12:55:18 RRSAgent has joined #awwsw 12:55:18 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/06/02-awwsw-irc 13:00:24 me too. 13:00:44 TAG_(AWWSW)9:00AM has now started 13:00:53 +jar 13:02:20 + +1.216.445.aaaa 13:02:34 jrees has changed the topic to: http://purl.org/NET/irw/ 13:02:57 mibbit 13:03:08 mibbit is good 13:03:47 dbooth has joined #awwsw 13:05:03 +??P3 13:05:19 Zakim, ??P3 is hhalpin 13:05:19 +hhalpin; got it 13:06:00 I throw some URIs out: 13:06:13 zakim, who is here? 13:06:13 On the phone I see jar, +1.216.445.aaaa, hhalpin 13:06:14 On IRC I see dbooth, RRSAgent, Zakim, jrees, hhalpin, trackbot 13:06:22 zakim, aaaa is me 13:06:24 +dbooth; got it 13:07:01 ]http://purl.org/NET/irw/ 13:07:44 The media-type on the ontology is wrong. 13:08:14 http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin/homepage/notes/valentina.pdf 13:08:16 Slides! 13:08:19 ht has joined #awwsw 13:08:30 +alanr 13:08:35 OK, go for it henry! 13:08:42 zakim, please call ht-781 13:08:42 ok, ht; the call is being made 13:08:44 +Ht 13:09:05 alanr has joined #awwsw 13:10:52 so we can fight more clearly about it 13:11:40 hh: Looking for big errors. 13:11:46 2 modules 13:11:49 tag2irw 13:11:58 In which we're trying to model in particular hayes vs. timbl debate 13:12:04 then ldow module 13:12:06 what is the goal of modularizaion? 13:12:14 s/aion/ation/ 13:12:15 in which we're trying to model the linked data tutorial. 13:12:49 hayes vs. timbl = accessible (on the web) vs. generic resource (not necessarily on the web) 13:12:55 ? 13:13:31 Slide 7 13:13:47 Non-Information resource 13:13:49 and Associated Description 13:13:53 Formal webarch or IETF RFCs. 13:13:59 hhalpin, your audio is dropping out occasionally 13:14:42 modules = allow some communities to reject some modules. 13:15:11 slide 9 comment? 13:15:28 Is xsd:anyURI not a "URI?" 13:15:31 alanr: xsd: anyURI is not a restriction of string 13:16:00 Does that reasoning make sense? 13:16:04 Alan: Comment on slide 9: xsd:anyURI isn't a string. Also not sure why you have xsd:anyURI. Is that so that you can make it a subject of a statment? Harry: yes. 13:16:20 OK, hasURIStrong -> hasURI? 13:16:24 At least one. 13:16:27 Valentina has joined #awwsw 13:16:28 InverseFunctional 13:16:32 aldogan has joined #awwsw 13:16:34 hi there 13:16:57 we are in a very noisy room 13:17:06 hi, pretty crowdy here, will try with the chat 13:17:06 Alan: Also URI to xsd:anyURI thing should also be inverse function, i.e., 1-1. 13:17:23 dbooth, are you willing to scribe? 13:17:31 co-referential URIs 13:17:37 Two URIs that "identify" the same thing 13:17:43 That would be done on the level of resource. 13:17:48 with an "identify" property 13:17:54 But you could URIs that redirect to each other. 13:18:06 We could separate that out. 13:18:21 will try to call from skype and keep muted 13:18:29 Yes. 13:18:53 asking owner 13:18:58 can owner via whois 13:18:59 identifies - to falsify, you ask the owner. 13:19:01 falsiability. 13:19:09 this is a position :) 13:19:17 that's a position. 13:19:26 TimBL does. 13:20:13 We don't have "thing" 13:20:40 "thing" can be either a class or an individual 13:20:45 alanr, that's a detail... 13:21:57 refers to catches Hayes's point 13:22:07 Hayes whole point really can't falsify "refersTo" 13:22:12 how would you falsify refersTo ? 13:22:30 provenance issue 13:22:54 john [ex:a irw:refersTo ex:orange] while mary [ex:a irw:refersTo ex:apples] 13:23:12 john: A refersTo Oranges. mary: A refersTo Apples. 13:23:16 you can't really do provenance in straight RDF vanilla. 13:24:01 ex:uri irw:refersTo ex:PatHayesPerson 13:24:05 ex:uri irw:refersTo ex:PatHayesWebPage 13:24:20 ex:uri irw:identies ex:PatHayesWebPage WOULD BE WRONG 13:24:21 hh: URI P refers to Pat, URI P refers to the web page. 13:24:23 ehm if you want to falsify, you need to include the context of provenance, can be made with a quad 13:24:52 however this is an issue for any rdf triple, not just refersTo I guess 13:25:42 it is a bit of level-mixing. 13:25:58 RDF does not really constrain your interpretation at all. 13:26:01 level of inference weak. 13:26:09 there are some objects/resources 13:26:10 agree 13:26:13 that are "real-world" things. 13:26:26 and, while formally, we can't restrain reference to refer to JUST this set of things 13:26:30 I want to communicate to someone 13:26:38 that my URIs refer to at least some of these things. 13:26:41 so that's the use-case. 13:26:47 That's also assuming Hayesian line. 13:26:47 I think that IRW should cover core concepts, specific modules should extend it for addressing applications such as trust, http transaction validation, etc. 13:26:49 I don't even know what refersTo is meant to be from the 'logicist' point of view 13:26:57 Yep. 13:26:59 That's fine. 13:27:05 But we're trying model this here. 13:27:45 yes. 13:27:48 refersTo is not functional. 13:27:52 I think that was Pat's point. 13:27:57 yes, indeed 13:28:16 informationrealization.owl has junk at the end that causes parse errors 13:28:21 because a resource can refer in too many ways 13:28:22 sorry, that's how tarkian models work. 13:28:35 oops, will control right now alan 13:29:13 Anyways. 13:29:16 I don't think that's right. 13:29:20 what constraints are there on the interpretation of refersTo? is it functional? 13:29:57 why is a awww:representation a non-information resource? 13:30:05 specifically meta-modelling interpretations 13:30:18 x refersTo y if there is a model in which x is interpreted to be y? 13:30:19 allowing people to communcicate what interpretations their OK with. 13:30:24 they want people to know about. 13:31:06 if irw:Resource is the same as rdfs:Resource, then why do you create it? 13:31:06 refersTo and identify are both controversial insofar as they are actually doing a bit of meta-modelling. 13:31:46 Tarski 13:31:49 is refersTo according to *one* model (chosen somehow), or *some* model? 13:31:51 model a set of infinite pairs 13:31:54 can be the real world 13:32:02 database model using semi-rings 13:32:05 tadata 13:32:48 let's table this 13:32:53 it's 9:30 13:32:59 irw:WebServer–  A server hosts web representations. ? How does it host something that is "on the wire"? 13:33:11 Tarski 13:33:20 operational semantics 13:33:24 I think RDF semantics is quite clear about what it means by "intepretation". 13:33:30 suspecious of this. 13:33:42 irw:isResolution of talks about mapping to IP. How can that work? Hostname is essential for web transactions 13:34:07 I don't think it's as complex as doing comprehensive metamodeling 13:34:13 alan, there were some characters that don't know how they fit in, maybe some server-issue, now updated a clean version 13:34:15 we model irw:Resource because we want to stay within OWL DL 13:34:24 irw:isLocationOf english description doesn't match name 13:34:35 Tim screams against noninformation resources 13:34:45 that's we've moved that class to ldow module at this point 13:34:49 the class is annotated and that is explained there 13:34:59 s/against/against a class of/ 13:35:49 tbd: move noninforesource to LDOW so that it can be ignored by Tim. 13:35:52 HST objects to a class of resources, from which it follows that there is no _class_ of non-information resources 13:35:54 for me at least, such kind of feedback would be easy to be analyzed offline. In this way I don't know who and to what answer before, sorry 13:36:17 already did actually, I didn't put the new version online as here the connection sucks 13:36:37 if Pat wants to use refersTo with a strict model-theoretic interpretation, we need to provide appropriate extensions for answering questions like jonathan's ones 13:36:47 info res. is broader than web pages, e.g. books 13:37:04 refersTo can be very general, in order to encode any reference, even non-tarskian 13:37:46 when I say "mary is very nice" I can refer to entities that can be well outside any strict model-theoretical interpretation 13:37:49 doesn't match other definitions. 13:37:56 Again, this ontology lets you state things. 13:38:01 is beethoven's 7th an info resource by this definition? 13:38:09 If you believe that beethoven's information resource you should be state this vocabulary. 13:38:16 that fact using this vocabulary. 13:38:20 hh: independent - answer to that question is not constrained by this ontology. 13:38:30 beethoven's 7th *score* is an information resource 13:38:41 distinguished from its performance 13:38:44 the particular performance of the score would definitely be an information realization. 13:38:50 right 13:38:58 what is the 7th about? 13:39:08 if that particular performance as as an mp3 file over HTTP then that particular performance is Web repsentation 13:39:08 +??P14 13:39:14 Notice that "isAbout" 13:39:20 optional not requirement. 13:39:39 Hmm... 13:39:54 alanr: The score is a set of instructions... it's about playing the music... 13:39:55 an information resource is not about states 13:40:00 "Moby Dick" isn't 'about' any one thing. . . 13:40:04 ehm can be "isAbout" a state 13:40:27 foaf:depicts a subproperty isAbout 13:40:29 alanr: If you can't answer questions like these, you'll be in trouble [due to inconsitent curation] 13:40:31 but an emotional state would be a real world stuff, not an information resource, at least in general intuition 13:40:58 we can answer questions like these jonathan 13:41:40 unfortunately i cannot speak from here 13:41:40 ehm alan, not jonathan sorry 13:41:56 isAbout is not funcitonal! 13:42:10 alanr: You haven't given criteria 13:42:14 criteria? 13:42:21 logical positivist 13:42:28 logical atomist 13:42:31 hh: These things are fundamentally subjective. You just can't say. 13:42:41 the score is the main way to execute the 7th 13:42:56 but does not sound, it is information 13:43:09 hh: Positivism considered wrong by large amounts of 20th century philosophy 13:43:22 it is information that expresses instructions (content) 13:43:29 Read any Quine on Rudolf Carnap 13:44:07 if we enter such a philosophical discussion this will remain an ever ending story! 13:44:08 agree with harry 13:44:16 hh: This is not a scientific closed domain. Falsifiability is not desirable here. 13:44:16 the ontology started from web science requirements 13:44:19 not philosophical ones 13:45:05 alanr: How can you have meaningful communication if assertions aren't falsifiable? 13:45:06 can you please give me a clear example of falsifiability? sorry I missed the first part 13:45:23 hh: It's not necessary. 13:45:24 but that's true for everything expressed in RDF 13:45:33 falsification can only be carried out within some specific assumption about the formal interpretation of a domain 13:45:47 define red as luminosity over a certain range of the spectrum 13:45:48 "message" might be a kind of equivalent information realization 13:45:56 blue as another 13:46:11 if I say it is red and spectrum says otherwise it is false 13:46:15 so firstly, what kind of open/closed world assumption do exist on the web? 13:46:33 you are talking about consistency? 13:47:19 red and blue can be made different (or disjoint if classes) only in a controlled dimension 13:47:19 if something is falsifiable, it is possible to make inconsistent statements. 13:47:24 inconsistency is your friend 13:47:35 it applies well because you have the criteria to falsify in that particular context 13:47:38 a theory should be good enough to be wrong 13:47:39 you cannot control consistency over the web 13:47:43 unfortunately, most of realistic contexts in real life are not as such 13:48:01 alan, you are acting like the first wittgenstein 13:48:10 if the context is part of the truth conditions then so be it. this has nothing to do with whether something is falsifiable or not 13:48:22 we cannot prevent semantic web users to state what they want. 13:48:25 what you cannot "talk about" (=falsify for you) should remain silent 13:48:37 that's where at least to me the use-cases come from. 13:48:41 anyone can say what they want 13:48:42 which this modelling of redirection 13:48:44 but the context of web reference is open 13:48:47 that doesn't mean that everyone is right 13:48:47 the difference is that alan is doing engineering, LW was doing something else 13:49:01 yes, jar says I'm the anti wittgenstein 13:49:02 you cannot have *complete* interpretations for it 13:49:14 therefore we should live with limited falsifiability 13:49:14 non sequitor 13:49:32 that depends, epistemically speaking, anyone could be right 13:49:35 the measure of success if effective curation practice and ability to integrate, not truth about how people communicate in practice 13:49:41 s/if/is/ 13:49:45 in one's ontology one should be able to tell what is what. Whether it is practical to determine it is a different matter. 13:49:54 epistemology versus ontology 13:49:58 if you want strict truth criteria, you should provide an independent way to reduce epistemic freedom 13:50:08 and this can be dome in science, partly 13:50:15 while the web is social world, not only science 13:50:17 I want something that we can push the science of web with. 13:50:24 theories that can't be wrong don't help that 13:50:33 no audio 13:50:35 -hhalpin 13:50:37 I think this is not a requirements for IRW, that has a much more modest goal. Represent core concepts of web and sem web architecture in order to enable certain applications, such as "trust" 13:50:44 gotta make hard choices ;-) 13:50:52 hhalpin_ has joined #awwsw 13:51:05 all waiting for hh audio... 13:51:13 ok alan, now this is clearer 13:51:17 for trust you better have some way to be wrong otherwise you trust everybody to no effect 13:51:29 or don't trust to no effect 13:51:47 after all, if you can't be wrong, what's it matter if you trust or not? 13:51:48 you want something that can enforce "strong" ontology in domains where this is a desirable feature 13:51:52 and of course this is a good use case 13:52:07 hhalpin___ has joined #awwsw 13:52:09 but it is not the only use case 13:52:15 this had nothing to do with enforcing anything. it has to do with speaking clearly 13:52:31 Alanr: I am not interested in the verificationist criteria 13:52:33 still no audio 13:52:37 you - as an author of an ontology 13:52:43 Alanr: I am interested in what people are trying to communicate with using this vocabulary 13:52:55 alanr: I don't even like the word "ontology" prefer word "vocabulary" 13:52:58 me too. What are they trying to communicate? 13:53:44 Harry does indeed see himself as late Witt. these days, in terms of how names work 13:53:54 I think one thing we have identified is that there is some confusion about whether harry's "refersTo" property is functional, given that there may be multiple interpretations (in the RDF sense). 13:54:10 refersTo is *not* funcitonal 13:54:22 i agree with you, but expressing subjective reference is "speaking clearly", but in different manners from typical scientific discourse 13:54:35 valentina, is refersTo functional in a particular RDF interpretation? 13:54:39 +??P3 13:54:43 what does refers to me? 13:54:46 refersTo is non-functional just to be able to accept different interpretations 13:54:46 hmmmm 13:54:46 zakim is not letting me in for some weird reason 13:54:46 stat code not valid? 13:54:47 s/me/mean? 13:55:05 commonsensical interpretations as references 13:55:11 A URI refers to whatever results  13:55:12 from its usage on the (Seman8c)  13:55:12 Web iden8ﬁes  13:55:16 aldogan, that is not needed in RDF semantics 13:55:21 -??P3 13:55:21 ick. cut and paste doesn't work 13:55:30 what does it means? refersTo is defined in such an ontology, you can use it as you want! 13:55:40 it is not an RDF primitive! 13:55:51 in RDF semantics, a property can be functional, but there can still be different interpretations. 13:56:12 actually IRW is modelled in OWL DL 13:56:21 late wittgenstein was about allowing full power to local contexts ("linguistic games") 13:56:31 and functional has a precise semantics, at least in my knowledge 13:56:45 subjective reference can be valid and falsifiable in a restricted group or community 13:57:06 ? 13:57:11 in that case, you can create a specialized refersTo for the local linguistic game 13:57:16 that was re: refersto 13:57:23 aldogan, if you are not using RDF semantics then I am going to be totally lost. 13:57:33 hhalpin has joined #awwsw 13:57:39 i am using "formal semantics" 13:57:52 basically, would like feedback about ontologgy 13:57:52 the one mostly intended by semanticists 13:57:54 i would like to see the formal semantics for refersTo. 13:58:39 refersTo formal semantics 13:58:51 at the moment is an OWL object property 13:58:53 aldo gangemi 13:59:00 can a uri refer to both Pat the person and Pat the page in the same world? 13:59:05 I think we have to start with RDF semantics as a basis, otherwise I (and probably others) will be totally lost. 13:59:16 with URI as domain 13:59:20 is your answer: yes, each in different contexts? 13:59:22 and irw:Resource as range 13:59:24 i think yes, but it cannot "identify" it 13:59:32 alanr, by "world" do you mean rdf interpretation? 13:59:49 i mean our world (good enought gloss) 13:59:50 my context here is the formal semantics of OWL-DL as adopted in IRW 14:00:03 alanr, your world is different than mine :) 14:00:09 really? 14:00:27 your brain is different, but our worlds are certainly the same. 14:00:29 zakim, who is on the call 14:00:29 I don't understand 'who is on the call', jrees 14:00:39 zakim, who is here? 14:00:39 On the phone I see jar, dbooth, alanr, Ht (muted), ??P14 14:00:40 On IRC I see hhalpin, aldogan, Valentina, alanr, ht, dbooth, RRSAgent, Zakim, jrees, trackbot 14:00:43 but perhaps you use the word "world" differently that I and many do. 14:00:47 let's distinguish the world we live in, not bearing a formal description ab origine 14:00:51 sorry Aldo and I cannot speak :( 14:00:56 we are in a noisy place 14:00:58 from the formal worlds we use to make engineering things :) 14:00:58 if the AWWSW demands debates about interpretation structures or logical verificationism 14:00:59 everytime someone wants to communicate 14:00:59 the group will get nowhere fast. 14:00:59 In particular, alanr, logical verificationism was more or less killed by Quine in the 1950s. 14:01:05 With a modest revival around Kripke and Putnam's "Meaning of 'Meaning'" 14:01:07 Re fetishizing logical semantics 14:01:09 As Pat or anyone can tell you 14:01:13 the logical inferences do NOT constrain worlds. 14:01:17 And often the worlds are not clearly composed of logical individuals 14:01:21 david: Best we can do is to try to understand what Harry was presenting, difficult with HH off audio. 14:01:21 See Strawson's book "Individuals" for an investigation of this, or Evan's "Vareity of Reference" 14:01:22 harry, I can't debate all the -isms 14:01:23 I'm just saying, getting into these debates is rather useless. 14:01:25 Almost no ontology can satisfy this rather silly requirements 14:01:28 I suggest a necessary question is "Why right ontologies" if you are in the Late Witt camp 14:01:35 s/right/write/ 14:01:47 I agree with harry 14:01:50 So, therefore, if making one fulfill these requirements of verificationism or buying into a rather simple-minded picture of how formal semantics works 14:01:50 ARE requirements for talking 14:01:52 then I see no reason to talk. 14:02:03 this is quire far from the goal, at least IRW's 14:02:04 However, if we can get good talk about what kind of things people want to talk about 14:02:16 alan: Having the English description convey the intention of the authors well would be a good thing. We might be able to help with this. 14:02:18 let's be constructive people 14:02:29 1) identifies, functional as in Tim's sense 14:02:31 regardless of whether these things can be "verified" or "have formal semantics" 14:02:51 2) refersTo, non-functional 14:02:58 then I'm more for talking. 14:03:07 dbooth: Does the ontology "U refersTo PatHayes. U refersTo PatHayesWebPage." going to be consistent? 14:03:08 we have modeled information resource, URI, indentifies (functional), refersTo, and some other 14:03:11 Will try to dial-in 14:03:12 I am more interested in how we can map this to generic ontologies 14:03:15 and bits of HTTP that we have not modelled, like "http Entities" 14:03:18 3) refersToTarskian, non-functional, but with some other properties (Alan?) 14:03:20 s/Does/Is/ 14:03:23 we don't care about consistency on a web scale 14:03:35 I think alanr asked a good question: Can a URI refer to both a person and a web page in the same world? 14:03:37 the idea is that we can use this in order to do simple reasoning stuff such as 14:03:39 yes david 14:03:52 lod self describing sources 14:04:02 but not U refersToTarskian PatHayes. U refersToTarskian PatHayesWebPage 14:04:06 consistency is a quantity to be maximized. Never infinite, but bigger is better. 14:04:07 semantic validation of http transaction 14:04:38 anyone willing to recap on email? 14:04:42 -dbooth 14:04:43 bye 14:04:43 please, let us have all your feedback and I'll send an updated version of IRW 14:04:53 bye 14:04:53 email? 14:04:54 adjourned, but people staying on the call & chat maybe. 14:04:58 email is fine 14:05:19 zakim, unmute me 14:05:20 continue in email... & now 14:05:20 Ht should no longer be muted 14:05:39 +??P64 14:06:00 my feedback: 1. I think more clarity is needed about whether refersTo is functional. 2. I think it is important to be based on RDF semantics as a common starting point, otherwise it will be very hard to achieve a common understanding. 14:07:04 I don't see the point to get rid of OWL DL 14:07:16 -??P64 14:07:30 do you mean we should use the reified RDF semantics by Pat? 14:07:34 identifies is already functional, why do you need another one? 14:07:49 refersTo is a sort of non-stable property 14:08:14 -alanr 14:08:16 phone crapped 14:08:19 will call back in a sec 14:08:26 ht: weak & strong ambiguity 14:08:30 it is meant to capture the fact that you can have different usage of it 14:08:46 ht: weak = usage may evolve over time 14:08:51 ok. it needs to say that more clearly 14:08:59 I mean, imagine identifies represents the relation between a URI and the identified thing stated by the creator of the URI 14:09:00 weakness can be a strength 14:09:03 ht: strong = synchornically same person may mean different things at same time 14:09:12 it catches a different requirement that identifies 14:09:23 than 14:09:23 +alanr 14:09:25 while over the semantic web, the same URI is used to "refer to" things 14:09:31 hhalpin has joined #awwsw 14:09:37 sorry, can't skype on 14:09:40 hopefully, most of them will be same as of the identified thing 14:09:48