Semantic Web Interest Group IRC Chat Logs for 2003-03-13

02:03:08 <tav> --

02:03:13 <tav> <zooko> So how does one write the following metadata in RDF triples:

02:03:13 <tav> <zooko> mnetURI=38ppp56jbb8b64zrh8reoadzgn1zpdxc76enkmqduwtf4tug

02:03:13 <tav> <zooko> type=text/plain

02:03:13 <tav> <zooko> title=my body is a simulation

02:03:14 <tav> --

02:03:29 <tav> ?

02:12:30 <sbp`> something like either:-

02:12:31 <sbp`> <> <...#mnetURI> "38ppp56jbb8b64zrh8reoadzgn1zpdxc76enkmqduwtf4tug" .

02:12:31 <sbp`> <> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/format> "text/plain" .

02:12:31 <sbp`> <> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title> "my body is a simulation" .

02:12:36 <sbp`> or, if there's an mnet scheme registered:-

02:12:37 <sbp`> <mnet:38ppp56jbb8b64zrh8reoadzgn1zpdxc76enkmqduwtf4tug> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/format> "text/plain" .

02:12:37 <sbp`> <mnet:38ppp56jbb8b64zrh8reoadzgn1zpdxc76enkmqduwtf4tug> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title> "my body is a simulation" .

02:12:40 <sbp`> both in NTriples

03:10:35 <radioraheem> radioraheem is now known as jordan

03:41:04 <DanC> anybody seen ericm lately?

03:41:16 <DanC> EricM? got PatH's pictures from the swarch meeting?

04:03:47 * DanC saves http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/ Revision: 1.51

04:11:48 <golbeck_malty> golbeck_malty is now known as golbeck

04:18:17 * DanC waves

05:34:56 <tav> cheers sbp

08:34:46 <larsbot>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/wd-pubsubj-introduction-01.htm

08:34:48 <dc_rdfig> A: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/wd-pubsubj-introduction-01.htm from larsbot

08:34:59 <larsbot> A:|OASIS Pubsubj TC Recommendations

08:35:00 <dc_rdfig> Titled item A.

08:35:10 <larsbot> A:The published subjects document is now published officially.

08:35:10 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A1.

08:35:17 <larsbot> A:Comments requested.

08:35:17 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A2.

10:50:09 <dajobe>http://library.caltech.edu/openurl/Public_Comments.htm

10:50:09 <dc_rdfig> B: http://library.caltech.edu/openurl/Public_Comments.htm from dajobe

10:50:16 <dajobe> B:|OpenURL Standard version 1.0 released for Public Comment

10:50:16 <dc_rdfig> Titled item B.

10:53:39 <dajobe> A:P1 - needs references to TMs, RDF, DAML, ..

10:53:39 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A3.

10:54:01 <dajobe> A:P3 PSI introduced without definition - is that Indicator or Identifier?

10:54:01 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A4.

10:55:06 <dajobe> A:P3 maybe "PSI sets" is another special term?

10:55:06 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A5.

10:55:36 <dajobe> A:compare to an rdf vocabulary/schema/set of ontology terms?

10:55:36 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A6.

10:57:12 <dajobe> 2.3 URIs or the resources identified by them don't need to be network retrievable

10:57:17 <dajobe> A:2.3 URIs or the resources identified by them don't need to be network retrievable

10:57:17 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A7.

11:09:32 <dajobe> A:hmm, 2.4 "However, most subjects are not resources " may be assuming resource=network retrievable (or has-a-URI). semweb defn of resource is different

11:09:32 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A8.

11:13:59 <dajobe> A:2.4.1 "subject indicator is a resource ..." and from the title 'for humans', may be a textual definition... 2.4.2 "subject identifiers ... are resources" and for computers, unambigous. Therefore resources can be not network retrievable?

11:13:59 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A9.

11:15:14 <dajobe> A:i'm confused again, what are the identity relations for "same subject indicator" - string compare for strings?

11:15:15 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A10.

11:17:14 <dajobe> A:since it says in 2.4.2. if two topics have the same indicator, they are the same subject. And then goes on to say you should use the subject indicator's address (subject identifier) to make the two topics be about the same subject. And doesn't that mean a subject identifier is a (for computers) feature/property of a subject indicator

11:17:14 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A11.

11:18:36 <dajobe> A:2.4.2 " The address of a subject indicator is called a subject identifier." but there is also something else called a 'subject address' !

11:18:36 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A12.

11:18:42 <dajobe> A:sorry, I'm giving up now

11:18:42 <dc_rdfig> Added comment A13.

12:59:22 <Wack> hmm, there seems to be quite an overlap between foaf and vcard properties

13:00:49 <libby> there's some, yes, but they have different purposed. plusthe vcard in rdf note isn't very good

13:00:59 <libby> s/purposed/purposes/

13:43:02 <libby>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Mar/0012.html

13:43:03 <dc_rdfig> C: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Mar/0012.html from libby

13:43:45 <libby> C:|Agenda for RDF query IRC meeting, today (13th March) at 15:00 GMT

13:43:45 <dc_rdfig> Titled item C.

13:43:52 <libby> C:i.e. in an hour or so.

13:43:53 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C1.

13:44:16 <libby> C:there are various clashes with other meetings, so we may have to move things around a little

13:44:16 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C2.

13:45:02 <libby> C:it'll last an hour

13:45:03 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C3.

13:49:36 <libby> C:[new page for RDF query tests|http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdfqr-tests/]

13:49:37 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C4.

13:49:42 <libby> C:[new page for RDF query tests|http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdfqr-tests/] by Danbri

13:49:43 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C5.

13:49:51 <libby> C4:""

13:49:51 <dc_rdfig> Deleted comment C4.

13:51:10 <libby> C:[Timbl's document 'Possible RDF query work'|http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/query]

13:51:10 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C5.

13:51:30 <libby> (there's something wrong with that document btw - it's coming out as text)

13:52:02 <libby> C:[trip report W3c tech plenary|http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw/2003Mar/0001.html]

13:52:02 <dc_rdfig> Added comment C6.

13:53:47 <libby>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Mar/0013.html

13:53:48 <dc_rdfig> D: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Mar/0013.html from libby

13:54:25 <libby> D:|Alberto's latest schema for RDF query manifest

13:54:25 <dc_rdfig> Titled item D.

13:54:57 <libby> D:I like it, wonder what status=true means though...

13:54:57 <dc_rdfig> Added comment D1.

13:56:37 <libby> C6:[my trip report W3C tech plenary|http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw/2003Mar/0001.html]

13:56:37 <dc_rdfig> Replaced comment C6.

13:58:32 <libby> BLURB:RDF query meet agenda 3 (E): Conversion tool in Java for different RDF query languages

13:58:33 <dc_rdfig> E: RDF query meet agenda 3 (E): Conversion tool in Java for different RDF query languages from libby

13:59:01 <libby> E:This takes a query defined in N-triples and converts to various RDF query language syntaxes

13:59:02 <dc_rdfig> Added comment E1.

13:59:32 <libby> BLURB:RDF query meet agenda 2 (F): RDF Query (and Rule) Testcase Repository

13:59:32 <dc_rdfig> F: RDF query meet agenda 2 (F): RDF Query (and Rule) Testcase Repository from libby

14:00:13 <libby> F:what docs should we put up there; how we deal ith arguments, licensing

14:00:13 <dc_rdfig> Added comment F1.

14:00:48 <libby> BLURB:RDF query meet agenda 1 (G): Reporting back from the W3C technical Plenary

14:00:48 <dc_rdfig> G: RDF query meet agenda 1 (G): Reporting back from the W3C technical Plenary from libby

14:01:44 <larsbot> libby: I'm trying to figure out what's happening with RDF query, but finding it really hard

14:01:47 <larsbot> is there an overview somewhere?

14:04:58 <larsbot> I read the minutes, but can't really work out what's going on

14:17:56 <sbp`> logger_1, pointer?

14:17:56 <sbp`> See http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-03-13#T14-17-56

14:34:04 <libby> were none of the links I just doid any good?

14:34:13 <libby> - I'm afriad that's all there is

14:34:35 <libby> i.er. in C above?

14:35:48 <libby> this set ofmeetings is promarily to discuss testcases and testcase formats for RDF query. I'm doing a report, and I thought this was a useful way of using the time: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/dev_workshop_report_2/

14:45:32 <larsbot> libby: none of the ones I've looked at so far helped, no

14:45:42 <larsbot> what confuses me the most is how you can create test cases before you have a query language

14:45:47 <libby> what dont you uunderstand?

14:45:59 <libby> we've got tens of qls lasbot

14:46:19 <larsbot> yeah, so how can you create test cases? which one are you making them for?

14:46:38 <libby> we're trying to see if we can create testcases which can be used for interoperating with some of them.

14:46:50 <libby> most of them differe only syntactically

14:47:07 <libby> s/most/many/

14:47:37 <larsbot> hmmmm. and you think you can then create the test cases in some neutral format that maps to the different QLs?

14:47:45 <libby> or, to bne more precise: most can do similar simple queries although they differ in their power

14:47:50 <libby> yes

14:47:59 <larsbot> makes sense, but how will it be useful?

14:48:21 <libby> well for a strt, we shoudl be able to share our testcses, make sure we're getting the same results

14:48:22 <larsbot> the TimBL document seems helpful, but comes up as text/plain

14:48:33 <libby> yeah i know, not aure what's happened there

14:49:08 <libby> secondly, it might get us some way towards definiing what's the same about these QLs.

14:49:25 <alberto> waves to Andy and Libby

14:49:29 <larsbot> and you think that sameness might be a useful starting point for the standard QL?

14:49:30 <libby> hey alberto

14:49:38 * AndyS waves to one and all

14:49:46 * larsbot waves, too

14:49:51 <libby> I think that if there were to be a WG for example, they would need to do this sort of thing

14:49:56 <libby> hey andys, didnt see you there

14:50:16 <AndyS> TBL's doc starts <?xml .. which causes the HTML to be displayed in IE and Mozilla (for me at least)

14:50:26 <libby> (not that I'm particularly keen on a WG)

14:50:32 <AndyS> Chop it off and its readable

14:50:33 <larsbot> I've told Opera to trust the content-type (not always a good idea)

14:50:48 <larsbot> libby: so how do you plan to develop the QL then?

14:50:50 <libby> ...but swad-e's remit is to support W3C's SWAD work, so it firts with taht

14:51:14 <libby> not sure exactly what you mean larsbot....

14:51:33 <alberto> D:mf:status is meant to be used for things like positive/negative tests if necessary - not sure it is of immediate usage

14:51:33 <dc_rdfig> Added comment D2.

14:51:34 <larsbot> I'm not sure what you mean, either, libby :)

14:51:53 <libby> heheh, so we're even then :)

14:52:07 <larsbot> yep :)

14:52:09 <libby> s/firts/fits/

14:52:26 <larsbot> I assumed by "WG" you meant "an RDF Query WG responsible for developing the QL"

14:52:27 <larsbot> right?

14:52:31 <libby> yup

14:52:46 <AndyS> Alberto: what then is the difference between mf:status and mf:output?

14:52:50 <larsbot> but you're not keen on one, so what's the alternative?

14:53:47 * AndyS secretly wants two vocabularies to experiment with translating between them :-) Not really but ...

14:53:52 <libby> I'm not keen because they can be so slow and boring. but that's a personal thing...there are many good reasons for doing a WG, noot least cos this sort of meeting (for exampl) can be quite cliquey if you're not careful

14:54:07 <alberto> D:mfstatus=false would for example mean that the mf:input/tq:queryDocument is not expressing a valid triple-pattern path or stuff like that

14:54:08 <dc_rdfig> Added comment D3.

14:54:31 <larsbot> it seems you've started without a WG, at least

14:54:37 <libby> I don;t know if there willbe one or not, but, regardless, if we can get some way towards showing that some existing ones can interoperate, we'll be halping out the community

14:54:50 * danbri realises he wasn't connected to IRC, and MIRC didn't notice :( :(

14:54:51 <libby> s/ones/RDF query languages/

14:54:57 <danbri> wondered why all quiet...

14:55:17 <larsbot> I understand, but sooner or later you'll need to do more, right?

14:55:59 <alberto> andy, mf:status would tell to the machine whether or not to expect mf:output, or simply express whether or not the test is positive or negative

14:56:13 <AndyS> I agree with larsbot - sending queries over the web (between toolkits) suggests a std query format for a common subset at least

14:56:24 <libby> larsbot, I would think so yeah.

14:56:26 <AndyS> alberto - OK - I see now

14:56:48 <larsbot> any idea when you would be ready for that step?

14:56:53 <dajobe> sounsd like the rdf core test case schema

14:56:57 <libby> andys, well yes, otherwise we could not share tests :)

14:57:09 <larsbot> right :)

14:57:25 <larsbot> we're currently starting up the topic map query language work and I'm interested in keeping up with the RDF QL work

14:57:36 <larsbot> especially since I think we may both be looking at datalog-like QLs

14:57:41 <alberto> anybody thought of some XSLT based RDQL/SquishQL toy? :-)

14:57:56 <libby> I think we can keep fairly neutral at this stage,; keeping to technical points, using existing syntaxes; exploring rather than proposing anything

14:58:14 <libby> larsbot, did you see alberto's page about usecases?

14:58:43 <alberto> i.e. given an RDF, XSLT parse it and query/transform it using a kinda template

14:58:46 <AndyS> Is there a URL for the TMQL status?

14:59:07 <larsbot> AndyS: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/tmql/

14:59:08 <libby>http://rdfstore.sourceforge.net/2002/06/24/rdf-query/

14:59:09 <dc_rdfig> H: http://rdfstore.sourceforge.net/2002/06/24/rdf-query/ from libby

14:59:19 <alberto> RDF<--to-->RDF using XSLT

14:59:21 <larsbot> libby: I did. that makes it a bit clearer

14:59:24 <AndyS> Alberto - isn't that what "cwm -filter" is doing for you?

14:59:27 <libby> H|Alberto and Andy'd RDF query usecases page

14:59:32 <AndyS> larsbot - TA

14:59:33 <libby> H:|Alberto and Andy'd RDF query usecases page

14:59:33 <dc_rdfig> Titled item H.

14:59:50 <libby> does it make sense for you to add a Topic maps query to it?

14:59:55 <danbri> alberto, Mozilla's XUL template machinery is somewhat in that vein, though not XSLT.

15:00:07 <danbri> .google xul mozilla templates squish danbri

15:00:09 <datum> xul mozilla templates squish danbri: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Nov/0012.html

15:00:19 <larsbot> libby: I think it does

15:00:26 <alberto> andy, yes but I was thinking of a full lightweight XSLT solution which any xslt engine could use - anyway, just an idea ;)

15:00:29 <libby> that woudl be neat

15:00:35 <larsbot> libby: Holger Rath and I are working on a test case doc for TMQL

15:00:39 <larsbot> libby: we should try to share

15:00:41 <libby> that's cool

15:00:46 <libby> indeedy

15:01:06 <libby> is it public?

15:01:16 <libby> oop, we shoudl 'start' officially

15:01:20 <larsbot> it's just a skeleton at the moment

15:01:21 <larsbot> ok :)

15:01:29 <libby> --------RDF query testcases meeting starts-------

15:01:59 <libby> I think it woudl be good to share larsbot

15:02:07 <alberto> cool danbri :-) actually I am thinking about playing with XUL like you did to generate HTML forms (XForms)

15:03:00 <libby> is there anything anyone would liek to add to the agenda?

15:03:13 <libby> (or next week's agenda?

15:03:15 <libby> )

15:03:34 <alberto> libby, inline document in the manifest

15:03:56 <libby> ok.

15:04:08 <alberto> i.e. use rdf:parseType="Literal" on tq:Document or not

15:04:41 <libby> BLURB:RDF query meet agenda 4 (I): inline document in the manifest

15:04:41 <dc_rdfig> I: RDF query meet agenda 4 (I): inline document in the manifest from libby

15:05:05 <libby> ok, we'll start at the very begining....

15:05:17 <libby> RDF query meet agenda 1 (G): Reporting back from the W3C technical Plenary

15:05:33 <libby> I was there....anyone else there who is here today?

15:05:44 <danbri> I was!

15:06:04 <libby> ericp is happy to talk about it, but he;'s in another meetig at the moment (Eric prud'hommeaux)

15:06:08 <libby> danbri was :)

15:06:12 <danbri> lots of debate about how rules and query fit together, which is the most mature to progress , how closely they're related etc...

15:06:13 <alberto> I:see Alberto's [attempt|http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Mar/att-0005/query-results-manifest-draft.rdf] to inline documents

15:06:13 <dc_rdfig> Added comment I1.

15:06:59 <libby> did you ahve any feeling about conclusions at the end of the meeting danbri?

15:07:30 <danbri> it wasn't the most conclusive of meetings, lots of brainstorming and position airing.

15:07:37 <libby> indeed

15:08:14 <danbri> I think there was general feeling that a common subset of RDF query (conjuctive common core to rdfdb/squish/rdql/algae/etc) is worth focussing on, but that we shouldn't treat that as the final word in query

15:08:31 <danbri> ...and that we should bear in mind common ground with rule engines, languages along the way.

15:08:32 <libby> grove: see [http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/|the annotated agenda for the SW architecture part] and related links to logs

15:08:46 <libby> ar@e

15:08:53 <AndyS> What are the rules crowd proposing? Is there an input (c.f. DAML+OIL input to OWL)?

15:08:55 <libby> G:see [http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/|the annotated agenda for the SW architecture part] and related links to logs

15:08:55 <dc_rdfig> Added comment G1.

15:08:59 <danbri> I tried to take reasonable irc notes for some of it, but haven't yet tried reading them back.

15:09:19 * AndyS found danbri's IRC notes very readable

15:09:24 <libby> danbri's notes were muh admired at the time

15:09:41 <danbri> AndyS, the main rule advocates at the meeting were the RuleML folk (Harold, Ben, Said).

15:09:57 <libby> the ruleml crowd's opinion is that query is part of rules, and the two should not be separated.

15:10:03 <alberto> is there some kind of agreement with rules/OWL people where to "put" rules into the RDF query/transformation chain?

15:10:26 <libby> however, several people felt that this would be too researchy

15:10:44 <danbri> Yes, rule people argued that RDF query is clear subsumed by the majesty and power of a full Rule solution, so we should concentrate on that bigger picture.

15:10:59 <libby> ...and that seomthing more specific and constrained would be better at this time, along the lines of what danbri just said.

15:11:12 <danbri> I didn't feel that case was yet made successfully, so encouraged them to demonstrate interop and use www-rdf-rules more.

15:11:16 <alberto> danbri, I like the bigger/simpler picture :-)

15:11:29 <libby> so they are keen to add o your doc alberto

15:11:42 <alberto> ok libby

15:11:59 <danbri> Re a proposal, to finish answer AndyS's question, RuleML discussions are happening lately in the DAML/EU joint committee, and there seems to be some progress there.

15:12:19 <danbri> To date, they've not focussed in that forum on relating Rule tech to the existing DQL proposal.

15:12:40 <libby> regardless, I do not think we shoud be divierted from our initial goal of making interoperable tests for RDF query

15:13:12 <danbri> those discussiosn are publically visible... see http://www.daml.org/committee/ -> http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/

15:13:57 <danbri> I agree, I think everyone has had notice that theres some overlap with rules, but the focus here is beginning with minimalist interop amongst simpler RDF systems, then elaborating to the fancy stuff once we're underway.

15:14:06 <libby> these discussion will no doubt continue; however it would be better if they wre on a list anyone could join (although I glad you can see the archive of the joint committee)

15:14:34 <danbri> Looking for eg at the time that got taken up in DAML Joint Cttee w.r.t. semantics of bNodes in RDF query, the tiniest thing can explode and take up loads of time.

15:14:55 <libby> I totally agree

15:15:22 <libby> in my limited experience the tighter the focus the better.....

15:15:25 <AndyS> Seems OK if a WG can do something in 2y (e.g. query+templates (easy case of rules)) without needing the higher level of rules above ur-datalog

15:15:36 <danbri> yup

15:16:07 <danbri> So one way of thinking about what we're doing here, as a spinoff from an Interest Group, is as doing the groundwork for a Working Group proposal.

15:16:34 <AndyS> I looked at Mandarax (a quote RuleML engine) it just reads RuleML and can do more

15:16:55 <libby> danbri, is there a link handy for what needs to be done for a wg proposal?

15:16:57 <danbri> A WG is widely anticipated but not inevitable. We could find that a bunch of testcases turns out to be really useful, and satisfies enough of folks wishes that energy for a full WG disipates. Or the opposite.

15:16:57 * libby looks

15:17:33 <danbri> There's probably something in the w3c process document, http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/

15:17:39 <AndyS> So writing documents would be good output then, danbri? To leave a trail in the sand?

15:18:03 <danbri> yes, writing docs, and demonstrating raw materials for standardisation

15:18:06 * AndyS ignores the tide coming in.

15:18:34 <libby> :)

15:18:45 <danbri> eg i think many of us believe there are a good number of RDF query engines that basically do the same job for a subset of queries. A few more docs and test cases and we could show that more compellingly.

15:19:30 <danbri> a 2ndary benefit is that such tests can help in deciding scope for a full QL design, by showing the degree to which interop has already been achieved

15:20:13 <libby> do people feel happy that we've covered this item?

15:20:21 <libby> we may return to it later

15:20:23 * danbri happy

15:20:29 <libby> or we can contuinue now.

15:20:32 * libby happy

15:20:42 <libby> andys? larsbot? alberto?

15:20:59 * AndyS happy - still wants more on RuleML impls - but not here

15:21:17 <libby> ok

15:21:20 <alberto> I am in favor of an IETF like approach - sketch, code, demonstrate and then specify/standardize instead of the other way round

15:21:39 * danbri likes that approach

15:22:14 <alberto> I will look more into ruleML stuff and try to fit into our "simpler" approach

15:22:22 <alberto> ok to move one libby for me

15:22:29 <alberto> s/one/on/

15:22:36 <AndyS> I think we are in that phase now - and moving to specify/standarize

15:22:47 <libby> thanks alberto. to an extend though, it's imp[orant that the ruleml folks do that sort of thing themslevs I thnk

15:22:51 <danbri> I think Libby's generator that takes rdf queries and outputs RuleML is a good thing to maintain / update.

15:23:05 <libby> anbri, do you ahve time to talk about RDF query meet agenda 2 (F): RDF Query (and Rule) Testcase Repository

15:23:07 <libby> now?

15:23:14 <libby> s/anbri/danbri

15:23:15 <DanC> outputs RuleML... is there a spec for the RuleML it outputs?

15:23:15 <danbri> Sure.

15:23:26 <alberto> danbri,+1 - it is a nice demostrator of what we see as RDF query

15:23:36 <danbri> I think Libby went from an earlier example, not the new stuff that was presented last week.

15:23:39 <danbri> libby?

15:23:49 <libby> erm, I was copying ericP's version, but it doesnt use their object orientated approach.

15:24:00 <libby> it's pretty similar though

15:24:05 <danbri> Ah right.

15:24:17 <danbri> OK, a few words on test case repository...?

15:24:18 <libby> thanks danbri

15:24:21 <libby> please :)

15:24:32 <danbri> did folks see http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdfqr-tests/ ?

15:24:38 <danbri>http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdfqr-tests/

15:24:38 <dc_rdfig> J: http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdfqr-tests/ from danbri

15:24:46 <danbri> J:|RDF Query (and Rule) Testcase Repository

15:24:46 <dc_rdfig> Titled item J.

15:24:56 <danbri> J:"This is a testcase repository to support interop discussion amongst RDF tool developers, hosted through W3C's RDF Interest Group as part of the Semantic Web Activity."

15:24:57 <dc_rdfig> Added comment J1.

15:25:12 <danbri> So following our previous meeting, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Feb/0014.html

15:25:13 <alberto> danbri, saw that - nice! :-)

15:25:20 <libby> F:see [RDF Query (and Rule) Testcase Repository|http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdfqr-tests]

15:25:20 <dc_rdfig> Added comment F2.

15:25:45 <AndyS> One minor Q: How does this relate to SWAD-e?

15:25:48 <danbri> ...I've been working to get the bare bones set up. It's really just a front page for now.

15:25:58 <ericP> libby, "ericP's version" refers to the one from the survey?

15:26:10 <libby> yep, sorry, shoudla linked to it

15:26:23 <libby> btw, harold said it was accurate.

15:26:28 <danbri> I guess it is supported-in-part-by SWAD-Europe, in that swad-e pays for my time, libby's, perhaps others.

15:26:43 <ericP> i could re-work it in about 10 mins to show obj-oriented version if that's helpful

15:26:49 <alberto> BTW: [TimBL page|http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/query] does not display right as HTML (wrong mime-type sent?)

15:26:49 <dc_rdfig> Label BTW not found.

15:26:50 <libby> so danbri, this is a bit like http://www.w3.org./2002/12/cal/?

15:27:05 <danbri> Organisationally this falls under the RDF Interest Group, for now. Much like the old RDF Issues List was RDF IG before RDF Core and Brian came along to save the day.

15:27:17 <AndyS> TBL's doc starts <?xml ...>

15:27:18 <danbri> Yes, same model as RDF cal taskforce.

15:27:56 <libby> so there, we put testcases; also danC's conversion code from ical to RDF

15:27:59 <danbri> Per last meeting, * <danbri> AndyS, if you're gonna co-edit this w/ Libby, I'll take an

15:27:59 <danbri> [action] to get you SSH/CVS access to a shared workspace...

15:27:59 <danbri>

15:28:05 <alberto> andys, yes and I need to saveas to read it

15:28:23 <danbri> ...AndyS should now have access via CVS/SSH, although we're collectively yet to decide what exactly to put there.

15:28:34 * AndyS notes danbri has done his action

15:28:39 <danbri> Libby has access too. Alberto, can you for now work via these folks.

15:28:50 <AndyS> I can access it.

15:28:57 <ericP> alberto, i'll try to deal with the TimBL page in 10 mins

15:29:06 <AndyS> Just need some material to put there :-)

15:29:12 <libby> I'm happy to put stuff up for you alberto, once we;'ve decided the sorts of things we will put up tere

15:29:33 <alberto> I can go through Andy and Libby - no problem

15:29:37 <libby> ericP, if you getthe urge, that'd be great (re ruleml I mean ;)

15:29:45 <ericP> roger

15:30:01 <danbri> I tried to make a front page for the test repository that would allow us to evolve it into a rules-too thing, without distracting us from initial focus. I did make an effort to link to as much relevant background material as possible, especially RDF systems that have RDF query test machinery. But I know it isn't complete.

15:30:20 <libby> there's lots of useful stuff there

15:30:21 <alberto> the survey is static stuff + couple CGI + rdf2html.pl which needs rdfstore (or use andy's rdf2html.java)

15:30:32 <libby> I was thinking of adding a meetings bit, not done it yet

15:30:58 <danbri> From my perspective, the next thing I'd like to see is agreement w.r.t. manifest format. I've lost touch with state of those design discussions.

15:31:17 <libby> alberto just sent somethign round - see the chump.

15:31:26 <libby> andys, have you also got stuff?

15:31:54 <danbri> A question: are we happy debating at the level of 'does this work?' or do folks feel need to go meta, and spend time being more explicit about design goals, requirements etc for test format?

15:32:07 <libby> I agree, btw re manifest format

15:32:11 <AndyS> Yes - half-done write up of the result set vocab I have already emailed around

15:32:21 <libby> right

15:32:48 <libby> we have alberto's manifest on the agenda for later; we could bring that forward if you like

15:33:05 <libby> my issue if how we deal with drafts etc - how we say: this isl;t finished....

15:33:08 <AndyS> Agreeing goals/requirements would be good

15:33:10 <libby> ...this is a proposal

15:33:15 <danbri> AndyS, if you'd like to check in your result set proposal to the repository (plastered with 'draft!' disclaimers if you prefer), go for it...

15:33:32 <AndyS> danbri - will do (not today)

15:33:49 <alberto> andy, is the result set the one you posted to swad-e list? or is an update?

15:34:03 <danbri> last thing on http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdfqr-tests/ ""If there are links that could usefully be added here, please announce them to the Rules and query (www-rdf-rules) mailing list.

15:34:04 <danbri> """

15:34:16 <libby> in the cal meetings, I think we said we'd send a note to the mailing list when it changed - does that make sense here?

15:34:24 <AndyS> Nearly the same - exactly the same as I have used in Jena for testing RDQL

15:34:25 <danbri> I think so.

15:34:52 <alberto> ok thaks

15:34:59 <alberto> s/thaks/thanks/

15:35:03 <AndyS> Chnaged some names people didn't like, fixed on namespace, that sort of stuff. Still solution->bindings

15:35:13 <danbri> Perhaps we should talk about license restrictions on test cases we check in?

15:35:17 <libby> "I think so" re changes to the page danbri?

15:35:31 <libby> 2.3 licensing of documents on the site

15:35:40 <alberto> andys, did you email it to www-rdf-rules?

15:35:40 <libby> I think that's an important one

15:35:48 * danbri nods, revisits agenda

15:35:56 <danbri> yes, the was w.r.t. changes to the page/site

15:36:26 * DanC wonders... agenda? is there a meeting going on? pls let the /topic say so

15:36:58 <libby> F:changes to the page/site should be emailed to the www-rdf-rules@w3.org list

15:36:58 <dc_rdfig> Added comment F3.

15:37:11 <libby> I can;t change the topic, danc. the agenda has been chumped.

15:37:21 * danbri doesn't have his irc passwords set up on this client :(

15:37:24 <AndyS> Alberto - yes - last month http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Feb/0005.html

15:37:24 <danbri> see http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/03/13/2003-03-13.html#1047564048.274816

15:37:32 <DanC> DanC has changed the topic to: Can I change the topic?

15:37:42 <DanC> topic suggestion, please?

15:38:06 <ericP> libby's in charge

15:38:08 <libby> RDF query testcases meeting 15:00-16:00 GMT agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Mar/0012.html

15:38:33 <DanC> DanC has changed the topic to: RDF query testcases meeting 15:00-16:00 GMT http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/

15:38:38 <libby> thanks danc

15:38:38 <arnarl> hi

15:38:39 <AndyS>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/jena/jena2/vocabularies/result-set-vocab.n3?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain

15:38:39 <dc_rdfig> K: http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/jena/jena2/vocabularies/result-set-vocab.n3?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain from AndyS

15:39:23 <libby> we are on agenda item 2.3 licensing of documents on the site

15:39:24 <AndyS> K:|Result set vocabulary used by Jena for RDQL testing

15:39:24 <dc_rdfig> Titled item K.

15:40:00 <alberto> andys, nice! I need to RDFy mine too

15:40:05 <libby> I propose that all documents on the site are licensed under W3C license http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231

15:40:34 <libby> s/the site/http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdfqr-tests//

15:40:43 <danbri> seconded

15:41:01 <alberto> ok for me

15:41:03 <AndyS> I don't work for W3C - and I am not the copyright holder to give it away.

15:41:07 <danbri> (noting that this doesn't require copyright to be reasigned to w3c/mit/ercim/keio)

15:41:15 <libby> this is because this part of the site is really about testcases.

15:41:17 <libby> right

15:41:23 <libby> does anyone have any objections?

15:41:27 <danbri> context: the older W3C licenses used to assume (c) holder was to be W3C.

15:41:39 <danbri> ...the new one is more general

15:42:00 <libby> it's compatible with GPL right?

15:42:25 <libby> ands, you do not have to give copyright to W3C

15:42:32 <libby> andys, you do not have to give copyright to W3C

15:42:41 <danbri> AndyS, could you take an action to review http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231 and find out if it would be acceptable to your employer?

15:42:49 <libby> I am in the same position, and I would think alberto is too.

15:42:58 <AndyS> Err - it says W3C SOFTWARE NOTICE AND LICENSE

15:43:27 <danbri> it is GPL compatible in that content under this licesne can be relicensed under GPL; but its also designed to allow commercial re-use without the resitrctions of GPL

15:43:28 <alberto> yes :-) but I do not know enough about W3C way of licensing yet ;)

15:43:32 <AndyS> I would hope it is fine. If HP retains copyright then there are no problems. The style looks OK.

15:43:33 <danbri> Yes, that is the name of the license.

15:43:52 <libby> [[

15:43:54 <libby> This version removes the copyright ownership notice such that this license can be used with materials other than those owned by the W3C,

15:43:54 <libby> ]]

15:44:00 <libby> excellent :)

15:44:10 * DanC enjoys reading libby's trip report

15:44:17 <libby> :) really?

15:44:43 <libby> so will you andys and maybe alberto too take the action?

15:45:03 <libby> I think it woudl be least confusing if all docs are the same plicense

15:45:04 <ericP> danc, did you get slides from harold's lighening talk?

15:45:16 <DanC> no, ericP

15:45:27 <libby> and important that people feel they can use these testcases for any software they are creating

15:45:31 <ericP> oh, weak. i'll lean on benjamin today

15:45:38 <DanC> yes, weak.

15:45:47 <AndyS> The action what? License is fine if no xfer is required - else I have to get everything signed off (which is just slow)

15:45:56 <libby> ok, fine.

15:45:57 <AndyS> but would happen.

15:46:13 <libby> would happen?

15:46:28 <alberto> so, fine to license the manifest/query schema with W3C license - once moved the RDF Query and Rules survey from sourceforge to W3C I will update that one too

15:46:43 <AndyS> (getting it signed off) It's just like email in the archive unless copyright xfer is involved

15:47:03 <libby> are you going to move it alberto? cool.

15:47:16 <libby> ...it seems vvery well thought of :)

15:47:29 <ericP> alberto, you said that http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/query didn't display right, but it looks valid and appropriately mime-typed (Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1) to me

15:47:42 <libby> ok, can we resolve that proposition then?

15:47:46 <AndyS> Silly question - why isn't the current link enough? Its on the web!

15:47:54 <libby> ericP, it looked wrong to me too.

15:47:55 <alberto> libby, I am doing all this as free-lancer/volunteer and not for my company yet :) so as far I does not go against the other work I am doing for them I am happy with your W3C licensing idea

15:47:56 <danbri> I propose: RESOLVED, all contents of http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdfqr-tests/ to be licensed under terms of http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231

15:48:07 <danbri> ericp, timbl just got that fixed. I pinged him already. ta.

15:48:10 <AndyS> eric P - it has been fixed inthe last hour

15:48:17 <libby> can you propose resolved something? ;)

15:48:17 <DanC> er... but that requires aboutEachPrefix, doesn't it, danbri? 1/2 ;-)

15:48:19 <ericP> roger

15:48:36 <libby> seconded, anyway

15:48:49 <alberto> ericP, it is probably my Safari doing something nusty (need to telnet HTTP GET the doc and see - later)

15:49:08 <libby> last minute objections to danbri's proposal?

15:49:38 <libby> F:RESOLVED, all contents of http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdfqr-tests/ to be licensed under terms of http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231

15:49:38 <dc_rdfig> Added comment F4.

15:49:41 <libby> thanks :)

15:49:42 <alberto> eriP, shift+reload worked :-) thanks!

15:49:58 <libby> ok we only have 10 mins unfortnately

15:50:09 <libby> RDF query meet agenda 3 (E): Conversion tool in Java for different RDF query languages

15:50:24 <alberto> +1 for danbri proposal

15:50:47 <libby> for this I'd just like to say that's it's available, I think it might be useful, and I'll work on it , especially if anyone findas bugs (and probably loads)

15:50:54 <alberto> s/danbri/libby/

15:51:30 <AndyS> Is it schema driven?

15:51:30 <libby> E:[see readme|http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2003/03/query/readme.html]

15:51:31 <dc_rdfig> Added comment E2.

15:51:37 <libby> is it what now?

15:51:47 <libby> E:W3C licensed btw

15:51:48 <dc_rdfig> Added comment E3.

15:52:09 <alberto> libby, nice work!

15:52:25 <libby> I thought it might be usefdul when we have a bunh of tests.

15:52:29 <libby> thanks :)

15:52:47 <alberto> and it is a big plus to show how we are doing the RDF query tests

15:53:06 <alberto> simple conjunctive query part only

15:53:12 <libby> E:based on [Eric Prud'hommeaux's RDF query comparison document|http://www.w3.org/2001/11/13-RDF-Query-Rules/]

15:53:12 <dc_rdfig> Added comment E4.

15:53:40 <AndyS> I have a bunch of tests+data that (should) do all combinations for conjunctive match with variables.

15:54:09 <libby> for the last 5 mins i'd liek to move to alberto's agnda item, as we've spent a long time talking about non-tech stuff. is tat ok?

15:54:16 <libby> nice one andys

15:54:35 <libby> any objections?

15:54:42 <libby> to moving tothe next item?

15:54:50 <alberto> I am just wondering whether or not we need to inline document (sources, query triple-patterns and output)

15:55:04 <libby> RDF query meet agenda 4 (I): inline document in the manifest

15:55:07 <AndyS> Re: item 4 - good to produce self contained things

15:55:17 <libby> is that something you want to do alberto?

15:55:34 <AndyS> Does this require graph-in-a-graph?

15:56:19 <libby> ah well alberto was going to use parseType=literal roight?

15:56:31 <alberto> (see the log for how I did it)

15:56:38 <libby> have you tried it at all alberto?

15:56:43 <alberto>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Mar/att-0005/query-results-manifest-draft.rdf

15:56:43 <dc_rdfig> L: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2003Mar/att-0005/query-results-manifest-draft.rdf from alberto

15:56:44 <libby> guesss so....

15:56:52 <danbri> I'm happy sticking with external content for now, seems simpler if uglier. Though no strong preference at this stage.

15:57:26 <AndyS> Ah - quotes embedded data.

15:57:44 <alberto> instead of having rdf:resource on tq:RDF-XML-Document I would nest in an <rdf:value rdf:parseType="Literal"> <!--- raw RDF/XML --> </>

15:58:01 <alberto> yes andy

15:58:44 <libby> we could allow both, and see which wins....

15:58:53 <alberto> I would like to have especially if you want to have an HTML form in front of the regestry of tests to type in text instead of URL (or upload a file)

15:59:02 <danbri> I have to step out now...

15:59:03 * libby has to go to meeting

15:59:35 <libby> I'm happy to review futher shat from the logs though

15:59:40 <AndyS> If one wants to be able to use any testcases, extensions break automatic processing.

15:59:45 <libby> erk! s/shat/chat/

16:00:03 <libby> shall we say same time 2 weeks for next meet? can anyone not amke that?

16:00:18 <AndyS> Need to identify a core set that everyone understands (where have I heard that before?:-)

16:00:52 <libby> got to go. I'll assum same time 27th march, and send that around www-rdf-rules.

16:00:52 <alberto> andys, the problem I have on that test case document above is that ARP seems to croak on rdf:parseType="Literal" containing RDF/XML (trying to parse the literal XML anyway)

16:00:53 <AndyS> 2 week time - OK for me at the moment

16:01:13 <libby> - objections to the list. bye all, thanks very much for coming :)

16:01:17 <danbri> ok for me.

16:01:20 <alberto> ok thank a lot libby for organizing

16:01:20 <danbri> thanks all!

16:01:32 <libby> np, I think it's all coming together nicely :)

16:01:45 <AndyS> Thanks Libby

16:01:45 <libby> libby is now known as libby-away

16:04:07 <alberto> L:attempt to inline RDF/XML and N-Triples into the manifest doc

16:04:08 <dc_rdfig> Added comment L1.

16:14:05 <danbri> (can somone fix topic?)

16:20:15 <DanC> to what?

16:20:39 <DanC> DanC has changed the topic to: RDF and Semantic Web hack&chat http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/

16:20:41 <DanC> like that?

16:34:51 <danbri> ta

18:17:46 <mdupont> hey all

18:18:48 <mdupont> anyone awake?

18:21:33 <mdupont> hey seth

18:21:49 <SethRussell> yo

18:22:45 <mdupont> w0rd

18:23:06 <mdupont> seth, your name looks familar

18:23:11 <mdupont> where do i know you from?

18:23:38 <SethRussell> you probably remember me cause we talked about sailor

18:24:51 <mdupont> that is you

18:24:53 <mdupont> ok,

18:24:58 <mdupont> we need to talk about sailor

18:25:14 <danbri>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2003Mar/0028.html

18:25:14 <dc_rdfig> M: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2003Mar/0028.html from danbri

18:25:27 <danbri> M:|Semantic Web Services: Interest Group creation discussions

18:25:27 <dc_rdfig> Titled item M.

18:25:41 <mdupont> danbri what is the ruby rdf link

18:25:55 <mdupont> ?

18:26:23 <danbri> .google rubyrdf

18:26:24 <datum> rubyrdf: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/rubyrdf/intro.html

18:26:28 <SethRussell> i havent done anythin on sailor for some time cause i didnt really find much interesting to read in RDF, all the action seems to be in RSS

18:26:55 <mdupont> SethRussell: i have published lots of stuff since

18:27:57 <SethRussell> i saw it, looks good :)

18:28:07 <mdupont>http://introspector.sourceforge.net/2003/01/28/rtl.i/_.fstat_.tu_.ntriples

18:28:07 <dc_rdfig> N: http://introspector.sourceforge.net/2003/01/28/rtl.i/_.fstat_.tu_.ntriples from mdupont

18:28:35 <mdupont> N:|Example rdf dump from the introspector for the fstat function

18:28:35 <dc_rdfig> Titled item N.

18:28:46 <mdupont> anyway, I have been looking into some gui stuff

18:29:09 <mdupont> there is a project for building a gui in ruby, forum

18:40:17 <mdupont> mdupont is now known as mdupont-visitors

19:25:54 <danbri> I just sent mail to www-rdf-interest re Semantic Web Services IG proposal. I'd be grateful if folk could take a few mins to send their thoughts on that thread...

19:25:55 <danbri> cheers

21:02:53 <inkel> inkel is now known as inkel_away

21:03:56 <golbeck_> golbeck_ is now known as golbeck

23:21:18 * DanC wonders if any MINDSWAP folk are around

23:21:28 <DanC> I'd be interested in a scheduled chat about MINDSWAP stuff

23:29:41 <DanC> I:ah... nifty... putting the letter in the blurb...

23:29:42 <dc_rdfig> Added comment I2.

23:46:20 * DanC starts to wish W3C could require WG members to use IRC...

23:47:39 <DanC>http://www.plaxo.com/

23:47:40 <dc_rdfig> O: http://www.plaxo.com/ from DanC

23:48:03 <DanC> O:Plaxo -- takes the hassle out of keeping your contact list up-to-date

23:48:03 <dc_rdfig> Added comment O1.

23:48:09 <DanC> O:or so they claim, anyway.

23:48:09 <dc_rdfig> Added comment O2.

23:48:17 <DanC> O:|Plaxo -- takes the hassle out of keeping your contact list up-to-date

23:48:17 <dc_rdfig> Titled item O.

23:48:21 <DanC> O1:""

23:48:21 <dc_rdfig> Deleted comment O1.

23:48:37 <DanC> O:this is the 2nd commercial auto-contact-sync thingy I've bumped into.

23:48:37 <dc_rdfig> Added comment O2.

23:48:52 <DanC> O:Windows only. sigh.

23:48:53 <dc_rdfig> Added comment O3.

23:50:59 * DanC reviews "how do we know when we're done?" discussion http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2003-03-12.html#T18-06-33