15:57:19 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 15:57:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/09-rdf-wg-irc 15:57:28 rrsagent, make records public 15:57:50 Scribe: cmatheus 15:58:28 NickH has joined #rdf-wg 15:59:50 no zakim? 16:00:04 UK phone number seems to be working much better than it was 16:00:20 Hi, is the conference code really 73394 (it's not accepted)? 16:00:37 JFB: 73394 worked for me 16:00:38 JFB, yes it is 16:00:41 AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg 16:00:50 Still trying.... 16:00:54 Chair: Guus Schreiber 16:00:58 Code worked for me but no zakim annoucements in IRC. 16:01:12 cygri has joined #rdf-wg 16:01:27 zakim, this is rdf-wg 16:01:37 Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 16:01:40 zakim, who is here? 16:01:40 sorry, Guus, I don't know what conference this is 16:01:42 pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 16:01:42 On IRC I see cygri, AlexHall, NickH, RRSAgent, AZ, pfps, dfensel6, gavin, cmatheus, hsbauer, Guus, JFB, LeeF, webr3, SteveH, AndyS, ivan, davidwood, yvesr, manu, manu1, sandro, 16:01:44 zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 16:01:45 ... trackbot 16:01:57 zakim, this is rdf-wg 16:01:57 sorry, sandro, I do not see a conference named 'rdf-wg' in progress or scheduled at this time 16:02:00 zakim, this is rdfwg 16:02:03 ok, sandro; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM 16:02:10 zakim, who is on the call? 16:02:10 On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Dieter, ??P18, Guus, Azimmerm, ??P36, [IPcaller], AlexHall, LeeF, Sandro, zwu2, mhausenblas 16:02:18 zakim, mhausenblas is me 16:02:18 +cygri; got it 16:02:21 zakim, mute me 16:02:21 zwu2 should now be muted 16:02:26 I'll be a few minutes late :( 16:02:29 zakim, IPCaller is me 16:02:32 +AndyS; got it 16:02:34 +Peter_Patel-Schneider 16:02:39 zakim, dial ivan-voip 16:02:47 ok, ivan; the call is being made 16:02:49 +Ivan 16:02:51 AxelPolleres has joined #rdf-wg 16:02:54 mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg 16:02:59 +gavinc 16:03:09 +JeanFrancois 16:03:15 +[IPcaller] 16:03:18 sandro has changed the topic to: RDF WG Meeting 2011-03-09 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.03.09 16:03:19 zakim, i am IPcaller 16:03:19 +Luca 16:03:24 zakim, code? 16:03:29 Topic: Admin 16:03:30 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.03.09 16:03:31 ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller] 16:03:37 the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu 16:03:40 +1 16:03:42 tomayac has joined #rdf-wg 16:03:42 +1 16:03:45 +AxelPolleres 16:03:46 David: Approve agenda 16:03:46 +1 16:03:53 +davidwood 16:03:56 PROPOSED: accept previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-03-02 16:04:00 ... minutes accepted 16:04:04 RESOLVED: accept previous minutes http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-03-02 16:04:09 +??P55 16:04:11 +[IPcaller.a] 16:04:15 zakim, I am ??P55 16:04:15 +manu; got it 16:04:19 ... day light savings time 16:04:25 +[IPcaller.aa] 16:04:31 custom: follow american time 16:04:36 mischat has joined #rdf-wg 16:04:45 zakim, 16:04:45 I don't understand '', mbrunati 16:04:56 ... custom: follow american time 16:05:03 + +1.404.978.aaaa - is perhaps Dzung_Tran? 16:05:09 zakim, [IPcaller.aa] is me 16:05:09 +mbrunati; got it 16:05:19 Guus: For European folks, the next two telecons will be an hour early. 16:05:36 SteveH has joined #rdf-wg 16:05:38 We need an international standard for DST… 16:05:42 +Souri 16:05:48 Guus: next telecoms - note time differences 16:05:55 ... action item review 16:05:59 davidwood, yes, to banish it forever and never speak of it again 16:06:01 Topic: Action Items 16:06:01 Zakim, ??P36 is me 16:06:01 +NickH; got it 16:06:02 davidwood, that could never work for north-vs-southern hemisphere, at least. :-) 16:06:04 q- 16:06:07 Souri has joined #rdf-wg 16:06:11 q? 16:06:23 +??P49 16:06:28 ack Luca 16:06:29 Zakim, who's on the phone? 16:06:30 On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Dieter, ??P18, Guus, Azimmerm, NickH, AndyS, AlexHall, LeeF, Sandro, zwu2 (muted), cygri, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Ivan, gavinc, JeanFrancois, 16:06:33 zakim, who is talking? 16:06:33 ... [IPcaller], pchampin, AxelPolleres, davidwood, manu, [IPcaller.a], mbrunati, Dzung_Tran?, Souri, ??P49 16:06:35 zakim, ??P49 is me 16:06:35 +mischat; got it 16:06:41 zakim, mute me 16:06:41 mischat should now be muted 16:06:45 sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (13%) 16:07:04 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 16:07:04 +SteveH; got it 16:07:07 q? 16:07:13 ... Action 7 16:07:23 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/GraphConceptTerminology 16:07:25 ACTION-7? 16:07:25 ACTION-7 -- Nathan Rixham to write a wiki page clarifying the different "graph" concepts -- due 2011-03-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW 16:07:25 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/7 16:07:26 ... Nathan wiki page on graph concepts 16:07:32 Nathan: done 16:07:50 close ACTION-7 16:07:50 ACTION-7 Write a wiki page clarifying the different "graph" concepts closed 16:07:51 close ACTION-7 16:07:51 ACTION-7 Write a wiki page clarifying the different "graph" concepts closed 16:07:56 ... Sandro, can you mark action 7 as closed 16:08:04 Resolved: Action 7 closed 16:08:08 ACTION-12? 16:08:08 ACTION-12 -- Guus Schreiber to talk to paul groth to get a provenance use case for graphs -- due 2011-03-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW 16:08:08 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/12 16:08:16 ... action 12 16:08:21 close ACTION-12 16:08:21 ACTION-12 Talk to paul groth to get a provenance use case for graphs closed 16:08:22 ... closed 16:08:32 ACTION-15? 16:08:32 ACTION-15 -- Guus Schreiber to make hotel suggestions for FTF1 -- due 2011-03-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW 16:08:32 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/15 16:08:45 ... action 15 - hotel suggestions - done. 16:08:55 close ACTION-15 16:08:55 ACTION-15 Make hotel suggestions for FTF1 closed 16:09:00 Resolved: Action 12 closed 16:09:19 Resolved: Action 15 closed 16:09:23 guus: No hotels at CWI, but three groups close by. not a big city. at most 35 minutes. 16:09:28 I have created a wiki page attempting to collect design requirements for RDF in JSON here: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-JSON#RDF_in_JSON_Design_Requirements 16:09:37 (That's related to ACTION-16) 16:09:41 cmatheus, please don't use "Resolved" for actions. 16:09:54 sandro, got it. 16:10:10 action-18? 16:10:10 ACTION-18 -- Ivan Herman to establish a wiki page for the FTF1 agenda and list initial content -- due 2011-03-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW 16:10:10 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/18 16:10:15 close action-18 16:10:15 ACTION-18 Establish a wiki page for the FTF1 agenda and list initial content closed 16:10:22 ... Action 18 - closed. 16:10:48 ... Dan Brickley action on named graph. not on call. 16:10:54 action-5? 16:10:54 ACTION-5 -- Yves Raimond to draft a use case for named graphs from BBC work -- due 2011-03-02 -- OPEN 16:10:54 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/5 16:11:03 ... Action 5 remains open 16:11:35 ... Action for Pat -- regrets on being out for ten days. 16:11:38 zakim, unmute me 16:11:38 mischat should no longer be muted 16:11:47 ... Mishat to provided ... 16:12:05 close action-11 16:12:06 ACTION-11 Provide Garlik pov re: use-cases with SteveH closed 16:12:09 Mischat: turned action into pending reviews. 16:12:12 zakim, mute me 16:12:12 mischat should now be muted 16:12:18 action-16? 16:12:18 ACTION-16 -- Manu Sporny to summarize positions that folks have taken via the mailing list onto the wiki in an attempt to figure out which document should be used as a starting point for the RDF in JSON work. -- due 2011-03-09 -- OPEN 16:12:18 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/16 16:12:27 Guus: action closed. 16:12:59 Manu: JSon - summarization of positions. still under discussion. 16:13:06 close action-16 16:13:06 ACTION-16 Summarize positions that folks have taken via the mailing list onto the wiki in an attempt to figure out which document should be used as a starting point for the RDF in JSON work. closed 16:13:18 Guss: you did your action item and it can be closed. 16:13:22 action-17? 16:13:22 ACTION-17 -- Gavin Carothers to try and produce a digram based on the g-box, g-snap, g-text model from Sandro's email and this conversation -- due 2011-03-16 -- OPEN 16:13:22 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/17 16:13:37 ... action 17: g-box diagram 16:14:00 it was gavin speaking 16:14:02 Gavin: haven had time to get to it this week. 16:14:03 gavin: I'll do it soon and put it on the wiki page of graph concepts 16:14:21 Guus: keep open, hopefully close next week. 16:14:36 ... ends discussionon actionitems 16:15:01 Topic: first F2F 16:15:05 q? 16:15:22 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F1 16:15:30 Guus: please indicate whether you are attending on wiki page. 16:15:45 q+ 16:15:48 ... need a page to track regrets. 16:16:16 q- 16:16:58 Ivan: needs to give list of all participants. if you don't provide a name you may not be permitted in. 16:17:00 Regrets section added to http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F1 16:17:18 ... will have two meeting rooms plus my office. 16:17:39 Guus: moving on to the agenda for F2F 16:18:20 ... proposal: use day one to discussion items on table for task forces and identify what's need to be done for first draft. 16:18:46 ... structure: reporting, discussion, planning 16:19:09 ... dinner in the evening by university. lunch offered by Talis. 16:19:31 ... need to be more specific on topics. can we live with this layout? 16:19:37 +1 16:19:41 +1 16:19:42 +1 for F2F1 Agenda 16:19:58 +1 16:20:04 +1 16:20:05 ... F2F1 agenda approved. 16:20:07 not much more can be done at this time to figure out agenda for F2F1 16:20:14 +1 16:20:26 ... next two weeks we will fill in the details. 16:20:35 Topic: Task Forces 16:21:15 Guss: general remark: very happy to see so many threads. 16:21:27 ... some worry that we might go outside the charter. 16:21:42 ... over next few weeks we need to start restricting outselves. 16:21:49 s/Guss/Guus/ 16:21:54 ... must need way to manage things over coming year. 16:22:00 q+ 16:22:07 ... can't do everything we've talked about over last two weeks. 16:22:14 ... any comments? 16:22:50 Richard: good to have broad discussion to get issues on table, but also important to make clear what charter is. what it allows us to do and what it doesn't. 16:23:12 ... would be useful for thos ewho wrote the charter to speak up when things out of scope come up. 16:23:14 q+ to say writers intent doesn't matter.... 16:23:30 q- 16:23:55 q- 16:24:10 Guus: agreed, we need to start limiting discussions. point well taken. 16:25:09 David: we don't want to let the conversation to get out of control but people should feel free to make proposals and voice opinions. 16:25:13 Are changes that affect other RECs in or out of scope? (by intent - words do no restrict this WG) 16:25:21 Guus: moving on to task force discussions. 16:25:36 ... starting with Turtle TF 16:25:38 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Turtle 16:26:05 ... potential deliverables for Turtle work. 16:26:12 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Turtle/Proposals 16:26:17 Richard: on background of the wiki page -- I created it. 16:27:01 ... some terms in discussions where captured in wiki page. 16:27:47 +1 to Qurtle, N-Quads++ 16:27:58 -1 to everything else (current opinion, may change) 16:28:01 ... summary: make minimal fixes (e.g. aligning with sparql); super turtle would add some additional properties; qurtle would add quad support. 16:28:19 q+ 16:28:26 I suggest the names N-Triples2 and N-Quads2 are more descriptive than "++" since it's not backward compatible. 16:29:02 ... still under discussion. n-triple++ could be recognized and turned into a minimal format for exchanging triples. 16:29:25 ... n-quads - take current proposal and add option for naming contexts/graphs. 16:29:35 Sandro, why would it not parse current n-triples/n-quads? 16:29:36 ... idea is to turn it into a specification. 16:29:52 ... has been said that fourth element should be required. 16:30:28 ... another proposal: rdf-tuples like csv. more like a serialization of a sparql result set. 16:30:37 gavin, I suppose it could be, but with utf-8 I'd exepect the \uXXXXXXXX syntax to be removed. 16:30:54 Ivan: comment 1: maybe worth adding what the media types are. 16:31:10 sandro, it's useful for non-UTF-8 systems, like some version of emacs 16:31:34 ... qurtle should be seperated by media types 16:31:47 +1 for having different media types 16:31:55 +1 16:31:56 sandro, \uXXXX and \UXXXXXXXX in Turtle today. 16:31:59 ... comment 2: on current page, rdf-tuples is not mentioned in the charter. 16:32:23 ... whole issue around n-triples and their extension is not in the charter either. 16:32:37 zakim, who is talking? 16:32:49 sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: gavinc (70%), Ivan (8%) 16:33:02 Gavin: charter speaks of revising existing notes and other parts of RDF 16:33:22 Ivan: yes, it talks of that on the edge. but rdf-tuples is not in the charter. 16:33:35 ... n-triples could be squeezed a little bit. 16:33:49 +q 16:34:07 ack ivan 16:34:33 Ivan: strictly speaking the charter may exclude super-turtle. 16:34:42 q+ 16:34:54 ack gavin 16:35:10 ... charter says standardize turtle and add graph support. doesn't include extensions beyond graph support. 16:35:44 ack samdro 16:35:51 Gavin: n-turtle and quads on list because they could use the additional symbol. 16:35:52 ack sandro 16:35:54 ack sandro 16:36:00 +1 to standardize tokens 16:36:10 q+ 16:36:19 reverse paths are only in the pattern side 16:36:19 Sandro: don't think standardized turtle excludes things like reverse paths in sparql 1.1. 16:36:26 q- 16:36:27 not in CONSTRUCT { } for e.g. 16:36:28 q+ 16:36:29 Ivan: sparql 1.1 doesn't include reverse paths. 16:36:37 Not in INSERT DATA {} 16:36:46 or CONSTRUCT 16:36:52 ack AxelPolleres 16:36:54 q+ 16:37:02 Axel: reverse paths are in sparql 1.1. 16:37:18 Sandro: not an insert or construct. they are sort of there and not there. 16:37:23 ack cygri 16:37:23 ack cygri 16:38:21 Richard:charter items:syntax to support multiple graphs. may be sufficient to support quads. that's how it was introduced into discussion. 16:39:17 Guus: at F2F need to focus on quads issue. and what kind of documents can be produced for the discussion. suggestions for actions to be taken here? 16:39:47 Daivid: what about a survey on what direction the group wants to take. 16:39:50 wonders what the dependency of quad serialisation in the turtle task force is on the graphs task force ? 16:40:11 Guus: have already had these discussions. would make more sense to summarize the ideas. 16:40:16 q+ 16:40:20 s/Daivid/Manu/ 16:40:23 ... or is that not true. 16:40:24 zakim, unmute me 16:40:24 mischat should no longer be muted 16:40:48 q? 16:40:50 Mischat: there's a massive dependancy on what comes out of graphs task force. 16:40:54 q+ 16:40:58 ack mischat 16:41:01 ... how do people fel about that. 16:41:03 zakim, mute me 16:41:03 mischat should now be muted 16:41:11 ok 16:41:17 "restore" creeps into dataset publishing. 16:41:22 Guus: possible alternative route: at F2F just focus on turtle. 16:41:23 ack sandro 16:41:51 Sandro: find it hard to think of grpah issue in isolation. thinking about in context of turtle (or somtehing) would be useful. 16:41:59 +1 to sandro 16:42:01 +! to sandro 16:42:03 +1 16:42:05 +1 to sandro 16:42:05 and that turtle is just turtle? 16:42:08 ... suggesting that the turtle issue may be handled by graph tf instead. 16:42:09 +1 though 16:42:11 +1 to sandro 16:42:16 +1 cannot handle in isolation 16:42:17 +1 16:42:22 +1 16:42:37 Start with TriG 16:42:48 yes, trig example 3 is good 16:42:48 Guus: could there be a strawman proposal for what qurtle could look like on table at F2F? 16:43:07 do we need both TriG and N-quads ? 16:43:11 Sandro: suggests using name trig instead of qurtle. 16:43:27 Yes. 16:43:32 people use turtle and n-triples 16:43:33 mischat: parsing performance? 16:43:34 so, yes 16:43:35 Guus: do we need both TriG and N-Quads? 16:43:52 q+ 16:43:54 ... should we follow Sandro's suggestion for using TriG as strawman proposal? 16:43:58 ack mischat 16:44:04 (that was Andy's suggestion I was seconding) 16:44:15 I don't see the harm in having both. I haven't seen any significant cost to the community from having both N-triples and turtle 16:44:37 And there is significant benifit 16:44:52 ACTION: mischat to make a survey on what serializations triple stores use in the wild 16:44:52 Created ACTION-19 - Make a survey on what serializations triple stores use in the wild [on Mischa Tuffield - due 2011-03-16]. 16:44:53 Mischat: happy to go through existing implementations of data stores and n-quads. 16:45:00 gavin, yup 16:45:22 We use N-Triples quite a bit and planning to support N-Quads as well 16:45:24 q+ 16:45:37 Guus: would a document on turtle have an appendix on how to hande graphs? or a separate doc? 16:45:51 ... separate doc makes extra doc harder to use. 16:45:56 ack AndyS 16:46:04 and if you publish quads, i need a quint store, (recurse up to RDBMS) 16:46:06 Sandro: if soemone is focused just on Turtle a smaller doc is better. 16:46:16 q+ 16:46:40 AndyS: would suggest a single doc. if TriG doc is free standing there would be a lot that would have to be copied over. 16:46:42 could be 3 docs + a grammar doc 16:47:12 happy for SteveH suggestion as well. One technical doc. 16:47:18 confirm? so more-than-turtle is now part of Graphs-TF, or still Turtle TF (is turtle tf, just for "turtle" as we have it now or)? 16:47:21 Richard: seconds Andy's statement. add n-triples to grammar. additions would probably be quite low. so vote for a single doc. 16:47:28 danbri has joined #rdf-wg 16:47:34 Guus: let's have this as a dicsussion point at F2F. 16:48:02 David: is "more than turtle" part of Graph TF? 16:48:16 Sandro: if it relates to graph additions then yes. 16:48:28 s/David/Nathan/ 16:48:36 Guus: so TriG will be part of Graph TF discussions. 16:48:47 Topic: JSON TF 16:48:57 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-JSON#Questions_to_Contemplate 16:49:02 Manu: started with list of questions. 16:49:12 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-JSON#RDF_in_JSON_Use_Cases 16:49:13 ... morphed into a set of preliminary use cases. 16:49:31 ... if ou can think of a use case that's not here please add it. 16:49:50 ... change into a set of rdf/json design requirements. 16:50:06 s/change/changed/ 16:50:24 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-JSON#RDF_in_JSON_Design_Requirements 16:50:43 Guus: the answers to the questions seem to be divided into two groups. 16:51:01 ... those in favor of user-friendly and whose for machine friendly approach. 16:51:19 Manu: some confusion due to my statement of questions. 16:51:29 I think the an ?s ?p ?o syntax -can- be simpler to explain and use then a complicated "Easy" to use syntax. N-Triples vs. RDF/XML ;) 16:51:32 ... maybe better to talk about use cases first. 16:51:52 Guus: for the F2F the main goal will be to decide which of the two approaches should be the major one. 16:52:02 Manu: I believe that is the case. 16:52:15 ... should there be two serializations or just one. 16:52:27 ... some people pushing for machine readable version. 16:52:28 q+ 16:52:42 ... some people argue there's not enough time to do both. 16:53:03 Guus: fro chairs perspective you will have a strong push to do only one. 16:53:27 ack cygri 16:53:29 q+ 16:53:32 -mischat 16:53:35 Richard: assuming we do one syntax, should it be human friendly, or should it be machine friendly, or should it be a compromise? 16:53:38 +q 16:53:44 ack ivan 16:53:45 ... which of those to work on is the main question at the moment. 16:54:22 Ivan: I asked on the mailing list but didn't get answer the question of what are the communities we are targeting. 16:54:40 there are two strong camps in this wg for one, and for two serializations. 16:54:44 ... not of interest to traditional RDF communities. they are perfectly happy with turtle and won't use JSON. 16:54:47 +1 to Ivan - RDF in JSON serialization is /not/ for those that are using RDF today w/ RDF/XML and TURTLE 16:54:52 -q 16:54:53 +1 16:55:08 Some of us are using RDF today with JSON though 16:55:09 [chair hat off]: i disagree with Ivan, we do a lot with JSON in our applications 16:55:13 Ivan: I disagree - parsing JSON is super fast in PHP 16:55:13 ... the other community is not well represented in this group. 16:55:27 Ivan: don't need to write a 'new' parser 16:55:35 Manu: what I intended with the machine-friendly/human-friendly question. 16:55:42 q? 16:55:42 q+ 16:55:45 i consider myself part of this "other community" ;-) 16:55:47 NickH, +1, it's most useful for js environments too (as in node/rhino etc) 16:55:56 [chair hat off] I have come to see use cases for both developers and Web authors as separate requirements. 16:55:59 +q 16:56:02 ... with machine serialization you transform the rdf in to a json structure and you're don. 16:56:16 I agree with Guus - the main reason I see for working with JSON here is to allow JSON stuff to feed into RDF (which I am already using) 16:56:25 That was my understanding of machine-serialization. Speaks to : "goal is to provide an RDF serialization as complete as possible" 16:56:36 with human friednly it's more along line of json-ld. 16:56:41 mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg 16:56:48 machine-friendly serialization is *easy*. Human-friendly is not. 16:56:57 +1 to andy 16:57:08 +1 to davidwood 16:57:08 ... with machine friendly don't care how humans will use it. with human friendly you expect users to use data like they use it today. 16:57:28 ... expect things to map to associative arrays. can use things without a heavy api. 16:57:39 q? 16:57:48 +[IPcaller] 16:57:57 ack pchampin 16:58:02 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 16:58:06 +mischat; got it 16:58:09 zakim, mute me 16:58:10 mischat should now be muted 16:58:29 Webr3: probably I have with RDF serialization. JSON is both human and machine friendly. 16:58:44 s/Web3/pchampin/ 16:58:47 q? 16:58:59 ... rdf is very different. the underlining data structure are very different from the documents. 16:59:18 maybe rename? "json developer friendly" and "j-triples++" 16:59:30 ... I like Andy's proposal to let program to handle JSON as usual without having to parse it into a real graph structure. 16:59:35 +1 to "rdf goggles" 16:59:41 ack gavin 16:59:46 ack gavin 17:00:38 +inf to the madness of RDF/XML 17:00:53 +1 to gavin! 17:01:05 gavin, it was my understanding that human friendly meant simple kv objects that can be used without an api - not "to write easily" 17:01:21 GavinL making it human friendly make is easier to author. have a problem with the term "friendly" as applied here -- neither one seems very friendly. 17:01:44 Sure, but RDF JSON is "simple" KV objects... that happen to be triples rather then more complicated data struture 17:01:54 Manu: some people want to translate data in JSON. some would like data to be immediately usable in a JS program. 17:02:07 gavin: "human friendly" made RDF/XML hostile for both humans and other machines 17:02:19 My worry is the "human friendly" is unclear. App task seems to influence the friendliness approach. So TF is quite a lot of work (life of WG), a lot of WG energy. Happy is doable but I'm doubtful. 17:02:29 ... if that division exists, we have quite a bit of talking to do to come to consensus. 17:02:30 gavin, something you can do obj.name, obj.age - rather than.. well working w/ triples 17:02:34 s/is doable/if doable/ 17:02:34 +1 for sandro's view that there're 2 camps 17:02:45 s/sandro/manu/ 17:02:54 I agree about the "2 camps" view 17:03:01 I'm in the "interested in serializing triples to JSON" camp, but in fairness I'm also not terribly worried about the need for a standard here. 17:03:19 +1 to LeeF 17:03:27 gavin, well, it wouldn't be RDF.. it would be simple objects w/ a subject - or just some rdf goggles 17:03:32 +1 to the concern about ending up with something like RDF/XML 17:03:42 RDFa works great :D 17:03:44 LeeF, module MIME registration. Good to know format of incoming. 17:03:47 sorry, thanks for the correction, ivan 17:03:55 But looks like triples in the end? 17:03:55 LeeF, yes, modulo MIME registration. Good to know format of incoming. 17:04:05 Manu: in RDFa would have a tree and set properties from the subject. 17:04:27 webr3++ 17:04:29 ... we seem to think that think about triples is easy but the rest of the world thinks about objects. 17:04:39 -mischat 17:04:57 q+ 17:04:59 ... objets have key-vaue pairs. they map to triples but users don't see the mapping. 17:05:09 ack ivan 17:05:24 Ivan: you seem to have jumped to a conclusion too quickly. 17:05:36 ... the reason for the problem in acceptance is not the fact you have triples. 17:05:37 mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg 17:05:46 Triples aren't hard. English majors get them in 15-20 minutes ;) 17:05:51 The "natural" format is the graph, not triples nor quads nor XML nor JSON, etc. Let's not confuse serialization syntax with the graph. 17:05:52 we should try to think json/objects, and less semantic web 17:05:58 .. rather the dominating syntax (RDF-XML) made it very difficult to see that there are triples. 17:06:00 I disagree it hasn't worked. RDF is not a substitution for something else. 17:06:13 q+ to speak to triples. 17:06:24 ack manu 17:06:24 manu, you wanted to speak to triples. 17:06:49 Manu: why are we trying to convince people to use triples when they are already comfortable with objects and JSON? 17:06:51 @Ivan: I agree about the problem coming partly from RDF/XML 17:07:05 but my experience is that some people also have difficulties accepting *triples* 17:07:06 'cause objects suck at linking? 17:07:09 q+ 17:07:18 ...we shouldn't be trying to retrain the world in how they express their data. 17:07:23 +1 to Manu. Objects are *most appropriate* for UIs. 17:07:31 ack cygri 17:07:39 manu, yes, but that means /not/ changing their current data - so would be more of a data transformation map 17:08:05 Maybe we need JSON RDF Syntax and JSON GRDDL? 17:08:06 Richard: take this with a grain of salt. you could make the same argument for designing rdf-xml the way it was deisgned. 17:08:17 ... some people naturally think in trees. 17:08:19 q+ to discuss HTML+RDFa and why it was successful. 17:08:42 ... danger if we say let's just treat everything as objects and somehow we'll get out our triples. 17:08:59 ack manu 17:08:59 manu, you wanted to discuss HTML+RDFa and why it was successful. 17:09:01 ... why shouldn't I be concerned with this rdf-xml trap? 17:09:25 q+ 17:09:29 Manu: RDFa was successful because we built it on top of html. 17:09:36 RDF/XML is was very widely used too, it's just not liked 17:09:40 RSS1 for e.g. 17:09:46 I don't agree that RDFa was more successful than RDF/XML. 17:09:49 q+ 17:09:56 ... was very hard to sell rdf-xml to the world. rdfa was easy to sell. not sure why this was the case. 17:09:58 ack tomayac 17:10:08 Thomas: triples are not that hard. 17:10:14 Real data is published in N-Triples. Semi :-) 17:10:25 triples are pretty easy... triples + datatypes + languages + blank nodes + URIs are harder :-) 17:10:45 ... we at Google are seeing that once people see that the data is just triples they realize that it's not that hard. 17:10:53 +1 lee and the model stuff as graph 17:10:58 q- 17:11:30 ... my point is that for the rdf-json serialization we can think triples. let's not limit ourselves and not hide the fact that it is rdf. it is triples, nothing more nothing less. 17:11:53 Sandro: I'm wondering if there's candidate syntax that does what you're asking for? 17:12:52 Thomas: haven't read them all. elements of some do. trying to reach a compromise I think we can come up with a bridge between the camps and the development communities. 17:13:18 Manu: would it help to go through some of the design requirements? 17:13:46 can anybody hear me? 17:13:58 I do hope to make progress on this ftf. Some things are just easier that way. 17:14:01 - 17:14:04 Guus: no :( 17:14:19 Thomas: this should be something to discuss at F2F. Some of you have been here for over 10 years some like me have been here for like 1 year or so. we should get together and try to be objective. 17:14:26 -Guus 17:14:35 I see Turtle as object-ish but linking is first class. JSON only has strings. 17:14:46 excellent point AndyS 17:14:53 +1 Andy 17:14:56 David: in the interst of time we should leave this topic. this can be done at the F2F. 17:14:59 i see TriG as objectish -- takes a bunch of triples and puts them into a single bucket == object! :-) 17:15:00 +1 AndyS 17:15:01 Topic: Graphs 17:15:02 +Guus_Schreiber 17:15:21 -SteveH 17:15:30 -AndyS 17:15:41 Guus: we at the 75 minute mark and have to stop. 17:16:00 ... I suggest we end here and leave the other items to next time. 17:16:01 -Dieter 17:16:09 -NickH 17:16:16 dfensel6 has left #rdf-wg 17:16:23 take care, all. 17:16:25 -Souri 17:16:27 -mbrunati 17:16:27 zakim, drop me 17:16:27 AxelPolleres has left #rdf-wg 17:16:28 bye, take care 17:16:28 Ivan is being disconnected 17:16:28 -Ivan 17:16:30 -cygri 17:16:30 -davidwood 17:16:32 -manu 17:16:32 bye 17:16:32 -AlexHall 17:16:33 ok, thanks 17:16:33 -LeeF 17:16:34 -Sandro 17:16:35 bye 17:16:36 -Guus_Schreiber 17:16:37 AlexHall has left #rdf-wg 17:16:38 -gavinc 17:16:40 -Azimmerm 17:16:42 -Dzung_Tran? 17:16:44 -Scott_Bauer 17:16:48 -JeanFrancois 17:16:50 -Peter_Patel-Schneider 17:16:53 -AxelPolleres 17:16:53 bye 17:16:54 -[IPcaller.a] 17:16:55 AndyS, on big calls people get kicked randomly when zakim wants more lines 17:16:56 -zwu2 17:16:58 -pchampin 17:17:06 -??P18 17:17:06 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended 17:17:08 Attendees were Scott_Bauer, Dieter, Guus, Azimmerm, AlexHall, LeeF, Sandro, zwu2, cygri, AndyS, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Ivan, gavinc, JeanFrancois, AxelPolleres, davidwood, 17:17:11 ... pchampin, manu, +1.404.978.aaaa, mbrunati, Souri, NickH, mischat, SteveH, Guus_Schreiber 17:22:25 SteveH, oh. 17:23:53 AndyS, happend in SPARQL v1 a lot at the start, on end of conf call 17:25:52 mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg 17:27:00 quit 18:13:38 AndyS has joined #rdf-wg 19:05:09 cygri has joined #rdf-wg 19:23:44 Zakim has left #rdf-wg 19:31:49 danbri has joined #rdf-wg 20:00:17 SteveH has joined #rdf-wg 20:02:09 AndyS has joined #rdf-wg 20:33:37 AndyS has joined #rdf-wg 20:34:37 danbri has joined #rdf-wg 20:36:39 danbri has joined #rdf-wg 21:57:49 danbri_ has joined #rdf-wg 22:10:53 AndyS has joined #rdf-wg