IRC log of rdf-wg on 2011-06-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:21:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:21:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:21:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:21:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:21:23 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
14:21:23 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 39 minutes
14:21:24 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:21:24 [trackbot]
Date: 01 June 2011
14:27:12 [Scott]
Scott has joined #rdf-wg
14:30:55 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg
14:51:14 [Scott_Bauer]
Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
14:52:16 [Guus]
Guus has joined #rdf-wg
14:53:25 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
14:53:32 [Zakim]
14:53:42 [Zakim]
14:53:57 [Scott_Bauer]
zakim, hsbauer is me
14:53:57 [Zakim]
+Scott_Bauer; got it
14:55:07 [mbrunati]
mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg
14:55:40 [Zakim]
14:56:12 [davidwood1]
zakim, who is here?
14:56:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood
14:56:59 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:56:59 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:57:01 [Zakim]
14:57:28 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg
14:57:30 [ericP]
Zakim, please dial ericP-office
14:57:30 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:57:32 [Zakim]
14:57:45 [Zakim]
14:58:06 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:21 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:40 [Olivier]
Olivier has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:40 [Zakim]
14:58:45 [pchampin]
pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:47 [Zakim]
14:58:53 [mbrunati]
zakim, ??P22 is me
14:58:53 [Zakim]
+mbrunati; got it
14:58:56 [SteveH_]
Zakim, ??P26 is me
14:58:56 [Zakim]
+SteveH_; got it
14:59:12 [cmatheus]
cmatheus has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:19 [Zakim]
14:59:24 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:47 [pchampin]
zakim, who is here?
14:59:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, ??P25 (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall
15:00:05 [Zakim]
15:00:15 [pchampin]
zakim, ??P25 is me
15:00:15 [Zakim]
+pchampin; got it
15:00:22 [Zakim]
15:00:42 [Zakim]
15:00:42 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P30 is me
15:00:44 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
15:00:50 [Zakim]
15:01:03 [cmatheus]
zakim, ??P30 is me
15:01:03 [Zakim]
I already had ??P30 as AndyS, cmatheus
15:01:07 [Zakim]
15:01:19 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:20 [AZ]
zakim, wcandillon is me
15:01:20 [Zakim]
+AZ; got it
15:01:22 [Zakim]
15:01:35 [pfps]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, ??P3, pfps, AZ, LeeF
15:01:42 [Zakim]
15:01:42 [AZ]
15:01:46 [davidwood1]
zakim, ??P30 is really me. Really! Please let me have it.
15:01:49 [Zakim]
I don't understand you, davidwood1
15:01:56 [davidwood1]
Zakim, I know :)
15:01:57 [Zakim]
I'm glad that smiley is there, davidwood1
15:02:01 [cmatheus]
zakim, ??P3 is me
15:02:05 [Zakim]
+cmatheus; got it
15:02:48 [davidwood1]
Chair: David Wood
15:02:51 [cygri]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas
15:02:52 [davidwood1]
Zakim, who is here?
15:02:53 [cygri]
zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
15:02:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas
15:02:54 [pchampin]
zakim, mute me
15:02:56 [Zakim]
+cygri; got it
15:02:56 [Zakim]
pchampin should now be muted
15:03:03 [Zakim]
15:03:10 [davidwood1]
Scribe: Alex Hall
15:03:21 [NickH]
Zakim, ??P36 is BBC
15:03:21 [Zakim]
+BBC; got it
15:03:23 [davidwood1]
Scribenick: AlexHall
15:03:30 [Zakim]
15:03:49 [Zakim]
15:04:22 [AlexHall]
regrets: axel, pat, mischat, souri
15:04:25 [AlexHall]
topic: Admin
15:04:53 [zwu2]
zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
15:04:55 [AlexHall]
davidwood: there were several resolutions from last meeting, please review the minutes.
15:05:02 [zwu2]
zakim, code?
15:05:02 [Zakim]
the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.203.318.0479), zwu2
15:05:13 [AlexHall]
RESOLVED: minutes from last meeting accepted
15:05:22 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:05:29 [ivan]
zakim, who is noisy?
15:05:30 [pfps]
minutes look OK to me
15:05:32 [Zakim]
15:05:38 [zwu2]
sorry I am late
15:05:39 [Zakim]
ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AZ (16%), Guus (5%), davidwood (59%), Ivan (25%)
15:05:50 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:05:50 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:06:19 [NickH]
Zakim, BBC also has NickH
15:06:19 [Zakim]
+NickH; got it
15:06:24 [NickH]
Zakim, BBC also has yvesr
15:06:24 [Zakim]
+yvesr; got it
15:06:30 [AlexHall]
cygri: still working on writing up named graph proposals for action-25
15:06:46 [AlexHall]
... happy to keep action open or accept help from others
15:07:01 [JeremyCarroll]
JeremyCarroll has joined #rdf-wg
15:07:08 [pchampin]
15:07:08 [trackbot]
ACTION-25 -- Richard Cyganiak to write up the different options re ISSUE-15 -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN
15:07:08 [trackbot]
15:07:39 [Zakim]
15:07:55 [AlexHall]
cygri: action-51 text is implemented in local copy and waiting for hg repository
15:08:11 [Zakim]
15:08:18 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:08:18 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:08:20 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:08:20 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:08:45 [cygri]
trackbot, close ACTION-51
15:08:45 [trackbot]
ACTION-51 Implement ISSUE-40 resolution in RDF Concepts Editor's draft; see and replies for text closed
15:08:55 [AlexHall]
guus: still trying to figure out what purpose of action-51 was
15:09:04 [AlexHall]
15:09:26 [AlexHall]
topic: Language tags
15:09:26 [davidwood1]
ISSUE-64: RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags?
15:09:26 [davidwood1]
Richard's proposal to resolve:
15:09:26 [trackbot]
ISSUE-64 RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags? notes added
15:09:44 [AlexHall]
davidwood: Richard has proposal to resolve language tag issue
15:09:52 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:10:05 [JeremyCarroll]
q+ to express surprise at the current text
15:10:14 [AlexHall]
cygri: spec currently refers to obsoleted rfc 3066 for language tags
15:10:31 [AlexHall]
... proposal is to use latest rfc 5646
15:10:38 [davidwood1]
Pat's reformulation/explanation:
15:10:56 [davidwood1]
Lee F also expressed support:
15:11:10 [AlexHall]
... the new RFC has two notions of validity: well-formedness (grammar only) and validity (lang tag actually exists)
15:11:52 [AlexHall]
... add a note that the previous RFC allowed lang tags that are no longer allowed under the latest version
15:12:01 [ericP]
+1 ref'ing 5646, +1 to holding at well-formedness, +1 to explanatory note
15:12:06 [yvesr]
15:12:07 [AlexHall]
... adopt the loosest notion of well-formedness
15:12:36 [AlexHall]
davidwood: do you agree with pat's latest note on the mailing list?
15:12:49 [AlexHall]
cygri: seems to be about a different issue
15:13:13 [AlexHall]
davidwood: apologies, it was a different issue
15:14:23 [AlexHall]
???: when i read this note, it prompted me to drill down into original text around lang tags in the spec
15:14:57 [AZ]
15:15:03 [AlexHall]
... at some point there was a phrase to reference RFC 3066 or its successors
15:15:20 [AlexHall]
... not sure what that phrase was dropped, would like to find out why
15:15:39 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #rdf-wg
15:15:43 [AZ]
15:16:07 [ericP]
refs to unicode serve as a precedent for "or it's successors", but there are contracts which allow forward-thinking parsers to know what could be valid in the next decade or so
15:16:25 [AlexHall]
... richard's point about validity vs. well-formedness was well taken and i support the proposal.
15:16:51 [davidwood1]
15:17:03 [pfps]
OK by me
15:17:25 [pfps]
... not that I care .... Issue 12, on the other hand ...
15:17:29 [ericP]
15:17:31 [cygri]
PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts as per Richard's proposal:
15:17:31 [SteveH]
15:17:34 [AndyS]
OK if syntax restriction - not depending on registry state
15:17:35 [pfps]
15:17:36 [JeremyCarroll]
15:17:36 [davidwood1]
15:17:36 [mbrunati]
15:17:38 [ivan]
15:17:41 [zwu2]
15:17:43 [sandro]
15:17:55 [pchampin]
15:17:59 [cmatheus]
15:18:03 [AZ]
15:18:04 [yvesr]
15:18:07 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:18:39 [Zakim]
15:19:07 [Zakim]
15:19:12 [AlexHall]
RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts per Richard's proposal
15:19:23 [ivan]
15:19:26 [ivan]
ack ivan
15:19:31 [cygri]
ACTION: cygri to implement ISSUE-64 resolution
15:19:31 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-54 - Implement ISSUE-64 resolution [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-06-08].
15:19:37 [davidwood1]
Proposed text on replacing URIref with IRI
15:19:37 [davidwood1]
15:19:37 [davidwood1]
Related email:
15:19:47 [davidwood1]
ack JeremyCarroll
15:19:47 [Zakim]
JeremyCarroll, you wanted to express surprise at the current text
15:19:47 [JeremyCarroll]
15:19:56 [Zakim]
15:20:04 [ivan]
15:20:14 [FabGandon]
zakim, Sophia is me
15:20:14 [Zakim]
+FabGandon; got it
15:20:30 [AlexHall]
ivan: before we move on to other major issues, I have the hg repository set up and link is posted in IRC
15:21:10 [davidwood1]
15:21:39 [AlexHall]
topic: Replacing URIref with IRI
15:21:47 [AlexHall]
davidwood: This is Richard's text
15:22:24 [AlexHall]
cygri: link is posted in minutes. issue is that we need to replace references to URI Reference in Concepts with references to IRI
15:22:48 [AlexHall]
... fortunately this simplifies things because IRI defines things which were previously defined in RDF
15:23:00 [AlexHall]
... main issue is what to do with the left-over notes in Concepts
15:23:29 [AlexHall]
... there are characters which were allowed in URIrefs which are no longer allowed in IRIs
15:23:37 [davidwood1]
q+ to discuss IPv6 in ihost:
15:23:47 [AlexHall]
... add note to indicate that these are no longer allowed except in %-encoded form
15:24:21 [AlexHall]
... also a note to discourage %-encoded characters in old text, not sure this is a good idea
15:24:34 [AlexHall]
q+ to discuss percent-encoding
15:24:51 [davidwood1]
ack davidwood
15:24:51 [Zakim]
davidwood, you wanted to discuss IPv6 in ihost:
15:24:59 [AlexHall]
... would like feedback from others who have looked into it
15:25:29 [AndyS]
There is %-enc text in RFC => (summary) use % only as necessary and not wildly.
15:25:36 [JeremyCarroll]
q+ to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought
15:25:47 [ericP]
15:25:52 [AndyS]
IPv6 are legal using []
15:25:56 [AlexHall]
davidwood: occurred to me since i'm dealing with IPv6 issues... IRI grammar seems to allow host names and IPv4 addresses but not IPv6
15:26:12 [AlexHall]
... anybody know why this is?
15:26:23 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:26:26 [davidwood1]
IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]"
15:26:31 [SteveH]
15:26:34 [AlexHall]
???: IRI allows IPv6 addresses in square brackets
15:26:36 [SteveH]
I've actually used them :)
15:26:46 [davidwood1]
ack AlexHall
15:26:46 [Zakim]
AlexHall, you wanted to discuss percent-encoding
15:26:50 [AndyS]
RFC2732 adds them
15:27:04 [AZ]
15:27:38 [AndyS]
RFC 3986 page 19
15:28:16 [AndyS]
section 3.2.2. Host
15:28:22 [JeremyCarroll]
q+ to say last note is too long!
15:30:23 [pchampin]
is there any reference that we could refer to regarding this notion of "canonical IRI"?
15:30:27 [davidwood1]
ack JeremyCarroll
15:30:27 [Zakim]
JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought and to say last note is too long!
15:30:50 [cygri]
15:30:56 [pfps]
+1 to Jeremy - it is better to defer than to copy
15:31:34 [cygri]
15:31:36 [AlexHall]
AlexHall: Intent of the original text with %-encoding seemed to be to avoid interoperability issues, so I agree with the new proposal in this regard.
15:31:48 [pfps]
-1 to David - informative lists tend to become too normative
15:32:07 [cygri]
q+ to ask jeremy how much is too long
15:32:14 [AlexHall]
JeremyCarroll: Would like to simply defer to IRI section 5 for normalization
15:32:31 [AlexHall]
... giving a long list here runs the risk of people thinking this is exhaustive or normative
15:33:06 [AlexHall]
davidwood: having the list there is nice as a summary so people don't have to hunt down the list themselves
15:33:26 [AlexHall]
cygri: the intent here is that they are informative, not normative, and this will be explicitly noted in the document.
15:34:09 [ericP]
q+ to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs."
15:34:18 [davidwood1]
15:34:22 [cygri]
15:34:36 [AlexHall]
JeremyCarroll: Historically this section has been note-heavy, would prefer to see this stuff moved into a new section 3.7
15:34:53 [Zakim]
15:34:54 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:35:05 [pfps]
moving to an informative section would help a lot!
15:35:25 [davidwood1]
ack ericP
15:35:25 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and
15:35:29 [Zakim]
... produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs."
15:35:38 [Zakim]
15:35:58 [AlexHall]
ericP: seems the root issue is that producing non-normalized IRIs decreases the chance that other tools will produce the same form
15:36:12 [cygri]
15:36:15 [AndyS]
And other RDF apps.
15:36:20 [JeremyCarroll]
with that text we are well on the way to section 3.7
15:36:23 [davidwood1]
ack cygri
15:36:36 [AlexHall]
... propose to add some text (quoted in IRC) to explain the motivations for this note.
15:37:08 [AlexHall]
cygri: prefer to avoid motivations and give just a concise summary
15:37:34 [AlexHall]
davidwood: would like to cater to people who don't want to read through all the specs to get a good understanding
15:38:02 [AlexHall]
... most conerns at this point seem to be editorial in nature
15:38:29 [AlexHall]
cygri: as soon as the working draft goes live this content will be added and i encourage further comments
15:38:48 [AlexHall]
... don't think we need a resolution now but want interested people to keep any eye on it.
15:39:03 [AlexHall]
Topic: Revisit RDF Postponed Issues
15:39:19 [AlexHall]
davidwood: This always seems to get pushed down to the bottom of the agenda
15:39:36 [AlexHall]
... let's take a few minutes to knock some of these down now
15:39:39 [davidwood1]
15:40:01 [pfps]
Issue-55 - not only no, but xxxx NO! the request is incorrect, anyway
15:40:22 [pfps]
15:40:24 [LeeF]
15:40:34 [SteveH]
yeah, lets not do that :)
15:40:39 [AlexHall]
PROPOSED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group
15:40:39 [zwu2]
+1 close it
15:40:41 [ivan]
agreed with closing
15:40:41 [cygri]
15:40:42 [pfps]
15:40:43 [mbrunati]
15:40:44 [SteveH]
15:40:53 [yvesr]
15:40:57 [AZ]
15:40:58 [pchampin]
15:40:59 [cmatheus]
15:41:02 [LeeF]
15:41:02 [trackbot]
ISSUE-55 -- Revisit "Request for a richer vocabulary for languages" -- raised
15:41:02 [trackbot]
15:41:03 [NickH]
15:41:59 [JeremyCarroll]
2) With respect to the rules for comparing literals: For reasons of standardization and ease of use, there should exist a higher level matching rule that allows one to search for (lang="en", str) and to get matches to more detailed tags (lang="en-gb", str). This higher level rule should be defined
15:42:19 [AlexHall]
JeremyCarroll: we should close saying lang-matches from SPARQL addresses this issue
15:43:05 [ivan]
15:43:06 [trackbot]
ISSUE-56 -- Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" -- raised
15:43:06 [trackbot]
15:43:06 [davidwood1]
15:43:07 [AlexHall]
RESOLVED01: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group
15:43:20 [davidwood1]
ISSUE-56: Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments"
15:43:20 [trackbot]
ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" notes added
15:43:21 [pfps]
15:43:25 [Zakim]
15:43:51 [Zakim]
15:43:52 [davidwood1]
ack pfps
15:43:53 [SteveH]
15:44:02 [JeremyCarroll]
no - not rdfs:comment
15:44:17 [JeremyCarroll]
15:44:19 [SteveH]
ok, then <!-- --> / #
15:44:27 [AlexHall]
pfps: this is from Ian, there was annoyance in the OWL wg that rdfs:comment has semantics
15:44:44 [AlexHall]
... that ship has sailed, rdfs:comment is there and has semantics
15:45:05 [AlexHall]
... no third party is allowed to add new predicates to the RDF namespace
15:45:13 [AlexHall]
... we should close it
15:45:32 [cygri]
+1 to closing
15:45:33 [pfps]
15:45:35 [ericP]
15:45:36 [AndyS]
15:45:37 [AZ]
15:45:37 [zwu2]
15:45:37 [mbrunati]
15:45:39 [JeremyCarroll]
15:45:39 [Guus]
+1 to closing
15:45:40 [yvesr]
15:45:42 [SteveH]
15:45:44 [cmatheus]
15:45:45 [AlexHall]
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-56 by closing it.
15:46:15 [pchampin]
15:46:21 [AlexHall]
RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-56 by closing it.
15:47:23 [davidwood1]
15:47:29 [pfps]
q+ for issue-57
15:47:41 [davidwood1]
ISSUE-57: Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture"
15:47:41 [trackbot]
ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture" notes added
15:48:06 [AlexHall]
is anybody speaking right now?
15:49:28 [pfps]
15:49:40 [JeremyCarroll]
+1 to peter
15:49:50 [JeremyCarroll]
close it, reject
15:49:54 [AlexHall]
davidwood: instead of continuing, we should open it and revisit when we finish the specs
15:50:20 [AndyS]
What would a more layered architecture look like? It's not just change of exposition.
15:50:33 [pchampin]
q+ to ask about RDFS-DL ?
15:50:49 [davidwood1]
ack pfps
15:50:49 [Zakim]
pfps, you wanted to discuss issue-57 and to
15:50:51 [AlexHall]
pfps: we won't be addressing this in this WG
15:51:15 [AlexHall]
... there was a request for some defined fragment of RDFS that fits nicely into OWL
15:52:13 [AlexHall]
davidwood: sounds like yet another proposal for yet another subset of logical formalism
15:52:13 [pchampin]
15:52:14 [JeremyCarroll]
15:52:29 [Guus]
propose to close by doing nothing, no strong expressed need
15:52:31 [davidwood1]
ack JeremyCarroll
15:53:23 [Guus]
I don't think we need to spend telecon time on this, we are all in violent agreement :-)
15:54:00 [FabGandon]
15:54:03 [ericP]
15:54:04 [JeremyCarroll]
15:54:05 [AlexHall]
PROPOSED: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it.
15:54:05 [mbrunati]
15:54:07 [SteveH]
15:54:08 [pfps]
+1 to crush the can
15:54:09 [cygri]
15:54:10 [zwu2]
15:54:10 [Souri]
15:54:14 [AZ]
15:54:21 [ivan]
15:54:23 [yvesr]
15:54:24 [AndyS]
15:54:28 [AlexHall]
RESOLVED01: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it.
15:54:33 [cmatheus]
15:54:47 [JeremyCarroll]
]/me Guus
15:54:56 [davidwood1]
ISSUE-12: Reconcile various forms of string literals
15:54:56 [trackbot]
ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added
15:54:56 [davidwood1]
15:55:16 [AlexHall]
Topic: ISSUE-12 (string literals)
15:55:17 [davidwood1]
ISSUE-12: Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting)
15:55:17 [trackbot]
ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added
15:55:47 [AlexHall]
davidwood: I note that this item is marked as "time-permitting" in the charter
15:55:59 [cygri]
15:56:05 [pfps]
+1 to keeping Pat simple :-)
15:56:17 [SteveH]
"simple" != about 2k of text
15:56:25 [AlexHall]
... who would like to speak for pat and his request to keep it simple?
15:56:27 [davidwood1]
ack cygri
15:56:28 [ivan] is pat's mail
15:56:48 [davidwood1]
Ivan, that URI gives me a 404
15:56:52 [cygri]
15:56:58 [LeeF]
Pat's email just re-expresses Richard's proposal, as far as i can tell.
15:57:02 [cygri]
15:57:03 [AlexHall]
cygri: would not like to speak to what pat said, seems to just point out that the last proposal wasn't that complicated
15:57:21 [ivan]
15:57:29 [ivan] is pat's mail
15:57:31 [LeeF]
+1 to
15:57:36 [AndyS]
Remaining issue is class vs datatype because DATATYPE("foo"@en) =? rdf:TaggedThing
15:57:37 [AlexHall]
... would like to talk about another proposal that addresses only strings without language tag
15:57:50 [AlexHall]
... seems to be agreement on this aspect of it
15:58:28 [SteveH]
15:58:58 [AlexHall]
... the proposal is to unify un-tagged string literals is to abolish the untagged plain literal in the abstract syntax and consider "foo" to be syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string in the concrete syntax
15:59:29 [AlexHall]
s/is to abolish/by abolishing/
15:59:31 [AndyS]
To Pat's email - if only class, then DATATYPE() => error still?? Seems unhelpful.
15:59:54 [AlexHall]
pfps: like this proposal better than previous ones
16:00:46 [Zakim]
16:01:00 [Zakim]
16:01:02 [AlexHall]
... have some compliant about the use of rdf:LangTaggedString, not sure it is needed and will require changes to RDF semantics, OWL, and SPARQL
16:01:22 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:01:42 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has left #rdf-wg
16:01:56 [JeremyCarroll]
rdf:LangTaggedString = rdfs:Literal - union of all typed literals
16:02:01 [AlexHall]
... thinks it's OK to handle rdf:LTS in OWL but need to verify
16:02:17 [davidwood1]
ack SteveH
16:02:32 [AlexHall]
... would like to send a note to the OWL WG
16:02:54 [Souri]
Question: Will "abc" still be a valid RDF literal? For example, would it be ok for me present the following triple for insertion: <John> rdfs:label "John" , OR am I obliged to present: <John> rdfs:label "John"^^xsd:string ? Also, can SPARQL query return "John" as a value for a variable?
16:03:02 [LeeF]
16:03:11 [AlexHall]
SteveH: my concern is that we previously resolved to do just the opposite, to turn xsd:string into plain literals
16:03:26 [LeeF]
16:03:43 [LeeF]
(was going to ask where this is visible, but then Steve answered it)
16:03:47 [Souri]
I agree with Steve's concern
16:03:48 [AlexHall]
... this seems to match what users expect, since most string data in the wild is not typed as xsd:string
16:03:59 [AlexHall]
... there is also concern about how this plays with SPARQL
16:04:38 [AndyS]
+1 - SPARQL results must return non-DT string for xsd:string for this else massive surprises (= lots of support costs).
16:05:00 [davidwood1]
16:05:15 [Souri]
s/agree with/share/
16:05:18 [AlexHall]
... SPARQL results will return lots of unexpected xsd:string datatypes
16:05:33 [cygri]
16:05:45 [ivan]
16:05:51 [davidwood1]
ack cygri
16:06:03 [AlexHall]
... seems odd to go to all this trouble to remove plain literals from the abstract syntax and turn around and strip out xsd:string types on the way out of the system.
16:06:05 [AndyS]
q+ to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics
16:06:12 [pchampin]
making a difference btw 2 kinds of strings is even more perverse
16:07:01 [AlexHall]
cygri: the only syntax that really needs changing is N-Triples...
16:07:15 [JeremyCarroll]
q+ to suggest predictability also hel[ful for XML
16:07:40 [AlexHall]
... syntactic sugar in most concrete syntaxes is bad because it reduces predictability
16:08:23 [AlexHall]
... forbidding one datatype in the abstract syntax is even more perverse than forbidding plain literals in one of the concrete syntaxes
16:09:02 [sandro]
SteveH, I liked deprecating xs:string until it looked like we could get rid of Plain Literals entirely (via using language-tags-as-datatypes).
16:09:25 [davidwood1]
Sandro, right. Me, too.
16:09:31 [ivan]
16:09:32 [davidwood1]
ack ivan
16:09:35 [Souri]
We could have both "abc" and "abc"^^xsd:string as equivalent (identical when compared), but treat the simple literal form "abc" to be the canonical one.
16:09:35 [AlexHall]
davidwood: none of the proposals seems to play nicely with all the various levels (semantics, concepts, RDF document set, implementations)
16:09:37 [sandro]
I hope people wont be expected to emit the long form.
16:09:40 [davidwood1]
ack AndyS
16:09:40 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics
16:09:50 [SteveH]
sandro, I like lang tag -> datatype
16:10:16 [AlexHall]
AndyS: agree with Steve's concerns re. xsd:string in concrete syntaxes, think this could be abolished if we're careful
16:10:17 [AlexHall]
16:10:22 [JeremyCarroll]
+1 to andy / split surface syntax from abstract syntax
16:10:29 [ericP]
+1 to short-forms only in the serializations
16:10:39 [davidwood1]
ack JeremyCarroll
16:10:39 [Zakim]
JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest predictability also hel[ful for XML
16:10:43 [yvesr]
+1 to AndyS
16:10:51 [AlexHall]
... but we can split the abstract and sufrace syntaxes and use different approaches in each
16:11:00 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:11:18 [AlexHall]
Jeremy: If we're making N-Triples, Turtle more predictable then we should also make RDF/XML more predictable.
16:11:57 [AlexHall]
davidwood: If we ingest RDF literals, turn them into xsd:string internally, and emit them back as plain literals, is this consistent with what you said:
16:12:13 [AlexHall]
AndyS: yes it is, and I can't think of a format where you wouldn't want to do that.
16:12:30 [pfps]
16:12:53 [AlexHall]
davidwood: are we re-defining xsd:string?
16:12:57 [AlexHall]
everybody: NO!
16:13:39 [Souri]
16:13:41 [AlexHall]
???: we're retroactively declaring that all plain literals without language tags are actually xsd:strings
16:13:47 [sandro]
At the RDF APIs will be much simpler, Andy.
16:13:55 [sandro]
At LEAST, the APIs....
16:14:48 [AndyS]
sandro - not so simple?? - are serializers inside or outside such API?
16:14:48 [AlexHall]
davidwood: Volunteers to start a wiki page to collect all the places that are affected by Richard & Pat's ISSUE-12 proposal?
16:15:22 [AndyS]
Request for a consolidate text for R+P proposal.
16:15:26 [cygri]
16:16:53 [AndyS]
Please rename - if we keep untagged-in-surface syntax, it's a bad name.
16:17:08 [AlexHall]
cygri: it's been my understanding that this conversation has been only about string literals without language tags
16:17:34 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:17:39 [AlexHall]
davidwood: can you combine this with the language-tag proposal?
16:18:06 [AlexHall]
cygri: point was to keep them separate because there is still disagreement about language tags
16:18:45 [davidwood1]
16:18:51 [AlexHall]
davidwood: request for somebody to add to the wiki page for this proposal a section that collects all documents which will need to change as a result of it.
16:19:39 [davidwood1]
ack Souri
16:19:59 [AndyS]
SPARQL query is doable / SPARQL XML results is not being opened this time => trickier
16:20:20 [AlexHall]
souri: looking at this proposal, intent seems to be that these two forms are declared equivalent
16:20:45 [AlexHall]
... we should define a canonical form for the surface syntax so we know how to output the value in query results
16:20:59 [AlexHall]
davidwood: we are over time
16:21:11 [zwu2]
16:21:12 [LeeF]
regrets next week for semtech
16:21:12 [AlexHall]
... think we've made progress
16:21:13 [yvesr]
16:21:13 [pchampin]
16:21:13 [AndyS]
regrets for next week - semtech
16:21:15 [AlexHall]
... adjourned.
16:21:16 [Zakim]
16:21:17 [Zakim]
16:21:17 [Zakim]
16:21:18 [JeremyCarroll]
16:21:19 [Zakim]
16:21:20 [Zakim]
16:21:20 [Zakim]
16:21:21 [Zakim]
16:21:21 [Zakim]
16:21:23 [Zakim]
16:21:23 [mbrunati]
16:21:25 [Zakim]
16:21:27 [Zakim]
16:21:29 [Zakim]
16:21:31 [Zakim]
16:21:33 [Zakim]
16:21:35 [Zakim]
16:21:37 [Zakim]
16:21:39 [Zakim]
16:21:41 [Zakim]
16:21:43 [Zakim]
16:21:46 [Zakim]
16:21:47 [Zakim]
16:21:49 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
16:21:51 [Zakim]
Attendees were Guus, Scott_Bauer, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, pchampin, AndyS, pfps, AZ, LeeF, cmatheus, cygri, BBC, JeremyCarroll, Souri, zwu2,
16:21:54 [Zakim]
... NickH, yvesr, sandro, MacTed
16:22:06 [AndyS]
AndyS has left #rdf-wg
16:24:28 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #rdf-wg
17:02:09 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg
17:25:11 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
18:36:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-wg
18:38:38 [mischat]
mischat has joined #rdf-wg
19:08:05 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #rdf-wg
20:06:51 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #rdf-wg
20:09:37 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #rdf-wg