RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 28 April 2011

Agenda
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Apr/0160.html
Present
Ivan Herman, Manu Sporny, Nathan Rixham, Ted Thibodeau, Benjamin Adrian, Steven Pemberton, Shane McCarron, Thomas Steiner
Chair
Manu Sporny
Scribe
Ted Thibodeau
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. The current RDF API document should be split into two documents - the RDF Interfaces and the RDF API link
  2. The generalized triples approach, (node, node, node) should be kept in the RDF Interfaces document. link
  3. FPWD after 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer link
Topics
13:58:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-rdfa-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-rdfa-irc

13:58:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

13:58:33 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332

13:58:33 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes

13:58:34 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:58:34 <trackbot> Date: 28 April 2011
13:58:45 <manu1> Chair: Manu
13:58:47 <manu1> Present: Ivan, Manu, Nathan, Ted, Benjamin, Steven, Shane, Thomas
13:58:58 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Apr/0160.html
14:01:05 <MacTed> Zakim, code?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, code?

14:01:05 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), MacTed

14:01:10 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here?

14:01:10 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has not yet started, MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has not yet started, MacTed

14:01:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, tomayac, Steven, MacTed, danbri, Benjamin, ivan, webr3, manu1, manu, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, tomayac, Steven, MacTed, danbri, Benjamin, ivan, webr3, manu1, manu, trackbot

14:01:17 <MacTed> Zakim, this is 7332

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, this is 7332

14:01:17 <Zakim> ok, MacTed; that matches SW_RDFa()10:00AM

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, MacTed; that matches SW_RDFa()10:00AM

14:01:21 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here?

14:01:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see tomayac, Benjamin, OpenLink_Software

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see tomayac, Benjamin, OpenLink_Software

14:01:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, tomayac, Steven, MacTed, danbri, Benjamin, ivan, webr3, manu1, manu, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, tomayac, Steven, MacTed, danbri, Benjamin, ivan, webr3, manu1, manu, trackbot

14:01:28 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

14:01:28 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it

14:01:30 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

14:01:30 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted

14:01:40 <Zakim> +??P14

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14

14:01:50 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P14

Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P14

14:01:50 <Zakim> +manu1; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it

14:02:01 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

14:02:01 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

14:02:01 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

14:02:02 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted

14:02:02 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

14:02:49 <Zakim> +??P15

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15

14:02:56 <ShaneM> zakim, ??P15 is ShaneM

Shane McCarron: zakim, ??P15 is ShaneM

14:02:56 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it

14:03:23 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

14:03:30 <webr3> Zakim, i am IPcaller

Nathan Rixham: Zakim, i am IPcaller

14:03:30 <Zakim> ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller]

14:04:07 <manu1> scribenick: MacTed

(Scribe set to Ted Thibodeau)

14:04:10 <manu1> Scribe: Ted
14:04:49 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-work

Steven Pemberton: zakim, dial steven-work

14:04:49 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven; the call is being made

14:04:51 <Zakim> +Steven

Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven

14:05:24 <MacTed> Topic: Interest in RDF and RDFa API

1. Interest in RDF and RDFa API

14:05:24 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/mid/A0CD95FB-1D6F-43A1-8547-20A3D0E8C8BA@kit.edu

Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/mid/A0CD95FB-1D6F-43A1-8547-20A3D0E8C8BA@kit.edu

14:06:11 <webr3> lol, yeah i replied too: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2011Apr/0214.html

Nathan Rixham: lol, yeah i replied too: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2011Apr/0214.html

14:06:42 <webr3> Danny -> http://www.aifb.kit.edu/web/Denny_Vrandecic/en

Nathan Rixham: Danny -> http://www.aifb.kit.edu/web/Denny_Vrandecic/en

14:07:21 <manu1> Ivan: Danny Vrandečić is working with Wikipedia

Ivan Herman: Danny Vrandečić is working with Wikipedia [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

14:08:41 <manu1> Gavin Carothers implemented the Python RDF API as well

Manu Sporny: Gavin Carothers implemented the Python RDF API as well

14:09:10 <MacTed> ivan: how far are we from API used in Tabulator?

Ivan Herman: how far are we from API used in Tabulator?

14:09:23 <MacTed> webr3: quite close but with different method names and definitions

Nathan Rixham: quite close but with different method names and definitions

14:10:48 <manu1> Topic: Linked JSON Mailing List

2. Linked JSON Mailing List

14:12:03 <MacTed> manu: RDF WG decided that JSON serialization was beyond immediate scope

Manu Sporny: RDF WG decided that JSON serialization was beyond immediate scope

14:12:56 <MacTed> manu: has been talking with others outside of RDF WG group, and several within, who are interested in this work

Manu Sporny: has been talking with others outside of RDF WG group, and several within, who are interested in this work

14:13:39 <MacTed> manu: Gavin Carothers, Richard Cyganiak, Glenn McDonald, Harry Halpin... others

Manu Sporny: Gavin Carothers, Richard Cyganiak, Glenn McDonald, Harry Halpin... others

14:13:58 <webr3> mailing list works now

Nathan Rixham: mailing list works now

14:14:23 <MacTed> webr3: Linked JSON mailing list is up and running

Nathan Rixham: Linked JSON mailing list is up and running

14:15:20 <webr3> mailing list link - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/

Nathan Rixham: mailing list link - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/

14:15:23 <MacTed> manu: hopes we'll all populate the list, and then decide how to focus the work -- tangible goals, etc., starting from stripped down spec, maybe the JSON-LD spec

Manu Sporny: hopes we'll all populate the list, and then decide how to focus the work -- tangible goals, etc., starting from stripped down spec, maybe the JSON-LD spec

14:16:14 <MacTed> webr3: also focused on Point Of Interest group right now

Nathan Rixham: also focused on Point Of Interest group right now

14:17:10 <MacTed> manu: thinks NYT could be enlisted for that group

Manu Sporny: thinks NYT could be enlisted for that group

14:17:11 <tomayac> +1 for getting the nyt people involved

Thomas Steiner: +1 for getting the nyt people involved

14:17:28 <MacTed> manu: We may want to pull in people from Twitter, Facebook, etc.

Manu Sporny: We may want to pull in people from Twitter, Facebook, etc.

14:18:35 <manu1> Topic: RDF API

3. RDF API

14:18:38 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/

Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/

14:19:28 <manu1> There is talk about splitting the RDF API document into a lower-level and a higher-level document.

Manu Sporny: There is talk about splitting the RDF API document into a lower-level and a higher-level document.

14:19:28 <manu1> -1 for separate documents

Manu Sporny: -1 for separate documents

14:19:32 <ivan> +1 for separate documents

Ivan Herman: +1 for separate documents

14:19:34 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

14:19:37 <MacTed> webr3: 3 levels of API seem to be sketched out, (re)organization needs some work

Nathan Rixham: 3 levels of API seem to be sketched out, (re)organization needs some work

14:20:33 <MacTed> ivan: favors separate docs for Developer and User to avoid scaring people with details unnecessary to their purposes

Ivan Herman: favors separate docs for Developer and User to avoid scaring people with details unnecessary to their purposes

14:20:41 <webr3> +1 i have to admit

Nathan Rixham: +1 i have to admit

14:20:49 <manu1> q+

Manu Sporny: q+

14:20:54 <manu1> ack ivan

Manu Sporny: ack ivan

14:20:55 <ivan> q-

Ivan Herman: q-

14:21:07 <MacTed> ivan: best to have documents that cover reader's needs without overwhelming

Ivan Herman: best to have documents that cover reader's needs without overwhelming

14:21:18 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

14:21:23 <ivan> ack manu1

Ivan Herman: ack manu1

14:21:45 <MacTed> manu: prefers to have one document so whole API can be seen in one place, rather than having scattered jigsaw puzzle pieces

Manu Sporny: prefers to have one document so whole API can be seen in one place, rather than having scattered jigsaw puzzle pieces

14:22:20 <tomayac> +1 for one doc, as IMHO people who just want to code a mash-up won't read either...

Thomas Steiner: +1 for one doc, as IMHO people who just want to code a mash-up won't read either...

14:22:21 <MacTed> (I favor clearly distinct, relatively standalone sections within one doc...)

(I favor clearly distinct, relatively standalone sections within one doc...)

14:22:34 <ivan> ack ivan

Ivan Herman: ack ivan

14:22:40 <webr3> q+

Nathan Rixham: q+

14:23:24 <manu1> q+ to say that the OWL2 docs are very difficult to follow

Manu Sporny: q+ to say that the OWL2 docs are very difficult to follow

14:23:31 <MacTed> ivan: examples of broken up docs include OWL2, RIF -- they have one small doc which sketches how the other docs work together

Ivan Herman: examples of broken up docs include OWL2, RIF -- they have one small doc which sketches how the other docs work together

14:23:51 <manu1> ack IPCaller

Manu Sporny: ack IPCaller

14:23:57 <manu1> ack [IPCaller]

Manu Sporny: ack [IPCaller]

14:23:59 <MacTed> Zakim, [IPcaller] is webr3

Zakim, [IPcaller] is webr3

14:23:59 <Zakim> +webr3; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +webr3; got it

14:24:45 <MacTed> webr3: very much feels splitting is needed, between tool makers and tool users

Nathan Rixham: very much feels splitting is needed, between tool makers and tool users

14:24:59 <ivan> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ example for an overview document

Ivan Herman: -> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ example for an overview document

14:25:22 <MacTed> webr3: lots of examples are needed, and a single doc will balloon

Nathan Rixham: lots of examples are needed, and a single doc will balloon

14:25:25 <manu1> ack web3

Manu Sporny: ack web3

14:25:54 <webr3> manu, that could be the subject matter though.. OWL 2 is quite high level

Nathan Rixham: manu, that could be the subject matter though.. OWL 2 is quite high level

14:26:04 <manu1> ack manu1

Manu Sporny: ack manu1

14:26:04 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say that the OWL2 docs are very difficult to follow

Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say that the OWL2 docs are very difficult to follow

14:26:12 <MacTed> manu: diagram example makes sense, but the need for the diagram expresses the argument not to split...

Manu Sporny: diagram example makes sense, but the need for the diagram expresses the argument not to split...

14:26:40 <MacTed> ivan: OWL2 is an example of how to do, not a picture of just what would happen here

Ivan Herman: OWL2 is an example of how to do, not a picture of just what would happen here

14:27:38 <manu1> q+ to discuss what would go into this 2nd level document?

Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss what would go into this 2nd level document?

14:27:49 <MacTed> ivan: RDFa esoterica (bnode, deep rdf discussions, 303, etc.) is likely to scare away the people we very much don't want to scare away

Ivan Herman: RDFa esoterica (bnode, deep rdf discussions, 303, etc.) is likely to scare away the people we very much don't want to scare away

14:27:57 <manu1> ack manu1

Manu Sporny: ack manu1

14:27:57 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss what would go into this 2nd level document?

Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss what would go into this 2nd level document?

14:28:09 <MacTed> manu: what would go in second level doc?

Manu Sporny: what would go in second level doc?

14:28:09 <webr3> manu, imho - RDFa API but for general RDF

Nathan Rixham: manu, imho - RDFa API but for general RDF

14:28:43 <webr3> 2nd level -> "a read only RDF API for end developers, like the RDFa API"

Nathan Rixham: 2nd level -> "a read only RDF API for end developers, like the RDFa API"

14:28:44 <MacTed> ivan: projection; document data interface; equivalent of RDFa environment (query, reference to RDF environment)

Ivan Herman: projection; document data interface; equivalent of RDFa environment (query, reference to RDF environment)

14:28:50 <Benjamin> q+ to recommend popular linked data use cases be backed by the second lewvel api

Benjamin Adrian: q+ to recommend popular linked data use cases be backed by the second lewvel api

14:28:58 <manu1> ack Benjamin

Manu Sporny: ack Benjamin

14:28:58 <Zakim> Benjamin, you wanted to recommend popular linked data use cases be backed by the second level API

Zakim IRC Bot: Benjamin, you wanted to recommend popular linked data use cases be backed by the second level API

14:29:03 <webr3> Benjamin +1

Nathan Rixham: Benjamin +1

14:29:24 <manu1> q+ to discuss charter scope?

Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss charter scope?

14:29:25 <MacTed> Benjamin: remembering, RDFa API was originally named Linked Data API ...

Benjamin Adrian: remembering, RDFa API was originally named Linked Data API ...

14:29:38 <MacTed> Benjamin: thinks we should create this second level API

Benjamin Adrian: thinks we should create this second level API

14:29:59 <manu1> ack manu1

Manu Sporny: ack manu1

14:29:59 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss charter scope?

Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss charter scope?

14:30:11 <MacTed> manu: are we chartered to work on such a second doc?  are there toes we're going to step on?

Manu Sporny: are we chartered to work on such a second doc? are there toes we're going to step on?

14:30:14 <webr3> q+

Nathan Rixham: q+

14:30:17 <manu1> RDF Core API?

Manu Sporny: RDF Core API?

14:30:32 <webr3> q-

Nathan Rixham: q-

14:30:34 <MacTed> ivan: RDF Core API, RDF API ... we can play around with names

Ivan Herman: RDF Core API, RDF API ... we can play around with names

14:30:41 <webr3> or "RDF Interfaces"

Nathan Rixham: or "RDF Interfaces"

14:30:49 <tomayac> q+

Thomas Steiner: q+

14:30:51 <manu1> +1 to RDF Core API and another RDF API doc

Manu Sporny: +1 to RDF Core API and another RDF API doc

14:30:52 <webr3> for this api that is, and new one as "RDF API"

Nathan Rixham: for this api that is, and new one as "RDF API"

14:31:44 <MacTed> macted: "Linked Data API" would imply that "RDF" is all there is to "Linked Data" ... which isn't the case

Ted Thibodeau: "Linked Data API" would imply that "RDF" is all there is to "Linked Data" ... which isn't the case

14:31:57 <ivan> q?

Ivan Herman: q?

14:32:00 <ivan> act tomayac

Ivan Herman: act tomayac

14:32:03 <manu1> ack tomayac

Manu Sporny: ack tomayac

14:32:08 <MacTed> manu: anyone with other concerns about splitting this?

Manu Sporny: anyone with other concerns about splitting this?

14:32:53 <MacTed> tomayac: people outside w3c are unlikely to look at these docs anyway...  why are we concerned with addressing them?

Thomas Steiner: people outside w3c are unlikely to look at these docs anyway... why are we concerned with addressing them?

14:33:05 <webr3> tomayac, that would be sad if they don't imho - I'd want this doc to be focussed for those people, and if we are doign docs wrong, lets change that

Nathan Rixham: tomayac, that would be sad if they don't imho - I'd want this doc to be focussed for those people, and if we are doign docs wrong, lets change that

14:33:14 <MacTed> ivan: that seems to ask "why do this at all?"

Ivan Herman: that seems to ask "why do this at all?"

14:33:48 <MacTed> ivan: hopefully, if we do this well, letting people quickly do simple/easy things, without having to immediately dive into difficult things, that's a win

Ivan Herman: hopefully, if we do this well, letting people quickly do simple/easy things, without having to immediately dive into difficult things, that's a win

14:34:06 <MacTed> ivan: this will expose them to other things they may want to do, which require they learn the complex stuff, but that's OK

Ivan Herman: this will expose them to other things they may want to do, which require they learn the complex stuff, but that's OK

14:34:31 <tomayac> in my experience, all js coders search for js docs by $searchterm +mdc to make sure the mozilla docs come up. i can imagine something similar to happen for a browser-vendor-implemented rdfa api.

Thomas Steiner: in my experience, all js coders search for js docs by $searchterm +mdc to make sure the mozilla docs come up. i can imagine something similar to happen for a browser-vendor-implemented rdfa api.

14:34:48 <MacTed> ivan: for instance, quick-and-dirty read-only joins of DBpedia with Gene Data should be enabled by these docs

Ivan Herman: for instance, quick-and-dirty read-only joins of DBpedia with Gene Data should be enabled by these docs

14:35:10 <webr3> toayac, i do that :p lol +mdc

Nathan Rixham: toayac, i do that :p lol +mdc

14:35:18 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

14:35:28 <MacTed> manu: "+mdc" search term isn't that common in my experience

Manu Sporny: "+mdc" search term isn't that common in my experience

14:35:53 <MacTed> ivan: we should realize that w3c is currently developing *MANY* APIs ...

Ivan Herman: we should realize that w3c is currently developing *MANY* APIs ...

14:36:11 <MacTed> ivan: and if people are relying strictly on mozilla docs, then this is pointless ... which doesn't seem true

Ivan Herman: and if people are relying strictly on mozilla docs, then this is pointless ... which doesn't seem true

14:36:52 <MacTed> ivan: if we have the Core, others can implement extensions and other layers atop the Core to empower other uses

Ivan Herman: if we have the Core, others can implement extensions and other layers atop the Core to empower other uses

14:36:56 <webr3> q+

Nathan Rixham: q+

14:37:00 <manu1> ack ivan

Manu Sporny: ack ivan

14:37:02 <ivan> ack ivan

Ivan Herman: ack ivan

14:37:03 <manu1> ack webr3

Manu Sporny: ack webr3

14:37:30 <MacTed> webr3: reiterating ivan's point, we build the Core / bare minimum that community can then build upon

Nathan Rixham: reiterating ivan's point, we build the Core / bare minimum that community can then build upon

14:37:47 <tomayac> to put it the right way: i was talking about core js, which mdc does a great job on documenting it, no one goes to the ECMA script spec for simple questions

Thomas Steiner: to put it the right way: i was talking about core js, which mdc does a great job on documenting it, no one goes to the ECMA script spec for simple questions

14:37:50 <manu1> q+ to say that people may want to add stuff to the RDF API (not RDF Core API)

Manu Sporny: q+ to say that people may want to add stuff to the RDF API (not RDF Core API)

14:37:58 <MacTed> webr3: we can then standardize/unify the things which others innovate and implement differently

Nathan Rixham: we can then standardize/unify the things which others innovate and implement differently

14:38:22 <manu1> ack manu1

Manu Sporny: ack manu1

14:38:22 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say that people may want to add stuff to the RDF API (not RDF Core API)

Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say that people may want to add stuff to the RDF API (not RDF Core API)

14:38:43 <MacTed> manu: another pro for the split is we can standardize RDF Core and few will want/need to change that

Manu Sporny: another pro for the split is we can standardize RDF Core and few will want/need to change that

14:38:52 <MacTed> manu: RDF Core - literals, graphs, nodes, etc.

Manu Sporny: RDF Core - literals, graphs, nodes, etc.

14:39:09 <MacTed> manu: RDF API - query mechanisms, document interface(s), etc.

Manu Sporny: RDF API - query mechanisms, document interface(s), etc.

14:39:21 <webr3> +1 agree

Nathan Rixham: +1 agree

14:39:26 <Benjamin> +1

Benjamin Adrian: +1

14:39:27 <MacTed> manu: future innovation is expected to take place in RDF API, not in RDF Core

Manu Sporny: future innovation is expected to take place in RDF API, not in RDF Core

14:39:44 <webr3> q+ to bring focus back

Nathan Rixham: q+ to bring focus back

14:39:58 <manu1> ack webr3

Manu Sporny: ack webr3

14:39:58 <Zakim> webr3, you wanted to bring focus back

Zakim IRC Bot: webr3, you wanted to bring focus back

14:39:58 <MacTed> ivan: RDF Core will basically reflect RDF concepts in JavaScript

Ivan Herman: RDF Core API will basically reflect RDF concepts in JavaScript

14:40:18 <MacTed> s/RDF Core/RDF Core API/
14:40:27 <MacTed> webr3: 1. are we going ahead with two docs?

Nathan Rixham: 1. are we going ahead with two docs?

14:40:43 <MacTed> webr3: 2. if so, we need to change the name from "RDF API" now...

Nathan Rixham: 2. if so, we need to change the name from "RDF API" now...

14:41:10 <MacTed> webr3: 3. are we getting rid of tripleset; are we sticking with node-node-node definition or constraining to RDF; etc?

Nathan Rixham: 3. are we getting rid of tripleset; are we sticking with node-node-node definition or constraining to RDF; etc?

14:41:17 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The current RDF API document should be split into two documents - the RDF Core API and the RDF API

PROPOSED: The current RDF API document should be split into two documents - the RDF Core API and the RDF API

14:41:19 <Benjamin> +1

Benjamin Adrian: +1

14:41:19 <manu1> +1

Manu Sporny: +1

14:41:21 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

14:41:25 <MacTed> +1

+1

14:41:26 <ShaneM> +1

Shane McCarron: +1

14:41:27 <Steven> +0

Steven Pemberton: +0

14:41:28 <webr3> +1 but review name

Nathan Rixham: +1 but review name

14:41:45 <ShaneM> (I don't like the name RDF Core API really)

Shane McCarron: (I don't like the name RDF Core API really)

14:41:50 <Steven> Don't feel strongly in this case

Steven Pemberton: Don't feel strongly in this case

14:41:52 <webr3> RDF Core API, or RDF Interfaces ?

Nathan Rixham: RDF Core API, or RDF Interfaces ?

14:41:55 <tomayac> +0 name strange

Thomas Steiner: +0 name strange

14:42:51 <MacTed> naming confusion...

naming confusion...

14:43:06 <ShaneM> XHTML+RDFa, HTML+RDFa, RDFa Core, RDF Core API, RDF API, and RDFa API

Shane McCarron: XHTML+RDFa, HTML+RDFa, RDFa Core, RDF Core API, RDF API, and RDFa API

14:43:07 <webr3> +1 to what ivan just said

Nathan Rixham: +1 to what ivan just said

14:43:28 <webr3> RDF Interfaces, RDF API, RDFa API

Nathan Rixham: RDF Interfaces, RDF API, RDFa API

14:43:38 <Benjamin> sounds good

Benjamin Adrian: sounds good

14:43:40 <MacTed> "RDF Core API" becomes "RDF Interfaces API"; keep "RDF API" and "RDFa API"...

"RDF Core API" becomes "RDF Interfaces API"; keep "RDF API" and "RDFa API"...

14:43:44 <manu1> RESOLVED: The current RDF API document should be split into two documents - the RDF Interfaces and the RDF API

RESOLVED: The current RDF API document should be split into two documents - the RDF Interfaces and the RDF API

14:44:15 <MacTed> "RDF Core API" becomes "RDF Interfaces"

"RDF Core API" becomes "RDF Interfaces"

14:44:46 <manu1> Subtopic: Removing Triple Set / Graph Literal

3.1. Removing Triple Set / Graph Literal

14:44:56 <manu1> q+ to discuss removing Graph Literal

Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss removing Graph Literal

14:45:01 <Zakim> -Benjamin

Zakim IRC Bot: -Benjamin

14:45:35 <MacTed> ivan: what we said... (roughly) "the RDF WG is currently discussing the notion of graph identification.  This WG will act based on their decision."

Ivan Herman: what we said... (roughly) "the RDF WG is currently discussing the notion of graph identification. This WG will act based on their decision."

14:46:20 <manu1> ack manu1

Manu Sporny: ack manu1

14:46:20 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss removing Graph Literal

Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss removing Graph Literal

14:46:50 <Zakim> + +44.123.456.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.123.456.aaaa

14:47:01 <Benjamin> zakim, i am aaaa

Benjamin Adrian: zakim, i am aaaa

14:47:01 <Zakim> +Benjamin; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Benjamin; got it

14:47:19 <MacTed> [discussion of undefined term "Graph Literal"]

[discussion of undefined term "Graph Literal"]

14:47:37 <MacTed> q+

q+

14:47:44 <manu1> ack MacTed

Manu Sporny: ack MacTed

14:48:17 <manu1> Ted: We don't need to define everything - we can use an ambiguous term for the time being

Ted Thibodeau: We don't need to define everything - we can use an ambiguous term for the time being [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

14:48:41 <manu1> Ted: We just say that we are not defining it, but we're putting it in as a placeholder.

Ted Thibodeau: We just say that we are not defining it, but we're putting it in as a placeholder. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

14:49:00 <webr3> Ivan, placeholder text, or interface with a note?

Nathan Rixham: Ivan, placeholder text, or interface with a note?

14:49:02 <manu1> Ted: It's up to the RDF WG to define this stuff, we make that clear in the document

Ted Thibodeau: It's up to the RDF WG to define this stuff, we make that clear in the document [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

14:50:21 <manu1> Ivan: Defining WebIDL that states that a Triple Set extends a Node and a Literal, it makes a technical decision, it oversteps our bounds

Ivan Herman: Defining WebIDL that states that a Triple Set extends a Node and a Literal, it makes a technical decision, it oversteps our bounds [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

14:50:22 <Benjamin> q+

Benjamin Adrian: q+

14:50:37 <webr3> Ivan, as you said "what is the datatype" :p (not does it have a datatype)

Nathan Rixham: Ivan, as you said "what is the datatype" :p (not does it have a datatype)

14:50:47 <manu1> Ted: But why can't we just put a warning stating that the interface could change over time, based on what RDF WG finds.

Ted Thibodeau: But why can't we just put a warning stating that the interface could change over time, based on what RDF WG finds. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

14:51:16 <manu1> ack Benjamin

Manu Sporny: ack Benjamin

14:52:05 <MacTed> Benjamin: I think we should model RDF Interfaces by what has general consensus ...  since this doesn't have general consensus, maybe it's not "core" yet?

Benjamin Adrian: I think we should model RDF Interfaces by what has general consensus ... since this doesn't have general consensus, maybe it's not "core" yet?

14:52:23 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

14:52:47 <webr3> we can define them (TripleSet/GraphLiteral) as extensions to the RDF Interfaces, just like OWL, or entailment, or SPARQL might

Nathan Rixham: we can define them (TripleSet/GraphLiteral) as extensions to the RDF Interfaces, just like OWL, or entailment, or SPARQL might

14:52:55 <webr3> (at a later date)

Nathan Rixham: (at a later date)

14:52:55 <MacTed> manu: seems like this will belong in RDF Interfaces once it's defined, so putting it outside "for now" is troublesome

Manu Sporny: seems like this will belong in RDF Interfaces once it's defined, so putting it outside "for now" is troublesome

14:53:28 <manu1> ack ivan

Manu Sporny: ack ivan

14:54:27 <MacTed> ivan: handwave is what's called for here

Ivan Herman: handwave is what's called for here

14:55:28 <MacTed> ivan: already because SPARQL does some loose association here, adding something about a "graph may have a URI" seems appropriate

Ivan Herman: already because SPARQL does some loose association here, adding something about a "graph may have a URI" seems appropriate

14:57:03 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

14:57:04 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The RDF Interfaces should mention a Graph identification concept, but should not specify any WebIDL yet - we should note that the RDF WG is currently discussing the details of this mechanism.

PROPOSED: The RDF Interfaces should mention a Graph identification concept, but should not specify any WebIDL yet - we should note that the RDF WG is currently discussing the details of this mechanism.

14:57:08 <manu1> +1

Manu Sporny: +1

14:57:14 <webr3> +1

Nathan Rixham: +1

14:57:23 <Benjamin> +1

Benjamin Adrian: +1

14:57:23 <tomayac> +1

Thomas Steiner: +1

14:57:26 <Steven> +0

Steven Pemberton: +0

14:57:27 <ShaneM> ..... +1

Shane McCarron: ..... +1

14:57:27 <MacTed> +1

+1

14:57:56 <MacTed> Steven: no strong feelings... hence +0

Steven Pemberton: no strong feelings... hence +0

14:58:09 <webr3> all that's left is: (node node node) or (rdfresource, namednode, node)

Nathan Rixham: all that's left is: (node node node) or (rdfresource, namednode, node)

14:58:32 <MacTed> ivan: 2 things remaining...

Ivan Herman: 2 things remaining...

14:58:40 <webr3> and, literal needs to keep lexical form from a serialization for comparison

Nathan Rixham: and, literal needs to keep lexical form from a serialization for comparison

14:58:43 <Zakim> -ShaneM

Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM

14:58:51 <MacTed> [discussion of remaining...]

[discussion of remaining...]

14:59:15 <manu1> Subtopic: Generalized Triples

3.2. Generalized Triples

14:59:42 <MacTed> ivan: Nathan found good set of argumentation why we would keep with  (node node node) approach

Ivan Herman: Nathan found good set of argumentation why we would keep with (node node node) approach

15:00:15 <MacTed> ivan: thinks we should do so, include that text, and see whether community jumps at us

Ivan Herman: thinks we should do so, include that text, and see whether community jumps at us

15:00:51 <MacTed> webr3: basic argument is to allow more flexible code use/writing

Nathan Rixham: basic argument is to allow more flexible code use/writing

15:01:16 <MacTed> ivan: what is "literal as predicate"?

Ivan Herman: what is "literal as predicate"?

15:01:29 <MacTed> manu: use case is in JSON conversions

Manu Sporny: use case is in JSON conversions

15:01:38 <webr3> so does anybody object to node,node,node ?

Nathan Rixham: so does anybody object to node,node,node ?

15:02:04 <MacTed> PROPOSAL: The generalized triples approach, (node, node, node) should be kept in the RDF Interfaces document.

PROPOSED: The generalized triples approach, (node, node, node) should be kept in the RDF Interfaces document.

15:02:07 <MacTed> +1

+1

15:02:09 <Steven> +1

Steven Pemberton: +1

15:02:09 <webr3> +3

Nathan Rixham: +3

15:02:11 <manu1> +1

Manu Sporny: +1

15:02:13 <tomayac> +1 for keeping node^3

Thomas Steiner: +1 for keeping node^3

15:02:14 <Benjamin> +1

Benjamin Adrian: +1

15:02:16 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

15:02:28 <MacTed> RESOLVED: The generalized triples approach, (node, node, node) should be kept in the RDF Interfaces document.

RESOLVED: The generalized triples approach, (node, node, node) should be kept in the RDF Interfaces document.

15:02:55 <manu1> Subtopic: Interface for Literal and Equality Comparison

3.3. Interface for Literal and Equality Comparison

15:03:05 <MacTed> ivan: last thing -- current interface for literal makes assumption that when you get lexical value, you convert it into the "natural" value which is what you store

Ivan Herman: last thing -- current interface for literal makes assumption that when you get lexical value, you convert it into the "natural" value which is what you store

15:03:15 <MacTed> ivan: original lexical value should also be stored

Ivan Herman: original lexical value should also be stored

15:04:10 <MacTed> ivan: two lexical values are equal only if they match character-by-character ... even though "natural" values of different lexicals may be equal

Ivan Herman: two lexical values are equal only if they match character-by-character ... even though "natural" values of different lexicals may be equal

15:05:03 <manu1> <a> <b> "011"^^xsd:integer . <a> <b> "11"^^xsd:integer .

Manu Sporny: <a> <b> "011"^^xsd:integer . <a> <b> "11"^^xsd:integer .

15:05:50 <webr3> see - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Apr/0158.html

Nathan Rixham: see - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Apr/0158.html

15:05:52 <MacTed> ivan: these strings are not RDF equal, but they are numerically equivalent

Ivan Herman: these strings are not RDF equal, but they are numerically equivalent

15:05:55 <webr3> q+

Nathan Rixham: q+

15:06:09 <manu1> ack webr3

Manu Sporny: ack webr3

15:06:48 <webr3> What happens if we do this: createLiteral(100, "xsd:double").equals( createLiteral(+1e2, "xsd:double") ) === TRUE

Nathan Rixham: What happens if we do this: createLiteral(100, "xsd:double").equals( createLiteral(+1e2, "xsd:double") ) === TRUE

15:07:30 <webr3> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/#widl-RDFEnvironment-createLiteral

Nathan Rixham: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/#widl-RDFEnvironment-createLiteral

15:07:48 <MacTed> [discussion about limiting input to createLiteral() method]

[discussion about limiting input to createLiteral() method]

15:09:21 <webr3> right now, we have "The native value of the literal, if the datatype of the literal is not known by the implementation the nodes value must be the lexical representation of the value." at the minute

Nathan Rixham: right now, we have "The native value of the literal, if the datatype of the literal is not known by the implementation the nodes value must be the lexical representation of the value." at the minute

15:10:03 <webr3> q+ to say we have a nice short circuit in the API at the minute..

Nathan Rixham: q+ to say we have a nice short circuit in the API at the minute..

15:10:11 <manu1> q+ to say that we may want to turn this into an ISSUE

Manu Sporny: q+ to say that we may want to turn this into an ISSUE

15:10:57 <manu1> ack manu1

Manu Sporny: ack manu1

15:10:57 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say that we may want to turn this into an ISSUE

Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say that we may want to turn this into an ISSUE

15:10:58 <MacTed> cleanup -- "The native value of the literal. If the datatype of the literal is not known by the implementation, the node's value must be the lexical representation of the value."

cleanup -- "The native value of the literal. If the datatype of the literal is not known by the implementation, the node's value must be the lexical representation of the value."

15:11:13 <webr3> we have "equals(tocompare) -> If tocompare is NOT an instance of RDFNode then the it must be compared with this nodes value."

Nathan Rixham: we have "equals(tocompare) -> If tocompare is NOT an instance of RDFNode then the it must be compared with this nodes value."

15:11:29 <Benjamin> q+ to shortly discuss scope and implementation of .equals(RDFNode) for BlankNodes.

Benjamin Adrian: q+ to shortly discuss scope and implementation of .equals(RDFNode) for BlankNodes.

15:12:03 <MacTed> ivan: suggests that we adjust wording, as this is not kosher RDF, and make note that some environments may not permit the new (correct) behavior

Ivan Herman: suggests that we adjust wording, as this is not kosher RDF, and make note that some environments may not permit the new (correct) behavior

15:12:07 <Zakim> -Steven

Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven

15:12:44 <webr3> +1 macted to SHOULD

Nathan Rixham: +1 macted to SHOULD

15:12:48 <manu1> ack webr3

Manu Sporny: ack webr3

15:12:48 <Zakim> webr3, you wanted to say we have a nice short circuit in the API at the minute..

Zakim IRC Bot: webr3, you wanted to say we have a nice short circuit in the API at the minute..

15:13:08 <Zakim> -webr3

Zakim IRC Bot: -webr3

15:13:16 <MacTed> MacTed: SHOULD language seems to be what we should use...  when you can, DO.  when you can't, well, you can't!

Ted Thibodeau: SHOULD language seems to be what we should use... when you can, DO. when you can't, well, you can't!

15:13:29 <MacTed> webr3: my audio connection is gone - fell off the line

Nathan Rixham: my audio connection is gone - fell off the line

15:13:57 <webr3> what do we need to do for FPWD, I like as is and would like to push this to an issue for discussion

Nathan Rixham: what do we need to do for FPWD, I like as is and would like to push this to an issue for discussion

15:14:00 <MacTed> Benjamin: found it difficult to implement the notion of blank nodes as in the API

Benjamin Adrian: found it difficult to implement the notion of blank nodes as in the API

15:14:18 <manu1> Same here, I think we should push this off to an ISSUE

Manu Sporny: Same here, I think we should push this off to an ISSUE

15:15:19 <MacTed> ivan: blank node interface needs additional attribute, being the graph to which it belongs

Ivan Herman: blank node interface needs additional attribute, being the graph to which it belongs

15:15:46 <webr3> which graph?? what identifier?

Nathan Rixham: which graph?? what identifier?

15:16:07 <webr3> a graph in memory? something from a .createBlankNode()?

Nathan Rixham: a graph in memory? something from a .createBlankNode()?

15:16:19 <MacTed> the graph in which the bnode occurs

the graph in which the bnode occurs

15:16:23 <MacTed> whatever graph that might me...

whatever graph that might me...

15:16:33 <MacTed> (hey!  we need graph identifiers!)

(hey! we need graph identifiers!)

15:16:37 <webr3> bnode.equals(bnode) should just return false.. it's a useless equality

Nathan Rixham: bnode.equals(bnode) should just return false.. it's a useless equality

15:17:09 <MacTed> webr3 - I don't think we can cover this well via IRC... voice carried much more info

webr3 - I don't think we can cover this well via IRC... voice carried much more info

15:18:59 <webr3> okay .. so few changes to RDF Interfaces as we discussed, equality to ISSUE ?

Nathan Rixham: okay .. so few changes to RDF Interfaces as we discussed, equality to ISSUE ?

15:19:15 <webr3> and vote on FPWD via mailing list to get a publish ?

Nathan Rixham: and vote on FPWD via mailing list to get a publish ?

15:19:47 <MacTed> discussion on FPWD readiness...

discussion on FPWD readiness...

15:20:50 <MacTed> manu: suggestions are 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer to start of document.

Manu Sporny: suggestions are 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer to start of document.

15:21:02 <webr3> +1

Nathan Rixham: +1

15:21:05 <MacTed> manu: then, we go to FPWD ... and then we move forward to RDF API doc, keeping in mind that we need to do CR for RDFa docs.

Manu Sporny: then, we go to FPWD ... and then we move forward to RDF API doc, keeping in mind that we need to do CR for RDFa docs.

15:21:18 <MacTed> ivan: and then we come back to RDFa

Ivan Herman: and then we come back to RDFa

15:21:35 <MacTed> PROPOSAL: FPWD after 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer

PROPOSED: FPWD after 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer

15:21:45 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

15:21:45 <MacTed> +1

+1

15:21:48 <manu1> +1

Manu Sporny: +1

15:21:49 <tomayac> +1

Thomas Steiner: +1

15:21:53 <Benjamin> +1

Benjamin Adrian: +1

15:22:16 <MacTed> RESOLVED: FPWD after 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer

RESOLVED: FPWD after 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer

15:24:01 <webr3> +1

Nathan Rixham: +1

15:33:25 <Zakim> -tomayac

(No events recorded for 9 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: -tomayac

15:33:49 <Zakim> -MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed

15:34:05 <Zakim> -Benjamin

Zakim IRC Bot: -Benjamin

15:43:37 <Zakim> -manu1

(No events recorded for 9 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1

15:43:38 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

15:43:38 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended

15:43:40 <Zakim> Attendees were tomayac, Benjamin, MacTed, manu1, Ivan, ShaneM, Steven, webr3, +44.123.456.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were tomayac, Benjamin, MacTed, manu1, Ivan, ShaneM, Steven, webr3, +44.123.456.aaaa



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#1) generated 2011-04-28 16:19:11 UTC by 'msporny', comments: 'Minor fixes and clean-ups'