribe]
The meaning of an RDF document includes the social meaning, the formal meaning, and the social meaning of the formal entailments. ]]
21:27:50 [bwmscribe]
21:27:57 [bwmscribe]
as is: 3
21:28:03 [bwmscribe]
get rid: 5
21:28:17 [bwmscribe]
edit: 2
21:28:28 [bwmscribe]
can't live with:
21:28:37 [bwmscribe]
as is: 7
21:28:45 [bwmscribe]
cut: 1
21:29:11 [bwmscribe]
more work 0
21:29:28 [bwmscribe]
slipperyness of intended meaning
21:30:42 [em-lap]
RRSAgent, pointer?
21:30:42 [RRSAgent]
21:30:56 [bwmscribe]
[[A combination of social (e.g. legal) and technical machinery (protocols, file formats, publication frameworks) provide the contexts that fix the intended meanings of the vocabulary of some piece of RDF, and which distinguish assertions from other uses (e.g. citations, denials or illustrations).]]
21:31:15 [danbri]
we didn't have 'intended' in the original,
21:32:31 [simon]
simon has joined #swarch
21:33:03 [bwmscribe]
[[The social machinery includes the form of publication: publishing some unqualified statements on one's World Wide Web home page would generally be taken as an assertion of those statements. But publishing the same statements with a qualification, such as "here are some common myths", or as part of a rebuttal, would likely not be construed as an assertion of the truth of those statements.]]
21:33:55 [PStickler]
The URI specs don't fix the meaning. They fix the *authority* who gets to fix the meaning. A schema provided by that authority can fix the meaning of a given URI.
21:34:30 [sanScribe]
timbl: We're defining a system, mostly via natural language ... specs describe how it's supposed to work.
21:35:09 [sanScribe]
...: Notionally, the URI authority is supposed to define the meaning, but if it doesn't then things may or may not break.
21:35:29 [sanScribe]
...: Just people people don't always stick to the spec doesnt mean we shouldn't define it cleanly.
21:36:04 [sanScribe]
Bijan: I disbelieve nearly everything you just said. If everything you said was false, nothing would be broken.
21:36:14 [sanScribe]
...: Most of what you said is misleading at least.
21:36:31 [DanC]
DanC has joined #swarch
21:37:15 [sanScribe]
TimBL: okay to rip out "legal"
21:37:29 [sanScribe]
Bijan: I don't beleive you can fix one interpretation of a document.
21:38:00 [sanScribe]
Bijan: you said "it means this" and that doesnt fly and is not necessary.
21:38:03 [las]
las has joined #swarch
21:38:06 [sanScribe]
TimBL: you're modeling too formally.
21:38:22 [sanScribe]
...: "H1 is a top level heading".
21:38:57 [sanScribe]
On Slipperyness:
21:39:58 [sanScribe]
a: 3
21:40:10 [chaalsBOS]
21:40:11 [sanScribe]
(modulo "intended")
21:40:19 [sanScribe]
c: 5
21:40:30 [sanScribe]
e: 6
21:40:36 [sanScribe]
timbl: put it in primer
21:40:46 [sanScribe]
a: lots and lots
21:41:01 [sanScribe]
cant live with lots and lots
21:41:09 [sanScribe]
cant live with c -2
21:41:13 [sanScribe]
cant live with more work 0
21:41:23 [sanScribe]
Third Party Publication
21:42:24 [RalphS]
RalphS has joined #swarch
21:42:42 [sanScribe]
a: 0
21:42:49 [sanScribe]
c: 8
21:42:59 [sanScribe]
e: 5
21:43:13 [sanScribe]
a: -7
21:43:20 [sanScribe]
c: -1
21:43:26 [sanScribe]
e: 0
21:45:34 [sanScribe]
21:47:34 [bwm_]
bwm_ has joined #swarch
21:47:35 [sanScribe]
TimBL: If this is all describing the framework, but Bijan is generally correct about how this applies as a matter of law.
21:47:35 [sanScribe]
PH: We can have non-legal examples.
21:47:55 [sanScribe]
Frank: I don't recall anywhere in HTML anything about libelous statements. But there's nothing peculiar about RDF in this regard.
21:48:35 [RalphS]
RalphS has joined #swarch
21:48:40 [sanScribe]
Mike Dean: we need a libel markup language......
21:48:54 [Nobu]
Nobu has joined #swarch
21:48:58 [sanScribe]
DanC: Proximate Cause, Bernstein, Copyright law, links as speech, ....
21:50:30 [sanScribe]
Bijan: I was commenting on the "mechanically inferred" part, NOT the insult bit.
21:51:20 [danbri]
danbri has joined #swarch
21:51:44 [ericP]
minutes are being written to
21:52:16 [sanScribe]
RRSAgent, pointer?
21:52:16 [RRSAgent]
21:52:30 [sanScribe]
Hrm. They are also being written there.
22:07:11 [sanScribe]
TimBL: The essential point is that the RDF spec must say that the meaning of each URIRef term is based on the URI spec tree.
22:07:54 [jhendler_]
jhendler_ has joined #swarch
22:14:19 [danbri]
yeah, useful discussion
22:23:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #swarch
22:24:06 [RalphS]
[em, do you think that Tim has given an answer to Sun's question of "how _do you want me_ to refer to a piece of equipment?"]
22:24:46 [RalphS]
[... a _clear_ answer for Sun's purpose, that is ;)]
22:28:31 [em-lap]
[Ralph, no i do not]
22:28:34 [jhendler_]
is this being scribed somewhere??
22:28:42 [em-lap]
RRSAgent, pointer?
22:28:42 [RRSAgent]
22:28:59 [bwm_]
frank: we need to say things about how rdf should be used
22:29:03 [RalphS]
[em, that was my impression too -- I hope we don't adjourn before getting him back up to answer]
22:29:35 [RalphS]
Frank: it is important that the RDF spec say something about intended meaning
22:29:47 [bwm_]
jjc: we need to come to a consusus if possible about what this meeting thinks
22:31:10 [em-lap]
[ralph, i absolutely agree]
22:33:47 [bwm_]
patrick s returns to point about having this covered in another document
22:34:09 [bwm_]
bwm points out that cut doesn't mean cut forever, the issue is when do we do the work
22:34:32 [bwm_]
danc calls for who would be interested in contributing to further work in another forum
22:34:51 [bwm_]
pfps says that those voting to cut also think there is something important to say here
22:35:28 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #swarch
22:35:31 [bwm_]
Propose section 4 should be struck and the CG should ensure this area is addressed in another document.
22:35:47 [bwm_]
pfps there are shadows of section 4 elsewhere
22:36:29 [bwm_]
DanC: Propose rdfms-assertion should be postponed and rdfcore relieved of responsibility
22:36:59 [bwm_]
RalphS: does this mean that we'd have to change the namespace when that new doc was published?
22:37:10 [danbri] in RDFS is in a similar vein.
22:37:27 [danbri]
22:37:28 [danbri]
A variety of documentation forms can be combined to indicate the intended meaning of the classes and properties described in an RDF vocabulary. Since RDF vocabularies are expressed as RDF graphs, vocabularies defined in other namespaces may be used to provide richer documentation.
22:37:29 [danbri]
22:37:29 [bwm_]
DanC: who would spend an hour a week
22:37:37 [bwm_]
lots of people responded
22:37:52 [bwm_]
danc call for folsk to approach him privately about chairing and editing
22:38:02 [bwm_]
propose we suggest
22:38:05 [jhendler_]
only an hour a week? Sounds liek vacation :->
22:38:09 [bwm_]
- section 4 is struck
22:38:24 [bwm_]
- postpone rdfsm-assertion
22:38:39 [bwm_]
- CG prioritise highly work on this issue
22:39:39 [bwm_]
22:40:23 [bwm_]
timbl: if its a tag issue, then timbl will ask the tag if they want to give it to us and they'll probably bite our arms off.
22:41:13 [RalphS]
PatH: whatever the TAG says does matter here and we need to take it into account
22:41:49 [bwm_]
add to proposal: coordinate with the TAG over URI denotation
22:41:53 [bwm_]
danc proposes
22:41:55 [RalphS]
the issue about adding word regarding URI denotation
22:41:57 [bwm_]
timbl seconds
22:42:00 [bwm_]
none apposed
22:42:04 [bwm_]
no abstentions
22:42:08 [bwm_]
carried unanimously
22:42:29 [bwm_]
action jeremy to email to rdf comments
22:43:09 [bwm_]
danc propose to break
22:43:22 [bwm_]
em-lap: meeting is in riverfront room tomorrow
22:43:29 [bwm_]
same floor just down the corridor
22:44:05 [bwm_]
frankm: if you're driving: road conditions are hazardous - 100 care pile up, lots of accidents
22:44:15 [bwm_]
meeting adjourned
22:45:04 [danbri]
am wondering whether www-rdf-logic is a good forum to continue this discussion...
22:47:35 [ryanlee]
ryanlee has left #swarch
22:53:51 [jhendler_]
if anyone sees this - can you ask Bijan to call me or rejoin irc? thanks
22:54:10 [SethR]
SethR has joined #swarch
23:15:41 [libby]
libby has joined #swarch
23:31:19 [libby]
------query and rules bof notes ------
23:31:47 [libby]
23:32:02 [libby]
- eric introduces RDF query
23:32:06 [libby]
23:32:47 [GuusS]
GuusS has joined #swarch
23:33:51 [JosD___]
JosD___ has joined #swarch
23:35:54 [libby]
picture which was the result of the first BOF on query:
23:36:19 [libby]
benjamin asks q about relative expressivity of N3 and algae
23:36:41 [libby]
algae doesnt have "for some", N3 does.
23:39:51 [libby]
ericp talks about SQL backends for algae, including access to a 'normal' realtional database
23:41:14 [libby]
[aside - Jan Grant is doing something similar - mapping RDf queries to arbitrary SQL databases]
23:43:35 [libby]
[scribe not catching all the detail of the discussion, sorry]
23:53:54 [Nobu]
Nobu has joined #swarch
23:55:58 [libby]
the next IRc meeting about tests for RDf queries
23:56:23 [libby]
Mike Dean talks about his hierarchy of RDF QLs
23:57:26 [libby]
23:57:34 [libby]
talks about DQL:
23:57:57 [libby]
23:58:09 [libby]
no official syntax yet, but a model
23:58:27 [libby]
"must bind" "may bind" "don't bind"
23:58:30 [libby]
for variables
23:58:57 [libby]
for bnode processing - dont return the answer
23:59:35 [libby]
also skolem functions