14:13:35 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:13:35 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/24-rdf-wg-irc 14:13:37 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:13:37 Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 14:13:39 Zakim, this will be 73394 14:13:39 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 47 minutes 14:13:40 Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 14:13:40 Date: 24 August 2011 14:13:51 Chair: ivan 14:51:12 Regrets: Pierre-Antoine Champain, Antoine Zimmerman, David Wood, Guus Schreiber 14:55:35 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started 14:55:42 +gavinc 14:55:52 zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:55:52 ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:55:54 +Ivan 14:58:54 zakim, code? 14:58:54 the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu1 14:59:04 +??P2 14:59:10 zakim, I am ??P2 14:59:10 +manu1; got it 14:59:31 +tomayac 15:00:10 + +44.207.923.aaaa 15:00:38 zakim, aaaa is Yves 15:00:38 +Yves; got it 15:00:42 Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:03 scribenick: tomayac 15:01:08 moustaki has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:10 AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:16 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:16 On the phone I see gavinc, Ivan, manu1, tomayac, Yves 15:01:17 SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:20 iand has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:43 -> Last meeting's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-08-17 15:01:46 + +1.443.212.aabb 15:01:53 Topic: Admin 15:02:02 zakim, aabb is me 15:02:02 +AlexHall; got it 15:02:11 Zakim, what's the code? 15:02:11 the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), SteveH_ 15:02:20 +OpenLink_Software 15:02:28 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:02:28 +MacTed; got it 15:02:30 Zakim, Yves is me 15:02:30 +yvesr; got it 15:02:31 +??P12 15:02:33 Zakim, mute me 15:02:33 MacTed should now be muted 15:02:36 Zakim, mute me 15:02:36 yvesr should now be muted 15:02:39 +??P13 15:02:44 Zakim, ??p13 is me 15:02:44 +SteveH_; got it 15:03:00 +Scott_Bauer 15:03:01 zakim, +??p12 is me 15:03:01 sorry, iand, I do not recognize a party named '+??p12' 15:03:02 -Scott_Bauer 15:03:06 zakim, +??P12 is me 15:03:06 sorry, iand, I do not recognize a party named '+??P12' 15:03:08 Zakim, SteveH_ is me 15:03:08 +SteveH; got it 15:03:14 zakim, ??P12 is me 15:03:14 +iand; got it 15:03:17 zakim, who is here? 15:03:17 On the phone I see gavinc, Ivan, manu1, tomayac, yvesr (muted), AlexHall, MacTed (muted), iand, SteveH 15:03:19 On IRC I see iand, SteveH, AlexHall, yvesr, Scott_Bauer, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, tomayac, manu1, gavinc, ericP, sandro, trackbot, NickH, manu 15:03:38 +Scott_Bauer 15:03:42 Last meeting's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-08-17 15:03:57 PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 17 Aug telecon 15:04:14 Topic: Accept Minutes from August 17 15:04:39 issues with many red boxes. ericP was the scribe 15:05:00 ivan: seems to have been a problem with the script. sandro takes care of that. 15:05:21 ivan: maybe keep the minutes open, ask ericP, sandro to review. 15:05:24 +LeeF 15:05:47 PROPOSED keep the minutes open and ask sandro and ericP to review them 15:05:47 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview 15:06:10 ivan: most actions on people who are absent 15:06:10 ACTION-74? 15:06:10 ACTION-74 -- Manu Sporny to send JSON discussion preparation message to public-rdf-wd -- due 2011-08-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:06:10 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/74 15:06:24 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0060.html 15:06:27 manu: action-74 has been done 15:06:54 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open 15:06:56 ivan: for the other actions, we have to wait for people to come back 15:07:02 PatH has joined #rdf-wg 15:07:07 ACTION-69? 15:07:07 ACTION-69 -- Gavin Carothers to update Turtle issue list to reflect current status -- due 2011-07-27 -- OPEN 15:07:07 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/69 15:07:09 ivan: one action on gavin 15:07:20 gavin: action on me is done 15:07:26 I will be on IRC but probably not on the phone for this telecon. 15:07:31 ivan: action-69 closed 15:07:38 ivan: action-78 closed 15:07:50 ivan: one action on pat. pat on irc. 15:08:06 ivan: i will take care of open actions to be closed 15:08:12 Topic: F2F 15:08:15 + +44.164.235.aacc 15:08:18 ivan: f2f 15:08:28 Zakim, +44.164.235.aacc is me 15:08:28 +NickH; got it 15:08:28 Topic: F2F 15:08:45 ivan: pending issue for the f2f counterpart 15:08:56 Zakim, unmute me 15:08:56 yvesr should no longer be muted 15:09:02 ivan: people interested in a bbc-hosted site 15:09:09 ivan: offer still valid? 15:09:22 yves: pending manager approval 15:09:28 I have a very old action which I confess I no longer can remember what exactly it actions me to do. Maybe someone with a better memory can jog me off-line in due course. 15:09:32 ivan: where is that? 15:09:48 yves: says location 15:10:13 ivan: hoping this will work out 15:10:15 Not exactly cheap in Boston either. :( Gone up since I was last there 15:10:27 ivan: anything else on that, yves? 15:10:42 ivan: will be organized by PERSON 15:10:55 s/PERSON/Olivier Thereaud/ 15:10:56 or persons unknown? 15:11:07 Thereaux 15:11:25 Topic: JSON work progress & planning 15:11:32 Zakim, mute me 15:11:34 yvesr should now be muted 15:11:39 ivan: unsure where to start 15:11:50 ivan: w/o going into the details 15:12:02 ivan: manu and ian, just say a view words on the documents 15:12:28 ian: based on the talis format 15:12:37 ian: put up a working draft 15:12:43 ian: came out of the f2f 15:12:54 ian: draft is an overview of the format 15:12:57 +EricP 15:13:06 to be, or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind of man to take up arms against a sea of hackers, and by opposing RDF them, or... 15:13:34 ivan: to have an idea, beyond the spec, do you have an idea of # of implementations and adopters, ian? 15:13:41 ian: at least half a dozen 15:13:53 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0060.html 15:13:54 manu: wrote a quick email 15:14:13 manu: based on initial set of feature of digital bazaar 15:14:20 manu: about 90% feature-complete 15:14:36 manu: continuing on public-linked-json@ 15:14:50 manu: including non-typical semwebbers 15:15:07 manu: editorially 70-80% feature-complete 15:15:25 manu: four interoperable implementations, javascript, python, php, c++ 15:15:31 manu: erlang in the works 15:15:38 manu: people seem to like it 15:15:47 manu: implemented in seevl.net by apassant 15:16:08 ivan: let's start w/ the knife fight 15:16:23 ivan: calling thomas 15:16:45 scribenick: manu1 15:17:07 Thomas: I sent an e-mail to the mailing list - JSON Emergency Brake - a bit controversial 15:17:26 Thomas: I made sure to check w/ all parties involved before sending it out... 15:17:32 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0131.html Thomas' email 15:17:33 mischat has joined #rdf-wg 15:17:42 Thomas: Tried not to offend anyone... 15:18:31 Thomas: I was co-editor of JSON spec. Ian comes up w/ first commit for RDF/JSON - then we could iterate over it. 15:19:35 Thomas: I was involved in public-linked-json list - paid attention as a listener... in-between two specs... overall, I felt that what we see in RDF/JSON is something that comes from the RDF camp - it doesn't really feel like JSON at all. We need to pull the emergency brake and stop the work on RDF/JSON and focus on JSON-LD. 15:20:06 Thomas: From the POV of a JavaScript developer, it doesn't feel like native JSON. It's a culture clash... 15:20:30 Thomas: JSON-LD is relatively easily mapped to triples. So, why do we have both? 15:20:39 q? 15:21:01 q+ to say I am agnostic 15:21:05 Thomas: RDF/JSON feels like NTriples in JSON. 15:21:20 Is there any RDF that CANT be represented in JSON-LD? 15:21:20 q+ to say that I feel pretty strongly about JSON-LD 15:21:25 scribenick: tomayac 15:21:32 ack iand 15:21:32 iand, you wanted to say I am agnostic 15:21:33 It's definitely not a matter of "should be used for". More a matter of "is used for" 15:21:45 ian: i am agnostic 15:21:58 ian: it's not ideomatic json 15:22:10 q? 15:22:26 ack manu1 15:22:26 manu1, you wanted to say that I feel pretty strongly about JSON-LD 15:22:33 ian: just a convenience format, mostly out of talis' needs 15:22:38 +q to say that TopQuadrant's position has changed 15:22:42 manu: not so agnostic, feel strongly about json-ld 15:23:00 manu: main concern i have, we could do a lot for linked data adoption 15:23:17 manu: i feel that json-ld is targeted at an audience we don't cover yet 15:23:27 manu: they don't want to go into the sparql, triple world 15:23:33 question: JSON-LD maps to triples, but can it encode any RDF at all? Or is some part of RDF missing? What would it take to extend json-ld to cover all of RDF? 15:23:38 manu: they want linked data, but don#t want to do much to get it 15:23:54 manu: data exchange format for rdf people 15:24:00 PatH, I think rather JSON-LD can encode things that RDF -can't-. 15:24:12 Maube , gavin, but what about the other way? 15:24:16 manu: you already have ntriples, rdf/xml, turtle, etc. 15:24:21 And yet despite those, people use RDF/JSON (or similar) 15:24:35 This is a standardization group. 15:24:35 manu: creating ntriples in json doesn't solve any problems imho 15:24:58 wasn't this all sketched out in a table by sandro? 15:25:02 manu: i feel that it doesn't necessarily grow the number of linked data 15:25:16 iand, yes, though i'm not sure the table was ever accepted by everyone :) 15:25:17 manu: json-ld attempts to move the existing json already oth there to a new level 15:25:30 manu: in order to get far more meaning 15:25:42 manu: converned of the use cases 15:25:55 manu: we have two technologies to tackle those 15:26:08 manu: it's like the microdata, rdfa thing again 15:26:22 manu: ivan, you didn't want this comparison 15:26:29 manu: heavy overlap of use cases 15:26:33 I see a future here where json-ld seduces a lot of people into useiing RDF wihtout realizing they are using it. Which is great, but then what happens when they wake up and smell the RDF coffee: are they stranded by the limitations of json-ld, or can they move smpoothly intobeing real semweb people without having to learn a whole new set of tools? 15:26:44 manu: concerned that two last calls are published 15:26:50 q? 15:26:53 manu: people might get very confused 15:27:03 manu: hoping we avoid that 15:27:15 manu: no one talked about microdata two years ago 15:27:19 PatH, I don't think there is any RDF that can't be expressed in JSON-LD 15:27:37 ack gavinc 15:27:37 gavinc, you wanted to say that TopQuadrant's position has changed 15:27:44 OK, great. Then I vote that we adopt json-ld 15:27:45 actually I see it differently, people may be seduced by having a nice JSON format so they write systems to consume it, but why do they need RDF at all? 15:27:57 gavin: our position has changed a bit 15:28:10 gavin: we spent some time using and looking at json-ld 15:28:13 Well, that is their problem. If they don;t need it, fine. BUt I supsect that many of them will, and those are the ones I care about. 15:28:24 gavin: we haven't implemented rdf/json 15:28:40 i think it's a mistake to hide the rdf model from developers because it's non-intuitive for many OO developers 15:28:46 gavin: unlikely we will implement rdf/json, we see limited value, different from the opinion we had a couple of months ago 15:29:06 ivan: on path's question 15:29:08 If nobody is going to implement it, its dead in the water. 15:29:17 s/path's/pat's/ 15:29:19 manu: answering path's question 15:29:26 I will say that TQ isn't everyone ;) 15:29:29 RDF/XML = RDF for XML developers 15:29:29 JSON-LD = RDF for JSON developers 15:29:31 manu: no rdf that can't be expressed in json-ld 15:29:32 ? 15:29:35 s/path's/pat's/ 15:29:35 manu1: does it have graph support? 15:29:36 And there are implementations of RDF/JSON 15:29:42 Worried that JSON-LD hides the triples too much 15:29:47 manu: working on lists 15:29:48 RDF/XML is NOT RDF for XML developers, take that back! ;) 15:29:58 ivan: does it have graph support? 15:30:07 manu: what do you mean? 15:30:08 Hey, rdf?XML hides the triples very effectively. 15:30:15 rdf/xml 15:30:15 s/manu1:/manu1,/ 15:30:19 ian: (clarifies) 15:30:20 PatH: yes! 15:30:36 manu: we can do graph literals, and we could support graph identifiers 15:30:46 { } { } vs. { } 15:30:52 i read graph literals as the latter 15:30:57 what about blank nodes? I dont see how to get them into json-ld from a quick read. 15:31:30 +tomayac.a 15:31:50 I guess that is meta-scribing. 15:32:03 ivan: what about blank nodes 15:32:08 manu: full blank node support 15:32:18 OK, great. I'm a believer. 15:32:22 manu: people wanted us to describe the full process w/o calling rdf 15:32:35 manu: we were able to not reinvent rdf 15:32:44 Does JSON-LD have any relation to RDFa profiles? 15:32:46 manu: we say unlabeled node instead of blank node 15:33:07 "unlabeled node" is even consistent with the RDF concepts 15:33:08 manu: blank node support is there, and it made the normalization algorithm a nitemare 15:33:26 q? 15:33:38 q+ 15:33:40 nickh: does json-ld have any relation to rdfa profiles? 15:33:44 Zakim, unmute me 15:33:44 MacTed should no longer be muted 15:33:46 nickh: it seems very similar 15:34:03 nickh: we don't want to make the same error as w/ rdf/xml w/ hiding triples 15:34:17 manu: the only relation to rdfa profiles is the @context 15:34:34 "@context": "http://example.org/mycontext" 15:34:39 manu: in @context you can define the context 15:34:58 manu: meant to be put inline, but would be nice to be able to just declare it somewhere 15:35:00 q+ 15:35:13 manu: it can be a separate document 15:35:34 manu: same format as inline, just as a separate document 15:35:43 manu: it's a simple key/value map 15:35:51 manu: it has also type coercion rules 15:36:04 manu: we don't want to make the rdf/xml error of hiding triples 15:36:09 manu: we do this error 15:36:13 manu: we hide triples 15:36:27 manu: we wanted to present developers objects, not triples 15:36:40 ack MacTed 15:36:44 RDF/JSON is limited to RDF. JSON-LD allows for other Linked Data models/implementations -- *with* full support for RDF. 15:36:44 RDF is limited to HTTP IRIs. JSON-LD allows for non-HTTP IRIs, among other things. 15:36:45 manu: triples can be easily and losslessly extracted, though 15:37:05 macted: json-ld seems to be a json superset 15:37:47 q? 15:37:48 Zakim, mute me 15:37:48 MacTed should now be muted 15:37:51 macted: believe that json-ld won't break any rdf 15:37:54 ack me 15:38:08 Can you parse something similar to Talis JSON as JSON-LD? 15:38:10 ivan: i don't know whether we need to go into too much technical details 15:38:19 ivan: rdfa has moved away from profiles 15:38:20 NickH: not really 15:38:34 ivan: a little amazed that json-ld still uses profiles 15:38:41 q+ to ask about datatypes 15:38:45 ok, thanks 15:38:47 ack iand 15:38:47 iand, you wanted to ask about datatypes 15:38:51 manu: we do it, as web devs are a different crowd than rdf people 15:39:38 +q to mention that the RDF WG may NOT be the best place to finish developing JSON-LD 15:40:02 my question was can json-ld represent properties that have multiple values with different datatypes 15:40:04 iand: Can you have properties with values with different datatypes? 15:40:17 "foo:bar": [{"@iri": "http://example.org"}, {"@literal": "foo"}, {"@literal": "foo", "@datatype": "xsd:bar"}] 15:40:31 manu: responding to ian's question via code sample 15:40:54 ian: parsing the json, yes, question answered 15:41:00 ivan: how do we move forward? 15:41:10 ivan: my understanding from the amsterdam f2f 15:41:29 ivan: we were moving towards rdf/json as low level exchange format 15:41:39 ivan: and json-ld in an incubator mode 15:41:49 ivan: at some time look at json-ld again 15:41:58 FWIW, my only gripe with the -ld document so far is some minor wording changes (mostly avoiding the word 'define' in various places). 15:42:24 PatH, the language is rough and needs to be cleaned up... 15:42:25 ivan: has the incubator mode of json-ld come to a stage where we can look at it again 15:42:45 tomayac: +1 on having a look at it again 15:42:47 +1 to looking at JSON-LD again 15:42:48 +1 to look at JSON-LD again. 15:42:49 happy for WG to look at json-ld again 15:42:51 +1 15:42:52 +1 15:42:52 -1 15:42:56 +1 to look at JSON-LD again. 15:43:06 ivan: leef, can you explain? 15:43:06 +1 15:43:12 q? 15:43:18 leef: i don't think this wg is the right group 15:43:21 q+ to discuss the right group 15:43:34 +1 15:43:36 leef: it should be addressed more by a web apps-ish group 15:43:41 ack gavinc 15:43:41 gavinc, you wanted to mention that the RDF WG may NOT be the best place to finish developing JSON-LD 15:43:43 leef: just look up the old minutes 15:43:51 gavin: sharing lee's concern 15:43:52 I dont see 'look at' as meaning 'take control of'. 15:44:06 So I understand lee's concern but thinkit is misplaced. 15:44:09 PatH, I agree - the part I didn't add is that we have limited time & resources in the group 15:44:24 probably me on IRC. 15:44:35 q? 15:44:36 gavin: i don't think we have the right people to finsih json-ld 15:44:40 ack manu1 15:44:40 manu1, you wanted to discuss the right group 15:44:44 q+ 15:44:48 manu: sharing the same concerns of gavin 15:44:53 yes, I agree that this might not be the right group of people 15:45:01 manu: everyone in this group is fantastic and has a strong history in rdf 15:45:12 Exactly. Couldn't agree more with what Manu just said 15:45:17 manu1, the BBC does, I would think 15:45:25 manu: but i don't think enough people in this wg use javascript and json enough in their daily lives 15:45:31 we use loads of JSON and Javascript 15:45:44 We use loads of JSON and JavaScript too, but not in the way that JSON-LD views the world 15:45:44 a bit of a simplistic generalisation 15:45:45 manu: the people on public-linked-json@ are the right people imho 15:45:51 we should also look (briefly) at the microdata json serialization which has some overlap 15:45:54 I did/do, but it's not exactly a TopQuadrant strong point at the moment. 15:46:01 q? 15:46:05 ack ivan 15:46:06 Who is in charge of json-ld right now? Can we simply advise them in a friendly way? 15:46:18 ivan: putting on the official hat 15:46:30 ivan: we do not have a group that could take the place 15:46:31 PatH - I'm the current editor and am running the calls, at the moment. 15:46:36 suits you, Ivan. 15:46:47 ivan: the rdf group is still the closest one that could standardize this 15:47:00 ivan: spinning off a separate wg would slow down the process 15:47:27 q+ 15:47:43 ivan: also what tomayac said: if this work is going in the right direction, then publishing rdf/json is a strange message to send out 15:47:52 q+ 15:47:59 ack LeeF 15:48:01 ivan: we need to avoid any kind of message that could be misunderstood 15:48:19 +1 to LeeF 15:48:20 leef: not sure if it's practicable: but maybe this group should do either 15:48:26 +1 to what Lee said - this group has enough on its plate. 15:48:26 Is the issue that the intended audience would distrust the spec if it was emitted by this group? NOthing we can do about that if so. OR is it that we are less than ideally qualified to s=write this? If that is the issue, I suggest that we trust manu and make comments on drafts without being obstructive. 15:48:32 leef: we're busy w/ the core stuff 15:48:57 leef: speaking for myself, we should not publish either 15:48:58 ack iand 15:49:08 ivan: not worried about the charter, quick remark 15:49:24 I think that something needs to be given the W3C imprimateur. That matters to a lot of people out there. 15:49:35 In other words, can we write a JSON-LD-Triples ;) 15:49:35 PatH, I think the issue is the second. (At least, that's (one of) my concern) 15:50:03 PatH, I think it matters less to the people who are the core audience of JSON-LD, but that's purely speculation on my part 15:50:17 Well, then, I dont see that as an issue. Y'all trust me to write the model theory, I m happy to trust manu to write the JSON stuff. 15:50:39 OR whoever feels they know what they are talking about :-) 15:50:55 I just want to make sure we can get more feedback from other JSON developers 15:51:01 my question was: is there a profile of JSON-LD that subsumes what the purpose of RDF/JSON is, i.e. a regular structure that requires no parsing on client 15:51:23 Yes, we always need that pre-publiish-last-call-comments stuff to go on, might take a little longer for this one. 15:51:24 manu: there is a structure that is an array of objects 15:51:30 iand, a bit like N-Triples couple be a subset of Turtle but can be parsed faster? 15:51:38 q? 15:51:44 manu: you can write it in such a way that it's only one level deep, normalization takes care of that 15:51:53 yes, like ntriples/turtle 15:52:05 manu: flat structure, ends up looking very much like turtle 15:52:10 ivan: 5 more minutes 15:52:14 15 more minutes 15:52:23 ivan: not appropriate to decide something now 15:52:26 just as long as it uses UTF-8... 15:52:31 manu: would you be able to send an example to the wg list? 15:53:18 ivan: my feeling is that on one hand json-ld might be more appropriate to happen in a separate community group that could be merged into a separate wg 15:53:36 ivan: the second thing is we might suspend rdf/json work 15:53:45 ivan: maybe even completely stop it 15:54:01 ivan: rdf/json might be subsumed by json-ld 15:54:15 ivan: this wg might focus on graphs etc. 15:54:19