Available formats: content-negotiated html turtle (see SIOC for the vocabulary)
Back to channel and daily index: content-negotiated html turtle
These logs are provided as an experiment in indexing discussions using IRCHub.py, Irc2RDF.hs, and SIOC.
| 01:20:02 | <MFen> | anyone using rdfalchemy? |
| 01:22:02 | <earle> | http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/HTML_5_Won_t_Be_Ready_Until_2022DOT_Yes__2022DOT |
| 01:22:15 | <earle> | A:|HTML 5 Won’t Be Ready Until 2022. Yes, 2022. |
| 01:22:20 | <earle> | A:facepalm. |
| 01:27:05 | <earle> | A1:[facepalm|http://bostonist.com/attachments/boston_michael/picard-facepalm.jpeg] |
| 01:27:18 | <earle> | grr, syntax. |
| 01:27:22 | <earle> | A1:+[facepalm|http://bostonist.com/attachments/boston_michael/picard-facepalm.jpeg] |
| 01:32:20 | <dorian> | ha what |
| 01:33:03 | <dorian> | earle: is there a relatively sane breakdown of the respective statuses of html5 and xhtml2? |
| 01:33:26 | <dorian> | more specifically, has the latter gone the way of the betamax |
| 01:33:32 | <dorian> | or is there still interest in it |
| 01:34:44 | <earle> | to be honest, I've really been trying to avoid the whole issue in the time-honored ostrich fashion |
| 01:35:05 | <dorian> | ah |
| 01:35:08 | <dorian> | yeah |
| 01:35:10 | <MFen> | maybe we can get them to agree to a compromise. xhtml5 |
| 01:35:18 | <earle> | I liked xhtml 2, dammit |
| 01:35:22 | <dorian> | i do too |
| 01:35:40 | <earle> | see, now I'm even using past tense. HOPE HAS DIED |
| 01:35:49 | <dorian> | what i'm particularly interested in it for is like an origin markup vocabulary |
| 01:35:57 | <MFen> | see my proposal above. it has the advantage of both an X prefix and a large version number |
| 01:36:01 | <earle> | actually, maybe this latest development will be a shot in the arm for xhtml2. |
| 01:36:12 | <earle> | MFen: ooh, you cynic. |
| 01:36:24 | <dorian> | even if the public-facing vocabulary is something else |
| 01:36:41 | <MFen> | the only question is am i cynical ENOUGH? |
| 01:37:11 | <dorian> | xhtml2 strikes me as being potentially very effective to store markup internally somewhere |
| 01:37:26 | <dorian> | i.e. some arbitrary backend |
| 02:36:15 | <kasei> | I'm not sure the facepalm is really fair to the html5 timeline... the reasoning hixie gives for the timeline seems rather sensible to me. |
| 02:54:28 | <MFen> | any rdflib users? |
| 02:55:00 | <MFen> | i'm trying to figure out why there's no friggin way to parse a string, rather than a file |
| 03:01:09 | <dajobe> | http://www.webfoundation.org/ |
| 03:01:09 | <phenny> | dajobe: 05 Sep 21:19Z <kidehen> tell dajobe what happened to <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/kidehen@openlinksw.com/blog/?id=1430> re. PlanetRDF? I've checked by RDF feed and don't see anything broken |
| 03:01:11 | <phenny> | dajobe: 05 Sep 21:20Z <kidehen> tell dajobe did validation at: http://tinyurl.com/5gq5gq |
| 03:01:12 | <phenny> | dajobe: 06 Sep 00:42Z <kidehen> tell dajobe how does <http:razor.occams.info/blog/> get on PlanetRDF? |
| 03:01:18 | <dajobe> | B:|World Wide Web Foundation |
| 03:01:36 | <dajobe> | B:WWWF not WWF. definitely not WWE |
| 06:40:38 | <RKlyne> | MFen: You can use a StringIO object... |
| 11:10:18 | <duck1123> | can anyone point me to any articles/blog posts on why reification is bad? |
| 11:17:33 | <shellac> | duck1123, I think the primer may have something... |
| 11:17:57 | <swh> | duck1123: reification, or the RDF Reification mechanism? They're different things |
| 11:18:03 | <shellac> | http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#reification |
| 11:23:42 | <duck1123> | I believe just the rdf reification mechanism |
| 11:24:30 | <shellac> | you might also try poking around http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/ |
| 11:24:32 | <RKlyne> | duck1123, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Reify.html |
| 11:33:08 | <danbri> | duck1123, try http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.semantic-web/2355 and http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#Reif |
| 11:33:40 | <danbri> | "In sum: the meaning of the reification is that a document exists containing a triple token which means whatever the first graph means.Note that this way of understanding the reification vocabulary does not interpret reification as a form of quotation. Rather, the reification describes the relationship between a token of a triple and the resources that triple refers to. The reification can be read intuitively as saying "'this piece of RDF talks about th |
| 14:28:06 | <Knud> | Is there a commonly used property for short labels? |
| 14:28:13 | <Knud> | E.g., "ISWC2008" as opposed to the longish "7th International Semantic Web Conference" |
| 14:28:25 | <Knud> | not rdfs:label, that seems to be too general |
| 14:28:32 | <Knud> | *generic |
| 14:30:48 | <ldodds> | foaf:name? |
| 14:31:38 | <Knud> | hm |
| 14:31:58 | <ldodds> | the domain is owl:Thing so fairly generic |
| 14:32:07 | <ldodds> | but a bit more specific than label :) |
| 14:32:42 | <mhausenblas> | something like foaf:nick but for !foaf:Person, hm? |
| 14:33:01 | <Knud> | yes, that was what I was about to say |
| 14:33:11 | <mhausenblas> | no. sorry. dunno :D |
| 14:33:30 | <Knud> | xyz:nick or xyz:acronym or xyz:abbreviation or something like that |
| 14:33:39 | <mhausenblas> | ACTION is sorry for being soooo stupid. I owe you a beer Knud ;) |
| 14:33:45 | <Knud> | hehe |
| 14:34:02 | <Knud> | we can have that beer at ISWC |
| 14:34:08 | <mhausenblas> | ... in Karlsruhe. Just to make the context crystal clear |
| 14:34:10 | <mhausenblas> | yeah |
| 14:35:05 | <Knud> | will the SW ever happen if we don't even know a generic acronym property? :O |
| 14:35:07 | <scor> | Knud: skos:altLabel ? |
| 14:35:21 | <bengee> | aharth's cfp ont had one, IIRC from confoto |
| 14:35:22 | <Knud> | hm, I'll have a look |
| 14:36:06 | <scor> | Knud: http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/#secalt |
| 14:36:20 | <Knud> | thanks scor |
| 14:36:25 | <MacTed> | my first thoughts are along the lines of shortName or commonName |
| 14:36:38 | <MacTed> | but I don't know what ontology contains the appropriate one |
| 14:37:34 | <Knud> | yes, that is my problem! |
| 14:37:59 | <MacTed> | :-) :-/ |
| 14:38:06 | <bengee> | http://sw.deri.org/2005/08/conf/cfp.owl |
| 14:38:22 | <bengee> | C:|CfP ontology by aharth |
| 14:38:26 | <Knud> | I guess I could use skos:altLabel, but it isn't really defined as "the acronym of something" |
| 14:38:51 | <Knud> | thanks bengee, I'll look at that as well |
| 14:38:53 | <bengee> | C: has "title": short name (e.g. SIGMOD, VLDB), subclass of rdfs:label |
| 14:39:12 | <scor> | Knud: true. it's defined as an alternate label of a skos concept |
| 14:39:14 | <bengee> | not sure if it's widely deployed, though |
| 14:39:35 | <bengee> | or deployed at all.. |
| 14:39:36 | <mhausenblas> | anyone rememberPICS? IIRC they had something as well (same deployment issue, herer ;) |
| 14:39:50 | <mhausenblas> | .g PICS RDF |
| 14:39:51 | <phenny> | mhausenblas: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-pics |
| 14:40:27 | <mhausenblas> | whaa. forget it ;) |
| 14:41:35 | <Knud> | ok, the cfp:title seems to be what I mean |
| 14:42:23 | <Knud> | unfortunately "title" is somewhat misleading, I think |
| 14:42:34 | <bengee> | yeah, true |
| 14:42:49 | <MacTed> | oh, here's a fun exploration base... http://www.daml.org/ontologies/property.html |
| 14:43:25 | <MacTed> | not clear whether it's static or dynamic, nor what the ontology list is, from this page ... |
| 14:43:49 | <MacTed> | ah, but easy details -- http://www.daml.org/ontologies/ |
| 14:44:36 | <MacTed> | hm. apparently far out of date, as the last submission date listed is Dec 2003 |
| 14:44:42 | <MacTed> | that's unfortunate |
| 14:44:42 | <Knud> | lol |
| 14:47:19 | <danbri> | PICS, sure |
| 14:47:22 | <danbri> | RDF was PICS-NG |
| 14:47:45 | <mhausenblas> | good to have danbri around :) |
| 14:48:15 | <danbri> | -> http://www.w3.org/PICS/NG/ |
| 14:49:11 | <danbri> | http://www.w3.org/PICS/iacwcv2.htm |
| 14:49:20 | <danbri> | D:|Old doc on PICS |
| 14:49:28 | <MacTed> | wowzers... that daml info would be so much more useful if it were given an RDFa once-over ... or if the xml version were well-formed, and therefore parseable |
| 14:49:33 | <Knud> | this sounds useful, but it's 11 years old |
| 14:50:10 | <mhausenblas> | what Knud (and FWIW /me) is after is a stable, widely deployed voc, right? |
| 14:50:38 | <Knud> | that would be preferable to just coining a new property that nobody else uses |
| 14:50:55 | <Knud> | but really, all those naming properties already make my head spin |
| 14:51:09 | <Knud> | foaf:name, dc:title, rdfs:label, skos:label, ... arrrrghhh |
| 14:51:46 | <mhausenblas> | just use owl:equivalentProperty and all is well, dear Knud :) |
| 14:52:12 | <Knud> | yes, if I then also use OWL reasoning |
| 14:53:09 | <drrho> | is there actually a way to use owl:equiv..Property, inverse, functional... without an OWL reasoner? |
| 14:53:48 | <drrho> | or asked another way: is there software which supports this? |
| 14:54:10 | <ldodds_> | if you have a rules engine then you could write equivalent rules, that would achieve the same effect without a full reasoner |
| 14:55:06 | <drrho> | hmmm, will have to check this with AllegroGraph.... |
| 14:55:45 | <drrho> | btw, any opinions on AllegroGraph here? |
| 14:56:54 | <MacTed> | here we go -- http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rwP336JwpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA |
| 15:00:54 | <Knud> | ugh |
| 17:42:01 | <neo1234> | hi folks |
| 17:42:58 | <neo1234> | Can anyone tell if the topic of semantic Web falls under Artificial Intellegience? |
| 17:43:08 | <neo1234> | tell me* |
| 17:44:17 | <kasei> | neo1234: i think you might get different answers from different people. |
| 17:44:41 | <neo1234> | hmm |
| 17:44:45 | <kasei> | parts of the semweb can probably be classified that way, but not all. |
| 17:45:06 | <kasei> | ot at least, that's not a lot of people's focus. |
| 17:45:23 | <neo1234> | the RDF and Ontogology technologies are all AI technologies no? |
| 17:47:45 | <kasei> | i guess you might say that (from a KR perspective). |
| 17:48:11 | <neo1234> | KR? |
| 17:48:47 | <kasei> | knowledge representation. |
| 17:49:05 | <kasei> | maybe someone else can give you some thoughts... I'm in the middle of a meeting right now :( |
| 17:49:14 | <neo1234> | ah |
| 17:49:46 | <neo1234> | kasei: I think I get the gist of the answer .. thanks |
| 17:53:34 | <Shepard> | neo1234: for the other people it just deals with data integration :) |
| 21:18:25 | <renke2> | Can anyone of you recommend a good single user OpenID server? |
| 22:12:04 | <idickinson1> | I've just been asked by a colleague for suggestions for an ontology documentation tool |
| 22:12:10 | <idickinson1> | sort of like javadoc for OWL |
| 22:12:29 | <idickinson1> | I vaguely remember something like this, but my google-fu has failed me |
| 22:12:32 | <idickinson1> | any ideas? |
| 22:31:32 | <idickinson1> | ACTION pings danbri: Hi Dan! |
Back to channel and daily index: content-negotiated html turtle
![http://bostonist.com/attachments/boston_michael/picard-facepalm.jpeg]](http://bostonist.com/attachments/boston_michael/picard-facepalm.jpeg]){kind=link}