W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2002-02-15

14:28:03 Topic now RDF Core WG Meeting 15:00-16:00 UTC Friday Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0388.html

14:28:03 Users on #rdfcore: logger_3 bwm @dajobe

15:00:34 * dajobe-scribe waves

15:00:48 * em waves

15:00:51 * em dialing

15:01:04 * em wonders where everyone is.... ?

15:04:14 <dajobe-scribe> meeting starts

15:04:16 <dajobe-scribe> roll call

15:04:22 <dajobe-scribe> -danbri

15:04:27 <dajobe-scribe> regrets danbri

15:04:31 <dajobe-scribe> +bwm +em

15:04:33 <dajobe-scribe> +daveb

15:04:34 <dajobe-scribe> -frankb

15:04:39 <dajobe-scribe> jc regrets

15:04:40 <dajobe-scribe> danc regrets

15:04:44 <dajobe-scribe> rond absent

15:04:48 <dajobe-scribe> billd absent

15:04:52 <dajobe-scribe> jos present

15:04:54 <dajobe-scribe> -rael

15:04:56 <dajobe-scribe> +jang

15:05:00 <dajobe-scribe> +martynh

15:05:05 <dajobe-scribe> -yoshiyuki

15:05:08 <dajobe-scribe> graham regets

15:05:16 <dajobe-scribe> michael absent

15:05:19 <dajobe-scribe> kwon absent

15:05:22 <dajobe-scribe> ora absent

15:05:25 <dajobe-scribe> frankm present

15:05:41 <dajobe-scribe> satoshi absent

15:05:44 <dajobe-scribe> stevep present

15:06:02 <dajobe-scribe> pierre absent

15:06:05 <dajobe-scribe> patrick present

15:06:12 <dajobe-scribe> aaron present

15:06:18 <dajobe-scribe> miked regrets

15:06:20 <dajobe-scribe> guha absent

15:06:23 <dajobe-scribe> path present

15:06:30 <dajobe-scribe> sergey absent

15:06:49 <dajobe-scribe> +rond

15:06:54 <dajobe-scribe> 3 review agenda

15:07:01 <dajobe-scribe> no aob

15:07:05 <dajobe-scribe> 4 next telecon

15:07:16 <dajobe-scribe> same time next week

15:07:20 <dajobe-scribe> item 5 prev minutes

15:07:24 <dajobe-scribe> approved

15:07:30 <dajobe-scribe> item 6 completed actions

15:07:36 <dajobe-scribe> approved

15:07:38 <dajobe-scribe> item 7 f2f register

15:07:47 * DanCon realizes he's late

15:07:57 <dajobe-scribe> please check list and send regrets if not comming to bwm: ACTION

15:08:03 <dajobe-scribe> or tell now

15:08:18 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: not coming, regrets

15:08:32 <dajobe-scribe> stevep: regrets

15:08:35 <dajobe-scribe> aaron: regrets

15:08:45 <dajobe-scribe> rond: regrets

15:08:56 <DanCon> are folks interested in participating in part of the ftf by phone?

15:09:00 <DanCon> and/or IRC?

15:09:15 * dajobe-scribe forwards Q

15:09:25 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: yes, if poss - exact times please

15:09:38 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: yes, me too

15:09:49 <dajobe-scribe> aaron, rond +1 each

15:09:51 <dajobe-scribe> prefer phone

15:09:54 <DanCon> how much time? I find 2 hrs is about the longest I can be productive by phone

15:10:06 * dajobe-scribe forwards that

15:10:19 <dajobe-scribe> bwm askes em to work out phone facility

15:10:28 <DanCon> the facilities are availble, EricM.

15:10:34 <dajobe-scribe> action em: phone link

15:10:52 <dajobe-scribe> bwm will think about this

15:11:16 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of time, timezones and f2f time w.r.t telecon

15:11:21 <dajobe-scribe> action bwm: think about

15:11:54 <dajobe-scribe> item 8 model theory wd

15:11:57 <DanCon> JosD, let's write some N3 rules about who's interested in which agenda items, when the sun is up where, etc. (hmm... actually, simmulated annealing is probably better for scheduling stuff)

15:11:58 <dajobe-scribe> published

15:12:01 <dajobe-scribe> well done pat

15:12:04 <dajobe-scribe> thanks to em

15:12:07 <DanCon> q+

15:12:08 <dajobe-scribe> item 9 test cases wd

15:12:16 <dajobe-scribe> DanCOn: ?

15:12:25 <DanCon> oops... no zakim queue-manager

15:12:27 <dajobe-scribe> jang: cvs access now, working on it. will be done by f2f

15:12:40 <dajobe-scribe> wet towels

15:12:49 <dajobe-scribe> DANC now on telecon

15:13:04 <dajobe-scribe> danc notes path not subscribed to rdf-comments

15:13:19 <dajobe-scribe> action path: register on comments

15:13:33 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of status to www-rdf-comments

15:13:48 <JosD> Well, DanC, that't an excellent idea!

15:14:12 <dajobe-scribe> action path: announce to rdf-logic, interest, ...

15:14:35 <dajobe-scribe> "pat hayes'" model theory - no, the group model theory

15:14:53 <dajobe-scribe> above action on bwm not path

15:14:56 <dajobe-scribe> item 10 wg status

15:15:02 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: more at f2f

15:15:17 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: looking at issues list, 28 still open, 7 postponed, 26 cloed

15:15:30 <dajobe-scribe> and out of time - charter to finished early 2002

15:15:34 <dajobe-scribe> item 11 preparing for f2f

15:15:54 <dajobe-scribe> seq-representation issue

15:16:00 <dajobe-scribe> nneed volunteer

15:16:09 <dajobe-scribe> or put on next time list

15:16:18 <JosD> DanC, I meant to use N3 for that (not SA or GA)

15:16:43 <dajobe-scribe> path: will write para on that, or find it and send again

15:16:56 <dajobe-scribe> ACTION path: will send a few paragraphs to address this issue

15:17:03 <dajobe-scribe> issue rdfms-asseriton

15:17:16 <dajobe-scribe> the director needs something on this as an architectural requirement

15:17:36 <dajobe-scribe> action path, gk: already down to do this. On the nature of assertions

15:18:13 <dajobe-scribe> issue schemas

15:18:18 <dajobe-scribe> postponed, no danbri

15:18:20 <dajobe-scribe> issue contexts

15:18:34 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: broad support for moving on, but path got something?

15:19:28 <dajobe-scribe> path: big big storm on webont and if it were possible we could say something to calm waters, we should ...

15:19:40 <dajobe-scribe> ... but say something about how it could be fixed, would be useful at this point

15:19:50 <dajobe-scribe> ... would like to give us that chance, hold on

15:20:08 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: ok, labelled as could do rather than must-do

15:20:22 <dajobe-scribe> path: technically is can't do, but for next wg, could say something

15:20:41 <dajobe-scribe> action path: post something on contexts in order to indicate to others, future plans

15:20:45 <dajobe-scribe> item 12

15:20:57 <dajobe-scribe> propelt-id-with-dr

15:21:15 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: since abouteeach* gone, is moot - closed?

15:21:20 <dajobe-scribe> danc: seconded

15:21:24 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED

15:21:27 <dajobe-scribe> item 13

15:21:32 <dajobe-scribe> terminologicus

15:21:54 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: glossary in primer resolves this - closed?

15:22:05 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED

15:22:10 <dajobe-scribe> item 14 rdfms-graph

15:22:23 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: model theory is a formal desc of rdfms-graph - close?

15:22:38 <dajobe-scribe> path: comment, if model theory rewritten, then will track back to re-address this

15:22:58 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: want a category "Queued for closure" but just more work, rather nopt

15:23:02 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: propose again?

15:23:07 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED

15:23:35 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: resolution of 13 re glossary in a primer

15:23:41 <dajobe-scribe> ... but there isn't one now

15:23:59 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of glossary and where it is

15:24:32 <dajobe-scribe> proposal to change item 13 resolution s/the glossary in the//

15:25:24 <DanCon> _will_ be addressed by the primer, no? hmm... I suppose everpresent "_is_" is ok

15:25:38 <dajobe-scribe> bwM; approved ammended item1 3 resolution

15:25:43 <dajobe-scribe> item 15 rdf-formal-semantics

15:26:02 <dajobe-scribe> proposed resolution - MT defines it?

15:26:03 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED

15:26:08 <dajobe-scribe> item 16 rdfms-fragments

15:26:13 <dajobe-scribe> skipped

15:26:19 <dajobe-scribe> item 17 rdfms-literals-as-resources

15:26:31 <dajobe-scribe> (16 moved to later in agenda, bwm)

15:26:40 <dajobe-scribe> consider the proposal for 17

15:26:43 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED

15:26:48 <dajobe-scribe> item 18 rdfms-literal-subjects

15:27:16 <dajobe-scribe> bwm reads resolution in agenda

15:27:31 <dajobe-scribe> jang: amendment, s/resources/subject/ in 2nd paragraph

15:27:39 <dajobe-scribe> i.e. "not be subjects..."

15:28:04 <dajobe-scribe> danc: clarification re entailments in MT, do any of the MT entailments end up with literals as subjects

15:28:11 <dajobe-scribe> jang: no, not unless they start with literal subjects

15:29:08 <DanCon> { <age> rdfs:range rdfs:Literal. <bob> <age> "23". } => { "23" rdf:type rdfs:Literal }

15:29:36 <dajobe-scribe> path: ther eare guards to stop above happening

15:29:40 <dajobe-scribe> there are

15:29:43 <dajobe-scribe> danc: ok

15:29:49 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: call for dissent?

15:29:58 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED

15:30:01 <DanCon> hm... that pretty much blows S-B out of the water.

15:30:05 <dajobe-scribe> item 19 containers-other-approaches

15:30:27 <dajobe-scribe> propose to rule this out of scope for this wg, punt to later wg?

15:30:29 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED

15:30:35 <dajobe-scribe> item 20 rdfms-uri-substructure

15:30:50 <dajobe-scribe> ... long long summary .... :)

15:30:51 <em> DanCon, can you elaborate a bit on this?... are you saying that S-B is no longer feasible?

15:30:54 <ircleuser> No, I think S-B is OK, but you just can't use rdfs:Literal to any real extent.

15:31:02 <AaronSw`> ugh. phone died...

15:31:12 <dajobe-scribe> bwm reads proposing first para?

15:31:21 <dajobe-scribe> aaronsw: comments on para 1?

15:31:22 <ircleuser> Whoops, that's PatH called 'ircleuse'

15:31:40 <DanCon> try /nick PatH

15:31:53 <dajobe-scribe> +aaronsw (phone again)

15:32:09 <dajobe-scribe> bwm re-reads 1st para

15:32:26 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED 1st paragraph

15:32:32 <dajobe-scribe> (before "whereas...")

15:33:01 <ircleuser> nick PatH

15:33:09 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: need (e) change as previously posted to list,f rom bwm

15:33:33 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: deleted "and no other ..."

15:33:36 <dajobe-scribe> up to the comma

15:33:40 <AaronSw`> ircleuser, need a / in front of nick

15:34:05 <dajobe-scribe> change to "after the last non xml-name character"

15:34:11 <ircleuser> ircleuser is now known as PatH

15:34:30 <JosD> hi Pat!!!!!!!!!!!!!

15:34:35 <PatH> Hi Jos

15:34:36 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: maximally long name

15:34:42 <dajobe-scribe> dajobe: yeah, I think I get it

15:35:13 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED "whereas..." (a) .. (e) plus modifications

15:35:28 <dajobe-scribe> ACTION daveb: add to syntax wd

15:35:35 <dajobe-scribe> ACTION: test cases editor to add test cases based on dancs

15:35:41 <dajobe-scribe> item 21 booleanv-vallued-properties

15:35:50 <DanCon> order? shall we move on to reification/datatypes?

15:35:59 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: propose the 2nd of the two ("alternatively..>")

15:36:19 * dajobe-scribe notes DanC order

15:36:58 <dajobe-scribe> bwm proposes

15:37:00 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED

15:37:16 <dajobe-scribe> item 22 model theory containers

15:37:24 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: danc you have some ideas here?

15:37:42 <dajobe-scribe> danc: bag isn't really a bag, but a bag nearby, we can explain that

15:37:48 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: sounds interesting

15:38:03 <dajobe-scribe> ACTION danc: write up this up today

15:38:11 <dajobe-scribe> s/this/his idea on the explanation/

15:38:13 <dajobe-scribe> item 23 reification

15:38:23 <dajobe-scribe> subagenda

15:38:28 <dajobe-scribe> reif item 1

15:38:35 <dajobe-scribe> (frankm)

15:38:42 <dajobe-scribe> entailment 1

15:38:50 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: do we agree the item is no?

15:39:03 <dajobe-scribe> some agreements

15:39:13 <dajobe-scribe> jos: i have a problem with this; subject should be more defined

15:39:18 * dajobe-scribe not recordign this well

15:39:41 <dajobe-scribe> jos: could say this entailment is true

15:39:47 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: I'm confused by this

15:40:03 <dajobe-scribe> the source that pathayes is refering to is the source of the original stratement

15:40:06 <dajobe-scribe> (path) yes

15:40:18 <dajobe-scribe> .. so I could write <stm1> <source> <uri>

15:40:27 <dajobe-scribe> ... why would I need that reification syntax anyway?

15:40:38 <dajobe-scribe> ... I could just make all teh statemsnts I want about that thing

15:40:38 <DanCon> JosD, as far as I'm concerned, this rdf:subj/pred/obj stuff is worthless, but as graham said, it's "mostly harmless".

15:40:43 <dajobe-scribe> path: talk about the subject

15:40:53 <dajobe-scribe> ... and provides an explict rdf map to the triple

15:40:59 <dajobe-scribe> ... oh, nevermind!

15:41:17 <dajobe-scribe> josd: I don't care too much. It could work but it is meaningless

15:41:31 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: if there is no actual dissent, lets decide and move on?

15:41:37 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: Agreed the answer is no?

15:41:43 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED entailment 1 answer is NO

15:41:50 <dajobe-scribe> reification agenda item 2

15:41:59 <DanCon> hmm... I'd like to suggest that reification gets no screen-space in the primer.

15:42:08 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: have we decided an isntance of rdf:Statement is a stating?

15:42:15 <dajobe-scribe> danc: what is the impact?

15:42:25 <dajobe-scribe> ... what docs will change?

15:42:35 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: some of the words in M&S seem to say the opposite

15:42:40 <dajobe-scribe> danc: where will we write this down?

15:42:50 <dajobe-scribe> ... in model theory / primer, that replace m&s

15:42:58 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: are we contradicting something int he current docs?

15:43:10 <dajobe-scribe> danc: my prefication is that we leave it in the syntax doc and that is all

15:43:20 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: in primer maybe for reassurance?

15:43:50 <dajobe-scribe> daveb: already in syntax doc, in simplest form

15:43:59 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: rdf community familiar with the Stating term

15:44:04 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: should be explained

15:44:12 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: an occurance of the statement

15:44:20 <dajobe-scribe> aaron: in the glossary

15:44:49 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: resolve to agree that they are statings?

15:45:05 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: are we clear on what we agreeing?

15:45:15 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: guidance for documetn writers

15:45:21 <dajobe-scribe> pathaes: something in MT doc

15:45:45 <dajobe-scribe> +sergey

15:45:48 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of what goes where

15:45:56 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: this vocab is undefined everywhere?

15:46:13 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: not discusing reification cvocab?

15:46:17 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: yes we are

15:46:27 <dajobe-scribe> danc: yes answer is they turn into non-magical properties

15:46:37 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: not meaningless, no special meaning

15:46:43 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: don't get the difference

15:47:17 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: want to make a decision on "the meaning of rdf:Statement" and seperate issue of the 4-triple vocab

15:47:45 <dajobe-scribe> rond: uncomfortable approving statment versus stating, want something more concrete

15:47:52 <DanCon> the most I can do with "an rdf:Statement represents a stating" is abstain. I don't think it's an interesting thing to decide.

15:48:12 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: talking about appearances of various things in rdf

15:48:34 <dajobe-scribe> jang: point2 is casting into English what is meant by the entailment in point 1

15:48:43 <dajobe-scribe> danc: hard to agree to that?

15:49:14 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: move on for now to reification item 3?

15:49:41 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: believe item 2 follows from 1

15:49:44 <dajobe-scribe> (sounds of dissent in bg)

15:49:49 <dajobe-scribe> reification item 3

15:49:55 <dajobe-scribe> and an entailment

15:50:01 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: do we agree the answer is NO?

15:50:22 <dajobe-scribe> ... does a triple entail it's reification?

15:51:04 <DanCon> action on the test case editor?

15:51:05 <dajobe-scribe> APPROVED the answer is no to entailment

15:51:11 <dajobe-scribe> no 2 under item 3

15:51:25 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: no more reification issues left?

15:51:35 <dajobe-scribe> ACTION jang: add to test suite?

15:51:40 <dajobe-scribe> s/?//

15:52:09 <dajobe-scribe> jang: need to work with jos on this

15:52:15 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: do we have a mechanism for reification or not?

15:52:22 <dajobe-scribe> ... seems we are deprecating it

15:52:36 <dajobe-scribe> ... so we should at least clarify a mechanism for serialising reified statements

15:52:41 <dajobe-scribe> xfering across the network

15:52:48 <dajobe-scribe> danc: syntax still there

15:53:01 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: yes, but where is the connection between the original triple and the 4-triple reificaiton

15:53:07 <dajobe-scribe> danc: in teh syntax

15:53:36 <dajobe-scribe> daveb: yes, there is a section on this in the syntax

15:53:57 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: to sergey, move this to the list

15:54:10 <dajobe-scribe> .. use cases based on how do I do this?

15:54:31 <dajobe-scribe> frankm: something w.r.t. frank's point of identifiying the original triple

15:54:33 <DanCon> take what?

15:54:35 <DanCon> action on who?

15:54:37 <dajobe-scribe> s/frank/path/

15:54:39 <DanCon> whatever.

15:54:56 <dajobe-scribe> item 24 main agenda - datatypes

15:55:19 <dajobe-scribe> still some bits incomplete in last thing (V3?) posted to list

15:55:22 <dajobe-scribe> (pathayes)

15:55:34 <dajobe-scribe> ... true local typing

15:56:06 <dajobe-scribe> ... magic triple asserts everything is local in item 3

15:56:07 <dajobe-scribe> (!)

15:56:18 <dajobe-scribe> ... gives the user more options

15:56:34 <dajobe-scribe> ... not more complexity, just draws users attention to more options

15:56:46 <dajobe-scribe> s/item 3/section 10 of v3 datatyping doc/

15:56:54 <dajobe-scribe> danc: has S-B gone away?

15:57:09 <dajobe-scribe> danc: ie. range of this property is constrained to literals that are the lexical representation of dates

15:57:12 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: still there

15:57:26 <dajobe-scribe> for a datatype?

15:57:27 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: no

15:58:02 <dajobe-scribe> danc: such as one for the xsd:date

15:58:35 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: says yes

15:58:42 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: misunderstanding the Q?

15:58:57 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: <foo> <dc:date> "10"

15:59:05 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: <date> <rdange> <xsd:date>

15:59:08 <dajobe-scribe> and have xsd:date.lex

15:59:19 <dajobe-scribe> danc: not what I mean

15:59:35 <dajobe-scribe> ... want to constrain the strings you have as property values

15:59:44 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: how do you do that?

15:59:53 <dajobe-scribe> danc: want to constrain to the lexical range of the datatypes

16:00:03 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: no, can't do that - can't label lexical spaces of the datatypes

16:00:28 <dajobe-scribe> literals as subjects could do this

16:00:36 <dajobe-scribe> (danc, pathayes)

16:00:55 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: out of formal meeting time

16:01:08 <DanCon> ok; I already sent "where did S-B go?" mail.

16:01:09 <dajobe-scribe> ... ahve a document, try to use that as the basis for our datatypiung solutoion

16:01:19 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: and moving fwd

16:01:26 <dajobe-scribe> ... can continue to discuss here

16:01:38 <dajobe-scribe> END OF MEETING

16:01:45 <dajobe-scribe> ----

16:01:53 <dajobe-scribe> datatypes chat:

16:02:54 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: literals as subject and untidy literals

16:03:16 <dajobe-scribe> two different properties prop1 and prop2 with two different ranges

16:03:19 <DanCon> p1 range decimalInteger

16:03:22 <dajobe-scribe> one is decimalInteger and other is octalInteger

16:03:25 <DanCon> p2 range octalInt.

16:03:28 <DanCon> x p1 "10".

16:03:32 <DanCon> y p2 "10".

16:04:10 <dajobe-scribe> - "10" is in lexical space of both datatypes (danc)

16:05:04 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: and an app that says give me triple and the property hanging of the literal node is going to g et the wrong value since the literal can be the wrong one - decmial or octal

16:05:25 <dajobe-scribe> danc: "10" is both an octal and a decimal numeral

16:05:55 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: but if you are doing a queyr and get back a literal node, and then ask for the peopreties of tat literal, you get both datatypes since literals are tidy

16:06:00 <dajobe-scribe> (am I recording this righ?)

16:06:17 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: you want literals to denote their values?

16:06:32 <dajobe-scribe> ..l. wwould the datatyping barf if given this?

16:06:37 * DanCon isn't too worried about the record

16:06:47 * dajobe-scribe will slow down then

16:06:53 <dajobe-scribe> discussion

16:08:57 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes: if literals could be subjects...

16:09:40 <dajobe-scribe> danc: handy to give our users names for lexical spaces, mapping , ...

16:09:52 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: feedback from users, too complex to explain?

16:10:17 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: someone going to ask xsd to do it?

16:10:19 <dajobe-scribe> danc: we can do it

16:10:53 <DanCon> I'd be quite happy to make up a name for "the lexical space of a (property used as a) datatype"

16:11:07 <dajobe-scribe> discsuion of sergey's proposal for union

16:11:25 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: also like danc's proposal

16:11:45 <DanCon> dc:date rdfs:range [ is lexicaSpace of xsdt:date ].

16:11:46 <dajobe-scribe> ... have the values and the lexical spaces

16:12:05 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: get rid of the value idiom?

16:12:57 <dajobe-scribe> wasn't that 4 months ago?

16:13:02 <dajobe-scribe> discussion

16:14:23 <dajobe-scribe> danc: let me build an expression for the property I want, need a lexicaSpaceof property

16:14:46 <dajobe-scribe> ... tricky since there are many "the ranges" for a datatype

16:15:42 <dajobe-scribe> danc: want to conclude <foo> <dc:date> "apple" is false

16:15:55 <dajobe-scribe> phahes: but no negation

16:16:03 <dajobe-scribe> danc: but datatypes give us this

16:17:21 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of rdf reasoners and datatypes

16:18:28 <dajobe-scribe> and application space

16:18:47 <dajobe-scribe> patrick: using the knowledge in rdf and doing more

16:20:31 * dajobe-scribe wonders what it means to implement RDF datatypes, as currently speciifed

16:21:37 <DanCon> to me, to implement datatypes is to parse a document and say "nope; that document is broken. it says 'apple' is in the range of the XML Schema date datatype"

16:22:32 <dajobe-scribe> so a document that generated <foo> <dc:date> "apple" (with datatype checks) would be illegal?

16:23:21 <DanCon> if that document also said dc:date rdfs:range xsdt:date.lex, then yes, it would be datatype-illegal

16:23:28 <dajobe-scribe> that's what I meant

16:23:51 <dajobe-scribe> datatype-illegal: hmm

16:29:59 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of just having xsd datatypes only

16:32:01 <dajobe-scribe> phayes: said, I think: the name for the lex space of the dc:date rdf:type of the range of the datatype

16:32:09 <dajobe-scribe> s/of the/is the/

16:32:23 <dajobe-scribe> ugh, try 2

16:32:34 <dajobe-scribe> phayes: said, I think: the name for the lex space of the dc:date rdf:type is the rdfs:range of the datatype

16:36:21 <dajobe-scribe> examples based on xsd:date

16:36:27 <dajobe-scribe> danc: says as a property; patrick as a class

16:37:03 <dajobe-scribe> used with a pair (subject, object), danc interested in the range - the lexical space

16:37:57 <dajobe-scribe> so can make a property [xsd:date xsd:range xyz]

16:38:06 <dajobe-scribe> and xyz can be used as the lex space of the datatype

16:38:07 <dajobe-scribe> (all danc)

16:38:23 <dajobe-scribe> jang: but no guarantee that it is just what you want

16:38:32 <dajobe-scribe> danc: want that guarantee

16:38:35 <dajobe-scribe> phayes: could od this

16:38:59 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: not sure range does this

16:39:20 <dajobe-scribe> phayes: could but an extra condition, when it is a datatype

16:39:26 <dajobe-scribe> sergey: ugly?

16:40:10 <dajobe-scribe> ... but sometimes want to use the whole range [not sure about recording this right]

16:41:55 * DanCon takes another call briefly.

16:42:03 * DanCon returns

16:43:31 <DanCon> does DatatypeSummary3 say what the class extension of xsdt:date is?

16:44:51 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes doc: http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/DatatypeSummary3.html

16:47:44 * DanCon must run soon

16:47:56 <dajobe-scribe> several people want to rename rdf:value as used here for datatypes

16:49:19 <dajobe-scribe> telecon slot runs out in 10 mins I think

16:50:16 <dajobe-scribe> rdf:value and lform - opposite properties?

16:50:48 <dajobe-scribe> pathayes suggested ^

16:51:00 <dajobe-scribe> bwm: some m&s examples wouldn't fit that?

16:51:18 <dajobe-scribe> discussion of what to call new property(s)

16:51:30 <dajobe-scribe> in order to stay away from rdf:value

16:52:55 <DanCon> ciao, all.

16:58:07 <dajobe-scribe> have we invented anonymous predicates?

16:59:49 * AaronSw suspects that telecon is over...