From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 17:16, 4 May 2011 by Tsteiner
Please justify/explain non-obvious edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:22:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:22:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/04-rdf-wg-irc 14:22:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:22:08 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 14:22:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394 14:22:10 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 38 minutes 14:22:11 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 14:22:11 <trackbot> Date: 04 May 2011 14:43:50 <OlivierCorby> OlivierCorby has joined #rdf-wg 14:46:35 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg 14:46:39 <davidwood> Chair: David Wood 14:46:52 <davidwood> Scribe: Thomas Steiner 14:47:30 <sandro> mischat, yes, the MIT facility does that, but might not fit all the people who want to be local at MIT. 14:48:24 <mischat> sure 14:49:49 <mischat> well at least it is an option, i wonder how many people would be at the east coast event if there was a european place to sit as well ... 14:50:24 <sandro> Yeah, mischat, Guus was going to make a poll to find the answer to that question. 14:53:01 <gavinc> gavinc has joined #rdf-wg 14:53:09 <gavinc> Zakim, code? 14:53:09 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+188.8.131.52.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), gavinc 14:53:38 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started 14:53:45 <Zakim> + +1.707.861.aaaa 14:53:53 <gavinc> Zakim, aaaa is me 14:53:53 <Zakim> +gavinc; got it 14:54:19 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:54:19 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:54:20 <Zakim> +Ivan 14:54:56 <Zakim> +Tony 14:55:58 <Scott> zakim, Tony is me 14:55:58 <Zakim> +Scott; got it 14:56:16 <Zakim> + +1.404.978.aabb 14:56:30 <tomayac> zakim, aabb is me 14:56:30 <Zakim> +tomayac; got it 14:57:38 <Zakim> +??P7 14:57:46 <AndyS> zakim, ??P7 is me 14:57:46 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 14:57:51 <Zakim> + +184.108.40.206.aacc 14:58:14 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:18 <OlivierCorby> zakim, aacc is me 14:58:18 <Zakim> +OlivierCorby; got it 14:59:00 <mbrunati> mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg 14:59:00 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aadd 14:59:09 <davidwood> zakim, aadd is me 14:59:09 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it 15:00:07 <Zakim> +??P10 15:00:08 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office 15:00:08 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made 15:00:08 <Zakim> +EricP 15:00:09 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:09 <MacTed> MacTed has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:23 <FabGandon> FabGandon has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:53 <mbrunati> zakim, ??P10 is me 15:00:53 <Zakim> +mbrunati; got it 15:00:54 <Zakim> +LeeF 15:00:59 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:01 <cmatheus> cmatheus has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:04 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 15:01:05 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:07 <davidwood> ScribeNick: tomayac 15:01:21 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:01:21 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:01:21 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:50 <Zakim> +danield 15:01:55 <SteveH_> SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:56 <Zakim> +PatH 15:02:00 <Zakim> +??P17 15:02:02 <Zakim> +Souri 15:02:04 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aaee 15:02:09 <Zakim> +sandro 15:02:15 <FabGandon> Zakim, danield is me 15:02:15 <Zakim> +FabGandon; got it 15:02:18 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:02:18 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:02:23 <AlexHall> zakim, +1.443.212.aaee is me 15:02:23 <Zakim> +AlexHall; got it 15:02:33 <ivan> zakim, ??P17 is Pierre-Antoine 15:02:33 <Zakim> I already had ??P17 as pchampin, ivan 15:02:49 <PatH> PatH has joined #rdf-wg 15:03:56 <ericP> q+ to object to pchampin's proposal 15:03:59 <ericP> q- 15:04:08 <ericP> ack me 15:04:11 <tomayac> TOPIC: minutes 15:04:12 <tomayac> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes 15:04:27 <ericP> +1 15:04:30 <tomayac> +1 15:04:36 <tomayac> Minutes accepted. 15:04:37 <tomayac> TOPIC: ACTION item review 15:04:52 <tomayac> ACTION-34 overdue 15:05:01 <Zakim> +Russell 15:05:04 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/34 15:05:08 <tomayac> Done, whole heap of issues raised, see action 15:05:10 <AZ> zakim, mute me 15:05:10 <Zakim> sorry, AZ, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 15:05:11 <Zakim> +??P29 15:05:21 <ericP> Zakim, please mute ??P29 15:05:21 <Zakim> ??P29 should now be muted 15:05:22 <mischat> zakim, ??P29 is mischat 15:05:22 <Zakim> +mischat; got it 15:05:36 <tomayac> davidwood: going through issues today 15:05:41 <tomayac> davidwood: some easy, some hard 15:05:41 <mischat> zakim, ??P29 has mischat, SteveH 15:05:41 <Zakim> sorry, mischat, I do not recognize a party named '??P29' 15:05:50 <tomayac> subtopic: ACTION-34 15:05:51 <tomayac> PROPOSED: to close ACTION-34 15:05:55 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P29 is [Garlik] 15:05:55 <Zakim> I already had ??P29 as mischat, SteveH 15:06:01 <Zakim> +??P30 15:06:02 <tomayac> RESOLVED: closing ACTION-34 15:06:22 <AZ> zakim, maybe I'm Russel 15:06:22 <Zakim> I don't understand 'maybe I'm Russel', AZ 15:06:32 <Zakim> + +1.408.642.aaff 15:06:39 <tomayac> subtopic: ACTION-22 15:06:40 <AZ> zakim, I may be Russel 15:06:40 <Zakim> +Russel?; got it 15:06:47 <tomayac> but cygri sent regrets 15:06:57 <zwu2> zakim, +1.408.642.aaff is me 15:06:59 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it 15:07:00 <AZ> zakim, mute me 15:07:00 <Zakim> sorry, AZ, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 15:07:07 <tomayac> subtopic: ACTION-21 15:07:15 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/22 15:07:19 <cmatheus> zakim. ??P32 is cmatheus 15:07:21 <tomayac> will be clearified 15:07:45 <tomayac> sandro: RESOLVED: ACTION-39 closed 15:08:26 <tomayac> subtopic: unrecorded action: look at respec text vs. wiki text 15:09:00 <tomayac> gavin: action was unrecorded 15:09:28 <tomayac> gavin, wlliam, pierre-antoine on the unrecorded action 15:09:44 <cmatheus> zakim, ??P32 is cmatheus 15:09:45 <Zakim> I already had ??P32 as Nick_van_den_Bleeken, cmatheus 15:09:49 <tomayac> subtopic: ACTION-41 15:09:59 <sandro> action gavin: to compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring 15:09:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-43 - Compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring [on Gavin Carothers - due 2011-05-11]. 15:10:00 <tomayac> poll for face2face, on antoine 15:10:00 <AZ> zakim, unmute me 15:10:00 <Zakim> sorry, AZ, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 15:10:08 <sandro> action william: to compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring 15:10:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-44 - Compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring [on William Waites - due 2011-05-11]. 15:10:11 <AZ> can you hear me? 15:10:11 <mischat> i found out about the video conferencing facilities at southampton uni fwiw 15:10:27 <sandro> action piere-antoine: to compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring 15:10:27 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - piere-antoine 15:10:42 <AZ> it seems I have a problem with my mic 15:10:46 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here? 15:10:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see gavinc, Russel?, Scott, tomayac, AndyS, OlivierCorby, davidwood, mbrunati, EricP, LeeF, MacTed (muted), FabGandon, PatH, pchampin (muted), Souri, AlexHall, 15:10:49 <Zakim> ... sandro, Russell, mischat (muted), ??P30, zwu2 15:10:55 <sandro> action Pierre-Antoine: to compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring 15:10:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-45 - Compare/contrast respec vs mediawiki for spec authoring [on Pierre-Antoine Champin - due 2011-05-11]. 15:11:01 <cmatheus> zakim, ??P30 is cmatheus 15:11:01 <Zakim> +cmatheus; got it 15:11:06 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/42 15:11:08 <AZ> I have a text to propose 15:11:11 <tomayac> subtopic: ACTION-42 15:11:11 <trackbot> ACTION-42 Propose text for resolution on archaic xsd:strings notes added 15:11:21 <tomayac> text in email. link anyone? 15:11:22 <AZ> "PROPOSED: Recommend that data publishers use plain literals instead of xs:string typed literals and tell systems to silently convert xs:string literals to plain literals without language tag." 15:11:26 <gavinc> "PROPOSED: Recommend that data publishers use plain literals instead of xs:string typed literals and tell systems to silently convert xs:string literals to plain literals without language tag." 15:11:28 <AZ> it's the same as in my email 15:11:35 <tomayac> same as in email 15:11:46 <davidwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0057.html 15:12:10 <tomayac> RESOLVED: ACTION-42 herewith closed 15:12:23 <tomayac> Topic: SPARQL-Turtle Alignemnt 15:12:28 <Zakim> +??P34 15:12:36 <Zakim> -mischat 15:12:38 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P34 is [Garlik] 15:12:38 <Zakim> +[Garlik]; got it 15:12:47 <SteveH> Zakim, [Garlik] has SteveH and mischat 15:12:47 <Zakim> +SteveH, mischat; got it 15:12:56 <tomayac> issues, agreements, disagreements 15:13:06 <tomayac> andy discussion lead 15:13:33 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Diff_SPARQL_Turtle 15:13:35 <tomayac> andy: agreement: on all issues... 15:13:38 <tomayac> ...except for one 15:13:39 <ivan> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0000.html Andy's email 15:14:01 <tomayac> eric: wishes to add a feature into turtle to allow prefixing of names 15:14:13 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Diff_SPARQL_Turtle#Possible_extension_to_Turtle 15:14:50 <AndyS> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0011.html 15:15:09 <tomayac> eric: getting past encoding limitations in pnames 15:15:20 <mischat> go on ... 15:15:22 <ericP> _ :Eve foaf:name "Eve\u0022 . 15:15:41 <ericP> _ :Eve :says "Éric says \u0022Hi\u0022" . 15:16:43 <sandro> AndyS 15:17:08 <tomayac> eric: escaping not part of the grammar 15:17:23 <ivan> q+ 15:17:27 <gavinc> +q 15:17:33 <tomayac> eric: productions of local names to include escape productions 15:17:50 <davidwood> ack ivan 15:17:52 <tomayac> ivan: why this difference? 15:18:09 <AZ> zakim, Russel is me 15:18:09 <Zakim> +AZ; got it 15:18:42 <tomayac> andy: at the moment as turtle is defined, commas disallowed in prefix names 15:18:58 <tomayac> eric: disagrees 15:19:10 <tomayac> andy: that would be a change to SPARQL 15:19:57 <tomayac> andy: current form does not allow \u escapings 15:20:16 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:20:21 <davidwood> ack gavinc 15:20:24 <webr3> zakim, i am IPcaller 15:20:24 <Zakim> ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller] 15:20:38 <tomayac> gavin: thinks that ntriples has local names 15:20:57 <tomayac> andy: label for a bnode has to be decided on a per-output basis 15:21:15 <tomayac> andy: asks eric: are you happy w/ the outher proosals 15:21:18 <tomayac> eric: ACK 15:21:24 <davidwood> q? 15:21:32 <tomayac> andy: any other issues? 15:21:37 <tomayac> -- silence -- 15:21:42 <tomayac> no other issues 15:21:59 <tomayac> andy: on what basis do we take the decision? 15:22:05 <ivan> q+ 15:22:28 <tomayac> eric: on the prefix nodes issues: sorry it cant be done 15:22:30 <LeeF> I think it's a "nice feature to have", but I'm (of course) wary of changing SPARQL right now because of the impact on implementors 15:23:03 <SteveH> +1 to LeeF 15:23:23 <PatH> There is a dragon on the call breathing fire. 15:23:39 <tomayac> eric: no new prefix for each row in the db 15:23:42 <mischat> zakim, who is making noise ? 15:23:44 <davidwood> zakim, who is speaking? 15:23:45 <tomayac> eric: just use the same prefix 15:23:52 <Zakim> mischat, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (83%), EricP (4%) 15:24:03 <Zakim> davidwood, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (24%), davidwood (5%), AZ (8%), EricP (22%) 15:24:12 <PatH> sounds like LeeF is right, this is neat feature but not really essential. I suggest not worth changing sparql for. 15:24:14 <tomayac> andy: need a decision mechanism 15:24:22 <ivan> ack ivan 15:24:30 <AZ> zakim, mute me 15:24:30 <Zakim> AZ should now be muted 15:24:39 <tomayac> ivan: question is: what is the most, what is the least destructive answer? 15:25:00 <tomayac> ivan seems gone 15:25:08 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here? 15:25:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see gavinc, AZ (muted), Scott, tomayac, AndyS, OlivierCorby, davidwood, mbrunati, EricP, LeeF, MacTed (muted), FabGandon, PatH, pchampin (muted), Souri, AlexHall, 15:25:11 <Zakim> ... sandro, Russell, cmatheus, zwu2, [Garlik], [IPcaller] 15:25:12 <Zakim> [Garlik] has SteveH, mischat 15:25:19 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute az 15:25:19 <Zakim> AZ should no longer be muted 15:25:27 <gavinc> -q 15:25:39 <tomayac> lee: understands the use case 15:25:45 <Zakim> -AZ 15:25:47 <tomayac> lee: probably a good thing to include 15:25:50 <MacTed> (AZ muted, and ivan went quiet ... ivan isn't in the names list ... I'm guessing AZ took ivan's line) 15:25:55 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 15:25:56 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 15:25:57 <Zakim> +Ivan 15:26:10 <tomayac> ivan is back 15:26:19 <davidwood> s/probably a good thing to include/probably not a good thing to include during SPARQL last call/ 15:26:48 <LeeF> Also mildly disruptive with existing turtle and sparql implementations 15:26:57 <tomayac> ivan: not only last call, but also deployed sparql versions 15:26:59 <LeeF> Both things -- disruptive to SPARQL schedule, and somewhat disruptive to implementations 15:27:14 <PatH> Maybe should ask, if we DONT do this, how bad would that be? 15:27:29 <tomayac> eric: not convinced that it's true 15:27:57 <MacTed> 1.1 (or later) have been known to break (or at least, go beyond) 1.0 ... 15:28:06 <ivan> q+ 15:28:12 <PatH> Everyone sees to agree this would be kind of neat, but... So what is the but... for NOT doing it. 15:28:15 <MacTed> BASIC 2.0 commands broke in BASIC 1.0 interpreters... :-) 15:28:27 <davidwood> q? 15:28:52 <tomayac> andy: argument for not doing it: its not currently in turtle and in sparql. how much need is out there? 15:29:03 <PatH> OK, thanks. 15:29:04 <tomayac> andy: whats the cost. would it cause a new last call? 15:29:12 <tomayac> pat: we have a choice: 15:29:28 <tomayac> pat: if we were to include it in turtle, we'd break the sparql turtle alignment 15:29:45 <AndyS> s/pat/davidwood/ 15:29:46 <mischat> s/pat/davidwood/ 15:29:48 <tomayac> pat: do we want to break sparql-turtle alignment? 15:29:56 <mischat> s/pat/davidwood/ 15:30:05 <PatH> OK, seems to me that sparql/turtle alignment is worth quite a lot of loss of neat-o features. 15:30:06 <tomayac> eric: no 15:30:10 <davidwood> ack ivan 15:30:26 <tomayac> ivan: having a problem w/ sparql turtle alignment would be a mistake 15:30:38 <tomayac> ivan: sandro very diplomatic proposal: 15:30:59 <tomayac> ivan: if sparql goes to last call => sparql can make it a pending feature 15:31:04 <AndyS> if programmatic constructed, then the system writer gets it right anyway 15:31:15 <tomayac> ivan: if feedback on last call very negative => can be taken out 15:31:33 <PatH> Ivan, you should be in the State Department. 15:31:39 <PatH> +1 Ivan 15:31:41 <tomayac> ivan: make it clear that its an issue in pimplementations, and see what the feedback is 15:32:18 <tomayac> davidwood: happy with it 15:32:27 <tomayac> lee: implementers are here. opinions? 15:33:05 <tomayac> lee: happy, with the sparql hat on 15:33:25 <PatH> sparqly pimplementors unite! 15:33:50 <ericP> <PN_CHARS_BASE> |= UCHAR 15:33:50 <LeeF> LeeF: I'm ok with it, because I'm ok with not being 100% conformant, but I wouldn't run off to make this change in my code 15:34:07 <tomayac> ivan: to be fair, other changes for turtle would require turtle parsers to go thru an update circle 15:34:14 <SteveH> I think this is less invasive than the \u escape ordering thing 15:34:21 <SteveH> but I'm not a parser guy 15:34:57 <tomayac> andy: required update is for strings and iris 15:35:05 <tomayac> andy: believed not to affect many people 15:35:14 <ericP> _ :Eve foaf:name "Eve\u0022 . 15:35:25 <tomayac> eric: in the sense of doesnt happen often enough? 15:35:30 <tomayac> andy: yep, in this sense 15:35:50 <tomayac> david: you think we make any progress on this, andy? or should we move on? 15:35:56 <tomayac> andy: think we should move on 15:36:03 <gavinc> as turtle implementor, I'm with Eric. Easy change to make. 15:36:07 <tomayac> ivan: can we agree on other issues to be solved? 15:36:27 <tomayac> andy: yes, i can draft a resolution 15:37:00 <tomayac> eric: one of the points in eric's mail was: escaping should not be in the grammar, eric says: it should be in the grammar 15:37:14 <tomayac> andy: i took whatever was in the current doc 15:37:21 <ivan> s/poiints/points/ 15:37:34 <AndyS> PROPOSED: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0011.html Point 2-7 are agreed leaving \u processing (point 8) 15:37:48 <ivan> +1 15:37:55 <zwu2> +1 15:38:00 <pchampin> +1 15:38:04 <davidwood> +1 15:38:05 <PatH> +1 15:38:07 <sandro> +1 15:38:08 <gavinc> +1 15:38:11 <tomayac> objections to andy's proposal? 15:38:13 <webr3> +1 15:38:15 <cmatheus> +1 15:38:22 <tomayac> RESOLVED: no objections. propsal accepted 15:38:26 <mbrunati> +1 15:38:30 <SteveH> abstain 15:38:55 <ericP> +1 15:38:58 <ivan> RESOLVED: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0011.html Point 2-7 are agreed leaving \u processing 15:39:21 <tomayac> thanks for the productive discussion 15:39:24 <tomayac> next topic: 15:39:35 <tomayac> Topic: Revisiting the post-poned ISSUES 15:39:52 <tomayac> davidwood: let's try to resolve whatever is possible via phone 15:39:57 <tomayac> davidwood: let's skip others 15:40:02 <tomayac> davidwood: clean up easy ones 15:40:18 <davidwood> subtopic: ISSUE-42: Revisit "Something should be done about aboutEachPrefix construct" 15:40:18 <trackbot> ISSUE-42 Revisit "Something should be done about aboutEachPrefix construct" notes added 15:40:28 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/42 15:40:44 <tomayac> looking at issue 42 15:40:45 <ivan> ISSUE-42? 15:40:45 <trackbot> ISSUE-42 -- Revisit "Something should be done about aboutEachPrefix construct" -- raised 15:40:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/42 15:41:26 <tomayac> davidwood: please check the issue and edit it if need be 15:41:28 <ivan> +1 15:41:30 <webr3> +1 15:41:36 <sandro> +1 15:41:37 <AndyS> +1 15:41:37 <pchampin> +1 15:41:41 <SteveH> +1 15:41:41 <zwu2> +1 15:41:45 <tomayac> davidwood: objections to closing ISSUE-42? 15:41:47 <gavinc> +0 (no idea what the issue was) 15:42:12 <tomayac> davidwood: it's in the charter to clean left-overs 15:42:15 <mbrunati> +1 15:42:17 <AZ> +1 15:42:26 <tomayac> RESOLVED: davidwood: closing ISSUE-42 15:42:37 <PatH> q 15:42:37 <ivan> subtopic: ISSUE-43? 15:42:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Revisit "Suggestion that Qnames should be allowed as values for attributes such as rdf:about" -- raised 15:42:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/43 15:42:45 <tomayac> next ISSUE-43 15:43:01 <webr3> +1 to resolve/close 15:43:04 <LeeF> +1 15:43:04 <ivan> +1 15:43:06 <AZ> +1 15:43:08 <mbrunati> +1 15:43:10 <SteveH> +1 15:43:12 <AndyS> +1 15:43:12 <gavinc> +1 to close 15:43:15 <zwu2> +0 15:43:20 <tomayac> theere was agreement on email to close this ISSUE-43 15:43:21 <PatH> +0 15:43:23 <ericP> +0 15:43:23 <pchampin> +0 15:43:28 <Souri> -0 15:43:29 <tomayac> RESOLVED: davidwood: closing ISSUE-43 15:43:31 <ivan> subtopic: ISSUE-44? 15:43:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-44 -- Revisit "The RDF XML syntax cannot represent all possible Property URI's" -- raised 15:43:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/44 15:43:49 <tomayac> next ISSUE-44 15:43:52 <webr3> +1 to close, can't see any reason to continue something that won't change 15:43:59 <ivan> +1 15:44:02 <LeeF> +1 15:44:03 <SteveH> +1 to close 15:44:05 <AZ> +1 to close 15:44:09 <mbrunati> +1 15:44:11 <AlexHall> +1 15:44:14 <zwu2> +0 15:44:19 <tomayac> davidwood: seems agreement to close it, as rdf/xml wont never ever change 15:44:23 <AndyS> +1 to close with no change 15:44:31 <PatH> +1 15:44:32 <ericP> +0 15:44:41 <Souri> +1 15:44:41 <gavinc> +1 close 15:44:44 <cmatheus> +1 15:44:50 <tomayac> davidwood: correction: minor changes to rdf/xml might happen. sorry 15:44:51 <tomayac> RESOLVED: ISSUE-44 closed. 15:45:04 <ivan> subtopic: ISSUE-45? 15:45:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-45 -- Revisit "The syntax needs a more convenient way to express the reification of a statement" -- raised 15:45:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/45 15:45:05 <webr3> +1 close as a duplicate (on issue-25) 15:45:10 <tomayac> davidwood: ISSUE-44 closed 15:45:21 <tomayac> davidwood: next ISSUE-45 15:45:41 <PatH> +1 15:45:41 <SteveH> +1, close a dup 15:45:43 <gavinc> +1 close as duplicate 15:45:45 <cmatheus> +1 15:45:45 <mbrunati> +1 15:45:45 <zwu2> +1 15:45:46 <tomayac> davidwood: ISSUE-45 is duplicate of ISSUE-25 => close it 15:45:48 <OlivierCorby> +1 15:45:50 <AZ> +1 close as duplicate 15:45:53 <Souri> +1 15:45:56 <tomayac> RESOLVED: davidwood: ISSUE-45 closed 15:46:04 <ivan> subtopic: ISSUE-46? 15:46:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-46 -- Revisit "Should RDF have a mechanism for declaring two uri's to be equivalent?" -- raised 15:46:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/46 15:46:07 <webr3> -1 leave open for discussion later 15:46:08 <tomayac> davidwood: ISSUE-46 15:46:14 <PatH> Sugfgest we keep this one open for now. 15:46:19 <gavinc> -0 leave open 15:46:27 <tomayac> davidwood: leave it open for next workshop 15:46:27 <SteveH> close, we have owl:sameAs 15:46:29 <AZ> +0 15:46:36 <zwu2> close, we have owl:sameAs 15:46:43 <cmatheus> +1 leave open 15:46:46 <ericP> abstain 15:46:47 <tomayac> RESOLVED: davidwood: enough DISagreement to leave this open 15:46:48 <ivan> -0 15:46:58 <mbrunati> 0 leave open 15:46:59 <ivan> subtopic: ISSUE-47? 15:46:59 <trackbot> ISSUE-47 -- Revisit "RDF embedded in XHTML and other XML documents is hard to validate" -- raised 15:46:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/47 15:47:04 <tomayac> davidwood: ISSUE-47 15:47:08 <webr3> +1/0 don't care 15:47:13 <SteveH> don't care 15:47:25 <ivan> +1 to close 15:47:34 <FabGandon> out of scope 15:47:35 <zwu2> +1 close 15:47:36 <AZ> +1 to close 15:47:38 <sandro> close, but with a better comment. 15:47:38 <tomayac> davidwood: no objections to close it 15:47:41 <Souri> +1 15:47:41 <mbrunati> +1 close 15:47:43 <pchampin> out of scope 15:47:47 <PatH> does i tmean the RDF is hard to validate or the XML is? 15:47:48 <tomayac> RESOLVED: davidwood: ISSUE-47 closed 15:47:54 <cmatheus> +1 close 15:48:00 <PatH> +1 close out of scope 15:48:01 <tomayac> davidwood: validation is out of scope of this wg 15:48:04 <gavinc> +1 close with validation out of scope 15:48:09 <sandro> +1 "Close -- validation is out of scope for this WG" 15:48:18 <mischat> +1 to close 15:48:23 <PatH> listen to the worms... 15:48:27 <ivan> subtopic: ISSUE-48? 15:48:27 <trackbot> ISSUE-48 -- Revisit "The design of the RDF Model collection classes exhibit various awkward features. Might these be augmented with a 'better' design?" -- raised 15:48:27 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/48 15:48:34 <tomayac> davidwood: ISSUE-48 15:48:48 <webr3> +0 15:48:57 <tomayac> davidwood: danbri marked this one as a duplicate 15:49:34 <tomayac> davidwood: proposal to close it as duplicate to ISSUE-24 15:49:39 <gavinc> +0 close as duplicate of Issue-24? 15:49:51 <SteveH> not a dup of 24 15:49:53 <PatH> +q 15:50:05 <tomayac> andy: not a duplicate of ISSUE-24 15:50:12 <tomayac> andy: its about containers 15:50:22 <tomayac> ISSUE-48 is about collections 15:51:28 <tomayac> patH: couldn't follow, sorry 15:51:37 <SteveH> "The use of special property names (_1, _2, etc.) can really be quite awkward for expressing ordering. It means that it can be very difficult to add new members to a collection after the event" 15:51:42 <davidwood> ack PatH 15:51:49 <tomayac> path: seems to be a suggestion to put linked lists into rdf. done by the prev. wg 15:51:56 <tomayac> path: seems an archaic left-over 15:51:58 <mischat> SteveH: is speaking now 15:52:07 <tomayac> steveh: not true 15:53:19 <tomayac> davidwood: want to continue this discussion on the list? 15:53:47 <tomayac> steveharris: lists of things done the wrong way twice 15:54:06 <gavinc> Anyone have ideas on making better lists? 15:54:10 <tomayac> path: close it and throw it away 15:54:12 <webr3> +1 to path 15:54:16 <ericP> +1 to PatH's dicideratum 15:54:24 <ivan> +1 15:54:28 <zwu2> +1 15:54:29 <FabGandon> +1 15:54:30 <webr3> +1 15:54:30 <tomayac> PROPOSED: davidwood: proposal to close ISSUE-48 as overcome by events. objections? 15:54:31 <pchampin> +1 15:54:31 <mbrunati> +1 15:54:32 <Souri> +1 15:54:33 <gavinc> +1 15:54:33 <AZ> +1 15:54:33 <mischat> +! 15:54:37 <mischat> +1 15:54:42 <cmatheus> +1 15:55:05 <AndyS> Add them as a first class data object, not encode in triples. Its the encoding (and possible mis-encoding) that cause some of the pain. 15:55:09 <ivan> ISSUE-49? 15:55:09 <trackbot> ISSUE-49 -- Revisit "Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to be literals" -- raised 15:55:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/49 15:55:10 <tomayac> RESOLVED: davidwood: ISSUE-48 closed 15:55:13 <SteveH> +1 to AndyS 15:55:34 <zwu2> would be nice to have it :) 15:55:35 <tomayac> davidwood: ISSUE-49: literals as subjects can't be closed 15:55:35 <trackbot> ISSUE-49 Revisit "Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to be literals" notes added 15:55:35 <webr3> q : could I create an RDF serialization with literal subjects and defer to the rdf semantics? 15:55:36 <PatH> Andy: I agree, buit that goes way beyond issue-48. 15:55:55 <tomayac> davidwood: can't be considered closed 15:55:56 <AndyS> q+ 15:55:59 <PatH> Yes, the semantics is fine with literal subjects. 15:56:05 <PatH> with literal 15:56:09 <tomayac> andy: happy to postpone 15:56:10 <davidwood> ack AndyS 15:56:15 <webr3> so it's in "rdf" but not in the official serializations 15:56:19 <tomayac> andy: rdf api allows literals as subjects 15:56:54 <tomayac> ivan: status of rdf api? first public working draft hopefully next week 15:57:06 <PatH> There was a chorus of disapproval for literal subjects at the initial workshop, mostly from developers who didnt want to alter lagacy code. 15:57:08 <tomayac> davidwood: for the moment we cant do anything about it 15:57:09 <webr3> it's now "rdf-interfaces" which contains it - rdf-api is a diff spec 15:57:15 <PatH> legacy 15:57:18 <webr3> +1 to continue 15:57:38 <AndyS> +1 to PatH - legacy is now a real issue (and that's good) 15:57:38 <tomayac> tomayac: rdf api is now rdf interfaces 15:57:41 <mischat> literal as subjects doesn't seem very webbie to me, but anyways ... 15:57:52 <ivan> subtopic: ISSUE-50? 15:57:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-50 -- Revisit "Request to allow b-nodes as property labels" -- raised 15:57:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/50 15:58:00 <tomayac> davidwood: ISSUE-50 15:58:09 <tomayac> davidwood: out of charter 15:58:20 <PatH> Sorry to go back, but I just noticed something about issue-42 that might be slightly important. The POWDER mechanism uses rdf:bag, which me therefor have to be careful not to deprecate. 15:58:37 <webr3> rdf-interfaces again allows bnode predicates 15:59:06 <tomayac> davidwood: should we leave it open? or postpone? 15:59:17 <PatH> FWIW< again the semantics is OK with bnode property labels, but some of the entailments might raise eyebrows. 15:59:20 <webr3> are we goign to discuss further? if nto postpone 15:59:29 <tomayac> RESOLVED: davidwood: ISSUE-50 postponed 15:59:34 <FabGandon> +1 postpone 15:59:35 <mischat> postpone please .... 15:59:37 <pchampin> +1 postpone 15:59:37 <SteveH> +1 to postpone 15:59:38 <Souri> +1 to postpone 15:59:42 <ericP> +1 15:59:42 <PatH> COWARDS!! 15:59:43 <zwu2> +1 to postpone 15:59:44 <gavinc> +1 postpone 15:59:45 <webr3> PatH, ty for confirmation, I don't mind raised eyebrows :) 15:59:45 <mbrunati> +1 to postpone 15:59:45 <PatH> +1 15:59:46 <cmatheus> +1 15:59:47 <webr3> +1 15:59:57 <ericP> +1 to cowering in fear 16:00:29 <gavinc> RDF Interfaces :\ 16:00:37 <mischat> as in rdf-interfaces has bnode properties and literal subjects 16:00:54 <tomayac> ivan: this issue is different than the previous one 16:01:11 <webr3> RDF interface implementations will support it.. rdf semantics do to, serializations don't - doesn't matter, this is behind the "public interface" 16:01:15 <tomayac> ivan: you might have bnodes as predicates 16:01:19 <webr3> +1 to what ivan is saying 16:01:28 <PatH> +1 to Ivan 16:01:31 <zwu2> +1 to Ivan 16:01:54 <tomayac> ivan: there was a huge discussion in the rdf applications wg 16:01:57 <PatH> This is a general issue, BTW, it also bears on literal subjects. 16:02:15 <tomayac> ivan: bnodes as predicates is good in APIs, because if not, implementations might have problems 16:02:29 <pchampin> s/is good/is good in APIs/ 16:02:44 <webr3> the needs for serializing RDF are different to the needs for workign with RDF - we need to accept that generally 16:03:05 <AndyS> Is there a serialization API? 16:03:12 <tomayac> ivan: if it's for me, we can close this issue 16:03:58 <PatH> It will damage the DL/Full boundary in OWL, for sure. 16:04:01 <tomayac> ivan: dont want to go down that route 16:04:03 <webr3> AndyS, roughly the RDF API (end user focussed) will be more restricted to the convensional (matching serializations) 16:04:32 <tomayac> david: if we postpone it goes to a later wg 16:04:37 <AndyS> webr3, pointer? 16:04:59 <zwu2> q+ 16:05:03 <webr3> AndyS, http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/Overview.html 16:05:03 <PatH> LOL 16:05:25 <tomayac> davidwood: we're postponing already, leaving leftovers, just like the previous wg did 16:05:31 <webr3> can we address it properly, to say semantics allows X serializations are advised to allow Y (Reasons) then CLOSE ? 16:05:41 <tomayac> davidwood: if we close, we need to say why 16:06:04 <AndyS> webr3, pointer to serilization? I only see about parser using serialize 16:06:13 <tomayac> davidwood: saying it is out of scope is way different than closing 16:06:23 <tomayac> ivan: every wg may reopen closed issues 16:06:28 <webr3> AndyS, you've confused me - you're looking for? 16:06:42 <davidwood> q? 16:06:52 <PatH> Ivan, you read my mind... 16:06:52 <davidwood> ack zwu 16:07:15 <PatH> Separate the issues! 16:07:17 <tomayac> zwu: how many people would truly object to have literals as subjects and bnodes as predicates 16:07:19 <SteveH> Garlik would object to both / either 16:07:22 <AndyS> A pointer to "roughly the RDF API (end user focussed) will be more restricted to the convensional (matching serializations)" 16:07:22 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: Who would object to Liuteral Subjects 16:07:24 <LeeF> Quite possibly. 16:07:27 <PatH> Im happy with literal subjects. 16:07:28 <ivan> +0.5 16:07:32 <tomayac> zwu: straw poll, please 16:07:33 <webr3> v happy with +1 16:07:44 <davidwood> I would possibly object to literal subjects - I have before 16:07:47 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: Allow Literal Subjects 16:07:49 <webr3> +1 16:07:50 <sandro> +1 16:07:51 <SteveH> -1 16:07:52 <cmatheus> +1 16:07:52 <PatH> +1 16:07:52 <Souri> -1 16:07:53 <pchampin> +1 16:07:53 <LeeF> -0.8 16:07:54 <AZ> +1 16:07:54 <mischat> -1 16:07:54 <mbrunati> +1 16:07:56 <zwu2> +1 16:07:56 <davidwood> -0.5 16:08:00 <ivan> -0.2 16:08:01 <OlivierCorby> -1 16:08:05 <gavinc> -0 16:08:11 <AlexHall> +0 16:08:11 <LeeF> ivan + me == 1 full objection! :-) 16:08:22 <ericP> -1 16:08:25 <AndyS> Need to think more but quite possibility -1 (because the deployed system impact) 16:08:36 <FabGandon> -1 16:08:40 <tomayac> zwu asked also for a straw poll on bnodes as predicates 16:08:59 <sandro> STRAWPOLL; Allow bnodes as predicates 16:09:01 <sandro> +1 16:09:01 <gavinc> +0 16:09:02 <webr3> +1 16:09:02 <ivan> -1 16:09:03 <PatH> +1 16:09:03 <zwu2> +1 16:09:03 <ericP> -1 16:09:04 <SteveH> -1 16:09:04 <Souri> -1 16:09:06 <LeeF> -1 16:09:06 <AZ> +1 16:09:06 <mischat> -1 16:09:08 <mbrunati> 0 16:09:08 <cmatheus> +0 16:09:08 <OlivierCorby> -1 16:09:14 <pchampin> +1 16:09:14 <FabGandon> -1 16:09:15 <davidwood> +0 16:09:25 <AndyS> -0.5 16:09:31 <PatH> This is assuming that we have bnodes at all, of course. 16:09:43 <tomayac> zwu: one for the reasons are: if we are implementing an inference engine, it's way easier to allow, than disallow them 16:09:44 <gavinc> +1 to PatH 16:09:47 <MacTed> bnodes are useful in-process. they are nothing but trouble once you leave process. 16:09:48 <davidwood> We have bnodes, Pat :) 16:09:55 <tomayac> ivan: -1 because it would invalidate many things in owl 16:09:57 <PatH> It depends what kind of inference engine uyou are tryuing to implement. 16:10:14 <PatH> OWL-DL would prohibit it rigorously, so it would add a layer of checking to thier engines. 16:10:28 <FabGandon> +1 to AndyS 16:10:30 <mischat> +1 AndyS 16:10:33 <PatH> +1 to andy 16:10:44 <tomayac> davidwood: back to ISSUE-50 16:10:47 <gavinc> +0.5 to AndyS ... sometimes it leaks 16:11:01 <tomayac> davidwood: open => discuss, close => out of scope, postponed: let others deal with it 16:11:10 <webr3> if it's not an RDF WG level problem, who would it be a problem for? 16:11:11 <AndyS> gavinc, where??? and I'll stop that!!!!!! 16:11:14 <mischat> it is not webby to serialise statements suchs as ` "42" _ :�bnode1 _bnode2 . ` 16:11:29 <webr3> +1 leave raised 16:11:35 <SteveH> close 16:11:37 <tomayac> davidwood: significant disagreement 16:11:42 <zwu2> +1 postpone it 16:11:44 <tomayac> ivan: either close or postpone 16:11:46 <LeeF> suggest close 16:11:47 <cmatheus> +1 leave raised 16:11:52 <PatH> Its not in our charter, its a huge can of worms, it owuld screw up OWL (and probably RIF) relatkionships. Lets walk away from it. 16:12:00 <pchampin> +1 postpone 16:12:03 <FabGandon> out of scope 16:12:17 <Souri> +1 to postpone it 16:12:26 <mbrunati> sorry guys i have to leave 16:12:29 <PatH> SO, leave it open and ignore it. 16:12:30 <tomayac> davidwood: reads what people say on irc 16:12:34 <webr3> (I'm saying to leave open/raised until there's good text to close it with or to clarify around the issue) 16:12:39 <Zakim> -mbrunati 16:12:42 <LeeF> I don't think postponing is good. What's the point? If people find this useful and implement it, then we can standardize it in the future. But what's the point in continuing to say "meh"? 16:13:16 <SteveH> just close it, a future group can open a new issue if it becomes desirable 16:13:21 <tomayac> RESOLVED: davidwood: not enough agreement to postpone 16:13:24 <LeeF> +1 SteveH 16:13:34 <tomayac> davidwood: correction: not enough agreement 16:13:35 <ivan> +1 SteveH 16:13:37 <LeeF> I'm ok with opening it and then closing it, as well. 16:13:48 <LeeF> -1 to postponing it 16:13:52 <webr3> -1 16:13:53 <cmatheus> -1 16:13:53 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: postpone issue 50 16:14:12 <PatH> is an open issue like an open sore? 16:14:37 <LeeF> PatH, very very much so 16:14:57 <tomayac> davidwood: makes a chair decision to leave it raised. talk about it later 16:15:09 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/42 16:15:14 <tomayac> davidwood: pat raised a question on issue 42 16:15:33 <tomayac> path: rdf bag not much use 16:15:48 <tomayac> path: proposed to deprecate rdf bag 16:16:10 <tomayac> davidwood: thinks we still could deprecate 16:16:51 <pchampin> I thought we already excluded the deprecation of rdf:Bag as it was widely used in RSS 16:17:01 <pchampin> (vague memory of the F2F) 16:17:08 <tomayac> davidwood: out of time for this call 16:17:09 <mischat> i recall that pchampin too 16:17:13 <SteveH> pchampin, yes 16:17:20 <PatH> pcahmpin, good point. thnx. 16:17:20 <tomayac> davidwood: remaining issues => later call 16:17:26 <tomayac> Topic: davidwood: AOB? 16:17:33 <Zakim> -[IPcaller] 16:17:34 <Zakim> -Souri 16:17:35 <tomayac> davidwood: call adjourned 16:17:36 <zwu2> bye 16:17:36 <mischat> would be nice to have the next f2f sorted 16:17:36 <Zakim> -sandro 16:17:37 <Zakim> -[Garlik] 16:17:37 <PatH> ivan, to handle that issue we discussed. 16:17:37 <Zakim> -cmatheus 16:17:39 <Zakim> -AlexHall 16:17:39 <mischat> doh 16:17:41 <mischat> bye all 16:17:41 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:17:43 <Zakim> -OlivierCorby 16:17:43 <Zakim> -zwu2 16:17:45 <Zakim> -PatH 16:17:46 <Zakim> -gavinc 16:17:50 <Zakim> -Russell 16:17:51 <Zakim> -Scott 16:17:57 <AlexHall> AlexHall has left #rdf-wg 16:18:22 <AndyS> webr3 - I see nothing about serialization 16:19:09 <pchampin> rrsagent, make minutes 16:19:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/05/04-rdf-wg-minutes.html pchampin 16:19:15 <davidwood> tomayac: You can edit http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-04 via the wiki once they are generated 16:19:23 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2009/CommonScribe/manual 16:19:55 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/2009/CommonScribe/panel/ 16:20:03 <Zakim> -AndyS 16:21:35 <Zakim> -FabGandon 16:21:44 <FabGandon> FabGandon has left #rdf-wg # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000697