IRC log of dig on 2006-12-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

04:16:52 [timbl_]
timbl_ has quit ()
09:19:09 [tlr]
tlr (n=roessler@ip-83-99-52-50.dyn.luxdsl.pt.lu) has joined #dig
12:10:55 [timbl]
timbl (n=timbl@146-115-112-112.c3-0.lex-ubr1.sbo-lex.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #dig
12:44:58 [RalphS]
RalphS (n=swick@30-6-113.wireless.csail.mit.edu) has joined #dig
12:46:57 [DIGlogger]
DIGlogger (n=dig-logg@pink-panther.csail.mit.edu) has joined #dig
12:46:57 [orwell.freenode.net]
topic is: MIT CSAIL DIG group
12:46:57 [orwell.freenode.net]
Users on #dig: DIGlogger RalphS timbl tlr sandro__ eikeon das05r
12:55:11 [timbl]
timbl has quit ()
12:56:26 [timbl]
timbl (n=timbl@146-115-112-112.c3-0.lex-ubr1.sbo-lex.ma.cable.rcn.com) has joined #dig
13:04:47 [timbl]
timbl has quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
13:54:02 [timbl]
timbl (n=timbl@30-7-120.wireless.csail.mit.edu) has joined #dig
15:07:50 [djweitzner]
djweitzner (n=djweitzn@pool-70-108-147-33.washdc.east.verizon.net) has joined #dig
15:48:22 [djweitzner]
Anyone interested in a DIG meeting today? I see no compelling agenda items that can't wait until January.
15:54:06 [djweitzner]
Tim?
16:08:40 [roberth_]
roberth_ (n=hoffmann@mskresolve-a.mskcc.org) has joined #dig
16:10:10 [DanC]
DanC (n=connolly@64-126-89-30.dyn.everestkc.net) has joined #dig
16:10:19 [DanC]
meeting today?
16:10:52 [roberth_]
Hi Dan, was wondering too.
16:11:28 [DanC]
I see a proposal to cancel from Danny
16:11:42 [DanC]
From: Daniel Weitzner <djweitzner@csail.mit.edu>
16:11:43 [DanC]
To: DIG group <diggers@csail.mit.edu>
16:11:43 [DanC]
Subject: [Diggers] 18 December DIG meeting cancelled (unless locally over-ridden)
16:11:43 [DanC]
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:03:51 -0500 (10:03 CST)
16:11:55 [roberth_]
unambigously accepted, I assume ;-)
16:12:16 [roberth_]
bye
16:12:27 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: DIG 18 Dec meeting cancelled. http://dig.csail.mit.edu/
16:13:48 [DanC]
when is the semweb boot camp course? ah... "Jan 8-12" http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2007/01/camp/
16:14:23 [DanC]
hmm... that says Lalana Kagal is an instructor, in contradiction to mail from LK
16:25:54 [roberth_]
roberth_ has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
16:26:15 [roberth_]
roberth_ (n=hoffmann@mskresolve-a.mskcc.org) has joined #dig
16:33:29 [roberth_]
roberth_ has quit (Read error: 131 (Connection reset by peer))
16:33:36 [roberth_]
roberth_ (n=hoffmann@mskresolve-a.mskcc.org) has joined #dig
16:54:48 [DanC]
timbl, did you tune it at all to the RIF recursive rule discussion?
16:55:27 [timbl]
A bit
16:57:01 [DanC]
I think recursive rules have been a requirement that I implicitly expected RIF Core to meet.
16:57:37 [DanC]
Sandro says he can live without it, e.g. for database views and ontology mapping. hmm.
16:58:21 [DanC]
I think I'd give up function terms before I'd give up recursive rules.
16:59:13 [DanC]
but function terms are a nice clean way to handle (1) lists and (2) datatypes and even (3) lang
17:00:16 [DanC]
thread seems to start with a message from Gary@Oracle. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Dec/0035.html
17:00:29 [DanC]
I think I've read 1/10th of the messages in the thread
17:02:42 [sandro__]
Unfortunately, the thread is about 5% technical. Most of it is academics saying "Give up recursion? What, are you brain dead??" and vendors saying "Hey, we don't want to have to implement this."
17:03:30 [DanC]
I like Bijan's idea of using the Core label for something natural, rather than something minimal.
17:04:02 [DanC]
"Unfortunately"? it seems like a very healthy standardization discussion.
17:04:11 [sandro__]
I'm neutral on that. The "Core" label is for whatever dialect we recommend first.
17:04:49 [sandro__]
"Unfortunately" because the "are you brain dead?" comments should really be saying "here's why you need recursion...."
17:04:55 [DanC]
I would neither want (1) a purely academic discussion without regard to deployment, nor (2) a purely market-driven discussion, without regard to the technical boundaries.
17:05:08 [DanC]
ah; yes, that is unfortunately
17:05:24 [DanC]
lunch. bon ap
17:08:55 [DanC]
ew... "The W3C position [1] is that good conformance clauses are essential,
17:08:55 [DanC]
because they promote interoperability."
17:24:29 [DanC]
XTech looks cool; too bad it conflicts with WWW2007
17:25:12 [DanC]
dunno if you'd call it planning, but I have a formal proof that I can't do both without breaking my one-trip-per-month rule ;-)
17:33:00 [eikeon_]
eikeon_ (n=eikeon@dsl092-168-155.wdc2.dsl.speakeasy.net) has joined #dig
17:34:50 [DanC]
I'm editing TAG minutes just now, but considering switching back to unify() and such
17:39:55 [eikeon]
eikeon has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
17:56:26 [eikeon_]
eikeon_ is now known as eikeon
18:02:45 [sandro__]
sandro__ is now known as sandro_
18:07:06 [sandro_]
He keeps resorting to essentially ad hominem attacks.
18:07:27 [timbl]
They are doing "Open data" and it is a dev-oriented event.
18:07:34 [timbl]
data browsers etc
18:07:44 [sandro_]
they who, TimBL?
18:08:03 [timbl]
I wonder whether someone from Europe could go ... Ivan??
18:08:08 [timbl]
Xtech
18:08:22 [timbl]
sorry, i was still on xtech.
18:08:32 [sandro_]
no, that's fine, just confused.
18:08:37 [sandro_]
no, that's fine, I was just confused.
18:09:56 [sandro_]
Should I publically tell Michael that I'm going to ignore all e-mail from him from now on until he apologizes? Because that's what I feel like doing.
18:09:59 [roberth_]
roberth_ has quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
18:10:12 [sandro_]
Or should I reply in a witty/snarky way?
18:10:13 [sandro_]
Heh.
18:10:22 [sandro_]
Or just ignore it until the telecon tomorrow.
18:11:32 [DanC]
yes, if you have a phone opportunity soon, don't use email to complain about politeness.
18:11:53 [DanC]
you might write to him privately and copy the chairs
18:11:58 [sandro_]
I could also just reply in a purely material way, ignoring his behavior.
18:12:13 [DanC]
yes, if you reply on-list, ignore anything that's not civil
18:12:49 [DanC]
the "Open Data" track at XTech rocked, when I went.
18:13:15 [sandro_]
Alas, that doesn't leave anything. I think he implicitely acknowledged my point, though -- that recursion-less Horn is still sufficient for database views.
18:13:49 [DanC]
database views is perhaps worth adding to the use cases document.
18:14:26 [DanC]
heflin's work on using DL classification to drive views is pretty cool.
18:14:54 [DanC]
hmm... without recursive rules, you can't even do RDFS. boring.
18:16:19 [sandro_]
You're saying you can't write if a subclass b and b subclass c then a subclass c, and things like that?
18:16:52 [DanC]
right
18:17:49 [timbl]
sandro ... ad hominem ... pointer?
18:17:52 [DanC]
hmm... maybe you can get all the relevant rdf:type conclusions without the transitivity-of-subclass rule
18:17:53 [sandro_]
I think the actually class of rule that bad is one that's recursively generating larger and larger terms.
18:18:04 [sandro_]
(or gensyms -- same diff.)
18:18:25 [sandro_]
timbl, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Dec/0095.html
18:18:37 [DanC]
yes, bnodes-in-the-conclusion/function-terms is "bad". as I say, I'd sooner give that up than cycles.
18:19:31 [sandro_]
And it's only the combination that's bad, too. Either one alone is fine.
18:20:26 [DanC]
see also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/thread.html#msg192 # FAQ: stratified class hierarchies vs. RDFS Dan Connolly (Thursday, 20 June)
18:20:30 [DanC]
and thread following.
18:20:50 [DanC]
Hayes, Berners-Lee, Guha
18:29:33 [sandro_]
DanC, do you read SWEO?
18:30:16 [DanC]
no; not regularly
18:30:46 [sandro_]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sweo-ig/2006Dec/0138.html
18:30:48 [DanC]
in particular, I'm not subscribed. I sometimes fly by while in SWCG mode
18:31:27 [DanC]
chuckle.
18:31:33 [sandro_]
Yeah. L-)
18:32:54 [DanC]
e.g. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/wikimao
18:59:07 [sandro_]
okay, we've managed to turn the corner on the RIF thread, I think, back into polite & productive.
19:17:32 [sandro_]
mkifer is at least being pleasant now, but he's still totally misguided and being being condescending. I can't decide whether to give up on him and ignore him, or somehow keep trying.
19:17:40 [sandro_]
I think I'll let other people try for a while.
19:21:22 [DanC]
you've sketched the RIF test hypothesis. you could capture some examples in test sketches.
19:29:25 [roberth_]
roberth_ (n=hoffmann@mskresolve-a.mskcc.org) has joined #dig
19:59:01 [roberth_]
roberth_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
21:08:08 [timbl]
timbl has quit ()
21:23:10 [RalphS]
RalphS has quit ("bye for today")
21:34:40 [tlr]
tlr has quit ("Leaving.")
21:42:44 [robeph]
robeph (n=robf@user-24-236-88-244.knology.net) has joined #dig
21:42:50 [robeph]
robeph has left #dig