From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 16:46, 1 June 2011 by Alexhall
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:+188.8.131.52.79.03 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