14:55:41 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/20-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/20-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:55:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:55:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:55:45 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes ←
14:55:46 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:55:46 <trackbot> Date: 20 March 2013
14:57:38 <Guus> zakim, this will be rdf
Guus Schreiber: zakim, this will be rdf ←
14:57:38 <Zakim> ok, Guus, I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM already started
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Guus, I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM already started ←
14:57:46 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on th ephone
Yves Raimond: Zakim, who is on th ephone ←
14:57:47 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on th ephone', yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is on th ephone', yvesr ←
14:57:50 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on the phone
Yves Raimond: Zakim, who is on the phone ←
14:57:50 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is on the phone', yvesr ←
14:57:54 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Yves Raimond: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:57:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P9, Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P9, Guus ←
14:58:03 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P9 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P9 is me ←
14:58:03 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it ←
14:58:05 <Guus> trackbot, start meeting
Guus Schreiber: trackbot, start meeting ←
14:58:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:58:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:58:10 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes ←
14:58:11 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:58:11 <trackbot> Date: 20 March 2013
14:58:40 <Guus> chair: David
15:00:28 <gavinc> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Gavin Carothers: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:00:28 <Zakim> I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted
Zakim IRC Bot: I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted ←
15:00:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, OpenLink_Software, bhyland
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, OpenLink_Software, bhyland ←
15:00:33 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
15:00:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, OpenLink_Software, bhyland
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, OpenLink_Software, bhyland ←
15:00:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see AZ, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, ScottB, gavinc, TallTed, davidwood, mischat, manu1, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see AZ, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, ScottB, gavinc, TallTed, davidwood, mischat, manu1, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot ←
15:00:38 <davidwood> Zakim, bhyland is me
David Wood: Zakim, bhyland is me ←
15:00:38 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it ←
15:02:09 <TallTed> Zakim, code?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, code? ←
15:02:10 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), TallTed ←
15:02:14 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
15:02:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, TallTed (muted), davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, TallTed (muted), davidwood ←
15:02:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see gkellogg, Arnaud, markus, AZ, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, ScottB, gavinc, TallTed, davidwood, mischat, manu1, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see gkellogg, Arnaud, markus, AZ, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, ScottB, gavinc, TallTed, davidwood, mischat, manu1, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot ←
15:02:16 <Zakim> +??P30
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P30 ←
15:02:38 <Zakim> +??P31
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P31 ←
15:02:41 <AZ> Zakim, ??P30 is me
Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, ??P30 is me ←
15:02:42 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←
15:02:42 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P31
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P31 ←
15:02:43 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
15:03:53 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim
David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim ←
15:03:53 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg ←
15:03:56 <yvesr> i can do it - but phone quality is very bad
Yves Raimond: i can do it - but phone quality is very bad ←
15:03:59 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, please dial ericP-office ←
15:03:59 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ericP; the call is being made ←
15:04:00 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
15:04:02 <gavinc> -q sits
Gavin Carothers: -q sits ←
15:04:05 <gkellogg> scribe: gkellogg
(Scribe set to Gregg Kellogg)
15:04:05 <Zakim> +??P28
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P28 ←
15:04:13 <markus> zakim, ??P28 is me
Markus Lanthaler: zakim, ??P28 is me ←
15:04:13 <Zakim> +markus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +markus; got it ←
15:04:40 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
15:04:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, TallTed (muted), davidwood, AZ, gkellogg, EricP, markus
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, TallTed (muted), davidwood, AZ, gkellogg, EricP, markus ←
15:04:42 <Zakim> On IRC I see gkellogg, Arnaud, markus, AZ, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, ScottB, gavinc, TallTed, davidwood, mischat, manu1, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see gkellogg, Arnaud, markus, AZ, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, ScottB, gavinc, TallTed, davidwood, mischat, manu1, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot ←
15:05:22 <davidwood>Topic: Admin
15:05:22 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 March telecon:
David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 March telecon: ←
15:05:22 <davidwood>
15:05:22 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-13
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-13 ←
15:05:23 <Zakim> +Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony ←
15:05:27 <gkellogg> davidwood: back to normal DST alignment next week.
David Wood: back to normal DST alignment next week. ←
15:05:43 <ScottB> Zakim, Tony is temporarily me
Scott Bauer: Zakim, Tony is temporarily me ←
15:05:43 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ScottB; got it ←
15:05:58 <gkellogg> gavinc: some edits required to minutes from last week.
Gavin Carothers: some edits required to minutes from last week. ←
15:06:05 <davidwood> Review of action items
David Wood: Review of action items ←
15:06:05 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview ←
15:06:05 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open ←
15:06:12 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
15:06:26 <gavinc> +q
Gavin Carothers: +q ←
15:06:49 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:06:51 <gkellogg> ericp: I moved over and consolidated Turtle tests.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I moved over and consolidated Turtle tests. ←
15:06:52 <davidwood> ACTION-233?
15:06:52 <trackbot> ACTION-233 -- Gavin Carothers to publish the consolidated test suite -- due 2013-03-06 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-233 -- Gavin Carothers to publish the consolidated test suite -- due 2013-03-06 -- OPEN ←
15:06:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/233
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/233 ←
15:07:19 <gkellogg> gavinc: Now that they're consolidated, we need to fix license and links and tag them so they don't change.
Gavin Carothers: Now that they're consolidated, we need to fix license and links and tag them so they don't change. ←
15:07:36 <Zakim> +zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2 ←
15:07:41 <gkellogg> … Try to finish test suite issues this week.
… Try to finish test suite issues this week. ←
15:07:54 <davidwood> ACTION-231?
15:07:54 <trackbot> ACTION-231 -- David Wood to create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors. -- due 2013-02-27 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-231 -- David Wood to create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors. -- due 2013-02-27 -- OPEN ←
15:07:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/231
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/231 ←
15:08:42 <gkellogg> ericp: Created a page to cover comments on Turtle and implementation reports.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Created a page to cover comments on Turtle and implementation reports. ←
15:08:48 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
15:09:10 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments ←
15:09:20 <davidwood> CLOSE ACTION-231
David Wood: CLOSE ACTION-231 ←
15:09:20 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-231 Create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors..
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-231 Create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors.. ←
15:09:22 <Zakim> +Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri ←
15:10:07 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-13
David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-13 ←
15:10:28 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/mid/51246FAC.6080807@dajobe.org turtle test case license
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://www.w3.org/mid/51246FAC.6080807@dajobe.org turtle test case license ←
15:10:34 <gkellogg> gavinc: W3C has note on how to publish test cases that we need to conform to.
Gavin Carothers: W3C has note on how to publish test cases that we need to conform to. ←
15:10:42 <Zakim> +cgreer
Zakim IRC Bot: +cgreer ←
15:10:43 <gkellogg> … Everything needs to be dual-licensed.
… Everything needs to be dual-licensed. ←
15:10:52 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-13
Gavin Carothers: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-13 ←
15:11:19 <markus> looks good to me
Markus Lanthaler: looks good to me ←
15:11:24 <AZ> looks fine
Antoine Zimmermann: looks fine ←
15:11:33 <davidwood> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 13 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-13
RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 13 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-13 ←
15:12:00 <gkellogg> AZ: I reviewed RDF Semantics.
Antoine Zimmermann: I reviewed RDF Semantics. ←
15:12:07 <davidwood> ACTION-235?
15:12:07 <trackbot> ACTION-235 -- Antoine Zimmermann to review RDF 1.1 Semantics -- due 2013-03-06 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-235 -- Antoine Zimmermann to review RDF 1.1 Semantics -- due 2013-03-06 -- OPEN ←
15:12:07 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/235
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/235 ←
15:12:42 <AZ> Review of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0131.html
Antoine Zimmermann: Review of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0131.html ←
15:12:43 <davidwood> CLOSE ACTION-235
David Wood: CLOSE ACTION-235 ←
15:12:43 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-235 Review RDF 1.1 Semantics.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-235 Review RDF 1.1 Semantics. ←
15:13:06 <gkellogg> Topic: Semantics
15:13:11 <davidwood> Three alternative approaches for fixing the blank node scope problem: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0143.html
David Wood: Three alternative approaches for fixing the blank node scope problem: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0143.html ←
15:13:30 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
15:13:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, TallTed (muted), davidwood, AZ, gkellogg, EricP, markus, ScottB, Arnaud (muted), zwu2, PatH, Souri, cgreer
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, TallTed (muted), davidwood, AZ, gkellogg, EricP, markus, ScottB, Arnaud (muted), zwu2, PatH, Souri, cgreer ←
15:13:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see Souri, cgreer, PatH, zwu2, gkellogg, Arnaud, markus, AZ, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, ScottB, gavinc, TallTed, davidwood, mischat, manu1, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Souri, cgreer, PatH, zwu2, gkellogg, Arnaud, markus, AZ, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, ScottB, gavinc, TallTed, davidwood, mischat, manu1, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, ←
15:13:34 <Zakim> ... trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: ... trackbot ←
15:13:48 <gkellogg> davidwood: Richard was planning on coming up with a proposal, but hasn't yet.
David Wood: Richard was planning on coming up with a proposal, but hasn't yet. ←
15:14:13 <PatH> +q
Patrick Hayes: +q ←
15:14:18 <gkellogg> … Pat proposed accepting suggestion #2
… Pat proposed accepting suggestion #2 ←
15:14:21 <gavinc> -q
Gavin Carothers: -q ←
15:14:22 <davidwood> ack AZ
David Wood: ack AZ ←
15:15:07 <gkellogg> AZ: I sent a proposal that added to Pat's proposals, but adds things I find more satisfying.
Antoine Zimmermann: I sent a proposal that added to Pat's proposals, but adds things I find more satisfying. ←
15:15:22 <gkellogg> … A link to the comments is on the Wiki.
… A link to the comments is on the Wiki. ←
15:15:26 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
15:15:28 <AZ> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Azimmerm/Blank-node-scope-again
Antoine Zimmermann: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Azimmerm/Blank-node-scope-again ←
15:15:44 <gkellogg> path: AZ's message raises a bunch of issues which require thought.
Patrick Hayes: AZ's message raises a bunch of issues which require thought. ←
15:16:22 <gkellogg> … pfps put together a proposal suggesting that we don't need to go into scopes in semantics at all.
… pfps put together a proposal suggesting that we don't need to go into scopes in semantics at all. ←
15:16:42 <gkellogg> … I think he's right and we can simplify a lot of this, taking us back closer to the 2004 document.
… I think he's right and we can simplify a lot of this, taking us back closer to the 2004 document. ←
15:17:14 <gkellogg> … Perhaps we should take the idea offline and carry on in email, but keep it off the document critical path.
… Perhaps we should take the idea offline and carry on in email, but keep it off the document critical path. ←
15:17:37 <gkellogg> … I also pointed out a few editorial changes I'd like done to the other documents to take up the slack.
… I also pointed out a few editorial changes I'd like done to the other documents to take up the slack. ←
15:17:53 <gkellogg> … BNode IDs in different documents don't identify the same blank node.
… BNode IDs in different documents don't identify the same blank node. ←
15:18:21 <gkellogg> … There's an issue on datasets: can a BNode ID in two different datasets identify the same node? I hope no, but if yes, there's some work to be done.
… There's an issue on datasets: can a BNode ID in two different datasets identify the same node? I hope no, but if yes, there's some work to be done. ←
15:18:25 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:18:30 <sandro> q+ to answer Pat
Sandro Hawke: q+ to answer Pat ←
15:19:25 <gkellogg> … I think BNode scoping is closed as far as semantics is concerned. It presumes that other documents will make clear exactly when BNode identifiers identify the same node, It should be clear in NT/NQ that they don't identify nodes in other graphs.
… I think BNode scoping is closed as far as semantics is concerned. It presumes that other documents will make clear exactly when BNode identifiers identify the same node, It should be clear in NT/NQ that they don't identify nodes in other graphs. ←
15:19:25 <sandro> +1 Pat: blank node identifiers in different documents never identify the same blank node.
Sandro Hawke: +1 Pat: blank node identifiers in different documents never identify the same blank node. ←
15:19:47 <sandro> for splitting, use skolemization.
Sandro Hawke: for splitting, use skolemization. ←
15:19:55 <gkellogg> … If it's possible to split a document and retain scope among them, we need to come up with something.
… If it's possible to split a document and retain scope among them, we need to come up with something. ←
15:20:16 <gkellogg> AZ: I agree with Pat's analysis.
Antoine Zimmermann: I agree with Pat's analysis. ←
15:20:22 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
15:20:22 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to answer Pat
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to answer Pat ←
15:20:49 <gkellogg> sandro: I agree with Pat. Two dataset documents can't, but can't to datasets?
Sandro Hawke: I agree with Pat. Two dataset documents can't, but can't to datasets? ←
15:21:00 <gavinc> Huh, so what happens if I download Turtle1 from IRI1... when I read it back from the file system it no longer is the same graph as if I get Turtle1 again from IRI1? :\
Gavin Carothers: Huh, so what happens if I download Turtle1 from IRI1... when I read it back from the file system it no longer is the same graph as if I get Turtle1 again from IRI1? :\ ←
15:21:08 <gkellogg> … You could have a dataset which is a subset of another one, so that they could share nodes.
… You could have a dataset which is a subset of another one, so that they could share nodes. ←
15:21:38 <gavinc> Do we define a way to say these two documents represent the same graph?
Gavin Carothers: Do we define a way to say these two documents represent the same graph? ←
15:21:41 <gkellogg> PatH: yes, it may be required. Semantics needs a clear story about shared bnode scopes.
Patrick Hayes: yes, it may be required. Semantics needs a clear story about shared bnode scopes. ←
15:21:58 <gkellogg> sandro: absolutely, BNode identifiers in two documents identify different nodes.
Sandro Hawke: absolutely, BNode identifiers in two documents identify different nodes. ←
15:22:20 <gkellogg> … The need to separate BNodes among different documents is part of why we added skolumization.
… The need to separate BNodes among different documents is part of why we added skolumization. ←
15:22:40 <gkellogg> PatH: Someone could invent a serialization that had split scopes.
Patrick Hayes: Someone could invent a serialization that had split scopes. ←
15:22:50 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:22:51 <AZ> In my bscope proposal, I distinguish between arbitrary RDF triples in the abstract syntax, and "concrete triples" which are the triples that have a concrete realisation in a file or system
Antoine Zimmermann: In my bscope proposal, I distinguish between arbitrary RDF triples in the abstract syntax, and "concrete triples" which are the triples that have a concrete realisation in a file or system ←
15:23:22 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
15:24:12 <sandro> PROPOSED: In all current known RDF syntaxes, blank node identifiers in two different documents always identify different blank nodes
PROPOSED: In all current known RDF syntaxes, blank node identifiers in two different documents always identify different blank nodes ←
15:24:33 <yvesr> +1 - the inverse would break too many things
Yves Raimond: +1 - the inverse would break too many things ←
15:24:44 <gkellogg> davidwood: perhaps "in all W3C syntaxes"
David Wood: perhaps "in all W3C syntaxes" ←
15:24:47 <sandro> PROPOSED: In all current W3C (draft or REC) RDF syntaxes, blank node identifiers in two different documents always identify different blank nodes
PROPOSED: In all current W3C (draft or REC) RDF syntaxes, blank node identifiers in two different documents always identify different blank nodes ←
15:25:25 <gkellogg> AZ: I think there can be useful use-cases when someone want's to split a graph into several files. For that, there should be a format that allows us to do this.
Antoine Zimmermann: I think there can be useful use-cases when someone want's to split a graph into several files. For that, there should be a format that allows us to do this. ←
15:25:43 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:25:48 <davidwood> ack AZ
David Wood: ack AZ ←
15:25:54 <gkellogg> … I thought that N-Triples could be a good choice for this. If you want to transmit a huge graph, it may be better to use several files.
… I thought that N-Triples could be a good choice for this. If you want to transmit a huge graph, it may be better to use several files. ←
15:26:11 <gkellogg> … I would not like to say that all formats standardized necessarily have one scope.
… I would not like to say that all formats standardized necessarily have one scope. ←
15:26:20 <gkellogg> … It also depends on what is meant by "one document".
… It also depends on what is meant by "one document". ←
15:26:24 <zwu2> +1 to AZ, I was wondering what is a document
Zhe Wu: +1 to AZ, I was wondering what is a document ←
15:26:33 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
15:26:56 <gkellogg> sandro: I think that would allow a lot of accidental ways to share things that weren't intended.
Sandro Hawke: I think that would allow a lot of accidental ways to share things that weren't intended. ←
15:27:20 <zwu2> q+
15:27:20 <gkellogg> … You probably would need to use UUIDs so you don't conflict, so why not us GenIDs? They're like nodes.
… You probably would need to use UUIDs so you don't conflict, so why not us GenIDs? They're like nodes. ←
15:27:35 <davidwood> ack zwu
David Wood: ack zwu ←
15:27:40 <gkellogg> davidwood: If I wanted to break a graph into multiple files, I just wouldn't use BNodes.
David Wood: If I wanted to break a graph into multiple files, I just wouldn't use BNodes. ←
15:28:00 <gkellogg> zwu: what does document mean?
Zhe Wu: what does document mean? ←
15:28:09 <sandro> I think "document" should mean Web Page.
Sandro Hawke: I think "document" should mean Web Page. ←
15:28:09 <gkellogg> sandro: I think it has to mean "web page".
Sandro Hawke: I think it has to mean "web page". ←
15:28:13 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
15:28:20 <gkellogg> zwu: a single page identified by a URL?
Zhe Wu: a single page identified by a URL? ←
15:28:20 <gavinc> -0, totally not true but don't care as avoiding blank nodes in publication avoids the whole issue
Gavin Carothers: -0, totally not true but don't care as avoiding blank nodes in publication avoids the whole issue ←
15:28:37 <gkellogg> davidwood: If you POST/PUT or PATCH it doesn't necessarily get a single URL.
David Wood: If you POST/PUT or PATCH it doesn't necessarily get a single URL. ←
15:28:44 <sandro> +1 davidwood yes, POST complicates this.
Sandro Hawke: +1 davidwood yes, POST complicates this. ←
15:28:48 <Souri> q+
Souripriya Das: q+ ←
15:28:54 <gavinc> The word DOCUMENT sucks :P
Gavin Carothers: The word DOCUMENT sucks :P ←
15:29:02 <gkellogg> ericp: I wonder if we should keep the abstraction, so we can talk about documents that aren't necessarily RDF databases.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I wonder if we should keep the abstraction, so we can talk about documents that aren't necessarily RDF databases. ←
15:29:05 <yvesr> AZ, for this use-case you'd probably compress the data and during that same step split it in several files
Yves Raimond: AZ, for this use-case you'd probably compress the data and during that same step split it in several files ←
15:29:23 <davidwood> ack AZ
David Wood: ack AZ ←
15:29:27 <gkellogg> zhe: I think "document" does not have a clear definition. It's important to clearly define what we mean by "document".
Zhe Wu: I think "document" does not have a clear definition. It's important to clearly define what we mean by "document". ←
15:29:33 <yvesr> AZ, so that could be handled by a post-processing/packaging job - doesn't need to be handled by the RDF format itself
Yves Raimond: AZ, so that could be handled by a post-processing/packaging job - doesn't need to be handled by the RDF format itself ←
15:29:41 <gavinc> How about? In all current W3C (draft or REC) RDF syntaxes, blank node identifiers in two different representations always identify different blank nodes
Gavin Carothers: How about? In all current W3C (draft or REC) RDF syntaxes, blank node identifiers in two different representations always identify different blank nodes ←
15:29:59 <gkellogg> AZ: I was wondering about when you have a steam of RDF data, which may not terminate. At some point in time, you'd like to say it is finished, and we're starting a new graph.
Antoine Zimmermann: I was wondering about when you have a steam of RDF data, which may not terminate. At some point in time, you'd like to say it is finished, and we're starting a new graph. ←
15:30:20 <gkellogg> … It may be that two separate packets have the same BNode, because of an arbitrary split. How to handle this?
… It may be that two separate packets have the same BNode, because of an arbitrary split. How to handle this? ←
15:30:23 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
15:30:25 <gavinc> Document sucks, avoid the word document.
Gavin Carothers: Document sucks, avoid the word document. ←
15:30:32 <sandro> PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) can not have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC)
PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) can not have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC) ←
15:30:34 <markus> I would say this is application-dependent.. per default blank nodes are scoped per file.. if you need something else it's application-specific
Markus Lanthaler: I would say this is application-dependent.. per default blank nodes are scoped per file.. if you need something else it's application-specific ←
15:31:01 <gkellogg> davidwood: It seems to me, when we say "document" we mean two different things: sometime's their the same, sometimes different.
David Wood: It seems to me, when we say "document" we mean two different things: sometime's their the same, sometimes different. ←
15:31:17 <gkellogg> … It may refer to a document in a particular format (eg Turtle, RDF/XML).
… It may refer to a document in a particular format (eg Turtle, RDF/XML). ←
15:31:41 <gkellogg> … Other times, it might mean an input which may be discrete, but could be a stream.
… Other times, it might mean an input which may be discrete, but could be a stream. ←
15:31:43 <zwu2> I like "serialization"
Zhe Wu: I like "serialization" ←
15:31:52 <gkellogg> … A serialization ends when it has an EOF.
… A serialization ends when it has an EOF. ←
15:31:55 <sandro> PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) cannot parse to RDF Graphs that have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC)
PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) cannot parse to RDF Graphs that have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC) ←
15:32:15 <gkellogg> … I think the source of confusion is that we sometimes think of it as bits in a ...
… I think the source of confusion is that we sometimes think of it as bits in a ... ←
15:32:19 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:32:21 <davidwood> ack Souri
David Wood: ack Souri ←
15:32:59 <sandro> PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) cannot parse to RDF Graphs that have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid.
PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) cannot parse to RDF Graphs that have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid. ←
15:33:11 <gkellogg> souri: I agree with AZ, data does not come in one shot. The data could be billion's of triples that I'm not loading at the same time. There is a need to say that the BNode scopes are the same.
Souripriya Das: I agree with AZ, data does not come in one shot. The data could be billion's of triples that I'm not loading at the same time. There is a need to say that the BNode scopes are the same. ←
15:33:40 <gkellogg> … Form a systems point of view, there should be an option to allow this from a practical point of view.
… From a systems point of view, there should be an option to allow this from a practical point of view. ←
15:33:46 <gkellogg> s/Form/From/
15:33:49 <AZ> +1 souri
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 souri ←
15:34:05 <sandro> PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) do not parse to RDF Graphs that have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid, or some non-standard local override.
PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) do not parse to RDF Graphs that have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid, or some non-standard local override. ←
15:34:08 <Arnaud> +q
Arnaud Le Hors: +q ←
15:34:12 <gkellogg> davidwood: too bad the use case wasn't identified earlier, but there seems to be strong support.
David Wood: too bad the use case wasn't identified earlier, but there seems to be strong support. ←
15:34:22 <AZ> I mentioned this use case several times in the past in emails
Antoine Zimmermann: I mentioned this use case several times in the past in emails ←
15:34:28 <gkellogg> … Could you not solve this problem using some unique identifier?
… Could you not solve this problem using some unique identifier? ←
15:34:43 <Arnaud> -q david just made my point :)
Arnaud Le Hors: -q david just made my point :) ←
15:34:48 <Arnaud> -q
Arnaud Le Hors: -q ←
15:34:59 <gkellogg> souri: we could always solve it that way, but the dataset we're receiving is not something we created. It could be a 10-billion triple dataset we don't want to modify.
Souripriya Das: we could always solve it that way, but the dataset we're receiving is not something we created. It could be a 10-billion triple dataset we don't want to modify. ←
15:35:28 <cgreer> sounds like scope to me
Charles Greer: sounds like scope to me ←
15:35:28 <gkellogg> … It may not be advisable to replace BNodes with identifiers. It's like we need some notion of continuity.
… It may not be advisable to replace BNodes with identifiers. It's like we need some notion of continuity. ←
15:35:40 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
15:35:43 <sandro> +1 souri some kind of "continuity" of blank nodes, some "namespace identifier" would be very useful/practical given other people's data feeds.
Sandro Hawke: +1 souri some kind of "continuity" of blank nodes, some "namespace identifier" would be very useful/practical given other people's data feeds. ←
15:36:24 <gkellogg> PatH: rather than use terminology like "documents", we can say that any method of transmitting RDF via a surface syntax, must record what the intended scope of the identifiers is.
Patrick Hayes: rather than use terminology like "documents", we can say that any method of transmitting RDF via a surface syntax, must record what the intended scope of the identifiers is. ←
15:36:42 <AZ> +1 PatH
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 PatH ←
15:36:48 <gkellogg> … For N-Triples, it's the document, for TriG, it's the dataset document. For other things, some sort of "End of Graph" signal.
… For N-Triples, it's the document, for TriG, it's the dataset document. For other things, some sort of "End of Graph" signal. ←
15:36:58 <sandro> pat: Any method of transmitting RDF content in a surface syntax must indicate/record what the intended scope of the blank node identifiers in that syntax is. For Turtle and TriG ... etc. it's the document/serialization. The scope of the blank nodes has to be indicated.
Patrick Hayes: Any method of transmitting RDF content in a surface syntax must indicate/record what the intended scope of the blank node identifiers in that syntax is. For Turtle and TriG ... etc. it's the document/serialization. The scope of the blank nodes has to be indicated. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:37:01 <sandro> +1 pat
Sandro Hawke: +1 pat ←
15:37:03 <ericP> i think the aspect that we care about in defining a document is the bnode scope
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think the aspect that we care about in defining a document is the bnode scope ←
15:37:07 <gkellogg> … The scope of identifiers needs to be indicated, because they're local identifiers. Just what are they local to?
… The scope of identifiers needs to be indicated, because they're local identifiers. Just what are they local to? ←
15:37:12 <ericP> there are several specs which define the bnode scope
Eric Prud'hommeaux: there are several specs which define the bnode scope ←
15:37:17 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
15:37:23 <gkellogg> … I think talking about BNode scopes is the natural way.
… I think talking about BNode scopes is the natural way. ←
15:37:34 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:37:34 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:37:46 <ericP> souri's case appears to me to move the bnode scope out of RDF standards, but still perfectly doable from a systems perspective
Eric Prud'hommeaux: souri's case appears to me to move the bnode scope out of RDF standards, but still perfectly doable from a systems perspective ←
15:37:53 <zwu2> or this can be handled by vendors
Zhe Wu: or this can be handled by vendors ←
15:38:01 <gkellogg> davidwood: I'm concerned that we're talking about other people's data that we don't want to modify.
David Wood: I'm concerned that we're talking about other people's data that we don't want to modify. ←
15:38:21 <gkellogg> … One idea would be to have some sort of serialization for this purpose.
… One idea would be to have some sort of serialization for this purpose. ←
15:38:27 <Souri> There is a physical separation by space (files) and time for the same (logical) document: is there a way to identify the logical identity of the document
Souripriya Das: There is a physical separation by space (files) and time for the same (logical) document: is there a way to identify the logical identity of the document ←
15:38:28 <sandro> PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) do not parse to RDF Graphs that have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid, or some non-standard local override, or some possible new syntax that allows specifying bnode scope.
PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) do not parse to RDF Graphs that have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid, or some non-standard local override, or some possible new syntax that allows specifying bnode scope. ←
15:38:35 <ericP> +1 to RDF doesn't support this use case
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to RDF doesn't support this use case ←
15:38:37 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:38:37 <ericP> q?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q? ←
15:38:37 <cgreer> +1 david
Charles Greer: +1 david ←
15:38:44 <Arnaud> +1 david
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 david ←
15:38:52 <gkellogg> … In the general case, I have to say that RDF does not support this use case. Any individual implementation may, but I'm nervous about reverse-engineering the semantics for this purpose.
… In the general case, I have to say that RDF does not support this use case. Any individual implementation may, but I'm nervous about reverse-engineering the semantics for this purpose. ←
15:38:57 <gavinc> "Merging two graphs treats the blank nodes in each graph as being existentially quantified in that graph, so that no blank node from one graph is allowed to stray into the scope of the other graph's surrounding quantifier. This is appropriate when the graphs come from different sources and there is no justification for assuming that a blank node in one refers to the same entity as any blank node in the other."
Gavin Carothers: "Merging two graphs treats the blank nodes in each graph as being existentially quantified in that graph, so that no blank node from one graph is allowed to stray into the scope of the other graph's surrounding quantifier. This is appropriate when the graphs come from different sources and there is no justification for assuming that a blank node in one refers to the same entity as any blank node in the other." ←
15:39:10 <gkellogg> PatH: semantics just refers to the BNode scope, semantics comes out of that.
Patrick Hayes: semantics just refers to the BNode scope, semantics comes out of that. ←
15:39:24 <zwu2> one serialization can be materialized into multiple files, there is no conflict
Zhe Wu: one serialization can be materialized into multiple files, there is no conflict ←
15:39:25 <sandro> PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) do not parse to RDF Graphs that have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid, or some non-standard local override, or some possible new syntax that allows specifying bnode scope.
PROPOSED: Two different RDF graph serializations (g-texts) do not parse to RDF Graphs that have any blank nodes in common, using any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid, or some non-standard local override, or some possible new syntax that allows specifying bnode scope. ←
15:39:48 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:39:51 <cgreer> that's good +1
Charles Greer: that's good +1 ←
15:39:53 <gkellogg> +1
+1 ←
15:39:53 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:39:54 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:39:55 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
15:39:56 <zwu2> +1
15:39:57 <AZ> +0
Antoine Zimmermann: +0 ←
15:39:57 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:40:01 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
15:40:03 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
15:40:11 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
15:40:13 <pchampin> +1 (modulo some minor rephrasing)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 (modulo some minor rephrasing) ←
15:40:22 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:40:27 <gavinc> -1, TriG does ;) It produces RDF Graphs with blank nodes in common
Gavin Carothers: -1, TriG does ;) It produces RDF Graphs with blank nodes in common ←
15:40:27 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:40:51 <PatH> it reads a bit brutal.
Patrick Hayes: it reads a bit brutal. ←
15:40:53 <Arnaud> I think the standard way of addressing this is NOT to use blank nodes :)
Arnaud Le Hors: I think the standard way of addressing this is NOT to use blank nodes :) ←
15:41:16 <gkellogg> davidwood: good catch. Clearly what was written wasn't what was intended.
David Wood: good catch. Clearly what was written wasn't what was intended. ←
15:41:17 <TallTed> +1 Arnaud
Ted Thibodeau: +1 Arnaud ←
15:41:21 <davidwood> +1 Arnaud
David Wood: +1 Arnaud ←
15:41:27 <cgreer> "do not parse to RDF datasets that have any blank nodes in common" ?
Charles Greer: "do not parse to RDF datasets that have any blank nodes in common" ? ←
15:41:35 <gkellogg> gavinc: I agree with the spirit of the proposal.
Gavin Carothers: I agree with the spirit of the proposal. ←
15:42:01 <gkellogg> PatH: the problem is, it is the graphs which matter.
Patrick Hayes: the problem is, it is the graphs which matter. ←
15:42:42 <gkellogg> sandro: how about "graph or dataset serializations?"
Sandro Hawke: how about "graph or dataset serializations?" ←
15:42:51 <markus> the proposal is right, it talks about graph serialization formats
Markus Lanthaler: the proposal is right, it talks about graph serialization formats ←
15:42:53 <pchampin> PROPOSED: bnodes generated from parsing two different RDF serializations (g-texts) are distinct for any current W3C syntax (draft or RDF).
PROPOSED: bnodes generated from parsing two different RDF serializations (g-texts) are distinct for any current W3C syntax (draft or RDF). ←
15:43:09 <pchampin> ... (followed by the "to be rephrased" explaination that Sandro added)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: ... (followed by the "to be rephrased" explaination that Sandro added) ←
15:43:33 <gkellogg> ericp: I think Oracle needs a non-standard override. "use scope 1 or scope 2"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I think Oracle needs a non-standard override. "use scope 1 or scope 2" ←
15:43:51 <gavinc> +1 prefer representation to serialization but editorial
Gavin Carothers: +1 prefer representation to serialization but editorial ←
15:44:54 <davidwood> PROPOSED: bnodes generated from parsing two different RDF serializations (g-texts) are distinct for any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid, or some non-standard local override, or some possible new syntax that allows specifying bnode scope.
PROPOSED: bnodes generated from parsing two different RDF serializations (g-texts) are distinct for any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid, or some non-standard local override, or some possible new syntax that allows specifying bnode scope. ←
15:45:11 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:45:15 <gkellogg> +1
+1 ←
15:45:16 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:45:18 <zwu2> +1
15:45:18 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:45:19 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:45:27 <gavinc> +1 prefer representation to serialization but editorial
Gavin Carothers: +1 prefer representation to serialization but editorial ←
15:45:29 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:45:31 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
15:45:32 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
15:45:38 <sandro> (without "g-texts")
Sandro Hawke: (without "g-texts") ←
15:45:43 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:45:44 <davidwood> +1 without g-text
David Wood: +1 without g-text ←
15:46:12 <davidwood> RESOLVED: bnodes generated from parsing two different RDF serializations are distinct for any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid, or some non-standard local override, or some possible new syntax that allows specifying bnode scope.
RESOLVED: bnodes generated from parsing two different RDF serializations are distinct for any current W3C syntax (draft or REC). For use cases which want something like that, try genid, or some non-standard local override, or some possible new syntax that allows specifying bnode scope. ←
15:46:28 <gkellogg> gavinc: requires updating 5 different syntaxes :(
Gavin Carothers: requires updating 5 different syntaxes :( ←
15:46:47 <gkellogg> … I think it affects all documents, but it is how things are already done.
… I think it affects all documents, but it is how things are already done. ←
15:47:16 <AZ> excellent, we've made progress on bnode scope issues!
Antoine Zimmermann: excellent, we've made progress on bnode scope issues! ←
15:47:28 <gavinc> "Given two blank nodes, it is possible to determine whether or not they are the same."
Gavin Carothers: "Given two blank nodes, it is possible to determine whether or not they are the same." ←
15:47:47 <gkellogg> gavinc: does this text just go away from RDF concepts?
Gavin Carothers: does this text just go away from RDF concepts? ←
15:48:12 <gkellogg> PatH: I don't think it matters, so leave it alone.
Patrick Hayes: I don't think it matters, so leave it alone. ←
15:48:39 <Guus> for AOB: admin issues wrt short names reports
Guus Schreiber: for AOB: admin issues wrt short names reports ←
15:48:51 <TallTed> change "it is possible" to "it may be possible"?
Ted Thibodeau: change "it is possible" to "it may be possible"? ←
15:48:52 <gkellogg> ericp: is the concern if it needs to be scoped? (in a graph, in a dataset, …)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: is the concern if it needs to be scoped? (in a graph, in a dataset, …) ←
15:48:55 <AZ> If two bnodes are the same, then they are not two bnodes!
Antoine Zimmermann: If two bnodes are the same, then they are not two bnodes! ←
15:49:20 <gkellogg> Topic: JSON-LD
15:49:56 <gkellogg> markus: basically, we had @base at the beginning, but dropped and and recently re-introduced it (@vocab too).
Markus Lanthaler: basically, we had @base at the beginning, but dropped and and recently re-introduced it (@vocab too). ←
15:50:20 <markus> {
15:50:21 <markus> "@context": {
Markus Lanthaler: "@context": { ←
15:50:23 <markus> "@base": "http://example.com/",
Markus Lanthaler: "@base": "http://example.com/", ←
15:50:24 <markus> "@vocab": "http://schema.org/"
Markus Lanthaler: "@vocab": "http://schema.org/" ←
15:50:26 <markus> },
Markus Lanthaler: }, ←
15:50:28 <markus> "@id": "/people/markus",
Markus Lanthaler: "@id": "/people/markus", ←
15:50:28 <gkellogg> … This adds some complexity, as there can be multiple base IRIs, which could confuse developers, knowing what is in scope at a given point in the document.
… This adds some complexity, as there can be multiple base IRIs, which could confuse developers, knowing what is in scope at a given point in the document. ←
15:50:29 <markus> "@type": "Person",
Markus Lanthaler: "@type": "Person", ←
15:50:31 <markus> "name": "Markus Lanthaler",
Markus Lanthaler: "name": "Markus Lanthaler", ←
15:50:32 <markus> "gender": "male"
Markus Lanthaler: "gender": "male" ←
15:50:34 <markus> }
15:50:44 <markus> {
15:50:46 <markus> "@id": "http://example.com/people/markus",
Markus Lanthaler: "@id": "http://example.com/people/markus", ←
15:50:47 <gkellogg> … @base is used for things which are not properties, or values of @type.
… @base is used for things which are not properties, or values of @type. ←
15:50:47 <markus> "@type": "http://schema.org/Person",
Markus Lanthaler: "@type": "http://schema.org/Person", ←
15:50:49 <markus> "http://schema.org/name": "Markus Lanthaler",
Markus Lanthaler: "http://schema.org/name": "Markus Lanthaler", ←
15:50:50 <markus> "http://schema.org/gender": "male"
Markus Lanthaler: "http://schema.org/gender": "male" ←
15:50:52 <markus> }
15:50:56 <gkellogg> … @vocab is used for properties and types.
… @vocab is used for properties and types. ←
15:51:15 <gkellogg> … @vocab allows us to use smaller contexts.
… @vocab allows us to use smaller contexts. ←
15:51:39 <gkellogg> … @base is a bit less clear, but allows the use of relative IRIs but preserve the document base in spite of location.
… @base is a bit less clear, but allows the use of relative IRIs but preserve the document base in spite of location. ←
15:51:56 <gkellogg> … The question is, is it to confusing, or does the value out weight the potential confusion.
… The question is, is it to confusing, or does the value outweigh the potential confusion. ←
15:52:00 <pchampin> q+
15:52:13 <gkellogg> … Of course, most every other serialization supports @base. And @vocab is similar to an empty prefix in Turtle.
… Of course, most every other serialization supports @base. And @vocab is similar to an empty prefix in Turtle. ←
15:52:38 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
15:52:42 <gkellogg> … It was mentioned in recent reviews, and I've made some updates to clarify.
… It was mentioned in recent reviews, and I've made some updates to clarify. ←
15:53:01 <Souri> s/out weight/outweigh/
15:53:07 <ericP> gavinc, i think turtle's fine WRT bnodes:
Eric Prud'hommeaux: gavinc, i think turtle's fine WRT bnodes: ←
15:53:07 <gkellogg> sandro: I'm okay either way; I think they should be there and they're not that confusing.
Sandro Hawke: I'm okay either way; I think they should be there and they're not that confusing. ←
15:53:16 <ericP> informative text "A fresh RDF blank node is allocated for each unique blank node label in a document. Repeated use of the same blank node label identifies the same RDF blank node."
Eric Prud'hommeaux: informative text "A fresh RDF blank node is allocated for each unique blank node label in a document. Repeated use of the same blank node label identifies the same RDF blank node." ←
15:53:19 <gkellogg> … @vocab could be renamed, but it's not obvious what a better name would be.
… @vocab could be renamed, but it's not obvious what a better name would be. ←
15:53:19 <ericP> normative text "BLANK_NODE_LABEL : The string matching the second argument, PN_LOCAL, is a key in bnodeLabels. If there is no corresponding blank node in the map, one is allocated."
Eric Prud'hommeaux: normative text "BLANK_NODE_LABEL : The string matching the second argument, PN_LOCAL, is a key in bnodeLabels. If there is no corresponding blank node in the map, one is allocated." ←
15:53:22 <davidwood> ack pchampin
David Wood: ack pchampin ←
15:54:13 <gkellogg> pchampin: although confusing at first site, it's easily explained. The argument for schema.org has two arguments: it only needs to be created once. The other is, why not use an empty prefix?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: although confusing at first site, it's easily explained. The argument for schema.org has two arguments: it only needs to be created once. The other is, why not use an empty prefix? ←
15:54:24 <sandro> "evolutation issues" are serious here, with schema.org.
Sandro Hawke: "evolutation issues" are serious here, with schema.org. ←
15:54:25 <gavinc> ericp, 'fresh' isn't defined ;) but yes
Gavin Carothers: ericp, 'fresh' isn't defined ;) but yes ←
15:54:27 <ericP> gavinc, i guess PatH could look at "fresh RDF blank node" and "one is allocated" to see if it aligns with semantics
Eric Prud'hommeaux: gavinc, i guess PatH could look at "fresh RDF blank node" and "one is allocated" to see if it aligns with semantics ←
15:54:30 <gkellogg> … Is that not an acceptable trade-off considered the complexity @vocab introduces?
… Is that not an acceptable trade-off considered the complexity @vocab introduces? ←
15:54:49 <gkellogg> markus: Some JSON parsers don't support properties which are empty strings.
Markus Lanthaler: Some JSON parsers don't support properties which are empty strings. ←
15:55:03 <gkellogg> … You could say ":" is used to specify the empty prefix, but it's not clear.
… You could say ":" is used to specify the empty prefix, but it's not clear. ←
15:55:12 <sandro> maybe the keyword @default for the empty string?
Sandro Hawke: maybe the keyword @default for the empty string? ←
15:55:26 <gkellogg> davidwood: Is any action necessary by this WG?
David Wood: Is any action necessary by this WG? ←
15:55:43 <gkellogg> markus: I don't think so, unless there are major disagreements.
Markus Lanthaler: I don't think so, unless there are major disagreements. ←
15:56:25 <gkellogg> … They are currently planned to be in the spec. @base is marked at-risk, as it was added late. There are some complexities for which the details could vary.
… They are currently planned to be in the spec. @base is marked at-risk, as it was added late. There are some complexities for which the details could vary. ←
15:57:03 <gkellogg> sandro: I like the idea of using ":" as a hack to specify that there is an empty prefix.
Sandro Hawke: I like the idea of using ":" as a hack to specify that there is an empty prefix. ←
15:57:11 <gkellogg> q+
q+ ←
15:57:38 <gkellogg> markus: we distinguier between CURIEs and Terms because of the presence of a ":".
Markus Lanthaler: we distinguier between CURIEs and Terms because of the presence of a ":". ←
15:57:45 <sandro> *shrug* I guess.
Sandro Hawke: *shrug* I guess. ←
15:57:47 <davidwood> ack gkellogg
David Wood: ack gkellogg ←
15:58:40 <gkellogg> gkellogg: @vocab and @base is highly symetric with RDFa.
Gregg Kellogg: @vocab and @base is highly symetric with RDFa. ←
15:58:54 <gkellogg> davidwood: they need to get into LC, and stabilize.
David Wood: they need to get into LC, and stabilize. ←
15:59:03 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:59:16 <gavinc> The syntax has added how many keywords since last publication?
Gavin Carothers: The syntax has added how many keywords since last publication? ←
15:59:17 <gkellogg> markus: the API spec needs some minor fixes, but the syntax spec is pretty stable.
Markus Lanthaler: the API spec needs some minor fixes, but the syntax spec is pretty stable. ←
15:59:34 <gkellogg> … There are a few minor things to change in the API spec.
… There are a few minor things to change in the API spec. ←
15:59:46 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
15:59:49 <gkellogg> davidwood: there was a deadline put on with the working group extension.
David Wood: there was a deadline put on with the working group extension. ←
16:00:01 <gkellogg> sandro: are we taking the API spec to REC in parallel.
Sandro Hawke: are we taking the API spec to REC in parallel. ←
16:00:04 <gkellogg> markus: yes.
Markus Lanthaler: yes. ←
16:00:43 <gkellogg> davidwood: in the extension request, we said that we would go to LC in march.
David Wood: in the extension request, we said that we would go to LC in march. ←
16:00:54 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:01:11 <gkellogg> … Can you make editorial changes so that the WC can promote the doc to LC next week?
… Can you make editorial changes so that the WC can promote the doc to LC next week? ←
16:01:16 <gkellogg> … That's what we agreed to do.
… That's what we agreed to do. ←
16:01:35 <gkellogg> markus: We could do that, but don't we need an Algorithms review first?
Markus Lanthaler: We could do that, but don't we need an Algorithms review first? ←
16:02:04 <gkellogg> davidwood: it looks like we won't make the schedule.
David Wood: it looks like we won't make the schedule. ←
16:02:19 <gkellogg> sandro: we could have the reviews done and decide to publish in a week.
Sandro Hawke: we could have the reviews done and decide to publish in a week. ←
16:02:28 <Zakim> -ScottB
Zakim IRC Bot: -ScottB ←
16:02:39 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
16:02:39 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, TallTed (muted), davidwood, AZ, gkellogg, EricP, markus, zwu2, PatH, Souri, cgreer, pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see yvesr, Guus, Sandro, GavinC, TallTed (muted), davidwood, AZ, gkellogg, EricP, markus, zwu2, PatH, Souri, cgreer, pchampin ←
16:02:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see pchampin, tbaker, TallTed, pfps, Souri, cgreer, PatH, zwu2, gkellogg, Arnaud, markus, AZ, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, ScottB, gavinc, davidwood, mischat, manu1, yvesr,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see pchampin, tbaker, TallTed, pfps, Souri, cgreer, PatH, zwu2, gkellogg, Arnaud, markus, AZ, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, ScottB, gavinc, davidwood, mischat, manu1, yvesr, ←
16:02:41 <Zakim> ... manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: ... manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot ←
16:02:52 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:02:53 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
16:03:06 <gkellogg> davidwood: searching for another reviewer of the JSON-LD algorithms doc.
David Wood: searching for another reviewer of the JSON-LD algorithms doc. ←
16:03:37 <markus> json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/
Markus Lanthaler: json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/ ←
16:03:45 <markus> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/
Markus Lanthaler: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/ ←
16:03:51 <gkellogg> markus: we'll need to mirror from the json-ld.org doc to the W3C mirror.
Markus Lanthaler: we'll need to mirror from the json-ld.org doc to the W3C mirror. ←
16:04:05 <gkellogg> … We sync manually from time to time, but the other is automatically updated.
… We sync manually from time to time, but the other is automatically updated. ←
16:04:25 <markus> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/
Markus Lanthaler: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/ ←
16:05:16 <sandro> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/ and http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/
Sandro Hawke: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/ and http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/ ←
16:05:53 <gkellogg> ACTION: sandro to review JSON-LD API document
ACTION: sandro to review JSON-LD API document ←
16:05:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-240 - Review JSON-LD API document [on Sandro Hawke - due 2013-03-27].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-240 - Review JSON-LD API document [on Sandro Hawke - due 2013-03-27]. ←
16:06:36 <davidwood> ACTION: zhe to review JSON-LD API document
ACTION: zhe to review JSON-LD API document ←
16:06:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-241 - Review JSON-LD API document [on Zhe Wu - due 2013-03-27].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-241 - Review JSON-LD API document [on Zhe Wu - due 2013-03-27]. ←
16:07:25 <Guus> q+
Guus Schreiber: q+ ←
16:07:29 <davidwood> ack Guus
David Wood: ack Guus ←
16:07:29 <davidwood> Topic: AOB
16:08:03 <gkellogg> guus: we have an issue to change short-names for documents.
Guus Schreiber: we have an issue to change short-names for documents. ←
16:08:14 <gkellogg> … We have rdf11-semantics, and rdf-turtle.
… We have rdf11-semantics, and rdf-turtle. ←
16:08:23 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/
Gavin Carothers: http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/ ←
16:08:28 <Zakim> +MHausenblas
Zakim IRC Bot: +MHausenblas ←
16:08:34 <gkellogg> sandro: I think we only do this when names collide.
Sandro Hawke: I think we only do this when names collide. ←
16:08:51 <sandro> sandro: I would only put the 11 it's the "same" document.
Sandro Hawke: I would only put the 11 it's the "same" document. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:08:55 <gkellogg> guus: use 11 for updates, not for new docs.
Guus Schreiber: use 11 for updates, not for new docs. ←
16:09:21 <gkellogg> sandro: does trig need rdf-? It's unambiguous.
Sandro Hawke: does trig need rdf-? It's unambiguous. ←
16:11:11 <PatH> I have to leave. Thanks for all the bnodes.
Patrick Hayes: I have to leave. Thanks for all the bnodes. ←
16:11:27 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
16:11:27 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-syntax/ will redirect to http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-syntax/ will redirect to http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld ←
16:11:32 <gkellogg> gkellogg: we'd like to rename the JSON-LD docs too to json-ld and json-ld-algorithms (or processing)
Gregg Kellogg: we'd like to rename the JSON-LD docs too to json-ld and json-ld-algorithms (or processing) ←
16:11:51 <zwu2> thanks & bye
16:11:55 <Zakim> -davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood ←
16:11:55 <Zakim> -Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus ←
16:11:56 <Zakim> -cgreer
Zakim IRC Bot: -cgreer ←
16:11:56 <AZ> bye
Antoine Zimmermann: bye ←
16:11:57 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
16:11:58 <Zakim> -Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri ←
16:12:04 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
16:12:25 <gkellogg> sandro: when it comes time to publish, we'll change the short-names.
Sandro Hawke: when it comes time to publish, we'll change the short-names. ←
16:12:50 <ericP> heya
Eric Prud'hommeaux: heya ←
16:13:03 <Guus> trackbot, end meeting
Guus Schreiber: trackbot, end meeting ←
16:13:03 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
16:13:03 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Guus, yvesr, Sandro, GavinC, davidwood, TallTed, AZ, gkellogg, EricP, markus, ScottB, Arnaud, zwu2, PatH, Souri, cgreer, pchampin,
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been Guus, yvesr, Sandro, GavinC, davidwood, TallTed, AZ, gkellogg, EricP, markus, ScottB, Arnaud, zwu2, PatH, Souri, cgreer, pchampin, ←
16:13:07 <Zakim> ... MHausenblas
Zakim IRC Bot: ... MHausenblas ←
16:13:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
16:13:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/20-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/20-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot ←
16:13:12 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
16:13:12 <RRSAgent> I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/20-rdf-wg-actions.rdf :
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see 5 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/20-rdf-wg-actions.rdf : ←
16:13:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: sandro to review JSON-LD API document [2]
ACTION: sandro to review JSON-LD API document [2] ←
16:13:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/20-rdf-wg-irc#T16-05-53
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/20-rdf-wg-irc#T16-05-53 ←
16:13:12 <RRSAgent> ACTION: zhe to review JSON-LD API document [4]
ACTION: zhe to review JSON-LD API document [4] ←
16:13:12 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/20-rdf-wg-irc#T16-06-36
RRSAgent IRC Bot: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/03/20-rdf-wg-irc#T16-06-36 ←
16:13:19 <markus> I think we decided to keep json-ld-api and not change it to json-ld-algorithms, gkellogg, didn't we?
Markus Lanthaler: I think we decided to keep json-ld-api and not change it to json-ld-algorithms, gkellogg, didn't we? ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#2) generated 2013-03-20 16:28:05 UTC by 'gkellogg', comments: 'Published minutes'