W3C RDF Core Working Group IRC Chat Logs for 2002-06-14

13:01:07 Users on #rdfcore: @logger_1

13:05:07 <AaronSw> zakim, this will be rdf

13:05:08 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw

13:55:47 <Zakim> SW_RDF Cor()10:00AM has now started

13:55:54 <Zakim> +PatrickS

13:55:56 em has changed the topic to: rdfcore telecon - 2002-06-14

13:56:44 agenda +Volunteer scribe

13:56:45 * Zakim notes agendum 1 added

13:56:50 agenda +Roll Call

13:56:51 * Zakim notes agendum 2 added

13:57:03 agenda +Review agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0123.html

13:57:05 * Zakim notes agendum 3 added

13:57:14 agenda +Next telecon? 10am Boston time, 21 Jun 2002

13:57:15 * Zakim notes agendum 4 added

13:57:28 agenda +Review Minutes of 2002-05-31 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0034.html

13:57:29 * Zakim notes agendum 5 added

13:57:34 agenda +Register for RDF Core F2F

13:57:35 * Zakim notes agendum 6 added

13:57:42 agenda +Status of previous Action Items

13:57:43 * Zakim notes agendum 7 added

13:57:52 agenda +outstanding issues - 8 left

13:57:53 * Zakim notes agendum 8 added

13:57:59 agenda +Approve test cases

13:58:00 * Zakim notes agendum 9 added

13:58:14 agends +Issue: rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics

13:58:19 agenda +Issue: rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics

13:58:21 * Zakim notes agendum 10 added

13:58:26 agenda +Definition of graph syntax

13:58:27 * Zakim notes agendum 11 added

13:58:27 <Zakim> +??P10

13:58:31 <Zakim> -PatrickS

13:58:32 agenda +Issue: rdfms-assertion

13:58:33 <Zakim> +PatrickS

13:58:33 * Zakim notes agendum 12 added

13:58:38 <Zakim> +AaronSw

13:58:44 agenda +Definition of graph syntax

13:58:45 * Zakim notes agendum 13 added

13:58:48 agenda +datatypes

13:58:48 <AaronSw> whoa, lotsa static

13:58:48 * Zakim notes agendum 14 added

13:58:51 <DaveB> zakim, who is here?

13:58:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see PatrickS, ??P10, AaronSw

13:58:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see danbri, em, DaveB, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1

13:58:55 <AaronSw> zakim, who's here?

13:58:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see PatrickS, ??P10, AaronSw

13:58:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see danbri, em, DaveB, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1

13:59:02 * danbri on his way

13:59:27 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P10 is ILRT

13:59:28 <Zakim> +ILRT; got it

13:59:36 <AaronSw> zakim, ILRT holds DaveB, JanG

13:59:37 <Zakim> +DaveB, JanG; got it

13:59:49 <AaronSw> why does zakim report who is on IRC?

13:59:51 <Zakim> +FrankM

13:59:59 * DanCon offers regrets

14:00:25 <Zakim> +EricM

14:00:27 <DanCon> ... on the grounds that I don't want to get into disucssions that are going to be resolved at the ftf.

14:01:12 <Zakim> +DanBri

14:01:14 <Zakim> +??P14

14:01:28 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P14 is DanBri

14:01:31 <Zakim> +DanBri; got it

14:01:46 <AaronSw> zakim, em is EricM

14:01:50 <Zakim> sorry, AaronSw, I do not recognize a party named 'em'

14:02:09 zakim, pick a scribe.

14:02:11 <Zakim> I don't understand 'pick a scribe.', em. Try /msg Zakim help

14:02:13 zakim, pick a scribe

14:02:15 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DanBri

14:02:21 <DaveB> seconded

14:02:21 <Zakim> +??P13

14:02:31 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P13 is SteveP

14:02:32 <Zakim> +SteveP; got it

14:02:37 <AaronSw> zakim, ericm is chairing

14:02:38 <Zakim> +Chairing; got it

14:02:47 <AaronSw> zakim, chairing is EricM

14:02:50 <Zakim> +EricM; got it

14:02:58 zakim, who is here?

14:03:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see PatrickS (muted), ILRT, AaronSw, FrankM, EricM, DanBri, DanBri.a, SteveP

14:03:04 <Zakim> ILRT has DaveB, JanG

14:03:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see DanCon, danbri, em, DaveB, Zakim, AaronSw, logger_1

14:03:10 <danbri> danbri is now known as danb_scri

14:03:14 <Zakim> +??P15

14:03:22 <DaveB> DaveB is now known as daveb_jan

14:03:24 <AaronSw> zakim, ??P15 is GrahamK

14:03:25 <danb_scri> +graham

14:03:25 <Zakim> +GrahamK; got it

14:03:28 * Zakim saw GrahamK just arrive

14:03:37 <danb_scri> agenda review:

14:04:01 <danb_scri> dave: if jeremy not hear, drop 11 and 13.

14:04:05 <danb_scri> s/hear/here/

14:04:35 <danb_scri> so dropped

14:04:44 <danb_scri> dave: could add issue faq-html-compliance if we have time

14:05:03 <danb_scri> em: trying to identify relatively low hanging fruit that we don't need f2f time for.

14:05:08 <danb_scri> suggest isdefinedby

14:05:22 <danb_scri> hopeful can lock down on telecon; deal with rdfms-assertion for f2f

14:05:29 <danb_scri> Review prev minutes:

14:05:35 <danb_scri> accepted.

14:05:43 <danb_scri> 6. Pls register for f2f.

14:05:59 <danb_scri> 4. next telecon?

14:06:20 <danb_scri> danbri, dave, jan, patrick can't make it.

14:06:35 <danb_scri> em: f2f covers for that week's telecon. Next telecon: 28th June

14:06:49 <danb_scri> 7. Status of prev actions

14:07:12 <danb_scri> ACTION 2002-05-31#2, DaveB: Update syntax spec with above decisions

14:07:17 <danb_scri> ...not complete, dave hunting a good definitions.

14:07:27 <danb_scri> ACTION 2002-06-07#5, DaveB: Forward Sean B. Palmer's analysis to the WG

14:07:27 <danb_scri> list and propose some recommendations from it to close the issue.

14:07:31 <danb_scri> closed.

14:07:34 <danb_scri> Other actions are continued.

14:07:42 <danb_scri> Note re action: the first is re DAML:null

14:08:24 <danb_scri> em: we have 8 open issues left

14:08:35 <danb_scri> 9. pprove test cases

14:08:43 <danb_scri> em: can we close these?

14:10:16 <danb_scri> aaron: I'm happy taking these off the open list

14:10:24 <danb_scri> Resolved: we approve these tests

14:10:32 <danb_scri> 10. Issue: rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics

14:10:54 <AaronSw> soz, didn't mean to hold open the issue. just didn't want to be responsible for claiming that test was correct

14:10:54 <danb_scri> em: We seem to be fluctating back and forth. I can try to synthesis...

14:11:07 <danb_scri> (thanks Aaron; ack'd)

14:11:17 <danb_scri> em: ... grappling with what 'defined' is

14:11:37 <danb_scri> Gk: must there be RDF? Must there be just one appropriate thing that it points to?

14:12:16 <danb_scri> em: a couple other points. (1) is isDefinedBy a subprop of seeAlso [danbri: yes it is] (2) do we define something called Schema?

14:12:55 <daveb_jan> the old rdfs group made idb a subproperty of seealso

14:13:10 <daveb_jan> we didn't go into formats on purpose so as to not overconstrain the web

14:13:23 <daveb_jan> iot's tempting to define schema but I don't know of a single app I've buildt that need it

14:13:26 <daveb_jan> we can proceed without it

14:13:37 <daveb_jan> gk: I'm happy with those two points as made

14:13:43 <danb_scri> gk: I'm happy with those two particular points as made

14:13:47 <daveb_jan> frankm: what do we then say on this?

14:13:53 <daveb_jan> ...elaborate?

14:14:24 <danb_scri> gk: in order to nail down these points in words, need consensus on other two points

14:14:24 * tried to connect 9 times via mIRC but lost and then it took 5 min via cgi-irc...

14:14:24 <daveb_jan> gk: in order to nail down those points in words we need consensus on the other two points

14:14:40 <AaronSw> Zakim, who's muted?

14:14:41 <Zakim> I see PatrickS muted

14:14:57 <danb_scri> see http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#s2.3.5

14:15:00 <daveb_jan> frankm: we're engaged in this in order to nail down what we are going to say (in specs) about this

14:15:04 <danb_scri> frank: want to see words nailed down

14:15:06 <daveb_jan> so broad agreement isn't sufficient

14:15:19 <daveb_jan> gk: (paraphrase) let's nail them to the same plank then

14:15:21 <danb_scri> gk: we may need to agree principles before wordsmithing

14:15:43 <danb_scri> gk: what do we think that the thing referenced 'has to be rdf'? can it be some other form of descriptive document?

14:16:02 <danb_scri> frank: to make a point about the 1st one. I don't think we'd seriously object if we pointed to daml/owl

14:16:10 <danb_scri> ...we'd want to leave that possibility open

14:16:20 <danb_scri> gk: yup. One scenario is pointing at a definite text doc

14:16:26 <danb_scri> em: what do you mean re daml, owl...

14:16:33 <danb_scri> ...this hits on a point i wanted not to go down

14:16:50 <danb_scri> ...as a rule of caution, we might might underspecify this on purpose

14:16:57 <daveb_jan> q+

14:16:58 * Zakim sees Daveb on the speaker queue

14:17:02 <danb_scri> frank: if we ssay it 'has to be rdf' we want to allow it to be daml/owl

14:17:14 <danb_scri> em: in your mind those are disjoint things?

14:17:29 <danb_scri> frank: they're a superset of what you could say in an rdf schema...

14:17:33 <danb_scri> em: they're not disjoint

14:18:18 <danb_scri> danbri: the orgiganl rdfs design assumed that rdf schemas would draw on richer stuff like daml

14:18:28 <danb_scri> (scribe q: who speaking?)

14:18:34 <gk> E.g. isDefineBy reference to some ISO standard??

14:18:35 <daveb_jan> patrick s

14:18:37 q+

14:18:38 <danb_scri> thought so

14:18:38 * Zakim sees Daveb, Em on the speaker queue

14:18:48 <danb_scri> patricks: could be pointing at all sorts of other formats (eg. iso specs)

14:18:53 <JosD> q+

14:18:54 * Zakim sees Daveb, Em, JosD on the speaker queue

14:19:06 <danb_scri> jang: if we need words, we say 'they can be things of various types. If so, use a typed node, stick that in the graph'

14:19:15 <danb_scri> danbri: seconded. a good technique.

14:19:38 <danb_scri> jang: isDefinedBy points at a resource; other typing mechanism

14:19:53 <danb_scri> patricks: ...thats what I was suggesting w/ having an rdf Schema class

14:20:00 <danb_scri> q+

14:20:01 * Zakim sees Daveb, Em, JosD, Danb on the speaker queue

14:20:04 <danb_scri> q-

14:20:09 * Zakim sees Daveb, Em, JosD on the speaker queue

14:20:18 * gk I'm happy with the proposal, but it doesn't answer the original question, excpet by oblique implication...

14:20:22 <danb_scri> em: DCMI introduce notion of a schema, point off to other files too

14:20:35 <danb_scri> problem they have: not everyone has same notion of schema

14:20:53 <danb_scri> em: i'm hearing jang say 'anyone can define one of these things'; patrick 'why don't we define that class'

14:20:57 <daveb_jan> q-

14:20:58 * Zakim sees Em, JosD on the speaker queue

14:21:08 <danb_scri> frank: you ought to be able to add rdf metadata to further describe the thing at the end of the isdefinedby

14:21:21 <danb_scri> ...that is not necc dealing with a couple of other issues, esp whether it is just one.

14:21:36 <gk> (Also on this topic; PatH has objected to use of the term "define", I think)

14:21:38 <danb_scri> ...whether there is a notion that this is 'the' definition, as opposed to various others

14:22:19 <danb_scri> danbri: M+S says predicates come from just one schema

14:22:25 <danb_scri> jang: thats uninforcable

14:22:26 ack em

14:22:27 * Zakim sees JosD on the speaker queue

14:22:31 ack JosD

14:22:32 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:23:03 <danb_scri> gk: as pat says, the word 'defined' has no formal meaning in an assertional language. a more neutral is 'declared' or 'described'

14:23:44 <gk> From by Oxford dictionary, Declare:

14:23:45 <gk> One way to rule things like this out, if someone wanted to do that, would be:

14:23:45 <danb_scri> danbri: all these are actions, social things that RDF has no notion of

14:23:48 <gk> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:subPropertyOf> < rdfd:rangedatatype> .

14:23:52 <gk> One way to rule things like this out, if someone wanted to do that, would be:

14:23:52 q+

14:23:54 * Zakim sees Em on the speaker queue

14:23:54 <gk> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:subPropertyOf> < rdfd:rangedatatype> .

14:24:15 <danb_scri> patrick: trying to point to some sort ofthing that is defining properties or characteristics of some term

14:24:20 <daveb_jan> gk: urgh, but yes, I spose so

14:24:27 <gk> **** Sorry, bas paste there ****

14:24:28 <danb_scri> ...is that defining properties of that term

14:25:00 <gk> 1 tr. announce openly or formally (declare war; declare a dividend).

14:25:01 <gk> 2 tr. pronounce (a person or thing) to be something (declared him to be an impostor; declared it invalid).

14:25:01 <gk> 3 tr. (usu. foll. by that + clause) assert emphatically; state explicitly.

14:25:06 <danb_scri> patrick: we should put a footnote explaining that notion of 'define' is not in mathematical sense

14:25:19 <danb_scri> em: point that patrick made, that isDefinedBy might point at lots of things.

14:25:48 <danb_scri> em: two stumpbling blocks i've seen in practice. rdfs:label/rdf:value, when to use. Also seeAlso/isDefinedBy.

14:25:53 <daveb_jan> <truth> <rdf:isDefinedBy> <http://www.microsoft.com/> ?

14:26:03 <danb_scri> If we're vague about seeAlso and isDefinedBy, not clear when to use which.

14:26:13 <danb_scri> aaron: <missed comment; sorry>

14:26:35 <AaronSw> seeAlso means this is close. isDefinedBy means this is right

14:26:35 <danb_scri> patrick: isDefinedBy caries a certain weight of authority

14:26:40 <danb_scri> ..seealso just says 'heres some maybe useful extra stuff'

14:26:50 <danb_scri> ...issue of authority that'll provide info

14:26:55 <gk> q+

14:26:57 * Zakim sees Em, Gk on the speaker queue

14:27:03 <danb_scri> aaron: seeAlso 'if you like these terms, you'll liek thse too!'

14:27:22 <danb_scri> frank: that may be one use. In a lot of use, you'd use seeAlso to further elab on a definition'.

14:27:47 <daveb_jan> danbri: seealso is also used like href in html

14:27:58 ack em

14:28:00 * Zakim sees Gk on the speaker queue

14:28:02 <daveb_jan> idb is used for stuff rdf cares about

14:28:02 <danb_scri> danbri: seeAlso is close to an RDF version of HTML's HREF

14:28:04 ack gk

14:28:05 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:28:08 <danb_scri> gk: I like Jos's proposal of 'declare'

14:28:22 <danb_scri> ...nice balance of formality vs informal

14:28:28 <danb_scri> em: lets not focus on the name right now

14:28:36 <danb_scri> ...strongly suggest we don't change the words lightly

14:28:45 <daveb_jan> note C/C++'s distinction between declarations and definitions

14:28:53 <danb_scri> jos: one point. is it an umambiguousproperty or not?

14:29:14 <danb_scri> em: we shouldn't try to answer this

14:29:19 <danb_scri> patrick: no, if we have modular schemas

14:29:28 <danb_scri> ...term might be defined in multiple schemas

14:29:28 <gk> I say it's not unambiguous

14:29:40 <danb_scri> danbri: this is an excellent way to couch the question

14:30:05 <gk> ... same isDefinedBy object may describe several resources

14:30:53 <daveb_jan> we _spell_ it "isdefinedby" but _pronounce_ it "has a bunch of constraints which may or may not be available from dereferencing"

14:31:02 <danb_scri> ?: why does it matter (to hook a property up to its namespace)

14:31:14 <danb_scri> em: lots of cases. Helps you find out why somebody declared a particular term.

14:32:01 <danb_scri> patrick: it is irrelevant, why is there a requirement to impose a relationship between the value of an isDefinedBy and a namespace (prefix? uri?)

14:32:43 <danb_scri> jos: patrick, you're saying it is not a unique property.

14:32:47 <danb_scri> patrick: that's my present use

14:32:59 <danb_scri> jos: eric, you say you have apps that are not consistent with that?

14:33:03 <danb_scri> em: I think they are consistent

14:33:09 <danb_scri> ...still trying to find out if we're disagreeing

14:33:47 <danb_scri> aaron: creat a subproperty of isDefinedBy, whose Range is Schema, and that is unambiguous per webont/owl.

14:33:57 <danb_scri> jos: unambiguous and not unique

14:34:06 <danb_scri> patrick: would that value denote a vocabualry?

14:34:15 <danb_scri> jos: the term you talk about...

14:34:30 <danb_scri> if you have x isdefined by y, and a is definedby y, then x and a are the same.

14:34:35 <danb_scri> various: its the other way around

14:34:58 * danb_scri tries to think and scribe at same time :(

14:36:07 <daveb_jan> q+

14:36:10 * Zakim sees Daveb on the speaker queue

14:36:11 <danb_scri> example: take http://purl.org/dc/elememts/1.1/title. There is At Most One value of our property for dc:title, ie = http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/

14:36:17 ack daveb_jan

14:36:18 <danb_scri> aaron: at most one is a good way of putting it

14:36:18 * Zakim sees Daveb on the speaker queue

14:36:23 ack daveb

14:36:23 <danb_scri> jos: yup

14:36:24 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:36:46 <danb_scri> jang: is defined by suuggests one authoritative place for info, which is wrong. There are various constraints that'll be found...

14:37:19 <danb_scri> ...as patrick says, that's good.

14:37:41 <daveb_jan> correction: I don't consider "is defined by" to _suggest_ anything

14:37:43 <danb_scri> em: i'm hearing two things. Tightening up isdefined by. O

14:37:48 <daveb_jan> I'm reflecting what I hear people say about it

14:37:56 <danb_scri> ...introducing notion of a Schema, a range etc

14:38:12 <JosD> UnambiguousProperty was not correct, sorry

14:38:12 <danb_scri> Another way is to say: 'we weren't tight enough, lets introduce something else'.

14:38:24 <danb_scri> em: is this fair account?

14:38:28 <danb_scri> all: yup

14:38:37 <danb_scri> em: in next five mins, try for this more formal defintion.

14:38:54 <danb_scri> ...if close, we see if it close to isDefinedBy.

14:39:11 <danb_scri> em: aaron, you prpoosed this. Want to try to take a crack...?

14:39:19 <danb_scri> aaron: ok...

14:39:21 <danb_scri> rdfs:namespace

14:39:26 <daveb_jan> question: if URIs are opaque, why worry so much about how "isDefinedBy" is spelled?

14:39:30 <danb_scri> from a property to the namespace used to define it.

14:39:41 <danb_scri> there will be at most one namespace for each property

14:40:07 <danb_scri> (tools can use this to associate the namespace they've gotten from an rdf/xml document with the property)

14:40:16 <danb_scri> danri: can we leave tools discussion as an aside for now

14:40:29 <gk> q+

14:40:30 * Zakim sees Gk on the speaker queue

14:40:32 <daveb_jan> danbri: one refinement:

14:40:38 <daveb_jan> go from vocab constructs

14:40:44 <daveb_jan> so leave domain unconstrained

14:41:00 <danb_scri> danbri: proposed drop 'property', leave it just as 'resource', or 'vocabulary resource' (classes etc)

14:41:17 <danb_scri> gk: when we talk about namespcaes, to we mean XML Namespace, or a more general one.

14:41:48 <danb_scri> aaron: talking about a substring of uris...

14:42:01 <danb_scri> danbri: can we say its a more generic

14:42:09 <danb_scri> patrick: can we call it a vocabulary...? please

14:42:23 <danb_scri> danbri: 2nd

14:42:25 <danb_scri> aaron: yup

14:42:34 <gk> >> "vocabulary identifier"?

14:42:42 <danb_scri> frank: those things we call the RDF and RDFS namespaces... are we saying those are now vocabularies?

14:42:46 <danb_scri> ...or xml namespace?

14:42:49 <danb_scri> patrick: vocabularies

14:43:02 <danb_scri> frank: i just want to make sure

14:43:41 <danb_scri> ...there are these concepts called namespaces.

14:44:11 <danb_scri> ...it seemed to me that as we were using the concept of the rdf namespace vs the rdfs namespace

14:44:30 <danb_scri> patrick: some vocabs might be defnied in multiple namespaces

14:44:33 <rdf:Property rdf:ID="title">

14:44:33 <rdfs:vocabulary rdf:resource = "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" />

14:44:33 </rdf:Property>

14:44:33 <rdfs:Vocabulary rdf:about = "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">

14:44:33 ...

14:44:34 </rdfs:Vocabulary>

14:44:36 <rdf:Property rdf:ID="vocabulary" >

14:44:39 <rdfs:range rdf:resource = "Vocabulary" />

14:44:40 </rdf:Property>

14:44:42 <danb_scri> ...just happens that many vocabs have terms grounded in only one namespace

14:44:51 <danb_scri> frank: and that use of namespace means, : ???

14:44:56 * em wonders if this is an example of what aaron just suggested

14:45:04 <AaronSw> em, yes

14:45:04 <danb_scri> patrick: at moment the two often used same way

14:45:18 and...

14:45:27 <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource = "isDefinedBy" />

14:45:44 <danb_scri> frank: initially you liked vocab instead of namespace... because people might confuse xml namespace with a different notion

14:45:52 <danb_scri> ...are you saying namespace refers to a broader notion

14:46:21 <AaronSw> rdfs:vocabulary rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:isDefinedBy;

14:46:21 <AaronSw> rdfs:domain "term / vocabulary resource"; rdfs:range :Vocabulary .

14:46:21 <AaronSw> at most one "vocabulary" for each voabulary resource.

14:46:31 <danb_scri> frank: we now have a consistent proposal. that 'namespace' always refers to the xml idea. not a thing in physical reality.

14:47:20 <danb_scri> aaron: foo is a subprop of isdefinedby

14:47:24 <danb_scri> domain is Foo

14:47:36 <danb_scri> hmm

14:48:07 <danb_scri> dave: 2nded

14:48:28 <gk> q+

14:48:29 * Zakim sees Gk on the speaker queue

14:48:58 <AaronSw> rdfs:foo rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:isDefinedBy; rdfs:range :Foo .

14:48:58 <AaronSw> everything has at most one Foo.

14:48:58 <AaronSw> (domain intentionally unspecified)

14:49:07 <danb_scri> range is some class

14:49:39 <danb_scri> at most one value of <this new property> for each resource it applies to.

14:49:50 <danb_scri> "everything has at most one capital Foo"

14:50:06 <danb_scri> (where 'foo' and 'Foo' are our new property and Class)

14:51:19 <danb_scri> jang: we don't need 'at most one' anywhere else

14:51:48 <danb_scri> danbri: we have a whole webont WG created because we said AtMostOne etc were useful to enterprises such as our own

14:51:55 <danb_scri> jang: i'm unconvinced

14:52:12 <daveb_jan> then let webont add the constraint (layer it) to our unconstrained one

14:52:24 <danb_scri> patrick: PRSIM uses DC stuff. DC creator is part of PRISM too, in soem sense(?)

14:52:33 <gk> q+ (2)

14:52:34 * Zakim sees Gk, (2) on the speaker queue

14:52:49 <danb_scri> (daveb_jan, no. we need to express what we believe is true of that property. in prose if need be)

14:53:10 <danb_scri> em: prism chose to adopt other vocabularies, using multiple vocabs to reflet their needs

14:53:19 <danb_scri> ...a common and encouraged metadata practice

14:53:25 <daveb_jan> well, i don't believe it to be true, when you come to that

14:53:43 <danb_scri> ...they have their own, and DCs, mix and match

14:54:02 <danb_scri> patrick: my impression is that they talk abouyt the prism vocabulary, not the prism use of DCMI's vocaabulary.

14:54:50 ack gk

14:54:51 * Zakim sees (2) on the speaker queue

14:54:53 <danb_scri> danbri: people use term 'application profile' for this

14:55:07 <danb_scri> graham: note my uneasyness about 'only one'

14:55:13 <AaronSw> ack (2)

14:55:15 * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

14:55:19 <gk> Is the relationship between Foo and XML namespace anything more than purely serendipitous?

14:55:25 <danb_scri> thanks

14:55:44 <danb_scri> patrikc: only coincidental

14:55:56 <danb_scri> danbri: left unconstrained by this WG, its a bigger picture thing

14:56:42 <danb_scri> frank: if our concern is re 'only one' is just with our inability to express this constraint within RDF machinery, we can say in the definition that it is our intent to do so, but non-RDF mechanisms needed for this.

14:56:56 <danb_scri> ...illustrates complexity we may be getting into by separating vocabulary from namespace

14:57:27 <danb_scri> ...notion that properties have uris... they come from one place [(danbri nods...)] but now by taking the english spin on what 'vocabuarly' means, we get into the idea that...

14:57:49 <danb_scri> ...somewhere there has to be some explicit collection/place for each set gathering all the uris of terms that'll be used

14:57:51 * danb_scri nods

14:58:12 <danb_scri> "this is a somewhat different concept from idea before, where there was a closer association between uri/namespace...

14:58:24 <danb_scri> "where we can say 'of course' onyl once

14:58:33 <daveb_jan> q+

14:58:35 * Zakim sees Daveb on the speaker queue

14:58:50 * danb_scri missed last few words

14:59:07 <danb_scri> em: this notion of Set/vocab is what some folk call 'app profiles'

14:59:11 <danb_scri> frank: no prob with that

14:59:19 <danb_scri> em: they're going further, implementing to it...

14:59:24 <danb_scri> danbri: good; not our job

14:59:32 <danb_scri> frank: objection isn't non-utility of that idea

15:00:03 <danb_scri> ...before we had clear idea: PRISM used DC terms, used another namespace.

15:01:08 <gk> I hear Frank to ask, what is the purpose of rdfs:isDefinedBy that is not served by naming authority implicit in a URI?

15:01:21 <danb_scri> em: can we get the proposal wrapped up

15:01:44 <danb_scri> ACTION: Eric to summarise isDefinedBy proposal based on meeting record (draft / irc log)

15:02:11 <danb_scri> ADJOURNED.

15:02:35 <Zakim> -SteveP

15:02:43 <danb_scri> gk: finding himself confused by danbri's comments

15:03:04 <AaronSw> logger_1, pointer

15:03:04 <AaronSw> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-06-14#T15-03-04

15:03:39 <Zakim> -FrankM

15:06:16 http://www.w3.org/2001/10/navigate/view?subject=http%3a//purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf

15:06:19 <danb_scri> danb_scri is now known as danbri

15:07:17 <daveb_jan> q+

15:07:18 * Zakim sees Daveb on the speaker queue

15:07:25 <danbri> zakim, pls see http://rdfweb.org/rweb/wiki/wiki.pl?AnnoyingWristPain

15:07:26 <Zakim> I don't understand 'pls see http://rdfweb.org/rweb/wiki/wiki.pl?AnnoyingWristPain', danbri. Try /msg Zakim help

15:07:46 <AaronSw> heh

15:08:54 * danbri does HTTP GET on http://purl.org/dc/terms/

15:09:01 <danbri> (redirects to http://dublincore.org/2001/08/14/dcq)

15:17:15 <gk> q+

15:17:18 * Zakim sees Daveb, Gk on the speaker queue

15:35:09 <AaronSw> Patrick: "almost anything is more productive without me"

15:35:19 <AaronSw> JanG: "i don't think that's the case, patrick. we all love you"

15:39:51 <Zakim> -DanBri.a

15:39:59 <Zakim> -DanBri

15:40:09 <danbri> hmm

15:41:43 <daveb_jan> we can have isDefinedBy and isSolelyDefinedBySoHandsOff as a subproperty

15:42:11 <AaronSw> heh

15:50:04 <Zakim> -ILRT

15:56:37 <Zakim> -GrahamK

15:56:44 <Zakim> -PatrickS

15:56:58 <AaronSw> Zakim, who's here?

15:56:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see AaronSw, EricM

15:57:01 <Zakim> On IRC I see AaronSw, JosD, DanCon, danbri, em, Zakim, logger_1

15:57:02 <Zakim> -EricM

15:57:06 <Zakim> -AaronSw

15:57:06 <Zakim> SW_RDF Cor()10:00AM has ended

15:57:19 <AaronSw> em, send me the code!

15:57:59 lol

15:58:00 ok

15:58:28 * AaronSw attaches bot to back of em's head that repeats "code"

16:01:42 <danbri> what code?

16:04:48 <AaronSw> the code for his redfoot thing

The IRC chat here was automatically logged without editing and contains content written by the chat participants identified by their IRC nick. No other identity is recorded.