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 2003-02-03. If you have questions regarding this log, please contact larsga@ontopia.net.
| 00:31:58 | grove_ | grove_ has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |
| 00:37:17 | arnarl-home | arnarl-home has quit None ("Using Kopete IRC Plugin") |
| 01:30:54 | drrho | drrho has joined #topicmaps |
| 08:22:21 | gra | gra has joined #topicmaps |
| 08:34:58 | arnarl | arnarl has quit None (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) |
| 09:59:08 | arnarl | arnarl has joined #topicmaps |
| 09:59:08 | arnarl | arnarl has quit None (Connection reset by peer) |
| 09:59:56 | arnarl-work | arnarl-work has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:00:00 | arnarl-work | mornin |
| 10:00:35 | drrho | Hi arnarl! |
| 10:00:59 | drrho | Both channels are pretty silent today. |
| 10:08:43 | SeeTemp | SeeTemp has quit None (leguin.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) |
| 10:08:43 | em | em has quit None (leguin.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) |
| 10:08:43 | xover | xover has quit None (leguin.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) |
| 10:08:43 | grove | grove has quit None (leguin.freenode.net irc.freenode.net) |
| 10:08:56 | xover | xover has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:08:56 | SeeTemp | SeeTemp has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:08:56 | em | em has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:08:56 | grove | grove has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:25:07 | arnarl-work | drrho: yeah, silent when larsbot is not here :-) |
| 10:43:47 | arnarl-work | http://www.semanticwebjournal.org/ |
| 10:44:33 | arnarl-work | Haven't seen it in the logs, so I thought I'd mention it. |
| 10:44:56 | drrho | * drrho looking at URL |
| 10:46:18 | drrho | you want to post it to tm*bot? |
| 10:48:45 | arnarl-work | nah, you do it if its interesting |
| 10:48:52 | drrho | :-) |
| 10:49:19 | arnarl-work | I just got it a mail about it. Haven't checked it out properly :-( |
| 10:49:35 | arnarl-work | s/:-(/:-) |
| 12:02:30 | mariyo | mariyo has joined #topicmaps |
| 12:10:51 | arnarl-work | hi mariyo |
| 12:16:43 | mariyo | good morning arnarl |
| 12:17:34 | mariyo | * mariyo wonders when arnarl appended -work. we should take care not to disturb you too much maybe :) |
| 12:18:12 | arnarl-work | nah, I started using '-home' because I forgot to log off at work |
| 12:18:47 | mariyo | ok. good you mentioned this. |
| 12:18:55 | arnarl-work | Just displaying som schizopreniac(sp?) tendencies :-) |
| 12:24:06 | mariyo | has anyone been following the tmmail discussion on XSD for xml topic maps? |
| 12:24:49 | drrho | Hi mariyo! |
| 12:25:06 | mariyo | hi rho |
| 12:25:09 | drrho | I only glimpsed over it (get too much mail). |
| 12:25:56 | mariyo | so what do you think about XSD? i am getting all kinds of mail from the uddi oasis group. them seem serious. |
| 12:26:48 | mariyo | same here :) |
| 12:27:22 | drrho | * drrho looking again |
| 12:28:01 | drrho | Well, the idea to look at TMs for UDDI is not entirely new... |
| 12:28:12 | mariyo | i know that kal is interested. it would be good to understand what they want to model. |
| 12:28:46 | drrho | What to model? UDDI stuff, I guess. |
| 12:29:22 | drrho | Which company offers which services via which service description, I would assume. |
| 12:29:33 | drrho | Lots of other stuff there, as well. |
| 12:30:02 | mariyo | they need to include stuff from their UDDi namespace. |
| 12:30:26 | mariyo | exactly. |
| 12:30:35 | drrho | Does XTM forbid to mix in other stuff? |
| 12:30:41 | drrho | * drrho looking at XTM |
| 12:31:31 | mariyo | it seems that way. |
| 12:32:20 | drrho | * drrho still browsing |
| 12:32:36 | mariyo | nobody has actually said "no" on the list though. we are all thinking :) |
| 12:33:39 | drrho | I see 2.2.5.3 and 2.2.5.4 and both leave that open. |
| 12:34:47 | mariyo | * mariyo goes to take a look. but we should be looking at the xtm syntax draft. this is a good point. |
| 12:35:43 | drrho | I quote (3.5.1) The <topicMap> element can be the root of a document containing only a topic map (i.e. when it is the document element), or it can be the root of a subtree inside an XML document containing other information than the topic map itself. |
| 12:36:02 | drrho | Otherwise the XML namespace rules apply, I'd say. |
| 12:37:50 | drrho | There is 4.4 but it (implicitely) is valid only in the local namespace. |
| 12:39:21 | drrho | Hmmm, one bullet says here: A <topicMap> element is non-conforming if it contains elements or attributes from any other ?XML Namespaces? at any recursive level of element containment. |
| 12:39:56 | drrho | Does this forbid XML namespace mixin? |
| 12:41:02 | mariyo | mariyo seems to recall this issue in montreal last year. checking the xtm syntax draft now. |
| 12:42:15 | drrho | * drrho is happy that his XTM parser would not care about other stuff |
| 12:44:05 | mariyo | would guess so, more than enough to deal with. |
| 12:45:29 | mariyo | http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/sam-xtm/ best to check the latest draft. |
| 12:48:05 | mariyo | The topicMap element is the root element of all XTM topic maps. It acts as a container for the topic map, and can be either the document element of an XML document, or it may be the root of a subtree inside an XML document that contains more than just a single topic map. In both cases, the input to the XTM deserialization process is the subtree contained by the topicMap element. |
| 12:48:20 | mariyo | this is clearer. |
| 12:48:24 | drrho | Right, just read it. |
| 12:48:35 | drrho | Yes, and it does not interfere with other XML docs. |
| 12:50:53 | drrho | I also see section 4, the editor note: Define what "logically equivalent" means. |
| 12:51:17 | drrho | Could be interesting... |
| 12:53:14 | mariyo | the definition you mean? you can always provide feedback, we don't get enough :) |
| 12:53:35 | drrho | I think this is a tricky one. |
| 12:54:45 | mariyo | but you can see that the description here are much improved over the XTM spec. and if you read SAM with the XTM syntax doc, it makes a lot more sense. this is why i keep on saying that if i were an implementer, all i would need would be these two. |
| 12:54:50 | drrho | Maybe it is easier to define the equivalence via SAM, but I am no expert on SAM. |
| 12:54:54 | mariyo | arnarl: is this what you feel? |
| 12:55:32 | drrho | sam-xtm is definitely much more streamlined. |
| 12:57:18 | mariyo | * mariyo guesses that arnarl must be deeply into his work now. |
| 13:02:34 | mariyo | rho: the fact that you are still referring to the xtm 1.0 Spec from xtm.org first shows that most people are doing the same, Ithink. we really need to get the SAM and XTM syntax specs published. |
| 13:03:44 | drrho | Well, I saw some dependencies/interactions with the SAM. Could be a chicken/egg thing? |
| 13:05:26 | arnarl-work | * arnarl-work was getting a hair-cut :-) |
| 13:05:55 | mariyo | ok, so then i'll ask the question again :) |
| 13:06:13 | arnarl-work | I think it could be an interesting experiment to get a XSD for XTM, but I fail to see the real value. |
| 13:06:53 | arnarl-work | I would like XTM to be a simple interchange syntax, without too many constructs |
| 13:07:38 | mariyo | as an implementer, would you say that the xtm syntax spec and the SAM that lars marius and graham are currently working on are the topic map docs that you really need now? |
| 13:07:59 | arnarl-work | SAM is the most interesting |
| 13:08:12 | mariyo | how so? |
| 13:08:16 | arnarl-work | XTM is not as important for us yet. |
| 13:08:30 | arnarl-work | because we do not currently do much merging and imports |
| 13:09:02 | mariyo | * mariyo has got to look at ZTM |
| 13:09:20 | arnarl-work | And in our experience it is the TopicMap model that our customers like. |
| 13:09:37 | arnarl-work | Unfortunately, there is not much made public in ZTM yet. |
| 13:10:00 | arnarl-work | The interesting stuff is to connected to individual customers to be of any use. Only the core engine has been released. |
| 13:10:06 | arnarl-work | too' |
| 13:10:37 | mariyo | btw, did Sakurai-san ever get back to you? |
| 13:10:40 | arnarl-work | yeah |
| 13:10:52 | mariyo | is he using the engine? |
| 13:10:52 | arnarl-work | twice, but we haven't really got anything new out |
| 13:10:56 | arnarl-work | dunno |
| 13:11:00 | arnarl-work | I doubt it though |
| 13:11:14 | arnarl-work | Basically, the simpler the XTM is, the easier it is for us to import it. |
| 13:11:31 | arnarl-work | So preferably no more constructs that is absolutely necessary. |
| 13:12:23 | mariyo | good to know. |
| 13:12:51 | mariyo | well it getting to be about that time. got to get the kids to bed :) |
| 13:13:18 | mariyo | nice talking with you rho and arnarl have a good night/day :) |
| 13:19:29 | drrho | Good night! |
| 13:19:31 | arnarl-work | bye mariyo |
| 13:34:38 | gra | gra has quit None () |
| 13:40:02 | drrho | drrho has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 13:52:51 | mariyo | mariyo has quit None ("time to call it a night. bye everyone and see you tomorrow!") |
| 18:35:48 | grove_ | grove_ has joined #topicmaps |
| 18:41:50 | GabeW | GabeW has joined #topicmaps |
| 18:50:34 | arnarl-work | arnarl-work has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 19:39:21 | YourNick | YourNick has joined #topicmaps |
| 19:39:32 | YourNick | YourNick has left #topicmaps () |
| 19:40:06 | berva | berva has joined #topicmaps |
| 19:40:29 | GabeW | hi berva |
| 19:40:38 | berva | hi Gabe |
| 19:40:53 | berva | Just testing |
| 19:41:11 | berva | I had to reinstall all my system :( |
| 19:41:52 | GabeW | eww |
| 19:43:54 | berva | ... not figured yet if my problems are software or harware |
| 19:46:30 | GabeW | thats tough |
| 19:46:47 | GabeW | btw, I have been doing some reading on topic maps and I'm starting to feel something beyond an absolute newbie |
| 19:49:12 | berva | good ... |
| 19:49:35 | GabeW | i read the "Tao of topic maps" for the 5th time or so and finally understood it all the way through |
| 19:49:53 | GabeW | it was important for me to note the XTM changes (from the HyTime spec the doc was originally based on) |
| 19:50:10 | berva | ... from the other side I have downloaded your Model and Motivations for XRI |
| 19:50:24 | GabeW | ok |
| 19:50:26 | GabeW | thats MUCH roughter |
| 19:50:28 | GabeW | rougher |
| 19:50:34 | GabeW | with no public review yet ;-) |
| 19:51:12 | GabeW | your input will be especially valuable since you have been tracking the TAG list "what does a URI refer to" discussion |
| 19:51:23 | berva | don't consider me as public :) |
| 19:51:51 | berva | well, I've tried to follow that stuff indeed ... |
| 19:52:18 | berva | my conclusion is that a URI does not refer to anything ... |
| 19:52:25 | berva | by itself ... |
| 19:53:06 | berva | identification needs identifier + process |
| 19:53:23 | GabeW | yes, thats the topic map approach.. |
| 19:53:38 | berva | AND: knowing the class of objects you identify |
| 19:54:18 | berva | identification is always performed on instances of the same class |
| 19:55:07 | berva | and the problem with URIs is that they can identify instances of a quqi-unbounded number of classes ... |
| 19:55:44 | berva | *quasi* unbounded that isi |
| 19:57:12 | berva | BTW do you think RFC2396 *resource* is equivalent to Topic Maps *subject*? |
| 20:00:50 | GabeW | hmm |
| 20:00:56 | GabeW | i haven't thought about that too much |
| 20:01:04 | GabeW | naively I would say yes |
| 20:01:14 | GabeW | but I'm sure you're going to tell me why thats perhaps wrong ;-) |
| 20:01:26 | berva | no - no trap here |
| 20:01:33 | GabeW | heh |
| 20:01:36 | berva | I think they are the same |
| 20:01:51 | berva | it's also Lars Marius viewpoint |
| 20:01:56 | GabeW | yes |
| 20:01:59 | GabeW | (phew!) |
| 20:02:07 | GabeW | I think we are all talking about the same sort of "thing" |
| 20:02:17 | GabeW | that eventually gets identified |
| 20:02:37 | GabeW | i have a concall - i'll be back in a while |
| 20:03:21 | berva | OK - I keep on ploughing your document and will have some questions |
| 20:03:28 | berva | have fun |
| 20:05:03 | GabeW | GREAT! |
| 20:05:21 | berva | See you |
| 20:05:25 | berva | berva has left #topicmaps () |
| 23:52:41 | grove_ | grove_ has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |