15:04:10 <LeeF> topic: 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
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?
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?
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?
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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?
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
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?
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+
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?
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?
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'