RDF WG F2F3

Minutes of 29 October 2012

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/FTF3#Day_1
Seen
Andy Seaborne, Antoine Zimmermann, Arnaud Le Hors, David Wood, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Fabien Gandon, Gavin Carothers, Gregg Kellogg, Guus Schreiber, Ivan Herman, Patrick Hayes, Pierre-Antoine Champin, Richard Cyganiak, Sandro Hawke, Scott Bauer, Shaoib Mufti, Steve Speicher, Ted Thibodeau, Tim Berners-Lee, Yves Raimond
Guests
Steve Speicher, Shaoib Mufti, Tim Berners-Lee
Chair
David Wood, Guus Schreiber
Scribe
Eric Prud'hommeaux, Arnaud Le Hors, Sandro Hawke, Antoine Zimmermann, Richard Cyganiak
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. New Note: "RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide" link
  2. Close ISSUE-77 marking rdf:Seq as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs) link
  3. Close ISSUE-14. We're sticking with the SPARQL definition of Named Graphs. Informative text will explain that “named” isn't to be taken too literally, and that “named graph” often refers only to the graph part of the pair. link
  4. Close ISSUE-15, the relationship is undefined. link
  5. Close ISSUE-17 -- there is no general purpose way to merge datasets; it can only be done with external knowledge. link
  6. Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps. link
  7. Semantics editors accept an action to add the missing inference rule as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9 link
  8. The Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples link
  9. Our CR exit criterion for Turtle will be: two or more implementations passing all the approved tests in the test suite. link
  10. Close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE link
Topics
07:55:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc

07:55:32 <sandro> zakim, dial Rhone_4

Sandro Hawke: zakim, dial Rhone_4

07:55:32 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is

07:55:40 <sandro> zakim, this will be rdf

Sandro Hawke: zakim, this will be rdf

07:55:40 <Zakim> ok, sandro; I see SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM scheduled to start 115 minutes ago

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; I see SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM scheduled to start 115 minutes ago

07:56:22 <sandro> zakim, dial Rhone_4

Sandro Hawke: zakim, dial Rhone_4

07:56:22 <Zakim> ok, sandro; the call is being made

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

07:56:23 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM has now started

07:56:25 <Zakim> +Rhone_4

Zakim IRC Bot: +Rhone_4

08:31:58 <sandro> gkellogg, manu1 you're asleep, I imagine.

(No events recorded for 35 minutes)

Sandro Hawke: gkellogg, manu1 you're asleep, I imagine.

08:31:59 <sandro> but we're on the phone.

Sandro Hawke: but we're on the phone.

08:41:19 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?

(No events recorded for 9 minutes)

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer?

08:41:19 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc#T08-41-19

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc#T08-41-19

08:41:25 <sandro> scribe: eric

(Scribe set to Eric Prud'hommeaux)

08:42:23 <sandro> meeting: RDF WG F2F3
08:42:31 <sandro> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/FTF3#Day_1
08:42:35 <sandro> chair: David, Guus
08:51:45 <sandro> Guest: Steve Speicher
08:42:57 <sandro> RRSAgent, make record public

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make record public

08:47:34 <ericP> topic: Introductions

1. Introductions

08:47:50 <ericP> ericP: W3C, HCLS RDF geekery

Eric Prud'hommeaux: W3C, HCLS RDF geekery

08:48:05 <ericP> sandro: RDF geekery, eGov

Sandro Hawke: RDF geekery, eGov

08:48:22 <ericP> FabGandon: expertise in KR

Fabien Gandon: expertise in KR

08:48:32 <ericP> cygri: DERI galway ireland

Richard Cyganiak: DERI galway ireland

08:48:42 <ericP> ... databases, RDF sparql

... databases, RDF sparql

08:49:00 <ericP> Arnaud: standards guy at IBM, ex W3C staff

Arnaud Le Hors: standards guy at IBM, ex W3C staff

08:49:18 <ericP> pchampin: univ lyon (500m away)

Pierre-Antoine Champin: univ lyon (500m away)

08:49:25 <ericP> ivan: w3c

Ivan Herman: w3c

08:50:00 <ericP> FabGandon: ac rep of INRIA, was in this group until falling into an administrative black hole

Fabien Gandon: ac rep of INRIA, was in this group until falling into an administrative black hole

08:50:35 <ericP> Steve Speicher: IBM rational, member of LDP, using Rdf for tool integration

Steve Speicher: IBM rational, member of LDP, using Rdf for tool integration

08:51:09 <ericP> yves raimond: BBC, linked data for media industry

yves raimond: BBC, linked data for media industry

08:51:53 <ericP> @@1: yarcdata, eureka (rdf triple store), observer

Shoaib Mufti: yarcdata, eureka (rdf triple store), observer

08:52:23 <ericP> davidwood: selling RDF for food

David Wood: selling RDF for food

08:52:48 <ericP> Guus: prof of computer science in web and media at univ amsterdam

Guus Schreiber: prof of computer science in web and media at univ amsterdam

08:52:56 <ericP> ... working in cultural heritage

... working in cultural heritage

08:53:24 <ericP> s/@@1/Shoaib Mufti/
08:53:50 <sandro> Guest: Shaoib Mufti
08:55:34 <ericP> topic: Objectives

2. Objectives

08:56:17 <ericP> davidwood: agenda organized around deliverable documents

David Wood: agenda organized around deliverable documents

08:56:25 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F3-objectives deliverable documents

-> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F3-objectives deliverable documents

08:56:59 <ericP> davidwood: Concepts, Turtle, JSON-LD are close

David Wood: Concepts, Turtle, JSON-LD are close

08:57:35 <ericP> Guus, JSON-LD not strictly in the critical path (for charter extension)

Guus, JSON-LD not strictly in the critical path (for charter extension)

08:57:39 <ericP> Guus: JSON-LD not strictly in the critical path (for charter extension)

Guus Schreiber: JSON-LD not strictly in the critical path (for charter extension)

08:58:07 <ericP> sandro: we need to be done with anything controversial

Sandro Hawke: we need to be done with anything controversial

08:59:26 <ericP> ivan: good if we have core docs at LC (Concepts) or CR (Turtle)

Ivan Herman: good if we have core docs at LC (Concepts) or CR (Turtle)

09:00:04 <ericP> davidwood: some of these docs don't require much update: XML and schema

David Wood: some of these docs don't require much update: XML and schema

09:00:09 <ericP> ... get to primer later

... get to primer later

09:00:38 <ericP> ivan: the primer is a note in many WGs

Ivan Herman: the primer is a note in many WGs

09:01:00 <ericP> sandro: though it's already a REC in RDF.

Sandro Hawke: though it's already a REC in RDF.

09:06:49 <ivan> s/@@1/Shoaib Mufti/
09:07:25 <cygri> topic: Migration Guide

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

3. Migration Guide

09:07:27 <ericP> cygri: we should discuss a document or sections in other docs about upgrading from RDF 1.0

Richard Cyganiak: we should discuss a document or sections in other docs about upgrading from RDF 1.0

09:08:13 <ericP> ... should address the fear that the change that 1.0->1.1 breaks stuff

... should address the fear that the change that 1.0->1.1 breaks stuff

09:10:00 <ericP> sandro: do we have any reason to believe that danbri will edit RDF Schema? (given that he's changed jobs since volunteering)

Sandro Hawke: do we have any reason to believe that danbri will edit RDF Schema? (given that he's changed jobs since volunteering)

09:10:36 <ericP> davidwood: no, so we need a second

David Wood: no, so we need a second

09:14:13 <ericP> cygri: re: evolution text, we can point out what's new and talk about what you have to do 'cause simple literals don't exist any more

Richard Cyganiak: re: evolution text, we can point out what's new and talk about what you have to do 'cause simple literals don't exist any more

09:15:07 <ericP> ivan: only non-additive change is the simple literal

Ivan Herman: only non-additive change is the simple literal

09:15:35 <ericP> ... until now, if i asked for the datatype for a simple literal, i got back nothing

... until now, if i asked for the datatype for a simple literal, i got back nothing

09:15:41 <sandro> see http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/

Sandro Hawke: see http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/

09:15:52 <ericP> cygri: impact is low, but you might have to adapt some application code

Richard Cyganiak: impact is low, but you might have to adapt some application code

09:16:07 <ericP> ... spelling that out is worth doing

... spelling that out is worth doing

09:16:22 <ericP> ... e.g. if you use an RDF lib or store, here's what changes for you

... e.g. if you use an RDF lib or store, here's what changes for you

09:16:36 <ericP> ... .. if you edit another spec, here's what changes for you

... .. if you edit another spec, here's what changes for you

09:16:57 <ericP> ... only a paragraph or a few bullet points, but needs to be included

... only a paragraph or a few bullet points, but needs to be included

09:17:18 <ericP> sandro: OWL created a "New Features and Rationale"

Sandro Hawke: OWL created a "New Features and Rationale"

09:17:28 <ericP> ... would be smaller for us.

... would be smaller for us.

09:17:56 <ericP> yvesr: does it have to be a REC?

Yves Raimond: does it have to be a REC?

09:17:59 <ericP> sandro: no no

Sandro Hawke: no no

09:18:34 <ericP> davidwood: cygri's point about how in a couple years, folks won't care makes sense. should be a sepparate doc

David Wood: cygri's point about how in a couple years, folks won't care makes sense. should be a sepparate doc

09:19:33 <ericP> cygri: i can do it with another

Richard Cyganiak: i can do it with another

09:20:24 <ericP> davidwood: editors of the Concepts doc (cygri and davidwood) should edit New Features

David Wood: editors of the Concepts doc (cygri and davidwood) should edit New Features

09:20:51 <cygri> PROPOSAL: New Note: "RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide"

PROPOSED: New Note: "RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide"

09:20:56 <sandro> RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide

Sandro Hawke: RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide

09:21:13 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

09:21:15 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

09:21:15 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

09:21:16 <davidwood> +1

David Wood: +1

09:21:17 <Arnaud> +1

Arnaud Le Hors: +1

09:21:20 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

09:21:21 <cygri> +1

Richard Cyganiak: +1

09:21:22 <ericP> +1

+1

09:21:36 <ivan> RESOLVED: New Note: "RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide"

RESOLVED: New Note: "RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide"

09:22:15 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/101

Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/101

09:22:53 <sandro> close issue-101

Sandro Hawke: close ISSUE-101

09:22:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-101 Will RDF-WG produce a “What's New in RDF 1.1” document or migration guide? closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-101 Will RDF-WG produce a “What's New in RDF 1.1” document or migration guide? closed

09:23:58 <ericP> ACTION: davidwood to draft “What's New in RDF 1.1” document

ACTION: davidwood to draft “What's New in RDF 1.1” document

09:23:58 <trackbot> Could not create new action - action title not proper UTF-8

Trackbot IRC Bot: Could not create new action - action title not proper UTF-8

09:24:08 <ericP> ACTION: davidwood to draft "What's New in RDF 1.1" document

ACTION: davidwood to draft "What's New in RDF 1.1" document

09:24:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-193 - Draft "What's New in RDF 1.1" document [on David Wood - due 2012-11-05].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-193 - Draft "What's New in RDF 1.1" document [on David Wood - due 2012-11-05].

09:25:35 <ericP> topic: RDF Primer

4. RDF Primer

09:26:38 <ericP> Guus: thinking about this from the persecptive of the TOC

Guus Schreiber: thinking about this from the persecptive of the TOC

09:27:44 <ericP> [syntax discussion]

[syntax discussion]

09:28:32 <ericP> ivan: could use the OWL Primer trick for multiple syntaxes

Ivan Herman: could use the OWL Primer trick for multiple syntaxes

09:28:50 <ericP> Guus: should be done with the Turtle first

Guus Schreiber: should be done with the Turtle first

09:29:18 <ericP> ... RDFa and JSON-LD are good candidates. RDF/XML?

... RDFa and JSON-LD are good candidates. RDF/XML?

09:29:26 <ericP> davidwood: RDF/XML will still be a REC

David Wood: RDF/XML will still be a REC

09:30:54 <ericP> ACTION: Guus to add to RDF Primary and ISSUE about multi-language representation

ACTION: Guus to add to RDF Primary and ISSUE about multi-language representation

09:30:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-194 - Add to RDF Primary and ISSUE about multi-language representation [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-11-05].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-194 - Add to RDF Primary and ISSUE about multi-language representation [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-11-05].

09:31:19 <ericP> cygri: TOC looks similar to the RDF Concepts' TOC

Richard Cyganiak: TOC looks similar to the RDF Concepts' TOC

09:31:40 <ericP> ... RDF Concepts exposes the RDF data model

... RDF Concepts exposes the RDF data model

09:31:41 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

09:32:30 <ericP> ... should RDF Concepts have the introductory material?

... should RDF Concepts have the introductory material?

09:32:50 <ericP> ... for the Primer to be as effective as possible, it should have lots of examples

... for the Primer to be as effective as possible, it should have lots of examples

09:33:16 <ericP> ... the RDF Concepts intro doesn't do that; just gives an overview of the terminology

... the RDF Concepts intro doesn't do that; just gives an overview of the terminology

09:34:17 <ericP> [Guus shows the introductory text in Primer]

[Guus shows the introductory text in Primer]

09:34:52 <ericP> [general agreement that this intro is more basic than the intro in RDF Concepts]

[general agreement that this intro is more basic than the intro in RDF Concepts]

09:35:43 <ericP> ivan: being a visual type, i'd like to see images with discussions of graphs

Ivan Herman: being a visual type, i'd like to see images with discussions of graphs

09:36:00 <ericP> Guus: will discuss embedding SVG with cygri

Guus Schreiber: will discuss embedding SVG with cygri

09:38:22 <ericP> ... aiming for minimal examples which demonstrate graphs

... aiming for minimal examples which demonstrate graphs

09:38:27 <ericP> [general approval]

[general approval]

09:39:22 <Arnaud> typo in the first sentence of section 2.1: indetified -> identified

Arnaud Le Hors: typo in the first sentence of section 2.1: indetified -> identified

09:41:31 <sandro> guest: Tim Berners-Lee
09:41:44 <ericP> davidwood: developers' eyes glaze over at the "subject, predicate, object" text.

David Wood: developers' eyes glaze over at the "subject, predicate, object" text.

09:41:46 <ericP> ... using the text "two things and a relationship between them" seems to work

... using the text "two things and a relationship between them" seems to work

09:42:43 <ericP> Tim Berners-Lee: the graph eludes people, while turtle looks like a language to them

Tim Berners-Lee: the graph eludes people, while turtle looks like a language to them

09:43:30 <ericP> cygri: per yvesr, would like to point at the use case.

Richard Cyganiak: per yvesr, would like to point at the use case.

09:44:44 <ericP> Guus: avoiding syntax, discuss the basic concepts: iri, literal, and unfortunately the blank node

Guus Schreiber: avoiding syntax, discuss the basic concepts: iri, literal, and unfortunately the blank node

09:46:48 <yvesr> did we just skip vocabularies?

Yves Raimond: did we just skip vocabularies?

09:48:39 <ericP> ... what can we show with basic graphs?

... what can we show with basic graphs?

09:48:49 <ericP> cygri: graph equivalence and basic entailment

Richard Cyganiak: graph equivalence and basic entailment

09:51:28 <ericP> cygri: if we look at datasets out there, Dublic Core is everywhere

Richard Cyganiak: if we look at datasets out there, Dublic Core is everywhere

09:53:22 <ericP> ... might be a good guide to use examples of vocabs that folks will encounter in practice

... might be a good guide to use examples of vocabs that folks will encounter in practice

09:53:50 <ericP> ... skos is the 3rd most popular (after DC and FOAF)

... skos is the 3rd most popular (after DC and FOAF)

09:55:11 <ericP> Guus: i'd like to introduce in 6 or 7 printed pages

Guus Schreiber: i'd like to introduce in 6 or 7 printed pages

09:55:34 <ericP> ... rest in appendeces

... rest in appendeces

09:59:47 <ericP> ... focusing on common vocabularies

... focusing on common vocabularies

09:59:49 <ericP> davidwood: i find folks frequently have to invent vocabularies.

David Wood: i find folks frequently have to invent vocabularies.

10:00:13 <yvesr> yvesr: a way to structure the vocabulary section around use-cases would be to use DC and FOAF for people and artworks they made and create a new property using RDF Schema for 'is displayed in', to stitch two vocabularies together

Yves Raimond: a way to structure the vocabulary section around use-cases would be to use DC and FOAF for people and artworks they made and create a new property using RDF Schema for 'is displayed in', to stitch two vocabularies together [ Scribe Assist by Yves Raimond ]

10:00:13 <ericP> ... would like "of course, use others if available, but easy to invent as well"

... would like "of course, use others if available, but easy to invent as well"

10:00:30 <ericP> sandro: it's like programmers using libraries

Sandro Hawke: it's like programmers using libraries

10:00:41 <ericP> cygri: will it mention e.g. SPARQL?

Richard Cyganiak: will it mention e.g. SPARQL?

10:01:16 <ericP> ivan: there's no SPARQL primer

Ivan Herman: there's no SPARQL primer

10:01:22 <SteveS> SPARQL 1.1 Overview http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-overview-20120501/

Steve Speicher: SPARQL 1.1 Overview http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-overview-20120501/

10:01:37 <ericP> ericP: top section of SPARQL serves as a primer

Eric Prud'hommeaux: top section of SPARQL serves as a primer

10:02:02 <sandro> sandro: I think there should be a tiny sparql example, like the first in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#basicpatterns

Sandro Hawke: I think there should be a tiny sparql example, like the first in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#basicpatterns [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

10:02:11 <sandro> ... and then it links to more

Sandro Hawke: ... and then it links to more

10:03:07 <ericP> Guus: remind me to point at http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/

Guus Schreiber: remind me to point at http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/

10:03:38 <ericP> sandro: we should have every document published before asking for the charter extension

Sandro Hawke: we should have every document published before asking for the charter extension

10:05:27 <ericP> Guus: i need to make a statement about whether you refer to a page or a person

Guus Schreiber: i need to make a statement about whether you refer to a page or a person

10:06:12 <ericP> ivan: use hash IRIs and avoid indirection

Ivan Herman: use hash IRIs and avoid indirection

10:06:43 <sandro> sandro: "We use IRIs (which are basically the same as URLs) to refer to both Web Pages and things that are not Web Pages, like People and Places"

Sandro Hawke: "We use IRIs (which are basically the same as URLs) to refer to both Web Pages and things that are not Web Pages, like People and Places" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

10:09:04 <ericP> ACTION: Guus to provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan

ACTION: Guus to provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan

10:09:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-195 - Provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-11-05].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-195 - Provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-11-05].

10:09:29 <ericP> ACTION: Guus to provide Primer document for review - due 3 Jan

ACTION: Guus to provide Primer document for review - due 3 Jan

10:09:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-196 - provide Primer document for review [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-03].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-196 - provide Primer document for review [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-03].

10:09:38 <ericP> drop action 4

drop ACTION-4

10:09:56 <ericP> DROP ACTION-195

DROP ACTION-195

10:10:31 <sandro> close action-195

Sandro Hawke: close ACTION-195

10:10:31 <trackbot> ACTION-195 Provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-195 Provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan closed

10:33:09 <Arnaud> scribe: Arnaud

(No events recorded for 22 minutes)

(Scribe set to Arnaud Le Hors)

10:33:26 <Arnaud> topic: RDF/XML

5. RDF/XML

10:34:49 <Arnaud> ACTION: Fabien to provide a new WD for the WG to review by Nov 21st telecon

ACTION: Fabien to provide a new WD for the WG to review by Nov 21st telecon

10:34:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-197 - Provide a new WD for the WG to review by Nov 21st telecon [on Fabien Gandon - due 2012-11-05].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-197 - Provide a new WD for the WG to review by Nov 21st telecon [on Fabien Gandon - due 2012-11-05].

10:36:04 <Arnaud> davidwood: we will do the minimum

David Wood: we will do the minimum

10:36:54 <davidwood> The WG would like to vote on moving RDF/XML to FPWD on 28 Nov.

David Wood: The WG would like to vote on moving RDF/XML to FPWD on 28 Nov.

10:36:56 <Arnaud> FabGandon: I think there are 2 issues I need to look at but agree we should keep it to a minimum, WG has a lot more important things to do

Fabien Gandon: I think there are 2 issues I need to look at but agree we should keep it to a minimum, WG has a lot more important things to do

10:37:05 <ivan> ack ivan

Ivan Herman: ack ivan

10:37:13 <davidwood> q?

David Wood: q?

10:37:37 <Arnaud> ivan: we should aim at an edited recommendation which is easier to do

Ivan Herman: we should aim at an edited recommendation which is easier to do

10:38:04 <Arnaud> ... allows to skip several steps

... allows to skip several steps

10:38:28 <Arnaud> cygri: need to understand what it means for existing implementations

Richard Cyganiak: need to understand what it means for existing implementations

10:38:44 <Arnaud> ivan: don't see any change in the concepts that would impact RDF/XML

Ivan Herman: don't see any change in the concepts that would impact RDF/XML

10:39:41 <Arnaud> cygri: syntax hasn't changed but the change on literals may have an impact

Richard Cyganiak: syntax hasn't changed but the change on literals may have an impact

10:40:17 <Arnaud> ... this requires more thoughts

... this requires more thoughts

10:40:44 <Arnaud> ivan: yes, you're right. the section on mapping needs to change and this won't be just editorial

Ivan Herman: yes, you're right. the section on mapping needs to change and this won't be just editorial

10:41:00 <Arnaud> ... so we can't go the EPR route

... so we can't go the PER route

10:41:22 <davidwood> s/EPR/PER/
10:41:27 <davidwood> q?

David Wood: q?

10:42:04 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

10:42:47 <Arnaud> sandro: if we go to CR we'll need people to implement it, is it going to be hard to get this?

Sandro Hawke: if we go to CR we'll need people to implement it, is it going to be hard to get this?

10:43:17 <Arnaud> ivan: rdflib has already implemented it

Ivan Herman: rdflib has already implemented it

10:43:59 <Arnaud> davidwood: we should decide whether rdf/xml will be extended to support html5 datatype

David Wood: we should decide whether rdf/xml will be extended to support html5 datatype

10:44:32 <sandro> PROPOSED: We we update RDF/XML to include special syntactic support for our new HTML datatype

PROPOSED: We we update RDF/XML to include special syntactic support for our new HTML datatype

10:44:38 <sandro> -0

Sandro Hawke: -0

10:44:46 <Arnaud> ivan: except it's impossible to do

Ivan Herman: except it's impossible to do

10:45:06 <Arnaud> cygri: we could do it for a subset: xhtml

Richard Cyganiak: we could do it for a subset: xhtml

10:45:13 <AZ> -0.9

Antoine Zimmermann: -0.9

10:45:27 <Arnaud> ... don't see much benefits in doing this

... don't see much benefits in doing this

10:45:27 <sandro> cygri: It would only work for XHTML, and for that you can use XMLLiteral

Richard Cyganiak: It would only work for XHTML, and for that you can use XMLLiteral [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

10:45:30 <Arnaud> ivan: I agree

Ivan Herman: I agree

10:46:18 <sandro> +1 include examples of HTML using CDATA

Sandro Hawke: +1 include examples of HTML using CDATA

10:46:18 <Arnaud> sandro: should we have something editorial explaining how to use cdata for this?

Sandro Hawke: should we have something editorial explaining how to use cdata for this?

10:46:34 <Arnaud> ivan: probably a good idea

Ivan Herman: probably a good idea

10:47:01 <Arnaud> davidwood: do we want to have a paragraph on this in rdf/xml?

David Wood: do we want to have a paragraph on this in rdf/xml?

10:47:07 <Arnaud> ivan: leave it to the editor

Ivan Herman: leave it to the editor

10:47:37 <Arnaud> fabgandon: will add it to the list and present it to the WG for review

Fabien Gandon: will add it to the list and present it to the WG for review

10:47:58 <Arnaud> topic: RDF Primer (reprise)

6. RDF Primer (reprise)

10:48:30 <Arnaud> guus: talking about datatypes, need to put some examples

Guus Schreiber: talking about datatypes, need to put some examples

10:48:47 <Arnaud> ... string, decimal, integer, boolean, datetime

... string, decimal, integer, boolean, datetime

10:48:56 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

10:48:57 <Arnaud> ... 5 key ones people typically use

... 5 key ones people typically use

10:49:05 <Arnaud> ... is that a good approach?

... is that a good approach?

10:49:14 <ivan> q-

Ivan Herman: q-

10:49:17 <Arnaud> sandro: would add double

Sandro Hawke: would add double

10:49:59 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

10:50:04 <Arnaud> davidwood: ldp has a different list

David Wood: ldp has a different list

10:50:49 <Arnaud> sandro: ldp's list is based on what programing languages use

Sandro Hawke: ldp's list is based on what programing languages use

10:51:39 <Arnaud> cygri: warn against drafting a list that gives the impression of being a recommended list, implying the rest is not recommended

Richard Cyganiak: warn against drafting a list that gives the impression of being a recommended list, implying the rest is not recommended

10:51:43 <Arnaud> guus: agree

Guus Schreiber: agree

10:52:21 <Arnaud> ivan: wouldn't mention xsd:string, and keep it to plain literals

Ivan Herman: wouldn't mention xsd:string, and keep it to plain literals

10:52:53 <Arnaud> guus: could have a background note saying you can skip this

Guus Schreiber: could have a background note saying you can skip this

10:53:40 <Arnaud> davidwood: wouldn't do more than this

David Wood: wouldn't do more than this

10:55:33 <sandro> 18.30 doors open

Sandro Hawke: 18.30 doors open

10:56:52 <Arnaud> topic: RDF Schema

7. RDF Schema

10:57:12 <Arnaud> davidwood: unlikely Dan will edit this spec, we need a new editor

David Wood: unlikely Dan will edit this spec, we need a new editor

10:58:37 <Arnaud> arnaud: would be happy to help but have no background on what needs to be done so not sure I'm qualified

Arnaud Le Hors: would be happy to help but have no background on what needs to be done so not sure I'm qualified

10:59:23 <davidwood> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-schema/index.html

David Wood: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-schema/index.html

11:00:30 <davidwood> RESOLVED to mark rdf:Alt and rdf:Bag as archaic using the language at:

David Wood: RESOLVED to mark rdf:Alt and rdf:Bag as archaic using the language at:

11:00:30 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/ArchaicFeatures

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

11:00:46 <Arnaud> issue-77?

ISSUE-77?

11:00:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open

11:00:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77

11:01:12 <Arnaud> ivan: don't think there is a major work that needs to be done

Ivan Herman: don't think there is a major work that needs to be done

11:02:00 <cygri> subtopic: Collections and containers

7.1. Collections and containers

11:02:00 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action (due to XMP and RSS 1.0)

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action (due to XMP and RSS 1.0)

11:02:42 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

11:03:04 <Arnaud> cygri: would like us to try to do better

Richard Cyganiak: would like us to try to do better

11:03:43 <Arnaud> won't we have a formal objection from Adobe?

won't we have a formal objection from Adobe?

11:04:10 <sandro> sandro: If they were to make a new version of XMP that did not to be backward compatible, THEN they should not use ______

Sandro Hawke: If they were to make a new version of XMP that did not to be backward compatible, THEN they should not use ______ [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

11:04:42 <Arnaud> davidwood: not sure they care, they haven't touched XMP in years

David Wood: not sure they care, they haven't touched XMP in years

11:04:57 <Arnaud> ivan: it's not just adobe, a lot of other people use it

Ivan Herman: it's not just adobe, a lot of other people use it

11:05:28 <Arnaud> sandro: steve harris still thinks there is nothing better than seq

Sandro Hawke: steve harris still thinks there is nothing better than seq

11:06:09 <sandro> eric: Having two broken solutions is worse than having one broken one

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Having two broken solutions is worse than having one broken one [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

11:06:28 <Arnaud> ivan: don't think we can decide on making it archaic

Ivan Herman: don't think we can decide on making it archaic

11:07:12 <Arnaud> ivan: we should provide guidance in the primer

Ivan Herman: we should provide guidance in the primer

11:07:19 <Arnaud> ... that's the place to do that

... that's the place to do that

11:07:24 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action (due to XMP and RSS 1.0).  Instead, add guidance on avoiding Seq in the Primer.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action (due to XMP and RSS 1.0). Instead, add guidance on avoiding Seq in the Primer.

11:07:31 <Arnaud> sandro: would like to have it in the spec

Sandro Hawke: would like to have it in the spec

11:09:06 <Arnaud> cygri: tempted to say that we should talk about this is in concepts

Richard Cyganiak: tempted to say that we should talk about this is in concepts

11:09:32 <Arnaud> ... but that would be odd because it currently doesn't talk about vocabulary at all

... but that would be odd because it currently doesn't talk about vocabulary at all

11:10:35 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab

11:10:35 <Arnaud> ivan: maybe the schema spec is the right place

Ivan Herman: maybe the schema spec is the right place

11:11:59 <Arnaud> cygri: we should have an issue for well formed lists

Richard Cyganiak: we should have an issue for well formed lists

11:12:17 <sandro> my "well-formed list" proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0135.html

Sandro Hawke: my "well-formed list" proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0135.html

11:12:21 <Arnaud> davidwood: so the options are: primer, schema, or possibly concepts?

David Wood: so the options are: primer, schema, or possibly concepts?

11:12:39 <sandro> (which Steve Harris didnt like)

Sandro Hawke: (which Steve Harris didnt like)

11:13:04 <Arnaud> ... don't see a way to put in concepts without a syntax which is ugly

... don't see a way to put in concepts without a syntax which is ugly

11:13:14 <davidwood> Not in Concepts

David Wood: Not in Concepts

11:13:28 <Arnaud> cygri: yes, agree we should have somewhere but not in my spec! :-)

Richard Cyganiak: yes, agree we should have somewhere but not in my spec! :-)

11:14:29 <Arnaud> ivan: my feeling is that schema is probably the best place

Ivan Herman: my feeling is that schema is probably the best place

11:14:59 <Guus> q+ to ask about status of term "property" in Schema, Concepts, and Primer

Guus Schreiber: q+ to ask about status of term "property" in Schema, Concepts, and Primer

11:15:08 <ivan> ack ivan

Ivan Herman: ack ivan

11:15:17 <davidwood> ack sandro

David Wood: ack sandro

11:15:19 <sandro> q-

Sandro Hawke: q-

11:15:30 <davidwood> ack Guus

David Wood: ack Guus

11:15:30 <Zakim> Guus, you wanted to ask about status of term "property" in Schema, Concepts, and Primer

Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, you wanted to ask about status of term "property" in Schema, Concepts, and Primer

11:16:46 <Arnaud> guus: have trouble writing data model in primer because predicate is talked about in different places

Guus Schreiber: have trouble writing data model in primer because predicate is talked about in different places

11:17:01 <Arnaud> ... property vs predicate

... property vs predicate

11:17:26 <Arnaud> ... is it useful to make the distinction in primer? it's very important for schema

... is it useful to make the distinction in primer? it's very important for schema

11:18:32 <Arnaud> cygri: schema is a language for definiing and describing properties and classes

Richard Cyganiak: schema is a language for definiing and describing properties and classes

11:18:49 <Arnaud> ... even if rdf schema didn't exist you would still have properties

... even if rdf schema didn't exist you would still have properties

11:19:18 <Arnaud> sandro: if we could do it all over again, it would be easier for user to call the middle slot property name

Sandro Hawke: if we could do it all over again, it would be easier for user to call the middle slot property name

11:19:52 <yvesr> is there an actual entailment that says :s :p :o => :p a rdf:Property?

Yves Raimond: is there an actual entailment that says :s :p :o => :p a rdf:Property?

11:19:52 <Arnaud> cygri: agree

Richard Cyganiak: agree

11:20:19 <Arnaud> guus: alternative suggestion is to just drop the term predicate

Guus Schreiber: alternative suggestion is to just drop the term predicate

11:21:20 <Arnaud> cygri: you could only talk about predicates later in the document

Richard Cyganiak: you could only talk about predicates later in the document

11:21:47 <Arnaud> ... just not use the terms subject predicate object

... just not use the terms subject predicate object

11:23:28 <sandro> Issue: Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs?

ISSUE: Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs?

11:23:28 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-102 - Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/102/edit .

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-102 - Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/102/edit .

11:24:00 <cygri> ISSUE-77?

Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-77?

11:24:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open

11:24:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77

11:24:54 <Arnaud> sandro: would like to propose we agree to pick one single preferred solution for future developments

Sandro Hawke: would like to propose we agree to pick one single preferred solution for future developments

11:25:11 <Arnaud> davidwood: steve would say seq

David Wood: steve would say seq

11:26:09 <Arnaud> davidwood: don't think that works, we have different communities that like either

David Wood: don't think that works, we have different communities that like either

11:26:32 <Arnaud> ivan: sparql could have done it but didn't

Ivan Herman: sparql could have done it but didn't

11:27:01 <Arnaud> davidwood: ldp trying to work around this by defining a sort predicate

David Wood: ldp trying to work around this by defining a sort predicate

11:27:21 <Arnaud> ... this suggests that ordering is important

... this suggests that ordering is important

11:28:11 <Arnaud> eric: this is hard to solve and that's why sparql didn't do it

Eric Prud'hommeaux: this is hard to solve and that's why sparql didn't do it

11:29:51 <Arnaud> ivan: there is no clear choice between the two

Ivan Herman: there is no clear choice between the two

11:30:19 <Arnaud> ... ldp's solution is not rdf core

... ldp's solution is not rdf core

11:30:29 <Arnaud> sandro: we could introduce one

Sandro Hawke: we could introduce one

11:30:40 <Arnaud> cygri: not a good idea at this point in the process

Richard Cyganiak: not a good idea at this point in the process

11:30:57 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action.

11:31:08 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

11:31:13 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

11:31:17 <sandro> -0.99

Sandro Hawke: -0.99

11:31:18 <yvesr> +0

Yves Raimond: +0

11:31:37 <ericP> +0.99

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0.99

11:31:42 <davidwood> +1

David Wood: +1

11:31:45 <Arnaud> +1

+1

11:31:54 <FabGandon> 0

Fabien Gandon: 0

11:31:54 <Guus> 0

Guus Schreiber: 0

11:31:56 <cygri> +0.001

Richard Cyganiak: +0.001

11:32:15 <Arnaud> sandro: this is one of the hardest point in rdf

Sandro Hawke: this is one of the hardest point in rdf

11:32:31 <Arnaud> ... this is the best opportunity to steer the community

... this is the best opportunity to steer the community

11:33:01 <Arnaud> yvesr: what's your preference?

Yves Raimond: what's your preference?

11:33:08 <Arnaud> sandro: slight preference for list

Sandro Hawke: slight preference for list

11:33:15 <Arnaud> davidwood: I use seq!

David Wood: I use list!

11:33:32 <Arnaud> s/seq/list/
11:34:21 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Functions_and_Predicates_on_RIF_Lists

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Functions_and_Predicates_on_RIF_Lists

11:34:35 <Arnaud> ... quite happy with sandro's proposal to say xmp is fine the way it is but if you were to do another version there is a better way

... quite happy with sandro's proposal to say xmp is fine the way it is but if you were to do another version there is a better way

11:34:50 <Arnaud> ivan: don't think we'll get consensus

Ivan Herman: don't think we'll get consensus

11:35:09 <Arnaud> sandro: steve didn't object

Sandro Hawke: steve didn't object

11:35:40 <Arnaud> sandro: the best thing for the community is to specify one

Sandro Hawke: the best thing for the community is to specify one

11:36:14 <Arnaud> ... could live with anything, saying to use something else than seq would be a good start

... could live with anything, saying to use something else than seq would be a good start

11:36:38 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-77 marking rdf:Seq as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs)

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77 marking rdf:Seq as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs)

11:36:42 <Arnaud> proposal: tentatively mark seq as archaic and see whether steve objects

PROPOSED: tentatively mark seq as archaic and see whether steve objects

11:36:53 <Arnaud> ivan: ok but need to ask steve

Ivan Herman: ok but need to ask steve

11:36:53 <Guus> q+ to say I was planning to use an example of the () collction notation of Turtle in the Primer

Guus Schreiber: q+ to say I was planning to use an example of the () collction notation of Turtle in the Primer

11:37:02 <davidwood> ack Guus

David Wood: ack Guus

11:37:02 <Zakim> Guus, you wanted to say I was planning to use an example of the () collction notation of Turtle in the Primer

Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, you wanted to say I was planning to use an example of the () collction notation of Turtle in the Primer

11:37:09 <cygri> +0.5

Richard Cyganiak: +0.5

11:37:13 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

11:37:31 <AZ> +0

Antoine Zimmermann: +0

11:37:47 <davidwood> +1 (and will take an action to ask Steve H and the Adobe AC rep)

David Wood: +1 (and will take an action to ask Steve H and the Adobe AC rep)

11:37:51 <ivan> +1 provided we cross-check with possible oppenents

Ivan Herman: +1 provided we cross-check with possible oppenents

11:37:53 <yvesr> +0.5

Yves Raimond: +0.5

11:37:58 <Arnaud> +1

+1

11:39:26 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-77 marking rdf:Seq as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs)

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-77 marking rdf:Seq as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs)

11:40:47 <sandro> close issue-77

Sandro Hawke: close ISSUE-77

11:40:47 <trackbot> ISSUE-77 Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-77 Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) closed

11:40:53 <Arnaud> ACTION: Arnaud to check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?)

ACTION: Arnaud to check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?)

11:40:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-198 - Check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?) [on Arnaud Le Hors - due 2012-11-05].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-198 - Check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?) [on Arnaud Le Hors - due 2012-11-05].

11:41:09 <Arnaud> break for lunch

break for lunch

11:41:21 <Arnaud> come back at 1:30pm

come back at 1:30pm

11:57:24 <Zakim> +Tony

(No events recorded for 16 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony

12:01:51 <ScottB> Zakim, Tony is temporarily me

Scott Bauer: Zakim, Tony is temporarily me

12:01:51 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +ScottB; got it

12:43:26 <sandro> Zakim, who is on the call?

(No events recorded for 41 minutes)

Sandro Hawke: Zakim, who is on the call?

12:43:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB

12:44:49 <sandro> scribe: sandro

(Scribe set to Sandro Hawke)

12:44:53 <sandro> topic: RDF Concepts

8. RDF Concepts

12:45:00 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?

RRSAgent, pointer?

12:45:00 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc#T12-45-00

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc#T12-45-00

12:45:48 <sandro> cygri: we did the bulk of the work quite some time ago.  the document is in pretty good shape, with some open issues marked.

Richard Cyganiak: we did the bulk of the work quite some time ago. the document is in pretty good shape, with some open issues marked.

12:46:04 <sandro> ... biggest was RDF Datasets, which has become easier because we scaled down our goals.

... biggest was RDF Datasets, which has become easier because we scaled down our goals.

12:46:26 <sandro> ... most of the rest is editorial.   explanations.   whether text should be in one spec or another.

... most of the rest is editorial. explanations. whether text should be in one spec or another.

12:46:32 <sandro> ... going throught the issues

... going throught the issues

12:46:42 <sandro> ... Defn of RDF Datasets?

... Defn of RDF Datasets?

12:46:59 <sandro> ... HashURIs / trig -- how do fragments work?

... HashURIs / trig -- how do fragments work?

12:48:11 <sandro> .... High Level Issues:    Datasets, Fragments in multigraph syntax, Relationship between Semantics and Concepts documnets, and stuff in Primer vs Concepts.

.... High Level Issues: Datasets, Fragments in multigraph syntax, Relationship between Semantics and Concepts documnets, and stuff in Primer vs Concepts.

12:48:35 <sandro> subtopic: Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Primer

8.1. Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Primer

12:48:42 <sandro> cygri: Section 1.

Richard Cyganiak: Section 1.

12:50:19 <sandro> ... gives a background what the datamodel is useful for, rather than just starting with concepts

... gives a background what the datamodel is useful for, rather than just starting with concepts

12:50:25 <sandro> ... and gives context.

... and gives context.

12:51:01 <sandro> ... There's a lot of additional terminology, used all the time in RDF, but is nowhere defined.    "Resource".  "denote".  ...

... There's a lot of additional terminology, used all the time in RDF, but is nowhere defined. "Resource". "denote". ...

12:51:11 <sandro> ... namespace, namespace IRI, etc

... namespace, namespace IRI, etc

12:51:28 <sandro> ... this is all "informative".

... this is all "informative".

12:51:50 <sandro> ... Does *not* give examples.   That would make it bigger, and something different.

... Does *not* give examples. That would make it bigger, and something different.

12:52:17 <sandro> ... Is it okay that intro tackles these things?

... Is it okay that intro tackles these things?

12:52:42 <Guus> q?

Guus Schreiber: q?

12:52:46 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

12:53:17 <sandro> sandro: I think it's fine to have example to help the sophisticated reader understand this stuff

Sandro Hawke: I think it's fine to have example to help the sophisticated reader understand this stuff

12:53:32 <sandro> davidwood: what about syntax?

David Wood: what about syntax?

12:54:21 <Guus> ack ivan

Guus Schreiber: ack ivan

12:54:24 <sandro> sandro: I think it's fine to use Turtle.   Assume on the first reading they wont know/care about what Turtle means formally.

Sandro Hawke: I think it's fine to use Turtle. Assume on the first reading they wont know/care about what Turtle means formally.

12:54:26 <Arnaud> q+

Arnaud Le Hors: q+

12:54:35 <sandro> davidwood: And they'll have read Primer first.

David Wood: And they'll have read Primer first.

12:54:46 <sandro> ivan: I agree the Intro should be part of the document, yes.

Ivan Herman: I agree the Intro should be part of the document, yes.

12:55:01 <sandro> ivan: Examples -- I don't know.   Probably yes,

Ivan Herman: Examples -- I don't know. Probably yes,

12:55:02 <Guus> q+ to say: yes

Guus Schreiber: q+ to say: yes

12:55:21 <sandro> ivan: But yes, keep Intro

Ivan Herman: But yes, keep Intro

12:55:29 <Guus> ack Arnaud

Guus Schreiber: ack Arnaud

12:55:37 <sandro> Arnaud: I don't know how far we can go with graphic represetnation in examples.

Arnaud Le Hors: I don't know how far we can go with graphic represetnation in examples.

12:56:07 <sandro> .. if you can stick to diagrams, that's great

.. if you can stick to diagrams, that's great

12:56:21 <sandro> davidwood: namespace IRI

David Wood: namespace IRI

12:57:00 <sandro> cygri: Examples should cover the stuff that's hard to visualize or grasp.   That would help.

Richard Cyganiak: Examples should cover the stuff that's hard to visualize or grasp. That would help.

12:57:19 <sandro> .. I'm a little bit afraid that...

.. I'm a little bit afraid that...

12:57:40 <sandro> .. we should make clear the difference between Primer and Concepts Introduction.

.. we should make clear the difference between Primer and Concepts Introduction.

12:58:08 <sandro> .. There's a danger if this gets to helpful, with diagrams, that people will skip the Primer.

.. There's a danger if this gets to helpful, with diagrams, that people will skip the Primer.

12:58:33 <Guus> q?

Guus Schreiber: q?

12:58:50 <sandro> ivan: it's a judgement call.  the RDFa spec has something of a tutorial style in it, with lots of examples.   And we also have a primer.    A lot of people still use the primer.

Ivan Herman: it's a judgement call. the RDFa spec has something of a tutorial style in it, with lots of examples. And we also have a primer. A lot of people still use the primer.

12:58:54 <sandro> q?

q?

12:59:08 <Arnaud> ack Guus

Arnaud Le Hors: ack Guus

12:59:08 <Zakim> Guus, you wanted to say: yes

Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, you wanted to say: yes

12:59:26 <sandro> Guus: This section is short, so I don't see a problem.  You give some definitions/references, like IRIs, that belong here.

Guus Schreiber: This section is short, so I don't see a problem. You give some definitions/references, like IRIs, that belong here.

12:59:49 <Guus> ack Guus

Guus Schreiber: ack Guus

12:59:56 <sandro> ... I can see your concern about examples; I think the idea of diagrams.

... I can see your concern about examples; I think the idea of diagrams.

13:01:32 <sandro> davidwood: Except for 1.4 (namespace IRIs) it seems like I have to read the primer first.    1.4 should stay in Concepts in order to make Concepts able to stand on its own.   (Primer isn't normative.)

David Wood: Except for 1.4 (namespace IRIs) it seems like I have to read the primer first. 1.4 should stay in Concepts in order to make Concepts able to stand on its own. (Primer isn't normative.)

13:01:32 <Guus> q+

Guus Schreiber: q+

13:01:49 <ivan> ack Guus

Ivan Herman: ack Guus

13:02:12 <sandro> guus: The primer will be talking about Properties, so it's rather different.

Guus Schreiber: The primer will be talking about Properties, so it's rather different.

13:03:46 <sandro> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html

13:04:17 <sandro> "This section should be removed from RDF Concepts and folded into [RDF-SCHEMA] which actually defines the terms in question. This is ACTION-121."

"This section should be removed from RDF Concepts and folded into [RDF-SCHEMA] which actually defines the terms in question. This is ACTION-121."

13:04:48 <sandro> cygri: All terms should be in the RDFS document, including the rdf: namespace.

Richard Cyganiak: All terms should be in the RDFS document, including the rdf: namespace.

13:05:12 <sandro> .. what goes in which is entirely a historical accident.

.. what goes in which is entirely a historical accident.

13:05:49 <sandro> ivan: Don't forget namespace document

Ivan Herman: Don't forget namespace document

13:05:57 <sandro> sandro: indeed, my action item

Sandro Hawke: indeed, my action item

13:06:57 <sandro> cyg: Relationship to Semantics....?       it'd be nice to have a principle about which text goes where.

Richard Cyganiak: Relationship to Semantics....? it'd be nice to have a principle about which text goes where.

13:07:07 <sandro> subtopic: Fragment identifiers in dataset syntaxes

8.2. Fragment identifiers in dataset syntaxes

13:07:14 <sandro> cyg: media type registration

Richard Cyganiak: media type registration

13:07:52 <sandro> .. all the RDF syntaxes (should) refer to section 6 in concepts which talks about how hash URIs work here.

.. all the RDF syntaxes (should) refer to section 6 in concepts which talks about how hash URIs work here.

13:07:59 <sandro> .. does this apply in TriG as well?

.. does this apply in TriG as well?

13:08:13 <sandro> .. it's "mostly" the same as in RDF.

.. it's "mostly" the same as in RDF.

13:08:25 <sandro> .. but you MIGHT use it to name a graph, which is kind of a part of the document.

.. but you MIGHT use it to name a graph, which is kind of a part of the document.

13:08:55 <Guus> q+

Guus Schreiber: q+

13:08:55 <Guus> q-

Guus Schreiber: q-

13:08:57 <Guus> q?

Guus Schreiber: q?

13:09:06 <yvesr> sandro: we still need the graph URIs to be spelled out in the same way as other URIs

Sandro Hawke: we still need the graph URIs to be spelled out in the same way as other URIs [ Scribe Assist by Yves Raimond ]

13:09:52 <sandro> cyg: If you used fragments like file1#graph1 then that mirrors other fragment syntaxes

Richard Cyganiak: If you used fragments like file1#graph1 then that mirrors other fragment syntaxes

13:10:03 <yvesr> s/cyg/cygri
13:10:04 <sandro> sandro: but you can use them repeatedly -- that's not like in HTML or XML

Sandro Hawke: but you can use them repeatedly -- that's not like in HTML or XML

13:10:41 <sandro> cygri: to me the graph name situation, it's not external to the document, so it seems different

Richard Cyganiak: to me the graph name situation, it's not external to the document, so it seems different

13:11:16 <sandro> ivan: pragmatically speaking, this is in the RFC's to direct general processors what to do with this content.     and this bit in the RFC wouldn't help

Ivan Herman: pragmatically speaking, this is in the RFC's to direct general processors what to do with this content. and this bit in the RFC wouldn't help

13:11:39 <pchampin> q+ to make a crazy proposal

Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+ to make a crazy proposal

13:12:01 <sandro> cygri: Web crawling use case.    Trig File in the wild.   Claims "heres the content of this graph" so you dont want to put it in your store.   But in the fragment case, it's safer.

Richard Cyganiak: Web crawling use case. Trig File in the wild. Claims "heres the content of this graph" so you dont want to put it in your store. But in the fragment case, it's safer.

13:12:12 <sandro> cygri: So there's a security thing here.

Richard Cyganiak: So there's a security thing here.

13:12:36 <Guus> q?

Guus Schreiber: q?

13:12:51 <sandro> cygri: The security issue only comes up if the graph name is external to the file.

Richard Cyganiak: The security issue only comes up if the graph name is external to the file.

13:13:31 <Guus> ack pchampin

Guus Schreiber: ack pchampin

13:13:31 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to make a crazy proposal

Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin, you wanted to make a crazy proposal

13:13:59 <sandro> pchampin: I'm guessing it's possible for a mime type to specify different meaning depending on their syntax.   We could have a special syntax for fragments identifying graphs...

Pierre-Antoine Champin: I'm guessing it's possible for a mime type to specify different meaning depending on their syntax. We could have a special syntax for fragments identifying graphs...

13:14:21 <sandro> -1

-1

13:14:56 <yvesr> -1

Yves Raimond: -1

13:15:00 <sandro> pchampin: If TriG had a special syntax for identifying *graphs* in the documents, we would have a way to formally declare those URIs denote graphs.

Pierre-Antoine Champin: If TriG had a special syntax for identifying *graphs* in the documents, we would have a way to formally declare those URIs denote graphs.

13:15:16 <sandro> sandro: yes it would work, but not it's not a good idea.  :-)

Sandro Hawke: yes it would work, but not it's not a good idea. :-)

13:15:44 <sandro> davidwood: We've had several discussions about how we can't rely on mime types anyway.

David Wood: We've had several discussions about how we can't rely on mime types anyway.

13:17:25 <sandro> cyg: I hear some skepticism about whether it's necessary to say anything special about fragments in dataset...

Richard Cyganiak: I hear some skepticism about whether it's necessary to say anything special about fragments in dataset...

13:17:39 <davidwood> Only 5 of the 10 issues listed at the top of Section 6 are still open

David Wood: Only 5 of the 10 issues listed at the top of Section 6 are still open

13:17:43 <yvesr> s/cyg/cygri
13:18:00 <sandro> sandro: I'd say don't try to hard, but go ahead if you like and we'll probably be fine with it.

Sandro Hawke: I'd say don't try to hard, but go ahead if you like and we'll probably be fine with it.

13:18:05 <sandro> cyg: okay.

Richard Cyganiak: okay.

13:18:12 <sandro> subtopic: Abstract syntax for datasets

8.3. Abstract syntax for datasets

13:18:30 <sandro> cygri: Section 4, pasted in SPARQL text, and issue box.

Richard Cyganiak: Section 4, pasted in SPARQL text, and issue box.

13:19:56 <sandro> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-multigraph    6. Abstract Syntax for Working with Multiple Graphs

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-multigraph 6. Abstract Syntax for Working with Multiple Graphs

13:20:18 <sandro> cygri: maybe we can delete the issue box and leave in that definition?

Richard Cyganiak: maybe we can delete the issue box and leave in that definition?

13:20:41 <sandro> davidwood: Probably soon, once issues are closed.

David Wood: Probably soon, once issues are closed.

13:20:41 <sandro> q+

q+

13:21:27 <sandro> cygri: What we don't have in there are "gbox" and "graph store".    We don't have David's circle diagram.

Richard Cyganiak: What we don't have in there are "gbox" and "graph store". We don't have David's circle diagram.

13:21:44 <sandro> ivan: I think it would be useful to put here.

Ivan Herman: I think it would be useful to put here.

13:22:05 <sandro> cyg: Not here.   We don't define those things.  That's more Infroamtive Intro

Richard Cyganiak: Not here. We don't define those things. That's more Infroamtive Intro

13:22:26 <sandro> .. Think of mutable gbox or graph store thing, then static snapshot is an RDF Dataset.

.. Think of mutable gbox or graph store thing, then static snapshot is an RDF Dataset.

13:23:05 <sandro> .. "gbox is a resource that can have a snapshot that is an RDF Graph"   which doesn't seem useful to say Normatively.    So I'd put it in 1.5

.. "gbox is a resource that can have a snapshot that is an RDF Graph" which doesn't seem useful to say Normatively. So I'd put it in 1.5

13:23:09 <sandro> davidwood: Agreed

David Wood: Agreed

13:23:23 <sandro> cygri: I propose to just call it "gbox".

Richard Cyganiak: I propose to just call it "gbox".

13:23:28 <sandro> *laughter*

*laughter*

13:23:58 <sandro> davidwood: That's not the first time.  :-)

David Wood: That's not the first time. :-)

13:24:00 <sandro> g-box

g-box

13:24:01 <sandro> gBox

gBox

13:24:04 <sandro> gb0x

gb0x

13:24:12 <sandro> q?

q?

13:24:33 <sandro> issue-5?

ISSUE-5?

13:24:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-5 -- Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? -- closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-5 -- Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? -- closed

13:24:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/5

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/5

13:24:45 <sandro> issue-14?

ISSUE-14?

13:26:46 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-14, based on previous resolutions.    We're sticking with SPARQL's notions.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-14, based on previous resolutions. We're sticking with SPARQL's notions.

13:27:26 <cygri> +1

Richard Cyganiak: +1

13:28:08 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

13:29:35 <davidwood> g-box

David Wood: g-box

13:30:02 <sandro> sandro: I have a preference for calling the pair a name-pair and calling the graph the named graph.

Sandro Hawke: I have a preference for calling the pair a name-pair and calling the graph the named graph.

13:30:23 <Guus> q+

Guus Schreiber: q+

13:30:25 <davidwood> +1 to Sandro

David Wood: +1 to Sandro

13:30:50 <sandro> cygri: I think this is as pat says a harmless abuse of terminaology.   I'm okay with some non-normative explanation of how things are used.

Richard Cyganiak: I think this is as pat says a harmless abuse of terminaology. I'm okay with some non-normative explanation of how things are used.

13:31:14 <sandro> guus: For the primer I wouldnt get into that.

Guus Schreiber: For the primer I wouldnt get into that.

13:31:30 <sandro> guus: Pat's think about name isn't a name.

Guus Schreiber: Pat's think about name isn't a name.

13:31:40 <sandro> guus: I like "labeled graph" better but it wouldn't stick.

Guus Schreiber: I like "labeled graph" better but it wouldn't stick.

13:33:10 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-14. We're sticking with the SPARQL definition of Named Graphs. Informative text will explain that “named” isn't to be taken too literally, and that “named graph” often refers only to the graph part of the pair.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-14. We're sticking with the SPARQL definition of Named Graphs. Informative text will explain that “named” isn't to be taken too literally, and that “named graph” often refers only to the graph part of the pair.

13:33:46 <sandro> +1

+1

13:33:57 <pchampin> +1

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1

13:33:57 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

13:34:03 <Guus> +1

Guus Schreiber: +1

13:34:24 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

13:34:27 <yvesr> +1 but would like 'not be to taken too literally' to be rephrased

Yves Raimond: +1 but would like 'not to be taken too literally' to be rephrased

13:34:38 <yvesr> s/be to/to be/
13:34:41 <sandro> cyg: "despite the use of the word 'name', the IRI does not necessarily denote the graph"  (or something like that)

Richard Cyganiak: "despite the use of the word 'name', the IRI does not necessarily denote the graph" (or something like that)

13:35:17 <yvesr> s/cyg/cygri
13:35:23 <Arnaud> +0

Arnaud Le Hors: +0

13:35:26 <davidwood> +1 given Richard's explanation

David Wood: +1 given Richard's explanation

13:35:33 <FabGandon> +1

Fabien Gandon: +1

13:36:15 <sandro> close issue-14

close ISSUE-14

13:36:20 <davidwood> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-14. We're sticking with the SPARQL definition of Named Graphs. Informative text will explain that “named” isn't to be taken too literally, and that “named graph” often refers only to the graph part of the pair.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-14. We're sticking with the SPARQL definition of Named Graphs. Informative text will explain that “named” isn't to be taken too literally, and that “named graph” often refers only to the graph part of the pair.

13:36:31 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15

Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15

13:36:49 <sandro> issue-15

ISSUE-15

13:36:55 <davidwood> ISSUE-14 closed via the Web

David Wood: ISSUE-14 closed via the Web

13:37:04 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-15, the relationship is undefined.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-15, the relationship is undefined.

13:37:10 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

13:37:11 <cygri> +1

Richard Cyganiak: +1

13:37:12 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

13:37:21 <davidwood> +1

David Wood: +1

13:37:27 <sandro> +1

+1

13:37:27 <cygri> Noting that this follows from the earlier resolution of not defining dataset semantics

Richard Cyganiak: Noting that this follows from the earlier resolution of not defining dataset semantics

13:37:42 <Arnaud> +1

Arnaud Le Hors: +1

13:37:50 <davidwood> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-15, the relationship is undefined.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-15, the relationship is undefined.

13:37:53 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/17

Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/17

13:38:53 <sandro> cyg: RDF Semantics says how to merge RDF Graphs.    What about RDF Datasets?

Richard Cyganiak: RDF Semantics says how to merge RDF Graphs. What about RDF Datasets?

13:39:16 <davidwood> ISSUE-15 closed via the Web

David Wood: ISSUE-15 closed via the Web

13:40:41 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-17 -- there is no general purpose way to merge datasets; it can only be done with external knowledge.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-17 -- there is no general purpose way to merge datasets; it can only be done with external knowledge.

13:40:57 <sandro> yvesr: Do we need dataset isomorphism?

Yves Raimond: Do we need dataset isomorphism?

13:41:12 <sandro> cyg: It's in there for graphs for testing, beside that do we need it.

Richard Cyganiak: It's in there for graphs for testing, beside that do we need it.

13:41:33 <sandro> cyg: We might need something for testing, later on, yes.

Richard Cyganiak: We might need something for testing, later on, yes.

13:41:46 <cygri> +0

Richard Cyganiak: +0

13:41:47 <sandro> +1

+1

13:41:47 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

13:41:48 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

13:41:51 <FabGandon> +1

Fabien Gandon: +1

13:41:53 <Guus> +1

Guus Schreiber: +1

13:41:56 <yvesr> +1 but we should spell it out

Yves Raimond: +1 but we should spell it out

13:42:01 <Arnaud> +1

Arnaud Le Hors: +1

13:42:03 <davidwood> +0.5

David Wood: +0.5

13:42:45 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-17 -- there is no general purpose way to merge datasets; it can only be done with external knowledge.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-17 -- there is no general purpose way to merge datasets; it can only be done with external knowledge.

13:43:16 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-17 via the Web

David Wood: Closed ISSUE-17 via the Web

13:43:37 <sandro> yvesr: How about in a note?

Yves Raimond: How about in a note?

13:43:51 <sandro> ivan: yes, in some Dataset Semantics note, this stuff appears

Ivan Herman: yes, in some Dataset Semantics note, this stuff appears

13:43:53 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22

Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22

13:44:02 <sandro> sandro: yes, it falls out pretty much automatically.

Sandro Hawke: yes, it falls out pretty much automatically.

13:44:09 <Zakim> +PatH

Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH

13:45:02 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22

13:46:06 <sandro> sandro: I thought we resolved TriG would { } empty graphs

Sandro Hawke: I thought we resolved TriG would { } empty graphs

13:46:19 <sandro> cygri: SPARQL allows empty graphs.

Richard Cyganiak: SPARQL allows empty graphs.

13:46:44 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-03#resolution_4

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-03#resolution_4

13:46:45 <sandro> cygri: I hope at least the abstract syntax has empty graphs.

Richard Cyganiak: I hope at least the abstract syntax has empty graphs.

13:47:01 <davidwood> "Our dataset syntax will allow for the expression of empty named graphs, whatever their semantics might be."

David Wood: "Our dataset syntax will allow for the expression of empty named graphs, whatever their semantics might be."

13:47:06 <sandro> (from before)

(from before)

13:47:33 <sandro> yvesr: The assymmetry between N-Quads and TriG

Yves Raimond: The assymmetry between N-Quads and TriG

13:47:45 <path> And their semantics is, they are trivially true in all interpretations.

Patrick Hayes: And their semantics is, they are trivially true in all interpretations.

13:47:55 <sandro> cygri: SPARQL handles that by saying stores can treat an empty graph as not existing.

Richard Cyganiak: SPARQL handles that by saying stores can treat an empty graph as not existing.

13:48:33 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-22 based on the previous resolution

David Wood: Closed ISSUE-22 based on the previous resolution

13:49:06 <sandro> cygri: "Note: N-Quads can't record the existings of empty names graphs"   ...   "Tools may not want to attach too much meaning to empty graphs"

Richard Cyganiak: "Note: N-Quads can't record the existings of empty names graphs" ... "Tools may not want to attach too much meaning to empty graphs"

13:49:36 <sandro> sandro: empty default graph?

Sandro Hawke: empty default graph?

13:49:54 <path> But Nquads can do this. One can use nulls, for example.

Patrick Hayes: But Nquads can do this. One can use nulls, for example.

13:49:59 <Zakim> +GavinC

Zakim IRC Bot: +GavinC

13:50:02 <sandro> cyg: THeree is always a default graph

Richard Cyganiak: THeree is always a default graph

13:50:06 <Zakim> +GavinC.a

Zakim IRC Bot: +GavinC.a

13:50:20 <sandro> we do not hear Gavin

we do not hear Gavin

13:50:31 <yvesr> cygri: this is a TriG issue so should be tackled ther

Richard Cyganiak: this is a TriG issue so should be tackled there [ Scribe Assist by Yves Raimond ]

13:50:40 <yvesr> s/ther/there
13:51:05 <sandro> guus: People who use this might expect information loss

Guus Schreiber: People who use this might expect information loss

13:51:23 <path> I want to see the video of gavin merging with himself

Patrick Hayes: I want to see the video of gavin merging with himself

13:52:53 <Zakim> -GavinC

Zakim IRC Bot: -GavinC

13:53:17 <sandro> trackbot, issue-1?

trackbot, ISSUE-1?

13:53:20 <trackbot> Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, issue-1?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, ISSUE-1?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

13:53:45 <cygri_> ACTION: cygri to add note on RDF Datasets noting that empty named graphs may not survive in some implementations

ACTION: cygri to add note on RDF Datasets noting that empty named graphs may not survive in some implementations

13:53:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-199 - Add note on RDF Datasets noting that empty named graphs may not survive in some implementations [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-11-05].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-199 - Add note on RDF Datasets noting that empty named graphs may not survive in some implementations [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-11-05].

13:55:16 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps, but we recognize that people can do it by defining predicates that let them do it.  We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps, but we recognize that people can do it by defining predicates that let them do it. We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary.

13:55:43 <cygri> +1

Richard Cyganiak: +1

13:55:46 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

13:55:46 <sandro> +1

+1

13:55:47 <davidwood> +1

David Wood: +1

13:55:47 <Guus> +1

Guus Schreiber: +1

13:55:47 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

13:55:51 <FabGandon> +1

Fabien Gandon: +1

13:55:55 <pchampin> +1

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1

13:55:56 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

13:56:05 <davidwood> [almost] RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps, but we recognize that people can do it by defining predicates that let them do it.  We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary.

David Wood: [almost] RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps, but we recognize that people can do it by defining predicates that let them do it.  We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary.

13:56:15 <sandro> close issue-32

close ISSUE-32

13:56:15 <trackbot> ISSUE-32 Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps? closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-32 Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps? closed

13:56:18 <path> -1

Patrick Hayes: -1

13:56:18 <sandro> issue-29?

ISSUE-29?

13:56:21 <trackbot> ISSUE-29 -- Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? -- closed

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-29 -- Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? -- closed

13:56:21 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/29

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/29

13:57:59 <sandro> sandro: This resolution text is just a note to ourselves to remind ourselves why we closed the resolution.

Sandro Hawke: This resolution text is just a note to ourselves to remind ourselves why we closed the resolution.

13:58:39 <sandro> patL: I think the resolution should end at " we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps."

Patrick Hayes: I think the resolution should end at " we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps."

13:58:49 <path> +1

Patrick Hayes: +1

13:58:58 <AZ> s/patL/path/
13:59:00 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.

13:59:05 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

13:59:07 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

13:59:10 <Arnaud> +1

Arnaud Le Hors: +1

13:59:11 <davidwood> PROPOSED: Close-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps. However, we recognize that people can identify graphs in a dataset syntax by defining predicates that let them do it.  We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary.

PROPOSED: Close-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps. However, we recognize that people can identify graphs in a dataset syntax by defining predicates that let them do it.  We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary.

13:59:11 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

13:59:12 <FabGandon> +1

Fabien Gandon: +1

13:59:12 <sandro> +0.5 see IRC discussion here.

+0.5 see IRC discussion here.

13:59:13 <Guus> +1

Guus Schreiber: +1

13:59:51 <sandro> sandro: Pat, are you okay with David's phrasing?

Sandro Hawke: Pat, are you okay with David's phrasing?

14:00:42 <sandro> pat: Here's my problem.   I am still under the impression that we have not come to any agreement as a WG.   We have not chosen a vocab for this -- Sandro suggested one -- but we couldn't agree on it.

Patrick Hayes: Here's my problem. I am still under the impression that we have not come to any agreement as a WG. We have not chosen a vocab for this -- Sandro suggested one -- but we couldn't agree on it.

14:00:45 <davidwood> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.

14:00:45 <AZ> +1 to the short version

Antoine Zimmermann: +1 to the short version

14:00:45 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.

14:00:52 <sandro> +1

+1

14:00:53 <davidwood> +1

David Wood: +1

14:00:55 <AZ> +1

Antoine Zimmermann: +1

14:00:55 <FabGandon> +1

Fabien Gandon: +1

14:00:57 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

14:00:57 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

14:00:59 <path> +1

Patrick Hayes: +1

14:01:00 <Arnaud> +1

Arnaud Le Hors: +1

14:01:03 <pchampin> +1

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1

14:01:06 <cygri> +1

Richard Cyganiak: +1

14:01:08 <Guus> -1

Guus Schreiber: -1

14:01:14 <Guus> oops typo

Guus Schreiber: oops typo

14:01:15 <sandro> ivan: No one does anything but vote until we say resolved

Ivan Herman: No one does anything but vote until we say resolved

14:01:18 <Guus> +1

Guus Schreiber: +1

14:01:21 <sandro> sandro: like scribe?

Sandro Hawke: like scribe?

14:01:26 <gavinc> 0

Gavin Carothers: 0

14:01:37 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.

14:02:46 <gavinc> Yeah, we closed them by not having interoperability! Well done us! ;)

Gavin Carothers: Yeah, we closed them by not having interoperability! Well done us! ;)

14:02:47 <path> THis could be a model for quite a number of thorny problems.

Patrick Hayes: THis could be a model for quite a number of thorny problems.

14:02:48 <Zakim> + +1.617.838.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.838.aaaa

14:02:58 <MacTed> aaaa is me

Ted Thibodeau: aaaa is me

14:03:05 <MacTed> Zakim, aaaa is me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, aaaa is me

14:03:05 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it

14:03:15 <ivan> zakim, who is here?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here?

14:03:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB, PatH, GavinC.a, MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB, PatH, GavinC.a, MacTed

14:03:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see shh, trackbot, cygri, path, davidwood, FabGandon, MacTed, SteveS, gavinc, ScottB, ivan, pchampin, mlnt, AndyS, Guus, AZ, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, yvesr, manu1,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see shh, trackbot, cygri, path, davidwood, FabGandon, MacTed, SteveS, gavinc, ScottB, ivan, pchampin, mlnt, AndyS, Guus, AZ, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, yvesr, manu1,

14:03:16 <Zakim> ... mischat, sandro, ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: ... mischat, sandro, ericP

14:03:35 <ivan> zakim, GavinC.a is really Gavinc

Ivan Herman: zakim, GavinC.a is really Gavinc

14:03:35 <Zakim> +Gavinc; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Gavinc; got it

14:04:00 <cygri> subtopic: Next RDF Concepts WD

8.4. Next RDF Concepts WD

14:04:28 <sandro> cyg: New WDs of rdf-concepts.    I can address the yellow boxes now, I think.

Richard Cyganiak: New WDs of rdf-concepts. I can address the yellow boxes now, I think.

14:04:49 <sandro> .. Can we go to Last Call?   Or put out another WD first?

.. Can we go to Last Call? Or put out another WD first?

14:05:05 <path> In 2004 the semantics went through c. 30 drafts.

Patrick Hayes: In 2004 the semantics went through c. 30 drafts.

14:05:29 <sandro> guus: We owe it to the community to do a WD before Last Call

Guus Schreiber: We owe it to the community to do a WD before Last Call

14:05:39 <sandro> sandro: why?

Sandro Hawke: why?

14:05:45 <sandro> ivan: LC is just we're internally resolved on it, not community

Ivan Herman: LC is just we're internally resolved on it, not community

14:05:54 <path> Not a Call if you just put it out in public and invite comments.

Patrick Hayes: Not a Call if you just put it out in public and invite comments.

14:06:01 <sandro> sandro: You can go straight to last call

Sandro Hawke: You can go straight to last call

14:06:18 <path> +1

Patrick Hayes: +1

14:06:21 <davidwood> It is a Call because we are calling for public comments

David Wood: It is a Call because we are calling for public comments

14:06:32 <sandro> cyg: Pragmatically -- it would be bad to publish LC of Concepts since we don't even have FPWD of everything else.

Richard Cyganiak: Pragmatically -- it would be bad to publish LC of Concepts since we don't even have FPWD of everything else.

14:06:39 <gavinc> +1 to not publishing a last call for data sets without a concrete syntax for datasets

Gavin Carothers: +1 to not publishing a last call for data sets without a concrete syntax for datasets

14:06:41 <sandro> ivan: true

Ivan Herman: true

14:07:04 <path> +1 to cyg.

Patrick Hayes: +1 to cyg.

14:07:25 <sandro> sandro: So, next WD of rdf-concepts within a month or so?

Sandro Hawke: So, next WD of rdf-concepts within a month or so?

14:07:35 <sandro> david: (reads W3C Process on Last Call)

David Wood: (reads W3C Process on Last Call)

14:08:36 <sandro> cyg: Yes.

Richard Cyganiak: Yes.

14:10:05 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?

zakim, who is on the call?

14:10:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB, PatH, Gavinc, MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB, PatH, Gavinc, MacTed

14:10:14 <Zakim> -PatH

Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH

14:10:15 <sandro> topic: [COFFEE BREAK]

9. [COFFEE BREAK]

14:10:22 <gavinc> enjoy your coffee

Gavin Carothers: enjoy your coffee

14:10:43 <gavinc> 7.30 PDT

Gavin Carothers: 7.30 PDT

14:10:52 <MacTed> danke

Ted Thibodeau: danke

14:12:04 <Zakim> -MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed

14:12:49 <gavinc> I have no idea how to provide any examples in TriG btw, give our resolution to ISSUE-15 :\

Gavin Carothers: I have no idea how to provide any examples in TriG btw, give our resolution to ISSUE-15 :\

14:27:22 <Zakim> +??P8

(No events recorded for 14 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8

14:27:27 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P8

Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P8

14:27:27 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it

14:27:40 <Guus> welcome gregg, we're just in a break

Guus Schreiber: welcome gregg, we're just in a break

14:28:45 <Guus> we're 30 min late wrt our agenda

Guus Schreiber: we're 30 min late wrt our agenda

14:29:05 <Zakim> -ScottB

Zakim IRC Bot: -ScottB

14:30:19 <Zakim> +Tony

Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony

14:31:26 <Zakim> +PatH

Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH

14:32:30 <Zakim> +MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed

14:33:21 <path> great sound tapestry of multiple languages.

Patrick Hayes: great sound tapestry of multiple languages.

14:33:28 <davidwood> +1

David Wood: +1

14:33:37 <gkellogg> zakim: mute me
14:33:57 <gkellogg> zakim, mute me

Gregg Kellogg: zakim, mute me

14:33:57 <Zakim> gkellogg should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg should now be muted

14:34:33 <cygri> zakim, who is on the phone?

Richard Cyganiak: zakim, who is on the phone?

14:34:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, Gavinc, gkellogg (muted), Tony, PatH, MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, Gavinc, gkellogg (muted), Tony, PatH, MacTed

14:34:34 <path> I once had a very bad curry in Marseilles.

Patrick Hayes: I once had a very bad curry in Marseilles.

14:34:50 <yvesr> :)

Yves Raimond: :)

14:35:11 <ScottB> Zakim, Tony is temporarily me

Scott Bauer: Zakim, Tony is temporarily me

14:35:11 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +ScottB; got it

14:35:21 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

14:35:21 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted

13:35:30 <cygri> scribe: AZ

(Scribe set to Antoine Zimmermann)

14:35:42 <AZ> topic: RDF Semantics

(No events recorded for 60 minutes)

10. RDF Semantics

14:35:58 <gavinc> mmm, yes indeed as I have meetings at 9am PDT

Gavin Carothers: mmm, yes indeed as I have meetings at 9am PDT

14:36:03 <AZ> Guus:  but we'll start Turtle at 4:30 at the latest

Guus Schreiber: but we'll start Turtle at 4:30 at the latest

14:36:33 <gavinc> that means 30 minutes for Turtle yes?

Gavin Carothers: that means 30 minutes for Turtle yes?

14:36:39 <AZ> Guus: we may not reach issues re. Semantics VS Concepts

Guus Schreiber: we may not reach issues re. Semantics VS Concepts

14:37:04 <AZ> ... we hope to get to LC before end of Jan.

... we hope to get to LC before end of Jan.

14:37:24 <AZ> ... let's look at things to be resolved in semantics

... let's look at things to be resolved in semantics

14:37:36 <AZ> ... let's have Pat's view

... let's have Pat's view

14:37:56 <davidwood> GavinC, Turtle in 53 minutes

David Wood: GavinC, Turtle in 53 minutes

14:38:00 <davidwood> from now

David Wood: from now

14:38:30 <cygri> subtopic: Splitting the RDF Semantics document

10.1. Splitting the RDF Semantics document

14:38:39 <AZ> path: the situation as I see it...

Patrick Hayes: the situation as I see it...

14:38:52 <AZ> ... there several major changes that we resolved not doing

... there several major changes that we resolved not doing

14:39:24 <AZ> ... but regarding the doc it would be good to scale down the text

... but regarding the doc it would be good to scale down the text

14:39:47 <Guus> Open issues on RDF Semantics: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/9

Guus Schreiber: Open issues on RDF Semantics: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/9

14:39:50 <AZ> ... now it contains both the formal and the "tutorial-like" part on semantics

... now it contains both the formal and the "tutorial-like" part on semantics

14:40:12 <AZ> ... let us separate the MT in a short doc

... let us separate the MT in a short doc

14:40:39 <AZ> ... and do a separate doc that summarise the inference rules and give the tutorial stuff

... and do a separate doc that summarise the inference rules and give the tutorial stuff

14:41:11 <AZ> ... and declare that these rules are non normative

... and declare that these rules are non normative

14:41:15 <cygri> q+

Richard Cyganiak: q+

14:41:28 <sandro> q-

Sandro Hawke: q-

14:41:34 <cygri> q+ to ask about the third rule "tutorial on model theory"

Richard Cyganiak: q+ to ask about the third rule "tutorial on model theory"

14:41:55 <sandro> +1 splitting RDF Semantics into Normative part and Entailments.

Sandro Hawke: +1 splitting RDF Semantics into Normative part and Entailments.

14:41:57 <davidwood> ack Guus

David Wood: ack Guus

14:41:58 <AZ> ... the proof of completeness of rules etc would be removed

... the proof of completeness of rules etc would be removed

14:42:15 <Guus> ack cygri

Guus Schreiber: ack cygri

14:42:15 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask about the third rule "tutorial on model theory"

Zakim IRC Bot: cygri, you wanted to ask about the third rule "tutorial on model theory"

14:42:31 <AZ> cygri: good analysis of the current docs

Richard Cyganiak: good analysis of the current docs

14:42:50 <AZ> ... I like having a more focused doc that only treats the formal stuff

... I like having a more focused doc that only treats the formal stuff

14:43:52 <AZ> ... we should retain the rest in some form as a note

... we should retain the rest in some form as a note

14:44:08 <AZ> ... for people who want to know a bit more without having to get into MT

... for people who want to know a bit more without having to get into MT

14:44:26 <davidwood> Good idea

David Wood: Good idea

14:44:29 <AZ> ... I agree the rules should not be normative

... I agree the rules should not be normative

14:44:51 <AZ> ... the question is where the informative, more accessible things would go

... the question is where the informative, more accessible things would go

14:45:38 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

14:46:05 <AZ> ... About the "tutorial-like" parts on model theory, I found it somehow useful in some way

... About the "tutorial-like" parts on model theory, I found it somehow useful in some way

14:46:31 <Guus> q?

Guus Schreiber: q?

14:46:38 <Guus> ack ivan

Guus Schreiber: ack ivan

14:46:46 <AZ> path: we could keep the intro to MT in RDF semantics before formal definitions comes

Patrick Hayes: we could keep the intro to MT in RDF semantics before formal definitions comes

14:47:15 <AZ> ivan: I agree we can  keep the intro on MT in RDF semantics as informative part

Ivan Herman: I agree we can keep the intro on MT in RDF semantics as informative part

14:47:33 <AZ> ... and we should put references to relevant books

... and we should put references to relevant books

14:47:39 <cygri> ivan++

Richard Cyganiak: ivan++

14:48:06 <Guus> q?

Guus Schreiber: q?

14:48:13 <AZ> ... the rules would end up as a note

... the rules would end up as a note

14:48:45 <gavinc> MT would be another document, right? Okay, yes/

Gavin Carothers: MT would be another document, right? Okay, yes/

14:49:39 <AZ> ... there are defintions in the MT (lean graphs, issues on bnodes, etc) which are normative so should be in RDF semantics

... there are defintions in the MT (lean graphs, issues on bnodes, etc) which are normative so should be in RDF semantics

14:49:51 <AZ> ... but may be needed in the doc on rules

... but may be needed in the doc on rules

14:50:11 <Guus> q+ to point out danger of doc proliferation

Guus Schreiber: q+ to point out danger of doc proliferation

14:50:24 <AZ> path: maybe we could keep things in one document

Patrick Hayes: maybe we could keep things in one document

14:50:44 <AZ> ivan: the different sections are for different audiences so it's better separated

Ivan Herman: the different sections are for different audiences so it's better separated

14:51:05 <AZ> Guus: I don't like document proliferation

Guus Schreiber: I don't like document proliferation

14:51:15 <davidwood> q+

David Wood: q+

14:51:20 <davidwood> ack gus

David Wood: ack gus

14:51:23 <AZ> ... it's a burden on our readership

... it's a burden on our readership

14:51:24 <davidwood> ack guus

David Wood: ack guus

14:51:24 <Zakim> Guus, you wanted to point out danger of doc proliferation

Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, you wanted to point out danger of doc proliferation

14:51:30 <path> maybe definitions of lean, merge etc,, should be in concepts?

Patrick Hayes: maybe definitions of lean, merge etc,, should be in concepts?

14:51:38 <cygri> q+

Richard Cyganiak: q+

14:51:41 <AZ> ... I feel better with Pat's idea of keeping all this in one doc

... I feel better with Pat's idea of keeping all this in one doc

14:51:49 <Guus> ack davidwood

Guus Schreiber: ack davidwood

14:52:12 <AZ> davidwood: it's also a problem for our readers if the docs become insanely huge

David Wood: it's also a problem for our readers if the docs become insanely huge

14:52:18 <Guus> ack cygri

Guus Schreiber: ack cygri

14:52:51 <AZ> cygri: it makes sense to group content of docs in function of the readership rather than in terms of theme

Richard Cyganiak: it makes sense to group content of docs in function of the readership rather than in terms of theme

14:52:58 <path> +1 to cygri. documents are aimed at readership.

Patrick Hayes: +1 to cygri. documents are aimed at readership.

14:53:05 <sandro> +1 cygri: group documents based on readership.    so keeping all three together isn't such a good idea

Sandro Hawke: +1 cygri: group documents based on readership. so keeping all three together isn't such a good idea

14:53:18 <Guus> ok, happy to be convinced

Guus Schreiber: ok, happy to be convinced

14:53:24 <AZ> ... keeping content of RDF semantics as it is is not a good idea

... keeping content of RDF semantics as it is is not a good idea

14:53:44 <AZ> ... although I agree doc proliferation is also a problem

... although I agree doc proliferation is also a problem

14:54:04 <MacTed> I generally prefer three distinct 50 page docs over one 150 page doc with three distinct chapters

Ted Thibodeau: I generally prefer three distinct 50 page docs over one 150 page doc with three distinct chapters

14:54:09 <AZ> Guus: happy to be convinced if there are very good reasons

Guus Schreiber: happy to be convinced if there are very good reasons

14:54:29 <davidwood> q+ re RAISED issues

David Wood: q+ re RAISED issues

14:54:33 <MacTed> (especially when they're commonly presented as one giant streaming HTML page)

Ted Thibodeau: (especially when they're commonly presented as one giant streaming HTML page)

14:54:35 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-9 (Bug in entailment rules)

10.2. ISSUE-9 (Bug in entailment rules)

14:54:41 <AZ> Guus: let us look at the open issues

Guus Schreiber: let us look at the open issues

14:54:48 <gavinc> www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/9

Gavin Carothers: www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/9

14:55:12 <AZ> ... open and raised issues

... open and raised issues

14:55:21 <davidwood> q-

David Wood: q-

14:56:10 <AZ> path: the rules are incomplete and we should remove proofs and not express guarantees that they are complete

Patrick Hayes: the rules are incomplete and we should remove proofs and not express guarantees that they are complete

14:56:59 <AZ> ... there are rules that are computationally bad but necessary for completeness

... there are rules that are computationally bad but necessary for completeness

14:57:25 <AZ> cygri: could we transform this into an action

Richard Cyganiak: could we transform this into an action

14:57:52 <AZ> gavinc: we could make a resolution without closing the issue

Gavin Carothers: we could make a resolution without closing the issue

14:58:37 <AZ> Guus: we resolve to close the issue by having an action to solve it

Guus Schreiber: we resolve to close the issue by having an action to solve it

14:59:48 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Semantics editors accept an action to add the missing inference rule as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9

PROPOSED: Semantics editors accept an action to add the missing inference rule as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9

15:00:19 <davidwood> Opened ISSUEs 84, 85, 90, 97 and 98

David Wood: Opened ISSUEs 84, 85, 90, 97 and 98

15:00:27 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

15:00:29 <AZ> +1

+1

15:00:30 <MacTed> +1

Ted Thibodeau: +1

15:00:33 <davidwood> +1

David Wood: +1

15:00:44 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

15:00:45 <AZ> RESOLVED: Semantics editors accept an action to add the missing inference rule as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9

RESOLVED: Semantics editors accept an action to add the missing inference rule as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9

15:00:54 <davidwood> CLOSE ISSUE-9

David Wood: CLOSE ISSUE-9

15:01:21 <AZ> action: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9

ACTION: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9

15:02:18 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-9 via the Web with the resolution comments (lost Tracker again)

David Wood: Closed ISSUE-9 via the Web with the resolution comments (lost Tracker again)

15:02:35 <AZ> cygri: we resolved that the list of datatypes should be removed from semantics and put in concepts

Richard Cyganiak: we resolved that the list of datatypes should be removed from semantics and put in concepts

15:02:40 <sandro> action: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9

ACTION: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9

15:02:55 <AZ> ivan: but XMLliterals is the source of inconcistency

Ivan Herman: but XMLliterals is the source of inconcistency

15:03:24 <AZ> path: we don't need to have the list of datatypes and can refer to concepts

Patrick Hayes: we don't need to have the list of datatypes and can refer to concepts

15:04:20 <sandro> action: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9

ACTION: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9

15:05:30 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-11 (Other semantics-related documents)
15:04:32 <cygri> q+ to talk about semantic extensions

Richard Cyganiak: q+ to talk about semantic extensions

15:05:02 <AZ> ivan: the POWDER IRI set (????) is an extension of RDF semantics

Ivan Herman: the POWDER IRI set (????) is an extension of RDF semantics

15:05:46 <AZ> ... it would be nice to have all things in one place

... it would be nice to have all things in one place

15:06:00 <AZ> path: it would be a mistake to try to put everything together as it can grow

Patrick Hayes: it would be a mistake to try to put everything together as it can grow

15:06:18 <AZ> ... we could say that they are legal extensions

... we could say that they are legal extensions

15:06:29 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

15:06:37 <AZ> ... and specify well what are formally semantic extensions

... and specify well what are formally semantic extensions

15:06:41 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

15:07:01 <Guus> ack cygri

Guus Schreiber: ack cygri

15:07:01 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to talk about semantic extensions

Zakim IRC Bot: cygri, you wanted to talk about semantic extensions

15:07:34 <AZ> cygri: the notion of semantic extension is not very well put in the doc but is mentionned

Richard Cyganiak: the notion of semantic extension is not very well put in the doc but is mentionned

15:07:43 <AZ> ... and IRIset semantics is a very good example of extension

... and IRIset semantics is a very good example of extension

15:08:17 <AZ> ... rdf:plainLiteral is now irrelevant with our decision on removing plain literals

... rdf:plainLiteral is now irrelevant with our decision on removing plain literals

15:08:48 <Guus> ack sandro

Guus Schreiber: ack sandro

15:08:48 <AZ> sandro: it's more important for OWL where you need this for property rangs

Sandro Hawke: it's more important for OWL where you need this for property range

15:08:57 <AZ> s/rangs/range/
15:11:04 <sandro> q+

Sandro Hawke: q+

15:11:44 <AZ> sandro: we need better explanations on what entailment is useful for the semantic web

Sandro Hawke: we need better explanations on what entailment is useful for the semantic web

15:12:29 <AZ> ... it seems that at the moment people have different expectations of what the semantics is for

... it seems that at the moment people have different expectations of what the semantics is for

15:13:45 <davidwood> ack sandro

David Wood: ack sandro

15:13:48 <ivan> PROPOSED: the Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples

PROPOSED: the Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples

15:14:19 <cygri> +1

Richard Cyganiak: +1

15:14:23 <AZ> +1

+1

15:14:25 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

15:14:26 <davidwood> +1

David Wood: +1

15:14:27 <Guus> =1

Guus Schreiber: =1

15:14:30 <FabGandon> +1

Fabien Gandon: +1

15:14:31 <path> +1

Patrick Hayes: +1

15:14:36 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

15:14:42 <sandro> +1 but I'm scared about what that text might look like without a lot more discussion.

Sandro Hawke: +1 but I'm scared about what that text might look like without a lot more discussion.

15:14:52 <AZ> RESOLVED: The Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples

RESOLVED: The Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples

15:16:03 <AZ> Guus: do we postpone this for later?

Guus Schreiber: do we postpone this for later?

15:16:17 <AZ> ivan: rdf:plainLiteral does not change anything

Ivan Herman: rdf:plainLiteral does not change anything

15:16:38 <AZ> ... to the semantics document

... to the semantics document

15:17:31 <AZ> ... the question is only about the influence on RDF Semantics 1.1

... the question is only about the influence on RDF Semantics 1.1

15:18:23 <AZ> path: any decision refering to rdf:plainLiteral would be a trivial change like 1 sentence

Patrick Hayes: any decision refering to rdf:plainLiteral would be a trivial change like 1 sentence

15:18:35 <gavinc> Close without prejudice?

Gavin Carothers: Close without prejudice?

15:18:43 <AZ> cygri: we should see if the OWL WG really care about what we do wrt plainLiteral

Richard Cyganiak: we should see if the OWL WG really care about what we do wrt plainLiteral

15:18:57 <AZ> ivan: they probably do not care

Ivan Herman: they probably do not care

15:19:32 <sandro> sandro: (thinking:   so, no one cares about whether rdf:PlainLiteral is "ugly"....)

Sandro Hawke: (thinking: so, no one cares about whether rdf:PlainLiteral is "ugly"....) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:19:53 <davidwood> Close ISSUE-11 RESOLVED: the Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples

David Wood: Close ISSUE-11 RESOLVED: the Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples

15:20:34 <davidwood> Close ISSUE-11 via the Web

David Wood: Close ISSUE-11 via the Web

15:21:50 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-70 via the Web

David Wood: Closed ISSUE-70 via the Web

15:22:00 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-85 (XSD 1.1, equality, and identity)

10.4. ISSUE-85 (XSD 1.1, equality, and identity)

15:22:50 <AZ> issue-85?

ISSUE-85?

15:23:33 <AZ> path: I don't know the difference between equality and identity

Patrick Hayes: I don't know the difference between equality and identity

15:23:49 <AZ> sandro: consider it's relation1 and relation2, and see what you get

Sandro Hawke: consider it's relation1 and relation2, and see what you get

15:24:35 <AZ> path: let us say that RDF semantics is defined in terms of identity

Patrick Hayes: let us say that RDF semantics is defined in terms of identity

15:25:20 <davidwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0294.html

David Wood: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0294.html

15:25:57 <AZ> ericP: SPARQL has operations that use identity and others equality

Eric Prud'hommeaux: SPARQL has operations that use identity and others equality

15:26:49 <davidwood> Alex Hall's Review of XSD Datatypes 1.1 Changes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0039.html

David Wood: Alex Hall's Review of XSD Datatypes 1.1 Changes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0039.html

15:27:18 <gavinc> SPARQL has both

Gavin Carothers: SPARQL has both

15:28:03 <AZ> ericP: SPARQL has eq and =

Eric Prud'hommeaux: SPARQL has eq and =

15:28:33 <cygri> q+

Richard Cyganiak: q+

15:28:44 <AZ> ericP: it's the distinction you have in lisp

Eric Prud'hommeaux: it's the distinction you have in lisp

15:28:45 <gavinc> 1 == 1.0 or 1 != 1.0

Gavin Carothers: 1 == 1.0 or 1 != 1.0

15:29:38 <cygri> q-

Richard Cyganiak: q-

15:29:57 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#func-sameTerm SPARQL sameTerm operator

Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#func-sameTerm SPARQL sameTerm operator

15:30:05 <AZ> davidwood: SPARQL distnguishes "2 numbers being equal" (=) and "2 strings are equal", the later requires computation

David Wood: SPARQL distnguishes "2 numbers being equal" (=) and "2 strings are equal", the later requires computation

15:31:33 <davidwood> Almost all computer languages make the same type of comparisons:  Numbers and strings are compared differently.

David Wood: Almost all computer languages make the same type of comparisons: Numbers and strings are compared differently.

15:31:55 <AZ> cygri: ask alex (Alex Hall) from SPARQL 1.1 WG to know what he thinks the clarification should be

Richard Cyganiak: ask alex (Alex Hall) from SPARQL 1.1 WG to know what he thinks the clarification should be

15:33:28 <sandro> q?

Sandro Hawke: q?

15:34:28 <gavinc> Yes, computers are wrong ;)

Gavin Carothers: Yes, computers are wrong ;)

15:34:29 <sandro> sandro: In my book this is what D-Entailment is about.     Do    "01"^^xs:integer and "1"^^xs:integer co-refer ?

Sandro Hawke: In my book this is what D-Entailment is about. Do "01"^^xs:integer and "1"^^xs:integer co-refer ? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:34:35 <davidwood> a = a + 1

David Wood: a = a + 1

15:35:15 <Arnaud> this is about a == b vs a.equals(b)

Arnaud Le Hors: this is about a == b vs a.equals(b)

15:35:24 <AZ> cygri: there may not be interest in discussing an issue we don't even know what it is about

Richard Cyganiak: there may not be interest in discussing an issue we don't even know what it is about

15:35:33 <davidwood> +1 to Arnaud noting that neither is =

David Wood: +1 to Arnaud noting that neither is =

15:35:35 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-98 (Graph semantics and dataset semantics)

10.5. ISSUE-98 (Graph semantics and dataset semantics)

15:35:40 <cygri> ISSUE-98?

Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-98?

15:36:24 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-98 because we are leaving the semantics of RDF datasets unspecified

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-98 because we are leaving the semantics of RDF datasets unspecified

15:36:49 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-98

David Wood: Closed ISSUE-98

15:37:21 <gavinc> tomorrow is much worse

Gavin Carothers: tomorrow is much worse

15:37:24 <AZ> Guus: we leave the other issues on semantics for later

Guus Schreiber: we leave the other issues on semantics for later

15:37:29 <AZ> topic: Turtle

11. Turtle

15:37:32 <ScottB> I'm going to have to sign off early

Scott Bauer: I'm going to have to sign off early

15:37:39 <Zakim> -ScottB

Zakim IRC Bot: -ScottB

15:37:54 <path> OK, I will drop out now. thanks.

Patrick Hayes: OK, I will drop out now. thanks.

15:38:02 <Zakim> -PatH

Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH

15:38:11 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller]

15:38:20 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me

Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me

15:38:20 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it

15:38:30 <AZ> gavinc: the remaining issues are around test cases, how we publish them

Gavin Carothers: the remaining issues are around test cases, how we publish them

15:39:00 <cygri> subtopic: Test cases and CR exit criteria

11.1. Test cases and CR exit criteria

15:39:05 <AZ> Guus: we plan to have a CR in 2 weeks, which seems unlikely

Guus Schreiber: we plan to have a CR in 2 weeks, which seems unlikely

15:40:00 <AZ> ericP: we still have Tim's comment

Eric Prud'hommeaux: we still have Tim's comment

15:41:34 <AZ> ivan: we can say the commenters we wait for 2 weekd for their answer and move on

Ivan Herman: we can say the commenters we wait for 2 weekd for their answer and move on

15:42:12 <AZ> ericP: if we don't get response, we assume agreement

Eric Prud'hommeaux: if we don't get response, we assume agreement

15:43:04 <AZ> ivan: tests don't have to be complete when we are in CR

Ivan Herman: tests don't have to be complete when we are in CR

15:43:34 <AZ> ... we have to say what we think is necessary to pass the test

... we have to say what we think is necessary to pass the test

15:44:18 <gavinc> Two implementations are likely to pass the tests, in reality 3 :P gkellogg, gavinc, and AndyS :P

Gavin Carothers: Two implementations are likely to pass the tests, in reality 3 :P gkellogg, gavinc, and AndyS :P

15:45:01 <AZ> ivan: the call for implementation is the CR

Ivan Herman: the call for implementation is the CR

15:45:24 <AZ> ... but we can skip it if you already have the required implementation already

... but we can skip it if you already have the required implementation already

15:45:34 <AZ> sandro: but we don't have the test suite yet

Sandro Hawke: but we don't have the test suite yet

15:45:40 <gavinc> q?

Gavin Carothers: q?

15:46:03 <AZ> ericP: we want 2 implementations

Eric Prud'hommeaux: we want 2 implementations

15:46:18 <sandro> PROPOSED: Our CR exit criterion for Turtle will be: two or more implementations passing all the approved tests in the test suite.

PROPOSED: Our CR exit criterion for Turtle will be: two or more implementations passing all the approved tests in the test suite.

15:46:25 <davidwood> +1

David Wood: +1

15:46:27 <gkellogg> +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

15:46:28 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

15:46:29 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

15:46:30 <gavinc> +1

Gavin Carothers: +1

15:46:33 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

15:46:33 <Arnaud> +1

Arnaud Le Hors: +1

15:46:34 <AZ> +1

+1

15:46:37 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

15:46:53 <sandro> RESOLVED: Our CR exit criterion for Turtle will be: two or more implementations passing all the approved tests in the test suite.

RESOLVED: Our CR exit criterion for Turtle will be: two or more implementations passing all the approved tests in the test suite.

15:46:55 <Arnaud> q+

Arnaud Le Hors: q+

15:47:09 <Guus> ack Arnoud

Guus Schreiber: ack Arnoud

15:47:16 <davidwood> ack Arnaud

David Wood: ack Arnaud

15:47:23 <gavinc> At risk features, PREFIX/BASE

Gavin Carothers: At risk features, PREFIX/BASE

15:47:36 <AZ> Arnaud: do we have an idea of when we are likely to have the 2 implemetnations

Arnaud Le Hors: do we have an idea of when we are likely to have the 2 implemetnations

15:47:46 <gkellogg> zakim, unmute me

Gregg Kellogg: zakim, unmute me

15:47:46 <Zakim> gkellogg should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg should no longer be muted

15:48:02 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+

15:48:07 <gavinc> Do at RISK features need to be resolved before CR?

Gavin Carothers: Do at RISK features need to be resolved before CR?

15:48:11 <AZ> sandro: we should have a rec before asking for more time

Sandro Hawke: we should have a rec before asking for more time

15:48:23 <Guus> ack AndyS

Guus Schreiber: ack AndyS

15:48:33 <gavinc> 1000 ;)

Gavin Carothers: 1000 ;)

15:48:37 <gavinc> yes it does

Gavin Carothers: yes it does

15:48:46 <sandro> Excellent!

Sandro Hawke: Excellent!

15:49:03 <AZ> AndyS: we need to define formally what the test suite is

Andy Seaborne: we need to define formally what the test suite is

15:49:28 <AZ> ericP: I expect it to be like the RDF/XML test suite

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I expect it to be like the RDF/XML test suite

15:50:02 <AZ> ... it gives correspondence between RDF/XML input and N-triples equivalent

... it gives correspondence between RDF/XML input and N-triples equivalent

15:50:05 <gavinc> Test Suite N-Triples

Gavin Carothers: Test Suite N-Triples

15:50:42 <AZ> sandro: there can be negative syntax test

Sandro Hawke: there can be negative syntax test

15:50:49 <AndyS> +1 to Sandro

Andy Seaborne: +1 to Sandro

15:51:15 <AZ> ... parsers can accept invalid input but we can have the test nonetheless

... parsers can accept invalid input but we can have the test nonetheless

15:51:49 <gkellogg> my parser implements a "strict" option, for this purpose

Gregg Kellogg: my parser implements a "strict" option, for this purpose

15:51:54 <yvesr> +1 to sandro as well

Yves Raimond: +1 to sandro as well

15:52:14 <AZ> ericP: we could say we require 2 turtle parsers that succeed on positive test and reject negative tests

Eric Prud'hommeaux: we could say we require 2 turtle parsers that succeed on positive test and reject negative tests

15:52:18 <gavinc> my parser has "explode_violently"

Gavin Carothers: my parser has "explode_violently"

15:52:25 <AndyS> as gkellogg -- RIOT has special strict mode.

Andy Seaborne: as gkellogg -- RIOT has special strict mode.

15:52:29 <gavinc> steaming nature bing the issue

Gavin Carothers: steaming nature bing the issue

15:52:42 <sandro> sandro: I think it would be good to have some "validating" parsers, parsers which can pass negative syntax tests.

Sandro Hawke: I think it would be good to have some "validating" parsers, parsers which can pass negative syntax tests. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:52:55 <AZ> ericP: negative test make sure that some things are not misinterpreted by some parsers

Eric Prud'hommeaux: negative test make sure that some things are not misinterpreted by some parsers

15:53:37 <sandro> gavin: we need to be able to emit some triples before failing

Gavin Carothers: we need to be able to emit some triples before failing [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:53:39 <AZ> gavinc: issues with streaming parsers

Gavin Carothers: issues with streaming parsers

15:53:48 <AndyS> some triples and an error is a "no"

Andy Seaborne: some triples and an error is a "no"

15:53:53 <sandro> +1 allow parser to emit triples before saying NOT-TURTLE.

Sandro Hawke: +1 allow parser to emit triples before saying NOT-TURTLE.

15:54:01 <AZ> ericP: I don't think streaming would be problem

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I don't think streaming would be problem

15:54:25 <gkellogg> Yes, I'll emit triples too, but raise an error on invalid input.

Gregg Kellogg: Yes, I'll emit triples too, but raise an error on invalid input.

15:54:32 <AZ> sandro: we are ok with having negative syntax test

Sandro Hawke: we are ok with having negative syntax tests

15:54:34 <AndyS> (or read to tmp place)

Andy Seaborne: (or read to tmp place)

15:54:37 <AZ> s/test/tests/
15:55:06 <sandro> consensus -- we're okay with having negative syntax tests, as long as it's okay to emit some triples before rejecting the input as not strictly turtle

Sandro Hawke: consensus -- we're okay with having negative syntax tests, as long as it's okay to emit some triples before rejecting the input as not strictly turtle

15:55:35 <AZ> ericP: catalogue the tests we have in terms of features tested

Eric Prud'hommeaux: catalogue the tests we have in terms of features tested

15:56:29 <AZ> ... test points to relevantdocument parts

... test points to relevant document parts

15:56:45 <AZ> s/relevantdocument/relevant document/
15:58:18 <sandro> subtopic: Can a turtle parser normalize xsd data?

11.2. Can a turtle parser normalize xsd data?

15:57:51 <gkellogg> Serialize "foo" or "foo"^^xsd:string?

Gregg Kellogg: Serialize "foo" or "foo"^^xsd:string?

15:58:27 <AZ> ericP: if we write the tests according to their equivalent in N-triples, the Turtle will look very much like the N-triples

Eric Prud'hommeaux: if we write the tests according to their equivalent in N-triples, the Turtle will look very much like the N-triples

15:58:44 <sandro> eric: we could just make sure none of the test push against this.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: we could just make sure none of the test push against this. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:59:01 <sandro> eric: So, let's just test canonical forms for datatype literals.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: So, let's just test canonical forms for datatype literals. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:59:12 <sandro> +1 that should work

Sandro Hawke: +1 that should work

16:00:01 <sandro> eric: XSD 1.0 vs XSD 1.1 doubles with trailing zero

Eric Prud'hommeaux: XSD 1.0 vs XSD 1.1 doubles with trailing zero [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:00:15 <AndyS> write the tests so NT has the exact same lexical form as input.

Andy Seaborne: write the tests so NT has the exact same lexical form as input.

16:00:48 <sandro> sandro: Let's just avoid anything like "1."^^xs:double or "1.0"^^xs:double

Sandro Hawke: Let's just avoid anything like "1."^^xs:double or "1.0"^^xs:double [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:02:02 <AZ> Guus: who's going to define the tests and the features tested

Guus Schreiber: who's going to define the tests and the features tested

16:02:47 <AZ> gavinc: I'd be happy to do that but it would be good to have support from someone else

Gavin Carothers: I'd be happy to do that but it would be good to have support from someone else

16:02:55 <AZ> gkellogg: ok to do it

Gregg Kellogg: ok to do it

16:02:58 <sandro> +1 gkellogg doing turtle test results reporting!

Sandro Hawke: +1 gkellogg doing turtle test results reporting!

16:03:12 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+

16:03:23 <gavinc> q?

Gavin Carothers: q?

16:04:28 <sandro> +1 yes, the report generation -- making and colating EARL reports

Sandro Hawke: +1 yes, the report generation -- making and colating EARL reports

16:04:59 <gavinc> can help with hosting as well

Gavin Carothers: can help with hosting as well

16:05:25 <AZ> sandro: implementers should send EARL report or at least the tests passed

Sandro Hawke: implementers should send EARL report or at least the tests passed

16:05:30 <AndyS> q-

Andy Seaborne: q-

16:05:48 <sandro> sandro: I'm just asking for someone to be accepting the list of tests pasts, and generating a page of red/green test results.

Sandro Hawke: I'm just asking for someone to be accepting the list of tests pasts, and generating a page of red/green test results. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:06:35 <ericP> ACTION: ericP to document the testable features of Turtle

ACTION: ericP to document the testable features of Turtle

16:07:11 <AZ> Guus: we don't need to resolve featurse at risks

Guus Schreiber: we don't need to resolve features at risks

16:07:12 <sandro> Guus: gkellogg will maintain the implementation/test-results report

Guus Schreiber: gkellogg will maintain the implementation/test-results report [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:07:26 <AZ> s/featurse/features/
16:07:31 <AndyS> err .. "at risk" is OK for LC ... but CR?

Andy Seaborne: err .. "at risk" is OK for LC ... but CR?

16:09:02 <AZ> sandro: at risk means we wait for implementations to see

Sandro Hawke: at risk means we wait for implementations to see

16:10:14 <gavinc> fgandon

Gavin Carothers: fgandon

16:10:28 <AndyS> I thought NT was to be a separate doc.

Andy Seaborne: I thought NT was to be a separate doc.

16:11:11 <gavinc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#

Gavin Carothers: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#

16:12:44 <sandro> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar

Sandro Hawke: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar

16:12:44 <gavinc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar feature at risk

Gavin Carothers: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar feature at risk

16:13:38 <gavinc> -0.9 :P so no you can't resolve it now :P

Gavin Carothers: -0.9 :P so no you can't resolve it now :P

16:13:50 <cygri> scribe: cygri

(Scribe set to Richard Cyganiak)

16:14:26 <cygri> [discussion of tests]

[discussion of tests]

16:14:37 <cygri> q?

q?

16:14:39 <Guus> q?

Guus Schreiber: q?

16:15:00 <cygri> Arnaud: Turtle's conformance section forces us to do negative tests

Arnaud Le Hors: Turtle's conformance section forces us to do negative tests

16:15:13 <gavinc> "This specification does not define how Turtle parsers handle non-conforming input documents."

Gavin Carothers: "This specification does not define how Turtle parsers handle non-conforming input documents."

16:15:15 <gavinc> No, it doesn't.

Gavin Carothers: No, it doesn't.

16:15:25 <sandro> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#conformance

Sandro Hawke: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#conformance

16:15:25 <ericP> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#conformance

Eric Prud'hommeaux: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#conformance

16:15:28 <cygri> sandro: are you looking at the right version?

Sandro Hawke: are you looking at the right version?

16:15:43 <cygri> Arnaud: no, sorry, nevermind

Arnaud Le Hors: no, sorry, nevermind

16:16:21 <Zakim> -Gavinc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Gavinc

16:17:03 <cygri> topic: Issue cleanup

12. Issue cleanup

16:17:17 <Zakim> -gkellogg

Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg

16:17:19 <cygri> ivan: I'm looking at the open issues for the WG

Ivan Herman: I'm looking at the open issues for the WG

16:17:33 <cygri> ... there are more open graphs issues

... there are more open graphs issues

16:17:49 <cygri> ISSUE-23?

ISSUE-23?

16:17:51 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/1

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/1

16:17:53 <cygri> ISSUE-31?

ISSUE-31?

16:17:55 <cygri> ISSUE-35?

ISSUE-35?

16:17:58 <cygri> ISSUE-38?

ISSUE-38?

16:18:09 <cygri> https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23

https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23

16:18:16 <sandro> 23 == Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types?

Sandro Hawke: 23 == Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types?

16:18:17 <Zakim> -AndyS

Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS

16:18:56 <cygri> guus: do we have discussed concepts-semantics-relationship sufficiently?

Guus Schreiber: do we have discussed concepts-semantics-relationship sufficiently?

16:18:58 <cygri> cygri: I think yes

Richard Cyganiak: I think yes

16:19:13 <cygri> ISSUE-23?

ISSUE-23?

16:19:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-23 -- Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types? -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-23 -- Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types? -- open

16:19:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23

16:19:36 <cygri> q+

q+

16:20:19 <cygri> ack me

ack me

16:20:34 <cygri> cygri: JSON-LD is currently a single- and multigraph syntax

Richard Cyganiak: JSON-LD is currently a single- and multigraph syntax

16:20:40 <cygri> guus: ok, let's not discuss now

Guus Schreiber: ok, let's not discuss now

16:20:42 <sandro> cygri: JSON-LD is multigraph and single graph!

Richard Cyganiak: JSON-LD is multigraph and single graph! [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:20:42 <sandro> sandro: damn.

Sandro Hawke: damn. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

16:20:46 <cygri> ISSUE-31?

ISSUE-31?

16:20:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-31 -- Do we produce a standard (REC) syntax for conveying multiple graphs? -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-31 -- Do we produce a standard (REC) syntax for conveying multiple graphs? -- open

16:20:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/31

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/31

16:21:09 <cygri> ivan: this is to be closed, we have a resolution

Ivan Herman: this is to be closed, we have a resolution

16:21:22 <cygri> ISSUE-35?

ISSUE-35?

16:21:22 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-35 -- Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? -- open

16:21:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35

16:21:40 <cygri> sandro: we decided to do that maybe in a Note

Sandro Hawke: we decided to do that maybe in a Note

16:21:45 <cygri> ... so it can be closed

... so it can be closed

16:21:47 <cygri> ISSUE-38

ISSUE-38

16:21:50 <cygri> ISSUE-38?

ISSUE-38?

16:21:50 <trackbot> ISSUE-38 -- What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-38 -- What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? -- open

16:21:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/38

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/38

16:21:58 <sandro> issue-31 is admin -- we've already agreed on stuff that closes this.

Sandro Hawke: ISSUE-31 is admin -- we've already agreed on stuff that closes this.

16:22:48 <sandro> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-28 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE

PROPOSED: close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-28 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE

16:22:58 <sandro> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE

PROPOSED: close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE

16:23:05 <yvesr> +1

Yves Raimond: +1

16:23:11 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

16:23:12 <Guus> +1

Guus Schreiber: +1

16:23:13 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

16:23:14 <cygri> +1

+1

16:23:15 <pchampin> +1

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1

16:23:29 <yvesr> (but noting it would be great to have that note :) )

Yves Raimond: (but noting it would be great to have that note :) )

16:23:32 <ericP> +1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1

16:23:34 <cygri> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE

16:23:50 <cygri> q+

q+

16:24:41 <cygri> ISSUE-95?

ISSUE-95?

16:24:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-95 -- Turtle Inverse Property Syntax -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-95 -- Turtle Inverse Property Syntax -- open

16:24:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/95

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/95

16:26:01 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-31 via the Web

David Wood: Closed ISSUE-31 via the Web

16:26:12 <cygri> cygri: we have issues left in RDF General and Cleanup tasks

Richard Cyganiak: we have issues left in RDF General and Cleanup tasks

16:26:12 <davidwood> The resolution was here: RESOLVED: We will produce a W3C Recommendation for a dataset syntax, similar to TriG and to SPARQL's named graph syntax.  This does not preclude recommending a syntax like n-quads. http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-03#resolution_2

David Wood: The resolution was here: RESOLVED: We will produce a W3C Recommendation for a dataset syntax, similar to TriG and to SPARQL's named graph syntax. This does not preclude recommending a syntax like n-quads. http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-03#resolution_2

16:26:23 <cygri> guus: we should go through all remaining open issues tomorrow

Guus Schreiber: we should go through all remaining open issues tomorrow

16:27:00 <cygri> davidwood: we have mostly syntax issues left

David Wood: we have mostly syntax issues left

16:27:31 <davidwood> …and Notes

David Wood: …and Notes

16:28:47 <cygri> [discussion of scheduling for tomorrow]

[discussion of scheduling for tomorrow]

16:29:19 <cygri> RRSAgent, make logs public

RRSAgent, make logs public



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#3) generated 2012-10-29 17:56:53 UTC by 'rcygania2', comments: None