W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2001-08-02

00:00:26 <dajobe> phayes: publishing a doc that erfers to anon _:bob and really want to do that

00:00:40 <dajobe> ... if I can't mean the same thing by the same name, that name is no use of all

00:00:52 <dajobe> danc: nature is that there is no name in rdf/xml and can't refer to it

00:01:03 <dajobe> phayes: then I shouldn't generate _:bob

00:01:22 <dajobe> danc: yes, but this is ntriples and _:bob can't be seen outside

00:01:41 <dajobe> fmanola: then this can't come up?

00:01:56 <dajobe> phayes: are you allowed to use _:bob

00:02:04 <dajobe> danc: no, you use "something"

00:02:14 <dajobe> phayes: then I cannot refer it to you directly

00:02:23 <dajobe> danc: yes, you have to use other mechanism

00:02:50 <dajobe> jang: there are transient docs on the web and fetch them, _:bob etc. are transient identifers you want them to behave lie that

00:03:10 * danbri scribes

00:04:03 <danbri> frank: it is one thing to talk about two '_bobs'... It is a very different use case if I, perusing doc1 and getting a genid _bob, returns to source and say "hey, you know that thing you called _bob"...

00:04:16 <danbri> pat: thats the case i had in mind

00:04:35 <danbri> sergey: suggestion... Don't use N3 please. We've barely a grip on RDF/XML.

00:05:00 <danbri> dan: we didn't see these disagreements until we had ntriple to make situation explicit

00:05:43 <danbri> emiller: <shows example with /2001/08/01-ex1 and -ex2.> (@todo: link to doc from em)

00:05:50 <danbri> ...

00:06:03 <danbri> jan: theres a mechanism question w.r.t. what pat's sayinh

00:06:19 <danbri> "we have _bob from 2 docs... we want to go back and say more stuff about 'it'"

00:06:40 <danbri> "you can use identifying properties about it

00:06:58 * danbri disagrees (quietly)

00:07:20 <danbri> graham: the reason i showed example in ntriples was cos we've decided to use this to describe what parsers do

00:07:36 <danbri> "the unfortunate part of the example was my writing _bob instead of _243234234234324

00:07:45 <danbri> "parser needs to write some kind of labelling for the ntriple for.

00:08:00 <danbri> "now if two docs happen to parse to same ntriple form, incl. genids...

00:08:19 <danbri> "are we going to make parsers responsible for making globally unique genids

00:08:32 <danbri> "or do we couch this in terms of ids relative to a document

00:09:38 <danbri> frank: a query rather than an assertion: "let's pop the stack... seems we've gone in a fairly complicated manner discussing a number of relevant topics. But we started out here with some pretty straightforward questions, ie. firstly whether we want generated identifiers, then whether we want to distinguish them from URIs (either semantically or syntactically)

00:09:57 <danbri> "i don't know that we've done much to answer those questions, or to answer their converse: if we don't like something is the result any better?

00:10:15 <danbri> "if we don't like generated identifiers, we have things that aren't identified, what do we do

00:10:24 <danbri> brian: we've decided that

00:10:37 <danbri> dan: we didn't decide they were URI

00:10:52 <danbri> brian: i thought we had made progress

00:11:12 <danbri> ..."that we agreed we can distinguish these things 'in the model'

00:11:30 <danbri> frank: did we decide that they had the characteristics of URIs

00:11:37 <danbri> pat: decisions was...

00:11:54 <danbri> "we agreed there wouldbe a way of distinguishing the 'distinguished nodes' from 'undistinguished ones'

00:12:00 <danbri> dan: i didn't agree to new syntax for this

00:12:05 <danbri> pat: some way...

00:12:09 <danbri> brian: to tell them apart

00:12:16 <danbri> pat: ...syntactically...

00:12:30 <danbri> emiller: we have 3 interpretations on the overhead

00:13:10 <danbri> dan: make the first one a non-URI,

00:13:26 <danbri> emiller: some way of uniquely identifying it, that is or isn't or looks like a uri

00:13:45 <danbri> dan: the wg has ruled out the 3rd situation

00:13:56 <danbri> ..."i heard that you could tell the difference in the output

00:14:15 <danbri> "since seeing http://blah in output couldn've been there in the input

00:14:40 <danbri> pat: what's wrong with saying because it contains 'genid' in it

00:14:44 <danbri> dan: not without talking to god

00:15:03 <danbri> ..."not in our charter"

00:15:42 <danbri> emiller: (to pat) a lot of us are coming to this from a web architecture p.o.v....

00:15:50 <danbri> brian: dave has the words from previous decision

00:16:16 <danbri> frank: there's a reverse side of it... When you generated this thing that's clearly distinguishable from a URI... Is it therefore _not_ a URI?

00:16:34 <danbri> ..."what are its characteristics?

00:16:38 <dajobe> question was: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-08-01.html#T22-57-09

00:16:39 <danbri> frank: yes, acc to the URI spec

00:16:48 <danbri> dave reads from logs:

00:18:02 <danbri> emiller: some people are thinking they can peek inside syntactic substructure of uris

00:18:38 <dajobe> answer was: http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-08-01.html#T23-18-30

00:19:33 <danbri> dan: the words he wrote rule out interpretation 3

00:19:40 <danbri> (someone pls post the 3rd example)

00:20:32 <danbri> pat: similar to one saying, i'll write an axiom in logic with a relation name called 'Not'

00:20:50 <danbri> dan: the text he read says we can tell these apart

00:20:53 * danbri now agrees

00:21:17 <danbri> dan: this info is not enough to tell us

00:21:28 <danbri> pat: why can't we say what the rules of the language are?

00:21:55 <danbri> dan: nowhere in rdf 1.0 does it say we can't have http://purl.org/var/.... is not allowed...

00:22:03 <danbri> "now into the opacity argument for not inspecting URI substrings

00:22:15 <danbri> graham: URIs are not our language (ie. IETF spec)

00:22:17 <danbri> ---

00:22:18 <danbri> break

00:22:19 <danbri> ---

00:33:31 <danbri> dan: some issues are kinda arbitrary, we owe to world to flip coins

00:33:42 <danbri> ...i feel this is a non-arbitrary decisions, needs doing properly

00:34:05 <danbri> (discussion of Vegemite-based incentives)

00:34:13 <danbri> dan: i'm happy to defer to another issue

00:34:23 <danbri> emiller: i'd like to end with something we can accomplish

00:34:32 <danbri> ...do you think we can do that in 30 mins

00:34:48 <danbri> pat: i voted no and caused a bunch of trouble

00:35:13 <danbri> ..."i'd be happy to change and say yes, so long as we ack that we need to introduce notion of scoping, and be crystal clear

00:35:32 <danbri> "it'd be a mistkae to say they have an existential interpretation and have vagueness about their scope

00:35:48 <danbri> sergey: i want to support your (dan's) suggestion by proposing another use case

00:36:05 <danbri> emiller: pat, dan, sergey agreeing...??!

00:36:23 <danbri> sergey: "the case i'm suggesting... trying to factor out all the different concepts we have in our mind...

00:36:45 <danbri> "if we have something we think are anonymous nodes in the document... is there a way to point to this thing in another document?

00:37:08 <danbri> dan: my answer is 'no'

00:37:25 <danbri> sergey: there's this axiom of the web, that rdf allows folk to say anything about it

00:37:48 <danbri> graham: it doesn't, you can talk about the same entity

00:38:09 <danbri> jan: you _can_ providing you're talkikng about a sub-document... ie. make an instantiation of the document... you know what the anonymous resource is...

00:38:32 <danbri> ..."database analogy: run a query on a db, you can tell its identity in the database. but i can't publish the private id as a uri

00:39:04 <danbri> pat: a realisation... i think jos said all along... "you can publish a document... if someone can

00:39:28 <danbri> pat: if the original document _is_ enough to pick it out, (jos: by value) then yes you _can_ describe it further

00:39:48 <danbri> brian: my worry, we spent a whole bunch of time on anon nodes... we set out questions...

00:40:12 <danbri> "once a node gets into the model, can i tell it apart, we had that questoin... I want to make sure. Can we confirm we said "yes!"

00:40:30 <danbri> danc: we've only answered it if we rule out 3rd interpretation (@todo: url overhead)

00:40:57 <danbri> brian: <rdf:Description><foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar></rdf:Description> ...->... _ <foo.bar> "foobar"

00:41:32 <danbri> questoin: what goes here< after the '_'

00:41:32 <danbri> dan: ??? (missed)

00:41:32 <danbri> pat: nobody reading any document generated from the xml would ever be able to get hold of the id

00:41:45 <danbri> pat: of course in ntriples it looks public

00:42:03 <danbri> pat: but if in the egs we use 'http:' it sure looks public

00:42:11 <danbri> brian: notion of public doesn't feel quite precise enough

00:42:20 <danbri> ..."same question as sergeys 3rd...

00:42:40 <danbri> brian: there are 3 things that could go in here...

00:42:49 <danbri> "___ <foo.bar> "foobar"

00:43:07 <danbri> brian: dan is asking that we don't allow URIs here

00:43:31 <danbri> strawpolll: can it be a uri

00:43:33 <danbri> most folk: no

00:43:36 <danbri> pat: don't care

00:43:44 <danbri> mike: i'd like it to be a uri and parse substructure

00:43:56 <danbri> sergey: we can have a special namespace

00:45:13 <danbri> danbri: dan persuade me. folk might write bad RDF/XML that used our magic namespace for genids. therefore we can't gurnatee the distinction

00:45:15 <dajobe> danc also said - no, you can't lok inside URI

00:45:24 * danbri nods

00:45:25 <dajobe> miked then said - want to parse fragment ids

00:45:34 <danbri> brian: so it can't be a uri

00:45:39 <danbri> Capturing this:

00:45:49 <danbri> we agree it can't be a URI.

00:46:12 <danbri> frank: generated identifiers have a distinguished representation from URIs

00:46:46 <danbri> mike: i'd like to see us say 'we reserve any fragments beginning with an underscore

00:46:59 <danbri> ...that way you might know eg what doc it came from

00:47:02 <danbri> ...in rdf:ID

00:47:14 <danbri> dan: then you lose expressive power; you lose ability to say 'there exists'

00:47:24 <danbri> marK: maybe you want several types of genids

00:47:31 <danbri> pat: please please don't use a variable as a name

00:47:52 <danbri> jan: this ... doesn't really work. you go to a source, get a doc back; you do again, you get it back. these things are transient in the web.

00:48:08 <danbri> mike: there's nothing to keep the parser from providing an id

00:48:13 <danbri> dan: i suggest thats a bug

00:48:46 <danbri> brian: as i udnerstand the issue with the rdf:ID="_id43454" solution... if i read it in twice, i'm going to geneate the same URI

00:48:53 <danbri> mike: if you use same tool

00:49:16 <danbri> brian:...but you have no way to know that that's about theS same rsource

00:49:27 <danbri> ...you're parser is asserting identity when has no right to do so

00:49:41 <danbri> mike: [...] can use daml:equiv...

00:49:55 * danbri (didn't capture that)

00:50:02 <danbri> pat: that was what bothered me about _bob

00:50:07 <danbri> ...someone else might use it

00:50:18 <danbri> mike: i'd want them to use full URI for doc

00:50:20 <danbri> martin: yes

00:50:40 <danbri> dan: i use '_bob' here, i can't use that _thing_ in any other formula

00:51:00 <danbri> pat: if you were to write that in rdf/xml you'd not see '_bob'

00:51:14 <danbri> dan: in ntriples: an implicit backwards E in front of _:

00:51:35 <danbri> martin: these bobs can't be matched across documents

00:51:58 * DanC_ wonders when the meeting is scheduled to adjourn

00:52:02 <danbri> emiller: i'm a little confused about this convesation...

00:52:45 <DanC_> on opacity, is Mike Dean or PatH here on IRC? the opacity axiom is documented, in draft form, at http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque

00:53:00 <danbri> ..."we've had compelling test cases / experiences in last few years. W.r.t. serey's point. While we say anyone can say anything about anything, here perhaps we can't. Possible, quite probably, that some things may not have names. Those things without may be difficult to further describe

00:53:23 <danbri> "given our current focus, rdfcore, if you give something an ID, you have good chance of merging data...

00:53:44 <danbri> "for those things that don't... not our business to standardise stuff best done in privacy of own computer

00:54:00 <danbri> em: we might eg like sha1 digests, but not our business to specify

00:54:21 <danbri> pat: that's not the issue. Not about knowing 'the' name, but a name.

00:54:40 <danbri> pat: is the act of giving something a name that big a burden that we can't ask them to do it

00:54:46 <danbri> dan: rdf 1.0 did not make that burden

00:54:58 <danbri> "question is, how do we interpret the doc in our 1.0 syntax

00:55:11 <danbri> pat: rdf m+s text is utterly unclear about notion of anon nodes/resources

00:55:29 <danbri> dan: but we DID tell people to write rdf/xml in this form

00:56:09 <danbri> emiller: the 1st intepretation is what we meant first time round; "i feel terrible for setting community back 4 years, not beating the s**t out of editors/WG 1st time round, but that's the situation

00:56:15 <danbri> ora: it's not all your fault!

00:56:29 <danbri> emiller: so, clean up our mess. That's where we're at...

00:56:34 <danbri> dan: problem is that the implementors have done 2nd/3rd thing

00:56:44 <danbri> frank: can someone clarify diff between 1st and 2nd?

00:56:55 * danbri requests emiller's doc for the records. URL please!

00:57:38 <danbri> frank: "if point is to interpret the 1st one as an existential qunatifier... what's the difference between my wanting to refer to that something, that ?x, versus referring to some arbitrary named genid. I think there's a difference.

00:57:42 * barstow is enjoying this discussion and would love to see it continue but I'm wondering if we have to stop at the top of the hour because the published schedule said the meeting would end at 6:00pm ...

00:58:00 <danbri> dan: pat made this crystal clear. In assertional case same entailment; in query case, nontrivially different

00:58:09 <danbri> dan: we can't go into queries

00:58:11 <danbri> frank: yes...

00:58:21 <danbri> --

00:58:48 <danbri> pat: (attemptign to sum up)

00:59:07 <danbri> "suppose we have existntials, not generated names, there's no real difference logically. what's thefunctional difference?

00:59:34 <danbri> "you lose a little functionality. if there's a handle provided for every existential. if there's no handle, you lose a little functionality.

00:59:49 <danbri> dan: if we want a handle, make it a uri

00:59:53 <danbri> pat: yes, you could take that line

01:00:30 <danbri> ADJOURNED.

01:00:32 <danbri> ---

01:00:48 <danbri> chat...

01:00:57 <danbri> emiller: i feel progress from last few years...

01:01:03 <danbri> pat: issues are becoming clearer...

01:01:07 <danbri> dinner!

14:49:26 * jhendler lurking (Invite as member of W3-SW-CG)

14:57:46 * DanC_ wonders if the WG came to any conclusion on anon-resource etc.

14:58:04 <AaronSw> Doesn't seem like it from the logs...

16:12:35 <barstow> Ora: Pat and I have been thinking and we agree

16:12:40 <barstow> barstow is now known as scribe

16:12:59 <scribe> ... we are concenred about the identity of anon nodes

16:13:10 <scribe> ... we do know the identity of the annonnodes

16:13:24 <scribe> ... the distictness is reserved.

16:13:40 <scribe> Node -a-> 1

16:13:46 <scribe> Node -b->2

16:14:18 <scribe> Yes

16:14:37 <scribe> In the serialization syntax, we give no names to these nodes

16:15:50 <scribe> Pat: the realization that I have, if I do the MT as attached to the graph, then issues like scope of exist quant go away becauset there are no scopes in the graph

16:16:48 <scribe> ... ... In N-Trpiles, annonNodes have ttheir own syntax. The annonNode is unique.

16:17:52 <scribe> ACTION: Pat - I'll re-word the MT wrt my new insight.

16:18:37 <scribe> Pat: wrt entailment, if two nodes have same URI, they can be merged; if they do not, they must not be merged.

16:18:47 <jhendler> (err, I mean what school do you attend)

16:19:19 <scribe> Pat: there is no way in [core] RDF to do the graph merging that Eric showed yesterday.

16:19:37 <scribe> EricM: you are correct, it can be done with additional rules - is not part of core RDF

16:20:20 <scribe> Pat: this resolves wether things are public or private [Brian's issue]

16:20:35 <scribe> Pat: this resolves DanC's issue with existen quantifier

16:20:56 <scribe> Pat: the annonNodes do have ID but this has nothing to do with the graph

16:22:24 <scribe> Frank: if you think of the model as being the graph, the nodes in the ggraph have identify; if I merge the graph, the nodes still have identity; the annonNodes just don't have URI.

16:23:21 <scribe> Frank: wrt serialization syntax, what characteristics do the annonNodes have?

16:24:46 <scribe> Pat: with N-Triples, annonNode are identified by their unique syntax

16:25:25 <scribe> Frank: if you try to merge multiple N-Triple docs, the app must keep info about where the triples came from

16:25:57 <scribe> Steve: N-Trples therefore is not a good syntax

16:28:00 <scribe> Graham: 2 vars are distinct if they have diff tags or if they appear in diff n-triples expressions

16:28:15 <ASwartz> ASwartz is now known as AaronSw

16:28:43 <scribe> ... when combining 2 ntriple expressions, all of the tag nodes are assigned arbitrary tags such that distinct nodes always have disnt tags in the resulting expression

16:28:57 <scribe> mike: I'm worried about exposing internal names

16:29:13 * GK-f2f I think words to cover this are in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0397.html

16:29:41 <scribe> Pa: must differentiate naming the node and giving a name to the thing the node denotes

16:29:51 <scribe> s/Pa:/Pat:/

16:30:04 <scribe> Ora: this is NO change to the M&S spec!

16:30:11 <scribe> Pat: I agree!

16:30:52 <scribe> Mike: in the case where internal names need to be exposed, you will loose the fact that it was anon?

16:30:55 <scribe> Pat: yes.

16:31:33 <scribe> Eric: what does this say about the issue - are these thing distinguishable?

16:31:54 <scribe> Pat: Yes.

16:32:34 <scribe> DaveB: I don't understand the need to add scoping N-Triples.

16:32:46 <scribe> Pat: if you merge on the graphs, there is no problem.

16:32:56 <scribe> DaveB: you merge graphs, not N-Triples.

16:33:51 <scribe> ... [not n-triples docs]

16:34:04 <scribe> Jan: we've said scope of N-Triples is the N-Triples doc.

16:34:04 * GK-f2f so I have a program that reads two different N-triples documents, and spits out N-triples thayt bresult from merging their graphs -- I'd describe that as merging the N-triples documents

16:34:22 <scribe> Steve: I think we still have to deal with the scoping issue.

16:34:36 <scribe> ... Ntriples are forcing us to do that.

16:35:13 <scribe> Arno: we ran into this issue at Adobe.

16:35:43 <scribe> ... We have diff docs and compound docs. We solved it by

16:36:07 <scribe> ... first thinking not about annonNodes but implicitly named [have a name, wwee dont know what it is]

16:36:25 <scribe> ... We have a mechanism to refer to them.

16:36:54 <scribe> ... What we've said is consistent with our design.

16:37:11 <scribe> Graham: Ntriples is a syntax.

16:37:59 <scribe> Brian: I think we have some agreement but need to test if we are talking about the same thing.

16:38:25 * GK-f2f and a "document" is a character string that matches poroductiions from the "distinguished symbol" of the N-truiples grammar ... i.e. a "sentence" of the Np-triples syntax.

16:38:36 <scribe> ... I think Ora and Pat said:

16:38:48 <scribe> ... the fundamental model is the GRAPH MODEL!

16:39:06 <scribe> ... Ntriples is a syntax for a graph [a serialization foor a graph]

16:39:30 <scribe> ... We can have more than one graph.

16:39:35 <scribe> Pat: yes!

16:40:27 <scribe> Brian: when I merge ntriples, the semantics is that I'm merging the graphs.

16:41:28 <scribe> ... If we have the two graphs, we can't just concatentate the corresponding n-triples; must first change some names

16:41:58 <scribe> Brian: does the MT theory, Pat?

16:42:21 <scribe> Pat: yes, the MT must be based on the graph, not on N-Triples.

16:42:40 <scribe> ... won't need the set of triples in a document.

16:43:09 <scribe> Brian: we have an RDF serialization

16:43:17 <scribe> ... we will also have a grammar

16:43:43 <scribe> ... we will define semantics by defining a mapping from serialization to n-triples

16:43:58 <scribe> ... from n-triples, we have a MT

16:44:15 <scribe> ... Why do we have to change that?

16:45:03 <scribe> Pat: the arrow from ntriples to MT must now go through the graph

16:45:09 <scribe> ... the graph has a MT

16:45:25 <scribe> ... the advant: separates some issues

16:46:01 <scribe> Graham: will we have a MT based on the graph [not the ntriples]

16:46:52 <scribe> Ron: want the graph in the middle; put MT in an arc; put n-triples as an arc, put RDF/XML as a arc

16:47:32 <scribe> Ron: if we split an ntriples doc, how to put it back together?

16:47:57 <scribe> Pat: we can break up graphs.

16:48:28 <scribe> ... In the graph, nodes are nodes.

16:50:14 <scribe> Ron: use case is controlled vocabularies

16:50:33 <scribe> ... a node may have lots of info

16:50:41 <scribe> ... may only want to send some of the info

16:50:52 <scribe> ... can send the identity of the node

16:51:39 <scribe> jan: if you need to talk about it, give it a URI!

16:54:07 <scribe> Sergey: I'm not convinced we're all talking about the same thing.

16:55:37 <scribe> ... want to explore using annonNodes as existential quantifiers, etc.

16:56:06 <scribe> ... By looking at these other approaches, we could get more.

16:57:23 <scribe> danbri: I would like to hear Sergey's view.

16:57:50 <scribe> ... I would be willing to give up some RDFS time.

16:58:32 * AaronSw thinks you're going around in circles

16:59:00 <scribe> ---- Sergey -----

16:59:46 <scribe> [Sergey projects a document that contains his model.]

17:00:02 <scribe> ACTION: Sergey - send this document to the WG mail list

17:00:27 <scribe> Annon nodes as existential variables

17:00:46 <scribe> URI constants: c = {c1,...,cN,...}

17:00:53 <scribe> { exists, & }

17:01:04 <scribe> Variables: {x1,...,xN,...}

17:01:26 <scribe> graph/document = formula without free variab les (most general consensus?)

17:01:51 <scribe> Applications exchange documents in intermediate format (BLOB), but get formulae (graphs) in the end

17:02:28 <scribe> d1 = t(c1, c2, ce)

17:02:28 <scribe> d2 = exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1)

17:02:35 <scribe> d3 = exists x1 [ t(c1, c2, x1) & t(x1, c3, c4) ]

17:02:43 <scribe> Equivalence:

17:02:55 <scribe> Let -> be entailment

17:03:09 <scribe> d1 = d2 <=> d1 -> d2 and d1 -> d1

17:04:21 <scribe> ad 0): t(c1, c2, c3) -> exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1) [Inference that DanC want]

17:04:36 <scribe> ad 1): d1 = exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1)

17:04:54 <scribe> d2 = exists x2 t(c1, c2, x2)

17:05:21 <scribe> d1 -> d2 and d2 -> d1 => d1 = d1 (fine)

17:06:03 <scribe> ad 2): d1 = exists x [ t(c1, c2, x) & t(x, c3, c4)]

17:06:16 <scribe> How split?

17:06:43 <scribe> [ed note: ... d1=>d1=d2 above]

17:07:02 <scribe> d1' : exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1)

17:07:26 <scribe> d1'' : exists x2 t(x2, c3, c4)

17:08:03 <scribe> Merge: d1''' = exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1) & exists x2 t(x2, c3, c4)

17:08:34 <scribe> d1 -> d1''', but d1''' -/-> d1 => d1 != d1'''

17:08:58 <scribe> irrerversibel change when docs are split and merged (bad?)

17:09:21 <scribe> ad 3: impossible to refer to anon. node in another document withing the model

17:09:40 <scribe> d1 = exists x1 t(c1, c2, x1)

17:09:59 <scribe> d2 = exists x2 t(c1, c2, x2)

17:10:15 <scribe> no way to ask: is x1 in d1 same as x2 in d2?

17:10:28 <scribe> Anonymous nodes as local constants:

17:10:41 <scribe> (Implementaiton perspective)

17:10:57 <scribe> URI constants: C = {c1,...,cn,...}

17:11:57 <scribe> Local constatns: PRG1 = {l1_1,...l1_N,lll}, PRG2 = {l2_1,...,l2_N,...}

17:12:11 <scribe> Rule: prg1 cannot see constants in document

17:12:41 <scribe> ad 0): t(c1,c2,c3) -/->, <-/- t(c1,c2,l1) [fine]

17:13:08 <scribe> ad 1): d1 = t(c1, c2, l1_1), second parse d2 = t(c1,c2,l1_2)

17:13:18 <scribe> d1 != d2 [bad?]

17:14:13 <scribe> ...

17:14:35 <scribe> [ed. note: I give up - assume Sergey will post this his file to the list ...]

17:16:06 <scribe> ...

17:16:17 <scribe> Observations:

17:17:38 <scribe> o A does not caont URI (disjoing) If A and C overlap, we cannot distinguish anon. nodes from the others. But: since the same procedure for assigingin constants from A, this is irrelevant. A can be viewed as subset of C that is extremely unlikely to be used

17:18:25 <scribe> o Application that neeed not communicate may not local IDs. If communicate using syntax that contains "holes", fine. No global autogeneration algorithm required.

17:19:01 <scribe> o If no standard assignment algorithm is required, ad 1) is still violated (parsing twice)

17:20:46 <scribe> ....

17:21:13 <scribe> Sergey: there can be a formal mechanism to help base arguments about anon. nodes.

17:21:41 <scribe> ... point 2: there are multiple options for implementing anon. nodes [they all have advantages and disadvantages]

17:22:45 <scribe> ... want to ground the decisoion. This also helps define the application semantics.

17:22:55 <scribe> Jan: this is very useful. However, your existance proof is false.

17:23:28 <scribe> ... You have no way of knowing where things come from.

17:23:56 <scribe> ... The algorithm doesn't reflect that a URI may return the same thing through time.

17:25:14 <scribe> Pat: the question is what is the semantics. Is is temporary [the doc]?

17:25:26 <scribe> ... M&S is talking about graphs.

17:27:09 <scribe> Sergey: I think explicit genids would be useful.

17:28:03 <scribe> Brian: if you parse the same doc, should an anon description have the same identity?

17:30:25 <scribe> Ron: if everyone generates the same identifier for an anon node, it could be useful but it also could be dangerous.

17:30:37 <scribe> ... That's the choice: useful vs dangerous.

17:30:54 <scribe> danbri: it is very dangerous.

17:31:22 <scribe> Brian: can you do more things this way?

17:32:07 <scribe> Ron: you can do more things because then you can hang additional stuff off of it.

17:32:19 <scribe> Jan: there are better ways to do this.

17:32:39 <scribe> Frank: what exactly is the question?

17:33:27 <scribe> Brian: do you need everyone to use the same algorithm?

17:33:49 <scribe> Ron: if folks agree on an algorithm, you can do additional stuff.

17:35:49 <scribe> Pat: I don't think these examples are helpful. They introduces more confustion. It doesn't talk about the graph.

17:36:21 <scribe> ... We don't need to introduce the variables.

17:37:32 <scribe> Eric: we need to put a stake in the ground and move on. We need to focus on the graph to agree on stuff.

17:38:38 <scribe> Pat: I'll update the MT based on the graph within a week.

17:58:11 <scribe> ======== Break Over =========

18:00:20 <GK-f2f> RDF Syntax -- Dave Beckett Leads

18:01:51 <GK-f2f>http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/people/cmdjb/talks/rdfcore-sebastopol/

18:02:57 <GK-f2f> slide 2

18:03:18 <GK-f2f> slide 3

18:03:24 <GK-f2f> (ntriplesreview)

18:04:34 <jang> (talks about benefits of ntrlpes as simple serialisation)

18:04:41 <jang> slide 4

18:05:21 <jang> dave'd been looking at reexpressing the grammer in terms of the infoset, rather than '<' etc

18:05:39 <jang> grammar looks simpler, smaller

18:06:23 <jang> we o xml syntax -> ntriples -> graph -> MT

18:06:27 <jang> s/o/go

18:06:39 <jang> points at:

18:06:57 <jang>http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/

18:07:16 <jang> dave points out, as an example, the 6.3 entry in the table

18:07:40 <jang> dve's had to invent a syntax for expressing XML infoset

18:07:57 <jang> slide 5

18:08:31 <jang> change to slide: <=> "the graph" in each case

18:08:50 <jang> dave mentions other formal proposals for syntax notations

18:08:55 <jang> slide 6

18:09:09 <jang> answer to "is ntriples sufficient?" DB: yes

18:09:15 <jang> (db = dave beckeytt)

18:09:36 <jang> still open on question 2: what formalisms should be used to express grammar

18:09:45 <jang> => slide 8

18:09:47 <jang> and done

18:10:01 <jang> wy is BNF so bad?

18:10:27 <jang> we can use BNF, but sould be expressed in terms of infoset, not <, & etc

18:11:04 <jang> PH: ntriples syntax may bem misleading

18:11:14 <jang> URIRef and anonnode should be changed

18:11:19 <jang> DB: I've already changed that

18:11:52 <jang> brian:

18:11:57 <jang> there are two questions

18:12:05 <jang> 1. how we repsent the grammar formally and precisely

18:12:17 <jang> 2. how do we define the transform from rdf/xml into core representation

18:12:27 <jang> (and is it mechanically executable)

18:12:46 <jang> closest bri has are attribute grammars

18:12:54 <jang> danbri: schematron is the closest I've seen

18:13:11 * AaronSw (informally) proposes XSLT

18:13:14 <jang> db: uneasy about it's completeness

18:13:33 <jang> restating question about transformation:

18:13:44 <jang> rdfxml must be translated by a parser into some representation of the graph

18:14:02 <jang> is there a way of describing this transformation mechanically and executably?

18:14:13 <jang> SM: there's a new parser that uses javacc

18:14:25 <jang> javacc ives you the grammar definition

18:14:35 <jang> you can introduce bits of code into the grammar it uses

18:14:51 <jang> bri: that's basically an attribute grammar with java as the attributions

18:15:05 <jang> danbri: we sould note xslt has been used for this

18:15:21 <jang> bri: tried it, it was very large, not a good way of descibing the transformation to an implementor

18:15:30 <jang> danc has also got an xslt parser, danbri knows of another

18:15:35 <jang> (can't remember who by)

18:15:52 <jang> bri: wants a compact gramamr that can be transformed into xslt, for instance

18:15:57 <jang> danbri: that's what schematron does.

18:16:06 <jang> bri: talks about jeremy's parser

18:16:25 <jang> he had the problems due to M+S talking about characters.

18:16:26 <danbri> the other rdf xslt parser was by jason diamond

18:16:33 <jang> so he did javacc with a grammar in terms of SAX events

18:16:48 <jang> this is pretty handy

18:17:05 <jang> dave's looking for suggestions; he's stil inthe investigation phase

18:17:15 <danbri> xslt parsers: see http://www.xmlhack.com/read.php?item=757

18:17:34 <jang> art: is the WG constrained to using w3c or other standard?

18:17:44 <jang> are we bound to standardised mechanisms?

18:18:12 <jang> em: i don't think so. We must be able to represent the grammar in something that's as familiar as possible to the other xml techs

18:18:33 <jang> em: likes XDuce; but if it's one of equals he'd prefer sometng else

18:18:39 <jang> dan: relaxng looks promising too

18:19:03 <jang> danri: if we want others to have a good look at our spec, we should extend them the same courtesy

18:19:23 <jang> em: only a few people from, eg, DC will be interested in reading the spec?

18:19:33 <danbri> (re politeness: specifically within the w3c xml family of specs)

18:19:35 <jang> daveb: we want a single normative mechanism

18:19:46 <jang> em: ebnf, for example.

18:19:54 <jang> daveb: it's basically in terms of characters

18:20:06 <jang> sm: can xslt produce non-xml docuemnts?

18:20:08 <jang> all: yes

18:20:35 <jang> sm: asks for smple syntax

18:20:45 <jang> dave: we've got ntriples, that's what we've been using

18:21:03 <jang> sm: what about dealing with reification, literls, etc.? it's going to keep growing

18:21:23 <jang> brian: is ntriple broken? do we anticipate it stopping working?

18:21:34 <jang> ph: the only possible problem is scoping, i think we've resolved that

18:21:46 <jang> bri: then we stick with ntriple until it's demonstrated that it's broken

18:22:12 <jang> jang volounteers to help dave with the investigation

18:22:19 <jang> dave asks: can we include jeremy?

18:22:25 <jang> art: also interested

18:22:32 <jang> brian: AP! ask jeremy about this

18:22:42 <jang> dan: suggests schematron to invesigate

18:22:59 <jang> AP: ang, dave, art to investigate and come back with a reccommendation

18:23:16 <jang> Graham: let's be absolutely clear wat we consider the primary audience?

18:23:40 <jang> graham: i ask because XSLT exists and may be very good, but it is probably not very good at expressing the concepts to a human reader

18:23:48 <jang> is the human developer the primay audience?

18:23:50 <jang> bri: yes

18:24:02 <jang> sm: s ntriple going to be xmlised?

18:24:05 <jang> bri: no plans yet

18:24:12 <jang> sm: then we can't use xslt?

18:24:21 <jang> al: no, it can produce anything including text files

18:24:30 <jang> em: it can do tree transforms to text

18:24:40 <jang> steveP: what is the role of the ntriples syntax?

18:24:46 <jang> normative or for testing?

18:24:54 <jang> I'd be opposed (I think) to it being normative

18:25:13 <jang> bri: we need a way to represent the graph. we have to be able to write down the graph transformation

18:25:20 <jang> bri: in mymind, ntriples is for that

18:25:24 <jang> steve: but it's not a graph

18:25:37 <jang> ph: we could draw pictures in the spec

18:25:54 <jang> we need ntriples for testing, not for the defintiion

18:26:11 <jang> brian: I need some way of writing down my test-cases

18:26:25 <jang> I'd rather use one representation of a gaph

18:26:30 <jang> graph, even

18:26:56 <jang> dave: we've got a mixture of text and formalisms at the moment

18:27:04 <jang> ph: software exists to construct and transmit graphs.

18:27:23 <jang> ph: wy don't we make the exposition in the definitive document conform to the graph directly?

18:27:40 <jang> every time a graph is pictures, we can give the ntriples representation

18:28:02 <jang> danbri: i aree largely, but I'd be concerned if we say all sorts of wooly non-normative thngs about ntriples

18:28:08 <jang> it's as normative as the rest of the spec

18:28:28 <jang> ph: I was responding to brian's desire that ntriples be the way graphs are described

18:29:19 <jang> fm: one role ntriple could play in the exposition is to illustrate some of th epotential misunderstandings they may experience

18:29:47 <jang> people have been sending ntriple-ish stuff back and forward for disambiguation by email

18:29:57 <jang> so ntriples could be used as an example of a serialisation

18:30:02 * danbri agrees

18:30:08 <jang> to make the point that the graph model is the central issue

18:30:32 <jang> brian: when I think of ntriple, i think it behaves exatly like a graph

18:30:46 <jang> ph: all the issues of name scoping have not been properly articulated

18:31:09 <jang> graham: the advantage of using graphs directly: it'll prevent opthers from falling into the same mental trap

18:31:32 <jang> em: we've been trynig to do this for 4 years, unsuccessfully: saying "it's the graph stupid"

18:31:46 <jang> people understand the serialisation more than the abstract notion

18:31:54 <jang> ora: I don't think that's true.

18:32:19 <jang> people see the serialisation and don't understand it represents a graph

18:32:28 <jang> em: eg,xml people see it as an xml document

18:32:50 <jang> graham: we should do everything twice in the document: once as a graph and once as ntriples

18:33:17 <jang> ora: in some sense, choosing xml was a mistake. people see xml and consider it to be just xml, not a graph

18:33:38 <jang> every time i speak about the graph, people get it though. I've stopped talking about xml and people just get it

18:33:46 <jang> em: I've seen exacty the opposite

18:34:03 <jang> people ask, "but what does it look like?" meaning, where are the angle-brackets

18:34:41 <jang> em: people are deploying a lot of apps that just happen to be rdf-friendly, eg, rss - most users just consider it to be an xml document

18:35:12 <jang> dan: what are we trying to achieve? we're not trying to write the rdf tutorial or do modelling

18:35:57 <jang> we're not trying to write the tutorial here - in that context, does anyone have anything else to add?

18:36:20 <jang> mike d: we've produced another serialisation for rdf. if we play it up, won't people start using it?

18:36:36 <jang> how important is it to emphasise that the xml serialisation is the preferred syntax

18:36:45 <jang> bri: we're not chartered to develop a new synta

18:37:00 <jang> mike: it's becoming bigger. it's for test cases basically

18:37:24 <jang> ph: it sends a good messge - there are at least two maybe more serialisations of rdf

18:37:35 <jang> M+S doesn't hammer this home sufficiently

18:37:54 <jang> arno: this can create some confusion. eg, DC has multiple representations

18:38:14 <jang> documents that have different forms tend to be interpreted differently

18:38:36 <jang> em: let's not go there yet. it is non-trivial to convince people to deploy multiple syntaxes

18:38:58 <jang> ph: we either say, there is one preferred syntax, and not mention any others, or we shoud say

18:39:06 <jang> rdf is about graphs and there may be muktiple syntaxes

18:39:24 <jang> danbri: this has been very important to exaplin to people.

18:39:50 <jang> em: I want that, yes: we're building on the first M+S

18:40:16 <jang> this diagram (referring to the graph -> MT, ntriples, serialisation diagram) is really importnat

18:40:35 <jang> e: priority should be to clarify the model (graph) and focus on the rdf xml serialisation

18:41:12 <jang> ora: says "S-expressions" and gets lynched

18:41:12 <jang> brian: moving on to schema

18:41:12 <jang> minute break, back in a tick...

18:55:51 <jang> back: rdf schema issues

18:56:00 <jang> danbri to lead, brian to timekeep + chair

18:56:15 <jang> eric has noes on laptop

18:56:21 <AaronSw>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Aug/0003.html

18:56:30 <AaronSw> - notes

18:56:32 <jang> ap: eric/danbri to ensure dan's document goes online

18:56:41 <scribe> ======== DanBri - RDFSchema ========

18:57:57 <jang> w3c think rdfsch is more or less done

18:58:06 <jang> we've had feedback... particularly from daml+oil

18:58:36 <jang> rdfschema work stopped waiting for xml schema - that's now done

18:58:49 <jang> we need to take the useful bits ( datatypes) into rdf schema

19:00:01 <jang> WG sucessor (web-ontology) is planned

19:00:55 <jang> dan points out: what we decide/do next doesn' have to be writen in stone, so we make pragmatic ecisions on what the next WD looks like

19:01:55 <jang> domain + range is an open issue; dan proposes we skip over this because there's a good answer

19:02:19 <jang> this is a no-brainer

19:02:47 <jang> ora gives a bit of background to rdfschema; we're after an OO extensible type system to rdf

19:03:02 <jang> we're after very little.

19:03:54 <jang> ora: te properties of properties are global - no class-specific constraints

19:03:59 <jang> we fixed this in daml

19:04:17 <jang> domain + range: this is the open issue

19:05:12 <jang> dan talks about daml work getting pushed into schema/web-ont - we don't know or care yet what's going to ahappen about this

19:05:23 <jang> dan: ora - class-contextualised constraints may come later

19:05:50 <jang> dan: any dissent to conjunctive interpretation of range+domain?

19:07:04 <jang> art: is there any evidence that people are using current semantics?

19:07:07 <jang> jan: I've seen some

19:07:14 <jang> AP: jan to write up the fix/workaround for this

19:07:36 <jang> ron: possible to change the namespace to not break stuff for people?

19:07:55 <jang> dan: yes, it's possible, my preferred take:

19:08:15 <jang> there is a thing called rdf:domain which the rdfschema people have previously made an erroneous statement about

19:08:36 <jang> ph: introducing a new namespace isn't always the most painful thing

19:08:53 <jang> AP: rdf schema editor to fold conjunctive decision into the raph

19:09:53 <jang> APPROVED: multiple domains, ranges, with conjunctive semantics

19:10:01 <jang> pretty much carried unanimously

19:11:21 <jang> approved by ora, brian, art, jos, dave b, martin, ph, ron d, frank m, sergei, kwon, em, arno, stephen p, jan, raham,

19:11:31 <jang> we record no objections: ron daniel abstained

19:11:44 <jang> (danbri also voted in favour)

19:12:26 <jang> rdfs:domain & rang constraingts or rdfs:domain were missing from the schema - this is just a typo

19:12:33 <jang> proposal to fix this

19:13:17 <jang> ron: was the editorial oversight due to non-discussion/ non-decision or was a decision recorded

19:13:24 <jang> but didn't make it to the doc?

19:13:37 <jang> dan: not certain; but the pictures we had show these values

19:13:46 <jang> proposal: editor to fold these into the next WD

19:14:36 <jang> all in favour, no abstentions, no against

19:14:40 <jang> APPROVED

19:15:15 <jang> subclassing containers...

19:15:36 <jang> dan: a compelling case for this was not allowed

19:15:41 <jang> s/allowed/made

19:15:47 <jang> for the next wd, we say: future work

19:16:18 <jang> AP: jan to provide explanation of how we'd add this

19:17:35 <jang> proposal: no change on this issue in next draft of rdfs

19:17:50 <jang> we take as resolved on the issues list

19:18:13 <jang> (recording accurately the nature of the resolution)

19:19:50 <jang> all in favour: abstain frank, no against

19:19:55 <jang> APPROVED

19:20:34 <jang> datatyping....

19:21:56 <jang> ron: originally we discussed this and decided to wait for xml:schema

19:22:12 <jang> proposal is to take in what DAML+OIL did, throw it in and then argue abot ti later

19:22:19 * GK-f2f INFO: CC/PP uses XML schema datatypes - http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/

19:22:41 <jang> this sin't for the next WD, just as the next step

19:23:11 <jang> proposal (refined)

19:23:25 <jang> we expect to work in this area, informed by the daml+oil work

19:25:41 <jang> AP: graham to send to working group how CCPP does datatypes

19:26:01 <jang> AP: ajn to do the same with the EASEL approach

19:26:20 <jang> ora: the daml+oil approach is clever because if you don't care, you don't get hurt

19:26:49 <jang> proposal: to go away and investigate and report back to the group

19:27:00 <jang> dan: taskforce to consider the adoption of...

19:27:43 <jang> adopt daml+oil/xml datatypes as initial foray into the issue

19:27:55 <jang> we don't consider closure on this issue a must-have for the next WD

19:28:18 <jang> drop the "adopt"

19:28:30 <jang> final proposal should come from EM's document, he's editing it now

19:29:22 <jang> volounteers: danbri graham, martin, jan

19:30:15 <jang> all in favour of the taskgroup

19:32:10 <jang> brian leaves to order pizza

19:33:48 <jang> rdfs-primitive-properties

19:36:28 <jang> AP: pat to go into some more detail on why the know-tying at the top of the hierarchy in rdfs is not a set-theoretical hole

19:37:20 <jang> s/know-tying/knot-tying

19:38:04 <jang> proposal: we don't think this is a problem

19:38:32 <jang> so we close the issue, with the expositional urden associated

19:39:52 * GK-f2f INFO: Horrocks, et al paper is at http://www.semanticweb.org/SWWS/program/full/paper40.pdf

19:40:20 <jang> dan explains how we go around answering this (process issues)

19:40:30 <jang> we're obliged to respond to feedback

19:40:57 * GK-f2f Last URI was wrong one ... still looking

19:41:42 <jang> all in favour. no abstain, no against (brian absent)

19:41:59 <jang> cycles in subclassof

19:42:02 * GK-f2f I think this is the right one: http://www.semanticweb.org/SWWS/program/full/paper11.pdf

19:42:36 <jang> daml+oil didn't like this

19:42:58 <jang> dan: personal bias towards what we've got is a bad usability problem explaining it to people

19:43:25 <jang> graham: one reason to change is that this is one of those things that can't be described within the schema framework

19:43:27 <jang> thus we drop it

19:43:46 <jang> ora: doesn'tcare

19:44:05 <jang> dave: biggest implementation in this area doing this already? will we break something?

19:44:17 <jang> dan: opens floodgates

19:44:34 <jang> ron: recalls experience was that people wouldn't want cycles in te subgraph relationship

19:45:00 <jang> this will break a lot of implementations if we use this. in particular, stuff out there won't be doing cycle detection

19:45:12 <jang> danbri: the system is gullible if it's not checking this restriction

19:45:33 <jang> ron: no, that's not fair - if the spec tells you there are no cycles, then there is a performance optimisationto not bother checking

19:46:01 <jang> frank: that argument can be ade for any syntactic description. this is absurd if taken to its extreme conclusion

19:46:20 <jang> dan: I was going to ask someone from DAML how strongly they care

19:46:36 <jang> graham: we need to make the change ASAP if we're going to hurt as few people as possible

19:47:11 <jang> dave: rather than do nothing, I want to know now what we're doing, are we gogin

19:47:17 <jang> to change it

19:47:51 <jang> PH recalls why daml people wanted this - it was fought hard over

19:48:01 <jang> ora: frank + ian do class equality doing this

19:48:10 <jang> which frees them from having another relationship

19:48:16 <jang> and that this is DL accepted practice

19:48:58 <jang> frank: I did circulate a paper sumarising the major arguments for this change from DAML

19:49:11 <jang> people are going to write these; what do we want to happen?

19:49:56 <jang> do we barf, notice this, flag it up as a possible problem, etc?

19:50:11 <jang> frank: there are a number of large-scale ontologies with cycles.

19:50:52 <jang> PH: the critical case for DAML+OIL thinking was that subsetting relationship might be made by multiple people

19:51:12 <jang> the logical conclusion is that the two classes are co-extensive

19:51:47 <jang> PH: the issue is, is subclassof lessthan or lessthanorequal

19:52:00 <jang> one has cycles, one doesn't; we really need both

19:52:34 <jang> EM: when merging large ontologies, we can't prohibit cycles from happening

19:52:40 <jang> the issue is, what does it mean? (PH)

19:53:09 <jang> this is the only place where two ontologies could contradict each oter (in rdf + rdfs)

19:53:20 <jang> dan tries to close this

19:53:37 <jang> can we resolve that people who care about this go away and come back with some advice?

19:53:56 <jang> ron would like a vote

19:54:14 <jang> brian returns at this point.

19:55:09 <jang> em: options: taskforce, or discuss now (useful)

19:55:18 <jang> ron: third option: strawpoll?

19:57:23 <jang> dave: programmers from OO languages dont like this

19:58:27 <jang> non-binding strawpoll

19:58:45 <jang> insufficient consensus on this

19:58:54 <jang> dan stresses we're only talking about the next WD

19:59:52 <jang> sergei says why he's against (because of dave's point)

20:00:58 <jang> ron: suggests we record this that we insert a question into the next WD

20:01:04 <jang> asking for feedback

20:01:10 <jang> this now becomes the proposal....

20:01:23 <jang> ORA: AP - talk to ian +frank t get the background on this

20:02:55 <jang> proposal: we stick something in the WD saying "we're looking for feedback - we're going to pull this - how badly does it hurt?"

20:03:11 <jang> PH: daml will invent daml:subclassof f you don't take this out

20:03:44 <jang> frank: the daml+OIL people gave us explicit feedback, which strongly mentioned this

20:04:27 <jang> frank: also want explicitly recognised that frank sent the feedback t the WG list

20:04:41 <jang> this shouldn't be news to us we HAVE feedback already!)

20:05:36 <jang> ron: by nserting this in the document then this becomes a resonse to the DAML+OIL people

20:05:44 <jang> PH: that sounds perfectly fine

20:06:09 <jang> jos: we're discussing subpropertyof too

20:06:23 <jang> danbri: yes, we take this to be the case

20:06:45 <jang> can frank modify his document into something to put in the next WD?

20:07:30 <jang> em: propose flaed in the next draft

20:07:48 <jang> also: someone (frank) to go back to the DAML+OIL people and ask for moe convincing arguments

20:08:21 <jang> AP: pat to take this back to the DAML people at the next telecon and bring the feedback to us

20:09:02 <jang> summary: OO programmers are confused, people are trying to code-generate classes (java) for this

20:09:06 <jang> thus we have to go back

20:09:39 <jang> proposal: open the issue, take the stuff to DAML (PH) and continue the discussion

20:10:03 * AaronSw (informally) notes java doesn't even have multiple inheritance, so it's not really a good example

20:10:08 <jang> frank to own this issue.

20:10:22 <jang> aaron: it has multiple inheritance of interfaces

20:10:30 <jang> (after a particular fashion)

20:10:38 <jang> not of implementations

20:10:56 * AaronSw scrunches his face up...well, yeah

20:12:21 * GK-f2f Java no MI of classes, true, but it does have MI iknterfaces

20:12:22 * AaronSw notes (informally) that python allows inheritance cycles

20:12:30 <jang> propose: open issue (frank owns ) plus PH, ora to take back to DAML any feedback from this

20:50:25 <jang> back after lunch

20:50:47 <jang> plan: finish schema, open mike

20:50:51 <jang> danbri...

20:51:25 <jang> spo semantics (inheritance)

20:51:35 <jang> inheritance of range+domanin

20:51:48 <jang> seem to have fixed a lot of this with range & domain

20:53:16 <jang> jan: subproperties should inherit conjunctively the range+domain of their superproperties

20:53:24 <jang> ron: is there a clarification that's been asked for?

20:54:48 <jang> general agreement with jan's statement of this

20:55:24 <jang> AP: dan clarify prose to reflect this position accurately

20:56:03 <jang> then issue closes

20:56:30 <jang> subclass of a subproperty

20:56:40 <jang> (previous issue RESOLVED)

20:57:30 <jang> are rdfs:Class and rdfs:Property disjoint?

20:57:45 <jang> ora has seen an instanc of this

20:57:58 <jang> didn't see any reason why this shouldn't be permitted

20:58:28 <jang> dan talks about rss:image

20:58:47 <jang> PH: the real question is "what does this mean?"

20:59:15 <jang> em: finds it very confusing

20:59:41 <jang> dan: default thing is to do nothing; the spec's silent on this

20:59:56 <jang> dan's candidate meaning is "coincidence" - ph's MT does this

21:00:44 <jang> proposal: can we restate this as "are Property and Class disjoint?"

21:01:07 <jang> the proposal is to record this issue in this style

21:01:54 <jang> and to do nothing in the next WD

21:03:56 <jang> we move on

21:04:23 * barstow_ notes to GK that MIT [thus W3C] is experiencing network problems ...

21:04:37 <jang> (this is our resolution)

21:04:52 <jang> onlie char encoding

21:05:12 <jang> proposal: editor to fix this

21:05:16 <jang> RESOLVED

21:05:25 <jang> (we don't want to rathole on this nobrainer)

21:05:30 <jang> versioning:

21:05:36 <jang> known and had problem

21:05:40 <jang> s/had/hard

21:05:59 <jang> this is very very difficult. Nobody really appears to know how to do this. Open research issue

21:06:17 * AaronSw doesn't think so

21:06:41 <jang> Proposal: note this is very hard, close the issue.

21:07:30 <jang> PH: proposal "wepropose to not answer this!"

21:07:57 <jang> in other words, we leave the spec as it is

21:08:11 * AaronSw is vehemently opposed to that proposal

21:08:15 <jang> moving on

21:08:22 <jang> you're not here; take it to email

21:08:49 <jang> transitive subproperty

21:09:35 <GK-f2f> Jan: Counter-example sisterOf subproperty of siblingOf

21:09:50 <jang> proposal: the answer is "no" it's not transitive

21:10:13 <jang> AP on anyone who cares: find an explanatory piece of prose on this

21:10:17 <jang> AP on JAN to do this

21:10:41 <jang> AP on editor: chase jan on this

21:12:32 <jang> movin on

21:12:46 <jang> (ron notes that he's not convinced in this case)

21:12:56 <jang> we make no changes to the next draft; this issue remains open

21:13:33 <jang> we do that. frank, steve P abstain

21:13:37 <jang> next

21:13:44 <jang> subclassof and instance clarification

21:16:03 <jang> frank: we must ensure that we consider the original email messages, not a summary of the issues

21:17:08 <jang> that and the next two issues (isDefinedBy semantics and editorial)

21:17:28 <jang> no action on tehse before the next WD

21:17:44 <jang> carried; a couple of abstentions (jan, steve P)

21:19:08 <jang> we leave these until later

21:22:44 <jang> new WD in one month

21:22:44 <jang> new WD of rdfs due on september sixth

21:24:16 <jang> jan notes he has acounterexample to the transitive subproperty of subproperty question

21:29:58 <jang> we go on to "where next"?

21:30:05 <jang> schema new WD by sept 6

21:30:17 <jang> syntax: we have a taskforce

21:30:27 <jang> model: pat has an action on him

21:30:45 <jang> also: second half - sergei's mechanisms for implication analysis

21:32:01 <jang> ron especialy points out that splitting is not a requirement, merely something to consider

21:33:04 <jang> steve p asks : can we actually get a proposal out of this?

21:34:01 <jang> PH; two pieces of rdf are identical iff they map to the same graph

21:35:23 <jang> s/identical/equivalent

21:36:02 <jang> two rdf documents are equivalent iff they map to teh same RDF graph

21:37:41 <jang> two rdf graphs are the same when :

21:37:51 <jang> 1. they are graph isomorphic

21:38:03 <jang> 2. no two nodes are labelled with the same URI

21:42:18 * AaronSw doesn't get point 2 at all

21:43:43 * GK-f2f stuff on graph theory at: http://www.math.fau.edu/locke/graphthe.htm

21:44:14 <jang> we can't specify this precisely

21:44:14 <jang> so we agree that this needs more thinking about

21:44:14 <jang> we HAVE agreed that the graph is the central idea to RDF

21:45:42 * GK-f2f see in particular 1st para of http://www.math.fau.edu/locke/graphmat.htm

21:45:46 <jang> ron: the graph is the central concept for RDF, there are multiple graphs

21:46:15 <jang> ron reads out a whole bunch of statements that indicate we need to think

21:46:22 <jang> AP: ron to send this to the list

21:47:01 <jang> frank: as a matter of exposition, the graph model is central and the other representations are to be interpreted n that light

21:47:06 * AaronSw knows what isomorphism is... not sure why RDF needs a special requrement though

21:47:11 <jang> the current text doesn't really make this clear throughout

21:47:53 <jang> in the course of making these points, we have to be careful that the message is carried throughout the whole document

21:48:26 <jang> brian: agrees; we're lookig fora rewrite, not an editing job.

21:50:00 <jang> we look at te schedule

21:50:34 <jang> we're running a lttle behind :-)

21:51:10 <jang> are there better notions of what revised dates we should commit to?

21:51:30 <jang> em: we should discuss what our delivrables are

21:51:38 <jang> we know one:rdfs, we have a date

21:52:08 <jang> re: pat's attempts aove: jang greed they had the same logical entailment, but that that was not where teh anon node issue lied

21:52:14 <jang> s/lied/lay

21:53:57 <jang> we ask how many people would be interested in focussing on a document

21:54:23 * AaronSw signals agreement

21:55:05 <jang> if we had to pick to each of:

21:55:11 <jang> primer, model, df/xml, schema

21:55:20 <jang> which would they be?

21:55:41 <jang> we add "test case repository" as a deliverable

21:56:48 <jang> interested in primer: 5

21:56:57 <jang> model: 8

21:57:07 <jang> syntaxL 4

21:57:13 <jang> schema: 4

21:57:17 * AaronSw volunteers for primer

21:57:22 <jang> test cases: 2

21:57:45 <danbri> aaron/primer: :)

21:58:32 <jang> AP; (repeated) action item to get rdfs done

21:58:43 <jang> some of these depend on pats revised model

22:00:19 <jang> danri: we can get the telecon bridge available at other times too

22:01:59 <jang> ora: are we issuing a version of the existing spec or a new spec?

22:02:37 <jang> as comparison, there is a new XML spec.

22:03:24 <jang> ora notes that we tried to originally eparate model and syntax, and it was too hard

22:03:49 <jang> pat: is the document primarily definitive or understandable?

22:04:57 <jang> em/ora: why we smushed the documents together originally

22:05:18 <jang> we were looking for primer and spec and al sort of things

22:05:32 <jang> dave: document format is to be left ntil much later, let's produce the pieces first

22:07:13 <jang> ow many people are interested in being the editor/document layout person

22:07:14 <jang> graham is

22:07:38 <danbri> danbri is

22:07:51 <jang> graham: i sense there's significant support for the idea that model and syntax be separated

22:07:56 * AaronSw is interested in nitpicking

22:08:06 <danbri> (danbri is...interested in being on any group working on document partitioning)

22:08:21 <jang> good, but people are talking - I'm not going to butt in with this one (to email, you'll not be left out)

22:08:56 <jang> dave:do we need coordination?

22:09:13 <jang> em: yes, really. I'm looking for where this can take place/be centered

22:09:23 <jang> s/centered/centred

22:09:58 <jang> ron: proposal to identify a team leader for each of the items, including overall documen structure

22:10:06 <jang> this is har work, but I think that's what we need

22:10:57 <GK-f2f> brian M suggests pick a leader for the overall breakdown, and defer selecting others

22:11:40 <jang> brian proposes to take the document leader job - it's the chair's jo

22:11:44 <jang> hear, hears

22:12:02 <jang> that is document structure ONLY

22:12:21 <jang> AP: brian to take the list of sections and come back with something more cocrete to look for volounteers

22:12:55 <jang> frank: could we consider structuring theseas web things instead of PODs?

22:13:06 <jang> there, we close.

22:13:27 * GK-f2f I think the docs should be printable as PODs if required

22:13:42 <jang> reopen: schedule rearrangement

22:13:42 * GK-f2f (POD = plain old document?)

22:13:45 <jang> yep

22:14:13 <jang> brian thinks that www11 would be a good place to annonce rec

22:14:14 * AaronSw thinks web things == goodness

22:14:35 <jang> hard narrative stuff and hard to print out to read onthe plane :-)

22:14:58 <jang> www11 is in may 2002

22:15:25 * AaronSw thinks web things != no print version

22:16:15 * GK-f2f yes, but I woukld want it to be a single printable doc, not lots of separate web "pages"

22:16:41 * AaronSw thinks that this is what XML is for -- one XML document can be distributed in multiple versions

22:16:58 * AaronSw also likes one-document specs, FWIW

22:18:30 <jang> AGREED: to announce REC at www2002

22:18:35 <jang> (or aim for that)

22:19:23 <jang> kwon's presentations

22:19:23 <jang> AP: kwon to get this on the web

22:22:30 <danbri> (hmm... agreed: We would really really like to announce REC at www2002...)

22:25:46 <jang> kwon's questions....

22:25:55 <jang> (from last side)

22:26:10 <jang> PH: rdf useful within machines for storing metadata

22:26:21 <jang> is this an "in" for getting RDF involved?

22:26:54 <jang> kwon's wg chair wants to go with rdf

22:27:00 <jang> but they're suffering from tool availablility

22:27:25 <jang> metametadata storage is still currently hard, esp. with rdfs in its current state

22:27:39 <jang> em: lots of people are squeamish because rdfs is not a rec

22:28:05 <jang> em: thus I'd really like to get rdfs out the door asap

22:28:28 <jang> ph: it's startling that ean entire country waiting for us to make up our minds

22:28:49 <jang> em: there are now 6 countries that have mandated DC metadata in xml/rdf in all govt produced documents

22:29:12 <jang> so the frivolous question of pat's is actually very accurate

22:29:29 <jang> dan: people see us getting interested in AI/KR issues, theyr'e worried by this

22:29:44 <jang> ron: "are we supporting the austrailian DC standard?"

22:29:50 <jang> we get these issues all the time

22:30:06 <jang> em: yes, a lot of tese people are simply waiting on a REC

22:30:52 <jang> (now dajobe scribe)

22:31:03 <jang> arnot - adobe

22:31:14 <jang> ... toolkit and specification now available

22:31:21 <jang> ... invite anyone interested to join program

22:31:45 <jang> ... c++ and source available under an open license, probably open source

22:32:05 <jang> bwm: to kwan

22:32:12 <jang> s/kwan/kwon/

22:32:42 <jang> ... toolkits - redland, raptor by daveb, rdf api - sergey, jena - bwm

22:32:52 <jang> ... cslisp - ora, kinda-perl - dan

22:33:00 <jang> ... help available, please ask

22:33:13 <jang> jang is now known as dajobe

22:33:39 <dajobe> rond: demo

22:33:56 <dajobe> ... presentation to time

22:34:47 <danbri> aside, danbri's perl rdf stuff: http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/06/rdfperl/

22:34:50 <dajobe> ... visual maps

22:35:01 <dajobe> ... tim bray's antarti.ca

22:35:27 <dajobe> ... demo contains interwoven-generated time info

22:36:02 <dajobe> ... stories visualised in map form

22:36:17 <dajobe> ... number of articles is area

22:36:27 <dajobe> ... 'importance' by how titles are visualised

22:36:44 <dajobe> .... separate view on content using SIC codes

22:37:27 <dajobe> ... example of rdf 'stuff' sent off to a different company, made into a demo

22:37:46 <dajobe> em: can you make this public?

22:37:48 <dajobe> rond: have to see

22:39:08 <dajobe> dajobe: maps.net taken rdf from dmoz too

22:39:17 <dajobe> em: short turnaround, fantastic story

22:39:41 <dajobe> ---

22:40:13 <dajobe> em: until I got tools that knew daml+oil, did it dawn to me what daml+oil was up to

22:40:27 <dajobe> ... workflow for w3c was really interesting with model and merging, equilvanentTo

22:41:04 <dajobe> phayes: simple stuff in daml+oil has biggest bang-for-buck

22:41:18 <dajobe> ... which is what we find. Nobody much uses the advanced stuff

22:42:05 <dajobe> emiller giving w3 demo

22:42:45 <dajobe> wg chair visualising

22:43:00 <dajobe> ... object of type 'chair', make it a square ...

22:43:26 <dajobe> .. chairs really don't know the unique ID of WG and don't care

22:43:41 <dajobe> ... but know name and its email address etc

22:44:07 <dajobe> ... tere is no unique ID for wg

22:44:18 <dajobe> ... some may use homepage, email address or charter (danbri)

22:44:23 <dajobe> ... and all of those are OK

22:44:49 <dajobe> ... don't want to impose new requirements, but let them describe as they see them

22:44:56 <dajobe> ... and ground in what they know

22:45:19 <dajobe>http://www.w3.org/Talks/2001/07/30-swws/slide36-1.html

22:45:30 <dajobe> (url typed by hand)

22:46:04 <dajobe> .. people waned to know announcements by activity eg.. everyting by XML activity

22:46:04 <dajobe> ... and the WG chairs don't need to add this

22:46:19 <dajobe> ... people who describe activity structure have different anmes than the chairs do for wgS

22:46:27 <dajobe> ... they can make their descriptions in a different way

22:46:48 <dajobe> ... so long as they agree on the id for the entity, they can merge (e.g. mail addr)

22:47:08 <dajobe> ... so without the notion of the contact:mailbox as daml:equilalent we couldn't merge

22:47:20 <dajobe> ... so need daml peroperties to do this

22:47:38 <dajobe> ... interesting to see how processing this info wtih different levels of tools became a powerful thing

22:47:55 <dajobe> ... and these things can be incremenetly layered. Int his case I needed damil:equiv

22:48:00 <dajobe> ... but in other forms, I didn't

22:48:07 <dajobe> (slide 39-1.html)

22:48:35 <dajobe> ... some get merged because of unique ids, some from daml:equivalent too

22:49:07 <dajobe> ... we can do this by graph merging mostly and sometimes need daml

22:49:21 <dajobe> ... incrementaly layering functionality

22:49:30 <dajobe> ... greate experience to get hands on the tools for this

22:49:43 <dajobe> ... and sometimes we realise we can weave into the workflow assigning unique ids for these

22:50:00 <dajobe> ... lwo hanging fruit for daml is uniqueproperty, damlequivalent, ... (lost 3rd)

22:50:13 <dajobe> ... very powerful

22:50:34 <dajobe> 3rd was daml:unambiguous

22:50:56 <dajobe> --

22:51:12 <dajobe> ora: was mandated in daml program for all participants to use daml on their pages

22:51:31 <dajobe> ... if you looked at the feature usage, most people just used rdf schema, very few daml bits

22:51:52 <dajobe> phayes: if you looka t daml+oil working at daml reseacher level

22:51:53 <dajobe> ...

22:52:06 <dajobe> ... they are running into limitations of daml+oil

22:52:17 <dajobe> ... and hence has divergent pulls to simplicity, complexity

22:52:26 <dajobe> danbri: I've run into those concernts, more of a spectrum

22:53:01 <dajobe> ... data merging is critical, before daml I had something monoproperty. daml properties don't license all the merging done in em's demo

22:53:10 <dajobe> monoproperty was 'same for all time'

22:53:18 <dajobe> em: rdf notion of layering

22:53:29 <dajobe> ... daml may require more layers, but if done in this way, remains useful and power

22:53:38 <dajobe> danbri: sw-cg job is to get thesecharters layered

22:53:48 <dajobe> s/charters/components/

22:54:10 <dajobe> phayes: what this community needs is a combination of things from KR ...

22:54:20 <dajobe> ... GOFK(???) ...

22:54:30 <dajobe> ... some features that are pathetical easy from 1956 or something

22:54:39 <dajobe> ... and some things so hard we put them off ...

22:54:49 <dajobe> ... "full temporal sensitivity in changing worlds" ...

22:54:58 <dajobe> ... exciting ...

22:55:07 <dajobe> ... redirecting our attention to problems we put off

22:55:21 <dajobe> ... and can't put off to the next millenium. Must do now, or yesterday.

22:55:29 <dajobe> bwm: pat is excited!

22:55:34 <dajobe> ... wrap up

22:55:38 <dajobe> ... thanks to everyone

22:55:45 <dajobe> thanks to brian

22:55:47 * dajobe claps

22:55:54 <dajobe> thanks scribes

22:56:03 <dajobe> more free gifts...

22:56:11 * AaronSw claps, grabs free gifts

22:56:14 <dajobe> XML schema f- the guide to w3c xml schema

22:56:20 <dajobe> MEETING CLOSED

22:56:25 <dajobe> DONM - months away :-)

22:56:50 <dajobe> AaronSw: will try to grab one for you. mostly xml.com articles in a book

22:56:54 <GK-f2f> Yes, done!!!!

22:57:04 <AaronSw> thanks, dajobe

22:57:10 <AaronSw> Good work everyone!

22:57:35 <dajobe> logger here will be closing shortly... over to #rdfig

22:57:39 <GK-f2f> I think the acronym above was GOFAI

22:57:54 <GK-f2f> (Good Old Fashioned AI)

22:58:00 <AaronSw> GOFKR ;-)