Chatlog 2011-10-13

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

See panel, original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain non-obvious edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

<sandro> PRESENT: davidwood, gavinc, zwu2, AlexHall, sandro, Souri, Scott_Bauer, LeeF, Mischa, Pierre, Ian, Andy, Richard, NickH, Ivan, Steve, Danbri, Yves, Guus, ericP, tomayac, az, pfps, macted
<sandro> GUEST: Tim (tlebo) Lebo, RPI
<sandro> Oops, we didnt have RRSAgent for the introductions....
00:54:32 <LeeF> LeeF has joined #rdf-wg
11:26:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
11:26:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-rdf-wg-irc
11:26:30 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
11:26:33 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg
11:26:34 <sandro> zakim, this is rdf2wg
11:26:34 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches SW_RDFWG(F2F)6:00AM
11:26:40 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
11:26:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, Peter_Patel-Schneider, MIT_Meeting_Room, AZ
11:26:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, LeeF, Scott_Bauer, pchampin, AZ, Souri, AlexHall, mox601, iand, cygri, tlebo, gavinc, danbri, ivan, swh, Guus, AndyS, ww, ericP, yvesr, manu,
11:26:43 <Zakim> ... NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro
11:27:03 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12
11:27:09 <davidwood> davidwood has joined #rdf-wg
11:27:29 <sandro> RRSAgent, make logs public
11:27:39 <Guus> scribe?
11:28:36 <ivan> zakim, MIT_Meeting_Room also has Guus, thomas, danbri, steve, ivan, richard, andy, ian, pchamplin, yves, nicholas
11:28:36 <Zakim> +Guus, thomas, danbri, steve, ivan, richard, andy, ian, pchamplin, yves, nicholas; got it
11:28:57 <ivan> zakim, MIT_Meeting_Room also has micha
11:28:57 <Zakim> +micha; got it
11:31:49 <yvesr> scribe yvesr
11:32:00 <ivan> scribenick: yvesr 
11:32:04 <ivan> scribe: yvesr 
11:32:14 <tomayac> tomayac has joined #rdf-wg
11:32:19 <yvesr> Guus: let's start with Pat's email
11:32:21 <tomayac> scribenick: tomayac
11:32:31 <ivan> scribe: tomayac
11:33:38 <LeeF> zakim, MIT_Meeting_Room also has TedT
11:33:38 <Zakim> +TedT; got it
11:33:56 <Guus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0210.html
11:33:57 <tomayac> Guus suggests to start with ISSUE-71
11:34:23 <tomayac> was originally ISSUE-12, but got closed and is now ISSUE-71
11:34:35 <sandro> issue-71
11:34:37 <sandro> issue-71?
11:34:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) -- open
11:34:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/71
11:34:39 <tomayac> we can either do nothing, or option 2d
11:34:44 <Guus> Proposal for Issue 12
11:34:50 <tomayac> people could live with that
11:35:02 <tomayac> any further discussion required?
11:35:19 <tomayac> got extensively discussed
11:35:27 <tomayac> marked as a feature at risk
11:36:08 <AndyS> and also let RDFa know
11:36:47 <tomayac> AndyS: makes the spec a little cleaner
11:36:49 <mischat> mischat has joined #rdf-wg
11:37:02 <tomayac> Guus: objections?
11:38:27 <Guus>  ISSUE-71: Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting)  W.r.t the representation of language-typed literals I took an action to propose the following resolution:   "Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. The abstract syntax has a lexical form and language tag (like in RDF 2004). The value is assigned directly (like in RDF 2004), bypassing the datatype. The datatype has an empty lexical space and empty L2V mapping. (Option 2d from t
11:38:28 <trackbot> ISSUE-71 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added
11:39:11 <gavinc> gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
11:39:41 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-71 by adopting the phrasing in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Sep/0083.html
11:40:09 <AZ> AZ has left #rdf-wg
11:40:18 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdf-wg
11:40:22 <AZ_> AZ_ has joined #rdf-wg
11:40:55 <AZ_> AZ_ has joined #rdf-wg
11:41:05 <LeeF> Can someone paste the wiki page or email that had the various options in it? (the place at which this was option 2d)?
11:41:11 <Souri> Souri has joined #RDF-WG
11:41:15 <ivan> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-71 by adopting the phrasing in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Sep/0083.html
11:41:33 <davidwood> +1
11:41:36 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
11:41:40 <AndyS> +1
11:41:44 <iand> +0
11:41:46 <AZ_> +1
11:41:47 <cygri> +1
11:41:48 <LeeF> I'm happy with this
11:41:51 <yvesr> +1
11:41:54 <tomayac> Guus: please click on the link, too log to paste. marks a feature at risk.
11:41:58 <pfps> +epsilon
11:42:03 <AlexHall> +1
11:42:12 <NickH> +1
11:42:12 <ivan> -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/tagged_literals/results is the poll result
11:42:13 <tomayac> Guus: Resolved.
11:42:13 <ivan> +1
11:42:22 <gavinc> +0
11:42:32 <ivan> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-71 by adopting the phrasing in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Sep/0083.html
11:42:52 <AndyS> ε > 0
11:43:23 <sandro> +1 it's good enough for 2011; someday maybe we can add more URIs for language tags
11:43:31 <tomayac> Guus: dave proposed to have a discussion on sandro's proposal.
11:43:33 <davidwood> PROPOSED: While it's desirable to have dataset tag IRIs denote their associated g-boxes, because of existing deployments we can't just rule that now.  Instead, we can provide some way to flag the cases where it does, so the market can move in that direction. (Sandro)
11:43:45 <Souri_> Souri_ has joined #RDF-WG
11:43:55 <iand> what are dataset IRIs?
11:44:15 <pfps> I worry about "flying flags" in RDF, particularly if this means building a theory into the semantics of RDF.
11:44:46 <mischat> we would need to inform the RDF 1.1 people about the previous resolution re: manu's email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0115.html
11:45:01 <tomayac> ivan: sandro, when you say provide some case to flag the cases, what do you mean?
11:45:09 <tlebo> I think http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts#Via_SPARQL_1.1_.2B_RDF_1.1 is related
11:45:13 <AndyS>  tag: denote g-box? Should that be g-snap?
11:45:30 <Souri_> Could you please put the proposal on IRC one more time?
11:45:30 <LeeF> I support this goal, but I worry that adopting it might mean that we are inventing like 4 new mechanisms for communicating this which don't currently exist
11:45:40 <LeeF> PROPOSED: While it's desirable to have dataset tag IRIs denote their associated g-boxes, because of existing deployments we can't just rule that now.  Instead, we can provide some way to flag the cases where it does, so the market can move in that direction. (Sandro)
11:46:16 <Guus> q?
11:46:25 <tomayac> sandro: there are two different kinds of data sets
11:46:30 <tlebo> q+
11:46:39 <AndyS> The word "tag" is confusing me somewhat.
11:46:48 <iand> sandro, when you say tag do you mean the names in named graphs
11:47:00 <gavinc> I think he does.
11:47:22 <sandro> "NameTag" Datasets   vs  "KeyTag"  Datasets
11:47:34 <mischat> scribe mischat
11:47:41 <davidwood> q+ to suggest there is no reason to find that anything "denotes" anything else until we address Pat's CoU proposal.  It may in fact be dangerous to do so.
11:47:43 <swh> scribenick: mischat 
11:47:47 <ivan> scribenick: mischat 
11:47:56 <tlebo> attempt to reconcile the "tag" with an actual, implied URI: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts#Via_SPARQL_1.1_.2B_RDF_1.1
11:48:10 <mischat> sandro: is asking Andy what is the other word you use instead of name 
11:48:16 <mischat> ?
11:48:27 <iand> iand has joined #rdf-wg
11:48:30 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
11:48:39 <sandro> AndyS, is "label" better than "tag"?
11:48:39 <mischat> s/Andy/Tim/
11:48:49 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdf-wg
11:49:14 <gavinc> I'll just call it <http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/trig/#graphname> ;)
11:49:22 <mischat> tlebo: is trying to reconcile the graph insert in the graph* terminology ^^
11:49:59 <mischat> tlebo: the example inserts the same triples into two graph containers 
11:50:15 <sandro> q+
11:50:30 <gavinc> ack tlebo
11:50:36 <mischat> tlebo: the proposal is trying present what an insert does in terms on graph* terminology
11:51:04 <mischat> tlebo: the proposal is different from sandro's as the global graph container is different
11:51:14 <swh> q+ to as about the intent
11:51:19 <mischat> q?
11:51:30 <tlebo> archived view: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts&oldid=3770#Via_SPARQL_1.1_.2B_RDF_1.1
11:51:34 <ivan> ack davidwood 
11:51:34 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to suggest there is no reason to find that anything "denotes" anything else until we address Pat's CoU proposal.  It may in fact be dangerous to do so.
11:51:45 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
11:52:28 <Guus> q?
11:52:35 <mischat> davidwood: is concerned about the WG making a finding about how an IRI should be making a decision on what "denotes" when there is no Pat around 
11:52:43 <mischat> … and given cygri's email 
11:52:53 <mischat> davidwood: would like to move this issue out for the time being 
11:52:56 <mischat> q?
11:53:05 <sandro> ack sandro
11:53:23 <mischat> sandro: is asking AndyS what is a better name than tag 
11:53:26 <sandro> ReferingNameDatasets vs MerelyTaggingNameDatasets
11:53:30 <Souri_> Shall we refer to it as graph-IRI (to avoid "name" and all those ~4-letter words)? :-)
11:53:39 <tlebo> "name" might, but not http://www.w3.org/ns/sparql-service-description#name
11:53:54 <sandro> ReferingNameDatasets vs MerelyLabelingNameDatasets
11:53:54 <mischat> sandro: is asking if there are two different ways about talking about a dataset 
11:54:04 <swh> q-
11:54:07 <mischat> Guus: are you talking about "labelling" 
11:54:22 <mischat> " various people " tagging and labelling sound like the same thing 
11:54:43 <gavinc> label == name == context == graph name == graph iri == graphName == graph tag ?
11:54:59 <Guus> q?
11:55:32 <iand> sandro, are you asking for the WG to explore a way for datasets to optionally declare that the labels for graphs denote those graphs?
11:55:45 <mischat> sandro: thinks that in sparql it is merely an association 
11:55:45 <mischat> davidwood: where the tag is an identifier to what happens have an HTTP Get operation 
11:56:08 <mischat> sandro: the name in the, sense of REST, identifies the graph-container 
11:56:27 <pchampin> q+ to propose an analogy
11:56:29 <danbri> q?
11:56:30 <mischat> sandro: name identifies and refers to a graph-container ?
11:56:39 <mischat> or s//?$//
11:57:04 <mischat> Guus: sandro could you please formulate your proposal ?
11:57:25 <iand> q+ andys
11:57:30 <davidwood> s/given cygri's email/given Pat's email/
11:58:14 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
11:58:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, Peter_Patel-Schneider, MIT_Meeting_Room, AZ
11:58:15 <Zakim> MIT_Meeting_Room has MIT_Meeting_Room, Guus, thomas, danbri, steve, ivan, richard, andy, ian, pchamplin, yves, nicholas, micha, TedT
11:58:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see danbri, iand, Souri_, AlexHall, AZ_, MacTed, gavinc, mischat, tomayac, davidwood, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, LeeF, Scott_Bauer, pchampin, mox601, cygri, tlebo, ivan, swh,
11:58:20 <Zakim> ... Guus, ww, ericP, yvesr, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro
11:58:56 <Guus> zakim, ??p0 is BBC
11:58:56 <Zakim> +BBC; got it
11:59:06 <cygri> zakim, I'm with BBC
11:59:06 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
11:59:17 <mischat> zakim, I'm with BBC
11:59:17 <Zakim> +mischat; got it
11:59:22 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdf-wg
11:59:26 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:   There is a kind of dataset (a "type-2 dataset) where the "name" IRI both refers to and awww:identifies the "graph", really a GraphContainer.    These are in contrast with "type 1" datasets, where the "name" iri has an undeclared association with the "graph".     We like type-2 datasets, but people are using type-1 datasets and we can't just rule them out.   So we should provide a standard way for people to indicate when they are using type-2 dat
11:59:26 <sandro> asets.
11:59:38 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
12:00:03 <LeeF>  q+
12:00:04 <NickH> zakim, I'm with BBC
12:00:05 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
12:00:07 <cygri> q+
12:00:18 <yvesr> Zakim, i'm with BBC
12:00:18 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
12:00:39 <mischat> ack pchampin 
12:00:39 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to propose an analogy
12:00:54 <mischat> pchampin: thinks he like the proposal. 
12:01:48 <mischat> pchampin: there is an analogy: in a school you would ask to have a label on every coat. But you wouldn't be labelling the coat 
12:01:57 <mischat> pchampin: like the proposal 
12:02:00 <mischat> ack AndyS 
12:02:16 <mischat> AndyS: thinks type2 is restrictive 
12:02:37 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:   There is a kind of dataset (type-2) where the "name" IRI both refers to and awww:identifies the "graph", really a GraphContainer.    These are in contrast with type-1 datasets, where the "name" iri has an undeclared association with the "graph".     We like type-2 datasets, but people are using type-1 datasets and we can't just rule them out.   So we should provide a standard way for people to indicate when they are using type-2 datasets.
12:02:40 <cygri> q+ to say that it's not “types” of datasets but patterns of use
12:02:41 <mischat> … and there is another proposal where the IRI - is a label for a g-snap is the more general case 
12:02:44 <gavinc> +q to ask how we are identifying the dataset so that we can type it?
12:02:58 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
12:03:05 <mischat> sandro: agrees with sandro 
12:03:30 <iand> zakim, I'm with BBC
12:03:30 <Zakim> +iand; got it
12:03:33 <tlebo> we should also propose the convention for how anyone can awww:identify "type-1 datasets" as "type-2 datasets" given the "type-1 dataset"'s "name" (the convention would derive from http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/#indirect-graph-identification)
12:03:49 <mischat> AndyS: understands that the proposal fits in with sandro's Web Semantic proposals 
12:04:05 <danbri> q+ to ask if it's the dataset that's typed, or the entry in it...?
12:04:10 <mischat> sandro: isn't sparql today a type 1 
12:04:38 <mischat> sandro: how about a type-3 being an IRI referring to a gsnap 
12:04:42 <mischat> sandro: how about a type-3 being an IRI referring to a g-snap
12:05:12 <mischat> AndyS: would like to see a world while there are different Contexts, as per Pat's suggestion. AndyS doesn't like the current proposal 
12:05:16 <AndyS> q?
12:05:41 <ivan> ack LeeF 
12:06:00 <mischat> …. seems to give privilege to type 1, and AndyS thinks that this is not the right thing. 
12:06:17 <AlexHall> +1 LeeF
12:06:28 <swh> +1
12:06:30 <pchampin> q+
12:06:41 <mischat> LeeF: this seems to suggest that we will be prescribe a handle of various ways to do RDF, and this is not the best thing to do … 
12:06:48 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: There is a kind of dataset (type-2) where the "name" IRI both refers to and awww:identifies the "graph", really a GraphContainer.    These are in contrast with type-1 datasets, where the "name" iri has an undeclared association with the "graph".   Some people want to use type-2 datasets, but people are using type-1 datasets and we can't just mandate type-2.   We should provide a standard way for people to indicate when they are using type-2 data
12:06:48 <sandro> sets.
12:06:58 <tlebo> @AndyS, while others can have different contexts, anyone should still be able to awww:identify others' contextualized forms.
12:07:03 <LeeF> s/to do RDF/to annotate RDF to specify which type of dataset you're using
12:07:06 <ivan> ack cygri 
12:07:06 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to say that it's not “types” of datasets but patterns of use
12:07:12 <Guus> ack cygri
12:07:20 <mischat> cygri: thinks it is mistake phrasing this as a type of dataset 
12:07:47 <swh> q+
12:08:03 <iand> Alternate STRAWPOLL phrasing: We should provide a standard way for people to indicate when their the "name" IRIs in their dataset both refers to and awww:identifies the "graph", really a GraphContainer. 
12:08:06 <sandro> But I need *interop* of them,
12:08:06 <mischat> cygri: thinks that sandro's approach is not ideal, there is lots of talk about different ways which you can make use of a dataset 
12:08:08 <AndyS> "There is a usage of dataset where the "name" IRI both refers to and awww:identifies the "graph", really a GraphContainer.  " but ...
12:08:47 <mischat> cygri: but thinks that the current setup allows for sandro's type 2 dataset, and doesn't think that we should give a privileged status to a given way of using a dataset 
12:08:50 <tlebo> but how does a third party uniformly refer to a SPARQL endpoint's GraphContainer?
12:08:54 <AndyS> ... then is there behind that a work item for the WG for this form, not others? Is the recognition of this work item the reason for the proposal?
12:09:29 <sandro> +1 Ian's rephrasing
12:09:43 <AndyS> (see Pat's email)
12:09:49 <yvesr> scribe: yvesr
12:09:52 <mischat> scribenick yvesr 
12:09:57 <danbri> q?
12:10:06 <ivan> scribenick: yvesr 
12:10:09 <sandro> (scribenick is unnecessary with commonscribe, fwiw.)
12:10:17 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0195.html
12:10:19 <davidwood> +1 to Ian's rephrasing
12:10:23 <Souri_> +1 to David's thoughts that Ian's rephrasing is compatible with Pat's CoU suggestion
12:10:24 <yvesr> Guus: would cygri be more happy with iand's rephrasing?
12:10:29 <mischat> q?
12:10:31 <yvesr> +1
12:10:39 <gavinc> ack me
12:10:39 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to ask how we are identifying the dataset so that we can type it?
12:10:40 <ivan> ack gavinc 
12:10:53 <tlebo> But how does a third party awww:identify graphs within SPARQL endpoints that do NOT provide @iand's indication?
12:11:01 <yvesr> gavinc: only worry about sandro's proposal - how are we supposed to refer to the dataset?
12:11:10 <yvesr> gavinc: we're on our way to create 'named datasets'
12:11:17 <AndyS> Maybe SPARQL service description helps here.
12:11:27 <yvesr> gavinc: how are we supposed to make assertions about a dataset atm?
12:11:30 <cygri> q+ to answer gavinc
12:11:36 <pchampin> q+ to solve gavin's problem
12:11:46 <AndyS> ... which is "service" not dataset but that's the visible useable thing.
12:12:01 <yvesr> gavinc: sparql descriptions help for sparql end points - how do i move it around a trig dataset?
12:12:02 <sandro> q+ to talk about TriG metadata
12:12:12 <pchampin> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Quadless-Proposal#Link_with_named_graphs_and_datasets
12:12:13 <ivan> ack pchampin 
12:12:13 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to solve gavin's problem
12:12:42 <sandro> +1 pchampin and graph literals!!!
12:12:43 <yvesr> pchampin: coming back to the proposal i made a while ago - it would be improved by ivan's proposal to work with a datatype
12:13:02 <yvesr> pchampin: if we had graph literals and a vocabulary to express these relationships, then we could be unambiguous
12:13:31 <sandro> +999999
12:13:34 <yvesr> pchampin: not saying it should be how dataset should be implemented, but at least that's a unifying vocabulary to describe this
12:13:37 <yvesr> +99999 too
12:13:41 <ivan> ack cygri 
12:13:41 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to answer gavinc
12:13:54 <yvesr> cygri: makign statements about dataset is easy - just give it a URI
12:14:12 <yvesr> cygri: the SPARQL service description gives us a mechanism to do that
12:14:17 <Guus> q?
12:14:24 <yvesr> cygri: the URI of the Trig file is a good URI to make statements about the dataset
12:14:30 <iand> we already have draft text in RDF Concepts defining an RDF Dataset: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-multigraph
12:14:39 <yvesr> cygri: the problem sandro's trying to solve is to know when a dataset is using a particular convention
12:14:40 <Souri_> s/makign /making / 
12:14:45 <danbri> so we don't lose it in the scrollback, -->
12:14:46 <danbri> [13:08] <iand> Alternate STRAWPOLL phrasing: We should provide a standard way for people to indicate when their the "name" IRIs in their dataset both refers to and awww:identifies the "graph", really a GraphContainer. 
12:14:49 <yvesr> cygri: having a statement asserting it doesn't solve that problem
12:15:02 <tlebo> Regarding "how does the GraphContainer description travel with TRIG, etc, non-SPARQL" - use service description's sd:NamedGraph/sd:GraphCollection, and replace sd:Service/sd:availableGraphDescriptions  (https://github.com/timrdf/csv2rdf4lod-automation/blob/master/doc/ontology-diagrams/sparql-service-description-2010-10-31.pdf?raw=true)
12:15:02 <sandro> can I respond?
12:15:07 <yvesr> cygri: people lie on the Web - these statements could be false
12:15:24 <danbri> q?
12:15:25 <yvesr> cygri: ... except if you trust the provider of the statement and the dataset to do the right thijng
12:15:50 <yvesr> cygri: people are also wrong with mimetypes
12:15:55 <AndyS> "This WG will write a practice and experience note about using NG IRIs to both refers to and awww:identifies the "graph(g-box)", really a GraphContainer. "
12:16:05 <yvesr> q+
12:16:12 <yvesr> q-
12:16:19 <ivan> ack danbri 
12:16:19 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to ask if it's the dataset that's typed, or the entry in it...?
12:16:24 <sandro> sandro: It's kjust like mime types --- sometimes they are wrong, sometimes people lie -- but they are still useful.
12:16:25 <davidwood> gavinc should respond, too.  I'm curious whether describing data out-of-band with triples is acceptable to him.
12:16:34 <yvesr> cygri, i think it is still *much* more useful than *asumming* something tha tmay be wrong or controversial
12:16:43 <cygri> sandro, you're wrong on that. in sindice we do large-scale RDF processing and we have to ignore mime types.
12:16:58 <sandro> danbri: I'd like smaller granularity, like Ian's strawpoll, instead of Sandro's
12:17:03 <yvesr> danbri: ian's reformulation is more concrete
12:17:16 <tomayac> tomayac has joined #rdf-wg
12:17:32 <yvesr> danbri: in my store, i can have URIs of FOAF files, RSS feeds... I'd love to have descriptions to explain how my data is managed
12:17:38 <sandro> I'm okay with DanBri's, but I thikn it might be harder.
12:17:48 <ivan> ack swh 
12:17:51 <Guus> q?
12:18:14 <yvesr> swh: another concern: type-1 includes some things that are undesirable - includign using people URIs as graph identifiers
12:18:32 <gavinc> Out of band triples are totally fine, I'm just confused as to how "just name things with URIs is easy" and the last months of conversations about what exactly naming graphs means are reconcilable?
12:18:44 <AndyS> +1 to "there are bad ways of doing 'associates'"  (bad = wrong)
12:18:57 <sandro> NamedGraphs is either: LabeledGraphs and ReferedToGraphs
12:19:07 <sandro> (or Identified Graphs?)
12:19:29 <cygri> LabeledGraphs would be more accurate for what we have in SPARQL. that ship has sailed though :-(
12:19:45 <yvesr> swh: my concern is mainly that enumariting all possibilities is going to be very difficult, and chances of getting it wrong are high
12:19:46 <danbri> e.g. my store might have one graph (for latest version) <http://example.com/sandro.foaf> and also the transactions stashed using <uuid:12341234>. A manifest / table of contents / sitemap for the database should let me express that I've done this. But *also* it should let me express mappings from technical entities (servers, accounts, crypto) to social entities (people, orgs, ...). 
12:19:46 <Guus> q?
12:19:59 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdf-wg
12:20:03 <yvesr> swh: the chances that someone actually use it are infinitely small
12:20:03 <sandro> cygri, I agree that ship has sailed -- but we can launch another ship.
12:20:11 <AndyS> q+
12:20:27 <sandro> "IdentifiedGraphs"
12:20:29 <danbri> q+ to argue for the social use case too (swh mentioned...)
12:20:44 <ivan> ack sandro 
12:20:44 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to talk about TriG metadata
12:21:02 <yvesr> sandro: trig bizarelly has no way to specify metadata
12:21:13 <yvesr> sandro: no way to assert who is the author or a trig file
12:21:15 <AndyS> <> dc:creator "me" .
12:21:23 <tlebo> +1 AndyS
12:21:26 <yvesr> sandro: you can put the metadata in the default graph
12:21:50 <pchampin> ... but some people argued that the default graph is not more assertive than named graphs
12:21:58 <AndyS> (no different from situation for an RDF graph as far as I can see)
12:22:06 <yvesr> sandro: it would be nice to have a standard place - and what about metadata about metadata? who is the author of the author of the trig annotation?
12:22:07 <cygri> AndyS++
12:22:29 <yvesr> sandro: which graph has the metadata in it?
12:22:40 <pchampin> @Andy: well, if you chose to believe an RDF file, you have to believe what it says about itself
12:22:51 <iand> q?
12:22:51 <mischat> shouldn't this sit in a Linked Data primer or similar 
12:22:52 <Guus> q?
12:22:58 <gavinc> +q to respond
12:23:00 <yvesr> sandro: it seems like it would fail when you're carrying someone else's metadata
12:23:13 <AlexHall> (MIT discussion re metadata graphs described with special rdf:types...)
12:23:38 <swh> <G#meta> { <> dc:subject <G> ; a :MetadataGraph } … or something
12:23:56 <ivan> q?
12:23:59 <LeeF> LeeF: In Anzo, we have "metadata graphs" that give metadata about the graphs. We can also use it to give metadata about datasets, which are first-class objects (i.e. with URIs, etc.) in Anzo
12:24:05 <ivan> ack AndyS 
12:24:18 <yvesr> AndyS: about ian's phrasing, i'd change the word 'standard'
12:24:29 <yvesr> AndyS: we'll write a 'practice and experience' note - non-normative
12:24:34 <mischat> +1 to AndyS 
12:24:46 <zwu2> +1 AndyS
12:24:50 <LeeF> swh, yes, that's very much what we do
12:24:59 <sandro> If it's not a standard, then ...   how does it work?
12:25:01 <swh> LeeF, ditto
12:25:03 <yvesr> danbri: convention?
12:25:09 <tlebo>  awww:identifying a GraphContainer in a TRiG file using fragment identifiers? e.g. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/666e284870cc/ontology/components/NamedGraph/named-graph-topics.trig#http%3A//www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card
12:25:10 <yvesr> AndyS: best practice would work for me
12:25:13 <danbri> q?
12:25:24 <ivan> (what was also said) maybe defining Classes so that rdf:type could be used
12:25:26 <davidwood> In Callimachus, we assign a URI to each data "file" when loaded, thus making a named graph from it.  Anyone can upload metadata about a named graph by referring to its URI.  Therefore, our approach is similar conceptually to LeeF's.
12:25:29 <iand> i think we could define a class for this type of dataset. that's all we need
12:25:50 <yvesr> danbri: named graphs give you technical partition of your data - not social partition - you need out of band information
12:26:03 <ivan> iand, or a class for this type of (n,G) association, not the whole dataset
12:26:06 <yvesr> danbri: i hope this best practice note tackles that
12:26:06 <pchampin> q?
12:26:07 <LeeF> davidwood, do you do anything different do if you're loading a trig file that defines multiple graphs?
12:26:14 <davidwood> yes
12:26:23 <davidwood> We make multiple graphs
12:26:34 <ivan> q?
12:26:34 <sandro> q+ to say danbri, can't you build that with a vocabulary on top of IdentifiedGraphs ?
12:26:37 <ivan> ack davidwood 
12:26:41 <yvesr> danbri: we haven't shown the way on how to make the most of sparql, including this social use-case
12:26:43 <danbri> sandro, yes, we can do. 
12:26:44 <ivan> ack danbri
12:26:44 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to argue for the social use case too (swh mentioned...)
12:26:48 <ivan> ack gavinc 
12:26:48 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to respond
12:26:49 <pchampin> @danbri: but then, whouldn't it be nice to have this "out of band" information in RDF?
12:27:07 <danbri> (...just arguing that the use case is at least as important as the 'what url i got it from' use case which we've spent hours talking about in various forms)
12:27:13 <danbri> (possibly more important, ultimately)
12:27:19 <yvesr> gavinc: about AndyS's proposal of just adding a triple to a trig file - which graph does that go in?
12:27:28 <danbri> (since so much data will be acquired transactionally, e.g. oauth'd)
12:27:40 <iand> in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-multigraph we define RDF Dataset and we could also define an RDF Denoting Dataset to be an RDF Dataset where the graph names denote the graphs
12:27:44 <yvesr> gavinc: maybe that is enough
12:27:57 <yvesr> gavinc: but if we're all doing it, there should be common practices
12:28:08 <Guus> wonder whether we can get a straw polln a revised phrasing
12:28:11 <sandro> +1 iands, not sure about the name "Denoting", but yes.
12:28:16 <yvesr> gavinc: right now, i have no idea how that works
12:28:19 <Guus> q?
12:28:34 <cygri> iand, that would rather have to go into RDF Semantics i think
12:28:42 <yvesr> AndyS: i don't care how the triple goes - it is an assertion, it could go in many different places
12:29:03 <gavinc> thanks AndyS
12:29:07 <ivan> ack sandro 
12:29:07 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to say danbri, can't you build that with a vocabulary on top of IdentifiedGraphs ?
12:29:19 <yvesr> Guus: are we nearing a point where we can put a modified strawpoll?
12:29:35 <yvesr> sandro: AndyS, I don't think that works - we need an assertive metadata format
12:29:47 <yvesr> sandro: TriG files carry stuff they're not asserting
12:29:51 <yvesr> cygri: where does this come from?
12:29:57 <iand> cygri: we use denotes in RDF Concepts
12:30:06 <yvesr> cygri: i wrote that spec, and it doesn't say anything in that respect
12:30:28 <AndyS> sandro - can you point to concrete text that lead you to that conclusion?
12:30:44 <tlebo> what happened to <> ?
12:30:49 <AlexHall> 3 options for describing a dataset: (1) conventions for special naming or typing of metadata graphs, (2) add a fifth column, (3) reify the dataset
12:31:11 <yvesr> danbri: i agree this is a useful use case
12:31:22 <yvesr> s/danbri/sandro: danbri,/
12:31:44 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: We should provide a standard way for people to indicate when their the "name" IRIs in their dataset both refers to and awww:identifies the "graph", really a GraphContainer. 
12:31:50 <danbri> standards-based; ... 
12:31:51 <yvesr> sandro: perhaps we could phrase it by saying 'somebody' should
12:32:14 <danbri> ... sparql-queriable, rdf-describable, ... conventions/  best practice, ...
12:32:30 <cygri> q+
12:32:35 <AndyS> s/provide a standard way/write some text about/
12:32:55 <Souri> Souri has joined #RDF-WG
12:33:30 <danbri> swh 'because there are so many, and there are so incredibly complex, it takes us a lot to describe and ... ... this one is a weird special case'
12:33:36 <NickH> +1 to swh
12:34:20 <sandro> AndyS, that s/// will alter the scribe record --- changing my proposed strawpoll !   
12:34:36 <ivan> STRAWPOLL: We should provide a standard way for people to indicate how their 'name' IRIs in their dataset both behave, such as when it awww:indentifies the graph, really a container
12:35:04 <cygri> q+
12:35:06 <tlebo> any third party should be able to refer to another's GraphContainer, regardless of what the GraphContainer 'owner' offers.
12:35:10 <yvesr> sandro: i am ok with that
12:35:23 <yvesr> Guus: it opens for conventions we document, and conventions we don't document
12:35:38 <ivan> STRAWPOLL: We should provide a standard way for people to indicate how their 'name' IRIs in their dataset behave, such as when it aww:identifies the graph (really a container)
12:35:44 <iand> q+
12:35:59 <ivan> ack cygri 
12:36:00 <MacTed> s/their 'name'/the 'name'/
12:36:15 <yvesr> cygri: i think this idea of indicating how they do it in their dataset is a waste of time
12:36:20 <yvesr> cygri: it just doesn't work
12:36:32 <danbri> e.g. suggest something like: "Should provide RDF-based mechanisms and best practice documentation techniques, to share additional meta-information about collections of RDF graphs, including but not limited to a) info about how IRIs relate to the content they're associated with; b) data grouping technqiues that are more social than technical (eg. 'information from colleagues').'
12:36:45 <yvesr> cygri: there's nothing that encourages people to get that triple right
12:36:56 <yvesr> cygri: nothing bad happens when you get it wrong
12:37:02 <iand> q-
12:37:06 <danbri> q?
12:37:21 <sandro> cygri: This is a waste of time -- it just doesn't work.   There is nothing that encourages people to get the triple right.     Unless there is some Sandro-best-practice person running around....
12:38:22 <AndyS> +1 to danbri suggestion. /me concerned about "standard" ==> else it's not a dataset.
12:38:39 <cygri> yvesr, yes that's what pedantic web did, and it doesn't scale
12:38:43 <iand> i disagree that it is a waste of time, lots of data is wrong but that doesn't mean we should prevent people from writing data
12:38:48 <sandro> sandro: Yeah, my main point is that it's beneficial
12:38:54 <yvesr> cygri, agreed, but trying to standardise the relationship won't work as well
12:38:54 <ivan> +1 to iand 
12:38:58 <yvesr> cygri, we'll never get it right
12:39:04 <gavinc> +1 to iand
12:39:14 <swh> danbri's suggestion seems more plausible
12:39:29 <cygri> yvesr, i think it's useful to document this convention as a good practice. that's all
12:39:46 <swh> I strongly don't feel it's good practice
12:39:52 <yvesr> cygri, but what is the convention? i am not even sure we agree on that
12:40:00 <swh> its one possible way to hold data, but it's not even the best one
12:40:05 <yvesr> swh, +1
12:40:26 <cygri> yvesr, the convention is what sandro said
12:40:32 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: It would be useful to have data-providers using "Referring-IRI" datasets, and for data-consumers to get an indication of whether the data-provider claims to be doing so.
12:40:42 <yvesr> swh, or at least not the only way
12:40:52 <danbri> -1
12:40:54 <cygri> -1
12:40:55 <swh> -1
12:41:00 <tlebo> q?
12:41:00 <iand> -1
12:41:10 <danbri> Lots of things are useful to some people. but this has an advocacy feel.
12:41:29 <iand> (13:34:42) ivan: STRAWPOLL: We should provide a standard way for people to indicate how their 'name' IRIs in their dataset both behave, such as when it awww:indentifies the graph, really a container
12:41:41 <tlebo> The fact is, these things already implicitly exist - it's not a special case. It's universal!
12:42:29 <danbri> for me the issue is granularity ---
12:42:30 <tlebo> The (myriad, nuanced) relationships among anybody's GraphContainers should be described in RDF - and they should choose the vocabulary they want to describe those associations.
12:42:33 <sandro>  STRAWPOLL: It would be useful to have data-providers using type-2 datasets, and for data-consumers to get an indication of whether the data-provider claims to be doing so.
12:42:35 <AndyS> alt -- "the WG writes up several usage scenarios " (so can say when to use and when not to)
12:42:48 <tlebo> so, all we need is A WAY to reference anybody's GraphContainers.
12:42:52 <danbri> in my stores some named graphs are referring IRIs, some are transactional, and there are RDF-describable links (derrivation, pipelines, etc) between them
12:42:59 <danbri> (inference even, on occasion)
12:43:24 <yvesr> danbri, +1
12:43:25 <ivan> STRAWPOLL: It would be useful to provide a standard way for people to indicate how their 'name' IRIs behave, such as when it awww:indentifies the graph, really a container
12:43:36 <cygri> -1
12:43:38 <pchampin> +1
12:43:43 <iand> +1
12:43:48 <sandro> +1
12:43:52 <danbri> 'behave' is a little anthroporphic, but sure +1
12:43:55 <gavinc> +1
12:43:56 <pfps> -epsilon
12:44:08 <yvesr> cygri: we should document patterns and conventions, *not* find a standard way
12:44:13 <davidwood> +0
12:44:13 <danbri> thought i think there is too much bias towards this specific use case, so i'll repeat
12:44:15 <danbri> [13:36] <danbri> e.g. suggest something like: "Should provide RDF-based mechanisms and best practice documentation techniques, to share additional meta-information about collections of RDF graphs, including but not limited to a) info about how IRIs relate to the content they're associated with; b) data grouping technqiues that are more social than technical (eg. 'information from colleagues').'
12:44:16 <tlebo> ALL WE NEED is a way to reference anybody else's GraphContainer. Leave the rest to RDF.
12:44:17 <LeeF> 0
12:44:21 <pchampin> q+
12:44:25 <yvesr> cygri: we don't have any interest at all documenting all others
12:44:32 <davidwood> +1 to cygri
12:44:44 <yvesr> Guus: it would be useful to document best practice conventions to document how their named IRIs behave
12:44:49 <iand> i think we have no consensus on even whether this is useful :(
12:45:01 <yvesr> cygri: it would be useful to document this one particular convention for using names
12:45:09 <danbri> cygri, I want to be able to sparql a store for subset of its content that is (per some notion of) 'stuff from/by Richard ...'
12:45:10 <sandro> I just want to know what   <t> { <t> <p> <o> }   means.   :-/
12:45:17 <davidwood> +1 to danbri's proposal
12:45:18 <yvesr> swh: i like danbri's suggestion from earlier
12:45:30 <yvesr> danbri: i want to go to my store, and get all the stuff from cygri 
12:45:30 <tlebo> This isn't an opt-in thing, it ALREADY is. We just need a way to reference other's GraphContainers.
12:45:32 <iand> so we are saying we don't agree that it's useful for people to be able to describe their named graphs identifiers
12:45:32 <AndyS> sandro - Pat's proposal/idea?
12:45:34 <MacTed> maybe maybe maybe...   
12:45:34 <MacTed> STRAWPOLL: It would be useful to have a standard way for people to indicate how the 'name' IRIs in their dataset behave, e.g., whether they awww:indentifies the graph (really a container), or when they only "refer to" the graph, or both
12:45:45 <danbri> i'm ok with guus's "behaves"; it addresses my use case
12:45:51 <gavinc> q?
12:45:54 <sandro> AndyS, I haven't read the whole thread, but probably.
12:45:58 <iand> s/describe their named graphs/describe the purpose of their named graph/
12:46:15 <tlebo> RDF handle the "zillion" cases - just give me a URI!
12:46:32 <cygri> -1 to "best practice"
12:46:51 <zwu2> how about good practice?
12:46:52 <tlebo> q?
12:47:02 <cygri> zwu2, just "practice"?
12:47:06 <gavinc> okay, webarch conforming practice?
12:47:29 <yvesr> sandro: we don't have a consensus on any compromise
12:47:44 <yvesr> sandro: it makes no sense to have a uri denote multiple things
12:47:57 <swh> q+
12:48:00 <pfps> yes, but what do URIs name/denote?
12:48:10 <sandro> resources.
12:48:14 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
12:48:26 <pfps> sure, but we've had that since 2004
12:48:39 <danbri> sandro: "it was a small step in the right direction" [...] [...] [...] [...]
12:48:44 <tlebo> sd:name rdfs:subPropertyOf dcterm:identifier    ---- handles the "oops, we aren't using URIs properly"
12:48:48 <yvesr> Guus: sandro, you started to say it's a small step in the rght direction
12:49:01 <yvesr> danbri: would you object to such a small step?
12:49:28 <AndyS> q?
12:49:42 <yvesr> swh: i don't understand sandro's logical leap
12:49:46 <sandro> sandro: (big rant a minute ago)   It's kind of absurd to use IRIs as merely labels.
12:49:56 <gavinc> huh?
12:49:59 <yvesr> swh: there's no relation between having a uri denote a graph or a thing
12:50:00 <AndyS> Is this not what RDF does? Describe things?
12:50:00 <Guus> ack swh
12:50:13 <yvesr> sandro: an IRI should both identify and refer
12:50:20 <danbri> sandro, they're being used properly, just that there is a missing column for relationship type 
12:50:21 <cygri> STRAWPOLL: The WG will non-normatively document a particular convention for using datasets, where in <u,G> the URI is denotes a graph container and G is the state of the container.
12:50:24 <yvesr> sandro: in SPARQL, graph URIs are not used that way - i think that's a problem
12:50:26 <iand> Ivan's strawpoll had the most votes. i propose we re-vote on that strawpoll and move on
12:50:39 <yvesr> sandro: i don't want to standardise new things that build on that problem
12:50:45 <danbri> q+ to suggest thinking of this as a missing 5th column
12:50:51 <tlebo> INSERT { GRAPH ?s {} } ===>    :my_s sd:name ?s; !owl:sameAs ?s .
12:50:54 <AndyS> q?
12:50:54 <yvesr> sandro: if you want another relationship, it's not an IRI
12:50:57 <tlebo> INSERT { GRAPH ?s {} } ===>    :my_s sd:name ?s; !owl: sameAs ?s .
12:51:00 <cygri> q+ to propose new wording
12:51:08 <Guus> ack pchampin
12:51:28 <danbri> zakim, please mute america
12:51:28 <Zakim> sorry, danbri, I do not know which phone connection belongs to america
12:51:38 <cygri> zakim, apply electroshock to sandro and david
12:51:44 <Zakim> I don't understand 'apply electroshock to sandro and david', cygri
12:51:46 <danbri> zakim, please mute mit_meeting_room
12:51:46 <Zakim> MIT_Meeting_Room should now be muted
12:52:01 <tlebo> Zakim: Sorry, danbri, I don't recognize "america".
12:52:04 <danbri> call us back when you've stopped chatting
12:52:14 <danbri> zakim, unmute mit_meeting_room
12:52:14 <Zakim> MIT_Meeting_Room should no longer be muted
12:52:28 <gavinc> geee, I think it's break time?
12:52:40 <yvesr> gavinc, +1 :)
12:52:40 <cygri> q?
12:53:15 <yvesr> pchampin: i wanted to answer to cygri's concerns -  i think the idea is to providing a framework enabling to specify those practices
12:53:23 <NickH> zakim, BBC has Guus thomas swh ivan
12:53:23 <yvesr> pchampin: not to define a fixed set of practices
12:53:25 <Zakim> +Guus, thomas, swh, ivan; got it
12:53:42 <AndyS> Does "document good practices" work for people?
12:53:44 <yvesr> pchampin: danbri's use case fit perfectly into that
12:53:59 <davidwood> I propose to discuss Pat's Context of Use suggestion, which is a better way (IMO) to address these concerns.
12:54:03 <Guus> q?
12:54:26 <yvesr> pchampin: this proposal is to connect the dots - being able to write the right query for scoping all graphs written by X
12:54:37 <sandro> +1 graph literals are at least understandable and well-defined.
12:54:39 <tlebo> INSERT { GRAPH ?s {} } ===> :my_s sd:name ?s; skos:broader ?s; dcterms:identifier ?s . (SOME SPARQL endpoints may pretend ?s owl:sameAs :my_s )
12:54:40 <ivan> ack danbri 
12:54:40 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to suggest thinking of this as a missing 5th column
12:54:44 <Souri> +1 to discussing Pat's CoU suggestion
12:54:51 <mischat> this seems similar to the discussion about how a "<> a foaf:Person . " is not the right thing™ - but RDF doesn't forbid it. 
12:55:05 <pfps> the 64bit question is just what "properly" means here.
12:55:24 <tomayac> tomayac has joined #rdf-wg
12:55:31 <yvesr> danbri: we introduced a 4th column to specify a graph, we should have had a 5th column to explain how we use the 4th one
12:55:35 <tlebo> +1 to fifth column == context
12:55:38 <swh> sandro, can you explain [possibly offline] what you think awww:identifies means? Because my unders�ta�nding is like davidwood's
12:55:48 <iand> what about the context of the context?
12:55:56 <ivan> ack cygri 
12:55:56 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to propose new wording
12:55:58 <yvesr> danbri: we're not doing anything wrong - we're just missing information - a manifest file, a sitemap, anything...
12:56:09 <danbri> yvesr s/should/could/ 
12:56:10 <tlebo> (but not actually *having* the fifth column)
12:56:14 <sandro> +1 danbri       we're missing some information about the fourth column relates 
12:56:36 <cygri> STRAWPOLL: The WG will non-normatively document one particular convention for using datasets, where in <u,G> the URI is denotes a graph container and G is the state of the container.
12:56:41 <yvesr> sandro: i agree with danbri
12:57:18 <sandro> +0.5 I'm fine with us documenting, but that doesn't solve my problem
12:57:38 <iand> cygri: that is the opposite to Pat's email where he suggested URIs identify graph containers and denote graphs
12:57:40 <yvesr> danbri, well, we have a framework for asserting things about the 4th column :)
12:57:44 <yvesr> danbri, RDF :)
12:57:54 <danbri> s/document one/document at least one/
12:58:03 <zwu2> +1 bettern than no convention
12:58:07 <yvesr> cygri: i mean it in the sense that you can expect to dereference u and get the grah
12:58:23 <danbri> q+
12:58:26 <sandro> +1 yes, it's a decent step in the right direction.
12:58:35 <ivan> ack danbri 
12:58:36 <Guus> q?
12:58:44 <yvesr> danbri: cygri, what's the granularity of your proposal?
12:58:47 <yvesr> cygri: datasets
12:58:56 <cygri> STRAWPOLL: The WG will non-normatively document one particular convention for using datasets, where in <u,G> the URI denotes+awww:identifies a graph container and G is the state of the container.
12:59:05 <tlebo> Everyone else can go beyond "this particular case", iif you give them URIs to reference others' GraphContainers.
12:59:10 <ericP> +1
12:59:12 <iand> +1
12:59:12 <danbri> +1
12:59:17 <ivan> +1
12:59:17 <Guus> +1
12:59:18 <swh> +0.1
12:59:19 <zwu2> +1 
12:59:23 <MacTed> +1
12:59:25 <pchampin> +1
12:59:26 <LeeF> 0
12:59:26 <yvesr> +1, but we should strill provide a framework to document other cases
12:59:28 <sandro> +1 it's a step in the right driections .   we still need graph literals or good semantics for TriG.
12:59:28 <davidwood> +1
12:59:30 <mischat> 0
12:59:33 <AlexHall> +0.5
12:59:34 <yvesr> s/strill/still
12:59:35 <pfps> =0 because of "denotes"
12:59:45 <NickH> 0
12:59:57 <AndyS> +1
12:59:58 <pfps> 0 because of smilies
13:00:00 <Souri> 0 (state => snapshot?)
13:00:02 <gavinc> +1
13:00:06 <pfps> 0 because of "denotes"
13:00:34 <cygri> s/The WG/sandro/?
13:00:34 <danbri> it's a good thing to do
13:01:07 <pfps> WG activities are not a zero-sum game, so adding work may positively affect other work.
13:01:15 <danbri> ( and s'ing 'sandro' back to 'the wg' won't fix things )
13:01:26 <cygri> sandro, good point. sorry
13:02:15 <danbri> er *scribe
13:02:59 <Souri> we probably should still consider discussing Pat's CoU suggestion sometime
13:03:09 <Zakim> -AZ
13:03:21 <gavinc> Yes 
13:16:05 <Scott_Bauer> Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
13:19:29 <AndyS1> AndyS1 has joined #rdf-wg
13:23:47 <swh> swh has joined #rdf-wg
13:30:17 <davidwood> davidwood has joined #rdf-wg
13:30:25 <tlebo> BTW, I'm begging for http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/Using_named_graphs_to_model_Accounts#Just_give_me_a_URI
13:33:38 <mischat> zakim, unmute BBC
13:33:38 <Zakim> BBC was not muted, mischat
13:33:39 <Guus> let's reconvene
13:34:07 <mischat> can you guys at MIT hear us OK ?
13:36:59 <tlebo> Are we talking about http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0228.html ?
13:37:33 <tlebo> This one http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0195.html ?
13:37:38 <Zakim> +AZ
13:37:54 <tomayac> tomayac has joined #rdf-wg
13:38:14 <ivan> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0195.html Pat's email
13:38:42 <tlebo> scribe: tlebo
13:38:58 <ivan> scribenick: tlebo 
13:39:01 <cygri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0212.html
13:40:00 <tlebo> cygri:given an RDF graph, there is a "context" in which the statements are made and are true.
13:40:11 <tlebo> e.g. "the age of Alice is 29 years"
13:40:21 <tlebo> obviously not true forever.
13:40:52 <tlebo> ... time is not the only situation. Different people can be the "contexts"
13:41:32 <tlebo> ... :age 30 in a different graph; merging the two graphs causes some conflict.
13:41:44 <tlebo> ... merging consolidates the contexts
13:41:57 <tlebo> ... named graphs keeps contexts separate
13:42:22 <tlebo> ... we need to decide case-by-case when to merge the graphs we want.
13:42:32 <Guus> q?
13:43:00 <mischat> 1. RDF Semantics defines an entailment relationship between sets of triples, a.k.a. RDF graphs
13:43:00 <tlebo> @cygri reading points from his email
13:43:04 <mischat> 2. This entailment relationship is only valid if all triples share the same context
13:43:31 <mischat> 3. Therefore, placing triples with incompatible context into a single graph is not seen as as something useful, and we understand RDF graphs as only containing triples of compatible context
13:43:35 <mischat> 4. It follows that merging two graphs with incompatible contexts is not a valid operation
13:43:37 <mischat> 5. Whether two contexts are compatible or not is outside of the scope of RDF Semantics
13:43:44 <sandro> q+
13:44:04 <sandro> I do  :-)
13:44:21 <tlebo> cygri: not sure on response to Pat (aka wrong)
13:44:45 <davidwood> q+ to ask cygri what he thinks of Pat's proposal
13:44:56 <tlebo> ... current semantics is not designed for contexts and time; not extendable to handle it either
13:45:16 <tlebo> ... keep it context free
13:45:33 <mischat> q+ danbri
13:45:58 <tlebo> (I agree with @cygri; we can keep RDF context-free and "compile" what we want from different named graphs/ contexts into the acontextual)
13:46:12 <tlebo> sandro: people are using RDF in different contexts; we should recognize that.
13:46:51 <tlebo> ... Pat's claim that we need to be explicit about contexts is worthwhile.
13:47:02 <Guus> q?
13:47:12 <Guus> ack sandro
13:47:21 <tlebo> ... Pat says not to put :age into a context - b/c you have to decontextualize it.
13:47:53 <pfps> but everything has a context!
13:47:56 <tlebo> ... inferencing across different graphs - we need to decontextualize it into the "universal" context.
13:48:13 <Guus> ack davidwood
13:48:13 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to ask cygri what he thinks of Pat's proposal
13:48:16 <tlebo> ... sandro tried to represent Pat's position.
13:48:27 <Souri> I thought Graph-IRI gives us a hook to a context (which could itself comprise of many triples describing why/when/where/how/etc.)
13:48:27 <pchampin> I agree with Sandro's interpretation of Pat's answer (for what it's worth ;)
13:48:55 <ivan> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0228.html pat's response to richard
13:48:56 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/mid/38CB85A6-F664-4A30-BCA5-985E49B7DC46@ihmc.us 
13:49:14 <mischat> ^^ pat's response 
13:49:34 <tlebo> davidwood: we aren't agreeing on "context"; suggests @cygri reread Pat's to see the different interpretations of "context"
13:49:36 <pfps> everything depends on what you mean - http://...age could mean "age on 11/11/11" and http://...born could mean "born how long ago"
13:49:40 <sandro> sandro: I think there's a huge opportunity for a joint solution here, between Richard and Pat -- where have multiple context, but a special "Web" context where thinks can be merged.
13:50:10 <sandro> q?
13:50:23 <Souri> q+
13:50:24 <Guus> ack danbri
13:50:25 <tlebo> (beyond "web context", it's also any context we choose to create by merging some graphs and decontexutalizing them)
13:51:13 <tlebo> danbri: example - tried to decontextualize (date of birth, not age)
13:51:38 <tlebo> danbri: foaf, color of cars
13:52:03 <sandro> danbri: we added foaf:age because myspace needed it.   we can't make them decontextualize 
13:52:05 <tlebo> danbri: foaf people wanted age, e.g. myspace spits it out every day
13:52:32 <tlebo> danbri: we shouldn't be putting it into standards b/c research project
13:52:41 <sandro> danbri: there will be volatile properties; this should be a W3C CG dogin the research.
13:52:47 <cygri> q+ to say that decontextualizing everything looks like a pipe dream
13:52:50 <tlebo> ... volitatile and non-volitile properties
13:52:57 <Guus> ack Souri
13:53:01 <davidwood> Avoiding context makes sense, iff you can be sure you are actually doing it.  It is trivial with events, but what about universally true statements made in RDF that are then taken *into* a particular context?
13:53:06 <pchampin> s/volitatile/volatile/
13:53:13 <pchampin> s/volitile/volatile/
13:54:13 <tlebo> souri: @cygri's proposition, can associate dimensions of the Graph IRI - why was it created, etc? These are dimensions on the context.
13:54:40 <Guus> q?
13:54:59 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdf-wg
13:55:23 <gavinc> Channeling PatH via email: "No, that is not why named graphs were invented. They were invented so that one could say things about graphs in RDF. Things like who is asserting them, where they came from, etc..,: but not to supply a 'context' for the truth of the triples in them. That would be data, not metadata."
13:55:36 <tlebo> cygri: practice of decontextualizing and modeling decontextulized or not. But can merge without worrying? No, we'll still have to worry about it.
13:55:46 <tlebo> ... most rdf published is context dependent.
13:55:51 <tlebo> ... may contradict
13:55:55 <AndyS> ack cygri
13:55:56 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to say that decontextualizing everything looks like a pipe dream
13:55:57 <sandro> cygri: it would be great if everyone was modeling in a way that would be true forever and could just be merged, but that's not the world we're living in , and I don't see it happening any time sooon.  Most info published is context dependent.  Not true forever, has errors, and we have to deal with that.
13:55:57 <tlebo> ... we need to deal with it.
13:56:19 <sandro> cygri: "just decontextualize" doesnt seem very practical.
13:56:26 <Guus> q?
13:56:43 <pchampin> q+
13:57:00 <danbri> (specifically, if you describe everything as events, you are perfectly decontextual but borderline un-unformative, if you want the state of the world at some specific time...)
13:57:03 <AndyS> ack pchampin
13:57:04 <tlebo> (can't we apply decontextualized semantics to contextualized data that we "choose" to decontextualize it?)
13:57:05 <Guus> ack pchampin
13:57:35 <AndyS> q+
13:57:46 <tlebo> []: disagreement is centered on SPARQL (?)
13:57:50 <gavinc> the named graph paper is a rather clear input to named graphs in SPARQL isn't it?
13:57:55 <ivan> ack AndyS 
13:58:04 <pchampin> pchampin: I think the disagreement btw Richard and Pad concerning named graphs is that Pat is refering to the "Named Graph" paper, while Richard is refering to named graphs in SPARQL
13:58:04 <tlebo> s/[]/pchampin/
13:58:15 <sandro> agreed -- Pat's proposal was about contexts for just the 4th column
13:58:34 <Souri> +1 to AndyS about Pat's attempt being less ambitious than what Richard's trying to propose
13:58:46 <tlebo> (the SPARQL endpoint named graph is a specific case of contextualized RDF)
13:58:49 <gavinc> +1 AndyS
13:58:54 <sandro> AndyS: Pat's "Context of Use" email was just about the fourth column.
13:59:44 <tlebo> general consensus that @cygri's context is different from Pat's
13:59:45 <AndyS> ack me
13:59:55 <tlebo> Pat wants "web context"
14:00:05 <AndyS> q+
14:00:21 <tlebo> sandro: we have multiple contexts and need to deal with it.
14:00:25 <tlebo> cygri: yes
14:00:39 <pfps> this is starting to look like the discussions with tbl on common meaning in the Semantic Web
14:00:45 <tlebo> ... not hard to store/query/vis contextualized data - problem is when we approach semantics.
14:00:46 <Souri> event-based formulation (as DanBri said above?) is another way of specifying the context ino
14:01:02 <Souri> s/context ino/context info/
14:01:20 <tlebo> sandro: cygri gave up on reasoning with RDF graphs b/c they are in different contexts.
14:01:44 <tlebo> cygri: collecting from wires, will need to post-process to check appropriate, clean, remodeling, etc.
14:02:02 <AlexHall> s/wires/the wild/
14:02:02 <pchampin> s/from wires/from the wild/
14:02:09 <tlebo> ... when reasoning over web data, those that do it say "of course we clean it up first"
14:02:21 <sandro> q?
14:02:24 <pchampin> q+
14:02:58 <tlebo> sandro: we could construct ecosystems and feedback loops that increases quality.
14:03:09 <tlebo> ... more rigid consumers (e.g. schema.org)
14:03:11 <mischat> i guess the question next is how does this relate to trig and/or graph serialisations, and whether we wish to be able to reason on top of data given to you in a trig file
14:03:23 <pchampin> q-
14:03:27 <tlebo> ... will give pressure to increase quality - we need to make these systems possible.
14:04:03 <tlebo> []: not "contextualizing web" but "contextualizing web at a point in time"
14:04:11 <AndyS> q-
14:04:18 <tlebo> s/[]/AndyS/
14:04:30 <sandro> (I'm thinking about Cassandra's "eventual consistency" as a parallel to the way the Web Context might be consistent in the face of errors, lag, etc)
14:05:47 <tlebo> davidwood: re Pat's emails, happy with g-box ... (others disagree) david agrees. (LINK to thread?)
14:06:15 <tlebo> gavinc: straw poll on agreeing to the email
14:06:40 <gavinc> IRI----HTTP/"identifies" ---- g-box
14:06:42 <gavinc> IRI----denotes/names-----g-snap
14:07:09 <tlebo> sandro: what does this mean?
14:07:18 <tlebo> davidwood: Pat's trying to formally define context.
14:07:26 <tlebo> sandro: URIs can denote g-boxes.
14:07:39 <tlebo> ... and you can't stop him.
14:08:09 <tlebo> sandro: you can't identify g-snaps.
14:08:20 <davidwood> Start of thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0194.html
14:08:38 <tlebo> (tlebo disagrees, you can identify g-snaps - in the words of @sandro - you can't stop me.)
14:08:53 <sandro> s/you can't identify g-snaps/identifying g-snaps might be a problem/
14:09:08 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/uri-res-rep.png
14:09:08 <tlebo> x: need clear definition of "identifies"
14:09:17 <yvesr> s/x/swh
14:09:22 <AndyS> <tag:1234> owl:sameAs { <s> <p> <o> } 
14:10:04 <tlebo> sandro: identifies" means it like REST means it. The relationship between a URL and the thing the URL is conceptually associated with in an identifying matter.
14:10:20 <AndyS> That is naming so   IRI----HTTP/"names" ---- g-box  which is true of HTTP URLs.
14:10:25 <tlebo> sandro: heart of REST and WWW. you put a URL in, you get a representation back.
14:10:37 <AndyS> just don't use a #frag
14:10:48 <tlebo> ... REST - imagine thing over there. URL represents it and you get a representation of it when you request it.
14:11:11 <cygri> q+
14:12:05 <tlebo> sandro: tag URIs say "there is no representation" - you still get identifying, but david may disagree.
14:12:53 <davidwood> I don't understand "there is no representation", so don't know whether I agree
14:12:56 <cygri> q-
14:13:02 <tlebo> guus: there is no requirement that a representation exists.
14:13:09 <davidwood> ah
14:13:23 <tlebo> swh: now has sense of "identifies" w.r.t. REST's URL and representation.
14:13:47 <sandro> q?
14:13:49 <swh> … actually re this conversation, I'm not sure it's a universal def'n
14:13:49 <tlebo> guus: where does that get us with identifying g-boxes and g-snaps
14:14:02 <davidwood> In that case, I agree with Sandro if he means that TAG URIs *identify* resources even if they cannot be resolved in a manner that returns a representation.
14:14:49 <tlebo> cygri: decontextualization - relationships are to hold "forever" - what about the g-box "can changing."
14:15:06 <tlebo> ... URI for a g-box (that can change b/c the representation cna change tomorrow)
14:15:24 <AlexHall> taking a g-snap decontextualizes the g-box
14:15:31 <tlebo> ... you get different g-snaps when requesting the g-box
14:15:52 <tlebo> sandro and @cygri have concerns with proposal.
14:16:01 <AndyS> :x a :Car   does not stop the car changing color 
14:16:27 <tlebo> sandro: def b-boxes are representations of g-snaps (?)
14:16:37 <tlebo> (that sounds backwards to me)
14:17:02 <Guus> q?
14:17:15 <tlebo> gavinc: Pat's point: 2 parallel words, a semantic rule when one works, the other has to work.
14:17:18 <sandro> sandro: g-boxes are resources, their representations are g-texts, conveying the contained g-snap 
14:18:22 <tlebo> sandro: let's cut this off, Pat is not here.
14:18:47 <tlebo> sandro: where are we with not being able to inference across multiple contexts?
14:19:05 <tlebo> davidwood: the point is that you don't know what contexts there are (in RDF)
14:19:42 <tlebo> ... encoding a context in the graph, and another context in another graph. Third party merges them (can do in RDF) - find logical inconsistency, but above level of merge.
14:19:56 <tlebo> ... assuming apriori out of band contexts to know it SHOULD NOT be combined.
14:20:11 <tlebo> sandro: not knowing context - can assume are different, or same,
14:20:25 <tlebo> davidwood: or don't care about the contexts.
14:20:34 <Souri> q+
14:20:40 <tlebo> sandro: regardless, they are either the same or different (and you're implicitly deciding)\
14:20:45 <cygri> q+ to talk about "compatibe/incompatible" contexts
14:20:59 <tlebo> davidwood: merging two graphs does not entail "I have made a decision about contexts"
14:20:59 <Guus> q+
14:21:08 <tlebo> +1 to sandro
14:21:19 <tlebo> (you've implicitly made a choice about context)
14:21:32 <pchampin> q+
14:21:55 <tlebo> souri: removing graph names and merging - :age 31 and 32. Can go to event based organization - everything in this event is true (merging can't, because different events).
14:22:03 <AlexHall> propose to give different terms to richard's "context" vs. pat's "context" -- i understand this discussion to be relevant to richard's context
14:22:31 <tlebo> davidwood: have a graph not event-encoded - can have metadata true in a date. (alice graph 1 and 2)
14:22:57 <sandro> q?
14:23:02 <sandro> ack Souri 
14:23:18 <tlebo> souri: :g1 graph happened, :g2 graph happened, merging into :g3 eliminates contexts of first two graphs.
14:23:21 <cygri> souri++
14:23:22 <tlebo> q?
14:23:31 <gavinc> PatH channeling ... " So for example if you write "it is raining' then thats not going to stay true, and if you write "it is raining now' that might be true but we have no way to know since we don't know when 'now' was, but if you write 'it is raining on 08/09/2011' then this stays true while time passes. Which is obviously better for communciation across times. So putting the "context' (or as much of it as necessary to fix the truth of what you are saying) 
14:23:33 <gavinc> into the assertion itself is a basic good rule for data which is supposed to last for a while and still be true."
14:23:34 <cygri> ack me
14:23:34 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to talk about "compatibe/incompatible" contexts
14:23:58 <sandro> +1 gavinc 
14:24:13 <tlebo> cygri: merging two graphs - same contexts? need notion of contexts are compatible or not (and depends on use case).
14:24:15 <Guus> [ivan is leaving]
14:24:20 <pchampin> q+ to suggest that contexts are not a property of the graph, but a property of their use
14:24:22 <tlebo> ... depends on what you want to do with it, the modeling.
14:24:25 <sandro> bye Ivan!
14:25:45 <gavinc> but as danbri said, people may just say "it's raining"
14:25:51 <tlebo> (why can't we just leave RDF a-contextual and let us mix contexts when we want to, think we can?)
14:25:54 <davidwood> q+ to respond to Richard
14:26:06 <gavinc> and the process of changing that to it's raining on ISODATETIME is a nice research project
14:26:16 <AlexHall> +1 tlebo
14:26:21 <pchampin> @gavinc: and *where* is it raining, exactly? :->
14:26:22 <tlebo> guus: YYY is out of context
14:26:33 <davidwood> q-
14:26:35 <gavinc> pchampin, yes that too
14:26:41 <yvesr> ack Guus 
14:26:50 <tlebo> guus: naming is main mechanism we have, and dereferencing. that's it. can't go any further.
14:26:58 <tlebo> ... perhaps over-pragmatic, but.
14:27:20 <tlebo> cygri: use cases require holding data in incompatible contexts in same dataset. semantics has to work regardless.
14:27:25 <AlexHall> use prov info to record the context in which a graph is asserted, use the prov info to decide which data to include in the dataset that you want to apply inference to.
14:27:42 <gavinc> We are not meeting those use cases, yeah I'm okay with that ;)
14:27:48 <tlebo> (but since semantics only applies to a-contextual RDF, it's fine)
14:28:08 <tlebo> cygri: keep scope of semantics to individual graphs, since they should be within some context
14:28:12 <tlebo> (+1 cygri)
14:28:28 <Guus> q?
14:28:29 <pchampin> ack me
14:28:30 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to suggest that contexts are not a property of the graph, but a property of their use
14:29:00 <cygri> guus: so you don't want to touch semantics at all?
14:29:08 <tlebo> TTT: context of a graph, talking about it is a mistake. the context is in the use of the graph (consuming it)
14:29:20 <tlebo> s/TTT/pchampin/
14:29:26 <cygri> cygri: well, that would be one way of ensuring no bad entailments from putting incompatible contexts into the same dataset
14:29:49 <sandro> q+ to proposed TriGR, with a "fifth" column.
14:30:06 <Souri> event-centric formulation of triples is good, but verbose, which  leads people to not use it. Use of named graphs and associating context info with graph is easier (less verbose), but requires applications or people doing the merge to first check the contexts of the graphs being merged are compatible or not. We can provide some non-normative examples to illustrate this.
14:30:22 <Guus> Guus: "mnmed graphs" is the mechanism to indicate triples are in a particular context, not other ways to characterize/type/formalize context
14:30:26 <tlebo> pchampin: the context is not a property of the graph, but it's use. so the semantics is not cross-context. Semantics tells nothing about XYZ.
14:30:33 <cygri> souri +100
14:30:41 <Guus> Guus: you're on you own to interpret, for example, a merge
14:31:07 <tlebo> (so, contexts matter, but the semantics does not address it?)
14:31:31 <pchampin> s/XYZ/contexts, it just means that it that contexts do not exist outisde the semantics/
14:31:44 <tlebo> guus: the way people use RDF, and in OWL. We should not (address contexts?).
14:31:46 <pchampin> @tlebo: contexts matter on a pragmatic level
14:31:57 <mischat> similar to the "<> a foaf:Person ." issue which one finds in the wild, we can't say that it is w�rong RDF. 
14:32:10 <Souri> q+
14:32:57 <tlebo> sandro: retreat to syntax? what would help? Simplest is a variation of TRiG - a 5th column to name the context.
14:33:13 <tlebo> ... TRiG-R - b/c relationship is added.
14:33:19 <sandro> <label> <relation> { ... graph .... }
14:33:30 <tlebo> (but <> already IS the context)
14:34:10 <yvesr> looks like n3!
14:34:48 <cygri> q+ to ask about SPARQL
14:34:56 <cygri> q-
14:35:30 <tlebo> sandro: manifests? to not break SPARQL.
14:35:47 <tlebo> guus: OWL used the ontology itself as the manifest.
14:35:49 <sandro> sandro: Maybe the service description could have a manifest of how each label is related.
14:36:12 <sandro> q-
14:36:49 <tlebo> souri: a primer? non-normative. an example of how to specify the context.
14:37:17 <tlebo> (<> already provides context... along with how you got <>)
14:37:19 <Souri> q-
14:37:29 <tlebo> should we discuss manifests?
14:38:03 <danbri> danbri: it just needs to be possible, we don't need to do *all* the work (re manifest formats / aka 'table of contents' for a datastore)
14:38:07 <tlebo> dawg discussed manifests
14:38:26 <tlebo> topic: Manifests
14:38:36 <sandro> q+
14:38:47 <yvesr> ack sandro 
14:38:50 <danbri> q+ to ask andys and dawg folk how much manifest-style work has happened in sparql community
14:39:05 <AndyS> It's one style amongst several/many/open ended  ... it's just RDF.
14:39:27 <tlebo> sandro: labels are "..." or <...>? 
14:39:43 <tlebo> how is manifest different from sparql service description?
14:39:45 <danbri> (quotes being uri-as-string stuff?)
14:39:46 <danbri> q?
14:41:10 <danbri> i forgot my homepage b/g graphic has a picture of this from another meeting: http://danbri.org/ (colours = graph types, volatile, version, composite etc)
14:41:30 <tlebo> cygri: VoID - RDF datasets vocab.
14:41:35 <Guus> Guus has joined #rdf-wg
14:41:38 <tlebo> ... not quite a manifest, but related.
14:41:54 <tlebo> ... when pub RDF, also publich VoID file that describes the dataset.
14:42:13 <tlebo> ...  "here is a dataset, here is a SPARQL endpoint where you can query, here is a dump to put into your own store"
14:42:19 <sandro> q+ to sketch Service Description names the Dataset Manifest Graph M, in the service's dataset;  M contains triples like  { <G1> eg:relatedBy owl:SameAs.   <G2> eg:relatedBy log:Semantics }.
14:42:27 <danbri> ack danbri
14:42:27 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to ask andys and dawg folk how much manifest-style work has happened in sparql community
14:42:30 <tlebo> ... wanted outside of a SPARQL store, since can access different ways.
14:42:38 <Guus> q?
14:42:45 <Guus> ack sandro
14:42:45 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to sketch Service Description names the Dataset Manifest Graph M, in the service's dataset;  M contains triples like  { <G1> eg:relatedBy owl:SameAs.   <G2>
14:42:48 <Zakim> ... eg:relatedBy log:Semantics }.
14:43:14 <tlebo> q?
14:43:28 <sandro> vs  {   [ inDataset <d>; label "G1"; relation owl:SameAs ] }
14:43:39 <mischat> have we won if we are in a position to describe things that people may want to describe, but not limiting people to how they have to describe things?
14:43:43 <tlebo> sandro: sketching a service description - two proposals
14:44:11 <swh> q+
14:44:26 <tlebo> +1 not following
14:44:37 <tlebo> guus: please no sameAs
14:45:00 <AndyS> sandro - please explain log:semantics as people are unclear about it (or maybe they know and do not like it)
14:45:02 <tlebo> (are we tryign to model contexts still?)
14:45:32 <tlebo>  context: where it is and where it came from.
14:45:45 <mischat> +1
14:45:46 <mischat> to tlebo 
14:45:52 <sandro>  { <G1> eg:relatedBy eg:labeling-a-snap.   <G2> eg:relatedBy eg:label-is-url-source  }
14:46:15 <gavinc> +q
14:46:15 <sandro>  { <G1> eg:relatedBy eg:labeling-a-snap.   <G2> eg:relatedBy eg:label-is-url-i-fetched-it-from  }
14:46:24 <tlebo> (what is going on?)
14:46:35 <Guus> q?
14:46:40 <Guus> ack swh
14:47:02 <yvesr> { ... } a eg:Snap
14:47:17 <cygri> swh++
14:47:33 <tlebo> swh: 10s millions of named graphs.
14:47:51 <danbri> I anticipate manifest graphs could use http://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF10/ to describe where date was gotten
14:48:12 <danbri> (if we have 10s of millions of named graphs, all the more reason to be able to navigate that jungle...)
14:48:45 <tlebo> gavinc: name of graph is distinct from subjects in the graph, o/w you run into the "OWL problem" b/c the graph name is the subject of the graph - it gets odd.
14:48:49 <sandro> for swh: { <endpoint> eg:uses-dataset-relation eg:labeling-a-snap }
14:49:17 <tlebo> davidwood: "owl problem" is bad name for it.
14:49:18 <swh> sandro, or { <dataset> eg:uses … }
14:49:45 <Guus> q?
14:49:49 <gavinc> ack me
14:49:56 <tlebo> (none of this matters as if you give URIs for the GraphContainers; let people describe what they want in RDF)
14:50:02 <AlexHall> the "graph/resource conflation" problem?
14:50:05 <tlebo> s/as if/if/
14:50:32 <tlebo> topic: review
14:50:36 <sandro> breajk for an hour in ten minutes
14:50:53 <sandro> guus: after break, go through issues list
14:51:06 <tlebo> guus: let's list issues
14:51:40 <tlebo> guus: what about manifest to discuss?
14:51:50 <Souri> s/breajk/break/
14:52:14 <tlebo> sandro: TRiGers, do you like something at top state relation, or add fifth column.
14:52:21 <tlebo> (this is already handled by <>)
14:52:22 <swh> -∞ to a 5th c��olumn
14:52:36 <cygri> q+ to ask what we would put in when dumping a sparql store
14:53:10 <Scott_Bauer> Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
14:53:23 <tlebo> @cygri, either <> or <URI_to_endpoint>
14:53:38 <sandro> PROPOSED: We add to TriG an optional 5 column relationship-indiciator, which defaults to "loose association" as now.
14:53:42 <AndyS> <> :namingStyle rdf:GBoxIdentifies .
14:53:46 <cygri> tlebo, my question� was about the relationship
14:53:52 <iand> wikipedia says "A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group such as a nation from within."
14:53:55 <tlebo> gavinc: 5th column does NOT mean fifth column.
14:54:28 <tlebo> context is already handled by where it is and where it came from - this is already represented.
14:54:29 <mischat> mischat has joined #rdf-wg
14:54:40 <tlebo> s/represented/representable/
14:54:57 <tlebo> sandro: could read the manifest as triples if you'd like.
14:55:59 <tlebo> topic: still manifests
14:56:16 <gavinc> TriG <G1> <eg:labeling-a-snap> {<s> <p> <o> }?
14:56:39 <tlebo> <> prov:wasDerivedFrom :process_of_dumping_SPARQL_endpoint .
14:56:44 <AndyS1> AndyS1 has joined #rdf-wg
14:56:47 <tlebo> <> prov:wasDerivedFrom : process_of_dumping_SPARQL_endpoint .
14:57:17 <tlebo> cygri: many will get confused and will just put garbage into it to "fill the field"
14:57:22 <tlebo> +100 @cygri
14:57:29 <tlebo> ... people dont' care.
14:57:52 <sandro> I think you're right cygri, and I dont know what to do about it.
14:57:55 <tlebo> guus: fine, but what are the benefits?
14:57:57 <yvesr> q+
14:58:12 <tlebo> UUU: it just needs a vocab.
14:58:20 <cygri> s/UUU/AndyS/
14:59:06 <AlexHall> it needs a vocab and a reasonable abstract syntax/semantics for RDF datasets that doesn't preclude reasonable things people want to do with that vocab
14:59:25 <pchampin> q+
14:59:34 <swh> swh has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:37 <cygri> ack me
14:59:37 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask what we would put in when dumping a sparql store
15:00:01 <tlebo> OOO: worried about the "one style" without being sure it's the right one. we already have a system to describe it (RDF)
15:00:12 <Guus> ack yvesr
15:00:15 <swh> +1 to AndyS
15:00:15 <sandro> +1 AndyS we can just tag the style in the TriG metadata
15:01:09 <tlebo> BBC: what do people gain? what is motivation to use it? use cases.
15:01:42 <gavinc> s/OOO/AndyS/
15:02:23 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:33 <mischat> surely when this becomes a real world problem, a WG could look at how people are tackling it in the wild 
15:02:33 <tlebo> maybeAndyS: incentive is need for knowledge, but no vocab to get it. Do not completely agree with cygri that can't be useful.
15:02:36 <yvesr> s/BBC/yvesr
15:02:49 <tlebo> (do we need to review what <> means, and that we can describe it with RDF?)
15:02:56 <yvesr> s/maybeAndyS/pchampin
15:02:57 <cygri> s/maybeAndyS/pchampin/
15:03:28 <tlebo> guus: will revisit issues list
15:03:36 <AZ> bye
15:03:49 <zwu2> I am leaving
15:04:10 <Souri> I need to leave ... meeting at office
15:04:22 <NickH> Zakim, mute MIT_Meeting_Room
15:04:34 <Zakim> -AZ
15:04:37 <cygri> zakim, mute me
15:04:50 <Zakim> MIT_Meeting_Room should now be muted
15:05:13 <Zakim> sorry, cygri, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:05:39 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:05:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see BBC, Peter_Patel-Schneider, MIT_Meeting_Room (muted)
15:06:03 <Zakim> MIT_Meeting_Room has MIT_Meeting_Room, Guus, thomas, danbri, steve, ivan, richard, andy, ian, pchamplin, yves, nicholas, micha, TedT
15:06:08 <Zakim> BBC has Guus, thomas, swh, ivan
15:06:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see AndyS, swh, mischat, Guus, danbri, tomayac, MacTed, zwu2, iand, AlexHall, gavinc, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, LeeF, pchampin, mox601, cygri, tlebo, ww, ericP, yvesr, manu,
15:06:15 <Zakim> ... NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro
15:06:32 <MacTed> Zakim, mute BBC
15:06:32 <Zakim> BBC should now be muted
15:16:49 <AlexHall_> AlexHall_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:21:25 <Scott_Bauer> Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
15:56:13 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
15:56:37 <Guus> reconvene in 5
15:56:48 <Guus> 5/4
15:59:52 <Guus>  Boston: ready to reconvene?
16:02:06 <AndyS1> AndyS1 has joined #rdf-wg
16:03:11 <cygri> danbri, thanks for http://www.w3.org/mid/CAFNgM+YE1Ld6iZdjYVQCGEuDw-L44PB1PAjt=e4XYJ389vORkQ@mail.gmail.com … well put!
16:03:29 <mischat> mischat has joined #rdf-wg
16:03:33 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see BBC (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, MIT_Meeting_Room (muted)
16:03:36 <Zakim> MIT_Meeting_Room has MIT_Meeting_Room, Guus, thomas, danbri, steve, ivan, richard, andy, ian, pchamplin, yves, nicholas, micha, TedT
16:03:39 <Zakim> BBC has Guus, thomas, swh, ivan
16:03:50 <NickH> Zakim, unmute BBC
16:03:50 <Zakim> BBC should no longer be muted
16:03:55 <NickH> Zakim, unmute MIT_Meeting_Room
16:03:55 <Zakim> MIT_Meeting_Room should no longer be muted
16:06:19 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to update rdf-concepts re ISSUE-71
16:06:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-97 - Update rdf-concepts re ISSUE-71 [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-20].
16:08:45 <iand> example of my use of graph literals: http://schemapedia.com/examples/cf314c8dab338aa1edaa93df2b54ad7b.rdf
16:08:53 <iand> no datatype though
16:09:10 <iand> schemapedia.com/examples/cf314c8dab338aa1edaa93df2b54ad7b.ttl is turtle version
16:09:16 <iand> http://schemapedia.com/examples/cf314c8dab338aa1edaa93df2b54ad7b.ttl
16:11:38 <iand> my use case is to embed examples of usage (i.e. to mention a set of triples without asserting them)
16:11:39 <gavinc> gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
16:13:08 <davidwood> davidwood has joined #rdf-wg
16:13:32 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
16:13:38 <gavinc> Topic: Raised Issues
16:13:40 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/raised
16:13:50 <NickH> scribe NickH 
16:13:51 <Scott_Bauer> Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
16:14:02 <NickH> scribe: NickH 
16:14:02 <davidwood> scribe: NickH
16:14:09 <AndyS1> AndyS1 has joined #rdf-wg
16:14:12 <NickH> davidwood: there are 8 issues marked as raised
16:14:23 <NickH> davidwood: think we want to open all of these
16:14:33 <NickH> davidwood: ISSUE-63 is the only one that is a black hole
16:14:42 <LeeF> LeeF has joined #rdf-wg
16:14:44 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/63
16:14:52 <LeeF> ISSUE-50?
16:14:52 <trackbot> ISSUE-50 -- Revisit "Request to allow b-nodes as property labels" -- raised
16:14:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/50
16:14:58 <LeeF> ISSUE-63?
16:14:58 <trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Introduce an HTML5 datatype -- raised
16:14:58 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/63
16:15:47 <NickH> davidwood: issue-50 is left over. We should mark it as declined because it isn't part of our charter
16:15:50 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/raised
16:16:18 <davidwood> Propose to close ISSUE-50 stating that this WG will not revisit this issue because it is not chartered to do so.
16:16:24 <iand> +1
16:16:28 <gavinc> +1
16:16:30 <AndyS1> +1
16:16:31 <NickH> +1
16:16:32 <pchampin> +1
16:16:33 <cygri> +2
16:16:46 <AlexHall> +1
16:16:53 <yvesr> +1
16:17:08 <tlebo> tlebo has joined #rdf-wg
16:17:10 <sandro> +1 bnodes as predicate identifiers?    kinda late for that in RDF.
16:17:11 <NickH> RESOLVED
16:17:38 <NickH> RESOLVED close ISSUE-50 stating that this WG will not  revisit this issue because it is not chartered to do so.
16:17:48 <sandro> RESOLVED:  close ISSUE-50 stating that this WG will not  revisit this issue because it is not chartered to do so.
16:17:53 <sandro> (need the colon)
16:18:07 <sandro> +1 open the RAISED issues
16:18:10 <NickH> davidwood: 7 remaining issues marked as 'raised'
16:18:15 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdf-wg
16:18:24 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdf-wg
16:18:39 <NickH> davidwood: any disscussion about these issues?
16:19:25 <gavinc> +1 
16:20:03 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-fragids-in-embedded-rdf 
16:20:07 <NickH> cygri: ISSUE-37 I am struggling to remember it
16:20:14 <NickH> cygri: left over from the previous group
16:20:15 <MacTed> RRSAgent, pointer?
16:20:15 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2011/10/13-rdf-wg-irc#T16-20-15
16:20:34 <NickH> cygri: it is reasonable to open it and think about if we should do anything about
16:20:47 <NickH> Guus: unlikely to result in spec change
16:20:58 <NickH> Guus: but might lead to some extra documentation
16:21:04 <cygri> +1 to opening all other raised issues
16:21:38 <NickH> davidwood: chairs can open the remaining issues but didn't want to open things that didn't need opening
16:21:54 <NickH> davidwood: lets move on to open issues
16:21:57 <cygri> q+ to ask if we can get products in the tracker for all specs
16:22:07 <pchampin> q-
16:22:08 <NickH> davidwood: lets focus on the open graph issues 
16:22:11 <davidwood> Topic: Open Issues
16:22:13 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/open?sort=product
16:23:46 <NickH> cygri: the products that we have at the moment are cleanup tasks, then each of the task forces
16:23:55 <sandro> +1 products = specs, if possible
16:23:58 <NickH> cygri: might be good the have products for each of the specs
16:24:23 <NickH> Guus: isn't a product for the primer
16:25:02 <NickH> davidwood: can easily create new projects for primer
16:25:09 <NickH> davidwood: created one for primer
16:25:12 <NickH> davidwood: created one for concepts
16:25:24 <iand> s/projects/products/
16:26:11 <cygri> ISSUE-76?
16:26:11 <trackbot> ISSUE-76 -- RDF Semantics and RDF Concepts disagree on definition of datatypes -- open
16:26:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/76
16:26:12 <NickH> davidwood: ISSUE-76 - which does it belong
16:26:38 <NickH> davidwood: putting it into concecpts
16:26:45 <NickH> cygri: it should go under semantics
16:27:34 <LeeF> ISSUE-75?
16:27:34 <trackbot> ISSUE-75 -- Valid plain literals containing #x0 are ill-typed in RDF 1.1 -- open
16:27:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/75
16:27:40 <NickH> davidwood: where would you put ISSUE-75?
16:27:49 <NickH> cygri: concepts
16:28:15 <NickH> davidwood: last uncategorised on is ISSUE-39
16:29:19 <NickH> ACTION: sandro to rdf: and rdfs: namespace should resolve to something that meets best practices
16:29:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-98 - Rdf: and rdfs: namespace should resolve to something that meets best practices [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-10-20].
16:29:54 <davidwood>  CLOSED: ISSUE-39
16:29:56 <NickH>  CLOSE: ISSUE-39
16:30:22 <NickH> davidwood: everything is categorised correctly more or less
16:30:50 <NickH> davidwood: starting with cleanup tasks
16:31:27 <NickH> ISSUE-6?
16:31:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-6 -- Handling RDF Errata -- open
16:31:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/6
16:31:43 <gavinc> Better view: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/5
16:32:20 <NickH> davidwood: asks cygri is this is done for Concepts
16:32:32 <NickH> cygri: either been addressed or there are open issues for it
16:33:53 <NickH> ISSUE-7?
16:33:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- Leftover issues from the RDF Core WG -- open
16:33:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/7
16:34:37 <NickH> davidwood: we have closed a number of these - can either close or open a other issue
16:34:45 <NickH> davidwood: propose closing ISSUE-7
16:35:27 <NickH> davidwood: spent time on this in several telecons in June
16:35:37 <NickH> davidwood: confident that we can close this
16:36:12 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-7 because all leftover issues have either resulted in new open issues or closed issues due to compliance with our charter.
16:36:53 <NickH> ISSUE-9?
16:36:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-9 -- Inference rules are incomplete in the RDF Semantics -- open
16:36:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/9
16:36:56 <AlexHall> fyi, issues 42-62 cover the postponed issues from last wg
16:37:46 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/9
16:37:48 <NickH> davidwood: what does pfps want to do with ISSUE-9?
16:38:18 <NickH> pfps: we should deal with it
16:38:32 <NickH> Guus: added a product 'RDF Semantics' and moved it there
16:39:06 <NickH> ISSUE-10?
16:39:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-10 -- Look if there are RDF(S) notions that are to be deprecated -- open
16:39:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/10
16:39:18 <danbri> cygri, re Sindice etc ... how much rss1 is still usefully out there?
16:39:56 <NickH> davidwood: going to leave gavinc to do some work on ISSUE-10
16:40:05 <NickH> ISSUE-11?
16:40:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-11 -- Reconciliation of various, semantics-oriented documents with the core RDF ones -- open
16:40:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/11
16:41:04 <NickH> davidwood: 
16:41:31 <NickH> davidwood: we leave ISSUE-11 open until our documents are closer to being ready
16:41:34 <gavinc> ISSUE-24?
16:41:34 <trackbot> ISSUE-24 -- Should we deprecate RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq)? -- open
16:41:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/24
16:41:38 <gavinc> ISSUE-25?
16:41:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-25 -- Should we deprecate (RDF 2004) reification of statements? -- open
16:41:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/25
16:41:46 <gavinc> Can close ISSUE-10
16:42:09 <NickH> davidwood: would you like to look at ISSUE-11 in relation to SPARQL 1.1
16:42:21 <NickH> AndyS: would rather not
16:42:50 <NickH> ACTION sandro to look at ISSUE-11 in relation to  SPARQL 1.1
16:42:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-99 - Look at ISSUE-11 in relation to  SPARQL 1.1 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-10-20].
16:42:57 <AlexHall> deprecated/archaic features: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/ArchaicFeatures (needs clean-up)
16:42:58 <sandro> action: sandro to ask editors of SPARQL Entailment Regimes what they'd suggest RDF specs says about their work.
16:42:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-100 - Ask editors of SPARQL Entailment Regimes what they'd suggest RDF specs says about their work. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-10-20].
16:43:40 <gavinc> Really? RDF XML Literals got lucky 13?
16:44:44 <NickH> Guus: leave ISSUE-13 open for now
16:45:58 <NickH> davidwood: if you think we are ready to close ISSUEs-24 and ISSUE-25, then go for it now
16:46:59 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:  we'll suggest people stop using RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq) in new work.
16:47:12 <NickH> +1
16:47:16 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:  we'll suggest people stop using RDF containers (Alt, Bag, Seq) in new work. (and close ISSUE-24)
16:47:16 <sandro> +1
16:47:18 <NickH> +1
16:47:23 <davidwood> +1
16:47:26 <cygri> q+ to ask what they should use instead
16:47:26 <LeeF> +1
16:47:27 <iand> -1
16:47:31 <AlexHall> +1
16:47:34 <danbri> Proposed: "WG resolves that representing 'ordering' in any open world binary-relation logic language is intrinsically rather annoying; practitioners are notified that RDF containers are annoying, but so are the linked list thingies, and each may be differingly annoying in different situations."
16:47:35 <davidwood> ack cygri
16:47:35 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask if we can get products in the tracker for all specs and to ask what they should use instead
16:47:39 <danbri> -0.12
16:48:07 <NickH> cygri: what is the alternative? Can we put some test in describing what people should do?
16:48:24 <NickH> davidwood: we should promote RDF Lists
16:48:39 <sandro> s/davidwood/sandro/
16:48:45 <NickH> iand: I don't agree that we should tell people to stop using them
16:48:50 <danbri> q?
16:49:07 <AndyS> -X unless we propose an alternative (not sure on X yet)
16:49:22 <danbri> proposed: "Bag and Alt are mostly harmless, mostly useless."
16:49:58 <NickH> davidwood: can I suggest that we have a proposal that we vote on, to jsut depricate Alt and Bag
16:50:06 <NickH> s/jsut/just/
16:50:21 <davidwood> Propose to deprecate ALT with the language proposed at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/ArchaicFeatures
16:50:27 <NickH> sandro: is anyone going to object to deprecating Bag and Alt?
16:50:29 <NickH> iand: yes
16:50:32 <NickH> danbri: yes
16:50:45 <danbri> '       This is an archaic feature of RDF.  It was included in the        RDF specifications published in 1999 and 2004, but we no        longer recommend it be used in new deployments.  Some existing        software uses it, however, and it will be present in some        archival data, so general purpose software must handle it        correctly.  See @@@ for a more information.'
16:50:55 <pfps> +1
16:51:00 <NickH> davidwood: deprecate does not mean remove
16:51:08 <iand> +1 to archaic
16:51:21 <NickH> danbri: I don't like deprecate and rdf:Seq has its uses
16:51:42 <NickH> danbri: language will be 'This is an archaic feature of RDF'
16:51:46 <cygri> +1 to the text in wiki/ArchaicFeatures for alt, bag and seq
16:51:57 <NickH> s/danbri/davidwood/
16:51:57 <sandro> PROPOSED: Mark rdf:Alt as an archaic features of RDF
16:52:08 <NickH> danbri: I don't object
16:52:13 <NickH> iand: I don't object
16:52:17 <MacTed> +1 proposal
16:52:17 <danbri> Ian agrees with me
16:52:22 <swh> +1
16:52:28 <iand> i agree with dan
16:52:31 <NickH> iand: I agree with danbri 
16:52:32 <sandro> PROPOSED: Mark rdf:Alt as an archaic features of RDF
16:52:40 <gavinc> +1
16:52:40 <NickH> +1
16:52:41 <sandro> +1
16:52:41 <iand> +1
16:52:42 <davidwood> +1
16:52:42 <pfps> +1
16:52:44 <swh> +1
16:52:45 <Guus> =1
16:52:49 <mischat> PROPOSED: Mark rdf:Alt and rdf:Bag as an archaic features of RDF ?
16:52:50 <pchampin> +1
16:52:54 <danbri> stop calling it 'deprecated' please, that's too harsh terminology. I do not want to tell people that their data is bad; just that it is unfashionable.
16:53:17 <mischat> s/PROPOSED: Mark rdf:Alt and rdf:Bag as an archaic features of RDF \?//
16:53:19 <sandro> RESOLVED: Mark rdf:Alt as an archaic features of RDF
16:53:19 <NickH> davidwood: we won't use the term 'deprecated' anymore
16:53:21 <davidwood> RESOLVED: Mark rdf:Alt as an archaic features of RDF
16:53:30 <davidwood> PROPOSED: Mark rdf:Bag as an archaic features of RDF
16:53:36 <sandro> +1
16:53:38 <NickH> +1
16:53:39 <iand> +1
16:53:39 <MacTed> +1
16:53:40 <pfps> +1
16:53:40 <danbri> +1
16:53:41 <swh> +1
16:53:41 <davidwood> +1
16:53:55 <mischat> +1
16:53:56 <pchampin> +1
16:54:08 <NickH> ericP: what is the alternative?
16:54:19 <yvesr> +1
16:54:21 <sandro> eric: I don't know what to tell people to use instead.   Maybe     x hasFlagColor :red, :blue, :green
16:54:39 <NickH> ericP: I am not really sure what to tell people
16:54:53 <NickH> ericP: is the answer to tell people to use a repeated property?
16:55:02 <iand> people can use custom sequence properties, ex:sequence "1"
16:55:14 <sandro> davidwood: I use a repeated property, possibly off another node.
16:55:18 <pchampin> @ericP: that would be my answer
16:55:39 <gavinc> +1
16:55:56 <NickH> davidwood: are you going to formally object?
16:56:01 <NickH> ericP: no, no
16:56:10 <davidwood> RESOLVED: Mark rdf:Bag as an archaic features of RDF
16:56:28 <NickH> sandro: is anyone objecting?
16:56:33 <NickH> danbri: yes
16:56:35 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
16:56:48 <NickH> danbri: going to close ISSUE-24
16:56:55 <sandro> s/?/ to doing this with Seq?/
16:57:14 <NickH> s/danbri/davidwood/
16:58:04 <NickH> davidwood: closing ISSUE-24
16:58:04 <sandro> ISSUE: Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic  (cf ISSUE-24)
16:58:05 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-77 - Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic  (cf ISSUE-24) ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77/edit .
16:58:33 <NickH> danbri leaves
16:59:29 <NickH> Guus is packing up
16:59:54 <NickH> Guus: my plane is in 2 hours
17:00:33 <NickH> davidwood: I missed you Guus
17:00:45 <tlebo> q+ to ask what OWL 2's annotations fixed that was broken in RDF's reification? (or if OWL 2 fixed them)
17:00:49 <NickH> ISSUE-25?
17:00:49 <trackbot> ISSUE-25 -- Should we deprecate (RDF 2004) reification of statements? -- open
17:00:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/25
17:02:14 <gavin_> gavin_ has joined #rdf-wg
17:02:29 <tlebo> owl 2 annotations don't carry any truthfulness in them.
17:02:35 <NickH> pfps: sparql annotations and RDF Reification are completely different
17:02:46 <tlebo> RDF's intent was to be "truthiness"
17:02:49 <yvesr> s/sparql/OWL
17:03:18 <tlebo> "owl annotations are just data sitting on the side; do with it what you will"
17:03:22 <tlebo> q-
17:03:52 <NickH> pfps: when you talk about the truthiness of the Reification, you get the truthiness of the RDF
17:04:18 <AndyS> statings
17:04:21 <NickH> davidwood: when you make a statement about another statement - you are saying something about it
17:04:29 <NickH> davidwood: I could say that it is false
17:05:07 <NickH> davidwood: I think what pfps is saying is, the ability for you saying that statement is true is by expessing a fact about another triple
17:05:31 <NickH> davidwood: I am not saying I agree with it, I am saying I understand what he is saying
17:05:42 <tlebo> RDF had more "truthiness" of the triple cited; while OWL 2 is completely agnostic to the truth of the triple being cited.
17:06:23 <tlebo> Then let's deprecate RDF reification and use OWL 2 if we still want it.
17:06:24 <NickH> davidwood: there is no explicit truthiness tie, just making a statement
17:06:30 <pfps> owl 2 annotations aren't about statements at all, of course, they are "about" classes (or ....)
17:07:08 <tlebo> the rdfs:range of owl:annotatedSource is owl:Class ?
17:07:10 <NickH> sandro: happy to mark Reification as archaic as long as we can provide something to replace it with
17:07:16 <tlebo> (@pfps)
17:07:35 <pfps> saying Bird creationdate 11/11/11 isn't saying something about a logical construct, but is instead might be saying something about an object
17:07:50 <NickH> davidwood: I didn't hear pfps respone to my paraphrasing of him
17:08:31 <NickH> davidwood: not concened about OWL annotations - interested in the deprecation of RDF Reification
17:09:01 <iand> q+
17:09:09 <davidwood> Straw poll: Should we mark rdf 2004 reification as archaic?
17:09:15 <davidwood> ack iand
17:09:17 <ericP> -0
17:09:48 <gavin_> -0 to wait until something can replace it exists
17:09:57 <NickH> iand: want to make a distinction between reification mechanics and the language used for reification
17:10:19 <NickH> iand: happy to make reification mechanics as archaic
17:10:33 <NickH> iand: as long as the language remains
17:10:49 <NickH> iand: the Talis changespec uses RDF reification
17:11:07 <yvesr> -0 until we understand what we're going to do about graphs and whether we can describe how users can replace one by the other
17:11:14 <sandro> sandro: so let's postpone issue-25 until we have a better solution, then we can mark RDF reificaton as archaic.
17:11:26 <sandro> ian: The reification mechanics (the vocab) are different from the concept of reification in general    
17:11:27 <sandro> maybe I got that wrong...
17:11:32 <sandro> ian: I need the reif spec.
17:11:34 <sandro> s/spev/vocab/
17:11:35 <tlebo> (sorry, @iand - I think i was using @iand to reference Ivan earlier...)
17:11:40 <NickH> pchampin: we are depreicating the non existant reification mechanics
17:11:51 <NickH> davidwood: is there something better?
17:11:58 <cygri> +1 to the archaification of reification
17:12:03 <NickH> iand: I can't think of anyting better at the moment
17:12:49 <NickH> swh: archaic just means that you shouldn't do anything new with it, not that you can't use it for old things
17:12:54 <LeeF> ISSUE-37?
17:12:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- Handling of fragment identifiers in RDF embedded in other document formats -- open
17:12:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/37
17:12:58 <LeeF> ISSUE-46?
17:12:58 <trackbot> ISSUE-46 -- Revisit "Should RDF have a mechanism for declaring two uri's to be equivalent?" -- open
17:12:58 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/46
17:13:16 <NickH> iand: might be a long time before I can change, don't like that idea of my customers using something marked as archaic
17:13:29 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to propose resolution for ISSUE-37 and ISSUE-69
17:13:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-101 - Propose resolution for ISSUE-37 and ISSUE-69 [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-20].
17:13:41 <AndyS> q+
17:13:54 <NickH> pchampin: my memory of it was that I was the only one who wanted to discuss it
17:14:11 <AndyS> q-
17:14:12 <NickH> pchampin: I had a feeling that people were strongly opposed to it
17:14:13 <gavin_> +0.5 to include sameAssness in RDF (would defer to JJC for a full +1)
17:14:18 <NickH> pchampin: I can live without it
17:14:36 <AlexHall> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-04#ISSUE__2d_46__3f_
17:14:50 <iand> for clarity on ISSUE-25: reification mechanics is http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Reification and reification vocabulary is http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_reificationvocab
17:15:09 <AndyS>  rdf:sameAs owl:sameAs owl:sameAs
17:15:24 <gavin_> Yes, that ;)
17:15:39 <iand>  rdf:sameAs owl:equivalentProperty owl:sameAs
17:15:48 <davidwood> Propose to close ISSUE-46 because owl:sameAs is already widely used and accepted.  This WG has no better answer.
17:15:50 <pchampin>  rdf:sameAs rdf:sameAs owl:sameAs
17:15:55 <pfps> +1
17:15:58 <NickH> +1
17:16:09 <cygri> +!
17:16:11 <gavin_> -0.5 as it adds little bits of OWL when you really don
17:16:13 <cygri> +1
17:16:13 <gavin_> 't need it
17:16:15 <iand> -0
17:16:20 <sandro> +1
17:16:22 <MacTed> +1
17:16:25 <pchampin> +0
17:16:25 <AlexHall> +1
17:16:26 <AndyS> +0.5
17:16:35 <tlebo> OWL is just another vocabulary.
17:16:52 <iand> +1
17:16:54 <AndyS> (other useful owl-isms?)
17:17:06 <davidwood> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-46 with no action.
17:17:12 <gavin_> Yeah, basiclly RDFS Plus
17:17:15 <pchampin> @Andy: InverseFunctionalProperty ?
17:17:20 <gavin_>  owl:sameAs and owl:import
17:17:44 <iand> wasn't owl:imports a bug? :)
17:18:05 <pchampin>  owl:imports owl:sameAs rdf:subject
17:18:12 <AndyS> IFP, FP, symmetric,...
17:18:14 <NickH> ISSUE-62?
17:18:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-62 -- Revisit "The test cases manifest format has a semantic error" -- open
17:18:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/62
17:18:46 <NickH> davidwood: had anyone looked at test cases recently?
17:18:57 <cygri> q?
17:19:50 <NickH> davidwood: would anyone like to volenteer to take over the RDF test cases?
17:19:59 <NickH> <silence>
17:20:10 <NickH> davidwood: will have to rope ericP into it later
17:20:26 <NickH> ISSUE-1?
17:20:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-1 -- Is TURTLE the same as SPARQL 1.1 triple syntax? -- open
17:20:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/1
17:20:28 <tlebo> @iand, "URI reference event r"  from http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Reification; huh?
17:20:40 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0174.html Test case semantic error
17:21:15 <sandro> gavin_: "Yes, But...."
17:21:47 <NickH> gavin_: escaoping...
17:22:07 <NickH> gavin_: they could be the same apart from some well motivated exceptions
17:22:10 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-1 saying they should be the same except for well-motivated (and small) exceptions.
17:22:36 <NickH> davidwood: not sure we have resolved this issue
17:22:51 <cygri> +1
17:22:54 <sandro> +1
17:22:57 <NickH> sandro: I think we can close this issue
17:22:57 <gavin_> +1
17:23:07 <davidwood> +1
17:23:07 <AndyS> suggest one SPARQL and one RDF person catelogue differences
17:23:09 <MacTed> +1
17:23:14 <gavin_> Hi Andy ;)
17:23:16 <NickH> +1
17:23:49 <AndyS> q+
17:24:07 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-1 saying they should be the same except for well-motivated (and small) exceptions.
17:24:08 <NickH> gavin_: until Turtle gets closer to being final, hope that the differences will go away
17:24:14 <davidwood> ack AndyS
17:24:25 <NickH> AndyS: no point if you have resolved it
17:24:42 <NickH> AndyS: we should have a definativce cataglogue of what the differences are
17:24:58 <pchampin> s/definativce/definitive/
17:25:00 <NickH> AndyS: and then work out if it makes sense or not
17:25:18 <NickH> AndyS: I volenteer to do the work from the SPARQL side
17:25:33 <AndyS> For now, on the wiki.
17:25:41 <NickH> davidwood: who shall do the work from the Turtle side?
17:25:51 <NickH> gavin_: me
17:27:02 <AndyS> NB This applies to TriG as well.  e.g. trailing DOT
17:27:18 <davidwood> Andy and Gavin will create a list of issues between SPARQL and Turtle.  The list will be maintained on the RDF WG wiki and may become an appendix to the Turtle spec.
17:27:34 <NickH> AndyS: yes, that is fine
17:27:38 <NickH> gavin_: yup
17:28:13 <tlebo> +1
17:28:18 <tlebo> (we have issues)
17:28:51 <yvesr> no
17:29:14 <NickH> davidwood: we resolve to put N-Triples into the Turtle document
17:29:49 <NickH> gavin_: no resolution on what to do with old N-Triples that doesn't have a media type and new n-Triples that does have a media type
17:29:55 <AndyS> As long as there is a NT language and mime type (and its suggested to use UTF-8) somewhere
17:30:02 <AndyS> Ditto NQ
17:30:22 <NickH> ISSUE-19?
17:30:22 <trackbot> ISSUE-19 -- Should TURTLE allow triples like "[ :p 123 ]." as SPARQL does ? -- open
17:30:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/19
17:30:41 <NickH> gavin_: this can be resolved closed as a duplicate of ISSUE-1
17:30:54 <NickH> gavin_: I have just closed ISSUE-1
17:31:11 <NickH> ISSUE-73?
17:31:11 <trackbot> ISSUE-73 -- IRI_REF vs. IRIref -- open
17:31:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/73
17:31:29 <NickH> gavin_: I need to resolve this with AndyS 
17:31:43 <NickH> davidwood: do you need help from the working group?
17:31:53 <NickH> gavin_: I need help from AndyS
17:32:04 <NickH> gavin_: they are subtly different
17:32:22 <NickH> gavin_: they shouldn't be combined, they should be renamed
17:33:12 <NickH> ISSUE-74?
17:33:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-74 -- Prefixed names and slashes -- open
17:33:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/74
17:33:38 <NickH> gavin_: this is actually a working group issue
17:33:52 <NickH> both are agreed and people think both are right
17:34:12 <NickH> davidwood: end of the Turtle Issues
17:34:20 <NickH> davidwood: lets go to RDF General
17:34:23 <NickH> ISSUE-3?
17:34:23 <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
17:34:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/3
17:34:41 <NickH> davidwood: certainly have to do that, certainly havn't done it
17:34:45 <NickH> davidwood: lets move on
17:35:19 <NickH> sandro: if it doesn't require a working group decision, better to put an action on somebody
17:35:50 <NickH> davidwood: I think we should put an action on Ivan
17:36:06 <NickH> davidwood: I can't imageine who else could do this well
17:36:15 <NickH> sandro: I think cygri would do a good job
17:36:39 <tlebo> also not hearing things.
17:36:40 <mischat> mischat has joined #rdf-wg
17:37:53 <NickH> cygri: I am not going to volenteer for this because I think it is going to be a lot of work
17:38:13 <NickH> davidwood: wondering if one of Guus's students might want to do this
17:38:34 <NickH> work for someone young, keen and wanting to prove himself
17:39:17 <sandro> action: davidwood ask Guus to find a student to do the work of ISSUE-3
17:39:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-102 - Ask Guus to find a student to do the work of ISSUE-3 [on David Wood - due 2011-10-20].
17:39:20 <Scott_Bauer>  scribe: scott
17:39:28 <sandro> scribe: scott
17:40:48 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  issue 65 where do these exist?
17:40:52 <LeeF> ISSUE-65?
17:40:52 <trackbot> ISSUE-65 -- Update XSD 1.0 references to XSD 1.1 -- open
17:40:52 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/65
17:40:57 <cygri> q+
17:42:54 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  we have rdf concepts written when rdf was xml.  We ought to push xsd to serializations.
17:43:22 <Scott_Bauer> … need to change wording in concepts.
17:43:38 <davidwood> ack cygri
17:44:17 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: a broader point.  Can't have a literal anymore in 1.1.  need something more in rdf concepts
17:44:47 <Scott_Bauer> … datatypes only get into rdf when you get into semantics.  needs to change.
17:44:56 <gavin_> s/literal/plain literal/
17:45:02 <pchampin> q+ to ask richard about simple entailment
17:45:03 <Scott_Bauer> … needs to somehow include xsd: string
17:45:35 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  we have clean up to do in rdf concepts
17:45:46 <Scott_Bauer> … section 5 datatypes.
17:46:31 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to mention ISSUE-65 in RDF Concepts ED (Section 5)
17:46:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-103 - Mention ISSUE-65 in RDF Concepts ED (Section 5) [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-20].
17:46:40 <Scott_Bauer> action: cygri to add issue 65 as an issue on the rdf concepts section 5 datatypes
17:46:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-104 - Add issue 65 as an issue on the rdf concepts section 5 datatypes [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-20].
17:47:08 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood: alex does that address your issue on issue 65
17:47:32 <Scott_Bauer> … richard I propose to take your action and close action 65.
17:47:58 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: at this point its in CR
17:48:28 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood: we can raise an new issue if it stalls
17:48:44 <Scott_Bauer> … closing issue 65 moving to an editorial action.
17:48:56 <Scott_Bauer> … on rdf concepts
17:49:03 <Scott_Bauer> topic: issue 66
17:49:48 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  this needs to be a semantics issue
17:50:11 <Scott_Bauer> alexwood:  owl2 and rid add some not referenced in semantics
17:50:26 <davidwood> s/alexwood/alexhall/
17:50:48 <Scott_Bauer> cygrid:  the concepts in rdf semantics are practical and should be in semantics
17:51:07 <Scott_Bauer> s/cygrid/cygri
17:51:18 <pchampin> s/concepts/list of XSD datatypes/
17:51:24 <iand> he said the datatype list should be in concepts (as well as semantics)
17:51:32 <gavin_> +1
17:51:42 <pchampin> s/be in semantics/be in RDF concepts/
17:51:45 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  list of datatypes that are in recommended for use in semantics should be in concepts
17:51:50 <mischat> +1
17:51:50 <iand> +1
17:51:53 <pchampin> +1
17:51:55 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood: i concur
17:51:57 <yvesr> +1
17:52:04 <davidwood> +1
17:52:43 <Scott_Bauer> action: cygri contact pat and peter and make sure they are ok with this 
17:52:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-105 - Contact pat and peter and make sure they are ok with this  [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-20].
17:53:33 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  lets leave graphs alone
17:53:46 <gavin_> action: gavinc add link from Turtle datatypes section to recommended list in concepts
17:53:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Add link from Turtle datatypes section to recommended list in concepts [on Gavin Carothers - due 2011-10-20].
17:53:48 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood: topic issue 16
17:54:02 <Scott_Bauer> topic: issue 16
17:54:08 <cygri> ISSUE-16?
17:54:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-16 -- What is the normative serialization of the JSON grammar? -- open
17:54:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/16
17:54:16 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood: should this be an issue at all?
17:55:16 <Scott_Bauer> … this should remain open and we move on
17:55:29 <Scott_Bauer> topic: issue 69
17:55:58 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood: richard gave himself an action for 34 and 69.  will propose something
17:56:28 <Scott_Bauer> topic: issue 70
17:56:45 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  close as an editorial issue
17:56:54 <Scott_Bauer> … ?
17:57:04 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  I'd like to keep it open
17:57:33 <gavin_> issue-75?
17:57:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-75 -- Valid plain literals containing #x0 are ill-typed in RDF 1.1 -- open
17:57:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/75
17:57:45 <Scott_Bauer> topic: issue 75
17:58:55 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  unicode not allowed in xml version.  all sorts of formerly valid rdf plain literals are no longer valid
17:59:27 <Scott_Bauer> … unicode .0
18:00:11 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  what should the resolution be?
18:00:41 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  we should have all the changes rdf 1.0 and 1.1 in same place.
18:01:11 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  put it in use cases and requirements?
18:01:38 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: do we have such a document?
18:01:44 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: no
18:02:04 <iand> we should notify community early to see if it breaks any implementations
18:02:06 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  will create a note -- not an action item.
18:02:23 <Scott_Bauer> … 
18:02:56 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  we put it in rdf concepts now?
18:03:36 <AlexHall> how many implementors validate xsd:strings right now?
18:03:49 <iand> we could write a negative test case:  :x :y "\u0000" .
18:04:09 <iand> ask implementors to try that test and see if they handle it
18:04:11 <Scott_Bauer> letting cygri create the action item?
18:04:16 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to add a note to RDF Concepts re ISSUE-75
18:04:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-107 - Add a note to RDF Concepts re ISSUE-75 [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-20].
18:04:19 <sandro> gavin_: This wasn't a problem pre-turtle because no syntax could express it.
18:04:51 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  Ian's says it should be a test case
18:05:06 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc:  it can't be expressed in n-triples
18:05:30 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: it's a syntax error -- you expect it to fail
18:05:36 <iand> it can be expressed in ntriples (as above) but it is just datatype invalid
18:05:54 <Scott_Bauer> topic: issue 76
18:06:18 <cygri> sandro++
18:06:46 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  close issue 75 first
18:06:48 <iand> If i can write "x"^^xsd:int then I can write "\u0000"^^xsd:string
18:07:05 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood: closing issue 75
18:07:36 <Scott_Bauer> … issue 76 overcome by events if datatypes move from semantics to concepts
18:07:49 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  it's a bug and needs to stay open.
18:08:15 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  we resolved this at an earlier date but we forgot to close it 
18:08:35 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  pat closed it
18:08:53 <NickH> ACTION-76?
18:08:53 <trackbot> ACTION-76 -- Patrick Hayes to summarize the options -- due 2011-08-24 -- CLOSED
18:08:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/76
18:09:03 <Scott_Bauer> this was action 76
18:09:08 <gavin_> iand, I agree (sort of) but I don't think you could write Recomended RDF that used #x0 at all.
18:09:37 <gavin_> by a strict reading of the specifications
18:09:49 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  action: check with pat hayes to see if issue 76 can be closed
18:10:04 <Scott_Bauer> action: check with pat hayes to see if issue 76 can be closed
18:10:04 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - check
18:10:35 <davidwood> action: davidwood to check with pat hayes to see if issue 76 can be closed
18:10:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Check with pat hayes to see if issue 76 can be closed [on David Wood - due 2011-10-20].
18:10:54 <MacTed> RRSAgent, drop action 11
18:11:04 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  only other issues are with graphs
18:11:30 <Scott_Bauer> … we can do issues for graphs or we can talk about the primer
18:11:30 <cygri> "Review of all outstanding Documents that the WG is updating."
18:11:56 <cygri> q+ to suggest "Review of all outstanding Documents that the WG is updating."
18:12:15 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  issue 21 re node sharing is a possibilities
18:12:24 <pchampin> q-
18:12:31 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  let's not look at graphs now
18:12:37 <gavin_> +1 no more talking about graphs
18:12:39 <iand> no issues were raised from our f2f discussions on named graphs. pity we couldn't get concrete issues from them
18:12:53 <iand> gavin_: we can't talk about graphs anyway
18:13:14 <gavin_> ack cygri
18:13:14 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to suggest "Review of all outstanding Documents that the WG is updating."
18:13:18 <sandro> indeed, iand....     :-(
18:13:18 <Scott_Bauer> … review outstanding documents
18:13:39 <Scott_Bauer> … need editors drafts for other documents
18:13:54 <Scott_Bauer> … check up on prospective editors for these
18:14:07 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  we should look into the editors list
18:14:47 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  we need to do one issue per week before last call
18:15:20 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  let's go through the editors list
18:15:38 <Scott_Bauer> … we'll do the primer if we have time.
18:15:56 <sandro> s/do one/close one (on average)/
18:16:09 <Scott_Bauer> … vocabulary.  we had dan brickley.  Do we need a co-editor
18:16:16 <Scott_Bauer> … anyone interested
18:16:33 <pchampin> and if he does, I volunteer
18:16:41 <Scott_Bauer> action:  davidwood ask danbri if he would like a co-editor on vocabulary
18:16:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-109 - Ask danbri if he would like a co-editor on vocabulary [on David Wood - due 2011-10-20].
18:17:23 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood: n-triples two oracle editors on one documents. 
18:17:42 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc:  they raised objections and were made editors as a result.
18:19:06 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  a fait accompli n-triples will be a part of the turtle doc
18:19:13 <iand> thanks sandro - i work better through the medium of text :)
18:19:33 <Scott_Bauer> … sour and she will work with gavin on the document
18:19:48 <Scott_Bauer> s/sour/souri
18:19:56 <gavin_> s/she/zhe/
18:21:15 <Guus> Guus has joined #rdf-wg
18:21:33 <Guus> [from Heathrow]
18:21:59 <gavin_> This is the Linked Data API stuff yes?
18:22:08 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  yves could you describe any progress on the JSON recipes note
18:22:27 <Scott_Bauer> yvesr:  have not started on it yet.
18:23:29 <Scott_Bauer> action: davidwood ping fabian re rdf syntax spec revised
18:23:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-110 - Ping fabian re rdf syntax spec revised [on David Wood - due 2011-10-20].
18:24:12 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  richard the n-quad syntax?
18:24:43 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  we don't know what's going to have until abstract syntax is better developed
18:24:48 <tomayac> tomayac has joined #rdf-wg
18:25:06 <Scott_Bauer> … might be part of the turtle work for eric or gavin?
18:25:42 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  I disagree.  we agreed that turtle would not deal with named graphs.
18:26:05 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc:  I'm willing to work with someone on the the trig syntax.
18:26:22 <Scott_Bauer> … I'd like someone else to co-edit
18:27:14 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  trig and n-quads I've worked with but syntax is a lot of detailed syntax gavin is better at.
18:27:27 <Scott_Bauer> … grammar is 95% the same
18:27:42 <Scott_Bauer> gavin:  I need some else but I agree
18:27:50 <Scott_Bauer> … the grammar will not be repeated.
18:28:15 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  Once we know abstract syntax we should revisit.
18:28:41 <Scott_Bauer> … concepts work is unknown.  Work may go well
18:29:04 <Scott_Bauer> … I might consider in the future but not now. 
18:29:49 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  process question for sandro. 
18:29:58 <sandro> change the shortname "rdf-syntax-grammar" to "rdf-xml"
18:30:01 <sandro> seems fine to me.
18:31:34 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  should we do anything with our last 30 minutes
18:32:31 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  I have much of the scribe cleanup done but you are free to clean them up as necessary.
18:33:28 <Scott_Bauer> … (referring to the minutes)
18:34:21 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  rdf primer is scheduled what do people want?
18:35:08 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  will it be a multi syntax document
18:35:11 <Guus> should come back on a  telecon
18:35:20 <Scott_Bauer> davidwood:  that would be great
18:35:41 <Guus> 1st version turtle/trig, add others later
18:36:27 <Scott_Bauer> … good for the community if all the serializations are represented in the primer.
18:36:52 <Guus> sure
18:36:55 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc:  only one will have named graphs or can deal with it.
18:37:22 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: convenient in trig doable in others
18:37:38 <Scott_Bauer> … near a clear model use trig
18:38:34 <sandro> sandro: Once we have a clear enough model, I think it will be easy enough to define a useable way to do it in pure triples.
18:38:47 <Scott_Bauer> s/near a clear mode/need a clear model/
18:39:06 <sandro> PROPOSED: The primer should have examples in each of our syntaxes
18:39:17 <gavin_> +1
18:39:18 <pchampin> +1
18:39:19 <MacTed> +1
18:39:20 <sandro> +1
18:39:20 <davidwood> +1
18:39:23 <Scott_Bauer> +1
18:39:25 <Guus> +1
18:39:30 <sandro> RESOLVED: The primer should have examples in each of our syntaxes
18:39:45 <sandro> PROPOSED: The primer should have a section on each of our syntaxes
18:39:45 <davidwood> +1
18:39:49 <gavin_> +1
18:39:49 <MacTed> +1
18:39:49 <sandro> +1
18:39:51 <pchampin> +1
18:39:55 <Scott_Bauer> +1
18:39:59 <sandro> RESOLVED: The primer should have a section on each of our syntaxes
18:40:10 <sandro> PROPOSED: The primer should be 500 bytes long.
18:40:11 <Guus> this section may be an appendix
18:40:27 <sandro> PROPOSED: The section on RDF/XML should not be first
18:40:32 <pchampin> +1000
18:40:36 <Guus> good to limit main text length
18:40:57 <sandro> Guus?  I thought you left...
18:41:03 <Guus> [anybody hearing me?]
18:41:05 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The section on RDF/XML should be the last syntactical section.  Turtle should be first.
18:41:13 <cygri> PROPOSED: The full text for the RDF/XML section should be: “Don't.”
18:41:15 <davidwood> Guus: We don't hear you
18:41:23 <davidwood> Please vote on:
18:41:28 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The section on RDF/XML should be the last syntactical section.  Turtle should be first.
18:41:31 <MacTed> +1
18:41:35 <cygri> +1
18:41:36 <pchampin> +1
18:41:44 <AlexHall> +1
18:41:44 <gavin_> +1 given that we resolve name graphs in turtle ;)
18:41:45 <Guus> i think this is going in tto much detail, just formulate reqs, not structure
18:41:48 <sandro> +0 I think that's a little much
18:41:50 <gavin_> hehe
18:41:59 <gavin_> You think? ;)
18:42:32 <gavin_> AlexHall: What font should we use?
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00001633