13:01:04 <logger_1> logger_1 has joined #rdfcore
13:01:04 <forward.openprojects.net> Users on #rdfcore: logger_1 danbri 
13:41:38 <em> em has joined #rdfcore
13:47:54 <danbri> * danbri waves
13:49:44 <AaronSw> AaronSw has joined #rdfcore
13:50:58 <DanC_> DanC_ has joined #rdfcore
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
13:53:59 <barstow> barstow has joined #rdfcore
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!
13:55:28 <bwm> bwm has joined #rdfcore
13:55:33 <danbri> hi brian!
13:55:44 <bwm> G'Day
13:56:16 <AaronSw> * 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> * 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
14:01:57 <mdean> mdean has joined #rdfcore
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_> * 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> * 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> * danb_scribe makes mental note never to scribe using a Libretto 100CT again
14:44:30 <danb_scribe> * 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> * 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
14:54:02 <danb_scribe> danb_scribe has quit
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
14:55:32 <danb_scribe> danb_scribe has joined #rdfcore
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
15:02:32 <bwm> bwm has left channel
15:12:51 <danb_scribe> danb_scribe is now known as danbri
15:27:54 <AaronSw> logs
15:28:01 <AaronSw> AaronSw has left channel
15:28:30 <danbri> logs stashed :)
15:28:32 <danbri> danbri has left channel
15:47:17 <barstow> barstow has left channel