Chatlog 2012-02-22

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 17:28, 22 February 2012 by Tthibodeau (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.

16:00:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
16:00:41 <RRSAgent> logging to
16:00:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
16:00:43 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
16:00:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
16:00:45 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
16:00:46 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
16:00:46 <trackbot> Date: 22 February 2012
16:00:57 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:00:57 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS
16:00:59 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, cgreer, Arnaud, gavinc, swh, AndyS, mischat, Guus, LeeF, MacTed, danbri, AndyS1, ivan, NickH, mdmdm, manu1, davidwood, manu, yvesr, trackbot, sandro, ericP
16:01:06 <swh> Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:01:06 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, swh
16:01:09 <gavinc> Zakim, this is 73394
16:01:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, cgreer, Arnaud, gavinc, swh, AndyS, mischat, Guus, LeeF, MacTed, danbri, AndyS1, ivan, NickH, mdmdm, manu1, davidwood, manu, yvesr, trackbot, sandro, ericP
16:01:14 <Zakim> ok, gavinc; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
16:01:19 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, Sandro, [IPcaller], gavinc, Arnaud, +1.949.567.aaaa, OpenLink_Software
16:01:23 <Zakim> + +1.707.318.aabb
16:01:29 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
16:01:31 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:01:32 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:01:36 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
16:01:37 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
16:01:40 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:01:40 <cgreer> zakim, aabb is me
16:01:45 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it
16:01:49 <FabGandon> FabGandon has joined #rdf-wg
16:01:50 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:02:08 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
16:02:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, Sandro, AndyS, gavinc, Arnaud, +1.949.567.aaaa, MacTed (muted), cgreer
16:02:12 <Zakim> On IRC I see AZ, FabGandon, Zakim, RRSAgent, cgreer, Arnaud, gavinc, swh, AndyS, mischat, Guus, LeeF, MacTed, danbri, AndyS1, ivan, NickH, mdmdm, manu1, davidwood, manu, yvesr,
16:02:14 <Zakim> ... trackbot, sandro, ericP
16:02:24 <danbri> (regrets from me, sorry!)
16:02:51 <Zakim> +David_Wood
16:02:56 <Zakim> +FabGandon
16:03:17 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
16:03:24 <cgreer> area code 949
16:03:28 <swh> Zakim, aaaa is me
16:03:29 <Zakim> +swh; got it
16:03:37 <Zakim> +AlexHall
16:03:54 <Zakim> +??P7
16:03:54 <sandro> bummer, danbri, but thanks for the nice perspective email.
16:04:30 <AZ> Zakim, ??P7 is me
16:04:31 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
16:05:10 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
16:05:16 <zwu2> zakim, code?
16:05:16 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, zwu2
16:05:16 <Guus> Nick: will you be able to scribe?
16:05:38 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:05:38 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:05:40 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:05:51 <MacTed>  11:05:14 *** NickH has been idle 772 minutes
16:05:51 <MacTed> I fear it falls to me...
16:05:55 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:05:55 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:07:53 <MacTed> PROPOSED: accept minutes of 15-Feb, 
16:08:11 <MacTed> RESOLVED: accept minutes of 15-Feb, 
16:08:23 <MacTed> scribenick: MacTed
16:08:56 <Zakim> +zwu2
16:08:57 <MacTed> TOPIC: open action item review, 
16:09:01 <gavinc> ericP sent an email claiming victory 
16:09:15 <MacTed> action-147?
16:09:15 <trackbot> ACTION-147 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to propose by next week text that replaces section 4.3 -- due 2012-02-22 -- OPEN
16:09:15 <trackbot>
16:09:22 <davidwood>
16:09:37 <davidwood> EricP: I need to slightly correct the proposal: the example of %-escaping has a \'d "-" in an IRI. I'll strike that when I no longer need to sit in judgement of my fellow man (jury duty).
16:09:43 <gavinc> vs
16:11:46 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:11:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, Sandro, AndyS, gavinc, Arnaud (muted), swh, MacTed, cgreer, David_Wood, FabGandon, AlexHall, AZ, Ivan, zwu2
16:11:58 <davidwood> zakim, who is talking?
16:12:09 <Zakim> davidwood, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (52%), MacTed (17%), Ivan (17%)
16:12:24 <AZ> Pat sent regrets yes
16:12:33 <gavinc> PatH, Regrets. I have to go give some talks at a local school.
16:13:48 <MacTed> TOPIC: RDF-ISSUE-83 (HTML-rel-meta): RDF/XML: Incorrect reference for use of HTML rel="meta" [RDF General]
16:13:52 <MacTed> issue-83?
16:13:52 <trackbot> ISSUE-83 -- RDF/XML: Incorrect reference for use of HTML rel="meta" -- raised
16:13:52 <trackbot>
16:14:17 <MacTed>
16:16:19 <MacTed> ivan: issue should be retargeted against Primer
16:17:20 <AlexHall> eric sent regrets
16:17:36 <MacTed> TOPIC: Named Graphs semantics 
16:17:52 <gavinc> err, ericP has jury duty 
16:18:07 <MacTed> starting from Pat Hayes' message and subsequent thread,
16:20:04 <Guus> q?
16:20:12 <gavinc> + vs . according to PatH "Suppose we allow the terminal dot of a triple to be written as a plus sign, to mean that this triple is being interpreted as depending on its graph context, ie it is really a quad with the graph name as its contextual parameter. Call this a contextual triple and say that the graph is then a context. Contexts are involved in the truth of the triples they contain, so they are quad-graphs in disguise. Then two graphs can be merged just when (
16:20:14 <gavinc> a) neither is a context (Ie they are normal RDF graphs) or (b) they are the same context (ie have the same graph label.)"
16:20:21 <MacTed> ... group effort to summarize Pat's proposal and confirm understanding thereof ...
16:20:34 <sandro> q+
16:22:31 <MacTed> ... consensus seems to be that typical current usage of "." is what Pat has proposed for "+" ...
16:23:22 <MacTed> ... goal seems to be getting a hint of the cost of merging differently contextualized graphs ...
16:24:27 <AndyS> q+
16:24:35 <ivan> ack sandro 
16:24:37 <MacTed> guus proposes straw poll: who thinks it would be useful to add syntax for this, at this time?
16:25:05 <MacTed> s/useful/acceptable/
16:25:12 <MacTed> sandro: syntax addition is needed, perhaps not the current proposal
16:25:12 <ivan> ack AndyS 
16:25:53 <MacTed> AndyS: if community perceives need for change, they'll pick up on the syntax. doesn't seem that syntax change will drive change well.
16:26:10 <zwu2> +1 to AndyS
16:26:32 <MacTed> Guus: consensus is it's worth consideration.
16:26:56 <gavinc> +q 
16:27:16 <MacTed> sandro: number of things that are truly immutable is so small as to be uninteresting
16:27:37 <MacTed> ... need to know the context for virtually everything, it seems
16:27:57 <davidwood> Real world usage will continue to mix the '+' and '.' cases, so we need to be careful in defining the default case.  I actually *prefer* to change the default case to being contextual.
16:28:04 <AndyS> ack gavinc
16:28:09 <MacTed> gavinc: distinction is needed between "statements which are near universally save to merge" and "statements which are likely to cause trouble if merged"
16:28:25 <MacTed> s/save/safe/
16:28:29 <zwu2> +1 to davidwood, I prefer to contexualize the default case
16:28:36 <davidwood> q+
16:29:38 <MacTed> AndyS: Pat seems to be saying, "in the current theory, you can always merge statements."  but does that respect common practice?
16:29:57 <MacTed> AndyS: the graph that holds it seems to be an important aspect of a triple
16:30:14 <ivan> ack davidwood 
16:30:19 <Guus> ack davidwood
16:30:44 <MacTed> davidwood: Real world usage will continue to mix the '+' and '.' cases, so we need to be careful in defining the default case.  
16:30:45 <MacTed> davidwood: I think I actually *prefer* to change the default case to being contextual.
16:30:58 <Guus> ack sandro
16:31:01 <ivan> ack sandro 
16:31:23 <MacTed> sandro: the person making the statement often doesn't think it's contextual, but changed perspective can change that perception...
16:31:24 <davidwood> +1 to Sandro
16:31:32 <zwu2> +1 
16:32:13 <MacTed>  ... big change to RDF theory, but probably not big change to RDF practice ...
16:33:07 <AlexHall> +1 to the difference between theory and practice. people are already treating it as contextual.
16:33:32 <AndyS> It's entailment between graphs that relies on the universal context.
16:33:39 <MacTed> straw poll: "extant RDF should generally be considered to be contextual."
16:33:44 <AlexHall> even when the context is just "the current state of my SPARQL store"
16:34:07 <AndyS> ... could phase as "gather some graphs together, then do current RDF stuff"
16:34:40 <Guus> +1
16:34:41 <davidwood> +1
16:34:45 <MacTed> +1
16:34:45 <AndyS> +1
16:34:47 <zwu2> +1
16:34:51 <AlexHall> +1
16:35:30 <AndyS> caveat the "contextual" in a maybe-weak, non technical sense, maybe "scoped" 
16:35:47 <gavinc> +1 
16:35:53 <swh> +1 to AndyS
16:35:56 <ivan> +1
16:36:03 <swh> I think the question is way to vague / broad
16:36:09 <AZ> +1 but I think everything is contextual, HTML pages too
16:36:10 <davidwood> Yes, AndyS has a good point
16:36:22 <MacTed> ... consensus is "yes"
16:36:39 <ivan> q+
16:36:50 <gavinc> In other words at least from my head "Merging RDF graphs while easier then merging SQL statements, is still hard"
16:37:19 <MacTed> ivan: would like to understand where this leads us. 2 lines of discussion about named graphs, but where do they meet?
16:37:19 <AlexHall> merging graphs is easy. deciding whether it's ok to merge them is hard :-)
16:37:27 <gavinc> AlexHall, yes that +1
16:37:51 <zwu2> we can leave the decision when to merge graphs to end users :)
16:37:58 <MacTed> ivan: quad discussion around Pat's proposal, very interesting, came from Pat's action regarding time
16:38:14 <gavinc> zwu2, current semantics say it's always easy and safe
16:38:42 <MacTed> ivan: also typing discussion, from sandro et al
16:38:49 <MacTed> sandro: typing consideration was one of several proposed solutions
16:39:02 <zwu2> gavinc, I thought current semantics apply to graphs (of triples), not quads
16:39:46 <MacTed> sandro: has been concentrating on N3-style solution and [other]; Pat seems to be proposing a 6th solution
16:40:07 <MacTed> Guus: these discussions are different, but don't seem incompatible
16:40:26 <ivan> q+
16:40:26 <MacTed> Guus: typing the graph container is something that couldn't (and shouldn't) show up in semantics doc
16:41:07 <MacTed> Guus: one mechanism *may* be sufficient for use community
16:42:50 <MacTed> ivan: partially disagreeing with Sandro's "6th solution" characterization of Pat's message.  concerned about new mechanism coming into picture several months into work...
16:43:49 <MacTed> sandro: named graphs has been a "lump in the carpet" since the early 90s.  time dependence is also a big issue, which has now been raised with ties to named graphs.
16:44:21 <MacTed> ivan: where is line between scope of this WG and "future efforts"?
16:44:23 <davidwood> q+ to play  Devil's advocate
16:44:38 <Guus> ack ivan
16:44:38 <ivan> ack ivan 
16:44:44 <ivan> ack davidwood 
16:44:44 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to play  Devil's advocate
16:44:54 <MacTed> sandro: may be time to review "other work" in Charter
16:45:14 <MacTed> davidwood: 2 chartered items that relate: named graphs and fixing semantics
16:45:52 <MacTed> davidwood: we seem to have made progress with these discussions.  I'm inclined to let it continue a couple weeks longer.
16:46:54 <MacTed> Guus: further discussion requires Pat's presence...
16:48:05 <MacTed> sandro: maybe consensus feedback to Pat, "what's important about context?" may be helpful for progress
16:48:23 <MacTed> davidwood: objections have been made to "context" as an overused word...
16:49:20 <MacTed> davidwood: concern is that leaving separation of contextual/time-varying from non-contextual/time-invariant to publisher, is likely to be wrong
16:50:04 <MacTed> sandro: agreement... best practice may be to provide a "period of applicability" for a given data set, e.g., dc:temporal metadata
16:51:11 <MacTed> ivan: we may want to put aside the whole issue of time, for the time being...
16:52:00 <MacTed> ivan: in practice, in practical usage, if I have a way to properly describe "named graphs," I can describe a bunch of triples and have a vocab to describe the time-related things...  that may be enough, even if not terribly precise
16:52:41 <MacTed> ivan: understood action on Pat to be "come up with vocabulary that would be enough for gathering sufficient time info for practical purposes"
16:53:10 <MacTed> sandro: practical question is whether we can satisfy multi-graph uses without addressing time question
16:53:32 <MacTed> ivan: ... without having a time ontology
16:54:33 <MacTed> ... so first pursue use cases that don't require time dependence solution
16:56:37 <AndyS> Hmm - create islands where current pure semantics are true.  Multiverse! 
16:56:52 <MacTed> (...scribe joins discussion and fails to summarize...)
16:58:24 <MacTed> AndyS: perhaps we can do both: frame RDF semantics so there are "islands" of graphs where current "pure" semantics are true, free merging should work; then merging "islands" requires contextual info about those islands
16:58:43 <AlexHall> sounds like a research project to me :-)
17:00:16 <AZ> q+
17:00:32 <MacTed> sandro: "islands" seem to be larger graphs, which are collections of subgraphs
17:00:47 <AZ>
17:00:58 <MacTed> AZ: makes me think of the propsal about semantics of data sets
17:01:52 <Zakim> +Sandro.a
17:02:01 <MacTed> Zakim, dial ericP-mobile
17:02:03 <Zakim> ok, MacTed; the call is being made
17:02:06 <Zakim> +EricP
17:02:09 <Zakim> -Sandro
17:02:34 <MacTed> AZ: (summarizes proposal, draws connections between it and "islands" terminology)
17:03:14 <MacTed> AndyS: asks for data set semantics to be mapped to a current use case
17:03:36 <sandro> +1 Andy: AZ, please illustrate your proposal by showing how to address (some of) the use cases with it.
17:04:08 <MacTed> tsunami merges all graphs
17:04:25 <MacTed> s/tsunami merges all graphs/.../
17:05:05 <MacTed> AZ: these semantics do not directly address all use cases, but at least gives framework by which to do so...
17:05:43 <MacTed> action on AZ to illustrate how maps to current use cases
17:05:43 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
17:06:07 <AlexHall> leave out the 'on'
17:06:36 <MacTed> action on zimmerma to illustrate how maps to current use cases
17:06:36 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
17:06:41 <AndyS> Action AndyS: Write email about the "islands" idea
17:06:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-148 - Write email about the "islands" idea [on Andy Seaborne - due 2012-02-29].
17:06:41 <AZ> azimmerm
17:06:49 <MacTed> action zimmerma to illustrate how maps to current use cases
17:06:49 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - zimmerma
17:06:58 <MacTed> action azimmerm to illustrate how maps to current use cases
17:06:58 <trackbot> Created ACTION-149 - Illustrate how maps to current use cases [on Antoine Zimmermann - due 2012-02-29].
17:07:04 <gavinc> Azimmerm
17:09:07 <MacTed> Guus: seems we've made full progress there... ericP, can discuss action-147?
17:09:52 <Zakim> -AndyS
17:10:14 <MacTed> ericP: summarizes/restates content of email to list... linked form
17:10:18 <MacTed> s/form/from/
17:12:00 <Zakim> -zwu2
17:12:01 <MacTed> ... change to be made, further discussion for next week ...
17:12:22 <Zakim> -Sandro
17:12:23 <Zakim> -AlexHall
17:12:24 <Zakim> -Ivan
17:12:26 <Zakim> -swh
17:12:27 <Zakim> -EricP
17:12:27 <Zakim> -Arnaud
17:12:29 <Zakim> -Guus
17:12:31 <AlexHall> AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
17:12:34 <Zakim> -FabGandon
17:12:35 <Zakim> -AZ
17:12:54 <Zakim> -cgreer
17:13:04 <gavinc>
17:13:13 <gavinc>