Chatlog 2012-01-04

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 17:26, 4 January 2012 by Pchampin (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

15:03:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/04-rdf-wg-irc
15:03:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:03:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
15:03:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 57 minutes
15:03:09 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:03:09 <trackbot> Date: 04 January 2012
15:30:28 <Guus> Guus has joined #rdf-wg
15:53:42 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
15:56:16 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
15:56:23 <Zakim> + +1.707.861.aaaa
15:56:31 <gavinc> Zakim, aaaa is me
15:56:31 <Zakim> +gavinc; got it
15:57:01 <Zakim> + +1.781.899.aabb
15:57:05 <cgreer> cgreer has joined #rdf-wg
15:57:11 <sandro> zakim, aabb is me
15:57:11 <Zakim> +sandro; got it
15:57:17 <Zakim> + +31.20.598.aacc
15:57:28 <Guus> zakim, +31 is me
15:57:28 <Zakim> +Guus; got it
15:57:38 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
15:58:00 <Zakim> +??P7
15:58:20 <pchampin> hi
15:58:46 <Zakim> + +1.707.318.aadd
15:58:55 <cgreer> zakim, aadd is me
15:58:55 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it
15:59:20 <Guus> we may need a scribe volunteer if Thomas doesn't join
15:59:21 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:28 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:59:28 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:59:29 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:59:32 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me
15:59:32 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:59:33 <Zakim> + +1.781.273.aaee
15:59:39 <AndyS> zakim, happy new year
15:59:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'happy new year', AndyS
15:59:41 <MacTed> Zakim, aaee is OpenLink_Software
15:59:41 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
15:59:50 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:59:50 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:59:51 <Zakim> +??P14
15:59:51 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:59:51 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:00:18 <davidwood1> zakim, code?
16:00:18 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), davidwood1
16:00:40 <Guus> zakim, who is here
16:00:40 <Zakim> Guus, you need to end that query with '?'
16:00:42 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aaff
16:00:50 <davidwood1> zakim, aaff is me
16:00:50 <Zakim> +davidwood1; got it
16:00:58 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:01:00 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
16:01:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see gavinc, sandro, Guus, pchampin, cgreer, AndyS, Ivan, MacTed (muted), ??P14, davidwood1
16:01:03 <Scott_Bauer> Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
16:01:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see AZ, pchampin, cgreer, AndyS, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, SteveH, AndyS1, danbri, mdmdm_, davidwood, gavinc, manu, yvesr, trackbot, manu1, NickH, sandro,
16:01:08 <Zakim> ... ericP
16:01:08 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P14 is me
16:01:10 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
16:01:18 <davidwood> zakim, davidwood1 is me
16:01:18 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
16:01:35 <pchampin> I can scribe
16:02:39 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
16:02:48 <Zakim> + +44.117.230.aagg
16:02:51 <pchampin> scribe: pchampin
16:02:58 <danbri> zakim, +44.117.230.aagg is danbri
16:02:58 <Zakim> +danbri; got it
16:03:04 <pchampin> scribenick: pchampin
16:03:15 <Zakim> + +33.1.41.41.aahh
16:03:24 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aaii
16:03:28 <AZ> zakim, aahh is me
16:03:28 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
16:03:35 <AlexHall> zakim, aaii is me
16:03:37 <Zakim> +AlexHall; got it
16:04:12 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aajj
16:04:29 <pchampin> topic: admin
16:04:33 <danbri> Guus, your audio is fine
16:05:45 <Zakim> +Tony
16:06:07 <Scott_Bauer> Zakim, Tony is me
16:06:07 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer; got it
16:06:36 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:06:37 <pchampin> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon
16:06:43 <pchampin> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon
16:07:17 <Zakim> -yvesr
16:07:23 <gavinc> ACTION-124?
16:07:23 <trackbot> ACTION-124 -- Gavin Carothers to raise issue around formated text literals -- due 2011-12-07 -- CLOSED
16:07:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/124
16:07:24 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:07:24 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:07:25 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:07:30 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
16:07:52 <SteveH> SteveH has left #rdf-wg
16:08:15 <swh> swh has joined #rdf-wg
16:08:28 <Zakim> +??P3
16:08:33 <zwu2> zakim, what is the code?
16:08:33 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2
16:08:33 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P3 is me
16:08:35 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
16:08:46 <danbri> i lost audio
16:08:50 <danbri> via high-pitched screech
16:09:13 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aakk
16:09:23 <Zakim> + +1.415.586.aall
16:09:30 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aakk is me
16:09:30 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
16:09:55 <zwu2> Happy New Year!
16:10:04 <danbri> regrets from me for next week (project meeting)
16:10:09 <Zakim> +??P18
16:10:15 <swh> Zakim, ??P18 is me
16:10:15 <Zakim> +swh; got it
16:10:38 <pchampin> topic: RDFa LC
16:10:49 <pchampin>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Dec/0181.html
16:10:56 <JeremyCarroll> JeremyCarroll has joined #rdf-wg
16:11:33 <cgreer> I'll volunteer for one
16:11:34 <Zakim> +Eric
16:11:35 <pchampin> guus: RDFa is going to LC, so we will have to review the 4 documents
16:11:44 <LeeF> what are the 4 documents? 
16:11:55 <pchampin> david: it would be good to have volunteers
16:12:09 <pchampin> guus: I'd be happy to volunteer for the primer
16:12:13 <ivan> to LeeF: rdfa core, rdfa+xhtml, rdfa lite, rdfa primer
16:12:14 <ivan> q+
16:12:37 <pchampin> david: would be good to have someone from the "named graph" discussion have a look at RDFa
16:12:49 <AndyS> I think it uses it as the base, not the name
16:12:52 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:12:52 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:13:02 <gavinc> AndyS, yeah, it doesn't talk about name
16:13:04 <pchampin> ... RDFa uses URIs to identify (name?) documents; similar to the discussions that occured in this group recently about graphs
16:13:06 <davidwood> AndyS, really?
16:13:20 <AZ> what's the deadline for this ?
16:13:28 <danbri> (I'd like to understand this RDFa issue better...)
16:13:36 <cgreer> I'll do lite, with the caveat that I may flood email list with questions
16:13:44 <davidwood> Manu's message says, "submit your comments before January 15th 2012"
16:13:44 <AndyS> davidwood, IIRC (so do check that!)
16:14:30 <AndyS> ... I thought it was triples in a doc c.f. triples in Turtle doc.  Could be wrong, has been a while
16:14:42 <pchampin> ivan: (RDFa WG hat on) documents 'RDFa Lite' and 'XHTML+RDFa' are not of big importance for this group
16:14:58 <pchampin> s/importance/interest/
16:15:02 <gavinc> Yeah, but RDFa Lite is an INTERESTING publishing profile 
16:15:04 <davidwood> RDFa Core refers to RDF Concepts in relation to graph definition.
16:15:24 <davidwood> (sec. 3.7)
16:15:28 <pchampin> ... (they may be interesting for individuals, of course)
16:15:31 <pchampin> ... the most technically interesting is 'RDFa core'
16:15:31 <AZ> I'd like to read RDFa Core but 115th January is way too early for me
16:16:02 <pchampin> gavin: I think RDF lite is intersting to see which minimal set was deemed useful by the RDFa WG
16:16:06 <danbri> zakim, q+ to say the only Core thing I see in RDFa, is stuff like "can #me in an html+rdfa doc be a URI for a human..."
16:16:07 <Zakim> I see ivan, danbri on the speaker queue
16:16:08 <Guus> q?
16:16:16 <Guus> ack ivan
16:16:41 <pchampin> ivan: regarding the use of URIs in RDFa, I don't think it is related to named graphs
16:17:03 <pchampin> ... the URI of the RDFa document can appear as the subject of a triple, but that's all
16:17:29 <Guus> ack danbri
16:17:29 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to say the only Core thing I see in RDFa, is stuff like "can #me in an html+rdfa doc be a URI for a human..."
16:17:31 <pchampin> david: I'm concerned there may be a subtle relation that we might have to take into account
16:18:37 <pchampin> danbri: what about # URIs in RDFa: can they identify any resource?
16:19:11 <cgreer> I volunteer
16:19:12 <pchampin> ivan: from the RDF point of view, RDFa is "only" a serialization syntax (though a very special one)
16:19:33 <pchampin> danbri: in theory yes
16:20:13 <pchampin> guus: david and cgreer volunteer to review the 'RDFa core' document on behalf of the WG
16:20:22 <davidwood> From RDFa Core, section 7.2:  "The base. This will usually be the IRI of the document being processed, but it could be some other IRI, set by some other mechanism, such as the (X)HTML base element. The important thing is that it establishes an IRI against which relative paths can be resolved."
16:20:50 <pchampin> ... you send comments to the rdf-wg mailing list, and the group approves the comments
16:20:59 <davidwood> That means, to me, that the base IRI is often going to be the *same as* the document URI, thus resulting in conflation of denotation of the graph and the document.
16:21:03 <davidwood> AndyS ^^
16:21:36 <Zakim> -AZ
16:22:03 <davidwood> I don't think that needs to change in the RDFa Core document, but it does mean that our named graphs discussion should take note.
16:22:22 <AndyS> davidwood - yes, good point. But the doc URI is not the graph name in every case -- it is in the web cache pattern.
16:22:48 <Zakim> +AZ
16:22:54 <davidwood> AndyS, right
16:23:31 <pchampin> ACTION guus to review the 'RDFa primer'
16:23:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Review the 'RDFa primer' [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-11].
16:23:45 <AndyS> davidwood, does RDFa talk about the graph in any particular way? (c.f. N3 <> and <#> isms)
16:23:55 <pchampin> ACTION davidwood and cgreer to review the 'RDFa core' document
16:23:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - And cgreer to review the 'RDFa core' document [on David Wood - due 2012-01-11].
16:24:22 <ivan> AndyS: unless a mistake has been made, no...
16:24:30 <AZ> zakim, who is noisy?
16:24:40 <pchampin> topic: status comments received
16:24:41 <Zakim> AZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: gavinc (54%), Guus (30%), pchampin (95%), cgreer (9%), MacTed (15%)
16:24:51 <ivan> zakim, mute pchampin 
16:24:51 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted
16:25:04 <AndyS> ... which is why we review :-)
16:25:52 <davidwood> AndyS, I don''t think so.  The current draft seems to refer all further definition of the graph to RDF Concepts (unless I'm missing something).  
16:26:02 <pchampin> guus: 3 comments on the Turtle document
16:26:36 <davidwood> I agree with Ivan that we should think of RDFa 1.1 as "just" another standard RDF serialization syntax.
16:26:37 <pchampin> gavin: first is about the Turtle grammar not being LL(1), need to discuss it with gavin
16:27:20 <AndyS> They are case-insensitive in SPARQL :-|
16:27:43 <pchampin> ... second is about making literals case-insensitive, which I don't think we will
16:27:56 <pchampin> andy: in SPARQL they are (all keywords are)
16:28:02 <ericP> gavinc, i can grammar geek with you after this call
16:28:50 <pchampin> s/with gavin/with eric/
16:28:57 <AndyS> all keywords except "a" for rdf:type.  With hindsight, a bit insistentent between bools and "a" but that's where we are and it's mostly harmless, Zaphod.
16:29:40 <pchampin> gavin: I think all the issues have been answered on the mailing list
16:29:53 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:29:53 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:30:00 <sandro> something like, "Please respond and let us know whether this response addresses your concern."
16:30:14 <AndyS> gavinc, ericP -- please make LL(1) unless strong reason not to.  It helps people to cover as wide a spectrum of tools.
16:30:33 <pchampin> guss: it would be good to open an issue for the comments, in order to formally acknowledge them and keep track of the resolution
16:31:18 <pchampin> topic: RDF-ISSUE-82 (TriG repeated graph iris) 
16:31:24 <ericP> AndyS, i'm not yet convinced that it's not LL(1)
16:31:30 <sandro> sandro: we need each comment to end in one of three buckets -- satisfied, objecting, or other (typically not answering our pings).
16:31:33 <pchampin> guus: raised by gavin
16:32:18 <pchampin> gavin: in the last meeting, we agreed that a dataset could not repeat the same graph IRI several times
16:32:30 <pchampin> ... trying to explore the consequence on the Trig syntax
16:33:02 <swh> "merge"?!
16:33:03 <pchampin> ... consensus seems to emerge on option 2:
16:33:13 <sandro> q+
16:33:28 <swh> q+
16:33:29 <pchampin> ... if the same graph IRI appears several times in Trig, then merge their content in a single graph with that IRI
16:33:41 <AndyS> The discussion explains why not.  (As is, needs 2 tokens lookahead - can rewrite current form to LL(1) but it will look strange -- easier to use the form that is more natural and LL(1) -- from SPARQL which also does the trailing dot for TriG ... long time)
16:33:41 <Guus> q?
16:33:45 <ivan> ack sandro 
16:33:52 <ericP> AndyS, the trick in mapping EBNF to LL(1) is that +s and *s get mapped to e.g. { foo_plus: foo | foo_plus foo } while LALR(1) reverses that to { foo_plus: foo | foo foo_plus }
16:34:11 <AndyS> merge ==> more triples = union
16:34:30 <ericP> AndyS, sorry reverse those EBNF to L*(1) mappings
16:34:33 <pchampin> sandro: it is not clear yet whether Trig solves our use cases (I think it does not)
16:34:41 <AndyS> ericP -- er ... different issue -- it's mid rule. Later?
16:34:44 <pchampin> ... so should we care about Trig at all?
16:35:14 <sandro> q?
16:35:21 <davidwood> Sandro, yes, but it would seem that Trig is extensible to handle that use case.
16:35:34 <zwu2> not me :)
16:35:34 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to respond to sandro
16:35:42 <LeeF> Sandro, when you say "our use cases" -- who is "our" referring to? and is there an applies "any" or "all" ?
16:35:49 <sandro> I'll believe it when I see it, davidwood.
16:35:54 <Guus> ack swh
16:36:13 <pchampin> steeve: did Gavin mean litteraly an RDF merge?
16:36:28 <pchampin> ... should it be a merge or a union ?
16:36:40 <LeeF> "munion" 
16:37:01 <sandro> LeeF, "our" is RDF-WGs.    I realize we haven't yet decided which use cases to accept, so I really just meant "potential use cases"
16:37:09 <pchampin> ... different management of bnode identifiers appearing in multiple pairs of curly braces
16:37:14 <Guus> q?
16:37:27 <pchampin> gavin: we have not decided that yet
16:37:43 <pchampin> ... my preference for option 1 (not allow it at all) is that it solves that problem
16:37:52 <LeeF> Sandro, it's pretty clear to me that trig solves many of those use cases, if not all, so i'm not sure why to suggest that we shouldn't care about it
16:37:52 <Guus> zakim,  JeremyCarroll
16:37:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'JeremyCarroll', Guus
16:38:01 <Guus> ack JeremyCarroll
16:38:01 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to respond to sandro
16:38:41 <pchampin> jeremy: to answer sandro's comment: I believe Trig answers some use cases
16:38:44 <swh> +1 to JeremyCarroll 
16:38:56 <sandro> q+
16:38:57 <LeeF> Agree with gavin
16:39:01 <LeeF> I read consensus in that email thread
16:39:15 <ivan> ack sandro 
16:39:48 <pchampin> sandro: we are not chartered to standardize Trig; we are chartered to propose a syntax supporting multiple graphs
16:40:12 <pchampin> ... if Trig does it, then ok. But if it doesn't, then we need to standardize something else.
16:40:22 <JeremyCarroll> Jeremy: Sandro raised questions about URIs identifying graphs vs graph containers - these were not to do with Trig
16:42:11 <pchampin> sandro: In general I don't like starting from use cases, but as we don't seem to reach consensus, I think that's how we should proceed
16:42:18 <pchampin> ... and see if Trig address them or not
16:43:10 <pchampin> ACTION jeremy to review sandro's use cases
16:43:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Review sandro's use cases [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2012-01-11].
16:43:27 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC in general, and in specific: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Trust_Web_Opinions
16:43:40 <sandro> (that's for jjc)
16:44:10 <pchampin> topic: named graphs
16:44:31 <sandro> -1 to ever calling in "named graphs"  :-)
16:44:58 <sandro> s/in/it/
16:45:09 <pchampin> subtopic: Issue: should/must the 4th slot be an IRI?
16:45:33 <pchampin> guus: last week resolution seems to imply that it should
16:45:36 <LeeF> I would object to letting it be a bnode, probably 
16:45:42 <pchampin> ... can we reach consensus on that?
16:45:43 <swh> I might
16:45:45 <sandro> sandro: sometimes it might be a bnode.
16:45:48 <swh> …even though Iv'e done it in the past :)
16:45:49 <gavinc> I would object to letting it be a bnode
16:45:54 <pchampin> sandro: I think it should be allowed to be a bnode
16:46:04 <pchampin> david: what would be the use case?
16:46:26 <swh> sandro, what about .well-known/genid
16:46:28 <swh> ?
16:46:32 <AndyS> q+
16:46:34 <Zakim> -danbri
16:46:46 <Zakim> -yvesr
16:47:08 <Zakim> +??P3
16:47:13 <pchampin> sandro: in the trust use case, I want to talk about a set of 4 triples, and there is no point in giving a URI to this set
16:47:27 <yvesr> Zakim, ??p3 is me
16:47:27 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
16:47:29 <Zakim> -JeremyCarroll
16:47:39 <sandro> q?
16:47:55 <pchampin> ... if you want to repeat it, a graph literal is not convenient
16:47:57 <ivan> ack AndyS
16:48:09 <Zakim> +danbri
16:49:01 <ivan> s/refer/referring/
16:49:10 <AndyS> q-
16:49:11 <pchampin> andy: there are two kinds of use for bnodes: things for which I don't want to mint a URI, and existential variables
16:49:15 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?
16:49:22 <sandro> q?
16:49:25 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (44%), cgreer (4%), danbri (58%)
16:49:29 <danbri> busted! sorry
16:49:37 <pchampin> ... you seem to be using the first one
16:49:40 <ivan> zakim, mute danbri 
16:49:40 <Zakim> danbri should now be muted
16:50:09 <sandro> sandro: Yes, just the filler case, where I don't really want to mint a URI.
16:50:14 <swh> the "filler" case would require some syntactic gymnastics to make it work
16:50:32 <swh> e.g. [] { … triples … } … then what?
16:50:48 <pchampin> guus: why not go the the genid solution, then?
16:51:01 <swh> q+
16:51:20 <swh> q-
16:51:40 <pchampin> sandro: makes sense if you get rid of bnodes everywhere, but if you keep bnodes, why not allow them there?
16:52:10 <ivan> +1 to steve!
16:52:19 <pchampin> steeve: this could be handled by syntactic sugar in Trig
16:52:23 <gavinc> +1 to steve
16:52:29 <pchampin> ... to generate the genid URI
16:52:41 <sandro> sandro: if you can use bnodes as pronouns for strings and lists, etc, then it'll be odd not to have them as pronouns for referring to RDF Graphs.
16:52:43 <AndyS> So when it comes out again it is a URI?
16:52:49 <swh> AndyS, yes
16:52:51 <pchampin> ... because bnodes would raise very bizarre questions regarding scoping
16:52:58 <AndyS> ack swh
16:52:58 <pchampin> pchampin: +1 about the scoping problem
16:53:11 <swh> q+
16:53:35 <swh> I have some experience
16:53:38 <AndyS> This sounds like as a shorthand for URIs issue, not bnodes.
16:54:00 <LeeF> Peter won't be here next week, I believe
16:54:07 <pchampin> sandro: I would like to hear Pat's opinion about the scoping issue
16:54:54 <pchampin> steeve: 3store explicitly supports graph identified by bnodes
16:55:02 <pchampin> s/supports/supported/
16:55:17 <pchampin> ... but we banned it in 4store and 5store, as it was too complicated to manage
16:55:33 <AndyS> F2F discussion: UC graphs: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#4__2e_9___28_A_PRIORITY__29__Trust_Web_Opinions
16:55:46 <Zakim> -zwu2
16:55:54 <AndyS> and also http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#1__2e_5___28_A_PRIORITY__29__Exchanging_the_contents_of_RDF_stores
16:55:57 <sandro> sandro: I might be convinced to support this restriction, like the no-subjects-as-literals, in the name of ease of implementaiton.
16:55:57 <zwu2> sorry I have to go to another meeting, bye.
16:56:29 <pchampin> topic: IRI names for both graph containers and graphs?
16:56:51 <pchampin> guus: as neither Pat nor Richard are here, may be we can leave this discussion for next week,
16:57:01 <pchampin> ... unless someone wants to add something
16:58:27 <pchampin> sandro: I think we should clean the UC list into something smaller, easier to grasp at once
16:58:42 <pchampin> ... are we going to publish our use cases?
16:58:53 <pchampin> guus: I would be in favor of publishing them
16:59:11 <pchampin> david: I concur
17:00:11 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdf-wg
17:01:00 <AndyS> Does anyone have an example where signing the doc is not sufficient?
17:02:02 <gavinc> AndyS: PaySwarm does
17:02:02 <ericP> AndyS, very large triple stores?
17:02:29 <danbri> zakim, who is talking?
17:02:30 <Guus> zakim, who is talking?
17:02:33 <pchampin> guus: propose a UC about signing a graph (in order to state "I stated this graph")
17:02:33 <AndyS> gavinc ... interesting ... ptr?
17:03:02 <pchampin> sandro: to endorse or to agree with a graph?
17:03:20 <AndyS> ericP ... maybe but how does sign again to check?
17:03:26 <swh> q+
17:03:31 <danbri> who?
17:03:40 <danbri> fb?
17:04:01 <danbri> swh, manu?
17:04:09 <Zakim> danbri, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (23%)
17:04:11 <ericP> AndyS, i think the discriminating use cases are when you don't need to sign
17:04:19 <ericP> ... just need to make assertions about it
17:04:21 <Zakim> Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 17 (4%), gavinc (18%), sandro (43%)
17:04:23 <swh> danbri, yes, manu, thanks
17:04:38 <AndyS> The case I can see is sign-graph keeps sig across reencoding (e.g. into a store c.f. Eric - but any size)
17:04:46 <swh> ack me
17:04:52 <Guus> ack swh
17:05:53 <pchampin> guus: regarding the restaurant? UC, how would you write it down in Trig?
17:05:55 <AndyS> UC is : http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Trust_Web_Opinions
17:06:06 <sandro> { sandro endorses g1 }
17:06:10 <AndyS> full version -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-prov/2011Sep/0003.html
17:06:14 <sandro> g1 { ... some triples }
17:06:35 <sandro> g1 owl:sameAs { ... some triples }
17:07:15 <sandro> <addressyoufetchedfrom> { ... some triples }
17:07:23 <Guus> zakim, who is talking?
17:07:41 <Zakim> Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (19%), AndyS (11%)
17:07:42 <gavinc> ... owl:sameAs only works with Resources/IRIs doesn't it?
17:07:43 <sandro> <addressyoufetchedfrom> graphStante { ... some triples }
17:07:48 <sandro> <addressyoufetchedfrom> graphState { ... some triples }
17:08:01 <sandro> zakim, who is muted
17:08:01 <Zakim> sandro, you need to end that query with '?'
17:08:03 <sandro> zakim, who is muted?
17:08:03 <Zakim> I see pchampin, MacTed, danbri muted
17:09:47 <sandro> <graph> ?RELATION? { ... triples ... }
17:09:50 <AndyS> q+
17:09:57 <pchampin> sandro: the example above is not compatible with Trig, as there is a predicate between the graph URI and the curly braces,
17:10:03 <AndyS> Breaks n-quads as well.
17:10:15 <pchampin> ... stating the relation between the graph IRI and the graph
17:10:15 <AndyS> q-
17:10:28 <sandro> OPTION 1:  <graph> ?RELATION? { ... triples ... }
17:10:55 <sandro> OPTION 2: relation is always graphState, but there are immutable graph containers used as proxies
17:11:57 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Dec/0189.html
17:12:16 <pchampin> sandro: option 2 adds a semantics to Trig, so risks to break existing Trig
17:12:43 <pchampin> ivan: then how do you express the sameAs relation with option 2?
17:13:04 <sandro> { sandro endorsesContentOf <g1>.   <g1> a StaticGraphContainer }   <g1> { some triples }
17:13:52 <sandro> (a sketch of option 2)
17:14:20 <pchampin> guus: it would be good if someone could write this down
17:14:38 <cgreer> cgreer has joined #rdf-wg
17:15:09 <sandro> write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options.
17:15:16 <pchampin> sandro: it would be good to write down both use cases, both option, and how each option solves each UC
17:16:40 <sandro> sandro: yes, we can use Trig, or a variant, just be clear about what semantics you mean for TriG.
17:16:59 <Zakim> -Ivan
17:17:07 <Zakim> -sandro
17:17:08 <Zakim> -gavinc
17:17:08 <Zakim> -swh
17:17:10 <Zakim> -cgreer
17:17:12 <Zakim> -AZ
17:17:13 <Zakim> -AlexHall
17:17:15 <Zakim> -AndyS
17:17:28 <Zakim> -davidwood
17:17:30 <Zakim> -danbri
17:17:31 <Zakim> -Eric
17:17:40 <pchampin> ACTION guus to write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options
17:17:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-11].
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000393