08:16:12 <sandro> zakim, call Rhone_4
Sandro Hawke: zakim, call Rhone_4 ←
08:16:12 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is ←
08:16:17 <sandro> zakim, this is rdf
Sandro Hawke: zakim, this is rdf ←
08:16:17 <Zakim> sandro, I see SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be rdf".
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, I see SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be rdf". ←
08:16:19 <sandro> zakim, call Rhone_4
Sandro Hawke: zakim, call Rhone_4 ←
08:16:19 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is ←
08:16:26 <sandro> zakim, this will be rdf
Sandro Hawke: zakim, this will be rdf ←
08:16:26 <Zakim> ok, sandro; I see SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM scheduled to start 136 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; I see SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM scheduled to start 136 minutes ago ←
08:16:29 <sandro> zakim, call Rhone_4
Sandro Hawke: zakim, call Rhone_4 ←
08:16:29 <Zakim> ok, sandro; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; the call is being made ←
08:16:29 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM has now started ←
08:16:32 <Zakim> +Rhone_4
Zakim IRC Bot: +Rhone_4 ←
08:17:01 <sandro> zakim, drop rhone_4
Sandro Hawke: zakim, drop rhone_4 ←
08:17:01 <Zakim> Rhone_4 is being disconnected
Zakim IRC Bot: Rhone_4 is being disconnected ←
08:17:02 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM has ended ←
08:17:02 <Zakim> Attendees were Rhone_4
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Rhone_4 ←
08:17:39 <sandro> zakim, call Rhone_4
Sandro Hawke: zakim, call Rhone_4 ←
08:17:39 <Zakim> ok, sandro; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; the call is being made ←
08:17:40 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM has now started ←
08:17:41 <Zakim> +Rhone_4
Zakim IRC Bot: +Rhone_4 ←
08:18:08 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
08:18:08 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-rdf-wg-irc#T08-18-08
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/30-rdf-wg-irc#T08-18-08 ←
08:18:13 <sandro> RRSAgent, make logs public
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
08:21:00 <cygri> guest: Steve Speicher
08:23:17 <cygri> scribe: cygri
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
(Scribe set to Richard Cyganiak)
08:23:33 <cygri> topic: Issue review
08:24:14 <cygri> guus: Let's go through them in order. Goal is just to do a quick assessment, not necessarily to resolve them.
Guus Schreiber: Let's go through them in order. Goal is just to do a quick assessment, not necessarily to resolve them. ←
08:25:10 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-3
08:25:43 <cygri> ISSUE-3?
08:25:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-3 -- Between us, we need to study the feedback we got via http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/ on the previous round of specs (and errata) -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-3 -- Between us, we need to study the feedback we got via http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/ on the previous round of specs (and errata) -- open ←
08:25:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/3
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/3 ←
08:25:46 <cygri> ACTION-102?
08:25:46 <trackbot> ACTION-102 -- David Wood to ask Guus to find a student to do the work of ISSUE-3 -- due 2011-10-20 -- CLOSED
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-102 -- David Wood to ask Guus to find a student to do the work of ISSUE-3 -- due 2011-10-20 -- CLOSED ←
08:25:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/102
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/102 ←
08:26:14 <cygri> guus: I have to review how many comments there are
Guus Schreiber: I have to review how many comments there are ←
08:27:06 <cygri> ivan: The role of the errata document is that if there's consensus on the comments list that something is indeed an error, it gets put into the errata document.
Ivan Herman: The role of the errata document is that if there's consensus on the comments list that something is indeed an error, it gets put into the errata document. ←
08:27:20 <cygri> sandro: That may not have been done here as the staff contacts left etc
Sandro Hawke: That may not have been done here as the staff contacts left etc ←
08:27:48 <cygri> sandro: This starts with February 2004
Sandro Hawke: This starts with February 2004 ←
08:28:00 <cygri> davidwood: Looks like at least a couple hundred of emails
David Wood: Looks like at least a couple hundred of emails ←
08:29:15 <cygri> guest: Larry Masinter
08:29:36 <cygri> [discussion of badge colors]
[discussion of badge colors] ←
08:30:24 <cygri> topic: rdf:Seq and implications for XMP
08:30:37 <cygri> davidwood: We resolved yesterday to mark rdf:Seq as archaic
David Wood: We resolved yesterday to mark rdf:Seq as archaic ←
08:31:10 <cygri> ... there's wide implementation in particular from Adobe in XMP
... there's wide implementation in particular from Adobe in XMP ←
08:31:36 <cygri> Larry Masinter: There are thousands of people in Adobe. That said...
Larry Masinter: There are thousands of people in Adobe. That said... ←
08:31:56 <cygri> ... XMP has its own internal data model that is syntactically serialized as RDF/XML.
... XMP has its own internal data model that is syntactically serialized as RDF/XML. ←
08:32:12 <cygri> ... It's also no longer an Adobe specification, it's now an ISO standard.
... It's also no longer an Adobe specification, it's now an ISO standard. ←
08:32:27 <Zakim> +Gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: +Gavinc ←
08:32:58 <cygri> ivan: It's certainly true that the latest version of Photoshop uses rdf:Seq.
Ivan Herman: It's certainly true that the latest version of Photoshop uses rdf:Seq. ←
08:33:16 <davidwood> Good morning, GavinC. We are speaking with Larry Masinger (TAG) about Adobe XMP and rdf:Seq. We will turn onto TriG next.
David Wood: Good morning, GavinC. We are speaking with Larry Masinger (TAG) about Adobe XMP and rdf:Seq. We will turn onto TriG next. ←
08:33:17 <cygri> Larry Masinter: Why bother declaring something that is widely deployed as obsolete?
Larry Masinter: Why bother declaring something that is widely deployed as obsolete? ←
08:33:36 <cygri> ericP: The goal is to steer new deployments away from rdf:Seq.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: The goal is to steer new deployments away from rdf:Seq. ←
08:33:48 <cygri> Larry Masinter: What are you trying to accomplish?
Larry Masinter: What are you trying to accomplish? ←
08:34:06 <cygri> sandro: RDF has multiple ways of expressing sequence, none of which is very well supported.
Sandro Hawke: RDF has multiple ways of expressing sequence, none of which is very well supported. ←
08:34:30 <cygri> ... There's some agreement that rdf:Seq is the least best one
... There's some agreement that rdf:Seq is the least best one ←
08:35:01 <cygri> Larry Masinter: HTML has several ways of drawing things. It's not clear that there's a design pattern that there should only be one way of doing any particular thing.
Larry Masinter: HTML has several ways of drawing things. It's not clear that there's a design pattern that there should only be one way of doing any particular thing. ←
08:35:28 <cygri> davidwood: This is a weak form of deprecation.
David Wood: This is a weak form of deprecation. ←
08:35:56 <cygri> Larry Masinter: There's a problem when standards committees try to constrain future standards committees.
Larry Masinter: There's a problem when standards committees try to constrain future standards committees. ←
08:36:10 <cygri> [crosstalk]
[crosstalk] ←
08:36:14 <gavinc> +q
Gavin Carothers: +q ←
08:36:29 <davidwood> ack gavinc
David Wood: ack gavinc ←
08:36:47 <cygri> gavinc: I'm not sure I agree with sandro's characterization that we're not telling people what to do.
Gavin Carothers: I'm not sure I agree with sandro's characterization that we're not telling people what to do. ←
08:37:06 <cygri> ... I think we resolved that people should use rdf:List instead of containers
... I think we resolved that people should use rdf:List instead of containers ←
08:37:26 <cygri> davidwood: I believe we have a resolution that hasn't made it into our documents.
David Wood: I believe we have a resolution that hasn't made it into our documents. ←
08:37:30 <sandro> I hope your memory is better than mine on that, Gavin. I certainly agree with that resolution.
Sandro Hawke: I hope your memory is better than mine on that, Gavin. I certainly agree with that resolution. ←
08:38:05 <cygri> Larry Masinter: XMP is in the PDF standard. PDF is used in various governments, etc.
Larry Masinter: XMP is in the PDF standard. PDF is used in various governments, etc. ←
08:38:17 <cygri> ... I'm not sure what the improvement is that you're trying to gain.
... I'm not sure what the improvement is that you're trying to gain. ←
08:38:38 <cygri> sandro: People in the know are aware they shouldn't use rdf:Seq
Sandro Hawke: People in the know are aware they shouldn't use rdf:Seq ←
08:38:40 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
08:38:42 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
08:38:58 <cygri> Larry Masinter: I'm not in the know. Why?
Larry Masinter: I'm not in the know. Why? ←
08:39:13 <cygri> ericP: curried predicates, out of favour, etc.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: curried predicates, out of favour, etc. ←
08:39:15 <cygri> q?
q? ←
08:39:42 <gavinc> The issue is rdf:_1, rdf_*
Gavin Carothers: The issue is rdf:_1, rdf_* ←
08:40:16 <cygri> [eric's WPM exceed scribe capabilities]
[eric's WPM exceed scribe capabilities] ←
08:40:42 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
08:40:43 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
08:40:59 <sandro> I hear Larry saying we can and should support both. :-(
Sandro Hawke: I hear Larry saying we can and should support both. :-( ←
08:41:38 <cygri> ivan: We sohuldn't repeat yesterday's discussion. We asked Larry what we wanted to ask.
Ivan Herman: We sohuldn't repeat yesterday's discussion. We asked Larry what we wanted to ask. ←
08:41:50 <cygri> ericP: But he didn't say what we wanted to hear.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: But he didn't say what we wanted to hear. ←
08:42:02 <cygri> Larry Masinter: I'm not speaking for Adobe obviously.
Larry Masinter: I'm not speaking for Adobe obviously. ←
08:42:15 <cygri> ... I will ask the ISO committee on their opinion.
... I would ask the ISO committee on their opinion. ←
08:42:25 <sandro> s/will/would/
08:42:48 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
08:42:50 <cygri> Larry Masinter: It's ISO 16684 (?)
Larry Masinter: It's ISO 16684 (?) ←
08:43:05 <Arnaud> scribe: Arnaud
(Scribe set to Arnaud Le Hors)
08:44:03 <Arnaud> cygri: challenge the assertion that people in the know know we shouldn't use seq
Richard Cyganiak: challenge the assertion that people in the know know we shouldn't use seq ←
08:44:21 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
08:44:31 <cygri> scribe: cygri
(Scribe set to Richard Cyganiak)
08:44:43 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-29#resolution_2
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-29#resolution_2 ←
08:44:47 <cygri> davidwood: Where does this leave our resolution from yesterday?
David Wood: Where does this leave our resolution from yesterday? ←
08:45:02 <cygri> sandro: I hear Larry's advise that we should fully support rdf:Seq.
Sandro Hawke: I hear Larry's advise that we should fully support rdf:Seq. ←
08:45:16 <cygri> davidwood: Can you clarify whom you speak for?
David Wood: Can you clarify whom you speak for? ←
08:45:36 <cygri> Larry Masinter: Personal opinion. Informed by design principles.
Larry Masinter: Personal opinion. Informed by design principles. ←
08:45:50 <ericP> q?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q? ←
08:45:51 <cygri> ... Deprecating something that's used successfully seems foolish.
... Deprecating something that's used successfully seems foolish. ←
08:46:17 <cygri> ... The rationale for deprecating it is not clear.
... The rationale for deprecating it is not clear. ←
08:46:57 <yvesr> q+
Yves Raimond: q+ ←
08:46:59 <cygri> ... Photoshop and Acrobat are more widely deployed than the RDF tools you're concerned about.
... Photoshop and Acrobat are more widely deployed than the RDF tools you're concerned about. ←
08:47:37 <cygri> ... The rationale you gave is that tools you're aware of have trouble with rdf:Seq. There are many other tools with more market share that use it.
... The rationale you gave is that tools you're aware of have trouble with rdf:Seq. There are many other tools with more market share that use it. ←
08:48:07 <cygri> davidwood: Purpose of RDF is interoperability. Tools that use it only internally as configuration are different.
David Wood: Purpose of RDF is interoperability. Tools that use it only internally as configuration are different. ←
08:48:33 <cygri> ... The places where we see difficulties with rdf:Seq is in the possibly smaller market that is concerned with interoperability
... The places where we see difficulties with rdf:Seq is in the possibly smaller market that is concerned with interoperability ←
08:49:11 <cygri> Larry Masinter: The current RDF specifications passed the exit criteria, so do they not have interoperable implementations?
Larry Masinter: The current RDF specifications passed the exit criteria, so do they not have interoperable implementations? ←
08:49:43 <cygri> davidwood: R&D was done in the 2002-2004 WG. Widely criticized for that.
David Wood: R&D was done in the 2002-2004 WG. Widely criticized for that. ←
08:50:07 <cygri> sandro: I'd like to clarify. rdf:Seq was in the 1999 spec already.
Sandro Hawke: I'd like to clarify. rdf:Seq was in the 1999 spec already. ←
08:50:28 <cygri> ... So couldn't be removed due to charter
... So couldn't be removed due to charter ←
08:50:33 <davidwood> ack yvesr
David Wood: ack yvesr ←
08:50:37 <cygri> Larry Masinter: How is now different from 2004?
Larry Masinter: How is now different from 2004? ←
08:50:41 <yvesr> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Extension_Versioning,_Update_and_Compatibility
Yves Raimond: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Extension_Versioning,_Update_and_Compatibility ←
08:50:48 <cygri> sandro: It was a wrong decision back then.
Sandro Hawke: It was a wrong decision back then. ←
08:51:07 <cygri> yves: [?] uses rdf:Seq to describe sequences of updates.
Yves Raimond: Mozilla Gecko uses rdf:Seq to describe sequences of updates. ←
08:51:07 <sandro> sandro: We've been *silently* deprecating Seq for 12 years now. let's stop doing that, at least.
Sandro Hawke: We've been *silently* deprecating Seq for 12 years now. let's stop doing that, at least. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:51:15 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
08:51:17 <yvesr> s/[?]/Mozilla Gecko
08:51:19 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
08:51:34 <cygri> ericP: My guess is that we're not going to deprecate rdf:Seq.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: My guess is that we're not going to deprecate rdf:Seq. ←
08:51:42 <cygri> ... Give up and move on.
... Give up and move on. ←
08:52:08 <cygri> sandro: I'm not comfortable with silently deprecating rdf:Seq. I want to be wholeheartedly in favour of everything in the specification. Not the case for rdf:Seq.
Sandro Hawke: I'm not comfortable with silently deprecating rdf:Seq. I want to be wholeheartedly in favour of everything in the specification. Not the case for rdf:Seq. ←
08:52:26 <cygri> ... If we could improve support...
... If we could improve support... ←
08:52:27 <ivan> ack sandro
Ivan Herman: ack sandro ←
08:52:31 <gavinc> indeed, support the collection types in Turtle :\
Gavin Carothers: indeed, support the collection types in Turtle :\ ←
08:52:32 <cygri> ... e.g., syntax in Turtle
... e.g., syntax in Turtle ←
08:52:42 <cygri> davidwood: We won't do that design work today.
David Wood: We won't do that design work today. ←
08:52:57 <cygri> ... We have the answer from Larry that we needed. Thank you Larry!
... We have the answer from Larry that we needed. Thank you Larry! ←
08:53:06 <cygri> Larry Masinter: You have my personal opinion.
Larry Masinter: You have my personal opinion. ←
08:53:11 <cygri> davidwood: Yes.
David Wood: Yes. ←
08:53:32 <cygri> ivan: We have a resolution from yesterday. Do we want to revisit that resolution?
Ivan Herman: We have a resolution from yesterday. Do we want to revisit that resolution? ←
08:53:45 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Hold the resolution at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-29#resolution_2 in abeyance pending further study.
PROPOSED: Hold the resolution at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-29#resolution_2 in abeyance pending further study. ←
08:53:52 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
08:54:16 <cygri> sandro: That means re-opening ISSUE-77.
Sandro Hawke: That means re-opening ISSUE-77. ←
08:54:28 <sandro> +1 sadly
Sandro Hawke: +1 sadly ←
08:54:33 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
08:54:35 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
08:54:37 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
08:54:53 <cygri> Arnaud: Why change this now?
Arnaud Le Hors: Why change this now? ←
08:55:01 <cygri> ±0
±0 ←
08:55:15 <cygri> davidwood: New information, need to reopen the issue
David Wood: New information, need to reopen the issue ←
08:55:35 <AZ> 0
08:55:48 <FabGandon> 0
Fabien Gandon: 0 ←
08:55:49 <Arnaud> -0
Arnaud Le Hors: -0 ←
08:56:05 <davidwood> RESOLVED: Hold the resolution at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-29#resolution_2 in abeyance pending further study.
RESOLVED: Hold the resolution at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-29#resolution_2 in abeyance pending further study. ←
08:56:11 <davidwood> ISSUE-77.
08:56:19 <cygri> davidwood: I will re-open ISSUE-77 with these comments.
David Wood: I will re-open ISSUE-77 with these comments. ←
08:56:22 <davidwood> ISSUE-77 reopened.
David Wood: ISSUE-77 reopened. ←
08:56:25 <sandro> gavinc, are you with us for the day, or only a little while?
Sandro Hawke: gavinc, are you with us for the day, or only a little while? ←
08:56:36 <gavinc> 1.56 am :D
Gavin Carothers: 1.56 am :D ←
08:56:38 <cygri> topic: TriG
08:56:57 <sandro> that doesn't answer my question, actually, gavinc
Sandro Hawke: that doesn't answer my question, actually, gavinc ←
08:56:59 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
08:57:37 <cygri> gavinc: There is an editor's draft of TriG. It is old, doesn't reflect current "consensus" on graphs.
Gavin Carothers: There is an editor's draft of TriG. It is old, doesn't reflect current "consensus" on graphs. ←
08:57:55 <cygri> ... Most of the document will have to change based on decisions made around graphs.
... Most of the document will have to change based on decisions made around graphs. ←
08:58:07 <cygri> ... Most edge cases change.
... Most edge cases change. ←
08:58:30 <cygri> subtopic: Renaming TriG?
08:58:39 <cygri> gavinc: Since almost all of the interesting design decisions change between TriG-as-deployed and the new standard, do we want to rename it?
Gavin Carothers: Since almost all of the interesting design decisions change between TriG-as-deployed and the new standard, do we want to rename it? ←
08:58:40 <gavinc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#
Gavin Carothers: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html# ←
08:58:47 <cygri> davidwood: I believe we have a resolution to keep the name.
David Wood: I believe we have a resolution to keep the name. ←
08:59:23 <cygri> gavinc: Some of us supported the resolution on the condition that the language mostly stays like TriG-as-deployed. This doesn't seem to be the case.
Gavin Carothers: Some of us supported the resolution on the condition that the language mostly stays like TriG-as-deployed. This doesn't seem to be the case. ←
08:59:34 <cygri> sandro: What's the biggest change?
Sandro Hawke: What's the biggest change? ←
09:00:03 <cygri> gavinc: When I repeat the graph label multiple times, it is not an error, but the union
Gavin Carothers: When I repeat the graph label multiple times, it is not an error, but the union ←
09:00:24 <cygri> ericP: What does the old draft say?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: What does the old draft say? ←
09:00:30 <cygri> gavinc: It's an error.
Gavin Carothers: It's an error. ←
09:00:38 <cygri> sandro: It doesn't invalidate old data.
Sandro Hawke: It doesn't invalidate old data. ←
09:00:57 <cygri> ... I'm pretty sure Anzo supports it already.
... I'm pretty sure Anzo supports it already. ←
09:01:03 <cygri> [discussion of = sign]
[discussion of = sign] ←
09:01:20 <cygri> gavinc: Trailing periods are now removed.
Gavin Carothers: Trailing periods are now removed. ←
09:01:23 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
09:01:34 <cygri> sandro: Strikes me as trivial.
Sandro Hawke: Strikes me as trivial. ←
09:01:50 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
09:02:12 <ericP> cygri: sandro says that the changes are trivial
Richard Cyganiak: sandro says that the changes are trivial [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
09:02:27 <ericP> ... they may be trivial to human eyes, but not to parsers
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... they may be trivial to human eyes, but not to parsers ←
09:02:32 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
09:02:35 <gavinc> +q
Gavin Carothers: +q ←
09:02:45 <ericP> ... the question is "does it break the language?"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... the question is "does it break the language?" ←
09:02:49 <davidwood> RESOLVED We will call a recommended dataset syntax "TriG", but informally and in the media type, "trig".
David Wood: RESOLVED We will call a recommended dataset syntax "TriG", but informally and in the media type, "trig". ←
09:02:51 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-03#resolution_5
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-03#resolution_5 ←
09:03:05 <ericP> sandro: i think it doesn't break it in most cases, less than the ways in which we broke Turtle
Sandro Hawke: i think it doesn't break it in most cases, less than the ways in which we broke Turtle [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
09:03:29 <cygri> gavinc: All of the examples provided in the old spec are no longer TriG documents.
Gavin Carothers: All of the examples provided in the old spec are no longer TriG documents. ←
09:03:48 <ericP> -> http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/TriG/Spec/ the DERI Trig spec of which we speak
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/TriG/Spec/ the DERI Trig spec of which we speak ←
09:04:12 <cygri> davidwood: We have a resolution on this.
David Wood: We have a resolution on this. ←
09:04:26 <cygri> ... Many were not in favour, but the resolution passed.
... Many were not in favour, but the resolution passed. ←
09:04:42 <cygri> ... Gavin, issues related not to naming?
... Gavin, issues related not to naming? ←
09:05:03 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
09:05:05 <cygri> subtopic: Document status
09:05:06 <ericP> i believe that all the examples in the fu-berlin spec are still Trig by our definition
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i believe that all the examples in the fu-berlin spec are still Trig by our definition ←
09:05:10 <ivan> ack gavinc
Ivan Herman: ack gavinc ←
09:05:11 <davidwood> ack gavinc
David Wood: ack gavinc ←
09:05:14 <cygri> gavinc: It is still unclear to me how to write the section that introduces named graphs.
Gavin Carothers: It is still unclear to me how to write the section that introduces named graphs. ←
09:05:28 <cygri> ... This makes it challenging to write what a graph label is.
... This makes it challenging to write what a graph label is. ←
09:05:30 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
09:05:38 <cygri> davidwood: Not sure I follow.
David Wood: Not sure I follow. ←
09:05:48 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
09:06:10 <ericP> cygri: I don't see this prob 'cause the Abstract Syntax defines an RDF Dataset
Richard Cyganiak: I don't see this prob 'cause the Abstract Syntax defines an RDF Dataset [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
09:06:23 <sandro> +1 cygri TriG just needs to say it's serializing a Dataset.
Sandro Hawke: +1 cygri TriG just needs to say it's serializing a Dataset. ←
09:06:26 <ericP> ... all the Trig doc must do is say "we serialize one of those."
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... all the Trig doc must do is say "we serialize one of those." ←
09:06:39 <ivan> +1 cygri
Ivan Herman: +1 cygri ←
09:07:01 <ericP> ... there could be challenges in the motivating text (why you would want to use this), but that text is a minor point
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... there could be challenges in the motivating text (why you would want to use this), but that text is a minor point ←
09:07:18 <gavinc> "A graph statement pairs an IRI with a RDF Graph"
Gavin Carothers: "A graph statement pairs an IRI with a RDF Graph" ←
09:07:20 <cygri> gavinc: I guess then there's one sentence describing it that matches RDF Concepts.
Gavin Carothers: I guess then there's one sentence describing it that matches RDF Concepts. ←
09:07:31 <cygri> ... Makes for a short, not very helpful document. But maybe that's all we can do.
... Makes for a short, not very helpful document. But maybe that's all we can do. ←
09:07:50 <cygri> ... I think the grammar is in reasonable shape as it's based on Turtle.
... I think the grammar is in reasonable shape as it's based on Turtle. ←
09:08:19 <cygri> ... I assume the Turtle Feature-At-Risk for BASE/PREFIX applies.
... I assume the Turtle Feature-At-Risk for BASE/PREFIX applies. ←
09:08:53 <cygri> ... Do we need to repeat the stuff from Turtle or just refer to it?
... Do we need to repeat the stuff from Turtle or just refer to it? ←
09:08:57 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
09:08:58 <sandro> just reference turtle grammar
Sandro Hawke: just reference turtle grammar ←
09:09:21 <cygri> ericP: I'm a big fan of being able to copy and paste stuff
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I'm a big fan of being able to copy and paste stuff ←
09:09:23 <yvesr> q+ to ask about default graph (sorry)
Yves Raimond: q+ to ask about default graph (sorry) ←
09:09:35 <cygri> gavinc: Grammar will have to be repeated, but the rest maybe not.
Gavin Carothers: Grammar will have to be repeated, but the rest maybe not. ←
09:09:44 <cygri> q-
q- ←
09:09:58 <cygri> davidwood: It seems like some of the October resolutions are not yet fully reflected.
David Wood: It seems like some of the October resolutions are not yet fully reflected. ←
09:10:04 <cygri> ... in the grammar.
... in the grammar. ←
09:10:06 <cygri> gavinc: That's correct
Gavin Carothers: That's correct ←
09:10:33 <sandro> q+ to say please provide dates on editor's drafts
Sandro Hawke: q+ to say please provide dates on editor's drafts ←
09:10:43 <cygri> [discussion of grammar minutiae]
[discussion of grammar minutiae] ←
09:11:14 <sandro> q+ sandro2 to ask why repeat grammar? it's not you can actually cut/paste it.
Sandro Hawke: q+ sandro2 to ask why repeat grammar? it's not you can actually cut/paste it. ←
09:11:50 <davidwood> ack yvesr
David Wood: ack yvesr ←
09:11:50 <Zakim> yvesr, you wanted to ask about default graph (sorry)
Zakim IRC Bot: yvesr, you wanted to ask about default graph (sorry) ←
09:12:05 <ericP> q+ yvesr
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ yvesr ←
09:12:08 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
09:12:08 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to say please provide dates on editor's drafts
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to say please provide dates on editor's drafts ←
09:12:24 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
09:12:49 <gavinc> yeah, no not changing the date every time I edit the document
Gavin Carothers: yeah, no not changing the date every time I edit the document ←
09:13:41 <davidwood> ack sandro2
David Wood: ack sandro2 ←
09:13:41 <Zakim> sandro2, you wanted to ask why repeat grammar? it's not you can actually cut/paste it.
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro2, you wanted to ask why repeat grammar? it's not you can actually cut/paste it. ←
09:14:08 <cygri> cygri: [doesn't want to spend time making sure the date on ED is correct]
Richard Cyganiak: [doesn't want to spend time making sure the date on ED is correct] ←
09:14:21 <cygri> sandro: How about putting a clearly non-date there, January 99 or something
Sandro Hawke: How about putting a clearly non-date there, January 99 or something ←
09:14:28 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
09:14:31 <cygri> ... Regarding grammar, copy-paste doesn't work
... Regarding grammar, copy-paste doesn't work ←
09:14:39 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
09:14:39 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
09:14:55 <davidwood> AndyS, we are speaking about TriG grammar.
David Wood: AndyS, we are speaking about TriG grammar. ←
09:15:00 <cygri> gavinc: I'll probably repeat them and make clear it's same as the Turtle grammar
Gavin Carothers: I'll probably repeat them and make clear it's same as the Turtle grammar ←
09:15:07 <cygri> ivan: In my view, editor's pregorative
Ivan Herman: In my view, editor's pregorative ←
09:15:28 <cygri> ericP: I like to copy-and-paste
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I like to copy-and-paste ←
09:15:36 <cygri> ... I also like to click through in an HTML spec
... I also like to click through in an HTML spec ←
09:15:44 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
09:15:44 <cygri> sandro: It can click you over to the Turtle spec.
Sandro Hawke: It can click you over to the Turtle spec. ←
09:15:55 <cygri> ack me
ack me ←
09:16:18 <davidwood> ack yvesr
David Wood: ack yvesr ←
09:16:23 <cygri> ericP: Special markings on productions imported from other specs are good
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Special markings on productions imported from other specs are good ←
09:16:30 <cygri> subtopic: Default graph
09:16:42 <cygri> yvesr: I sent an email last week about the default graph in TriG.
Yves Raimond: I sent an email last week about the default graph in TriG. ←
09:16:53 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
09:17:03 <sandro> I rather like the idea of the TriG spec being 1 page. :-) (It can be if it just refs turtle)
Sandro Hawke: I rather like the idea of the TriG spec being 1 page. :-) (It can be if it just refs turtle) ←
09:17:10 <cygri> ... If you load a TriG file into a triple store and write it out again, you're not sure it comes out the same
... If you load a TriG file into a triple store and write it out again, you're not sure it comes out the same ←
09:17:29 <cygri> ... So what's the point of the default graph.
... So what's the point of the default graph. ←
09:17:41 <davidwood> Yves' message regarding default graphs in Trig: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0212.html
David Wood: Yves' message regarding default graphs in Trig: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0212.html ←
09:17:41 <AndyS> ?? it does in Jena.
Andy Seaborne: ?? it does in Jena. ←
09:18:34 <cygri> ivan: There are default graphs in SPARQL. Therefore, it should be in TriG. TriG does not introduce any new concept, and shouldn't be silent on any concept that's in the data model.
Ivan Herman: There are default graphs in SPARQL. Therefore, it should be in TriG. TriG does not introduce any new concept, and shouldn't be silent on any concept that's in the data model. ←
09:18:38 <pchampin> q+
09:18:55 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
09:19:19 <ericP> cygri: the data model of a SPARQL store is an RDF data set
Richard Cyganiak: the data model of a SPARQL store is an RDF data set [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
09:19:36 <ericP> ... the data model of Trig is also an RDF data set
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... the data model of Trig is also an RDF data set ←
09:19:46 <pchampin> q-
09:20:04 <ericP> ... the Trig doc currently doesn't tell you how to load a Trig doc into the SPARQL store
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... the Trig doc currently doesn't tell you how to load a Trig doc into the SPARQL store ←
09:20:34 <pchampin> q+
09:20:35 <ericP> ... there can be a middle step between ingesting Trig and writing to the SPARQL store where the impl can do what it wants
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... there can be a middle step between ingesting Trig and writing to the SPARQL store where the impl can do what it wants ←
09:21:06 <ericP> ... the injestion is not a "restore from trig file", but more "add trig file to store"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... the injestion is not a "restore from trig file", but more "add trig file to store" ←
09:21:19 <cygri> yvesr: I still think that's a confusing behaviour in TriG
Yves Raimond: I still think that's a confusing behaviour in TriG ←
09:21:30 <davidwood> ack pchampin
David Wood: ack pchampin ←
09:21:37 <ericP> yvesr: i think that [default graphs] are the most difficult feature of Trig
Yves Raimond: i think that [default graphs] are the most difficult feature of Trig [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
09:21:47 <cygri> ... Makes it hard to explain triple store behaviour, and explain how to use the default graph
... Makes it hard to explain triple store behaviour, and explain how to use the default graph ←
09:22:15 <cygri> pchampin: Let me try to rephrase. A TriG file represents a dataset. There's a correct way to parse a TriG file into a dataset.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: Let me try to rephrase. A TriG file represents a dataset. There's a correct way to parse a TriG file into a dataset. ←
09:22:53 <cygri> ... But what's less well defined is how to integrate a dataset into a graph store.
... But what's less well defined is how to integrate a dataset into a graph store. ←
09:23:13 <cygri> ... If we validate a TriG parser, it has to be clear what graphs we end up with
... If we validate a TriG parser, it has to be clear what graphs we end up with ←
09:23:31 <cygri> ... But when a graph store digests a dataset, things can happen.
... But when a graph store digests a dataset, things can happen. ←
09:23:47 <cygri> ... Emphasizing this difference may make it less confusing
... Emphasizing this difference may make it less confusing ←
09:24:13 <cygri> AndyS: There was a comment that if you read something in and write it out again, you don't get the same thing.
Andy Seaborne: There was a comment that if you read something in and write it out again, you don't get the same thing. ←
09:24:17 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
09:24:43 <cygri> q-
q- ←
09:24:54 <yvesr> q+
Yves Raimond: q+ ←
09:24:57 <cygri> ... We don't know what the right model of operation is for some of these things
... We don't know what the right model of operation is for some of these things ←
09:25:15 <cygri> ... So banning some features because of store behaviour is risky.
... So banning some features because of store behaviour is risky. ←
09:25:58 <cygri> yvesr: I feel that the SPARQL definition of dataset came from implementations. We imported that as the general RDF dataset model.
Yves Raimond: I feel that the SPARQL definition of dataset came from implementations. We imported that as the general RDF dataset model. ←
09:26:07 <cygri> ... So it started with implementations
... So it started with implementations ←
09:26:11 <davidwood> ack yvesr
David Wood: ack yvesr ←
09:26:50 <cygri> davidwood: Gavin, has your view changed based on this dicsussion?
David Wood: Gavin, has your view changed based on this dicsussion? ←
09:26:55 <cygri> gavinc: No.
Gavin Carothers: No. ←
09:27:24 <cygri> ivan: We have little choice. TriG is just a syntax. If default graph in the model, it has to be in the syntax.
Ivan Herman: We have little choice. TriG is just a syntax. If default graph in the model, it has to be in the syntax. ←
09:28:00 <cygri> subtopic: Towards FPWD and examples
09:28:11 <cygri> davidwood: Our primary concern is to get this document out the door. How will we turn this into an FPWD and start the process?
David Wood: Our primary concern is to get this document out the door. How will we turn this into an FPWD and start the process? ←
09:28:28 <cygri> gavinc: We should be ready for FPWD quite soon.
Gavin Carothers: We should be ready for FPWD quite soon. ←
09:28:50 <cygri> ... My request to the WG: Examples for use of TriG would be helpful.
... My request to the WG: Examples for use of TriG would be helpful. ←
09:29:08 <cygri> ... Preferably small ones. Those from the old spec are not great, and all I have are 6GB.
... Preferably small ones. Those from the old spec are not great, and all I have are 6GB. ←
09:30:02 <cygri> [discussion of grammar minutiae]
[discussion of grammar minutiae] ←
09:31:15 <cygri> [scribe is lost]
[scribe is lost] ←
09:31:40 <cygri> [discussion of TriG examples]
[discussion of TriG examples] ←
09:31:52 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
09:31:52 <sandro> gavinc: The examples in the current ED aren't right. We can no longer say G1 refers to a graph, etc
Gavin Carothers: The examples in the current ED aren't right. We can no longer say G1 refers to a graph, etc [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:32:02 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
09:32:05 <sandro> sandro: That text isn't right any more, but the trig is okay
Sandro Hawke: That text isn't right any more, but the trig is okay [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:32:54 <ericP> cygri: one obvious example would be something which shows versioning
Richard Cyganiak: one obvious example would be something which shows versioning [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
09:32:57 <AZ> examples of trig files: https://www.google.com/search?q=prefix+filetype%3Atrig
Antoine Zimmermann: examples of trig files: https://www.google.com/search?q=prefix+filetype%3Atrig ←
09:33:03 <ericP> ... a provenance example would be useful
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... a provenance example would be useful ←
09:33:20 <AZ> and a provenance example: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples/eg-33-a-simpler-hasProvenanceIn/rdf/eg-33-a-simpler-hasProvenanceIn.trig
Antoine Zimmermann: and a provenance example: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/file/tip/examples/eg-33-a-simpler-hasProvenanceIn/rdf/eg-33-a-simpler-hasProvenanceIn.trig ←
09:33:25 <ericP> ... the PROV WG has an examplw which shows how DC maps to PROV
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... the PROV WG has an examplw which shows how DC maps to PROV ←
09:33:36 <ericP> ... ask Tim Libo?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... ask Tim Libo? ←
09:33:46 <ericP> ivan: there's also the PROV Primer
Ivan Herman: there's also the PROV Primer [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
09:34:00 <ericP> ... should be easy to tweak to use named graphs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... should be easy to tweak to use named graphs ←
09:34:10 <gavinc> uh, az that isn't trig :(
Gavin Carothers: uh, az that isn't trig :( ←
09:34:23 <ericP> ... contact Paul Gross quickly; there's a PROV F2F at MIT in a week
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... contact Paul Groth quickly; there's a PROV F2F at MIT in a week ←
09:34:43 <cygri> s/Gross/Groth/
09:35:27 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
09:35:29 <cygri> davidwood: I'll send a message to Paul
David Wood: I'll send a message to Paul ←
09:35:34 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
09:35:45 <cygri> ivan: I can translate an example to TriG
Ivan Herman: I can translate an example to TriG ←
09:36:18 <cygri> davidwood: Assuming we can get an example out of ivan, when can you provide doc for review
David Wood: Assuming we can get an example out of ivan, when can you provide doc for review ←
09:36:23 <cygri> gavinc: November 15
Gavin Carothers: November 15 ←
09:36:46 <cygri> ivan: We should not publish this before next RDF Concepts
Ivan Herman: We should not publish this before next RDF Concepts ←
09:36:51 <davidwood> action: davidwood to contact Paul Groth re provenance example for TriG (before the prov wg ftf)
ACTION: davidwood to contact Paul Groth re provenance example for TriG (before the prov wg ftf) ←
09:36:52 <trackbot> Created ACTION-200 - Contact Paul Groth re provenance example for TriG (before the prov wg ftf) [on David Wood - due 2012-11-06].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-200 - Contact Paul Groth re provenance example for TriG (before the prov wg ftf) [on David Wood - due 2012-11-06]. ←
09:37:19 <cygri> davidwood: So we'll start the WG review on Nov 15
David Wood: So we'll start the WG review on Nov 15 ←
09:37:21 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
09:37:43 <cygri> [nitpicking about examples]
[nitpicking about examples] ←
09:38:25 <sandro> sandro: We need to tell Prov about our modified TriG so they can update their examples.
Sandro Hawke: We need to tell Prov about our modified TriG so they can update their examples. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:38:31 <cygri> ivan: So at the PROV F2F I can tell them that they can use TriG and refer to the upcoming FPWD
Ivan Herman: So at the PROV F2F I can tell them that they can use TriG and refer to the upcoming FPWD ←
09:38:41 <ericP> q+ to clarify the changes from the old Trig
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to clarify the changes from the old Trig ←
09:38:42 <cygri> ... they made every effort to remove anything that looks like TriG from the documents
... they made every effort to remove anything that looks like TriG from the documents ←
09:38:47 <cygri> ... Now they can put it back.
... Now they can put it back. ←
09:39:03 <cygri> sandro: When is their next round of publications?
Sandro Hawke: When is their next round of publications? ←
09:39:11 <cygri> ivan: Hope to vote for CR next week.
Ivan Herman: Hope to vote for CR next week. ←
09:39:21 <cygri> sandro: Won't have FPWD by then
Sandro Hawke: Won't have FPWD by then ←
09:39:33 <cygri> ivan: Can they refer to an ED?
Ivan Herman: Can they refer to an ED? ←
09:39:47 <cygri> sandro: No, not a stable URI.
Sandro Hawke: No, not a stable URI. ←
09:40:22 <sandro> sandro: well, okay, I guess, sure.
Sandro Hawke: well, okay, I guess, sure. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:40:24 <cygri> davidwood: It's a CR. We can put an ED reference there and make clear we'll update it.
David Wood: It's a CR. We can put an ED reference there and make clear we'll update it. ←
09:40:30 <cygri> topic: —coffee—
09:40:36 <gavinc> 25 minutes?
Gavin Carothers: 25 minutes? ←
09:40:42 <cygri> davidwood: break for 25 minutes
David Wood: break for 25 minutes ←
09:40:47 <davidwood> yes
David Wood: yes ←
09:45:58 <Zakim> -AndyS
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
09:47:33 <Zakim> -Gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Gavinc ←
09:47:38 <gavinc> Extra heads removed from our hg
Gavin Carothers: Extra heads removed from our hg ←
09:57:40 <cygri> RRSAgent, make logs public
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
RRSAgent, make logs public ←
10:03:14 <Zakim> +Gavinc
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: +Gavinc ←
10:03:41 <gavinc> Shinny grammar http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#sec-grammar
Gavin Carothers: Shinny grammar http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#sec-grammar ←
10:09:40 <gavinc> did I make sandro happy? ;)
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Gavin Carothers: did I make sandro happy? ;) ←
10:10:56 <gavinc> Please DON'T update it each time, makes resolving merges annoying :P
Gavin Carothers: Please DON'T update it each time, makes resolving merges annoying :P ←
10:11:10 <gavinc> Yes.
Gavin Carothers: Yes. ←
10:11:34 <sandro> Well, you make me smile at least. :-)
Sandro Hawke: Well, you make me smile at least. :-) ←
10:11:35 <gavinc> N-Quads and N-Triples!
Gavin Carothers: N-Quads and N-Triples! ←
10:11:38 <cygri> topic: N-Triples
10:11:44 <gavinc> since we didn't talk about N-Triples anywhere else
Gavin Carothers: since we didn't talk about N-Triples anywhere else ←
10:12:13 <pchampin> scribe: pchampin
(Scribe set to Pierre-Antoine Champin)
10:12:38 <pchampin> davidwood: we first considered making N-Triples a part of Turtle, then we decided to split it
David Wood: we first considered making N-Triples a part of Turtle, then we decided to split it ←
10:13:23 <gavinc> dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html
Gavin Carothers: dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html ←
10:14:06 <pchampin> gavinc: current dratf shouldn't require much work
Gavin Carothers: current dratf shouldn't require much work ←
10:14:08 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
10:14:12 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
10:14:12 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
10:15:09 <pchampin> [discussing the language name]
[discussing the language name] ←
10:15:46 <pchampin> davidwood: did we agree to make this document REC track?
David Wood: did we agree to make this document REC track? ←
10:15:50 <pchampin> gavinc: yes
Gavin Carothers: yes ←
10:16:43 <pchampin> sandro: are escape sequences allowed?
Sandro Hawke: are escape sequences allowed? ←
10:16:49 <pchampin> gavinc: in this version, yes
Gavin Carothers: in this version, yes ←
10:18:07 <pchampin> sandro: could get rid of ECHAR in theory (backslash-escaping)
Sandro Hawke: could get rid of ECHAR in theory (backslash-escaping) ←
10:18:35 <pchampin> gavinc: would be back to the 2004 version, whose goal was to have a single way to represent things
Gavin Carothers: would be back to the 2004 version, whose goal was to have a single way to represent things ←
10:18:41 <pchampin> ... but this is not a requirement of this version
... but this is not a requirement of this version ←
10:19:01 <pchampin> ... in this version, you don't require either encoding, as this is UTF-8
... in this version, you don't require either escaping, as this is UTF-8 ←
10:19:21 <pchampin> s/encoding/escaping/
10:19:44 <pchampin> ... although some cases require UCHAR anyway (scribe missed which case it was)
... although some cases require UCHAR anyway (scribe missed which case it was) ←
10:20:05 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
10:20:20 <sandro> queue=cygri
Sandro Hawke: queue=cygri ←
10:20:20 <AndyS> Does any N-triples-2004 parser implement the UCHAR can't be used for chars like TAB?
Andy Seaborne: Does any N-triples-2004 parser implement the UCHAR can't be used for chars like TAB? ←
10:20:22 <gavinc> q- ericP
Gavin Carothers: q- ericP ←
10:20:22 <davidwood> ack ericp
David Wood: ack ericp ←
10:20:28 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
10:21:00 <cygri> subtopic: Canonical/normalized N-Triples
10:21:04 <pchampin> sandro: any canonical form?
Sandro Hawke: any canonical form? ←
10:21:10 <AndyS> scribe: + Some escape is needed for newline
Andy Seaborne: scribe: + Some escape is needed for newline ←
10:21:14 <AZ> you can only have one UCHAR in an IRIREF !?
Antoine Zimmermann: you can only have one UCHAR in an IRIREF !? ←
10:21:24 <AZ> """[132s] IRIREF ::= ('<' ([^<>"{}|^`\]-[#x00-#x20])* | UCHAR '>')"""
Antoine Zimmermann: """[132s] IRIREF ::= ('<' ([^<>"{}|^`\]-[#x00-#x20])* | UCHAR '>')""" ←
10:21:40 <gavinc> errr...
Gavin Carothers: errr... ←
10:21:55 <gavinc> should be [19] IRIREF ::= '<' ([^#x00-#x20<>\"{}|^`\] | UCHAR)* '>'
Gavin Carothers: should be [19] IRIREF ::= '<' ([^#x00-#x20<>\"{}|^`\] | UCHAR)* '>' ←
10:21:58 <gavinc> will fix
Gavin Carothers: will fix ←
10:22:06 <AndyS> AZ - C&P error from Turtle - no *
Andy Seaborne: AZ - C&P error from Turtle - no * ←
10:22:33 <pchampin> cygri: the nice thing about N-Triples/N-Quad is that they are easy to process with text tools
Richard Cyganiak: the nice thing about N-Triples/N-Quad is that they are easy to process with text tools ←
10:22:34 <AndyS> but it is a compression algorithm.
Andy Seaborne: but it is a compression algorithm. ←
10:22:38 <sandro> cygri: I suggest we have a Normalized N-Triples, informative, one space between terms, etc.
Richard Cyganiak: I suggest we have a Normalized N-Triples, informative, one space between terms, etc. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:22:58 <pchampin> ... its easier if you have some normalized/canonical form
... its easier if you have some normalized/canonical form ←
10:23:16 <pchampin> ... though this is good practice, mostly; it does not need to be normatively defined
... though this is good practice, mostly; it does not need to be normatively defined ←
10:23:40 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
10:24:01 <pchampin> ... making it non-normative would mainly minimize work
... making it non-normative would mainly minimize work ←
10:24:06 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
10:24:16 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
10:24:53 <pchampin> ivan: the first example has comments, but the grammar does not seem to define comments
Ivan Herman: the first example has comments, but the grammar does not seem to define comments ←
10:26:25 <pchampin> sandro: comments are line-oriented, while the rest of the grammar is not
Sandro Hawke: comments are line-oriented, while the rest of the grammar is not ←
10:26:44 <pchampin> ... hence, the comments are not in the grammar
... hence, the comments are not in the grammar ←
10:26:51 <sandro> gavin: comments are treated as whitespace
Gavin Carothers: comments are treated as whitespace [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:26:55 <pchampin> ... you can't copy-paste the grammar, you have to read the spec
... you can't copy-paste the grammar, you have to read the spec ←
10:27:19 <AndyS> Is "<s> <p> <o> . # comment" to be legal? (hope not)
Andy Seaborne: Is "<s> <p> <o> . # comment" to be legal? (hope not) ←
10:27:45 <davidwood> The first example says yes
David Wood: The first example says yes ←
10:27:49 <pchampin> gavinc: documents will be ready for working group review on the 15 of november
Gavin Carothers: documents will be ready for working group review on the 15 of november ←
10:28:24 <pchampin> gavinc: to AndyS question: yes it is possible in this version of N-Triples
Gavin Carothers: to AndyS question: yes it is possible in this version of N-Triples ←
10:28:45 <pchampin> AndyS: normalized N-Triples should say that comments must have their own line
Andy Seaborne: normalized N-Triples should say that comments must have their own line ←
10:28:51 <pchampin> gavinc: yes
Gavin Carothers: yes ←
10:29:16 <davidwood> gavinc: Normalized n-triples should allow end-of-line comments, but canonicalized n-triples should have line-oriented comments.
Gavin Carothers: Normalized n-triples should allow end-of-line comments, but canonicalized n-triples should have line-oriented comments. [ Scribe Assist by David Wood ] ←
10:29:20 <cygri> subtopic: Line breaks
10:29:30 <pchampin> gavinc: newlines inside triples are quite probably allowed
Gavin Carothers: newlines inside triples are quite probably allowed ←
10:29:43 <pchampin> (many people in the room): hummmm
(many people in the room): hummmm ←
10:30:23 <sandro> wondering about calling N-Triple something like "line-mode turtle".
Sandro Hawke: wondering about calling N-Triple something like "line-mode turtle". ←
10:30:26 <davidwood> gavinc: Expects to have n-triples spec ready for review by WG on 15 Nov with the intention to ask for FPWD shortly thereafter.
Gavin Carothers: Expects to have n-triples spec ready for review by WG on 15 Nov with the intention to ask for FPWD shortly thereafter. [ Scribe Assist by David Wood ] ←
10:30:31 <pchampin> gavinc: again, you shouldn't do that in noramlized N-Triples
Gavin Carothers: again, you shouldn't do that in noramlized N-Triples ←
10:30:33 <pchampin> q+
q+ ←
10:30:45 <davidwood> ack pchampin
David Wood: ack pchampin ←
10:31:21 <sandro> pchampin: Maybe we shouldn't make Normalized N-Triples just informative. If N-Triples is so permissive, there may be more need for Normalized N-Triples.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: Maybe we shouldn't make Normalized N-Triples just informative. If N-Triples is so permissive, there may be more need for Normalized N-Triples. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:31:49 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
10:32:43 <AndyS> If gavinc shrugs, shall we make it one line per triple, no trailing comments c.f. nt-2004.
Andy Seaborne: If gavinc shrugs, shall we make it one line per triple, no trailing comments c.f. nt-2004. ←
10:32:45 <sandro> ivan: I'm fine with N-Triples including these Normalization rules.
Ivan Herman: I'm fine with N-Triples including these Normalization rules. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:32:49 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
10:32:56 <sandro> ack cygri
Sandro Hawke: ack cygri ←
10:33:09 <pchampin> pchampin: what is the motivation for making it so more permissive?
Richard Cyganiak: what is the motivation for making it so more permissive? ←
10:33:31 <pchampin> s/pchampin/cygri/
10:33:51 <pchampin> gavinc: the motivation was to reuse as much as possible the rules from Turtle
Gavin Carothers: the motivation was to reuse as much as possible the rules from Turtle ←
10:34:02 <pchampin> ... remember that it was originally a subset of Turtle
... remember that it was originally a subset of Turtle ←
10:34:21 <pchampin> ... we can easily make it more restrictive
... we can easily make it more restrictive ←
10:34:43 <pchampin> ... by removing turtly bits from it
... by removing turtly bits from it ←
10:35:56 <pchampin> cygri: I think it more important to make it close to the old N-triples than to make it "turtlier"
Richard Cyganiak: I think it more important to make it close to the old N-triples than to make it "turtlier" ←
10:36:58 <pchampin> gavinc: the older spec was very pedantic, and noone implemented it strictly
Gavin Carothers: the older spec was very pedantic, and noone implemented it strictly ←
10:37:16 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#eoln
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#eoln ←
10:37:19 <davidwood> ack AndyS
David Wood: ack AndyS ←
10:37:28 <gavinc> line ::= ws* ( comment | triple )? eoln
Gavin Carothers: line ::= ws* ( comment | triple )? eoln ←
10:37:35 <gavinc> tailing newline
Gavin Carothers: tailing newline ←
10:37:49 <pchampin> andys: I think the expectation is that N-Triples is one line per triple
Andy Seaborne: I think the expectation is that N-Triples is one line per triple ←
10:37:50 <cygri> what's a newline?
Richard Cyganiak: what's a newline? ←
10:38:41 <pchampin> ... reusing turtle should not be a design constraint
... reusing turtle should not be a design constraint ←
10:39:17 <pchampin> davidwood: also recall that Oracle didn't want anything to break their existing N-Triples parser
David Wood: also recall that Oracle didn't want anything to break their existing N-Triples parser ←
10:40:08 <gavinc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html#n-triple-changes
Gavin Carothers: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html#n-triple-changes ←
10:41:31 <cygri> gavin, this one has a newline: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/test008.nt
Richard Cyganiak: gavin, this one has a newline: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/xmlbase/test008.nt ←
10:42:45 <AndyS> The test cases have a final newlines in the copy I'm looking at.
Andy Seaborne: The test cases have a final newlines in the copy I'm looking at. ←
10:42:56 <gavinc> huh
Gavin Carothers: huh ←
10:43:02 <AndyS> and copyright statement.
Andy Seaborne: and copyright statement. ←
10:43:12 <gavinc> ... I wonder if it depends on where you got them from
Gavin Carothers: ... I wonder if it depends on where you got them from ←
10:43:24 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The RDF 1.1 n-triples grammar will not allow line breaks within triples
PROPOSED: The RDF 1.1 n-triples grammar will not allow line breaks within triples ←
10:43:38 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
10:43:39 <cygri> +1.1
Richard Cyganiak: +1.1 ←
10:43:40 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
10:43:40 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
10:43:41 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
10:43:42 <pchampin> +1
+1 ←
10:43:47 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
10:43:54 <ericP> +0.9
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0.9 ←
10:44:02 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
10:44:07 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
10:44:08 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
10:44:44 <pchampin> RESOLVED: The RDF 1.1 n-triples grammar will not allow line breaks within triples
RESOLVED: The RDF 1.1 n-triples grammar will not allow line breaks within triples ←
10:45:23 <gavinc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html#n-triple-changes
Gavin Carothers: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/n-triples.html#n-triple-changes ←
10:45:27 <davidwood> The editors will be gavinc and ericp
David Wood: The editors will be gavinc and ericp ←
10:45:47 <pchampin> davidwood: Eric, your appear as an editor of N-Triples, are you happy with that?
David Wood: Eric, your appear as an editor of N-Triples, are you happy with that? ←
10:45:57 <pchampin> ericp: I'm happy eitherway
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I'm happy eitherway ←
10:46:16 <pchampin> davidwood: anyway we'll have you as contact for the IETF registration
David Wood: anyway we'll have you as contact for the IETF registration ←
10:46:29 <pchampin> topic: N-Quads
10:47:04 <pchampin> cygri: I think it would be nice to have an N-Quads syntax
Richard Cyganiak: I think it would be nice to have an N-Quads syntax ←
10:47:11 <AndyS> +1 to NQuads spec. NQ exists! (don't care about empty graph but easy to add something)
Andy Seaborne: +1 to NQuads spec. NQ exists! (don't care about empty graph but easy to add something) ←
10:47:23 <ericP> q+ to demonstrate ignorance by asking what use case is addressed by N-Quads which is not addressed by Trig
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to demonstrate ignorance by asking what use case is addressed by N-Quads which is not addressed by Trig ←
10:47:26 <pchampin> sandro: what about the default graph?
Sandro Hawke: what about the default graph? ←
10:47:34 <gavinc> <> <> <> . <> <> <> <> .
Gavin Carothers: <> <> <> . <> <> <> <> . ←
10:48:29 <davidwood> ack ericp
David Wood: ack ericp ←
10:48:29 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to demonstrate ignorance by asking what use case is addressed by N-Quads which is not addressed by Trig
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to demonstrate ignorance by asking what use case is addressed by N-Quads which is not addressed by Trig ←
10:48:41 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
10:49:00 <pchampin> ericp: what can we accomplish with N-Quads that we can't with Trig?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: what can we accomplish with N-Quads that we can't with Trig? ←
10:49:52 <pchampin> ... seems that you don't end up with faster process for N-Quads than with Trig?
... seems that you don't end up with faster process for N-Quads than with Trig? ←
10:50:12 <pchampin> ivan: same argument as N-Triples: you can use line-oriented tools
ivan: same argument as N-Triples: you can use line-oriented tools ←
10:50:42 <gavinc> Too late, N-Quads exist
Gavin Carothers: Too late, N-Quads exist ←
10:50:43 <pchampin> ... and it is already used like that out there
... and it is already used like that out there ←
10:50:49 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
10:51:26 <pchampin> sandro: N-Triples is a subset of Turtle, you never need an N-Triple parser if you have a Turtle parser.
Sandro Hawke: N-Triples is a subset of Turtle, you never need an N-Triple parser if you have a Turtle parser. ←
10:51:35 <pchampin> ... this is not the same between N-Quads and Trig
... this is not the same between N-Quads and Trig ←
10:51:39 <davidwood> ack AndyS
David Wood: ack AndyS ←
10:52:16 <pchampin> andys: it's already out there, and people use it
Andy Seaborne: it's already out there, and people use it ←
10:52:38 <pchampin> ... re. N-Triples, people use specific parsers that happen to be faster than Turtle parsers
... re. N-Triples, people use specific parsers that happen to be faster than Turtle parsers ←
10:52:38 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
10:53:30 <pchampin> cygri: agreed it is a de facto standard
Richard Cyganiak: agreed it is a de facto standard ←
10:53:43 <pchampin> ... sure, we could work out a subset of Trig for that purpose
... sure, we could work out a subset of Trig for that purpose ←
10:53:58 <pchampin> ... cons: it's not what is currently being used
... cons: it's not what is currently being used ←
10:54:21 <AndyS> newlines again?
Andy Seaborne: newlines again? ←
10:54:27 <Arnaud> q+
Arnaud Le Hors: q+ ←
10:54:34 <davidwood> ack Arnaud
David Wood: ack Arnaud ←
10:54:41 <pchampin> ... pros: it could be a profile of N-Quads
... pros: it could be a profile of N-Quads ←
10:55:33 <pchampin> arnaud: still feel uncomfortable about the proliferation of syntaxes
Arnaud Le Hors: still feel uncomfortable about the proliferation of syntaxes ←
10:55:43 <pchampin> ... we are moving from 1 normative syntax to 7
... we are moving from 1 normative syntax to 7 ←
10:56:15 <pchampin> ... I understand that having multiple syntaxes makes it clear that what matters is the data model
... I understand that having multiple syntaxes makes it clear that what matters is the data model ←
10:56:17 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
10:56:32 <pchampin> ericp: but for this, we only need 2, not 7
Eric Prud'hommeaux: but for this, we only need 2, not 7 ←
10:56:53 <pchampin> arnaud: I agree that we should endorse existing syntax
Arnaud Le Hors: I agree that we should endorse existing syntax ←
10:57:03 <pchampin> ... but not try to define a new one to replace the old one,
... but not try to define a new one to replace the old one, ←
10:57:11 <pchampin> ... because the old one will not disappear
... because the old one will not disappear ←
10:58:26 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
10:58:31 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
10:58:42 <pchampin> davidwood: multiples syntax make it clearer that the data model is what matters
David Wood: multiples syntax make it clearer that the data model is what matters ←
10:59:15 <pchampin> ivan: I would propose that the current N-Triples document include N-Quads (as it is used in the wild)
Ivan Herman: I would propose that the current N-Triples document include N-Quads (as it is used in the wild) ←
10:59:44 <ericP> to convert from N-Quads to N-Trig: awk '{print $4 " { " $1 " " $2 " " $3 "}"}'
Eric Prud'hommeaux: to convert from N-Quads to N-Trig: awk '{print $4 " { " $1 " " $2 " " $3 "}"}' ←
11:00:01 <pchampin> arnaud: how would it be acceptable for N-Triples/N-Quad when it was not for Turtle/Trig?
Arnaud Le Hors: how would it be acceptable for N-Triples/N-Quad when it was not for Turtle/Trig? ←
11:00:15 <pchampin> ivan: I just want to limit the proliferation of documents
Ivan Herman: I just want to limit the proliferation of documents ←
11:00:24 <pchampin> q+
q+ ←
11:00:49 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll do N-Quads on the REC Track, as another Dataset serialization syntax, in line with existing, in-the-wild N-Quads.
PROPOSED: We'll do N-Quads on the REC Track, as another Dataset serialization syntax, in line with existing, in-the-wild N-Quads. ←
11:01:01 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
11:01:04 <pchampin> ivan: we define a notation for dumps, defining what's already out there, and that's all
Ivan Herman: we define a notation for dumps, defining what's already out there, and that's all ←
11:01:06 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
11:01:12 <cygri> sandro, can we say "in the same doc as N-Triples"?
Richard Cyganiak: sandro, can we say "in the same doc as N-Triples"? ←
11:01:20 <ericP> -0.9
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -0.9 ←
11:01:30 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
11:01:30 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
11:01:37 <pchampin> +1
+1 ←
11:01:43 <ericP> -0.9 due to proliferation of parsers
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -0.9 due to proliferation of parsers ←
11:01:43 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
11:01:47 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
11:02:04 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
11:02:05 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
11:02:13 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
11:02:22 <gavinc> "Line Oriented RDF Syntaxes"
Gavin Carothers: "Line Oriented RDF Syntaxes" ←
11:02:22 <pchampin> q-
q- ←
11:02:42 <yvesr> +0.1
Yves Raimond: +0.1 ←
11:03:03 <gavinc> The parsers already exist
Gavin Carothers: The parsers already exist ←
11:03:30 <gavinc> Just about any SPARQL store has to deal with N-Quads already
Gavin Carothers: Just about any SPARQL store has to deal with N-Quads already ←
11:03:36 <sandro> sandro: line-trig would be yet another language (in people's heads). n-quads already exists.
Sandro Hawke: line-trig would be yet another language (in people's heads). n-quads already exists. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:04:08 <pchampin> eric: I was more concerned in limiting the number of parsers, not the number of languages
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I was more concerned in limiting the number of parsers, not the number of languages ←
11:04:27 <pchampin> ... anyway, converting N-Quads to line-oriented Trig is quite trivial
... anyway, converting N-Quads to line-oriented Trig is quite easy ←
11:04:36 <pchampin> s/trivial/easy/
11:04:48 <davidwood> ack AZ
David Wood: ack AZ ←
11:04:48 <ivan> ack AZ
Ivan Herman: ack AZ ←
11:04:52 <sandro> sandro: How about in the spec we provide the informative unix command to convert n-quads to trig. :-)
Sandro Hawke: How about in the spec we provide the informative unix command to convert n-quads to trig. :-) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:04:56 <pchampin> ... making it easy to parse N-Quads with an (instrumented) Trig parser
... making it easy to parse N-Quads with an (instrumented) Trig parser ←
11:05:12 <ivan> ack cygri
Ivan Herman: ack cygri ←
11:05:36 <sandro> sandro: nquads syntax would be restricted to datasets (no literals or bnodes in fourth column)
Sandro Hawke: nquads syntax would be restricted to datasets (no literals or bnodes in fourth column) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:05:46 <pchampin> az: we should remove from N-Quads the fact that bnodes are allowed in the graph name position
Antoine Zimmermann: should we remove from N-Quads the fact that bnodes are allowed in the graph name position ←
11:06:01 <Arnaud> q+
Arnaud Le Hors: q+ ←
11:06:05 <sandro> cyg: the fact that an RDF syntax exists because not every RDF toolkit has to implement it. they are for particular user bases.
Richard Cyganiak: the fact that an RDF syntax exists because not every RDF toolkit has to implement it. they are for particular user bases. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:06:05 <pchampin> cygri: N-Quads will not lead to a proliferation of parsers, because the parsers are already there
Richard Cyganiak: N-Quads will not lead to a proliferation of parsers, because the parsers are already there ←
11:06:41 <davidwood> ack Arnaud
David Wood: ack Arnaud ←
11:07:08 <pchampin> s/az: we should/az: should we/
11:07:12 <gavinc> Introduction to RDF Syntaxes?
Gavin Carothers: Introduction to RDF Syntaxes? ←
11:07:17 <gavinc> as part of the primer?
Gavin Carothers: as part of the primer? ←
11:08:09 <pchampin> sandro: OWL had an Overview document, to help people with a large number of documents
Sandro Hawke: OWL had an Overview document, to help people with a large number of documents ←
11:08:15 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
11:08:19 <pchampin> ivan: I think this is a good idea
Ivan Herman: I think this is a good idea ←
11:08:35 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ ←
11:08:54 <pchampin> guus: in OWL1, this was the first section in all the documents
Guus Schreiber: in OWL1, this was the first section in all the documents ←
11:09:03 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
11:09:07 <pchampin> ivan: I think a separate document is better
Ivan Herman: I think a separate document is better ←
11:09:11 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/ ←
11:09:52 <pchampin> cygri: I'm not sure about the targeted reader of such an overview document
Richard Cyganiak: I'm not sure about the targeted reader of such an overview document ←
11:10:33 <pchampin> ... the need for such an overview exist, but then it should not stop at the boundaries of this particular WG
... the need for such an overview exist, but then it should not stop at the boundaries of this particular WG ←
11:11:41 <davidwood> For an example of a useful overview document, see the CSS WG's current work page: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work
David Wood: For an example of a useful overview document, see the CSS WG's current work page: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work ←
11:11:44 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
11:11:51 <pchampin> ... the reader would also want to know about SPARQL or RDFa
... the reader would also want to know about SPARQL or RDFa ←
11:11:58 <sandro> RESOLVED: We'll do N-Quads on the REC Track, as another Dataset serialization syntax, in line with existing, in-the-wild N-Quads.
RESOLVED: We'll do N-Quads on the REC Track, as another Dataset serialization syntax, in line with existing, in-the-wild N-Quads. ←
11:12:01 <yvesr> so what should the primer 'syntax' section cover, then?
Yves Raimond: so what should the primer 'syntax' section cover, then? ←
11:12:04 <pchampin> ivan: I disagree, but that's ok
Ivan Herman: I disagree, but that's ok ←
11:12:09 <cygri> davidwood, that's a nice page
Richard Cyganiak: davidwood, that's a nice page ←
11:12:15 <gavinc> No.
Gavin Carothers: No. ←
11:13:42 <gavinc> "Line Oriented RDF Syntaxes"
Gavin Carothers: "Line Oriented RDF Syntaxes" ←
11:13:54 <gavinc> I'd like to avoid the word "Dump"
Gavin Carothers: I'd like to avoid the word "Dump" ←
11:13:55 <sandro> "RDF Dump Formats"
Sandro Hawke: "RDF Dump Formats" ←
11:14:07 <gavinc> "Line Oriented RDF Syntaxes"?
Gavin Carothers: "Line Oriented RDF Syntaxes"? ←
11:14:18 <AndyS> "Line oriented" -- the MapReduce case
Andy Seaborne: "Line oriented" -- the MapReduce case ←
11:14:37 <sandro> PROPOSED: We're do N-Triples and N-Quads in one REC-track documents, title to be decided
PROPOSED: We're do N-Triples and N-Quads in one REC-track documents, title to be decided ←
11:14:49 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
11:14:50 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
11:14:50 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
11:14:53 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
11:14:53 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
11:14:53 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
11:14:55 <pchampin> +1
+1 ←
11:14:56 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
11:14:59 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
11:15:10 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
11:15:13 <davidwood> Richard and Gavin to edit.
David Wood: Richard and Gavin to edit. ←
11:15:13 <sandro> RESOLVED: We'll do N-Triples and N-Quads in one REC-track documents, title to be decided
RESOLVED: We'll do N-Triples and N-Quads in one REC-track documents, title to be decided ←
11:15:16 <ericP> abstain
Eric Prud'hommeaux: abstain ←
11:15:17 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
11:15:52 <pchampin> topic: Issue Review
11:17:49 <pchampin> guus: I made a scan of the www-rdf-comments archive
Guus Schreiber: I made a scan of the www-rdf-comments archive ←
11:18:13 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
11:18:33 <pchampin> http://www.w3.org/mid/508FACB7.7080103@vu.nl
http://www.w3.org/mid/508FACB7.7080103@vu.nl ←
11:19:05 <pchampin> guus: we can paste it in a wiki page
Guus Schreiber: we can paste it in a wiki page ←
11:19:34 <pchampin> ... there could be duplications with the errata
... there could be duplications with the errata ←
11:20:13 <FabGandon> concerning errata I did this for RDF-XML http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-RDF-XML
Fabien Gandon: concerning errata I did this for RDF-XML http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-RDF-XML ←
11:20:59 <pchampin> ivan: there is no formal process with the errata
Ivan Herman: there is no formal process with the errata ←
11:22:07 <sandro> gavinc, we're looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/open
Sandro Hawke: gavinc, we're looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/open ←
11:22:19 <sandro> :-)
Sandro Hawke: :-) ←
11:23:24 <sandro> re ISSUE-23 -- does JSON-LD need a different media type when it contains multiple graphs???!?! (everyone sighs)
Sandro Hawke: re ISSUE-23 -- does JSON-LD need a different media type when it contains multiple graphs???!?! (everyone sighs) ←
11:25:11 <cygri> Resolution to close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 from yesterday: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-29#resolution_10
Richard Cyganiak: Resolution to close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 from yesterday: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-29#resolution_10 ←
11:25:38 <davidwood> Close ISSUE-35 We will not use an rdf:Graph construct.
David Wood: Close ISSUE-35 We will not use an rdf:Graph construct. ←
11:27:02 <davidwood> Close ISSUE-38 We will create dataset serialization formats (TriG and n-quads).
David Wood: Close ISSUE-38 We will create dataset serialization formats (TriG and n-quads). ←
11:27:10 <sandro> trackbot, hello?
Sandro Hawke: trackbot, hello? ←
11:27:10 <trackbot> Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, hello?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, hello?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help ←
11:27:17 <sandro> issue-35?
11:27:17 <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 ←
11:27:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35 ←
11:28:41 <davidwood> close ISSUE-35
David Wood: close ISSUE-35 ←
11:28:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-35 Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? closed ←
11:28:47 <davidwood> close ISSUE-38
David Wood: close ISSUE-38 ←
11:28:47 <trackbot> ISSUE-38 What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-38 What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? closed ←
11:28:48 <sandro> agreed: close ISSUE-78 and make it an action on Guus
Sandro Hawke: agreed: close ISSUE-78 and make it an action on Guus ←
11:31:04 <pchampin> cygri: re issue-80 it is hard to get the document updated, as the WG is no longer active
Richard Cyganiak: re ISSUE-80 it is hard to get the document updated, as the WG is no longer active ←
11:31:54 <pchampin> sandro: we agreed yesterday that we didn't need to update them, as they are referring to an older version of RDF
Sandro Hawke: we agreed yesterday that we didn't need to update them, as they are referring to an older version of RDF ←
11:31:55 <sandro> sandro: I don't think we need to do anything here....
Sandro Hawke: I don't think we need to do anything here.... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:32:52 <pchampin> cygri: the problem is that rdf:PlainLiteral is in the rdf: namespace, and it should not be there anymore
Richard Cyganiak: the problem is that rdf:PlainLiteral is in the rdf: namespace, and it should not be there anymore ←
11:33:34 <pchampin> ... OWL should now manage with xsd:String and rdf:LangString
... OWL should now manage with xsd:String and rdf:LangString ←
11:33:57 <pchampin> ivan: they can not make this kind of change now, only editorial changes
Ivan Herman: they can not make this kind of change now, only editorial changes ←
11:34:33 <pchampin> sandro: the only thing to do is to send an email to the owl-comments list
Sandro Hawke: the only thing to do is to send an email to the owl-comments list ←
11:35:03 <pchampin> ACTION cygri to send a message about rdf:PlainLiteral to the owl-comments mailing list
ACTION cygri to send a message about rdf:PlainLiteral to the owl-comments mailing list ←
11:35:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-201 - Send a message about rdf:PlainLiteral to the owl-comments mailing list [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-11-06].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-201 - Send a message about rdf:PlainLiteral to the owl-comments mailing list [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-11-06]. ←
11:35:06 <sandro> +1 cygri ask OWL WG to redo rdf:PlainLiteral as using xs:string and xs:LangString.
Sandro Hawke: +1 cygri ask OWL WG to redo rdf:PlainLiteral as using xs:string and xs:LangString. ←
11:35:17 <gavinc> ISSUE-99 is a No.
Gavin Carothers: ISSUE-99 is a No. ←
11:35:43 <pchampin> close issue-80
11:35:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-80 Ask OWL and RIF WGs to update the rdf:PlainLiteral spec closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-80 Ask OWL and RIF WGs to update the rdf:PlainLiteral spec closed ←
11:36:17 <gavinc> ISSUE-99 is a No!
Gavin Carothers: ISSUE-99 is a No! ←
11:36:25 <gavinc> and there is a bigger reason ;)
Gavin Carothers: and there is a bigger reason ;) ←
11:36:36 <gavinc> in that we likely shouldn't have the HTML datatype either
Gavin Carothers: in that we likely shouldn't have the HTML datatype either ←
11:36:56 <pchampin> fabgandon: re issue-99 we discussed that yesterday,
Fabien Gandon: re ISSUE-99 we discussed that yesterday, ←
11:37:12 <pchampin> ... and I recorded for the XML syntax that it should include an example of HTML literal using CDATA
... and I recorded for the XML syntax that it should include an example of HTML literal using CDATA ←
11:37:22 <cygri> ISSUE-99?
11:37:22 <trackbot> ISSUE-99 -- Does RDF/XML get a special syntax for HTML Literals? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-99 -- Does RDF/XML get a special syntax for HTML Literals? -- open ←
11:37:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/99
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/99 ←
11:37:38 <pchampin> close issue-99
11:37:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-99 Does RDF/XML get a special syntax for HTML Literals? closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-99 Does RDF/XML get a special syntax for HTML Literals? closed ←
11:37:39 <gavinc> FabGandon, I wouldn't do that yet ;)
Gavin Carothers: FabGandon, I wouldn't do that yet ;) ←
11:38:00 <cygri> topic: —lunch—
11:41:19 <Zakim> -Gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Gavinc ←
11:52:59 <Zakim> +??P0
(No events recorded for 11 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
11:53:05 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P0
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P0 ←
11:53:05 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
12:20:06 <markus> Zakim, what's the code?
(No events recorded for 27 minutes)
Markus Lanthaler: Zakim, what's the code? ←
12:20:06 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus ←
12:22:25 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
12:22:36 <markus> Zakim, ??P1 is me
Markus Lanthaler: Zakim, ??P1 is me ←
12:22:36 <Zakim> +markus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +markus; got it ←
12:22:56 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
12:22:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, gkellogg, markus
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, gkellogg, markus ←
12:22:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see gkellogg, manu1, AndyS1, tbaker, markus, Guus, cygri, pchampin, Zakim, Arnaud, davidwood, trackbot, manu, gavinc, RRSAgent, yvesr, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see gkellogg, manu1, AndyS1, tbaker, markus, Guus, cygri, pchampin, Zakim, Arnaud, davidwood, trackbot, manu, gavinc, RRSAgent, yvesr, sandro, ericP ←
12:24:11 <Zakim> +Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony ←
12:25:52 <ScottB> Zakim, Tony is temporarily me
Scott Bauer: Zakim, Tony is temporarily me ←
12:25:52 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ScottB; got it ←
12:25:58 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
12:26:06 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P4
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P4 ←
12:26:06 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
12:26:36 <Zakim> +Gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: +Gavinc ←
12:40:11 <ericP> AndyS1, perl -pe 's/([^ ]+) ([^ ]+) (.*?) ([^ ]+) \./$4 { $1 $2 $3 }/'
(No events recorded for 13 minutes)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS1, perl -pe 's/([^ ]+) ([^ ]+) (.*?) ([^ ]+) \./$4 { $1 $2 $3 }/' ←
12:44:14 <yvesr> scribe: yvesr
(Scribe set to Yves Raimond)
12:46:15 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
12:46:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, gkellogg, markus, ScottB, manu1, Gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, gkellogg, markus, ScottB, manu1, Gavinc ←
12:46:17 <Zakim> On IRC I see ivan, Guus, tidoust, SteveS, ScottB, gkellogg, manu1, AndyS1, tbaker, markus, cygri, pchampin, Zakim, Arnaud, davidwood, trackbot, manu, gavinc, RRSAgent, yvesr,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see ivan, Guus, tidoust, SteveS, ScottB, gkellogg, manu1, AndyS1, tbaker, markus, cygri, pchampin, Zakim, Arnaud, davidwood, trackbot, manu, gavinc, RRSAgent, yvesr, ←
12:46:17 <Zakim> ... sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... sandro, ericP ←
12:47:36 <yvesr> Francis Daoust (Joshfire) introducing himself
Francois Daoust (Joshfire) introducing himself ←
12:47:54 <yvesr> s/Francis/Francois
12:48:48 <manu1> Manu Sporny, Digital Bazaar/PaySwarm and W3C Web Payments, RDFa, JSON-LD
Manu Sporny: Manu Sporny, Digital Bazaar/PaySwarm and W3C Web Payments, RDFa, JSON-LD ←
12:49:00 <tidoust> [ I don't know what you call "Guest", but note I'm a regular participant of the RDF WG: http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=46168&public=1 ]
Francois Daoust: [ I don't know what you call "Guest", but note I'm a regular participant of the RDF WG: http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=46168&public=1 ] ←
12:49:10 <yvesr> topic: JSON-LD Syntax document
12:49:25 <gkellogg> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/
Gregg Kellogg: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/ ←
12:49:38 <sandro> ahh, sorry, tidoust, I didn't realize that.
Sandro Hawke: ahh, sorry, tidoust, I didn't realize that. ←
12:49:44 <yvesr> manu1: the document is in fairly good shape
Manu Sporny: the document is in fairly good shape ←
12:49:55 <yvesr> ... most changes at this time are editorial
... most changes at this time are editorial ←
12:50:14 <yvesr> ... we had a number of issues in the past, e.g. language maps, and alignment of json-ld data model and rdf model
... we had a number of issues in the past, e.g. language maps, and alignment of json-ld data model and rdf model ←
12:50:23 <yvesr> ... we had a number of discussions, that settled down
... we had a number of discussions, that settled down ←
12:50:35 <yvesr> ... and the draft is getting into a stable form
... and the draft is getting into a stable form ←
12:50:45 <yvesr> ... we could have a quick run through the issues
... we could have a quick run through the issues ←
12:51:15 <yvesr> Guus: can I search the document for issues?
Guus Schreiber: can I search the document for issues? ←
12:51:21 <markus> JSON-LD syntax issue list: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues?milestone=2&page=1&sort=created&state=open
Markus Lanthaler: JSON-LD syntax issue list: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues?milestone=2&page=1&sort=created&state=open ←
12:51:33 <yvesr> manu1: the major ones were cleared out when we took care of them, the main place for them is the issue tracker
Manu Sporny: the major ones were cleared out when we took care of them, the main place for them is the issue tracker ←
12:51:45 <yvesr> ivan: in the document itself, I found only one
Ivan Herman: in the document itself, I found only one ←
12:52:04 <yvesr> davidwood: is that not linked from the json-ld homepage?
David Wood: is that not linked from the json-ld homepage? ←
12:52:14 <yvesr> manu1: probably not, it is a fairly new way for us of handling issues
Manu Sporny: probably not, it is a fairly new way for us of handling issues ←
12:52:32 <yvesr> manu1: we have a link to the issue tracker from the document
Manu Sporny: we have a link to the issue tracker from the document ←
12:52:44 <yvesr> manu1: we can put a link on the json-ld page
Manu Sporny: we can put a link on the json-ld page ←
12:52:46 <markus> the link it's just filtering syntax/API related issues
Markus Lanthaler: the link is just filtering syntax/API related issues ←
12:52:51 <yvesr> Guus: we will go through the issues
Guus Schreiber: we will go through the issues ←
12:52:53 <manu1> ACTION: Manu put a link to the JSON-LD issue tracker on json-ld.org
ACTION: Manu put a link to the JSON-LD issue tracker on json-ld.org ←
12:52:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-202 - Put a link to the JSON-LD issue tracker on json-ld.org [on Manu Sporny - due 2012-11-06].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-202 - Put a link to the JSON-LD issue tracker on json-ld.org [on Manu Sporny - due 2012-11-06]. ←
12:52:57 <markus> s/it's just/is just/
12:53:28 <yvesr> manu1: we are not going through the issues that are resolved
Manu Sporny: we are not going through the issues that are resolved ←
12:54:00 <cygri> subtopic: Explicit mapping of RDF terminology to JSON-LD terminology
12:54:12 <yvesr> manu1: first issue, explicit mapping - https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/157
Manu Sporny: first issue, explicit mapping - https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/157 ←
12:54:31 <cygri> davidwood, guus, can we get the issues on the big screen?
Richard Cyganiak: davidwood, guus, can we get the issues on the big screen? ←
12:54:38 <yvesr> manu1: explicit mapping of rdf terminology to json-ld terminology
Manu Sporny: explicit mapping of rdf terminology to json-ld terminology ←
12:54:56 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
12:54:58 <yvesr> manu1: and mapping from the rdf data model to the json ld datamodel
Manu Sporny: and mapping from the rdf data model to the json ld datamodel ←
12:55:12 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Data_Model
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Data_Model ←
12:55:20 <yvesr> cygri: I have some work in progress on the wiki
Richard Cyganiak: I have some work in progress on the wiki ←
12:55:39 <yvesr> ... I am working out what the json-ld data model actually is
... I am working out what the json-ld data model actually is ←
12:55:48 <yvesr> ... I made an effort to spell those out
... I made an effort to spell those out ←
12:55:58 <davidwood> cygri, done
David Wood: cygri, done ←
12:56:16 <yvesr> ... There are a couple of things that I haven't quite worked out yet
... There are a couple of things that I haven't quite worked out yet ←
12:56:34 <yvesr> ... The JSON-LD community should look at it to check I have got it right
... The JSON-LD community should look at it to check I have got it right ←
12:56:52 <yvesr> ... There are a number of differences there, but that's not news
... There are a number of differences there, but that's not news ←
12:57:18 <yvesr> ... What I have written could be an input to that mapping process
... What I have written could be an input to that mapping process ←
12:57:28 <yvesr> ... It is going to go in that appendix that lists the differences
... It is going to go in that appendix that lists the differences ←
12:57:36 <yvesr> ... And thereby states how the two map to each other
... And thereby states how the two map to each other ←
12:57:46 <yvesr> Guus: What is the nature of the mapping?
Guus Schreiber: What is the nature of the mapping? ←
12:58:15 <yvesr> cygri: There is a distinction made in the JSON-LD data model that wouldn't survive in RDF
Richard Cyganiak: There is a distinction made in the JSON-LD data model that wouldn't survive in RDF ←
12:58:37 <yvesr> Guus: It is an important thing for people to read
Guus Schreiber: It is an important thing for people to read ←
12:58:48 <yvesr> cygri: It is going to be part of that appendix
Richard Cyganiak: It is going to be part of that appendix ←
12:58:54 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
12:59:01 <Guus> ack xygri
Guus Schreiber: ack xygri ←
12:59:11 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
12:59:20 <yvesr> sandro: Is there any use on highlighting those issues?
Sandro Hawke: Is there any use on highlighting those issues? ←
12:59:30 <yvesr> manu1: That's still up in the air
Manu Sporny: That's still up in the air ←
12:59:34 <ericP> maybe we should address "Language tags are not normalized to lower case." by removing that from RDF (I'm not sure it's widely implemented)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: maybe we should address "Language tags are not normalized to lower case." by removing that from RDF (I'm not sure it's widely implemented) ←
12:59:53 <yvesr> ... We want to do it in a way that makes the RDF WG happy with the document
... We want to do it in a way that makes the RDF WG happy with the document ←
12:59:56 <Guus> q+
Guus Schreiber: q+ ←
13:00:00 <yvesr> ... It depends on the review comments we get
... It depends on the review comments we get ←
13:00:20 <yvesr> ... If it is not clear enough we'll find out a way to make it clear
... If it is not clear enough we'll find out a way to make it clear ←
13:00:36 <yvesr> Guus: A warning would be good, so that people are aware
Guus Schreiber: A warning would be good, so that people are aware ←
13:00:45 <davidwood> ack Guus
David Wood: ack Guus ←
13:01:22 <yvesr> manu1: We wanted to concentrate all those differences in one area, so that there is only one document to read to check all the differences
Manu Sporny: We wanted to concentrate all those differences in one area, so that there is only one document to read to check all the differences ←
13:01:26 <yvesr> sandro: I have a problem with that
Sandro Hawke: I have a problem with that ←
13:01:55 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
13:01:58 <yvesr> sandro: I am not happy about there being differences, but they are tolerable if people know they are operating outside of the RDF stack
Sandro Hawke: I am not happy about there being differences, but they are tolerable if people know they are operating outside of the RDF stack ←
13:02:01 <davidwood> q+
David Wood: q+ ←
13:02:15 <yvesr> Guus: That's exactly why I would like to see an RDF note
Guus Schreiber: That's exactly why I would like to see an RDF note ←
13:02:34 <yvesr> sandro: JSON-LD claims to be Linked Data, but timbl's definition points to RDF
Sandro Hawke: JSON-LD claims to be Linked Data, but timbl's definition points to RDF ←
13:03:03 <yvesr> q?
q? ←
13:03:05 <Guus> ack gkellog
Guus Schreiber: ack gkellog ←
13:03:07 <yvesr> ack gkellogg
ack gkellogg ←
13:03:34 <yvesr> gkellogg: Properties as bnodes comes from the fact we're using JSON
Gregg Kellogg: Properties as bnodes comes from the fact we're using JSON ←
13:03:44 <yvesr> ... it is not intended to target a specific use-case
... it is not intended to target a specific use-case ←
13:03:48 <sandro> q+ to say then just rule it out, as in Turtle
Sandro Hawke: q+ to say then just rule it out, as in Turtle ←
13:03:49 <pchampin> q+
13:04:01 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
13:04:14 <yvesr> ... Graph can be bnodes as well, for the same reason - it is a consequence of using JSON as a basis
... Graph can be bnodes as well, for the same reason - it is a consequence of using JSON as a basis ←
13:04:20 <manu1> We absolutely should not go down the rabbit hole on this issue - let Richard finish his work, then we can review it.
Manu Sporny: We absolutely should not go down the rabbit hole on this issue - let Richard finish his work, then we can review it. ←
13:04:22 <yvesr> ... We're not advocating using it
... We're not advocating using it ←
13:04:37 <Guus> ack davidwood
Guus Schreiber: ack davidwood ←
13:04:58 <yvesr> davidwood: I'd like to see, in the introduction, a reference to RDF
David Wood: I'd like to see, in the introduction, a reference to RDF ←
13:05:16 <yvesr> ... I'd like to see a statement saying that JSON-LD is based on the RDF model
... I'd like to see a statement saying that JSON-LD is based on the RDF model ←
13:05:31 <yvesr> ... I'd not like to see a mapping between two data models
... I'd not like to see a mapping between two data models ←
13:05:57 <yvesr> ... Even though JSON allows you to make syntactic statement using blank nodes in various places, don't do that
... Even though JSON allows you to make syntactic statement using blank nodes in various places, don't do that ←
13:06:07 <tidoust> q+
Francois Daoust: q+ ←
13:06:07 <sandro> It's just like in Turtle -- where you can say: <a> _:x <b> --- except the spec says DONT.
Sandro Hawke: It's just like in Turtle -- where you can say: <a> _:x <b> --- except the spec says DONT. ←
13:06:13 <Arnaud> +1 to david's proposal
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 to david's proposal ←
13:06:21 <yvesr> ... In Mulgara, it was possible to have literals as predicates, but we never exposed it, never said it was a good idea
... In Mulgara, it was possible to have literals as predicates, but we never exposed it, never said it was a good idea ←
13:06:26 <yvesr> ... So nobody ever did it
... So nobody ever did it ←
13:06:29 <manu1> q+ to state that we're open to adding that to the spec.
Manu Sporny: q+ to state that we're open to adding that to the spec. ←
13:06:33 <Guus> ack pchampin
Guus Schreiber: ack pchampin ←
13:07:04 <sandro> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/FTF3#Day_2
13:07:09 <yvesr> pchampin: Two remarks, the SPARQL data model superseeds RDF by allowing literals as subjects, so I don't see why it would be annoying for JSON-LD
Pierre-Antoine Champin: Two remarks, the SPARQL data model superseeds RDF by allowing literals as subjects, so I don't see why it would be annoying for JSON-LD ←
13:07:57 <yvesr> ... Also, could there be a way around that? Could we assume that there is no mapping if a blank node appears in the predicate position?
... Also, could there be a way around that? Could we assume that there is no mapping if a blank node appears in the predicate position? ←
13:08:05 <Guus> ack tidoust
Guus Schreiber: ack tidoust ←
13:08:31 <yvesr> tidoust: We will have to find the right level of enforcement in the spec
Francois Daoust: We will have to find the right level of enforcement in the spec ←
13:09:00 <Guus> ack manu1
Guus Schreiber: ack manu1 ←
13:09:01 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to state that we're open to adding that to the spec.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to state that we're open to adding that to the spec. ←
13:09:01 <yvesr> ... I would suggest we just wait until it is phrased out in the spec so that we can see what works and what doesn't
... I would suggest we just wait until it is phrased out in the spec so that we can see what works and what doesn't ←
13:09:24 <sandro> tidoust: MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST on JSON-LJ going beyond RDF data model.
Francois Daoust: MAY vs SHOULD vs MUST on JSON-LJ going beyond RDF data model. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:09:35 <yvesr> manu1: We are open to putting something like that in the spe
Manu Sporny: We are open to putting something like that in the spec ←
13:09:36 <sandro> -1
Sandro Hawke: -1 ←
13:09:41 <sandro> -.9
Sandro Hawke: -.9 ←
13:09:55 <yvesr> s/spe/spec
13:10:13 <yvesr> sandro: We should agree on the way the JSON-LD talks about RDF
Sandro Hawke: We should agree on the way the JSON-LD talks about RDF ←
13:10:27 <yvesr> ... Before more editorial work happens on those things in the JSON-LD spec
... Before more editorial work happens on those things in the JSON-LD spec ←
13:10:35 <yvesr> manu1: Most of these issues have been talked about before
Manu Sporny: Most of these issues have been talked about before ←
13:10:39 <yvesr> sandro: But not addressed
Sandro Hawke: But not addressed ←
13:10:55 <yvesr> manu1: That's why I would wait for these comments to be addressed in the spec text
Manu Sporny: That's why I would wait for these comments to be addressed in the spec text ←
13:11:15 <yvesr> Guus: I have heard three actions: 1) the appendix
Guus Schreiber: I have heard three actions: 1) the appendix ←
13:11:34 <yvesr> ... 2) Explicit mention in the introduction
... 2) Explicit mention in the introduction ←
13:12:04 <yvesr> ... 3) Marking in the text where the differences are
... 3) Marking in the text where the differences are ←
13:12:15 <sandro> (as "RDF Note:" or something)
Sandro Hawke: (as "RDF Note:" or something) ←
13:12:42 <yvesr> davidwood: According to the JSON-LD tracker, cygri was blocked by the data model clarification
David Wood: According to the JSON-LD tracker, cygri was blocked by the data model clarification ←
13:12:58 <yvesr> cygri: I clarified that already
Richard Cyganiak: I clarified that already ←
13:13:06 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
13:13:08 <manu1> q+ to make a proposal
Manu Sporny: q+ to make a proposal ←
13:13:10 <manu1> q-
Manu Sporny: q- ←
13:13:17 <yvesr> ... I don't think it needs any more details at that point
... I don't think it needs any more details at that point ←
13:14:03 <sandro> q+ to comment on consensus
Sandro Hawke: q+ to comment on consensus ←
13:14:26 <Guus> q+
Guus Schreiber: q+ ←
13:14:30 <gkellogg> q-
Gregg Kellogg: q- ←
13:14:32 <Guus> q-
Guus Schreiber: q- ←
13:14:35 <yvesr> Guus: I'd like to get to a rationale
Guus Schreiber: I'd like to get to a rationale ←
13:14:42 <yvesr> manu1: We have a concensus among the editors
Manu Sporny: We have a concensus among the editors ←
13:14:46 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
13:14:46 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to comment on consensus
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to comment on consensus ←
13:15:09 <yvesr> sandro: I am concerned that the discussion stops now that the editors are in consensus
Sandro Hawke: I am concerned that the discussion stops now that the editors are in consensus ←
13:15:24 <yvesr> manu1: We are going to make sure the RDF WG is happy with our proposed solution
Manu Sporny: We are going to make sure the RDF WG is happy with our proposed solution ←
13:15:30 <cygri> subtopic: Language containers
13:15:33 <yvesr> manu1: The next issue is issue 159
Manu Sporny: The next issue is ISSUE-159 ←
13:15:43 <yvesr> ... Adding language containers to JSON-LD
... Adding language containers to JSON-LD ←
13:15:49 <yvesr> ... Asked for by the Drupal community
... Asked for by the Drupal community ←
13:15:50 <sandro> sandro: sorry, I midunderstood.
Sandro Hawke: sorry, I midunderstood. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:16:00 <yvesr> ... That allows them to easily access language mapped values
... That allows them to easily access language mapped values ←
13:16:23 <markus> example "title": { "en": "JSON-LD Syntax", "ru": "JSON-LD Синтаксис" }
Markus Lanthaler: example "title": { "en": "JSON-LD Syntax", "ru": "JSON-LD Синтаксис" } ←
13:16:31 <gkellogg> {"title": {"en": "Foo"}}
Gregg Kellogg: {"title": {"en": "Foo"}} ←
13:16:32 <yvesr> ... The idea is that you could express multiple languages in the JSON documents
... The idea is that you could express multiple languages in the JSON documents ←
13:16:41 <yvesr> ... And could be easily accessed
... And could be easily accessed ←
13:16:59 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:17:05 <yvesr> ... There is a question whether that is a difference with the RDF data model
... There is a question whether that is a difference with the RDF data model ←
13:17:11 <yvesr> ... But gkellogg has come up with a solution
... But gkellogg has come up with a solution ←
13:17:11 <ericP> q+ to ask if this leads to more equivalences
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask if this leads to more equivalences ←
13:17:19 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
13:17:23 <gavinc> +1 to awesome language maps
Gavin Carothers: +1 to awesome language maps ←
13:17:27 <yvesr> ivan: It is a little bit abstract for my taste
Ivan Herman: It is a little bit abstract for my taste ←
13:17:28 <cygri> q+ to ask if this is a pure syntax feature
Richard Cyganiak: q+ to ask if this is a pure syntax feature ←
13:17:36 <markus> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#language-tagged-strings
Markus Lanthaler: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#language-tagged-strings ←
13:17:41 <yvesr> ... Can you show in the document the kind of format we would end up with?
... Can you show in the document the kind of format we would end up with? ←
13:17:58 <markus> Example 28
Markus Lanthaler: Example 28 ←
13:18:06 <gavinc> Example 28: Language map expressing a property in three languages
Gavin Carothers: Example 28: Language map expressing a property in three languages ←
13:18:14 <manu1> 4.3 Language-tagged Strings
Manu Sporny: 4.3 Language-tagged Strings ←
13:18:33 <yvesr> ... It is in section 4.3 in the JSON-LD spec, Example 28
... It is in section 4.3 in the JSON-LD spec, Example 28 ←
13:18:44 <gkellogg> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#referencing-contexts-from-json-documents
Gregg Kellogg: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#referencing-contexts-from-json-documents ←
13:18:53 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:19:21 <yvesr> davidwood: What's the RDF that's equivalent to that?
David Wood: What's the RDF that's equivalent to that? ←
13:19:22 <gavinc> object.title.en == "JSON-LD Syntax"; object.title.ru == "JSON-LD Синтаксис";
Gavin Carothers: object.title.en == "JSON-LD Syntax"; object.title.ru == "JSON-LD Синтаксис"; ←
13:19:47 <yvesr> ivan: It generates three triples, same subject, predicate dc:title, and three literal objects with three different languages
Ivan Herman: It generates three triples, same subject, predicate dc:title, and three literal objects with three different languages ←
13:19:52 <gavinc> <> dc:title "JSON-LD Syntax"@en, "JSON-LD Синтаксис"@ru
Gavin Carothers: <> dc:title "JSON-LD Syntax"@en, "JSON-LD Синтаксис"@ru ←
13:20:02 <Guus> ack eripP
Guus Schreiber: ack eripP ←
13:20:13 <Guus> ack aericP
Guus Schreiber: ack aericP ←
13:20:24 <ivan> ack ericP
Ivan Herman: ack ericP ←
13:20:24 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if this leads to more equivalences
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask if this leads to more equivalences ←
13:20:24 <Guus> ack ericP
Guus Schreiber: ack ericP ←
13:20:26 <yvesr> ericP: There are two different ways of representing the same thing (language tags), is there a cost?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: There are two different ways of representing the same thing (language tags), is there a cost? ←
13:21:09 <yvesr> manu1: That's a consequence of the language @container
Manu Sporny: That's a consequence of the language @container ←
13:21:17 <gavinc> the magic is "@container": "@language"
Gavin Carothers: the magic is "@container": "@language" ←
13:21:24 <yvesr> ... That's just a way for developers to make it easier to use
... That's just a way for developers to make it easier to use ←
13:21:31 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
13:21:31 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask if this is a pure syntax feature
Zakim IRC Bot: cygri, you wanted to ask if this is a pure syntax feature ←
13:21:51 <yvesr> cygri: I take it that this is purely a syntactical feature
Richard Cyganiak: I take it that this is purely a syntactical feature ←
13:22:07 <yvesr> ... If you access it through the API, all you see is that there are three values with three languages
... If you access it through the API, all you see is that there are three values with three languages ←
13:22:26 <yvesr> gkellogg: If you turn it into RDF, you get to the same representation
Gregg Kellogg: If you turn it into RDF, you get to the same representation ←
13:22:49 <gavinc> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/#expansion-1
Gavin Carothers: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/#expansion-1 ←
13:23:02 <gavinc> "Expansion is the process of taking a JSON-LD document and applying a context such that all IRI, datatypes, and literal values are expanded so that the context is no longer necessary. JSON-LD document expansion is typically used as a part of other JSON-LD API methods."
Gavin Carothers: "Expansion is the process of taking a JSON-LD document and applying a context such that all IRI, datatypes, and literal values are expanded so that the context is no longer necessary. JSON-LD document expansion is typically used as a part of other JSON-LD API methods." ←
13:23:43 <yvesr> manu1: Expansion gets rid of the context and expands the document according to it
Gregg Kellogg: Expansion gets rid of the context and expands the document according to it ←
13:23:57 <manu1> s/manu1/gkellogg/
13:24:00 <cygri> subtopic: Does JSON-LD address developers who don't know RDF?
13:24:17 <yvesr> cygri: There is a stated goal that JSON-LD can be used by JSON developers without having to know how it maps to RDF
Richard Cyganiak: There is a stated goal that JSON-LD can be used by JSON developers without having to know how it maps to RDF ←
13:24:21 <markus> Expansion of example 28 in my playground: http://bitly.com/Rmjmsk
Markus Lanthaler: Expansion of example 28 in my playground: http://bitly.com/Rmjmsk ←
13:24:29 <gavinc> +q
Gavin Carothers: +q ←
13:24:39 <yvesr> ... If developers are confronted to the same model but serialized in different ways
... If developers are confronted to the same model but serialized in different ways ←
13:24:52 <yvesr> ... Then it defeats that goal, because it implies an underlying data model
... Then it defeats that goal, because it implies an underlying data model ←
13:24:57 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
13:25:06 <yvesr> ... They're not using JSON anymore, but they're using JSON-LD
... They're not using JSON anymore, but they're using JSON-LD ←
13:25:07 <manu1> q+ to point out framing()
Manu Sporny: q+ to point out framing() ←
13:25:52 <sandro> cygri: Is there a non-expanded form, a form where people don't have to know it's JSON-LD?
Richard Cyganiak: Is there a non-expanded form, a form where people don't have to know it's JSON-LD? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:25:54 <yvesr> manu1: I don't think the goal of JSON-LD is for the developers to not know they're doing JSON-LD
Manu Sporny: I don't think the goal of JSON-LD is for the developers to not know they're doing JSON-LD ←
13:26:12 <davidwood> ack gavinc
David Wood: ack gavinc ←
13:26:23 <sandro> gavinc: Sure -- it's just whatever the API (eg twitter) provides.
Gavin Carothers: Sure -- it's just whatever the API (eg twitter) provides. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:26:23 <yvesr> gavinc: If you're treating as just JSON, I need to know the serialization is not going to change
Gavin Carothers: If you're treating as just JSON, I need to know the serialization is not going to change ←
13:27:09 <pchampin> @cygri: it's only "equivalent" from an RDF perspective, so the JSON-only dev is not impacted
Pierre-Antoine Champin: @cygri: it's only "equivalent" from an RDF perspective, so the JSON-only dev is not impacted ←
13:28:06 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:28:07 <yvesr> cygri: Maybe I am getting this wrong, but part of the design rationale is that you can treat it as JSON and you'll be fine
Richard Cyganiak: Maybe I am getting this wrong, but part of the design rationale is that you can treat it as JSON and you'll be fine ←
13:28:21 <markus> q+ to point to flattening and framing (experimental)
Markus Lanthaler: q+ to point to flattening and framing (experimental) ←
13:28:24 <gavinc> Just as JSON, means that it's not self describing while I'm pretending it's just JSON
Gavin Carothers: Just as JSON, means that it's not self describing while I'm pretending it's just JSON ←
13:29:07 <yvesr> ... I am serializing two facts for two languages. If a JSON developer wants to access those two facts, then there needs to be a predictable way of accessing them
... I am serializing two facts for two languages. If a JSON developer wants to access those two facts, then there needs to be a predictable way of accessing them ←
13:29:34 <yvesr> ... My concern is that we create something that is inconvenient to JSON developers
... My concern is that we create something that is inconvenient to JSON developers ←
13:30:01 <gavinc> There is! Framing and expansion, but you DON'T have to use them
Gavin Carothers: There is! Framing and expansion, but you DON'T have to use them ←
13:30:01 <yvesr> ... The claim that only JSON tools are necessary to deal with JSON-LD is not quite true
... The claim that only JSON tools are necessary to deal with JSON-LD is not quite true ←
13:30:06 <pchampin> isn't what Framing is about?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: isn't what Framing is about? ←
13:30:39 <gavinc> pchampin, yep
Gavin Carothers: pchampin, yep ←
13:30:41 <yvesr> manu1: Twitter authors their JSON in a specific way, they could provide JSON-LD and not changing the way they publish the data
Gavin Carothers: Twitter authors their JSON in a specific way, they could provide JSON-LD and not changing the way they publish the data ←
13:30:46 <markus> yes, that's what framing is about.. there's also a flattening method which returns a predictable structure
Markus Lanthaler: yes, that's what framing is about.. there's also a flattening method which returns a predictable structure ←
13:30:59 <manu1> s/manu1/gavinc/
13:31:00 <manu1> There are lots and lots of different ways you can use JSON-LD... there are some ways that you can use it that will shoot your developers in the foot .
Manu Sporny: There are lots and lots of different ways you can use JSON-LD... there are some ways that you can use it that will shoot your developers in the foot . ←
13:31:10 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
13:31:20 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
13:31:20 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
13:31:23 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
13:31:23 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
13:31:38 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
13:31:39 <ivan> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
13:31:50 <davidwood> …so by "work with" you really mean "read and access", not "write". Is that correct?
David Wood: …so by "work with" you really mean "read and access", not "write". Is that correct? ←
13:31:52 <manu1> q-
Manu Sporny: q- ←
13:31:59 <markus> q-
Markus Lanthaler: q- ←
13:32:03 <cygri> Sorry, but this is RDF/XML all over again.
Richard Cyganiak: Sorry, but this is RDF/XML all over again. ←
13:32:06 <cygri> subtopic: Issue overview
13:32:09 <yvesr> Guus: can we have a meta-view on the other issues? Which ones are relevant?
Guus Schreiber: can we have a meta-view on the other issues? Which ones are relevant? ←
13:32:17 <sandro> yes, cygri, it is. :-]
Sandro Hawke: yes, cygri, it is. :-] ←
13:32:29 <sandro> there are reasons RDF/XML is as it is. :-)
Sandro Hawke: there are reasons RDF/XML is as it is. :-) ←
13:32:56 <yvesr> manu1: cygri is dealing with 158 and 169
Manu Sporny: ygri is dealing with 157 and 169 ←
13:33:11 <yvesr> ... 170 was brought up by peter
... 170 was brought up by peter ←
13:33:30 <yvesr> ... We need to discuss more with him to identify what the issue was
... We need to discuss more with him to identify what the issue was ←
13:33:46 <sandro> q+ to ask in list and set what triples those map to (or really if you know)
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask in list and set what triples those map to (or really if you know) ←
13:33:56 <markus> s/cygri is dealing with 158/ygri is dealing with 157/
13:33:59 <yvesr> ... 174 is about aligning the two data models in the spec
... 174 is about aligning the two data models in the spec ←
13:34:22 <gavinc> Yep! It's RDF/XML all over again only this time for javascript and not the only serialization, and not adding freaking namespaces to XML, and not including the word RDF in the name, and not using a document markup language for data :P
Gavin Carothers: Yep! It's RDF/XML all over again only this time for javascript and not the only serialization, and not adding freaking namespaces to XML, and not including the word RDF in the name, and not using a document markup language for data :P ←
13:34:40 <yvesr> manu1: mhausenblas said his concerns are subsumed by peter's concerns
Manu Sporny: mhausenblas said his concerns are subsumed by peter's concerns ←
13:35:02 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
13:35:32 <yvesr> Guus: We would like to have documents in LC state by the end of January
Guus Schreiber: We would like to have documents in LC state by the end of January ←
13:35:55 <yvesr> manu1: The only thing that would hold it up is if we keep going back and forth on the data model
Manu Sporny: The only thing that would hold it up is if we keep going back and forth on the data model ←
13:36:12 <yvesr> ... Especially if people keep saying that it is RDF/XML all over again without being more specific
... Especially if people keep saying that it is RDF/XML all over again without being more specific ←
13:36:38 <yvesr> Guus: At the moment I am confident these issues will be resolved
Guus Schreiber: At the moment I am confident these issues will be resolved ←
13:36:47 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
13:37:00 <yvesr> manu1: The most controversial thing is the data model alignment
Manu Sporny: The most controversial thing is the data model alignment ←
13:37:02 <Guus> ack sandro
Guus Schreiber: ack sandro ←
13:37:10 <cygri> subtopic: Sets and lists
13:37:18 <yvesr> sandro: Do you have a plan for how JSON sets and lists appear in RDF triples?
Sandro Hawke: Do you have a plan for how JSON sets and lists appear in RDF triples? ←
13:37:34 <yvesr> gkellogg: The reason lists were added was to have a way to serialize RDF lists
Gregg Kellogg: The reason lists were added was to have a way to serialize RDF lists ←
13:37:44 <yvesr> ... The data model for JSON LD lists is the RDF data model for lists
... The data model for JSON LD lists is the RDF data model for lists ←
13:37:50 <yvesr> ivan: and for sets?
Ivan Herman: and for sets? ←
13:38:01 <yvesr> ... Why do we need a separate keyword for that?
... Why do we need a separate keyword for that? ←
13:38:06 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:38:23 <cygri> q+ to say JSON-LD lists are not RDF lists
Richard Cyganiak: q+ to say JSON-LD lists are not RDF lists ←
13:38:37 <yvesr> gkellogg: It is possible to add a context keyword for lists and sets
Gregg Kellogg: It is possible to add a context keyword for lists and sets ←
13:39:10 <yvesr> tidoust: For JSON developers if it useful to have something you can parse in the same way for lists and sets
Francois Daoust: For JSON developers if it useful to have something you can parse in the same way for lists and sets ←
13:39:17 <yvesr> ... For symmetry it's good to have it
... For symmetry it's good to have it ←
13:39:19 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
13:39:44 <gavinc> "this"
Gavin Carothers: "this" ←
13:39:49 <yvesr> sandro: This has the potential to be a showstopper
Sandro Hawke: This has the potential to be a showstopper ←
13:40:00 <yvesr> manu1: Why are sets and lists a showstopper?
Manu Sporny: Why are sets and lists a showstopper? ←
13:40:09 <yvesr> ... We are not deviating from the RDF data model
... We are not deviating from the RDF data model ←
13:40:14 <gavinc> @set and @list define how to convert a javascript arrary into RDF
Gavin Carothers: @set and @list define how to convert a javascript arrary into RDF ←
13:40:14 <cygri> gkellog, a list in RDF is a blank node with two properties rdf:first and rdf:rest; in JSON-LD a list is actually a part of the data model.
Richard Cyganiak: gkellog, a list in RDF is a blank node with two properties rdf:first and rdf:rest; in JSON-LD a list is actually a part of the data model. ←
13:40:54 <yvesr> cygri: gkellogg said that lists in JSON-LD are the same as in RDF, which I think is not quite true - there are no lists in the RDF data model
Richard Cyganiak: gkellogg said that lists in JSON-LD are the same as in RDF, which I think is not quite true - there are no lists in the RDF data model ←
13:41:00 <markus> q+ to ask whether that's true for Turtle as well
Markus Lanthaler: q+ to ask whether that's true for Turtle as well ←
13:41:15 <gavinc> markus, yes it is
Gavin Carothers: markus, yes it is ←
13:41:30 <yvesr> ... In JSON-LD a list stays a list unless you convert it to RDF, and then it disappears in triples
... In JSON-LD a list stays a list unless you convert it to RDF, and then it disappears in triples ←
13:41:53 <yvesr> ... and blank nodes
... and blank nodes ←
13:42:28 <yvesr> ... In the JSON-LD data model there is a list construct, but there is no list construct in the RDF data model
... In the JSON-LD data model there is a list construct, but there is no list construct in the RDF data model ←
13:42:31 <gavinc> Yes, JSON-LD gets it right :P
Gavin Carothers: Yes, JSON-LD gets it right :P ←
13:43:06 <yvesr> ivan: I don't want it to be a show stopper
Ivan Herman: I don't want it to be a show stopper ←
13:43:18 <yvesr> ... But I feel uneasy about having a separate JSON-LD data model
... But I feel uneasy about having a separate JSON-LD data model ←
13:43:33 <yvesr> ... But I understand it's a way to sell the spec to people who don't want to hear about RDF
... But I understand it's a way to sell the spec to people who don't want to hear about RDF ←
13:43:41 <yvesr> ... We need to make it very clear
... We need to make it very clear ←
13:43:50 <markus> +1 to what ivan just said
Markus Lanthaler: +1 to what ivan just said ←
13:43:53 <yvesr> ... We're not trying to sell Turtle to people who are not RDF people
... We're not trying to sell Turtle to people who are not RDF people ←
13:44:02 <gavinc> @set is syntax
Gavin Carothers: @set is syntax ←
13:44:08 <gavinc> not really modelish
Gavin Carothers: not really modelish ←
13:44:17 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:44:19 <markus> q-
Markus Lanthaler: q- ←
13:44:23 <yvesr> sandro: I think I agree, but the semantics of sets are not the same as the semantics of lists of values, but perhaps not in a way that matters
Sandro Hawke: I think I agree, but the semantics of sets are not the same as the semantics of multi-values, but perhaps not in a way that matters ←
13:44:39 <yvesr> ivan: If we didn't have to sell it to people outside of RDF, we wouldn't have these issues
Ivan Herman: If we didn't have to sell it to people outside of RDF, we wouldn't have these issues ←
13:44:44 <sandro> s/lists of values/multi-values/
13:44:54 <gkellogg> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/
Gregg Kellogg: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/ ←
13:44:56 <markus> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues?milestone=1&page=1&sort=created&state=open
Markus Lanthaler: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues?milestone=1&page=1&sort=created&state=open ←
13:45:24 <yvesr> manu1: cygri has captured the differences pretty clearly, should we go through those differences?
Manu Sporny: cygri has captured the differences pretty clearly, should we go through those differences? ←
13:45:31 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Data_Model
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Data_Model ←
13:45:40 <yvesr> subtopic: Differences between JSON-LD Data Model and RDF
13:45:46 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
13:45:48 <yvesr> manu1: Reviewing what the differences are might be helpful
Manu Sporny: Reviewing what the differences are might be helpful ←
13:46:24 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Data_Model
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Data_Model ←
13:46:35 <yvesr> Guus: let's focus on issues you'd like feedback on
Guus Schreiber: let's focus on issues you'd like feedback on ←
13:46:50 <yvesr> manu1: The differences with the RDF data model are at the bottom of that document
Manu Sporny: The differences with the RDF data model are at the bottom of that document ←
13:47:07 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
13:47:18 <yvesr> ... We're fine with putting spec text saying that authors SHOULD NOT use blank nodes as graph names
... We're fine with putting spec text saying that authors SHOULD NOT use blank nodes as graph names ←
13:47:22 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:47:33 <yvesr> ... Unconnected nodes will result in no RDF data being produced
... Unconnected nodes will result in no RDF data being produced ←
13:47:49 <yvesr> ... I don't see lists as not part of the data model
... I don't see lists as not part of the data model ←
13:47:57 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
13:48:04 <gavinc> JSON-LD does lists nicely ;)
Gavin Carothers: JSON-LD does lists nicely ;) ←
13:48:18 <yvesr> cygri: If lists are not part of the data model, how do you encode them?
Richard Cyganiak: If lists are not part of the data model, how do you encode them? ←
13:48:34 <yvesr> ... The rdf:first stuff happens only in the conversion to RDFD
... The rdf:first stuff happens only in the conversion to RDF ←
13:48:38 <yvesr> s/RDFD/RDF
13:49:09 <yvesr> manu1: We have two different view-points, I think it is just syntax
Manu Sporny: We have two different view-points, I think it is just syntax ←
13:49:21 <yvesr> ... I don't think this discussion on the data model has an impact on developers
... I don't think this discussion on the data model has an impact on developers ←
13:49:28 <yvesr> ... It doesn't change what JSON LD is
... It doesn't change what JSON LD is ←
13:49:43 <yvesr> ... I feel it is important to agree on this point
... I feel it is important to agree on this point ←
13:49:46 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:49:53 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
13:50:10 <yvesr> cygri: Even though I think it is different that what RDF is doing, I think it is a good way of doing it
Richard Cyganiak: Even though I think it is different that what RDF is doing, I think it is a good way of doing it ←
13:50:24 <yvesr> ... I wonder whether it is worth documenting this pattern of a 'well formed list'
... I wonder whether it is worth documenting this pattern of a 'well formed list' ←
13:50:48 <yvesr> ... And ways of putting it straight in the data modle
... And ways of putting it straight in the data model ←
13:50:53 <yvesr> s/modle/model
13:51:24 <yvesr> manu1: We support JSON-native types, numbers, booleans, strings
Manu Sporny: We support JSON-native types, numbers, booleans, strings ←
13:51:27 <sandro> +1 cygri: JSON-LD approach to lists is a somewhat stronger version of RDF "well-formed lists" and I like that.
Sandro Hawke: +1 cygri: JSON-LD approach to lists is a somewhat stronger version of RDF "well-formed lists" and I like that. ←
13:51:41 <yvesr> ... We might put spec text to make language tags lower case
... We might put spec text to make language tags lower case ←
13:52:12 <ScottB> +1 to well formed lists
Scott Bauer: +1 to well formed lists ←
13:52:19 <gavinc> I assume it's similar the text needed in TriG http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#terms-blanks-nodes
Gavin Carothers: I assume it's similar the text needed in TriG http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#terms-blanks-nodes ←
13:52:25 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:52:30 <yvesr> Zakim, who is speaking?
Zakim, who is speaking? ←
13:52:42 <Zakim> yvesr, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Rhone_4 (41%)
Zakim IRC Bot: yvesr, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Rhone_4 (41%) ←
13:53:16 <markus> yvesr, it was me
Markus Lanthaler: yvesr, it was me ←
13:53:37 <gavinc> Okay, THAT is an issue :(
Gavin Carothers: Okay, THAT is an issue :( ←
13:54:03 <yvesr> cygri: There might be an issue around bnode scoping
Richard Cyganiak: There might be an issue around bnode scoping ←
13:54:22 <yvesr> gavinc: I think we solved it already within the WG, but I am not sure JSON-LD followed that model
Gavin Carothers: I think we solved it already within the WG, but I am not sure JSON-LD followed that model ←
13:54:38 <yvesr> gkellogg: In TriG, the two same bnode identifiers in two different graphs do not identify the same resource
Gregg Kellogg: In TriG, the two same bnode identifiers in two different graphs do not identify the same resource ←
13:54:57 <yvesr> (mixed views from the room whether it is correct or incorrect)
(mixed views from the room whether it is correct or incorrect) ←
13:55:01 <sandro> issue-22?
13:55:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-22 -- Does multigraph syntax need to support empty graphs? -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-22 -- Does multigraph syntax need to support empty graphs? -- closed ←
13:55:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22 ←
13:55:06 <cygri> ISSUE-22?
13:55:07 <trackbot> ISSUE-22 -- Does multigraph syntax need to support empty graphs? -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-22 -- Does multigraph syntax need to support empty graphs? -- closed ←
13:55:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22 ←
13:55:12 <sandro> issue-21?
13:55:12 <trackbot> ISSUE-21 -- Can Node-IDs be shared between parts of a quad/multigraph format? -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-21 -- Can Node-IDs be shared between parts of a quad/multigraph format? -- closed ←
13:55:12 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/21
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/21 ←
13:55:18 <yvesr> manu1: bnode identifiers are scoped to the document, and it is the same in JSON-LD
Manu Sporny: bnode identifiers are scoped to the document, and it is the same in JSON-LD ←
13:56:05 <markus> so, http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#terms-blanks-nodes is wrong on this?
Markus Lanthaler: so, http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#terms-blanks-nodes is wrong on this? ←
13:56:23 <manu1> this is the resolution on file - Close ISSUE-21 saying Yes, Node IDs are document scope in the multi-graph syntax (TriG, etc)
Manu Sporny: this is the resolution on file - Close ISSUE-21 saying Yes, Node IDs are document scope in the multi-graph syntax (TriG, etc) ←
13:56:31 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:56:39 <yvesr> Guus: Let's move on
Guus Schreiber: Let's move on ←
13:56:47 <cygri> markus, yes, that's wrong.
Richard Cyganiak: markus, yes, that's wrong. ←
13:56:54 <markus> good!
Markus Lanthaler: good! ←
13:57:01 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
13:57:18 <manu1> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/
Manu Sporny: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/ ←
13:57:19 <yvesr> topic: JSON-LD API document
13:57:32 <yvesr> manu1: The API document is a little less controversial
Manu Sporny: The API document is a little less controversial ←
13:57:36 <markus> issues -- https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues?milestone=1&page=1&sort=created&state=open
Markus Lanthaler: issues -- https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues?milestone=1&page=1&sort=created&state=open ←
13:57:42 <yvesr> ... It is just a matter of implementing how the syntax plays out
... It is just a matter of implementing how the syntax plays out ←
13:57:48 <sandro> sandro: Gavin, Pat says there is a clear meaning in RDF-Semantics for a blank node being shared between graphs. (For myself -- I just imagine there's a large graph they are both subgraphs of.)
Sandro Hawke: Gavin, Pat says there is a clear meaning in RDF-Semantics for a blank node being shared between graphs. (For myself -- I just imagine there's a large graph they are both subgraphs of.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:58:03 <yvesr> ... Writing the API document was relatively easy, and it has less issues on it
... Writing the API document was relatively easy, and it has less issues on it ←
13:58:43 <yvesr> ... Defines operations, like compact, expand, and to rdf
... Defines operations, like compact, expand, and to rdf ←
13:58:51 <markus> supported methods: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/#jsonldprocessor
Markus Lanthaler: supported methods: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/#jsonldprocessor ←
13:58:53 <yvesr> ... Compact tries to minimise a JSON-LD document
... Compact tries to minimise a JSON-LD document ←
13:59:12 <yvesr> ... Expand does the opposite, expands everything to full IRIs for examples
... Expand does the opposite, expands everything to full IRIs for examples ←
13:59:15 <sandro> concerned a little about the hedging around 'compact'. is it not proven/complete?
Sandro Hawke: concerned a little about the hedging around 'compact'. is it not proven/complete? ←
13:59:27 <yvesr> ... It removes the context entirely
... It removes the context entirely ←
13:59:42 <yvesr> ... Flatten takes a deeply nested JSON object and will coalesce everything that has the same id
... Flatten takes a deeply nested JSON object and will coalesce everything that has the same id ←
14:00:32 <yvesr> ... To and From RDF take a JSON-LD document and output quads
... To and From RDF take a JSON-LD document and output quads ←
14:00:59 <yvesr> ... Or inflate a JSON-LD document from quads
... Or inflate a JSON-LD document from quads ←
14:01:01 <markus> link to my playground which shows how the various methods work: http://bit.ly/JsonLDplay (official playground has no flattening functionality yet)
Markus Lanthaler: link to my playground which shows how the various methods work: http://bit.ly/JsonLDplay (official playground has no flattening functionality yet) ←
14:01:11 <yvesr> ... We will not include graph normalization
... We will not include graph normalization ←
14:01:13 <gavinc> ah ha, there we go " needs a new semantics"
Gavin Carothers: ah ha, there we go " needs a new semantics" ←
14:01:17 <sandro> what is RDF graph normalization? canonicalization?
Sandro Hawke: what is RDF graph normalization? canonicalization? ←
14:01:19 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
14:01:21 <yvesr> ... Although there are a couple of implementations
... Although there are a couple of implementations ←
14:01:26 <gavinc> okay, so yes, we changed the semantics of blank nodes
Gavin Carothers: okay, so yes, we changed the semantics of blank nodes ←
14:01:28 <gavinc> excellent
Gavin Carothers: excellent ←
14:01:45 <Guus> manu.pls
Guus Schreiber: manu.pls ←
14:01:52 <yvesr> ... Instead, developers should use the framing API call
... Instead, developers should use the framing API call ←
14:01:53 <sandro> I don't think so, gavinc. shared blank nodes are fine in 2004 rdf-mt
Sandro Hawke: I don't think so, gavinc. shared blank nodes are fine in 2004 rdf-mt ←
14:02:02 <gavinc> PatH said " needs a new semantics"
Gavin Carothers: PatH said " needs a new semantics" ←
14:02:18 <sandro> link, gavinc? (I'm confident that was about something else)
Sandro Hawke: link, gavinc? (I'm confident that was about something else) ←
14:02:23 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-09-12#resolution_2
Gavin Carothers: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-09-12#resolution_2 ←
14:02:30 <cygri> subtopic: API vs. Algorithms
14:02:41 <yvesr> ivan: From the RDF WG point of view, what's absolutely necessary is the RDF conversion algorithm
Ivan Herman: From the RDF WG point of view, what's absolutely necessary is the RDF conversion algorithm ←
14:03:00 <yvesr> ... The way it is described rely on other algorithms described there e.g. expand
... The way it is described rely on other algorithms described there e.g. expand ←
14:03:14 <yvesr> ... So it means the whole section needs to be standardized as a whole
... So it means the whole section needs to be standardized as a whole ←
14:03:36 <yvesr> ... However the API document goes beyond what the RDF WG is doing, not even sure it is in our charter
... However the API document goes beyond what the RDF WG is doing, not even sure it is in our charter ←
14:04:01 <yvesr> ... Aside from that, it is a different piece of work - how JSON developers would interact with a JSON-LD API
... Aside from that, it is a different piece of work - how JSON developers would interact with a JSON-LD API ←
14:04:23 <yvesr> ... I would have prefered to have conversion algorithms to be part of the JSON-LD rec published by this group and stop there
... I would have prefered to have conversion algorithms to be part of the JSON-LD rec published by this group and stop there ←
14:04:25 <manu1> q+ to respond to toRDF/fromRDF proposal.
Manu Sporny: q+ to respond to toRDF/fromRDF proposal. ←
14:04:35 <yvesr> ... (i.e. not include the rest of the API document)
... (i.e. not include the rest of the API document) ←
14:04:53 <yvesr> Guus: We could publish the API as a note
Guus Schreiber: We could publish the API as a note ←
14:04:55 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
14:04:59 <sandro> gavinc, I think that's about something else, but ... I agree that's not how it appears from the record. I guess we need to clarify with Pat.
Sandro Hawke: gavinc, I think that's about something else, but ... I agree that's not how it appears from the record. I guess we need to clarify with Pat. ←
14:05:14 <yvesr> ... What do the editors think?
... What do the editors think? ←
14:05:19 <gavinc> meh, someone else can complain later ;)
Gavin Carothers: meh, someone else can complain later ;) ←
14:05:21 <yvesr> manu1: I don't think that's a good idea
Manu Sporny: I don't think that's a good idea ←
14:05:48 <yvesr> ... I believe any W3C group should generate specifications that make sure technologies can be adopted rapidly by the web development community
... I believe any W3C group should generate specifications that make sure technologies can be adopted rapidly by the web development community ←
14:05:59 <sandro> q+ to ask about CR exit criteria
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask about CR exit criteria ←
14:06:12 <sandro> q+ to ask about CR exit criteria (as a way to clarify compaction, expansion, etc)
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask about CR exit criteria (as a way to clarify compaction, expansion, etc) ←
14:06:17 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
14:06:24 <Guus> ack manu1
Guus Schreiber: ack manu1 ←
14:06:24 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to respond to toRDF/fromRDF proposal.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to respond to toRDF/fromRDF proposal. ←
14:07:09 <yvesr> gkellogg: The disagreement is about the rest of the document, not the expand/to/from algorithms
Gregg Kellogg: The disagreement is about the rest of the document, not the expand/to/from algorithms ←
14:07:19 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
14:07:45 <yvesr> ... The issue with that is if one of our goal is to ensure interoperability is how to demonstrate it
... The issue with that is if one of our goal is to ensure interoperability is how to demonstrate it ←
14:08:11 <yvesr> cygri: I kind of see three different parts to this technology presented in those two documents
Richard Cyganiak: I kind of see three different parts to this technology presented in those two documents ←
14:08:37 <yvesr> ... Much of the syntax document is putting a friendly face to the algorithms
... Much of the syntax document is putting a friendly face to the algorithms ←
14:08:46 <yvesr> ... The algorithms actually explain what is happening
... The algorithms actually explain what is happening ←
14:09:48 <yvesr> ... Finally part of the work is on APIs
... Finally part of the work is on APIs ←
14:10:02 <manu1> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
14:10:11 <yvesr> cygri: maybe this separation is useful to structure the conversation
Richard Cyganiak: maybe this separation is useful to structure the conversation ←
14:10:20 <manu1> q-
Manu Sporny: q- ←
14:10:40 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
14:10:47 <markus> q+
Markus Lanthaler: q+ ←
14:10:50 <yvesr> cygri: Most of section 4 is similar to the data model explanation
Richard Cyganiak: Most of section 4 is similar to the data model explanation ←
14:11:10 <yvesr> ivan: Algorithms are absolutely necessary
Ivan Herman: Algorithms are absolutely necessary ←
14:11:20 <manu1> q+ to discuss reorganization.
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss reorganization. ←
14:11:20 <yvesr> Guus: Is reorganisation of the document useful?
Guus Schreiber: Is reorganisation of the document useful? ←
14:11:21 <tidoust> q+
Francois Daoust: q+ ←
14:11:36 <yvesr> sandro: Parts of the algorithms are ancillary
Sandro Hawke: Parts of the algorithms are ancillary ←
14:12:07 <yvesr> ... We need to put at risks those parts
... We need to put at risks those parts ←
14:12:12 <yvesr> ... e.g. compaction
... e.g. compaction ←
14:12:24 <yvesr> manu1: We have more than two implementations that pass the compaction tesst
Manu Sporny: We have more than two implementations that pass the compaction tesst ←
14:12:41 <yvesr> sandro: If it's inside the group, not much of a test
Sandro Hawke: If it's inside the group, not much of a test ←
14:12:41 <gavinc> ?
Gavin Carothers: ? ←
14:12:44 <yvesr> (room disagrees)
(room disagrees) ←
14:13:00 <markus> q-
Markus Lanthaler: q- ←
14:13:12 <yvesr> Guus: it's always possible to consider that some features are at risk
Guus Schreiber: it's always possible to consider that some features are at risk ←
14:13:42 <yvesr> manu1: We've already eliminated the number of API features - we eliminated graphify, framing, canonicalisation
Manu Sporny: We've already eliminated the number of API features - we eliminated graphify, framing, canonicalisation ←
14:13:54 <yvesr> ... What remains is what we believe is most useful to developers
... What remains is what we believe is most useful to developers ←
14:14:04 <manu1> q-
Manu Sporny: q- ←
14:14:07 <yvesr> ... From a personal stand-point I would be opposed to removing anything else
... From a personal stand-point I would be opposed to removing anything else ←
14:14:19 <yvesr> ivan: We're having terminological issues, it would be good to separate that
Ivan Herman: We're having terminological issues, it would be good to separate that ←
14:14:39 <yvesr> ... In mine, what's in section 4 is algorithms, section 3 are APIs
... In mine, what's in section 4 is algorithms, section 3 are APIs ←
14:14:47 <yvesr> ... They are two different things
... They are two different things ←
14:14:55 <yvesr> ... I do not dispute algorithms
... I do not dispute algorithms ←
14:15:06 <yvesr> ... I dispute APIs
... I dispute APIs ←
14:15:11 <manu1> q+ to talk about WebIDL
Manu Sporny: q+ to talk about WebIDL ←
14:15:16 <tidoust> q-
Francois Daoust: q- ←
14:15:22 <yvesr> ... As this is a kind of work we have not done
... As this is a kind of work we have not done ←
14:15:45 <Guus> ack manu1
Guus Schreiber: ack manu1 ←
14:15:45 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to talk about WebIDL
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to talk about WebIDL ←
14:15:50 <tidoust> q+
Francois Daoust: q+ ←
14:16:00 <yvesr> manu1: The reason we have WebIDL in there is that we feel that without it people wouldn't use it
Manu Sporny: The reason we have WebIDL in there is that we feel that without it people wouldn't use it ←
14:16:03 <Guus> ack todoust
Guus Schreiber: ack todoust ←
14:16:10 <Guus> ack tidoust
Guus Schreiber: ack tidoust ←
14:16:20 <yvesr> tidoust: sandro's proposition to put it at risk with high out-of-CR criteria is good
Francois Daoust: sandro's proposition to put it at risk with high out-of-CR criteria is good ←
14:16:49 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
14:16:56 <yvesr> ... At risk might be a good way to convey those concerns
... At risk might be a good way to convey those concerns ←
14:17:25 <yvesr> Guus: Can we get some consensus on the different in scope between section 3 and 4
Guus Schreiber: Can we get some consensus on the different in scope between section 3 and 4 ←
14:17:27 <cygri> q+ to ask about Rec/Note status
Richard Cyganiak: q+ to ask about Rec/Note status ←
14:17:33 <sandro> +1 manu "JSON-LD Core Processing"
Sandro Hawke: +1 manu "JSON-LD Core Processing" ←
14:17:51 <yvesr> manu1: We could rename the document and put the API section at risk
Manu Sporny: We could rename the document and put the API section at risk ←
14:17:56 <yvesr> Guus: the API could become a note
Guus Schreiber: the API could become a note ←
14:18:18 <yvesr> ... Then we can keep the algorithms as part of the rec
... Then we can keep the algorithms as part of the rec ←
14:18:33 <yvesr> manu1: Did the web app WG publish notes for their API
Manu Sporny: Did the web app WG publish notes for their API ←
14:18:57 <yvesr> sandro: They are publishing APIs that are implemented in the browser
Sandro Hawke: They are publishing APIs that are implemented in the browser ←
14:19:53 <cygri> q?
Richard Cyganiak: q? ←
14:19:56 <yvesr> ivan: JSON-LD APIs can be used outside of browsers, so very different from the Web App WG
Ivan Herman: JSON-LD APIs can be used outside of browsers, so very different from the Web App WG ←
14:20:04 <sandro> +1 ivan: I might use JSON-LD outside of a browser, and far away from JavaScript
Sandro Hawke: +1 ivan: I might use JSON-LD outside of a browser, and far away from JavaScript ←
14:20:20 <yvesr> Guus: We don't have to decide now
Guus Schreiber: We don't have to decide now ←
14:20:25 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
14:20:30 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
14:20:30 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask about Rec/Note status
Zakim IRC Bot: cygri, you wanted to ask about Rec/Note status ←
14:21:08 <yvesr> cygri: I wanted to agree with sandro - we don't have the right people to publish certain kind of things
Richard Cyganiak: I wanted to agree with sandro - we don't have the right people to publish certain kind of things ←
14:21:18 <yvesr> ... We don't have the technical expertise for this kind of things
... We don't have the technical expertise for this kind of things ←
14:21:29 <markus> q+
Markus Lanthaler: q+ ←
14:21:32 <yvesr> ... For example around defining APIs
... For example around defining APIs ←
14:21:51 <yvesr> ... There is a bit of a lack of confidence that we have the expertise to do it well
... There is a bit of a lack of confidence that we have the expertise to do it well ←
14:21:58 <sandro> cygri: The compisition of the RDF WG is an issue here. I'm not confident about this WG publishing certain kinds of things, since we don't have the deep technical expertise. Eg normatively defining APIs. Some people here know a lot about that, but it's not why we joined the WG. So that might push us towards not being as normative.
Richard Cyganiak: The compisition of the RDF WG is an issue here. I'm not confident about this WG publishing certain kinds of things, since we don't have the deep technical expertise. Eg normatively defining APIs. Some people here know a lot about that, but it's not why we joined the WG. So that might push us towards not being as normative. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:21:59 <Guus> ack markus
Guus Schreiber: ack markus ←
14:22:20 <yvesr> markus: What about the conformance section?
Markus Lanthaler: What about the conformance section? ←
14:22:41 <yvesr> tidoust: In the conformance section there are JSON-LD documents and JSON-LD processes
Francois Daoust: In the conformance section there are JSON-LD documents and JSON-LD processors ←
14:23:12 <yvesr> ... The output needs to be defined somehow
... The output needs to be defined somehow ←
14:23:22 <tidoust> s/JSON-LD processes/JSON-LD processors/
14:23:27 <yvesr> markus: Can we talk about JSON-LD processors? Do we just talk about algorithms?
Markus Lanthaler: Can we talk about JSON-LD processors? Do we just talk about algorithms? ←
14:23:45 <gavinc> Example from Turtle "A conforming Turtle parser is a system capable of reading Turtle documents on behalf of an application. It makes the serialized RDF graph, as defined in section 7 Parsing, available to the application, usually through some form of API."
Gavin Carothers: Example from Turtle "A conforming Turtle parser is a system capable of reading Turtle documents on behalf of an application. It makes the serialized RDF graph, as defined in section 7 Parsing, available to the application, usually through some form of API." ←
14:23:57 <gavinc> make a nice shiny link to the note for the API
Gavin Carothers: make a nice shiny link to the note for the API ←
14:24:15 <gavinc> since webIDL can't be implemented in every language
Gavin Carothers: since webIDL can't be implemented in every language ←
14:24:16 <yvesr> ivan: The same thing could be done for a JSON-LD processor
Ivan Herman: The same thing could be done for a JSON-LD processor ←
14:24:41 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
14:24:45 <yvesr> ... I should be able to implement a JSON-LD processor without having to conform to WebIDL
... I should be able to implement a JSON-LD processor without having to conform to WebIDL ←
14:24:55 <yvesr> tidoust: WebIDL actually isn't specific to the Web
Francois Daoust: WebIDL actually isn't specific to the Web ←
14:25:08 <gavinc> I should be able to implement a JSON-LD processor in hardware ;)
Gavin Carothers: I should be able to implement a JSON-LD processor in hardware ;) ←
14:25:27 <ivan> +1 to gavin
Ivan Herman: +1 to gavin ←
14:25:49 <sandro> looking at the Java binding for WebIDL
Sandro Hawke: looking at the Java binding for WebIDL ←
14:25:55 <yvesr> manu1: Just a quick chat about the timeline - we should be able to hit the January deadline
Manu Sporny: Just a quick chat about the timeline - we should be able to hit the January deadline ←
14:26:07 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL-Java/
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL-Java/ ←
14:26:14 <yvesr> ... But it all depends on the discussions with the RDF WG
... But it all depends on the discussions with the RDF WG ←
14:26:27 <sandro> should we do WebIDL for Turtle? L-)
Sandro Hawke: should we do WebIDL for Turtle? L-) ←
14:26:38 <yvesr> manu1: We have conforming implementations, we have a test suite
Manu Sporny: We have conforming implementations, we have a test suite ←
14:27:05 <yvesr> ... Does there need to be a discussion about implementations needing to be out of the group for passing CR?
... Does there need to be a discussion about implementations needing to be out of the group for passing CR? ←
14:28:05 <yvesr> davidwood: We need to discuss notes
David Wood: We need to discuss notes ←
14:28:14 <yvesr> topic: Possible WG Notes
14:28:44 <ScottB> I'll have to drop off shortly regardless
Scott Bauer: I'll have to drop off shortly regardless ←
14:30:18 <davidwood> Notes
David Wood: Notes ←
14:30:18 <davidwood> - RDF 1.1 Primer
David Wood: - RDF 1.1 Primer ←
14:30:18 <davidwood> - RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration
David Wood: - RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration ←
14:30:18 <davidwood>
14:30:18 <davidwood> Possible Notes
David Wood: Possible Notes ←
14:30:18 <davidwood> - Show how g-boxes and g-snaps may be identified by defining predicates.
David Wood: - Show how g-boxes and g-snaps may be identified by defining predicates. ←
14:30:18 <davidwood> - JSON-LD Recipes
David Wood: - JSON-LD Recipes ←
14:30:19 <davidwood> - RDF-JSON
David Wood: - RDF-JSON ←
14:30:19 <davidwood> - Intro on MT in RDF semantics
David Wood: - Intro on MT in RDF semantics ←
14:30:19 <davidwood> - Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? (formerly ISSUEs 35, 38)
David Wood: - Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? (formerly ISSUEs 35, 38) ←
14:30:20 <davidwood> - JSON-LD / RDF data model differences
David Wood: - JSON-LD / RDF data model differences ←
14:30:20 <davidwood>
14:30:40 <Zakim> -ScottB
Zakim IRC Bot: -ScottB ←
14:30:46 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
14:30:51 <Zakim> -Gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Gavinc ←
14:30:56 <gkellogg> zakim, mute me
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, mute me ←
14:30:56 <Zakim> gkellogg should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg should now be muted ←
14:32:02 <manu1> -1 to JSON-LD Recipes (no editors / not enough time) ... -1 to JSON-LD / RDF Data Model differences - it would be a very small document and it probably needs to be in the RDF appendix that Richard is writing.
Manu Sporny: -1 to JSON-LD Recipes (no editors / not enough time) ... -1 to JSON-LD / RDF Data Model differences - it would be a very small document and it probably needs to be in the RDF appendix that Richard is writing. ←
14:32:11 <Zakim> -manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1 ←
15:05:14 <gkellogg> zakim, unmute me
(No events recorded for 33 minutes)
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, unmute me ←
15:05:14 <Zakim> gkellogg should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg should no longer be muted ←
15:06:45 <gkellogg> zakim, mute me
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, mute me ←
15:06:45 <Zakim> gkellogg should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg should now be muted ←
15:11:35 <tidoust> scribe: Francois
(Scribe set to Francois Daoust)
15:11:38 <tidoust> scribenick: tidoust
15:11:51 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←
15:11:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, gkellogg (muted), markus
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, gkellogg (muted), markus ←
15:11:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see SteveS, FabGandon, LeeF, trackbot, MacTed, mischat, AZ, ivan, Guus, tidoust, gkellogg, manu1, AndyS, tbaker, markus, cygri, pchampin, Zakim, Arnaud, davidwood, manu,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see SteveS, FabGandon, LeeF, trackbot, MacTed, mischat, AZ, ivan, Guus, tidoust, gkellogg, manu1, AndyS, tbaker, markus, cygri, pchampin, Zakim, Arnaud, davidwood, manu, ←
15:11:52 <Zakim> ... gavinc, RRSAgent, yvesr, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... gavinc, RRSAgent, yvesr, sandro, ericP ←
15:12:14 <tidoust> davidwood: we'll be spending the rest of the time discussing notes.
David Wood: we'll be spending the rest of the time discussing notes. ←
15:12:52 <tidoust> … Primer and New Features and Migration will both be notes as agreed yesterday. We have editors.
… Primer and New Features and Migration will both be notes as agreed yesterday. We have editors. ←
15:13:08 <tidoust> … The rest of the documents (shown on screen) were taken from minutes over the last two days.
… The rest of the documents (shown on screen) were taken from minutes over the last two days. ←
15:13:22 <tidoust> … We don't have editors and so on. It's probably time to decide.
… We don't have editors and so on. It's probably time to decide. ←
15:13:30 <cygri> subtopic: Possible Note on Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets
15:13:56 <tidoust> davidwood: The first one is "show how g-boxes and g-snaps may be identified by defining predicates".
David Wood: The first one is "show how g-boxes and g-snaps may be identified by defining predicates". ←
15:14:19 <tidoust> Ivan: same as the one before the last one?
Ivan Herman: same as the one before the last one? ←
15:14:52 <tidoust> davidwood: "Should there an ref:Graph construct, or something like that?"
David Wood: "Should there an ref:Graph construct, or something like that?" ←
15:15:07 <tidoust> … [merging both proposals into one]
… [merging both proposals into one] ←
15:15:28 <tidoust> cygri: That could be "Addressing practical use cases of RDF datasets"
Richard Cyganiak: That could be "Addressing practical use cases of RDF datasets" ←
15:15:35 <tidoust> … Sandro was the main driver behind that.
… Sandro was the main driver behind that. ←
15:15:59 <tidoust> Ivan: we should ask him.
Ivan Herman: we should ask him. ←
15:16:27 <tidoust> davidwood: who's the logical person? Sandro? He might well be too busy. That said, he's provided some examples already.
David Wood: who's the logical person? Sandro? He might well be too busy. That said, he's provided some examples already. ←
15:16:46 <tidoust> Ivan: You know how it is. Making a formal note is much more work.
Ivan Herman: You know how it is. Making a formal note is much more work. ←
15:17:15 <tidoust> EricP: I suspect Sandro and I will geek on that anyway. Why not action me to discuss that with Sandro?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I suspect Sandro and I will geek on that anyway. Why not action me to discuss that with Sandro? ←
15:17:26 <tidoust> davidwood: should we action you to find an editor for the spec?
David Wood: should we action you to find an editor for the spec? ←
15:17:33 <tidoust> EricP: fair enough.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: fair enough. ←
15:18:05 <davidwood> ACTION: ericp to identify an editor for a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets
ACTION: ericp to identify an editor for a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets ←
15:18:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-203 - Identify an editor for a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2012-11-06].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-203 - Identify an editor for a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2012-11-06]. ←
15:18:09 <tidoust> Antoine: Just a note that we cannot define formally that a URI identifies a g-box because we don't have a proper g-box.
Antoine Zimmermann: Just a note that we cannot define formally that a URI identifies a g-box because we don't have a proper g-box. ←
15:18:20 <tidoust> … That cannot go beyond a regular English sentence.
… That cannot go beyond a regular English sentence. ←
15:18:27 <tidoust> cygri: It could be in theory.
Richard Cyganiak: It could be in theory. ←
15:18:48 <tidoust> Pierre-Antoine: How is that different from saying that foaf:person is not a person?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: How is that different from saying that foaf:person is not a person? ←
15:19:08 <tidoust> Antoine: [scribe missed answer]
Antoine Zimmermann: [scribe missed answer] ←
15:19:54 <tidoust> … People use foaf:person for Persons. They refer to the English definition in a dictionary to know that a "person" has to be used with a real person, and that's enough in most cases.
… People use foaf:person for Persons. They refer to the English definition in a dictionary to know that a "person" has to be used with a real person, and that's enough in most cases. ←
15:20:35 <tidoust> ISSUE-32?
15:20:35 <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 ←
15:20:35 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/32
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/32 ←
15:20:36 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The WG will produce a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets. This Note will include information from ISSUEs 32, 35 and 38.
PROPOSED: The WG will produce a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets. This Note will include information from ISSUEs 32, 35 and 38. ←
15:20:43 <tidoust> ISSUE-35?
15:20:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-35 -- Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? -- closed ←
15:20:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35 ←
15:20:46 <tidoust> ISSUE-38?
15:20:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-38 -- What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-38 -- What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? -- closed ←
15:20:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/38
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/38 ←
15:21:10 <tidoust> davidwood: see proposal. How do people feel about that?
David Wood: see proposal. How do people feel about that? ←
15:21:21 <davidwood> ISSUE-32
15:21:27 <davidwood> ISSUE-32?
15:21:27 <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 ←
15:21:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/32
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/32 ←
15:21:36 <AZ> AZ: it's not different from foaf:Person, formally speaking, foaf:Person does not necessarily identify persons
Antoine Zimmermann: it's not different from foaf:Person, formally speaking, foaf:Person does not necessarily identify persons [ Scribe Assist by Antoine Zimmermann ] ←
15:21:49 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The WG will produce a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets. This Note may include information from ISSUEs 32, 35 and 38.
PROPOSED: The WG will produce a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets. This Note may include information from ISSUEs 32, 35 and 38. ←
15:22:05 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:22:14 <tidoust> cygri: move from "should" to "may" as there are things we said we shouldn't do anything about.
Richard Cyganiak: move from "should" to "may" as there are things we said we shouldn't do anything about. ←
15:23:06 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The WG intends to produce a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets. This Note may include information from ISSUEs 32, 35 and 38.
PROPOSED: The WG intends to produce a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets. This Note may include information from ISSUEs 32, 35 and 38. ←
15:23:17 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
15:23:18 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:23:19 <tbaker> +1 - would welcome this (on the basis of what I'm reading in irc...)
Thomas Baker: +1 - would welcome this (on the basis of what I'm reading in irc...) ←
15:23:21 <tidoust> … For some of the things that are listed there, we want to produce things but that may not happen for various reasons and there are other priorities that shouldn't be delayed as a consequence.
… For some of the things that are listed there, we want to produce things but that may not happen for various reasons and there are other priorities that shouldn't be delayed as a consequence. ←
15:23:21 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:23:22 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:23:29 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:23:37 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:24:06 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
15:24:09 <davidwood> RESOLVED: The WG intends to produce a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets. This Note may include information from ISSUEs 32, 35 and 38.
RESOLVED: The WG intends to produce a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets. This Note may include information from ISSUEs 32, 35 and 38. ←
15:24:39 <davidwood> Subtopic: Possible JSON Notes
15:24:47 <davidwood> - JSON-LD Recipes
David Wood: - JSON-LD Recipes ←
15:24:58 <davidwood> - RDF-JSON
David Wood: - RDF-JSON ←
15:25:34 <tidoust> davidwood: possibilities include JSON-LD Recipes which are in the air for some time now.
David Wood: possibilities include JSON-LD Recipes which are in the air for some time now. ←
15:25:44 <tidoust> … JSON-LD / RDF data model differences
… JSON-LD / RDF data model differences ←
15:25:55 <tidoust> cygri: shouldn't be there, as it's going to be in the Syntax spec.
Richard Cyganiak: shouldn't be there, as it's going to be in the Syntax spec. ←
15:26:01 <tidoust> … That needs to be normative.
… That needs to be normative. ←
15:26:11 <tidoust> davidwood: right, we have agreement. Let's drop it from the list of Notes.
David Wood: right, we have agreement. Let's drop it from the list of Notes. ←
15:26:40 <tidoust> … JSON-LD Recipes, I think this is overcome by events and that we shouldn't be doing recipes at this time.
… JSON-LD Recipes, I think this is overcome by events and that we shouldn't be doing recipes at this time. ←
15:26:53 <gkellogg> Would be nice, but limited bandwidth to do this.
Gregg Kellogg: Would be nice, but limited bandwidth to do this. ←
15:26:59 <gkellogg> zakim, unmute me
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, unmute me ←
15:26:59 <Zakim> gkellogg should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg should no longer be muted ←
15:27:02 <tidoust> Guus: My proposal is not to do anything unless someone from JSON-LD task force really wants to do this.
Guus Schreiber: My proposal is not to do anything unless someone from JSON-LD task force really wants to do this. ←
15:27:17 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:27:18 <tidoust> Markus: I don't think there's a real need for this. The spec already has lots of examples.
Markus Lanthaler: I don't think there's a real need for this. The spec already has lots of examples. ←
15:27:37 <davidwood> JSON-LD editors: JSON-LD specs have adequate examples. No recipies Note needed.
David Wood: JSON-LD editors: JSON-LD specs have adequate examples. No recipies Note needed. ←
15:27:37 <tidoust> Guus: and you have more than enough on your hands. I would suggest this is low priority.
Guus Schreiber: and you have more than enough on your hands. I would suggest this is low priority. ←
15:27:41 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:27:44 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:27:56 <Arnaud> q+
Arnaud Le Hors: q+ ←
15:28:34 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:28:36 <tidoust> Ivan: It's not exactly "recipe" but, yesterday, when we discussed the Primer, having a section with different serializations could be a good idea so examples in Turtle and JSON-LD at a minimum would be good?
Ivan Herman: It's not exactly "recipe" but, yesterday, when we discussed the Primer, having a section with different serializations could be a good idea so examples in Turtle and JSON-LD at a minimum would be good? ←
15:28:48 <tidoust> Guus: It's on my list, yes.
Guus Schreiber: It's on my list, yes. ←
15:28:50 <davidwood> ack Arnaud
David Wood: ack Arnaud ←
15:28:56 <ivan> ack Arnaud
Ivan Herman: ack Arnaud ←
15:28:57 <gkellogg> happy to help.
Gregg Kellogg: happy to help. ←
15:29:32 <tidoust> Arnaud: meta-question here. We're listing notes that we'd like to produce. Do we expect to do all of those by the end of January (end of charter)? Or do we simply assume we will be re-chartered?
Arnaud Le Hors: meta-question here. We're listing notes that we'd like to produce. Do we expect to do all of those by the end of January (end of charter)? Or do we simply assume we will be re-chartered? ←
15:29:54 <tidoust> Guus: By that time, hopefully, we'll ask for extension as specs will be in advanced phases.
Guus Schreiber: By that time, hopefully, we'll ask for extension as specs will be in advanced phases. ←
15:30:16 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:30:22 <tidoust> davidwood: If for some reason, we end up not being extended, then yes, we'll drop these notes on the way.
David Wood: If for some reason, we end up not being extended, then yes, we'll drop these notes on the way. ←
15:30:24 <cygri> Quoting from F2F1 minutes: RESOLVED: (1) Incubate on something like JSON-LD, (2) make a REC on something like Talis RDF/JSON, and (3) make a Note on current practice stuff like Linked Data API. http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-04-13#resolution_4
Richard Cyganiak: Quoting from F2F1 minutes: RESOLVED: (1) Incubate on something like JSON-LD, (2) make a REC on something like Talis RDF/JSON, and (3) make a Note on current practice stuff like Linked Data API. http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-04-13#resolution_4 ←
15:30:46 <tidoust> cygri: On the topic of JSON-related documents, I'd like to remind the group of a resolution we made previously.
Richard Cyganiak: On the topic of JSON-related documents, I'd like to remind the group of a resolution we made previously. ←
15:31:22 <Zakim> +LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF ←
15:31:31 <tidoust> … 3 docs were mentioned. I think that this resolution no longer reflects what we want to do. Resolve that we're not going to do numbers 2 and 3 from that?
… 3 docs were mentioned. I think that this resolution no longer reflects what we want to do. Resolve that we're not going to do numbers 2 and 3 from that? ←
15:33:00 <tidoust> Guus: There was a very clean separation at first. Different roles for these serializations. We could still consider whether that's something we want to publish as a Note. Useful for the community or nobody will care? That's still a decision we have to make, because the document is there.
Guus Schreiber: There was a very clean separation at first. Different roles for these serializations. We could still consider whether that's something we want to publish as a Note. Useful for the community or nobody will care? That's still a decision we have to make, because the document is there. ←
15:33:09 <tidoust> davidwood: I agree. How do you feel about it?
David Wood: I agree. How do you feel about it? ←
15:33:30 <tidoust> Guus: I haven't been an active user. I'd like to have more data on the data.
Guus Schreiber: I haven't been an active user. I'd like to have more data on the data. ←
15:33:49 <tidoust> davidwood: Do I recall that you use the RDF/JSON serialization?
David Wood: Do I recall that you use the RDF/JSON serialization? ←
15:34:01 <tidoust> LeeF: I don't think so, but it is similar.
Lee Feigenbaum: I don't think so, but it is similar. ←
15:34:19 <tidoust> … We're using it somehow in other areas.
… We're using it somehow in other areas. ←
15:34:27 <tidoust> davidwood: Would you support a Note on this?
David Wood: Would you support a Note on this? ←
15:34:31 <markus> I'm a bit worried that publishing a note will cause more confusion than it helps
Markus Lanthaler: I'm a bit worried that publishing a note will cause more confusion than it helps ←
15:34:33 <tidoust> LeeF: Sure.
Lee Feigenbaum: Sure. ←
15:34:43 <gkellogg> +1 to markus
Gregg Kellogg: +1 to markus ←
15:35:00 <tidoust> davidwood: you represent a company that uses something that is similar. Would a W3C Note help you on any way?
David Wood: you represent a company that uses something that is similar. Would a W3C Note help you on any way? ←
15:35:13 <ivan> +1 to markus
Ivan Herman: +1 to markus ←
15:35:14 <tidoust> LeeF: no, I don't think so. It is mainly internal.
Lee Feigenbaum: no, I don't think so. It is mainly internal. ←
15:35:51 <tidoust> … I don't see a big need for it.
… I don't see a big need for it. ←
15:36:11 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The RDF WG will not publish a Note like RDF/JSON.
PROPOSED: The RDF WG will not publish a Note like RDF/JSON. ←
15:36:17 <ivan> =1
Ivan Herman: =1 ←
15:36:18 <tidoust> davidwood: I hear you don't need it. I hear Markus saying that it would cause confusion among the public, supported by others in the group
David Wood: I hear you don't need it. I hear Markus saying that it would cause confusion among the public, supported by others in the group ←
15:36:20 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:36:20 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
15:36:20 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:36:21 <tidoust> +1
+1 ←
15:36:21 <pchampin> +1
15:36:22 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
15:36:24 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:36:24 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:36:25 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
15:36:27 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:36:29 <Guus> +0
Guus Schreiber: +0 ←
15:36:31 <cygri> ±0
Richard Cyganiak: ±0 ←
15:36:33 <tbaker> +0
Thomas Baker: +0 ←
15:36:37 <tidoust> davidwood: I'm proposing not to publish the spec as a note.
David Wood: I'm proposing not to publish the spec as a note. ←
15:36:41 <Guus> +0
Guus Schreiber: +0 ←
15:36:57 <davidwood> RESOLVED: The RDF WG will not publish a Note like RDF/JSON.
RESOLVED: The RDF WG will not publish a Note like RDF/JSON. ←
15:37:05 <davidwood> Subtopic: Possible Semantics Notes
15:37:16 <ericP> +ø
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +ø ←
15:37:26 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
15:37:35 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
15:37:40 <tidoust> davidwood: In the list of semantics notes, we have an intro on Model Theory in RDF semantics which I think was overcome by then.
David Wood: In the list of semantics notes, we have an intro on Model Theory in RDF semantics which I think was overcome by then. ←
15:37:45 <davidwood> ack AZ
David Wood: ack AZ ←
15:37:50 <tidoust> Ivan: right.
Ivan Herman: right. ←
15:38:08 <tidoust> Antoine: Is it our role to do a kind of tutorial on something as generic as model theory?
Antoine Zimmermann: Is it our role to do a kind of tutorial on something as generic as model theory? ←
15:38:13 <davidwood> Recalls that an introduction to MT will remain in the Semantics spec.
David Wood: Recalls that an introduction to MT will remain in the Semantics spec. ←
15:38:46 <tidoust> cygri: we discussed that yesterday. The answer is No, but the part is already there, and there's no real need to drop that away. Pat agreed to separate things away between a normative part and an informative part.
Richard Cyganiak: we discussed that yesterday. The answer is No, but the part is already there, and there's no real need to drop that away. Pat agreed to separate things away between a normative part and an informative part. ←
15:38:52 <tidoust> … It's part of the RDF Semantics document.
… It's part of the RDF Semantics document. ←
15:39:12 <tidoust> … Pat wants to separate those aspects cleanly but keep them in the same document.
… Pat wants to separate those aspects cleanly but keep them in the same document. ←
15:39:43 <tidoust> Ivan: He also plans to separate the derivation rules that are currently in the Semantics docs and publish them somewhere else.
Ivan Herman: He also plans to separate the derivation rules that are currently in the Semantics docs and publish them somewhere else. ←
15:40:22 <tidoust> Antoine: I would rather have an informal section that describes the semantics of RDF than what we have in the spec right now.
Antoine Zimmermann: I would rather have an informal section that describes the semantics of RDF than what we have in the spec right now. ←
15:40:30 <tidoust> Ivan: I think we should leave it to Pat.
Ivan Herman: I think we should leave it to Pat. ←
15:40:34 <tidoust> Antoine: ok
Antoine Zimmermann: ok ←
15:41:00 <tidoust> cygri: As mentioned by Ivan, the other thing is to separate the rules part and publish them as a Note.
Richard Cyganiak: As mentioned by Ivan, the other thing is to separate the rules part and publish them as a Note. ←
15:41:09 <tidoust> Ivan: we agreed on that yesterday
Ivan Herman: we agreed on that yesterday ←
15:41:26 <tidoust> cygri: Pat said he agreed with that, and I'm very keen on that.
Richard Cyganiak: Pat said he agreed with that, and I'm very keen on that. ←
15:41:38 <tidoust> … I'm just saying the Note should be on the list.
… I'm just saying the Note should be on the list. ←
15:41:58 <tidoust> davidwood: ok, but it's up to Pat. Already resolved.
David Wood: ok, but it's up to Pat. Already resolved. ←
15:42:19 <davidwood> Last possible Note: Semantics of datasets
David Wood: Last possible Note: Semantics of datasets ←
15:42:46 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
15:42:48 <cygri> cygri: I think it's important to produce the Note that contains the informative entailment rules
Richard Cyganiak: I think it's important to produce the Note that contains the informative entailment rules [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
15:42:52 <davidwood> ack AZ
David Wood: ack AZ ←
15:42:55 <tidoust> davidwood: The last possible note is the semantics of datasets which is probably the most contentious one.
David Wood: The last possible note is the semantics of datasets which is probably the most contentious one. ←
15:43:03 <tidoust> Antoine: I volunteer to write something.
Antoine Zimmermann: I volunteer to write something. ←
15:43:07 <AZ> AZ: I volunteer to write a Note
Antoine Zimmermann: I volunteer to write a Note [ Scribe Assist by Antoine Zimmermann ] ←
15:43:10 <tidoust> davidwood: great
David Wood: great ←
15:43:21 <tidoust> Ivan: I actually don't think it's contentious.
Ivan Herman: I actually don't think it's contentious. ←
15:43:32 <AZ> AZ: a note on dataset semantics
Antoine Zimmermann: a note on dataset semantics [ Scribe Assist by Antoine Zimmermann ] ←
15:44:09 <cygri> q+ to ask about Test Cases note
Richard Cyganiak: q+ to ask about Test Cases note ←
15:44:26 <tidoust> … [going through a bit of history]. We agreed both views have pros and cons. This Note would describe those two things and say "These are possible alternatives".
… [going through a bit of history]. We agreed both views have pros and cons. This Note would describe those two things and say "These are possible alternatives". ←
15:44:40 <tidoust> … That's what the Note is, so that shouldn't be controversial.
… That's what the Note is, so that shouldn't be controversial. ←
15:44:59 <tidoust> … Now, when it comes to semantics in that group, you never know ;)
… Now, when it comes to semantics in that group, you never know ;) ←
15:45:19 <tidoust> AZ: I fully agree. The Note as a comparison of alternatives is not contentious.
Antoine Zimmermann: I fully agree. The Note as a comparison of alternatives is not contentious. ←
15:45:28 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The RDF WG intends to produce a NOTE on the semantics of datasets.
PROPOSED: The RDF WG intends to produce a NOTE on the semantics of datasets. ←
15:45:34 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
15:45:36 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:45:37 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:45:37 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:45:39 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:46:12 <gavinc> +1 and reference it informationally from TriG ;)
Gavin Carothers: +1 and reference it informationally from TriG ;) ←
15:46:19 <davidwood> RESOLVED: The RDF WG intends to produce a NOTE on the semantics of datasets.
RESOLVED: The RDF WG intends to produce a NOTE on the semantics of datasets. ←
15:46:31 <davidwood> Subtopic: Test Cases Note
15:46:34 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:46:34 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask about Test Cases note
Zakim IRC Bot: cygri, you wanted to ask about Test Cases note ←
15:46:46 <Arnaud> belated +1
Arnaud Le Hors: belated +1 ←
15:47:11 <tidoust> cygri: As part of the 2004 collection of spec, there's the Test spec. I'm not familiar with them. I think our charter says we may do something with it.
Richard Cyganiak: As part of the 2004 collection of spec, there's the Test spec. I'm not familiar with them. I think our charter says we may do something with it. ←
15:47:21 <tbaker> another belated +1 re: note on the semantics of datasets
Thomas Baker: another belated +1 re: note on the semantics of datasets ←
15:47:35 <tidoust> … Given that we're going to have new test cases, there's the question of what happens to that.
… Given that we're going to have new test cases, there's the question of what happens to that. ←
15:47:42 <tidoust> davidwood: It's definitely on topic.
David Wood: It's definitely on topic. ←
15:47:48 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:47:53 <tidoust> ack ivan
ack ivan ←
15:47:55 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:48:23 <tidoust> Ivan: I think this is something that we should not decide now. There will be a moment where we will have to discuss how we organize ourselves to pass CR.
Ivan Herman: I think this is something that we should not decide now. There will be a moment where we will have to discuss how we organize ourselves to pass CR. ←
15:48:36 <tidoust> … Whether it's a Note, a wiki, something else, we'll see when we get there.
… Whether it's a Note, a wiki, something else, we'll see when we get there. ←
15:48:51 <tidoust> … One more thing, that being said: I think I would not like to see Test Cases Recommendation.
… One more thing, that being said: I think I would not like to see Test Cases Recommendation. ←
15:49:30 <tidoust> cygri: I agree that making test cases a Recommendation is strange. It would make me feel good if it was clear that we have the intention of somehow doing something with the Test Cases document.
Richard Cyganiak: I agree that making test cases a Recommendation is strange. It would make me feel good if it was clear that we have the intention of somehow doing something with the Test Cases document. ←
15:49:38 <tidoust> Ivan: which document?
Ivan Herman: which document? ←
15:49:42 <tidoust> cygri: The old one.
Richard Cyganiak: The old one. ←
15:49:58 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases
Arnaud Le Hors: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases ←
15:50:06 <tidoust> … The Entailment test cases, there will be a few things that probably won't be covered in there.
… The Entailment test cases, there will be a few things that probably won't be covered in there. ←
15:50:27 <tidoust> Ivan: It is a Rec, that's why I disagree it should be a Rec.
Ivan Herman: It is a Rec, that's why I disagree it should be a Rec. ←
15:50:55 <tidoust> … If we do not produce a Test cases document, which may happen, then we need to rescind the old version of the document. Something has to be done with it.
… If we do not produce a Test cases document, which may happen, then we need to rescind the old version of the document. Something has to be done with it. ←
15:51:04 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:51:06 <tidoust> Arnaud: It's odd to have it as a Rec.
Arnaud Le Hors: It's odd to have it as a Rec. ←
15:51:22 <tidoust> EricP: It seems to me a waste of effort, but not a real concern.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: It seems to me a waste of effort, but not a real concern. ←
15:51:31 <tidoust> Ivan: It carries some sort of value that it doesn't have.
Ivan Herman: It carries some sort of value that it doesn't have. ←
15:51:51 <tidoust> Arnaud: It dilutes the value of a Recommendation.
Arnaud Le Hors: It dilutes the value of a Recommendation. ←
15:52:04 <markus> What happens to N-Triples then (is defined in rdf-testcases)?
Markus Lanthaler: What happens to N-Triples then (is defined in rdf-testcases)? ←
15:52:10 <tidoust> EricP: Right. It's kind of the same with Recommendation against reference implementation.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Right. It's kind of the same with Recommendation against reference implementation. ←
15:52:22 <tidoust> davidwood: I think that's it for this topic.
David Wood: I think that's it for this topic. ←
15:52:22 <cygri> markus, that becomes its own spec
Richard Cyganiak: markus, that becomes its own spec ←
15:52:45 <markus> good
Markus Lanthaler: good ←
15:52:57 <markus> thanks
Markus Lanthaler: thanks ←
15:53:00 <cygri> topic: Next F2F, Charter Extension
15:53:36 <tidoust> Guus: We may want to reflect on the meeting, and also wonder about planning one last F2F as we haven't be so good at planning F2Fs
Guus Schreiber: We may want to reflect on the meeting, and also wonder about planning one last F2F as we haven't be so good at planning F2Fs ←
15:53:44 <tidoust> davidwood: Where would that be?
David Wood: Where would that be? ←
15:54:02 <gavinc> WEST COAST
Gavin Carothers: WEST COAST ←
15:54:04 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:54:05 <tidoust> Guus: First, some remarks on where people think we are?
Guus Schreiber: First, some remarks on where people think we are? ←
15:54:41 <tidoust> Ivan: I think that we are in much better shape than initially.
Ivan Herman: I think that we are in much better shape than initially. ←
15:55:01 <Guus> zaki, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zaki, who is here? ←
15:55:20 <tidoust> … If everything goes well and we can go to Last Call or CR by end of January, I think that we're in a good shape, and we may get an extension up until end of 2013.
… If everything goes well and we can go to Last Call or CR by end of January, I think that we're in a good shape, and we may get an extension up until end of 2013. ←
15:55:40 <tidoust> … If things are going well, I'm not really sure that we need another F2F.
… If things are going well, I'm not really sure that we need another F2F. ←
15:55:40 <tbaker> zakim, who is here?
Thomas Baker: zakim, who is here? ←
15:55:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, markus, LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, markus, LeeF ←
15:55:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see SteveS, FabGandon, LeeF, trackbot, MacTed, mischat, AZ, ivan, Guus, tidoust, gkellogg, manu1, tbaker, markus, cygri, pchampin, Zakim, Arnaud, davidwood, manu, gavinc,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see SteveS, FabGandon, LeeF, trackbot, MacTed, mischat, AZ, ivan, Guus, tidoust, gkellogg, manu1, tbaker, markus, cygri, pchampin, Zakim, Arnaud, davidwood, manu, gavinc, ←
15:55:41 <Zakim> ... RRSAgent, yvesr, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... RRSAgent, yvesr, sandro, ericP ←
15:56:06 <tidoust> … During Last Call we may of course receive comments from the public willing something completely different, but hard to plan.
… During Last Call we may of course receive comments from the public willing something completely different, but hard to plan. ←
15:56:30 <tidoust> … The extensions, these days, tend to be shorter than before.
… The extensions, these days, tend to be shorter than before. ←
15:56:47 <davidwood> s/all of Ivan's comments//
David Wood: s/all of Ivan's comments// (warning: replacement failed) ←
15:57:21 <tidoust> … Our CEO will ask us to provide a timeline and proofs that we can meet these deadlines.
… Our CEO will ask us to provide a timeline and proofs that we can meet these deadlines. ←
15:57:28 <tidoust> davidwood: 6 months? 1 year?
David Wood: 6 months? 1 year? ←
15:58:10 <tidoust> Ivan: Whatever we can justify and believe is needed. The reply could be "I give you 4 more months but don't try to come back for another extension"
Ivan Herman: Whatever we can justify and believe is needed. The reply could be "I give you 4 more months but don't try to come back for another extension" ←
15:58:20 <Arnaud> q+
Arnaud Le Hors: q+ ←
15:58:28 <tidoust> … I think asking for an extension up until the end of 2013 should be enough.
… I think asking for an extension up until the end of 2013 should be enough. ←
15:58:42 <tidoust> … with an internal plan that we plan to finish everything by summer time.
… with an internal plan that we plan to finish everything by summer time. ←
15:59:00 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:59:03 <tidoust> … Hofdstater's law needs to be accounted for.
… Hofdstater's law needs to be accounted for. ←
15:59:24 <tidoust> … We need a long discussion on test cases.
… We need a long discussion on test cases. ←
15:59:45 <tidoust> … Finding implementations of RDF 1.1. Small additions need to be found out in the wild.
… Finding implementations of RDF 1.1. Small additions need to be found out in the wild. ←
15:59:52 <ericP> q+
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ ←
16:00:07 <davidwood> ack Arnaud
David Wood: ack Arnaud ←
16:00:49 <davidwood> ack ericp
David Wood: ack ericp ←
16:00:59 <tidoust> Arnaud: Clearly, you can recharter for different reasons. Changing the scope is a buggy. Asking for an extension for lack of time with a convincing arguments is easier and reasonable.
Arnaud Le Hors: Clearly, you can recharter for different reasons. Changing the scope is a buggy. Asking for an extension for lack of time with a convincing arguments is easier and reasonable. ←
16:01:18 <tidoust> … I think we're in a good position from that point of view. A few months ago, it would have been a much harder sell.
… I think we're in a good position from that point of view. A few months ago, it would have been a much harder sell. ←
16:01:35 <tidoust> davidwood: Exactly. That's why we need documents out.
David Wood: Exactly. That's why we need documents out. ←
16:01:46 <Guus> q+
Guus Schreiber: q+ ←
16:02:05 <tidoust> EricP: The most substantial would be eradicating simple literals.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: The most substantial would be eradicating simple literals. ←
16:02:24 <tidoust> Ivan: Agreed.
Ivan Herman: Agreed. ←
16:02:39 <tidoust> EricP: The one I'm slightly concerned about is tension with SPARQL.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: The one I'm slightly concerned about is tension with SPARQL. ←
16:02:59 <tidoust> … I don't think that's a major issue. I believe SPARQL 1.1 changes the notion of datatype.
… I don't think that's a major issue. I believe SPARQL 1.1 changes the notion of datatype. ←
16:03:31 <LeeF> But yes, we tried to do that
Lee Feigenbaum: But yes, we tried to do that ←
16:04:10 <davidwood> ack Guus
David Wood: ack Guus ←
16:04:13 <tidoust> cygri: [going through changes made about simple literals and other untyped values]
Richard Cyganiak: [going through changes made about simple literals and other untyped values] ←
16:04:45 <tidoust> Guus: Sandro had a point that it is a bit weak to only produce implementations within the group.
Guus Schreiber: Sandro had a point that it is a bit weak to only produce implementations within the group. ←
16:04:58 <tidoust> EricP: "Always leave a critical party outside of the group"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: "Always leave a critical party outside of the group" ←
16:05:08 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:06:02 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
16:06:56 <tidoust> Ivan: In the RDFa Working Group, we had at least 3 implementations who were done during the development of the spec, people that had never met before. That was perfectly fine.
Ivan Herman: In the RDFa Working Group, we had at least 3 implementations who were done during the development of the spec, people that had never met before. That was perfectly fine. ←
16:07:28 <tidoust> … In that case, we had someone coming in at the last minute, but different implementations in different languages from different people is good enough.
… In that case, we had someone coming in at the last minute, but different implementations in different languages from different people is good enough. ←
16:07:38 <ericP> i think it's important that implementors not only not speak to each other, but have sworn antipathy stemming from childhood rivalries
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think it's important that implementors not only not speak to each other, but have sworn antipathy stemming from childhood rivalries ←
16:07:46 <tidoust> Guus: diversity more important than what is inside or outside, ok.
Guus Schreiber: diversity more important than what is inside or outside, ok. ←
16:08:56 <Zakim> -markus
Zakim IRC Bot: -markus ←
16:11:50 <yvesr> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldabra_giant_tortoise
Yves Raimond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldabra_giant_tortoise ←
16:12:26 <Steve Speicher> A group of turtles is called a bale.
Steve Speicher: A group of turtles is called a bale. ←
created using i/davidwood: I had invited Doug/Topic: Webplatform.org and semantic Web technologies
16:13:09 <tidoust> davidwood: I had invited Doug to talk about WebPlatform.org as I was concerned that semantic Web would be left aside. However, I discovered last night that they use Semantic MediaWiki and plan to include all technologies.
David Wood: I had invited Doug to talk about WebPlatform.org as I was concerned that semantic Web would be left aside. However, I discovered last night that they use Semantic MediaWiki and plan to include all technologies. ←
16:13:54 <tidoust> … I wanted to see how to provide content to the project as probably no one is going to do that for us
… I wanted to see how to provide content to the project as probably no one is going to do that for us ←
16:14:09 <tidoust> Guus: Suggest we invite him to a next telecon
Guus Schreiber: Suggest we invite him to a next telecon ←
16:14:15 <davidwood> action: davidwood to invite Doug Schepers (shepazu on irc) to a future telecon to discuss SemWeb stack on webplatform.org.
ACTION: davidwood to invite Doug Schepers (shepazu on irc) to a future telecon to discuss SemWeb stack on webplatform.org. ←
16:14:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-204 - Invite Doug Schepers (shepazu on irc) to a future telecon to discuss SemWeb stack on webplatform.org. [on David Wood - due 2012-11-06].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-204 - Invite Doug Schepers (shepazu on irc) to a future telecon to discuss SemWeb stack on webplatform.org. [on David Wood - due 2012-11-06]. ←
16:15:44 <tidoust> Ivan: [raising possible issue with lack of "donator" for pages contributions to WebPlatform.org and getting references to other places such as universities]. To be clarified with Doug.
Ivan Herman: [raising possible issue with lack of "donator" for pages contributions to WebPlatform.org and getting references to other places such as universities]. To be clarified with Doug. ←
16:16:12 <tidoust> i/davidwood: I had invited Doug/Topic: Webplatform.org and semantic Web technologies
16:18:05 <tidoust> [Fruitful meeting adjourned]
[Fruitful meeting adjourned] ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#4) generated 2012-10-30 17:04:57 UTC by 'rcygania2', comments: None