IRC log of rdf-wg on 2011-05-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:22:06 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:22:06 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:22:08 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:22:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:22:10 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
14:22:10 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 38 minutes
14:22:11 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:22:11 [trackbot]
Date: 04 May 2011
14:43:50 [OlivierCorby]
OlivierCorby has joined #rdf-wg
14:46:35 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
14:46:39 [davidwood]
Chair: David Wood
14:46:52 [davidwood]
Scribe: Thomas Steiner
14:47:30 [sandro]
mischat, yes, the MIT facility does that, but might not fit all the people who want to be local at MIT.
14:48:24 [mischat]
14:49:49 [mischat]
well at least it is an option, i wonder how many people would be at the east coast event if there was a european place to sit as well ...
14:50:24 [sandro]
Yeah, mischat, Guus was going to make a poll to find the answer to that question.
14:53:01 [gavinc]
gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
14:53:09 [gavinc]
Zakim, code?
14:53:09 [Zakim]
the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), gavinc
14:53:38 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
14:53:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.707.861.aaaa
14:53:53 [gavinc]
Zakim, aaaa is me
14:53:53 [Zakim]
+gavinc; got it
14:54:19 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:54:19 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:54:20 [Zakim]
14:54:56 [Zakim]
14:55:58 [Scott]
zakim, Tony is me
14:55:58 [Zakim]
+Scott; got it
14:56:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.404.978.aabb
14:56:30 [tomayac]
zakim, aabb is me
14:56:30 [Zakim]
+tomayac; got it
14:57:38 [Zakim]
14:57:46 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P7 is me
14:57:46 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:57:51 [Zakim]
+ +
14:58:14 [zwu2]
zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:18 [OlivierCorby]
zakim, aacc is me
14:58:18 [Zakim]
+OlivierCorby; got it
14:59:00 [mbrunati]
mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.540.898.aadd
14:59:09 [davidwood]
zakim, aadd is me
14:59:09 [Zakim]
+davidwood; got it
15:00:07 [Zakim]
15:00:08 [ericP]
Zakim, please dial ericP-office
15:00:08 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
15:00:08 [Zakim]
15:00:09 [pchampin]
pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:09 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:23 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:53 [mbrunati]
zakim, ??P10 is me
15:00:53 [Zakim]
+mbrunati; got it
15:00:54 [Zakim]
15:00:59 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:01 [cmatheus]
cmatheus has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:04 [Zakim]
15:01:05 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:07 [davidwood]
ScribeNick: tomayac
15:01:21 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:01:21 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:01:21 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:50 [Zakim]
15:01:55 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:56 [Zakim]
15:02:00 [Zakim]
15:02:02 [Zakim]
15:02:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.443.212.aaee
15:02:09 [Zakim]
15:02:15 [FabGandon]
Zakim, danield is me
15:02:15 [Zakim]
+FabGandon; got it
15:02:18 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:02:18 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:02:23 [AlexHall]
zakim, +1.443.212.aaee is me
15:02:23 [Zakim]
+AlexHall; got it
15:02:33 [ivan]
zakim, ??P17 is Pierre-Antoine
15:02:33 [Zakim]
I already had ??P17 as pchampin, ivan
15:02:49 [PatH]
PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:56 [ericP]
q+ to object to pchampin's proposal
15:03:59 [ericP]
15:04:08 [ericP]
ack me
15:04:12 [tomayac]
Proposal to accept the minutes
15:04:27 [ericP]
15:04:30 [tomayac]
15:04:36 [tomayac]
Minutes accepted.
15:04:52 [tomayac]
AI 34 overdue
15:05:01 [Zakim]
15:05:04 [davidwood]
15:05:08 [tomayac]
Done, whole heap of issues raised, see action
15:05:10 [AZ]
zakim, mute me
15:05:10 [Zakim]
sorry, AZ, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:05:11 [Zakim]
15:05:21 [ericP]
Zakim, please mute ??P29
15:05:21 [Zakim]
??P29 should now be muted
15:05:22 [mischat]
zakim, ??P29 is mischat
15:05:22 [Zakim]
+mischat; got it
15:05:36 [tomayac]
going thru issues today
15:05:41 [tomayac]
some easy, some hard
15:05:41 [mischat]
zakim, ??P29 has mischat, SteveH
15:05:41 [Zakim]
sorry, mischat, I do not recognize a party named '??P29'
15:05:51 [tomayac]
proposed to close ACTION-34
15:05:55 [SteveH]
Zakim, ??P29 is [Garlik]
15:05:55 [Zakim]
I already had ??P29 as mischat, SteveH
15:06:01 [Zakim]
15:06:02 [tomayac]
closing ACTION-34
15:06:22 [AZ]
zakim, maybe I'm Russel
15:06:22 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'maybe I'm Russel', AZ
15:06:32 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.642.aaff
15:06:39 [tomayac]
next topic: ACTION-22
15:06:40 [AZ]
zakim, I may be Russel
15:06:40 [Zakim]
+Russel?; got it
15:06:47 [tomayac]
but cygri sent regrets
15:06:57 [zwu2]
zakim, +1.408.642.aaff is me
15:06:59 [Zakim]
+zwu2; got it
15:07:00 [AZ]
zakim, mute me
15:07:00 [Zakim]
sorry, AZ, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:07:07 [tomayac]
ACTION-21 done?
15:07:15 [mischat]
15:07:19 [cmatheus]
zakim. ??P32 is cmatheus
15:07:21 [tomayac]
will be clearified
15:07:45 [tomayac]
sandro: ACTION-39 closed
15:08:26 [tomayac]
unrecorded action: look at respec text vs. wiki text
15:09:00 [tomayac]
gavin: action was unrecorded
15:09:28 [tomayac]
gavin, wlliam, pierre-antoine on the unrecorded action
15:09:44 [cmatheus]
zakim, ??P32 is cmatheus
15:09:45 [Zakim]
I already had ??P32 as Nick_van_den_Bleeken, cmatheus
15:09:49 [tomayac]
next topic: ACTION-41
15:09:59 [sandro]
action gavin: to compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring
15:09:59 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-43 - Compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring [on Gavin Carothers - due 2011-05-11].
15:10:00 [tomayac]
poll for face2face, on antoine
15:10:00 [AZ]
zakim, unmute me
15:10:00 [Zakim]
sorry, AZ, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:10:08 [sandro]
action william: to compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring
15:10:08 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-44 - Compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring [on William Waites - due 2011-05-11].
15:10:11 [AZ]
can you hear me?
15:10:11 [mischat]
i found out about the video conferencing facilities at southampton uni fwiw
15:10:27 [sandro]
action piere-antoine: to compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring
15:10:27 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - piere-antoine
15:10:42 [AZ]
it seems I have a problem with my mic
15:10:46 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:10:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see gavinc, Russel?, Scott, tomayac, AndyS, OlivierCorby, davidwood, mbrunati, EricP, LeeF, MacTed (muted), FabGandon, PatH, pchampin (muted), Souri, AlexHall,
15:10:49 [Zakim]
... sandro, Russell, mischat (muted), ??P30, zwu2
15:10:55 [sandro]
action Pierre-Antoine: to compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring
15:10:55 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-45 - Compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring [on Pierre-Antoine Champin - due 2011-05-11].
15:11:01 [cmatheus]
zakim, ??P30 is cmatheus
15:11:01 [Zakim]
+cmatheus; got it
15:11:06 [mischat]
15:11:08 [AZ]
I have a text to propose
15:11:11 [tomayac]
ACTION-42: done?
15:11:11 [trackbot]
ACTION-42 Propose text for resolution on archaic xsd:strings notes added
15:11:21 [tomayac]
text in email. link anyone?
15:11:22 [AZ]
"PROPOSED: Recommend that data publishers use plain literals instead of xs:string typed literals and tell systems to silently convert xs:string literals to plain literals without language tag."
15:11:26 [gavinc]
"PROPOSED: Recommend that data publishers use plain literals instead of xs:string typed literals and tell systems to silently convert xs:string literals to plain literals without language tag."
15:11:28 [AZ]
it's the same as in my email
15:11:35 [tomayac]
same as in email
15:11:46 [davidwood]
15:12:10 [tomayac]
ACTION-42 herewith closed
15:12:23 [tomayac]
next topic: sparql-turtle alignemnt
15:12:28 [Zakim]
15:12:36 [Zakim]
15:12:38 [SteveH]
Zakim, ??P34 is [Garlik]
15:12:38 [Zakim]
+[Garlik]; got it
15:12:47 [SteveH]
Zakim, [Garlik] has SteveH and mischat
15:12:47 [Zakim]
+SteveH, mischat; got it
15:12:56 [tomayac]
issues, agreements, disagreements
15:13:06 [tomayac]
andy discussion lead
15:13:33 [mischat]
15:13:35 [tomayac]
andy: agreement: on all issues
15:13:38 [tomayac]
except for one
15:13:39 [ivan]
-> Andy's email
15:14:01 [tomayac]
eric wishes to add a feature into turtle to allow prefixing of names
15:14:13 [mischat]
15:14:50 [AndyS]
15:15:09 [tomayac]
eric: getting past encoding limitations in pnames
15:15:20 [mischat]
go on ...
15:15:22 [ericP]
_:Eve foaf:name "Eve\u0022 .
15:15:41 [ericP]
_:Eve :says "√Čric says \u0022Hi\u0022" .
15:16:43 [sandro]
15:17:08 [tomayac]
eric: escaping not part of the grammar
15:17:23 [ivan]
15:17:27 [gavinc]
15:17:33 [tomayac]
eric: productions of local names to include escape productions
15:17:50 [davidwood]
ack ivan
15:17:52 [tomayac]
ivan: why this difference?
15:18:09 [AZ]
zakim, Russel is me
15:18:09 [Zakim]
+AZ; got it
15:18:42 [tomayac]
andy: at the moment as turtle is defined, commas disallowed in prefix names
15:18:58 [tomayac]
eric: disagrees
15:19:10 [tomayac]
andy: that would be a change to sparql
15:19:57 [tomayac]
andy: current form does not allow \u escapings
15:20:16 [Zakim]
15:20:21 [davidwood]
ack gavinc
15:20:24 [webr3]
zakim, i am IPcaller
15:20:24 [Zakim]
ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
15:20:38 [tomayac]
gavin: thinks that ntriples has local names
15:20:57 [tomayac]
andy: label for a bnode has to be decided on a per-output basis
15:21:15 [tomayac]
andy: asks eric: are you happy w/ the outher proosals
15:21:18 [tomayac]
eric: ACK
15:21:24 [davidwood]
15:21:32 [tomayac]
andy: any other issues?
15:21:37 [tomayac]
-- silence --
15:21:42 [tomayac]
no other issues
15:21:59 [tomayac]
andy: on what basis do we take the decision?
15:22:05 [ivan]
15:22:28 [tomayac]
eric: on the prefix nodes issues: sorry it cant be done
15:22:30 [LeeF]
I think it's a "nice feature to have", but I'm (of course) wary of changing SPARQL right now because of the impact on implementors
15:23:03 [SteveH]
+1 to LeeF
15:23:23 [PatH]
There is a dragon on the call breathing fire.
15:23:39 [tomayac]
eric: no new prefix for each row in the db
15:23:42 [mischat]
zakim, who is making noise ?
15:23:44 [davidwood]
zakim, who is speaking?
15:23:45 [tomayac]
eric: just use the same prefix
15:23:52 [Zakim]
mischat, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (83%), EricP (4%)
15:24:03 [Zakim]
davidwood, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (24%), davidwood (5%), AZ (8%), EricP (22%)
15:24:12 [PatH]
sounds like LeeF is right, this is neat feature but not really essential. I suggest not worth changing sparql for.
15:24:14 [tomayac]
andy: need a decision mechanism
15:24:22 [ivan]
ack ivan
15:24:30 [AZ]
zakim, mute me
15:24:30 [Zakim]
AZ should now be muted
15:24:39 [tomayac]
ivan: question is: what is the most, what is the least destructive answer?
15:25:00 [tomayac]
ivan seems gone
15:25:08 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:25:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see gavinc, AZ (muted), Scott, tomayac, AndyS, OlivierCorby, davidwood, mbrunati, EricP, LeeF, MacTed (muted), FabGandon, PatH, pchampin (muted), Souri, AlexHall,
15:25:11 [Zakim]
... sandro, Russell, cmatheus, zwu2, [Garlik], [IPcaller]
15:25:12 [Zakim]
[Garlik] has SteveH, mischat
15:25:19 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute az
15:25:19 [Zakim]
AZ should no longer be muted
15:25:27 [gavinc]
15:25:39 [tomayac]
lee: understands the use case
15:25:45 [Zakim]
15:25:47 [tomayac]
lee: probably a good thing to include
15:25:50 [MacTed]
(AZ muted, and ivan went quiet ... ivan isn't in the names list ... I'm guessing AZ took ivan's line)
15:25:55 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:25:56 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:25:57 [Zakim]
15:26:10 [tomayac]
ivan is back
15:26:19 [davidwood]
s/probably a good thing to include/probably not a good thing to include during SPARQL last call/
15:26:48 [LeeF]
Also mildly disruptive with existing turtle and sparql implementations
15:26:57 [tomayac]
ivan: not only last call, but also deployed sparql versions
15:26:59 [LeeF]
Both things -- disruptive to SPARQL schedule, and somewhat disruptive to implementations
15:27:14 [PatH]
Maybe should ask, if we DONT do this, how bad would that be?
15:27:29 [tomayac]
eric: not convinced that it's true
15:27:57 [MacTed]
1.1 (or later) have been known to break (or at least, go beyond) 1.0 ...
15:28:06 [ivan]
15:28:12 [PatH]
Everyone sees to agree this would be kind of neat, but... So what is the but... for NOT doing it.
15:28:15 [MacTed]
BASIC 2.0 commands broke in BASIC 1.0 interpreters... :-)
15:28:27 [davidwood]
15:28:52 [tomayac]
andy: argument for not doing it: its not currently in turtle and in sparql. how much need is out there?
15:29:03 [PatH]
OK, thanks.
15:29:04 [tomayac]
andy: whats the cost. would it cause a new last call?
15:29:12 [tomayac]
pat: we have a choice:
15:29:28 [tomayac]
pat: if we were to include it in turtle, we'd break the sparql turtle alignment
15:29:45 [AndyS]
15:29:46 [mischat]
15:29:48 [tomayac]
pat: do we want to break sparql-turtle alignment?
15:29:56 [mischat]
15:30:05 [PatH]
OK, seems to me that sparql/turtle alignment is worth quite a lot of loss of neat-o features.
15:30:06 [tomayac]
eric: no
15:30:10 [davidwood]
ack ivan
15:30:26 [tomayac]
ivan: having a problem w/ sparql turtle alignment would be a mistake
15:30:38 [tomayac]
ivan: sandro very diplomatic proposal:
15:30:59 [tomayac]
ivan: if sparql goes to last call => sparql can make it a pending feature
15:31:04 [AndyS]
if programmatic constructed, then the system writer gets it right anyway
15:31:15 [tomayac]
ivan: if feedback on last call very negative => can be taken out
15:31:33 [PatH]
Ivan, you should be in the State Department.
15:31:39 [PatH]
+1 Ivan
15:31:41 [tomayac]
ivan: make it clear that its an issue in pimplementations, and see what the feedback is
15:32:18 [tomayac]
davidwood: happy with it
15:32:27 [tomayac]
lee: implementers are here. opinions?
15:33:05 [tomayac]
lee: happy, with the sparql hat on
15:33:25 [PatH]
sparqly pimplementors unite!
15:33:50 [ericP]
15:33:50 [LeeF]
LeeF: I'm ok with it, because I'm ok with not being 100% conformant, but I wouldn't run off to make this change in my code
15:34:07 [tomayac]
ivan: to be fair, other changes for turtle would require turtle parsers to go thru an update circle
15:34:14 [SteveH]
I think this is less invasive than the \u escape ordering thing
15:34:21 [SteveH]
but I'm not a parser guy
15:34:57 [tomayac]
andy: required update is for strings and iris
15:35:05 [tomayac]
andy: believed not to affect many people
15:35:14 [ericP]
_:Eve foaf:name "Eve\u0022 .
15:35:25 [tomayac]
eric: in the sense of doesnt happen often enough?
15:35:30 [tomayac]
andy: yep, in this sense
15:35:50 [tomayac]
david: you think we make any progress on this, andy? or should we move on?
15:35:56 [tomayac]
andy: think we should move on
15:36:03 [gavinc]
as turtle implentor, I'm with Eric. Easy change to make.
15:36:07 [tomayac]
ivan: can we agree on other issues to be solved?
15:36:27 [tomayac]
andy: yes, i can draft a resolution
15:37:00 [tomayac]
eric: one of the poiints in erics mail was: escaping should not be in the grammar, eric says: it should be in the grammar
15:37:14 [tomayac]
andy: i took whatever was in the current doc
15:37:21 [ivan]
15:37:34 [AndyS]
PROPOSED: Point 2-7 are agreed leaving \u processing (point 8)
15:37:48 [ivan]
15:37:55 [zwu2]
15:38:00 [pchampin]
15:38:04 [davidwood]
15:38:05 [PatH]
15:38:07 [sandro]
15:38:08 [gavinc]
15:38:11 [tomayac]
objections to andy's proposal?
15:38:13 [webr3]
15:38:15 [cmatheus]
15:38:22 [tomayac]
no objections. propsal accepted
15:38:26 [mbrunati]
15:38:30 [SteveH]
15:38:55 [ericP]
15:38:58 [ivan]
RESOLVED: Point 2-7 are agreed leaving \u processing
15:39:21 [tomayac]
thanks for the productive discussion
15:39:24 [tomayac]
next topic:
15:39:35 [tomayac]
revisiting of post-poned issues
15:39:52 [tomayac]
let's try to resolve whatever is possible via phone
15:39:57 [tomayac]
let's skip others
15:40:02 [tomayac]
clean up easy ones
15:40:18 [davidwood]
ISSUE-42: Revisit "Something should be done about aboutEachPrefix construct"
15:40:18 [trackbot]
ISSUE-42 Revisit "Something should be done about aboutEachPrefix construct" notes added
15:40:28 [davidwood]
15:40:44 [tomayac]
looking at issue 42
15:40:45 [ivan]
15:40:45 [trackbot]
ISSUE-42 -- Revisit "Something should be done about aboutEachPrefix construct" -- raised
15:40:45 [trackbot]
15:41:26 [tomayac]
davidwood: please check the issue and edit it if need be
15:41:28 [ivan]
15:41:30 [webr3]
15:41:36 [sandro]
15:41:37 [AndyS]
15:41:37 [pchampin]
15:41:41 [SteveH]
15:41:41 [zwu2]
15:41:45 [tomayac]
davidwood: objections to closing ISSUE-42?
15:41:47 [gavinc]
+0 (no idea what the issue was)
15:42:12 [tomayac]
davidwood: it's in the charter to clean left-overs
15:42:15 [mbrunati]
15:42:17 [AZ]
15:42:26 [tomayac]
davidwood: closing ISSUE-42
15:42:37 [PatH]
15:42:37 [ivan]
15:42:37 [trackbot]
ISSUE-43 -- Revisit "Suggestion that Qnames should be allowed as values for attributes such as rdf:about" -- raised
15:42:37 [trackbot]
15:42:45 [tomayac]
next: ISSUE-43
15:43:01 [webr3]
+1 to resolve/close
15:43:04 [LeeF]
15:43:04 [ivan]
15:43:06 [AZ]
15:43:08 [mbrunati]
15:43:10 [SteveH]
15:43:12 [AndyS]
15:43:12 [gavinc]
+1 to close
15:43:15 [zwu2]
15:43:20 [tomayac]
theere was agreement on email to close this ISSUE-43
15:43:21 [PatH]
15:43:23 [ericP]
15:43:23 [pchampin]
15:43:28 [Souri]
15:43:29 [tomayac]
davidwood: closing ISSUE-43
15:43:31 [ivan]
15:43:31 [trackbot]
ISSUE-44 -- Revisit "The RDF XML syntax cannot represent all possible Property URI's" -- raised
15:43:31 [trackbot]
15:43:49 [tomayac]
next: ISSUE-44
15:43:52 [webr3]
+1 to close, can't see any reason to continue soemthing that won't change
15:43:59 [ivan]
15:44:02 [LeeF]
15:44:03 [SteveH]
+1 to close
15:44:05 [AZ]
+1 to close
15:44:09 [mbrunati]
15:44:11 [AlexHall]
15:44:14 [zwu2]
15:44:19 [tomayac]
davidwood: seems agreement to close it, as rdf/xml wont never ever change
15:44:23 [AndyS]
+1 to close with no change
15:44:31 [PatH]
15:44:32 [ericP]
15:44:41 [Souri]
15:44:41 [gavinc]
+1 close
15:44:44 [cmatheus]
15:44:50 [tomayac]
davidwood: correction: minor changes to rdf/xml might happen. sorry
15:45:04 [ivan]
15:45:04 [trackbot]
ISSUE-45 -- Revisit "The syntax needs a more convenient way to express the reification of a statement" -- raised
15:45:04 [trackbot]
15:45:05 [webr3]
+1 close as a duplicate (on issue-25)
15:45:10 [tomayac]
davidwood: ISSUE-44 closed
15:45:21 [tomayac]
davidwod: next ISSUE-45
15:45:41 [PatH]
15:45:41 [SteveH]
+1, close a dup
15:45:43 [gavinc]
+1 close as duplicate
15:45:45 [cmatheus]
15:45:45 [mbrunati]
15:45:45 [zwu2]
15:45:46 [tomayac]
davidwood: ISSUE-45 is duplicate of ISSUE-25 => close it
15:45:48 [OlivierCorby]
15:45:50 [AZ]
+1 close as duplicate
15:45:53 [Souri]
15:45:56 [tomayac]
davidwood: ISSUE-45 closed
15:46:04 [ivan]
15:46:04 [trackbot]
ISSUE-46 -- Revisit "Should RDF have a mechanism for declaring two uri's to be equivalent?" -- raised
15:46:04 [trackbot]
15:46:07 [webr3]
-1 leave open for discussion later
15:46:08 [tomayac]
davidwood: ISSUE-46
15:46:14 [PatH]
Sugfgest we keep this one open for now.
15:46:19 [gavinc]
-0 leave open
15:46:27 [tomayac]
davidwood: leave it open for next workshop
15:46:27 [SteveH]
close, we have owl:sameAs
15:46:29 [AZ]
15:46:36 [zwu2]
close, we have owl:sameAs
15:46:43 [cmatheus]
+1 leave open
15:46:46 [ericP]
15:46:47 [tomayac]
davidwood: enough DISagreement to leave this open
15:46:48 [ivan]
15:46:58 [mbrunati]
0 leave open
15:46:59 [ivan]
15:46:59 [trackbot]
ISSUE-47 -- Revisit "RDF embedded in XHTML and other XML documents is hard to validate" -- raised
15:46:59 [trackbot]
15:47:04 [tomayac]
davidwood: ISSUE-47
15:47:08 [webr3]
+1/0 don't care
15:47:13 [SteveH]
don't care
15:47:25 [ivan]
+1 to close
15:47:34 [FabGandon]
out of scope
15:47:35 [zwu2]
+1 close
15:47:36 [AZ]
+1 to close
15:47:38 [sandro]
close, but with a better comment.
15:47:38 [tomayac]
davidwood: no objections to close it
15:47:41 [Souri]
15:47:41 [mbrunati]
+1 close
15:47:43 [pchampin]
out of scope
15:47:47 [PatH]
does i tmean the RDF is hard to validate or the XML is?
15:47:48 [tomayac]
davidwood: ISSUE-47 clsoed
15:47:54 [cmatheus]
+1 close
15:48:00 [PatH]
+1 close out of scope
15:48:01 [tomayac]
davidwood: validation is out of scope of this wg
15:48:04 [gavinc]
+1 close with validation out of scope
15:48:09 [sandro]
+1 "Close -- validation is out of scope for this WG"
15:48:18 [mischat]
+1 to close
15:48:23 [PatH]
listen to the worms...
15:48:27 [ivan]
15:48:27 [trackbot]
ISSUE-48 -- Revisit "The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various awkward features. Might these be augmented with a 'better' design?" -- raised
15:48:27 [trackbot]
15:48:34 [tomayac]
davidwood: ISSUE-48
15:48:48 [webr3]
15:48:57 [tomayac]
davidwood: danbri marked this one as a duplicate
15:49:34 [tomayac]
davidwood: proposal to close it as duplicate to ISSUE-24
15:49:39 [gavinc]
+0 close as duplicate of Issue-24?
15:49:51 [SteveH]
not a dup of 24
15:49:53 [PatH]
15:50:05 [tomayac]
andy: not a duplicate of ISSUE-24
15:50:12 [tomayac]
andy: its about containers
15:50:22 [tomayac]
ISSUE-48 is about collections
15:51:28 [tomayac]
patH: couldnt follow, sorry
15:51:37 [SteveH]
"The use of special property names (_1, _2, etc.) can really be quite awkward for expressing ordering. It means that it can be very difficult to add new members to a collection after the event"
15:51:42 [davidwood]
ack PatH
15:51:49 [tomayac]
path: seems to be a suggestion to put linked lists into rdf. done by the prev. wg
15:51:56 [tomayac]
path: seems an archaic left-over
15:51:58 [mischat]
SteveH: is speaking now
15:52:07 [tomayac]
steveh: not true
15:53:19 [tomayac]
davidwood: want to continue this discussion on the list?
15:53:47 [tomayac]
steveharris: lists of things done the wrong way twice
15:54:06 [gavinc]
Anyone have ideas on making better lists?
15:54:10 [tomayac]
path: close it and throw it away
15:54:12 [webr3]
+1 to path
15:54:16 [ericP]
+1 to PatH's dicideratum
15:54:24 [ivan]
15:54:28 [zwu2]
15:54:29 [FabGandon]
15:54:30 [webr3]
15:54:30 [tomayac]
davidwood: proposal to close ISSUE-48 as overcome by events. objections?
15:54:31 [pchampin]
15:54:31 [mbrunati]
15:54:32 [Souri]
15:54:33 [gavinc]
15:54:33 [AZ]
15:54:33 [mischat]
15:54:37 [mischat]
15:54:42 [cmatheus]
15:55:05 [AndyS]
Add them as a first class data object, not encode in triples. Its the encoding (and possible mis-encoding) that cause some of the pain.
15:55:09 [ivan]
15:55:09 [trackbot]
ISSUE-49 -- Revisit "Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to be literals" -- raised
15:55:09 [trackbot]
15:55:10 [tomayac]
davidwood: ISSUE-48 closed
15:55:13 [SteveH]
+1 to AndyS
15:55:34 [zwu2]
would be nice to have it :)
15:55:35 [tomayac]
ISSUE-49: literals as subjects cant be closed
15:55:35 [trackbot]
ISSUE-49 Revisit "Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to be literals" notes added
15:55:35 [webr3]
q: could I create an RDF serialization with literal subjects and defer to the rdf semantics?
15:55:36 [PatH]
Andy: I agree, buit that goes way beyond issue-48.
15:55:55 [tomayac]
davidwood: cant be considered closed
15:55:56 [AndyS]
15:55:59 [PatH]
Yes, the semantics is fine iwth lieteral subjects.
15:56:05 [PatH]
with literal
15:56:09 [tomayac]
andy: happy to postpone
15:56:10 [davidwood]
ack AndyS
15:56:15 [webr3]
so it's in "rdf" but not in the official serializations
15:56:19 [tomayac]
andy: rdf api allows literals as subjects
15:56:54 [tomayac]
ivan: status of rdf api? first public working draft hopefully next week
15:57:06 [PatH]
There was a chorus of disapproval for literal subjects at the initial workshop, mostly from developers who didnt want to alter lagacy code.
15:57:08 [tomayac]
davidwood: for the moment we cant do anything about it
15:57:09 [webr3]
it's now "rdf-interfaces" which contains it - rdf-api is a diff spec
15:57:15 [PatH]
15:57:18 [webr3]
+1 to continue
15:57:38 [AndyS]
+1 to PatH - legacy is now a real issue (and that's good)
15:57:38 [tomayac]
tomayac: rdf api is now rdf interfaces
15:57:41 [mischat]
literal as subjects doesn't seem very webbie to me, but anyways ...
15:57:52 [ivan]
15:57:53 [trackbot]
ISSUE-50 -- Revisit "Request to allow b-nodes as property labels" -- raised
15:57:53 [trackbot]
15:58:00 [tomayac]
davidwood: ISSUE-50
15:58:09 [tomayac]
davidwood: out of charter
15:58:20 [PatH]
Sorry to go back, but I just noticed something about issue-42 that might be slightly important. The POWDER mechanism uses rdf:bag, which me therefor have to be careful not to deprecate.
15:58:37 [webr3]
rdf-interfaces again allows bnode predicates
15:59:06 [tomayac]
davidwood: should we leave it open? or postpone?
15:59:17 [PatH]
FWIW< again the semantics is OK with bnode property labels, but some of the entailments might raise eyebrows.
15:59:20 [webr3]
are we goign to discuss further? if nto postpone
15:59:29 [tomayac]
davidwood: ISSUE-50 postponed
15:59:34 [FabGandon]
+1 postpone
15:59:35 [mischat]
postpone please ....
15:59:37 [pchampin]
+1 postpone
15:59:37 [SteveH]
+1 to postpone
15:59:38 [Souri]
+1 to postpone
15:59:42 [ericP]
15:59:42 [PatH]
15:59:43 [zwu2]
+1 to postpone
15:59:44 [gavinc]
+1 postpone
15:59:45 [webr3]
PatH, ty for confirmation, I don't mind raised eyebrows :)
15:59:45 [mbrunati]
+1 to postpone
15:59:45 [PatH]
15:59:46 [cmatheus]
15:59:47 [webr3]
15:59:57 [ericP]
+1 to cowering in fear
16:00:29 [gavinc]
RDF Interfaces :\
16:00:37 [mischat]
as in rdf-interfaces has bnode properties and literal subjects
16:00:54 [tomayac]
ivan: this issue is different than the previous one
16:01:11 [webr3]
RDF interface implementations will support it.. rdf semantics do to, serializations don't - doesn't matter, this is behind the "public interface"
16:01:15 [tomayac]
ivan: you might have bnodes as predicates
16:01:19 [webr3]
+1 to what ivan is saying
16:01:28 [PatH]
+1 to Ivan
16:01:31 [zwu2]
+1 to Ivan
16:01:54 [tomayac]
ivan: there was a huge discussion in the rdf applications wg
16:01:57 [PatH]
This is a general issue, BTW, it also bears on literal subjects.
16:02:15 [tomayac]
ivan: bnodes as predicates is good, because if not, implementations might have problems
16:02:29 [pchampin]
s/is good/is good in APIs/
16:02:44 [webr3]
the needs for serializing RDF are different to the needs for workign with RDF - we need to accept that generally
16:03:05 [AndyS]
Is there a serialization API?
16:03:12 [tomayac]
ivan: if it's for me, we can close this issue
16:03:58 [PatH]
It will damage the DL/Full boundary in OWL, for sure.
16:04:01 [tomayac]
ivan: dont want to go down that route
16:04:03 [webr3]
AndyS, roughly the RDF API (end user focussed) will be more restricted to the convensional (matching serializations)
16:04:32 [tomayac]
david: if we postpone it goes to a later wg
16:04:37 [AndyS]
webr3, pointer?
16:04:59 [zwu2]
16:05:03 [webr3]
16:05:03 [PatH]
16:05:25 [tomayac]
davidwood: we're postponing already, leaving leftovers, just like the previous wg did
16:05:31 [webr3]
can we address it properly, to say semantics allows X serializations are advised to allow Y (Reasons) then CLOSE ?
16:05:41 [tomayac]
davidwood: if we close, we need to say why
16:06:04 [AndyS]
webr3, pointer to serilization? I only see about parser using serialize
16:06:13 [tomayac]
davidwood: saying it is out of scope is way different than closing
16:06:23 [tomayac]
ivan: every wg may reopen closed issues
16:06:28 [webr3]
AndyS, you've confused me - you're looking for?
16:06:42 [davidwood]
16:06:52 [PatH]
Ivan, you read my mind...
16:06:52 [davidwood]
ack zwu
16:07:15 [PatH]
Separate the issues!
16:07:17 [tomayac]
zwu: how many people would truly object to have literals as subjects and bnodes as predicates
16:07:19 [SteveH]
Garlik would object to both / either
16:07:22 [AndyS]
A pointer to "roughly the RDF API (end user focussed) will be more restricted to the convensional (matching serializations)"
16:07:22 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: Who would object to Liuteral Subjects
16:07:24 [LeeF]
Quite possibly.
16:07:27 [PatH]
Im happy with literal subjects.
16:07:28 [ivan]
16:07:32 [tomayac]
zwu: straw poll, please
16:07:33 [webr3]
v happy with +1
16:07:44 [davidwood]
I would possibly object to literal subjects - I have before
16:07:47 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: Allow Literal Subjects
16:07:49 [webr3]
16:07:50 [sandro]
16:07:51 [SteveH]
16:07:52 [cmatheus]
16:07:52 [PatH]
16:07:52 [Souri]
16:07:53 [pchampin]
16:07:53 [LeeF]
16:07:54 [AZ]
16:07:54 [mischat]
16:07:54 [mbrunati]
16:07:56 [zwu2]
16:07:56 [davidwood]
16:08:00 [ivan]
16:08:01 [OlivierCorby]
16:08:05 [gavinc]
16:08:11 [AlexHall]
16:08:11 [LeeF]
ivan + me == 1 full objection! :-)
16:08:22 [ericP]
16:08:25 [AndyS]
Need to think more but quite possibility -1 (because the deployed system impact)
16:08:36 [FabGandon]
16:08:40 [tomayac]
zwu asked also for a straw poll on bnodes as predicates
16:08:59 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL; Allow bnodes as predicates
16:09:01 [sandro]
16:09:01 [gavinc]
16:09:02 [webr3]
16:09:02 [ivan]
16:09:03 [PatH]
16:09:03 [zwu2]
16:09:03 [ericP]
16:09:04 [SteveH]
16:09:04 [Souri]
16:09:06 [LeeF]
16:09:06 [AZ]
16:09:06 [mischat]
16:09:08 [mbrunati]
16:09:08 [cmatheus]
16:09:08 [OlivierCorby]
16:09:14 [pchampin]
16:09:14 [FabGandon]
16:09:15 [davidwood]
16:09:25 [AndyS]
16:09:31 [PatH]
This is assuming that we have bnodes at all, of course.
16:09:43 [tomayac]
zwu: one for the reasons are: if we are implementing an inference engine, it's way easier to allow, than disallow them
16:09:44 [gavinc]
+1 to PatH
16:09:47 [MacTed]
bnodes are useful in-process. they are nothing but trouble once you leave process.
16:09:48 [davidwood]
We have bnodes, Pat :)
16:09:55 [tomayac]
ivan: -1 because it would invalidate many things in owl
16:09:57 [PatH]
It depends what kind of inference engine uyou are tryuing to implement.
16:10:14 [PatH]
OWL-DL would prohibit it rigorously, so it would add a layer of checking to thier engines.
16:10:28 [FabGandon]
+1 to AndyS
16:10:30 [mischat]
+1 AndyS
16:10:33 [PatH]
+1 to andy
16:10:44 [tomayac]
davidwood: back to ISSUE-50
16:10:47 [gavinc]
+0.5 to AndyS ... sometimes it leaks
16:11:01 [tomayac]
davidwood: open => discuss, close => out of scope, postponed: let others deal with it
16:11:10 [webr3]
if it's not an RDF WG level problem, who would it be a problem for?
16:11:11 [AndyS]
gavinc, where??? and I'll stop that!!!!!!
16:11:14 [mischat]
it is not webby to serialise statements suchs as ` "42" _:bnode1 _bnode2 . `
16:11:29 [webr3]
+1 leave raised
16:11:35 [SteveH]
16:11:37 [tomayac]
davidwood: significant disagreement
16:11:42 [zwu2]
+1 postpone it
16:11:44 [tomayac]
ivan: either close or postpone
16:11:46 [LeeF]
suggest close
16:11:47 [cmatheus]
+1 leave raised
16:11:52 [PatH]
Its not in our charter, its a huge can of worms, it owuld screw up OWL (and probably RIF) relatkionships. Lets walk away from it.
16:12:00 [pchampin]
+1 postpone
16:12:03 [FabGandon]
out of scope
16:12:17 [Souri]
+1 to postpone it
16:12:26 [mbrunati]
sorry guys i have to leave
16:12:29 [PatH]
SO, leave it open and ignore it.
16:12:30 [tomayac]
davidwood: reads what people say on irc
16:12:34 [webr3]
(I'm saying to leave open/raised until there's good text to close it with or to clarify around the issue)
16:12:39 [Zakim]
16:12:42 [LeeF]
I don't think postponing is good. What's the point? If people find this useful and implement it, then we can standardize it in the future. But what's the point in continuing to say "meh"?
16:13:16 [SteveH]
just close it, a future group can open a new issue if it becomes desirable
16:13:21 [tomayac]
davidwood: enough agreement to postpone
16:13:24 [LeeF]
+1 SteveH
16:13:34 [tomayac]
davidwood: correction: not enough agreement
16:13:35 [ivan]
+1 SteveH
16:13:37 [LeeF]
I'm ok with opening it and then closing it, as well.
16:13:48 [LeeF]
-1 to postponing it
16:13:52 [webr3]
16:13:53 [cmatheus]
16:13:53 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: postpone issue 50
16:14:12 [PatH]
is an open issue like an open sore?
16:14:37 [LeeF]
PatH, very very much so
16:14:57 [tomayac]
davidwood: makes a chair decision to leave it raised. talk about it later
16:15:09 [mischat]
16:15:14 [tomayac]
davidwood: pat raised a question on issue 42
16:15:33 [tomayac]
path: rdf bag not much use
16:15:48 [tomayac]
path: proposed to deprecate rdf bag
16:16:10 [tomayac]
davidwood: thinks we still could deprecate
16:16:51 [pchampin]
I thought we already excluded the deprecation of rdf:Bag as it was widely used in RSS
16:17:01 [pchampin]
(vague memory of the F2F)
16:17:08 [tomayac]
davidwood: out of time for this call
16:17:09 [mischat]
i recall that pchampin too
16:17:13 [SteveH]
pchampin, yes
16:17:20 [PatH]
pcahmpin, good point. thnx.
16:17:20 [tomayac]
davidwood: remaining issues => later call
16:17:26 [tomayac]
davidwood: AOB?
16:17:33 [Zakim]
16:17:34 [Zakim]
16:17:35 [tomayac]
davidwood: call adjourned
16:17:36 [zwu2]
16:17:36 [mischat]
would be nice to have the next f2f sorted
16:17:36 [Zakim]
16:17:37 [Zakim]
16:17:37 [PatH]
ivan, to handle that issue we discussed.
16:17:37 [Zakim]
16:17:39 [Zakim]
16:17:39 [mischat]
16:17:41 [mischat]
bye all
16:17:41 [Zakim]
16:17:43 [Zakim]
16:17:43 [Zakim]
16:17:45 [Zakim]
16:17:46 [Zakim]
16:17:50 [Zakim]
16:17:51 [Zakim]
16:17:57 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
16:18:22 [AndyS]
webr3 - I see nothing about serialization
16:19:09 [pchampin]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:19:09 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate pchampin
16:19:15 [davidwood]
tomayac: You can edit via the wiki once they are generated
16:19:23 [ivan]
16:19:55 [ivan]
16:20:03 [Zakim]
16:21:35 [Zakim]
16:21:44 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has left #rdf-wg
16:25:01 [Zakim]
16:26:45 [Zakim]
16:26:46 [Zakim]
16:27:06 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
16:27:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see EricP, LeeF, pchampin
16:27:07 [Zakim]
16:27:28 [pchampin]
pchampin has left #rdf-wg
16:27:28 [Zakim]
16:28:03 [ivan]
eric, are you having a nice conversation with yourself on zakim?
16:35:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, EricP, in SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
16:35:02 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
16:35:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.707.861.aaaa, gavinc, Ivan, Scott, +1.404.978.aabb, tomayac, AndyS, +, OlivierCorby, +1.540.898.aadd, davidwood, EricP, mbrunati, LeeF, MacTed,
16:35:09 [Zakim]
... PatH, Souri, sandro, FabGandon, AlexHall, pchampin, Russell, mischat, Russel?, zwu2, cmatheus, SteveH, AZ, [IPcaller]
16:38:31 [davidwood]
Please send an email to w3C Chairs of the RDF WG <> asking for permissions. Either Ivan or Sandro will need to help you.
16:40:24 [davidwood]
16:42:58 [sandro]
tomayac, can you see ?
16:43:15 [tomayac]
16:43:33 [tomayac]
but the irc log wiki is not editable for me, all other wikis so far were
16:43:45 [sandro]
other pages on this wiki are?
16:43:53 [tomayac]
16:44:24 [tomayac]
no i can edit
16:44:37 [sandro]
16:44:39 [tomayac]
funny. i swear i couldnt a minute ago
16:44:58 [sandro]
well, I'll take full credit for fixing it, then. :-)
16:45:06 [sandro]
(not that I did anything)
16:46:33 [davidwood]
Thanks again for scribing, Thomas.
16:49:18 [mischat]
mischat has joined #rdf-wg
18:40:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-wg
18:46:54 [LeeF]
MacTed, would you be able to leverage the Virtuoso L.O.D. cloud to run a couple of analytics about the prevalence (or lack thereof) of xsd:string literals in LOD? I'm curious whether we (Cam Semantics) are the only people using them with some regularity :)
19:00:21 [tomayac]
tomayac has joined #rdf-wg