Friend of a Friend (FOAF) IRC Chat Logs for 2005-02-15

06:11:06 <bblfish__> bblfish__ is now known as bblfish

10:03:30 <Talliesin_> Talliesin_ is now known as Talliesin

11:09:08 <libby> jibberjim!

11:09:32 <JibberJim> libby!

11:52:42 <bblfish__> bblfish__ is now known as bblfish

11:53:13 <bblfish> sh1mmer: I have been thinking about CIFP's recently. You may have seen my post on SemWeb.

11:53:44 * danbri suggests trying to write some N3 rules, see if Cwm or others tools can handle it...

11:54:01 <danbri> oh, re

11:54:01 <danbri> a ----R1----> b

11:54:01 <danbri> a ----R2----> c

11:54:01 <danbri> g ----R1----> b

11:54:01 <danbri> g ----R2----> c

11:54:01 <danbri> a -rdf:type-> C1

11:54:04 <danbri> g -rdf:type-> C1

11:54:05 <danbri> -------------------

11:54:07 <danbri> a--owl:sameAs--> g

11:54:09 <danbri> are the rdf:type arcs necessary?

11:54:38 <danbri> things have lots of types, and their descriptions don't always mention then, so requiring a match on rdf:type lowers the chance of the rule firing

11:54:44 <bblfish> I am not sure if the rdf types are necessary, but I was thinking of CIFP's as somewhat related to Class restrictions

11:55:25 <bblfish> but you are right, I could write that out as N3 rules.

11:55:27 <danbri> I don't think it works quite the same

11:55:55 <danbri> N3 plus a bunch of test cases is nearly all you need for a decent definition of CIFP

11:56:26 <bblfish> yes. Perhaps that is all that sh1mmer needs too.

11:56:28 <danbri> I'd drop the rdf:type constraint, and add in, 'R1 rdf:type util:CIFP','R2 rdf:type util:CIFP'

11:56:56 <danbri> Mind if I copy this into email thread?

11:57:05 <bblfish> no problem.

11:57:06 <danbri> I have to go, so continue the discussion there?

11:57:23 <danbri> loggerf, bookmark?

11:57:23 <danbri> See http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/chatlogs/foaf/2005-02-15#T11-57-23

11:57:40 <bblfish> I was hoping I could do the above with Sesame, but it is very limited in the rules it allows.

11:57:51 <bblfish> (plus I am using the native file store)

11:59:06 <danbri> (sent)

11:59:41 <bblfish> ok, till later...

12:06:03 <bblfish> mind you I think the R1 rdf:type util:CIFP won't work. It is too general. One needs a way of grouping CIFPs somehow (C stands for combined), or else all there will only

12:06:05 <bblfish> be CIFPs one large CIFP group. I think that is why I was thinking of them as a little like restrictions.

12:06:33 <danbri> yeah fair point, sorry, typed before thinking

12:06:46 <danbri> all i meant really was, put all the assumptions explicitly into the ruleset

12:06:59 <bblfish> yes, quite right.

12:07:09 <bblfish> I'll do that.

12:08:40 <bblfish> the rdf:type is just a relation anyway, so there is no reason it should be any more special than R1 or R2.

12:09:26 <sh1mmer> hola

12:09:32 <sh1mmer> sorry been distracted

12:09:35 <bblfish> hi :-)

12:10:07 <sh1mmer> rather a lot on my plate atm, and a new relationship has been pleasently distracting but it's kept me from my usual work-a-holicness

12:10:51 <sh1mmer> so, CIFP look really simple but there are a few complexities, some of it is to do with whole part relations

12:11:06 <sh1mmer> bblfish do you have a link to your post archieve?

12:11:37 <bblfish> a post archive?

12:11:49 <sh1mmer> [11:53:12] <bblfish> sh1mmer: I have been thinking about CIFP's recently. You may have seen my post on SemWeb.

12:12:40 <bblfish> I think that was the start of it on this irc channel

12:13:04 <bblfish> there is a mail on semweb where I asked the question initially.

12:13:52 <bblfish> here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2005Feb/0086.html

12:15:22 <sh1mmer> you read the paper right?

12:15:32 <sh1mmer> its pretty rough around the edges

12:15:38 <sh1mmer> but i guess it gets the main points

12:16:57 <bblfish> yes, I had a look, and noticed some of the roughness.

12:16:58 <bblfish> Don't you think a solution like we just setched above would perhaps be sufficient for most uses?

12:19:03 <sh1mmer> yes, Joe and I discussed this quite a lot.

12:19:16 <sh1mmer> Some of my other work has been mining 'basic' CIFPs from a data source

12:19:31 <sh1mmer> I think the essential conclusion we are starting to come to is a CIFP is a concept

12:19:54 <sh1mmer> its pretty core in identity and thats how we would like to treat it, hence why were are trying to be careful

12:20:50 <bblfish> Could it not be quite easy: a CIFP is a list of relationships, where the above rule holds for all members of that list.

12:21:47 <sh1mmer> You are right, but it's what you want to do with it. I guess it's weak and strong CIFPs. There is also some amount of temporality, unless something is formally garanteed how do you know a CIFP will remain one?

12:22:04 <sh1mmer> With an email in foaf its a formal domain constrainst

12:22:35 <danbri> deal w/ the temporal aspects very separately, imho

12:22:44 <bblfish> I think one should not worry about temporality. I have solved that one in another thread called Madonna. :-)

12:22:45 <danbri> get the timeless/flat version working first

12:22:45 <sh1mmer> If we want to use CIFPs to properly denote identity they either need a notion of temporality etc

12:23:06 <bblfish> I agree with danbri.

12:23:13 <sh1mmer> Henry remember I am trying to develop a complete solution, a proper notion of identity is an old chesnut

12:23:29 <bblfish> Have you read 'the varieties of reference"?

12:24:04 <sh1mmer> I don't think so.

12:24:11 <bblfish> by Gareth Evans.

12:24:21 * sh1mmer locates a copy

12:24:47 <bblfish> In any case if you want a complete solution (complete in what sense?) then there is a lot of work that has been done.

12:25:29 <sh1mmer> We want to use CIFPs to form identity in it's many ways on the SW. We think we need to use CIFPs to describe the identity of a concept.

12:26:24 <bblfish> in the mean time, a simple CIFP solution might do better than the Coorinate Property solution.

12:26:48 <sh1mmer> Sure, I am just trying to explore the domain.

12:27:22 <sh1mmer> Personally I think the only thing that is essential is using the proper way to describe the set of a CIFP.

12:27:23 <bblfish> good :-)

12:27:33 * sh1mmer looks at the OWL you had again

12:28:02 <sh1mmer> () is short for list in n3?

12:28:11 * sh1mmer can never remember

12:28:17 <eaon> yes

12:28:28 <sh1mmer> heh sbp would be disgusted with me

12:28:37 <sh1mmer> right, which is one thing I don't like.

12:28:40 <eaon> hey sh1mmer, bblfish

12:28:51 <sh1mmer> I just think thats the wrong container for the elements of a CIFP.

12:29:05 <bblfish> btw: I saw you liked mereology from your paper. You will perhaps enjoy my madonna post: http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfweb-dev/2005-February/013951.html

12:29:07 <sh1mmer> It shouldn't have any implied order

12:29:13 <sh1mmer> hi Micheal

12:29:23 <bblfish> I agree. No need for order.

12:29:47 <bblfish> how does one say: these three members and only those in N3?

12:30:52 <sh1mmer> I think there is code for that in the paper in n3. If there isn't I have it around someplace

12:30:59 <sh1mmer> anyway I really need to get back to doing some other work

12:31:16 <sh1mmer> i'll be around later if you wanna talk about this some more :)

12:31:20 <bblfish> ok. So do I.

12:31:36 <bblfish> Good to meet you. I'll post some ideas later on the list.

12:32:30 <bblfish> hi eaon

13:34:01 <ericP> bblfish, do you mean like "<someone> t:trusts (<foo> <bar> <baz>)" ?

13:34:57 <bblfish> ericP are you referring to my latest post on semweb?

13:35:02 <ericP> which creates a list of exactly three elements and says that someone trusts (the list)

13:35:12 <ericP> 2005-02-15T12:29:47Z <bblfish> how does one say: these three members and only those in N3?

13:35:18 <bblfish> yes, something like that.

13:36:15 <bblfish> just posted: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2005Feb/0094.html

13:39:24 <bblfish> ah there is a good response with cwm rules: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2005Feb/0095.html

13:49:17 <sh1mmer> hey ericP

13:59:29 <balbinus_> balbinus_ is now known as balbinus

14:14:24 <ericP> heya, sh1mmer

14:34:15 <xavier_> xavier_ is now known as xavier

16:34:24 <pojok_kanan_bawa> pojok_kanan_bawa is now known as pentulkorekapi

22:11:42 <dave_123> /?

22:38:45 <ndw> ndw is now known as ndw|away

23:38:08 <crschmidt> hey, eseprimo

23:38:21 <eseprimo> oh hi c

23:38:52 <eseprimo> trying to look for some marsedit-related rooms

23:39:30 <eseprimo> you familiar with weblog editors?

23:39:55 <crschmidt> Not particularly

23:40:43 <eseprimo> how's life?

23:41:20 <crschmidt> Not bad

23:41:54 <eaon> eseprimo: some people on #joiito will have some expierences with it, i guess

23:42:32 <eseprimo> lemme see...

23:47:12 <eseprimo> what is this #joiito about?

23:47:48 <crschmidt> eseprimo: nothing, really