RDF Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 04 January 2012

Seen
Alex Hall, Andy Seaborne, Antoine Zimmermann, Charles Greer, Dan Brickley, David Wood, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Gavin Carothers, Guus Schreiber, Ivan Herman, Jeremy Carroll, Lee Feigenbaum, Pierre-Antoine Champin, Sandro Hawke, Scott Bauer, Steve Harris, Ted Thibodeau, Yves Raimond, Zhe Wu
Scribe
Pierre-Antoine Champin
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon link
Topics
15:03:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/04-rdf-wg-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/04-rdf-wg-irc

15:03:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

15:03:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394

15:03:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 57 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 57 minutes

15:03:09 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:03:09 <trackbot> Date: 04 January 2012
15:56:16 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 53 minutes)

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

15:56:23 <Zakim> + +1.707.861.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.707.861.aaaa

15:56:31 <gavinc> Zakim, aaaa is me

Gavin Carothers: Zakim, aaaa is me

15:56:31 <Zakim> +gavinc; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +gavinc; got it

15:57:01 <Zakim> + +1.781.899.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.781.899.aabb

15:57:11 <sandro> zakim, aabb is me

Sandro Hawke: zakim, aabb is me

15:57:11 <Zakim> +sandro; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro; got it

15:57:17 <Zakim> + +31.20.598.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +31.20.598.aacc

15:57:28 <Guus> zakim, +31 is me

Guus Schreiber: zakim, +31 is me

15:57:28 <Zakim> +Guus; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus; got it

15:58:00 <Zakim> +??P7

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7

15:58:20 <pchampin> hi

Pierre-Antoine Champin: hi

15:58:46 <Zakim> + +1.707.318.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.707.318.aadd

15:58:55 <cgreer> zakim, aadd is me

Charles Greer: zakim, aadd is me

15:58:55 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +cgreer; got it

15:59:20 <Guus> we may need a scribe volunteer if Thomas doesn't join

Guus Schreiber: we may need a scribe volunteer if Thomas doesn't join

15:59:21 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:59:28 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

15:59:28 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

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

15:59:29 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

15:59:32 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me

Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPcaller is me

15:59:32 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it

15:59:33 <Zakim> + +1.781.273.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.781.273.aaee

15:59:39 <AndyS> zakim, happy new year

Andy Seaborne: zakim, happy new year

15:59:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'happy new year', AndyS

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'happy new year', AndyS

15:59:41 <MacTed> Zakim, aaee is OpenLink_Software

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, aaee is OpenLink_Software

15:59:41 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software; got it

15:59:50 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

15:59:50 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it

15:59:51 <Zakim> +??P14

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14

15:59:51 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

15:59:51 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted

16:00:18 <davidwood1> zakim, code?

David Wood: zakim, code?

16:00:18 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), davidwood1

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), davidwood1

16:00:40 <Guus> zakim, who is here

Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here

16:00:40 <Zakim> Guus, you need to end that query with '?'

Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, you need to end that query with '?'

16:00:42 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aaff

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.898.aaff

16:00:50 <davidwood1> zakim, aaff is me

David Wood: zakim, aaff is me

16:00:50 <Zakim> +davidwood1; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood1; got it

16:01:00 <Guus> zakim, who is here?

Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here?

16:01:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see gavinc, sandro, Guus, pchampin, cgreer, AndyS, Ivan, MacTed (muted), ??P14, davidwood1

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see gavinc, sandro, Guus, pchampin, cgreer, AndyS, Ivan, MacTed (muted), ??P14, davidwood1

16:01:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see AZ, pchampin, cgreer, AndyS, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, SteveH, AndyS1, danbri, mdmdm_, davidwood, gavinc, manu, yvesr, trackbot, manu1, NickH, sandro,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see AZ, pchampin, cgreer, AndyS, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, SteveH, AndyS1, danbri, mdmdm_, davidwood, gavinc, manu, yvesr, trackbot, manu1, NickH, sandro,

16:01:08 <Zakim> ... ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: ... ericP

16:01:08 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P14 is me

Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P14 is me

16:01:10 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it

16:01:18 <davidwood> zakim, davidwood1 is me

David Wood: zakim, davidwood1 is me

16:01:18 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it

16:01:35 <pchampin> I can scribe

Pierre-Antoine Champin: I can scribe

16:02:48 <Zakim> + +44.117.230.aagg

Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.117.230.aagg

16:02:51 <pchampin> scribe: pchampin

(Scribe set to Pierre-Antoine Champin)

16:02:58 <danbri> zakim, +44.117.230.aagg is danbri

Dan Brickley: zakim, +44.117.230.aagg is danbri

16:02:58 <Zakim> +danbri; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +danbri; got it

16:03:04 <pchampin> scribenick: pchampin
16:03:15 <Zakim> + +33.1.41.41.aahh

Zakim IRC Bot: + +33.1.41.41.aahh

16:03:24 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aaii

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.443.212.aaii

16:03:28 <AZ> zakim, aahh is me

Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, aahh is me

16:03:28 <Zakim> +AZ; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it

16:03:35 <AlexHall> zakim, aaii is me

Alex Hall: zakim, aaii is me

16:03:37 <Zakim> +AlexHall; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexHall; got it

16:04:12 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aajj

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.553.aajj

16:04:29 <pchampin> topic: admin

1. admin

16:04:33 <danbri> Guus, your audio is fine

Dan Brickley: Guus, your audio is fine

16:05:45 <Zakim> +Tony

Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony

16:06:07 <Scott_Bauer> Zakim, Tony is me

Scott Bauer: Zakim, Tony is me

16:06:07 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Scott_Bauer; got it

16:06:36 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

16:06:37 <pchampin> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon

PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon

16:06:43 <pchampin> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon

RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon

16:07:17 <Zakim> -yvesr

Zakim IRC Bot: -yvesr

16:07:23 <gavinc> ACTION-124?

Gavin Carothers: ACTION-124?

16:07:23 <trackbot> ACTION-124 -- Gavin Carothers to raise issue around formated text literals -- due 2011-12-07 -- CLOSED

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-124 -- Gavin Carothers to raise issue around formated text literals -- due 2011-12-07 -- CLOSED

16:07:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/124

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/124

16:07:24 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

16:07:24 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

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

16:07:25 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

16:08:28 <Zakim> +??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3

16:08:33 <zwu2> zakim, what is the code?

Zhe Wu: zakim, what is the code?

16:08:33 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2

16:08:33 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P3 is me

Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P3 is me

16:08:35 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it

16:08:46 <danbri> i lost audio

Dan Brickley: i lost audio

16:08:50 <danbri> via high-pitched screech

Dan Brickley: via high-pitched screech

16:09:13 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aakk

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.650.265.aakk

16:09:23 <Zakim> + +1.415.586.aall

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.415.586.aall

16:09:30 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aakk is me

Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.650.265.aakk is me

16:09:30 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it

16:09:55 <zwu2> Happy New Year!

Zhe Wu: Happy New Year!

16:10:04 <danbri> regrets from me for next week (project meeting)

Dan Brickley: regrets from me for next week (project meeting)

16:10:09 <Zakim> +??P18

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18

16:10:15 <swh> Zakim, ??P18 is me

Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P18 is me

16:10:15 <Zakim> +swh; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +swh; got it

16:10:38 <pchampin> topic: RDFa LC

2. RDFa LC

16:10:49 <pchampin>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Dec/0181.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Dec/0181.html

16:11:33 <cgreer> I'll volunteer for one

Charles Greer: I'll volunteer for one

16:11:34 <Zakim> +Eric

Zakim IRC Bot: +Eric

16:11:35 <pchampin> guus: RDFa is going to LC, so we will have to review the 4 documents

Guus Schreiber: RDFa is going to LC, so we will have to review the 4 documents

16:11:44 <LeeF> what are the 4 documents?

Lee Feigenbaum: what are the 4 documents?

16:11:55 <pchampin> david: it would be good to have volunteers

David Wood: it would be good to have volunteers

16:12:09 <pchampin> guus: I'd be happy to volunteer for the primer

Guus Schreiber: I'd be happy to volunteer for the primer

16:12:13 <ivan> to LeeF: rdfa core, rdfa+xhtml, rdfa lite, rdfa primer

Ivan Herman: to LeeF: rdfa core, rdfa+xhtml, rdfa lite, rdfa primer

16:12:14 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

16:12:37 <pchampin> david: would be good to have someone from the "named graph" discussion have a look at RDFa

David Wood: would be good to have someone from the "named graph" discussion have a look at RDFa

16:12:49 <AndyS> I think it uses it as the base, not the name

Andy Seaborne: I think it uses it as the base, not the name

16:12:52 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

16:12:52 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted

16:13:02 <gavinc> AndyS, yeah, it doesn't talk about name

Gavin Carothers: AndyS, yeah, it doesn't talk about name

16:13:04 <pchampin> ... RDFa uses URIs to identify (name?) documents; similar to the discussions that occured in this group recently about graphs

... RDFa uses URIs to identify (name?) documents; similar to the discussions that occured in this group recently about graphs

16:13:06 <davidwood> AndyS, really?

David Wood: AndyS, really?

16:13:20 <AZ> what's the deadline for this ?

Antoine Zimmermann: what's the deadline for this ?

16:13:28 <danbri> (I'd like to understand this RDFa issue better...)

Dan Brickley: (I'd like to understand this RDFa issue better...)

16:13:36 <cgreer> I'll do lite, with the caveat that I may flood email list with questions

Charles Greer: I'll do lite, with the caveat that I may flood email list with questions

16:13:44 <davidwood> Manu's message says, "submit your comments before January 15th 2012"

David Wood: Manu's message says, "submit your comments before January 15th 2012"

16:13:44 <AndyS> davidwood, IIRC (so do check that!)

Andy Seaborne: davidwood, IIRC (so do check that!)

16:14:30 <AndyS> ... I thought it was triples in a doc c.f. triples in Turtle doc.  Could be wrong, has been a while

Andy Seaborne: ... I thought it was triples in a doc c.f. triples in Turtle doc. Could be wrong, has been a while

16:14:42 <pchampin> ivan: (RDFa WG hat on) documents 'RDFa Lite' and 'XHTML+RDFa' are not of big importance for this group

Ivan Herman: (RDFa WG hat on) documents 'RDFa Lite' and 'XHTML+RDFa' are not of big interest for this group

16:14:58 <pchampin> s/importance/interest/
16:15:02 <gavinc> Yeah, but RDFa Lite is an INTERESTING publishing profile

Gavin Carothers: Yeah, but RDFa Lite is an INTERESTING publishing profile

16:15:04 <davidwood> RDFa Core refers to RDF Concepts in relation to graph definition.

David Wood: RDFa Core refers to RDF Concepts in relation to graph definition.

16:15:24 <davidwood> (sec. 3.7)

David Wood: (sec. 3.7)

16:15:28 <pchampin> ... (they may be interesting for individuals, of course)

... (they may be interesting for individuals, of course)

16:15:31 <pchampin> ... the most technically interesting is 'RDFa core'

... the most technically interesting is 'RDFa core'

16:15:31 <AZ> I'd like to read RDFa Core but 115th January is way too early for me

Antoine Zimmermann: I'd like to read RDFa Core but 115th January is way too early for me

16:16:02 <pchampin> gavin: I think RDF lite is intersting to see which minimal set was deemed useful by the RDFa WG

Gavin Carothers: I think RDF lite is intersting to see which minimal set was deemed useful by the RDFa WG

16:16:06 <danbri> zakim, q+ to say the only Core thing I see in RDFa, is stuff like "can #me in an html+rdfa doc be a URI for a human..."

Dan Brickley: zakim, q+ to say the only Core thing I see in RDFa, is stuff like "can #me in an html+rdfa doc be a URI for a human..."

16:16:07 <Zakim> I see ivan, danbri on the speaker queue

Zakim IRC Bot: I see ivan, danbri on the speaker queue

16:16:08 <Guus> q?

Guus Schreiber: q?

16:16:16 <Guus> ack ivan

Guus Schreiber: ack ivan

16:16:41 <pchampin> ivan: regarding the use of URIs in RDFa, I don't think it is related to named graphs

Ivan Herman: regarding the use of URIs in RDFa, I don't think it is related to named graphs

16:17:03 <pchampin> ... the URI of the RDFa document can appear as the subject of a triple, but that's all

... the URI of the RDFa document can appear as the subject of a triple, but that's all

16:17:29 <Guus> ack danbri

Guus Schreiber: ack danbri

16:17:29 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to say the only Core thing I see in RDFa, is stuff like "can #me in an html+rdfa doc be a URI for a human..."

Zakim IRC Bot: danbri, you wanted to say the only Core thing I see in RDFa, is stuff like "can #me in an html+rdfa doc be a URI for a human..."

16:17:31 <pchampin> david: I'm concerned there may be a subtle relation that we might have to take into account

David Wood: I'm concerned there may be a subtle relation that we might have to take into account

16:18:37 <pchampin> danbri: what about # URIs in RDFa: can they identify any resource?

Dan Brickley: what about # URIs in RDFa: can they identify any resource?

16:19:11 <cgreer> I volunteer

Charles Greer: I volunteer

16:19:12 <pchampin> ivan: from the RDF point of view, RDFa is "only" a serialization syntax (though a very special one)

Ivan Herman: from the RDF point of view, RDFa is "only" a serialization syntax (though a very special one)

16:19:33 <pchampin> danbri: in theory yes

Dan Brickley: in theory yes

16:20:13 <pchampin> guus: david and cgreer volunteer to review the 'RDFa core' document on behalf of the WG

Guus Schreiber: david and cgreer volunteer to review the 'RDFa core' document on behalf of the WG

16:20:22 <davidwood> From RDFa Core, section 7.2:  "The base. This will usually be the IRI of the document being processed, but it could be some other IRI, set by some other mechanism, such as the (X)HTML base element. The important thing is that it establishes an IRI against which relative paths can be resolved."

David Wood: From RDFa Core, section 7.2: "The base. This will usually be the IRI of the document being processed, but it could be some other IRI, set by some other mechanism, such as the (X)HTML base element. The important thing is that it establishes an IRI against which relative paths can be resolved."

16:20:50 <pchampin> ... you send comments to the rdf-wg mailing list, and the group approves the comments

... you send comments to the rdf-wg mailing list, and the group approves the comments

16:20:59 <davidwood> That means, to me, that the base IRI is often going to be the *same as* the document URI, thus resulting in conflation of denotation of the graph and the document.

David Wood: That means, to me, that the base IRI is often going to be the *same as* the document URI, thus resulting in conflation of denotation of the graph and the document.

16:21:03 <davidwood> AndyS ^^

David Wood: AndyS ^^

16:21:36 <Zakim> -AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ

16:22:03 <davidwood> I don't think that needs to change in the RDFa Core document, but it does mean that our named graphs discussion should take note.

David Wood: I don't think that needs to change in the RDFa Core document, but it does mean that our named graphs discussion should take note.

16:22:22 <AndyS> davidwood - yes, good point. But the doc URI is not the graph name in every case -- it is in the web cache pattern.

Andy Seaborne: davidwood - yes, good point. But the doc URI is not the graph name in every case -- it is in the web cache pattern.

16:22:48 <Zakim> +AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ

16:22:54 <davidwood> AndyS, right

David Wood: AndyS, right

16:23:31 <pchampin> ACTION guus to review the 'RDFa primer'

ACTION guus to review the 'RDFa primer'

16:23:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Review the 'RDFa primer' [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-11].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-127 - Review the 'RDFa primer' [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-11].

16:23:45 <AndyS> davidwood, does RDFa talk about the graph in any particular way? (c.f. N3 <> and <#> isms)

Andy Seaborne: davidwood, does RDFa talk about the graph in any particular way? (c.f. N3 <> and <#> isms)

16:23:55 <pchampin> ACTION davidwood and cgreer to review the 'RDFa core' document

ACTION davidwood and cgreer to review the 'RDFa core' document

16:23:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - And cgreer to review the 'RDFa core' document [on David Wood - due 2012-01-11].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-128 - And cgreer to review the 'RDFa core' document [on David Wood - due 2012-01-11].

16:24:22 <ivan> AndyS: unless a mistake has been made, no...

Andy Seaborne: unless a mistake has been made, no... [ Scribe Assist by Ivan Herman ]

16:24:30 <AZ> zakim, who is noisy?

Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, who is noisy?

16:24:40 <pchampin> topic: status comments received

3. status comments received

16:24:41 <Zakim> AZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: gavinc (54%), Guus (30%), pchampin (95%), cgreer (9%), MacTed (15%)

Zakim IRC Bot: AZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: gavinc (54%), Guus (30%), pchampin (95%), cgreer (9%), MacTed (15%)

16:24:51 <ivan> zakim, mute pchampin

Ivan Herman: zakim, mute pchampin

16:24:51 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin should now be muted

16:25:04 <AndyS> ... which is why we review :-)

Andy Seaborne: ... which is why we review :-)

16:25:52 <davidwood> AndyS, I don''t think so.  The current draft seems to refer all further definition of the graph to RDF Concepts (unless I'm missing something).

David Wood: AndyS, I don''t think so. The current draft seems to refer all further definition of the graph to RDF Concepts (unless I'm missing something).

16:26:02 <pchampin> guus: 3 comments on the Turtle document

Guus Schreiber: 3 comments on the Turtle document

16:26:36 <davidwood> I agree with Ivan that we should think of RDFa 1.1 as "just" another standard RDF serialization syntax.

David Wood: I agree with Ivan that we should think of RDFa 1.1 as "just" another standard RDF serialization syntax.

16:26:37 <pchampin> gavin: first is about the Turtle grammar not being LL(1), need to discuss it with gavin

Gavin Carothers: first is about the Turtle grammar not being LL(1), need to discuss it with eric

16:27:20 <AndyS> They are case-insensitive in SPARQL :-|

Andy Seaborne: They are case-insensitive in SPARQL :-|

16:27:43 <pchampin> ... second is about making literals case-insensitive, which I don't think we will

... second is about making literals case-insensitive, which I don't think we will

16:27:56 <pchampin> andy: in SPARQL they are (all keywords are)

Andy Seaborne: in SPARQL they are (all keywords are)

16:28:02 <ericP> gavinc, i can grammar geek with you after this call

Eric Prud'hommeaux: gavinc, i can grammar geek with you after this call

16:28:50 <pchampin> s/with gavin/with eric/
16:28:57 <AndyS> all keywords except "a" for rdf:type.  With hindsight, a bit insistentent between bools and "a" but that's where we are and it's mostly harmless, Zaphod.

Andy Seaborne: all keywords except "a" for rdf:type. With hindsight, a bit insistentent between bools and "a" but that's where we are and it's mostly harmless, Zaphod.

16:29:40 <pchampin> gavin: I think all the issues have been answered on the mailing list

Gavin Carothers: I think all the issues have been answered on the mailing list

16:29:53 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

16:29:53 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted

16:30:00 <sandro> something like, "Please respond and let us know whether this response addresses your concern."

Sandro Hawke: something like, "Please respond and let us know whether this response addresses your concern."

16:30:14 <AndyS> gavinc, ericP -- please make LL(1) unless strong reason not to.  It helps people to cover as wide a spectrum of tools.

Andy Seaborne: gavinc, ericP -- please make LL(1) unless strong reason not to. It helps people to cover as wide a spectrum of tools.

16:30:33 <pchampin> guus: it would be good to open an issue for the comments, in order to formally acknowledge them and keep track of the resolution

Guus Schreiber: it would be good to open an issue for the comments, in order to formally acknowledge them and keep track of the resolution

16:31:18 <pchampin> topic: RDF-ISSUE-82 (TriG repeated graph iris)

4. RDF-ISSUE-82 (TriG repeated graph iris)

16:31:24 <ericP> AndyS, i'm not yet convinced that it's not LL(1)

Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS, i'm not yet convinced that it's not LL(1)

16:31:30 <sandro> sandro: we need each comment to end in one of three buckets -- satisfied, objecting, or other (typically not answering our pings).

Sandro Hawke: we need each comment to end in one of three buckets -- satisfied, objecting, or other (typically not answering our pings). [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:31:33 <pchampin> guus: raised by gavin

Guus Schreiber: raised by gavin

16:32:18 <pchampin> gavin: in the last meeting, we agreed that a dataset could not repeat the same graph IRI several times

Gavin Carothers: in the last meeting, we agreed that a dataset could not repeat the same graph IRI several times

16:32:30 <pchampin> ... trying to explore the consequence on the Trig syntax

... trying to explore the consequence on the Trig syntax

16:33:02 <swh> "merge"?!

Steve Harris: "merge"?!

16:33:03 <pchampin> ... consensus seems to emerge on option 2:

... consensus seems to emerge on option 2:

16:33:13 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

16:33:28 <swh> q+

Steve Harris: q+

16:33:29 <pchampin> ... if the same graph IRI appears several times in Trig, then merge their content in a single graph with that IRI

... if the same graph IRI appears several times in Trig, then merge their content in a single graph with that IRI

16:33:41 <AndyS> The discussion explains why not.  (As is, needs 2 tokens lookahead - can rewrite current form to LL(1) but it will look strange -- easier to use the form that is more natural and LL(1) -- from SPARQL which also does the trailing dot for TriG ... long time)

Andy Seaborne: The discussion explains why not. (As is, needs 2 tokens lookahead - can rewrite current form to LL(1) but it will look strange -- easier to use the form that is more natural and LL(1) -- from SPARQL which also does the trailing dot for TriG ... long time)

16:33:41 <Guus> q?

Guus Schreiber: q?

16:33:45 <ivan> ack sandro

Ivan Herman: ack sandro

16:33:52 <ericP> AndyS, the trick in mapping EBNF to LL(1) is that +s and *s get mapped to e.g. { foo_plus: foo | foo_plus foo } while LALR(1) reverses that to { foo_plus: foo | foo foo_plus }

Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS, the trick in mapping EBNF to LL(1) is that +s and *s get mapped to e.g. { foo_plus: foo | foo_plus foo } while LALR(1) reverses that to { foo_plus: foo | foo foo_plus }

16:34:11 <AndyS> merge ==> more triples = union

Andy Seaborne: merge ==> more triples = union

16:34:30 <ericP> AndyS, sorry reverse those EBNF to L*(1) mappings

Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS, sorry reverse those EBNF to L*(1) mappings

16:34:33 <pchampin> sandro: it is not clear yet whether Trig solves our use cases (I think it does not)

Sandro Hawke: it is not clear yet whether Trig solves our use cases (I think it does not)

16:34:41 <AndyS> ericP -- er ... different issue -- it's mid rule. Later?

Andy Seaborne: ericP -- er ... different issue -- it's mid rule. Later?

16:34:44 <pchampin> ... so should we care about Trig at all?

... so should we care about Trig at all?

16:35:14 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

16:35:21 <davidwood> Sandro, yes, but it would seem that Trig is extensible to handle that use case.

David Wood: Sandro, yes, but it would seem that Trig is extensible to handle that use case.

16:35:34 <zwu2> not me :)

Zhe Wu: not me :)

16:35:34 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to respond to sandro

Jeremy Carroll: q+ to respond to sandro

16:35:42 <LeeF> Sandro, when you say "our use cases" -- who is "our" referring to? and is there an applies "any" or "all" ?

Lee Feigenbaum: Sandro, when you say "our use cases" -- who is "our" referring to? and is there an applies "any" or "all" ?

16:35:49 <sandro> I'll believe it when I see it, davidwood.

Sandro Hawke: I'll believe it when I see it, davidwood.

16:35:54 <Guus> ack swh

Guus Schreiber: ack swh

16:36:13 <pchampin> swh: did Gavin mean litteraly an RDF merge?

Steve Harris: did Gavin mean litteraly an RDF merge?

16:36:28 <pchampin> ... should it be a merge or a union ?

... should it be a merge or a union ?

16:36:40 <LeeF> "munion"

Lee Feigenbaum: "munion"

16:37:01 <sandro> LeeF, "our" is RDF-WGs.    I realize we haven't yet decided which use cases to accept, so I really just meant "potential use cases"

Sandro Hawke: LeeF, "our" is RDF-WGs. I realize we haven't yet decided which use cases to accept, so I really just meant "potential use cases"

16:37:09 <pchampin> ... different management of bnode identifiers appearing in multiple pairs of curly braces

... different management of bnode identifiers appearing in multiple pairs of curly braces

16:37:14 <Guus> q?

Guus Schreiber: q?

16:37:27 <pchampin> gavin: we have not decided that yet

Gavin Carothers: we have not decided that yet

16:37:43 <pchampin> ... my preference for option 1 (not allow it at all) is that it solves that problem

... my preferringence for option 1 (not allow it at all) is that it solves that problem

16:37:52 <LeeF> Sandro, it's pretty clear to me that trig solves many of those use cases, if not all, so i'm not sure why to suggest that we shouldn't care about it

Lee Feigenbaum: Sandro, it's pretty clear to me that trig solves many of those use cases, if not all, so i'm not sure why to suggest that we shouldn't care about it

16:37:52 <Guus> zakim,  JeremyCarroll

Guus Schreiber: zakim, JeremyCarroll

16:37:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'JeremyCarroll', Guus

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'JeremyCarroll', Guus

16:38:01 <Guus> ack JeremyCarroll

Guus Schreiber: ack JeremyCarroll

16:38:01 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to respond to sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: JeremyCarroll, you wanted to respond to sandro

16:38:41 <pchampin> jeremy: to answer sandro's comment: I believe Trig answers some use cases

Jeremy Carroll: to answer sandro's comment: I believe Trig answers some use cases

16:38:44 <swh> +1 to JeremyCarroll

Steve Harris: +1 to JeremyCarroll

16:38:56 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

16:38:57 <LeeF> Agree with gavin

Lee Feigenbaum: Agree with gavin

16:39:01 <LeeF> I read consensus in that email thread

Lee Feigenbaum: I read consensus in that email thread

16:39:15 <ivan> ack sandro

Ivan Herman: ack sandro

16:39:48 <pchampin> sandro: we are not chartered to standardize Trig; we are chartered to propose a syntax supporting multiple graphs

Sandro Hawke: we are not chartered to standardize Trig; we are chartered to propose a syntax supporting multiple graphs

16:40:12 <pchampin> ... if Trig does it, then ok. But if it doesn't, then we need to standardize something else.

... if Trig does it, then ok. But if it doesn't, then we need to standardize something else.

16:40:22 <JeremyCarroll> Jeremy: Sandro raised questions about URIs identifying graphs vs graph containers - these were not to do with Trig

Jeremy Carroll: Sandro raised questions about URIs identifying graphs vs graph containers - these were not to do with Trig [ Scribe Assist by Jeremy Carroll ]

16:42:11 <pchampin> sandro: In general I don't like starting from use cases, but as we don't seem to reach consensus, I think that's how we should proceed

Sandro Hawke: In general I don't like starting from use cases, but as we don't seem to reach consensus, I think that's how we should proceed

16:42:18 <pchampin> ... and see if Trig address them or not

... and see if Trig address them or not

16:43:10 <pchampin> ACTION jeremy to review sandro's use cases

ACTION jeremy to review sandro's use cases

16:43:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Review sandro's use cases [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2012-01-11].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-129 - Review sandro's use cases [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2012-01-11].

16:43:27 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC in general, and in specific: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Trust_Web_Opinions

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC in general, and in specific: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Trust_Web_Opinions

16:43:40 <sandro> (that's for jjc)

Sandro Hawke: (that's for jjc)

16:44:10 <pchampin> topic: named graphs

5. named graphs

16:44:31 <sandro> -1 to ever calling in "named graphs"  :-)

Sandro Hawke: -1 to ever callitg it "named graphs" :-)

16:44:58 <sandro> s/in/it/
16:45:09 <pchampin> subtopic: Issue: should/must the 4th slot be an IRI?

5.1. Issue: should/must the 4th slot be an IRI?

16:45:33 <pchampin> guus: last week resolution seems to imply that it should

Guus Schreiber: last week resolution seems to imply that it should

16:45:36 <LeeF> I would object to letting it be a bnode, probably

Lee Feigenbaum: I would object to letting it be a bnode, probably

16:45:42 <pchampin> ... can we reach consensus on that?

... can we reach consensus on that?

16:45:43 <swh> I might

Steve Harris: I might

16:45:45 <sandro> sandro: sometimes it might be a bnode.

Sandro Hawke: sometimes it might be a bnode. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:45:48 <swh> …even though Iv'e done it in the past :)

Steve Harris: …even though Iv'e done it in the past :)

16:45:49 <gavinc> I would object to letting it be a bnode

Gavin Carothers: I would object to letting it be a bnode

16:45:54 <pchampin> sandro: I think it should be allowed to be a bnode

Sandro Hawke: I think it should be allowed to be a bnode

16:46:04 <pchampin> david: what would be the use case?

David Wood: what would be the use case?

16:46:26 <swh> sandro, what about .well-known/genid

Steve Harris: sandro, what about .well-known/genid

16:46:28 <swh> ?

Steve Harris: ?

16:46:32 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+

16:46:34 <Zakim> -danbri

Zakim IRC Bot: -danbri

16:46:46 <Zakim> -yvesr

Zakim IRC Bot: -yvesr

16:47:08 <Zakim> +??P3

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3

16:47:13 <pchampin> sandro: in the trust use case, I want to talk about a set of 4 triples, and there is no point in giving a URI to this set

Sandro Hawke: in the trust use case, I want to talk about a set of 4 triples, and there is no point in giving a URI to this set

16:47:27 <yvesr> Zakim, ??p3 is me

Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??p3 is me

16:47:27 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it

16:47:29 <Zakim> -JeremyCarroll

Zakim IRC Bot: -JeremyCarroll

16:47:39 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

16:47:55 <pchampin> ... if you want to repeat it, a graph literal is not convenient

... if you want to repeat it, a graph literal is not convenient

16:47:57 <ivan> ack AndyS

Ivan Herman: ack AndyS

16:48:09 <Zakim> +danbri

Zakim IRC Bot: +danbri

16:49:01 <ivan> s/refer/referring/
16:49:10 <AndyS> q-

Andy Seaborne: q-

16:49:11 <pchampin> andy: there are two kinds of use for bnodes: things for which I don't want to mint a URI, and existential variables

Andy Seaborne: there are two kinds of use for bnodes: things for which I don't want to mint a URI, and existential variables

16:49:15 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is noisy?

16:49:22 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

16:49:25 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (44%), cgreer (4%), danbri (58%)

Zakim IRC Bot: ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (44%), cgreer (4%), danbri (58%)

16:49:29 <danbri> busted! sorry

Dan Brickley: busted! sorry

16:49:37 <pchampin> ... you seem to be using the first one

... you seem to be using the first one

16:49:40 <ivan> zakim, mute danbri

Ivan Herman: zakim, mute danbri

16:49:40 <Zakim> danbri should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: danbri should now be muted

16:50:09 <sandro> sandro: Yes, just the filler case, where I don't really want to mint a URI.

Sandro Hawke: Yes, just the filler case, where I don't really want to mint a URI. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:50:14 <swh> the "filler" case would require some syntactic gymnastics to make it work

Steve Harris: the "filler" case would require some syntactic gymnastics to make it work

16:50:32 <swh> e.g. [] { … triples … } … then what?

Steve Harris: e.g. [] { … triples … } … then what?

16:50:48 <pchampin> guus: why not go the the genid solution, then?

Guus Schreiber: why not go the the genid solution, then?

16:51:01 <swh> q+

Steve Harris: q+

16:51:20 <swh> q-

Steve Harris: q-

16:51:40 <pchampin> sandro: makes sense if you get rid of bnodes everywhere, but if you keep bnodes, why not allow them there?

Sandro Hawke: makes sense if you get rid of bnodes everywhere, but if you keep bnodes, why not allow them there?

16:52:10 <ivan> +1 to steve!

Ivan Herman: +1 to steve!

16:52:19 <pchampin> swh: this could be handled by syntactic sugar in Trig

Steve Harris: this could be handled by syntactic sugar in Trig

16:52:23 <gavinc> +1 to steve

Gavin Carothers: +1 to steve

16:52:29 <pchampin> ... to generate the genid URI

... to generate the genid URI

16:52:41 <sandro> sandro: if you can use bnodes as pronouns for strings and lists, etc, then it'll be odd not to have them as pronouns for referring to RDF Graphs.

Sandro Hawke: if you can use bnodes as pronouns for strings and lists, etc, then it'll be odd not to have them as pronouns for referring to RDF Graphs. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:52:43 <AndyS> So when it comes out again it is a URI?

Andy Seaborne: So when it comes out again it is a URI?

16:52:49 <swh> AndyS, yes

Steve Harris: AndyS, yes

16:52:51 <pchampin> ... because bnodes would raise very bizarre questions regarding scoping

... because bnodes would raise very bizarre questions regarding scoping

16:52:58 <AndyS> ack swh

Andy Seaborne: ack swh

16:52:58 <pchampin> pchampin: +1 about the scoping problem

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 about the scoping problem

16:53:11 <swh> q+

Steve Harris: q+

16:53:35 <swh> I have some experience

Steve Harris: I have some experience

16:53:38 <AndyS> This sounds like as a shorthand for URIs issue, not bnodes.

Andy Seaborne: This sounds like as a shorthand for URIs issue, not bnodes.

16:54:00 <LeeF> Peter won't be here next week, I believe

Lee Feigenbaum: Peter won't be here next week, I believe

16:54:07 <pchampin> sandro: I would like to hear Pat's opinion about the scoping issue

Sandro Hawke: I would like to hear Pat's opinion about the scoping issue

16:54:54 <pchampin> swh: 3store explicitly supports graph identified by bnodes

Steve Harris: 3store explicitly supported graph identified by bnodes

16:55:02 <pchampin> s/supports/supported/
16:55:17 <pchampin> ... but we banned it in 4store and 5store, as it was too complicated to manage

... but we banned it in 4store and 5store, as it was too complicated to manage

16:55:33 <AndyS> F2F discussion: UC graphs: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#4__2e_9___28_A_PRIORITY__29__Trust_Web_Opinions

Andy Seaborne: F2F discussion: UC graphs: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#4__2e_9___28_A_PRIORITY__29__Trust_Web_Opinions

16:55:46 <Zakim> -zwu2

Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2

16:55:54 <AndyS> and also http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#1__2e_5___28_A_PRIORITY__29__Exchanging_the_contents_of_RDF_stores

Andy Seaborne: and also http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#1__2e_5___28_A_PRIORITY__29__Exchanging_the_contents_of_RDF_stores

16:55:57 <sandro> sandro: I might be convinced to support this restriction, like the no-subjects-as-literals, in the name of ease of implementaiton.

Sandro Hawke: I might be convinced to support this restriction, like the no-subjects-as-literals, in the name of ease of implementaiton. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:55:57 <zwu2> sorry I have to go to another meeting, bye.

Zhe Wu: sorry I have to go to another meeting, bye.

16:56:29 <pchampin> topic: IRI names for both graph containers and graphs?

6. IRI names for both graph containers and graphs?

16:56:51 <pchampin> guus: as neither Pat nor Richard are here, may be we can leave this discussion for next week,

Guus Schreiber: as neither Pat nor Richard are here, may be we can leave this discussion for next week,

16:57:01 <pchampin> ... unless someone wants to add something

... unless someone wants to add something

16:58:27 <pchampin> sandro: I think we should clean the UC list into something smaller, easier to grasp at once

Sandro Hawke: I think we should clean the UC list into something smaller, easier to grasp at once

16:58:42 <pchampin> ... are we going to publish our use cases?

... are we going to publish our use cases?

16:58:53 <pchampin> guus: I would be in favor of publishing them

Guus Schreiber: I would be in favor of publishing them

16:59:11 <pchampin> david: I concur

David Wood: I concur

17:01:00 <AndyS> Does anyone have an example where signing the doc is not sufficient?

Andy Seaborne: Does anyone have an example where signing the doc is not sufficient?

17:02:02 <gavinc> AndyS: PaySwarm does

Andy Seaborne: PaySwarm does [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ]

17:02:02 <ericP> AndyS, very large triple stores?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS, very large triple stores?

17:02:29 <danbri> zakim, who is talking?

Dan Brickley: zakim, who is talking?

17:02:30 <Guus> zakim, who is talking?

Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is talking?

17:02:33 <pchampin> guus: propose a UC about signing a graph (in order to state "I stated this graph")

Guus Schreiber: propose a UC about signing a graph (in order to state "I stated this graph")

17:02:33 <AndyS> gavinc ... interesting ... ptr?

Andy Seaborne: gavinc ... interesting ... ptr?

17:03:02 <pchampin> sandro: to endorse or to agree with a graph?

Sandro Hawke: to endorse or to agree with a graph?

17:03:20 <AndyS> ericP ... maybe but how does sign again to check?

Andy Seaborne: ericP ... maybe but how does sign again to check?

17:03:26 <swh> q+

Steve Harris: q+

17:03:31 <danbri> who?

Dan Brickley: who?

17:03:40 <danbri> fb?

Dan Brickley: fb?

17:04:01 <danbri> swh, manu?

Dan Brickley: swh, manu?

17:04:09 <Zakim> danbri, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (23%)

Zakim IRC Bot: danbri, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (23%)

17:04:11 <ericP> AndyS, i think the discriminating use cases are when you don't need to sign

Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS, i think the discriminating use cases are when you don't need to sign

17:04:19 <ericP> ... just need to make assertions about it

Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... just need to make assertions about it

17:04:21 <Zakim> Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 17 (4%), gavinc (18%), sandro (43%)

Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 17 (4%), gavinc (18%), sandro (43%)

17:04:23 <swh> danbri, yes, manu, thanks

Steve Harris: danbri, yes, manu, thanks

17:04:38 <AndyS> The case I can see is sign-graph keeps sig across reencoding (e.g. into a store c.f. Eric - but any size)

Andy Seaborne: The case I can see is sign-graph keeps sig across reencoding (e.g. into a store c.f. Eric - but any size)

17:04:46 <swh> ack me

Steve Harris: ack me

17:04:52 <Guus> ack swh

Guus Schreiber: ack swh

17:05:53 <pchampin> guus: regarding the restaurant? UC, how would you write it down in Trig?

Guus Schreiber: regarding the restaurant? UC, how would you write it down in Trig?

17:05:55 <AndyS> UC is : http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Trust_Web_Opinions

Andy Seaborne: UC is : http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Trust_Web_Opinions

17:06:06 <sandro> { sandro endorses g1 }

Sandro Hawke: { sandro endorses g1 }

17:06:10 <AndyS> full version -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-prov/2011Sep/0003.html

Andy Seaborne: full version -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-prov/2011Sep/0003.html

17:06:14 <sandro> g1 { ... some triples }

Sandro Hawke: g1 { ... some triples }

17:06:35 <sandro> g1 owl:sameAs { ... some triples }

Sandro Hawke: g1 owl:sameAs { ... some triples }

17:07:15 <sandro> <addressyoufetchedfrom> { ... some triples }

Sandro Hawke: <addressyoufetchedfrom> { ... some triples }

17:07:23 <Guus> zakim, who is talking?

Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is talking?

17:07:41 <Zakim> Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (19%), AndyS (11%)

Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (19%), AndyS (11%)

17:07:42 <gavinc> ... owl:sameAs only works with Resources/IRIs doesn't it?

Gavin Carothers: ... owl:sameAs only works with Resources/IRIs doesn't it?

17:07:43 <sandro> <addressyoufetchedfrom> graphStante { ... some triples }

Sandro Hawke: <addressyoufetchedfrom> graphStante { ... some triples }

17:07:48 <sandro> <addressyoufetchedfrom> graphState { ... some triples }

Sandro Hawke: <addressyoufetchedfrom> graphState { ... some triples }

17:08:01 <sandro> zakim, who is muted

Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is muted

17:08:01 <Zakim> sandro, you need to end that query with '?'

Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you need to end that query with '?'

17:08:03 <sandro> zakim, who is muted?

Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is muted?

17:08:03 <Zakim> I see pchampin, MacTed, danbri muted

Zakim IRC Bot: I see pchampin, MacTed, danbri muted

17:09:47 <sandro> <graph> ?RELATION? { ... triples ... }

Sandro Hawke: <graph> ?RELATION? { ... triples ... }

17:09:50 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+

17:09:57 <pchampin> sandro: the example above is not compatible with Trig, as there is a predicate between the graph URI and the curly braces,

Sandro Hawke: the example above is not compatible with Trig, as there is a predicate between the graph URI and the curly braces,

17:10:03 <AndyS> Breaks n-quads as well.

Andy Seaborne: Breaks n-quads as well.

17:10:15 <pchampin> ... stating the relation between the graph IRI and the graph

... stating the relation between the graph IRI and the graph

17:10:15 <AndyS> q-

Andy Seaborne: q-

17:10:28 <sandro> OPTION 1:  <graph> ?RELATION? { ... triples ... }

Sandro Hawke: OPTION 1: <graph> ?RELATION? { ... triples ... }

17:10:55 <sandro> OPTION 2: relation is always graphState, but there are immutable graph containers used as proxies

Sandro Hawke: OPTION 2: relation is always graphState, but there are immutable graph containers used as proxies

17:11:57 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Dec/0189.html

Andy Seaborne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Dec/0189.html

17:12:16 <pchampin> sandro: option 2 adds a semantics to Trig, so risks to break existing Trig

Sandro Hawke: option 2 adds a semantics to Trig, so risks to break existing Trig

17:12:43 <pchampin> ivan: then how do you express the sameAs relation with option 2?

Ivan Herman: then how do you express the sameAs relation with option 2?

17:13:04 <sandro> { sandro endorsesContentOf <g1>.   <g1> a StaticGraphContainer }   <g1> { some triples }

Sandro Hawke: { sandro endorsesContentOf <g1>. <g1> a StaticGraphContainer } <g1> { some triples }

17:13:52 <sandro> (a sketch of option 2)

Sandro Hawke: (a sketch of option 2)

17:14:20 <pchampin> guus: it would be good if someone could write this down

Guus Schreiber: it would be good if someone could write this down

17:15:09 <sandro> write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options.

Sandro Hawke: write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options.

17:15:16 <pchampin> sandro: it would be good to write down both use cases, both option, and how each option solves each UC

Sandro Hawke: it would be good to write down both use cases, both option, and how each option solves each UC

17:16:40 <sandro> sandro: yes, we can use Trig, or a variant, just be clear about what semantics you mean for TriG.

Sandro Hawke: yes, we can use Trig, or a variant, just be clear about what semantics you mean for TriG. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

17:16:59 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

17:17:07 <Zakim> -sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro

17:17:08 <Zakim> -gavinc

Zakim IRC Bot: -gavinc

17:17:08 <Zakim> -swh

Zakim IRC Bot: -swh

17:17:10 <Zakim> -cgreer

Zakim IRC Bot: -cgreer

17:17:12 <Zakim> -AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ

17:17:13 <Zakim> -AlexHall

Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall

17:17:15 <Zakim> -AndyS

Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS

17:17:28 <Zakim> -davidwood

Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood

17:17:30 <Zakim> -danbri

Zakim IRC Bot: -danbri

17:17:31 <Zakim> -Eric

Zakim IRC Bot: -Eric

17:17:40 <pchampin> ACTION guus to write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options

ACTION guus to write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options

17:17:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-11].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-130 - Write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-11].



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#1) generated 2012-01-04 17:30:00 UTC by 'pchampin', comments: None