Semantic Web Interest Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-02-09

01:29:29 <soc|home> anyone know how extensive VJOURNAL support is in clients?

01:29:32 <soc|home> soc|home is now known as soc

03:06:45 <timbl> timbl is now known as tbl-away

06:12:44 <dmiles> do all CycL expression have a Daml/RDF equivelnt possible now?

06:12:57 <dmiles> (rdf logic)

06:13:26 * dmiles is interested in seeing a conversion spec

06:13:43 <dmiles> (or even SUMO (IEEE KIF))

06:15:07 <dmiles> erm n3 i guess

06:15:26 <dmiles> i better learn that better

06:15:49 <dmiles> so probly we'd encode not in a markup but embed N3?

06:19:32 <dmiles> [22:19] <dmiles> i just want to make a vanila CycL2SemWebML

06:19:33 <dmiles> [22:19] <dmiles> SemWebML = ? :)

06:20:17 <dmiles> N3,RDFS,DAML ?

06:22:08 <dmiles> how do i say "joe like mary as firend" ?

06:22:15 <dmiles> err friend

07:55:23 <mdupont> morning!

11:45:42 <shellac_> shellac_ is now known as shellac

12:02:40 <danbri_> I'm liking Mozilla's "reject popups from this site" facility...

12:02:46 <arnarl-home> hi

12:02:51 <danbri_> Now, how to load and save popup lists?

12:28:06 <danbri_> .google semantic

12:28:07 <datum> semantic: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/

12:28:18 <danbri_> wow

12:29:00 <danbri_> according to google, we're the dominant use of the word 'semantic' on the web.

12:29:06 * danbri_ still preferred 'rdf', but there y'go...

15:28:03 <mdupont> hi shellac

15:28:15 <mdupont> it seems like many people have net problems today

15:30:30 <mdupont> hey danbri

15:30:38 <danbri> hi there

15:30:56 <mdupont> hey mrlc

15:30:59 * danbri saw the thread w/ Jos, is wondering whether dev.w3.org or savannah is the way to go...

15:31:08 <mdupont> it is really up to you

15:31:23 <danbri> I've pinged my w3c colleagues, see what they thing

15:31:35 <mdupont> i am also a bit concerned about licensing, but i dont know much about the w3c license

15:31:41 <mdupont> can you use gpled code?

15:32:05 <danbri> I think I'm up for hosting this on dev.w3.org, but am rather aware that we might not have the support infrastructure for dev.w3.org that folks might expect from a sourceforge or savannah account...

15:32:24 <mdupont> well, all we really need is a cvs for now

15:33:29 <danbri> Stuff that's hosted on w3c's site ought to be available under W3C Software License, but that doesn't mean the (c) holder needs to be W3C (ie. MIT/Keio/ERCIM). That license is delicately positioned to allow both relicensing under GPL if needed, but also incorporation of code into non-GPL'd commercial products.

15:34:18 <danbri> re "With the new rdf class lib, you should be able to use that as the

15:34:18 <danbri> basis. Of course there will be a problem that the new lib is (L)GPLed

15:34:18 <danbri> and I dont know if you can use it from W3C code. But, i am not a lawer."

15:34:36 <mdupont> well, i can see that.

15:34:37 <danbri> hmm i'm not sure how things work on this front...

15:34:43 <mdupont> that means you cannot use the dotgnu libs

15:34:48 <mdupont> if they are gpled

15:35:06 <mdupont> only if the are lgpled

15:35:11 <danbri> I'm in similar situation w/ rubyrdf etc... rubyrdf is under w3c license, butsome things i'm building with it are GPL'd, since they depend on GPL'd stuff.

15:35:42 <mdupont> i would like to have it under a dual license

15:35:52 <danbri> makes sense to me

15:36:28 <mdupont> but that means of course, only the top of the bottom of a hierachy can be under that license

15:36:29 <danbri> with the dotgnu rdf work, does it make sense to try to have each contributor agree to the dual licensing?

15:36:44 <mdupont> i am a bit confused myself

15:36:52 <mdupont> let me check the current license

15:37:37 <mdupont> lgpl

15:37:43 <mdupont> that means you can use it from the w3c

15:37:50 <danbri> cool

15:37:56 <mdupont> :)

15:39:15 <mdupont> well, lets start small

15:39:20 <danbri> yup

15:39:23 <mdupont> i dont want to cause any waves right now

15:39:37 <mdupont> and scare people off

15:39:53 <mdupont> i do however think that the w3c license is a bit unfair to the gpl

15:40:04 <mdupont> because you can use it in a non-free software

15:40:12 <mdupont> but you cannot relicense it under the gpl

15:40:22 <danbri> unfair in which way? it was originally for stuff originating at/within/around w3c, it isn't being promoted as a gpl rival

15:40:26 <mdupont> but that is just me

15:40:40 <danbri> ...w3c being an industry consortia, there are/were lots of members who aren't gpl enthusiasts...

15:40:50 <mdupont> well, it favors the people who will use it for non-free software

15:40:58 <mdupont> but does not allow a conversion to gpl

15:40:59 <danbri> can't relicense? I thought one could...

15:41:13 <mdupont> see the section 1, you cannot change the licenseing terms at all

15:41:48 <danbri> are we looking at the same thing?

15:41:50 <danbri>http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231

15:41:52 <dc_rdfig> A: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231 from danbri

15:42:09 <danbri> A:|W3C Software License

15:42:09 <dc_rdfig> Titled item A.

15:42:22 <danbri> A:"Otherwise, this version is the same as the previous version and is written so as to preserve the Free Software Foundation's assessment of GPL compatibility and OSI's certification under the Open Source Definition."

15:42:22 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A1.

15:43:26 <danbri> A:According to [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses|gnu.org]: "this is a free software license and is GPL compatible.

15:43:26 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A2.

15:44:23 * danbri wonders quite what "The full text of this NOTICE in a location viewable to users of the redistributed or derivative work." means

15:44:47 <mdupont> erro

15:44:51 <mdupont> no

15:44:52 <mdupont> sorry

15:45:15 <danbri> If by 'user' we understand 'programmer', all seems ok...

15:45:45 <mdupont>http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/LICENSE

15:45:45 <dc_rdfig> B: http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/LICENSE from mdupont

15:45:57 <mdupont> B:| The AFGA Euler License

15:45:57 <dc_rdfig> Titled item B.

15:46:24 <mdupont> hehe

15:46:28 <mdupont> they changed!

15:46:41 <mdupont> i download something different yesterday

15:46:52 <mdupont> Jos pulled a switchamaroo on me!

15:47:16 <danbri> the w3c one has been tweaked slightly in recent weeks

15:47:42 <mdupont> no no no, i put a copy of the license in the Copying in the download

15:47:55 <mdupont> do you have that snapshot, look at the copying

15:48:33 <danbri> Hmm, Jos assigned (c) to W3C. I didn't know about that... Not sure that's the best way to do things (or that it makes sense without W3C knowing and accepting the (c)).

15:48:40 * danbri takes your word for it!

15:48:54 <danbri> i'm sure all of this should be easily fixable, the goodwill's there...

15:48:56 <mdupont> well, this is all the better

15:49:06 <danbri> :)

15:49:11 <mdupont> yeah, the w3c license looks much better

15:49:22 * danbri takes an RSI-busting break from computers

15:49:32 <danbri> re license - glad to hear it

15:49:41 <mdupont> this is the line that bothered me : 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,

15:49:41 <mdupont> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

15:49:54 <mdupont> this list of conditions

15:49:59 <mdupont> means that you cannot change them

15:50:27 <mdupont> anyway

15:50:33 <mdupont> i have ran all the tests

15:50:45 <mdupont> and only about 2 of them pass

15:50:49 <mdupont> the rest fail

15:51:46 <danbri> well that's a start!

15:54:27 <mdupont> so i will wait for Jos to post the missing Datatype code

15:54:36 <mdupont> i think that it is a problem

15:54:42 <mdupont> it is not standard...

15:56:36 * DanC noodles on licensing rules in N3...

15:56:53 * mdupont goes back to the gcc patch

15:57:29 <DanC> { ?PART a :GPLed. ?WHOLE :includes ?PART } => { ?WHOLE a :GPLed }.

15:57:50 <mdupont> yes

15:57:55 <mdupont> that is true

15:58:06 <mdupont> if includes means derived work

15:58:18 <mdupont> not just includes like redistribution of bash

15:58:32 <DanC> :linksWith rdfs:subPropertyOf :includes. # ?

15:59:06 <DanC> I think derivative works are a separate but analagous rule...

15:59:08 <mdupont> linksWith is an strong indication of derivedWork

15:59:19 <mdupont> it is only about derived work

15:59:22 <mdupont> nothing else

15:59:46 <DanC> { ?W1 a :GPLed. ?W2 :derivedFrom ?W1 } => { ?W2 a :GPLed }.

15:59:55 * JibberJim has also wondered about shelled to, rather than linked with.

16:00:32 <mdupont> shelled to is normally just usage

16:00:37 <mdupont> not deriviation

16:00:53 <mdupont> can you use your program without the gpled code?

16:01:06 <mdupont> do you have to distribute a copy of the gpled code with the other program

16:01:24 <JibberJim> well in the sense that you could shell to a program which provided the same output yes, but not otherwise.

16:01:26 <mdupont> is there a standard program that supplies the same interface

16:01:46 <danbri> linksWith isn't so central nowadays, with all sorts of looser connections between parts... esp with xml etc providing the glue...

16:02:07 <mdupont> JibberJim: i think that if you use a gpled component, then you are safe, that is not a derived work

16:02:53 * JibberJim has always hoped so (I'm hoping for a less restrictive licence not more restrictive incidently)

16:03:06 <mdupont> JibberJim: i can understand that

16:03:09 <mdupont> :

16:03:10 <mdupont> )

16:05:27 <mdupont> danbri: the whole issue of loose linking does not protect you from being a derived work

16:05:48 <mdupont> the introspector is an example of a loosly linked program to the gcc

16:05:49 * danbri nods; it makes it harder to define the boundaries of 'usage', that's all...

16:06:13 <mdupont> but if you used that to make a non-free front end to the gcc, i am sure that the gcc guys would take you to court

16:06:21 <mdupont> on the otherside

16:06:32 <mdupont> there are already non-free backend to the gcc using files

16:06:39 <mdupont> so, it is really a grey area

16:06:45 <mdupont> look a the mysql license

16:15:20 <mdupont> the mysql says that if you *connect* to the server, you are linking and need a license

16:15:32 <mdupont> this is of course voodoo at best

16:33:21 <mdupont> danbri: it is amazing that the Euler even worked at all

16:33:33 <mdupont> turns out that Jos did not put all the source on the webpage

16:33:36 <mdupont> !

16:39:00 <danbri> heheh

16:39:17 <danbri> do you have the rest of it now?

16:41:30 <mdupont> working on it

16:41:49 <mdupont> the Stack code, he does not use a standard stack

16:41:58 <mdupont> so i dont even know what this second parameter does

16:42:02 <mdupont> it is not documented

16:42:07 <danbri> an MSism?

16:42:18 <mdupont> no, he wrote it himself

16:42:28 <mdupont> at first i thought a msism

17:41:30 <zoyd> hi.

17:41:34 <danbri> .google swad europe reports

17:41:36 <datum> swad europe reports: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/dev_workshop_report_2/

17:42:17 <zoyd> is there a python app for producing a RSS feed of GNU Mailman archives ?

17:44:57 <danbri> all i know is this http://taint.org/mmrss/ (perl not python)

17:45:05 <danbri> would be good to get something bundled with mm itself...

17:46:17 <zoyd> I tried to play with the pipermail archives but they don't contain enough information.

17:46:45 <zoyd> like the date/time of the post.

17:50:03 <danbri> yeah, an export would be better than a scraper

17:50:29 <zoyd> 'scraper' ?

17:51:20 <danbri> something that 'scrapes' (ie. extracts, summarises, guesses) the original data, by trying to reconstruct it from the HTML output

17:51:42 <danbri> in mailman, the place to hack would be the bin/arch script, I think.

17:53:20 <danbri> fwiw supporting python library files are in Mailman/Archiver/*py of a mailman install...

17:54:09 <zoyd> ok.

17:55:11 <danbri> ooh http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-developers@python.org/msg05446.html

17:55:20 <danbri> sounds like this is in progress already

17:56:01 <zoyd> wow.

17:56:32 <danbri> can you see the actual patch? i can't find it yet...

17:57:01 <danbri> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=657951&group_id=103&atid=300103

17:57:02 <dc_rdfig> C: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=657951&group_id=103&atid=300103 from danbri

17:57:15 <danbri> C:|Generate RSS summary in archives (mailman patch)

17:57:15 <dc_rdfig> Titled item C.

17:57:30 * zoyd looks closely

17:58:05 <danbri> C:See also [https://sourceforge.net/tracker/download.php?group_id=103&atid=300103&file_id=38155&aid=657951|updated patch] link from end of that page.

17:58:05 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C1.

18:00:36 <danbri> patch < ~danbri/rss.patch

18:00:36 <danbri> patching file HyperArch.py

18:00:36 <danbri> Hunk #1 succeeded at 745 (offset -51 lines).

18:00:36 <danbri> Hunk #2 succeeded at 1072 (offset -59 lines).

18:00:36 <danbri> patching file pipermail.py

18:00:48 <danbri> hmm, lets see if that worked...

18:05:46 <danbri> C:OK, that was painless: [http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfweb-dev/rss.xml|rss.xml for rdfweb-dev], I just patched my live mailman installation. Sweet.

18:05:46 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C2.

18:06:01 <danbri> (it's still rebuilding the archive, so the rss isn't the latest posts, yet)

18:06:07 <danbri> logger_1, pointer?

18:06:07 <danbri> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-02-09#T18-06-07

18:06:31 <danbri> C:See [http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-02-09#T18-06-07|#rdfig chat w/ zoyd] for context.

18:06:31 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C3.

18:13:47 * danbri sends mail to www-rdf-interest

18:30:01 <zoyd> in the email module for RSS, why is content:item used, and not email:body or email:content ?

18:53:16 <danbri> I'm not sure... I've not really studied that module...

19:08:09 <zoyd> anyway, i got to go sleep. bye.

19:13:57 * danbri mails the observer to ask for raw data behind http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,891685,00.html

20:36:27 <mdupont> hi

21:03:59 <danbri> evenin'

21:06:33 <mdupont> hey danbri

21:32:35 <mdupont> danbri: !!! i passed all the tests!!! EulerSharp is working

21:33:03 <danbri> fantastic :) :)

21:33:15 <mdupont> i am preparing a package right now

21:33:17 <danbri> good use of weekend!

21:33:22 <mdupont> it includes the test cases

21:33:32 <mdupont> yeah, i have learned alot

21:33:48 <mdupont> now i want to learn about partial evaluation

21:34:07 <mdupont> i think that might be appliable to euler to turn it into a compiler

21:34:28 * danbri out of his depth (i'm scared of compilers!)

21:35:07 <mdupont> :)

21:35:15 <mdupont> i am out of my depth as well

21:35:21 <mdupont> but not scared of much anymore

21:35:29 * danbri grins

21:35:32 <danbri> excellent

21:35:43 <danbri> so shall we look into dev.w3.org accounts?

21:35:59 <mdupont> please do that

21:36:43 <danbri> athttp://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/ it says 'This is an WWW interface to the W3C public CVS tree, available under the W3C Software License.', so we'd need to be happy that everything checked in was available at least under that license.

21:37:03 <danbri> From earlier discussion, that doesn't seem to be an issue anymore, since GNU is happy with W£3C license compatibility

21:37:06 <mdupont> that is fine

21:37:19 <mdupont> i am not touching licensing of Euler right now

21:37:24 <mdupont> just helping out

21:37:27 <danbri> yeah, we can leave that to Jos

21:37:37 <mdupont> thats right

21:38:25 <danbri> canfg

21:38:28 <danbri> ugh

21:38:37 <mdupont> ?

21:38:43 * mdupont scratches his head

21:38:51 <danbri> poor multi-tasking!

21:39:21 <danbri> I was gonna ask you if you could see an url, then i switched to a different window (by looking at it, rather than alt-tabbing ;-) and tried to 'fg' a process.

21:40:39 <danbri> To request cvs access, I think the account holder needs either to be a member of a W3C organisation, or else an invited expert to a W3C group (eg. in this case the RDF Intrest Group).

21:41:12 * danbri wonders whether you've any connection to a W3C member org

21:42:32 <mdupont> you can invite me as a dotgnu/gcc expert

21:42:50 <mdupont> (well expert is an overstatment)

21:42:54 <danbri> your expertise isn't an issue :)

21:43:14 <mdupont>http://introspector.sourceforge.net/debian/incoming/eulersharp_0.1-1.tar.gz

21:43:15 <dc_rdfig> D: http://introspector.sourceforge.net/debian/incoming/eulersharp_0.1-1.tar.gz from mdupont

21:43:28 <mdupont> D:|EulerSharp - working version

21:43:29 <dc_rdfig> Titled item D.

21:43:37 <mdupont> D:Contains test cases

21:43:37 <dc_rdfig> Added comment D1.

21:43:41 <danbri> I'm just checking you don't already have access. Do you have an employer? guess they're not already members?

21:43:43 <mdupont> D:and it works

21:43:44 <dc_rdfig> Added comment D2.

21:44:03 <mdupont> danbri: i am still working for Chapter 11 MCI worldcom

21:44:07 <mdupont> but not for much longer

21:44:41 <danbri> sounds like best to do this as an individual then...

21:44:57 * danbri revisits http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/collaborators-agreement

21:45:41 <danbri> 509 wget http://introspector.sourceforge.net/debian/incoming/eulersharp_0.1-1.tar.gz

21:45:41 <danbri> 510 tar -zxvf eulersharp_0.1-1.tar.gz

21:45:41 <danbri> 511 cd eulersharp-0.1/

21:45:41 <danbri> 512 make test

21:45:41 <danbri> 513 history

21:45:55 <danbri> lots of stuff scrolled past convincingly, no obvious errors!

21:46:23 <mdupont> The Participant agrees that all right, title and interest in and to any and all software and documentation created or developed, and in and to all patentable inventions conceived or first reduced to practice, by the Director, MIT staff or industrially-employed visitors when working at MIT for the Consortium shall vest in MIT. To the extent necessary, Participant agrees to execute such assignment documents as may be required to vest title in MI

21:46:23 <mdupont> at no expense to the Participant.

21:46:37 <mdupont> that is not valid under European law

21:46:45 <mdupont> you cannot sell your rights away

21:47:06 <mdupont> there is no copyright assignment in france and germany

21:47:27 <danbri> interesting. can you drop a note to reagle@w3.org cc danbri@w3.org on that point?

21:47:44 <mdupont> i will first talk to greve@gnu.org

21:48:08 <mdupont> he is the one who is setting up the system for Europe

21:48:47 <mdupont> they want to make a similar system to copyright assignment, but based on some other legal foundations

21:48:48 <danbri> okay... if you could summarise the issue though we could probably get an informal response from Joseph Reagle quite quickly...

21:48:57 <mdupont> (i cannot remember quickly

21:49:08 <mdupont> ok, let me cc greve on this, ok?

21:49:57 <danbri> sure. note that the stuff in (b) seem to be w.r.t. things done 'when working at .... for the Consortium'

21:50:01 <danbri> hmm it should be s/INRIA/ERCIM/

21:51:28 <danbri> [[

21:51:29 <danbri> Except as provided above, patentable inventions and copyrighted materials developed jointly by MIT, INRIA and KEIO and the Participant pursuing Consortium activities, shall be jointly owned. Each joint owner shall be entitled to exercise all rights of ownership as provided by law without, however, an obligation of accounting from one to the other. Participant understands that MIT, INRIA and KEIO will make all such jointly owned invention

21:51:29 <danbri> yrights available to the general public for unrestricted use.

21:51:29 <danbri> ]]

21:51:44 <mdupont> ok

21:51:47 <danbri> seems to be key. I need to understand whether all contributions to dev.w3.org are considered such contributions...

21:52:00 <danbri> ie jointly owned

21:52:01 <mdupont> well, i dont really mind. I can aggree to this for my contributions

21:52:08 <mdupont> you can have them for the w3c

21:52:12 <danbri> I'd like to get clear anyway

21:52:14 <danbri> thanks :)

21:52:31 <mdupont> i will do a little research and send a mail to the above people

21:52:44 <mdupont> do you know the differences between euler and cwm?

21:52:57 <mdupont> can i say that that what applies to cwm applies to euler

21:53:02 <danbri> they're in a similar space.

21:53:02 <mdupont> in terms of documentation?

21:53:23 <danbri> cwm is slower, more pythony, and has dodgy documentation. but lots of interesting add-ons.

21:53:29 <mdupont> :)

21:53:39 <mdupont> but cwm does not have docs

21:53:42 <mdupont> err

21:53:43 <danbri> Euler has less extras, has a reputation for being v fast, dunno about documentation.

21:53:45 <mdupont> sorry

21:53:51 <mdupont> i mean the other way

21:53:55 <mdupont> Euler does not have docs

21:54:28 <danbri> I knew of Euler before Cwm or N3 existed, I think Jos has wrapped something Cwm-like around an existing inference mechanism.

21:55:04 <danbri> So their approaches (fwd chaining, back chaining or whatever) to inferring stuff may vary, even if they share common input/output formats, commandline switches

21:55:21 <mdupont>http://fsfeurope.org/projects/fla/fla.en.html

21:55:21 <dc_rdfig> E: http://fsfeurope.org/projects/fla/fla.en.html from mdupont

21:55:35 <mdupont> E:|Fiduciary Licence Agreement (FLA)

21:55:35 <dc_rdfig> Titled item E.

21:55:38 <danbri> Cwm has builtins for things like go-get-a-web-page-and-parse-into-rdf, so internal differences in how they 'think' will probably manifest themselves...

21:55:46 <mdupont> E:The Fiduciary Licence Agreement (FLA) seeks to strengthen the legal fundament of Free Software by allowing Free Software authors to make the FSF Europe their fiduciary for all legal issues.

21:55:47 <dc_rdfig> Added comment E1.

21:55:59 <mdupont> E:This is in principle very similar to what the FSF North America has been doing with its Copyright Assignments (CAs) for the GNU Project in order to secure the legal fundament on which our operating system stands.

21:55:59 <dc_rdfig> Added comment E2.

21:56:07 <mdupont> E:As some readers will know, the continental European "Droit d'Auteur" (authorship right) tradition is in some parts significantly different from the Anglo-American Copyright tradition.

21:56:07 <dc_rdfig> Added comment E3.

21:56:37 * danbri doesn't know much about that, but expects to learn more

21:56:51 <danbri> typing break!

21:56:56 * danbri returns to spring cleaning

21:57:02 <mdupont> ok, well i can still send the mail

22:01:46 <danbri> that'd be good, ta

22:02:36 * danbri off for a reboot (plugging in another HD)

22:02:39 <danbri> back alter

22:02:41 <danbri> er later

23:23:47 <danbri> phew, that was close. Nearly ran out of mp3 space...

23:23:59 <DanC> ;)

23:24:00 <danbri> one new HD later, all is well.

23:24:34 <danbri> Except it wouldn't boot unless I swapped the mouse and keyboard over, for no apparent reason whatsoever.

23:45:33 <danbri> DanC, if I have cwm/swap checked freshly out of CVS, should 'python cwm.py' work?

23:45:45 <danbri> I'm getting NameError: name 'object' is not defined

23:46:14 <mdupont> danbri: i got the Euler running now for the introspector

23:46:31 <danbri> what is it doing w/ the introspector?

23:46:33 <mdupont> i will need some advice on making optional rules (for looks)

23:46:42 <mdupont> well the introspector outputs ntriples

23:46:53 <danbri> ah, right

23:46:57 <mdupont> so we can now write queries as n3

23:47:07 <mdupont> with the euler and execute them

23:47:23 <mdupont> the good thing is that euler is fast enough to handle it

23:47:27 <danbri> have you tried any typical queries?

23:47:31 <danbri> that was my next question :)

23:47:33 <mdupont> i wrote my own

23:47:46 <mdupont> _:e <node_fields:tree-code> _:type1. _:e <node_fields:name> _:d. _:d <node_fields:strg> _:f.

23:48:06 <mdupont> what is the tree-code, and the string of something with a name

23:48:14 <mdupont> but i want to condense that

23:48:25 <mdupont> or even have optional fields

23:49:02 <mdupont> i need to learn how this all works

23:49:23 <mdupont> if i use _:a it finds all the instances

23:49:24 <danbri> i'd like to write some squish/rdql to N3 convertor, that takes other rdf query languages and drives Euler with N3

23:49:37 <mdupont> that would be nice

23:50:02 <mdupont> even sql -> n3

23:50:04 * danbri hasn't studied n3 in an age, though...

23:50:13 <mdupont> it is pretty tough

23:50:16 <danbri> sql -> n3 is underdetermined, without a bunch of mapping stuff

23:50:28 <danbri> there are some rdf query -> sql gadgets though

23:50:35 <danbri> .google matt biddulph triplequerying

23:50:36 <datum> matt biddulph triplequerying: http://www.hackdiary.com/

23:50:40 <danbri> etc...

23:50:51 <danbri> .ping swada.w3.org

23:51:00 <danbri> datum, help?

23:51:27 * danbri bummed the wiki is down; i wanted to look at the rdfq / testcases entry

23:51:42 <mdupont> <e-kyle> That is why I need to know more about Euler, if it is just a query language or a real deduction engine.

23:52:00 <mdupont> it is a dedution engine?

23:52:00 <danbri> deduction

23:52:04 <mdupont> cool

23:52:22 <danbri> look around near http://www.agfa.com/w3c/

23:52:38 <mdupont> yeah i have been reading up

23:52:47 <mdupont>http://www.google.de/search?q=link:www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&output=search

23:52:48 <dc_rdfig> F: http://www.google.de/search?q=link:www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&output=search from mdupont

23:53:04 <danbri> there is a thesis somewhere...

23:53:05 <mdupont> F:| goole the links pointing to Euler

23:53:05 <dc_rdfig> Titled item F.

23:53:12 <mdupont> F:| google the links pointing to Euler

23:53:12 <dc_rdfig> Titled item F.

23:53:38 <danbri> see the example: for danb.n3 ask danb-query.n3 and get danb-result.n3

23:53:48 <mdupont> i saw that

23:53:54 <danbri> ...that was one of my scenarios. all about deducing when two things are the same

23:54:16 <danbri> is that stuff in the euler-csharp tests?

23:54:19 <mdupont> a comment would be nice in that?

23:54:22 <mdupont> [ a agg:Company; agg:corporateHomepage _:hp; agg:owner [ a agg:Person; agg:personalMailbox _:mb ] ] .

23:54:25 <mdupont> it is all in there

23:54:29 <danbri> :)

23:54:32 <danbri> for that one, see

23:54:35 <mdupont> what does that mean?

23:54:36 <danbri> .google smushing

23:54:36 <datum> smushing: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Dec/0198.html

23:54:39 <danbri> nope

23:55:09 <mdupont> [what does [ mean ]]

23:55:10 <danbri> see http://rdfweb.org/2001/01/design/smush.html for more context

23:55:42 <danbri> I think it is 'there exists', ie a blank node in an rdf graph, followed by a bunch of properties

23:55:57 <mdupont> heheh

23:55:59 <mdupont> cool!

23:56:25 <danbri> 'there exists a Company, with a corporateHomepage we call _:hp, and an owner that is a Person that has a personalMailbox that we call _:mb'

23:56:38 <mdupont> greate

23:57:40 <danbri> its a chunk of RDF, basically, excepting that we also label bits of the structure for convenience and reference elsewhere in the expression. RDF alone doesn't let you do that. N3 sorta hovers about a plain RDF doc, and points to bits of it...

23:58:08 <mdupont> i am excited

23:58:11 <mdupont> now what about a list?

23:58:25 <mdupont> i have a chain of parameters like this

23:58:37 <mdupont> _:a <node_fields:prms> _:pn0.

23:58:42 <danbri> I'm not sure how it deals with the various list constructs

23:58:45 <mdupont> pn0 is the first parameter

23:58:50 <mdupont> _:p1 <node_fields:chan> _:pn1.

23:58:53 <mdupont> that is the second

23:58:59 <mdupont> but i want it to be optional

23:59:04 <mdupont> i think i need a rule

23:59:17 <danbri> i'm not sure.... best to ask one of the N3ish folks...

23:59:28 <danbri> I'm interested re optionals, not sure if N3 supports those

23:59:47 <danbri> Mozilla (in XUL template rules) does, as does DAML Query Language... and also EricP's RDF query system.

23:59:55 <mdupont> ok