IRC log of dawg on 2006-09-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:27:10 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #dawg

14:27:10 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc

14:27:48 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ convene

14:27:48 [Zakim]

agendum 1 added

14:27:55 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ action items

14:27:55 [Zakim]

agendum 2 added

14:28:01 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ contradictoryKB

14:28:01 [Zakim]

agendum 3 added

14:28:08 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ formsOfDistinct

14:28:08 [Zakim]

agendum 4 added

14:28:11 [Zakim]

SW_DAWG()10:30AM has now started

14:28:16 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ unbound variables in FILTER

14:28:16 [Zakim]

agendum 5 added

14:28:18 [Zakim]

+??P4

14:28:31 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ open world and other value tests

14:28:31 [Zakim]

agendum 6 added

14:28:47 [kendallclark]

zakim, agenda+ rq24 wording about underlying issues

14:28:47 [Zakim]

agendum 7 added

14:28:52 [Zakim]

+??P5

14:28:53 [SimonR]

zakim, ??P4 is me

14:28:54 [Zakim]

+SimonR; got it

14:28:55 [AndyS]

zakim, ??P5 is me

14:28:55 [Zakim]

+AndyS; got it

14:29:19 [EliasT]

EliasT has joined #dawg

14:29:38 [Zakim]

+Kendall_Clark

14:29:43 [FredZ]

FredZ has joined #dawg

14:30:41 [kendallclark]

zakim, who's on the call?

14:30:41 [Zakim]

On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, Kendall_Clark

14:30:47 [LeeF]

zakim, phone number?

14:30:47 [Zakim]

I am sorry, LeeF; I do not know a number for number?

14:30:50 [LeeF]

zakim, passcode?

14:30:50 [Zakim]

the conference code is 7333 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), LeeF

14:30:53 [LeeF]

thanks, Zakim

14:31:00 [Zakim]

+Elias_Torres

14:31:08 [EliasT]

Zakim, Elias_Torres is me

14:31:08 [Zakim]

+EliasT; got it

14:31:13 [Zakim]

+Fred_Zemke

14:31:15 [Zakim]

+[IBMCambridge]

14:31:23 [LeeF]

Zakim, IBMCambridge is me

14:31:25 [Zakim]

+LeeF; got it

14:31:28 [kendallclark]

zakim, who's on the call?

14:31:31 [Zakim]

On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, Kendall_Clark, EliasT, Fred_Zemke, LeeF

14:32:18 [EliasT]

Scribe: EliasT

14:32:22 [Zakim]

-LeeF

14:32:29 [EliasT]

Meeting: DAWG Weekly Meeting

14:32:31 [kendallclark]

zakim, take up next agendum

14:32:31 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "convene" taken up [from kendallclark]

14:32:35 [EliasT]

Chair: kendallclark

14:32:44 [EliasT]

Zakim, Kendall_Clark is kendallclark

14:32:44 [Zakim]

+kendallclark; got it

14:32:45 [Zakim]

+[IBMCambridge]

14:32:46 [kendallclark]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0236.html

14:32:51 [LeeF]

Zakim, IBMCambridge is me

14:32:51 [Zakim]

+LeeF; got it

14:33:14 [EliasT]

Regrets: none

14:33:33 [kendallclark]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0241.html

14:33:34 [EliasT]

Present: LeeF, FredZ, kendallclark, LeeF, SteveH, SimonR, bijan, AndyS

14:34:36 [kendallclark]

zakim, pick a scribe

14:34:36 [Zakim]

Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose LeeF

14:34:43 [AndyS]

regrets for next time (26 Sept)

14:35:02 [SimonR]

I might be unable to attend next week; I'll be at a conference.

14:35:22 [AndyS]

I'll be talking about SPARQL to W3C in the UK :-)

14:35:33 [Zakim]

+[IPcaller]

14:35:37 [bijan]

zakim, ipcaller is me

14:35:37 [Zakim]

+bijan; got it

14:35:41 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

14:35:41 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

14:36:43 [SimonR]

Proposed to skip next week and have the next meeting on Oct 3rd, with AndyS as scribe.

14:37:58 [EliasT]

RESOLVED to meet again on Oct 3rd, with AndyS as scribe

14:38:10 [kendallclark]

zakim, take up next agendum

14:38:10 [Zakim]

agendum 2. "action items" taken up [from kendallclark]

14:38:32 [kendallclark]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0238.html

14:39:24 [ericP]

zakim, please dial ericP-617

14:39:24 [Zakim]

ok, ericP; the call is being made

14:39:25 [Zakim]

+EricP

14:39:42 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

14:39:42 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

14:39:53 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

14:39:53 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

14:39:57 [LeeF]

Elias's action was withdrawn immediately after issued last week

14:41:08 [kendallclark]

A

14:41:46 [EliasT]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0248.html

14:42:10 [SimonR]

Minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0241.html

14:42:33 [EliasT]

ACTION: ericP to send mail describing how [VTV] and [BTV] (posted [PST]) illustrate basic graph matching conflicts between LC1 and LC2 semantics [CONTINUES]

14:42:43 [EliasT]

ACTION: BijanP to to propose some editorial clarification text around DATATYPE [CONTINUES]

14:42:51 [kendallclark]

zakim, take up next agendum

14:42:51 [Zakim]

agendum 3. "contradictoryKB" taken up [from kendallclark]

14:43:00 [EliasT]

ACTION: ericP effect: DATATYE (RDF term) => IRI | "" => xsd:string, ""@foo => error, ""^^X => X, blank node => error, IRI => error [DONE]

14:43:11 [EliasT]

ACTION: EliasT to follow up w/ Andy on "the idiom" for plain literals/string literals [DONE]

14:43:20 [EliasT]

ACTION: bijan to write some text on the D-entailment issue [CONTINUES]

14:43:23 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

14:43:23 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

14:44:14 [EliasT]

RRSAgent, what are the action items?

14:44:14 [RRSAgent]

I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-actions.rdf :

14:44:14 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: ericP to send mail describing how [VTV] and [BTV] (posted [PST]) illustrate basic graph matching conflicts between LC1 and LC2 semantics [CONTINUES] [1]

14:44:14 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T14-42-33

14:44:14 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: BijanP to to propose some editorial clarification text around DATATYPE [CONTINUES] [2]

14:44:14 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T14-42-43

14:44:14 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: ericP effect: DATATYE (RDF term) => IRI | "" => xsd:string, ""@foo => error, ""^^X => X, blank node => error, IRI => error [DONE] [3]

14:44:14 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T14-43-00

14:44:14 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: EliasT to follow up w/ Andy on "the idiom" for plain literals/string literals [DONE] [4]

14:44:14 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T14-43-11

14:44:14 [RRSAgent]

ACTION: bijan to write some text on the D-entailment issue [CONTINUES] [5]

14:44:14 [RRSAgent]

recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T14-43-20

14:45:24 [EliasT]

DONE: ericP effect: DATATYE (RDF term) => IRI | "" => xsd:string, ""@foo => error, ""^^X => X, blank node => error, IRI => error [DONE]

14:45:24 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

14:45:24 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

14:45:34 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

14:45:34 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

14:45:36 [EliasT]

DONE: EliasT to follow up w/ Andy on "the idiom" for plain literals/string literals

14:46:27 [bijan]

a p ">"^^rdf:XMLLiteral

14:46:39 [bijan]

a p ">".

14:46:53 [bijan]

p range rdf:XMLLiteral

14:47:48 [ericP]

in SGML, and perhaps XML, '>' is allowed, so '<' may be a better choice

14:48:07 [EliasT]

bijan: The only contradiction cases come with data types in RDF.

14:48:18 [EliasT]

kendallclark: So if we don't use data types, we have no contradictions.

14:48:33 [EliasT]

bijan: data types are built-in to RDF.

14:48:37 [kendallclark]

hmm, not what I said, but -shrug-

14:48:57 [ericP]

s/data types/entailment/

14:49:12 [EliasT]

kendallclark: If we don't support RDFS then we don't have a contradictory KB issue.

14:49:27 [kendallclark]

elias? I didn't say that either!

14:49:28 [kendallclark]

:)

14:49:44 [EliasT]

:-)

14:49:49 [kendallclark]

:)

14:49:51 [EliasT]

kendallclark: loves mochi

14:49:54 [kendallclark]

heh

14:50:22 [kendallclark]

Straw poll:

14:50:31 [kendallclark]

1. say nothing about contradictory KBs at all

14:50:51 [kendallclark]

2. say explicitly that how contradictory KBs are handled is implementation-defined

14:51:27 [kendallclark]

3. say explicitly what implementatons must do when querying contradictory KBs

14:52:45 [LeeF]

FROM <A> FROM <B> A and B get RDF Merged

14:53:00 [EliasT]

FredZ: what if two graphs are consistent independently but not merged in the case of FROM <A> FROM <B>

14:54:15 [EliasT]

bijan: in RDF Semantics all ill-formed literals are mapped to another resource not of that type to avoid the contradiction.

14:54:59 [EliasT]

FredZ: could we throw an error if we find an inconsistency?

14:55:42 [EliasT]

SimonR: We would have to use a specific logic to resolve consistencies but that will not happen.

14:56:36 [EliasT]

bijan: as I read the SPARQL document, it said that we support D-entailment then we need to say something about contradictions.

14:56:58 [patH]

patH has joined #dawg

14:57:10 [AndyS]

4.8 has been removed.

14:57:27 [AndyS]

I de-D-entailed rq24.

14:57:32 [bijan]

:)

14:58:10 [Zakim]

+PatH

14:58:19 [EliasT]

Present: PatH

14:58:37 [patH]

sorry im late.

14:58:48 [SimonR]

How about: "say explicitly what implementatons MAY do when querying contradictory KBs"?

14:58:50 [EliasT]

Present, but late: PatH

14:59:37 [kendallclark]

audio bad :)

15:00:05 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:00:05 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:00:27 [ericP]

bijan, the sound just got better

15:00:49 [bijan]

q+

15:00:51 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:00:51 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:01:04 [ericP]

ack bijan

15:01:31 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:01:33 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:02:36 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:02:36 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:02:38 [patH]

sorry, can anyone point out the 1/2/3 options? URI?

15:02:46 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:02:49 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:02:53 [EliasT]

10kendallclark: 01Straw poll:

15:02:53 [EliasT]

10kendallclark: 011. say nothing about contradictory KBs at all

15:02:53 [EliasT]

10kendallclark: 012. say explicitly that how contradictory KBs are handled is implementation-defined

15:02:53 [EliasT]

10kendallclark: 013. say explicitly what implementatons must do when querying contradictory KBs

15:02:55 [bijan]

RRSAgent, where am I?

15:02:55 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-irc#T15-02-55

15:02:59 [AndyS]

10kendallclark: 011. say nothing about contradictory KBs at all

15:02:59 [AndyS]

10[15:50] kendallclark: 012. say explicitly that how contradictory KBs are handled is implementation-defined

15:02:59 [AndyS]

10[15:51] kendallclark: 013. say explicitly what implementatons must do when querying contradictory KBs

15:02:59 [bijan]

See that uri

15:03:21 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:03:21 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:03:25 [patH]

That URI is forbidden

15:03:32 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:03:32 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:03:39 [kendallclark]

zakim, who's on the call?

15:03:39 [Zakim]

On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, kendallclark, EliasT, Fred_Zemke, LeeF, bijan (muted), EricP, PatH

15:03:51 [ericP]

patH, on it...

15:04:53 [EliasT]

SimonR: 1 would lead to confusion, 3 is too hard right now, so 2 is the closest to what's acceptable.

15:05:27 [ericP]

patH, fixed

15:05:36 [patH]

Ta.

15:05:40 [kendallclark]

AndyS: prefers (2) explicitly saying that it's app/imple-defined

15:06:10 [kendallclark]

Elias: prefer (2)

15:06:29 [AndyS]

against 3, OK with 1 and 2

15:07:20 [kendallclark]

FredZ: (2) only reasonable choice

15:07:37 [SimonR]

We'd almost want release the current document as specifying what happens in the case of simple entailment, and perhaps a later extension defining how we deal with stronger entailment regimes, including the issues of inconsistency which then arise.

15:07:50 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:07:50 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:08:06 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:08:06 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:08:25 [EliasT]

bijan: I like 3, but 2 is good since it mentions at least.

15:08:43 [EliasT]

ericP: I'm happy with 1 and 2.

15:09:19 [ericP]

looks like 2s have it

15:09:21 [EliasT]

patH: 1 dishonest, 3 ambitious and 2 is fine.

15:10:00 [bijan]

I'll take an action to write up a 2

15:10:14 [bijan]

Take a vote then

15:10:45 [AndyS]

I'd like to write it into the pub version in section 5 (which can be wordsmithed later like anything else)

15:11:19 [bijan]

sorry, someone at the door

15:11:32 [ericP]

PROPOSED: @@someplace near semantic or implication@@ [[Logical entailment may result in inconsistent RDF graphs. Theresult of queries on an inconsistent graph is implementation-defined.]]

15:11:49 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:11:49 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:12:07 [AndyS]

"result of queries on contradictory KBs are implementation-defined" Discuss contradictory. Mention possible outcomes as error, nothing, some results.

15:12:12 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:12:12 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:12:13 [bijan]

Yep

15:12:17 [bijan]

That's what I had in mind

15:12:23 [bijan]

Bit about RDFS/D-Entailment

15:12:26 [AndyS]

also not necessarily the same each time.

15:12:55 [bijan]

Maybe a bit about how future specs might constrain this

15:12:55 [ericP]

PROPOSED: [[Logical entailment may result in inconsistent RDF graphs. Theresult of queries on an inconsistent graph is implementation-defined.]]

15:13:36 [bijan]

I like this because it gives the community a heads up on that it is an issue and implemetners and users some thoughts about what they might do

15:14:11 [SimonR]

Do we provide any facility (error code, etc) for the implementation to signal the condition, should it choose?

15:14:21 [bijan]

Can we wordsmith later?

15:14:24 [AndyS]

Only error 500

15:14:24 [bijan]

I don't like that

15:14:31 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:14:31 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:15:16 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:15:16 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:16:06 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:16:06 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:17:47 [AndyS]

error => "outside the QL spec"

15:18:02 [AndyS]

that's been what we've done before.

15:18:36 [LeeF]

The only errors mentioned are in the protocol document (and in FILTER evaluations, but that's neither here nor there for this issue), AFAIK.

15:18:43 [bijan]

That's 3

15:19:10 [ericP]

PROPOSED: [[Logical entailment may result in inconsistent RDF graphs. For example, "-1"^^xsd:positiveInteger is inconsistent with respect to D-entailment [INFORMATIVE]. The result of queries on an inconsistent graph is implementation-defined.]]

15:20:13 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:20:13 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:21:13 [bijan]

Can we say that it is an error?

15:21:15 [bijan]

(not returns)

15:22:04 [bijan]

Yep

15:22:06 [bijan]

I yeild

15:22:53 [bijan]

As long as we can bulk up the first sentences with some specific mention of RDF and RDFS and pointers to RDFS

15:23:16 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:23:16 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:23:23 [kendallclark]

s/is implementation-defined/is outside the scope of this document/g

15:23:31 [AndyS]

What is Eric's example not covering?

15:23:43 [EliasT]

bijan: what's the mechanism for returning errors?

15:23:54 [EliasT]

ericP: we don't have any mechanisms in the QL for returning errors

15:24:05 [EliasT]

ericP: the mechanism is in the protocol.

15:24:20 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:24:20 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:25:35 [ericP]

PROPOSED: [[Logical entailment may result in inconsistent RDF graphs. For example, "-1"^^xsd:positiveInteger is inconsistent with respect to D-entailment [INFORMATIVE]. The result of queries on an inconsistent graph is outside this specification.]]

15:27:25 [kendallclark]

With the proviso that this ought not be intepreted as precluding the possibility of returning errors

15:28:04 [AndyS]

"The outcome of a query on a incon..."

15:28:14 [patH]

The effect of a query

15:28:18 [patH]

?

15:28:27 [LeeF]

"it might even blow up THE SUN!"

15:28:29 [ericP]

RESOLVED

15:28:48 [SimonR]

The results of logical entailment may be outside this specification -- that seems to accurately reflect the situation.

15:29:01 [kendallclark]

ACTION KendallC: close contradictoryKB issue

15:29:21 [kendallclark]

zakim, take up next agendum

15:29:21 [Zakim]

agendum 4. "formsOfDistinct" taken up [from kendallclark]

15:29:22 [patH]

I have problems with the phrase 'results of logical entailment', will fix in email.

15:30:12 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:30:12 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:30:24 [kendallclark]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JulSep/0200.html

15:30:24 [kendallclark]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#formsOfDistinct

15:30:31 [patH]

"logical entailment may'//"The use of richer/stronger/other entailment regimes may" (?)

15:31:01 [AndyS]

Can we make sure we cover publishing process today? Just to make sure there are no blocks in the next 2 weeks.

15:31:26 [EliasT]

Zakim, mute me

15:31:26 [Zakim]

EliasT should now be muted

15:32:11 [kendallclark]

Andy: yes

15:32:21 [AndyS]

Ta

15:32:43 [ericP]

http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20050721/#modDistinct

15:33:10 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:33:10 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:33:40 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:33:40 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:33:47 [AndyS]

That is also the text in rq24 (I restored an HTML error as I noted). Not sure when it happened.

15:34:23 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:34:23 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:34:41 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:34:41 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:34:52 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:34:52 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:35:14 [bijan]

First choice:

15:35:17 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:35:17 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:35:46 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:35:46 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:36:07 [bijan]

First

15:36:11 [bijan]

1) one form of distinct

15:36:13 [bijan]

2) more than one

15:36:23 [bijan]

Second if 1) which:

15:36:28 [bijan]

A) term distinct

15:36:32 [bijan]

b) answer distinct

15:36:51 [bijan]

c) source distinct

15:37:02 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:37:02 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:40:58 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:40:58 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:41:53 [kendallclark]

zakim, who's on the phone?

15:41:53 [Zakim]

On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, kendallclark, EliasT (muted), Fred_Zemke, LeeF, bijan (muted), EricP, PatH

15:42:14 [kendallclark]

Which form(s) of distinct do you prefer:

15:42:23 [kendallclark]

Path: prefer (a), no strong view, will go w/ flow

15:42:31 [kendallclark]

Eric: (a)

15:42:44 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:42:44 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:42:48 [EliasT]

Zakim, unmute me

15:42:48 [Zakim]

EliasT should no longer be muted

15:43:04 [kendallclark]

bijan: (a) and (b)

15:43:10 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:43:10 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:43:33 [kendallclark]

Leef: (a) suffices, but sees appeal to (b) and (c)

15:44:18 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:44:18 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:44:35 [kendallclark]

FredZ: ^(c)

15:44:36 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:44:36 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:45:09 [bijan]

Ooo, nice point

15:45:14 [bijan]

hadn't thought of that

15:45:17 [kendallclark]

Elias: (a)

15:45:20 [patH]

indeed.

15:45:40 [kendallclark]

Andy: (a) only

15:45:40 [ericP]

that's the danger of wearing the geek hat all the time

15:45:50 [kendallclark]

Simon: no opinion

15:45:53 [bijan]

(Some examples of B and C: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bparsia/2006/row-tutorial/#slide35 )

15:45:59 [kendallclark]

kendall: (a)

15:46:04 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:46:04 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:46:09 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:46:09 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:46:23 [bijan]

q+

15:46:31 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:46:31 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:47:34 [EliasT]

bijan: if we are going to do A, I'd like to have some text that explain it a bit more.

15:48:13 [ericP]

+1

15:48:21 [patH]

+2

15:48:29 [ericP]

--

15:48:31 [ericP]

=3

15:48:38 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:48:38 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:49:57 [patH]

suggest it is worth spoending some informative time in spec to get this clear, as its one of the new topics that folk will be having new kinds of trouble with.

15:50:23 [ericP]

yes

15:50:26 [bijan]

Actually, as an artsy fartsy postmodernist, i resist hemogenistic attempst to "limit" the inscription of reality

15:50:35 [bijan]

That's waht I would suggest

15:50:44 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:50:44 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:50:50 [patH]

Ah, I knew I could smell derrida somewhere.

15:50:52 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:50:52 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

15:51:51 [AndyS]

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/rq24.html#modDistinct is the current text. It uses set= : the = will tie to sameTerm for the RDF tem part of bindings in a set.

15:51:52 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:51:52 [Zakim]

bijan was already muted, bijan

15:51:55 [SimonR]

There's a certain parallel here to our earlier discussions about literals, compared by either syntactic form or by value.

15:52:01 [kendallclark]

PROPOSAL: To close formsOfDistinct by defining distinctness in terms of term equality, and for BP to provide informative text to guide reader's expectations

15:52:13 [ericP]

"01"^^xsd:integer "1"^^xsd:integer

15:52:14 [SimonR]

(i.e. we're debated which sense of equality to use.)

15:52:17 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

15:52:17 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

15:52:22 [bijan]

q+

15:52:31 [kendallclark]

(for the record: our earlier decision re: contradictoryKB also closes that issue)

15:53:02 [AndyS]

Ack to the closing thereof.

15:53:08 [kendallclark]

PROPOSE: to extend meeting 10 minutes

15:53:17 [AndyS]

Seconded

15:53:19 [kendallclark]

thx

15:55:02 [bijan]

For datatyped literals, a binding is equal either if

15:55:12 [bijan]

1) they are term-equal

15:55:26 [bijan]

2) they are = according to the datatype equality defined in value testing

15:56:13 [AndyS]

{ :x :p 1 }

15:56:19 [kendallclark]

+3 to that symmetry

15:56:24 [kendallclark]

if i grok it

15:56:46 [bijan]

3) they are - according to filter equality

15:56:50 [bijan]

"filter equality"

15:57:27 [Zakim]

-EliasT

15:58:10 [ericP]

+ a zillion

15:58:22 [bijan]

1) they are term-equal

15:58:27 [bijan]

2) they are equal by some other measure

15:58:44 [kendallclark]

zakim, who's on the phone?

15:58:44 [Zakim]

On the phone I see SimonR, AndyS, kendallclark, Fred_Zemke, LeeF, bijan, EricP, PatH

15:58:46 [bijan]

3) both

15:59:55 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

15:59:55 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

16:00:33 [bijan]

Term-distinct wrt bnodes

16:01:25 [bijan]

zakim, unmute me

16:01:25 [Zakim]

bijan should no longer be muted

16:01:29 [AndyS]

chnage it to "term/literal value (to be refined)"

16:01:30 [ericP]

PROPOSED: to support some form of term-distinction

16:01:53 [kendallclark]

PROPOSED: to support term distinctness w/r/t URIs and bnodes

16:02:36 [bijan]

+1 to fred

16:02:47 [bijan]

One of my objections to source distinct

16:02:58 [bijan]

Conceptual

16:03:02 [bijan]

No that wasn't the problem :0

16:03:06 [bijan]

zakim, mute me

16:03:06 [Zakim]

bijan should now be muted

16:03:15 [kendallclark]

PROPOSED: to support term distinctness w/r/t URIs and bnodes, with literals to be decided

16:03:40 [ericP]

RESOLVED

16:03:46 [bijan]

Sorry

16:03:50 [bijan]

I abstain

16:03:51 [bijan]

tyes

16:04:03 [kendallclark]

RESOLVED, with BP abstaining

16:04:16 [kendallclark]

ACTION KendallC: to update formsOfDistinct issue to show progress

16:04:44 [ericP]

kendallclark, could you type "RRSAgent, please draft minutes\nRRSAgent, make logs world-access" after you adjourn? i have to run

16:05:14 [bijan]

I am also supposed to "Quick skim" review

16:05:57 [patH]

possibly? literals are not distinct if the datatype recognizes a normal form and they are the same when normalized (?) Weak but handles Fred-style cases.

16:06:22 [bijan]

Hmm

16:06:44 [bijan]

That seems to work, though I regret that I shall have to spelunk into XML Schema to find out what has normal forms

16:07:07 [patH]

What else can be done, though? Its really seems to be up to the DT to make this decision.

16:07:14 [bijan]

sure

16:07:16 [patH]

Eg consider date formats.

16:07:23 [bijan]

I would meet next week jus tto publish

16:07:38 [ericP]

I have removed the DISTINCT issue from the document

16:07:39 [bijan]

me!

16:08:18 [bijan]

I'll need a day to review

16:08:31 [bijan]

OR an hour

16:08:33 [bijan]

or something :)

16:08:41 [patH]

minute?

16:08:42 [AndyS]

I'd like to be there if its a review.

16:08:54 [Zakim]

-EricP

16:09:13 [bijan]

It's just supposed to be a sanity check, so I was going to send email message

16:09:20 [kendallclark]

right

16:09:22 [Zakim]

-bijan

16:09:45 [kendallclark]

RRSAgent, please draft minutes

16:09:45 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/09/19-dawg-minutes.html kendallclark

16:09:51 [Zakim]

-LeeF

16:09:55 [kendallclark]

RRSAgent, make logs world-access

16:09:59 [FredZ]

bye

16:09:59 [Zakim]

-SimonR

16:10:01 [Zakim]

-PatH

16:10:05 [Zakim]

-Fred_Zemke

16:10:05 [kendallclark]

god, i hate a bot you have to say "please" to... that's absurd :)

16:10:06 [Zakim]

-AndyS

16:10:19 [AndyS]

AndyS has left #dawg

16:10:32 [Zakim]

-kendallclark

16:10:33 [Zakim]

SW_DAWG()10:30AM has ended

16:10:34 [Zakim]

Attendees were SimonR, AndyS, EliasT, Fred_Zemke, LeeF, kendallclark, bijan, EricP, PatH