07:56:20 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 07:56:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/13-rdf-wg-irc 07:56:25 Mmm... 1 am is in fact morning I guess ;) 07:56:27 rrsagent, set log public 07:56:44 gavinc: just a minute, we will dial in soonish 07:56:50 + +1.404.978.aabb 07:57:19 zakim, aabb is me 07:57:19 +tomayac; got it 07:57:35 Guus has joined #rdf-wg 07:59:54 OlivierCorby has joined #rdf-wg 08:01:56 pgroth has joined #rdf-wg 08:03:13 davidwood has joined #rdf-wg 08:05:31 + +31.20.592.aacc 08:05:54 zakim, who is here? 08:05:54 On the phone I see gavinc, tomayac, +31.20.592.aacc 08:05:55 zakim, who is on the call? 08:05:56 On the phone I see gavinc, tomayac, +31.20.592.aacc 08:06:11 AZ has joined #rdf-wg 08:06:35 Hello 08:06:50 Introductions 08:06:51 Ivan Herman 08:06:54 Mischa 08:06:57 Dan Brickley 08:07:03 Chris 08:07:10 Paul Groth (guest) 08:07:15 PFPS 08:07:23 Jan W. 08:07:30 Jean Paul Inria 08:07:34 Nick Humphrer 08:07:37 Yves 08:07:44 davidwood has joined #rdf-wg 08:07:47 Cygri 08:07:47 + +33.4.92.38.aadd 08:07:57 Pierre-Antoin 08:08:00 Fabien 08:08:05 Steve Harris 08:08:05 zakim, aadd is me 08:08:05 +OlivierCorby; got it 08:08:10 s/Antoin/Antoine/ 08:08:19 Bonati 08:08:21 Sandro 08:08:28 Sandro Hawke 08:08:33 David Wood 08:08:36 Guus 08:09:13 + +1.760.705.aaee 08:09:24 zakim, +1.760.705.aaee is me 08:09:24 +AZ; got it 08:09:28 zakim, who is here? 08:09:28 On the phone I see gavinc, tomayac, +31.20.592.aacc, OlivierCorby, AZ 08:09:47 AZ, you're a bit loud 08:09:55 zakim, mute me 08:09:55 AZ should now be muted 08:10:01 zakim, aacc is ivan 08:10:01 +ivan; got it 08:10:03 zakim, aacc is CWI 08:10:03 sorry, pfps, I do not recognize a party named 'aacc' 08:10:25 zakim, ivan is Meeting_Room 08:10:25 +Meeting_Room; got it 08:10:53 Scribe: mischat 08:11:00 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F1 08:11:27 zakim, who is here? 08:11:27 On the phone I see gavinc, tomayac, Meeting_Room, OlivierCorby, AZ (muted) 08:11:55 Guus: are we happy with the agenda ? 08:12:11 Guus: does anything need to be amended? 08:12:46 so thomas is not here so Marco (?!?) will be giving the json roundup 08:12:54 s/^so/as/ 08:13:20 s/marco/matteo/ 08:13:38 thanks 08:17:27 raphael has joined #rdf-wg 08:18:23 is everyone physically at CWI turning up to dinner tonight ? 08:18:26 if not shout ... 08:18:54 mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg 08:19:02 anyone for agenda changes ? 08:19:16 we are looking at this now 08:19:16 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F1-objectives 08:19:26 ^^ are the objectives for this f2f 08:19:57 Guus: this f2f to move us from an open discussion to a more targeted effort 08:20:24 we are looking to get documents in place 08:21:02 from now on we should have our long threads turn into something tangible and useful for the process 08:21:33 we are now looking to identify starting documents for the various tasks 08:21:50 Guus: would like to have names against the various documents, so that we can push work forward 08:21:59 Graph's tasks force 08:22:40 we have some standard terminology now in terms of GraphTerminology 08:23:11 Guus: another issues is the alignment with the SPARQL work 08:23:26 http://plixi.com/p/92009392 08:24:03 Guus: so what will be the starting document for the GRaphs TF, should it be the RDF concepts 08:24:05 ? 08:24:19 that is the current feeling, and these are things which we need to discuss 08:24:38 thanks, NickH for the photo :-) 08:25:18 Guus: we have some cleanup tasks, and there are discussions needed to identify what changes need to happen to the various RDF documents 08:25:48 Guus: we seem to have a good grasp of the issues, re: a good issue list has been developed 08:25:59 Guus: do people think we have a good grasp of the problem domain ? 08:26:04 question for the room ^^ 08:26:30 for ecah identifier we define (e.g. g-box identifiers) we should also discuss what happens when we dereference that identifier (e.g. what do I get when I dereference the IRI of g-box? triples in the g-box? triples about g-box? both) 08:27:57 - moving on to discussing turtle 08:28:03 Guus: for TURTLE starting point is the doc from team submission 08:28:56 Guss: N-triple considered as a limited sub-set of Turtle 08:29:04 mischat has joined #rdf-wg 08:29:07 zakim, who is here? 08:29:07 On the phone I see gavinc, tomayac, Meeting_Room, OlivierCorby, AZ (muted) 08:29:22 pchampin: very impressive! 08:30:16 zakim, Meeting_Room has David Wood, Sandro, Mateo, Steve Harris, Fabien, Pierre Antoine, Cygri, Yves, Nick, Jean-François, Jan, PFPS, Paul Groth, Chris Matheus, Dan Brickley, Misha Tuffield, Ivan 08:30:16 +David, Wood, Sandro, Mateo, Steve, Harris, Fabien, Pierre, Antoine, Cygri, Yves, Nick, Jean-François, Jan, PFPS, Paul, Groth, Chris, Matheus, Dan, Brickley, Misha, Tuffield, 08:30:20 ... Ivan; got it 08:30:35 JSON, we have documents to start from, in terms of the Talis submission 08:30:47 if we're not able to standardise object-based json, can we at least standardise a canonical mapping from an rdf graph to some straight-fw json? 08:31:14 daveWood: just asked about Talis submitting a member submission 08:31:48 Guus: it is important to figure out what is achievable in terms of work in the JSON TF 08:32:31 danbri: JSON developers learn new formats all the time 08:33:04 danbri: we can get it wrong, and push out three syntaxes, and we will get it right eventually 08:33:47 in the JSON TF, we need to elicit what our objectives should be 08:34:07 if we develop more than one syntax then we will have doubled the work 08:34:18 ivan: asked about cleanup related actions 08:34:26 Guus: there is time set aside for that tomorrow 08:34:51 Guus: has no idea how much work the cleanup will be 08:35:35 ivan there are a bunch of small issues, URIRef vs IRI 08:35:42 ivan: following discussion on the ML, we need to agree on what 'deprecation' means for this WG 08:36:00 (audio no longer understandable on the US no. anyone else on the phone have this issue, too?) 08:36:04 ivan: the meta-issue regarding "deprecation" should be discussed and sorted out here at the f2f 08:36:33 the issue will be tackled tomorrow, but we are going to try and touch upon it now 08:36:34 for 20 mins 08:37:12 q? 08:37:17 so lunch at somepoint between 12:30-13:00 central european summer time 08:37:46 davewood: re: turtle, dave wants to know what standardised will be developed by tthe WG 08:37:56 (audio back to normal. phew) 08:38:26 Danbri has joined #rdf-wg 08:38:27 i.e. we will have turtle, will we have qturtle, trig, or what combination of serialisations will we develop 08:39:12 sandro FTW! thanks! 08:39:15 peter: question should we have Qturtle, or turtle, should one be a superset ? 08:39:37 so dave would like to see issue sorted out 08:40:00 SteveH: said we could have one document which lists all of the turtle(related) serialisations 08:40:16 sounds like a great idea to me 08:40:31 Dave's goal for the f2f is to nail the turtle work 08:40:48 so we have clear goals, turtle work seems to be the most advanced 08:41:27 danbri, we have a big archive "www rdf comments", will someone go through the archives 08:41:38 where we have had lots of feedback from people about RDF 08:42:27 sandro, i up-scale it client-side, works perfect for me. thanks! 08:42:31 davidwood has joined #rdf-wg 08:43:24 http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#/%23futures - historical RDF issues 08:43:35 we are going to move on to the Graph's discussion, if we are happy with the objectives ? 08:43:59 Richard is about to give some slides summarising the graphs work 08:44:28 danbri has joined #rdf-wg 08:44:52 there are some slides on the wiki for richard's talk 08:44:56 slides: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/images/3/3b/Rdfwg-graphs-tf-report.pdf 08:45:48 cygri: will talk about the "problem", the "open issues", and will give us a view of other potential issues 08:46:17 the charter says we must standardising a model for multiple graphs 08:47:06 the charter also states that we must standardise turtle and a something similar with multi graph support 08:47:34 a decision was made for the turtle to focus on syntax and the graphs tf can look at extending turtle 08:48:16 It's *turqle*!!! 08:48:21 davidwood: missed the call where the work of putting in mutlli graph support to turtle should be a task for the graphs tf 08:49:01 Guus: turtle tf can talk about the syntax, but the graphs tf will inform what the multi graph syntax should represent 08:49:21 cygri: is listing inputs to the graphs tf 08:49:37 sparql's rdf dataset: ( and sparql update's graph store) 08:49:42 being one 08:49:50 Carroll et al " Named Graphs 08:49:56 Notation3: quoted graphs 08:50:36 I disagree with the idea that "named graphs" in RDF/XML should be only "if time permits", for me it's a must 08:50:49 n3 allows for nesting, and quoting graphs, the n3 work should definitely inform the named graphs tf 08:51:10 FabGandon: any modification to RDF/XML is time permitting 08:51:15 Trig, and Nquads should help inform any syntax discussions 08:51:48 cygri: also FabGandon has request to add named graph support to RDF/XML (like trix) 08:52:06 Reification was mentioned as an input 08:52:14 and finally Typed graph literals 08:53:05 cygri: is pointing to a wiki page which has the named graph use-cases 08:53:13 david: Can we just view Reificiation as a way to address named graphs, and once we do that, we can more cleanly deprecate reification? 08:53:48 which is broken down into the following : 5 storage use cases, 2 query use cases, 8 provenance, 4 use for standard foundation for w3c specs, 2 advanced annotations use case 08:54:17 cygri: stated how we dont seem to be using the use-case we have in many of the discussion 08:54:25 we have lots of use-cases, they should be used 08:54:33 we have a bunch of proposals in this space 08:55:06 we have 2 concrete proposal in this space so far 08:55:10 sandro, small is good enough for me. 08:55:25 cygri: there are implied proposals 08:55:50 i.e. that n3's style quoted graphs may be more useful than the RDF dataset stuff 08:56:07 cygri: is walking through the issues 08:56:15 issue-5 : graph literals 08:56:32 issue-5 asks where we should have graph literals 08:56:57 s/where/whether/ 08:57:16 issue-14 : what is a named graph and what should we call it ? 08:57:43 these include : Named Graph, named g-box ?, g-pair, or even IRI-graph-binding 08:58:27 ivan: would have liked to have seen a slide on "g-*" syntax 08:58:47 so that we can have agreement on what the terms are 08:59:26 depends on how we quoted it ;) 08:59:56 Guus: we need to come up with decent names for the g-* terminology, Guus personal opinion is that we need to make sure we dont use the overloaded term "graph" without qualifying it 09:00:18 we need to make sure that we all agree on what the various g-* terminology is 09:01:17 pgroth: said that Luc Moreau Provenance WG has given feedback on the g-* syntax 09:01:24 see mischat's email to the list ^^ 09:01:38 issue-15 : "g-pair" semantics 09:01:53 we have a couple of options re: this issue 09:02:06 1: Leave it undefined (abstract syntax only) 09:02:13 + +1.408.642.aaff 09:02:14 2: or we could define it 09:02:25 q? 09:02:44 q? 09:02:59 zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 09:02:59 cygri: "is a person a g-box?" 09:03:06 there are issues there re: scoping the terminologies used 09:03:10 zakim, mute me 09:03:10 sorry, zwu2, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 09:03:50 zakim, +408.642.aaff is zwu2 09:03:50 sorry, zwu2, I do not recognize a party named '+408.642.aaff' 09:03:57 +OlivierCorby.a 09:04:04 zakim, aaff is zwu2 09:04:04 +zwu2; got it 09:04:10 thanks ivan 09:04:14 issue-17: graph merging 09:04:14 ISSUE-17 How are RDF datasets to be merged? notes added 09:04:18 zakim, mute me 09:04:18 zwu2 should now be muted 09:04:20 in n3, there is a property in between the graph and the IRI, which makes that relationship explicit 09:04:24 there are issues re: blank nodes and merging 09:04:34 and what would happen when merging graph datasets 09:05:20 Guus: thinks that the main issue with extending RDF Semantics will be re: RDF merge, and posed as a question to peter 09:05:47 peter doesn't know what exactly what is needed, sparql has a notion of graph merge 09:06:00 ivan: we are informally bound by what sparql does 09:06:21 Danbri has joined #rdf-wg 09:06:25 Guus: we should make sure that sparql and rdf align 09:06:47 issue-21 : sharing Node IDs 09:07:06 nodeId being bnode identifer 09:08:12 cygri: the issue talks about the same bnode identifier in a quad based a trig file, how are the bnodes to be scoped ? 09:10:14 davidwood: thinks that we are going to be making strong statements about scoping bnodes and pushing it up to the RDF standards, but we should make sure that what we do doesn't break implementations 09:11:23 issue-22 (empty graph) 09:11:53 the issue is asking what we should be doing in terms of multi-graph support and empty graphs 09:12:05 trig, nquads, and sparql all do something different 09:12:13 issue-23 (multigraph media types) 09:13:00 the issue asks whether we should change mime-types if we add graphs to existing serialisations 09:13:16 q+ to ask (no rush) re graph literal datatypes, whether a media types-as-Uris would be better than just defining our own for rdf syntaxes 09:13:43 issues: discussion volume : Graph Literals was the most talked about issue in the named graph tf 09:14:00 davidwood: asked about consensus re: graph literals 09:14:47 cygri: candidate issues : Do we need nesting of graphs ? 09:15:16 what is "nesting of graphs" ? 09:15:22 could we have an example 09:15:42 cygri: thinks that is would be hard to do without the graph literals 09:15:56 ivan: essentially this is a syntax issue 09:17:04 in the nested graph, or graph literals dont need to have a named graph 09:17:59 we are about to create a new issue 09:18:32 cygri: we don't know that the question is right now 09:19:07 +OlivierCorby.aa 09:19:10 yvesr: states we need to have use-cases for the "nesting of graphs" 09:19:37 danbri: wonders whether it is a syntax question 09:20:17 ISSUE: Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3? 09:20:18 Created ISSUE-28 - Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/28/edit . 09:20:25 SteveH: thinks that it would be a syntax issue only if graphs with nesting could be serialised into some non-nesting serialisation such as turtle 09:21:15 davidwood: an open-issue re: how do we refer to graphs 09:21:38 cygri: asked how do you name a graph 09:21:40 Of course we could nest multiple-graphs too ("here are the quads I downloaded from .... Yesterday") 09:22:07 cygri: goes back to issue-15 and asks whether that covers dave's issue 09:22:43 cygri: next proposed issue, do we need a "default graph" ? 09:23:02 do we need to align with sparql, but we definitely need to define what a default graph is 09:23:33 (default graph for The Web? :) 09:24:20 davidwood: believes that AndyS's point re: "default graph" is that we should not be throwing away early thinking in terms of allowing people to define their own notion of default graph 09:25:19 Guus: two important alignment issues with SPARQL, how do RDF datasets related to g-boxes and more specifically what is the relation between SPARQL's default graph and default graphs in RDF 09:26:00 davidwood has joined #rdf-wg 09:26:06 Guus and cygri would like an issue with alignment default graph from sparql 09:26:24 peter would argue against the default graph 09:26:49 q? 09:26:56 ack Danbri 09:26:56 Danbri, you wanted to ask (no rush) re graph literal datatypes, whether a media types-as-Uris would be better than just defining our own for rdf syntaxes 09:27:14 danbri: what would count towards to qualifying a triplestore dump in terms of default graph 09:27:41 steve: the SPARQL WG has backed itself into a corner wrt defaults. 09:27:56 pfps: give it a name, but throw the name away when you're done 09:27:57 SteveH: says that the sparql group doesn't have a set resolution for this stuff 09:28:35 hey sandro, after the end of this discussion am I allowed to raise issues as an observer? 09:28:40 or anybody 09:28:43 q? 09:28:48 cygri thinks there should be a relation between sparql's dataset, default graph 09:29:00 ISSUE: Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? 09:29:00 Created ISSUE-29 - Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/29/edit . 09:29:26 ISSUE: How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? 09:29:27 Created ISSUE-30 - How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/30/edit . 09:29:46 Davidwood, zakim had an earlier q queued from me re graph literals - happy to defer if this is wrong point for it 09:29:47 two separate issues : 'Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"', and how does 'How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs'? 09:30:02 cygri: asks do we NEED a concrete syntax for multi-graphs 09:30:41 cygri: says that the charter talks about lots of syntax related work, does this need to be pushed upstream and do we need to standardise this concrete syntax 09:30:47 +OlivierCorby.aaa 09:30:58 Danbri: Please cover that when the list of candidate issues has been cleared, but before we move onto a new topic. 09:31:24 Fx 09:31:27 Er 09:31:29 Tx 09:31:46 ISSUE: Do we produce a standard (REC) syntax for conveying multiple graphs? 09:31:46 Created ISSUE-31 - Do we produce a standard (REC) syntax for conveying multiple graphs? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/31/edit . 09:31:52 SteveH: asks where should this work be standardised 09:32:23 danbri_ has joined #rdf-wg 09:32:54 cygri: asks whether the potential Reification deprecation should live in the cleanup tasks, or should it be in the graph's TF 09:33:42 ivan: and sandro think that the reification cleanup will be scoped out properly depending on the outcomes of the graphs tf 09:34:00 cygri: now lists the minimal work to get to what the charter states 09:34:26 1. Lift SPARQL's RDF Dataset into RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax 09:34:48 2. Evaluate additional possible features based on use cases 09:35:02 3 Do not define a concrete syntax 09:35:18 4 If we MUST have a concrete syntax standardize N-Quads 09:35:33 5 Avoid multigraphs in RDF/XML, JSON, Turtle, and rdfa 09:35:42 I would like to raise the following three issues, if I'm allowed: 09:36:08 1) Can g-snaps be identified? 09:36:19 like the N-quad idea 09:37:13 2) can the working group define which kinds of graphs are considered a resource 09:38:11 danbri: has a question re: graph literals, maintenance, and what you would have to do. Would you require to mint a new URI for each media-type to support graph literals, danbri wonders whether we would just be recreating the mime-type registry 09:39:11 q+ to ask what form of advice we ought to be offering to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdfa-wg-charter.html 09:39:17 Scribe: pfps 09:39:57 Guus: can we work in the issue list? 09:40:00 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/1 09:40:36 pgroth: what about identification of all the various g-strings? 09:40:41 pgroth: Can g-snaps be identifies or just g-boxes? 09:40:43 q+ to talk about concrete syntax and use cases and RDF/XML 09:40:53 pgroth: is talking about this issue, which i forwared to the list : http://www.w3.org/mid/26C7BD9A-B3D9-45BD-984F-8D302C52F164@garlik.com 09:41:39 cygri: this depends on the relationship between an IRI and the "graph" 09:41:46 (re URIs for mediatypes, see prev discussion http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2011Mar/0006.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2011Mar/0002.html ) 09:41:53 cygri: graph literal is one way to do that. another is that maybe with named graphs is iris identifiy g-snaos. another is immutable g-boxes. 09:41:58 cygri: does the IRI refer to the g-box or the g-snap, or whatever 09:42:38 pgroth: Provenance WG happy to defer to the RDF WG for a solution, but we want something 09:42:49 sorry pchampin 1 sec 09:42:51 ISSUE: Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps? 09:42:51 Created ISSUE-32 - Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/32/edit . 09:43:09 danbri: what about using timestamps to fix the value of a changing g-box 09:43:23 q+ on the provenance WG 09:43:44 pgroth: Provenance needs a language for the provenance of resources 09:44:02 suggestion: uuid for fixing value of changing g-box rather than timestamp 09:44:10 pchampin: i sent an email to the list today, my mail headers claim this is the URI, but it 404's for me too : http://www.w3.org/mid/26C7BD9A-B3D9-45BD-984F-8D302C52F164@garlik.com <-- sorry 09:45:10 s/danbri/davidwood/ 09:45:35 pchampin: not sure I understand what "provenance of a resource" means... 09:46:15 +OlivierCorby.aaaa 09:46:18 scribe note: provenance of resources -> provenance of resources that are graphs 09:46:37 http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter <-- provenance WG charter 09:46:54 provenance of a document makes sense... provenance of a resource is harder to pin down i think 09:47:27 a g-snap being a certain kind of resource more like a document where it also makes sense... 09:47:43 pgroth: provenance graphs can be relative to a particular viewpoint - which might involve part of a particular g-snap 09:47:46 Gendor has joined #rdf-wg 09:48:04 provenance of the resource that is my cup of coffee is more complicated and probably out of scope 09:48:06 pgroth: Is there a way to select and refer to a subset of a g-snap? 09:48:16 mischat: ... or individual triples. 09:48:28 mishat: also from provenance - want to talk about particular triples 09:48:52 to talk about a particular triple is to talk about a graph of size 1, no? 09:48:56 davidwood: provenance issues can result in very many graphs (e.g., hundreds of thousands) 09:49:01 or is there a salient difference? 09:49:14 eg. https://github.com/tinkerpop/blueprints/wiki/ has per-triple annotation in a graph API 09:49:19 pgroth: yes, e.g., creating a named graph for each triple 09:50:07 ISSUE: Do we provide a way to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples? 09:50:07 Created ISSUE-33 - Do we provide a way to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/33/edit . 09:50:26 need some kind of inhertance - don't need to materialise graphs for each triple, just imply them, and they inherit the provenance information that makes sense from their super-graph 09:50:36 danbri: some (many?) graph stores allow access to things like individual triples (as graphs) 09:51:41 the example I give is https://github.com/tinkerpop/blueprints/wiki/Property-Graph-Model ...they have written adaptors for a number of graph stores- https://github.com/tinkerpop/blueprints/wiki/Implementations 09:51:53 pgroth: does the WG need an issue about individual triples as graphs, etc. 09:52:06 guus: let's wait until we determine whether it is needed 09:52:34 mischat: there are many other related issues, like signatures 09:52:39 ivan: signatures are out of scope 09:53:01 mischat: what about ordering of triples in a graph 09:53:21 ivan: syntax may provide an answer 09:53:23 graph stores that have per-edge annotation: https://github.com/tinkerpop/blueprints/wiki/Neo4j-Implementation https://github.com/tinkerpop/blueprints/wiki/OrientDB-Implementation https://github.com/tinkerpop/blueprints/wiki/Dex-Implementation 09:53:49 if signatures were in scope, defining an ordering to compute the signature would make sense, but generally there is no ordering, right? 09:54:06 sandro: the SPARQL construct can (and often does) create small graphs, including individual triples 09:54:07 rrsagent, pointer? 09:54:07 See http://www.w3.org/2011/04/13-rdf-wg-irc#T09-54-07 09:54:15 agreed, ww 09:54:31 q? 09:54:48 q? 09:54:52 davidwood: we may need to worry about distinguishing between the various g-* when naming 09:54:57 q- 09:55:08 zakim, who is here? 09:55:08 On the phone I see gavinc, tomayac, Meeting_Room, OlivierCorby, AZ (muted), zwu2 (muted), OlivierCorby.a, OlivierCorby.aa, OlivierCorby.aaa, OlivierCorby.aaaa 09:55:11 Meeting_Room has David, Wood, Sandro, Mateo, Steve, Harris, Fabien, Pierre, Antoine, Cygri, Yves, Nick, Jean-François, Jan, PFPS, Paul, Groth, Chris, Matheus, Dan, Brickley, 09:55:13 ... Misha, Tuffield, Ivan 09:55:21 per-edge annotation: actually the annotation is the predicate i think. two nodes make an edge (s,o), and the predicate labels the edge 09:55:49 maybe the graph is a second lable for the edge 09:55:59 ivan, http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdfa-wg-charter.html has ' The proposal for the group has now been accepted and the group operates under its final charter' but that link 404s 09:56:23 danbri, reload 09:56:39 ack danbri 09:56:39 danbri, you wanted to ask what form of advice we ought to be offering to http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdfa-wg-charter.html 09:56:39 pchampin: SPARQL construct is a g-text (sort of) 09:57:04 s/construct is a/construct returns a/ 09:57:10 davidwood: If you do a GET on an IRI and get a gtext, isnt that IRI naming a g-box? Well, if that IRI happens to be a SPARLQ-end-point plus SPARQL Construct Query, then you've just given a URI to a subgraph.... 09:57:28 danbri: what about RDF Web Applications group - they will make an API for RDF - what is the relationship to this WG? 09:57:42 davidwood: what about the same sparql operation with POST? 09:57:49 cygri: This hasn't been discussed yet 09:58:03 s/davidwood:/davidwood,/ 09:58:17 @david: I have no problem with considering http://../sparql@construct... as identifying a g-box 09:58:36 ivan: the API may be just a simple as "IRIs can be used to retrieve a graph" 09:58:54 ivan: RDFa has no syntactic sugar for named graphs, and probably won't go there 09:59:50 danbri: does this WG need to provide something to the RDF Applications group 09:59:56 ivan: not necessarily 10:00:29 ack FabGandon 10:00:29 FabGandon, you wanted to talk about concrete syntax and use cases and RDF/XML 10:00:42 fabien: three questions 10:00:54 fabien: 1/ I want a concrete syntax - for provenance, 10:01:14 fabien: 2/ in many applications we use RDF/XML so we want named graphs in there 10:01:44 Guus/Davidwood, cygri ... I guess implicitly we resolve something like "this group does not believe it has specific items to deliver around RDF-Graph that impact the ability of the new RDF Web apps API group to make progress" 10:02:11 guus: at Shanghai there was discussion on this, which lead to changes to the charter 10:02:51 ivan: this WG can decide whether (or not) to touch RDF/XML (probably to create a new, superset) 10:02:59 RDFAPI charter = http://www.w3.org/2011/03/rdfwa-wg-charter "RDF API, Recommendation: This document will define a generic API for managing RDF data. " 10:03:02 ivan: I don't know whether this is needed 10:03:11 guus: this might become a general issue 10:03:57 cygri: issue 23 talks to this, at least in a general sense 10:04:38 ivan: there might be other changes for RDF/XML, e.g., a schema-friendly version 10:05:18 ivan: I am afraid that changing RDF/XML would end up being a lot of effort 10:05:33 +1 10:05:48 guus: we have to consider these issues 10:06:26 fabien, can n-quad satisfy your provenance requirements? 10:06:54 Re XML -- we've had 13 or so years for the community to come up with a more beautiful XML notation for RDF. Nothing has emerged. Does anyone really think attempting that work in committee would improve things? 10:06:57 fabien: 3/ link to SPARQL construct - which produces RDF/XML, so augmenting RDF/XML might involve a link to the SPARQL WG 10:07:10 closest attempt http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Syntax.html "You can think of this syntax as Notation 2. A later syntax, Notation 3, was much more successful." 10:07:18 cygri: I don't think that there would be a link here 10:07:43 fabien: this might argue against extending RDF/XML 10:08:01 The original named graph paper Jeremy Carroll, et al... had a method of describing named graphs in RDF/XML 10:08:12