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 2003-03-27. If you have questions regarding this log, please contact larsga@ontopia.net.
| 01:39:33 | erica | erica has joined #topicmaps |
| 01:41:22 | xover | xover has quit None (Excess Flood) |
| 01:41:35 | xover | xover has joined #topicmaps |
| 02:49:34 | erica | erica has quit None ("CGI:IRC 0.5.1 (EOF)") |
| 03:18:52 | ichika | ichika has joined #topicmaps |
| 03:29:12 | ichika | ichika is now known as erica |
| 04:46:44 | erica | erica has quit None ("CGI:IRC 0.5.1") |
| 07:05:51 | mariyo | mariyo has joined #topicmaps |
| 08:33:28 | xover | xover has quit None (Excess Flood) |
| 08:36:14 | xover | xover has joined #topicmaps |
| 09:20:14 | grove_ | grove_ has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |
| 09:36:09 | drrho | drrho has joined #topicmaps |
| 09:36:09 | drrho | Aloha! |
| 09:59:44 | arnarl | morning |
| 09:59:57 | drrho | Evening! :-) |
| 10:00:21 | drrho | Didn't you have a presentation recently, you mentioned? |
| 10:01:44 | grove | grove has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:11:37 | drrho | drrho has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 10:34:37 | berva | berva has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:35:04 | berva | hi there |
| 10:36:55 | berva | just testing ViRC before tmcl meeting |
| 10:38:11 | berva | OK - see you all by 12 UTC |
| 10:38:16 | berva | berva has left #topicmaps () |
| 10:40:06 | larsbot | larsbot has joined #topicmaps |
| 10:58:30 | ShelterIt | ShelterIt has joined #topicmaps |
| 11:01:32 | larsbot | * larsbot waves |
| 11:05:38 | ShelterIt | Hi there. Being slow today. |
| 11:06:49 | larsbot | so am I :) |
| 11:06:57 | larsbot | * larsbot goes shopping for breakfast |
| 11:07:11 | ShelterIt | Happy shopping. And ... breakfast?!?! :) |
| 11:07:59 | larsbot | * larsbot hopes for both :) |
| 11:36:25 | arnarl | lots of movement on the user group this morning |
| 11:36:34 | arnarl | exciting... |
| 11:38:30 | ShelterIt | Absolutely. I'm looking forward to seeing some faces attached to the people I've been talking with. :) |
| 12:23:20 | Member461 | Member461 has joined #topicmaps |
| 12:23:35 | Member461 | Member461 is now known as erica |
| 12:36:02 | berva | berva has joined #topicmaps |
| 12:36:21 | larsbot | hello bernard |
| 12:36:25 | larsbot | rare to see you here :) |
| 12:37:04 | berva | yes - been very busy lately |
| 12:37:48 | berva | and still am, in fact |
| 12:38:08 | larsbot | sounds good, economically :) |
| 12:38:14 | berva | Yes :) |
| 12:38:53 | larsbot | I, on the other hand, am sitting at home, reading |
| 12:39:25 | larsbot | not sure I envy you :-) |
| 12:41:04 | berva | European projects take most of my time ... |
| 12:41:21 | berva | managing on-going ones (FP5) ... |
| 12:41:33 | berva | and preparing future ones (FP6) |
| 12:41:46 | larsbot | right. we're beginning to do that stuff, too |
| 12:42:02 | berva | You are in Europe, now ;-) |
| 12:43:10 | larsbot | yeah. have been here for several hours now :) |
| 12:44:35 | larsbot | are you here for the TMCL meeting, or just popping by? |
| 12:46:15 | berva | yes, for the TMCL meeting - just checking before that my new IRC client works OK |
| 12:46:29 | berva | ViRC 2.0 that is |
| 12:46:33 | mariyo | good morning bernard and lars marius. good to see you here. |
| 12:46:37 | berva | looks cool |
| 12:46:56 | larsbot | berva: good |
| 12:47:01 | larsbot | mariyo: good evening :-) |
| 12:47:06 | berva | hi Mary - what time is the formal meeting exactly? |
| 12:47:22 | mariyo | in 15 minutes or so. |
| 12:47:42 | berva | oh - I thought it was 13 UTC ... |
| 12:47:58 | berva | meaning one hour later |
| 12:48:16 | larsbot | nah, 12 GMT, 13 CET :) |
| 12:48:26 | mariyo | thought i wrote 12 yes |
| 12:48:36 | mariyo | so it's 12 PM your time? |
| 12:48:45 | mariyo | oops AM |
| 12:49:08 | berva | oops - just re-read the mail, right! |
| 12:49:47 | mariyo | since i have you both here, i found a draft 226.doc that is a tmcl proposal from holger. |
| 12:50:12 | mariyo | dated 2001 05 24 |
| 12:50:31 | mariyo | i accidently found this on jim's site. know anything about it? |
| 12:50:43 | larsbot | uh, isn't that Steve Pepper's low-bar proposal? |
| 12:51:00 | larsbot | that is, this one: http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/document/0226.htm |
| 12:52:04 | mariyo | this is really strange the html file is steves, and the doc file is holger's and the contents are different |
| 12:52:26 | larsbot | bizarre |
| 12:53:00 | larsbot | you are right; they are different in content |
| 12:53:18 | larsbot | a secret proposal. now that is something :-) |
| 12:53:42 | mariyo | exactly. holger has a use case that could be incorporated in the new requirements draft. i will ask holger then. |
| 12:54:30 | larsbot | would be nice if we could at least publish this doc :-) |
| 12:54:46 | larsbot | how on earth did you find that document? |
| 12:55:06 | mariyo | i'm good at snooping :) |
| 12:55:33 | mariyo | i think holger should submit it now and get his own number. |
| 12:55:58 | mariyo | just an accident really -- clicked on the .doc |
| 12:57:00 | larsbot | hmmm. maybe we should try 0323.doc. it may have a secret roadmap proposal from Michel |
| 12:57:10 | mariyo | :) |
| 13:01:27 | berva | Sorry folks, but I think I have to be off for Half an hour now. Will be back later on |
| 13:01:57 | tmkal | tmkal has joined #topicmaps |
| 13:02:10 | larsbot | hi kal :) |
| 13:02:21 | freese | freese has joined #topicmaps |
| 13:02:22 | tmkal | hi lars |
| 13:02:38 | mariyo | hi kal. here for the meeting? |
| 13:02:49 | freese | hello all |
| 13:03:03 | mariyo | hi eric. good to see you here! |
| 13:03:04 | tmkal | yeah, here to listen at least :) |
| 13:03:06 | tmkal | hi eric |
| 13:03:33 | mariyo | erica, is robert around? |
| 13:03:43 | freese | howdy - mostly listening too |
| 13:04:05 | mariyo | * mariyo is hoping everyone has lots to say :) |
| 13:04:07 | larsbot | mariyo: FYI pepper is intending to participate |
| 13:04:21 | mariyo | good! |
| 13:04:25 | erica | mariyo: he said he was going to be here, not so sure where he is now |
| 13:05:42 | mariyo | let's wait a few minutes then. |
| 13:06:04 | larsbot | sounds good |
| 13:06:12 | pepper | pepper has joined #topicmaps |
| 13:06:12 | pepper | pepper has quit None (Client Quit) |
| 13:07:22 | pepper | pepper has joined #topicmaps |
| 13:07:29 | gra | gra has joined #topicmaps |
| 13:07:32 | mariyo | hi steve |
| 13:07:35 | gra | hi all |
| 13:07:39 | mariyo | oh graham goodie :) |
| 13:07:42 | gra | :) |
| 13:07:46 | pepper | hello everyone, sorry i'm late |
| 13:08:32 | mariyo | no problem. bernard will be back a little later, and i guess that robert will pop in soon but lets begin. |
| 13:08:45 | pepper | ok - you're in charge, mariyo |
| 13:09:00 | mariyo | ok, thanks steve will do my best :) |
| 13:10:00 | mariyo | this meeting on tmcl is called to begin the first review of the requirements draft |
| 13:10:14 | mariyo | that is due to be submitted in the next few days. |
| 13:10:43 | mariyo | i think that i will go through the parts in order if that is ok with everyone. |
| 13:10:56 | mariyo | is there anything first that should be brought up? |
| 13:11:08 | larsbot | * larsbot has nothing |
| 13:11:15 | mariyo | i guess that would need to be added to the agenda. |
| 13:12:05 | mariyo | ok, i will begin with the request i received from komachi-san for some background information. |
| 13:13:01 | mariyo | steve, can you say a little about the background? |
| 13:13:17 | pepper | eh - background to what? |
| 13:14:03 | mariyo | the tcml project and the requirements draft. just to confirm, the new draft will supersedes the previous one? |
| 13:14:23 | pepper | that's my intention. it was always just a rough first cut - a strawman |
| 13:14:38 | pepper | it was put on ice because we realised we needed to concentrate on the data model first |
| 13:14:48 | pepper | time has come now to get it moving again |
| 13:14:52 | mariyo | and the reason for having a new draft is because SAM is stabilizing and we can begin work on tmcl now? |
| 13:14:59 | pepper | yes |
| 13:15:26 | mariyo | ok that's what i thought. i will just add something very brief to this effect. |
| 13:15:54 | pepper | other comments from larsbot, freese or others that were at the Berlin meeting? |
| 13:16:12 | larsbot | nah, this is pretty much it, I think |
| 13:16:18 | mariyo | lets go to the next section them. |
| 13:16:21 | freese | I would agree that it is time get things moving again |
| 13:16:44 | mariyo | any comments on 1.1? |
| 13:17:03 | SeeTemp | SeeTemp has quit None ("Client exiting") |
| 13:17:09 | mariyo | robert wanted to add that we will define one syntax. |
| 13:17:24 | larsbot | mariyo: reference to document? |
| 13:17:57 | mariyo | sorry the curent draft for tmcl requirments |
| 13:18:14 | larsbot | you mean 0226, or yours? and if yours, where is it? |
| 13:18:58 | mariyo | the current working draft with no number at www.isotopimaps.org/tmcl/requirements.html |
| 13:19:01 | larsbot | thanks |
| 13:19:49 | mariyo | robert barta had already given some feedback on the latest draft and i commented on it. so it would be good to take a look at that too. |
| 13:20:15 | mariyo | * mariyo looking now. |
| 13:20:19 | larsbot | 1.1 looks fine to me |
| 13:21:37 | gra | It may provide more intuitive user interfaces for creating and maintaining topic maps. |
| 13:21:50 | gra | should probably read something like |
| 13:22:08 | gra | It may aid applications in providing <insert above> |
| 13:22:46 | mariyo | ok good. i will add that. |
| 13:23:11 | mariyo | I would like to discuss 1.1.1 must verus 1.1.2 should |
| 13:23:45 | larsbot | we need to migrate more stuff from 1.1.2 to 1.1.1 :-) |
| 13:23:58 | mariyo | robert requested to move 1 syntax to the "must" section. exactly |
| 13:24:14 | larsbot | I agree with that, but I have many issues with 1.1.2.1 |
| 13:24:15 | mariyo | that's what i mean. so do you agree with the one syntax? |
| 13:24:25 | larsbot | one syntax: yes |
| 13:24:32 | mariyo | ok, can you say? |
| 13:24:33 | larsbot | based on XSDL/DTD/DSDL: depends what that means |
| 13:24:50 | mariyo | this was input from martin |
| 13:25:19 | larsbot | I don't think we can reuse DTDs, DSDL, or even XSDL (beyond datatyping) |
| 13:25:31 | SeeTemp | SeeTemp has joined #topicmaps |
| 13:25:50 | mariyo | and the dsdl will follow a subset of xml schema datatypes i think. |
| 13:26:05 | tmkal | but the template language/tmcl syntax should be expressed as a DTD/DSDL ? |
| 13:26:23 | larsbot | using *some* XML schema language, certainly |
| 13:26:38 | gra | lars : i think the intent was to say that however we choose to serialise the constraints we shouldn't use some arbitrary ascii format |
| 13:26:38 | tmkal | ok, cos thats what I thought was meant |
| 13:26:39 | pepper | candidate syntaxes: XTM, XTM+, XML |
| 13:26:55 | larsbot | pepper is right, of course |
| 13:27:08 | mariyo | i think that we can phrase it the way steve says for now but i think we should delete it from the title |
| 13:27:18 | larsbot | agreed |
| 13:27:31 | mariyo | the title makes it sound as if we are going to do all of these syntaxes! |
| 13:27:55 | pepper | * pepper disappears for 5 minutes |
| 13:28:07 | larsbot | could we also remove the expression/template language discussion? |
| 13:28:16 | larsbot | I think that's not a requirement, but an implementation choice |
| 13:28:40 | mariyo | i agree with that. and it it repeated elsewhere. causes confusion. |
| 13:29:08 | mariyo | comments? |
| 13:29:47 | mariyo | let's go on to the next. lars marius, this one was from you. |
| 13:30:00 | mariyo | on merging schemas. any additions? |
| 13:30:22 | larsbot | this is 1.1.2.3? |
| 13:30:38 | mariyo | oops forgot the model |
| 13:30:48 | mariyo | phone just rang sorry. |
| 13:31:20 | mariyo | 1.1.2.2 model for the language. there were really no details on th is |
| 13:31:38 | mariyo | do we need a model? |
| 13:32:00 | mariyo | and would it be written in the style of SAM? |
| 13:32:08 | larsbot | I'm not convinced we need one. I'd be for taking this one out |
| 13:32:13 | gra | one reason we may need a model is so that constraint expressions in TMCL can be matched or re-used in TMQL |
| 13:32:32 | larsbot | that suggests to me the model should be TMs. which is a possibility... |
| 13:32:33 | gra | i.e. whats the difference between a 'constraint term' and a 'query term' |
| 13:33:07 | larsbot | defining a special TMCL data model and then letting TMQL query that seems messy |
| 13:33:35 | gra | oh i dont mean a different model that you query |
| 13:33:55 | gra | but a model that expresses the query it self or the constraint itself |
| 13:34:24 | gra | the model it operates on is of course the SAM |
| 13:34:41 | gra | i.e. a query expression consists of multiple query terms |
| 13:34:50 | larsbot | right. I see what you mean |
| 13:34:51 | larsbot | so do you want a model? and, if you do, why? |
| 13:34:53 | gra | each query term can be have a negation prefix |
| 13:35:09 | gra | for clarity and documentation |
| 13:35:30 | pepper | * pepper returns |
| 13:35:54 | larsbot | hmmmm. must, should, or may? :-) |
| 13:36:15 | mariyo | * mariyo was thinking along the same lines |
| 13:36:23 | gra | ? |
| 13:36:44 | mariyo | if graham has something in mind and wants to write it up. go to it! |
| 13:37:19 | gra | i'm not sure we need it at this stage, i'm not sure its a requirement for TMCL as such, but i think that it would be useful in ensuring harmony between tmcl and tmql |
| 13:38:05 | larsbot | sounds like it's a "may", then. I'd be happy to have that in there |
| 13:38:29 | gra | ok - alas, i have to attend another meeting, have fun |
| 13:38:31 | mariyo | we can remove it from the requirements, but we can still write a model later on if we want. i guess it is a matter of setting priorities at this stage. |
| 13:38:54 | larsbot | in that case I'd suggest cutting it |
| 13:38:55 | mariyo | thanks graham bye! |
| 13:39:29 | mariyo | that's why i am for not having it in the requirments. there are other more urgent stuff. |
| 13:39:57 | larsbot | fine :) |
| 13:40:05 | tmkal | but i think that graham has a point - it could be harder to document the other stuff without a model to refer to |
| 13:40:13 | mariyo | steve, you mentioned at the sc34wg3 report that we need to set a schedule for the work. should this be incuded in the requirements? |
| 13:41:37 | mariyo | tmkal: do you agree that the model comes later? |
| 13:41:54 | mariyo | if we did a model? |
| 13:42:01 | tmkal | yes, but I think that it *should* be included |
| 13:42:04 | pepper | schedule: not in the requirements, but it would be good to have a proposal |
| 13:42:23 | mariyo | steve: ok good to know. |
| 13:42:42 | mariyo | any other comments on the model? |
| 13:42:58 | freese | i agree that tt should be included |
| 13:43:10 | freese | and done later |
| 13:43:33 | mariyo | ok, i will put it in the "May" category then. agreed? |
| 13:43:37 | larsbot | +1 |
| 13:43:46 | freese | yes |
| 13:43:49 | tmkal | yep |
| 13:43:50 | freese | yes |
| 13:43:56 | mariyo | ok great! |
| 13:44:22 | mariyo | now we have the 1.1.2.3 merging of schemas |
| 13:44:51 | mariyo | larsbot: can you say a little more? |
| 13:44:55 | larsbot | I think TMCL should specify any effects that schemas have on merging (leaving the door open for them to not have any effect at all) |
| 13:45:25 | freese | are there cases where you think they might? |
| 13:45:35 | berva | sorry mariyo - is it referring to http://www.isotopimaps.org/tmcl/requirements.html ? I can't access this document now :( |
| 13:45:54 | larsbot | freese: yes, especially as regards redundancy removal and conflicts |
| 13:45:59 | mariyo | the site is down? |
| 13:46:22 | freese | mariyo, no I'm on it |
| 13:46:28 | larsbot | berva: emailed it to you now |
| 13:46:36 | mariyo | thanks. |
| 13:46:42 | freese | larsbot: ok |
| 13:46:42 | berva | thanks ! |
| 13:46:50 | larsbot | a procedure for merging schemas I think should be a "may" (may not be possible to standardize a single approach) |
| 13:47:07 | freese | I would agree with larsbot |
| 13:47:15 | mariyo | agree. |
| 13:47:29 | mariyo | others? |
| 13:47:57 | erica | merging schemas = merging topic maps ? |
| 13:48:20 | larsbot | erica: no, merging schemas means taking two TMCL schemas and merging them |
| 13:48:45 | erica | then should not be standardized, it's language dependent |
| 13:48:56 | pepper | freese: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/tmcl/requirements.html |
| 13:49:03 | larsbot | erica: true, but we're making a single language... |
| 13:49:13 | freese | pepper: yes I'm there |
| 13:49:23 | pepper | sorry, should have been to berva |
| 13:49:54 | berva | ok - gotcha |
| 13:49:54 | erica | larsbot: ok |
| 13:50:26 | mariyo | do we agree on "May" for the merging of schemas? |
| 13:50:35 | berva | agreed |
| 13:50:36 | larsbot | +1 |
| 13:50:44 | freese | yes |
| 13:50:47 | pepper | +1 |
| 13:51:00 | mariyo | erica, is it ok? |
| 13:51:07 | erica | yup |
| 13:51:12 | mariyo | good! |
| 13:51:29 | mariyo | next 1.1.2.4 defintions of classes |
| 13:51:37 | mariyo | so i will change this to types? |
| 13:51:46 | pepper | yesw |
| 13:51:51 | larsbot | yes, please :) |
| 13:52:08 | mariyo | this is the list from 226 unchanged. |
| 13:52:09 | tmkal | +1 |
| 13:52:41 | mariyo | is there anything that needs to be added to this list that we missed? |
| 13:53:22 | berva | sorry, I don't understand the *title* of that section :( |
| 13:53:28 | pepper | i don't recognise the list from 226 |
| 13:53:43 | berva | "Definitions of Classes and relationships of Classes and Instances " |
| 13:53:59 | larsbot | I'd suggest changing title to "Constraints on types" |
| 13:54:07 | pepper | where is this list in 226?` |
| 13:54:23 | berva | larsbot: agreed |
| 13:54:32 | mariyo | sorry steve. my mistake. this was from the tmcl list. |
| 13:54:39 | pepper | ok |
| 13:55:03 | pepper | to be honest i don't understand these bullet points |
| 13:55:11 | pepper | can someone explain what, say, the first one means |
| 13:55:19 | berva | :) |
| 13:55:27 | larsbot | personally, I think the first one should be inverted |
| 13:55:42 | berva | It can be read two ways, actually |
| 13:55:54 | larsbot | "Explicitly identify constraints on instances of a type" |
| 13:56:05 | pepper | * pepper starts to suspect they were written by a Frenchman |
| 13:56:12 | berva | ah ah |
| 13:56:51 | berva | are the class first, and constraint defined afterwards ... |
| 13:57:09 | berva | or classes derived from the constraints? |
| 13:57:24 | larsbot | I think it says the second, but I believe we mean the first |
| 13:58:24 | tmkal | I thought it was the second... |
| 13:58:31 | berva | eh |
| 13:58:33 | pepper | does #1 mean "Allow the expression of constraints by topic type"? |
| 13:59:04 | larsbot | I don't think fidelity to the original text is a goal here |
| 13:59:05 | tmkal | I read it as "Allow the expression of topic type by conformance to constraints" |
| 13:59:07 | mariyo | isn't it something simple like we have topics, and we are only going to use them for typing? |
| 13:59:12 | larsbot | its more important to find the new text... |
| 14:00:18 | pepper | mariyo: so, example 2.1 in 226? |
| 14:00:46 | mariyo | * mariyo is looking now |
| 14:01:00 | pepper | i know i wrote it, but it doesn' |
| 14:01:05 | pepper | t make sense any more |
| 14:01:36 | mariyo | exactly. that makes more sense. i propose to use the originals. |
| 14:02:02 | mariyo | can you expand on this now? |
| 14:02:05 | pepper | topic 'T' must be able to have names, play roles in e.g. supertype-subtype relationships, etc. |
| 14:02:32 | pepper | what i guess i meant to say is that 'T' can't type anything except topics |
| 14:02:35 | mariyo | so it just needs to be expanded a little more? |
| 14:02:36 | larsbot | maybe you meant the opposite: establishing which topics represent types allow us to cry foul when "Puccini" is used as a type? |
| 14:02:58 | pepper | yes - and complain if 'composer' is used to type an association |
| 14:03:14 | freese | ok that makes sense to me |
| 14:03:17 | larsbot | both make sense to me (note that OSL allows you to use a topic both as an assoc and topic type...) |
| 14:03:36 | pepper | everything makes sense when you start talking about Italian Opera :-) |
| 14:03:41 | berva | suggestion : "Define constraints on allowed characteristics for the instances of a topic class." |
| 14:03:50 | larsbot | I buy berva's suggestion |
| 14:03:59 | pepper | except it's a different thing |
| 14:04:18 | berva | is it? |
| 14:04:40 | pepper | it's examples 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, etc. -- not 2.1 and 2.2 |
| 14:05:04 | larsbot | yeah, but it's like mariyo's original bullet point :-) |
| 14:05:49 | pepper | we need to distinguish between two things: |
| 14:05:57 | pepper | (1) constraints on topics that ARE types |
| 14:06:08 | pepper | (2) constraints on topics that are OF certain types |
| 14:06:31 | erica | Define a topic can be used as topic type and nothing else" |
| 14:06:41 | larsbot | pepper: true |
| 14:06:52 | larsbot | I believe we want to support *both* |
| 14:06:58 | pepper | erica: that's the bit i meant doesn't make sense any more... |
| 14:07:10 | pepper | larsbot: both: YES |
| 14:07:25 | pepper | we just need to make the distinction clear in our own minds and in the exposition |
| 14:07:44 | larsbot | agreed |
| 14:08:01 | larsbot | so that's two new bullet points born of mariyo's single one, right? |
| 14:08:07 | pepper | btw: in (2) 'topics' stands in for 'topics, associations, occurrences, names and association roles' |
| 14:08:18 | mariyo | that's what i was wondering. |
| 14:08:34 | pepper | or 6 born of 2 |
| 14:08:46 | mariyo | is this agreed then. drop the first bullet and add these two? |
| 14:08:58 | pepper | types, topics, associations, occurrences, names, association roles |
| 14:09:11 | larsbot | I'd say add two, but spell out all the alternatives pepper is listing |
| 14:09:13 | erica | scope? |
| 14:09:22 | larsbot | uh, plus scope :-) |
| 14:09:43 | pepper | scope, of course, but i was restricting myself to type-related stuff for the moment |
| 14:09:52 | larsbot | scope presents special issues, actually |
| 14:10:01 | pepper | i doubt it not :) |
| 14:10:16 | pepper | let's hold them for a moment, shall we? |
| 14:10:18 | larsbot | yeah |
| 14:10:39 | pepper | so we have bullet point 1: types, bullet point 2: instances |
| 14:10:53 | pepper | 2 specifies all kinds of things that can be instances, as listed above |
| 14:11:15 | larsbot | uh, doesn't 1 do the same (kinds of types)? |
| 14:11:16 | freese | works for me |
| 14:11:30 | berva | So, we forget about the neutrality of a topic vs ontology? |
| 14:11:43 | pepper | 1 is just topic (that are typing topics) |
| 14:11:49 | pepper | 1 is just topics (that are typing topics) |
| 14:12:07 | berva | ... and go back to good old class-instance paradigm :) |
| 14:12:29 | berva | I can live with that, personnaly |
| 14:12:46 | pepper | * pepper wonders what berva means |
| 14:12:59 | larsbot | * larsbot is equally mystified |
| 14:13:07 | mariyo | ok can we go on :) |
| 14:13:20 | berva | I will explain off-line :)) |
| 14:13:23 | pepper | now that everyone's thoroughly confused - sure |
| 14:13:37 | mariyo | describe kinds of types? |
| 14:13:43 | mariyo | third bullet. |
| 14:14:14 | pepper | what does that mean? |
| 14:14:26 | mariyo | don't know why i am asking :) |
| 14:14:43 | mariyo | that's why i am asking. |
| 14:15:06 | freese | I must leave now - talk to you later |
| 14:15:13 | pepper | bye |
| 14:15:15 | mariyo | bye eric thanks! |
| 14:15:43 | mariyo | shall we cut this? |
| 14:15:58 | pepper | where did it come from? |
| 14:15:58 | freese | freese has quit None (Remote closed the connection) |
| 14:16:02 | mariyo | maybe it is referring to super sub typing. |
| 14:16:13 | mariyo | this is from the mail list. |
| 14:16:23 | berva | It seems redundant with [1] we defined above, if I understand it at all |
| 14:16:37 | mariyo | benard do you understand what was meant? |
| 14:16:39 | pepper | agree with berva |
| 14:16:49 | mariyo | ok, so i will cut this one. |
| 14:16:52 | mariyo | agreed |
| 14:16:53 | larsbot | ok |
| 14:17:07 | pepper | hai |
| 14:17:25 | mariyo | next: regularities about type instances? |
| 14:17:34 | mariyo | what would these be? |
| 14:17:41 | berva | no idea |
| 14:17:45 | mariyo | is this a semantic thing? |
| 14:18:02 | pepper | sounds to me like #2 as defined above |
| 14:18:04 | larsbot | yeah |
| 14:18:24 | berva | part of it, yes |
| 14:18:31 | mariyo | also partially known information about instances. |
| 14:18:56 | pepper | that's the next one - do they belong together? won't they both fall in under #2? |
| 14:19:00 | mariyo | how can we represent what is only partially known. |
| 14:19:05 | berva | like pre-defined values? |
| 14:19:21 | mariyo | is this fuzzy logic stuff? |
| 14:19:33 | mariyo | lots, a few, etc. |
| 14:19:34 | pepper | nah - incomplete knowledge, probably |
| 14:19:44 | pepper | has to do with cardinality constraints |
| 14:20:13 | mariyo | so drop it here then? |
| 14:20:32 | mariyo | it is included in the next one 1.1.2.5? |
| 14:20:47 | larsbot | I'd drop it |
| 14:20:56 | pepper | * pepper would too |
| 14:21:00 | berva | yes - those are details of [1] and [2] above |
| 14:21:13 | mariyo | ok good we are really getting somewhere. |
| 14:21:21 | pepper | is there anything that is *not* covered by 1 and 2? |
| 14:21:27 | mariyo | 1.1.2.5 cardinality. |
| 14:21:33 | mariyo | need a little more than a title :) |
| 14:21:51 | larsbot | I'd say we want cardinality constraints on topic map constructs |
| 14:21:55 | larsbot | as applied to topic types |
| 14:22:53 | mariyo | comments? |
| 14:23:07 | pepper | what are 'topic map constructs'? |
| 14:23:58 | larsbot | I mean topic characteristic assignments |
| 14:24:13 | pepper | has to be broader than that, doesn't it? |
| 14:24:19 | erica | example of when do we need cardinality? |
| 14:24:20 | pepper | what about subject indicators? |
| 14:24:39 | pepper | "always exactly one name in the unconstrained scope" |
| 14:25:01 | larsbot | sis: don't see how you can constrain the number of those |
| 14:25:12 | larsbot | they are not statements about the subject world |
| 14:25:37 | pepper | you might want to validate to ensure that all topics have at least one SI |
| 14:25:48 | berva | exact |
| 14:26:06 | larsbot | pepper: conceivably, yes |
| 14:26:12 | larsbot | ok, let's put it in for now |
| 14:26:14 | mariyo | how do you do that though? |
| 14:26:18 | pepper | i think we need to have cardinality constraints on: |
| 14:26:31 | pepper | (1) characteristics of topics (by type and scope) |
| 14:26:38 | erica | should be cardinality on chars or members |
| 14:26:45 | pepper | (2) certain other properties of topics (e.g. SIs) |
| 14:27:01 | pepper | (3) roles in associations |
| 14:27:03 | larsbot | erica: what are members? |
| 14:27:13 | pepper | (4) role players in roles |
| 14:27:29 | larsbot | pepper: list seems right to me |
| 14:27:53 | erica | roles in associations |
| 14:28:10 | erica | larsbot: sorry for the confusion |
| 14:28:48 | mariyo | ok good. i will put these all in. |
| 14:29:03 | larsbot | erica: no prob. roles in assocs are topic characteristics |
| 14:30:00 | mariyo | agreed then? |
| 14:30:13 | berva | yes |
| 14:30:13 | pepper | mariyo: consult with SAM and use terminology there, not XTM terminology |
| 14:30:16 | erica | larsbot: yes sure |
| 14:30:24 | mariyo | sure, will do. |
| 14:30:24 | pepper | agreed |
| 14:30:34 | larsbot | mariyo: yes, agreed |
| 14:30:48 | mariyo | 1.1.2.6 datatyping |
| 14:30:59 | mariyo | ok as written? |
| 14:31:01 | pepper | should apply to names as well |
| 14:31:06 | mariyo | anythng else. |
| 14:31:09 | mariyo | ok. |
| 14:31:14 | tmkal | just a sec |
| 14:31:14 | pepper | what about locators? |
| 14:31:19 | erica | can we also add cardinality as in have only one topic of a particular type? |
| 14:31:37 | tmkal | what is the subset of data types that people have in mind ? |
| 14:31:40 | pepper | erica: good point |
| 14:32:03 | mariyo | good i will add that to the cardinality section. |
| 14:32:04 | pepper | it's cardinality as applied to [1] in 1.1.2.4 |
| 14:32:05 | larsbot | erica: isn't that the same as enumerated classes? (which, btw, we should support) |
| 14:32:22 | pepper | larsbot: explain |
| 14:32:39 | larsbot | "the class PrimaryColours consists of Red, Yellow, and Blue" |
| 14:32:56 | pepper | (tmkal's question is on the stack) |
| 14:33:01 | berva | finite sets of values you mean? |
| 14:33:10 | larsbot | finite, *specified*, set of values |
| 14:33:27 | berva | yes - extensional definition |
| 14:33:29 | pepper | bit like making a topic type read-only, isn't it? |
| 14:33:40 | berva | ?? |
| 14:33:41 | larsbot | it is, but it's very useful |
| 14:33:53 | larsbot | think of, say, the topic type workflow state |
| 14:34:15 | pepper | berva: effectively stops users from adding a spurious colour of their own invention |
| 14:34:38 | pepper | OWL must have something like this... |
| 14:34:48 | larsbot | pepper: it does |
| 14:35:04 | pepper | well, then, WE must have it :-) |
| 14:35:12 | larsbot | <owl:Class><owl:oneOf><owl:Thing rdf:resource="Green/>...</owl:oneOf></owl:Class> |
| 14:35:23 | larsbot | pffff. I don't care about OWL; I just want this feature |
| 14:35:35 | pepper | * pepper was only joking |
| 14:35:44 | pepper | feature sounds good |
| 14:36:08 | pepper | is it cardinality or is it a subpoint under [1] above |
| 14:36:17 | larsbot | subpoint, I'd say |
| 14:36:45 | pepper | good - will you add it, mariyo, and we'll pop tmkal |
| 14:37:04 | mariyo | will do. |
| 14:37:08 | tmkal | 1.1.2.6 - what subset ? |
| 14:37:47 | mariyo | i was thinking of the subset recently proposed by murata-san |
| 14:38:09 | larsbot | I think we should just say "subset". then we may choose the entire set, or some suitable subset |
| 14:38:10 | pepper | why don't we allow everything, and also make it extensible? |
| 14:38:11 | tmkal | can you briefly outline what that is for me ? |
| 14:38:27 | tmkal | pepper: exactly what I was thinking |
| 14:38:38 | larsbot | * larsbot has been thinking along the same lines |
| 14:38:59 | pepper | it would be political suicide to do anything different |
| 14:39:07 | larsbot | why? |
| 14:39:10 | tmkal | i would like to see this go hand in hand with allowing complex types as a resource too |
| 14:39:10 | pepper | (may be technical suicide to do the same, though) |
| 14:39:13 | mariyo | but this should be clear this is the set of datatypes -- he is proposing datatypes that can be used across all systems so datatypes for dates for example are not included. |
| 14:39:34 | pepper | larsbot: because we would be laughed at for reinventing the wheel |
| 14:39:37 | mariyo | tmkal: i will send you the list. |
| 14:39:51 | tmkal | mary: thanks |
| 14:40:12 | larsbot | pepper: I think we have two alternatives: a) use a subset of XSDL types or b) use extensible type system |
| 14:40:21 | mariyo | i will leave subset in for now and we can define it later. agreed? |
| 14:40:26 | larsbot | reinventing the wheel is a huge no-no, IMHO |
| 14:40:39 | tmkal | larsbot: agreed |
| 14:40:50 | pepper | is XSDL extensible? |
| 14:41:03 | larsbot | pepper: yes and no. tweakable is the word, I suppose |
| 14:41:19 | larsbot | you can adjust facets of the types to create specialized versions |
| 14:41:26 | larsbot | RELAX-NG *is* extensible, though |
| 14:41:39 | mariyo | ok, can we go on then. we have now met for 1.5 hr. ok to go on? |
| 14:41:44 | pepper | why would we not say that we use XSDL rather than a subset of it |
| 14:41:49 | larsbot | mariyo: ok by me :) |
| 14:42:06 | mariyo | this is going to be discussed and debated in london. |
| 14:42:15 | tmkal | perhaps for now this section should not commit us to W3C's XML Schema |
| 14:42:25 | pepper | maybe put in an [issue] here, then? |
| 14:42:28 | tmkal | then we can have the punch-up in London ;-) |
| 14:42:40 | mariyo | OK will do. the first ISSUE! |
| 14:43:00 | mariyo | now i feel important :) |
| 14:43:18 | larsbot | it's the right resolution, though |
| 14:43:27 | tmkal | no resolution ? :) |
| 14:43:30 | larsbot | yep :) |
| 14:43:36 | mariyo | seriously, shall we go on. |
| 14:43:38 | larsbot | yeah |
| 14:43:41 | tmkal | yep |
| 14:43:49 | pepper | hai |
| 14:43:54 | mariyo | 1.1.2.7 validation and exceptions |
| 14:44:11 | mariyo | strict, loose, none |
| 14:44:44 | mariyo | wish graham were here. |
| 14:45:02 | larsbot | I'm not sure "none" makes sense. I think that lies in how you use the schema rather than the schema itself |
| 14:45:10 | pepper | change 'topic map instance element' to 'topic map construct' (and define that somewhere)? |
| 14:45:23 | larsbot | sounds good |
| 14:45:44 | mariyo | was going to add the topic map construct to the definitions. is this in SAM? |
| 14:45:48 | larsbot | it is not |
| 14:45:53 | tmkal | "None" might be useful for a schema instance to point to the schema used for templating |
| 14:46:21 | larsbot | so schema A points to schema B, and schema B does templating for ...? |
| 14:46:34 | tmkal | no, instance A points to schema B |
| 14:46:45 | mariyo | but in that case, it is not validation but templating. |
| 14:46:57 | tmkal | yes, so validation = "None" :) |
| 14:47:00 | larsbot | ah, right. but isn't schema B the same regardless of whether you validate or template? |
| 14:47:24 | tmkal | yes, its not the schema which defines how it is used, it is the instance and/or application |
| 14:47:51 | larsbot | right. so you have a requirement that TMCL should provide a vocabulary TMs can use to refer to schemas and say how they are used? |
| 14:48:04 | tmkal | yes |
| 14:48:17 | pepper | whereas strict and loose are about things the schema itself is saying |
| 14:48:19 | mariyo | ok fair enough. will add. agreed? |
| 14:48:26 | larsbot | mariyo: -1 |
| 14:48:30 | tmkal | pepper: yes |
| 14:48:36 | larsbot | pepper: agreed |
| 14:48:48 | larsbot | am happy for it to be an issue, though |
| 14:49:03 | tmkal | I am happy for it to be a separate specification ! |
| 14:49:16 | larsbot | then we agree :) |
| 14:49:34 | tmkal | but if we can make it a part of TMCL then I get it faster and I am a happier person for it |
| 14:49:47 | larsbot | psi.techquila.com is fastest of all :) |
| 14:49:51 | mariyo | so are you volunteering :) |
| 14:49:57 | tmkal | :) |
| 14:50:01 | tmkal | D'OH |
| 14:50:19 | pepper | btw: will you be at all the WG3 meetings, tmkal? |
| 14:50:34 | tmkal | I'm not certain yet |
| 14:51:18 | tmkal | depends on how much punishment I feel I ought to take :) |
| 14:51:42 | mariyo | please come to the tmcl discussion it is on Sat morning. |
| 14:51:53 | tmkal | definitely |
| 14:52:02 | mariyo | great! |
| 14:52:15 | mariyo | so now where were we. |
| 14:52:19 | berva | soory folks, I have to quit now :( |
| 14:52:28 | mariyo | bye bernard thank! |
| 14:52:49 | berva | bye all |
| 14:52:52 | berva | berva has left #topicmaps () |
| 14:53:00 | mariyo | are we leaving in non validation? |
| 14:53:23 | larsbot | I'm uneasy about having that sort of statement in there |
| 14:53:31 | larsbot | the schema has no need to know that |
| 14:53:37 | mariyo | i was going to take it out really. |
| 14:53:40 | mariyo | agreed? |
| 14:53:58 | tmkal | for TMCL, ok - but it is still a necessary thing |
| 14:54:09 | mariyo | agreed. |
| 14:54:20 | mariyo | that's what you will be writing :) |
| 14:54:21 | larsbot | mariyo: agreed |
| 14:54:29 | tmkal | :)) |
| 14:54:49 | mariyo | ok let's go on. |
| 14:55:10 | mariyo | 1.1.2.8 use of tmql |
| 14:55:31 | erica | agree |
| 14:55:45 | mariyo | anything to add? looks ok for now to me |
| 14:55:53 | larsbot | I like this one (will submit rewording proposal offline) |
| 14:56:01 | mariyo | ok good thanks. |
| 14:56:25 | pepper | * pepper has to leave for 5 mins |
| 14:56:30 | mariyo | 1.1.2.9 templating ... |
| 14:56:46 | mariyo | really wondering if this should be in the requirements |
| 14:56:52 | larsbot | this is a user requirement TMCL should support, IMHO |
| 14:57:15 | larsbot | it's a functional requirement and definitely belongs in there, but it will give you no immediate guidance as to the form TMCL should take |
| 14:57:20 | mariyo | templating yes, but user interfaces? |
| 14:57:37 | larsbot | some rewording may be advisable :) |
| 14:57:52 | larsbot | schema-driven editing is really what we mean, I think |
| 14:57:54 | tmkal | I think that it belongs in a use cases document, not in the requirements |
| 14:58:59 | larsbot | isn't it a requirement? TMCL must support ...? |
| 14:59:21 | mariyo | unsure about this one. leave it in as an issue? |
| 14:59:30 | tmkal | well, TMCL must support all of its use cases, surely |
| 14:59:39 | tmkal | so its a redundant requirement if it is one |
| 14:59:51 | mariyo | how's that? |
| 15:00:00 | tmkal | if templating is a use case |
| 15:00:05 | tmkal | then TMCL must support templating |
| 15:00:12 | tmkal | no need to make a special case out of it |
| 15:00:14 | mariyo | ok, i see. it is part of the templating agreed. |
| 15:00:28 | larsbot | tmkal: I suppose we differ on what is a use case, then :-| |
| 15:01:02 | tmkal | perhaps, but it seems we also differ on what a requirement is :) |
| 15:01:12 | larsbot | yeah, for the same reason, I suspect |
| 15:01:13 | tmkal | can we mark it as an issue ? |
| 15:01:17 | larsbot | fine by me |
| 15:01:21 | mariyo | ok will do. |
| 15:01:24 | larsbot | I'm about to pass out anyway |
| 15:01:39 | larsbot | no sleep for 27 hours straight, and there's definite turbulence in my living room now |
| 15:01:40 | tmkal | in that case I'll keep arguing till you do :) |
| 15:01:44 | mariyo | let's stop here. it's 2 hrs already. |
| 15:01:58 | larsbot | tmkal: not much of a challenge :-) |
| 15:02:07 | larsbot | mariyo: thanks. saved by the gong :) |
| 15:02:09 | tmkal | mariyo: fine by me |
| 15:02:13 | mariyo | can we take this up again tomorrow same time? |
| 15:02:24 | tmkal | yep |
| 15:02:27 | mariyo | tmkal can you be here? |
| 15:02:41 | mariyo | great! |
| 15:02:47 | mariyo | i am so sleepy now. |
| 15:02:53 | larsbot | mariyo: feel free to. I can't promise to be here, though |
| 15:02:59 | erica | mariyo: you've done well |
| 15:02:59 | pepper | * pepper is back |
| 15:03:13 | mariyo | ok, pepper can you be here tomorrow? |
| 15:03:17 | mariyo | same time? |
| 15:03:18 | larsbot | * larsbot agrees with erica |
| 15:03:32 | pepper | yes, i guess i can |
| 15:03:35 | mariyo | this is a great group! |
| 15:03:38 | pepper | (if i have to :) |
| 15:03:47 | mariyo | of course :) |
| 15:03:55 | erica | once u're in it, u can't get out |
| 15:04:11 | larsbot | :) |
| 15:04:12 | mariyo | so lets call it a day/night. erica you will be here? |
| 15:04:12 | pepper | tmkal: i want to call you. what number can i use? |
| 15:04:36 | erica | mariyo: will try my best |
| 15:04:47 | mariyo | OK great! bye everyone and thanks! |
| 15:04:49 | pepper | nice meeting you, erica |
| 15:04:53 | ShelterIt | pepper: Still want my call, or does the email do the trick? |
| 15:04:57 | erica | nice meeting you all |
| 15:05:01 | tmkal | pepper: +44 1865 201377 |
| 15:05:15 | pepper | ShelterIt: email was fine. thanks. |
| 15:05:17 | tmkal | thanks mariyo! |
| 15:05:18 | erica | tmkal: now everyone is going to call you |
| 15:05:23 | pepper | kal: any minute now... |
| 15:05:34 | tmkal | waiting by phone :) |
| 15:05:43 | pepper | bye everyone, sayonara, mariyo |
| 15:05:54 | pepper | pepper has quit None () |
| 15:05:58 | tmkal | erica: makes a change...usually I spend all day with no one calling me |
| 15:06:07 | mariyo | mariyo has quit None ("Bye for now. Will be speaking with you soon!") |
| 15:06:37 | larsbot | *thud* |
| 15:06:38 | erica | :) |
| 15:08:20 | erica | after the meeting, the channel starts to get back to its usual state ... SILENCE |
| 15:08:41 | larsbot | hey, I can't both pass out and keep talking :) |
| 15:08:43 | ShelterIt | erica : Maybe you're not busy enough? :) |
| 15:09:21 | erica | hmmm ... got too many things to do, don't know which one to do first, so decided to do nothing |
| 15:09:46 | ShelterIt | erica : Sensible. I'll try that next ... :) |
| 15:11:24 | erica | larsbot: you shall have ur sleep now |
| 15:14:19 | ShelterIt | ShelterIt has quit None () |
| 15:40:33 | drrho | drrho has joined #topicmaps |
| 15:40:47 | drrho | Aloha, there! |
| 15:41:18 | tmkal | hi rho! |
| 15:45:46 | PubSubj636 | PubSubj636 has joined #topicmaps |
| 15:46:11 | erica | hi robert |
| 15:46:29 | PubSubj636 | PubSubj636 has quit None (Client Quit) |
| 15:56:52 | drrho | * drrho reads in his email he has missed a meeting...:-/ |
| 16:05:10 | larsbot | you can miss another one tomorrow, though :) |
| 16:08:33 | drrho | Hi Lars, sorry about that, but even if I had read my email earlier, I was overtired and fell into the bed at 7:00 localtime. |
| 16:10:01 | larsbot | * larsbot has four more hours to go before he can follow your example |
| 16:15:16 | erica | lars: still awake? thought u passed out? |
| 16:16:34 | larsbot | unfortunately I came to a bit later :-| |
| 16:21:35 | gra | gra has quit None () |
| 16:27:17 | erica | erica has quit None ("CGI:IRC 0.5.1 (EOF)") |
| 16:49:50 | grove_ | grove_ has joined #topicmaps |
| 17:03:51 | berva | berva has joined #topicmaps |
| 17:04:19 | berva | hi again - is tmcl meeting over? |
| 17:08:41 | larsbot | uh, yeah. ended about 3 hours ago |
| 17:09:04 | berva | that's what I see in the logs ... |
| 17:16:20 | larsbot | another chance tomorrow, though |
| 17:19:26 | berva | ok - maybe tomorrow, depending on schedule; same one? |
| 17:19:59 | larsbot | same one, yes |
| 17:20:16 | berva | OK, i'll try -see you |
| 17:20:19 | berva | berva has left #topicmaps () |
| 18:56:56 | tmkal | tmkal has quit None ("Client Exiting") |
| 23:58:16 | drrho | drrho has quit None ("Client Exiting") |