W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2001-11-09

14:01:08 Users on #rdfcore: logger_1 jang-dajobe

14:05:06 <dajobe> dajobe has changed the topic to: RDF Core WG Meeting 15:00-16:00 UTC Friday

14:56:40 <bwm> -hi

14:56:41 <Jema> Hi. I'm Jema, the Jena meeting assistant

14:58:36 * AaronSw sets up telecon gear

14:59:24 * jang-dajobe dialing

15:00:05 * AaronSw dials

15:00:23 <AaronSw> +Aaron

15:04:28 * AaronSw takes scribe duty

15:04:53 <AaronSw> danbri regrets, bwm here, eric absent, art absent, boumphrey absent

15:04:58 <AaronSw> jeremy regrets

15:05:15 <AaronSw> danc regrets, rond regrets, billd regrets, josd absent

15:05:19 <AaronSw> rael absent

15:05:28 <AaronSw> jang present, martin present

15:05:34 <AaronSw> yk absent

15:05:36 <AaronSw> gk here

15:06:13 <AaronSw> kop absent, kwon absent

15:06:19 <AaronSw> ora absent

15:06:22 <AaronSw> (but alternate

15:06:25 <AaronSw> frankm here

15:06:28 <AaronSw> sotashi absent

15:06:31 <AaronSw> stevep regrets

15:06:34 <AaronSw> pierre absent

15:06:57 <AaronSw> patrick stickler absent (!)

15:07:17 <AaronSw> sergey absent

15:07:26 <AaronSw> josd here

15:07:31 <AaronSw> PatH here

15:07:33 <barstow> +ArtB

15:08:03 <mdean_> mike dean here

15:08:31 <AaronSw> aaron here, miked here, guha absent, patH here, sergey absent

15:09:21 <AaronSw> minutes approved with no objections

15:09:23 <AaronSw> (both sets)

15:09:26 <AaronSw> -next

15:09:26 <Jema> command not recognised

15:09:32 <AaronSw> -agenda next

15:09:47 <AaronSw> All inactive members should discuss future participation with the chairs

15:09:51 <AaronSw> -help

15:09:52 <Jema> Jema recognises the following commands:

15:09:52 <Jema> -hi // tests whether Jema is alive

15:09:52 <Jema> -help // prints this help message

15:09:52 <Jema> -open // begin the meeting

15:09:52 <Jema> -close // close the meeting

15:09:53 <Jema> -agenda [next|prev|n] // next|prev|nth agenda item

15:09:55 <Jema> -aob ... // add an item of another business

15:09:57 <Jema> -action owner/... // record an action item

15:09:59 <Jema> -decision ... // record a decision

15:10:13 <AaronSw> 9-agenda

15:10:18 <AaronSw> all actions considered done

15:10:26 <AaronSw> -agenda 10

15:10:32 <AaronSw> all actions considered withdrawn

15:10:41 * barstow is on the phone!

15:10:48 <AaronSw> 11: Propose the WG approves publication of a new testscases WD

15:10:49 <AaronSw> See:

15:10:49 <AaronSw> http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/

15:12:07 <AaronSw> 3 people have read it

15:12:14 <AaronSw> but some haven't read the tests

15:12:20 <AaronSw> bwm read it, daveb reluctant

15:12:35 <jang-dajobe> well I (dajobe) approve :)

15:12:38 <AaronSw> Approved

15:14:07 <AaronSw> eric is team contact

15:14:16 <AaronSw> art wil try to do as much as he can today

15:14:25 <AaronSw> -agenda next

15:14:38 <AaronSw> skipping 12 because eric is not here

15:14:42 <AaronSw> 13: Status status of 2001-10-19#2 JanG produce proposal on Entailment tests and test Manifest for 26/10/2001

15:14:55 <AaronSw> jang continues... hopes to finish this week

15:14:58 <AaronSw> by the 16th

15:15:11 <AaronSw> +Sergey!

15:15:38 <AaronSw> 14: Datatyping status and plans

15:15:54 <AaronSw> sergey: pat, jer, serg have action to start

15:16:16 <AaronSw> have several pieces on list

15:16:19 <AaronSw> sergey glues together

15:16:44 <AaronSw> then will refine the pieces

15:17:45 <AaronSw> special datatyping prefix

15:17:56 <AaronSw> next friday, there will be something out

15:18:11 <AaronSw> at least a starting point

15:18:46 <AaronSw> The current mechanism, rdfs:ConstraintResource and rdfs:ConstraintProperty, fails to serve its original purpose and should be removed from the RDF Schema 1.0 specification. The accompanying text be amended accordingly.

15:18:59 <AaronSw> no dissent

15:19:03 <AaronSw> no abstentions

15:19:11 <AaronSw> so ordered

15:19:38 <AaronSw> 16: Issue rdfms-resource-semantics

15:19:39 <AaronSw> Propose the WG close rdfms-resource-semantics on the grounds that the model theory says all that RDF is going to say about the nature of resources. Further specification of the nature of resources is the work of other WG's.

15:20:07 <JosD> jang, w.r.t. test manifest, could you have a look at http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/ ?

15:20:20 <jang-dajobe> jang here: gotcha

15:21:14 <AaronSw> concerns that mt doesn't say anything about resources

15:21:17 <JosD> more particularly http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/entailment/etc001.nt (or .rdf or .n3)?

15:21:36 <AaronSw> perhaps model theory has all formal stuff

15:21:44 <AaronSw> primer will say stuff

15:21:57 <AaronSw> inserting word "formally" is proposal

15:22:20 <AaronSw> "normatively"

15:22:52 <jang-dajobe> jos: I'll get in touch with you about this on the list.

15:23:10 <AaronSw> aaron will send Pat a reference to the RFC so that Resources are specified properly

15:23:11 <JosD> fine

15:23:18 <AaronSw> unanimously ordered

15:24:14 <AaronSw> Whilst the WG recognises the importance of a mechanism for defining equivalence of URI's, the WG has decided it does not fit within the limited scope of its current charter. The WG notes that DAML+OIL has an equivalence mechanism which raises the question of which layer of the stack best suits such functionality. The WG also notes that by allowing cycles in rdfs:subPropertyOf and rdfs:subClassOf RDF Schema provides a related mechanism for properties a

15:24:14 <jang-dajobe> Whilst the WG recognises the importance of a mechanism for defining

15:24:15 <jang-dajobe> equivalence of URI's, the WG has decided it does not fit within the

15:24:15 <jang-dajobe> limited scope of its current charter. The WG notes that DAML+OIL

15:24:15 <jang-dajobe> has an equivalence mechanism which raises the question of which layer

15:24:15 <jang-dajobe> of the stack best suits such functionality. The WG also notes that

15:24:15 <jang-dajobe> by allowing cycles in rdfs:subPropertyOf and rdfs:subClassOf RDF

15:24:17 <jang-dajobe> Schema provides a related mechanism for properties and classes.

15:24:28 <jang-dajobe> (agenda item 17 above)

15:24:28 <AaronSw> pat: remove the "limited"

15:24:52 <AaronSw> no dissent, no abstention

15:25:11 <AaronSw> 18: Issue rdf-containers-otherapproaches

15:25:11 <AaronSw> Propose the WG postpone rdf-containers-otherapproaches on the grounds

15:25:11 <AaronSw> that it is out of scope of the WG's current charter.

15:26:00 <AaronSw> previous item postpones, not closes

15:26:36 <AaronSw> 17: "Consideration of this issue will be postponed."

15:27:10 <AaronSw> dajobe: we can't decide all this stuff yet

15:27:19 <AaronSw> because containers are under active discussion

15:27:34 <AaronSw> 19: Issue rdfms-logical-formalism

15:27:34 <AaronSw> Propose the WG close rdfms-logical-formalism on the grounds

15:27:34 <AaronSw> that the model theory adequately addresses this issue.

15:27:46 <AaronSw> unanimous

15:28:00 <AaronSw> 20: Issue rdfms-logical-terminololgy

15:28:00 <AaronSw> Propose the WG close rdfms-logical-terminololgy on the grounds

15:28:01 <AaronSw> that the new terminology introduced by the model theory adequately

15:28:01 <AaronSw> addresses this issue.

15:28:37 <AaronSw> billd: no one knows what a statement is

15:30:36 <AaronSw> billD drops his objection and raises one on reification

15:31:28 <AaronSw> Pat argues that this isn't relevant

15:31:52 <AaronSw> Dan raised issue, now it's resolved.

15:32:33 <AaronSw> logic textbooks are inconsistent

15:32:53 <AaronSw> unanimously ordered

15:33:44 <AaronSw> skipped 21

15:33:52 <AaronSw> 22: Issue rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf

15:34:12 <AaronSw> The WG resolves to postpone rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf for later

15:34:12 <AaronSw> consideration on the grounds that it is out of scope of its current

15:34:12 <AaronSw> charter to change the current RDF/XML syntax to the extent necessary

15:34:12 <AaronSw> to address it. The WG notes however that validation may be helped with

15:34:13 <AaronSw> various submitted (non-normative) XML schemas for RDF/XML pointed to at

15:34:13 <AaronSw> present in the editors draft at

15:34:31 <AaronSw> pat abstains

15:34:44 <AaronSw> aaron abstains

15:35:07 <AaronSw> gk abstains

15:35:09 <AaronSw> martin abstainsd

15:35:39 <AaronSw> gk: out of scope

15:37:04 <AaronSw> frank supports

15:37:07 <AaronSw> daveb supports

15:37:15 <AaronSw> gk supports that it's out of scope

15:37:18 <AaronSw> martin too

15:37:33 <AaronSw> New proposal:

15:37:41 <AaronSw> The WG resolves to postpone rdfms-validating-embedded-rdf for later consideration on the grounds that it is out of scope of its current charter to change the current RDF/XML syntax to the extent necessary to address it.

15:37:46 <AaronSw> ArtB abstains

15:37:48 <AaronSw> JanG abstains

15:38:01 <AaronSw> approved

15:41:07 <AaronSw> 23: Thanks and Farewell to Art

15:41:17 <AaronSw> We all miss Art.

15:42:27 <JosD> that's right

15:42:28 <AaronSw> But he'll continue working on WG on the weekends, perhaps.

15:42:35 <AaronSw> We formally thank Art for his work.

15:42:47 <barstow> No, No WG stuff on weekends!

15:42:54 <AaronSw> Heh heh.

15:43:01 <AaronSw> s/WG/RDF/

15:43:08 * AaronSw imagines Art reading WG emails on a nice beach.

15:43:24 <AaronSw> Reification Q&A With Pat!

15:43:56 <AaronSw> bwm: The sky is blue is tokens, and all stuff refers to abstract sentence....

15:44:13 <AaronSw> pat: no, no, problem is having reification meaning all these different thinks.

15:44:45 <AaronSw> It could be: The Node refers to the abstract triple, triple token, or it has the same meaning as the triple itself.

15:44:54 <AaronSw> but not asserting them.

15:45:08 <AaronSw> but all three at once is bad.

15:45:40 <AaronSw> all make sense, but conflict

15:46:23 <AaronSw> GK: how is 1 different from 3rd

15:46:35 <AaronSw> pat: one refers to abstract syntax, the other is a truth-value.

15:46:42 <AaronSw> GK: how is 1 diff from 3?

15:47:08 <AaronSw> Pat: 2 is a token... jeremy gives example, there is a node, linked to the parts of the triple

15:47:21 <AaronSw> the reification node points to the token triple

15:47:30 <AaronSw> but doesn't refer to that other one

15:47:35 <AaronSw> in another graph

15:47:53 <AaronSw> reification acts like a data structure

15:49:33 <AaronSw> pat: i think token meaning is best

15:49:49 <AaronSw> saying that "this thing" appears on this webpage

15:49:56 <AaronSw> sergey: you could say this information appears

15:50:08 <AaronSw> path: yes... but you get all sorts of difficulties

15:53:13 <AaronSw> GK: We could say "there is a statement on this web page that entails this thing..."

15:53:21 <AaronSw> Pat: Hmm, you could do that, I guess...

15:58:13 <AaronSw> people do use reification...but they don't know what they use it for

15:59:13 <AaronSw> primary example is so-and-so says this

16:00:01 <AaronSw> mdean_: provenance is better example

16:02:31 <barstow> -ArtB

16:02:32 <Jema> command not recognised

16:03:47 <AaronSw> DISCONNECTED

16:03:52 <jang-dajobe> disconnected

16:03:54 <jang-dajobe> bye all

16:04:13 <bwm> Art - bye :(

16:04:21 <bwm> -close

16:04:22 <Jema> The meeting is closed

16:04:25 <Jema> the action/decision list has been mailed

16:04:36 <bwm> thanks aaron

16:04:40 <AaronSw> sure

16:04:49 <AaronSw> sorry I didn't capture the reification discussion very well

16:05:47 <bwm> not sure it was structured enough to do any better