Semantic Web Interest Group IRC Scratchpad

Welcome to the Semantic Web Interest Group scratchpad generated automatically from discussions on IRC at Freenode channel #swig 2001-2018 approx by the chump bot.

Nearby: IRC logs | semantic-web list | W3C Wiki (Recent changes) | delicious swigbot

last updated at 2007-10-11 12:02
gromgull: Used for the describing the data extracted by Aperture
sbp: New Semantic Web logos.
Arnia: What colours have people tried using these against?
Arnia: Are we allowed to put borders around the logos?
Arnia: "The logo must stand alone: it cannot be combined with any other design element such as photography, type, borders, nor can it be incorporated into another logo."
Arnia: (from the page)
bijan: A discussion of compound keys in a DL-Lite family language.
sbp: Works on a trivial, two valued CIFP, at least...
sbp: See also this (2005) and this (2006). Oh and this (2007), of course.
bblfish: original thread
bblfish: the best definition was put together here:
bblfish: URIs are CIFPs
bblfish: I'd like to know what the OWL people think of this, if it's a problem and why for them. Are there limitations to the usefulness of this? It certainly seems really useful.
bblfish: Example of CIFP
bblfish: all this could be of interest to POWDER group
sbp: This is extraordinarily annoying; it means I can't deploy SPARQL to query from my rather simple dialogue model just because it uses a List to model the sequence of dialogue as it progresses.
sbp: I think that "our not standardizing it doesn't stop anybody from playing" is a shockingly bad excuse for deferring the issue, but I do have some sympathy with "none of the extant designs seems sufficiently mature"—it's not clear to me what the right approach for even my small task would be, let alone a generic suite of functions/whatever to enable people to handle lists in SPARQL competently under their every need.
sbp: It may well be that SPARQL is simply the wrong tool for the job when handling RDF, but the main headscratcher to me is that what I'm wanting to do is just a very trivial query. If SPARQL is the wrong tool for that job, then I worry about its wider usability.
sbp: My overwhelming annoyance is that RDF tools don't seem to be designed for actual applications, just for projected applications; and reality doesn't seem to catch up in the CR phase as a faithful implementation-to-the-spec will generally do. Five tools pass the test suite? PR for you, my good spec!
sbp: The saving grace is that I can probably do what I require in CWM. It's just that we need more tools like it... I suppose I should go and build some rather than wasting lines on IRC moaning about it, eh?
sbp: (Footnote: accessingCollections was a stumbler whilst I was developing RSS 1.1 too. Not the first time I've run up against this particular foe.)
dajobe: triples outside the box?
dajobe: Semantic Web Cube
Created by the Daily Chump bot. Hosted by PlanetRDF.