This log is automatically generated by an IRC bot from the traffic on the #topicmaps IRC channel on the irc.freenode.net IRC server. This file has the traffic for 2003-01-28. If you have questions regarding this log, please contact larsga@ontopia.net.
| 01:12:46 | arnarl | arnarl has quit None ("Using Kopete IRC Plugin") |
| 04:08:24 | GabeW | GabeW has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 10:26:57 | arnarl | arnarl has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:27:02 | arnarl | hi |
| 10:27:22 | drrho | Good evening (at least here)! |
| 10:27:27 | drrho | * drrho is away: I'm busy |
| 10:27:37 | drrho | * drrho is back (gone 00:00:09) |
| 10:27:49 | larsbot | morning/evening, everyone |
| 10:29:54 | drrho | I would imagine that it is a lot of work for Steve to create a new, consolidated TMCL-req document... |
| 10:30:21 | larsbot | I think it will be gra/mariyo who do it |
| 10:30:58 | drrho | Good. |
| 10:37:34 | gra | gra has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:37:43 | gra | morning |
| 10:37:57 | larsbot | morning, sir :) |
| 10:38:03 | gra | i need 2 minutes |
| 10:38:06 | larsbot | no problem |
| 10:39:45 | larsbot | gra: greetings from pepper, btw |
| 10:41:20 | gra | right I'm back - please say hi to steve |
| 10:41:46 | larsbot | will do |
| 10:42:01 | larsbot | ok, what I thought we'd do was to go through all the open issues |
| 10:42:06 | gra | yep |
| 10:42:06 | larsbot | and work out our position on each of them |
| 10:42:20 | gra | is there a list ? |
| 10:42:22 | larsbot | we can then publish that as a document to go with the SAM |
| 10:42:32 | larsbot | try here: http://www.ontopia.net/omnigator/plugins/tolog/query.jsp?codeexample=&query=issue-in%28sam+%3A+spec%2C+%24ISSUE+%3A+issue%29%2C+not%28status-of%28%24ISSUE+%3A+issue%2C+resolved+%3A+state%29%29+order+by+%24ISSUE%3F&rules=&tm=tm-standards.xtm |
| 10:42:50 | gra | it'll be nice to tidy the sam up by removing all the inline comments |
| 10:42:57 | larsbot | yes, exactly |
| 10:43:13 | larsbot | but we still need the flags for the issues, but that will then be in a separate document |
| 10:43:25 | gra | whats an Omnigator servlet error? |
| 10:43:35 | larsbot | an indication that it does not work :-) |
| 10:43:52 | larsbot | ok, go to: http://www.ontopia.net/omnigator/models/topicmap_complete.jsp?tm=tm-standards.xtm |
| 10:43:58 | larsbot | click on "Query" up at the top right |
| 10:44:13 | gra | yep |
| 10:44:22 | larsbot | then cut and paste this: issue-in(sam : spec, $ISSUE : issue), not(status-of($ISSUE : issue, resolved : state)) order by $ISSUE? |
| 10:44:31 | larsbot | into the search box, and press Query |
| 10:44:40 | gra | ok |
| 10:45:27 | gra | is that all thats left now? |
| 10:45:31 | larsbot | yep, that's all |
| 10:45:44 | gra | just start at the top? |
| 10:45:48 | larsbot | yeah |
| 10:45:58 | larsbot | so, first one: constr-single-subject-address |
| 10:46:16 | gra | exception |
| 10:46:21 | larsbot | uh? |
| 10:46:55 | gra | ok, how can this be violated - as I see it |
| 10:47:07 | gra | only a topic having 2 resource refs |
| 10:47:23 | gra | is currentl detectable |
| 10:47:42 | larsbot | yep. so this constraint is located in the merging section |
| 10:47:55 | larsbot | it's triggered if you try to merge two topics with different subject addresses |
| 10:47:56 | gra | yep - and we have a topic map exceptiondefined there |
| 10:48:42 | larsbot | there are two questions here, actually: |
| 10:48:49 | larsbot | 1) is this *really* an error? |
| 10:48:56 | larsbot | 2) if it is an error, what is the resolution? |
| 10:49:34 | larsbot | to take an example, the URI http://psi.oasis-open.org/ |
| 10:49:46 | gra | hmm - all other 'contradications' such as 2 topics with the same name have a resolable outcome |
| 10:49:48 | larsbot | resolves to the same disk file as a URI under the PubSubj TC web space |
| 10:49:54 | gra | yep |
| 10:50:09 | larsbot | so these two URIs, though different, *do* address the same resource, in a very real way |
| 10:50:35 | larsbot | the XMLvoc ontology analysis also indicated that there would be a need for this |
| 10:50:46 | larsbot | so I'm wondering if we should lift this restriction |
| 10:51:06 | gra | agreed - it would be an inappropraite constraint |
| 10:51:31 | gra | especially as there is an equal problem with subject indicators |
| 10:51:37 | gra | but in reverse |
| 10:51:55 | larsbot | what's that? |
| 10:52:25 | gra | its like, with res ref we match on the string because that implies |
| 10:52:54 | gra | some unambiguous identity |
| 10:53:07 | larsbot | yep? |
| 10:53:26 | gra | where as subj ind refs we match on for strings but dont check for contradictions when we have more than one |
| 10:53:28 | gra | becuase we cant |
| 10:53:41 | larsbot | exactly, and I think the situation is the same with subject addresses |
| 10:53:55 | gra | thus, we shouldnt restrict one and not the other |
| 10:54:00 | larsbot | agreed |
| 10:54:12 | larsbot | conclusion is that we lift the restriction, then? |
| 10:54:20 | larsbot | and [subject address] becomes [subject addresses]? |
| 10:54:23 | gra | so for consistency and expressiveness we dont constrain things |
| 10:54:29 | gra | yep |
| 10:54:47 | larsbot | excellent |
| 10:55:00 | larsbot | next issue: locator-notation-support |
| 10:55:30 | larsbot | tmbot: load: tm-standards.xtm |
| 10:55:42 | larsbot | tmbot: show: locator-notation-support |
| 10:55:56 | larsbot | we now have only one listed in the SAM: "URI" |
| 10:56:01 | larsbot | the question is, do we need any more? |
| 10:56:07 | mariyo | mariyo has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:56:12 | gra | or should we even ditch that |
| 10:56:22 | larsbot | what do you mean? |
| 10:56:31 | gra | i.e. dont impose anything |
| 10:56:36 | larsbot | hi mariyo: SAM editor's IRC meeting in progress :) |
| 10:56:38 | mariyo | good morning! |
| 10:56:43 | gra | morning |
| 10:56:52 | larsbot | ah, I think I see |
| 10:57:04 | larsbot | so we list the notations there are, but don't require people to support any specific set of them? |
| 10:57:10 | gra | yep |
| 10:57:18 | larsbot | I'm fine with that, actually |
| 10:57:27 | gra | we list some of the possible ones |
| 10:57:28 | larsbot | especially as what syntaxes you support will determine this, anyway |
| 10:57:39 | larsbot | we do have an issue of which ones to list, though |
| 10:57:56 | gra | but that list is informative rather than constraining |
| 10:58:10 | larsbot | it is, but we still need to work out what should be on it :) |
| 10:58:16 | larsbot | should IRIs be there? HyTime locators? |
| 10:58:28 | gra | is this a new issue? |
| 10:58:37 | gra | What locator notations, if any, must be supported? None |
| 10:58:59 | larsbot | yeah, this is sort of a new issue, but I think we have to do it now |
| 10:59:10 | larsbot | I agree the resolution is "None", as you say |
| 10:59:43 | gra | i dont know what we should suggest, as many as possible would be good |
| 10:59:53 | gra | to give the impression the list is extensible but also |
| 11:00:10 | gra | to ensure that if people glance at it they see there mechanism |
| 11:00:24 | gra | ? |
| 11:00:40 | larsbot | I agree with the principle, I think |
| 11:00:52 | larsbot | that means we should add HyTime locators, which is fine (HyTM needs that anyway) |
| 11:01:06 | larsbot | the question is what to do with IRIs |
| 11:01:15 | gra | whats the current status here? |
| 11:01:15 | larsbot | they are described in: http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/draft-duerst-iri.html |
| 11:01:26 | larsbot | see also http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#IRIEverywhere-27 |
| 11:02:49 | larsbot | the status is that IRIs are currently a draft |
| 11:03:09 | larsbot | they seem to be incompatible with URIs only in surface syntax |
| 11:03:19 | gra | lets not go there then |
| 11:03:19 | larsbot | (character encoding of non-ASCII characters, basically) |
| 11:03:39 | larsbot | in other words: push this down for the syntaxes to worry about? |
| 11:03:42 | gra | i think the earlier idea to list lots was bad |
| 11:03:54 | larsbot | there aren't lots to list, anyway :-) |
| 11:04:16 | larsbot | why don't we say we list two: URIs, because XTM uses them, and HyTime locators, because HyTM uses those? |
| 11:04:28 | gra | yep - sounds sensible |
| 11:04:43 | larsbot | excellent. then we've resolved two issues, one with a name, and one without |
| 11:04:44 | gra | what does the OASIS tc work do? |
| 11:04:56 | larsbot | it doesn't deal with this stuff |
| 11:04:59 | gra | ok |
| 11:05:01 | larsbot | it's about what the URIs resolve to, basically |
| 11:05:14 | larsbot | ready for next one? |
| 11:05:15 | gra | what do they define for the notation of subj inds? |
| 11:05:20 | larsbot | nothing :-) |
| 11:05:30 | gra | safe then |
| 11:05:35 | larsbot | yep |
| 11:05:44 | gra | next issue |
| 11:05:52 | larsbot | tmbot: show: names-as-subjects |
| 11:06:09 | larsbot | I think your opinion is spot-on: this is bad jazz, and we don't want to go here |
| 11:06:22 | larsbot | it was raised by RM<->SAM issues, but I think it's a result of trying to view the SAM as if it were the RM |
| 11:06:35 | larsbot | my view: let's close it without doing anything |
| 11:06:40 | gra | hmm |
| 11:06:47 | gra | i have more questions though |
| 11:07:02 | gra | if the TNC still exists (be it optional) |
| 11:07:07 | gra | what happens? |
| 11:07:30 | larsbot | see http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#sect-name-types |
| 11:08:06 | larsbot | this issue is really about the name strings qua name strings, but independent of any topic |
| 11:08:17 | larsbot | TNC is about using names as identifiers for topics, which is something else, really |
| 11:08:44 | larsbot | the RM view is that I should be able to speak about "Graham" as a first name, and then have what I say apply to all the base names "Graham" in the TM |
| 11:08:53 | larsbot | independent of their connection to a topic |
| 11:09:21 | gra | ok - what the proposal - say nothing on this issue? |
| 11:09:25 | gra | close it? |
| 11:09:26 | larsbot | yes |
| 11:09:58 | gra | ok and when I merge two topics with the same name and both names are reified with a topic what happens? |
| 11:10:22 | larsbot | if the names are equal they merge, and the topics reifying them also merge |
| 11:10:35 | larsbot | if they are different they are just attached to the same topic and nothing more happens |
| 11:10:39 | gra | maybe we should state that explicitly in merging |
| 11:11:05 | larsbot | all of this is in there explicitly, but you have to look in different places to find out |
| 11:11:06 | gra | the bit about any constrcut that has a reifiing topic the reifing topcsi will be merged |
| 11:11:26 | larsbot | see last bullet point of http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-model/#sect-merge-topics |
| 11:11:41 | larsbot | that should cover it, I think? |
| 11:12:09 | gra | i'm not sure |
| 11:12:16 | gra | thats the condition for merging |
| 11:12:37 | gra | in the numbered list it should state that |
| 11:12:59 | gra | if the constructs have a reifying topic those topics must be merged |
| 11:13:15 | larsbot | but that's the same as what the bullet list says |
| 11:13:39 | larsbot | and we'd have to repeat it for variant names and associations and occurrences and association roles |
| 11:14:09 | gra | we'll it could be stated generally for all topic map objects |
| 11:14:18 | larsbot | it is, in the bullet list :-) |
| 11:14:49 | gra | no its not |
| 11:14:59 | larsbot | I'm missing something, then |
| 11:15:00 | gra | the bullet list is the condition for merging |
| 11:15:10 | gra | i.e. two topics have the same name |
| 11:15:20 | larsbot | yep |
| 11:15:40 | gra | we merge them and find that two occurrences are the same |
| 11:16:08 | larsbot | and then the two occurrences are merged into a single one |
| 11:16:17 | gra | thus we 'merge' these occurrences and thus if these occurrences are reified by other topics those reifyoing topics are merged as well |
| 11:16:23 | larsbot | yep |
| 11:16:46 | gra | i dont see this expressed |
| 11:17:02 | larsbot | ok, I'll walk through the steps and say where each is expressed |
| 11:17:08 | larsbot | once I'm done you can tell me whether you're happy with it or not |
| 11:17:29 | gra | ok |
| 11:17:36 | larsbot | topics A and B are to be merged (for whatever reason) |
| 11:17:46 | larsbot | A has the occurrence C and B has the occurrence D |
| 11:17:56 | larsbot | C and D have the same type, locator, and scope |
| 11:18:03 | larsbot | C is reified by E, and D is reified by F |
| 11:18:08 | gra | yep |
| 11:18:32 | larsbot | step 9 in the topic merge section (4.1) says to put all the occurrences into the same topic |
| 11:18:40 | gra | agreed |
| 11:18:49 | larsbot | definition of set in 2.1 then says that equal items must be merged |
| 11:18:56 | gra | yep |
| 11:19:15 | larsbot | last para of occurrence def in 3.7 says when occurrences are equal |
| 11:19:25 | larsbot | conclusion: C and D must merge |
| 11:19:38 | larsbot | section 4.5 tells you how to do that |
| 11:19:45 | gra | 4.5 should then also state that the refication of the occurs should be merged |
| 11:19:55 | larsbot | hear me out :) |
| 11:20:02 | gra | ok |
| 11:20:09 | larsbot | when you've done that E and F have the new occurrence in their [reified] property |
| 11:20:18 | larsbot | hence, according to the rule in 4.1, they must be merged |
| 11:20:20 | larsbot | done |
| 11:20:29 | gra | when you've done that E and F have the new occurrence in their [reified] property |
| 11:20:29 | gra | ?? |
| 11:21:07 | larsbot | if E reified C before the merge that means C has a [srcloc] that's equal to one of E's [subjids] |
| 11:21:08 | gra | ok |
| 11:21:15 | larsbot | that will still apply after the merge |
| 11:21:26 | larsbot | [reified] is a computed property, so there are no identity issues there |
| 11:22:15 | gra | ok - agreed :) |
| 11:22:18 | larsbot | excellent :-) |
| 11:22:35 | gra | i think that bit goes in advanced merging section of any tutorial |
| 11:23:01 | mariyo | i would say so :) |
| 11:23:03 | gra | next issue: |
| 11:23:04 | larsbot | agreed |
| 11:23:04 | larsbot | in fact, we should probably have something like that at some point |
| 11:23:04 | larsbot | *and* there should be a test case for it |
| 11:23:19 | larsbot | tmbot: show: prop-subj-address-class |
| 11:23:26 | gra | yes |
| 11:23:34 | larsbot | this comes from XTM, where <resourceRef> was not allowed in <instanceOf> |
| 11:23:56 | gra | thats just a constraint of the syntax |
| 11:23:58 | larsbot | we had an issue on whether implicit constraints like this should be mirrored in the SAM, and resolved it to "no" |
| 11:24:01 | gra | we dont have to have it in the model |
| 11:24:07 | larsbot | exactly |
| 11:24:21 | gra | ok - so answer is yes |
| 11:24:26 | gra | if we want to come back to this later |
| 11:24:28 | larsbot | yep, it is |
| 11:24:38 | gra | we could define a core set of TCML constriaints perhaps |
| 11:24:43 | larsbot | exactly |
| 11:24:48 | gra | done? |
| 11:24:51 | larsbot | yep |
| 11:25:02 | larsbot | then we have the same thing for scope |
| 11:25:05 | gra | yep |
| 11:25:06 | larsbot | I guess we resolve that the same way |
| 11:25:25 | gra | yes |
| 11:25:28 | larsbot | goodie :-) |
| 11:25:38 | larsbot | tmbot: show: prop-subj-address-values |
| 11:25:42 | gra | ok and we've already decided this one |
| 11:25:45 | larsbot | this one we already did |
| 11:25:47 | larsbot | yep :-) |
| 11:26:09 | larsbot | tmbot: show: prop-value |
| 11:26:24 | larsbot | this is the issue of what to call the [value] property of base name items |
| 11:26:30 | gra | what have we got at the moment |
| 11:26:34 | larsbot | it's called [value] now |
| 11:26:50 | larsbot | [label] is proposed, as is [name string] |
| 11:26:58 | gra | a basename has a value |
| 11:27:06 | gra | it acts as a label for the topic |
| 11:27:19 | larsbot | and actually we now call these topic name items... |
| 11:27:24 | gra | if teh model were different I would agree that label haning off topic makes sense |
| 11:27:38 | larsbot | you prefer sticking with value? |
| 11:27:41 | gra | but we have baseName haning off topics and i reckon they have a value |
| 11:27:43 | gra | yep |
| 11:27:59 | larsbot | I guess it could also be topic name.[base name] |
| 11:28:02 | gra | otherwise its like saying topic.name.name |
| 11:28:08 | larsbot | yes :) |
| 11:28:10 | gra | !! |
| 11:28:37 | larsbot | ok, let's go for [value] |
| 11:28:41 | gra | fine |
| 11:28:57 | larsbot | done |
| 11:29:07 | larsbot | tmbot: show: prop-variant-scope-superset |
| 11:29:14 | larsbot | this was raised by Martin Bryan |
| 11:29:26 | larsbot | HyTM doesn't require display/sort names to have a superset of the scope of base names |
| 11:29:31 | gra | can this be solved in how we define teh mapping |
| 11:29:42 | larsbot | yeah, if we just decide that's what we ant |
| 11:29:50 | larsbot | personally, I feel XTM improves HyTM here, so... |
| 11:30:06 | gra | its a non issue? |
| 11:30:11 | gra | :) |
| 11:30:25 | larsbot | yeah, I'd say so :) |
| 11:30:31 | larsbot | ok, nex |
| 11:30:32 | larsbot | t |
| 11:30:43 | larsbot | tmbot: show: psi-identification |
| 11:30:50 | larsbot | I agree with your opinion on this one: not for SAM to do |
| 11:30:56 | gra | ok |
| 11:31:06 | xower | xower has joined #topicmaps |
| 11:31:13 | larsbot | next one |
| 11:31:17 | larsbot | hi there, xower |
| 11:31:24 | xower | Hi Lars. |
| 11:31:25 | larsbot | SAM editor's meeting in progress here, so it's noisy :) |
| 11:31:34 | larsbot | tmbot: show: psi-publishing |
| 11:31:48 | larsbot | this one we actually did in Baltimore: they go on topicmaps.org |
| 11:31:58 | gra | ok |
| 11:32:03 | xower | SHame on you! You should be figuring out how to run Legemiddelverket's Tomcat app as a Service on Windows! :-) |
| 11:32:11 | larsbot | xower: WTF? :) |
| 11:32:11 | xower | * xower ducks and runs... |
| 11:32:24 | larsbot | so I guess we do something like http://psi.topicmaps.org/sam/... |
| 11:32:31 | gra | yep |
| 11:32:38 | larsbot | then I'll create new URIs of that form |
| 11:32:44 | gra | great |
| 11:33:15 | larsbot | tmbot: show: psi-set-psi |
| 11:33:28 | larsbot | ie: should we have a PSI for the SAM? |
| 11:34:05 | gra | if we have the PSIs at topicmaps.org so we need one? |
| 11:34:26 | larsbot | it's just an issue of whether the SAM should define a PSI you can use to identify it |
| 11:34:28 | gra | wont the first part of those identifiers |
| 11:34:32 | gra | be it? |
| 11:34:39 | gra | http://psi.topicmaps.org/sam/ |
| 11:34:53 | larsbot | yes, we could do it that way (that's what GeoLang does now) |
| 11:34:56 | larsbot | yeah, let's say that |
| 11:35:03 | gra | and for versions? |
| 11:35:09 | gra | http://psi.topicmaps.org/sam/1.0 etc |
| 11:35:11 | gra | http://psi.topicmaps.org/sam/ latest |
| 11:35:17 | larsbot | makes sense to me |
| 11:35:22 | gra | ok |
| 11:35:27 | larsbot | settled, then |
| 11:35:43 | larsbot | tmbot: show: psi-subclassing-loops |
| 11:35:43 | gra | next issue : yes |
| 11:35:49 | larsbot | this one's a real bastard |
| 11:36:06 | larsbot | basically, the issue is: are you allowed to do a -> b -> c -> a |
| 11:36:08 | gra | yep - but if we're considering tmcl having some OWL like properties then we cant rule it out at the SAM level |
| 11:36:23 | larsbot | well, the SAM defines the superclass/subclass association |
| 11:36:36 | larsbot | so either the SAM allows you to do it, or it says it's not allowed |
| 11:36:48 | gra | i think it should allow you to do it |
| 11:36:54 | larsbot | rationale being? |
| 11:37:37 | gra | it leaves the SAM open to being used in ways that we may think are painful but which for some applications are required |
| 11:37:52 | larsbot | true |
| 11:38:15 | larsbot | it also allows you to say that classes A and B have the same extension, but different intensions |
| 11:38:33 | larsbot | interestingly, RDF allows this... |
| 11:39:04 | gra | i think its too big an issue for us to remove the possibilty |
| 11:39:19 | larsbot | yeah, it's also going to be hell for TMAPI implementations to detect this |
| 11:39:46 | larsbot | note that this has happened already: we got a TM yesterday from someone which froze the Omnigator |
| 11:39:54 | gra | yep - but they have to detect it anyway to through the exception |
| 11:40:02 | larsbot | reason: it had such loops, and the recursive function doing the class hierarchy never stopped... |
| 11:40:06 | gra | or just hanf |
| 11:40:10 | gra | hang |
| 11:40:14 | larsbot | like we did :-) |
| 11:40:34 | larsbot | so we agree that the loops are allowed? |
| 11:40:51 | gra | i think at this stage we dont say anything |
| 11:40:58 | gra | we've defined what the relation types are |
| 11:41:04 | larsbot | agreed (which implicitly means that it's allowed) |
| 11:41:08 | gra | yes |
| 11:41:18 | larsbot | goodie |
| 11:41:38 | larsbot | tmbot: show: psi-type-instance-scope |
| 11:41:42 | gra | omg! |
| 11:41:50 | gra | do i not like this issue |
| 11:41:53 | larsbot | yeah, I don't particularly enjoy this one, either |
| 11:42:16 | larsbot | what the SAM says now is that scope applies to these two associations "in the same way as it does to any other topic characteristic" |
| 11:42:21 | gra | the reason i really dont like it is becuase in the SAM types are not shown as associations |
| 11:42:33 | gra | they are shown with a direct property |
| 11:42:37 | larsbot | not for topcis |
| 11:42:51 | larsbot | so this only applies to typing and subtyping of topics |
| 11:42:58 | gra | sorry yep |
| 11:43:16 | gra | but i assuem we have to answer the same question for class-instance |
| 11:43:31 | larsbot | yeah, we have to do it for both, I think |
| 11:43:36 | gra | no - type instance is not shown as an assoc in sam |
| 11:43:58 | gra | ok - i'm wrong |
| 11:44:02 | larsbot | thanks :) |
| 11:44:05 | gra | i could have sworn it was |
| 11:44:17 | gra | when did we change that |
| 11:44:35 | larsbot | we changed it quite early; after the London meeting you and I had, I think |
| 11:44:46 | larsbot | or maybe it was after Orlando |
| 11:45:06 | larsbot | anyway: type-instance and supertype-subtype are both associations in the SAM |
| 11:45:06 | gra | well i cant remember taking it out of the UML so probably was a while back |
| 11:45:28 | gra | i have bad feelings about this from many directions |
| 11:45:38 | larsbot | it's still in the UML, actually :-) |
| 11:45:58 | gra | yep -i was looking at the wrong piccy |
| 11:46:00 | larsbot | I'll send you feedback on the UML as soon as I can find the time, so let's ignore that now |
| 11:46:08 | larsbot | bad feelings? why? |
| 11:47:01 | gra | i feel we try and create a higher level abstraction that is easy to use and conveys some key features of the model |
| 11:47:26 | gra | and that by hiding this away somewhat we are defeating this aim |
| 11:47:54 | larsbot | you would prefer a direct property, you mean? |
| 11:47:59 | gra | its almost as though there are 3 levels, rm, sam verbose and SAM |
| 11:48:32 | larsbot | I'd say RM, SAM, TMAPI... |
| 11:48:35 | gra | where the difference between sam and sam verbose is that verbose expands the higher level common structrues into something more basic |
| 11:48:58 | larsbot | I know the feeling; it's the problem I had with this, too |
| 11:48:59 | gra | yep, maybe |
| 11:49:24 | larsbot | I resolved it for myself by saying that this was the only way you could have scope and reification on type relationships |
| 11:49:28 | larsbot | and there *are* use cases for that |
| 11:49:32 | gra | but we arent writing the TMAPI here so i think we lose a bit of impact |
| 11:49:42 | gra | i agree with you |
| 11:49:52 | larsbot | but I do think TMAPI represents this the right way |
| 11:50:01 | larsbot | so this is something we'll just have to live with, I guess |
| 11:50:46 | gra | i guess so |
| 11:50:56 | gra | as for the issue? |
| 11:51:05 | larsbot | as for the issue we are no wiser :-) |
| 11:51:08 | gra | no |
| 11:51:17 | larsbot | and I have to go play squash... |
| 11:51:25 | gra | ok |
| 11:51:26 | larsbot | should we schedule a new IRC meeting instead? |
| 11:51:32 | gra | continue this afternoon? |
| 11:51:36 | gra | yep |
| 11:51:51 | larsbot | I have other meetings for the rest of this week, actually (customers) |
| 11:52:05 | larsbot | and I'll be travelling sat/sun/mon/tue |
| 11:52:07 | gra | same time next monday? |
| 11:52:22 | larsbot | so same time next wed is the best I can do, I guess :-| |
| 11:52:39 | gra | ok - i'll check and mail you if i cant do that |
| 11:52:45 | larsbot | excellent |
| 11:52:48 | larsbot | * larsbot notes in calendar |
| 11:53:07 | larsbot | ok, then I have to get ready to leave |
| 11:53:27 | gra | ok - good session i think |
| 11:53:28 | larsbot | good meeting! I'll try to write up what we've decided so far and send you that |
| 11:53:32 | larsbot | yep :) |
| 11:53:32 | gra | ok |
| 11:56:50 | larsbot | * larsbot has to leave |
| 11:57:04 | larsbot | xower: I have some questions for you later... :-) |
| 11:57:07 | larsbot | bye everyone |
| 11:57:11 | larsbot | larsbot has quit None ("[x]chat") |
| 12:02:08 | mariyo | gra: i didn't find the tmcl home page in cvs. is it there yet? |
| 12:10:29 | gra | yep - |
| 12:10:46 | gra | you need to get latest and ensure that the button 'get new directories' is ticked |
| 12:12:34 | gra | sory its actually called 'create missing directories that exist in repository' |
| 12:12:54 | gra | its -d from the cmd line |
| 12:16:43 | mariyo | ok. i'll try that. |
| 12:17:12 | drrho | drrho has left #topicmaps () |
| 12:20:46 | mariyo | gra: got it thanks! |
| 12:22:14 | mariyo | that SAM meeting was really great. it's much better to have this written down to look at later on. |
| 12:24:25 | mariyo | gra: i'll take a look at it now. |
| 12:34:17 | mariyo | gra: "The constraint language will provide a formal constraint language, related operational semantics and a syntax." |
| 12:34:43 | mariyo | i would like to change the sentence and remove "default" OK with you? |
| 12:35:08 | mariyo | in "default syntax" |
| 12:39:57 | mariyo | gra: i made some small editing corrections and will remove the default in "default syntax." do we need to agree before I commmit? thanks. |
| 12:40:54 | mariyo | this looks fine and addresses what is being discussed in the sc34 list, which is good :) |
| 14:03:31 | LePooh | LePooh has joined #topicmaps |
| 14:04:34 | LePooh | LePooh has left #topicmaps () |
| 14:14:27 | gra | yep, please make any changes you feel necessary |
| 14:14:33 | gra | and commit them |
| 14:18:18 | mariyo | hi graham! |
| 14:19:01 | mariyo | thanks. busy working on a paper :) |
| 14:19:43 | mariyo | if you post it, please mention it on the tmcl-wg list, will you? |
| 14:29:32 | larsbot | larsbot has joined #topicmaps |
| 14:35:10 | mariyo | hi larsbot-san, back from your squash now. you must feel great! |
| 14:46:05 | larsbot | not too bad, thanks :) |
| 14:48:04 | mariyo | btw, i also seem to have access to the sam area in cvs, i went and got new directories, and well... |
| 14:48:21 | larsbot | you did. I figured there was no point in blocking your access |
| 14:53:05 | mariyo | no problem. just need to be careful since i am a little unfamilar with this setup and i'll make a separate module with only tmcl. |
| 14:53:05 | mariyo | \ |
| 14:58:51 | larsbot | so long as you just work in the TMCL directory all will be fine |
| 14:59:35 | mariyo | don't need more work that's for sure :) |
| 14:59:53 | larsbot | exactly :) |
| 15:36:38 | mariyo | oh, it's getting late. |
| 15:37:17 | mariyo | bye :) |
| 15:37:38 | larsbot | good night :) |
| 15:37:47 | mariyo | * mariyo zzzz |
| 15:59:37 | larsbot | logger shut down by larsbot |
| 16:01:34 | tmbot | tmbot has joined #topicmaps |
| 16:02:16 | mariyo | thanks. boy this is trouble |
| 16:37:29 | mariyo | ed |
| 17:07:51 | SeeTmp | SeeTmp has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 17:27:20 | SeeTemp | SeeTemp has joined #topicmaps |
| 17:41:27 | gra | gra has quit None () |
| 17:51:55 | larsbot | larsbot has quit None ("[x]chat") |
| 18:31:30 | larsbot | larsbot has joined #topicmaps |
| 19:26:10 | GabeW | GabeW has joined #topicmaps |
| 19:26:44 | larsbot | hi there, GabeW |
| 19:27:56 | GabeW | hi there larsbot |
| 19:28:24 | GabeW | OH btw, whats the meaning of adding "bot" to your first name? |
| 19:28:47 | grove_ | grove_ has joined #topicmaps |
| 19:29:51 | larsbot | it's kind of a joke, actually |
| 19:30:10 | larsbot | we were using IRC in our previous company as well |
| 19:30:20 | larsbot | and a Polish programmer thought I was typing so fast I couldn't be human |
| 19:30:37 | larsbot | so he claimed I was a bot, and I sort of started using larsbot instead of larsga |
| 19:31:01 | GabeW | got it |
| 19:31:08 | GabeW | i figured humor was involved |
| 19:31:48 | larsbot | could hardly be meant in earnest :) |
| 19:32:25 | GabeW | well, could be some bot that gatewayed to your uber-chat/im/email interface |
| 19:33:11 | larsbot | admittedly it could |
| 19:34:08 | GabeW | your ubergeek rating would have been elevated quite highly |
| 19:34:30 | larsbot | I'm sure :) |
| 19:35:24 | GabeW | hey, i'm going to be sending out some more good framing/motivations text later this week (probably thursday night which would be friday morning your time) |
| 19:36:07 | GabeW | responding in part to many of your questions (though still not yet addressing the deliverables issue quite yet) |
| 19:36:42 | larsbot | excellent. that would help a bit |
| 19:37:00 | GabeW | i've been paying a lot of attention to the (apparently recurring) thread in www-tag about "what URIs identify" |
| 19:37:45 | larsbot | any thoughts on it? |
| 19:37:51 | GabeW | yes, many |
| 19:38:15 | GabeW | some I'm even willing to discuss in a logged irc channel! |
| 19:38:22 | GabeW | ;-) |
| 19:39:31 | GabeW | i think generally, I'm sympathetic to the working code argument of the REST folks (something along the line of "we don't have to worry about what a URI identifies - its up to the application"), but I think TimBL's discussions are more persuasive to me |
| 19:40:01 | GabeW | in other words, there are times when applications "meet" and need to agree on whether they are referring to a web page or the thing represented by the page (for example) |
| 19:40:20 | GabeW | i think I'd be flamed mercilessly for that summarization |
| 19:40:55 | larsbot | I think it's right, though |
| 19:41:16 | larsbot | if they really do want RDF to support internet-scale data interchange... |
| 19:41:50 | GabeW | bernard vatant posted about TopicMaps (and mentioned the XRI TC) |
| 19:42:21 | GabeW | he made the excellent point that Topic Maps basically handles this with the publish subject indicator mechanism (ie the way the identifier is being used is explicit) |
| 19:42:45 | larsbot | yep |
| 19:42:45 | GabeW | I'm not sure this totally addresses the issue, though -- and besides, topic maps is not the only way URIs are used.. |
| 19:43:03 | larsbot | I think it points the way to the solution: when using a URI you have to be explicit about what you mean |
| 19:43:06 | GabeW | I'm trying to lay low in this discussion, although I definitely have opinions |
| 19:43:29 | GabeW | larsbot- you are talking about "context", right? |
| 19:43:41 | GabeW | the idea that you can't determine what the URI refers to without context |
| 19:43:58 | larsbot | well, context need not mean much, necessarily |
| 19:44:00 | GabeW | right |
| 19:44:19 | GabeW | i know - it can be the surrouding XML element, an XML attribute or whatever |
| 19:44:25 | GabeW | or the application |
| 19:44:28 | GabeW | yes I understand that |
| 19:44:35 | GabeW | is that what you mean? |
| 19:44:39 | larsbot | something like that, yes |
| 19:44:46 | GabeW | ok |
| 19:44:48 | larsbot | I was thinking more about RDF and TMs than XML, though |
| 19:44:53 | GabeW | right right |
| 19:44:55 | GabeW | sure |
| 19:45:04 | GabeW | " |
| 19:45:07 | larsbot | you could put the distinction TMs have into RDF as well |
| 19:45:13 | GabeW | "that which has the home page of http://www.w3.org" |
| 19:45:23 | larsbot | in fact, Sandro Hawke has pretty much proposed a way to do just that |
| 19:45:24 | GabeW | [:homepage http://www.w3.org] |
| 19:45:28 | larsbot | yeah |
| 19:46:05 | GabeW | sorry for polluting topicsmaps with rdf-foo |
| 19:46:36 | larsbot | no worries |
| 19:46:48 | GabeW | anyway, so the XRI effort is intending to produce a context-free identifier scheme |
| 19:47:00 | GabeW | thats an assumption we've uncovered |
| 19:47:01 | larsbot | because it will always refer to abstract concepts, right? |
| 19:47:13 | GabeW | larsbot- right |
| 19:47:13 | larsbot | so there's no ambiguity |
| 19:47:23 | GabeW | yes, though you could refer to a web page |
| 19:47:33 | GabeW | "abstractly" |
| 19:47:39 | GabeW | with an extra step of indirection |
| 19:48:21 | larsbot | does that mean you're back where you started? |
| 19:48:27 | GabeW | and note that identifying a computer system abstractly (for example) makes a lot of sense because it allows you to identify a logical thing devoid of network or dns name |
| 19:48:30 | GabeW | larsbot- hmm? |
| 19:48:35 | GabeW | "back where you started"? |
| 19:48:41 | GabeW | i'm not sure we went anywhere... |
| 19:48:47 | larsbot | does that mean that XRI identifiers will be as ambiguous as http ones? |
| 19:48:50 | GabeW | uh |
| 19:48:53 | GabeW | no |
| 19:49:03 | GabeW | they'll be clearly unambiguous |
| 19:49:22 | GabeW | because they won't be interpreted relative to a network protocol as http can be |
| 19:49:40 | GabeW | actually thats a good philosophical point |
| 19:49:44 | larsbot | but they may still identify electronic resources as opposed to abstract concepts? |
| 19:49:53 | larsbot | "to *just* abstract ..." |
| 19:50:00 | GabeW | we need to ground this in concrete definitions |
| 19:50:06 | GabeW | thats the TAG's problem (definitions) |
| 19:51:01 | GabeW | i mean to say that an XRI identifier will identify an XML document (lets say) that has data about a conceptual thing |
| 19:51:35 | GabeW | actually thats wrong already |
| 19:51:35 | larsbot | that's OK |
| 19:51:36 | GabeW | sigh |
| 19:51:41 | larsbot | :-) |
| 19:51:49 | GabeW | these damn words are sooo overloaded |
| 19:51:52 | GabeW | "identify" |
| 19:52:46 | larsbot | there are two words you need, I think: "identify" and "resolve to" |
| 19:52:53 | GabeW | right |
| 19:52:55 | GabeW | exactly |
| 19:53:03 | GabeW | if you have that dichotomy |
| 19:53:37 | GabeW | then I think an XRI identifies a (modally non-networked) thing, and resolves to a network endpoint through which you can interact with some data about that thing |
| 19:53:45 | GabeW | does that make sense? |
| 19:54:00 | larsbot | yes, it does |
| 19:54:03 | GabeW | phew! |
| 19:54:17 | larsbot | that means it identifies a conceptual thing, but it resolves to data about it |
| 19:54:20 | GabeW | its a subset of the semantics of todays web, but made less ambiguous |
| 19:54:21 | GabeW | yes! |
| 19:54:30 | larsbot | so it's almost like a subject identifier, but the data need not be human-readable |
| 19:54:35 | GabeW | woot! |
| 19:54:37 | larsbot | uh, published subject |
| 19:54:47 | larsbot | the data that comes back is not for humans, but for machines |
| 19:54:48 | GabeW | i think thats right |
| 19:55:19 | GabeW | actually, it could be for humans, but that would be a special case |
| 19:55:46 | GabeW | does this surprise you at all? |
| 19:55:50 | larsbot | no, not really |
| 19:56:01 | larsbot | it's pretty much in line with what you said before |
| 19:56:02 | GabeW | does this make sense to be doing? |
| 19:56:16 | GabeW | i haven't had to think about the XRI effort in these terms before |
| 19:56:27 | larsbot | I think so, though I am uncertain why you want it to resolve to machine-readable data |
| 19:56:32 | GabeW | ah |
| 19:56:49 | larsbot | sounds as if having a million XRI identifiers entails a million http requests... |
| 19:56:54 | GabeW | because we have all sorts of applications for doing things like sharing data (ie personal data) |
| 19:57:20 | GabeW | this is probably where the w3c people and you guys have least visibility into what we are doing |
| 19:57:46 | larsbot | I expect so |
| 19:57:59 | larsbot | the XRI bit appears reasonably clear, but the next level is pretty much opaque |
| 19:58:06 | GabeW | ok |
| 19:58:10 | GabeW | thats actually not surprising |
| 19:58:21 | GabeW | its not opaque to us because we have the model of XNS |
| 19:58:33 | GabeW | (which will probably be refactored quite a bit) |
| 19:58:48 | GabeW | thats not to say we are going to produce something that looks just like XNS |
| 19:59:17 | GabeW | its just that XNS embeds a lot of the assumptions and architecture we have implicit in our heads moving forward |
| 19:59:42 | larsbot | that's the stuff that needs to go into the reqs doc, I think |
| 20:00:07 | GabeW | it will |
| 20:00:26 | GabeW | i was hoping that we wouldn't have to go there for the requirements document |
| 20:00:35 | GabeW | i mean for the requirements for the addressing stuff |
| 20:00:47 | GabeW | but its clear people are totally lost as to why we are doing what we are doing |
| 20:00:52 | GabeW | so there'll be something in there |
| 20:00:57 | larsbot | I think so |
| 20:01:13 | GabeW | we've greatly expanded the scope of our audience |
| 20:03:30 | GabeW | there's been some tension having to "back up" and explain the bigger picture to folks against trying to move forward with the formalities and such of the TC |
| 20:04:10 | larsbot | well, formalities and bigger picture should be largely orthogonal, no? |
| 20:04:50 | GabeW | yes |
| 20:04:53 | GabeW | but time is finite ;-) |
| 20:05:11 | GabeW | and really, its an education for us |
| 20:05:18 | GabeW | understanding where our blind spots are |
| 20:05:28 | larsbot | I can imagine; that's always hard |
| 20:05:42 | GabeW | several of us have been looking at (or in some cases, working on) XNS for years |
| 20:05:58 | GabeW | so to step back and explain the line of thinking to a wider audience is challenging |
| 20:06:16 | GabeW | especially when everyone is convinced that you can't possibly have anything to contribute |
| 20:06:24 | larsbot | :-) |
| 20:06:34 | GabeW | really, for me, thats the challenge |
| 20:07:00 | GabeW | understanding other folks' assumptions and POV's so as not to set them off (which we've already done of course in several instances) |
| 20:07:27 | GabeW | I think positioning XRI as the "context-free" URI scheme for identifying "concepts" only might be a good way to go |
| 20:07:48 | GabeW | and then showing why we need this (higher layers) |
| 20:08:26 | larsbot | if you could do that convincingly that would definitely help you |
| 20:08:37 | larsbot | if it were aligned with published subjects as well that would also help |
| 20:08:51 | GabeW | well, today's conversation, and keeping up on those TAG threads is helping a lot |
| 20:09:03 | larsbot | if people can use XRI without using XNS they are likely to be more positive |
| 20:09:06 | larsbot | good :) |
| 20:09:10 | GabeW | yes, convergence with your conception (if only in the sense of being able to describe the simnilatiries and differences) would be very helpful |
| 20:09:18 | GabeW | OH! |
| 20:09:26 | GabeW | yes, I suspect that XNS will go away as a separate spec |
| 20:09:32 | larsbot | what does that mean? |
| 20:09:44 | GabeW | well, I think if anything, XNS will be a layer on top of XRI stuff |
| 20:09:55 | GabeW | right now XNS is its own 7 layer cake ;-) |
| 20:10:10 | larsbot | ah, right. "go away" was difficult to parse |
| 20:10:15 | GabeW | yeah, that was ambiguous |
| 20:10:22 | GabeW | the short answer: I don't know yet |
| 20:11:22 | larsbot | well, that's at least clear :) |
| 20:11:54 | GabeW | i don't know how much consensus there is on that - its partly outside the XRI TC scope.. |
| 20:12:52 | larsbot | the partly causes a lot of grief, I expect |
| 20:13:35 | GabeW | well, I think there's consensus that some things are out of scope of the XRI TC |
| 20:14:24 | GabeW | and we just haven't really gotten to talking about what else (beyond XRI TC) is going to be worked on in whatever timeframe |
| 20:14:47 | GabeW | its not so much about disagreement as much as it is putting off stuff for now that we wouldn't get to even if we wanted to right now |
| 20:16:04 | larsbot | yeah, but I guess it makes it a bit more difficult to discuss XRI |
| 20:16:07 | larsbot | as we just discussed |
| 20:16:16 | larsbot | tmbot: url: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/tmcl/ |
| 20:16:20 | larsbot | tmbot: title: TMCL |
| 20:16:32 | larsbot | tmbot: comment: The TMCL work now has a home page of its own. |
| 20:16:41 | larsbot | sorry about that :) |
| 20:17:29 | GabeW | no problem! |
| 20:18:02 | GabeW | actually, we have enough of what XNS was in scope to have a completely useful deliverable that provides significant value - its not that we're just providing a useless spec that has no value in isolation |
| 20:18:21 | GabeW | actually, we have enough of "what XNS was" in scope to have a completely useful deliverable that provides significant value - its not that we're just providing a useless spec that has no value in isolation |
| 20:18:41 | GabeW | so I think we can usefully talk about higher level uses of the XRI URI scheme in the requirements |
| 20:18:55 | GabeW | in fact we have -- we just don't have explicit use cases to tie things together |
| 20:20:06 | larsbot | I agree XRI is a complete technology in itself, with its own merits |
| 20:20:35 | GabeW | my phone call hasn't rung yet |
| 20:22:00 | larsbot | not sure whether that's good or bad :) |
| 20:22:51 | GabeW | me neither |
| 20:33:54 | GabeW | ttyl |
| 20:34:03 | larsbot | yup :) |
| 22:00:25 | GabeW | long call |
| 23:59:17 | mariyo | mariyo has quit None ("time to call it a night. bye everyone and see you tomorrow!") |