RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-09-21 Minutes from Aaron Swartz on 2001-09-23 (w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org from September 2001) (original) (raw)

RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-09-21 Minutes Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore- wg/2001Sep/0288.html

Executive Summary (non-normative)

DECIDED: Meet again same time, next week. Remove restriction against cycles in subClassOf, defining such cycles as equivalencies Publish the Model theory Working Draft (with possible minor cosmetic changes) amp-in-url/error001.rdf is approved with below caveat amp-in-url/test001.rdf is approved with below caveat

ACTIONS: Eric Miller: Try to publish primer table of contents, organize telecon fi needed Dan Connolly: Place rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf test case in proper directory Pat Hayes: Take the subClassOf decision back to DAML Joint Committee. Frank Manola: Present similar proposal and test case for subPropertyOf cycles Dan Connolly: Act as staff contact for model theory working draft Jeremy Carroll: Add a comment to explain his amp-in-url/error1 test case Art Barstow: Add a comment to amp-in-url/test001.rdf to explain the test case Jos de Roo: Write up something to describe these entailment tests (with help from Pat) Jan Grant: Write up proposal for an RDF test case manifest Art Barstow: Collect the above materials for inclusion the RDF Test Cases WD Bill DeHora: Take proposal to the list next week on parseType QNames Bill DeHora: Annoy Pat Hayes until there's a Model Theory section in the primer

** Roll Call

Regrets: Dan Brickley, Martyn Horner, Graham Klyne Absent: Boumphrey, Daniel, Dornfest, Kitahara, Kopchenov, Kwon, Nakamura, Richards, Guha

** Next Telecon DECISION: Meet again same time, next week.

** Review of Completed Actions

All actions were considered completed.

** Progress on Primer Subgroup EricM explained he spent some time putting together an outline, pointing to core documents. He hopes to have people to meet together on a telecon. DanC thought it'd be fine if it was discussed on the normal RDF Core time. The time Eric proposed was Wednesday at 10AM, which did not work for at least one of the primer subgroup members (Aaron).

ACTION 2001-09-21#1: Eric Miller / Try to publish a TOC of primer stuff ACTION 2001-09-21#1: Eric Miller / Organize telecon if needed, and all interested parties can participate, if not, ask for telecon time

** Issue: rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf

Sergey decided that he was OK with dropping this restriction.

DECISION: To resolve issue rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf by deleting the restriction prohibiting cycles of subClassOf properties. The meaning of a cycle of subClassOf properties being an assertion that the classes involved have the same members. A more formal specification of the meaning will be given in the model theory.

Pat agreed to bring this decision back to the DAML Joint Committee. We decided to put off approval of the test case until next week when we had a better handle on how to structure the test case directories. We decided next week we should look at removing the restriction on subPropertyOf when Frank puts together a similar proposal together.

ACTION 2001-09-21#3: Dan Connolly / Place rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf in proper place in directory structure once that place is decided. ACTION 2001-09-21#4: Pat Hayes / Take the subClassOf decision back to DAML Joint Committee. ACTION 2001-09-21#5: Frank Manola / Present similar proposed resolution and test case for subPropertyOf cycles

** Model Theory Working Draft

We discussed that this doesn't change the current set of specs any more than decisions the WG has already made, but merely formalizes the text of the specs. We also agreed that this does not mean we've formally agreed on everything in the draft, merely that we feel it is ready to stay on the Web forever, and that we're obliged to accept comments on that.

DECISION: Publish the Model theory Working Draft (with possible minor cosmetic changes) ACTION 2001-09-21#6: Dan Connolly / Act as staff contact for publication of Model Theory Working Draft

** RDF Schema Status

While DanBri was absent, we noted that he reported by email that he planned to have the WD next Wednesday for review. It might be too late for us to review it by Friday, but it will go on the agenda if it arrives.

** Propose test case http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore- wg/2001Sep/0109.html

Jeremy explained that this was an XML error to catch those that didn't use established MXL infrastructure. A number of people looked at the test case and said it was fine.

ACTION 2001-09-21#7: Jeremy Carroll / Add a comment to explain the error in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore- wg/2001Sep/att-0109/01-error001.rdf DECISION: Approve http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore- wg/2001Sep/att-0109/01-error001.rdf with above caveat ACTION 2001-09-21#8: Art Barstow / Update http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/amp-in- url/test001.rdf to include an explanation of the test case (especially for those whose browsers convert & to & for them). DECISION: Approve http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf- tests/rdfcore/amp-in-url/test001.rdf with above caveat

** Test cases that don't fit the RDF/XML -> N-Triples paradigm

Jos volunteered to write up a proposal of entailment tests, he felt that it was a simple problem. Jan Grant suggested we use an RDF manifest (manifest.rdf) of the tests to explain things to automated tools.

ACTION 2001-09-21#9: Jos de Roo / Write up something to describe these entailment tests (with help from Pat) ACTION 2001-09-21#10: Jan Grant / Write up proposal for an RDF test case manifest ACTION 2001-09-21#11: Art Barstow / Collect the above materials for inclusion the RDF Test Cases WD

** parseType QNames

Bill explained he was writing up another version of his proposal, which should be on the list Monday. We should have a yes/no vote on Friday. He explained the proposal only affected future parseType's. There was some discussion about incompatibility with some daml:collection parsers, but we seemed to agree this was a minor point. (Note to those who have daml:collection parsers, please make your parsers understand this as a QName, not a fixed literal.)

ACTION 2001-09-21#11: Bill DeHora / Take proposal to the list next week on parseType QNames

** Other discussions

ACTION 2001-09-21#12: Bill DeHora / Annoy Pat Hayes until there's a Model Theory section in the primer

** Meeting Closed

IRC Log of meeting follows (from http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2001-09-21.txt):

13:01:03 logger_1 has joined #rdfcore 13:01:03 <asimov.openprojects.net> Users on #rdfcore: @logger_1 13:01:03 ChanServ has changed the topic to: 13:01:03 This channel has been registered with ChanServ. 13:22:32 jan has joined #rdfcore 13:41:02 bwm has joined #rdfcore 13:43:12 Jema has joined #rdfcore 13:43:12 Hi. I'm Jema, the Jena meeting assistant 13:43:42 -open 13:43:44 RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-09-21 is now open 13:43:44 The agenda can be found at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore- wg/2001Sep/0288.html 13:43:44 Agenda item 1: Allocate scribe 13:44:23 Jema has quit 13:51:41 AaronSw has joined #rdfcore 13:51:43 * AaronSw waves 13:51:59 * AaronSw waves 13:57:15 spetschu-scribe has joined #rdfcore 13:58:18 spetschu-scribe is now known as spetschu 13:58:29 ... don't want to give anyone ideas ;) 13:58:50 :-) 13:59:07 I's a watchin' 13:59:13 jan is now known as dajobe 13:59:19 DanC has joined #rdfcore 13:59:29 hmm... no ops. 13:59:32 Jema has joined #rdfcore 13:59:32 Hi. I'm Jema, the Jena meeting assistant 13:59:38 Jema, help 13:59:43 yeah, danbri registered the channel and didn't give any of us access. 13:59:44 DanC: remember danbri forgot the password :) 13:59:44 -help 13:59:46 Jema recognises the following commands: 13:59:46 -hi // tests whether Jema is alive 13:59:46 -help // prints this help message 13:59:46 -open // begin the meeting 13:59:46 -close // close the meeting 13:59:47 -agenda [next|prev|n] // next|prev|nth agenda item 13:59:49 -aob ... // add an item of another business 13:59:51 -action owner/... // record an action item 13:59:53 -decision ... // record a decision 14:00:08 danbri forgot his password? sheesh 14:00:17 perhaps we should ask the server ops for help.... 14:00:34 or pick another channel... say #rdf-core 14:00:53 -agenda 1 14:01:44 * AaronSw dials 14:01:48 em has joined #rdfcore 14:01:50 Phone: +1 630 536 3003 room #3003 14:01:58 ArtB has joined #rdfcore 14:02:03 +Aaron 14:02:27 AaronSw is now known as scribe-Aaron 14:02:32 phpht. can't set topic 14:02:36 ROLL CALL 14:02:41 danbri, regrets 14:02:45 eric, absent 14:02:52 art? you in telecon? 14:02:55 +ArtB 14:02:58 tentative regrets from me.. not sure which telcon to attend. 14:03:02 artb, present 14:03:11 +daveb 14:03:16 -frankb 14:03:17 command not recognised 14:03:19 jeremy, here 14:03:22 danc, regrets 14:03:24 * DanC recommends waiting a bit to call roll... it's not possible to join a W3C telcon early, so it's not really fair to consider folks late until at least xx:05 14:03:55 bwm: we'll pick up missing at the end 14:04:03 rond, absent, bill, jos here 14:04:09 rael, absent 14:04:16 jang present; ora present 14:04:19 mdean has joined #rdfcore 14:04:24 martyn, regrets 14:04:25 mdean is now known as mdean_ 14:04:30 ykitahara, absent 14:04:32 gk, regrets 14:04:40 kopchenov, kwon, absent 14:04:42 ora, present 14:04:45 manola, present 14:04:52 nakamura, absent 14:04:55 petschulat, present 14:04:58 pierre, absent 14:05:00 aaron, scribe 14:05:05 miked, present 14:05:08 guha, missing 14:05:13 pat hayes, missing?! 14:05:23 sergey, missing 14:05:37 eric miller, present 14:05:55 -aob rdf:rdf 14:06:12 - Dave Beckett 14:06:44 jema has crashed... 14:06:49 Next telecon: same time, next week 14:06:53 review minutes 14:07:00 APPROVED 14:07:19 review of actions 14:07:45 billD: questions 2001-09-07#6 14:07:59 bwm: you've done the action, we can perhaps do another item in AOB 14:08:01 * DanC joins the telcon 14:08:25 All actions considered completed 14:09:08 discussion of agenda items w/ sergey, pat missing... 14:09:16 moving to progress with PRIMER subgroup 14:09:44 eric: spent some time putting together outline, identifying core documents 14:09:54 ... hoping to get group of interested people on telecon 14:10:04 ... wants to get information out first 14:10:10 Trying to get people to own portions of the primer 14:10:23 Wednesay at 10AM 14:10:27 does not work for aaron 14:10:33 ora has joined #rdfcore 14:10:36 works for billd, frank manola 14:10:55 eric: separate telecon to kick it off, might be a large chunk of time 14:11:06 ... thought it'd be better use of time, report back to larger group 14:11:12 danc: rather do it here, at this telecon 14:11:16 sergey has joined #rdfcore 14:11:23 ... recommend people volunteer by writing stuff 14:11:28 mdean_ has quit 14:11:32 ora has quit 14:11:50 eric: trying to build a table of contents 14:12:01 ... willing to do it here, if chair wants 14:12:03 ... want to make sure we all agree on outline 14:12:15 ... might be more time than chair might have wished 14:12:24 DanC: I'd like it here. 14:12:33

    OL has joined #rdfcore 14:12:47 jeremy: prefer not to have it in core telecon time 14:13:22 eric: not saying we'll have a separate list... just a kickoff conferenece 14:13:27 ... of course reporting back at core meeting 14:14:02 bwm: try and find a time that works for all, if not, we'll allocate a chunk of time 14:14:32 frankm: in addition, we can have a good amount of dialog via email, and drafting text 14:14:52 ... bit theoretical to divide ahead of time 14:15:07 ... can have some concrete stuff to go on 14:15:17 eric: i absolutely agree 14:15:28 ... just hoping to get it out, and we establish common base 14:15:41 ... using list with PRIMER: syntax and get writing 14:15:50 * DanC missed a lot of stuff from last week... goes to re-read minutes... 14:16:17 -action Eric Miller / Get out TOC of primer stuff 14:16:18 Jema notes action 2001-09-21#1 14:16:19 I hope the primer TOC has pointers to existing materials. 14:17:11 DanC, yes thats the goal 14:17:13 -action Eric Miller / Organize teleconference if needed, if not, ask for telecon time 14:17:14 Jema notes action 2001-09-21#2 14:17:24 +Sergey 14:17:36 I can't find this decision about discussing the primer on the list in last week's minutes. 14:17:44 7: Issue: rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf Frank Manola 14:17:52 -item 7 14:17:53 command not recognised 14:17:56 -help 14:17:56 Jema recognises the following commands: 14:17:56 -hi // tests whether Jema is alive 14:17:56 -help // prints this help message 14:17:57 -open // begin the meeting 14:17:57 -close // close the meeting 14:17:57 -agenda [next|prev|n] // next|prev|nth agenda item 14:17:59 -aob ... // add an item of another business 14🔞01 -action owner/... // record an action item 14🔞02 -agenda 7 14🔞03 -decision ... // record a decision 14🔞18 Sergey: at F2F, I argued against dropping the restriction... company relied on it 14🔞28 came to conclusion that having the restriction is not essential 14🔞40 ... the tool can have a policy independent of the language 14🔞50 ... enforced by the specific application 14🔞58 ... Now, i'd go ahead with removing restriction 14:19:03 * DanC cheers 14:19:13 Proposal: to resolve issue rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf by allowing cycles 14:19:13 of subClassOf properties. The meaning of a cycle of subClassOf 14:19:13 properties being an assertion that the classes involved have the same 14:19:13 members. A more formal specification of the meaning will be given 14:19:13 in the model theory. 14:19:48 +Pat 14:20:08 * DanC seconds the proposal 14:20:24 Frank: slight change to the wording, after talking to Pat 14:20:39 s/allowing cycles/deleting restriction prohibiting cycles/ 14:21:10 bwm: test cases decision separate from wording 14:21:13 Any dissent? 14:21:23 Any dissent to the no dissent? 14:21:32 Unanimous decision. 14:21:37 No abstentions. 14:21:47 RESOLVED. 14:21:49 -decision restriction subclass cycles are removed 14:21:59
      * OL congratulates the wg 14:22:05 * em raises hand 14:22:39 * em just wants to make sure Pat will reflect this decision back to the JC 14:22:42 jeremy: syntactic issues should be separate from semantic ones 14:22:50 ... now just looks like a syntactic issue 14:22:53 * scribe-Aaron agrees 14:23:14 bwm: let's separate approval of test case, from test case directory structure 14:23:22 danc: except that test case includes its name 14:23:29
        * OL is sure that Pat and Ora both will (reflect the decision, that is) 14:23:31 ... bit weird to approve it and then change it's name... 14:23:43 bwm: editorial change not much of a problem 14:24:10 DanC: would sure be nice to have.... kinda hard to ascertain status from minutes, and links, etc. 14:24:16 bwm: let's put it off to next week 14:24:41 daveb, frankm, jos, i agree 14:24:45 jos: perhaps a more complex cycle 14:25:17 -action DanC / Place testcase in the proper place in directory structure once that place is decided 14:25:18 Jema notes action 2001-09-21#3 14:26:06 -action Pat Hayes / Take the subclassof decision back to DAML Joint Committee 14:26:06 Jema notes action 2001-09-21#4 14:26:30 pat: were loops in subpropertyof prohibited? 14:26:42 danc: i think so... 14:27:03 "A property can never be declared to be a subproperty of itself, nor of any of 14:27:03 A property can never be declared to be a subproperty of itself, nor of any of its own subproperties. 14:27:03 its own subproperties. " -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#s2.3.3 14:27:32 the subpropertyOf decision should also be removed... needs testcase and formal proposal 14:27:46 -action Frank Manola / present similar resolution and test case for subPropertyOf cycles 14:27:47 Jema notes action 2001-09-21#5 14:27:57 -next 14:28:00 command not recognised 14:28:04 -agenda next 14:28:17 8: Model Theory WD 14:28:17 Propose: Authorize publication of the Model theory WD at: 14:28:25 sergey: what does this change? 14:28:32 danc: we all have different ideas of the current situation 14:28:43 ... is there an explicit enumeration of changes to the spec? 14:28:54 Pat: I don't think it changes the spec at all... afaik 14:29:32 ... it says that treatment of domain and range is different than RDFS, but we've agreed that should change 14:29:48 JanG: the model theory is in agreement with the previous point we agreed on 14:30:06 DanC: we'll have it on the web forever, and obliged to accept comments on it 14:30:11 Pat: perfectly happy with that 14:30:28 FrankM: One comment people might make is inconsistency with MT and specs 14:30:38 Pat: later versions OK? 14:30:40 Absolutely. 14:30:46 BillD: Will this be a REC? 14:31:15 DanC: you get questions from weirdos in perpituity 14:31:19 Pat: I'm used to that. 14:31:34 DanC: I hope this eventually replaces RDF M&S 1.0... 14:31:42 Sergey: I think I got it... it's early in the morning, tho 14:31:58 DanC: Purpose of W3C is to get people to put there names on documents 14:32:08 FrankM: you can go on another vacation, sergey 14:32:13 bwm: anyone not happy publishing? 14:32:20 -decision publish the model theory draft 14:32:21 Woohoo! 14:32:24 * ArtB applauds Pat! 14:32:35 ...might need a slightly better drawing, some say 14:32:44 Bwm: a work of art, no changes! 14:33:02 -action DanC / Take Model Theory thru publication process as Staff Content 14:33:02 Jema notes action 2001-09-21#6 14:33:17 DanC: Acknowledgements can't be on top of the document 14:33:24 ... minor tidying up 14:33:40 ... don't expect it out today, probably Wednesday... but maybe today 14:34:24 Pat: prettier picture is just fine 14:34:39 -decision minor editorial changes are allowed to MT before publication 14:34:42 -agenda 10 14:34:55 DanBri, absent... did report by email 14:35:05 bwm: reported that he expected to have WD next weds... 14:35:09 may be too late to review it on Fri 14:35:19 ... will go on agenda, if it arrives 14:35:23 -agenda 11 14:35:33 11: Propose: approve test case given in 14:35:34
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore- wg/2001Sep/0109.html 14:35:43 Jeremy: it's an XML error, rather than an RDF error 14:35:53 ... should have a few to catch people who don't use XML infrastructure 14:36:05 jos, daveb, bwm have looked at test case 14:36:22 aaron has looked at test case 14:36:40 -action Jeremy Caroll / Add a comment to explain why it's an error in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore- wg/2001Sep/att-0109/01-error001.rdf 14:36:41 Jema notes action 2001-09-21#7 14:36:50 -decision test case http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore- wg/2001Sep/att-0109/01-error001.rdf is approved 14:37:01 DanC: is the complementing test case approved 14:37:05 ... apparently so 14:37:50 http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf- tests/amp-in-url/test001 is approved 14:38:17 err, http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf- tests/rdfcore/amp-in-url/test001.rdf 14:39:45 FrankM leaves 14:40:10 -action Art Barstow / action to update http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/amp-in- url/test001.rdf to include comment explaining that & needs to be viewed as & 14:40:11 Jema notes action 2001-09-21#8 14:40:15 -decision http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf- tests/rdfcore/amp-in-url/test001.rdf is approved with above caveat 14:40:21 no dissent 14:40:33 RESOLVED unanimously. 14:40:33 -agenda 12 14:40:42 12: Test cases that don't fit the RDF/XML to 14:40:43 paradigm. 14:40:43 does jema note decisions? 14:40:43 Jos has volunteered to write up a proposal for entailment tests. 14:40:57 yes, apparently ... they get emailed to the list after the meeting 14:41:16 Jos: I think this is a simple problem... i guess we need some conventions 14:41:21 have you been telling jema about decisions we're making? 14:41:29 yes. 14:41:33 ... i'm so glad we have model theory to refer to 14:41:46 ... we just need some way to combine the pieces together... we need a way to describe that 14:42:03 Pat: when you use the model theory in this context, you need to be careful about RDF/RDFS distinciton 14:42:26 ... just replied to Jeremy Carroll about RDFS entailments which are not RDF entailments 14:42:40 Jos: I understand... added -rdfcore switch to do that in our software 14:42:58 ... the structure we have now has no problem 14:43:11 ... schema issues require this kind of functionality in my opinion 14:43:19 ... lots of cross combinations 14:43:41 ... we need to reuse things... just need descriptions of entailment 14:43:45 ... and tools with the same interface 14:44:02 bwm: my reaction was that meaning is not obvious to me, not a logic geek 14:44:08 ... I was asking "what is this?" 14:44:46 Jos: the abstraction of the axioms was confusing 14:44:56 ... we just need 1, 2, 3, 4... with different range and domain 14:45:02 ... and say it's valid... it's possible 14:45:11 Bwm: I just want you to write up clearly how they work 14:45:29 Jos: two steps... 1-1 mapping 14:45:50 ... I agree... machine understanable description 14:46:12 Jeremy: I have a program that goes thru the zip and knows what to do 14:46:26 ... if we have different instructions... clear to a program... it's much hard to write regression test software 14:46:33 ... we need this for high quality RDF tools 14:46:37 ... it's a must 14:46:53 Jos: description of A, B, C entails D... not too difficult 14:46:56 ... we need that, tho 14:47:06 JanG: we need machine-readable manifest 14:47:12 ... to see if it's parser tests, or entailment 14:47:23 ArtB has quit 14:47:23 bwm has quit 14:47:23 scribe-Aaron has quit 14:47:23
          OL has quit 14:47:23 Jema has quit 14:47:23 dajobe has quit 14:47:23 spetschu has quit 14:47:42 ArtB has joined #rdfcore 14:47:42
            OL has joined #rdfcore 14:47:42 scribe-Aaron has joined #rdfcore 14:47:42 bwm has joined #rdfcore 14:47:44 dajobe has joined #rdfcore 14:47:44 spetschu has joined #rdfcore 14:47:46 bwm: seems like two issues. one is what they are and how they work 14:48:02 Jos: it refers to the model theory.... i think it's good for the model theory 14:48:35 -action Jos / write up something to describe these entailment tests (with help from Pat) 14:48:45 Jeremy: quite happy with Jan's proposal to have a manifest 14:49:02 JanG: just have a machine readable manifest with a list of parser tests 14:49:12 ... could call it manifest.rdf ... it could be in RDF! 14:49:21 bwm: we need someone to work this up 14:49:25 ... art? 14:49:38 Art: can jan do a proposal 14:49:40 jan: sure 14:49:49 -action Jan Grant / write up a proposal for a parser test manifest 14:50:08 daveb, i have some stuff with the parser tests work 14:50:16 Aaron: I have some software 14:50:29 DanC: I'd like Art to collect the stuff and point to it from test cases spec 14:51:25
              * OL thinks it is the RDF stalker 14:51:47 bwm: end of the agenda... i didn't give you enough work to do 14:51:53 DanC: Chair is to be congratulated! 14:52:14 AOB: Bill on parseTypes 14:52:26 ... sent to the list, had some feedback (mainly from GK) 14:52:33 ... want to write it up now, in a less-featured form 14:52:43 ... it should be on the list Mon, we should have a yes/no on Friday 14:53:39 BillD: What we have in current M&S stands 14:53:46 ... future implementors namespace-qualify 14:53:51 DanC: just for new parseTypes? 14:54:02 BillD: yes... or make it look so 14:54:10 Jeremy: might influence daml:collection 14:54:18 BillD: Is that a namespace? 14:54:36 Jeremy: parsers tend to hard-code the prefix 'daml:' 14:54:47 ... whatever the current state of the namespace binding... they tend to do that 14:54:56 ... the proposal changes the behavior, as I understand it 14:55:06 ... it needs to look at the namespace binding 14:55:12 ... i'm happy, but it is a significant change 14:55:24 DanC: You've actually seen code? 14:55:32 Jeremy: I've written it 14:55:39 DanC: that's a sin against the world! 14:55:53 BillD: I haven't find anything that says it is namespace-qualified 14:56:08 Jeremy: it never says anything about namespace 14:56:27 DanC:.. yuck, it does say that... that's a crime! 14:56:44 Pat: I don't think there's a great deal of code that this will destroy 14:56:54 Pat: I think the JC will say "What?" 14:57:10 MikeD: there are about 7 parsers... i think they hard-code it 14:57:20 DanC: parser at W3C doesn't hard code it 14:57:48 DaveB: daml:collection space was donated to my parser by a DAML researcher 14:58:27 Pat: I wanted to as Mike if he thinks parsers are in deep dodo 14:58:34 Mike: probably relatively easy to fix 14:58:55 DanC: if daml is bound to something else, you can't pay attention to it! 14:59:13 -action BillD / Take proposal to the list next week on parseType 14:59:21 BillD: are you busy next week, Pat? 14:59:25 Pat: What a silly question... 14:59:35 BillD: I'd like a model theory bit for the primer 14:59:52 Pat: tried to find a web resource, but couldn't find a good one... all too simple or too esoteric 15:00:16 -action BillD / annoy pat until there's a Model theory primer piece 15:00:20 sergey has quit 15:00:23 -close 15:00:28 scribe-Aaron has quit 15:00:41 -help 15:01:27 she's not listening - she's trying to connect to the mail server - our mail servers have recently ben failing intermittently 15:04:55 -help 15:04:59 -hi 15:05:03 -close 15:05:05 -close 15:05:07 -close 15:05:19 dajobe has left #rdfcore 15:14:12 bwm has quit 15:15:59 spetschu has quit 15:17:08 DanC has left #rdfcore 15:17:55 ArtB has left #rdfcore 15:22:32
                OL has left #rdfcore 15:52:48 em has left #rdfcore

Received on Sunday, 23 September 2001 13:10:28 UTC