Chatlog 2011-11-02

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

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

14:23:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:23:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc
14:23:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:23:46 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:23:48 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
14:23:48 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 37 minutes
14:23:49 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:23:49 <trackbot> Date: 02 November 2011
14:52:29 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
14:52:36 <Zakim> +guus
14:53:14 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer
14:53:54 <Guus> Guus has joined #rdf-wg
14:54:14 <Zakim> +gavinc
14:54:55 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:54:55 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:54:57 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:56:39 <gavinc> Good morning
15:00:03 <swh> swh has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:10 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:29 <mischat_> mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:38 <Zakim> +??P3
15:00:44 <swh> Zakim, ??P3 is [Garlik]
15:00:44 <Zakim> +[Garlik]; got it
15:01:10 <swh> Zakim, [Garlik] has me, mischat 
15:01:10 <Zakim> +swh, mischat; got it
15:01:11 <Zakim> +bhyland
15:01:15 <Zakim> + +1.707.318.aaaa
15:01:20 <davidwood> Zakim, bhyland is me
15:01:20 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
15:01:41 <Zakim> +??P7
15:01:43 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
15:01:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see guus, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, Ivan, [Garlik], davidwood, +1.707.318.aaaa, ??P7
15:01:45 <Zakim> [Garlik] has swh, mischat
15:01:45 <Zakim> -??P7
15:01:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see mischat_, AndyS, swh, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, MacTed, danbri, mischat, mox601, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu1, manu, NickH, ericP, trackbot, sandro
15:01:52 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:01:52 <PatH> PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:59 <Scott_Bauer> Scribe: Scott_Bauer
15:02:06 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:02:06 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:02:08 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:02:08 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:02:09 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:02:17 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
15:02:17 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:02:31 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
15:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see guus, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, Ivan, [Garlik], davidwood, +1.707.318.aaaa, MacTed (muted), AndyS
15:02:34 <Zakim> [Garlik] has swh, mischat
15:02:37 <Zakim> On IRC I see PatH, mischat, AndyS, swh, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, MacTed, danbri, mox601, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu1, manu, NickH, ericP, trackbot, sandro
15:03:02 <Zakim> +PatH
15:03:07 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:24 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
15:04:01 <Zakim> +AlexHall
15:04:18 <Scott_Bauer> scribenick: Scott_Bauer
15:04:27 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: Admin
15:04:38 <PatH> zakim, mute me
15:04:38 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted
15:05:18 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
15:05:23 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
15:05:23 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
15:05:25 <Scott_Bauer> PROPOSED:  accept last weeks minutes
15:05:54 <Guus> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-19
15:06:02 <Scott_Bauer> guus: should be 19 rather than 5
15:06:10 <Scott_Bauer> … of October
15:06:32 <PatH> mhausenblas owl:sameAs cygri? 
15:06:35 <davidwood> (fixed link to old minutes in agenda)
15:06:40 <Scott_Bauer> RESOLVED: minutes are accepted
15:06:43 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:06:49 <CGI734> CGI734 has joined #rdf-wg
15:06:57 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: Action Items
15:07:02 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
15:07:24 <Zakim> +Souri
15:07:31 <Scott_Bauer> guus:  Action-3 to be closed
15:07:43 <Zakim> +ericP
15:07:56 <Zakim> +zwu2
15:08:09 <PatH> zakim, unmute me
15:08:09 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted
15:08:20 <gavinc> Looks like Sandro and Richard have a lot to do ;)
15:08:22 <Scott_Bauer> guus: quite a number of open items
15:09:06 <Scott_Bauer> guus:  need to discuss the primer with Fabien
15:10:05 <Scott_Bauer> guus: will continue all for Richard, Sandro
15:11:17 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  issue three was an attempt to close issues at the end of the face to face.  
15:11:34 <Scott_Bauer> … need to find student to go through old comments
15:11:51 <Scott_Bauer> … suggest we reopen issue 3
15:12:13 <cygri> ISSUE-3?
15:12:13 <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
15:12:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/3
15:13:03 <Scott_Bauer> guus: if you could edit issue 3
15:13:18 <PatH> zakim, mute me
15:13:18 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted
15:13:49 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/111 updated to be more clear.
15:14:00 <Scott_Bauer> Topic:  Telecon next week
15:14:01 <Zakim> -ericP
15:14:18 <Zakim> +ericP
15:14:38 <Scott_Bauer> guus: time change noted for next week -- back to the same time.
15:14:56 <cygri> ISSUE-71?
15:14:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) -- pending review
15:14:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/71
15:15:02 <Scott_Bauer> Topic:  Issue 71
15:15:31 <Scott_Bauer> guus:  amendment proposal from Jerermy Carrroll
15:15:51 <PatH> zakim, unmute me
15:15:51 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted
15:16:11 <Scott_Bauer> … Richard is the amendment ok for you?
15:16:15 <gavinc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0385.html
15:16:53 <Scott_Bauer> … Jeremy is an expert in the language labels.
15:17:00 <AndyS> +1 to proposal
15:17:03 <PatH> +q
15:17:09 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: this looks ok, it's just a clarification.
15:17:47 <swh> I find the wording a bit strange
15:17:56 <swh> +1 to PatH 
15:18:00 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: I have no objections to the modification but I do to the other.
15:18:22 <AlexHall> i guess that's why RIF uses "symbol space" instead of "datatype"
15:19:03 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  Two separate concepts that deal with datatype IRIS.   Typed datatype iri and a lexicalform
15:19:31 <Scott_Bauer> PatH:  Data type IRI used as an IRI?
15:19:34 <Zakim> -ericP
15:19:38 <gavinc_> gavinc_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:19:41 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: it's just an IRI
15:19:45 <Zakim> +ericP
15:19:55 <Scott_Bauer> … nothing that requires it to be a datatype.
15:20:07 <Scott_Bauer> … not syntactically invalid
15:20:31 <Scott_Bauer> … the intention is that this is IRI is exceptional
15:20:40 <AlexHall> q+
15:20:59 <Scott_Bauer> … used in a datatype position but just an IRI
15:21:28 <Scott_Bauer> PatH:  That seems to be wrong to put it in that position
15:21:35 <gavinc> Zakim, mute me
15:21:35 <Zakim> gavinc should now be muted
15:22:07 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  I don't think we can really improve on the design
15:22:25 <Scott_Bauer> … I don't' think we want to revisit the design
15:22:35 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: I agree
15:24:02 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  RDF concepts, section 5 on datatypes denoted by one or more uri references.  There is nothing that requires them to be connected
15:24:25 <swh> Zakim, who is speaking?
15:24:35 <Zakim> swh, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (9%), PatH (70%)
15:24:58 <Scott_Bauer> PatH:  I find this design unacceptable
15:25:41 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: This is called a datatype thats not a datatype. 
15:25:47 <AndyS> q+ to ask if we have formally decided on the URI as rdf:langString (helps SPARQL finish)
15:25:53 <Scott_Bauer> … let's take it off line
15:26:19 <cygri> q+
15:26:34 <PatH> zakim, mute me
15:26:34 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted
15:26:36 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS:  Is that going to be the URI?
15:27:00 <Zakim> -ericP
15:27:03 <PatH> but that iri will not actually occur in the literal...
15:27:04 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  There was no discussion of the specific URI
15:27:35 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  Should it be called something different?
15:27:45 <AndyS> ack me
15:27:45 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask if we have formally decided on the URI as rdf:langString (helps SPARQL finish)
15:27:47 <Zakim> +ericP
15:27:48 <cygri> ack me
15:28:00 <PatH> no objections to the label..
15:28:02 <Scott_Bauer> guus:  I suggest we keep the label. Is that ok Andy?
15:28:19 <ericP> q-
15:28:34 <PatH> q-
15:29:29 <Scott_Bauer> AlexHall: Datatype IRI that's not and IRI reminds me of how REST defines the simple space.  Some of these are also datatypes.
15:29:50 <AlexHall> s/REST/RIF/
15:30:02 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: issue 77
15:30:10 <AlexHall> s/simple/symbol/
15:30:16 <cygri> ISSUE-77?
15:30:16 <trackbot> ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open
15:30:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77
15:30:33 <Scott_Bauer> guus:  RDF seq and lists discussion
15:31:19 <swh> I don't think there's much consensus
15:31:56 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS:  I don't see a consensus forming.  
15:32:32 <PatH> link to wikipage?
15:32:37 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Ordered
15:32:50 <Scott_Bauer> guus:  First Proposal just call them sequence and list downplay as containers.  Consensus on this?
15:33:14 <Scott_Bauer> Andy:  I haven't seen push back or support.
15:33:22 <PatH> people DO call them sequence and list, in fact.
15:33:40 <swh> yeah
15:33:41 <gavinc> I think there is some level of consensus on well formedness as well
15:33:43 <PatH> zakim, unmute me.
15:33:43 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted
15:33:50 <Scott_Bauer> guus: Semantics proposal is just to remove the semantics.
15:34:32 <ivan> q+
15:34:34 <AndyS> well formedness for Seqs was pushed back at : two rdf:_1 to indicate equal rank
15:34:41 <Scott_Bauer> PatH:  We may not need to remove that.  We may just not need so many at once (containers)
15:34:45 <Zakim> -ericP
15:35:26 <AlexHall> q-
15:35:31 <Zakim> +ericP
15:35:40 <Guus> ack AlexHall
15:35:54 <Guus> ack ivan
15:36:24 <Scott_Bauer> Ivan: The current semantics would define an infinite amount of axiomatic triples.
15:37:26 <Scott_Bauer> … we get interoperability issues.
15:38:10 <Scott_Bauer> … certain conclusions in semantics are used in those properties? 
15:38:47 <Scott_Bauer> PatH:  I agree is would be better if there was a clearer normative statement.
15:38:49 <ivan> q+
15:39:30 <Scott_Bauer> guus:  We should amend the text.
15:39:40 <Scott_Bauer> Ivan:  We should do this quickly
15:40:07 <Scott_Bauer> … sparql does define one approach to this.
15:40:28 <ivan> q+
15:40:29 <Scott_Bauer> … look at this and see if we can use it to define it.
15:40:40 <Zakim> -ericP
15:40:52 <Zakim> +ericP
15:41:34 <ivan> -> the SPARQL document to look at http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/
15:42:28 <Scott_Bauer> Action:  PatH  review the sparql specifications  for consistency with  rdf semantics for container properties
15:42:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-114 -  review the sparql specifications  for consistency with  rdf semantics for container properties [on Patrick Hayes - due 2011-11-09].
15:42:45 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:42:47 <PatH> zakim, mute me
15:42:47 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted
15:43:23 <Scott_Bauer> Ivan:  We have one major user that uses the container properties -- Adobe
15:43:35 <swh> q+
15:43:40 <ivan> ack ivan 
15:43:42 <Scott_Bauer> … Should we contact them regarding these changes.
15:43:49 <gavinc> Hi Sandro!
15:43:53 <davidwood> +1 to Ivan.  We have been presuming that Adobe will care about terminology.
15:44:17 <swh> q-
15:44:25 <PatH> i think there was a consensus not to deprecate or otherwise be rude about containers?
15:44:37 <swh> not consensus
15:44:49 <PatH> OK
15:45:25 <Scott_Bauer> Action: sandro will discuss the issue of the container properties and deprecation with Adobe.
15:45:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Will discuss the issue of the container properties and deprecation with Adobe. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-11-09].
15:45:49 <swh> q+
15:46:37 <PatH> it means if they do use it they have to take a shower afterwards.
15:47:04 <swh> q?
15:47:11 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: Well Formed Lists
15:47:33 <AndyS> q+
15:47:40 <Scott_Bauer> guus: Is there consensus on this
15:47:58 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  I think so -- question is what would we do with the definition.
15:48:02 <PatH> zakim, unmute me
15:48:02 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted
15:48:40 <Scott_Bauer> SteveH:  It's not ok to ask Adobe if its ok to deprectate
15:49:03 <cygri> q+
15:49:05 <Scott_Bauer> … the containers
15:49:24 <cygri> q-
15:49:27 <PatH> +q re wellformed lists. Is the idea to have wellformed triples or a different 'native' structure?
15:49:47 <swh> q-
15:49:58 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS:  Lists cannot be shared.  Can't have two triples pointing to the same object.
15:50:26 <Scott_Bauer> PatH:  can you clarify that?
15:50:48 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS:  It's linked specifically on the turtle page. 
15:50:49 <gavinc> I think PatH it's that IF they are well formed triples they CAN be implemented as a 'native' structure
15:51:17 <Zakim> +ericP
15:51:26 <Zakim> -ericP
15:51:33 <AndyS> """ Each list node has exactly one inbound arc; for all but the first node, it's an rdf:rest arc from the previous node. """
15:51:55 <PatH> ok, clearly we need to check the definition very carefully.
15:52:19 <Scott_Bauer> guus:  I don't hear anybody saying it is a problem.
15:52:28 <gavinc> "(Perhaps there is a clearer definition using more math.) " ;)
15:52:45 <Scott_Bauer> … leaving this to further list discussion.
15:52:47 <PatH> gavinc, yes. in fact there are several...
15:53:05 <PatH> zakim, mute me
15:53:05 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted
15:53:21 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  would like to approach Adobe for feedback on the possibility.
15:54:04 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: To mark Lists as archaic or not.
15:54:25 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  see Steve's summary
15:54:44 <Scott_Bauer> guus:  If we are stuck we go with the minimal option.
15:54:59 <Scott_Bauer> … proposal one.
15:55:09 <PatH> lists archaic??
15:55:45 <PatH> +1 to guus. minimal change.
15:56:18 <Scott_Bauer> Sandro you may need to self scribe I'm not hearing you well
15:56:53 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  should we get rid of one of them? 
15:57:06 <Scott_Bauer> … sequences or lists?
15:57:27 <PatH> not clear to me what the alternative(s?) are.
15:57:40 <cygri> sandro: no one is happy with containers, no one is happy with collections. should we try to actually fix the problem? is there will in the wg to approach this?
15:57:55 <cygri> q+
15:58:03 <AndyS> ack me
15:58:11 <PatH> ah. not obvious to me that this is a problem to solve here.
15:58:15 <PatH> q-
15:58:31 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:58:53 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:59:07 <Scott_Bauer> cygri:  The other proposals include a list ontology and a datatype that is a list of UI/s
15:59:24 <PatH> +1 cygri
15:59:32 <Guus> +1 to Richard: not really in scope for this WG
15:59:42 <swh> +1
15:59:49 <Scott_Bauer> … seems like this should be carefully considered and explored in some other venue.
15:59:53 <swh> good for an XG (or whatever the current thing is)
15:59:55 <ivan> +1 to richard
16:00:06 <cygri> ack me
16:00:33 <gavinc> +☃ to cygri
16:00:33 <Scott_Bauer> guus: Proposal one the most likely option.
16:01:18 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  We are taking a big step by endorsing turtle and it will be painful to have all these turtle lists out there.
16:01:26 <PatH> i dont see any simple way to get this tidied up now. whatever we do will be a crock at this stage.
16:02:03 <gavinc> ... ( 1, 2, 3) ?type . 
16:02:22 <AndyS> Turtle exists in the wild already - I worry about changing current meaning.
16:02:23 <Scott_Bauer> … could perhaps use parenthesis for rdf list
16:02:39 <swh> +1 to AndyS 
16:02:43 <PatH> list datatype, maybe.
16:02:47 <gavinc> +1000 to AndyS
16:02:56 <PatH> +1 andy
16:03:04 <AndyS> ():List ():Seq with () as list MIGHT work.
16:03:34 <PatH> lists can have sublists?
16:03:50 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: Named Graph Issues
16:03:50 <AndyS> PatH - yes
16:04:14 <sandro> sandro has joined #rdf-wg
16:04:43 <AndyS> PatH, an object of rdf:first can be a list by Sandro's wording and by Turtle syntax.  Unusual but legal.
16:04:44 <gavinc> +q what TriG draft currently says
16:04:50 <Scott_Bauer> guus: Consensus model for moving forward is to agree on the minimal model.
16:04:52 <gavinc> +q to say what TriG draft currently says
16:05:07 <gavinc> Zakim, unmute me
16:05:07 <Zakim> gavinc should no longer be muted
16:05:25 <gavinc> A graph statement pairs an IRI with a RDF Graph. It is intended that triple statements made about that IRI are being made about the graph. The triple statements that make up the graph are enclosed in {}.
16:05:50 <PatH> zakim, unmute me
16:05:50 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted
16:05:57 <PatH> +q
16:06:05 <AndyS> I like the approach Guus outlines.  Document different practices.
16:06:05 <ivan> ack gavinc 
16:06:05 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to say what TriG draft currently says
16:06:09 <Guus> ack gavinc
16:06:14 <Guus> ack patH
16:06:26 <Scott_Bauer> PatH:  The second sentence "made using that IRI" would be better
16:06:40 <gavinc> A graph statement pairs an IRI with a RDF Graph. It is intended that triple statements made using that IRI are being made about the graph. The triple statements that make up the graph are enclosed in {}.
16:06:40 <PatH> zakim, mute me
16:06:40 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted
16:06:51 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  informal that the IRI denotes the graph
16:07:11 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc:  We match that grammar in a number of places.
16:07:16 <ericP> can i simplify
16:07:16 <ericP>   SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 }
16:07:16 <ericP>     SERVICE <S1> { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p2> ?o2 } } }
16:07:16 <ericP> to
16:07:16 <ericP>   SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 ; <p2> ?o2 } }
16:07:19 <ericP> ?
16:07:39 <sandro> Yeah, "using that IRI" not "*about* that IRI".
16:08:12 <Scott_Bauer> ericP:  One persons notion of a graph doesn't have to match another's.  Sandro seems to say they probably should.
16:08:36 <swh> I'm not even sure that's an ideal world
16:08:37 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  That's probably going farther than we can right now.
16:08:44 <gavinc> In a TriG document a graph IRI must not be used to label more then one graph. The IRI of a graph statement may be omitted. In this case the graph is considered the default graph of the RDF Dataset.
16:08:47 <swh> -∞ to those being equivalent
16:08:51 <PatH> zakim, unmute me
16:08:51 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted
16:08:57 <PatH> +q
16:09:04 <AndyS> Not the same - need extra assumptions.
16:09:16 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc:  TRIG doesn't deal with transactions
16:09:41 <ericP> can i simplify
16:09:41 <ericP>   SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 }
16:09:41 <ericP>                  { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p2> ?o2 } } }
16:09:41 <ericP> to
16:09:41 <ericP>   SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 ; <p2> ?o2 } }
16:09:44 <ericP> ?
16:09:55 <PatH> IRIs have globsal scope, so they must be the same according to the semantics.
16:10:01 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc:  It says you can't label them twice.
16:10:02 <Guus> ack PatH
16:10:13 <AndyS> That is OK.
16:10:14 <Scott_Bauer> ericP:  I'll retract this line of reasoning.
16:10:14 <Souri> s/globsal /global /
16:10:33 <swh> what if one dataset is a canned state from 1 year ago?
16:10:37 <gavinc> I agree for versions of global that include everyone getting to have their own globe 
16:10:40 <swh> or just hasn't been updated
16:10:54 <swh> yet
16:10:56 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: We have an IRI and it denotes a graph.  Nothing about only inside a data set.
16:11:03 <cygri> it's not the deployed RDF world either
16:11:26 <swh> it's not representative of how technology actually works
16:11:40 <gavinc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#sec-trig-intro current TriG draft
16:11:58 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  it would be nice if an IRI refers to the same graph but that's not how sparql works.
16:12:00 <AndyS> +1 to cygri -- not just SPARQL, just easier to write down currently.  
16:12:20 <Scott_Bauer> … can't just mandate this (Consensus at the face to face)
16:12:21 <AndyS> ... in fact predates SPARQL.
16:13:02 <Scott_Bauer> PatH:  I thought a resolution was made to have the IRI denote the graph.
16:13:38 <AndyS> History - SPARQL followed/consensus of subset of deployed usage even back then.
16:13:45 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc:  No one could agree on denotes
16:13:50 <swh> +1 to AndyS 
16:14:32 <Scott_Bauer> sandro:  You can't stop the IRI's from denoting something in RDF, but does it denote the graph.
16:15:16 <Scott_Bauer> … Maybe something at the top of the TRIG document that says how this works.
16:15:35 <gavinc> I'm not hearing anyone complain about "It is intended that triple statements made using that IRI are being made about the graph."
16:15:52 <Scott_Bauer> guus:  You could give guidance on what the relationship would identify.  Can we reach consensus?
16:16:27 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS:  The IRI denotes the graph is what I get out of the statement.
16:16:36 <AndyS> Not AndyS
16:16:48 <AndyS> q+
16:16:58 <cygri> PatH: The IRI denotes the graph is what I get out of the statement.
16:17:02 <Scott_Bauer> swh:  What Gavin said doesn't ring any alarm bells.
16:17:04 <PatH> tnx
16:17:24 <Guus> ack AndyS
16:17:29 <sandro> sandro: Maybe we can try to flush out the implications of gavin's text.
16:18:02 <AndyS> q-
16:18:40 <AndyS> Need to use IRI in triple and IRI-graph association consistently but it's easy to get it wrong.
16:19:16 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS:  The chief problem is this is global.  Don't say denote if that isn't' what's meant.
16:19:23 <gavinc> Sure, PatH but people can something else about that IRI and the world will be happily inconsistent 
16:19:39 <AndyS> s/AndyS/PatH/
16:19:47 <AndyS> e.g. <iri> : size "57 bytes"  using <iri> to denote the g-snap
16:19:52 <swh> bye
16:19:54 <Zakim> -Souri
16:19:55 <AndyS> bye 
16:19:56 <Zakim> -PatH
16:19:57 <Zakim> -[Garlik]
16:19:58 <Zakim> -cygri
16:19:59 <zwu2> bye
16:19:59 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:19:59 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:19:59 <Zakim> -davidwood
16:20:02 <Zakim> -AlexHall
16:20:03 <Zakim> -ericP
16:20:05 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:20:05 <Zakim> -gavinc
16:20:06 <AlexHall> AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
16:20:16 <Zakim> - +1.707.318.aaaa
16:20:42 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:20:43 <PatH> Me too
16:20:50 <PatH> Us brits all sound alike
16:21:39 <Scott_Bauer> Action: PatH Send message to list about consequences of TRIG document statements about graph RI's
16:21:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-116 - Send message to list about consequences of TRIG document statements about graph RI's [on Patrick Hayes - due 2011-11-09].
16:22:04 <Scott_Bauer> trackbot, end meeting
16:22:04 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:22:04 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been guus, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, Ivan, swh, mischat, +1.707.318.aaaa, davidwood, MacTed, AndyS, PatH, AlexHall, cygri, Souri, ericP, zwu2, Sandro
16:22:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:22:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
16:22:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:22:06 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-actions.rdf :
16:22:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PatH  review the sparql specifications  for consistency with  rdf semantics for container properties [1]
16:22:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc#T15-42-28
16:22:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: sandro will discuss the issue of the container properties and deprecation with Adobe. [2]
16:22:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc#T15-45-25
16:22:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PatH Send message to list about consequences of TRIG document statements about graph RI's [3]
16:22:06 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc#T16-21-39
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000399