RDF Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 01 June 2011

Seen
Alex Hall, Andy Seaborne, Antoine Zimmermann, Axel Polleres, Christopher Matheus, David Wood, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Fabien Gandon, Guus Schreiber, Ivan Herman, Jeremy Carroll, Lee Feigenbaum, Matteo Brunati, Mischa Tuffield, Nicholas Humfrey, Patrick Hayes, Peter Patel-Schneider, Pierre-Antoine Champin, Richard Cyganiak, Sandro Hawke, Scott Bauer, Souripriya Das, Steve Harris, Ted Thibodeau, Yves Raimond, Zhe Wu
Regrets
Axel Polleres, Patrick Hayes, Mischa Tuffield, Souripriya Das
Chair
David Wood
Scribe
Alex Hall
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. minutes from last meeting accepted link
  2. Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts per Richard's proposal link
  3. To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group link
  4. Close ISSUE-56, we have no intention of addressing this. link
  5. to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it. link
Topics
14:21:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/01-rdf-wg-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/01-rdf-wg-irc

14:21:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:21:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394

14:21:23 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 39 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 39 minutes

14:21:24 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:21:24 <trackbot> Date: 01 June 2011
14:53:25 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 32 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started

14:53:32 <Zakim> +hsbauer

Zakim IRC Bot: +hsbauer

14:53:42 <Zakim> +Guus

Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus

14:53:57 <Scott_Bauer> zakim, hsbauer is me

Scott Bauer: zakim, hsbauer is me

14:53:57 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Scott_Bauer; got it

14:55:40 <Zakim> +davidwood

Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood

14:56:12 <davidwood1> zakim, who is here?

David Wood: zakim, who is here?

14:56:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood

14:56:59 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

14:56:59 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

14:57:01 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

14:57:30 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, please dial ericP-office

14:57:30 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ericP; the call is being made

14:57:32 <Zakim> +EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP

14:57:45 <Zakim> +??P25

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P25

14:58:40 <Zakim> +??P22

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P22

14:58:47 <Zakim> +??P26

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P26

14:58:53 <mbrunati> zakim, ??P22 is me

Matteo Brunati: zakim, ??P22 is me

14:58:53 <Zakim> +mbrunati; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +mbrunati; got it

14:58:56 <SteveH_> Zakim, ??P26 is me

Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P26 is me

14:58:56 <Zakim> +SteveH_; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH_; got it

14:59:19 <Zakim> +AlexHall

Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexHall

14:59:47 <pchampin> zakim, who is here?

Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, who is here?

14:59:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, ??P25 (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, ??P25 (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall

15:00:05 <Zakim> +FabGandon

Zakim IRC Bot: +FabGandon

15:00:15 <pchampin> zakim, ??P25 is me

Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P25 is me

15:00:15 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it

15:00:22 <Zakim> +??P30

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P30

15:00:42 <Zakim> +??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3

15:00:42 <AndyS> zakim, ??P30 is me

Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P30 is me

15:00:44 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it

15:00:50 <Zakim> +pfps

Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps

15:01:03 <cmatheus> zakim, ??P30 is me

Christopher Matheus: zakim, ??P30 is me

15:01:03 <Zakim> I already had ??P30 as AndyS, cmatheus

Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P30 as AndyS, cmatheus

15:01:07 <Zakim> +wcandillon

Zakim IRC Bot: +wcandillon

15:01:20 <AZ> zakim, wcandillon is me

Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, wcandillon is me

15:01:20 <Zakim> +AZ; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it

15:01:22 <Zakim> +LeeF

Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF

15:01:35 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone?

15:01:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, ??P3, pfps, AZ, LeeF

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, ??P3, pfps, AZ, LeeF

15:01:42 <Zakim> +mhausenblas

Zakim IRC Bot: +mhausenblas

15:01:42 <AZ> Yes

Antoine Zimmermann: Yes

15:01:46 <davidwood1> zakim, ??P30 is really me.  Really!  Please let me have it.

David Wood: zakim, ??P30 is really me. Really! Please let me have it.

15:01:49 <Zakim> I don't understand you, davidwood1

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand you, davidwood1

15:01:56 <davidwood1> Zakim, I know :)

David Wood: Zakim, I know :)

15:01:57 <Zakim> I'm glad that smiley is there, davidwood1

Zakim IRC Bot: I'm glad that smiley is there, davidwood1

15:02:01 <cmatheus> zakim, ??P3 is me

Christopher Matheus: zakim, ??P3 is me

15:02:05 <Zakim> +cmatheus; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +cmatheus; got it

15:02:48 <davidwood1> Chair: David Wood
15:02:51 <cygri> zakim, who is on the phone?

Richard Cyganiak: zakim, who is on the phone?

15:02:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas

15:02:52 <davidwood1> Zakim, who is here?

David Wood: Zakim, who is here?

15:02:53 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me

Richard Cyganiak: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me

15:02:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas

15:02:54 <pchampin> zakim, mute me

Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, mute me

15:02:56 <Zakim> +cygri; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri; got it

15:02:56 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin should now be muted

15:03:03 <Zakim> +??P36

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P36

15:03:10 <davidwood1> Scribe: Alex Hall

(Scribe set to Alex Hall)

15:03:21 <NickH> Zakim, ??P36 is BBC

Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, ??P36 is BBC

15:03:21 <Zakim> +BBC; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +BBC; got it

15:03:23 <davidwood1> Scribenick: AlexHall
15:03:30 <Zakim> +JeremyCarroll

Zakim IRC Bot: +JeremyCarroll

15:03:49 <Zakim> +Souri

Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri

15:04:22 <AlexHall> regrets: axel, pat, mischat, souri
15:04:25 <AlexHall> topic: Admin

1. Admin

<AlexHall> subtopic: Last week's minutes

1.1. Last week's minutes

15:04:55 <AlexHall> davidwood: there were several resolutions from last meeting, please review the minutes.

David Wood: there were several resolutions from last meeting, please review the minutes.

15:05:02 <zwu2> zakim, code?

Zhe Wu: zakim, code?

15:05:02 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), zwu2

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), zwu2

15:05:13 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: minutes from last meeting accepted

RESOLVED: minutes from last meeting accepted

15:05:29 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is noisy?

15:05:30 <pfps>  minutes look OK to me

Peter Patel-Schneider: minutes look OK to me

15:05:32 <Zakim> +zwu2

Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2

15:05:38 <zwu2> sorry I am late

Zhe Wu: sorry I am late

15:05:39 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AZ (16%), Guus (5%), davidwood (59%), Ivan (25%)

Zakim IRC Bot: ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AZ (16%), Guus (5%), davidwood (59%), Ivan (25%)

15:05:50 <ivan> zakim, mute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me

15:05:50 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted

15:06:19 <NickH> Zakim, BBC also has NickH

Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, BBC also has NickH

15:06:19 <Zakim> +NickH; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +NickH; got it

15:06:24 <NickH> Zakim, BBC also has yvesr

Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, BBC also has yvesr

15:06:24 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it

<AlexHall> subtopic: Action item review

1.2. Action item review

15:06:30 <AlexHall> cygri: still working on writing up named graph proposals for action-25

Richard Cyganiak: still working on writing up named graph proposals for ACTION-25

15:06:46 <AlexHall> ... happy to keep action open or accept help from others

... happy to keep action open or accept help from others

15:07:08 <pchampin> ACTION-25?

Pierre-Antoine Champin: ACTION-25?

15:07:08 <trackbot> ACTION-25 -- Richard Cyganiak to write up the different options re ISSUE-15 -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-25 -- Richard Cyganiak to write up the different options re ISSUE-15 -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN

15:07:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/25

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/25

15:07:39 <Zakim> +sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro

15:07:55 <AlexHall> cygri: action-51 text is implemented in local copy and waiting for hg repository

Richard Cyganiak: ACTION-51 text is implemented in local copy and waiting for hg repository

15:08:11 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software

Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software

15:08:18 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

15:08:18 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it

15:08:20 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

15:08:20 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted

15:08:45 <cygri> trackbot, close ACTION-51

Richard Cyganiak: trackbot, close ACTION-51

15:08:45 <trackbot> ACTION-51 Implement ISSUE-40 resolution in RDF Concepts Editor's draft; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0238.html and replies for text closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-51 Implement ISSUE-40 resolution in RDF Concepts Editor's draft; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0238.html and replies for text closed

15:08:55 <AlexHall> guus: still trying to figure out what purpose of action-51 was

Guus Schreiber: still trying to figure out what purpose of ACTION-47 was

15:09:04 <AlexHall> s/action-51/action-47
15:09:26 <AlexHall> topic: Language tags

2. Language tags

15:09:26 <davidwood1> ISSUE-64, RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags?

David Wood: ISSUE-64, RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags?

15:09:26 <davidwood1> Richard's proposal to resolve: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0441.html

David Wood: Richard's proposal to resolve: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0441.html

15:09:26 <trackbot> ISSUE-64 RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags? notes added

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-64 RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags? notes added

15:09:44 <AlexHall> davidwood: Richard has proposal to resolve language tag issue

David Wood: Richard has proposal to resolve language tag issue

15:10:05 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to express surprise at the current text

Jeremy Carroll: q+ to express surprise at the current text

15:10:14 <AlexHall> cygri: spec currently refers to obsoleted rfc 3066 for language tags

Richard Cyganiak: spec currently refers to obsoleted rfc 3066 for language tags

15:10:31 <AlexHall> ... proposal is to use latest rfc 5646

... proposal is to use latest rfc 5646

15:10:38 <davidwood1> Pat's reformulation/explanation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0010.html

David Wood: Pat's reformulation/explanation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0010.html

15:10:56 <davidwood1> Lee F also expressed support: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0011.html

David Wood: Lee F also expressed support: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0011.html

15:11:10 <AlexHall> ... the new RFC has two notions of validity: well-formedness (grammar only) and validity (lang tag actually exists)

... the new RFC has two notions of validity: well-formedness (grammar only) and validity (lang tag actually exists)

15:11:52 <AlexHall> ... add a note that the previous RFC allowed lang tags that are no longer allowed under the latest version

... add a note that the previous RFC allowed lang tags that are no longer allowed under the latest version

15:12:01 <ericP> +1 ref'ing 5646, +1 to holding at well-formedness, +1 to explanatory note

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ref'ing 5646, +1 to holding at well-formedness, +1 to explanatory note

15:12:06 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

15:12:07 <AlexHall> ... adopt the loosest notion of well-formedness

... adopt the loosest notion of well-formedness

15:12:36 <AlexHall> davidwood: do you agree with pat's latest note on the mailing list?

David Wood: do you agree with pat's latest note on the mailing list?

15:12:49 <AlexHall> cygri: seems to be about a different issue

Richard Cyganiak: seems to be about a different issue

15:13:13 <AlexHall> davidwood: apologies, it was a different issue

David Wood: apologies, it was a different issue

15:14:23 <AlexHall> ???: when i read this note, it prompted me to drill down into original text around lang tags in the spec

Jeremy Carroll: when i read this note, it prompted me to drill down into original text around lang tags in the spec

15:14:57 <AZ> s/???/JeremyCarroll
15:15:03 <AlexHall> ... at some point there was a phrase to reference RFC 3066 or its successors

... at some point there was a phrase to reference RFC 3066 or its successors

15:15:20 <AlexHall> ... not sure what that phrase was dropped, would like to find out why

... not sure why that phrase was dropped, would like to find out why

15:15:43 <AZ> s/what/why/
15:16:07 <ericP> refs to unicode serve as a precedent for "or it's successors", but there are contracts which allow forward-thinking parsers to know what could be valid in the next decade or so

Eric Prud'hommeaux: refs to unicode serve as a precedent for "or it's successors", but there are contracts which allow forward-thinking parsers to know what could be valid in the next decade or so

15:16:25 <AlexHall> ... richard's point about validity vs. well-formedness was well taken and i support the proposal.

... richard's point about validity vs. well-formedness was well taken and i support the proposal.

15:16:51 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/64

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/64

15:17:03 <pfps> OK by me

Peter Patel-Schneider: OK by me

15:17:25 <pfps> ... not that I care .... Issue 12, on the other hand ...

Peter Patel-Schneider: ... not that I care .... ISSUE-12, on the other hand ...

15:17:29 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

15:17:31 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts as per Richard's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0441.html

PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts as per Richard's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0441.html

15:17:31 <SteveH> +1

Steve Harris: +1

15:17:34 <AndyS> OK if syntax restriction - not depending on registry state

Andy Seaborne: OK if syntax restriction - not depending on registry state

15:17:35 <pfps> +0

Peter Patel-Schneider: +0

15:17:36 <JeremyCarroll> +1

Jeremy Carroll: +1

15:17:36 <davidwood1> +1

David Wood: +1

15:17:36 <mbrunati> +1

Matteo Brunati: +1

15:17:38 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

15:17:41 <zwu2> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

15:17:43 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

15:17:55 <pchampin> +1

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1

15:17:59 <cmatheus> +1

Christopher Matheus: +1

15:18:03 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

15:18:04 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

15:18:39 <Zakim> -Scott_Bauer

Zakim IRC Bot: -Scott_Bauer

15:19:07 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer

Zakim IRC Bot: +Scott_Bauer

15:19:12 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts per Richard's proposal

RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts per Richard's proposal

15:19:23 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:19:26 <ivan> ack ivan

Ivan Herman: ack ivan

15:19:31 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to implement ISSUE-64 resolution

ACTION: cygri to implement ISSUE-64 resolution

15:19:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Implement ISSUE-64 resolution [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-06-08].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-54 - Implement ISSUE-64 resolution [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-06-08].

15:19:37 <davidwood1> Proposed text on replacing URIref with IRI

David Wood: Proposed text on replacing URIref with IRI

15:19:37 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/IRIs/RDFConceptsProposal

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/IRIs/RDFConceptsProposal

15:19:37 <davidwood1> Related email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0413.html

David Wood: Related email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0413.html

15:19:47 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll

David Wood: ack JeremyCarroll

15:19:47 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to express surprise at the current text

Zakim IRC Bot: JeremyCarroll, you wanted to express surprise at the current text

15:19:47 <JeremyCarroll> ack

Jeremy Carroll: ack

15:19:56 <Zakim> +[Sophia]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[Sophia]

15:20:04 <ivan> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/

Ivan Herman: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/

15:20:14 <FabGandon> zakim, Sophia is me

Fabien Gandon: zakim, Sophia is me

15:20:14 <Zakim> +FabGandon; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +FabGandon; got it

15:20:30 <AlexHall> ivan: before we move on to other major issues, I have the hg repository set up and link is posted in IRC

Ivan Herman: before we move on to other major issues, I have the hg repository set up and link is posted in IRC

15:21:10 <davidwood1> q?

David Wood: q?

15:21:39 <AlexHall> topic: Replacing URIref with IRI

3. Replacing URIref with IRI

15:21:47 <AlexHall> davidwood: This is Richard's text

David Wood: This is Richard's text

15:22:24 <AlexHall> cygri: link is posted in minutes. issue is that we need to replace references to URI Reference in Concepts with references to IRI

Richard Cyganiak: link is posted in minutes. issue is that we need to replace references to URI Reference in Concepts with references to IRI

15:22:48 <AlexHall> ... fortunately this simplifies things because IRI defines things which were previously defined in RDF

... fortunately this simplifies things because IRI defines things which were previously defined in RDF

15:23:00 <AlexHall> ... main issue is what to do with the left-over notes in Concepts

... main issue is what to do with the left-over notes in Concepts

15:23:29 <AlexHall> ... there are characters which were allowed in URIrefs which are no longer allowed in IRIs

... there are characters which were allowed in URIrefs which are no longer allowed in IRIs

15:23:37 <davidwood1> q+ to discuss IPv6 in ihost: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#page-7

David Wood: q+ to discuss IPv6 in ihost: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#page-7

15:23:47 <AlexHall> ... add note to indicate that these are no longer allowed except in %-encoded form

... add note to indicate that these are no longer allowed except in %-encoded form

15:24:21 <AlexHall> ... also a note to discourage %-encoded characters in old text, not sure this is a good idea

... also a note to discourage %-encoded characters in old text, not sure this is a good idea

15:24:34 <AlexHall> q+ to discuss percent-encoding

q+ to discuss percent-encoding

15:24:51 <davidwood1> ack davidwood

David Wood: ack davidwood

15:24:51 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to discuss IPv6 in ihost: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#page-7

Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to discuss IPv6 in ihost: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#page-7

15:24:59 <AlexHall> ... would like feedback from others who have looked into it

... would like feedback from others who have looked into it

15:25:29 <AndyS> There is %-enc text in RFC => (summary) use % only as necessary and not wildly.

Andy Seaborne: There is %-enc text in RFC => (summary) use % only as necessary and not wildly.

15:25:36 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought

Jeremy Carroll: q+ to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought

15:25:47 <ericP> q?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q?

15:25:52 <AndyS> IPv6 are legal using []

Andy Seaborne: IPv6 are legal using []

15:25:56 <AlexHall> davidwood: occurred to me since i'm dealing with IPv6 issues... IRI grammar seems to allow host names and IPv4 addresses but not IPv6

David Wood: occurred to me since i'm dealing with IPv6 issues... IRI grammar seems to allow host names and IPv4 addresses but not IPv6

15:26:12 <AlexHall> ... anybody know why this is?

... anybody know why this is?

15:26:26 <davidwood1> IP-literal     = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture  ) "]"

David Wood: IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]"

15:26:31 <SteveH> right

Steve Harris: right

15:26:34 <AlexHall> ???: IRI allows IPv6 addresses in square brackets

Steve Harris: IRI allows IPv6 addresses in square brackets

15:26:36 <SteveH> I've actually used them :)

Steve Harris: I've actually used them :)

15:26:46 <davidwood1> ack AlexHall

David Wood: ack AlexHall

15:26:46 <Zakim> AlexHall, you wanted to discuss percent-encoding

Zakim IRC Bot: AlexHall, you wanted to discuss percent-encoding

15:26:50 <AndyS> RFC2732 adds them

Andy Seaborne: RFC2732 adds them

15:27:04 <AZ> s/???/SteveH/
15:27:38 <AndyS> RFC 3986   page 19

Andy Seaborne: RFC 3986 page 19

15:28:16 <AndyS> section 3.2.2.  Host

Andy Seaborne: section 3.2.2. Host

15:28:22 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to say last note is too long!

Jeremy Carroll: q+ to say last note is too long!

15:30:23 <pchampin> is there any reference that we could refer to regarding this notion of "canonical IRI"?

Pierre-Antoine Champin: is there any reference that we could refer to regarding this notion of "canonical IRI"?

15:30:27 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll

David Wood: ack JeremyCarroll

15:30:27 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought and to say last note is too long!

Zakim IRC Bot: JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought and to say last note is too long!

15:30:50 <cygri> q+

Richard Cyganiak: q+

15:30:56 <pfps> +1 to Jeremy - it is better to defer than to copy

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Jeremy - it is better to defer than to copy

15:31:34 <cygri> q-

Richard Cyganiak: q-

15:31:36 <AlexHall> AlexHall: Intent of the original text with %-encoding seemed to be to avoid interoperability issues, so I agree with the new proposal in this regard.

Alex Hall: Intent of the original text with %-encoding seemed to be to avoid interoperability issues, so I agree with the new proposal in this regard.

15:31:48 <pfps> -1 to David - informative lists tend to become too normative

Peter Patel-Schneider: -1 to David - informative lists tend to become too normative

15:32:07 <cygri> q+ to ask jeremy how much is too long

Richard Cyganiak: q+ to ask jeremy how much is too long

15:32:14 <AlexHall> JeremyCarroll: Would like to simply defer to IRI section 5 for normalization

Jeremy Carroll: Would like to simply defer to IRI section 5 for normalization

15:32:31 <AlexHall> ... giving a long list here runs the risk of people thinking this is exhaustive or normative

... giving a long list here runs the risk of people thinking this is exhaustive or normative

15:33:06 <AlexHall> davidwood: having the list there is nice as a summary so people don't have to hunt down the list themselves

David Wood: having the list there is nice as a summary so people don't have to hunt down the list themselves

15:33:26 <AlexHall> cygri: the intent here is that they are informative, not normative, and this will be explicitly noted in the document.

Richard Cyganiak: the intent here is that they are informative, not normative, and this will be explicitly noted in the document.

15:34:09 <ericP> q+ to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs."

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs."

15:34:18 <davidwood1> q?

David Wood: q?

15:34:22 <cygri> q-

Richard Cyganiak: q-

15:34:36 <AlexHall> JeremyCarroll: Historically this section has been note-heavy, would prefer to see this stuff moved into a new section 3.7

Jeremy Carroll: Historically this section has been note-heavy, would prefer to see this stuff moved into a new section 3.7

15:34:53 <Zakim> -AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ

15:35:05 <pfps> moving to an informative section would help a lot!

Peter Patel-Schneider: moving to an informative section would help a lot!

15:35:25 <davidwood1> ack ericP

David Wood: ack ericP

15:35:25 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and

15:35:29 <Zakim> ... produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs."

Zakim IRC Bot: ... produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs."

15:35:38 <Zakim> +AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ

15:35:58 <AlexHall> ericP: seems the root issue is that producing non-normalized IRIs decreases the chance that other tools will produce the same form

Eric Prud'hommeaux: seems the root issue is that producing non-normalized IRIs decreases the chance that other tools will produce the same form

15:36:12 <cygri> q+

Richard Cyganiak: q+

15:36:15 <AndyS> And other RDF apps.

Andy Seaborne: And other RDF apps.

15:36:20 <JeremyCarroll> with that text we are well on the way to section 3.7

Jeremy Carroll: with that text we are well on the way to section 3.7

15:36:23 <davidwood1> ack cygri

David Wood: ack cygri

15:36:36 <AlexHall> ... propose to add some text (quoted in IRC) to explain the motivations for this note.

... propose to add some text (quoted in IRC) to explain the motivations for this note.

15:37:08 <AlexHall> cygri: prefer to avoid motivations and give just a concise summary

Richard Cyganiak: prefer to avoid motivations and give just a concise summary

15:37:34 <AlexHall> davidwood: would like to cater to people who don't want to read through all the specs to get a good understanding

David Wood: would like to cater to people who don't want to read through all the specs to get a good understanding

15:38:02 <AlexHall> ... most conerns at this point seem to be editorial in nature

... most conerns at this point seem to be editorial in nature

15:38:29 <AlexHall> cygri: as soon as the working draft goes live this content will be added and i encourage further comments

Richard Cyganiak: as soon as the working draft goes live this content will be added and i encourage further comments

15:38:48 <AlexHall> ... don't think we need a resolution now but want interested people to keep any eye on it.

... don't think we need a resolution now but want interested people to keep any eye on it.

15:39:03 <AlexHall> Topic: Revisit RDF Postponed Issues

4. Revisit RDF Postponed Issues

15:39:19 <AlexHall> davidwood: This always seems to get pushed down to the bottom of the agenda

David Wood: This always seems to get pushed down to the bottom of the agenda

15:39:36 <AlexHall> ... let's take a few minutes to knock some of these down now

... let's take a few minutes to knock some of these down now

<AlexHall> subtopic: ISSUE-55 Revisit "Request for a richer vocabulary for languages"

4.1. ISSUE-55 Revisit "Request for a richer vocabulary for languages"

15:39:39 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/55

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/55

15:40:01 <pfps> Issue-55 - not only no, but xxxx NO!  the request is incorrect, anyway

Peter Patel-Schneider: ISSUE-55 - not only no, but hell NO! the request is incorrect, anyway

15:40:22 <pfps> s/xxxx/hell/
15:40:24 <LeeF> seconded

Lee Feigenbaum: seconded

15:40:34 <SteveH> yeah, lets not do that :)

Steve Harris: yeah, lets not do that :)

15:40:39 <AlexHall> PROPOSED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group

PROPOSED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group

15:40:39 <zwu2> +1 close it

Zhe Wu: +1 close it

15:40:41 <ivan> agreed with closing

Ivan Herman: agreed with closing

15:40:41 <cygri> +1

Richard Cyganiak: +1

15:40:42 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

15:40:43 <mbrunati> +1

Matteo Brunati: +1

15:40:44 <SteveH> +1

Steve Harris: +1

15:40:53 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

15:40:57 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

15:40:58 <pchampin> +1

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1

15:40:59 <cmatheus> +1

Christopher Matheus: +1

15:41:02 <LeeF> ISSUE-55?

Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-55?

15:41:02 <trackbot> ISSUE-55 -- Revisit "Request for a richer vocabulary for languages" -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-55 -- Revisit "Request for a richer vocabulary for languages" -- raised

15:41:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/55

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/55

15:41:03 <NickH> +1

Nicholas Humfrey: +1

15:41:59 <JeremyCarroll> 2) With respect to the rules for comparing literals: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literal-Equality  For reasons of standardization and ease of use, there should exist a higher level matching rule that allows one to search for (lang="en", str) and to get matches to more detailed tags (lang="en-gb", str).  This higher level rule should be defined

Jeremy Carroll: 2) With respect to the rules for comparing literals: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literal-Equality For reasons of standardization and ease of use, there should exist a higher level matching rule that allows one to search for (lang="en", str) and to get matches to more detailed tags (lang="en-gb", str). This higher level rule should be defined

15:42:19 <AlexHall> JeremyCarroll: we should close saying lang-matches from SPARQL addresses this issue

Jeremy Carroll: we should close saying lang-matches from SPARQL addresses this issue

15:43:05 <ivan> issue-56?

Ivan Herman: ISSUE-56?

15:43:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 -- Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" -- raised

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-56 -- Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" -- raised

15:43:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56

15:43:06 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56

15:43:07 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group

RESOLVED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group

<AlexHall> subtopic: ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments"

4.2. ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments"

15:43:20 <davidwood1> ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments"

David Wood: ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments"

15:43:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" notes added

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" notes added

15:43:21 <pfps> +q

Peter Patel-Schneider: +q

15:43:25 <Zakim> -Scott_Bauer

Zakim IRC Bot: -Scott_Bauer

15:43:51 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer

Zakim IRC Bot: +Scott_Bauer

15:43:52 <davidwood1> ack pfps

David Wood: ack pfps

15:43:53 <SteveH>  rdfs:comment?

Steve Harris: rdfs:comment?

15:44:02 <JeremyCarroll> no - not rdfs:comment

Jeremy Carroll: no - not rdfs:comment

15:44:17 <JeremyCarroll>  rdf:universal

Jeremy Carroll: rdf:universal

15:44:19 <SteveH> ok, then <!-- --> / #

Steve Harris: ok, then <!-- --> / #

15:44:27 <AlexHall> pfps: this is from Ian, there was annoyance in the OWL wg that rdfs:comment has semantics

Peter Patel-Schneider: this is from Ian, there was annoyance in the OWL wg that rdfs:comment has semantics

15:44:44 <AlexHall> ... that ship has sailed, rdfs:comment is there and has semantics

... that ship has sailed, rdfs:comment is there and has semantics

15:45:05 <AlexHall> ... no third party is allowed to add new predicates to the RDF namespace

... no third party is allowed to add new predicates to the RDF namespace

15:45:13 <AlexHall> ... we should close it

... we should close it

15:45:32 <cygri> +1 to closing

Richard Cyganiak: +1 to closing

15:45:33 <pfps> +1

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1

15:45:35 <ericP> +0

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0

15:45:36 <AndyS> +1

Andy Seaborne: +1

15:45:37 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

15:45:37 <zwu2> +1

Zhe Wu: +1

15:45:37 <mbrunati> +1

Matteo Brunati: +1

15:45:39 <JeremyCarroll> +0

Jeremy Carroll: +0

15:45:39 <Guus> +1 to closing

Guus Schreiber: +1 to closing

15:45:40 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

15:45:42 <SteveH> +0

Steve Harris: +0

15:45:44 <cmatheus> +1

Christopher Matheus: +1

15:45:45 <AlexHall> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56, we have no intention of addressing this.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56, we have no intention of addressing this.

15:46:15 <pchampin> +0

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +0

15:46:21 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-56, we have no intention of addressing this.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-56, we have no intention of addressing this.

<AlexHall> subtopic: ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture"

4.3. ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture"

15:47:23 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/57

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/57

15:47:29 <pfps> q+ for issue-57

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ for ISSUE-57

15:47:41 <davidwood1> ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture"

David Wood: ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture"

15:47:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture" notes added

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture" notes added

15:48:06 <AlexHall> is anybody speaking right now?

is anybody speaking right now?

15:49:28 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

15:49:40 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to peter

Jeremy Carroll: +1 to peter

15:49:50 <JeremyCarroll> close it, reject

Jeremy Carroll: close it, reject

15:49:54 <AlexHall> davidwood: instead of continuing, we should open it and revisit when we finish the specs

David Wood: instead of continuing, we should open it and revisit when we finish the specs

15:50:20 <AndyS> What would a more layered architecture look like?  It's not just change of exposition.

Andy Seaborne: What would a more layered architecture look like? It's not just change of exposition.

15:50:33 <pchampin> q+ to ask about RDFS-DL ?

Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+ to ask about RDFS-DL ?

15:50:49 <davidwood1> ack pfps

David Wood: ack pfps

15:50:49 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to discuss issue-57 and to

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to discuss ISSUE-57 and to

15:50:51 <AlexHall> pfps: we won't be addressing this in this WG

Peter Patel-Schneider: we won't be addressing this in this WG

15:51:15 <AlexHall> ... there was a request for some defined fragment of RDFS that fits nicely into OWL

... there was a request for some defined fragment of RDFS that fits nicely into OWL

15:52:13 <AlexHall> davidwood: sounds like yet another proposal for yet another subset of logical formalism

David Wood: sounds like yet another proposal for yet another subset of logical formalism

15:52:13 <pchampin> q-

Pierre-Antoine Champin: q-

15:52:14 <JeremyCarroll> q+

Jeremy Carroll: q+

15:52:29 <Guus> propose to close by doing nothing, no strong expressed need

Guus Schreiber: propose to close by doing nothing, no strong expressed need

15:52:31 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll

David Wood: ack JeremyCarroll

15:53:23 <Guus> I don't think we need to spend telecon time on this, we are all in violent agreement :-)

Guus Schreiber: I don't think we need to spend telecon time on this, we are all in violent agreement :-)

15:54:00 <FabGandon> +1

Fabien Gandon: +1

15:54:03 <ericP> +0

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0

15:54:04 <JeremyCarroll> +1

Jeremy Carroll: +1

15:54:05 <AlexHall> PROPOSED: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it.

PROPOSED: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it.

15:54:05 <mbrunati> +1

Matteo Brunati: +1

15:54:07 <SteveH> +1

Steve Harris: +1

15:54:08 <pfps> +1 to crush the can

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to crush the can

15:54:09 <cygri> +1

Richard Cyganiak: +1

15:54:10 <zwu2> +0

Zhe Wu: +0

15:54:10 <Souri> +1

Souripriya Das: +1

15:54:14 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

15:54:21 <ivan> 1

Ivan Herman: 1

15:54:23 <yvesr> +0

Yves Raimond: +0

15:54:24 <AndyS> +1

Andy Seaborne: +1

15:54:28 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it.

RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it.

15:54:33 <cmatheus> +1

Christopher Matheus: +1

15:54:56 <davidwood1> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals

David Wood: ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals

15:54:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added

15:54:56 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12

15:55:16 <AlexHall> Topic: ISSUE-12 (string literals)

5. ISSUE-12 (string literals)

15:55:17 <davidwood1> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting)

David Wood: ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting)

15:55:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added

15:55:47 <AlexHall> davidwood: I note that this item is marked as "time-permitting" in the charter

David Wood: I note that this item is marked as "time-permitting" in the charter

15:55:59 <cygri> q+

Richard Cyganiak: q+

15:56:05 <pfps> +1 to keeping Pat simple :-)

Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to keeping Pat simple :-)

15:56:17 <SteveH> "simple" != about 2k of text

Steve Harris: "simple" != about 2k of text

15:56:25 <AlexHall> ... who would like to speak for pat and his request to keep it simple?

... who would like to speak for pat and his request to keep it simple?

15:56:27 <davidwood1> ack cygri

David Wood: ack cygri

15:56:28 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/mid/C2088CAC-65A4-4B20-B657-C48A0440DE69@ihmc.us is pat's mail

Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/mid/C2088CAC-65A4-4B20-B657-C48A0440DE69@ihmc.us is pat's mail

15:56:48 <davidwood1> Ivan, that URI gives me a 404

David Wood: Ivan, that URI gives me a 404

15:56:52 <cygri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0430.html

Richard Cyganiak: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0430.html

15:56:58 <LeeF> Pat's email just re-expresses Richard's proposal, as far as i can tell.

Lee Feigenbaum: Pat's email just re-expresses Richard's proposal, as far as i can tell.

15:57:02 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain

Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain

15:57:03 <AlexHall> cygri: would not like to speak to what pat said, seems to just point out that the last proposal wasn't that complicated

Richard Cyganiak: would not like to speak to what pat said, seems to just point out that the last proposal wasn't that complicated

15:57:21 <ivan> sorry

Ivan Herman: sorry

15:57:29 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0010.html is pat's mail

Ivan Herman: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0010.html is pat's mail

15:57:31 <LeeF> +1 to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0430.html

Lee Feigenbaum: +1 to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0430.html

15:57:36 <AndyS> Remaining issue is class vs datatype because DATATYPE("foo"@en) =? rdf:TaggedThing

Andy Seaborne: Remaining issue is class vs datatype because DATATYPE("foo"@en) =? rdf:TaggedThing

15:57:37 <AlexHall> ... would like to talk about another proposal that addresses only strings without language tag

... would like to talk about another proposal that addresses only strings without language tag

15:57:50 <AlexHall> ... seems to be agreement on this aspect of it

... seems to be agreement on this aspect of it

15:58:28 <SteveH> q+

Steve Harris: q+

15:58:58 <AlexHall> ... the proposal is to unify un-tagged string literals is to abolish the untagged plain literal in the abstract syntax and consider "foo" to be syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string in the concrete syntax

... the proposal is to unify un-tagged string literals by abolishing the untagged plain literal in the abstract syntax and consider "foo" to be syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string in the concrete syntax

15:59:29 <AlexHall> s/is to abolish/by abolishing/
15:59:31 <AndyS> To Pat's email - if only class, then DATATYPE() => error still?? Seems unhelpful.

Andy Seaborne: To Pat's email - if only class, then DATATYPE() => error still?? Seems unhelpful.

15:59:54 <AlexHall> pfps: like this proposal better than previous ones

Peter Patel-Schneider: like this proposal better than previous ones

16:00:46 <Zakim> -FabGandon

Zakim IRC Bot: -FabGandon

16:01:02 <AlexHall> ... have some compliant about the use of rdf:LangTaggedString, not sure it is needed and will require changes to RDF semantics, OWL, and SPARQL

... have some compliant about the use of rdf:LangTaggedString, not sure it is needed and will require changes to RDF semantics, OWL, and SPARQL

16:01:56 <JeremyCarroll>  rdf:LangTaggedString = rdfs:Literal - union of all typed literals

Jeremy Carroll: rdf:LangTaggedString = rdfs:Literal - union of all typed literals

16:02:01 <AlexHall> ... thinks it's OK to handle rdf:LTS in OWL but need to verify

... thinks it's OK to handle rdf:LTS in OWL but need to verify

16:02:17 <davidwood1> ack SteveH

David Wood: ack SteveH

16:02:32 <AlexHall> ... would like to send a note to the OWL WG

... would like to send a note to the OWL WG

16:02:54 <Souri> Question - Will "abc" still be a valid RDF literal? For example, would it be ok for me present the following triple for insertion: <John> rdfs:label "John" , OR am I obliged to present: <John> rdfs:label "John"^^xsd:string ? Also, can SPARQL query return "John" as a value for a variable?

Souripriya Das: Question - Will "abc" still be a valid RDF literal? For example, would it be ok for me present the following triple for insertion: <John> rdfs:label "John" , OR am I obliged to present: <John> rdfs:label "John"^^xsd:string ? Also, can SPARQL query return "John" as a value for a variable?

16:03:02 <LeeF> q+

Lee Feigenbaum: q+

16:03:11 <AlexHall> SteveH: my concern is that we previously resolved to do just the opposite, to turn xsd:string into plain literals

Steve Harris: my concern is that we previously resolved to do just the opposite, to turn xsd:string into plain literals

16:03:26 <LeeF> q-

Lee Feigenbaum: q-

16:03:43 <LeeF> (was going to ask where this is visible, but then Steve answered it)

Lee Feigenbaum: (was going to ask where this is visible, but then Steve answered it)

16:03:47 <Souri> I agree with Steve's concern

Souripriya Das: I share Steve's concern

16:03:48 <AlexHall> ... this seems to match what users expect, since most string data in the wild is not typed as xsd:string

... this seems to match what users expect, since most string data in the wild is not typed as xsd:string

16:03:59 <AlexHall> ... there is also concern about how this plays with SPARQL

... there is also concern about how this plays with SPARQL

16:04:38 <AndyS> +1 - SPARQL results must return non-DT string for xsd:string for this else massive surprises (= lots of support costs).

Andy Seaborne: +1 - SPARQL results must return non-DT string for xsd:string for this else massive surprises (= lots of support costs).

16:05:00 <davidwood1> q?

David Wood: q?

16:05:15 <Souri> s/agree with/share/
16:05:18 <AlexHall> ... SPARQL results will return lots of unexpected xsd:string datatypes

... SPARQL results will return lots of unexpected xsd:string datatypes

16:05:33 <cygri> q+

Richard Cyganiak: q+

16:05:45 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

16:05:51 <davidwood1> ack cygri

David Wood: ack cygri

16:06:03 <AlexHall> ... seems odd to go to all this trouble to remove plain literals from the abstract syntax and turn around and strip out xsd:string types on the way out of the system.

... seems odd to go to all this trouble to remove plain literals from the abstract syntax and turn around and strip out xsd:string types on the way out of the system.

16:06:05 <AndyS> q+ to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics

Andy Seaborne: q+ to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics

16:06:12 <pchampin> making a difference btw 2 kinds of strings is even more perverse

Pierre-Antoine Champin: making a difference btw 2 kinds of strings is even more perverse

16:07:01 <AlexHall> cygri: the only syntax that really needs changing is N-Triples

Richard Cyganiak: the only syntax that really needs changing is N-Triples

16:07:15 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to suggest predictability also helpful for XML

Jeremy Carroll: q+ to suggest predictability also helpful for XML

16:07:40 <AlexHall> ... syntactic sugar in most concrete syntaxes is bad because it reduces predictability

... syntactic sugar in most concrete syntaxes is bad because it reduces predictability

16:08:23 <AlexHall> ... forbidding one datatype in the abstract syntax is even more perverse than forbidding plain literals in one of the concrete syntaxes

... forbidding one datatype in the abstract syntax is even more perverse than forbidding plain literals in one of the concrete syntaxes

16:09:02 <sandro> SteveH, I liked deprecating xs:string until it looked like we could get rid of Plain Literals entirely (via using language-tags-as-datatypes).

Sandro Hawke: SteveH, I liked deprecating xs:string until it looked like we could get rid of Plain Literals entirely (via using language-tags-as-datatypes).

16:09:25 <davidwood1> Sandro, right.  Me, too.

David Wood: Sandro, right. Me, too.

16:09:31 <ivan> q-

Ivan Herman: q-

16:09:32 <davidwood1> ack ivan

David Wood: ack ivan

16:09:35 <Souri> We could have both "abc" and "abc"^^xsd:string as equivalent (identical when compared), but treat the simple literal form "abc" to be the canonical one.

Souripriya Das: We could have both "abc" and "abc"^^xsd:string as equivalent (identical when compared), but treat the simple literal form "abc" to be the canonical one.

16:09:35 <AlexHall> davidwood: none of the proposals seems to play nicely with all the various levels (semantics, concepts, RDF document set, implementations)

David Wood: none of the proposals seems to play nicely with all the various levels (semantics, concepts, RDF document set, implementations)

16:09:37 <sandro> I hope people wont be expected to emit the long form.

Sandro Hawke: I hope people wont be expected to emit the long form.

16:09:40 <davidwood1> ack AndyS

David Wood: ack AndyS

16:09:40 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics

Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics

16:09:50 <SteveH> sandro, I like lang tag -> datatype

Steve Harris: sandro, I like lang tag -> datatype

16:10:16 <AlexHall> AndyS: agree with Steve's concerns re. xsd:string in concrete syntaxes, think this could be abolished if we're careful

Andy Seaborne: agree with Steve's concerns re. xsd:string in concrete syntaxes, think this could be abolished if we're careful

16:10:17 <AlexHall> ...

...

16:10:22 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to andy / split surface syntax from abstract syntax

Jeremy Carroll: +1 to andy / split surface syntax from abstract syntax

16:10:29 <ericP> +1 to short-forms only in the serializations

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to short-forms only in the serializations

16:10:39 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll

David Wood: ack JeremyCarroll

16:10:39 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest predictability also hel[ful for XML

Zakim IRC Bot: JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest predictability also hel[ful for XML

16:10:43 <yvesr> +1 to AndyS

Yves Raimond: +1 to AndyS

16:10:51 <AlexHall> ... but we can split the abstract and sufrace syntaxes and use different approaches in each

... but we can split the abstract and sufrace syntaxes and use different approaches in each

16:11:18 <AlexHall> Jeremy: If we're making N-Triples, Turtle more predictable then we should also make RDF/XML more predictable.

Jeremy Carroll: If we're making N-Triples, Turtle more predictable then we should also make RDF/XML more predictable.

16:11:57 <AlexHall> davidwood: If we ingest RDF literals, turn them into xsd:string internally, and emit them back as plain literals, is this consistent with what you said:

David Wood: If we ingest RDF literals, turn them into xsd:string internally, and emit them back as plain literals, is this consistent with what you said:

16:12:13 <AlexHall> AndyS: yes it is, and I can't think of a format where you wouldn't want to do that.

Andy Seaborne: yes it is, and I can't think of a format where you wouldn't want to do that.

16:12:30 <pfps> NO!

Peter Patel-Schneider: NO!

16:12:53 <AlexHall> davidwood: are we re-defining xsd:string?

David Wood: are we re-defining xsd:string?

16:12:57 <AlexHall>  everybody: NO!

everybody: NO!

16:13:39 <Souri> q+

Souripriya Das: q+

16:13:41 <AlexHall> ???: we're retroactively declaring that all plain literals without language tags are actually xsd:strings

???: we're retroactively declaring that all plain literals without language tags are actually xsd:strings

16:13:47 <sandro> At the RDF APIs will be much simpler, Andy.

Sandro Hawke: At the RDF APIs will be much simpler, Andy.

16:13:55 <sandro> At LEAST, the APIs....

Sandro Hawke: At LEAST, the APIs....

16:14:48 <AndyS> sandro - not so simple?? - are serializers inside or outside such API?

Andy Seaborne: sandro - not so simple?? - are serializers inside or outside such API?

16:14:48 <AlexHall> davidwood: Volunteers to start a wiki page to collect all the places that are affected by Richard & Pat's ISSUE-12 proposal?

David Wood: Volunteers to start a wiki page to collect all the places that are affected by Richard & Pat's ISSUE-12 proposal?

16:15:22 <AndyS> Request for a consolidate text for R+P proposal.

Andy Seaborne: Request for a consolidate text for R+P proposal.

16:15:26 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain

Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain

16:16:53 <AndyS> Please rename - if we keep untagged-in-surface syntax, it's a bad name.

Andy Seaborne: Please rename - if we keep untagged-in-surface syntax, it's a bad name.

16:17:08 <AlexHall> cygri: it's been my understanding that this conversation has been only about string literals without language tags

Richard Cyganiak: it's been my understanding that this conversation has been only about string literals without language tags

16:17:39 <AlexHall> davidwood: can you combine this with the language-tag proposal?

David Wood: can you combine this with the language-tag proposal?

16:18:06 <AlexHall> cygri: point was to keep them separate because there is still disagreement about language tags

Richard Cyganiak: point was to keep them separate because there is still disagreement about language tags

16:18:45 <davidwood1> q?

David Wood: q?

16:18:51 <AlexHall> davidwood: request for somebody to add to the wiki page for this proposal a section that collects all documents which will need to change as a result of it.

David Wood: request for somebody to add to the wiki page for this proposal a section that collects all documents which will need to change as a result of it.

16:19:39 <davidwood1> ack Souri

David Wood: ack Souri

16:19:59 <AndyS> SPARQL query is doable / SPARQL XML results is not being opened this time => trickier

Andy Seaborne: SPARQL query is doable / SPARQL XML results is not being opened this time => trickier

16:20:20 <AlexHall> souri: looking at this proposal, intent seems to be that these two forms are declared equivalent

Souripriya Das: looking at this proposal, intent seems to be that these two forms are declared equivalent

16:20:45 <AlexHall> ... we should define a canonical form for the surface syntax so we know how to output the value in query results

... we should define a canonical form for the surface syntax so we know how to output the value in query results

16:20:59 <AlexHall> davidwood: we are over time

David Wood: we are over time

16:21:11 <zwu2> bye

Zhe Wu: bye

16:21:12 <LeeF> regrets next week for semtech

Lee Feigenbaum: regrets next week for semtech

16:21:12 <AlexHall> ... think we've made progress

... think we've made progress

16:21:13 <yvesr> bye

Yves Raimond: bye

16:21:13 <pchampin> bye

Pierre-Antoine Champin: bye

16:21:13 <AndyS> regrets for next week - semtech

Andy Seaborne: regrets for next week - semtech

16:21:15 <AlexHall> ... adjourned.

... adjourned.

16:21:16 <Zakim> -LeeF

Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF

16:21:17 <Zakim> -davidwood

Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood

16:21:17 <Zakim> -sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro

16:21:18 <JeremyCarroll> bye

Jeremy Carroll: bye

16:21:19 <Zakim> -MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed

16:21:20 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

16:21:20 <Zakim> -zwu2

Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2

16:21:21 <Zakim> -SteveH_

Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH_

16:21:21 <Zakim> -EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP

16:21:23 <Zakim> -pchampin

Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin

16:21:23 <mbrunati> bye

Matteo Brunati: bye

16:21:25 <Zakim> -cmatheus

Zakim IRC Bot: -cmatheus

16:21:27 <Zakim> -JeremyCarroll

Zakim IRC Bot: -JeremyCarroll

16:21:29 <Zakim> -mbrunati

Zakim IRC Bot: -mbrunati

16:21:31 <Zakim> -pfps

Zakim IRC Bot: -pfps

16:21:33 <Zakim> -Scott_Bauer

Zakim IRC Bot: -Scott_Bauer

16:21:35 <Zakim> -AlexHall

Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall

16:21:39 <Zakim> -AndyS

Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS

16:21:41 <Zakim> -Souri

Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri

16:21:43 <Zakim> -cygri

Zakim IRC Bot: -cygri

16:21:46 <Zakim> -AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ

16:21:47 <Zakim> -Guus

Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus

16:21:49 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended

16:21:51 <Zakim> Attendees were Guus, Scott_Bauer, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, pchampin, AndyS, pfps, AZ, LeeF, cmatheus, cygri, BBC, JeremyCarroll, Souri, zwu2,

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Guus, Scott_Bauer, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, pchampin, AndyS, pfps, AZ, LeeF, cmatheus, cygri, BBC, JeremyCarroll, Souri, zwu2,

16:21:54 <Zakim> ... NickH, yvesr, sandro, MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: ... NickH, yvesr, sandro, MacTed



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#2) generated 2011-06-01 17:17:49 UTC by 'alexhall', comments: None