IRC log of rdfcore on 2003-06-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:58:46 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rdfcore

13:58:46 [jjc]

Zakim, who's on the call?

13:58:46 [Zakim]

On the phone I see +39.050.3.aaaa

13:58:54 [em]

em has changed the topic to: rdfcore jun 27 teleconference

13:58:55 [jjc]

Zakim, aaaa is jjc

13:58:55 [Zakim]

+jjc; got it

13:59:02 [jang]

ok, jjc, how'd you get zakim to understand that?

13:59:27 [jjc]

You can see the log?

13:59:43 [gk]

gk has joined #rdfcore

13:59:48 [jang]

argh, intl calls barred from the office (that's new!) - back in a few minutes.

13:59:49 [jjc]

1) tell him this is RDFCore 2) find out who he thinks is on the call

13:59:50 [Zakim]

+EMiller

14:00:07 [Zakim]

+Pat_Hayes

14:00:56 [Zakim]

+GrahamKlyne

14:01:37 [em]

zakim, who is here?

14:01:37 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jjc, EMiller, Pat_Hayes, GrahamKlyne

14:01:38 [Zakim]

On IRC I see gk, RRSAgent, jjc, bwm, Zakim, jang, em, logger

14:01:49 [Zakim]

+??P16

14:02:03 [em]

zakim, ??P16 is Jang

14:02:03 [Zakim]

+Jang; got it

14:02:06 [Zakim]

+FrankM

14:02:52 [jjc]

Brian are you around?

14:03:02 [bwm]

dialing ...

14:03:44 [bwm]

zakim misbehaving

14:04:01 [Zakim]

+??P18

14:04:07 [bwm]

Zakim, ??p18 is bwm

14:04:07 [Zakim]

+bwm; got it

14:04:15 [em]

zakim, who is on the telecon

14:04:15 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'who is on the telecon', em

14:04:18 [em]

zakim, who is on the teleconference

14:04:18 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'who is on the teleconference', em

14:04:23 [em]

zakim, who is on the phone

14:04:23 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'who is on the phone', em

14:04:25 [em]

zakim, who is on the phone?

14:04:25 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jjc, EMiller, Pat_Hayes, GrahamKlyne, Jang, FrankM, bwm

14:04:56 [em]

regrets from miked, daveb

14:06:18 [em-scribe]

role call... see above

14:06:42 [jjc]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0176.html

14:06:47 [em-scribe]

comments on agenda....

14:06:47 [jjc]

agenda

14:07:11 [em-scribe]

next telecon....

14:07:24 [DanC]

DanC has joined #rdfcore

14:07:26 [em-scribe]

11th july

14:07:33 [em-scribe]

regrets from jjc (on the 11th)

14:07:36 [Zakim]

+DanC

14:07:44 [em-scribe]

jang willing to scribe on the 11th

14:08:08 [em-scribe]

comments on minutes from last meeting... approved

14:09:01 [em-scribe]

what # are we on?

14:09:43 [em-scribe]

Item 8

14:09:52 [em-scribe]

These were editorial and have been addressed to bwm's satisfaction:

14:09:52 [em-scribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0173.html

14:11:14 [jan_g]

jan_g has joined #rdfcore

14:11:16 [em-scribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2003Apr/0010.html

14:12:07 [em-scribe]

(rdf core response to cc/pp)

14:13:17 [bwm]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2003Apr/0010.html

14:13:38 [jjc]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2003May/0008.html

14:13:40 [bwm]

http://www.w3.org/Mobile/CCPP/Group/PR/PR-CCPP-struct-vocab-20030514/Overview.html

14:14:03 [bwm]

http://www.w3.org/Mobile/CCPP/Group/PR/PR-CCPP-struct-vocab-20030514/diff-20030325.html

14:14:07 [em-scribe]

bwm: asking wether http://www.w3.org/Mobile/CCPP/Group/PR/PR-CCPP-struct-vocab-20030514/Overview.html doc satisfies the comments from rdfcore http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-mobile/2003Apr/0010.html

14:14:33 [em-scribe]

diff-20030325.html doc is diff of original doc and rdfcore comments

14:15:05 [em-scribe]

bwm: authorize response saying were satisfied or ask for more time to review...

14:15:48 [em-scribe]

ACTION: bwm to respond to cc/pp saying we're satisfied with their document changes based on our feedback

14:16:48 [em-scribe]

q+ to give status update on informal action from last week... not successful but hope for more for next week

14:17:40 [em-scribe]

agenda item 10:

14:17:44 [em-scribe]

10: Issue horst-01

14:17:44 [em-scribe]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horst-01

14:18:01 [em-scribe]

DanC: vote for change in semantics

14:18:09 [em-scribe]

jjc: change the closure rules

14:19:03 [DanC]

[[[

14:19:04 [DanC]

If you axiomatize the iff semantics, it looks like:

14:19:04 [DanC]

all SUB SUPER (

14:19:04 [DanC]

rdf(SUB, subClassOf, SUPER)

14:19:04 [DanC]

<->

14:19:04 [DanC]

(all INSTANCE (

14:19:06 [DanC]

(rdf(INSTANCE, type, SUB) -> rdf(INSTANCE, type, SUPER))

14:19:08 [DanC]

))

14:19:10 [DanC]

).

14:19:12 [DanC]

]]]

14:19:37 [DanC]

--- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0175.html

14:24:50 [em-scribe]

gk: been getting my head around the issue - can't seem reason for changing the semantics

14:24:56 [jjc]

rdf( SUB subClassOf foobar ) <-> all INSTANCE { rdf(INSTANCE type SUB) -> rdf(INSTANCE type foobar) }

14:25:05 [jjc]

is equivalent to

14:26:08 [jjc]

rdf( SUB subClassOf foobar ), rdf( INSTANCE type SUB) -> rdf( INSTANCE type foobar)

14:26:31 [bwm]

who is on the call

14:26:38 [bwm]

Zakim, who is on the call?

14:26:38 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jjc, EMiller, Pat_Hayes, GrahamKlyne, Jang, FrankM, bwm, DanC

14:27:28 [DanC]

gk, you don't care whether RDFS fits in Horn or not?

14:28:45 [bwm]

q?

14:29:06 [em-scribe]

ack em

14:29:06 [Zakim]

em-scribe, you wanted to give status update on informal action from last week... not successful but hope for more for next week

14:29:20 [bwm]

ack em

14:29:22 [em-scribe]

ack danc

14:32:01 [jjc]

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byIssue#I5.24-001

14:32:10 [jjc]

Is the test surprising OWL test case

14:32:39 [gk]

[thinks...] If owl notion of range is stronger than rdfs concept, then why not have owl:range as subproperty of rdfs:range?

14:32:50 [jjc]

(superproeprty)

14:33:22 [gk]

jjc, ? stronger means smaller IEXT, n'est pas?

14:33:44 [bwm]

no - jjc is right

14:34:22 [jjc]

q+ to ask Dan why 12a and 12b are not Horn?

14:34:56 [DanC]

12a and 12b are in horn; they just can't be complete.

14:35:05 [gk]

Hmmm... maybe I misunderstand "stronger" then? do we have a owl:range b |= a rdfs:range b ? If not I have a different concern.

14:36:30 [DanC]

indeed not, gk

14:36:40 [jan_g]

A subClassOf b (owl) does NOT mean A sobClassOf B (rdf) ?!?!

14:36:41 [jjc]

Dan, so your concern is completeness?

14:36:57 [bwm]

ack jjc

14:36:57 [Zakim]

jjc, you wanted to ask Dan why 12a and 12b are not Horn?

14:37:01 [DanC]

er... completeness as symptom of simplicity, yes

14:38:24 [gk]

(super/sub ... I agree now ... was confused)

14:38:41 [bwm]

q?

14:40:23 [jjc]

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byIssue#I5.24-001

14:43:10 [gk]

(So we might rdfs:subClass rdfs:subProperty owl:subClass ?)

14:43:22 [jjc]

yes

14:45:09 [jjc]

q+ to talk about 29th April 2002 model theory

14:45:11 [gk]

I'm gettimng more comfortable with this: deducing a rdfs:subClass b using RDFS entailment must always hold. Using OWL, one might find some more such.

14:45:51 [jan_g]

yes, the difference between provability and entailment

14:46:24 [gk]

em says it good: "the more you know, the more you can prove"

14:47:02 [bwm]

ack jjc

14:47:02 [Zakim]

jjc, you wanted to talk about 29th April 2002 model theory

14:47:05 [em-scribe]

thanks gk

14:51:02 [bwm]

A class C is a subclass of a class C' if and only if all the instances of C are also instances of C'. All classes are subclasses of themselves.

14:51:33 [em-scribe]

DanC: suggests then simply taking the 'and only if' out

14:52:50 [jan_g]

q+ to remind that this comes down to intension/extension, really. intension = classes aren't quite sets (but sets behave much like classes). extension means they're pretty much the same thing.

14:53:27 [jjc]

q+ to talk about datatypes

14:53:48 [jjc]

? xsd:unsignedInteger rdfs:subClassOf xsd:integer. ?

14:55:28 [jan_g]

jjc: to be honest, if we take the intentional point of view, I'm not convinced I buy your example as true. You're right.

14:55:38 [em-scribe]

ack jan_g

14:55:38 [Zakim]

jan_g, you wanted to remind that this comes down to intension/extension, really. intension = classes aren't quite sets (but sets behave much like classes). extension means they're

14:55:41 [Zakim]

... pretty much the same thing.

14:55:46 [em-scribe]

ack RRSAgent

14:55:48 [em-scribe]

acj jjc

14:55:54 [em-scribe]

ack jjc

14:55:54 [Zakim]

jjc, you wanted to talk about datatypes

14:55:59 [em-scribe]

ack danc

14:55:59 [Zakim]

DanC, you wanted to say this is why social meaning is hard

14:56:06 [em-scribe]

q=

14:56:14 [em-scribe]

queue=

14:56:47 [gk]

(I agree with DanC that we should *try* to make the inference system complete)

14:57:08 [jan_g]

jjc: in your example, the class _is_ the set, so yes (?)

14:57:43 [DanC]

qeueu=

14:57:48 [DanC]

queue=

14:59:05 [gk]

Is the set of answers to life the universe and everything a subclass of integers?

14:59:32 [jjc]

of course!

14:59:41 [DanC]

no. :)

14:59:49 [bwm]

ack janc

15:00:39 [DanC]

ack jan

15:00:53 [bwm]

Zakim, who is on the call?

15:00:53 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jjc, EMiller, Pat_Hayes, GrahamKlyne, Jang, FrankM, bwm, DanC

15:01:15 [DanC]

extensional = iff

15:01:44 [DanC]

intensional = if (which clearly fits in Horn)

15:02:37 [DanC]

lots intenstional a few extensional

15:02:49 [em-scribe]

s/few/one

15:03:46 [em-scribe]

bwm: now that we agree 'intensional' what are the implecations?

15:04:05 [DanC]

changes to semantics are in progress. I'd like some tests. schema spec needs a few words stuff. concepts is not affected.

15:04:11 [em-scribe]

primer (not sure), schema will be

15:04:20 [DanC]

^my view only.

15:04:55 [em-scribe]

jang: section 2 in schema would have to be changed (introductory section seems intentional), while other points extensional

15:05:13 [jjc]

PROPOSE to close horst-01 by moving to intensional semantics for subClassOf, and by including new rules rdfs12a and rdfs12b in additional part of rules section.

15:05:13 [em-scribe]

test case document... useful to add tests to make this point clearer

15:05:19 [jan_g]

roger that skipper

15:05:28 [em-scribe]

:)

15:05:48 [jjc]

Also we should decide on transitivity, relfecivity, rdfs:resource

15:06:09 [DanC]

you mean rdfs:Resource, yes?

15:06:15 [jjc]

yes thanks

15:07:23 [em-scribe]

model theory... thinks changes will be done by Wed

15:07:33 [em-scribe]

now on to webont....

15:07:36 [DanC]

proposed ammendment(1): make the closure rules normative

15:07:40 [em-scribe]

implecations ...

15:07:45 [DanC]

proposed ammendment(2): subClassOf transitive

15:07:58 [DanC]

proposed ammendment(3): subClassOf not reflexive

15:08:02 [em-scribe]

would have to change document(s) to make a more extensional position

15:08:14 [em-scribe]

DanC: they may not have a specific position

15:09:43 [em-scribe]

ack jjc

15:09:43 [Zakim]

jjc, you wanted to make his proposal

15:09:55 [em-scribe]

<jjc> PROPOSE to close horst-01 by moving to intensional semantics for subClassOf, and by including new rules rdfs12a and rdfs12b in additional part of rules section.

15:10:20 [jan_g]

hrm, then does owl:subPropertyOf become an owl:subPropertyOf rdfs:subPropertyOf?

15:10:28 [bwm]

ack jjc

15:10:32 [em-scribe]

bwm: before proposal want to understadn implecations

15:10:34 [em-scribe]

ack danc

15:10:34 [Zakim]

danc, you wanted to make my ammendments

15:11:06 [jjc]

(actually I do not want to PROPOSE - since I would like to abstain)

15:12:18 [em-scribe]

DanC: PROPOSE to close horst-01 by moving to intensional semantics for subClassOf ('if' rather than 'if and only if'), and by including new rules rdfs12a and rdfs12b in additional part of rules section.

15:12:42 [em-scribe]

+ see above

15:13:14 [jjc]

because they disagree with him!!

15:13:18 [gk]

q+ to ask DanC why not reflexive?

15:13:58 [jan_g]

A sco B, b sco A is a natural way to say A = B. but A not sco A ?!

15:16:02 [gk]

q+ to say I thought we had extensive discussion of reflexivity long time ago; also we get a sco a from a type class.

15:16:04 [em-scribe]

q+ to ask if there are implications for other contructs as well (e.g subPropertyOf, etc.)

15:16:15 [jjc]

(yes)

15:16:46 [em-scribe]

just checking re previous implications discussions

15:16:58 [bwm]

ack gk

15:16:58 [Zakim]

gk, you wanted to ask DanC why not reflexive? and to say I thought we had extensive discussion of reflexivity long time ago; also we get a sco a from a type class.

15:18:31 [bwm]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

15:18:31 [Zakim]

On the phone I see jjc, EMiller, Pat_Hayes, GrahamKlyne, Jang, FrankM, bwm, DanC

15:19:28 [jan_g]

proposal: intentional, transitive, reflexive.

15:19:56 [DanC]

DanC: PROPOSE to close horst-01 by moving to intensional semantics for subClassOf ('if' rather than 'if and only if'), and by including new rules rdfs12a and rdfs12b in additional part of rules section. subClassOf is reflexive. (and let's be sure to test that)

15:20:26 [DanC]

ACTION Frank: check primer

15:20:35 [DanC]

ACTION PatH: deliver semantics draft (eta tues)

15:20:37 [jjc]

(subClassOf is transitive)

15:20:45 [DanC]

ACTION jang: add tests

15:21:11 [DanC]

ACTION DanC: inform WebOnt

15:21:48 [DanC]

ACTION PatH: respond to the commentor (ter horst)

15:22:09 [em-scribe]

ack em

15:22:09 [Zakim]

em-scribe, you wanted to ask if there are implications for other contructs as well (e.g subPropertyOf, etc.)

15:22:13 [DanC]

action 4 = add tests for intensional subClassOf semantics

15:22:34 [em-scribe]

q: you wanted to ask if there are implications for other contructs as well (e.g subPropertyOf, etc.)

15:22:38 [em-scribe]

answer: yes

15:22:47 [gk]

(Reflexivity: I've thought some more and I can see DanCs viewpoint -- it doesn't really add any useful conclusions but does add inferecne triples. But on balance, retaining reflexivity is the smaller change to our current specs)

15:23:01 [DanC]

ACTION bwm: get schema editor to reflect intensional subClassOf/subPropertyOf in schema spec

15:23:35 [bwm]

q?

15:23:55 [jan_g]

[reflexivity: we have concrete axioms that describe sets. Intensional classes/categories are what we're trying to write the axioms to describe. You could go either way really]

15:24:21 [em-scribe]

............

15:24:22 [em-scribe]

11: Issue qu-03

15:24:22 [em-scribe]

Discuss:

15:24:22 [em-scribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0145.html

15:24:22 [em-scribe]

15:24:34 [em-scribe]

(side track for a minute)...

15:24:40 [em-scribe]

back to agenda item 7

15:24:49 [em-scribe]

7: Review of Owl test cases

15:24:49 [em-scribe]

Status.

15:24:49 [em-scribe]

15:24:58 [em-scribe]

bwm: jang says ok

15:25:15 [em-scribe]

.. any implications based on above wg decision?

15:25:22 [em-scribe]

jang: yes, i'm happier :)

15:25:42 [em-scribe]

jjc: have to produce more test cases showing differences between rdfs and owl semantics

15:26:01 [em-scribe]

action: jang to respond to webont with a 'good job'!

15:26:24 [DanC]

agenda?

15:26:32 [em-scribe]

ok, back to 11....

15:26:38 [em-scribe]

11: Issue qu-03

15:26:38 [em-scribe]

Discuss:

15:26:38 [em-scribe]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0145.html

15:26:40 [DanC]

agenda + 26Jun http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0176.html

15:28:11 [em-scribe]

DanC: please ammend response to 'see owl wg' but other than that looks good

15:30:24 [em-scribe]

DanC: (and pat) also suggest including a response that includes this is being placed on the 'someday pile' and provide pointer

15:31:27 [em-scribe]

action: path to propose a joint resolution of qu-03 and ??? (and moved to someday pile)

15:32:01 [em-scribe]

...

15:32:02 [em-scribe]

12: Schedule

15:32:02 [em-scribe]

I suggest our current priorities are:

15:32:32 [DanC]

issues list: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/

15:32:59 [DanC]

(it would be nice if the issues list explictly bounded its up-to-dateness; e.g. "this is no more than a week out of date")

15:33:07 [DanC]

(same for webont's)

15:33:43 [Zakim]

-Pat_Hayes

15:34:11 [jan_g]

bwm: closing the other TC LC comment - all the details here, status on issue list needs updating http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0147.html

15:34:12 [em-scribe]

which docs ready for review?

15:34:29 [em-scribe]

syntax - jjc wiling to review

15:36:01 [em-scribe]

action: bwm to check that the xml schema responses get cc'd to the right place

15:36:03 [jjc]

Concepts: graham to send responses to pfps, jeremy to other commentators

15:36:33 [DanC]

pointer to summary of syntax changes since last call?

15:37:01 [em-scribe]

action: jjc to review syntax document at report back by july 4 via email

15:37:11 [Zakim]

+Pat_Hayes

15:38:28 [DanC]

summary of syntax changes since last call http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/#section-Changes

15:38:55 [em-scribe]

concepts doc review...

15:39:23 [DanC]

aren't actions due by next meeting by default?

15:39:28 [em-scribe]

action: jang review concepts document

15:39:34 [em-scribe]

action: path review concepts document

15:39:52 [em-scribe]

action: jjc inform list when concepts doc is ready for review

15:40:03 [em-scribe]

semantics document....

15:40:32 [em-scribe]

by next meeting by default? yes... but since we're meeting in 2 weeks just checking to see if action'ers are willing to commit to earilier date

15:41:42 [DanC]

hmm... gonna be non-trivial to argue we've got community review of the RDF syntax spec after the "Appendix B.1: Substantive Revisions"

15:42:30 [DanC]

ah; 2 weeks. gotcha

15:44:01 [DanC]

I'd be willing to entertain one motion to close them all with a revised semantics document, though actions to get back to the commentors individually would still need assigning.

15:46:33 [DanC]

DanC: on the denotation of literals, and whether they're the same as xml schema literals, we should say our literals are strings per charmod; since the xml schema datatypes spec also cites charmod, they do work out to be the same.

15:52:13 [gk]

(jjc, I think you commented rdf:type is an iff condition ... I don't see that)

15:55:45 [gk]

plain literals "same as" xsd:string? Do we mean in graph syntax or denotation? (I think the latter)

15:57:33 [jan_g]

denotation, graham

15:58:29 [DanC]

thanks, bwm. I had considerable obligation to do that.

15:58:39 [jjc]

q+ noprmative ref to charmod

15:58:50 [jjc]

q+ to ask noprmative ref to charmod

15:59:09 [em-scribe]

action: bwm, to ask xml schema working group ... specificially in terms of a test case

15:59:10 [bwm]

ack jjc

15:59:10 [Zakim]

jjc, you wanted to ask noprmative ref to charmod

16:02:15 [em-scribe]

bwm, sorry i've got to head to another meeting... can somone wrap up?

16:02:38 [em-scribe]

meeting adjourned...

16:02:53 [Zakim]

-Pat_Hayes

16:02:54 [Zakim]

-EMiller

16:02:56 [Zakim]

-FrankM

16:02:57 [Zakim]

-bwm

16:03:11 [jan_g]

are we "done" or are we "done"^^rdfcore:meetingstatus ?

16:08:20 [Zakim]

-Jang

16:08:23 [Zakim]

-GrahamKlyne

16:11:11 [gk]

gk has left #rdfcore

16:23:45 [Zakim]

-DanC

16:23:46 [Zakim]

-jjc

16:23:46 [Zakim]

SW_RDFCore()10:00AM has ended

16:25:43 [bwm]

bwm has left #rdfcore

19:58:45 [DanC]

DanC has left #rdfcore