Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2009-05-27 special
From OWL
(Redirected from Chatlog 2009-05-27 RDFTEXT)
See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
<sandro> Guest: Andy Seaborn, http://www.hpl.hp.com/people/andy_seaborne/ <sandro> Guest: Pat Hayes, http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/ <sandro> Guest: Eric Prud'hommeaux, http://www.w3.org/People/Eric/ <sandro> Chair: AlanR 13:37:43 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #owl 13:37:43 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-owl-irc 13:38:28 <sandro> note-to-scribe --- we'll have to manually separate the IRC log of this meeting from that of the OWL telecon later today. 13:51:05 <baojie> baojie has joined #owl 13:51:11 <bmotik> bmotik has joined #owl 13:51:49 <baojie> is the call-in number 1.617.761.6200 (as in usual telcon)? 13:51:54 <sandro> yes 13:51:57 <baojie> thanks 13:52:51 <ericP> ericP has joined #owl 13:53:00 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office 13:53:00 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made 13:53:01 <Zakim> Team_(owl)13:37Z has now started 13:53:02 <Zakim> +EricP 13:57:48 <alanr> alanr has joined #owl 13:57:59 <Zakim> +??P3 13:58:10 <bmotik> Zakim, ??p3 is me 13:58:10 <Zakim> +bmotik; got it 13:59:14 <Zakim> +alanr 13:59:58 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 13:59:58 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 14:00:01 <alanr> alanr has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-text/2009AprJun/0184.html 14:00:02 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider 14:00:17 <pfps> pfps has joined #owl 14:00:19 <alanr> zakim, who is here? 14:00:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, bmotik (muted), alanr, Peter_Patel-Schneider 14:00:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, alanr, ericP, bmotik, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, sandro, trackbot 14:00:32 <Zakim> + +1.978.805.aaaa 14:00:40 <baojie> Zakim, aaaa is baojie 14:00:40 <Zakim> +baojie; got it 14:00:42 <Zakim> +Sandro 14:01:35 <Zakim> +??P37 14:01:39 <AndyS> zakim, ??P37 is me 14:01:39 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 14:01:40 <bmotik> Just to let everybody know: I'll need to shoot off in 45 minutes. 14:01:54 <bmotik> Something came up unexpectedly at 5pm CET 14:01:58 <bmotik> Zakim, unmute me 14:01:58 <Zakim> bmotik should no longer be muted 14:02:07 <bmotik> Zakim, mute me 14:02:08 <Zakim> bmotik should now be muted 14:02:31 <ericP> Zakim, who is here? 14:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, bmotik (muted), alanr, Peter_Patel-Schneider, baojie, Sandro, AndyS 14:02:33 <AndyS> What's the call length? I have a cut off of +1hr 14:02:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, alanr, ericP, bmotik, baojie, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, sandro, trackbot 14:02:37 <sandro> 1hr 14:02:42 <ericP> scribenick: ericP 14:03:10 <ericP> topic: set of language tags 14:03:04 <sandro> 1. set of language tags 14:03:04 <alanr> PROPOSED: We understand that when RDF Concepts referred to RFC 14:03:05 <alanr> 3066 it really meanted "RFC 3066 or its successor" (which is 14:03:05 <alanr> currently BCP-47). We'll add a note to this effect to this spec. 14:03:13 <alanr> +1 14:03:19 <baojie> +1 14:03:21 <sandro> +1 14:03:22 <ericP> ericP: +1 14:03:24 <pfps> +1 14:03:27 <bmotik> +1 14:03:32 <alanr> RESOLVED: We understand that when RDF Concepts referred to RFC 3066 it really meanted "RFC 3066 or its successor" (which is currently BCP-47). We'll add a note to this effect to this spec. 14:04:16 <ericP> topic: renaming of datatype 14:03:45 <alanr> PROPOSED: The datatype previously known as rdf:text should be called rdf:PlainLiteral 14:04:07 <ericP> ericP: there is a related i18n comment to DAWG: http://www.w3.org/mid/20070419132419.9ACF74BAD@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp 14:03:50 <alanr> +1 14:03:54 <AndyS> +1 14:03:55 <pfps> +0 14:03:55 <bmotik> +1 14:03:55 <sandro> +1 14:03:56 <baojie> +1 14:04:13 <IanH> IanH has joined #owl 14:04:17 <ericP> ericP: +1 14:04:23 <pfps> +0, as I don't care about the name 14:04:18 <alanr> RESOLVED: The datatype previously known as rdf:text should be called rdf:PlainLiteral 14:04:31 <ericP> topic: changing title of document 14:04:32 <alanr> PROPOSED: The title will no longer mention i18n. It will be something more like: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals 14:04:44 <sandro> i18n == internationalization 14:04:45 <bmotik> +1 14:04:47 <alanr> +1 14:04:50 <ericP> ericP: +1 14:04:50 <AndyS> no opinion 14:04:51 <sandro> +1 14:05:01 <pfps> +1, "current" name is good 14:05:05 <baojie> +0.75 14:05:06 <alanr> RESOLVED: The title will no longer mention i18n. It will be something more like: A Datatype for RDF Plain Literals 14:05:57 <ericP> topic: discussion of i18n 14:05:44 <alanr> PROPOSED: Pending approval from Michael Sperberg-McQueen, we'll remove the 3rd intro paragraph (from LC version). It talks about xml:lang, etc 14:06:12 <ericP> sandro proposes that the 3rd para in the LC be removed 14:07:14 <ericP> sandro: i removed MSM's suggested bidi text from the wiki, but have not heard from MSM 14:07:38 <ericP> alanr: this is 'cause we're talking about plain literals, which are defined in another document 14:08:17 <alanr> PROPOSED: Pending approval from Michael Sperberg-McQueen, we'll remove the 3rd intro paragraph (from LC version). It talks about xml:lang, etc. If he does't approve we're fine with leaving something in the document about this. 14:09:05 <sandro> PROPOSED: Pending approval from Michael Sperberg-McQueen, we'll remove the 3rd intro paragraph (from LC version). It talks about xml:lang, etc. If he does't approve we'll keep it, with some reluctance. 14:09:30 <ericP> ericP: i am reluctant to have i18n text quasi-defining plain literals as it is confusing to have definitions in multile places 14:09:19 <sandro> +1 14:09:19 <alanr> +1 14:09:24 <Zakim> +IanH 14:09:25 <baojie> +1 14:09:31 <pfps> +1, as this implies that the paragraph is in (for now) 14:09:33 <ericP> ericP: +1 14:10:08 <sandro> RESOLVED: Pending approval from Michael Sperberg-McQueen, we'll remove the 3rd intro paragraph (from LC version). It talks about xml:lang, etc. If he does't approve we'll keep it, with some reluctance. 14:10:43 <ericP> topic: discuss new abstract 14:10:58 <ericP> sandro: the current abstract is out of date 14:11:02 <pfps> the current abstract mentions "the dreaded i18n" 14:11:04 <alanr> q? 14:11:16 <ericP> ... we need a new one which reflects what we settle on 14:11:32 <alanr> PROPOSED: rdf:PlainLiterals will map 1-1 to RDF Plain Literals, so Plain Literals with and without language are both handled by rdf:PlainLiteral. 14:11:33 <ericP> topic: narrowing datatype to language-tagged literals 14:11:39 <sandro> alanr: we're NOT narrowing this to only handle language-tagged literals. 14:11:57 <bmotik> But this is already so, so I'm confused. 14:12:02 <pfps> Huh? 14:12:17 <ericP> AndyS: not sure how you maintain 1:1 between rdf:PlainLiterals and xsd:strings 14:12:38 <ericP> sandro: i'm not proposing a change to pfpf and bmotik's plan 14:12:59 <ericP> alanr: the 1:1 mapping is in the value space 14:13:03 <bmotik> The value of each rdf:PlainLiteral literal will match one-to-one to the value of each plain RDF literal 14:13:25 <ericP> AndyS: i understand now. proposal didn't say that to me 14:13:35 <ericP> sandro: the value space overlaps with xsd:string 14:14:12 <alanr> PROPOSED: rdf:PlainLiterals will map 1-1 to RDF Plain Literals, so Plain Literals with and without language are both handled by rdf:PlainLiteral. 14:14:20 <sandro> sandro: see my e-mail of an hour ago --- the idea is you can map to/from rdf:PlainLiteral without getting confused about what's an xs:string 14:14:14 <bmotik> +1 14:14:15 <ericP> +0 14:14:17 <baojie> 0 14:14:17 <AndyS> +0 14:14:21 <sandro> +1 14:14:23 <pfps> +1, as this is what has been true from the beginning 14:14:28 <alanr> +1 14:14:57 <alanr> RESOLVED: rdf:PlainLiterals will map 1-1 to RDF Plain Literals, so Plain Literals with and without language are both handled by rdf:PlainLiteral. 14:14:42 <bmotik> Will this affect the document in any way? THat is, do I need to change anything in response? (Particularly given that this is how things work at present). 14:15:08 <ericP> sandro: i don't think so, barring editorial suggestions 14:15:22 <sandro> 7. backward-compatibility goal 14:15:05 <bmotik> Great -- thanks! 14:15:35 <alanr> q? 14:15:36 <ericP> topic: backward compatibility 14:15:52 <ericP> sandro: i'm trying to get the first piece of the interop goal 14:16:03 <ericP> ... specifically, do users have to change anything? 14:16:18 <ericP> ... i believe we are not suggesting that RDF applications change 14:16:30 <pfps> q+ 14:16:49 <alanr> ack pfps 14:16:58 <ericP> pfps: agreed 14:17:17 <ericP> ... until the LC, there was nothing in the doc that would indicate that apps should change 14:17:28 <ericP> ... i believe that the wiki version changes all RDF apps 14:17:41 <Zakim> -Sandro 14:17:49 <ericP> ... "rdf:text datatyped literals MUST not appear in RDF applications" 14:18:03 <Zakim> +Sandro 14:18:08 <ericP> ... adds policing requirement 14:18:12 <sandro> (sorry, pressed the wrong button on my phone.) 14:18:35 <alanr> q? 14:18:53 <ericP> sandro: the current state is not your understanding of our goal? 14:19:23 <ericP> pfps: it appears that folks are arguing this constraint in order to NOT change RDF apps 14:19:32 <Zakim> +PatH 14:19:53 <ericP> sandro: i think the only folks who should change are those who could get some benefit from it 14:20:55 <sandro> PROPOSED: We don't want any code out there to have to change because of this specification. Only new systems specifically intending to use it (eg RIF and OWL2) are pushed to implement it. 14:20:56 <ericP> alanr: i understand pfps and PatH argue that the current text is too broad 14:21:12 <ericP> pfps: i'm just interpreting the current doc. not ready to say what i want 14:21:49 <ericP> PatH sent a draft yesterday 14:22:17 <bmotik> +1 14:23:01 <ericP> AndyS: screw case: system 1 pubs data with ^^rdf:text, and old system 2 reads it and can't make use of it 'cause it's not a plain literal 14:23:12 <ericP> sandro: i'd call that a push to change 14:23:21 <pfps> +0, we are not requiring code to change, but we *should* be encouraging code to change 14:23:47 <sandro> sandro: in my mind, if useful data is published using rdf:PlainLiteral, then consumers would be pushed. 14:23:51 <ericP> ericP: i argue for striking the second sentence 14:24:04 <sandro> PROPOSED: We don't want any code out there to have to change because of this specification. 14:24:05 <alanr> PROPOSED: We don't want any code out there to have to change because of this specification. 14:24:10 <ericP> AndyS: would do for me. 2nd sentence gets into how systems expose the information 14:24:16 <pfps> q+ 14:24:21 <alanr> ack pfps 14:24:31 <ericP> pfps: i disagree. 14:24:44 <ericP> ... even harsh wording in the wiki does not have this impact 14:25:05 <ericP> ... it allows rdf:text to appear *not* in the ^^ form 14:26:00 <sandro> pfps: if people use it as a range, then there's some motivation out there.... 14:26:01 <ericP> ... this proposal prohibits rdf:text anywhere in a graph, e.g. <p> rdfs:range rdf:text . 14:26:35 <ericP> PatH: apart from its effect on plain literals, it's an ordinary datatype name 14:26:57 <ericP> pfps: i agree, but i think the proposal violates it 14:27:17 <ericP> sandro: ahh, even uttering the datatype encourages folks to implement it 14:27:56 <alanr> q? 14:28:01 <ericP> topic: how to meet interrop requirements 14:28:15 <sandro> (skipping point 8, going on to point 9, brainstorming...) 14:28:24 <ericP> PatH: propose a new flavor of RDF, Plain-Typed RDF 14:28:33 <ericP> ... +restrictions: 14:28:46 <ericP> ... .. ^^rdf:text can't be uttered 14:29:00 <alanr> q+ alan to ask what relation of rdfs is to new language? 14:29:02 <ericP> ... .. rdf:text can be uttered as a datatype name 14:29:31 <ericP> ... by naminng this slightly modified RDF, folks can say "i conform to Plain-Typed RDF" 14:30:03 <ericP> ... allows impls and specs to refer to it 14:30:08 <alanr> q? 14:30:15 <ericP> ... e.g. OWL2 and RIF 14:30:51 <alanr> ack alan 14:30:51 <Zakim> alan, you wanted to ask what relation of rdfs is to new language? 14:30:57 <ericP> ... proposed spec defines the datatype and the inference 14:31:09 <ericP> AndyS: what's the status of deployed data? 14:31:38 <alanr> q+ alan 14:31:40 <ericP> PatH: existing RDF which doesn't (accidentally) use this datatype remains the same 14:31:46 <AndyS> q+ to ask about MIME type 14:31:53 <ericP> q+ to argue that branching has consequences 14:32:15 <ericP> alanr: how does this affect RDFS? 14:32:36 <ericP> ... noting that RDFS is based on RDF, and OWL extends RDFS 14:32:46 <ericP> PatH: in RDFS you have a new built-in datatype 14:32:56 <ericP> ... class, range, reasoning applies to it 14:33:53 <alanr> ack alan 14:33:57 <alanr> ack AndyS 14:33:57 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about MIME type 14:34:03 <ericP> ... one could say "using RDFS(Plain-Typed" 14:34:14 <ericP> AndyS: what about mime-types? 14:34:25 <ericP> ... i fear this may be too clever 14:34:42 <alanr> ack ericP 14:34:42 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to argue that branching has consequences <ericP> scribenick AndyS 14:35:16 <AndyS> ericP: Caution against branching because of matrix of interactions 14:35:40 <AndyS> ... suggest langauge for doc for don't write ^^rdf:text" 14:37:32 <AndyS> ... may or may not want to prevent ^^rdf:text in RDF (no OWL, RIF systems around) 14:37:51 <AndyS> ... but then have to operate on the as-is form (no lang tag implications) <ericP> scribenick ericP 14:38:14 <ericP> alanr: you (pfps) listed an order of preferences 14:39:07 <alanr> http://www.w3.org/mid/20090527.092010.00457379.pfps@research.bell-labs.com 14:39:10 <ericP> sandro: the six that pfps listed, which i characterized as steps in increasing restrictiveness 14:39:19 <ericP> ... starts with anyone can do anything 14:39:27 <ericP> ... 4 is a SHOULDn't 14:39:36 <ericP> ... 5 is a MUSTn't 14:39:54 <pfps> q+ 14:40:37 <ericP> alanr: consequences of 1 seem to lose opportunities to interpret ^^rdf:text as a plain literals 14:40:54 <alanr> q? 14:41:01 <alanr> ack pfps 14:41:07 <pfps> q- 14:41:10 <ericP> pfps: sparql is already broken in this way. we're not breaking it further 14:41:21 <ericP> PatH: heard this argument many times 14:41:30 <ericP> ... A i think that's poor practice 14:41:36 <pfps> q+ 14:41:49 <ericP> ... B the ways it broken are edge cases. this will turn out to be a central case 14:41:52 <pfps> q+ 14:42:09 <alanr> ack pfps 14:42:21 <ericP> pfps: xsd:string has wide useage on the web 14:42:31 <ericP> ... it exhibits the same behavoir as rdf:text 14:42:41 <ericP> ... so we're not breaking it any further 14:43:06 <ericP> AndyS: filter functions were designed with xsd:string and plain literals being treated the same 14:43:11 <alanr> q? 14:43:34 <ericP> ... so implementations handle that case, while they would not for rdf:text 14:43:56 <ericP> pfps: i agree that some of the cruft in SPARQL is to paper over the problem in BGP matching 14:44:29 <ericP> alanr: when discussing backward-compatibility goal, was this examplar the main case? 14:44:51 <ericP> AndyS: my issue is new systems creating data which old systems don't understand 14:45:02 <ericP> alanr: that was my intended characterization 14:45:22 <alanr> My second preference would be to just change the OWL 2 mapping to RDF 14:45:22 <alanr> graphs document to map rdf:text datatyped literal into plain RDF 14:45:22 <alanr> literals. 14:45:26 <alanr> My= Peter 14:45:40 <pfps> Change OWL 2 mapping to RDF to map rdf:text datatyped literals into plain RDF literals. 14:45:48 <bmotik> I'm afraid I need to leave now. Bye! 14:45:52 <ericP> alanr: this is perhaps implicit in the current rdf:text doc 14:45:56 <Zakim> -bmotik 14:46:01 <alanr> q? 14:46:20 <ericP> PatH: seems sensible, if we can't do anything else 14:46:37 <ericP> ... but feels like putting a plug in a larger hole; we have more to worry about than RIF and OWL2 14:46:59 <pfps> That is the next two options. 14:47:01 <ericP> alanr: textual suggestion to make this apply to all analogous docs? 14:47:07 <ericP> PatH: i think so 14:47:10 <alanr> My third and fourth preferences would be to say that applications (and 14:47:10 <alanr> recommendations) that incorporate rdf:text may/should be nice to older 14:47:10 <alanr> applications (and recommendatations) and therefore may/should not emit 14:47:10 <alanr> rdf:text datatyped literals in RDF syntaxes by changing them to plain 14:47:10 <alanr> literals. 14:47:44 <alanr> q? 14:47:57 <ericP> alanr: what are the (dis)advantages of MAY, SHOULD, MUST? 14:48:19 <ericP> pfps: i prefer MAY, can live with SHOULD, but MUST has a timelessness aspect to it 14:48:42 <ericP> sandro: looks like MUST is split across 5 and 6 14:48:56 <ericP> PatH: MUST it two strong 14:49:22 <ericP> AndyS: i think SHOULD lasts as long as MUST 14:49:50 <ericP> alanr: can we say "until an group chartered to modify RDF changes its mind" 14:50:03 <ericP> AndyS: would expect that to be part of RDF 14:50:19 <alanr> My fifth preference would be to say that in *syntaxes* for RDF graphs, 14:50:19 <alanr> e.g., RDF/XML and Turtle, (and related syntaxes, such as any syntaxes 14:50:19 <alanr> for SPARQL basic graph patterns, I guess) the syntax for rdf:text 14:50:19 <alanr> datatyped literals *is* the syntax for plain RDF literals. 14:50:24 <ericP> ericP: i would expect that to be in the "latest version" link to rdf:text 14:51:20 <ericP> AndyS: i feel there is advantage in talking about syntax as that is what exchanged 14:51:39 <ericP> PatH: [general approval, if ED understood it] 14:51:51 <ericP> pfps: this doesn't change RDF graphs is any way 14:52:15 <ericP> ... the underlying dicotomy remains, but you'd never notice unless RDF gets updated to reveal it 14:52:16 <sandro> pfps: this is kind of a cheat, a bandaid -- the graphs aren't fixed, but you can't see it. 14:52:25 <ericP> PatH: agreed 14:52:45 <ericP> ... does this propose that existing systems police ^^rdf:text? 14:52:52 <ericP> pfps: umm, no 14:53:38 <ericP> ... PatH's proposal changes RDF in a fundamental way 14:54:12 <ericP> q+ to say that i strongly support "syntax for rdf:text literals *is* plain literals' 14:54:27 <alanr> ack eric 14:54:27 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say that i strongly support "syntax for rdf:text literals *is* plain literals' 14:54:39 <alanr> 1. nothing 2. change mapping 3. should emit 4. syntax 14:55:00 <alanr> 1. nothing 2. change mapping 3&4. should emit 5. syntax 14:55:21 <sandro> <alanr> 1. nothing 2. change mapping 3 may emit. 4. should not emit 5. syntax 14:55:40 <pfps> 1,2 14:55:45 <sandro> 4,5 14:55:50 <ericP> ericP: 5 14:55:51 <baojie> 4,5 14:55:51 <sandro> pat_hayes: 5,1 14:55:55 <AndyS> 5,4 s/should/must/ 14:56:03 <alanr> 5,4 14:56:59 <sandro> strawpoll: we'll do option 5 14:57:02 <sandro> +1 14:57:03 <pfps> +0 14:57:04 <ericP> ericP: +1 14:57:06 <alanr> +1 14:57:07 <AndyS> +1 14:57:07 <baojie> +1 14:57:22 <sandro> pat_hayes: +1 14:57:26 <sandro> strawpoll: we'll do option 4 14:57:30 <sandro> +1 14:57:32 <ericP> +.5 14:57:32 <pfps> +0 14:57:42 <AndyS> +0.75 14:57:56 <alanr> +.5 14:58:06 <sandro> pat_hayes: +0.8 14:58:20 <sandro> strawpoll: we'll do option 3 14:58:24 <sandro> pat_hayes: 0 14:58:25 <ericP> ericP: -1 14:58:27 <pfps> +0.5 14:58:28 <AndyS> - 0.5 14:58:29 <sandro> -= 14:58:31 <alanr> -. 14:58:32 <sandro> -0 14:58:34 <alanr> -0.5 14:58:34 <baojie> 0 14:59:10 <ericP> alanr: sentiment seems strongest for 5 14:59:24 <sandro> alanr: the sentiment seems to be on the fifth proposal.... 14:59:34 <ericP> ... i don't believe PatH's has sufficient support given raised issues 14:59:52 <alanr> ok 15:00:56 <ericP> ACTION: pfps to suggest edits to the wiki page for options 5 15:00:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-337 - Suggest edits to the wiki page for options 5 [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2009-06-03]. 15:02:13 <sandro> RRSAgent, make record public 15:02:29 <AndyS> Thx 15:02:37 <Zakim> -PatH 15:02:39 <Zakim> -alanr 15:02:42 <Zakim> -IanH 15:02:46 <Zakim> -baojie 15:02:52 <ericP> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:02:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/27-owl-minutes.html ericP 15:03:34 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider 15:05:01 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call? 15:05:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, AndyS, Sandro 15:07:31 <Zakim> -AndyS 15:09:28 <AndyS> AndyS has left #owl