There are some format problems with the chatlog. Please correct them and reload this page. They are labeled on this page in a red box, like this message.
It may be helpful to
14:38:16 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:38:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:38:20 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:38:20 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 22 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 22 minutes ←
14:38:21 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:38:21 <trackbot> Date: 23 May 2012
14:38:26 <ivan> Chair: Guus
14:39:20 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: RDF Call agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.23
Ivan Herman: ivan has changed the topic to: RDF Call agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.23 ←
14:48:10 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started ←
14:48:18 <Zakim> +Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus ←
14:48:22 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
14:48:31 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P3 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P3 is me ←
14:48:31 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it ←
14:48:59 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
14:48:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Guus, yvesr ←
14:49:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see Guus, manu1, Zakim, RRSAgent, mlnt, mischat, yvesr, ivan, davidwood, trackbot, NickH, manu, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Guus, manu1, Zakim, RRSAgent, mlnt, mischat, yvesr, ivan, davidwood, trackbot, NickH, manu, sandro, ericP ←
14:49:43 <yvesr> i think i am supposed to scribe - but i didn't do it in a looong time so will probably need some help :)
Yves Raimond: i think i am supposed to scribe - but i didn't do it in a looong time so will probably need some help :) ←
14:57:01 <yvesr> scribenick: yvesr
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
(Scribe set to Yves Raimond)
14:58:25 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
14:58:42 <AZ> zakim, ??p4 is me
Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, ??p4 is me ←
14:58:42 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←
14:58:51 <sandro> trackbot, start meeting
Sandro Hawke: trackbot, start meeting ←
14:58:53 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
14:58:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:58:55 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:58:55 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes ←
14:58:56 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:58:56 <trackbot> Date: 23 May 2012
15:00:36 <swh> Zakim, what is the code?
Steve Harris: Zakim, what is the code? ←
15:00:36 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), swh
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), swh ←
15:01:35 <gavinc> Zakim, who is here?
Gavin Carothers: Zakim, who is here? ←
15:01:35 <Zakim> I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted
Zakim IRC Bot: I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted ←
15:01:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, yvesr, AZ, EricP, Sandro, Tony, Arnaud, ??P12, gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Guus, yvesr, AZ, EricP, Sandro, Tony, Arnaud, ??P12, gavinc ←
15:01:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see gavinc, Arnaud, ScottB, LeeF, AZ, swh, tbaker, cygri, Guus, manu1, Zakim, RRSAgent, mlnt, mischat, yvesr, ivan, davidwood, trackbot, NickH, manu, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see gavinc, Arnaud, ScottB, LeeF, AZ, swh, tbaker, cygri, Guus, manu1, Zakim, RRSAgent, mlnt, mischat, yvesr, ivan, davidwood, trackbot, NickH, manu, sandro, ericP ←
15:01:38 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
15:01:41 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P12
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P12 ←
15:01:41 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
15:01:44 <swh> Zakim, ??P14 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P14 is me ←
15:01:45 <Zakim> +swh; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +swh; got it ←
15:01:46 <Zakim> +cygri
Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri ←
15:02:24 <Zakim> +??P17
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P17 ←
15:02:30 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
15:02:30 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
15:02:34 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:02:59 <tbaker> zakim, ??P17 is tbaker
Thomas Baker: zakim, ??P17 is tbaker ←
15:03:02 <Zakim> +tbaker; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +tbaker; got it ←
15:03:21 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
15:03:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, yvesr, AZ, EricP, Sandro, Tony, Arnaud, manu1, gavinc, swh, cygri, tbaker, Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Guus, yvesr, AZ, EricP, Sandro, Tony, Arnaud, manu1, gavinc, swh, cygri, tbaker, Ivan ←
15:03:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see gavinc, Arnaud, ScottB, LeeF, AZ, swh, tbaker, cygri, Guus, manu1, Zakim, RRSAgent, mlnt, mischat, yvesr, ivan, davidwood, trackbot, NickH, manu, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see gavinc, Arnaud, ScottB, LeeF, AZ, swh, tbaker, cygri, Guus, manu1, Zakim, RRSAgent, mlnt, mischat, yvesr, ivan, davidwood, trackbot, NickH, manu, sandro, ericP ←
15:04:39 <yvesr> Guus: propose to accept minutes of last week
Guus Schreiber: propose to accept minutes of last week ←
15:05:00 <yvesr> Guus: resolve to accept minutes
Guus Schreiber: resolve to accept minutes ←
15:05:17 <manu1> RESOLVED: Accept minutes from last week.
RESOLVED: Accept minutes from last week. ←
15:05:24 <gavinc> RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 16 May telecon
RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 16 May telecon ←
15:06:01 <yvesr> Guus: the pending review list is empty
Guus Schreiber: the pending review list is empty ←
15:07:07 <manu1> q+ to voice concerns about TURTLE / N-Triples.
Manu Sporny: q+ to voice concerns about TURTLE / N-Triples. ←
15:07:10 <yvesr> Guus: First, proposal to split the turtle document in two
Guus Schreiber: First, proposal to split the turtle document in two ←
15:07:19 <yvesr> Guus: turtle / n-triples
Guus Schreiber: turtle / n-triples ←
15:07:45 <Guus> ack manu1
Guus Schreiber: ack manu1 ←
15:07:45 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to voice concerns about TURTLE / N-Triples.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to voice concerns about TURTLE / N-Triples. ←
15:07:49 <ivan> ack manu1
Ivan Herman: ack manu1 ←
15:07:51 <yvesr> manu1: general concern that it is moving in the wrong direction
Manu Sporny: general concern that it is moving in the wrong direction ←
15:08:23 <yvesr> manu1: it would be best if Turtle would be *the* language to express RDF natively - primary RDF serialisation language
Manu Sporny: it would be best if Turtle would be *the* language to express RDF natively - primary RDF serialisation language ←
15:08:43 <yvesr> manu1: I am not going to raise a formal objection
Manu Sporny: I am not going to raise a formal objection ←
15:09:04 <yvesr> gavinc: ntriples will still be a subset of the turtle language - the main change is to the document structure
Gavin Carothers: ntriples will still be a subset of the turtle language - the main change is to the document structure ←
15:09:26 <yvesr> gavinc: there are a lot of things that only apply to ntriples
Gavin Carothers: there are a lot of things that only apply to ntriples ←
15:09:40 <yvesr> gavinc: having them in a separate document makes the turtle document easier to write
Gavin Carothers: having them in a separate document makes the turtle document easier to write ←
15:09:50 <yvesr> manu1: could send the wrong message to the RDF community
Manu Sporny: could send the wrong message to the RDF community ←
15:10:09 <yvesr> manu1: turtle should include n-triples and n-quads
Manu Sporny: turtle should include n-triples and n-quads ←
15:10:16 <yvesr> manu1: it should be the same language
Manu Sporny: it should be the same language ←
15:10:33 <yvesr> gavinc: it is saying that n-triples shouldn't have its own media type, quite a strong statement
Gavin Carothers: it is saying that n-triples shouldn't have its own media type, quite a strong statement ←
15:10:43 <yvesr> gavinc: we would have quite a lot of objections to that
Gavin Carothers: we would have quite a lot of objections to that ←
15:11:04 <yvesr> Guus: it should all be solved by a very clear statement
Guus Schreiber: it should all be solved by a very clear statement ←
15:11:12 <yvesr> Guus: the reasons for splitting the document are very strong
Guus Schreiber: the reasons for splitting the document are very strong ←
15:11:38 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:11:42 <yvesr> manu1: n-triples and turtle have so many similarities that not merging them will be confusing
Manu Sporny: n-triples and turtle have so many similarities that not merging them will be confusing ←
15:11:52 <yvesr> manu1: to the web developer community
Manu Sporny: to the web developer community ←
15:12:03 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
15:12:17 <Zakim> +[Sophia]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[Sophia] ←
15:12:17 <yvesr> ivan: i understand where manu is coming from, but it is more a question of image rather than technology
Ivan Herman: i understand where manu is coming from, but it is more a question of image rather than technology ←
15:12:30 <FabGandon> Zakim, Sophia is me
Fabien Gandon: Zakim, Sophia is me ←
15:12:30 <Zakim> +FabGandon; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +FabGandon; got it ←
15:12:31 <yvesr> ivan: perhaps we should re-brand n-triples as 'mini-turtle'?
Ivan Herman: perhaps we should re-brand n-triples as 'mini-turtle'? ←
15:12:45 <yvesr> ivan: the title should make it clear that it is the stripped-down version of turtle
Ivan Herman: the title should make it clear that it is the stripped-down version of turtle ←
15:12:54 <manu1> q+ to say make it TURTLE Lite and I'm happy.
Manu Sporny: q+ to say make it TURTLE Lite and I'm happy. ←
15:13:01 <yvesr> ivan: the document which describes n-triples is describing a small subset of turtle
Ivan Herman: the document which describes n-triples is describing a small subset of turtle ←
15:13:05 <sandro> +0.5 "miniturtle"
Sandro Hawke: +0.5 "miniturtle" ←
15:13:10 <yvesr> gavinc: it should include language saying that you should use turtlw
Gavin Carothers: it should include language saying that you should use turtle ←
15:13:15 <yvesr> s/turtlw/turtle
15:13:28 <Guus> ack manu1
Guus Schreiber: ack manu1 ←
15:13:28 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say make it TURTLE Lite and I'm happy.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say make it TURTLE Lite and I'm happy. ←
15:13:38 <yvesr> manu1: make the name of the document turtle-light or mini-turtle and i am happy
Manu Sporny: make the name of the document turtle-light or mini-turtle and i am happy ←
15:13:59 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:14:06 <sandro> actually, "microturtle" may be better. It's MUCH smaller than turtle.
Sandro Hawke: actually, "microturtle" may be better. It's MUCH smaller than turtle. ←
15:14:07 <yvesr> gavinc: calling it n-triples is causing problems, because it's not exaclty what is known as n-triples now
Gavin Carothers: calling it n-triples is causing problems, because it's not exaclty what is known as n-triples now ←
15:14:38 <yvesr> cygri: this working group isn't about bringing new stuff to new communities, it is also serving the needs of the existing RDF dev community
Richard Cyganiak: this working group isn't about bringing new stuff to new communities, it is also serving the needs of the existing RDF dev community ←
15:14:54 <yvesr> cygri: from this point of view it does make sense to split the documents and it does make sense to keep the same name
Richard Cyganiak: from this point of view it does make sense to split the documents and it does make sense to keep the same name ←
15:15:03 <manu1> q+ to talk about existing users.
Manu Sporny: q+ to talk about existing users. ←
15:15:21 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
15:15:26 <ericP> manu1, how do you like "The N-Triples Sublanguage of Turtle"? ('cause i think that we want current N-Triples use cases to migrate to this new form.)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: manu1, how do you like "The N-Triples Sublanguage of Turtle"? ('cause i think that we want current N-Triples use cases to migrate to this new form.) ←
15:15:30 <yvesr> cygri: i would be concerned of inventing new names for things that have been around for a long time
Richard Cyganiak: i would be concerned of inventing new names for things that have been around for a long time ←
15:15:39 <sandro> how about: RDF N-Triples - a microturtle syntax :-)
Sandro Hawke: how about: RDF N-Triples - a microturtle syntax :-) ←
15:15:44 <Guus> ack manu1
Guus Schreiber: ack manu1 ←
15:15:44 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to talk about existing users.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to talk about existing users. ←
15:15:48 <yvesr> Guus: let's keep this brief
Guus Schreiber: let's keep this brief ←
15:16:02 <yvesr> manu1: the people who are already using it shouldn't be confused by a change of name
Manu Sporny: the people who are already using it shouldn't be confused by a change of name ←
15:16:09 <yvesr> manu1: as they're already using it
Manu Sporny: as they're already using it ←
15:16:20 <yvesr> ivan: gavinc can find something nice
Ivan Herman: gavinc can find something nice ←
15:16:44 <yvesr> Guus: there are strong arguments for splitting the document into two, i'd propose we resolve that
Guus Schreiber: there are strong arguments for splitting the document into two, i'd propose we resolve that ←
15:16:59 <yvesr> PROPOSAL: SPlit the Turtle document into two - turtle and n-triples
PROPOSED: Split the Turtle document into two - turtle and n-triples ←
15:17:00 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:17:05 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:17:07 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:17:09 <tbaker> +1
Thomas Baker: +1 ←
15:17:10 <yvesr> s/SPlit/Split
15:17:12 <yvesr> +1
+1 ←
15:17:13 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
15:17:16 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
15:17:22 <ivan> +1 with the proviso that the n-triple document's title may be different
Ivan Herman: +1 with the proviso that the n-triple document's title may be different ←
15:17:23 <manu1> +1 (as long as we name the new N-Triples document with a clear TURTLE Lite) message.
Manu Sporny: +1 (as long as we name the new N-Triples document with a clear TURTLE Lite) message. ←
15:17:25 <sandro> ( TinyTurtle )
Sandro Hawke: ( TinyTurtle ) ←
15:17:25 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
15:17:32 <yvesr> RESOLVED: Split the Turtle document into two - turtle and n-triples
RESOLVED: Split the Turtle document into two - turtle and n-triples ←
15:18:02 <yvesr> Guus: first question was the whitespace question in Turtle
Guus Schreiber: first question was the whitespace question in Turtle ←
15:18:15 <yvesr> gavinc: this is whitespace in n-triples
Gavin Carothers: this is whitespace in n-triples ←
15:18:48 <yvesr> gavinc: if there are whitespaces rules, they are at the top of the appendix, not in the grammar part of the appendix, and they should be in the grammar part as well
Gavin Carothers: if there are whitespaces rules, they are at the top of the appendix, not in the grammar part of the appendix, and they should be in the grammar part as well ←
15:18:57 <yvesr> Guus: so we reached consensus on this
Guus Schreiber: so we reached consensus on this ←
15:19:07 <yvesr> gavinc: yes, we reached consensus
Gavin Carothers: yes, we reached consensus ←
15:19:57 <yvesr> ericP: there was some discussions about using exactly one whitespace
Eric Prud'hommeaux: there was some discussions about using exactly one whitespace ←
15:20:09 <yvesr> gavinc: the grammar should be somewhat loose
Gavin Carothers: the grammar should be somewhat loose ←
15:20:26 <yvesr> gavinc: you can have multiple empty lines, multiple whitespaces
Gavin Carothers: you can have multiple empty lines, multiple whitespaces ←
15:20:28 <sandro> Maybe "Useful Subsets of Turtle" *sigh*
Sandro Hawke: Maybe "Useful Subsets of Turtle" *sigh* ←
15:20:57 <yvesr> gavinc: there should be some canonicalisation rules that enable one triple to be expressed in exactly the same way
Gavin Carothers: there should be some canonicalisation rules that enable one triple to be expressed in exactly the same way ←
15:21:04 <yvesr> ericP: canonicalisation of order as well?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: canonicalisation of order as well? ←
15:21:19 <cygri> gavinc++
Richard Cyganiak: gavinc++ ←
15:21:19 <yvesr> gavinc: it could include that as well, but triple-specific at first
Gavin Carothers: it could include that as well, but triple-specific at first ←
15:21:22 <sandro> q+ to ask about rdf canonicalization (including bnodes)
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask about rdf canonicalization (including bnodes) ←
15:21:49 <manu1> q+ to say this applies to JSON-LD Normalization.
Manu Sporny: q+ to say this applies to JSON-LD Normalization. ←
15:21:51 <yvesr> ericP: is there a value to writing those rules as SHOULD, as parser-write will have to handle all cases anyway
Eric Prud'hommeaux: is there a value to writing those rules as SHOULD, as parser-write will have to handle all cases anyway ←
15:22:02 <Guus> ack sandro
Guus Schreiber: ack sandro ←
15:22:02 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about rdf canonicalization (including bnodes)
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask about rdf canonicalization (including bnodes) ←
15:22:05 <swh> I see the value of having a recommendation for serilising triples
Steve Harris: I see the value of having a recommendation for serilising triples ←
15:22:18 <swh> but \r\n for e.g. isn't grep friendly
Steve Harris: but \r\n for e.g. isn't grep friendly ←
15:22:29 <yvesr> sandro: it would be interesting to have the whole document, including bnodes, to be canonicalised
Sandro Hawke: it would be interesting to have the whole document, including bnodes, to be canonicalised ←
15:22:49 <gavinc> mmm... graph isomorphism for fun and ... no, not profit
Gavin Carothers: mmm... graph isomorphism for fun and ... no, not profit ←
15:22:49 <yvesr> sandro: it would be nice to be able to compare whether two graphs are equal by just comparing their documents
Sandro Hawke: it would be nice to be able to compare whether two graphs are equal by just comparing their documents ←
15:22:49 <swh> canonicalising bNodes is hard
Steve Harris: canonicalising bNodes is hard ←
15:22:50 <ericP> i'd rather produce the profile when we have a whay to do whole document canonicalization
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i'd rather produce the profile when we have a whay to do whole document canonicalization ←
15:23:04 <Zakim> +LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF ←
15:23:24 <yvesr> ericP: if we waited for the canonicalisation, we would have a big chunk to give to the world
Eric Prud'hommeaux: if we waited for the canonicalisation, we would have a big chunk to give to the world ←
15:23:25 <gavinc> canonicalising bNodes is not only hard but GI-Hard
Gavin Carothers: canonicalising bNodes is not only hard but GI-Hard ←
15:23:49 <yvesr> sandro: canonical n-triples making it easier to write parsers
Sandro Hawke: canonical triples making it easier to write parsers ←
15:24:01 <yvesr> s/n-triples/triples
15:24:02 <Guus> ack manu1
Guus Schreiber: ack manu1 ←
15:24:02 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say this applies to JSON-LD Normalization.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say this applies to JSON-LD Normalization. ←
15:24:18 <yvesr> manu1: we have been working on this canonicalisation problem since a year
Manu Sporny: we have been working on this canonicalisation problem since a year ←
15:24:35 <yvesr> manu1: right now we serialize it to nquads (in json-ld)
Manu Sporny: right now we serialize it to nquads (in json-ld) ←
15:24:47 <gavinc> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_isomorphism_problem
Gavin Carothers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_isomorphism_problem ←
15:24:47 <yvesr> manu1: the tricky part is figuring out how many spaces you put between things
Manu Sporny: the tricky part is figuring out how many spaces you put between things ←
15:25:00 <manu1> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/rdf-graph-normalization/
Manu Sporny: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/rdf-graph-normalization/ ←
15:25:05 <yvesr> manu1: the very tricky part is figuring out the canonicalisation algorithm
Manu Sporny: the very tricky part is figuring out the canonicalisation algorithm ←
15:25:20 <yvesr> manu1: it can get very complicated
Manu Sporny: it can get very complicated ←
15:25:38 <yvesr> manu1: in the case of http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/rdf-graph-normalization/ the output is some very specific n-quad document
Manu Sporny: in the case of http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/rdf-graph-normalization/ the output is some very specific n-quad document ←
15:25:46 <swh> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:25:50 <yvesr> manu1: the graph normalisation algorithm is very hard
Manu Sporny: the graph normalisation algorithm is very hard ←
15:26:11 <yvesr> swh: some times you can't afford to do canonicalisation
Steve Harris: some times you can't afford to do canonicalisation ←
15:26:11 <Guus> acl swh
Guus Schreiber: acl swh ←
15:26:15 <yvesr> swh: especially on large graphs
Steve Harris: especially on large graphs ←
15:26:18 <Guus> ack swh
Guus Schreiber: ack swh ←
15:26:21 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:26:34 <Guus> ack sandro
Guus Schreiber: ack sandro ←
15:26:48 <gavinc> sandro++
Gavin Carothers: sandro++ ←
15:26:49 <cygri> sandro++
Richard Cyganiak: sandro++ ←
15:26:51 <yvesr> sandro: if the graph happens to be canonical, then the bytes in the documents will be the same for the two same graphs
Sandro Hawke: if the graph happens to be canonical, then the bytes in the documents will be the same for the two same graphs ←
15:27:02 <ericP> we speak of `grep`, but i think the only tool that's enabled by canonicalized whitespace is some peculiar use cases of `cut`
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we speak of `grep`, but i think the only tool that's enabled by canonicalized whitespace is some peculiar use cases of `cut` ←
15:27:06 <yvesr> sandro: that's one benefit of doing so
Sandro Hawke: that's one benefit of doing so ←
15:27:19 <yvesr> sandro: assuming canonicalisation handles b-nodes and triple ordering
Sandro Hawke: assuming canonicalisation handles b-nodes and triple ordering ←
15:27:44 <yvesr> manu1: as soon as you add b-nodes to the equation, it starts to be very hard to process large graphs
Manu Sporny: as soon as you add b-nodes to the equation, it starts to be very hard to process large graphs ←
15:27:54 <yvesr> manu1: we have not found a polynomial-time algorithm to do that
Manu Sporny: we have not found a polynomial-time algorithm to do that ←
15:27:58 <sandro> isnt graph isomorphism np-complete?
Sandro Hawke: isnt graph isomorphism np-complete? ←
15:28:11 <yvesr> manu1: the canonicalisation itself is easy to define though
Manu Sporny: the canonicalisation itself is easy to define though ←
15:28:21 <sandro> +1 :-)
Sandro Hawke: +1 :-) ←
15:28:36 <gavinc> sandro, GI-Hard
Gavin Carothers: sandro, GI-Hard ←
15:28:37 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
15:28:43 <ericP> Guus: how much does this matter to the Turtle document
Guus Schreiber: how much does this matter to the Turtle document [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
15:28:44 <pchampin> zakim, P6 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, P6 is me ←
15:28:44 <Zakim> sorry, pchampin, I do not recognize a party named 'P6'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, pchampin, I do not recognize a party named 'P6' ←
15:28:45 <gavinc> got it's very own complexity class
Gavin Carothers: got it's very own complexity class ←
15:28:48 <yvesr> Guus: let's move on to the second issue
Guus Schreiber: let's move on to the second issue ←
15:28:49 <manu1> gavinc: This doesn't have anything to do with TURTLE, so we can move on.
Gavin Carothers: This doesn't have anything to do with TURTLE, so we can move on. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:28:51 <sandro> Ah, I see.
Sandro Hawke: Ah, I see. ←
15:28:53 <pchampin> zakim, ??P6 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P6 is me ←
15:28:53 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:28:57 <ericP> gavinc: because we've separated N-Triples, absolutely none
Gavin Carothers: because we've separated N-Triples, absolutely none [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
15:29:29 <yvesr> sandro: strict vs. loose parsing - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0408.html
Sandro Hawke: strict vs. loose parsing - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0408.html ←
15:30:01 <yvesr> sandro: I tried implementing Turtle and realised I could make it much easier if I didn't bother to check in the lexer little bits of the URI syntax
Sandro Hawke: I tried implementing Turtle and realised I could make it much easier if I didn't bother to check in the lexer little bits of the URI syntax ←
15:30:07 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:30:15 <yvesr> sandro: the grammar of Turtle enforces some rules about what can be in an IRI
Sandro Hawke: the grammar of Turtle enforces some rules about what can be in an IRI ←
15:30:18 <LeeF> Is there a test case that distinguishes between it being enforced in the lexer versus being enforced higher up in the chain?
Lee Feigenbaum: Is there a test case that distinguishes between it being enforced in the lexer versus being enforced higher up in the chain? ←
15:30:30 <LeeF> Right, that's what I was expecting (what Sandro just said)
Lee Feigenbaum: Right, that's what I was expecting (what Sandro just said) ←
15:30:33 <yvesr> sandro: I could write a legitimate parser by taking it out
Sandro Hawke: I could write a legitimate parser by taking it out ←
15:30:45 <yvesr> sandro: We should at least state it
Sandro Hawke: We should at least state it ←
15:30:49 <swh> I don't see how it has any baring on the grammar
Steve Harris: I don't see how it has any baring on the grammar ←
15:30:52 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
15:31:34 <yvesr> cygri: two issues - is it ok to have a definition of what an IRI is in Turtle?
Richard Cyganiak: two issues - is it ok to have a definition of what an IRI is in Turtle? ←
15:31:36 <sandro> I've backed off the "fix them up" idea.
Sandro Hawke: I've backed off the "fix them up" idea. ←
15:31:43 <gavinc> +q to talk about the nature of the grammar
Gavin Carothers: +q to talk about the nature of the grammar ←
15:32:01 <yvesr> cygri: the other issue - editorial issue: how exactly valid IRIs in Turtle are described in the document
Richard Cyganiak: the other issue - editorial issue: how exactly valid IRIs in Turtle are described in the document ←
15:32:24 <yvesr> cygri: an option is to not define what's inside the angle bracket, and point to the IRI RFC
Richard Cyganiak: an option is to not define what's inside the angle bracket, and point to the IRI RFC ←
15:32:55 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:33:07 <yvesr> sandro: added to that there is a conformance issue
Sandro Hawke: added to that there is a conformance issue ←
15:33:23 <yvesr> sandro: can i have a conformant Turtle parser that accepts IRIs that are not in the Turtle grammar
Sandro Hawke: can i have a conformant Turtle parser that accepts IRIs that are not in the Turtle grammar ←
15:33:38 <yvesr> sandro: the tradition in our community has been that it was OK
Sandro Hawke: the tradition in our community has been that it was OK ←
15:33:50 <Guus> ack gavinc
Guus Schreiber: ack gavinc ←
15:33:50 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to talk about the nature of the grammar
Zakim IRC Bot: gavinc, you wanted to talk about the nature of the grammar ←
15:33:56 <yvesr> sandro: as long as I can call it a Turtle parser without that, it's OK
Sandro Hawke: as long as I can call it a Turtle parser without that, it's OK ←
15:34:08 <yvesr> gavinc: the grammar specifies a grammar, not *the* grammar
Gavin Carothers: the grammar specifies a grammar, not *the* grammar ←
15:34:30 <yvesr> gavinc: if you write a different grammar, for example one that uses different production rules for IRIs, it still meets the same rules
Gavin Carothers: if you write a different grammar, for example one that uses different production rules for IRIs, it still meets the same rules ←
15:34:35 <sandro> sandro: As long as I can implement a turtle parser that doesn't reject bad syntax-IRIs, I'm okay.
Sandro Hawke: As long as I can implement a turtle parser that doesn't reject bad syntax-IRIs, I'm okay. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:35:06 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:35:08 <yvesr> gavinc: what matters is if i put something that is not an IRI inside a <..>
Gavin Carothers: what matters is if i put something that is not an IRI inside a <..> ←
15:35:12 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:35:17 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:35:20 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
15:35:24 <ericP> q?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q? ←
15:35:26 <yvesr> gavinc: you can't have an RDF graph where one of the node isn't a literal or an IRI
Gavin Carothers: you can't have an RDF graph where one of the node isn't a literal or an IRI ←
15:35:43 <yvesr> sandro: checking whether something is in an IRI is incredibly hard
Sandro Hawke: checking whether something is in an IRI is incredibly hard ←
15:35:51 <yvesr> sandro: it's programmatically intractable
Sandro Hawke: it's programmatically intractable ←
15:35:56 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
15:36:05 <yvesr> sandro: what you can do is to have some heuristics checking whether it might be ok
Sandro Hawke: what you can do is to have some heuristics checking whether it might be ok ←
15:36:39 <yvesr> cygri: we should tightened up the conformance clause in Turtle
Richard Cyganiak: we should tightened up the conformance clause in Turtle ←
15:36:57 <yvesr> cygri: if there was another grammar that ends matching the same strings, then that's conformant
Richard Cyganiak: if there was another grammar that ends matching the same strings, then that's conformant ←
15:36:58 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
15:37:11 <swh> +1 to cygri
Steve Harris: +1 to cygri ←
15:37:16 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
15:37:17 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:37:20 <yvesr> cygri: the Turtle language is not its grammar
Richard Cyganiak: the Turtle language is not its grammar ←
15:37:27 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
15:37:27 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
15:37:29 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:37:33 <pchampin> +1
15:37:45 <sandro> +0 cyrgi. I can live with conformance defines Turtle Document, and says a Turtle Parser handles Turtle Documents, and is silent on how to handle non-Turtle documents.
Sandro Hawke: +0 cyrgi. I can live with conformance defines Turtle Document, and says a Turtle Parser handles Turtle Documents, and is silent on how to handle non-Turtle documents. ←
15:37:51 <yvesr> cygri: there are different needs for conformance for different situations
Richard Cyganiak: there are different needs for conformance for different situations ←
15:38:09 <yvesr> cygri: it naturally gives rise to a Turtle validator - it's obvious that we need it
Richard Cyganiak: it naturally gives rise to a Turtle validator - it's obvious that we need it ←
15:38:09 <sandro> q+ to ask about negative syntax tests
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask about negative syntax tests ←
15:38:17 <yvesr> cygri: it should dig into the IRIs and check their validity
Richard Cyganiak: it should dig into the IRIs and check their validity ←
15:38:20 <Guus> ack sandro
Guus Schreiber: ack sandro ←
15:38:20 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about negative syntax tests
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask about negative syntax tests ←
15:38:23 <yvesr> sandro: that's reasonable to me
Sandro Hawke: that's reasonable to me ←
15:38:33 <yvesr> sandro: we should include negative syntax test
Sandro Hawke: we should include negative syntax test ←
15:38:45 <yvesr> sandro: it would be OK to fail the negative syntax test
Sandro Hawke: it would be OK to fail the negative syntax test ←
15:39:24 <yvesr> cygri: according to what I said earlier, I would say no
Richard Cyganiak: according to what I said earlier, I would say no ←
15:39:28 <ericP> for the implementation report, can we go to PR witout any implementations passing the negative syntax tests?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: for the implementation report, can we go to PR witout any implementations passing the negative syntax tests? ←
15:39:42 <yvesr> sandro: we should mention this class of things that are Turtle validators
Sandro Hawke: we should mention this class of things that are Turtle validators ←
15:39:49 <yvesr> sandro: and that those negative tests apply to those
Sandro Hawke: and that those negative tests apply to those ←
15:39:51 <sandro> sandro: Maybe the negative syntax texts are only for Turtle Validators.
Sandro Hawke: Maybe the negative syntax texts are only for Turtle Validators. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:40:01 <yvesr> cygri: the html5 spec spells out all that, a good example to look at
Richard Cyganiak: the html5 spec spells out all that, a good example to look at ←
15:40:31 <yvesr> cygri: validators, user agents, etc.
Richard Cyganiak: validators, user agents, etc. ←
15:40:37 <ericP> i think talking about implementations, conformance levels etc, will make the spec much much bigger and more opaque
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think talking about implementations, conformance levels etc, will make the spec much much bigger and more opaque ←
15:40:58 <yvesr> Guus: I'd like to handle that while we're at the CR stage
Guus Schreiber: I'd like to handle that while we're at the CR stage ←
15:41:10 <cygri> ericP, read the html5 conformance section before saying that
Richard Cyganiak: ericP, read the html5 conformance section before saying that ←
15:41:23 <sandro> cygri, you're talking about http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#conformance-requirements ?
Sandro Hawke: cygri, you're talking about http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#conformance-requirements ? ←
15:41:27 <yvesr> gavinc: i think it's a 'do nothing' resolution
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think it's a 'do nothing' resolution ←
15:41:42 <gavinc> s/gavinc/ericP
15:41:46 <cygri> sandro, yes
Richard Cyganiak: sandro, yes ←
15:41:55 <yvesr> Guus: my take is that it requires a small rephrasing of the conformance note
Guus Schreiber: my take is that it requires a small rephrasing of the conformance note ←
15:42:03 <gavinc> It requires WRITING a conformence clause
Gavin Carothers: It requires WRITING a conformence clause ←
15:42:34 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:42:36 <yvesr> sandro: something that says that the grammar can be drammatically simplified
Sandro Hawke: something that says that the grammar can be drammatically simplified ←
15:43:25 <yvesr> cygri: it is a bad idea to say that - chances are that if you do not check the IRIs, you might break your system - because other components might
Richard Cyganiak: it is a bad idea to say that - chances are that if you do not check the IRIs, you might break your system - because other components might ←
15:43:40 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:43:42 <yvesr> cygri: I think it's not a good idea to tell to people they can cut corners
Richard Cyganiak: I think it's not a good idea to tell to people they can cut corners ←
15:43:48 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
15:43:54 <Guus> ack sandro
Guus Schreiber: ack sandro ←
15:44:02 <gavinc> ... ....
Gavin Carothers: ... .... ←
15:44:03 <yvesr> cygri: it's OK to phrase conformance slightly differently, but we shouldn't encourage to not check that
Richard Cyganiak: it's OK to phrase conformance slightly differently, but we shouldn't encourage to not check that ←
15:44:35 <gavinc> There are no RDF graphs that cannot be represented in Turtle
Gavin Carothers: There are no RDF graphs that cannot be represented in Turtle ←
15:44:35 <swh> we're talking about extreme corner cases here
Steve Harris: we're talking about extreme corner cases here ←
15:44:54 <yvesr> sandro: most systems are opaque with respect to IRIs
Sandro Hawke: most systems are opaque with respect to IRIs ←
15:45:15 <yvesr> swh: the most used parser at the moment does check them
Richard Cyganiak: the most used parser at the moment does check them ←
15:45:20 <yvesr> s/swh/cygri
15:45:22 <manu1> q+ to ask about what IRIs cannot be serialized in TURTLE - example?
Manu Sporny: q+ to ask about what IRIs cannot be serialized in TURTLE - example? ←
15:45:58 <sandro> manu, any IRI with | in it, for instance.
Sandro Hawke: manu, any IRI with | in it, for instance. ←
15:46:14 <manu1> q-
Manu Sporny: q- ←
15:46:23 <yvesr> cygri: we shouldn't specify error-handling - it is unlikely that there is one behavior that works for all situations
Richard Cyganiak: we shouldn't specify error-handling - it is unlikely that there is one behavior that works for all situations ←
15:46:32 <yvesr> cygri: we should leave the corner-cases unspecified
Richard Cyganiak: we should leave the corner-cases unspecified ←
15:46:44 <manu1> q+ to express concern over IRI opacity.
Manu Sporny: q+ to express concern over IRI opacity. ←
15:46:55 <yvesr> cygri: the cost/benefit decision is for implementers to make
Richard Cyganiak: the cost/benefit decision is for implementers to make ←
15:47:09 <yvesr> Guus: some of these things we can still handle at CR time
Guus Schreiber: some of these things we can still handle at CR time ←
15:47:17 <yvesr> sandro: we don't have to handle it now
Sandro Hawke: we don't have to handle it now ←
15:47:18 <manu1> q-
Manu Sporny: q- ←
15:47:47 <manu1> q+ to raise issue about NQuads in TURTLE...
Manu Sporny: q+ to raise issue about NQuads in TURTLE... ←
15:47:58 <yvesr> Guus: each meeting seems to float towards a Last Call graph, but we're still not there this week - i hope we can do it next week
Guus Schreiber: each meeting seems to float towards a Last Call graph, but we're still not there this week - i hope we can do it next week ←
15:48:21 <yvesr> manu1: I feel pretty strongly that we need named quads in turtle
Manu Sporny: I feel pretty strongly that we need named quads in turtle ←
15:48:35 <swh> we have discussed it a lot
Steve Harris: we have discussed it a lot ←
15:48:47 <cygri> manu1, there were a few emails about this
Richard Cyganiak: manu1, there were a few emails about this ←
15:48:50 <swh> Garlik/Experian WILL formally object to including quads in turtle
Steve Harris: Garlik/Experian WILL formally object to including quads in turtle ←
15:48:51 <cygri> 2000 or so
Richard Cyganiak: 2000 or so ←
15:48:51 <gavinc> This issue has been raised a number of times. Strong objections were raised as to making text/turtle produce quads rather than Triples
Gavin Carothers: This issue has been raised a number of times. Strong objections were raised as to making text/turtle produce quads rather than Triples ←
15:48:52 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:49:00 <yvesr> manu1: if we don't put it in there, people are going to abandon Turtle in the long run
Manu Sporny: if we don't put it in there, people are going to abandon Turtle in the long run ←
15:49:13 <yvesr> sandro: there's nothing wrong with that - people will move over to a better language
Sandro Hawke: there's nothing wrong with that - people will move over to a better language ←
15:49:36 <yvesr> manu1: if we solve that problem now, the cost to society is lower
Manu Sporny: if we solve that problem now, the cost to society is lower ←
15:49:46 <yvesr> sandro: perhaps we could specify it as an extension to this language
Sandro Hawke: perhaps we could specify it as an extension to this language ←
15:49:58 <yvesr> manu1: such migrations are not painless
Manu Sporny: such migrations are not painless ←
15:50:02 <gavinc> Please refer to perma thread on @graph, TriG, etc
Gavin Carothers: Please refer to perma thread on @graph, TriG, etc ←
15:50:29 <yvesr> manu1: is there anyone in the group who thinks that we don't need named graphs?
Manu Sporny: is there anyone in the group who thinks that we don't need named graphs? ←
15:50:51 <LeeF> Just roundtrip with trig instead, no?
Lee Feigenbaum: Just roundtrip with trig instead, no? ←
15:50:56 <sandro> manu, the problem is that GRAPHs turns out to be very hard for this group to sort out.
Sandro Hawke: manu, the problem is that GRAPHs turns out to be very hard for this group to sort out. ←
15:50:58 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:50:58 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:51:04 <yvesr> manu1: it would be good to be able to go from JSON-LD to Turtle and back to JSON-LD
Manu Sporny: it would be good to be able to go from JSON-LD to Turtle and back to JSON-LD ←
15:51:07 <gavinc> ack manu1
Gavin Carothers: ack manu1 ←
15:51:07 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to raise issue about NQuads in TURTLE...
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to raise issue about NQuads in TURTLE... ←
15:51:10 <Guus> ack sandro
Guus Schreiber: ack sandro ←
15:51:15 <cygri> ericP, twoples were a mistake already. uniples!
Richard Cyganiak: ericP, twoples were a mistake already. uniples! ←
15:51:17 <Guus> ack manu1
Guus Schreiber: ack manu1 ←
15:51:23 <yvesr> sandro: I think Turtle is well-understood as not including named graphs
Sandro Hawke: I think Turtle is well-understood as not including named graphs ←
15:51:30 <yvesr> sandro: if we include them, we need to come up with a different name
Sandro Hawke: if we include them, we need to come up with a different name ←
15:51:43 <ericP> +1 to sandro, we'll need a name like "Turtle" for a "turtle-like" language
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to sandro, we'll need a name like "Turtle" for a "turtle-like" language ←
15:51:46 <LeeF> I agree with Sandro.
Lee Feigenbaum: I agree with Sandro. ←
15:51:56 <LeeF> SteveH strongly agrees.
Lee Feigenbaum: SteveH strongly agrees. ←
15:52:05 <gavinc> Many people stronly agree
Gavin Carothers: Many people stronly agree ←
15:52:15 <yvesr> manu1: I am worried it's language proliferation all over again
Manu Sporny: I am worried it's language proliferation all over again ←
15:52:30 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
15:52:39 <yvesr> ivan: I disagree - I think the question about whether named graphs is important is rethorical
Ivan Herman: I disagree - I think the question about whether named graphs is important is rethorical ←
15:52:44 <sandro> I am totally sympathetic to manu's position .... but I don't think we can do it that way.
Sandro Hawke: I am totally sympathetic to manu's position .... but I don't think we can do it that way. ←
15:52:49 <yvesr> ivan: it has been the main topic of discussion in the group for months
Ivan Herman: it has been the main topic of discussion in the group for months ←
15:53:03 <yvesr> ivan: there should be a separate TriG - Turtle + Named Graphs
Ivan Herman: there should be a separate TriG - Turtle + Named Graphs ←
15:53:18 <yvesr> ivan: a number of existing deployment need to know in advance what's in the data
Ivan Herman: a number of existing deployment need to know in advance what's in the data ←
15:53:36 <yvesr> ivan: whether it is just Turtle or whether it includes Named Graphs as well
Ivan Herman: whether it is just Turtle or whether it includes Named Graphs as well ←
15:53:41 <sandro> -1 on Steve's requirement that graph-syntax and and turtle be disjoint.
Sandro Hawke: -1 on Steve's requirement that graph-syntax and and turtle be disjoint. ←
15:54:01 <yvesr> ivan: any Turtle documents should be a valid TriG document - it's not a different language
Ivan Herman: any Turtle documents should be a valid TriG document - it's not a different language ←
15:54:01 <pchampin> +∞
15:54:03 <sandro> +1 any turtle documement is a graph-syntax language.
Sandro Hawke: +1 any turtle documement is a graph-syntax language. ←
15:54:10 <manu1> I would be fine with TURTLE 2.0 including graph syntax.
Manu Sporny: I would be fine with TURTLE 2.0 including graph syntax. ←
15:54:11 <yvesr> ivan: it is separating the concepts very clearly
Ivan Herman: it is separating the concepts very clearly ←
15:54:21 <swh> objects is too strong
Steve Harris: objects is too strong ←
15:54:25 <manu1> (but this is something we need for Web Payments, PaySwarm and JSON-LD)
Manu Sporny: (but this is something we need for Web Payments, PaySwarm and JSON-LD) ←
15:54:26 <swh> q+ to explain
Steve Harris: q+ to explain ←
15:54:37 <swh> exactly :)
Steve Harris: exactly :) ←
15:55:00 <yvesr> ivan: when we get to the point where TriG is defined, JSON-LD has a round-trip with TriG
Ivan Herman: when we get to the point where TriG is defined, JSON-LD has a round-trip with TriG ←
15:55:25 <yvesr> manu1: I am deferring to the group, but I think it is a mistake
Manu Sporny: I am deferring to the group, but I think it is a mistake ←
15:55:32 <yvesr> Guus: we're going to leave at that for the moment
Guus Schreiber: we're going to leave at that for the moment ←
15:55:51 <yvesr> Guus: is next week possible for the Last Call?
Guus Schreiber: is next week possible for the Last Call? ←
15:56:15 <yvesr> gavinc: in the todo list, we need to find the balance between sandro and cygri's points
Gavin Carothers: in the todo list, we need to find the balance between sandro and cygri's points ←
15:56:26 <swh> q-
Steve Harris: q- ←
15:57:20 <yvesr> gavinc: validation, conformance, implementation may make the document more complicated
Eric Prud'hommeaux: validation, conformance, implementation may make the document more complicated ←
15:57:37 <gavinc> s/gavinc/ericP
15:57:45 <gavinc> +1 to cygri writing some text! :D
Gavin Carothers: +1 to cygri writing some text! :D ←
15:57:46 <yvesr> cygri: i could draft five sentences that I'd like to see in the conformance section
Richard Cyganiak: i could draft five sentences that I'd like to see in the conformance section ←
15:57:57 <sandro> +1 richard proposing text for Conformance
Sandro Hawke: +1 richard proposing text for Conformance ←
15:58:29 <yvesr> ACTION: cygri to draft five sentences for the conformance section in Turtle
ACTION: cygri to draft five sentences for the conformance section in Turtle ←
15:58:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-173 - Draft five sentences for the conformance section in Turtle [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-05-30].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-173 - Draft five sentences for the conformance section in Turtle [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-05-30]. ←
15:59:36 <manu1> For the record - I'm fine with N-Triples renamed as (Turtle Lite/Micro/etc.), Turtle as Turtle, TRiG as Turtle 1.1
Manu Sporny: For the record - I'm fine with N-Triples renamed as (Turtle Lite/Micro/etc.), Turtle as Turtle, TRiG as Turtle 1.1 ←
16:00:07 <sandro> sandro: And of course my non-validating Turtle Parser is going to allow @prefix/prefix to mix with period and non-period.
Sandro Hawke: And of course my non-validating Turtle Parser is going to allow @prefix/prefix to mix with period and non-period. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:00:46 <yvesr> Guus: let's move on to JSON-LD
Guus Schreiber: let's move on to JSON-LD ←
16:00:59 <yvesr> Guus: let's not have a long discussion on this
Guus Schreiber: let's not have a long discussion on this ←
16:01:20 <manu1> Topic: JSON-LD Syntax
16:01:22 <manu1> http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld-syntax/20120522/
Manu Sporny: http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld-syntax/20120522/ ←
16:04:22 <yvesr> manu1: the conversion from one language to another is an algorithmic thing
Manu Sporny: the conversion from one language to another is an algorithmic thing ←
16:04:40 <gavinc> HTML5 defines both, Turtle defines both, XML defines both
Gavin Carothers: HTML5 defines both, Turtle defines both, XML defines both ←
16:04:41 <ericP> q+
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ ←
16:04:45 <yvesr> sandro: JSON-LD is a syntax without semantics atm - we're suggesting it should have semantics, that mapped to RDF
Sandro Hawke: JSON-LD is a syntax without semantics atm - we're suggesting it should have semantics, that mapped to RDF ←
16:04:58 <ericP> q+ to discuss mechanics of a community WD review and tracking down how to interpret the JSON-LD document
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to discuss mechanics of a community WD review and tracking down how to interpret the JSON-LD document ←
16:05:11 <yvesr> manu1: if the issue is that it's not clear what the RDF mapping is, then it is in the JSON-LD API
Manu Sporny: if the issue is that it's not clear what the RDF mapping is, then it is in the JSON-LD API ←
16:05:25 <yvesr> manu1: it would be weird for the group to publish one document without the other
Manu Sporny: it would be weird for the group to publish one document without the other ←
16:05:42 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:05:45 <yvesr> manu1: that API document needs to be published through the W3C in some form either way
Manu Sporny: that API document needs to be published through the W3C in some form either way ←
16:05:51 <Guus> ack ericP
Guus Schreiber: ack ericP ←
16:06:13 <yvesr> manu1: we shouldn't make a big editorial decision to tackle an issue around how the document will be published
Manu Sporny: we shouldn't make a big editorial decision to tackle an issue around how the document will be published ←
16:06:22 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to discuss mechanics of a community WD review and tracking down how to interpret the JSON-LD document
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to discuss mechanics of a community WD review and tracking down how to interpret the JSON-LD document ←
16:06:51 <yvesr> ericP: we could have a first public working draft that would point to one fairly stable document that has the API, stating that it will be standardised
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we could have a first public working draft that would point to one fairly stable document that has the API, stating that it will be standardised ←
16:06:57 <manu1> q+ to say that we could do a FPWD for JSON-LD API
Manu Sporny: q+ to say that we could do a FPWD for JSON-LD API ←
16:07:20 <yvesr> ericP: are the semantics the way that the developers are going to use JSON-LD?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: are the semantics the way that the developers are going to use JSON-LD? ←
16:08:02 <yvesr> ericP: there is a community that consumes JSON as a wire format, and who won't commit to the JSON API
Eric Prud'hommeaux: there is a community that consumes JSON as a wire format, and who won't commit to the JSON API ←
16:08:17 <yvesr> ericP: what makes editorial sense for one community doesn't alienate the other community
Eric Prud'hommeaux: what makes editorial sense for one community doesn't alienate another community ←
16:08:23 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
16:08:24 <yvesr> s/the other/another
16:08:35 <manu1> My current concerns about JSON-LD in RDF WG:
Manu Sporny: My current concerns about JSON-LD in RDF WG: ←
16:08:37 <manu1> * The primary contributors of JSON-LD are not Invited Experts in RDF WG and
Manu Sporny: * The primary contributors of JSON-LD are not Invited Experts in RDF WG and ←
16:08:39 <manu1> thus can't take part in the conversation on the mailing list / in the group.
Manu Sporny: thus can't take part in the conversation on the mailing list / in the group. ←
16:08:41 <manu1> * Bringing the RDF WG up-to-speed with JSON-LD - what is the most efficient way?
Manu Sporny: * Bringing the RDF WG up-to-speed with JSON-LD - what is the most efficient way? ←
16:08:42 <manu1> * Do a FPWD as soon as possible after everyone knows what is going on.
Manu Sporny: * Do a FPWD as soon as possible after everyone knows what is going on. ←
16:08:44 <manu1> * How are issues handled? JSON-LD issue tracker, or RDF WG issue tracker?
Manu Sporny: * How are issues handled? JSON-LD issue tracker, or RDF WG issue tracker? ←
16:08:46 <manu1> * Time-box JSON-LD stages to ensure rapid progress?
Manu Sporny: * Time-box JSON-LD stages to ensure rapid progress? ←
16:08:53 <Guus> ack manu1
Guus Schreiber: ack manu1 ←
16:08:53 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say that we could do a FPWD for JSON-LD API
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say that we could do a FPWD for JSON-LD API ←
16:09:05 <yvesr> ivan: if this group publishes both the syntax and the API, then there has to be some clearer references, and then there is no problem
Ivan Herman: if this group publishes both the syntax and the API, then there has to be some clearer references, and then there is no problem ←
16:09:20 <yvesr> ivan: there is no major issue in the split in two documents
Ivan Herman: there is no major issue in the split in two documents ←
16:09:31 <yvesr> ivan: however only one document was submitted to this WG
Ivan Herman: however only one document was submitted to this WG ←
16:09:37 <yvesr> ivan: why was the other document omitted?
Ivan Herman: why was the other document omitted? ←
16:09:52 <yvesr> ivan: let's try to see if we can publish both documents within this WG
Ivan Herman: let's try to see if we can publish both documents within this WG ←
16:10:24 <yvesr> Guus: please come back to the WG with how you want to go forward
Guus Schreiber: please come back to the WG with how you want to go forward ←
16:10:32 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
16:10:47 <cygri> personally, i'm not much interested in the JSON API, but I'm very interested in the RDF mapping
Richard Cyganiak: personally, i'm not much interested in the JSON API, but I'm very interested in the RDF mapping ←
16:10:52 <sandro> but that doesn't mean we're interested in both.
Sandro Hawke: but that doesn't mean we're interested in both. ←
16:11:07 <yvesr> Guus: the group is only interested if there's a clear link to RDF, which currently is in the API
Guus Schreiber: the group is only interested if there's a clear link to RDF, which currently is in the API ←
16:11:27 <yvesr> Guus: please send your message with also a link to the API
Guus Schreiber: please send your message with also a link to the API ←
16:11:30 <yvesr> manu1: ok
Manu Sporny: ok ←
16:11:35 <Arnaud> I won't take more time on the call but I'm unclear as to the status of the JSON-LD spec
Arnaud Le Hors: I won't take more time on the call but I'm unclear as to the status of the JSON-LD spec ←
16:11:58 <manu1> Arnaud: JSON-LD Syntax spec is ready for a FPWD... this group is attempting to decide if they're going to publish it as a FPWD.
Arnaud Le Hors: JSON-LD Syntax spec is ready for a FPWD... this group is attempting to decide if they're going to publish it as a FPWD. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:12:01 <yvesr> Topic: RDF Concepts WD
16:12:02 <Arnaud> and what it will take from a legal point of view for the WG to pick it up
Arnaud Le Hors: and what it will take from a legal point of view for the WG to pick it up ←
16:12:10 <ivan> Arnaud: at the moment it is a document produced by a community group
Arnaud Le Hors: at the moment it is a document produced by a community group [ Scribe Assist by Ivan Herman ] ←
16:12:15 <yvesr> Guus: should we do a republication of the RDF Concepts Working Draft
Guus Schreiber: should we do a republication of the RDF Concepts Working Draft ←
16:12:35 <gavinc> Would like to publish with N-Triples FPWD, Turtle LC
Gavin Carothers: Would like to publish with N-Triples FPWD, Turtle LC ←
16:12:49 <yvesr> cygri: there are still a number of issues open, but only in two categories
Richard Cyganiak: there are still a number of issues open, but only in two categories ←
16:12:49 <Arnaud> there is a defined process to move a community spec to a wg, regarding copyrights and licensing commitments
Arnaud Le Hors: there is a defined process to move a community spec to a wg, regarding copyrights and licensing commitments ←
16:12:58 <yvesr> cygri: 1) editorial stuff, 2) graphs
Richard Cyganiak: 1) editorial stuff, 2) graphs ←
16:13:09 <yvesr> cygri: the second category might take a bit more time
Richard Cyganiak: the second category might take a bit more time ←
16:13:12 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:13:25 <Arnaud> and I think this is the first instance of practicing this process
Arnaud Le Hors: and I think this is the first instance of practicing this process ←
16:13:25 <yvesr> cygri: all the rest have been sorted out - so it's a good time to publish a revised WD
Richard Cyganiak: all the rest have been sorted out - so it's a good time to publish a revised WD ←
16:13:30 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
16:13:46 <yvesr> ivan: do we really have a formal decision on the HTML datatype?
Ivan Herman: do we really have a formal decision on the HTML datatype? ←
16:13:48 <yvesr> Guus: yes
Guus Schreiber: yes ←
16:14:04 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/63
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/63 ←
16:14:11 <cygri> RESOLVED: to accept the resolution to ISSUE 63 as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0222.html but without the definition of the canonical mapping
RESOLVED: to accept the resolution to ISSUE-63 as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0222.html but without the definition of the canonical mapping ←
16:14:36 <yvesr> ivan: then I am perfectly happy publishing a revised draft
Ivan Herman: then I am perfectly happy publishing a revised draft ←
16:15:21 <yvesr> PROPOSED: Publishing a revised version of RDF Concepts
PROPOSED: Publishing a revised version of RDF Concepts ←
16:15:21 <gavinc> +1 perfer timing with Turtle LC, N-Triples FPWD but won't stand in the way
Gavin Carothers: +1 perfer timing with Turtle LC, N-Triples FPWD but won't stand in the way ←
16:15:29 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
16:15:29 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:15:31 <yvesr> +1
+1 ←
16:15:33 <pchampin> +1
16:15:35 <tbaker> +0
Thomas Baker: +0 ←
16:15:35 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
16:15:36 <swh> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
16:15:36 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
16:15:48 <cygri> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#
Richard Cyganiak: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html# ←
16:16:07 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
16:16:22 <sandro> +0
Sandro Hawke: +0 ←
16:16:28 <yvesr> RESOLVED: Publishing a revised version of RDF Concepts
RESOLVED: Publishing a revised version of RDF Concepts ←
16:16:34 <gavinc> Link with version encoded http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/bb711b18e3fc/rdf-concepts/index.html
Gavin Carothers: Link with version encoded http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/bb711b18e3fc/rdf-concepts/index.html ←
16:16:45 <yvesr> Guus: we're now out of time
Guus Schreiber: we're now out of time ←
16:17:00 <gavinc> +1 to 15 more minutes to resolve the Graph issues
Gavin Carothers: +1 to 15 more minutes to resolve the Graph issues ←
16:17:04 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:17:12 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
16:17:14 <pchampin> +1
16:17:39 <yvesr> Topic: Named Graphs
16:17:55 <cygri> ISSUE-5 Graph literals http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/5
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-5 Graph literals http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/5 ←
16:18:01 <yvesr> cygri: the first issue is ISSUE-5 on graph literals
Richard Cyganiak: the first issue is ISSUE-5 on graph literals ←
16:18:11 <yvesr> cygri: is it necessary to define some literal datatype for graphs?
Richard Cyganiak: is it necessary to define some literal datatype for graphs? ←
16:18:26 <Arnaud> sorry, I have to drop off
Arnaud Le Hors: sorry, I have to drop off ←
16:18:38 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:18:47 <yvesr> cygri: the proposal is to close this issue - we don't need such a datatype
Richard Cyganiak: the proposal is to close this issue - we don't need such a datatype ←
16:18:52 <cygri> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-5 ("Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?"), saying No, we should not.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-5 ("Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?"), saying No, we should not. ←
16:19:04 <gavinc> Peter F. Patel-Schneider votes +1 to no graph literals
Gavin Carothers: Peter F. Patel-Schneider votes +1 to no graph literals ←
16:19:09 <swh> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
16:19:17 <Zakim> -manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1 ←
16:19:25 <ivan> +0.5
Ivan Herman: +0.5 ←
16:19:26 <Guus> Andy: +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Guus Schreiber ] ←
16:19:29 <yvesr> +0
+0 ←
16:19:31 <AZ> +0
Antoine Zimmermann: +0 ←
16:19:38 <sandro> +0
Sandro Hawke: +0 ←
16:19:40 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
16:19:44 <tbaker> +0
Thomas Baker: +0 ←
16:19:45 <cygri> there was +1 from pat too
Richard Cyganiak: there was +1 from pat too ←
16:19:46 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
16:19:54 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
16:20:02 <gavinc> Pat Hayes votes +1
Gavin Carothers: Pat Hayes votes +1 ←
16:20:23 <yvesr> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-5 ("Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?"), saying No, we should not.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-5 ("Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?"), saying No, we should not. ←
16:20:35 <cygri> ISSUE-28 Syntactic nesting of g-texts http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/28
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-28 Syntactic nesting of g-texts http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/28 ←
16:20:35 <yvesr> Guus: moving to ISSUE-28
Guus Schreiber: moving to ISSUE-28 ←
16:21:01 <yvesr> cygri: do we need to support nesting in graphs? especially as N3 supports it
Richard Cyganiak: do we need to support nesting in graphs? especially as N3 supports it ←
16:21:03 <cygri> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- the use cases presented to the WG can be addressed without, and making syntactic nesting pay off would require additional logic machinery that's beyond this WG's scope.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- the use cases presented to the WG can be addressed without, and making syntactic nesting pay off would require additional logic machinery that's beyond this WG's scope. ←
16:21:06 <yvesr> cygri: is it OK to do without that?
Richard Cyganiak: is it OK to do without that? ←
16:21:43 <gavinc> Peter F. Patel-Schneider votes +1
Gavin Carothers: Peter F. Patel-Schneider votes +1 ←
16:21:45 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
16:21:56 <gavinc> AndyS votes +1
Gavin Carothers: AndyS votes +1 ←
16:22:06 <sandro> +0 okay with proposal; don't agree it's beyond our scope. still, compatibility with sparql requires no nesting of datasets
Sandro Hawke: +0 okay with proposal; don't agree it's beyond our scope. still, compatibility with sparql requires no nesting of datasets ←
16:22:10 <yvesr> +0.5
+0.5 ←
16:22:24 <swh> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
16:22:40 <yvesr> ivan: a different statement is that it is beyond what the WG can reasonably do in a limited time
Ivan Herman: a different statement is that it is beyond what the WG can reasonably do in a limited time ←
16:22:44 <cygri> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- the use cases presented to the WG can be addressed without, and making syntactic nesting pay off would require additional logic machinery that's beyond this WG's timeframe
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- the use cases presented to the WG can be addressed without, and making syntactic nesting pay off would require additional logic machinery that's beyond this WG's timeframe ←
16:22:57 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:22:58 <yvesr> +0.5
+0.5 ←
16:23:00 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
16:23:01 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
16:23:01 <pchampin> +1
16:23:03 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
16:23:03 <sandro> +0.5
Sandro Hawke: +0.5 ←
16:23:11 <swh> +0.5
Steve Harris: +0.5 ←
16:23:18 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
16:23:32 <yvesr> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- the use cases presented to the WG can be addressed without, and making syntactic nesting pay off would require additional logic machinery that's beyond this WG's timeframe
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- the use cases presented to the WG can be addressed without, and making syntactic nesting pay off would require additional logic machinery that's beyond this WG's timeframe ←
16:23:32 <tbaker> +0
Thomas Baker: +0 ←
16:23:42 <cygri> ISSUE-29 Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/29
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-29 Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/29 ←
16:23:44 <swh> [for the record I think it would be huge mistake]
Steve Harris: [for the record I think it would be huge mistake] ←
16:24:24 <yvesr> swh: trying to standardise nested graphs without implementation experience would be a mistake
Steve Harris: trying to standardise nested graphs without implementation experience would be a mistake ←
16:24:30 <sandro> swh: "it" being "standardizing nested graphs"
Steve Harris: "it" being "standardizing nested graphs" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:24:40 <LeeF> Stop causing trouble, steve :)
Lee Feigenbaum: Stop causing trouble, steve :) ←
16:24:55 <swh> +1 to LeeF
Steve Harris: +1 to LeeF ←
16:25:08 <cygri> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-29 (Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"?'), Yes, we do.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-29 (Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"?'), Yes, we do. ←
16:25:09 <gavinc> Peter F. Patel-Schneider votes +1 to RDF datasets, even without semantics, provide the necessary machinery
Gavin Carothers: Peter F. Patel-Schneider votes +1 to RDF datasets, even without semantics, provide the necessary machinery ←
16:25:13 <yvesr> cygri: should we include a default graph
Richard Cyganiak: should we include a default graph ←
16:25:15 <gavinc> AndyS votes +1
Gavin Carothers: AndyS votes +1 ←
16:25:15 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:25:20 <yvesr> cygri: there's an obvious case for it
Richard Cyganiak: there's an obvious case for it ←
16:25:20 <swh> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
16:25:21 <yvesr> +1
+1 ←
16:25:21 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:25:24 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
16:25:25 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
16:25:30 <gavinc> PatH votes +1
Gavin Carothers: PatH votes +1 ←
16:25:33 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
16:25:34 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
16:25:44 <tbaker> +1
Thomas Baker: +1 ←
16:26:15 <yvesr> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-29 (Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"?'), Yes, we do.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-29 (Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"?'), Yes, we do. ←
16:26:35 <cygri> ISSUE-30 Relation RDF Datasets with multiple graphs http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/30
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-30 Relation RDF Datasets with multiple graphs http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/30 ←
16:26:40 <cygri> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-30 ("How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?"), saying we will use SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset as much of the foundation of our handling of multiple graphs.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-30 ("How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?"), saying we will use SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset as much of the foundation of our handling of multiple graphs. ←
16:26:55 <yvesr> cygri: this issue is almost not worth spending any time on it
Richard Cyganiak: this issue is almost not worth spending any time on it ←
16:27:04 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:27:08 <swh> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
16:27:09 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:27:12 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
16:27:15 <yvesr> cygri: in terms of the abstract syntax we accept the SPARQL thing: pairs of IRIs and graphs and a default graph
Richard Cyganiak: in terms of the abstract syntax we accept the SPARQL thing: pairs of IRIs and graphs and a default graph ←
16:27:15 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
16:27:18 <yvesr> +1
+1 ←
16:27:26 <gavinc> Peter F. Patel-Schneider: +1 to RDF datasets, even without semantics, provide this facility
Gavin Carothers: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: +1 to RDF datasets, even without semantics, provide this facility ←
16:27:26 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
16:27:30 <gavinc> AndyS: +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
16:27:31 <tbaker> +1
Thomas Baker: +1 ←
16:27:33 <gavinc> PathH: +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
16:27:36 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
16:27:38 <yvesr> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-30 ("How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?"), saying we will use SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset as much of the foundation of our handling of multiple graphs.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-30 ("How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?"), saying we will use SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset as much of the foundation of our handling of multiple graphs. ←
16:27:46 <cygri> ISSUE-33 Mechanism to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/33
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-33 Mechanism to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/33 ←
16:28:06 <cygri> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-33 ("Do we provide a way to refer sub-graphs and/or individual triples?"), with the understanding that datasets can be used to refer to sub-graphs and individual triples.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-33 ("Do we provide a way to refer sub-graphs and/or individual triples?"), with the understanding that datasets can be used to refer to sub-graphs and individual triples. ←
16:28:07 <cygri> [edit]
Richard Cyganiak: [edit] ←
16:28:15 <yvesr> cygri: there was a proposal that we should not have graph identifiers, but triple identifiers
Richard Cyganiak: there was a proposal that we should not have graph identifiers, but triple identifiers ←
16:28:18 <gavinc> Peter F. Patel-Schneider: +1 to RDF datasets, even without semantics, provide enough here.
Gavin Carothers: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: +1 to RDF datasets, even without semantics, provide enough here. ←
16:28:26 <yvesr> cygri: counter-argument was that we don't really need that - graphs with one triple are OK
Richard Cyganiak: counter-argument was that we don't really need that - graphs with one triple are OK ←
16:28:31 <gavinc> PatH: +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
16:28:34 <gavinc> AndyS: +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
16:28:36 <sandro> +1 triples and subgraphs are special cases of graphs
Sandro Hawke: +1 triples and subgraphs are special cases of graphs ←
16:28:36 <yvesr> cygri: and then we don't need to do anything special about it
Richard Cyganiak: and then we don't need to do anything special about it ←
16:28:41 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:28:44 <FabGandon> +1
Fabien Gandon: +1 ←
16:28:45 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
16:28:46 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
16:28:47 <tbaker> +1
Thomas Baker: +1 ←
16:28:49 <yvesr> does it address the sub-graph case
does it address the sub-graph case ←
16:28:59 <sandro> (understanding that this does NOT rule out sharing blank nodes between named graphs)
Sandro Hawke: (understanding that this does NOT rule out sharing blank nodes between named graphs) ←
16:30:40 <pchampin> +1
16:31:01 <yvesr> yvesr: does it tackle the sub-graph issue as well?
Yves Raimond: does it tackle the sub-graph issue as well? ←
16:31:21 <cygri> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-33 ("Do we provide a way to refer sub-graphs and/or individual triples?"), with the understanding that datasets can be used to refer to sub-graphs and individual triples. This does NOT rule out sharing blank nodes between named graphs.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-33 ("Do we provide a way to refer sub-graphs and/or individual triples?"), with the understanding that datasets can be used to refer to sub-graphs and individual triples. This does NOT rule out sharing blank nodes between named graphs. ←
16:31:25 <yvesr> cygri: you can create a new graph for the sub-graph, it is an implementation issue to deal with that without bloating the storage
Richard Cyganiak: you can create a new graph for the sub-graph, it is an implementation issue to deal with that without bloating the storage ←
16:31:27 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:31:31 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
16:31:39 <yvesr> cygri: happy to find some phrasing that makes that clearer though
Richard Cyganiak: happy to find some phrasing that makes that clearer though ←
16:31:50 <yvesr> +1
+1 ←
16:32:08 <gavinc> AndyS: +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
16:32:13 <gavinc> PatH: +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
16:32:19 <tbaker> +0.5
Thomas Baker: +0.5 ←
16:32:23 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:32:56 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to work with yves on informative text regarding avoiding duplication for subgraphs
ACTION: cygri to work with yves on informative text regarding avoiding duplication for subgraphs ←
16:32:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-174 - Work with yves on informative text regarding avoiding duplication for subgraphs [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-05-30].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-174 - Work with yves on informative text regarding avoiding duplication for subgraphs [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-05-30]. ←
16:32:56 <swh> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
16:33:01 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
16:33:11 <yvesr> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-33 ("Do we provide a way to refer sub-graphs and/or individual triples?"), with the understanding that datasets can be used to refer to sub-graphs and individual triples. This does NOT rule out sharing blank nodes between named graphs.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-33 ("Do we provide a way to refer sub-graphs and/or individual triples?"), with the understanding that datasets can be used to refer to sub-graphs and individual triples. This does NOT rule out sharing blank nodes between named graphs. ←
16:33:44 <Zakim> -gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -gavinc ←
16:33:45 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:33:46 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
16:33:47 <Zakim> -cygri
Zakim IRC Bot: -cygri ←
16:33:47 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:33:49 <Zakim> -tbaker
Zakim IRC Bot: -tbaker ←
16:33:51 <Zakim> -FabGandon
Zakim IRC Bot: -FabGandon ←
16:33:55 <Zakim> -yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: -yvesr ←
16:33:57 <Zakim> -swh
Zakim IRC Bot: -swh ←
16:33:59 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
16:34:03 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
16:34:07 <Zakim> -Tony
Scribe problem: the name 'Tony' does not match any of the 50 active names. Either change the name used, or request the list of names be altered.Active names: Jean-François Baget Thomas Baker Adrien BASSE Scott Bauer Aidan Boran Dan Brickley Matteo Brunati Gaoussou CAMARA Gavin Carothers Jeremy Carroll Pierre-Antoine Champin Kiu Ching Chieh Olivier Corby Richard Cyganiak Souripriya Das Lee Feigenbaum Fabien Gandon Charles Greer Alex Hall Steve Harris Michael Hausenblas Sandro Hawke Patrick Hayes Ivan Herman Nicholas Humfrey Kingsley Idehen Gregg Kellogg Arnaud Le Hors Dickson Lukose Ivan Mikhailov Peter Patel-Schneider Eric Prud'hommeaux Yves Raimond Nathan Rixham Guus Schreiber Andy Seaborne Manu Sporny Thomas Steiner Mouhamadou THIAM Ted Thibodeau Thomas Visel William Waites Jan Wielemaker David Wood Zhe Wu Mohamed ZERGAOUI Antoine Zimmermann Zakim IRC Bot Trackbot IRC Bot RRSAgent IRC Bot
Zakim IRC Bot: -Tony ←
16:34:33 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
16:36:10 <Guus> trackbot, end meeting
Guus Schreiber: trackbot, end meeting ←
16:36:10 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
16:36:10 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Guus, yvesr, AZ, EricP, Sandro, Tony, Arnaud, gavinc, manu1, swh, cygri, Ivan, tbaker, FabGandon, LeeF, pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been Guus, yvesr, AZ, EricP, Sandro, Tony, Arnaud, gavinc, manu1, swh, cygri, Ivan, tbaker, FabGandon, LeeF, pchampin ←
16:36:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
16:36:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot ←
16:36:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
16:36:21 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rdf-wg-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rdf-wg-actions.rdf : ←
16:36:24 <RRSAgent> ACTION: cygri to draft five sentences for the conformance section in Turtle [1]
ACTION: cygri to draft five sentences for the conformance section in Turtle [1] ←
16:36:26 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rdf-wg-irc#T15-58-29
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rdf-wg-irc#T15-58-29 ←
16:36:27 <RRSAgent> ACTION: cygri to work with yves on informative text regarding avoiding duplication for subgraphs [2]
ACTION: cygri to work with yves on informative text regarding avoiding duplication for subgraphs [2] ←
16:36:30 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rdf-wg-irc#T16-32-59
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rdf-wg-irc#T16-32-59 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2012-05-30 11:28:36 UTC by 'unknown', comments: None