14:47:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:47:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/29-rdf-wg-irc
14:47:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:47:22 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:47:24 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
14:47:24 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
14:47:25 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:47:25 <trackbot> Date: 29 June 2011
14:47:28 <LeeF> zakim, this will be rdfwg
14:47:28 <Zakim> ok, LeeF; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 13 minutes
14:47:33 <LeeF> Chair: LeeF
14:47:38 <LeeF> ScribenickL NickH
14:47:47 <LeeF> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.06.29
14:48:35 <LeeF> Regrets: David Wood, ppfs, TomS
14:48:38 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
14:51:41 <FabGandon> FabGandon has joined #rdf-wg
14:51:50 <Scott_Bauer> Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
14:53:37 <gavinc> gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
14:53:46 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
14:53:53 <Zakim> +??P16
14:54:00 <ww> Zakim, ??P16 is me
14:54:00 <Zakim> +ww; got it
14:54:05 <ww> Zakim, please mute me
14:54:05 <Zakim> sorry, ww, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
14:54:28 <AndyS1> AndyS1 has joined #rdf-wg
14:54:47 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer
14:54:51 <Zakim> -ww
14:54:52 <Zakim> +ww
14:54:56 <ww> Zakim, please mute me
14:54:56 <Zakim> ww should now be muted
14:55:02 <ww> Zakim, thank you
14:55:02 <Zakim> you are very welcome, ww
14:55:24 <Zakim> +gavinc
14:55:34 <Zakim> +??P26
14:55:55 <yvesr> Zakim: ??P26 is yvesr 
14:56:01 <FabGandon> Please note my regrets (Fabien Gandon, trapped in a meeting), sorry.
14:56:03 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P26 is yvesr 
14:56:03 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
14:56:20 <mbrunati> mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg
14:56:58 <LeeF> Regrets+ FabGandon
14:57:31 <Zakim> +LeeF
14:58:44 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:59 <Zakim> +??P33
14:59:03 <AndyS1> zakim, ??P33 is me
14:59:03 <Zakim> +AndyS1; got it
14:59:41 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:46 <AndyS1> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see ww (muted), Scott_Bauer, gavinc, yvesr, LeeF, AndyS1
14:59:48 <Zakim> +wcandillon
15:00:01 <AZ> zakim, wcandillon is me
15:00:01 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
15:00:10 <Zakim> +??P39
15:00:21 <pchampin> zakim, ??P39 is me
15:00:21 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
15:00:33 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:53 <zwu2> zakim, code?
15:00:58 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), zwu2
15:01:01 <AZ> zakim, mute me
15:01:03 <Zakim> AZ should now be muted
15:01:25 <Zakim> +AlexHall
15:01:28 <Zakim> +zwu2
15:01:34 <zwu2> zakim, mute me
15:01:34 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted
15:01:35 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:04 <LeeF> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:03:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see ww (muted), Scott_Bauer, gavinc, yvesr, LeeF, AndyS1, AZ (muted), pchampin (muted), AlexHall, zwu2 (muted)
15:03:45 <AZ> what's happening with last week minutes?
15:03:50 <AZ> I get a 404
15:04:33 <AZ> Pat was scribe
15:04:59 <PatHayes> PatHayes has joined #rdf-wg
15:05:40 <Zakim> +PatHayes
15:06:02 <LeeF> scribenick: gavinc
15:06:53 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2009/CommonScribe/manual.html
15:07:05 <gavinc> Scribe: gavinc
15:07:18 <LeeF> (Defer approving 22-Jun minutes until next week)
15:07:24 <gavinc> Topic: Admin
15:07:58 <Zakim> + +1.312.348.aaaa
15:08:10 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:08:26 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:08:26 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:08:28 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:08:28 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:08:46 <mbrunati> zakim, +1.312.348.aaaa is me
15:08:46 <Zakim> +mbrunati; got it
15:09:02 <gavinc> subtopic: Action Items
15:09:03 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
15:09:13 <gavinc> ACTION-56
15:09:33 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:09:49 <LeeF> ACTION-56?
15:09:49 <trackbot> ACTION-56 -- Pierre-Antoine Champin to review SPARQL LC WD document -- due 2011-06-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:09:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/56
15:10:37 <gavinc> LeeF: Have review from Pierre, looking it over about half of it touchs on the graph terminology. The other half is a good review of the document in general
15:10:50 <Zakim> +??P61
15:10:54 <gavinc> LeeF: Do we want to use this as a start of an official review?
15:11:12 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P61 is me
15:11:13 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
15:11:23 <AZ> +1 as a starting point for a WG review
15:11:30 <gavinc> Pierre: Original idea to have a group review, current version is more of a set of talking points. Our just submit it with my name on it.
15:11:52 <gavinc> LeeF: Need some way to get some consensuses around the review.
15:11:52 <AndyS1> Review is: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0154.html
15:11:58 <LeeF> close ACTION-56
15:11:58 <trackbot> ACTION-56 Review SPARQL LC WD document closed
15:11:59 <AZ> +1 to close
15:12:14 <gavinc> ACTION-60
15:12:16 <gavinc> ACTION-60?
15:12:16 <trackbot> ACTION-60 -- Guus Schreiber to discuss Turtle doc schedule with ericP -- due 2011-06-15 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:12:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/60
15:12:21 <AndyS1> review in the att: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/att-0154/sparql-notes.txt
15:12:42 <LeeF> close ACTION-60
15:12:43 <trackbot> ACTION-60 Discuss Turtle doc schedule with ericP closed
15:12:45 <gavinc> LeeF: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0170.html
15:13:12 <gavinc> LeeF: No one with an open action is on the call
15:13:34 <gavinc> ACTION-63
15:13:36 <gavinc> ACTION-63?
15:13:36 <trackbot> ACTION-63 -- Lee Feigenbaum to take http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain to SPARQL WG to gauge the impact on SPARQL process and schedule -- due 2011-06-22 -- OPEN
15:13:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/63
15:13:51 <LeeF> ACTION-63: Completed and SPARQL WG is in process of figuring out how to respond or accommodate the resolution
15:13:51 <trackbot> ACTION-63 Take http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain to SPARQL WG to gauge the impact on SPARQL process and schedule notes added
15:13:57 <LeeF> close ACTION-63
15:13:57 <trackbot> ACTION-63 Take http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain to SPARQL WG to gauge the impact on SPARQL process and schedule closed
15:14:31 <gavinc> Topic: Graph Terminology
15:14:45 <gavinc> LeeF: there was a join telecon last week between this group and sparql wg
15:15:12 <gavinc> ... looking at SPARQL graph protocol document, and how it lined up with g-text, g-snap, g-box
15:15:58 <AndyS1> who here was there?
15:15:59 <gavinc> LeeF: anyone able to summarize last weeks graph telecon?
15:16:02 <pchampin> I was
15:16:16 <AZ> I was there too
15:16:41 <AZ> zakim, unmute me
15:16:41 <Zakim> AZ should no longer be muted
15:17:07 <Zakim> +??P2
15:17:17 <mischat> zakim, ??P2 is me
15:17:17 <Zakim> +mischat; got it
15:17:19 <pchampin> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-sparql11-http-rdf-update-20110512/
15:17:21 <mischat> zakim, mute me
15:17:21 <Zakim> mischat should now be muted
15:17:22 <gavinc> AZ: Summary, matching terms g-box, g-snap, g-text to terms used in SPARQL graph store documents
15:17:29 <LeeF>  http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/
15:17:41 <LeeF> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/#terminology
15:17:57 <gavinc> AZ: Agreed to align RDF Document to g-text
15:18:20 <gavinc> ... but concern about the use of the term document
15:18:30 <PatHayes> sandro, you on the call?
15:18:35 <gavinc> ... RDF specification, maybe we shouldn't use Document to talk about g-text.
15:18:39 <LeeF> (i don't think so :-/ )(
15:18:46 <PatHayes> ta.
15:18:47 <gavinc> ... Richard to take first stab at creating new terms.
15:19:10 <gavinc> ... RDF Graph Content maybe sort of... mmm, maybe not.
15:19:17 <pchampin> IFAIR, there was no clear consensus on that one
15:19:22 <AndyS1> (g-text is our own placeholder for a real name)
15:19:26 <gavinc> ... Not sure if we could match g-box to one of these terms exactly 
15:19:35 <gavinc> ... RDF GRaph is used but not defined.
15:19:40 <PatHayes> +q
15:19:49 <gavinc> ... RDF Graph should correspond to g-snap
15:20:11 <LeeF> . ACTION: chimezie, pgearon, PatHayes, pchampin to propose how to link g-box to relevant terms from the SPARQL graph store spec
15:20:16 <gavinc> ... I think there was an action to define how the other terms can be more or less match to our termionoligy 
15:20:17 <LeeF> (from last week's telecon on graph terminology)
15:20:37 <gavinc> ACTION-64?
15:20:37 <trackbot> ACTION-64 -- Richard Cyganiak to propose labels for g-text, g-snap -- due 2011-06-29 -- OPEN
15:20:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/64
15:21:01 <LeeF> ack PatHayes
15:21:05 <gavinc> LeeF: THanks for summary
15:21:21 <gavinc> PatHayes: We are still slightly muddled about g-box
15:21:36 <gavinc> PatHayes: g-box is more complicated 
15:22:03 <gavinc> PatHayes: THere isn't anything corresponding. Maybe we should generalize ??? into a graph resource or whatever.
15:22:15 <gavinc> PatHayes: Anything that can emit graph representations
15:22:40 <gavinc> PatHayes: would encompass the things in SPARQL 
15:22:52 <ww> s/\?\?\?/g-box/
15:22:54 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:23:01 <Zakim> +Souri
15:23:21 <gavinc> LeeF: A few actions on people to do the sorts of things Pat just talked about. To give proper terms to what we want to do in our graph work, and in SPARQL
15:24:18 <pchampin> q+
15:25:02 <PatHayes> listen to pierre-a on this topic.
15:25:10 <LeeF> ack pchampin
15:25:44 <gavinc> pchampin: No clear consense on g-box.
15:26:10 <gavinc> pchampin: RDF graph concerns somethign with an IRI attached to it, or just an abstract thing, no clear answer
15:26:16 <yvesr> i believe PatHayes mentioned that g-box is equivalent to a graph store with just one graph in it
15:26:50 <cmatheus> cmatheus has joined #rdf-wg
15:26:51 <PatHayes> Yes, just one 'default' graph. SPARQL also says this, in effect.
15:27:15 <gavinc> LeeF: does what LeeF said in IRC match what your talking about?
15:27:16 <yvesr> PatHayes, indeed - it does make sense
15:27:26 <LeeF> s/what LeeF said/what yvesr said
15:27:35 <AndyS1> Makes sense for default graph.
15:27:38 <PatHayes> YEs to all the questions.
15:27:51 <LeeF> q?
15:27:55 <AndyS1> In practice, there are multiple ways in which the IRI is associated to a graph in the dataset/store. Used as a indirect association. e.g. same URI as the place contents were read from originally. e.g. true g-snap naming. All are used.
15:28:00 <AZ> zakim, mute me
15:28:00 <Zakim> AZ should now be muted
15:28:02 <PatHayes> q+
15:28:07 <LeeF> ack PatHayes
15:28:16 <ww> i think i agree with pat and i don't think our notion of graph should be tied to http as such
15:28:36 <gavinc> PatH: This concern about the term document. Some people assume that the thing is mutable.
15:29:12 <gavinc> PatH: Thing returned from GET is a Document? 
15:29:21 <gavinc> LeeF: Is a Document a mutable thing or not?
15:29:27 <SteveH> no feeling either way
15:29:32 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:29:32 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:29:39 <gavinc> PatH: I don't think the webArch talks about Documents
15:29:48 <PatHayes> that was Andy
15:29:49 <gavinc> s/PatH/Andy
15:30:03 <gavinc> Andy: Document not quiet the info resource 
15:30:24 <LeeF> MacTed: Intuition is never really correct
15:30:29 <ww> gavin: from our perspective (topq) documents are mutable
15:30:39 <LeeF> gavinc: TopQuadrant position is that documents are mutable, and it's hard to talk about semantic technologies when you're not on the Web
15:30:43 <ww> ... or it becomes very hard a=to talk about semantic technologies when you happen to not be on the web
15:30:54 <LeeF> s/and it's hard/or it's hard
15:30:59 <ww> ... everybody here does that whether they internalise that or not
15:32:26 <Souri> s/quiet/quite/
15:32:34 <gavinc> MacTed: Document is immuatable. As soon as you hit web space, everything is mutable. Unless you have all it's metadata. It's also any specified URI.
15:32:35 <AZ> From this discussion, it seems that the term Document is not appropriate for "A serialization of an RDF Graph into a concrete syntax."
15:32:37 <AndyS1> AWWW - "RDF documents" 4.2.4. -- not defined -- used once
15:32:53 <PatHayes> MacTed: terms are overloaded. In web space, all abstract things have extra properties like date, creation. People dont hold this intuitively.
15:33:01 <AndyS1> and also xml docments, svg documents
15:33:14 <PatHayes> Good examples, Andy.
15:33:29 <gavinc> MacTed: Invent a new term for things that have never been defined.
15:33:31 <pchampin> q+
15:33:36 <LeeF> ack pchampin
15:33:59 <ww> real, physical 3-d documents are still mutable i think unless we go to a lot of trouble (like notarising and such) to make sure they are immutable
15:34:20 <gavinc> pchampin: Document outside the web has many diffrent meanings. I think it's not used in Web Architecture. 
15:34:29 <PatHayes> As an artist, I can assure you that physical documents are mutable. 
15:34:36 <gavinc> pchampin: I like terms resource and representation. Quiet well defined meanings
15:35:05 <PatHayes> me too.
15:35:21 <gavinc> LeeF: How would resource and representation map?
15:35:39 <gavinc> pchampin: g-box is an info resource
15:35:42 <PatHayes> HOw about "graph data structure" or "graph data object" ?
15:35:50 <gavinc> pchampin: g-box is outside the web, I think I agree with that
15:36:06 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:36:06 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:36:08 <gavinc> pchampin: g-text is an rdf representation, and a g-box is a resource 
15:36:30 <AndyS1> +1
15:36:33 <ww> +1
15:36:38 <gavinc> pchampin: I think, that's my understand of g-* terms
15:36:46 <AZ> yes
15:36:48 <yvesr> yes
15:36:56 <PatHayes> I think Sandro's original idea was g-box is resource, g-snap is (abstract) state of the resource, and g-text is the rest-representation that the resource emits.
15:36:57 <gavinc> LeeF: g-snap is an RDF Graph
15:37:09 <AndyS1> g-snap is also state of g-box at a moment.
15:37:20 <pchampin> +1 Pat, Andy
15:37:30 <gavinc> LeeF: g-box is some sort of resource
15:37:57 <Guus> resource = graph resource, I assume
15:38:09 <gavinc> PatH: I think Sandro was trying to put our graphs into Rest terms. 
15:38:12 <LeeF> Guus, i think so, though we haven't said so directly (Yet)
15:38:32 <Souri> SPARQL Dataset = {<default, g-snap> plus zero or more <IRI, g-snap>} and SPARQL Graph Store = {<default, g-box plus zero more <IRI, g-box>} and g-text = a serialization of a g-box
15:39:10 <gavinc> pchampin: It might be too restrictive to say that Sandro was trying to align with web terms. Was also okay with g-box off the web as well
15:39:25 <gavinc> pchampin: Maybe we are just focusing on the web.
15:39:37 <PatHayes> True, I agree. OK, slight generalization. But the kind of thing that COULD be on the Web.
15:39:40 <gavinc> pchampin: Good to start with the Web.
15:39:59 <AndyS1> souri - Many uses do fit that model, not all though.
15:40:18 <gavinc> LeeF: If we whole heartedly take the web view, does it break down when it's not on the web.
15:40:23 <PatHayes> Can there be a web page that is not on the web?
15:40:34 <LeeF> gavinc: yes, it breaks down fairly badly
15:40:41 <AndyS1> Pat - hard to say :-)
15:41:01 <LeeF> gavinc: you need to do things like ask for URIs and base URIs of a document on the filesystem
15:41:12 <LeeF> gavinc: ends up being very very weird for peopl editing documents in a filesystem
15:41:30 <ww> q+
15:41:31 <LeeF> gavinc: may be intrinsic to people using a Web technology off the WEb
15:41:36 <ww> zakim, unmute me
15:41:36 <Zakim> ww should no longer be muted
15:41:37 <LeeF> ack ww
15:41:39 <PatHayes> Hmm, I don't read REST as saying that all resources must be 'on' the web.
15:42:16 <LeeF> ww: I don't see the difference between filesystem paths and URIs?
15:42:31 <LeeF> gavinc: file paths (or URIs) don't behave the same way that HTTP URIs do
15:42:51 <LeeF> gavinc: when i talk about a URI, I'm inevitably talking about an HTTP URI ... but on my machine, I don't want to go off and resolve the URL, I just want to find it on my local machine
15:42:51 <ww> s/I don't see the difference/how exactly is it different/
15:43:09 <LeeF> gavinc: XML _sort of_ solves this with XML Catalogs, but RDF doesn't really have anything that deals with this
15:43:27 <LeeF> gavinc: SPARQL solves this by lying - it says that I have a URI U, and I resolve it by looking it up in my local database
15:43:27 <PatHayes> q+
15:43:40 <ww> zakim, mute me
15:43:40 <Zakim> ww should now be muted
15:43:41 <SteveH> I don't agree with gavinc 
15:43:44 <LeeF> gavinc: a lot of machinery to make you look like you're on the Web when you're not
15:43:59 <LeeF> PatHayes: nowhere in RDF where URIs are required to be resolvable 
15:44:04 <gavinc> PatH: You don't have to do any GETs at all.
15:44:04 <LeeF> ... except maybe in owl:import
15:44:22 <AndyS1> I disagree with gavinc as well.  There is an URI loosely associated with a graph - not a deref promise
15:44:25 <LeeF> gavinc: part of it is that our software depends heavily on owl:impport
15:45:14 <Souri> +1 to AndyS1 (liar is too strong a word! :-))
15:45:57 <PatHayes> local distortion in the truth-field.
15:46:31 <pchampin> @Pat, do you mean a Reality Distortion Field? :-D
15:47:19 <LeeF> LeeF: gavinc, are you looking for terms that are more neutral yet map to resource/representation in a Web context and map to more familiar concepts to people working not on the Web?
15:47:29 <LeeF> gavinc: maybe, but i'm not sure how strongly i feel about it - there is value in reusing the Web terms
15:47:32 <gavinc> AndyS: There is what SPARQL 1.0 says about Datasets, and in 1.1 the Graph Store is a mutable dataset.
15:47:55 <gavinc> ... You do end up with a degree of impersise naming going on. 
15:48:06 <gavinc> ... the graph is a set of mutable slots you can go and change.
15:48:10 <gavinc> q?
15:48:13 <LeeF> ack PatHayes
15:48:37 <ww> so, a graph store has slots (g-boxes?) to contain g-snaps?
15:48:42 <gavinc> AndyS: The cat is out of the bag.
15:48:58 <gavinc> AndyS: You can't really change the behavior of developers
15:49:01 <ww> and when you put/pull a graph you send/get a g-text/
15:49:02 <SteveH> +1 to AndyS
15:49:18 <SteveH> people have already evolved usage patterns
15:49:19 <pchampin> +1 to Andy
15:49:28 <gavinc> AndyS: Developers are going to be using it. We are more following then, leading them
15:49:49 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:49:49 <SteveH> q+
15:49:55 <PatHayes> I agree we are wanting to follow current use as far as possible. 
15:50:10 <gavinc> LeeF: I thought we got to g-*, there were not any terms that everyone used.
15:50:28 <gavinc> AndyS: g-* just used as specific terms to avoid confusion
15:50:42 <gavinc> PatH: Yes, now it's time to get better terms
15:51:00 <LeeF> ack SteveH
15:51:16 <MacTed> when initially put out, g-box felt very akin to t-box and a-box ...  
15:51:34 <PatHayes> Oh God, not a-boxes.
15:51:34 <gavinc> SteveH: More or less agree with Andy. We have a reasonable number of people using RDF and everyone talks about graph, and no one is too confused.
15:52:10 <zwu2> +SteveH
15:52:10 <AZ> Can we capture what we are discussing in terms of ISSUE, and try to advance towards proposing ACTIONs?
15:52:30 <gavinc> SteveH: People are abusing/missuing the term for named graphs
15:52:45 <SteveH> s/SteveH/AndyS/
15:53:12 <AZ> ACTION-64?
15:53:12 <trackbot> ACTION-64 -- Richard Cyganiak to propose labels for g-text, g-snap -- due 2011-06-29 -- OPEN
15:53:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/64
15:53:41 <PatHayes> PatHayes: if we try to keep the word 'graph' in our terms, that might help. Then those who don't care about fine distinctions can go on as before and not be 'wrong'. 
15:53:44 <gavinc> [Wednesday, June 22, 2011] [08:00:08 AM] <cygri> ACTION: chimezie, pgearon, PatHayes, pchampin to propose how to link g-box to relevant terms from the SPARQL graph store spec
15:54:15 <gavinc> ISSUE-14?
15:54:16 <trackbot> ISSUE-14 -- What is a named graph and what should we call it? -- open
15:54:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/14
15:54:20 <gavinc> ISSUE-30?
15:54:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-30 -- How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? -- open
15:54:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/30
15:54:24 <gavinc> ISSUE-29?
15:54:24 <trackbot> ISSUE-29 -- Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? -- open
15:54:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/29
15:54:31 <gavinc> ISSUE-32?
15:54:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-32 -- Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps? -- open
15:54:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/32
15:54:41 <gavinc> LeeF: Not related to issue 32
15:54:59 <AZ> I see
15:55:15 <gavinc> LeeF: What I heard today was advice to Richard in ACTION-34, might be a good idea to lean on Resource and Representation 
15:55:28 <gavinc> LeeF: Don't trust the term Document
15:55:45 <gavinc> LeeF: I don't think we are in a position to resolve anything
15:55:45 <AZ> ok, thanks for the clarification
15:56:55 <gavinc> LeeF: Given that we don't have our chairs, I'm not inclined to make something up. Is there new info to talk about on one of our graph issues?
15:57:09 <gavinc> LeeF: Are there any topics from the mailing list folks want to talk about?
15:57:16 <gavinc> LeeF: Otherwise end a little early.
15:57:20 <PatHayes> Do we want to discuss Pierre-A's responses/comments on SPARQL?
15:58:29 <gavinc> LeeF: We can't really do anything about those specific comments... we need to work them in to our conclusions and feed them back to the SPARQL group.
15:58:47 <gavinc> LeeF: Want to avoid stacking turtles, but should someone else look over the review?
15:59:11 <gavinc> PatH: I agree with it.
15:59:35 <gavinc> AndyS: What effect do we expect to make?
16:00:33 <gavinc> LeeF: Not clear yet. One might be to change the terms being used in Graph Store document. Another would be the change the def to align. And another would be to just be informative. 
16:00:50 <AndyS1> (other than specific editorial comments)
16:01:00 <gavinc> PatH: There are one or two place where from our perspective the document seems inconstant 
16:01:35 <AZ> alright I can do that
16:01:41 <gavinc> LeeF: Can we get a few people to review the SPARQL review?
16:01:55 <gavinc> PatH: I will.
16:01:57 <LeeF> ACTION: Pat to review Pierre-A's comments on SPARQL graph store upade protocol
16:01:57 <trackbot> Created ACTION-67 - Review Pierre-A's comments on SPARQL graph store upade protocol [on Patrick Hayes - due 2011-07-06].
16:02:17 <LeeF> ACTION: Antoine to review Pierre-A's comments on SPARQL graph store upade protocol
16:02:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-68 - Review Pierre-A's comments on SPARQL graph store upade protocol [on Antoine Zimmermann - due 2011-07-06].
16:02:32 <gavinc> AndyS: Wouldn't recommend too strong alignment, as we haven't nailed it down ourselves.
16:02:51 <Zakim> -SteveH
16:02:56 <gavinc> LeeF: Sorry if it was a little less directed and focused.
16:03:05 <zwu2> thanks and bye
16:03:16 <AZ> byebye
16:03:18 <Zakim> -zwu2
16:03:19 <PatHayes> LeeF, what exactly was it I agreed to do at the beginning of the meeting?
16:03:23 <Zakim> -yvesr
16:03:24 <mbrunati> thanks bye
16:03:24 <Zakim> -LeeF
16:03:26 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:03:28 <Zakim> -mischat
16:03:32 <Zakim> -AlexHall
16:03:34 <Zakim> -ww
16:03:34 <LeeF> PatHayes, use CommonScribe to generate the non-draft version of last week's minutes
16:03:34 <AlexHall> AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
16:03:36 <Zakim> -mbrunati
16:03:38 <Zakim> -AZ
16:03:42 <Zakim> -AndyS1
16:03:42 <mbrunati> mbrunati has left #rdf-wg
16:03:46 <Zakim> -Souri
16:03:48 <Zakim> -gavinc
16:03:50 <Zakim> -PatHayes
16:03:55 <Zakim> -Scott_Bauer
16:03:55 <pchampin> @PayHayes, I think you agreed to publish last week minutes
16:03:58 <gavinc> rrsagent, make records public
16:04:34 <Zakim> -pchampin
16:04:35 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
16:04:39 <Zakim> Attendees were ww, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, yvesr, LeeF, AndyS1, AZ, pchampin, AlexHall, zwu2, PatHayes, MacTed, mbrunati, SteveH, mischat, Souri
16:14:47 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdf-wg
17:40:34 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
18:04:35 <gavinc> gavinc has left #rdf-wg
18:26:07 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-wg