W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2001-07-27

13:01:04 Users on #rdfcore: logger_1 danbri

13:47:54 * danbri waves

13:51:11 <DanC_> danbri, what do you know about net access from the ftf next week?

13:51:25 <DanC_> should I expect the wireless fairy?

13:52:01 <em> yes

13:52:10 <em> wireless and ehternet

13:52:19 <AaronSw> woohoo!

13:52:23 <em> :)

13:52:24 <DanC_> danbri, regrets for today's meeting. I reviewed the agenda for this meeting and my other 9amCT meeting, and I can't skip the other one.

13:53:09 <danbri> ack'd

13:54:25 <danbri> danc re wireless: yes. I take this as a sign you mightn't Stefan's email to you about SWWS. Check yr inbox for message from stefan decker. Lots of info about stanford w/s.

13:54:44 <AaronSw> SWWS != F2f

13:54:48 <em> ??

13:54:58 <danbri> oops, i skimmed. apols.

13:55:12 <danbri> wireless twice in one week; swoon :)

13:55:18 <em> exactly!

13:55:33 <danbri> hi brian!

13:55:44 <bwm> G'Day

13:56:16 * AaronSw wonders why agenda is CCed to "KWON, Hyung-Jin" <kwonhj@nca.or.kr>

13:56:59 <danbri> see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/members.html

13:57:20 <bwm> A new member - I'm wasn't sure he had been subscribed to the list so made sure he got the announcement

13:57:25 <AaronSw> great!

13:58:32 <AaronSw> Phone Number: +1 630 536 3003 room #3003

13:58:51 <AaronSw> (just in case you all don't have it on speed dial yet ;-))

14:00:25 * em people dialing into bridge

14:00:30 <barstow> +ArtB

14:00:33 <danbri> +danbri

14:00:43 <barstow> +EM

14:00:53 <barstow> +Martyn

14:01:05 <barstow> +Ora

14:01:07 <bwm> +bwm

14:01:18 <barstow> +Aaron

14:01:56 <danbri> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0395.html

14:02:08 <mdean> mdean is now known as mdean_

14:02:10 <barstow> +Bill

14:02:49 <danbri> danbri is now known as danb_scribe

14:02:53 <danb_scribe> roll call

14:03:04 <barstow> Here: DanB, Art, Brian, Eric,

14:03:05 <danb_scribe> danbri, bwm, eric, art,

14:03:14 <danb_scribe> regrets from beckett, connolly

14:03:14 <barstow> Regrets: DaveB, DanC

14:03:26 <danb_scribe> regrets: ron

14:03:34 <barstow> Here: Jos

14:03:37 <danb_scribe> here: jos, bill, martin

14:04:11 <barstow> Here: Ora, FrankM

14:04:18 <danb_scribe> regrets: KWON, Hyung-Jin

14:04:31 <barstow> Here: Mike, Aaron

14:04:32 <danb_scribe> present: aaron, mike

14:04:44 <danb_scribe> no sergey, guha

14:04:57 <AaronSw> pat?

14:04:58 <danb_scribe> + 2 regrets

14:05:29 <danb_scribe> agenda review; plus add-in of Frank's review of DAML+OIL

14:05:31 <danb_scribe> AOB? no

14:05:50 <danb_scribe> two thing came in after agenda; one was DAML+OIL from Frank; also Pat's model theory.

14:05:59 <danb_scribe> +pat hayes

14:06:26 <AaronSw> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0267.html

14:06:29 <danb_scribe> reviewing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0267.html

14:06:43 <danb_scribe> corrections: Renato resigned from WG

14:06:48 * DanC_ hopes the required reading doesn't change this late

14:07:47 <danb_scribe> correction: for character-encoding issue (em to irc details for scribe)

14:08:13 <danb_scribe> bwm: dropping this correction. [action] on em to write up and send to list

14:08:25 <danb_scribe> em -- pls clarify your action

14:08:43 <danb_scribe> correction: WG accepted Brickley's recommended changes to M+S re containers

14:10:09 <danb_scribe> correction: re Bill's msg re his ascribed [action], bill to send mail clarifying his action. Reviewing M+S w.r.t. what it says about literals.

14:10:45 <danb_scribe> Minutes of last week accepted with these corrections.

14:10:48 <danb_scribe> actions completed

14:10:50 <danb_scribe> ---------

14:11:02 <danb_scribe> Frank has circulated draft response on coordination points.

14:11:09 <danb_scribe> bwm wrote up Pat's notes, circulated.

14:11:21 <danb_scribe> model theory refs: a time limited action. done.

14:11:37 <danb_scribe> graham send thoughts/comments on identity of anon resources: done

14:11:43 <danb_scribe> graham: create xml:lang use cases. done.

14:11:52 <danb_scribe> brian sent propoal on clarifying xml:lang

14:11:59 <barstow> Graham's regrets http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0396.html

14:12:12 <danb_scribe> all done.

14:12:37 <danb_scribe> danbri: rdf schema: Continue

14:12:44 <danb_scribe> danbri: rdfs issue test cases: Continue

14:12:56 <danb_scribe> pat: strawman model theory -- Done!

14:13:15 <barstow> Pat: I'm about 80% done

14:13:17 <danb_scribe> pat: "theres a little bit more to be done; will send this today"

14:13:42 <danb_scribe> eric "if you have deliverables looming, pls send in next few hours; people are getting on plane"

14:13:50 <danb_scribe> pat: I can do this in 4hrs

14:13:56 <danb_scribe> ...probably

14:14:12 * barstow can do it in 4 years :-)

14:14:13 <danb_scribe> actions...

14:14:28 <danb_scribe> pat to send point of view on anon resources; dropped (inc. in model theory)

14:14:48 <danb_scribe> graham, to summarise proposals. Done (said that Frank's summary covered this).

14:15:04 <danb_scribe> wg members to send regrets, done.

14:15:38 <danb_scribe> sergey to summarise model theory refs, continued

14:15:47 <danb_scribe> danbri, rdfs issues msg to list; continued (promised imminent)

14:16:03 <danb_scribe> graham, to ask clarifying questions w.r.t anon resources. Done.

14:16:19 <danb_scribe> (duplicate of earlier item)

14:16:39 <danb_scribe> frank, additional thoughts/comments on anon resources; Done.

14:17:01 <danb_scribe> Bill, xml:lang use case; to be reworded. Something on list in next 2-3 hours.

14:17:02 <danb_scribe> -----

14:17:23 <danb_scribe> Brian: discuss Frank's draft response to DAML+OIL cttee

14:17:29 <danb_scribe> ...no traffic on list to date

14:17:42 <danb_scribe> any thoughts/comments?

14:17:43 <barstow> Frank's draft: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0428.html

14:18:02 <danb_scribe> jos: I saw two docs. DAML+OIL required changes?

14:18:07 <danb_scribe> (no, that's separate agenda item)

14:18:22 <danb_scribe> frank: I sort of wishy-washed in writing this

14:18:43 <danb_scribe> ...between writing this as official response of WG versus my own comments. Generally opted towards latter for now.

14:18:58 <danb_scribe> brian: that was really my only comment, that we ought to make this more formal

14:19:04 <danb_scribe> Frank: yes

14:19:19 <barstow> FrankM's DAML+OIL Required Changes to RDF(S) - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/att-0428/01-coordination-requirements.html

14:19:20 <danb_scribe> brian: we should go through frank's more personal observations, see which we agree with

14:19:41 <danb_scribe> frank: and confirm that those comments couched as WG are agreed with!

14:19:48 <danb_scribe> brian: we promised a response by end of month

14:20:11 <danb_scribe> frank: what level of response do we think is appropriate? we could certainly send a re-wordsmithed version of this back, ack'ing the issues

14:20:16 <danb_scribe> ...not sure if that'd help a whole lot

14:20:47 <barstow> FrankM's A Review of

14:20:47 <barstow> "Coordination points between RDF(S) and DAML+OIL" - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/att-0355/01-RDF-DAML-coordination-review.html

14:20:50 <danb_scribe> ...it'd at least put a stake in the ground. To the extent that this or some modification of it summarises the course of our discussions, we could amplify that usefully for them.

14:21:06 <danb_scribe> brian: given folk are travelling, is it possible for people to comment in next week?

14:21:30 <danb_scribe> danbri: is this critical re face-to-face

14:21:49 <barstow> Pat: I don't think it is critical

14:21:54 <danb_scribe> pat: I think this isn't critical for f2f; daml+oil ctte would be grateful for feedback but not in a rush for feedback

14:22:06 <danb_scribe> ...they wanted to give rdf wg feedback

14:22:36 <danb_scribe> eric: agree w/ Pat. My u/standing was that we needed feedback from d+o community about problems they've found. It was a valuable and timely doc for us to receive.

14:23:03 <danb_scribe> ...helps us clarify ambigs and misunderstanding of RDF M+S. Any response beyond "thanks very much" isn't urgent

14:23:32 <danb_scribe> danbri: i propose we revisit this after the face to face

14:23:45 <danb_scribe> brian: we did say we'd get back to them

14:23:57 <danb_scribe> decision: to postpone until after f2f

14:24:02 <danb_scribe> ---

14:24:06 <danb_scribe> F2F page

14:24:16 <danb_scribe> scribe (url please!)

14:24:26 <AaronSw> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20010801-f2f/

14:24:30 <danb_scribe> brian: there have been some additions, inc required readin

14:24:38 <danb_scribe> pat: when was this most recently chaned

14:24:47 <danb_scribe> brian: within last couple of days

14:25:05 <danb_scribe> brian ...no req reading change in last 12 hours

14:25:08 <danb_scribe> at least...

14:25:28 <danb_scribe> Brian: the Required reading w.r.t. model theory now needs to point to pat's material

14:25:37 <danb_scribe> [action] brian to update to point to Pat's model theory

14:25:53 <danb_scribe> art: the presentations at f2f, these can be pretty informal?

14:26:04 <danb_scribe> brian: yes, and they may not happen, ie. they're the soft spot in the agenda

14:26:13 <danb_scribe> art: status of internet connections at meeting?

14:26:27 <danb_scribe> em: have been informed we'll have both wireless and wired ethernet in room

14:27:08 <danb_scribe> em: (to brian) even if presentation slots are subject to being cut; the people who have agreed to talk, should still be prepared to talk about pitfalls encountered

14:28:03 <danb_scribe> ...we talk about test cases a lot. But talk about real-world app test cases, even more valuable. Identifying the real probs people have hit hugely important. If this gets squeezed during any last-minute rescheduling, at least have problems ready to describe.

14:28:33 <danb_scribe> brian: Potentially an action for everyone to try to circulate on mailing list the key points they've hit in using RDF

14:28:51 <danb_scribe> ...let's try to take this at face to face; people travelling too soon to ask for mail.

14:28:52 <danb_scribe> --

14:29:18 <danb_scribe> jos: w.r.t. required reading, is Ntriples required?

14:29:33 <danb_scribe> brian: that should be on list. [action] brian to correct reading list, adding NTriples

14:29:37 <danb_scribe> ---

14:29:44 <danb_scribe> xml:lang

14:29:48 <danb_scribe> brian: any comments on my note?

14:30:04 <DanC_> did anybody see Uche's comment in rdf-interest on xml:lang?

14:30:42 <danb_scribe> martin: of 3 test cases, mine showed no interest in xml:lang issue. We found it wasn't a major block to implementation. You reflected this fairly in summary.

14:30:42 <AaronSw> On xml:lang?

14:30:47 <AaronSw> danc

14:31:17 <em> appologies in advance... i need to cut off for abuot 10 min

14:31:18 <danb_scribe> brian: I propose "xml lang as defined in m+s is useful. would be wrong to change ntriple and model theory until we've considered parseType=literal"

14:31:34 <danb_scribe> (nods)

14:31:53 <danb_scribe> no sergey

14:32:01 <danb_scribe> moving to Identity & Anon Resources issue.

14:32:14 <danb_scribe> brian: we've seen 160+ msgs. Where do we stand on this?

14:32:19 <danb_scribe> (no graham either)

14:32:39 <danb_scribe> jos: In my opinion, we (I?) have clear view on this, from Pat's doc.

14:33:06 <danb_scribe> ... pat has collected all the different positions and unified them in one nice document. Perhaps not final but at least tangible. The StrawDog doc of yesterday.

14:33:13 <danb_scribe> ie. the model theory doc.

14:33:22 <danb_scribe> (scribe: url please)

14:33:44 <danb_scribe> brian: is that the general view?

14:33:44 <barstow> Pat's Revised model theory - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0399.html

14:33:56 <danb_scribe> pat: Frank's msg summarised a number of alterantives pretty usefully

14:34:30 <danb_scribe> frank: two sub-threads here. Getting straight what the interpretation of anonymous nodes will be. And also deciding what to do whether have URIs or not.

14:34:46 <danb_scribe> Jos: we at least have description of the tradeoffs now

14:35:06 <danb_scribe> pat: what the model theory does, is make the alternatives clearer, but doesn't decide between them.

14:35:20 <danb_scribe> ...someone has to decide which way to go. Either way makes sense; i've no strong feeling.

14:35:35 <danb_scribe> brian: the thing worrying me. I can't see a framework for how we make that decision

14:36:06 <danb_scribe> pat: i volunteer in time for my f2f presentation, to draw up list of pros and cons of the two main alternatives and their utility. Everything I can think of in a little table.

14:36:11 <danb_scribe> [pat action'd]

14:36:44 <danb_scribe> frank: I recently went back to revisit TimBL's notes on Axioms of URIs. One of the relationships that exists here is between this issue and what our interpretation of URIs is.

14:37:06 <danb_scribe> ...and in particular, how persistent we believe the URI should be, or possibly the relationship between URI identifier and the thing denoted.

14:37:27 <barstow> Tim's Axioms of Web Arch - http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html

14:37:28 <danb_scribe> ...if you believe as per TimBLs axioms that these are relatively permenant, you may come to a different view

14:37:35 <danb_scribe> pat: good point, pls send reference

14:37:50 <danb_scribe> done: see URL above

14:38:10 <danb_scribe> frank: ...of course you don't have to take those as _axioms_?

14:38:19 <danb_scribe> brian: any other observations we ought to consider?

14:38:24 <danb_scribe> (none offered!)

14:38:49 <danb_scribe> brian: I can't think of anything more we can do to prepare on this right now pre f2f.

14:39:13 <danb_scribe> ---

14:39:15 <danb_scribe> URI substructure.

14:39:22 <danb_scribe> (no sergey (yet))

14:39:41 <danb_scribe> scribe: url for sergey's proposal pls

14:39:56 <barstow> Sergey's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0270.html

14:39:57 <danb_scribe> brian: sergey proposes resources should be identified by pair of strings not URIs

14:40:34 <danb_scribe> brian: I feel torn by this; I'm drawn to it, but feels like a fundamental shift from Web Architecture. Using something other than URis to identify things beyond our scope?

14:40:59 <danb_scribe> (postponed)

14:41:00 <danb_scribe> --

14:41:15 <danb_scribe> #rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure

14:41:29 <danb_scribe> bill: i'd like to send a big doc to list in next 2-3 hours

14:42:16 <danb_scribe> ...not to sure how far we can get by sying parseType=Literal parses to Infoset until we know what existing M+S says. I quite like the infoset proposal but not sure if that's in scope.

14:42:38 <danb_scribe> aaron: ...even somethign trhat could be converted into an infoset, eg. something with namespaces etc attached so the needed info is captured

14:43:12 <danb_scribe> bill: ...section 2 suggests we simply treat literals as strings. then you get into M+S and realise literals implicitly a structured object, xml:lang etc, language like "is part of the literal"

14:43:37 <danb_scribe> Bill: ...I won't be at f2f, would like to see discussion of literals as infoset. I think probably a godo thing

14:43:47 <danb_scribe> pat: i agree, merely being strings is too restrictive

14:44:03 <danb_scribe> jos: agree, recommend people look at TimBL's design issues on Interpretation Properties

14:44:18 <barstow> TBL's Interpretation properties: http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/InterpretationProperties.html

14:44:22 * danb_scribe makes mental note never to scribe using a Libretto 100CT again

14:44:30 * danb_scribe thanks art

14:44:55 <danb_scribe> brian: I'll add to recommended reading list

14:45:11 <danb_scribe> danbri/pat: ...not under Obligatory reading; too late to do that

14:45:14 <danb_scribe> brian: sure

14:45:43 <danb_scribe> bill: if you take RDF's simplest "hello world" Ora example, _what does that mean_ ?

14:46:29 <danb_scribe> ...a literal is something that denotes or evaluates to itself? eg. if you have foo:creator = <some infoset>, do we mean the infoset created it? Or rely on the application semantics?

14:46:35 <danb_scribe> (?scribe missing detail)

14:46:52 <danb_scribe> ...is the string itself the creator versus the thing denoted by the string

14:47:00 <AaronSw> example at the beginning of M&S seems like a simple natural language sentence

14:47:02 <danb_scribe> ...can you discuss this (in the bar?) at f2f?

14:47:14 <AaronSw> ...gets parsed into some thing...

14:47:51 <danb_scribe> bill: my doc in next 2-3 hours addresses this in more detail

14:47:52 <danb_scribe> ---

14:48:00 <danb_scribe> skipping rdf-ms-graph

14:48:02 <danb_scribe> --

14:48:08 <danb_scribe> responses to Pat's Model Theory

14:48:20 <danb_scribe> brian: everyobody loves it, done deal, next!? ;-)

14:48:54 <danb_scribe> pat: Q w.r.t Ntriple. Is the sense of the group that Ntriple will be offered to world as a sort of standard notation for rdf? or just for us? or undecided?

14:49:04 <danb_scribe> bill: last week i think we said it'd go in as an appendix

14:49:34 <danb_scribe> brian: ntriple started off as a way of doing test cases; a concrete syntax for representing triples for machine processing, comparing results etc

14:50:06 <danb_scribe> ...i've been suggesting / asking the question, can we make nntriple like the core of all these specs; defining syntax in terms of transform into ntriple, and model theory over ntriples?

14:50:20 <danb_scribe> pat: makes sense to me; i'm from a tradition that prefres textual language

14:50:40 <danb_scribe> ...but if we're going to ffer this to world, may want to rethink certain design decisions (eg. line syntax clunky)

14:50:56 <danb_scribe> brian: we're not proposing this to the world as a mechanism for interchanging RDF

14:51:00 <danb_scribe> pat: ok, makes sense

14:51:28 <danb_scribe> brian: we're not doing it as "a new syntax"; enough to do, already running late so don't want to do things beyond charter

14:51:44 <danb_scribe> aaron: but if we happen to do one "in passing", nobody'll mind?

14:52:30 * danb_scribe misses detail of this point

14:52:44 <danb_scribe> w.r.t. meaning of a URI being common across all interpretations?

14:53:03 <danb_scribe> pat: issue is whether interpretation works over all univreses

14:54:01 <danb_scribe> ...danger of using up all names at once

14:54:07 <AaronSw> Pat: names exist for a single interpretation

14:54:18 <AaronSw> brian: one does lose something... can we get it back?

14:54:26 <AaronSw> ...without going the whole way...

14:54:35 <AaronSw> can we represent the relationship between interpetations?

14:54:57 <AaronSw> brian: does http://foo mean the same thing in all interpetations

14:55:19 <AaronSw> pat: only thing that means the same are literals, and probably rdf:subject ,etc.

14:55:28 <AaronSw> other URIs are open to mean different things

14:55:39 <AaronSw> frank: do you distinguish between web uris and other uris

14:55:44 <AaronSw> pat: no

14:55:50 <danb_scribe> brian: (to pat) Is there way of representating the specialness of URIs, ie that all interpreations need to treat URIs as constrained w.r.t. what they denote, without making the grand claim that there is just one interpretation. pat: only thing currently is that literals mean same thing in all interpretations. All other URIs are open; mean one thing in one interpretation, other in others. Frank: pat do you distinguish URIs for "web things"

14:56:15 <danb_scribe> ...if they do need to be treated specially, this isn't the sort of thing model theory has machinery for. we could hack it.

14:56:27 <danb_scribe> I'm treating all URIs as logical names.

14:57:01 <danb_scribe> danbri: that seems right to me. No fast line between 'web' and real world resources. Books, java classes, telephones etc

14:57:31 <danb_scribe> frank: things named 'on the web' seem at least to have some constant interpretation. Other uses of URIs for non webby things don't seem so consrtained.

14:58:04 <danb_scribe> pat: one way to talk about this is to talk about two theories, documents, sets of rdf, being or sharing ...

14:58:33 <danb_scribe> ...the web would be some shared core of interpretation; one big world-wide interpretation. Those URIs that have a common meaning that everyone accepts.

14:59:13 <danb_scribe> danbri: pat, could you email this? I like the way heading...

14:59:24 <em> +em returns... sorry again for having to cut off

14:59:25 <danb_scribe> pat: my mouth running away with my brain... :)

14:59:32 <AaronSw> reminds me of http://www.w3.org/Architecture/state

14:59:36 <danb_scribe> frank: there's a belief that if its on the Web, everybody shares it

14:59:43 <AaronSw> """

14:59:44 <AaronSw> ... the Web is a sort of mass

14:59:44 <AaronSw> hallucination shared among all the people and machines

14:59:44 <AaronSw> distributed around the globe who accept the principles

14:59:44 <AaronSw> of Web Architecture, much the way businesses and

14:59:44 <AaronSw> consumers accept the principles of an economy based

14:59:46 <AaronSw> on paper currency. By and large, we agree that there is

14:59:48 <AaronSw> one http://www.w3.org/xyz, even though each of us

14:59:50 <AaronSw> has slightly different experiences of it, much like by and

14:59:54 <AaronSw> large, people in the U.S. have a shared concept of the

14:59:55 <AaronSw> value of a dollar, even though in fact each p

14:59:56 <AaronSw> erson has a

14:59:58 <AaronSw> slightly different perspective on what they're willing to

15:00:00 <AaronSw> trade for one. The large scale effect is the result of each

15:00:02 <AaronSw> participant following the same principles when they

15:00:04 <danb_scribe> pat: I know URL is no longer an encouraged term, but the URIs machines use for getting web pages... have a fixed interpretation

15:00:04 <AaronSw> communicate and interact with each other. """

15:00:47 <danb_scribe> ...but you might find on those pages URIs that can denote anything on the planet; even unicorns. Seems a real disconnect between the "global address" view of URI vs "global name" view. Maybe these need separating a bit.

15:00:48 <danb_scribe> ---

15:01:07 <danb_scribe> next meeting: August 10th, after f2f on Aug 1st (or evening before)

15:01:12 <danb_scribe> [adjourned]

15:01:50 <AaronSw>http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-07-27.txt

15:01:53 <AaronSw> logs

15:12:51 <danb_scribe> danb_scribe is now known as danbri

15:27:54 <AaronSw> logs

15:28:30 <danbri> logs stashed :)