Difference between revisions of "Chatlog 2011-06-01"

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 283: Line 283:
 
15:43:06 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56
 
15:43:06 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56
 
15:43:07 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group
 
15:43:07 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group
15:43:20 <davidwood1> ISSUE-56: Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments"
+
15:43:20 <davidwood1> ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments"
 
15:43:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" notes added
 
15:43:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" notes added
 
15:43:21 <pfps> +q
 
15:43:21 <pfps> +q
Line 291: Line 291:
 
15:43:53 <SteveH> rdfs:comment?
 
15:43:53 <SteveH> rdfs:comment?
 
15:44:02 <JeremyCarroll> no - not rdfs:comment
 
15:44:02 <JeremyCarroll> no - not rdfs:comment
15:44:17 <JeremyCarroll> rdf:universal
+
15:44:17 <JeremyCarroll> rdf:universal
 
15:44:19 <SteveH> ok, then <!-- --> / #
 
15:44:19 <SteveH> ok, then <!-- --> / #
 
15:44:27 <AlexHall> pfps: this is from Ian, there was annoyance in the OWL wg that rdfs:comment has semantics
 
15:44:27 <AlexHall> pfps: this is from Ian, there was annoyance in the OWL wg that rdfs:comment has semantics
Line 314: Line 314:
 
15:47:23 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/57
 
15:47:23 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/57
 
15:47:29 <pfps> q+ for issue-57
 
15:47:29 <pfps> q+ for issue-57
15:47:41 <davidwood1> ISSUE-57: Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture"
+
15:47:41 <davidwood1> ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture"
 
15:47:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture" notes added
 
15:47:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture" notes added
 
15:48:06 <AlexHall> is anybody speaking right now?
 
15:48:06 <AlexHall> is anybody speaking right now?
Line 350: Line 350:
 
15:54:33 <cmatheus> +1
 
15:54:33 <cmatheus> +1
 
15:54:47 <JeremyCarroll> ]/me Guus
 
15:54:47 <JeremyCarroll> ]/me Guus
15:54:56 <davidwood1> ISSUE-12: Reconcile various forms of string literals
+
15:54:56 <davidwood1> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals
 
15:54:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added
 
15:54:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added
 
15:54:56 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12
 
15:54:56 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12

Revision as of 16:50, 1 June 2011

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

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

14:21:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:21:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/01-rdf-wg-irc
14:21:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:21:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:21:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
14:21:23 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 39 minutes
14:21:24 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:21:24 <trackbot> Date: 01 June 2011
14:27:12 <Scott> Scott has joined #rdf-wg
14:30:55 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdf-wg
14:51:14 <Scott_Bauer> Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
14:52:16 <Guus> Guus has joined #rdf-wg
14:53:25 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
14:53:32 <Zakim> +hsbauer
14:53:42 <Zakim> +Guus
14:53:57 <Scott_Bauer> zakim, hsbauer is me
14:53:57 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer; got it
14:55:07 <mbrunati> mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg
14:55:40 <Zakim> +davidwood
14:56:12 <davidwood1> zakim, who is here?
14:56:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood
14:56:59 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:56:59 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:57:01 <Zakim> +Ivan
14:57:28 <SteveH_> SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg
14:57:30 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office
14:57:30 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:57:32 <Zakim> +EricP
14:57:45 <Zakim> +??P25
14:58:06 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:21 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:40 <Olivier> Olivier has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:40 <Zakim> +??P22
14:58:45 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:47 <Zakim> +??P26
14:58:53 <mbrunati> zakim, ??P22 is me
14:58:53 <Zakim> +mbrunati; got it
14:58:56 <SteveH_> Zakim, ??P26 is me
14:58:56 <Zakim> +SteveH_; got it
14:59:12 <cmatheus> cmatheus has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:19 <Zakim> +AlexHall
14:59:24 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:47 <pchampin> zakim, who is here?
14:59:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, ??P25 (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall
15:00:05 <Zakim> +FabGandon
15:00:15 <pchampin> zakim, ??P25 is me
15:00:15 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
15:00:22 <Zakim> +??P30
15:00:42 <Zakim> +??P3
15:00:42 <AndyS> zakim, ??P30 is me
15:00:44 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:00:50 <Zakim> +pfps
15:01:03 <cmatheus> zakim, ??P30 is me
15:01:03 <Zakim> I already had ??P30 as AndyS, cmatheus
15:01:07 <Zakim> +wcandillon
15:01:19 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:20 <AZ> zakim, wcandillon is me
15:01:20 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
15:01:22 <Zakim> +LeeF
15:01:35 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, ??P3, pfps, AZ, LeeF
15:01:42 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
15:01:42 <AZ> Yes
15:01:46 <davidwood1> zakim, ??P30 is really me.  Really!  Please let me have it.
15:01:49 <Zakim> I don't understand you, davidwood1
15:01:56 <davidwood1> Zakim, I know :)
15:01:57 <Zakim> I'm glad that smiley is there, davidwood1
15:02:01 <cmatheus> zakim, ??P3 is me
15:02:05 <Zakim> +cmatheus; got it
15:02:48 <davidwood1> Chair: David Wood
15:02:51 <cygri> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas
15:02:52 <davidwood1> Zakim, who is here?
15:02:53 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
15:02:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas
15:02:54 <pchampin> zakim, mute me
15:02:56 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
15:02:56 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted
15:03:03 <Zakim> +??P36
15:03:10 <davidwood1> Scribe: Alex Hall
15:03:21 <NickH> Zakim, ??P36 is BBC
15:03:21 <Zakim> +BBC; got it
15:03:23 <davidwood1> Scribenick: AlexHall
15:03:30 <Zakim> +JeremyCarroll
15:03:49 <Zakim> +Souri
15:04:22 <AlexHall> regrets: axel, pat, mischat, souri
15:04:25 <AlexHall> topic: Admin
15:04:53 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
15:04:55 <AlexHall> davidwood: there were several resolutions from last meeting, please review the minutes.
15:05:02 <zwu2> zakim, code?
15:05:02 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), zwu2
15:05:13 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: minutes from last meeting accepted
15:05:22 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:05:29 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?
15:05:30 <pfps>  minutes look OK to me
15:05:32 <Zakim> +zwu2
15:05:38 <zwu2> sorry I am late
15:05:39 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AZ (16%), Guus (5%), davidwood (59%), Ivan (25%)
15:05:50 <ivan> zakim, mute me
15:05:50 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
15:06:19 <NickH> Zakim, BBC also has NickH
15:06:19 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
15:06:24 <NickH> Zakim, BBC also has yvesr 
15:06:24 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
15:06:30 <AlexHall> cygri: still working on writing up named graph proposals for action-25
15:06:46 <AlexHall> ... happy to keep action open or accept help from others
15:07:01 <JeremyCarroll> JeremyCarroll has joined #rdf-wg
15:07:08 <pchampin> ACTION-25?
15:07:08 <trackbot> ACTION-25 -- Richard Cyganiak to write up the different options re ISSUE-15 -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN
15:07:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/25
15:07:39 <Zakim> +sandro
15:07:55 <AlexHall> cygri: action-51 text is implemented in local copy and waiting for hg repository
15:08:11 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:08:18 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:08:18 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:08:20 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:08:20 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:08:45 <cygri> trackbot, close ACTION-51
15:08:45 <trackbot> ACTION-51 Implement ISSUE-40 resolution in RDF Concepts Editor's draft; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0238.html and replies for text closed
15:08:55 <AlexHall> guus: still trying to figure out what purpose of action-51 was
15:09:04 <AlexHall> s/action-51/action-47
15:09:26 <AlexHall> topic: Language tags
15:09:26 <davidwood1> ISSUE-64, RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags?
15:09:26 <davidwood1> Richard's proposal to resolve: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0441.html
15:09:26 <trackbot> ISSUE-64 RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags? notes added
15:09:44 <AlexHall> davidwood: Richard has proposal to resolve language tag issue
15:09:52 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:10:05 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to express surprise at the current text
15:10:14 <AlexHall> cygri: spec currently refers to obsoleted rfc 3066 for language tags
15:10:31 <AlexHall> ... proposal is to use latest rfc 5646
15:10:38 <davidwood1> Pat's reformulation/explanation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0010.html
15:10:56 <davidwood1> Lee F also expressed support: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0011.html
15:11:10 <AlexHall> ... the new RFC has two notions of validity: well-formedness (grammar only) and validity (lang tag actually exists)
15:11:52 <AlexHall> ... add a note that the previous RFC allowed lang tags that are no longer allowed under the latest version
15:12:01 <ericP> +1 ref'ing 5646, +1 to holding at well-formedness, +1 to explanatory note
15:12:06 <yvesr> +1
15:12:07 <AlexHall> ... adopt the loosest notion of well-formedness
15:12:36 <AlexHall> davidwood: do you agree with pat's latest note on the mailing list?
15:12:49 <AlexHall> cygri: seems to be about a different issue
15:13:13 <AlexHall> davidwood: apologies, it was a different issue
15:14:23 <AlexHall> ???: when i read this note, it prompted me to drill down into original text around lang tags in the spec
15:14:57 <AZ> s/???/JeremyCarroll
15:15:03 <AlexHall> ... at some point there was a phrase to reference RFC 3066 or its successors
15:15:20 <AlexHall> ... not sure what that phrase was dropped, would like to find out why
15:15:39 <FabGandon> FabGandon has joined #rdf-wg
15:15:43 <AZ> s/what/why/
15:16:07 <ericP> refs to unicode serve as a precedent for "or it's successors", but there are contracts which allow forward-thinking parsers to know what could be valid in the next decade or so
15:16:25 <AlexHall> ... richard's point about validity vs. well-formedness was well taken and i support the proposal.
15:16:51 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/64
15:17:03 <pfps> OK by me
15:17:25 <pfps> ... not that I care .... Issue 12, on the other hand ...
15:17:29 <ericP> +1
15:17:31 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts as per Richard's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0441.html
15:17:31 <SteveH> +1
15:17:34 <AndyS> OK if syntax restriction - not depending on registry state
15:17:35 <pfps> +0
15:17:36 <JeremyCarroll> +1
15:17:36 <davidwood1> +1
15:17:36 <mbrunati> +1
15:17:38 <ivan> +1
15:17:41 <zwu2> +1
15:17:43 <sandro> +1
15:17:55 <pchampin> +1
15:17:59 <cmatheus> +1
15:18:03 <AZ> +1
15:18:04 <yvesr> +1
15:18:07 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:18:39 <Zakim> -Scott_Bauer
15:19:07 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer
15:19:12 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts per Richard's proposal
15:19:23 <ivan> q+
15:19:26 <ivan> ack ivan
15:19:31 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to implement ISSUE-64 resolution
15:19:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Implement ISSUE-64 resolution [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-06-08].
15:19:37 <davidwood1> Proposed text on replacing URIref with IRI
15:19:37 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/IRIs/RDFConceptsProposal
15:19:37 <davidwood1> Related email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0413.html
15:19:47 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll
15:19:47 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to express surprise at the current text
15:19:47 <JeremyCarroll> ack
15:19:56 <Zakim> +[Sophia]
15:20:04 <ivan> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/
15:20:14 <FabGandon> zakim, Sophia is me
15:20:14 <Zakim> +FabGandon; got it
15:20:30 <AlexHall> ivan: before we move on to other major issues, I have the hg repository set up and link is posted in IRC
15:21:10 <davidwood1> q?
15:21:39 <AlexHall> topic: Replacing URIref with IRI
15:21:47 <AlexHall> davidwood: This is Richard's text
15:22:24 <AlexHall> cygri: link is posted in minutes. issue is that we need to replace references to URI Reference in Concepts with references to IRI
15:22:48 <AlexHall> ... fortunately this simplifies things because IRI defines things which were previously defined in RDF
15:23:00 <AlexHall> ... main issue is what to do with the left-over notes in Concepts
15:23:29 <AlexHall> ... there are characters which were allowed in URIrefs which are no longer allowed in IRIs
15:23:37 <davidwood1> q+ to discuss IPv6 in ihost: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#page-7
15:23:47 <AlexHall> ... add note to indicate that these are no longer allowed except in %-encoded form
15:24:21 <AlexHall> ... also a note to discourage %-encoded characters in old text, not sure this is a good idea
15:24:34 <AlexHall> q+ to discuss percent-encoding
15:24:51 <davidwood1> ack davidwood
15:24:51 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to discuss IPv6 in ihost: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#page-7
15:24:59 <AlexHall> ... would like feedback from others who have looked into it
15:25:29 <AndyS> There is %-enc text in RFC => (summary) use % only as necessary and not wildly.
15:25:36 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought
15:25:47 <ericP> q?
15:25:52 <AndyS> IPv6 are legal using []
15:25:56 <AlexHall> davidwood: occurred to me since i'm dealing with IPv6 issues... IRI grammar seems to allow host names and IPv4 addresses but not IPv6
15:26:12 <AlexHall> ... anybody know why this is?
15:26:23 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:26:26 <davidwood1> IP-literal     = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture  ) "]"
15:26:31 <SteveH> right
15:26:34 <AlexHall> ???: IRI allows IPv6 addresses in square brackets
15:26:36 <SteveH> I've actually used them :)
15:26:46 <davidwood1> ack AlexHall
15:26:46 <Zakim> AlexHall, you wanted to discuss percent-encoding
15:26:50 <AndyS> RFC2732 adds them
15:27:04 <AZ> s/???/SteveH/
15:27:38 <AndyS> RFC 3986   page 19
15:28:16 <AndyS> section 3.2.2.  Host
15:28:22 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to say last note is too long!
15:30:23 <pchampin> is there any reference that we could refer to regarding this notion of "canonical IRI"?
15:30:27 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll
15:30:27 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought and to say last note is too long!
15:30:50 <cygri> q+
15:30:56 <pfps> +1 to Jeremy - it is better to defer than to copy
15:31:34 <cygri> q-
15:31:36 <AlexHall> AlexHall: Intent of the original text with %-encoding seemed to be to avoid interoperability issues, so I agree with the new proposal in this regard.
15:31:48 <pfps> -1 to David - informative lists tend to become too normative
15:32:07 <cygri> q+ to ask jeremy how much is too long
15:32:14 <AlexHall> JeremyCarroll: Would like to simply defer to IRI section 5 for normalization
15:32:31 <AlexHall> ... giving a long list here runs the risk of people thinking this is exhaustive or normative
15:33:06 <AlexHall> davidwood: having the list there is nice as a summary so people don't have to hunt down the list themselves
15:33:26 <AlexHall> cygri: the intent here is that they are informative, not normative, and this will be explicitly noted in the document.
15:34:09 <ericP> q+ to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs."
15:34:18 <davidwood1> q?
15:34:22 <cygri> q-
15:34:36 <AlexHall> JeremyCarroll: Historically this section has been note-heavy, would prefer to see this stuff moved into a new section 3.7
15:34:53 <Zakim> -AZ
15:34:54 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:35:05 <pfps> moving to an informative section would help a lot!
15:35:25 <davidwood1> ack ericP
15:35:25 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and
15:35:29 <Zakim> ... produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs."
15:35:38 <Zakim> +AZ
15:35:58 <AlexHall> ericP: seems the root issue is that producing non-normalized IRIs decreases the chance that other tools will produce the same form
15:36:12 <cygri> q+
15:36:15 <AndyS> And other RDF apps.
15:36:20 <JeremyCarroll> with that text we are well on the way to section 3.7
15:36:23 <davidwood1> ack cygri
15:36:36 <AlexHall> ... propose to add some text (quoted in IRC) to explain the motivations for this note.
15:37:08 <AlexHall> cygri: prefer to avoid motivations and give just a concise summary
15:37:34 <AlexHall> davidwood: would like to cater to people who don't want to read through all the specs to get a good understanding
15:38:02 <AlexHall> ... most conerns at this point seem to be editorial in nature
15:38:29 <AlexHall> cygri: as soon as the working draft goes live this content will be added and i encourage further comments
15:38:48 <AlexHall> ... don't think we need a resolution now but want interested people to keep any eye on it.
15:39:03 <AlexHall> Topic: Revisit RDF Postponed Issues
15:39:19 <AlexHall> davidwood: This always seems to get pushed down to the bottom of the agenda
15:39:36 <AlexHall> ... let's take a few minutes to knock some of these down now
15:39:39 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/55
15:40:01 <pfps> Issue-55 - not only no, but xxxx NO!  the request is incorrect, anyway
15:40:22 <pfps> s/xxxx/hell/
15:40:24 <LeeF> seconded
15:40:34 <SteveH> yeah, lets not do that :)
15:40:39 <AlexHall> PROPOSED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group
15:40:39 <zwu2> +1 close it
15:40:41 <ivan> agreed with closing
15:40:41 <cygri> +1
15:40:42 <pfps> +1
15:40:43 <mbrunati> +1
15:40:44 <SteveH> +1
15:40:53 <yvesr> +1
15:40:57 <AZ> +1
15:40:58 <pchampin> +1
15:40:59 <cmatheus> +1
15:41:02 <LeeF> ISSUE-55?
15:41:02 <trackbot> ISSUE-55 -- Revisit "Request for a richer vocabulary for languages" -- raised
15:41:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/55
15:41:03 <NickH> +1
15:41:59 <JeremyCarroll> 2) With respect to the rules for comparing literals: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literal-Equality  For reasons of standardization and ease of use, there should exist a higher level matching rule that allows one to search for (lang="en", str) and to get matches to more detailed tags (lang="en-gb", str).  This higher level rule should be defined 
15:42:19 <AlexHall> JeremyCarroll: we should close saying lang-matches from SPARQL addresses this issue
15:43:05 <ivan> issue-56?
15:43:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 -- Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" -- raised
15:43:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56
15:43:06 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56
15:43:07 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group
15:43:20 <davidwood1> ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments"
15:43:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" notes added
15:43:21 <pfps> +q
15:43:25 <Zakim> -Scott_Bauer
15:43:51 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer
15:43:52 <davidwood1> ack pfps
15:43:53 <SteveH> rdfs:comment?
15:44:02 <JeremyCarroll> no - not rdfs:comment
15:44:17 <JeremyCarroll>  rdf:universal
15:44:19 <SteveH> ok, then <!-- --> / #
15:44:27 <AlexHall> pfps: this is from Ian, there was annoyance in the OWL wg that rdfs:comment has semantics
15:44:44 <AlexHall> ... that ship has sailed, rdfs:comment is there and has semantics
15:45:05 <AlexHall> ... no third party is allowed to add new predicates to the RDF namespace
15:45:13 <AlexHall> ... we should close it
15:45:32 <cygri> +1 to closing
15:45:33 <pfps> +1
15:45:35 <ericP> +0
15:45:36 <AndyS> +1
15:45:37 <AZ> +1
15:45:37 <zwu2> +1
15:45:37 <mbrunati> +1 
15:45:39 <JeremyCarroll> +0
15:45:39 <Guus> +1 to closing
15:45:40 <yvesr> +1
15:45:42 <SteveH> +0
15:45:44 <cmatheus> +1
15:45:45 <AlexHall> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56, we have no intention of addressing this.
15:46:15 <pchampin> +0
15:46:21 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-56, we have no intention of addressing this.
15:47:23 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/57
15:47:29 <pfps> q+ for issue-57
15:47:41 <davidwood1> ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture"
15:47:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture" notes added
15:48:06 <AlexHall> is anybody speaking right now?
15:49:28 <pfps> q+
15:49:40 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to peter
15:49:50 <JeremyCarroll> close it, reject
15:49:54 <AlexHall> davidwood: instead of continuing, we should open it and revisit when we finish the specs
15:50:20 <AndyS> What would a more layered architecture look like?  It's not just change of exposition.
15:50:33 <pchampin> q+ to ask about RDFS-DL ?
15:50:49 <davidwood1> ack pfps
15:50:49 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to discuss issue-57 and to 
15:50:51 <AlexHall> pfps: we won't be addressing this in this WG
15:51:15 <AlexHall> ... there was a request for some defined fragment of RDFS that fits nicely into OWL
15:52:13 <AlexHall> davidwood: sounds like yet another proposal for yet another subset of logical formalism
15:52:13 <pchampin> q-
15:52:14 <JeremyCarroll> q+ 
15:52:29 <Guus> propose to close by doing nothing, no strong expressed need
15:52:31 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll
15:53:23 <Guus> I don't think we need to spend telecon time on this, we are all in violent agreement :-)
15:54:00 <FabGandon> +1
15:54:03 <ericP> +0
15:54:04 <JeremyCarroll> +1
15:54:05 <AlexHall> PROPOSED: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it.
15:54:05 <mbrunati> +1
15:54:07 <SteveH> +1
15:54:08 <pfps> +1 to crush the can
15:54:09 <cygri> +1
15:54:10 <zwu2> +0
15:54:10 <Souri> +1
15:54:14 <AZ> +1
15:54:21 <ivan> 1
15:54:23 <yvesr> +0
15:54:24 <AndyS> +1
15:54:28 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it.
15:54:33 <cmatheus> +1
15:54:47 <JeremyCarroll> ]/me Guus
15:54:56 <davidwood1> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals
15:54:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added
15:54:56 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12
15:55:16 <AlexHall> Topic: ISSUE-12 (string literals)
15:55:17 <davidwood1> ISSUE-12: Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting)
15:55:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added
15:55:47 <AlexHall> davidwood: I note that this item is marked as "time-permitting" in the charter
15:55:59 <cygri> q+
15:56:05 <pfps> +1 to keeping Pat simple :-)
15:56:17 <SteveH> "simple" != about 2k of text
15:56:25 <AlexHall> ... who would like to speak for pat and his request to keep it simple?
15:56:27 <davidwood1> ack cygri
15:56:28 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/mid/C2088CAC-65A4-4B20-B657-C48A0440DE69@ihmc.us is pat's mail
15:56:48 <davidwood1> Ivan, that URI gives me a 404
15:56:52 <cygri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0430.html
15:56:58 <LeeF> Pat's email just re-expresses Richard's proposal, as far as i can tell.
15:57:02 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain
15:57:03 <AlexHall> cygri: would not like to speak to what pat said, seems to just point out that the last proposal wasn't that complicated
15:57:21 <ivan> sorry
15:57:29 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0010.html is pat's mail
15:57:31 <LeeF> +1 to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0430.html
15:57:36 <AndyS> Remaining issue is class vs datatype because DATATYPE("foo"@en) =? rdf:TaggedThing
15:57:37 <AlexHall> ... would like to talk about another proposal that addresses only strings without language tag
15:57:50 <AlexHall> ... seems to be agreement on this aspect of it
15:58:28 <SteveH> q+
15:58:58 <AlexHall> ... the proposal is to unify un-tagged string literals is to abolish the untagged plain literal in the abstract syntax and consider "foo" to be syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string in the concrete syntax
15:59:29 <AlexHall> s/is to abolish/by abolishing/
15:59:31 <AndyS> To Pat's email - if only class, then DATATYPE() => error still?? Seems unhelpful.
15:59:54 <AlexHall> pfps: like this proposal better than previous ones
16:00:46 <Zakim> -FabGandon
16:01:00 <Zakim> -FabGandon.a
16:01:02 <AlexHall> ... have some compliant about the use of rdf:LangTaggedString, not sure it is needed and will require changes to RDF semantics, OWL, and SPARQL
16:01:22 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:01:42 <FabGandon> FabGandon has left #rdf-wg
16:01:56 <JeremyCarroll> rdf:LangTaggedString = rdfs:Literal - union of all typed literals
16:02:01 <AlexHall> ... thinks it's OK to handle rdf:LTS in OWL but need to verify
16:02:17 <davidwood1> ack SteveH
16:02:32 <AlexHall> ... would like to send a note to the OWL WG
16:02:54 <Souri> Question: Will "abc" still be a valid RDF literal? For example, would it be ok for me present the following triple for insertion: <John> rdfs:label "John" , OR am I obliged to present: <John> rdfs:label "John"^^xsd:string ? Also, can SPARQL query return "John" as a value for a variable?
16:03:02 <LeeF> q+
16:03:11 <AlexHall> SteveH: my concern is that we previously resolved to do just the opposite, to turn xsd:string into plain literals
16:03:26 <LeeF> q-
16:03:43 <LeeF> (was going to ask where this is visible, but then Steve answered it)
16:03:47 <Souri> I agree with Steve's concern
16:03:48 <AlexHall> ... this seems to match what users expect, since most string data in the wild is not typed as xsd:string
16:03:59 <AlexHall> ... there is also concern about how this plays with SPARQL
16:04:38 <AndyS> +1 - SPARQL results must return non-DT string for xsd:string for this else massive surprises (= lots of support costs).
16:05:00 <davidwood1> q?
16:05:15 <Souri> s/agree with/share/
16:05:18 <AlexHall> ... SPARQL results will return lots of unexpected xsd:string datatypes
16:05:33 <cygri> q+
16:05:45 <ivan> q+
16:05:51 <davidwood1> ack cygri
16:06:03 <AlexHall> ... seems odd to go to all this trouble to remove plain literals from the abstract syntax and turn around and strip out xsd:string types on the way out of the system.
16:06:05 <AndyS> q+ to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics
16:06:12 <pchampin> making a difference btw 2 kinds of strings is even more perverse
16:07:01 <AlexHall> cygri: the only syntax that really needs changing is N-Triples...
16:07:15 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to suggest predictability also hel[ful for XML
16:07:40 <AlexHall> ... syntactic sugar in most concrete syntaxes is bad because it reduces predictability
16:08:23 <AlexHall> ... forbidding one datatype in the abstract syntax is even more perverse than forbidding plain literals in one of the concrete syntaxes
16:09:02 <sandro> SteveH, I liked deprecating xs:string until it looked like we could get rid of Plain Literals entirely (via using language-tags-as-datatypes).
16:09:25 <davidwood1> Sandro, right.  Me, too.
16:09:31 <ivan> q-
16:09:32 <davidwood1> ack ivan
16:09:35 <Souri> We could have both "abc" and "abc"^^xsd:string as equivalent (identical when compared), but treat the simple literal form "abc" to be the canonical one.
16:09:35 <AlexHall> davidwood: none of the proposals seems to play nicely with all the various levels (semantics, concepts, RDF document set, implementations)
16:09:37 <sandro> I hope people wont be expected to emit the long form.
16:09:40 <davidwood1> ack AndyS
16:09:40 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics
16:09:50 <SteveH> sandro, I like lang tag -> datatype
16:10:16 <AlexHall> AndyS: agree with Steve's concerns re. xsd:string in concrete syntaxes, think this could be abolished if we're careful
16:10:17 <AlexHall> ...
16:10:22 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to andy / split surface syntax from abstract syntax
16:10:29 <ericP> +1 to short-forms only in the serializations
16:10:39 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll
16:10:39 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest predictability also hel[ful for XML
16:10:43 <yvesr> +1 to AndyS 
16:10:51 <AlexHall> ... but we can split the abstract and sufrace syntaxes and use different approaches in each
16:11:00 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:11:18 <AlexHall> Jeremy: If we're making N-Triples, Turtle more predictable then we should also make RDF/XML more predictable.
16:11:57 <AlexHall> davidwood: If we ingest RDF literals, turn them into xsd:string internally, and emit them back as plain literals, is this consistent with what you said:
16:12:13 <AlexHall> AndyS: yes it is, and I can't think of a format where you wouldn't want to do that.
16:12:30 <pfps> NO!
16:12:53 <AlexHall> davidwood: are we re-defining xsd:string?
16:12:57 <AlexHall> everybody: NO!
16:13:39 <Souri> q+
16:13:41 <AlexHall> ???: we're retroactively declaring that all plain literals without language tags are actually xsd:strings
16:13:47 <sandro> At the RDF APIs will be much simpler, Andy.
16:13:55 <sandro> At LEAST, the APIs....
16:14:48 <AndyS> sandro - not so simple?? - are serializers inside or outside such API?
16:14:48 <AlexHall> davidwood: Volunteers to start a wiki page to collect all the places that are affected by Richard & Pat's ISSUE-12 proposal?
16:15:22 <AndyS> Request for a consolidate text for R+P proposal.
16:15:26 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain
16:16:53 <AndyS> Please rename - if we keep untagged-in-surface syntax, it's a bad name.
16:17:08 <AlexHall> cygri: it's been my understanding that this conversation has been only about string literals without language tags
16:17:34 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:17:39 <AlexHall> davidwood: can you combine this with the language-tag proposal?
16:18:06 <AlexHall> cygri: point was to keep them separate because there is still disagreement about language tags
16:18:45 <davidwood1> q?
16:18:51 <AlexHall> davidwood: request for somebody to add to the wiki page for this proposal a section that collects all documents which will need to change as a result of it.
16:19:39 <davidwood1> ack Souri
16:19:59 <AndyS> SPARQL query is doable / SPARQL XML results is not being opened this time => trickier
16:20:20 <AlexHall> souri: looking at this proposal, intent seems to be that these two forms are declared equivalent
16:20:45 <AlexHall> ... we should define a canonical form for the surface syntax so we know how to output the value in query results
16:20:59 <AlexHall> davidwood: we are over time
16:21:11 <zwu2> bye
16:21:12 <LeeF> regrets next week for semtech
16:21:12 <AlexHall> ... think we've made progress
16:21:13 <yvesr> bye
16:21:13 <pchampin> bye
16:21:13 <AndyS> regrets for next week - semtech
16:21:15 <AlexHall> ... adjourned.
16:21:16 <Zakim> -LeeF
16:21:17 <Zakim> -davidwood
16:21:17 <Zakim> -sandro
16:21:18 <JeremyCarroll> bye
16:21:19 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:21:20 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:21:20 <Zakim> -zwu2
16:21:21 <Zakim> -SteveH_
16:21:21 <Zakim> -EricP
16:21:23 <Zakim> -pchampin
16:21:23 <mbrunati> bye
16:21:25 <Zakim> -cmatheus
16:21:27 <Zakim> -JeremyCarroll
16:21:29 <Zakim> -mbrunati
16:21:31 <Zakim> -pfps
16:21:33 <Zakim> -Scott_Bauer
16:21:35 <Zakim> -AlexHall
16:21:37 <Zakim> -BBC
16:21:39 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:21:41 <Zakim> -Souri
16:21:43 <Zakim> -cygri
16:21:46 <Zakim> -AZ
16:21:47 <Zakim> -Guus
16:21:49 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
16:21:51 <Zakim> Attendees were Guus, Scott_Bauer, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, pchampin, AndyS, pfps, AZ, LeeF, cmatheus, cygri, BBC, JeremyCarroll, Souri, zwu2,
16:21:54 <Zakim> ... NickH, yvesr, sandro, MacTed
16:22:06 <AndyS> AndyS has left #rdf-wg
16:24:28 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #rdf-wg
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000489