From RDF Working Group Wiki
Please justify/explain non-obvious edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
15:02:58 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 15:02:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/21-rdf-wg-irc 15:03:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 15:03:00 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 15:03:02 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394 15:03:02 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 57 minutes 15:03:03 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 15:03:03 <trackbot> Date: 21 November 2012 15:50:00 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, rdf-wg 15:50:01 <Zakim> On IRC I see rdf-wg, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu, yvesr, sandro, ericP 15:50:53 <tbaker> tbaker has joined #rdf-wg 15:51:30 <tbaker> zakim, who is on the call? 15:51:30 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, tbaker 15:51:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see tbaker, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu, yvesr, sandro, ericP 15:51:37 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started 15:51:38 <Zakim> +EricP 15:52:07 <ericP> tbaker, are you trying to debug something? 15:52:20 <ericP> i've joined (started) the call in case that helps 15:53:18 <tbaker> Yes an irc client on my iPhone 15:53:44 <Zakim> +??P2 15:53:52 <ericP> ahh, you're just asking questions of Zakim 'cause he's likely to answer 15:54:11 <tbaker> Will be only on irc today - in car. 15:54:13 <tbaker> Yes 15:56:35 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg 15:57:04 <Zakim> +pfps 15:58:27 <pchampin_> pchampin_ has joined #rdf-wg 16:00:38 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aaaa 16:00:39 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer? 16:00:39 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/11/21-rdf-wg-irc#T16-00-39 16:00:53 <davidwood> Zakim, aaaa is mw 16:00:53 <Zakim> +mw; got it 16:01:01 <Zakim> +Sandro 16:01:05 <davidwood> Zakim, aaaa is me 16:01:05 <Zakim> sorry, davidwood, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' 16:01:13 <davidwood> Zakim, mw is me 16:01:13 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it 16:01:48 <Zakim> +??P14 16:01:50 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 16:01:54 <AndyS> zakim, P14 is me 16:01:54 <Zakim> sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'P14' 16:01:58 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 16:01:58 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 16:02:00 <Zakim> +Ivan 16:02:00 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me 16:02:00 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 16:02:12 <pchampin_> zakim, ??P14 is me 16:02:12 <Zakim> +pchampin_; got it 16:02:40 <yvesr> scribenick: yvesr 16:02:40 <davidwood> Chair: David Wood 16:02:50 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here? 16:02:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, ??P2, pfps, davidwood, Sandro, pchampin_, AndyS, Ivan 16:02:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see pchampin_, pfps, tbaker, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu, yvesr, sandro, ericP 16:02:52 <Zakim> +MHausenblas 16:02:52 <Zakim> +Arnaud 16:03:36 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aabb 16:03:38 <Zakim> - +1.603.897.aabb 16:03:52 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aacc 16:03:55 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg 16:04:01 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg 16:04:14 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: RDF-WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/ -- agenda will be http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.11.21 16:04:20 <markus> markus has joined #rdf-wg 16:04:29 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdf-wg 16:04:45 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me 16:04:45 <Zakim> +cygri; got it 16:04:48 <AndyS> zakim, who is making noise? 16:04:50 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 7 Nov telecon: 16:04:50 <davidwood> 16:04:50 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-11-07 16:04:59 <Zakim> AndyS, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (39%), Ivan (60%) 16:05:12 <yvesr> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 7 Nov telecon 16:05:28 <ivan> zakim, mute me 16:05:28 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 16:05:36 <davidwood> Review of action items 16:05:36 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview 16:05:36 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open 16:05:58 <yvesr> davidwood: andys completed two actions 16:06:01 <Arnaud> zakim, unmute me 16:06:01 <Zakim> Arnaud was not muted, Arnaud 16:06:08 <Zakim> +??P17 16:06:20 <markus> zakim, ??P17 is me 16:06:20 <Zakim> +markus; got it 16:06:32 <yvesr> Arnaud: my action is about the rdf schema document, we were unsure danbri would be able to edit it 16:06:38 <yvesr> Arnaud: danbri said he will be able to do it 16:06:39 <davidwood> CLOSE ACTION-198 16:06:39 <trackbot> ACTION-198 Check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?) closed 16:06:50 <davidwood> CLOSE ACTION-206 16:06:50 <trackbot> ACTION-206 Put Turtle tests into W3C space. closed 16:06:56 <davidwood> CLOSE ACTION-207 16:06:56 <trackbot> ACTION-207 Do some documentation/README for the tests. closed 16:06:57 <yvesr> Arnaud: but is there much work to do, now we resolved on rdf:Seq? 16:07:01 <AndyS> AndyS actions - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0223.html 16:07:05 <yvesr> Arnaud: So I think that takes care of my action 16:07:19 <yvesr> davidwood: Moving on to open actions 16:07:30 <Zakim> + +081165aadd 16:07:38 <yvesr> sandro: I want to talk about my IETF action 16:07:39 <sandro> http://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xml 16:07:39 <AZ> Zakim, aadd is me 16:07:39 <Zakim> +AZ; got it 16:07:56 <davidwood> CLOSE ACTION-82 16:07:56 <trackbot> ACTION-82 Draft well-known URI template and propose WG resolution that it is "stable" enough for IETF. closed 16:08:01 <yvesr> sandro: genid is now registered 16:08:10 <cygri> excellent! 16:08:27 <yvesr> davidwood: we'll move on to RDF Concepts 16:08:31 <yvesr> topic: RDF Concepts 16:08:54 <cygri> ISSUE-104? 16:08:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-104 -- Too many informative Notes in RDF Concepts -- open 16:08:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/104 16:09:00 <davidwood> Check for consensus on http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/104 (Too many Notes) 16:09:00 <davidwood> 1. PROPOSAL: Delete four informative Notes from Concepts as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0131.html 16:09:07 <yvesr> davidwood: let's move on to check on consensus on ISSUE-104 16:09:38 <yvesr> cygri: The background for the issue is that there is a lot of informative text in RDF Concepts 16:09:56 <yvesr> ... It was pointed out that this can be overwhelming 16:10:11 <yvesr> ... The places I identified were based on my own bias 16:10:33 <yvesr> ... The four that are listed in this email are: 1) Concerns with XML 1.1 16:10:47 <yvesr> ... 2) Confusing language tags with locales 16:10:57 <yvesr> ... 3) Some details about how to use schema assets 16:11:29 <yvesr> ... 4) Section regarding language tags 16:11:45 <yvesr> ... If no one wants to speak up for any of them, then I'll drop them 16:11:47 <pfps> These notes were added in response to external comments, I believe. However, I still support removing them. Just don't lose them, because there may be cries to reinstate them. 16:12:15 <yvesr> davidwood: There has been a discussion on the mailing list, this should be relatively uncontroversial 16:12:24 <yvesr> cygri: I agree with what pfps said on IRC 16:12:47 <yvesr> ... But I think 8 years later we might try again to remove them 16:12:57 <yvesr> ... If people are concerned about it then we can reinstate them 16:12:59 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 16:13:01 <yvesr> ... They don't add much value 16:13:24 <yvesr> davidwood: We could make a WG resolution that we are going to resolve ISSUE-104 16:13:51 <Zakim> + +1.603.438.aaee 16:14:03 <zwu2> zakim, aaee is me 16:14:03 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it 16:14:04 <yvesr> sandro: davidwood is saying the document should provide a pointer 16:14:27 <yvesr> davidwood: We should vote on this 16:14:37 <cygri> +1 16:14:39 <yvesr> yvesr: +1 16:14:46 <ivan> +1 16:14:46 <pchampin_> +1 16:14:47 <davidwood> +1 16:14:47 <sandro> s/document/resolution/ 16:14:47 <Arnaud> +1 16:14:52 <Souri> +1 16:14:55 <markus> +1 16:14:59 <sandro> +0.5 (I like more info....) 16:15:03 <pfps> +1 16:15:08 <tbaker> +1 16:15:10 <AndyS> +1 16:15:21 <zwu2> +1 16:15:44 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0131.html 16:15:51 <AZ> ok +1 16:15:53 <sandro> (that's the proposal we're voting on) 16:16:13 <yvesr> RESOLVED: Delete four informative Notes from Concepts as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0131.html 16:16:17 <davidwood> Check for consensus on ISSUE-110 (Term for g-box) 16:16:17 <davidwood> PROPOSAL 1: Informally call g-boxes “RDF sources” in Concepts 16:16:52 <davidwood> PROPOSAL 2: Keep the informal term “g-box” in Concepts 16:17:12 <yvesr> davidwood: This is an editorial issue in Concepts 16:17:31 <yvesr> ... There has been a discussion on the mailing list 16:17:39 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 16:17:44 <yvesr> ... Unless there are any objections, we should leave that as an editorial issue 16:17:44 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 16:17:44 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 16:17:51 <yvesr> sandro: I'd like a WG decision on this 16:17:54 <AndyS> RDF sources 16:17:59 <AZ> 1 16:18:00 <sandro> 1 16:18:00 <yvesr> yvesr, RDF sources 16:18:01 <pfps> RDF sources 16:18:04 <zwu2> RDF sources sounds better 16:18:07 <markus> RDF sources 16:18:11 <cygri> fine with either 16:18:17 <davidwood> RDF Sources (1) 16:18:18 <pfps> \me down with g-men and g-boxes! 16:18:20 <sandro> 1 for "rdf sources" 2 for "g-box" 16:18:25 <pchampin_> no preference for me 16:18:30 <ericP> 2 16:18:33 <FabGandon> FabGandon has joined #rdf-wg 16:18:40 <tbaker> +1 rdf sources 16:18:48 <Souri> 1 16:18:53 <Arnaud> 0, no real preference, both proposals have their pros and cons 16:19:13 <yvesr> davidwood: I believe the vote has come down on the side of RDF sources 16:19:21 <yvesr> ... If anyone objects, could they please speak up 16:19:23 <Arnaud> rdf sources sound better 16:19:44 <yvesr> ... Let's resolve ISSUE-110 by calling them RDF Sources in concepts 16:19:48 <Arnaud> g-box seems more precise/technical 16:19:53 <yvesr> RESOLVED: Informally call g-boxes “RDF sources” in Concepts 16:20:32 <sandro> (closes issue-110) 16:20:35 <yvesr> pfps: g-box is RDF sources, g-snaps are RDF graphs 16:20:41 <yvesr> s/pfps/ericp 16:20:55 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer? 16:20:55 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/11/21-rdf-wg-irc#T16-20-55 16:21:23 <yvesr> davidwood: We need to close ISSUE-104 and ISSUE-110 16:21:30 <yvesr> ... We need to assign reviewers for RDF concepts 16:21:46 <AZ> I can review Concepts 16:22:15 <yvesr> cygri: Some background, I'll implement those changes and we still have time today we might talk about two outstanding issues, by the end of the day we should have the next Working Draft 16:22:24 <yvesr> ... That's why we need some reviewers for 16:22:55 <yvesr> cygri: There's only one obstacle in the way to last call, there are a couple of oustanding issues marked throughout the document 16:23:18 <yvesr> ... There is at least one more around fragment identifiers and dataset syntaxes 16:23:24 <yvesr> ... There might be some other issues as well 16:23:49 <yvesr> ... The main issue with going to Last Call while we still don't have first Working Drafts on closely related documents 16:24:12 <davidwood> Open issues related to Concepts: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/8 16:24:16 <yvesr> ... As soon as we have those, I don't see any big problems 16:24:29 <yvesr> davidwood: In the tracker we still have 7 issues opened 16:24:34 <yvesr> ... Before we get to Last Call 16:24:47 <yvesr> cygri: An interesting one is the dataset transformation one (isomorphism etc.) 16:24:53 <yvesr> ... I'll bring them up on the mailing list 16:25:01 <yvesr> davidwood: We have AZ volunteering to review 16:25:13 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here? 16:25:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, ??P2, pfps, davidwood, Sandro, pchampin_, AndyS, Ivan (muted), Arnaud (muted), cygri, +1.603.897.aacc, markus, AZ, zwu2, MacTed 16:25:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see FabGandon, zwu2, cygri, markus, Souri, AZ, pchampin_, pfps, tbaker, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu, 16:25:16 <Zakim> ... yvesr, sandro, ericP 16:25:33 <yvesr> davidwood: pfps would you be interested in reviewiewing concepts? 16:25:55 <yvesr> pfps: Yes, I can do it 16:26:03 <yvesr> ... It'll probably get done soon 16:26:49 <cygri> ACTION: pfps to review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html 16:26:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-210 - Review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2012-11-28]. 16:27:02 <cygri> ACTION: AZ to review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html 16:27:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-211 - Review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html [on Antoine Zimmermann - due 2012-11-28]. 16:27:14 <davidwood> ACTION: AZ to review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html 16:27:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-212 - Review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html [on Antoine Zimmermann - due 2012-11-28]. 16:27:48 <yvesr> gavinc: On the Turtle document, the main work is to review the tests 16:27:52 <davidwood> Topic: Turtle LC 16:27:56 <yvesr> ... We also noticed some bug in the grammar 16:28:05 <cygri> AZ, i'll send you an email when today's resolutions are implemented, should be later today 16:28:09 <cygri> pfps, i'll send you an email when today's resolutions are implemented, should be later today 16:28:28 <yvesr> ... There are some machine ways of generating coverage of language features 16:28:33 <yvesr> ... We did that in SPARQL 1.1 16:28:39 <yvesr> ... It did help us identify issues 16:28:45 <AndyS> s/1.1/1.0/ 16:28:47 <yvesr> ... I am working on it now for Turtle 16:29:11 <AndyS> +1 to eric checking coverage 16:29:53 <yvesr> gavinc: If we do the coverage tests, we can identify that we don't have any tests for example using a SPARQL-like PREFIX 16:30:19 <AndyS> s/gavinc/EricP/ 16:30:43 <yvesr> ... How do I take an XML document and test a set of XML paths? There are multiple ways to do it - does anyone have a preferred way? 16:31:07 <yvesr> AndyS: The important bit is the report of the coverage 16:31:28 <yvesr> ericP: If people are happy that I run it on my laptop, then I'll go ahead 16:31:41 <yvesr> ... But please tell me if you want to be able to run it elsewhere 16:31:54 <yvesr> ericP: If we have a lot of tests that test the same features 16:32:01 <yvesr> ... It makes it harder for us to manage 16:32:24 <yvesr> AndyS: There will be duplication 16:32:48 <yvesr> ... Turtle is simpler, so managing the tests shouldn't be too bad 16:33:27 <yvesr> ericP: Whether we like redundancy is a question of taste 16:33:51 <yvesr> AndyS: Should we beginning to ask to use the test suite outside of the working group? 16:34:02 <yvesr> davidwood: I don't think it's too early to start engaging with people 16:34:22 <yvesr> ericP: It would be nice to have the test suite nailed down before going to last call 16:34:32 <yvesr> davidwood: Who would like to take an action to ask dajobe? 16:34:56 <yvesr> ACTION: davidwood to contact dajobe about Turtle and test suites 16:34:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-213 - Contact dajobe about Turtle and test suites [on David Wood - due 2012-11-28]. 16:35:02 <Zakim> + +188.8.131.52.aaff 16:35:27 <yvesr> davidwood: do we have anyone from JSON-LD today? 16:35:30 <yvesr> markus: I'm here 16:35:32 <davidwood> Topic: JSON-LD 16:35:34 <FabGandon> Zakim, aaff is me 16:35:34 <Zakim> +FabGandon; got it 16:35:34 <yvesr> topic: JSON-LD 16:35:53 <yvesr> markus: Yesterday we were able to resolve the last remaining issues for the syntax specification 16:36:01 <yvesr> ... The issues are resolved, the spec is being updated 16:36:09 <yvesr> ... There are a few minor open issues for the APIs 16:36:25 <yvesr> ... But mostly details around the algorithms 16:36:42 <yvesr> ... The spec has to be updated, and then it will be ready for another round of reviews 16:37:08 <yvesr> davidwood: cygri made some suggestions around the language about RDF in the JSON-LD specs 16:37:16 <yvesr> cygri: I had an action to provide some input there 16:37:37 <yvesr> ... One of the thing that happened in the mean time is that the relationship between the syntax and the api has been discussed 16:37:58 <yvesr> ... The data model will not be part of the syntax document, but part of what used to be the API Document (to be renamed) 16:38:14 <yvesr> ... What was an issue around the syntax document will be an issue around that other document 16:38:30 <yvesr> ... Within the JSON-LD community group there is a pretty good idea on how to resolve this 16:38:46 <yvesr> cygri: By next week we should get a more subtstantial update 16:39:35 <yvesr> markus: There has been some discussions around JSON-LD as a graph syntax or as a dataset syntax 16:39:37 <cygri> ISSUE-105? 16:39:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-105 -- Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation -- open 16:39:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105 16:39:50 <yvesr> ... We are not very sure where the RDF WG is headed in terms of dataset syntaxes 16:39:56 <yvesr> ... We're waiting on that decision 16:40:24 <yvesr> sandro: It will be difficult as it will be difficult to align 16:40:49 <yvesr> ... JSON-LD seems like it is a dataset syntax, but on the other hand datasets are not assertive in any sense 16:41:01 <yvesr> ... They don't convey information about the world the way a graph syntax does 16:41:40 <yvesr> sandro: JSON-LD will have to drive the response to that issue 16:42:14 <yvesr> cygri: What the WG decided not to define how an RDF dataset can be treated as a logical expression 16:42:31 <yvesr> ... Graphs can be treated as logical expressions, but not datasets 16:42:42 <yvesr> ... Whether that's a problem remains to be seen 16:42:57 <yvesr> sandro: I think JSON-LD needs to be treated as a logical expression 16:43:03 <ivan> json-ld is 'just' a syntax 16:43:18 <yvesr> AndyS: Where does JSON-LD needs logical assertions? 16:43:26 <yvesr> sandro: I think the use-case is data merging 16:43:35 <yvesr> ... You can't merge JSON 16:43:52 <yvesr> ... And you can't merge JSON-LD if you don't treat them as conveying RDF 16:44:12 <yvesr> AndyS: I am trying to find something that's a technical aspect of JSON-LD that this impacts 16:44:36 <yvesr> sandro: The default graph has special standing as a logical expression 16:44:42 <yvesr> ... where it doesn't in datasets in general 16:44:57 <sandro> Sandro: I think we need the default graph in a JSON-LD dataset to be a logical express -- like an RDF graph -- and unlike Datasets in general. 16:44:59 <yvesr> cygri: A question here would be around use-case 16:45:09 <yvesr> ... When would that be a problem? 16:45:30 <yvesr> sandro: The case is when you get data from a bunch of different JSON-LD sources and want to merge it 16:45:43 <yvesr> ... How do you know that the default graph is actually the contet 16:45:47 <yvesr> s/contet/content 16:45:49 <pchampin_> q+ 16:45:58 <yvesr> AndyS: You could argue it's up to the application 16:46:00 <pfps> +1 to applications being in control 16:46:17 <yvesr> sandro: I guess my point is that iif it's up to the application, you could just use JSON 16:46:19 <ivan> +1 to applications, too 16:46:29 <pfps> Huh? JSON-LD isn't any different from Trig, so there shouldn't be anything more there. 16:46:30 <pchampin_> q- 16:46:32 <yvesr> AndyS: The application should be in control of which graph to merge and which graph not to merge 16:46:38 <ivan> +1 to pfps 16:47:03 <yvesr> sandro: You need to be able to a data source using just the URI and know you're getting a graph from it 16:47:08 <yvesr> ... You don't get that from JSON-LD 16:47:26 <yvesr> ... The intention is that if the provider wants to give you a graph, they can 16:47:31 <pfps> After all, I might use JSON-LD in a context where the unnamed graph doesn't have any special precedence. 16:47:46 <yvesr> AndyS: We are talking in the absence of the key developers 16:47:57 <pfps> However, there is something here. Suppose that you are looking for a graph, and you get a dataset. What do you do then? 16:48:02 <yvesr> sandro: I just wanted to point out they shouldn't wait on us to resolve that issue 16:48:22 <pchampin_> :-D 16:48:25 <pchampin_> q+ 16:48:51 <markus> could we specify in JSON-LD that we treat the default graph in that specific way or would that be at odds with something? 16:49:09 <markus> sandro: that might resolve the issue 16:49:13 <sandro> sandro: I think it would solve the problem for JSON-LD to say: you can treat this is as graph source, if you want, and when you do, you get the default graph. 16:49:23 <yvesr> cygri: What exactly is going on when you publish datasets on the web and how that compares with publishing graphs? It is a big issue, and should be high priority 16:49:35 <pchampin_> q- 16:50:11 <yvesr> davidwood: Let's move on to ISSUE-107 and ISSUE-109 16:50:21 <yvesr> topic: RDF Concepts 16:50:33 <cygri> ISSUE-107? 16:50:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-107 -- Definition of blank nodes (editorial-ish) -- open 16:50:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107 16:50:38 <yvesr> davidwood: Let's look first at ISSUE-107 16:50:40 <davidwood> ISSUE-107 (Blank Nodes definition) has turned out to be more “interesting” than expected, so I propose to move it towards the end of the agenda as: 16:50:40 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Change RDF Concepts section 3.4 and 3.5 with updated text proposed on http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/B-Scopes 16:51:10 <yvesr> cygri: Issue 107 started out as some editorial comments on how blank nodes are worded in the 2004 spec 16:51:19 <yvesr> ... It has grown a bit beyong an editorial issue 16:51:31 <yvesr> ... As we have come to terms with that issue around scopes of blank nodes 16:51:40 <yvesr> ... It is not spelled out properly in the 2004 spec 16:51:53 <yvesr> ... The b-scopes proposal is one attempt to make that notion of scope explicit 16:52:07 <yvesr> ... It shouldn't change anything to any of the previous resolutions 16:52:25 <yvesr> ... What it does is that it defines the term 'scope' that other specifications can use 16:52:43 <yvesr> ... When do blank nodes need to be relabeled? 16:52:59 <yvesr> ... RDF documents (be a dataset or a graph) are their own scope 16:53:05 <yvesr> ... Beyond that, it's up to the implementation 16:53:18 <yvesr> ... I am not sure we have consensus this is what we should do 16:53:36 <ericP> q+ to ask if the issue text is still the proposal 16:53:43 <davidwood> ack ericP 16:53:43 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if the issue text is still the proposal 16:54:05 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/B-Scopes 16:54:13 <yvesr> ericP: The text in the proposal - is that the final text? Or was it refined in the email chain? 16:54:28 <yvesr> cygri: Yes, it is - it's not what is in ISSUE-107 though 16:54:57 <yvesr> ... But the discussion on ISSUE-107 led to that proposal 16:55:09 <yvesr> ... This proposal would close 107 as well 16:55:29 <yvesr> ericP: I would suggest changing the first sentence - a blank node is a node without a label 16:55:56 <yvesr> ... Sorry, was looking at the wrong text 16:56:01 <AZ> q+ 16:56:34 <yvesr> davidwood: My understanding is that blank nodes never need to be relabelled 16:56:45 <yvesr> ... Is that correct or has the discussion moved on? 16:57:09 <yvesr> cygri: Blank nodes need to be relabeled when moving to a different scopes and the blank node identifier is already in use in the new scope 16:57:28 <sandro> q+ 16:57:37 <yvesr> ... This should be addressed in the proposal 16:58:02 <davidwood> ack AZ 16:58:23 <yvesr> AZ: I think the notion of scope is not something that should be in the abstract syntax 16:58:32 <yvesr> ... It should be addressed in Concepts 16:58:44 <yvesr> ... The notion of scope is inherent to the notion of blank nodes 16:58:50 <yvesr> ... They 'cary' their scope 16:59:15 <yvesr> ... The blank nodes get a scope whenever they are put in a document 16:59:35 <yvesr> ... You don't copy the abstract syntax - you copy documents 17:00:06 <yvesr> ... You can take the same bnode, put it in another document, it will be the same bnode but with a different scope 17:00:17 <yvesr> cygri: I don't think that works 17:00:41 <yvesr> ... For two reasons, 1) Yes it is correct scopes are important for documents but that's by far not the only place 17:00:48 <yvesr> ... e.g. in the RDB2RDF working group 17:00:59 <yvesr> ... One of the most difficult issue we had to solve was around blank nodes 17:01:33 <yvesr> ... Implementations can define their own scope, and some do 17:01:53 <yvesr> ... I don't think it's possible to solve the issue by just considering documents 17:02:17 <yvesr> ... 2) Mathematical structures are not copied around, but blank nodes are copied around, which is addressed by this proposal 17:02:50 <yvesr> AZ: I don't think you copy whatever is in the abstract syntax, you copy a representation of it 17:03:12 <yvesr> ... I meant documents in a very broad sense, which would include how RDF graphs are represented in memory for example 17:03:35 <yvesr> cygri: The reason why we have the abstract structure is to specify this broad concept of documents 17:03:40 <sandro> I wonder about the first sentence being more like "A blank node is an abstract syntax entity which corresponds one-to-one to pairs of blank node identifiers (which are Unicode strings) and scopes." Perhaps semantically that's slightly cleaner. 17:03:46 <yvesr> ... What you're suggesting is to introduce a new layer 17:04:13 <yvesr> AZ: There is the abstract syntax, and all the concrete forms of represneting this abstract syntax, in-memory, serialisations, etc. 17:04:35 <sandro> q? 17:04:47 <yvesr> cygri: The reason this abstract syntax exist is to identify a generic way to talk about RDF graphs, across all representations 17:04:55 <AndyS> sandro's approach is interesting 17:04:56 <yvesr> ... The notion of scope of blank nodes fits exactly into that 17:05:12 <sandro> davidwood? 17:05:12 <yvesr> ... That's exactly why we have it 17:05:25 <yvesr> AZ: I don't think it should be attached to a bnode 17:05:39 <pchampin_> +1 cygri: as scope is a common feature of all concrete syntaxes, it has its place in the abstract syntax 17:05:39 <davidwood> yeah - 1 min 17:05:43 <yvesr> ... If you put a bnode in a graph, which is represented somewhere, then the bnode really gains its scope 17:05:59 <sandro> also maybe s/scope/blank node scope/ 17:06:05 <yvesr> ... When you're talking just about triples, then I don't see why there would be a scope 17:06:28 <yvesr> davidwood: I think you both laid out your positions, there is disagreement on this issue 17:06:32 <davidwood> ack sandro 17:06:38 <yvesr> ... I would like to move the more detailed disccusion to the mailing list 17:07:01 <yvesr> sandro: I really like this approach in general - I just wonder a little bit about fresh blank nodes being defined 17:07:17 <yvesr> ... Maybe we can say something about a blank node being reused? 17:07:28 <cygri> sandro, define "not used" :-) 17:07:45 <yvesr> sandro: Maybe AZ can propose a change that would address that? 17:08:05 <yvesr> sandro: A blank node is a pair of bnode identifier and scope 17:08:20 <yvesr> ... I think weneed to address this question around reuse of bnode identifiers 17:08:57 <yvesr> cygri: I don't have a feeling of how much support this idea has 17:09:00 <AndyS> q+ 17:09:03 <sandro> PROPOSED: We like http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/B-Scopes 17:09:06 <sandro> +1 17:09:09 <pchampin_> +1 17:09:16 <yvesr> ... Some indication of how much support it has would be helpful 17:09:18 <ivan> +1 17:09:21 <markus> +1 17:09:22 <Arnaud> +1 17:09:24 <AZ> -1 17:09:27 <zwu2> +1 17:09:32 <yvesr> yvesr, +0.5 17:09:33 <MacTed> +1 to the general idea. not sure whether it's better to introduce "scope" in context of "bnode" or vice versa ... or put them parallel 17:09:47 <AndyS> 0 17:09:56 <Souri> +1 17:10:24 <yvesr> AndyS: I have some issues with the text as well 17:10:43 <yvesr> ... It starts to talk about scopes of identifiers, then goes on to talk about scopes of blank nodes 17:11:26 <yvesr> sandro: Could this be cleaned up with some tweaks? 17:11:33 <yvesr> AndyS: Yes, I think so 17:11:56 <yvesr> ... But I am still a bit uneasy there is something deeper going on 17:12:42 <yvesr> davidwood: Can you suggest changes to the text that address that issue around identifiers? 17:12:50 <yvesr> AndyS: No, because I think something deeper is going on 17:13:23 <sandro> has Pat weighed in on this, in email? 17:13:30 <yvesr> AndyS: A database is also a kind of document, it only matters when things go in and out of it 17:13:37 <davidwood> q? 17:13:41 <davidwood> ack AndyS 17:14:00 <cygri> sandro, it's basically PatH's “surfaces” proposal, repackaged 17:14:09 <yvesr> ... A way would be to make bnode have global scopes 17:14:11 <davidwood> sandro, yes, PatH has 17:14:11 <sandro> but has he commented on this text? 17:14:32 <yvesr> AndyS: I think we share similar concerns with AZ, maybe not to the same degree 17:14:52 <yvesr> davidwood: We'll have to end it here 17:15:15 <yvesr> davidwood: AOB, and we'll adjourn 17:15:21 <ivan> zakim, drop me 17:15:21 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected 17:15:22 <Zakim> -Ivan 17:15:24 <zwu2> bye & happy thanksgiving! 17:15:28 <Zakim> -FabGandon # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000431