See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 19 October 2011
<ivan> zakim dial ivan-voip
<gavinc> [08:03] <Zakim> +Souri
<gavinc> scribenick: Souri
guus: short meeting today, addressing couple of issues
<AZ> The link is broken
<AZ> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-05
<davidwood> Minutes are linked from http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F2 and the links worl
davidwood: the link from F2F page works for me
guus: we will leave it and come back to it next time
guus: Issue-3.
davidwood: old comments list for
the old RDF group, summarizing things that we may want to take
a look at
... get some students to look at them
<sandro> (the scribe -- Yves -- never did the post meeting stuff. it's now in place, but still has various scribe errors. http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-05 )
<scribe> ACTION: guus To find volunteers for ISSUE-3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/19-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-111 - Find volunteers for ISSUE-3 [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-10-26].
guus: davidwood to work with Pat to see Issue-76 can be closed
davidwood: action can be closed, but ISSUE-76 needs to remain open
<pchampin_> I met Fabien RL recently; he's well, but has been very very busy
guus: pending review action RDF/XML syntax spec
<gavinc> ack +1.415.586.aabb
davidwood: we may need a new editor for that document
guus: action for gen id
continues
... action item for richard: update the page on the graph task
force, won't close it because richard is not here
... Action-97 update for RDF Conepts, continues
<gavinc> ACTION-98?
<trackbot> ACTION-98 -- Sandro Hawke to rdf: and rdfs: namespace should resolve to something that meets best practices -- due 2011-10-20 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/98
<gavinc> I think the theory was to assign it to Sandro until Ivan was here?
Ivan: wonders if this is not something we should rather do when we have the RDF vocab doc updated, add the necessary RDFa for that instead of redoing
<pchampin_> +1 to using the RDFS rec + RDFa as the RDFS namespace document
guus: taking up the minutes from F2F2
<sandro> +1 be explicit that we need to ask for feedback on terms like "RDF Graph"
guus: explicitly need to ask for
feedback on terms like RDF Graph
... revisit once we get community feedback
davidwood: SPARQL and Provenance group feedback as well
<scribe> ACTION: guus to add the resolution text on the graph terminology [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/19-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-112 - Add the resolution text on the graph terminology [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-10-26].
<gavinc> for example +â for test cases
guus: any more remarks on the
first day's minutes
... going to F2F2 day 2 minutes
<gavinc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Sep/0083.html text for resolving issue-71
<sandro> I understood it to be really sections, not appendices.
<JeremyCarroll> ACTION: JeremyCarroll to propose modification to issue 71 to give class ext to lang-string [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/10/19-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-113 - Propose modification to issue 71 to give class ext to lang-string [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2011-10-26].
guus: accept the minutes for Boston F2F2 with the amendments
<sandro> issue-21?
<trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- Can Node-IDs be shared between parts of a quad/multigraph format? -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/21
guus: two smaller issues: first, scope of bnode in TriG: does it raise new issues?
sandro: it is already there ISSUE-21, right?
guus: right
<sandro> issue-77?
<trackbot> ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77
guus: second issue ISSUE-77: should we mark rdf:seq as archaic
<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to mention class extension under 71
sandro: simple lists can be called well-formed lists, gently say don't use non-well-formed lists
<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest minimize informative txt on Seq
<gavinc> -0.5 to reopening archaic vs. deprecated conversation
<AndyS1> Maybe something like "Using well-formed lists maximises interoperability"
<AndyS1> ... or "usability" (bit more opinioned)
<sandro> JeremyCarroll: move the "archaic" stuff to an appendix.
jeremycarroll: put informative
text in the appendix of the primer (use words such as 'archaic'
in there ...)
... ... have a link to the old text
Ivan: its not only a question of
labeling them as archaic etc, do you also change the
RDFsemantics such as rdf:_1, rdf:_2, etc. These are problems
for inferencing because they lead to infinite number of things.
Propose taking them out of RDF and RDFS core.
... these are not only editorial changes
... does the RDF and RDFS rules need to take care of the
rdf:_n? if not, we should adjust them ...
pfps: agree with Ivan, might be a good idea
<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to comment on ivan's comment
pfps: not just an RDF and RDFS only issue
<pfps> I don't think that anyone at the OWL level worries about the infinite base of RDFS, as there are an infinite number of entailments in OWL anyway.
<AndyS1> rdfs:member is used.
<JeremyCarroll> Jeremy said that ivan's point, that some RDF semantics rules are complicated for rdf:_8 etc
<pchampin_> jeremy: agree with Ivan, and I don't think people that use rdf:Seq are relying on rdf:_n implying membership
<JeremyCarroll> Jeremy: does anyone really use these rules?
<gavinc> rdfs:member is implemented a property function in Jena ARQ isn't it?
<AndyS1> gavinc, yes (usually) and also by Jena rules for RDFS so API as well as SPARQL
<SteveH> rdfs:member was implemented as an inference rule in 3store, but no-ones asked for it in 4store
<pfps> in some sense the gain may be too small to overcome *any* pain, so why bother even trying
Ivan: theoretical possibility of a problem ... SPARQL on a member of a bag or seq may rely on rdf:_n being subproperty of rdfs:member
<ivan> ok SteveH, good to know that
<AndyS1> People use rdfs:member a bit : as list more common, list:member used more.
<gavinc> SteveH, I did! And you said to use lists instead... which we did ;)
<SteveH> gavinc, oh! sorry :) doubt it was me that said use lists though
<SteveH> ok, at least one person asked for rdfs:member :)
Ivan: one problem is that Sandro's proposal uses specific terminology, but Guus says that's already decided
<SteveH> FWIW, in the last commonly-used schema I had a hand in we had to invent our own ordinal system as both Seq and List weren't up to the job
<SteveH> [ :foo "a" ; :ordinal 1 ] etc.
guus: hopefully by next week we can get to the resolution
<pfps> +1
<pfps> +1 to sandro
<gavinc> +1 for progress
<AndyS1> email better for wordsmithing IMO
+1 to next week or emails
<JeremyCarroll> +1 for e-mail, I want to get feedback
<gavinc> unmute me
<AndyS1> AndyS -- regrets for next week: ISWC
<ivan> Ivan -- regrets for next week: ISWC
<pfps> could we set up a room at ISWC for the meeting?
guus: I'll be at ISWC as well, but expect to join telcon via IRC
<gavinc> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/are not/are not only/ Succeeded: s/have a slight difference with sandro/one problem is that Sandro's proposal uses specific terminology, but Guus says that's already decided/ Found ScribeNick: Souri Inferring Scribes: Souri Default Present: guus, Sandro, MacTed, Ivan, gavinc, Scott_Bauer, AndyS1, david, Arnaud_LeHors, Souri, pchampin_, AlexHall, AZ, zwu2, +1.415.586.aabb Present: guus Sandro MacTed Ivan gavinc Scott_Bauer AndyS1 david Arnaud_LeHors Souri pchampin_ AlexHall AZ zwu2 +1.415.586.aabb WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 19 Oct 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/10/19-rdf-wg-minutes.html People with action items: guus jeremycarroll[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]