14:58:41 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/05-rdf-wg-irc 14:58:43 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:58:43 Zakim, this is rdf-wg 14:58:43 sorry, moustaki, I do not see a conference named 'rdf-wg' in progress or scheduled at this time 14:58:45 Zakim, this will be 73394 14:58:46 Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 14:58:46 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 14:58:46 Date: 05 October 2011 14:58:55 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:58:55 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, moustaki 14:58:56 On IRC I see RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, moustaki, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, cygri, mischat, ivan, AndyS, davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP 14:59:35 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:59:35 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, yvesr 14:59:36 On IRC I see RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, cygri, mischat, ivan, AndyS, davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP 14:59:45 cygri_ has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:03 iand has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:12 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:00:13 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, yvesr 15:00:19 On IRC I see iand, cygri_, RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, cygri, mischat, ivan, AndyS, davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, 15:00:21 ... ericP 15:00:23 Guus has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:30 trackbot, start meeting 15:00:30 Zakim, this is rdfwg 15:00:31 ok, davidwood; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM 15:00:32 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:00:34 Zakim, this will be 73394 15:00:35 Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 15:00:35 Date: 05 October 2011 15:00:38 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now 15:00:39 swh has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:42 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:00:44 I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted 15:00:44 Chair: David Wood 15:00:45 On the phone I see ??P4, Peter_Patel-Schneider, ??P7, David_Wood, +1.707.861.aaaa 15:00:46 -??P7 15:00:50 +Peter_Patel-Schneider.a 15:00:52 Zakim, what is the code? 15:00:53 Zakim, ??P4 is me 15:00:54 +??P14 15:00:56 the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), swh 15:00:56 zakim, aaaa is me 15:00:58 +yvesr; got it 15:01:00 +nunolopes 15:01:02 +gavinc; got it 15:01:02 mischat has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:03 zakim, nunolopes is me 15:01:04 -Peter_Patel-Schneider.a 15:01:05 zakim, ??P14 is me 15:01:06 +Arnaud 15:01:08 +cygri_; got it 15:01:10 +ww; got it 15:01:11 zakim, dial ivan-voip 15:01:17 zakim, please mute me 15:01:18 ok, ivan; the call is being made 15:01:22 +Ivan 15:01:25 ww should now be muted 15:01:26 +??P15 15:01:28 zakim, ??P15 is me 15:01:29 scribe: yvesr 15:01:30 +??P13 15:01:32 +AndyS1; got it 15:01:37 zakim, who is talking? 15:01:37 AZ has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:41 -??P13 15:01:49 gavinc, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: David_Wood (4%) 15:01:52 Scribe Yves Raimond 15:01:59 Scribe: Yves raimond 15:02:01 AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg 15:02:01 +??P18 15:02:08 +??P13 15:02:09 scribenick: yvesr 15:02:13 -Peter_Patel-Schneider 15:02:13 zakim, ??p18 is me 15:02:14 +Guus; got it 15:02:19 zakim, mute me 15:02:19 Guus should now be muted 15:02:20 Zakim, ??P13 is me 15:02:21 +swh; got it 15:02:24 +??P16 15:02:30 +??P17 15:02:31 +Peter_Patel-Schneider 15:02:37 Zakim, SteveH is me 15:02:37 sorry, SteveH, I do not recognize a party named 'SteveH' 15:02:38 + +1.443.212.aabb 15:02:47 Zakim, swh is me 15:02:47 +SteveH; got it 15:02:52 Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg 15:02:53 zakim, aabb is me 15:02:53 +AlexHall; got it 15:02:54 oops 15:02:56 + +33.4.77.42.aacc 15:03:07 Zakim, aacc is me 15:03:07 +AZ; got it 15:03:13 mischat: one of us is p16, one is p17 15:03:18 -??P17 15:03:21 [partial regrets, have to leave after 30 min for the airport] 15:03:22 i was p17 15:03:27 +OpenLink_Software 15:03:34 zakim, ??P16 is me 15:03:35 +mischat; got it 15:03:38 mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg 15:03:39 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:03:39 +MacTed; got it 15:03:41 Zakim, mute me 15:03:41 MacTed should now be muted 15:03:46 zakim, mute me 15:03:46 mischat should now be muted 15:03:51 +??P26 15:03:52 Zakim, ??P17 is iand 15:03:53 I already had ??P17 as MacTed, davidwood 15:04:12 + +1.507.261.aadd 15:04:18 Zakim, who's here? 15:04:18 On the phone I see yvesr, David_Wood, gavinc, ww (muted), cygri_, Arnaud, Ivan, AndyS1, Guus (muted), SteveH, mischat (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, AZ, MacTed (muted), 15:04:21 ... ??P26, +1.507.261.aadd 15:04:22 On IRC I see mbrunati, Scott_Bauer, AlexHall, AZ, mischat, SteveH, Guus, iand, cygri, RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, AndyS, 15:04:24 ... davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP 15:04:26 +Souri 15:04:38 Souri has joined #RDF-WG 15:04:45 Zakim, aadd is me 15:04:45 +Scott_Bauer; got it 15:04:48 -??P26 15:05:04 Zakim, mute me 15:05:04 Scott_Bauer should now be muted 15:05:16 davidwood: i'd like to go through the scribe list 15:05:19 +??P26 15:05:26 zakim, ??p26 is me 15:05:26 +iand; got it 15:05:26 davidwood: adding new members on the scribe list 15:05:34 +Sandro 15:05:36 today only via irc, phone problems 15:06:03 +1 15:06:06 +1 15:06:10 davidwood: minutes accepted 15:06:20 TOPIC: action items review 15:06:38 davidwood: lisiase with html data task force for turtle in html 15:06:45 davidwood: corresponding action closed 15:07:00 s/lisiase/liaise 15:07:09 sadly did it twice thanks to gmail :( 15:07:29 davidwood: Guus had two action items 15:07:45 we haven't done that yet, will talk to Fabien 15:08:23 TOPIC: F2F planning 15:08:41 davidwood: f2f either at MIT or BBC 15:08:59 please update this page with your intentions http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F2 15:09:57 yvesr: the bbc are struggling to get the video conference system working, at a bare minimum we will have a webcam. everything is behind a proxy, 15:10:35 davidwood: people should turn up a bit earlier at the bbc so that we can make sure that everyone gets online and set before the MIT lot turn up 15:10:56 yvesr: people should email Yves if you want to hang out and have dinner after the days play 15:11:52 q+ 15:11:53 TOPIC: scribe list 15:11:56 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Scribes 15:12:09 davidwood: who should we drop off the scribe list? 15:12:22 nathan hasn't for a while 15:12:25 davidwood: any suggestions for people that have not shown up? 15:12:47 axel ? 15:12:54 Nathan Rixham 15:13:12 ivan: Mohamed hasn't shown up, and Nathan 15:13:18 how about Axel Polleres 15:13:19 ? 15:13:27 zakim, who is here? 15:13:27 On the phone I see yvesr, David_Wood, gavinc, ww (muted), cygri_, Arnaud, Ivan, AndyS1, Guus (muted), SteveH, mischat (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, AZ, MacTed (muted), 15:13:31 ... Scott_Bauer (muted), Souri, iand, Sandro 15:13:34 On IRC I see Souri, mbrunati, Scott_Bauer, AlexHall, AZ, mischat, SteveH, Guus, iand, cygri, RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, AndyS, 15:13:36 ... davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP 15:13:46 ivan: Axel? Matteo? 15:14:48 ivan: Jean-Francois? 15:15:10 I'm on the call as well 15:15:16 +??P2 15:15:46 Zakim, mute ??p2 15:15:46 ??P2 should now be muted 15:15:50 zakim, ??P2 is me 15:15:50 +NickH; got it 15:15:52 thanks! 15:16:27 davidwood: i am not on the list! but happy to scribe after the F2F 15:16:44 ivan: heard back from our admin that the zakim channel is opened on both days 15:16:54 code: 733294 ("RDF2WG") 15:16:57 sandro: the code will be rdf2wg 15:16:59 for F2F 15:17:09 sandro: i will update the wiki page 15:17:27 sorry for the last weeks, not enough time ( we are making a contest on open data ), F2F probably only remote for the BBC place, and december not able to scribe ( my marriage ) 15:17:34 TOPIC: Named Graphs 15:17:41 s/sandro:/david:/ 15:17:49 davidwood: we have two proposals 15:18:01 davidwood: ... and we have a f2f next week 15:18:08 davidwood: ... we need to have a good plan by next week 15:18:17 zakim, who is on the call? 15:18:17 On the phone I see yvesr, David_Wood, gavinc, ww (muted), cygri_, Arnaud, Ivan, AndyS1, Guus (muted), SteveH, mischat (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, AZ, MacTed (muted), 15:18:21 ... Scott_Bauer (muted), Souri, iand, Sandro, NickH (muted) 15:18:46 yes 15:19:39 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs 15:20:14 davidwood: the graph task forcepage needs to be updated 15:20:29 s/forcepage/force page 15:20:46 action: richard to update http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs (but hopes others will help) 15:20:47 cygri: i can do it, but it would be good if someone could contribute as well 15:20:47 Created ACTION-94 - Update http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs (but hopes others will help) [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-12]. 15:20:57 davidwood: the two proposals come from sandro and cygri 15:21:05 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC 15:21:16 davidwood: the use-cases page needs to be cleaned up 15:21:40 davidwood: sandro tried to get to the core of those use-cases in his recent emails with the proveance xg 15:21:52 davidwood: it would be good to define test cases from these use cases 15:22:02 davidwood: which would serve as a basis for evaluation 15:22:15 q+ 15:22:35 davidwood: it might be possible to collapse some use cases together 15:23:22 ack ivan 15:23:54 q+ 15:24:09 ivan: we need to be looking at just 5 or 4 use cases, otherwise we'll be lost 15:24:17 Zakim, mute me 15:24:17 gavinc should now be muted 15:24:22 davidwood: right now, we have 27 use cases 15:24:30 davidwood: ... most of those overlap 15:24:39 davidwood: ... it woul dbe better if we had 5! 15:24:46 LeeF has joined #rdf-wg 15:24:54 ack cygri 15:25:18 cygri: agreed that 27 use cases is too much, but it doesn't make sense to pick just one 15:25:46 cygri: some of the use-cases come from practical use cases 15:25:47 +1 the fish-restaurant use case should not be the only one. there are more immediate ones. 15:25:57 cygri: ... rather than just 'this is what we could do' 15:26:27 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC 15:26:58 cygri: 1.6, 1.2 15:27:04 cygri: particularly interesting ones are, to me, 1.6 - versioning, 1.1 - overlap between content of graphs, 15:27:11 s/1.2/1.1/ 15:27:26 cygri: ... i'd like everyone in the group to do that on the mailing list 15:27:36 +1: please nominate your favorite use case. 15:27:44 s/:// 15:27:53 davidwood: provencance use cases are important 15:27:59 q? 15:28:02 i would argue that 6.2 bears on provenance 15:28:05 davidwood: ... that's why we are liaising with the provencance xg 15:28:10 I like 5.2 15:28:12 s/xg/wg/ 15:28:15 s/provencance/provenance 15:28:29 rather 5.2 is rather important to TopQuadrant 15:28:43 pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 15:28:45 WARNING -- NUMBERS MAY CHANGE. THESE NUMBERS REFER TO http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/index.php?title=TF-Graphs-UC&oldid=1473 15:28:52 1.5 is important to us 15:29:05 yvesr: has just added in a use-case given to him by Denny, about wiki based issues in the wikimedia project 15:29:06 yvesr: new use case from Denny, about Wikidata (Wikimedia project) 15:29:33 4.8 has become obsolete and could be safely eliminated from the list if it overlaps with others 15:29:40 I will provide example data (triples) about the Europeana Data Model use case, about metadata of heritage objects, including provenance data 15:29:50 davidwood: we need to evaluate proposals against test cases derived from use cases 15:29:53 Target is by Friday 15:30:09 [have to drop off] 15:30:13 davidwood: it needs to be done before the F2F 15:30:27 -Guus 15:30:30 -NickH 15:30:31 davidwood: 48 hours 15:30:32 +??P30 15:31:05 zakim, ??p30 is me 15:31:05 +pchampin; got it 15:31:45 davidwood: would sandro and cygri be prepared to give an overview of the respective proposals on named graphs? and how they relate to UC? 15:31:57 sandro: i don't think i have a proposal, exactly 15:32:48 sandro: i might be able to give a list of questions or a summary options 15:33:11 cygri: i can present my proposal 15:33:22 I should have referred to 4.7, "Applying Named Graphs to a Terminology Server" based on the alternate url above. 15:33:31 +??P2 15:33:33 zakim, ??P2 is me 15:33:33 +NickH; got it 15:33:39 zakim, mute me 15:33:39 NickH should now be muted 15:33:43 action: sandro to present after Richard, F2F2 day 1, about where we might need more than his proposal gives us. 15:33:43 Created ACTION-95 - Present after Richard, F2F2 day 1, about where we might need more than his proposal gives us. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-10-12]. 15:34:11 davidwood: focus at the F2F on use-cases, and turn them into test cases 15:34:19 q? 15:34:21 q+ 15:34:27 ack cygri 15:34:31 action: cygri to present his proposal for named graphs at the F2F 15:34:32 Created ACTION-96 - Present his proposal for named graphs at the F2F [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-12]. 15:34:33 q+ 15:35:08 cygri: i am strugginlg to find the UC that motivates the argument made by PatH and Pierre-Antoine 15:36:32 pchampin: i can't speak for PatH, but maybe i can work on a negative example where i show the freedom given by cygri's proposal could be harmful 15:37:24 pchampin: a lot of use cases are arguing that an IRI in a graph can be used to access a graph in a dataset 15:37:34 pchampin: cygri call that a social convention 15:37:55 pchampin: i think it has surprising consequences 15:38:25 hard to hear davidwood 15:38:28 Zakim, who's noisy? 15:38:33 better 15:38:39 MacTed, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: David_Wood (62%), pchampin (22%) 15:39:02 pchampin, if you could write up that use case (negative or not), that would be much appreciated 15:39:15 @cygri I will 15:39:16 davidwood: ability to access a graph by an IRI seems like a non-issue 15:39:27 davidwood: struggling to understand the counter-argument 15:39:38 what happens when there is a mismatch between a quad and actuality? 15:40:07 the same thing as happens any other time there is bad data, pfps, I think.... 15:40:47 but if quads carry actuality then having them wrong is like having 7 be 8! 15:41:47 cygri, can you please scribe your comments into IRC? 15:41:48 q? 15:42:20 pfps: there is an issue having the semantics of rdf pushing into the semantics of quads 15:42:26 q+ 15:42:51 davidwood: isn't the point of rdf that anybody can say anything about anything? 15:42:59 davidwood: if i choose to say that 7 is 8, it's fine 15:43:10 pfps: it's different than rdf saying that 7 is 8 15:43:26 pfps: we don't have a proposal for how the semantics would work 15:43:51 pfps: they can be right, but not very useful 15:43:55 thus the drive to make sure our usecases are ... useful. :-) 15:44:31 cygri: i think we agree that in implementations, IRIs can be used to access graphs. the disagreement is about how graph names should be treated in the formal semantics. minimalist position: the semantics should be concerned with single graphs only. alternative position: the semantics should make graph IRIs denote the graphs 15:44:38 -Arnaud 15:45:03 +Arnaud 15:45:08 pfps: the semantics should be concerned with single graphs only 15:45:25 pfps: right now, they do 15:45:37 davidwood: should the rdf semantics ignore named graphs? 15:45:50 pfps: you could push those notions in the rdf semantics, but it might not be helpful 15:46:30 davidwood: if you have a syntax that allows for named graphs, would you efectively just add triple? 15:46:39 s/triple/a triple/ 15:47:01 statement identifiers... 15:47:03 davidwood: does it *need* to impact the semantics? 15:47:21 pfps: leaving named graphs out of semantics looses something, but it might be more trouble than it's worth 15:47:35 s/looses/loses/ 15:47:42 zakim, unmute me 15:47:42 gavinc should no longer be muted 15:47:53 gavinc: i thought everybody agreed that reification is broken, in rdf 15:47:59 RDF reification is more trouble (>0) than it is worth (<=0) 15:48:24 davidwood: but could it help us out of the named graphs problem? 15:48:39 davidwood: a bounded type of reification, specific to named graphs 15:48:44 -NickH 15:49:13 Are we agreed how reification is broken? (and I think it is broken) 15:49:22 +??P2 15:49:23 zakim, ??P2 is me 15:49:23 +NickH; got it 15:49:25 zakim, mute me 15:49:25 NickH should now be muted 15:49:29 q? 15:49:45 ack SteveH 15:50:10 SteveH: some of the proposals seem to be trying to rule out certain things that people are currently doing 15:50:16 +1 15:50:18 SteveH: some of the proposals seem to be trying to rule out things some people are doing in SPARQL. 15:50:29 SteveH: we shouldn't do that - we should support creating some structure around what people are doing right now 15:50:42 SteveH: we don't want to be enormously disruptive 15:50:52 davidwood: you overestimate our impact on the market 15:50:56 SteveH++ 15:51:01 SteveH: but we should try not to get ignored 15:51:05 @SteveH: the graph IRI as defined by the RDF spec does not have to be the graph IRI as used by SPARQL 15:51:24 +LeeF 15:51:24 sandro: i can name one of these proposals 15:51:26 though we should be careful to name it differently, of course 15:51:55 sandro: using graph tags to specify the subject of the doc 15:51:56 I think that that's a pretty common practice, isn't it? 15:52:24 Yes, TopQuadrant is aware that we shouldn't be doing that ;) 15:52:25 sandro: other examples would be mandating that a graph URI must be dereferencable 15:52:35 s/sandro/SteveH 15:52:38 I'm pretty sure dbpedia's SPARQL end point names graphs with the subject of the graph (at least, it did at some point) 15:52:41 Anzo does it as well, in some modes 15:52:46 sandro: we shouldn't impact on anybody's code 15:53:04 O'Reilly Media's does too 15:53:15 LeeF: the one at dbpedia.org/sparlq doesn't. the DBPedia Live one might do it 15:53:20 sandro: i think it is bad practice to use the subject as the base id of the graph 15:53:24 s/LeeF:/LeeF, 15:53:48 sandro: maybe we can reach a proposal that is actually helpful, motivating people to switch 15:53:52 davidwood: like RDFa 1.1 15:54:05 Zakim, unmute me 15:54:05 MacTed should no longer be muted 15:54:33 Btw, the confusion here is rather bad. TopQurant software uses the same "method", everything tends to ask about Base URI 15:55:10 SteveH: we should look at the linked data work, with no strict conventions about how to name graph 15:55:24 davidwood: if you're right, then we don't need standards 15:55:35 cygri, my experience might have been a long time ago, as well. 15:55:36 SteveH: we still should recommend what to do 15:55:37 Where base URI == OWL Ontology == Base URI 3986 == Graph Name :\ 15:55:40 That wasn't me! 15:55:43 cygri, also the chance that i'm hopelessly confused :) 15:55:45 +1 to advice and suggestions and "good practice" docs 15:55:47 MAY/SHOULD vs MUST? 15:55:53 s/davidwood/sandro/ 15:55:58 q? 15:55:58 SteveH++ 15:56:06 ack sandro 15:56:08 +1 to andy on advice and good (not best) practices 15:56:08 -Arnaud 15:56:32 +Arnaud 15:56:41 sandro: responding to what pfps said - i don't have a particular position - but intution is that we need more than we have now 15:56:59 q+ 15:57:10 ack ivan 15:57:12 it appears that we need use cases and worked out solutions to see what machinery is needed 15:57:47 yeah. :-( 15:57:53 (frown because it's hard work.) 15:58:01 pfps++ 15:58:15 That's why we need to move toward test cases 15:58:18 q+ 15:58:25 ack cygri 15:59:16 cygri: how to map terminology to use-cases? (e.g. subgraphs) 15:59:33 cygri: ... in that document ivan wrote about graphs 15:59:50 ivan: that document talked about graph literals, where you hit the issue of sub-graphs etc. 15:59:59 ivan: those propoerties were mainly coming from that 16:00:16 ivan: if we don't have graph literals at all, the problem becomes very different 16:00:22 q+ 16:00:27 Why don't we just present graphs as a way of scoping (using a IRI tags) for RDF's uniqueness requirement? How people use graphs is their business. 16:01:01 pchampin: graph literals may be very important 16:01:12 ivan: i didn't say they weren't 16:01:26 ivan: if we have graph literals then those additional properties are important 16:01:57 pchampin: If we don't give special semantics to graph IRIs, then we'll need more ways to talk about graphs. 16:02:17 q+ 16:02:40 pchampin: if we refuse to give special semantics to graph IRIs, my intuition is that it would become more important - we need to know how to treat a graph IRI 16:03:17 pchampin: ... that we can express in RDF what is the relation btw a graph and its IRI in a give dataset 16:03:24 what kind of special semantics? 16:03:29 Zakim, mute me 16:03:48 davidwood: strawman proposal about RDF datasets 16:03:50 MacTed should now be muted 16:03:50 Strawman proposal Richard: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-multigraph 16:04:00 @pfps: that the graph IRI actually denotes the g-snap, for example 16:04:20 sandro: i thought we were going through the issues list? 16:04:50 davidwood: this specific issue is abstract syntax to talk about multiple graphs 16:04:55 -NickH 16:05:24 davidwood: i will go through the issues list, preparing for the F2F 16:06:19