13:01:07 <logger_1> logger_1 has joined #rdfcore
13:01:07 <irc.w3.org> Users on #rdfcore: @logger_1 
13:04:37 <AaronSw> AaronSw has joined #rdfcore
13:05:00 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdfcore
13:05:07 <AaronSw> zakim, this will be rdf
13:05:08 <Zakim> ok, AaronSw
13:54:18 <DaveB> DaveB has joined #rdfcore
13:55:40 <em> em has joined #rdfcore
13:55:47 <Zakim> SW_RDF Cor()10:00AM has now started
13:55:54 <Zakim> +PatrickS
13:55:56 <em> em has changed the topic to: rdfcore telecon - 2002-06-14
13:56:44 <em> agenda +Volunteer scribe
13:56:45 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 1 added
13:56:50 <em> agenda +Roll Call
13:56:51 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 2 added
13:56:55 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdfcore
13:57:03 <em> agenda +Review agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0123.html
13:57:05 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 3 added
13:57:14 <em> agenda +Next telecon? 10am Boston time, 21 Jun 2002
13:57:15 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 4 added
13:57:28 <em> agenda +Review Minutes of 2002-05-31 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0034.html
13:57:29 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 5 added
13:57:34 <em> agenda +Register for RDF Core F2F
13:57:35 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 6 added
13:57:42 <em> agenda +Status of previous Action Items
13:57:43 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 7 added
13:57:52 <em> agenda +outstanding issues - 8 left
13:57:53 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 8 added
13:57:59 <em> agenda +Approve test cases
13:58:00 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 9 added
13:58:14 <em> agends +Issue: rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics
13:58:19 <em> agenda +Issue: rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics
13:58:21 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 10 added
13:58:26 <em> agenda +Definition of graph syntax
13:58:27 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 11 added
13:58:27 <Zakim> +??P10
13:58:31 <Zakim> -PatrickS
13:58:32 <em> agenda +Issue: rdfms-assertion
13:58:33 <Zakim> +PatrickS
13:58:33 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 12 added
13:58:38 <Zakim> +AaronSw
13:58:44 <em> agenda +Definition of graph syntax
13:58:45 <Zakim> * Zakim notes agendum 13 added
13:58:48 <em> agenda +datatypes
13:58:48 <AaronSw> whoa, lotsa static
13:58:48 <Zakim> * 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> * 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
13:59:53 <DanCon> DanCon has joined #rdfcore
13:59:59 <DanCon> * 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 <em> zakim, pick a scribe.
14:02:11 <Zakim> I don't understand 'pick a scribe.', em.  Try /msg Zakim help
14:02:13 <em> 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 <em> 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> * 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/
14:04:22 <gk> gk has joined #rdfcore
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
14:10:53 <JosD> JosD has joined #rdfcore
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 <JosD> * 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> * 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 <em> q+
14:18:38 <danb_scri> thought so
14:18:38 <Zakim> * 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> * 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> * Zakim sees Daveb, Em, JosD, Danb on the speaker queue
14:20:04 <danb_scri> q-
14:20:09 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Daveb, Em, JosD on the speaker queue
14:20:18 <gk> * 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> * 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 <em> ack em
14:22:27 <Zakim> * Zakim sees JosD on the speaker queue
14:22:31 <em> ack JosD
14:22:32 <Zakim> * 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 <em> q+
14:23:54 <Zakim> * 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> * 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 <em> ack em
14:28:00 <Zakim> * 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 <em> ack gk
14:28:05 <Zakim> * 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> * danb_scri tries to think and scribe at same time :(
14:36:07 <daveb_jan> q+
14:36:10 <Zakim> * 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 <em> ack daveb_jan
14:36:18 <danb_scri> aaron: at most one is a good way of putting it
14:36:18 <Zakim> * Zakim sees Daveb on the speaker queue
14:36:23 <em> ack daveb
14:36:23 <danb_scri> jos: yup
14:36:24 <Zakim> * 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> * 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 <em> <rdf:Property rdf:ID="title">
14:44:33 <em>   <rdfs:vocabulary rdf:resource = "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" />
14:44:33 <em> </rdf:Property>
14:44:33 <em> <rdfs:Vocabulary rdf:about = "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
14:44:33 <em>  ...
14:44:34 <em> </rdfs:Vocabulary>
14:44:36 <em> <rdf:Property rdf:ID="vocabulary" >
14:44:39 <em>   <rdfs:range rdf:resource = "Vocabulary" />
14:44:40 <em> </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> * 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 <em> and...
14:45:27 <em> <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> * 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> * 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 <em> ack gk
14:54:51 <Zakim> * 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> * 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> * 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> * Zakim sees Daveb on the speaker queue
14:58:50 <danb_scri> * 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 <em> 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> * 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> * 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> * Zakim sees Daveb, Gk on the speaker queue
15:23:43 <gk> gk has quit
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
15:50:11 <daveb_jan> daveb_jan has quit
15:54:25 <AaronSw> AaronSw has quit
15:54:31 <AaronSw> AaronSw has joined #rdfcore
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
15:57:14 <DanCon> DanCon has left #rdfcore
15:57:19 <AaronSw> em, send me the code!
15:57:59 <em> lol
15:58:00 <em> ok
15:58:28 <AaronSw> * 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
16:54:49 <JosD> JosD has quit
16:55:17 <em> em has left #rdfcore