00:32:56 logster has joined #swhack 00:32:56 topic is: Almost everything has a rational explanation... except for spandex 00:32:56 Users on #swhack: logster tav` tav AaronSw deltab 00:37:59 * AaronSw is somewhat embrassed he left his music blasting quite loud the whole time he was out for dinner 01:57:39 Mark Nottingham: "Oh, I agree; the RDF stuff has been plagued by wonkishness for a long time, and it's still a big blind spot, IMHO. I feel comfortable with RDF and RDF Schema after prolonged exposure, and then they come along with something like [1]; it *is* enough to make your head hurt." 01:57:42 [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ 01:58:28 Bill Kearney: "Much like getting an ice-cream headache from eating cold stuff too fast, reading the RDF stuff makes my head hurt. " 01:59:36 Don't worry, Mark. We can still be friends. ;-) 02:04:16 Heh: 02:04:20 "Britain used to "own" the USA - now Britain is the 51st state of the greatest nation on earth, in all but name. No nation is emotionally closer at the moment. I personally cried, out of shock and the affinity I feel with New York and the importance of the whole technology and economic infrastructure of the USA - this was an attack on modernity, capitalism, the human spirit of progress. The world's problems can be solved by technology, and it wi 02:04:20 itual and technological emancipation of humankind." 02:04:23 - http://wmf.editthispage.com/discuss/msgReader$5848 02:10:20 Wow: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,46412,00.html 06:15:14 tav has quit 06:42:27 tav has joined #swhack 07:17:44 tav` has quit 07:35:52 sbp has joined #swhack 07:36:10 WFM, it's 8:37AM. AM! 07:37:25 * sbp gets ready for the F2F 07:38:13 lol! 07:39:18 "EARL, EARL, EARL!" - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2001OctDec/0000 07:39:44 * sbp fumbles for the reference. It's not even 9AM yet! Aaaaaaargh! 07:39:56 The sun's in the wrong place! It should be in the West! 07:40:09 Er... if it wasn't cloudy, that is... 07:47:07 Well, here goes! 07:47:10 Gotta run 07:47:12 sbp has quit 08:03:33 tav` has joined #swhack 12:08:29 sbp has joined #swhack 12:11:56 sbp has quit 12:46:29 Davincii has joined #swhack 12:48:45 Davincii has left #swhack 13:02:44 AaronSw has quit 13:02:57 AaronSw has joined #swhack 13:24:32 I didn't know Libby was in WAI! 13:30:41 """A FAQ, pronounced either "fack" or "eff aye cue," """ - http://www.w3.org/Consortium/W3C-FAQs 13:31:18 I dunno about you, but to me that looks like someone going to great lengths to swear. 13:41:41 Morbus has joined #swhack 13:42:58 10.1? 13:44:41 10.1! 13:46:07 whoo! 13:46:15 devtools? 13:46:18 i came in here saturday and no one was around. 13:46:21 not yet. not on adc. 13:46:22 you? 13:46:38 yeah, saw your message from sat. 13:46:47 no devtools :-( 13:46:51 poo. 13:46:57 love the script menu though 13:47:06 my biggest beef so far is that singleclicking on the clock doesn't show the date 13:47:14 other than that, insanely faster here. 13:47:24 well it does sorta show the date -- but i agree it's annoying 13:47:38 yeah, it shows sunday, right? 13:47:49 or monday or whatever 13:47:55 oh. bwahah 13:47:56 ok. nevermind. 13:48:02 i never noticed that. 13:48:08 hehe. i'm stupid. 13:48:26 heh 13:48:34 But it doesn't format the date right! 13:49:08 heheheh... 13:49:21 i'm not sure i like the new alt-tab behavior either. 13:49:33 what's the difference? 13:49:41 or rahter, the visual with the dock 13:49:45 but the script menu rocks, that it does ;) 13:49:56 wish i knew applescript. 13:49:56 trying to find a site that will show new as creations all the time. 13:50:00 crap that i could stick up there 13:50:10 ? 13:50:20 an alt-tab adds this jarring popup of the curr. selected app in the doc 13:50:36 I thought it always did that. 13:51:28 not to me. well, at least, not this jarrring like. 13:51:35 hmm 13:51:48 i think before it justshowed the name over the app, as opposed to magnifying the app 13:56:08 Oh... perhaps 13:56:17 I have magnification off, so it doesn't magnify for me. 13:56:39 aaah. ok. 13:56:49 i have so many things in my dock that it's on the smallest setting. 13:56:54 so i need a tiny bit of magnify 13:57:22 have you noticed, at least on my box, that anything that says to open up the prefs in system prefs DOESN't work? 13:57:24 eek 13:57:35 like, apple > dock > dock preferences 13:57:38 doesn't work. 13:57:40 hmm, yes 13:59:15 they removed the option to ignore permissions on the entire hd. 13:59:27 now i can't delete crappy default screensavers without using the shell 13:59:37 or gui-logging in as root 13:59:38 hmm, i didn't know that existed 13:59:47 don't you always use the shell? ;) 13:59:51 yah, it was on a getinfo of the hd. 13:59:52 hehehe 14:00:07 i still use eudora for mail. 14:00:29 hmm, i might have to start using finder now that it's usable 14:01:36 ok, gotta run 14:05:25 Morbus has quit 16:49:49 sbp has joined #swhack 16:55:18 Gotta run 16:56:53 Morbus has joined #swhack 16:58:19 sbp has quit 17:39:41 Morbus has left #swhack 17:49:01 hi 18:13:47 AaronSw has changed the topic to: With your host, sbp, reporting live from the W3C WAI F2F in Brighton, UK! Let's give him a round of applause... 19:29:49 ehm 19:30:01 W3c WAI F2F ? 19:30:28 yeah. 19:30:39 see http://www.w3.org/WAI/ 19:31:48 what about that don't you get, tav? 19:32:54 right 19:32:59 what's F2F ? 19:33:13 Face 2 Face 19:42:40 right 21:03:30 AaronSw has changed the topic to: Happy binary day! (01-10-01) | With your host, sbp, reporting live from the W3C WAI F2F in Brighton, UK! Let's give him a round of applause... 21:15:04 (that's 25 in base 10, btw) 22:00:47 sbp has joined #swhack 22:01:07 * sbp bows 22:01:15 lol @ "binary day" 22:01:24 Happy binary day, Aaron! 22:01:36 Hey sean! 22:01:39 Hi there 22:01:43 How's it going? 22:02:00 I'm so tired! But it's been fun 22:02:15 I bet... your enjoyment is infectious. ;) 22:02:28 ? 22:02:45 Never mind. 22:02:50 :-) 22:03:23 I didn't know Libby was coming. 22:03:43 Yeah, and possibly DanBri tomorrow 22:03:49 Neato! 22:04:06 I saw a milkman this morning! A milkman! 22:04:17 They're rare around your parts? 22:04:33 They're rare at the time of day that I'm usually up for :-) 22:04:45 Heh. I've heard of their existance, but not seen one. 22:05:08 So another Jewish Holiday tonight... I guess I'll miss the rest of the F2F. :-( 22:05:11 and I saw a few squirrels, and a woodpecker 22:05:22 See what happens when you wake up early! 22:05:25 Jewish Holiday: which one now? 22:05:40 what happens - I get very tired! 22:05:40 Sukkot. At least it's a fun one. 22:05:45 Heh. 22:05:59 I dunno, I remember Sukkot coming later last year. 22:06:17 "This festival is sometimes referred to as Zeman Simkhateinu, the Season of our Rejoicing." - http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday5.htm 22:06:35 Hmm... five days after Yom Kippur. Does Yom Kippur have a variable date? 22:06:47 Well, it's not variable, but it's on a lunar calendar. 22:06:57 (At least I don't think it's variable.) 22:07:05 Ah 22:07:07 But it seems variable to people on a solar calendar. 22:07:16 Yeah :-) 22:07:56 DaveP managed to create an XML representation of our two level tier diagram, and produce an XSLT sheet to display it 22:08:17 Neat. Two-tier diagram? 22:08:26 Al gave a talk about Device Independence, and the User => Target Service process 22:08:35 Two tier: the scope of XML GL... 22:08:47 (or whatever; we might not be calling it XMLGL even) 22:09:01 I see. 22:09:32 We have the language tiers: * XML Core * RDFS, XSLT, etc. * XHTML, MathML, SMIL, VoiceML, SVG * SSML, XSL-FO 22:09:52 s/RDFS/RDF/ 22:10:08 right? 22:10:13 Well, we're not sure... 22:10:38 and the user tiers: * Schema developer * Solution developers * instance creators/users 22:10:52 s/user/user\/creator 22:11:31 we decided that XML GL is scoped *towards* the XHTML... tier, and the schema developer tier, but that there are intersections between the various tiers 22:12:05 We also decided that a separate document explaining how all of these tiers fit into a time based process might be useful, possibly in conjunction with DI 22:12:35 And we went through some of the issues raised on wai-tech-comments 22:13:39 Gotta run 22:13:41 Neat. Sounds like you were busy. 22:13:43 See you later. 22:13:56 Send my best to the WG. 22:16:40 sbp has quit 22:22:16 Morbus has joined #swhack 22:22:33 'lo 22:22:54 hey. 22:24:28 i had this idea to run a perl script through cron that would modify the names of some files in the Script folder, so that when you click on the ScriptMenu, you'd see the weather and so forth without having to run anything 22:24:36 (since we'd rename Script items to the current entry) 22:24:50 That'd be cool. 22:24:56 But what would the scripts do? 22:25:17 nothing really ... they'd just be stubs there to be renamed. 22:26:05 Hmm, the Scripts folder doesn't seem to change the menu 22:26:25 eh? when i add things into the Scripts folder, they show up in the scriptmenu 22:26:41 Hmm, do they have to be scripts? 22:26:54 You know it might just be easier to write your own .menu ;) 22:26:59 i doubt it - how would it be able to disctinuguish between perl / as / shell 22:27:04 heheh. yeah, you know how? ;) 22:27:31 Heh.. can't be too hard! ;) 22:29:09 welp, if you shell into ScriptMenu.menu, it has the same sort of dir structure as others. including a TODOish like file ;) 22:29:36 or ctrl-click 22:29:46 yeah, but that's so gui-ish ;) 22:32:10 Hmm, I can't get anything to appear in the scriptMenu 22:32:47 really? can you see the default entrier? 22:32:53 when you "open script folder" what shows up? 22:33:08 A finder window with just the files i've added 22:33:19 I can see the default stuff -- Basic, Finder Scripts 22:33:22 and you don't see those reflected n the script? 22:33:22 but none of my own 22:33:56 interesting. i've added only one file in root of Scripts, and it has ????/???? for creator type. runs fine. 22:34:10 "reflected n the script" ? i don't follow 22:34:27 forget that one. 22:35:18 where's that script to restart menuserver? 22:35:47 on the as site... where you got these from. 22:36:02 oh, i thought it came iwth. 22:37:06 hmmph, script menu died then 22:38:20 am i supposed to put it somewhere special? 22:38:23 ok, now stuff works 22:38:38 i juststuck mine in Applications, then dragged to the menu bar 22:38:53 Yeah, me too. 22:39:02 Ooh, now they have icons. 22:39:06 jehhehe 22:45:06 I love the Perl script on this page: ;) 22:45:08 - http://www.apple.com/applescript/macosx/script_menu/ 22:45:17 hehe. i know, i saw that. 22:47:47 connect.apple.com is down - i'm hoping its' to upgrade the devtools 22:48:18 cool 22:48:27 cos cvs doesn't work. 22:48:28 :( 22:49:50 Wow, I got an email from Avie Tevanian's sister-in-law! 22:49:58 hehehe. what for? 22:50:05 "Enjoyed your site! We particularly found the Avie Tevanian office photos amusing." 22:50:22 hehe. kick ass :) 22:53:33 oh yeah, did you see that as book on xml-rpc/soap? 22:53:37 i got the url around here 22:54:43 The O'Reilly book on XML-RPC? 22:55:13 no, its a specific one from apple. on using applescript to make soap/xml-rpc calls 22:55:19 Oh, yes. 22:55:23 Wes pointed to it. 22:55:24 ah. pl 22:55:26 ok 22:55:35 pl? 22:55:44 yeah, they're right next to ok ;) 22:55:53 ;) 23:07:54 sbp has joined #swhack 23:09:05 wb 23:09:12 ty 23:09:23 np 23:09:32 wu 23:09:51 ? 23:10:05 p? 23:10:33 p? 23:10:41 p 23:10:42 wu = what's up, to which you respond nm = not much 23:10:48 p? 23:10:52 :P 23:10:53 nm 23:11:11 p = pardon, to which you simply restate your abbreviation 23:11:33 ah 23:11:50 he 23:11:50 he 23:11:51 he 23:11:51 aaronSw, you know how to change the destop bg in as? 23:12:04 as? 23:12:09 oh, i see 23:12:16 not off hand -- look in the finder's dictionary 23:12:19 applescript 23:12:23 yah, i did, but i dont have a clue 23:12:35 hmm, i dunno 23:12:50 OK, have to go soon 23:13:19 * AaronSw prepares for holiday... 23:13:32 holiday? 23:13:45 Sukkot starts tonight 23:13:54 ah. you have a lot of holidays 23:13:56 So, are you ready for tomorrow, sbp? 23:13:59 i don't celebreate any holidsa 23:14:06 Ah. 23:14:25 not even my bd or xmas 23:14:29 Yeah, I'm just about to go to bed; very tired 23:14:45 Good, I don't have to buy you a present then. 23:14:50 :D 23:14:57 sbp, rest up! More fun is in store ;) 23:15:02 well, lord forgive me if i press my beliefs on others. 23:15:12 if you got my a presetnt, i'd justhave to begrudgingly accept it ;) 23:15:21 hehehe 23:15:41 sbp, make them encode their graph in RDF. 23:15:48 and use danc's nodes and arcs tools 23:15:59 what graph? Oh that... yeah, I was thinking of that 23:16:10 can Dan's stuff do DAML intersections and so on? 23:16:30 I don't think so -- it's just nodes and arcs 23:16:55 We need intersections... and we need a way of structuring the tiers as well 23:17:20 Hm. 23:17:34 Well, they can always add features. 23:17:44 Or create a different tool that also uses RDF. 23:18:07 cool: http://www.w3.org/2001/02pd/opksnet.png 23:18:17 yeah, it needs a specialist tool really 23:18:35 * sbp wonders what will happen to N3, and the logic rules... 23:19:00 happen in what way? 23:19:02 Are rules files in Notation3 "persistent", d'ya reckon? 23:19:11 Happen, as in support for them in the future 23:19:29 I mean, DanC has often said no warranty whatsoever, which is a shame 23:19:30 hrm, another black background 23:19:38 What warranty would you like? 23:20:17 deltab, your sw must be broken 23:20:32 sbp, they're as persistent as anything else... the URIs aren't gonna break 23:20:40 Just a commitment to get a Working Group on it, and discussing rules/inferences in RDF 23:21:08 Yeah, but it's like investing in Betamax, isn't it? 23:21:14 www-rdf-rules 23:21:28 Betamax: no -- there'll be converters, i'm sure 23:21:30 That's kinda a subset of inferences 23:21:45 how so? 23:22:09 er... my mistake, I guess it's not 23:22:33 But CWM is on a more advanced level to everything else, and it would be a shame if that work just kinda got steamrollered over 23:22:38 * sbp wonders how best to put it 23:22:45 I was thinking of adding a 'that' or '...' term to N3 to make statements about asserted statements. 23:23:08 Morbus has quit 23:23:09 just reify it 23:23:09 sbp, DanC and TimBL are the guys making these deciisons -- they won't steamroller their own work! 23:23:19 reification is wrong for this 23:23:23 statements need uris 23:23:31 statements can have URIs 23:23:38 not asserted ones 23:24:22 rdf:subject :x; rdf:predicate :y; rdf:object :y . 23:24:33 how is that asserted? 23:24:54 er... I see what you mean 23:25:03 well, you just create a new set of properties 23:25:14 but then older processors don't understand them 23:25:20 it needs to be built into the language 23:25:37 so? older processors won't understand "that" either. They won't understand any addition 23:25:52 the point of the SW is that you don't have to beg to the authorities to add these features! 23:26:08 Hmm, well I think it needs to go into RDF 2.0. 23:26:12 It's part of the foundation. 23:26:25 perhaps. But perhaps so does DAML, and Dublin Core 23:26:31 Nope. 23:26:40 Why do they need to go into the language? 23:26:46 That wouldn't make sense. 23:26:54 It needs to be added to N-triples, is what I'm saying. 23:27:02 It needs to be part of the abstract syntax. 23:27:11 you can't add it to NTriples... how would you do so? 23:27:20 N-Triples 2.0 23:27:24 for RDF 2.0 23:27:26 give me an example 23:27:48 _:triple1 := :a :b :c . 23:28:02 _:triple2 := _:triple1 :g :f . 23:28:05 5-ary relationships? 23:28:12 only 4 23:28:23 and it's not a relationship -- just giving the triple a name 23:28:42 what triples/quads would result from such a thing? 23:28:50 those are the quads 23:29:16 so you're just adding statement IDs. So just do it that way then! 23:29:25 :a :b :c _:triple1 . 23:29:29 Yes, that's another way to call it. 23:29:45 in that case, it should probably have contexts too 23:29:56 No, you can build contexts from that. 23:30:05 _:context1 :contains _:triple1 . 23:30:07 no, because contexts aren't asserted 23:30:16 well... 23:30:21 How do you determine what's asserted? from context. 23:30:35 you can build asserted statements in triples, so you don't need any extension 23:30:42 _:triple1 rdf:type :UnAsserted 23:30:58 you can't put StIDs into the actual syntax of RDF, and then leave contexts to the model 23:31:04 _:triple1 :said :John . 23:31:13 Why not? 23:31:25 itdoesn't make sense! it's hypocritical 23:31:30 how? 23:31:50 because you can model both, or put both into the syntax. Why do one one way, and one the other? 23:32:08 Because only one needs to be part of the syntax. 23:32:17 With statement ids, you can model contexts. not the other way around 23:32:27 (or at least it's a real pain) 23:32:41 you can model statement ID's! 23:32:47 it's not that much of a pain... 23:32:59 how? 23:33:06 _:a :s :x; :p :y; :o :z . 23:33:16 :s rdfs:domain :AssertedStatement . 23:33:37 that doesn't make sense! 23:33:54 huh? makes perfect sense 23:34:03 it's not really being asserted, then 23:34:29 all that's happening is some applications are magically interpreting that 23:34:35 of course it is, because that's how the properties :s :p and :o are defined 23:34:40 same with your :contains! 23:34:51 _:context1 :contains _:triple1 . 23:35:04 We clearly know that's being asserted. 23:35:10 not talked about. 23:35:16 it's obvious from the language 23:35:17 pardon me? 23:35:31 You can talk about a triple: ":a :b :c ." is interesting. 23:35:40 And you can assert it: ":a :b :c ." 23:35:49 those actions must be part of the language. 23:35:59 but they can be modelled! 23:36:02 well, the second one. 23:36:05 no, they can't! 23:36:12 yes, they can! 23:36:25 hmm, how do i explain it. 23:36:36 you can pretend to do them thru modeling, but the language still lacks the expressiveenss 23:36:46 yes, and it's the same with contexts! 23:36:57 why? 23:36:57 programs need to know when they can do inferences and when they can't 23:37:00 your " _:context1 :contains _:triple1 ." thing should be in the language 23:37:04 why? 23:37:19 Programs that believe in :contains would obviously know what it is. 23:37:20 because the langauge will otherwise lack the expressiveness to have contexts 23:37:30 you're asking everyone to belive in :s -- they don't necessarily know about it. 23:37:38 programs that believe in :s :p and :o would obviously know what they are 23:37:52 but you're asking even programs that don't to belive in it! 23:38:09 so you end up with programs that don't know about it, and so don't understand your asserted triples, even when they should. 23:38:11 why would a program not believe it? 23:38:28 it wouldn't 23:38:35 they all should, but they don't -- that's a bug 23:38:44 Pffffff, a bug... 23:38:50 they don't believe because they don't understand that it's being asserted 23:38:57 they think it's just a regual :p property 23:39:02 regular, rather 23:39:47 I really don't think that you can treat stIDs (labelling a statement) and contexts (labelling a set of statements) all that differently 23:40:15