RDF Working Group

Minutes of 11 May 2011

Seen
Alex Hall, Andy Seaborne, Antoine Zimmermann, Axel Polleres, Dan Brickley, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Fabien Gandon, Gavin Carothers, Guus Schreiber, Ivan Herman, Lee Feigenbaum, Matteo Brunati, Mischa Tuffield, Nicholas Humfrey, Olivier Corby, Patrick Hayes, Peter Patel-Schneider, Richard Cyganiak, Sandro Hawke, Souripriya Das, Steve Harris, Ted Thibodeau, Thomas Steiner
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. Accept the minutes of the 04 May telecon http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-04 link
  2. Close ISSUE-51 noting that it's a duplicate of work the WG is already doing with multiple graphs link
  3. to close ISSUE-52 - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document link
  4. Close ISSUE-53 with no change, and with the explanation that RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is making those assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by W3C's new Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wik link
  5. Close ISSUE-54 with no change, noting that this WG has no plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the collection mechanism at this time. link
Topics
15:04:10 <LeeF> topic: Admin

1. Admin

15:04:29 <LeeF> Guus: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 04 May telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-04

Guus Schreiber: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 04 May telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-04 [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:04:38 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of the 04 May telecon http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-04

RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of the 04 May telecon http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-04

15:04:46 <LeeF> subtopic: action items

1.1. action items

15:04:56 <LeeF> Guus: F2F poll has been setup

Guus Schreiber: F2F poll has been setup [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:05:04 <PatHayes> I still have an action item, I think, but I can't find the details of what exactly it is.

Patrick Hayes: I still have an action item, I think, but I can't find the details of what exactly it is.

15:05:16 <ericP> ericP has changed the topic to: RDF-WG site meeting - Code: 26631, Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.11

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ericP has changed the topic to: RDF-WG site meeting - Code: 26631, Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.11

15:05:17 <LeeF> close ACTION-41

Lee Feigenbaum: close ACTION-41

15:05:18 <trackbot> ACTION-41 Set up poll about which site you'd use if we have a video link, pref murray hill vs cambridge/mit, and oct 4-5 vs oct-12-13. closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-41 Set up poll about which site you'd use if we have a video link, pref murray hill vs cambridge/mit, and oct 4-5 vs oct-12-13. closed

15:05:25 <ericP> ericP has changed the topic to: RDF-WG weekly meeting - Code: 26631, Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.11

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ericP has changed the topic to: RDF-WG weekly meeting - Code: 26631, Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.11

15:05:43 <LeeF> Guus: Open action on cygri re: ISSUE-15 options

Guus Schreiber: Open action on cygri re: ISSUE-15 options [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:05:50 <LeeF> ... stays pending

Lee Feigenbaum: ... stays pending

15:06:22 <SteveH> Zakim, aaaa is [Garlik]

Steve Harris: Zakim, aaaa is [Garlik]

15:06:22 <Zakim> +[Garlik]; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +[Garlik]; got it

15:06:32 <SteveH> Zakim, [Garlik] has SteveH and mischat

Steve Harris: Zakim, [Garlik] has SteveH and mischat

15:06:32 <Zakim> +SteveH, mischat; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH, mischat; got it

15:06:40 <LeeF> ACTION-21?

Lee Feigenbaum: ACTION-21?

15:06:40 <trackbot> ACTION-21 -- Manu Sporny to create a doodle poll to find a time to have a call about RDF in JSON -- due 2011-03-23 -- CLOSED

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-21 -- Manu Sporny to create a doodle poll to find a time to have a call about RDF in JSON -- due 2011-03-23 -- CLOSED

15:06:40 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/21

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/21

15:06:45 <LeeF> ACTION-26?

Lee Feigenbaum: ACTION-26?

15:06:46 <trackbot> ACTION-26 -- Patrick Hayes to write an description of action-21 -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-26 -- Patrick Hayes to write an description of ACTION-21 -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN

15:06:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/26

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/26

15:06:47 <Zakim> +mhausenblas

Zakim IRC Bot: +mhausenblas

15:06:58 <LeeF>  ACTION-26: actually about ISSUE-21, not ACTION-21

Lee Feigenbaum: ACTION-26: actually about ISSUE-21, not ACTION-21

15:06:59 <cygri_> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me

Richard Cyganiak: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me

15:06:59 <Zakim> +cygri_; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri_; got it

15:07:00 <trackbot> ACTION-26 Write an description of action-21 notes added

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-26 Write an description of ACTION-21 notes added

15:07:31 <LeeF> Guus: action on danbri continues until August

Guus Schreiber: action on danbri continues until August [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:07:48 <LeeF> Guus: 3 actions regarding tools for spec authoring

Guus Schreiber: 3 actions regarding tools for spec authoring [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:08:04 <LeeF> gavinc: looked at it but haven't yet written it up

Gavin Carothers: looked at it but haven't yet written it up [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:08:35 <PatHayes> Pat is puzzled. There does not appear to be an issue-21 listed.

Patrick Hayes: Pat is puzzled. There does not appear to be an ISSUE-21 listed.

15:08:57 <sandro> issue-21?

Sandro Hawke: ISSUE-21?

15:08:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- Can Node-IDs be shared between parts of a quad/multigraph format? -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-21 -- Can Node-IDs be shared between parts of a quad/multigraph format? -- open

15:08:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/21

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/21

15:09:02 <LeeF> subtopic: October F2F2

1.2. October F2F2

15:09:10 <LeeF> Guus: there's a new poll at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/F2F2-EAST/

Guus Schreiber: there's a new poll at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/F2F2-EAST/ [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:09:19 <LeeF> ... right now we've gotten 14 answers and there's a preference for the MIT location

Lee Feigenbaum: ... right now we've gotten 14 answers and there's a preference for the MIT location

15:09:36 <LeeF> ... and a slight preference for 12-13 Oct

Lee Feigenbaum: ... and a slight preference for 12-13 Oct

15:10:11 <mischat> I can make UK remote thing ... is what I tried to convey in the poll

Mischa Tuffield: I can make UK remote thing ... is what I tried to convey in the poll

15:10:34 <LeeF> Guus: we'll handle venues for F2F3 after deciding on F2F2

Guus Schreiber: we'll handle venues for F2F3 after deciding on F2F2 [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:11:06 <LeeF> Guus: hope to make a decision on which tool to use for spec authoring next week

Guus Schreiber: hope to make a decision on which tool to use for spec authoring next week [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:11:34 <LeeF> ACTION: Guus to look at spec authoring tools

ACTION: Guus to look at spec authoring tools

15:11:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Look at spec authoring tools  [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-05-18].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-46 - Look at spec authoring tools [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-05-18].

15:11:59 <LeeF> topic: ISSUE-12: Reconcile various forms of string literals

2. ISSUE-12: Reconcile various forms of string literals

15:12:21 <AZ> zakim, unmute me

Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, unmute me

15:12:21 <Zakim> AZ should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: AZ should no longer be muted

15:12:22 <LeeF> See http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12 and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0050.html

Lee Feigenbaum: See http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12 and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0050.html

15:12:38 <LeeF> Guus: status?

Guus Schreiber: status? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:12:47 <mischat> zakim, who is making noise ?

Mischa Tuffield: zakim, who is making noise ?

15:12:57 <Zakim> mischat, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AZ (70%), Guus_Schreiber (35%)

Zakim IRC Bot: mischat, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AZ (70%), Guus_Schreiber (35%)

15:13:36 <LeeF> AZ: Not very concerned about the decision,  but reacted based on original decision that made the xsd:string URI archaic

Antoine Zimmermann: Not very concerned about the decision, but reacted based on original decision that made the xsd:string URI archaic [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:14:22 <LeeF> AZ: Don't mind any kind of change to that proposal as long as it doesn't change the semantics of literals and not making xsd:string archaic because we still want to use xsd:string's in range restrictions of properties (e.g.)

Antoine Zimmermann: Don't mind any kind of change to that proposal as long as it doesn't change the semantics of literals and not making xsd:string archaic because we still want to use xsd:string's in range restrictions of properties (e.g.) [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:14:31 <LeeF> q+ to point at Alex's comment

Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to point at Alex's comment

15:15:05 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software

Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software

15:15:08 <gavinc> LeeF: Want to point at specific email from Allen.

Lee Feigenbaum: Want to point at specific email from Alex. [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ]

15:15:21 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

15:15:21 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it

15:15:23 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

15:15:23 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted

15:15:29 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0090.html

Andy Seaborne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0090.html

15:15:34 <Zakim> + +31.20.598.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +31.20.598.aabb

15:15:41 <AlexHall> s/Allen/Alex
15:15:41 <gavinc> s/Allen/Alex
15:15:44 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0090.html

Lee Feigenbaum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0090.html

15:16:35 <LeeF> AlexHall: basic thoughts are that as long as plain literal strings and xsd:string's are syntactically distinct, the software stack needs to be able to treat them as such

Alex Hall: basic thoughts are that as long as plain literal strings and xsd:string's are syntactically distinct, the software stack needs to be able to treat them as such [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:16:43 <LeeF> ... not a good idea to tell systems to silently convert from one to the other

Lee Feigenbaum: ... not a good idea to tell systems to silently convert from one to the other

15:17:05 <LeeF> ... we recognize they're semantically equivalent... a lot of discussion around SPARQL which is a syntactic query

Lee Feigenbaum: ... we recognize they're semantically equivalent... a lot of discussion around SPARQL which is a syntactic query

15:17:20 <LeeF> ... discussion around whether it's the job of the RDF WG to address this issue, or for SPARQL WG

Lee Feigenbaum: ... discussion around whether it's the job of the RDF WG to address this issue, or for SPARQL WG

15:17:25 <LeeF> q-

Lee Feigenbaum: q-

15:17:33 <gavinc> +q RDF Interfaces

Gavin Carothers: +q RDF Interfaces

15:17:33 <ericP> q+ to say there's a value to having the semantic equivalence apparent in the graph

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say there's a value to having the semantic equivalence apparent in the graph

15:17:37 <LeeF> AlexHall: is the issue specific to SPARQL or wider than that?

Alex Hall: is the issue specific to SPARQL or wider than that? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:17:40 <SteveH> 1 and "1"^^xsd:integer are syntactically different, but one gets transformed to the other, I don't see the difference�, except that historically "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string were different, for crazy historical reasons

Steve Harris: 1 and "1"^^xsd:integer are syntactically different, but one gets transformed to the other, I don't see the difference�, except that historically "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string were different, for crazy historical reasons

15:17:43 <gavinc> -q RDF, Interfaces

Gavin Carothers: -q RDF, Interfaces

15:17:48 <PatHayes> q+

Patrick Hayes: q+

15:17:52 <gavinc> +q to talk about RDF Interfaces

Gavin Carothers: +q to talk about RDF Interfaces

15:17:57 <LeeF> LeeF: SteveH++

Lee Feigenbaum: SteveH++ [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:18:12 <ivan> ack ericP

Ivan Herman: ack ericP

15:18:12 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say there's a value to having the semantic equivalence apparent in the graph

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say there's a value to having the semantic equivalence apparent in the graph

15:18:15 <LeeF> ericP: there's a fair value to having semantic equivalence apparent in the graph, and not just because of SPARQL

Eric Prud'hommeaux: there's a fair value to having semantic equivalence apparent in the graph, and not just because of SPARQL [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:18:31 <Zakim> +NickH

Zakim IRC Bot: +NickH

15:18:41 <AlexHall> note, when i say "syntactic" i'm referring to the abstract syntax in RDF Concepts

Alex Hall: note, when i say "syntactic" i'm referring to the abstract syntax in RDF Concepts

15:18:54 <Guus> zakim, who is here?

Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here?

15:18:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see FabGandon, AZ, Guus_Schreiber, Ivan, AndyS, gavinc, OlivierCorby, LeeF, mbrunati, Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, EricP, [Garlik], Souri, PatH, AxelPolleres,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see FabGandon, AZ, Guus_Schreiber, Ivan, AndyS, gavinc, OlivierCorby, LeeF, mbrunati, Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, EricP, [Garlik], Souri, PatH, AxelPolleres,

15:18:57 <Zakim> ... cygri_, MacTed (muted), danbri, NickH

Zakim IRC Bot: ... cygri_, MacTed (muted), danbri, NickH

15:18:58 <LeeF> ericP: are there use cases that make us want to have both xsd:string and the plain literal in the same graph

Eric Prud'hommeaux: are there use cases that make us want to have both xsd:string and the plain literal in the same graph? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:18:59 <Zakim> [Garlik] has SteveH, mischat

Zakim IRC Bot: [Garlik] has SteveH, mischat

15:19:01 <ivan> language tag

Ivan Herman: language tag

15:19:05 <LeeF> s/graph/graph?
15:19:21 <LeeF> ericP: if not, then the advice not to use one or the other is advice to parser specification authors

Eric Prud'hommeaux: if not, then the advice not to use one or the other is advice to parser specification authors [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:19:46 <LeeF> q?

Lee Feigenbaum: q?

15:20:01 <LeeF> PatHayes: Agree with ?Lee? that silent rewriting is a bad idea

Patrick Hayes: Agree with ?Lee? that silent rewriting is a bad idea [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:20:15 <LeeF> ... I'd like to hear what Peter has to say about this issue

Lee Feigenbaum: ... I'd like to hear what Peter has to say about this issue

15:20:26 <LeeF> ... have a recollection that there was a strong case made to remove untyped literals of any kind

Lee Feigenbaum: ... have a recollection that there was a strong case made to remove untyped literals of any kind

15:20:43 <LeeF> ... but pressure came from higher layers of the layer cake which motivated rdf:PlainLiteral

Lee Feigenbaum: ... but pressure came from higher layers of the layer cake which motivated rdf:PlainLiteral

15:20:46 <ericP> why is silent rewriting bad? (or worse than having divergence of these representations?)

Eric Prud'hommeaux: why is silent rewriting bad? (or worse than having divergence of these representations?)

15:20:53 <LeeF> ... i'm puzzled as to why we're going in the other direction

Lee Feigenbaum: ... i'm puzzled as to why we're going in the other direction

15:21:08 <LeeF> ... this WG should seriously consider the arguments made previously that untyped literals should be deprecated

Lee Feigenbaum: ... this WG should seriously consider the arguments made previously that untyped literals should be deprecated

15:21:28 <LeeF> ... we do need to pay attention to the rdf:PlainLiteral typing idea

Lee Feigenbaum: ... we do need to pay attention to the rdf:PlainLiteral typing idea

15:21:28 <ivan> +1 to Pat on rdf:PlainLiteral

Ivan Herman: +1 to Pat on rdf:PlainLiteral

15:21:30 <ericP> i thing that saying "use plain literals, but consider its type to be xsd:string" makes most folks happy

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i thing that saying "use plain literals, but consider its type to be xsd:string" makes most folks happy

15:21:46 <AndyS> +1 to ericP - I'd like to understand what problems it causes

Andy Seaborne: +1 to ericP - I'd like to understand what problems it causes

15:21:54 <LeeF> pfps: the problem with plain literals is they don't have a datatype and so it's hard to say that a property is restricted to plain literals

Peter Patel-Schneider: the problem with plain literals is they don't have a datatype and so it's hard to say that a property is restricted to plain literals [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:21:59 <ivan> andy, eric: language tag!

Ivan Herman: andy, eric: language tag!

15:22:02 <AndyS> (the silent rewriting)

Andy Seaborne: (the silent rewriting)

15:22:11 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:22:17 <ivan> ack PatHayes

Ivan Herman: ack PatHayes

15:22:19 <gavinc> I thought they DO have a datatype?

Gavin Carothers: I thought they DO have a datatype?

15:22:21 <gavinc>  rdf:PlainLiteral?

Gavin Carothers: rdf:PlainLiteral?

15:22:28 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/#Definition_of_the_rdf:PlainLiteral_Datatype

Gavin Carothers: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/#Definition_of_the_rdf:PlainLiteral_Datatype

15:22:29 <LeeF> pfps: recommendation in new OWL documents is that OWL processors should silently do the conversion

Peter Patel-Schneider: recommendation in new OWL documents is that OWL processors should silently do the conversion [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:22:51 <PatHayes> Silent rewriting is bad because I certainly dont want ANYONE rewriting my RDF. My reasons for making it the way I make it might be private, but I dont want some other system second-guessing me.

Patrick Hayes: Silent rewriting is bad because I certainly dont want ANYONE rewriting my RDF. My reasons for making it the way I make it might be private, but I dont want some other system second-guessing me.

15:22:54 <LeeF> ... of course in OWL everything is semantic, so it's not like it's changing anything as far as OWL is concerned

Lee Feigenbaum: ... of course in OWL everything is semantic, so it's not like it's changing anything as far as OWL is concerned

15:23:04 <ericP> ivan, can you describe a use case which reveals the language tag problem inherent in andy and my proposal?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ivan, can you describe a use case which reveals the language tag problem inherent in andy and my proposal?

15:23:19 <LeeF> pfps: recommendation was to use "foo" by itself over the wire, but internally consider it to be typed with rdf:PlainLiteral

Peter Patel-Schneider: recommendation was to use "foo" by itself over the wire, but internally consider it to be typed with rdf:PlainLiteral [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:23:19 <AndyS> I prefer lang tag and lang tagless behave similarly - more than xsd:string and untyped lang literals

Andy Seaborne: I prefer lang tag and lang tagless behave similarly - more than xsd:string and untyped lang literals

15:23:47 <ivan> Eric, I want my name to properly written and flagged as Hungarian in a foaf file, and I cannot do that in xsd:string

Ivan Herman: Eric, I want my name to properly written and flagged as Hungarian in a foaf file, and I cannot do that in xsd:string

15:24:23 <LeeF> pfps: for OWL, "foo"^^rdf:PlainLiteral is the same as "foo"^^xsd:string

Peter Patel-Schneider: for OWL, "foo"^^rdf:PlainLiteral is the same as "foo"^^xsd:string [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:24:26 <LeeF> ivan: what about language tags?

Ivan Herman: what about language tags? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:24:30 <LeeF> pfps: no language tags here

Peter Patel-Schneider: no language tags here [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:24:32 <ericP> +1 to pfps's proposal

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to pfps's proposal

15:24:43 <PatHayes> Note, owl:sameAs, not 'same as'

Patrick Hayes: Note, owl:sameAs, not 'same as'

15:24:54 <LeeF> gavinc: this comes up not just in parsing syntax, but in the recently published RDF interface working draft

Gavin Carothers: this comes up not just in parsing syntax, but in the recently published RDF interface working draft [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:25:18 <LeeF> ... when trying to implement it, you run into this problem, in that you have an expectation from programmers that native language strings get converted into _something_

Lee Feigenbaum: ... when trying to implement it, you run into this problem, in that you have an expectation from programmers that native language strings get converted into _something_

15:25:30 <LeeF> ... it's very strange to try to figure out whether that should be xsd:string or rdf:PlainLiteral

Lee Feigenbaum: ... it's very strange to try to figure out whether that should be xsd:string or rdf:PlainLiteral

15:25:40 <LeeF> ... no consensus in the APIs as to which one it actually does

Lee Feigenbaum: ... no consensus in the APIs as to which one it actually does

15:25:44 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:25:48 <LeeF> ack gavinc

Lee Feigenbaum: ack gavinc

15:25:48 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to talk about RDF Interfaces

Zakim IRC Bot: gavinc, you wanted to talk about RDF Interfaces

15:25:51 <ivan> ack gavinc

Ivan Herman: ack gavinc

15:26:00 <LeeF> gavinc: the current RDF interfaces WD points out that the RDF WG is working on this

Gavin Carothers: the current RDF interfaces WD points out that the RDF WG is working on this [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:26:05 <LeeF> ... so we need some sort of conclusion

Lee Feigenbaum: ... so we need some sort of conclusion

15:26:21 <LeeF> ack ivan

Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivan

15:26:46 <LeeF> ivan: the discussion around the interface is on the fact that at the moment, the RDF Concepts defines equality of 2 literals purely on lexical level

Ivan Herman: the discussion around the interface is on the fact that at the moment, the RDF Concepts defines equality of 2 literals purely on lexical level [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:27:06 <LeeF> ... so strings of unicode characters must be equal, plus datatypes equal, plus languages (if present) equal

Lee Feigenbaum: ... so strings of unicode characters must be equal, plus datatypes equal, plus languages (if present) equal

15:27:10 <LeeF> ... no notion of conversion to any kind of value

Lee Feigenbaum: ... no notion of conversion to any kind of value

15:27:15 <PatHayes> q+

Patrick Hayes: q+

15:27:15 <LeeF> ... so not sure if relevant at this point

Lee Feigenbaum: ... so not sure if relevant at this point

15:27:46 <LeeF> ... long discussion on interface document, because for programmers it's not intuitive that when you have two strings that both stand for a number which has equal (mathetmatical) value, the two literals are still different

Lee Feigenbaum: ... long discussion on interface document, because for programmers it's not intuitive that when you have two strings that both stand for a number which has equal (mathetmatical) value, the two literals are still different

15:27:56 <gavinc> Yes, "example" != "example"^^xsd:string

Gavin Carothers: Yes, "example" != "example"^^xsd:string

15:28:38 <AZ> RDF semantics say they are equivalent with XSD entailmùent

Antoine Zimmermann: RDF semantics say they are equivalent with XSD entailmùent

15:28:40 <PatHayes> That is *syntactic* equality. But they denote the same value. No contradiction.

Patrick Hayes: That is *syntactic* equality. But they denote the same value. No contradiction.

15:28:43 <ericP> not a prob if "example"^^xsd:string is silently converted to "example"

Eric Prud'hommeaux: not a prob if "example"^^xsd:string is silently converted to "example"

15:28:45 <LeeF> Guus: pfps said at face to face that they are the same

Guus Schreiber: pfps said at face to face that they are the same [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:28:52 <gavinc> But Literal("example").valueOf == Literal("example"^^xsd:string).valueOf

Gavin Carothers: But Literal("example").valueOf == Literal("example"^^xsd:string).valueOf

15:28:54 <LeeF> pfps: the issue is which level of entailment you want to live at

Peter Patel-Schneider: the issue is which level of entailment you want to live at [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:29:10 <LeeF> ivan: at core level there is no entailment, like in SPARQL

Ivan Herman: at core level there is no entailment, like in SPARQL [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:29:18 <LeeF> ericP: which is why SPARQL is the avatar for these problems

Eric Prud'hommeaux: which is why SPARQL is the avatar for these problems [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:29:47 <LeeF> gavinc: when you use this in the interface, as soon as you use .valueOf() or use the API, they are _sometimes_ equal... which is strange!

Gavin Carothers: when you use this in the interface, as soon as you use .valueOf() or use the API, they are _sometimes_ equal... which is strange! [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:30:01 <AndyS> SPARQL does not require all entailment : def for minimum.

Andy Seaborne: SPARQL does not require all entailment : def for minimum.

15:30:03 <LeeF> ivan: true, but i'm sticking to the concepts there

Ivan Herman: true, but i'm sticking to the concepts there [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:30:33 <LeeF> Guus: seems clear we need to give more guidance, and we need a resolution that gives more guidance

Guus Schreiber: seems clear we need to give more guidance, and we need a resolution that gives more guidance [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:30:41 <LeeF> ... marking as archaic doesn't seem to have concensus

Lee Feigenbaum: ... marking as archaic doesn't seem to have concensus

15:30:46 <LeeF> PatHayes: i don't think there's a bug to repair here

Patrick Hayes: i don't think there's a bug to repair here [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:30:54 <LeeF> ... we're just using the phrase "same as" in two different sense.

Lee Feigenbaum: ... we're just using the phrase "same as" in two different sense.

15:30:59 <LeeF> ... in concepts we're talking about syntax

Lee Feigenbaum: ... in concepts we're talking about syntax

15:31:22 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:31:24 <LeeF> q+ to ask Steve to verbally mention his 1 vs. "1"^^xsd:integer analogy

Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to ask Steve to verbally mention his 1 vs. "1"^^xsd:integer analogy

15:31:26 <ivan> ack PatHayes

Ivan Herman: ack PatHayes

15:31:34 <LeeF> Guus: people using this have trouble with the subtle difference

Guus Schreiber: people using this have trouble with the subtle difference [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:31:37 <LeeF> PatHayes: not very subtle

Patrick Hayes: not very subtle [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:31:39 <LeeF> ack ivan

Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivan

15:31:45 <gavinc> +q to sort of agree with PatHayes

Gavin Carothers: +q to sort of agree with PatHayes

15:31:47 <ericP> q+ to argue owl:sameAs will lead to cardinality challenges in SPARQL or rules with fresh variables in the head

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to argue owl:sameAs will lead to cardinality challenges in SPARQL or rules with fresh variables in the head

15:32:08 <LeeF> ivan: the various tools around don't touch any sort of entailment by default, so that's what happens in SPARQL and RDF Interface

Ivan Herman: the various tools around don't touch any sort of entailment by default, so that's what happens in SPARQL and RDF Interface [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:32:12 <LeeF> ... the bible stops at Concepts

Lee Feigenbaum: ... the bible stops at Concepts

15:32:18 <AlexHall> I think most people consider XSD-entailment too high a bar just to get string equivalence

Alex Hall: I think most people consider XSD-entailment too high a bar just to get string equivalence

15:32:24 <LeeF> ... anything about data type entailment is hidden in the cloud of the semantics document; it's rarely implemented

Lee Feigenbaum: ... anything about data type entailment is hidden in the cloud of the semantics document; it's rarely implemented

15:32:27 <cygri> +1 AlexHall

Richard Cyganiak: +1 AlexHall

15:32:41 <LeeF> ... is this a problem in the document?

Lee Feigenbaum: ... is this a problem in the document?

15:32:44 <SteveH> +1 to AlexHall

Steve Harris: +1 to AlexHall

15:32:49 <Guus> zakim, who is here?

Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here?

15:32:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see FabGandon, AZ, Guus_Schreiber, Ivan, AndyS, gavinc, OlivierCorby, LeeF, mbrunati, Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, EricP, [Garlik], Souri, PatH, AxelPolleres,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see FabGandon, AZ, Guus_Schreiber, Ivan, AndyS, gavinc, OlivierCorby, LeeF, mbrunati, Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, EricP, [Garlik], Souri, PatH, AxelPolleres,

15:32:52 <Zakim> ... cygri_, MacTed (muted), danbri, NickH

Zakim IRC Bot: ... cygri_, MacTed (muted), danbri, NickH

15:32:53 <Zakim> [Garlik] has SteveH, mischat

Zakim IRC Bot: [Garlik] has SteveH, mischat

15:33:02 <AndyS> D-entailment pulls in RDF and RDFS entailment - can we extract just "same value"?

Andy Seaborne: D-entailment pulls in RDF and RDFS entailment - can we extract just "same value"?

15:33:03 <LeeF> PatHayes: is the problem that RDF is being used in a way that completely ignores its semantics?

Patrick Hayes: is the problem that RDF is being used in a way that completely ignores its semantics? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:33:09 <Souri> In practice, it is much easier to assume the kind of entailment that says "0010"^^xsd:integer = "10"^^xsd:integer ! Same could be true for "abc" and "abc"^^xsd:string!

Souripriya Das: In practice, it is much easier to assume the kind of entailment that says "0010"^^xsd:integer = "10"^^xsd:integer ! Same could be true for "abc" and "abc"^^xsd:string!

15:33:24 <Zakim> +tomayac

Zakim IRC Bot: +tomayac

15:33:33 <LeeF> PatHayes: is this just a problem of exposition?

Patrick Hayes: is this just a problem of exposition? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:33:37 <LeeF> Guus: essentially yes

Guus Schreiber: essentially yes [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:33:53 <LeeF> ... we need to make very clear to the outside community that they should use the syntax in such a way that it doesn't give rise to the confusions that definitely exist

Lee Feigenbaum: ... we need to make very clear to the outside community that they should use the syntax in such a way that it doesn't give rise to the confusions that definitely exist

15:34:11 <Guus> q?

Guus Schreiber: q?

15:34:11 <LeeF> PatHayes: what confusions exist? we have 3 syntactic forms that are semantically equivalent. why don't we just say that that's what it is?

Patrick Hayes: what confusions exist? we have 3 syntactic forms that are semantically equivalent. why don't we just say that that's what it is? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:34:16 <LeeF> PatHayes: what is wanted?

Patrick Hayes: what is wanted? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:34:17 <ericP> i think they want something *less*

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think they want something *less*

15:34:20 <cygri> q+

Richard Cyganiak: q+

15:35:30 <ivan> ack LeeF

Ivan Herman: ack LeeF

15:35:30 <Zakim> LeeF, you wanted to ask Steve to verbally mention his 1 vs. "1"^^xsd:integer analogy

Zakim IRC Bot: LeeF, you wanted to ask Steve to verbally mention his 1 vs. "1"^^xsd:integer analogy

15:36:02 <AndyS> q+ to talk about language tags

Andy Seaborne: q+ to talk about language tags

15:36:10 <SteveH> +1 to LeeF

Steve Harris: +1 to LeeF

15:36:12 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

15:36:23 <ericP> (i think andyS is on board as well)

Eric Prud'hommeaux: (i think andyS is on board as well)

15:36:37 <LeeF> LeeF: we already have a precedent of different surface syntax mapping to the same abstract syntax with 1 and "1"^^xsd:integer

Lee Feigenbaum: we already have a precedent of different surface syntax mapping to the same abstract syntax with 1 and "1"^^xsd:integer [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:36:52 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:36:58 <LeeF> LeeF: why not do that with literals as well, so that both "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string parse to the same abstract syntax term (such as "foo"^^xsd:string)

Lee Feigenbaum: why not do that with literals as well, so that both "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string parse to the same abstract syntax term (such as "foo"^^xsd:string) [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:36:58 <AndyS> (nearly - seems to get strange for langs)

Andy Seaborne: (nearly - seems to get strange for langs)

15:37:11 <LeeF> AndyS, I agree that langs makes it a little weird

Lee Feigenbaum: AndyS, I agree that langs makes it a little weird

15:37:27 <LeeF> gavinc: there is an issue where rdf term equality is defined in the Concepts document, that never gives a hint about semantic equivalence

Gavin Carothers: there is an issue where rdf term equality is defined in the Concepts document, that never gives a hint about semantic equivalence [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:37:28 <SteveH> I disagree, lang tags just means you have to do ""^^xsd:string -> ""

Steve Harris: I disagree, lang tags just means you have to do ""^^xsd:string -> ""

15:37:30 <AZ> +1, I think most people want XSD entailment

Antoine Zimmermann: +1, I think most people want XSD entailment

15:37:31 <LeeF> ack gavinc

Lee Feigenbaum: ack gavinc

15:37:31 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to sort of agree with PatHayes

Zakim IRC Bot: gavinc, you wanted to sort of agree with PatHayes

15:37:43 <PatHayes> OK, how about this resolution. We take the rdf:PlainLiteral idea seriously, and (since we can change RDF) we say that engines SHOULD silently convert plain literals to typed literals with an explicit, syntactic type of rdf:plainLiteral.

Patrick Hayes: OK, how about this resolution. We take the rdf:PlainLiteral idea seriously, and (since we can change RDF) we say that engines SHOULD silently convert plain literals to typed literals with an explicit, syntactic type of rdf:plainLiteral.

15:38:07 <AZ> people want that "1.0"^^xsd:decimal = "1"^^xsd:decimal, among other things

Antoine Zimmermann: people want that "1.0"^^xsd:decimal = "1"^^xsd:decimal, among other things

15:38:19 <gavinc> +1 AZ

Gavin Carothers: +1 AZ

15:38:43 <PatHayes> AZ, that is true, they are equal. So they have what they want, now.

Patrick Hayes: AZ, that is true, they are equal. So they have what they want, now.

15:38:53 <LeeF> ericP: when we say "same as" saying that xsd:string is same as untyped literal, that seems fine. if we do "owl:sameAs" then any system that preserves cardinality or does inference with fresh variables in the head will end up with different answers if we have "asdf" and "asdf"^^xsd:string being separate abstract syntax things but having rules that say you need to do owl:sameAs things

Eric Prud'hommeaux: when we say "same as" saying that xsd:string is same as untyped literal, that seems fine. if we do "owl:sameAs" then any system that preserves cardinality or does inference with fresh variables in the head will end up with different answers if we have "asdf" and "asdf"^^xsd:string being separate abstract syntax things but having rules that say you need to do owl:sameAs things [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:39:30 <LeeF> ericP: Lee's proposal seems to have some support - make one of them disappear from the abstract syntax

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Lee's proposal seems to have some support - make one of them disappear from the abstract syntax [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:39:32 <AZ> PatHayes, they are equal only under D-entailment, where D includes {xsd:decimal}

Antoine Zimmermann: PatHayes, they are equal only under D-entailment, where D includes {xsd:decimal}

15:39:46 <LeeF> ... the type of the "winner" is xsd:string

Lee Feigenbaum: ... the type of the "winner" is xsd:string

15:39:50 <LeeF> ack cygri

Lee Feigenbaum: ack cygri

15:39:55 <LeeF> q- ericP

Lee Feigenbaum: q- ericP

15:39:59 <LeeF> cygri: i see two options

Richard Cyganiak: i see two options [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:40:01 <Guus> ack ericP

Guus Schreiber: ack ericP

15:40:13 <LeeF> ... 1) what eric just said - make it so that there' sonly one option in the abstract syntax

Lee Feigenbaum: ... 1) what eric just said - make it so that there' sonly one option in the abstract syntax

15:40:19 <PatHayes> AZ, true. So, use that kind of entailment. Isnt this waht datatypes were invented for???

Patrick Hayes: AZ, true. So, use that kind of entailment. Isnt this waht datatypes were invented for???

15:40:30 <LeeF> ... 2) leave the abstract syntax, and treat this as a usability problem of the specifications

Lee Feigenbaum: ... 2) leave the abstract syntax, and treat this as a usability problem of the specifications

15:40:50 <LeeF> ... as Pat noted, part of the problem is that to actually get value equality, you have to dive pretty deep

Lee Feigenbaum: ... as Pat noted, part of the problem is that to actually get value equality, you have to dive pretty deep

15:41:00 <PatHayes> The only-one-option option breaks because of language tagging, which cannot be got into xsd:string.

Patrick Hayes: The only-one-option option breaks because of language tagging, which cannot be got into xsd:string.

15:41:09 <LeeF> ... which gives you a lot of things orthogonal to the question of whether 1 == 1.0 and whether "a"^^xsd:string is the same as "a"

Lee Feigenbaum: ... which gives you a lot of things orthogonal to the question of whether 1 == 1.0 and whether "a"^^xsd:string is the same as "a"

15:41:16 <AZ> PatHayes, I agree, we should tell people to use XSD entailment and stop caring about syntactic differences

Antoine Zimmermann: PatHayes, I agree, we should tell people to use XSD entailment and stop caring about syntactic differences

15:41:30 <LeeF> ... maybe editorial work that can get literal equality stuff more in the foreground and decouple that from other datatype entailment stuff

Lee Feigenbaum: ... maybe editorial work that can get literal equality stuff more in the foreground and decouple that from other datatype entailment stuff

15:42:23 <LeeF> AndyS: i like the idea of going to one datatype overall, but not necessarily comfortable with that being xsd:string

Andy Seaborne: i like the idea of going to one datatype overall, but not necessarily comfortable with that being xsd:string [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:42:29 <ivan> +1 Andy

Ivan Herman: +1 Andy

15:42:31 <SteveH> +1

Steve Harris: +1

15:42:37 <PatHayes> +1 AndyS

Patrick Hayes: +1 AndyS

15:42:38 <LeeF> ... i think users expect that no lang tag and lang tag are closer together then no lang tag and xsd:string

Lee Feigenbaum: ... i think users expect that no lang tag and lang tag are closer together then no lang tag and xsd:string

15:42:48 <LeeF> ... you even see people that expect that without a lang tag match with a lang tag

Lee Feigenbaum: ... you even see people that expect that without a lang tag match with a lang tag

15:42:59 <LeeF> ... e.g. see lots of questions online about querying dbpedia with a language tag

Lee Feigenbaum: ... e.g. see lots of questions online about querying dbpedia with a language tag

15:43:01 <Guus> +1 for pref of plain literal

Guus Schreiber: +1 for pref of plain literal

15:43:13 <LeeF> ... so for user consistency would like to convert xsd:string to plain literals, no lang tag

Lee Feigenbaum: ... so for user consistency would like to convert xsd:string to plain literals, no lang tag

15:43:16 <Souri> +1 to AndyS

Souripriya Das: +1 to AndyS

15:43:16 <AndyS> ack me

Andy Seaborne: ack me

15:43:16 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to talk about language tags

Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to talk about language tags

15:43:20 <LeeF> ... or create datatypes that reflect language tags

Lee Feigenbaum: ... or create datatypes that reflect language tags

15:43:42 <LeeF> ericP: and datatype("asdf") is xsd:string?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: and datatype("asdf") is xsd:string? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:43:44 <LeeF> AndyS: yes, in sparql

Andy Seaborne: yes, in sparql [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:43:45 <PatHayes> We have a datatype which respects alnguage tags, it is rdf:PalinLIteral. ALl we need to do is to make this 'visible' in future RDF.

Patrick Hayes: We have a datatype which respects alnguage tags, it is rdf:PalinLIteral. ALl we need to do is to make this 'visible' in future RDF.

15:43:52 <PatHayes> PlainLIteral

Patrick Hayes: PlainLIteral

15:44:04 <PatHayes> NOt PalinLIteral, aaaaargh

Patrick Hayes: NOt PalinLIteral, aaaaargh

15:45:02 <cygri> q+

Richard Cyganiak: q+

15:45:30 <LeeF> ivan: agree that xsd:string can't be the winner because of language tags

Ivan Herman: agree that xsd:string can't be the winner because of language tags [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:46:04 <LeeF> ivan: situation more complex because at the moment in the semantic documents everything for D-entailment is explicitly defined as an extension of RDFS entailment

Ivan Herman: situation more complex because at the moment in the semantic documents everything for D-entailment is explicitly defined as an extension of RDFS entailment [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:46:09 <LeeF> ... so if we want to separate it, it's more of a change

Lee Feigenbaum: ... so if we want to separate it, it's more of a change

15:46:30 <PatHayes> Ivan, very good point. I agree.

Patrick Hayes: Ivan, very good point. I agree.

15:46:37 <gavinc> +1 Ivan, value equality of literals should not depend on RDFS

Gavin Carothers: +1 Ivan, value equality of literals should not depend on RDFS

15:46:43 <LeeF> q?

Lee Feigenbaum: q?

15:46:45 <LeeF> ack ivan

Lee Feigenbaum: ack ivan

15:46:47 <LeeF> ack cygri

Lee Feigenbaum: ack cygri

15:46:50 <PatHayes> We need to revise this 'layered' aspect of the sematnics in an y case.

Patrick Hayes: We need to revise this 'layered' aspect of the sematnics in an y case.

15:46:54 <Guus> ack cygri

Guus Schreiber: ack cygri

15:47:09 <LeeF> cygri: i don't know how much this layering of entailments matters

Richard Cyganiak: i don't know how much this layering of entailments matters [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:47:11 <AZ> Where is it said that D-entailment must be an extension of RDFS-entailment?

Antoine Zimmermann: Where is it said that D-entailment must be an extension of RDFS-entailment?

15:47:34 <PatHayes> The 'layering' was really just exposition, it is not a deep matter to do it more separated.

Patrick Hayes: The 'layering' was really just exposition, it is not a deep matter to do it more separated.

15:47:50 <LeeF> ... the mathematics of the situation shouldn't stop us from pointing out useful entailments

Lee Feigenbaum: ... the mathematics of the situation shouldn't stop us from pointing out useful entailments

15:47:53 <PatHayes> The entailments will change slightly, of course.

Patrick Hayes: The entailments will change slightly, of course.

15:48:11 <ivan> AZ: "If D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation of a vocabulary V is any rdfs-interpretation I of V union {aaa: < aaa, x > in D for some x } ..."

Antoine Zimmermann: "If D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation of a vocabulary V is any rdfs-interpretation I of V union {aaa: < aaa, x > in D for some x } ..." [ Scribe Assist by Ivan Herman ]

15:48:15 <AndyS> AZ - the examples of D-ent use RDFS and the only test cases use RDFS at least

Andy Seaborne: AZ - the examples of D-ent use RDFS and the only test cases use RDFS at least

15:48:47 <LeeF> ivan: this is the only definition we have today

Ivan Herman: this is the only definition we have today [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:48:50 <PatHayes> NOt PURELY editorial, but it is do-able and I thinkwe should do it anyway.

Patrick Hayes: NOt PURELY editorial, but it is do-able and I thinkwe should do it anyway.

15:48:51 <LeeF> ... and we need to live with / deal with that

Lee Feigenbaum: ... and we need to live with / deal with that

15:48:55 <PatHayes> Ivan is right.

Patrick Hayes: Ivan is right.

15:49:26 <PatHayes> IT is a technical change but its easy and I promise I will be able to do it.

Patrick Hayes: IT is a technical change but its easy and I promise I will be able to do it.

15:50:30 <PatHayes> LOL

Patrick Hayes: LOL

15:51:04 <LeeF> (general disagreement between ivan and cygri about how closely bound d-entailment is with rdfs entailment)

Lee Feigenbaum: (general disagreement between ivan and cygri about how closely bound d-entailment is with rdfs entailment)

15:51:32 <ericP> ivan, cygri, i think cygri is saying we could factor existing entailment with text which invites e.g. SPARQL to say it works on a new "entailment1" which is graph entailment plus string entailment

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ivan, cygri, i think cygri is saying we could factor existing entailment with text which invites e.g. SPARQL to say it works on a new "entailment1" which is graph entailment plus string entailment

15:51:55 <ericP> i prefer a stronger statement like "there never *was* any "abc"^^xsd:string"

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i prefer a stronger statement like "there never *was* any "abc"^^xsd:string"

15:52:04 <ivan> eric, I agree, that might be useful, but that is not an editorial change on the semantics document. That *all* I was saying...

Ivan Herman: eric, I agree, that might be useful, but that is not an editorial change on the semantics document. That *all* I was saying...

15:52:28 <LeeF> Guus: would like to action the editors to consider this discussion and propose changes to concepts document

Guus Schreiber: would like to action the editors to consider this discussion and propose changes to concepts document [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:52:38 <SteveH> ericP, I'm not convinced that d(xsd:string) entailment doesn't make things worse

Steve Harris: ericP, I'm not convinced that d(xsd:string) entailment doesn't make things worse

15:52:56 <ericP> ditto - i propose: 1. The form "abc"^^xsd:string is a deprecated form of "abc", which systems should silently convert. 2. The datatype of "abc" is xsd:string. 3. The datatype of "abc"@hu is rdf:PlainLiteral .

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ditto - i propose: 1. The form "abc"^^xsd:string is a deprecated form of "abc", which systems should silently convert. 2. The datatype of "abc" is xsd:string. 3. The datatype of "abc"@hu is rdf:PlainLiteral .

15:53:02 <PatHayes> +1 AZ

Patrick Hayes: +1 AZ

15:53:05 <AndyS> eric's q of a while ago - where do both xsd:string and simple literal occur together (on the web)?

Andy Seaborne: eric's q of a while ago - where do both xsd:string and simple literal occur together (on the web)?

15:53:07 <SteveH> ericP, yeah

Steve Harris: ericP, yeah

15:53:42 <SteveH> ericP, except 3. is a bit odd, but maybe we have no choice there

Steve Harris: ericP, except 3. is a bit odd, but maybe we have no choice there

15:53:48 <ivan> eric, and what is wrong to say that the datatype of "abc" is also rdf:PlainLiteral?

Ivan Herman: eric, and what is wrong to say that the datatype of "abc" is also rdf:PlainLiteral?

15:53:52 <ivan> why having the two?

Ivan Herman: why having the two?

15:54:12 <LeeF> Guus: strawpoll -- are changes to RDF Concepts abstract syntax needed?

Guus Schreiber: strawpoll -- are changes to RDF Concepts abstract syntax needed? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:54:21 <ericP> +1 to attacking this on the abstract syntax level

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to attacking this on the abstract syntax level

15:54:26 <LeeF> +1

Lee Feigenbaum: +1

15:54:28 <SteveH> perhaps [question is too low levle]

Steve Harris: perhaps [question is too low levle]

15:54:30 <AlexHall> +1

Alex Hall: +1

15:54:33 <AndyS> I think lang+datatype will break code out there.  I'd be surprised if there wasn't assumption of one OR the other

Andy Seaborne: I think lang+datatype will break code out there. I'd be surprised if there wasn't assumption of one OR the other

15:54:34 <ivan> +1 if it works:-)

Ivan Herman: +1 if it works:-)

15:54:39 <AZ> -0.5

Antoine Zimmermann: -0.5

15:54:43 <PatHayes> Need to clarify if these are expositonal.ecitorial changes or changes to content. I cna t vote yet.

Patrick Hayes: Need to clarify if these are expositonal.ecitorial changes or changes to content. I cna t vote yet.

15:54:45 <SteveH> AndyS, I can promise you there is:)

Steve Harris: AndyS, I can promise you there is:)

15:54:45 <cygri> +-0

Richard Cyganiak: +-0

15:54:51 <LeeF> cygri: +-0

Richard Cyganiak: +-0 [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:54:54 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

15:54:58 <Souri> +1

Souripriya Das: +1

15:54:58 <cygri> PatHayes, changes to content

Richard Cyganiak: PatHayes, changes to content

15:55:03 <mbrunati> +1

Matteo Brunati: +1

15:55:05 <PatHayes> Then +1

Patrick Hayes: Then +1

15:55:05 <gavinc> +0

Gavin Carothers: +0

15:55:22 <LeeF> Guus: majority in favor, without details, i think this is something we should try to reach consensus around

Guus Schreiber: majority in favor, without details, i think this is something we should try to reach consensus around [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:55:36 <danbri> ∓0

Dan Brickley: ∓0

15:55:36 <SteveH> q+

Steve Harris: q+

15:55:41 <LeeF> cygri: does anyone strongly believe that the abstract syntax should not be changed?

Richard Cyganiak: does anyone strongly believe that the abstract syntax should not be changed? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:55:42 <AndyS> SteveH, yep - but I can change mime. It's people outside the WG ... who do data work

Andy Seaborne: SteveH, yep - but I can change mime. It's people outside the WG ... who do data work

15:56:30 <PatHayes> It is not enough. If there are changes to the anstract syntax, this will send ripples through everything. The semantics will need to be revised to fit.

Patrick Hayes: It is not enough. If there are changes to the anstract syntax, this will send ripples through everything. The semantics will need to be revised to fit.

15:56:58 <AZ> +1 ivan, make it an issue and we'll discuss it on the ML

Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ivan, make it an issue and we'll discuss it on the ML

15:57:14 <PatHayes> Im not afraid, but I want the earth to stop moving.

Patrick Hayes: Im not afraid, but I want the earth to stop moving.

15:58:22 <LeeF> PatHayes: are we talking about a change to the content or the exposition?

Patrick Hayes: are we talking about a change to the content or the exposition? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:58:24 <LeeF> ericP: content

Eric Prud'hommeaux: content [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:58:24 <Souri> To understand it better: If someone submits two triples: <a> <name> "Dan" . <a> <name> "Dan"^^xsd:string . Should these be combined into just *one* triple?: <a> <name> "Dan" .

Souripriya Das: To understand it better: If someone submits two triples: <a> <name> "Dan" . <a> <name> "Dan"^^xsd:string . Should these be combined into just *one* triple?: <a> <name> "Dan" .

15:58:31 <LeeF> PatHayes: we ought to understand soon what that change _is_ then

Patrick Hayes: we ought to understand soon what that change _is_ then [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

15:58:49 <PatHayes> lol

Patrick Hayes: lol

15:59:11 <ericP> Souri, i say that's one triple

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Souri, i say that's one triple

15:59:20 <SteveH> I'd /like/ it to be one triple

Steve Harris: I'd /like/ it to be one triple

15:59:28 <ericP> i suspect that everyone that +1'd had that idea

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i suspect that everyone that +1'd had that idea

15:59:28 <PatHayes> What does 'submit' mean???

Patrick Hayes: What does 'submit' mean???

15:59:31 <SteveH> but I have no clear idea following the discussion

Steve Harris: but I have no clear idea following the discussion

15:59:47 <AndyS> This was my problem reading F2F minutes - need an answer (one triple preferably)

Andy Seaborne: This was my problem reading F2F minutes - need an answer (one triple preferably)

15:59:49 <AlexHall> Yes, one triple, with the abstract syntax of said triple still under discussion

Alex Hall: Yes, one triple, with the abstract syntax of said triple still under discussion

16:00:06 <LeeF> +1 to One triple

Lee Feigenbaum: +1 to One triple

16:00:06 <danbri> Can we couch this in terms of rdfcore style test cases? ie. what does some test data entail?

Dan Brickley: Can we couch this in terms of rdfcore style test cases? ie. what does some test data entail?

16:00:32 <AndyS> +1 to danbri

Andy Seaborne: +1 to danbri

16:01:34 <ivan> <a> <b> "01234"^^xsd:integer . <a> <b> "1234"^^xsd:integer is another example for the same question, these are not only string issues

Ivan Herman: <a> <b> "01234"^^xsd:integer . <a> <b> "1234"^^xsd:integer is another example for the same question, these are not only string issues

16:01:40 <LeeF> PatHayes: i understand if this is about surface form

Patrick Hayes: i understand if this is about surface form [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

16:01:53 <LeeF> ... i can't make sense if we're talking about making them the same "in the merge"

Lee Feigenbaum: ... i can't make sense if we're talking about making them the same "in the merge"

16:01:57 <LeeF> ericP: i think people are voting for the former

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think people are voting for the former [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

16:02:16 <Souri> +1 to Ivan's question

Souripriya Das: +1 to Ivan's question

16:02:17 <LeeF> q+ to disagree with ivan's other example being the same

Lee Feigenbaum: q+ to disagree with ivan's other example being the same

16:03:06 <cygri> These two are the same single triple: <a> <b> 1 . <a> <b> "1"^^xsd:decimal .

Richard Cyganiak: These two are the same single triple: <a> <b> 1 . <a> <b> "1"^^xsd:decimal .

16:03:30 <AlexHall> string equality is so close to syntactic equality that it makes sense to approach that in the abstract syntax

Alex Hall: string equality is so close to syntactic equality that it makes sense to approach that in the abstract syntax

16:03:32 <Zakim> +[Garlik.a]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[Garlik.a]

16:03:32 <AZ> cygri, this is true in turtle because of syntactic sugar

Antoine Zimmermann: cygri, this is true in turtle because of syntactic sugar

16:03:34 <Zakim> -AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ

16:03:59 <Souri> In practice, value-based equality is what people expect for literal equality

Souripriya Das: In practice, value-based equality is what people expect for literal equality

16:04:01 <LeeF> q-

Lee Feigenbaum: q-

16:04:02 <Zakim> +AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ

16:04:12 <SteveH> q-

Steve Harris: q-

16:04:28 <LeeF> cygri: I can make a proposal

Richard Cyganiak: I can make a proposal [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

16:05:04 <ivan> ISSUE-40?

Ivan Herman: ISSUE-40?

16:05:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-40 -- Skolemization advice in the RDF dcocument -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-40 -- Skolemization advice in the RDF dcocument -- raised

16:05:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/40

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/40

16:05:07 <AndyS> XSD sort of separates xsd:integer and xsd:decimal and sort of doesn't  integer + integer => integer but same values and same type hierarchy

Andy Seaborne: XSD sort of separates xsd:integer and xsd:decimal and sort of doesn't integer + integer => integer but same values and same type hierarchy

16:05:22 <LeeF> topic: ISSUE-40: Skelemization advice

3. ISSUE-40: Skelemization advice

16:05:31 <LeeF> Guus: it would be good to have discussion around ISSUE-40

Guus Schreiber: it would be good to have discussion around ISSUE-40 [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

16:05:36 <PatHayes> General question, how seriously attached to XSD should RDF be?

Patrick Hayes: General question, how seriously attached to XSD should RDF be?

16:05:45 <LeeF> --> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/40 and http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemization

Lee Feigenbaum: --> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/40 and http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemization

16:06:04 <LeeF> topic: Revisit RDF Postponed Issue

4. Revisit RDF Postponed Issue

16:06:18 <LeeF> Guus: start with issue 51

Guus Schreiber: start with ISSUE-51 [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

16:06:20 <LeeF> ISSUE-51?

Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-51?

16:06:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-51 -- Revisit "Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF" -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-51 -- Revisit "Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF" -- raised

16:06:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/51

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/51

16:06:24 <AndyS> PatHayes - I think it's good to pick a number system

Andy Seaborne: PatHayes - I think it's good to pick a number system

16:06:50 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-51 noting that it's a duplicate of work the WG is already doing with multiple graphs

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-51 noting that it's a duplicate of work the WG is already doing with multiple graphs

16:06:58 <PatHayes> Andy, agree, but was just asking baout the general mood right now.

Patrick Hayes: Andy, agree, but was just asking baout the general mood right now.

16:07:15 <LeeF> +1

Lee Feigenbaum: +1

16:07:20 <Souri> +1

Souripriya Das: +1

16:07:21 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

16:07:23 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

16:07:23 <cygri> +1

Richard Cyganiak: +1

16:07:23 <mbrunati> +1

Matteo Brunati: +1

16:07:31 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-51 noting that it's a duplicate of work the WG is already doing with multiple graphs

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-51 noting that it's a duplicate of work the WG is already doing with multiple graphs

16:07:38 <LeeF>  ISSUE-51: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-51 noting that it's a duplicate of work the WG is already doing with multiple graphs

Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-51: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-51 noting that it's a duplicate of work the WG is already doing with multiple graphs

16:07:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-51 Revisit "Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF" notes added

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-51 Revisit "Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF" notes added

16:07:41 <LeeF> close ISSUE-51

Lee Feigenbaum: close ISSUE-51

16:07:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-51 Revisit "Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF" closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-51 Revisit "Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF" closed

16:07:43 <LeeF> ISSUE-52?

Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-52?

16:07:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-52 -- Revisit "How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another document is asserted" -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-52 -- Revisit "How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another document is asserted" -- raised

16:07:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/52

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/52

16:08:01 <LeeF> PROPOSED: to resolve CLOSE - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document

PROPOSED: to resolve CLOSE - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document

16:08:08 <cygri> +1

Richard Cyganiak: +1

16:08:10 <AndyS> +1

Andy Seaborne: +1

16:08:10 <danbri> (so this was a timbl thing, he wanted to say that RDF wasn't just a data model ...)

Dan Brickley: (so this was a timbl thing, he wanted to say that RDF wasn't just a data model ...)

16:08:11 <SteveH> +1

Steve Harris: +1

16:08:12 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

16:08:14 <danbri> +1

Dan Brickley: +1

16:08:44 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

16:09:07 <LeeF> ericP: trying to understand what the resolution means ... sometihng like N3, or some way to speak of "everything asserted in another document"?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: trying to understand what the resolution means ... sometihng like N3, or some way to speak of "everything asserted in another document"? [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

16:09:30 <PatHayes> (real) named graphs provide a meachanism for this, but we dont have named graphs yet. Hey ho.

Patrick Hayes: (real) named graphs provide a meachanism for this, but we dont have named graphs yet. Hey ho.

16:09:38 <pfps> no, this is like the RDF WG saying that RDF embedded in HTML is always/sometimes/never true

Peter Patel-Schneider: no, this is like the RDF WG saying that RDF embedded in HTML is always/sometimes/never true

16:09:47 <AndyS> example - a graph diff has add triples and delete triples - delete triples not asserted

Andy Seaborne: example - a graph diff has add triples and delete triples - delete triples not asserted

16:09:50 <LeeF> ack pfps

Lee Feigenbaum: ack pfps

16:10:01 <LeeF> pfps: this is asking us whether RDF in an Adobe document (e.g.) should be asserted or not

Peter Patel-Schneider: this is asking us whether RDF in an Adobe document (e.g.) should be asserted or not [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

16:10:06 <danbri> q+

Dan Brickley: q+

16:10:07 <LeeF> ... and we have nothing to say about that

Lee Feigenbaum: ... and we have nothing to say about that

16:10:07 <AndyS> +1 to pfps

Andy Seaborne: +1 to pfps

16:10:15 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres

Zakim IRC Bot: -AxelPolleres

16:10:16 <Zakim> -[Garlik.a]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[Garlik.a]

16:10:40 <Zakim> -AndyS

Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS

16:10:45 <pfps> +1 to close

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to close

16:10:50 <mbrunati> +1

Matteo Brunati: +1

16:10:54 <SteveH> +1

Steve Harris: +1

16:10:57 <LeeF> RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-52 - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document

RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-52 - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document

16:11:02 <LeeF>  ISSUE-52: RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-52 - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document

Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-52: RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-52 - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document

16:11:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-52 Revisit "How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another document is asserted" notes added

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-52 Revisit "How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another document is asserted" notes added

16:11:04 <danbri> all we need to say is that RDF is descriptive, that it's the kind of stuff that can be interpreted as making claims about world. Other specs tell you when you've got some direct claims, vs quotes etc.

Dan Brickley: all we need to say is that RDF is descriptive, that it's the kind of stuff that can be interpreted as making claims about world. Other specs tell you when you've got some direct claims, vs quotes etc.

16:11:06 <LeeF> close ISSUE-52

Lee Feigenbaum: close ISSUE-52

16:11:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-52 Revisit "How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another document is asserted" closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-52 Revisit "How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another document is asserted" closed

16:11:08 <LeeF> ISSUE-53?

Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-53?

16:11:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-53 -- Revisit "RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion" -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-53 -- Revisit "RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion" -- raised

16:11:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/53

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/53

16:11:42 <pfps> +1 to close 53 as indicated

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to close 53 as indicated

16:11:53 <ericP> Guus: "RDF assertions can be used to make claims about the world" addresses this?

Guus Schreiber: "RDF assertions can be used to make claims about the world" addresses this? [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ]

16:12:11 <ericP> danbri: timbl brought this up years ago

Dan Brickley: timbl brought this up years ago [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ]

16:12:25 <ericP> ... he wanted to say that this could be used to talk about the world

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... he wanted to say that this could be used to talk about the world

16:12:35 <danbri> 'assertionable'

Dan Brickley: 'assertionable'

16:12:48 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-53 with no change, and with the explanation that RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is making those assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by W3C's new Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wik

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-53 with no change, and with the explanation that RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is making those assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by W3C's new Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wik

16:12:48 <LeeF> i/Main_Page - and by other application vocabularies. See also http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter for work linking cryptographically-assured notions of identity with RDF.

Lee Feigenbaum: i/Main_Page - and by other application vocabularies. See also http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter for work linking cryptographically-assured notions of identity with RDF. (warning: replacement failed)

16:12:52 <AZ> it was originally raised by Dan Connolly apparently

Antoine Zimmermann: it was originally raised by Dan Connolly apparently

16:12:56 <Souri> +1

Souripriya Das: +1

16:12:58 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

16:12:59 <SteveH> +1

Steve Harris: +1

16:13:02 <danbri> +1 (but i'm seconding my own text)

Dan Brickley: +1 (but i'm seconding my own text)

16:13:03 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

16:13:04 <mbrunati> +1

Matteo Brunati: +1

16:13:06 <cygri> tl;dr but +1

Richard Cyganiak: tl;dr but +1

16:13:29 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-53 with no change, and with the explanation that RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is making those assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by W3C's new Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wik

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-53 with no change, and with the explanation that RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is making those assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by W3C's new Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wik

16:13:29 <LeeF> i/Main_Page - and by other application vocabularies. See also http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter for work linking cryptographically-assured notions of identity with RDF.

Lee Feigenbaum: i/Main_Page - and by other application vocabularies. See also http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter for work linking cryptographically-assured notions of identity with RDF. (warning: replacement failed)

16:13:34 <LeeF>  ISSUE-53: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-53 with no change, and with the explanation that RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is making those assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by W3C's new Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/201

Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-53: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-53 with no change, and with the explanation that RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is making those assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by W3C's new Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/201

16:13:34 <trackbot> ISSUE-53 Revisit "RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion" notes added

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-53 Revisit "RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion" notes added

16:13:34 <LeeF> 1/prov/wiki/Main_Page - and by other application vocabularies. See also http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter for work linking cryptographically-assured notions of identity with RDF.

Lee Feigenbaum: 1/prov/wiki/Main_Page - and by other application vocabularies. See also http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter for work linking cryptographically-assured notions of identity with RDF.

16:13:37 <LeeF> close ISSUE-53

Lee Feigenbaum: close ISSUE-53

16:13:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-53 Revisit "RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion" closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-53 Revisit "RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion" closed

16:14:02 <pfps> +1 to not changing RDF/XML

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to not changing RDF/XML

16:14:02 <LeeF> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-54 with no change, noting that this WG has no plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the collection mechanism at this time.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-54 with no change, noting that this WG has no plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the collection mechanism at this time.

16:14:06 <LeeF> +1

Lee Feigenbaum: +1

16:14:11 <ivan> ISSUE-54?

Ivan Herman: ISSUE-54?

16:14:11 <trackbot> ISSUE-54 -- Revisit "RDF collection syntax should allow literals" -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-54 -- Revisit "RDF collection syntax should allow literals" -- raised

16:14:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/54

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/54

16:14:53 <cygri> +1 to proposal

Richard Cyganiak: +1 to proposal

16:14:56 <pfps> i changed the title

Peter Patel-Schneider: i changed the title

16:14:58 <LeeF> ivan: note that the title is misleading

Ivan Herman: note that the title is misleading [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

16:15:10 <LeeF> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-54 with no change, noting that this WG has no plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the collection mechanism at this time.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-54 with no change, noting that this WG has no plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the collection mechanism at this time.

16:15:15 <LeeF>  ISSUE-54: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-54 with no change, noting that this WG has no plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the collection mechanism at this time.

Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-54: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-54 with no change, noting that this WG has no plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the collection mechanism at this time.

16:15:15 <trackbot> ISSUE-54 Revisit "RDF/XML collection syntax should allow literals" notes added

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-54 Revisit "RDF/XML collection syntax should allow literals" notes added

16:15:20 <LeeF> close ISSUE-54

Lee Feigenbaum: close ISSUE-54

16:15:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-54 Revisit "RDF/XML collection syntax should allow literals" closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-54 Revisit "RDF/XML collection syntax should allow literals" closed

16:15:28 <LeeF> Guus: that's all, please fill in the F2F poll

Guus Schreiber: that's all, please fill in the F2F poll [ Scribe Assist by Lee Feigenbaum ]

16:15:29 <LeeF> ADJOURNED.

Lee Feigenbaum: ADJOURNED.

16:15:36 <mbrunati> bye

Matteo Brunati: bye

16:15:41 <Zakim> -mbrunati

Zakim IRC Bot: -mbrunati

16:15:42 <AZ> bye

Antoine Zimmermann: bye

16:15:43 <Zakim> -Souri

Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri

16:15:44 <Zakim> -FabGandon

Zakim IRC Bot: -FabGandon

16:15:46 <Zakim> -cygri_

Zakim IRC Bot: -cygri_

16:15:46 <Zakim> -danbri

Zakim IRC Bot: -danbri

16:15:47 <Zakim> -PatH

Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH

16:15:47 <Zakim> -EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP

16:15:49 <NickH> bye!

Nicholas Humfrey: bye!

16:15:50 <Zakim> -AlexHall

Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall

16:15:52 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby

Zakim IRC Bot: -OlivierCorby

16:15:54 <Zakim> -gavinc

Zakim IRC Bot: -gavinc

16:15:54 <Zakim> -AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ

16:15:56 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider

Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider

16:15:59 <Zakim> -NickH

Zakim IRC Bot: -NickH

16:16:03 <Zakim> -tomayac

Zakim IRC Bot: -tomayac

16:16:04 <Zakim> -MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed

16:16:56 <Zakim> -LeeF

Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF

16:16:58 <Zakim> -Guus_Schreiber

Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus_Schreiber

16:17:01 <LeeF> RRSAgent, make logs world

Lee Feigenbaum: RRSAgent, make logs world



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#1) generated 2011-05-11 16:25:37 UTC by 'lfeigenb', comments: 'minutes from 2011-05-11 RDF WG meeting'