15:05:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
15:05:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-rdf-wg-irc
15:05:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:05:12 <davidwood> davidwood has joined #rdf-wg
15:05:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
15:05:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start 5 minutes ago
15:05:14 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:05:14 <trackbot> Date: 18 May 2011
15:05:21 <zwu2> agenda?
15:05:21 <MacTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:05:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-rdf-wg-minutes.html MacTed
15:05:26 <hsbauer> zakim 1.507.261.aacc is Scott
15:05:26 <MacTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:05:32 <MacTed> :-)
15:05:56 <zwu2> Topic: admin
15:06:07 <zwu2> Guus: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 11 May telecon: 
15:06:09 <cygri> +1
15:06:13 <pfps> minutes look ok to me
15:06:14 <zwu2> ...  http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-11
15:06:25 <zwu2> Accepted.
15:06:31 <zwu2> Topic: Action item review
15:06:39 <hsbauer> zakim,  1.507.2261.aacc is me
15:06:39 <Zakim> sorry, hsbauer, I do not recognize a party named '1.507.2261.aacc'
15:06:42 <zwu2> pending review items: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
15:06:49 <hsbauer> zakim,  1.507.261.aacc is me
15:06:49 <Zakim> sorry, hsbauer, I do not recognize a party named '1.507.261.aacc'
15:06:52 <MacTed> Zakim, Scott is really hsbauer
15:06:52 <Zakim> sorry, MacTed, I do not recognize a party named 'Scott'
15:06:59 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:06:59 <Zakim> I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted
15:07:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, yvesr (muted), PatH, davidwood, koalie, Bjorn_Bringert, +1.507.261.aacc, AndyS, zwu2, cmatheus, ??P18, ww (muted), pchampin (muted), gavinc, cygri,
15:07:05 <Zakim> ... Peter_Patel-Schneider, MacTed (muted)
15:07:07 <zwu2> Guss claim victory on Action 46
15:07:07 <ww> respec++
15:07:14 <hsbauer> zakim,  +1.507.261.aacc is me
15:07:14 <Zakim> +hsbauer; got it
15:07:20 <PatH> I put a brief text on the wiki re. action 26
15:07:31 <zwu2> Topic: action items: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
15:07:47 <zwu2> action-26?
15:07:47 <trackbot> ACTION-26 -- Patrick Hayes to write an description of action-21 -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN
15:07:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/26
15:08:16 <zwu2> who is speaking?
15:08:26 <zwu2> thanks
15:08:45 <zwu2> guus. keep action 26 open
15:08:55 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:08:56 <gavin> ACTION-26?
15:08:56 <trackbot> ACTION-26 -- Patrick Hayes to write an description of action-21 -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN
15:08:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/26
15:09:27 <zwu2> ACTION-33?
15:09:27 <trackbot> ACTION-33 -- Dan Brickley to danbri, you wanted to note a bug in RDFS spec; it references Primer example 16 -- an example that doesn't even use rdf:value. -- due 2011-08-21 -- OPEN
15:09:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/33
15:09:35 <zwu2> Dan is not here
15:09:47 <zwu2> Guss. keep Action 33 open
15:09:52 <gavin> close ACTION-43
15:09:52 <trackbot> ACTION-43 Compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring closed
15:10:00 <zwu2> Action-43?
15:10:00 <trackbot> ACTION-43 -- Gavin Carothers to compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring -- due 2011-05-11 -- CLOSED
15:10:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/43
15:10:08 <danbri> oh i'm sorry :( regrets mostly, i'll only be in irc
15:10:19 <zwu2> Guss: asking Gavin for confirmation. can mark the actions closed
15:10:25 <zwu2> Action-44?
15:10:25 <trackbot> ACTION-44 -- William Waites to compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring -- due 2011-05-11 -- OPEN
15:10:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/44
15:10:27 <danbri> (but noted/acked. i'll fix when i put rdfs into merurial repo)
15:10:35 <ww> details to follow
15:10:42 <ww> sorry for lateness
15:10:55 <pchampin> same here, I'm affraid :-(
15:10:56 <zwu2> Guss: we might as well close it
15:11:06 <zwu2> ... we will close it if no objection
15:11:07 <ww> briefly, respec++ :)
15:11:11 <zwu2> Action-45?
15:11:11 <trackbot> ACTION-45 -- Pierre-Antoine Champin to compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring -- due 2011-05-11 -- OPEN
15:11:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/45
15:11:21 <zwu2> Guus: let's take a decision and close it
15:11:30 <PatH> the noise level just increased.
15:12:10 <PatH> Look under issue-21
15:12:12 <zwu2> Guus. done with action item review
15:12:23 <zwu2> Topic: F2F Poll
15:12:34 <zwu2> Guus: the poll is now closed.
15:12:39 <zwu2> ... MIT is the winner
15:12:58 <zwu2> ... date wise, very slight preference for Oct 12
15:13:12 <zwu2> ... almost the same video link wise
15:13:36 <zwu2> ... I tend to propose Oct 12 at MIT
15:13:47 <zwu2> ... anyone want to discuss?
15:14:58 <zwu2> PROPOSED: second F2F to be held at MIT in Oct 12
15:15:07 <davidwood> seconded
15:15:09 <zwu2> no objections heard
15:15:20 <pfps> Given that the F2F is going to be at MIT, can we get some information on reasonably priced hotels?
15:15:20 <zwu2> ACCEPTED: second F2F to be held at MIT in Oct 12
15:15:29 <davidwood> Yes, thanks to Peter.
15:15:39 <zwu2> thanks peter for provding an alternate venue
15:15:59 <zwu2> Guss. we will dicuss F2F3 in the near future
15:16:08 <zwu2> Topic: editing documents
15:16:34 <zwu2> Guus. tools have been looked at, any winner?
15:16:34 <ww> hg + respec
15:17:03 <zwu2> david: we are defining the default
15:17:27 <zwu2> Guus: one is mediawiki
15:17:45 <zwu2> .. the other is respec
15:17:50 <cygri> q+
15:17:59 <zwu2> ... which has some builtin javascript to do some useful stuff, html5 based
15:18:01 <gavin> q+
15:18:09 <Guus> ack cygri
15:18:19 <zwu2> richard: there is a strong case for version control
15:18:46 <ww> problem with wiki is, "how do i use my favourite ${EDITOR}"
15:18:51 <zwu2> ... edit in html is reasonable
15:18:59 <davidwood> s/there is a strong case for version control/there is a strong case for making a binding decision on editors for version control/
15:19:06 <zwu2> ... can do it in a text editor or other tools
15:19:14 <Guus> q+ for reference support
15:19:34 <PatH> +q
15:20:08 <gavin> ack gavin
15:20:11 <zwu2> gavin: from the discussions, leaning towards to html5 and javascript
15:20:23 <zwu2> guus: version control is a good point
15:20:36 <zwu2> ... sandro metioned that handling cross references is hard
15:20:47 <zwu2> ... he wants to agree on reference support
15:21:12 <Guus> ack PatH
15:21:19 <Guus> ack Guus
15:21:19 <Zakim> Guus, you wanted to discuss reference support
15:21:22 <zwu2> PatH: I don't like any of these ideas
15:21:37 <zwu2> ... I will prodcue legal HTML my way
15:21:49 <zwu2> Guss. I don't think that is a problem
15:22:25 <zwu2> ... it is good to keep citations consistent
15:22:46 <zwu2> Davidwood: sandro will be unhappy to tidy up all citations 
15:22:53 <zwu2> ... on other people's behalf
15:23:15 <zwu2> Guss. that is the only reason for standardization
15:23:29 <zwu2> ... if we use version control, shall we use the same?
15:23:33 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:23:41 <zwu2> richard: it makes sense to use a single repository
15:24:02 <PatH> Why does this make sense? Seems to me that it is just an extra burden on editors.
15:24:05 <zwu2> ... I would like to know the location to fetch the latest versions
15:24:11 <ww> +1 for common repository - but mind that people can still use what they want, git-hg, hg-svn, whatever
15:24:13 <zwu2> Guss: PatH can you live with that?
15:24:29 <gavin> http://mercurial.selenic.com/ 
15:24:30 <gavin> Yes.
15:24:34 <zwu2> PatH: sure. can someone show me how to do it on a Mac?
15:24:36 <gavin> Runs just fine on a mac
15:24:42 <zwu2> Davidwood: it runs on Mac
15:25:07 <zwu2> Guus: maybe we can ask someone to provide a tutorial or send a pointer
15:25:45 <zwu2> PatH: we did the first version of RDF via emails...
15:26:16 <gavin> Pat, you are of course welcome to simply do all your work outside of version control and then commit it all at the end ;)
15:26:20 <zwu2> Guus: go with HTML, if you want Sandro to do the citations, please use the standard way
15:26:39 <PatH> I am installing Mercurial now. Sigh.
15:26:52 <zwu2> :_
15:26:54 <zwu2> :)
15:27:17 <Zakim> -zwu2
15:27:26 <zwu2> one sec, 
15:27:29 <zwu2> what is the passcode?
15:27:35 <AZ> 73394
15:28:05 <ww> scribenick: ww
15:28:15 <Zakim> +zwu2
15:28:24 <ww> guus: one reason to settle this this week...because we need to start editing these documents
15:28:32 <ww> ... as long as this delay doesn't prevent us...
15:28:50 <zwu2> Guus: should not prevent us from editing this week
15:29:29 <zwu2> ... concept document
15:29:32 <ww> scribenick: zwu2
15:30:37 <zwu2> Guus: as a general rule, I'd like to replace the names of all editors
15:30:43 <zwu2> ... how did OWL2 do this?
15:30:55 <zwu2> peter: pretty much all documents are fresh
15:31:02 <zwu2> Guss: how is it done in SPARQL?
15:31:10 <zwu2> too much noise...
15:31:11 <AndyS> SPARQL uses xmlspec
15:31:27 <AndyS> and that has prev editor 
15:31:45 <davidwood> See http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Editors
15:31:58 <zwu2> mainly the question is do we have to convert the old docs to respec,
15:32:05 <zwu2> ... before we should put in version control?
15:32:13 <davidwood> W3C Manual of Style, Section 5.2.1 Managing Changing Affiliations
15:32:16 <zwu2> ... I understand that converting may be too much work
15:32:29 <zwu2> Guus: that is not a big deal according Gavin
15:32:42 <zwu2> Gavin: no idea how to do the grammar section of Turtle
15:32:49 <zwu2> ... otherwise, it is easy
15:33:19 <zwu2> Guus: would be nice to do the conversion, as a token to move forward, 
15:34:00 <zwu2> Guus: PatH please do the same
15:34:10 <zwu2> ... create a new version of RDF semantics
15:34:18 <zwu2> ... exactly the same as the previous version
15:34:21 <zwu2> PatH: I can do it
15:35:00 <PatH> I have absolutely no idea what the speaker is talking about.
15:35:02 <zwu2> Davidwood: do we need to change javascript to do it?
15:35:11 <zwu2> who is speaking?
15:35:16 <davidwood> Peter
15:35:25 <zwu2> which peter?
15:35:51 <ww> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/template.html
15:36:06 <davidwood> Peter Patel-Schneider
15:36:11 <ww> around line 48 for editors setting
15:36:12 <cygri> is http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Editors up-to-date?
15:36:13 <zwu2> Guus: if you don't use respec, then you don't need to worry about it
15:36:41 <zwu2> Guus: as far as I know, the list is up to date
15:37:08 <zwu2> davidwood: PathH, you agree to edit the RDF semantics?
15:37:37 <PatH> Right, 2 editors, PatH and pfps.
15:37:40 <zwu2> PatH: yes
15:38:02 <zwu2> Guus: apart from PatH, the doc looks ok
15:38:08 <zwu2> Topic: SPARQL Last Call
15:38:12 <zwu2> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0192.html
15:38:26 <zwu2> Guus: normally we have two kinds of reviews for LC
15:38:38 <zwu2> ... 1) individual member can comment
15:38:59 <zwu2> ... 2) the working group can review. have a couple of designated members to review and comment on behalf of the whole WG
15:39:16 <zwu2> ... I prefer to also do the 2)
15:39:25 <zwu2> ... is that necessary?
15:39:29 <gavin> Graph terminology http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-sparql11-http-rdf-update-20110512/#terminology
15:39:30 <davidwood> I've updated http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Editors
15:39:43 <zwu2> ... who wants to do it?
15:39:53 <zwu2> ... should be people not in the SPARQL WG
15:40:05 <pchampin> what's the deadline?
15:40:21 <zwu2> action Guus: send a message to the mailing list
15:40:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Send a message to the mailing list [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-05-25].
15:40:33 <yvesr> pchampin, +1, what's the deadline?
15:41:26 <Guus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0192.html
15:41:36 <ww> [SPARQL] Review comments welcome through 29 July.
15:42:19 <pchampin> ok thanks
15:42:19 <zwu2> guus: it is a good practice trying give reviews asap
15:42:26 <zwu2> ... so that they can keep their schedule
15:42:44 <pchampin> +1 to involve Sandro
15:42:46 <SteveH> I'll join
15:42:46 <zwu2> ... anyone wants to join the telecon to discuss graph 
15:42:48 <pchampin> I'm interested too
15:42:49 <AndyS> Please avoid semtech dates
15:43:22 <AndyS> I'm interested (on both sides)
15:43:31 <zwu2> ... we have three people agreed. expect sandro to join as well
15:43:49 <zwu2> ... that is all we can do for now.
15:44:14 <zwu2> ISSUE-40?
15:44:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-40 -- Skolemization advice in the RDF dcocument -- raised
15:44:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/40
15:44:26 <zwu2> Guus: can we make a agreement?
15:44:44 <zwu2> ... let's see if we can move forward
15:44:54 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemization
15:45:29 <zwu2> richard: gone through a few iterations
15:45:34 <zwu2> ... by different people,
15:45:45 <zwu2> ... the latest version has quite wide support
15:45:51 <ww> s/richard/cygri/
15:45:54 <zwu2> ... I don't recall anyone raising objections
15:46:01 <zwu2> thanks ww
15:46:41 <zwu2> Guus: 6.6.1 in that document is the one we are talking about
15:47:19 <zwu2> cygri: your proposal is right under 
15:47:47 <cygri> ISSUE-12?
15:47:47 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 -- Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) -- open
15:47:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12
15:47:59 <zwu2> Guus: can the issue owner make a proposal?
15:48:29 <pfps> q+
15:48:32 <pchampin> q+ to notice that the wiki page still lets open the issue of replacing "SteveH" by something
15:48:42 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-12 by adding text to RDF Concepts, per the “Updated Proposal” from http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemization#Updated_Proposal
15:49:05 <zwu2> s/12/40/
15:49:13 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-40 by adding text to RDF Concepts, per the “Updated Proposal” from http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemization#Updated_Proposal
15:49:15 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:49:20 <gavin> ISSUE-40?
15:49:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-40 -- Skolemization advice in the RDF dcocument -- raised
15:49:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/40
15:49:27 <yvesr> cygri, are we considering PatH's one or the one above?
15:49:30 <pfps> q+
15:49:37 <yvesr> there are two different formulations in this doc
15:49:37 <cygri> yvesr, the first one
15:49:40 <yvesr> ok
15:49:40 <zwu2> Guus: any more discussion?
15:49:50 <zwu2> pfps: I worry about the wording.
15:50:08 <zwu2> ... having trouble find name, I don't think name should be in the text at all
15:50:14 <zwu2> guus: is there an easy patch?
15:50:21 <cygri> In the RDF abstract syntax, a blank node is just a unique node that can be used in one or more RDF statements, but has no intrinsic name.
15:50:29 <zwu2> cygri: I quote something from rdf concept now
15:50:38 <zwu2> ... I repeat the same thing here
15:50:51 <davidwood> +1
15:50:54 <zwu2> ... it is consistent (probably not the best wording)
15:51:14 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-URI-Vocabulary
15:51:16 <zwu2> pfps: not sure which RDF concepts doc you are looking at
15:51:26 <zwu2> cygri: section 3.2 of the same doc
15:51:37 <zwu2> pfps: seciton 3 is all informal
15:51:58 <zwu2> cygri: pfps, can you propose a fix?
15:52:24 <zwu2> pfps: it is not just that one setence, the whole paragraph has to be carefully crafted
15:52:34 <zwu2> guus: pfps, can you come up with something
15:52:39 <zwu2> pfps: sure. will take a bit time
15:52:50 <zwu2> ... technical details are correct
15:53:15 <zwu2> guus: we can accept the resolution with an action to polish the wording
15:53:27 <zwu2> pfps: yes. 
15:53:43 <zwu2> pfps: I will produce edits to Section 3.2 as well
15:53:50 <Guus> q?
15:54:12 <pchampin> you can't ear me :-(
15:54:15 <zwu2> pchampin? 
15:54:23 <Guus> ack pfps
15:54:39 <pchampin> sorry about that
15:54:49 <gavin> Pointless possibly annoying question, "Given two blank nodes, it is possible to determine whether or not they are the same." ... is that true if the two blank nodes come from diffrent graphs? 
15:54:54 <pchampin> it was just about the "SteveH" part of the proposal
15:55:01 <pchampin> that needs to be sorted out
15:55:08 <SteveH> pchampin, Note: “SteveH” is a placeholder. Names currently under discussion are “genid”, “bnode”, “skolem”. 
15:55:14 <pchampin> I know
15:55:25 <zwu2> noisy
15:55:31 <MacTed> Zakim, mute pchampin
15:55:31 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted
15:55:44 <pchampin> I agree with Richard
15:55:48 <pchampin> of course
15:55:53 <zwu2> cygri: the SteveH is just a placeholder
15:56:00 <PatH> Gavin, if they come from different graphs they must be different. 
15:56:03 <pchampin> ok with me
15:56:15 <pchampin> ack me
15:56:16 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to notice that the wiki page still lets open the issue of replacing "SteveH" by something
15:56:46 <AndyS> PatH, subgraph? (not two doc read in)
15:57:03 <cygri> +1
15:57:03 <zwu2> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-40 by adding text to RDF Concepts, per the “Updated Proposal” from http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemization#Updated_Proposal
15:57:04 <MacTed> +1
15:57:06 <SteveH> +1
15:57:09 <AndyS> +1
15:57:10 <pchampin> +1
15:57:14 <gavin> +0
15:57:15 <AZ> +1
15:57:16 <zwu2> +1
15:57:18 <yvesr> +0
15:57:21 <PatH> Andy, yes. 
15:57:28 <PatH> +1
15:57:30 <pfps> +1
15:57:32 <OlivierCorby> +1
15:57:34 <cmatheus> +1
15:57:52 <zwu2> Guus: we can close issue-40 now
15:57:55 <ww> PatH: so bnode in subgraph shadows bnode in supergraph?
15:58:01 <zwu2> issue-12?
15:58:01 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 -- Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) -- open
15:58:01 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12
15:58:10 <zwu2> guus: where to start?
15:58:12 <PatH> Take this bnode thing offline, guys.
15:58:20 <cygri> +1 PatH
15:58:28 <PatH> Yes please
15:58:57 <PatH> What do we want the type of "foo" to be: plainliteral, xsd:striong, something else, or no type?
15:59:02 <Guus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0230.html
15:59:48 <zwu2> PatH: looking at all the debates, I think people have different positions on which is the desrible solution
16:00:04 <zwu2> ... we should get it clear and take a binding decision
16:00:11 <cygri> q+
16:00:34 <zwu2> guus: I think you are saying that once we are clear on this, the other issues will follow
16:01:06 <zwu2> cygri: kind of agree. we should start to agree on the behavior, and then on the machinary
16:01:20 <zwu2> ... maybe we should go back a bit
16:01:44 <zwu2> ... if we have "" and ""^^xsd:string, are they the same?
16:03:14 <SteveH> I don't think there's a clear message from SPARQL
16:03:29 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:03:34 <PatH> Yes, sparql clearly treats seems to have decided on xsd:string.
16:03:38 <gavin> No objection to Lee's answer from me
16:03:41 <zwu2> Guus: can we live with that?
16:04:19 <zwu2> PatH: there are reasons for people to tream "jt"@us "jt"@fr as different strings
16:04:28 <AndyS> Currently datatype("foo") = xsd:string    datatype("foo"@en) = error [and an extension?]
16:04:42 <zwu2> ... it is odd to see datatype changes when there is a language tag
16:04:59 <zwu2> ...added
16:05:09 <gavin> mmmm
16:05:35 <pchampin> s/"jt"@us "jt"@fr/"chat"@en and "chat"@fr/
16:05:37 <gavin> Hey, err, what about just forcing "" == ""@und? 
16:06:18 <pchampin> @gavin: that would make "" != ""^^xsd:string, then
16:06:35 <SteveH> AndyS, does it explicitly say it's an error? http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#func-datatype
16:06:41 <ww> what about datatypes as used with skos:notation - a little like "language" no?
16:06:41 <zwu2> PatH: plain literal is now neutral in RDF
16:07:03 <AndyS> SteveH - yes - not mentioned in dispatch => no dispatch => error in basic SPARQL
16:07:12 <SteveH> AndyS, ok
16:07:17 <zwu2> PatH: i like strings too
16:07:20 <Zakim> -PatH
16:07:21 <pfps> But plain literals without language tags are semantically the same as xsd:string.
16:07:52 <Zakim> +PatH
16:08:43 <zwu2> pfps: strings are strings, 01 is syntatically different from 1, I don't care
16:08:48 <AndyS> Could be expressed more clearly but there are lots and lots of such cases. Editorial.
16:08:49 <cygri> q+
16:08:51 <gavin> @pchampin Yeah, I know. But why the heck is ""@en != ""^^xsd:string then?
16:09:11 <pchampin> @gavin, because it has a language tag. Strings don't.
16:09:24 <MacTed> it seems that ""@en is subtype of ""^^xsd:string ...
16:09:41 <ww> MacTed: +1
16:09:43 <gavin> @pchampin Yeah :\ Ugh, hard to explain to programers 
16:10:28 <PatH> +q
16:10:28 <MacTed> in other words,  ""@en  is  ""^^xsd:string plus a lang property
16:10:36 <ww> @en - syntactic sugar for ^^englishString
16:10:52 <zwu2> guus: we can take Lee's position for the moment
16:11:15 <Guus> ack cygri
16:11:55 <MacTed> changing datatypes is NOT aesthetic...
16:12:30 <zwu2> PatH: we can leave the current syntax as is
16:12:45 <AndyS> q+
16:12:48 <davidwood> The problem with xsd:string is that XSD (*all* of XSD) is RDF's extension mechanism for types.
16:13:04 <SteveH> <literal datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string" xml:lang="en-GB">foo</literal> (SPARQL Result format) matters
16:13:34 <ww> too revolutionary to suggest that there are no languages, they're just certain string-derived datatypes?
16:14:06 <AndyS> q-
16:14:21 <Guus> AndY?
16:14:40 <zwu2> PatH: we should decide on which one we like and update the syntax
16:14:50 <AndyS> Languages matter - we see this used for which label to display in apps
16:14:51 <SteveH> strawpoll?
16:15:02 <zwu2> a strawpoll is a good idea
16:16:01 <SteveH> prefer plain literal
16:16:09 <pfps>  prefer rdf:plainLiteral
16:16:09 <zwu2> guus: +1 if you prefer plain literal or xsd:string
16:16:17 <PatH> Im am unclear what we ar voting on. 
16:16:19 <cygri> prefer plain literal or xsd:string, but not rdf:PlainLiteral
16:16:27 <AndyS> Either no change, or simple literal 
16:16:31 <PatH> still unclear.
16:16:43 <PatH> IS the question, what should be the type of "foo" ?
16:16:56 <davidwood> Unclear to me, due to the relation of xsd:string to the rest of XSD.
16:16:57 <zwu2> sorry
16:17:04 <cygri> Straw poll on: in the abstract syntax, if we want to have a single representation for strings (with and without language tag), which would it be?
16:18:26 <AZ> bye
16:18:28 <pchampin> bye
16:18:29 <Zakim> -yvesr
16:18:30 <Zakim> -cygri
16:18:30 <Zakim> -PatH
16:18:31 <ww> by all
16:18:31 <Zakim> -davidwood
16:18:33 <Zakim> -??P18
16:18:33 <zwu2> thanks
16:18:34 <Zakim> -koalie
16:18:34 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:18:34 <zwu2> bye
16:18:35 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:18:36 <Zakim> -pchampin
16:18:38 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:18:42 <MacTed> trackbot, end meeting
16:18:42 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:18:42 <Zakim> -Bjorn_Bringert
16:18:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:18:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
16:18:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:18:44 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-rdf-wg-actions.rdf :
16:18:44 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus to send a message to the mailing list [1]
16:18:44 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-rdf-wg-irc#T15-40-21
16:18:46 <Zakim> -gavinc
16:18:47 <gavin> BNods offline conversation at some point would be helpful!
16:22:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
16:22:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-rdf-wg-irc
16:22:45 <MacTed> chair: Guus
16:22:53 <MacTed> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:22:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/18-rdf-wg-minutes.html MacTed
16:23:08 <MacTed> RRSAgent, bye
16:23:16 <MacTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:23:19 <MacTed> RRSAgent, bye
16:23:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items