Chatlog 2012-05-02

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 16:23, 2 May 2012 by Rcygania2 (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.

14:56:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:56:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/02-rdf-wg-irc
14:57:36 <davidwood1> Zakim, this is rdf-wg
14:57:36 <Zakim> sorry, davidwood1, I do not see a conference named 'rdf-wg' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:57:42 <davidwood1> Zakim, this is rdf
14:57:42 <Zakim> ok, davidwood1; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
14:57:44 <Zakim> +Guus
14:57:53 <Zakim> +??P3
14:57:58 <Zakim> +EricP
14:58:01 <Zakim> +Tom_Baker (was ??P3)
14:58:05 <Zakim> +??P8
14:58:31 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:54 <Guus> Guus has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:17 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:23 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:59:32 <Zakim> +gavinc
14:59:48 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P3 is me
14:59:48 <Zakim> I already had ??P3 as Tom_Baker, yvesr
14:59:53 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
14:59:57 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see bhyland, Guus, Tom_Baker, EricP, ??P8, Sandro, gavinc, mhausenblas
14:59:58 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:59:58 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
14:59:59 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:59:59 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
14:59:59 <Zakim> +??P15
14:59:59 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:00:02 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P8 is me
15:00:03 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
15:00:10 <Guus> zakim, mute me
15:00:10 <Zakim> Guus should now be muted
15:00:16 <Zakim> +??P16
15:00:25 <AndyS> zakim, ??P16 is me
15:00:25 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:00:41 <pfps> zakim, ??P15 is me
15:00:41 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
15:00:43 <pfps> ack pfps
15:00:51 <pfps> zakim, ack pfps
15:00:51 <Zakim> I see ??P15 on the speaker queue
15:00:56 <pfps> ack ??P15
15:00:59 <AndyS> zakim, who is making noise?
15:01:01 <davidwood1> q+
15:01:12 <davidwood1> q-
15:01:17 <Zakim> AndyS, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps (56%)
15:01:31 <Zakim> +??P18
15:01:37 <danbri> zakim, ??P18 is probably danbri
15:01:37 <Zakim> +danbri?; got it
15:03:22 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:03:29 <gavinc> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_keyboard
15:03:41 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:47 <gavinc> bucking spring!
15:04:10 <gavinc> err, BUCKLING
15:04:10 <ivan> zakim, mute me
15:04:10 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
15:04:11 <cygri> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AIbRUjE1jyI/TdQUuKhmy-I/AAAAAAAAAGg/P_U7JwuMRIc/s1600/article-0-0C1972A800000578-285_634x568.jpg
15:04:45 <Zakim> +??P29
15:05:01 <AZ> zakim, ??P29
15:05:01 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P29', AZ
15:05:05 <AZ> zakim, ??P29 is me
15:05:05 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
15:05:21 <Zakim> +Souri
15:05:45 <cygri> scribe: cygri
15:05:54 <cygri> Topic: Admin
15:05:47 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 25 Apr telecon:
15:05:47 <davidwood>    http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-04-25
15:06:01 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:06:17 <cygri> RESOLUTION: accept the minutes of the 25 Apr telecon http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-04-25
15:06:27 <cygri> Topic: Review of action items
15:06:16 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
15:06:16 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
15:06:37 <cygri> ACTION-126?
15:06:37 <trackbot> ACTION-126 -- Richard Cyganiak to write up rdf:XMLLiteral proposal on the wiki -- due 2012-01-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:06:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/126
15:07:08 <cygri> davidwood: ACTION-126 is complete
15:07:36 <cygri> ACTION-152
15:07:39 <cygri> ACTION-152?
15:07:39 <trackbot> ACTION-152 -- Gavin Carothers to create new issue for :'s in the local part of prefix names -- due 2012-03-21 -- OPEN
15:07:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/152
15:07:47 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
15:07:55 <cygri> gavinc: ACTION-152 is overcome by events, can be closed
15:07:59 <zwu2> zakim, code?
15:07:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2
15:08:02 <danbri> q+ to talk re RDFS
15:08:10 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:08:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see bhyland, Guus (muted), Tom_Baker, EricP, yvesr, Sandro, gavinc, cygri, pfps, Ivan (muted), AndyS, danbri?, Arnaud, AZ, Souri
15:08:23 <danbri> I have "Danbri, you wanted to note a bug in RDFS spec; it references Primer example 16 -- an example that doesn't even use rdf:value." and "Move all content of RDF Concepts section 3 (“RDF Vocabulary IRI and Namespace”), and merge it into RDF Schema section 1 as appropriate (or create a new section?)"
15:08:30 <gavinc> Zakim, who is talking?
15:08:33 <davidwood> Zakim, who is talking?
15:08:40 <Zakim> +zwu2
15:08:42 <Zakim> gavinc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps (53%), EricP (18%)
15:08:44 <zwu2> zakim, mute me
15:08:44 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted
15:08:52 <Zakim> davidwood, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps (50%), danbri? (74%)
15:08:53 <Arnaud> who's vaccum cleaning?
15:08:54 <ericP> Zakim, mute pfps
15:08:54 <Zakim> pfps should now be muted
15:08:55 <davidwood> Zakim, mute pfps
15:08:55 <Zakim> pfps was already muted, davidwood
15:09:22 <danbri> am i audible?
15:09:48 <cygri> danbri: i'm editing rdf-schema and have actions there
15:09:56 <cygri> ... but waiting for group decisions
15:10:11 <cygri> davidwood: i don't think we're talking about much that affects rdf-schema
15:10:16 <cygri> danbri: what about datatypes?
15:10:20 <cygri> q+
15:10:42 <cygri> davidwood: some issues on that are on the agenda for today
15:10:47 <cygri> q-
15:11:08 <cygri> danbri: how about add two more months to these actions
15:11:17 <davidwood> Topic: RDF Concepts Proposals
15:11:17 <davidwood> Subtopic: RDF Concepts Proposals
15:11:28 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:duration, xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of allowed XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:11:28 <davidwood>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html
15:12:37 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XSD_Datatypes
15:13:20 <Zakim> +??P0
15:13:22 <AndyS> q+
15:13:27 <danbri> ack danbri
15:13:27 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to talk re RDFS
15:13:30 <davidwood> ack AndyS
15:13:46 <NickH> Zakim, ??P15 is me
15:13:46 <Zakim> I already had ??P15 as pfps, NickH
15:13:56 <davidwood> AndyS: xsd:precisionDecimal is defined in a Note, not a Rec
15:14:10 <NickH> Zakim, ??P13 is me
15:14:10 <Zakim> I already had ??P13 as cygri, NickH
15:14:15 <NickH> Zakim, ??P0 is me
15:14:15 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
15:14:27 <NickH> Zakim, mute me
15:14:27 <Zakim> NickH should now be muted
15:14:28 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/TR/xsd-precisionDecimal/
15:14:32 <pfps> q+
15:14:41 <davidwood> ack pfps
15:14:41 <AndyS> WG Note
15:15:28 <cygri> q+
15:15:29 <PatH> PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:15:46 <davidwood> ack cygri
15:15:48 <cygri> pfps: we should first figure out what's the relationship to OWL and RIF
15:16:13 <Zakim> +PatH
15:16:53 <ivan> q+
15:16:59 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XSD_Datatypes
15:17:10 <cygri> cygri: what's in OWL and RIF doesn't constrain what we say in RDF
15:17:53 <cygri> davidwood: we presumably will fold in some of the new XSD datatypes except where there's a reason against it
15:18:43 <cygri> sandro: does the list of types affect conformance?
15:19:02 <cygri> AndyS: read it as: here are some types you can use
15:19:12 <PatH> especially as the 2004 text explicitly looks forward to the improvements we now have.
15:19:51 <cygri> sandro: if it's a SHOULD in RDF, then any misalignment doesn't really affect anyone
15:20:10 <cygri> ... they should be the same as a matter of convenience
15:20:32 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
15:20:32 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
15:20:33 <cygri> davidwood: RIF and OWL already failed to codify all the RDF 2004 datatypes. nothing we can do to fix that
15:20:41 <pfps> q+
15:20:48 <davidwood> ack ivan
15:21:21 <cygri> ivan: for example xsd:gYear is not in owl, for reasons i can't remember
15:21:33 <cygri> ... i can see no reason for not having it in RDF
15:22:00 <cygri> ... for due diligence, we should check that all OWL and RIF datatypes are listed in RDF
15:22:32 <cygri> davidwood: the only difference are the three new XSD types. the proposal is to fold these three in
15:22:33 <PatH> it is fine for rdf to allow a dtype which owl or rif prohibits; the opposite is problematic.
15:22:42 <cygri> q+
15:23:03 <sandro> PatH, RDF isn't allowing or prohibiting these, just "recommending" them.
15:23:07 <cygri> ivan: it should be checked carefully that all the RIF+OWL types are in
15:23:10 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XSD_Datatypes is what your asking for Ivan
15:23:19 <AndyS> FYI, gYear is not comparable in F&O - it makes life interesting if strict.
15:23:22 <Zakim> -zwu2
15:23:30 <cygri> davidwood: my only concern was why precisionDecimal wasn't in
15:23:33 <davidwood> ack pfps
15:24:04 <Zakim> +zwu2
15:24:04 <cygri> �pfps: the history with the xsd:gYear and related time types were in OWL1
15:24:17 <cygri> ... they were in OWL1
15:24:43 <cygri> ... they have no well-defined ordering, hence have problems in OWL and RIF
15:25:02 <cygri> davidwood: nothing in this proposal talks about revisiting the RDF 2004 types
15:25:17 <PatH> we could note the problems, however.
15:25:34 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:duration, xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of allowed XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:25:34 <davidwood>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html
15:25:43 <davidwood> q?
15:25:48 <sandro> sandro: So this proposal in no way precludes removing gDay tomorrow.
15:25:50 <sandro> issue-66?
15:25:50 <trackbot> ISSUE-66 -- Update XSD datatype map with new XSD 1.1 datatypes -- open
15:25:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/66
15:25:50 <AndyS> SPARQL is not like RIF here (don't know about OWL)  ... SPARQL copes with "indeterminate", RIF does not.
15:25:53 <cygri> sandro: the proposal doesn't preclude paring down the list later on
15:25:58 <davidwood> ack cygri
15:26:14 <PatH> q+
15:27:40 <ivan> q+
15:27:52 <ivan> q-
15:27:55 <gavinc> q?
15:27:58 <davidwood> ack PatH
15:28:06 <PatH> q-
15:28:18 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of allowed XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:28:18 <davidwood>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html
15:28:48 <sandro> +1
15:28:50 <ivan> +1
15:28:54 <davidwood> +1
15:28:59 <AZ> +1
15:29:02 <yvesr> +1
15:29:05 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?
15:29:08 <AndyS> "allowed" -> "recommended"
15:29:08 <danbri> +1
15:29:16 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (9%), pfps (62%), Ivan (5%)
15:29:22 <Arnaud> +1
15:29:26 <pfps> -0, as I still worry about xsd:dateTime
15:29:36 <tbaker> +0
15:29:52 <pfps> s/xsd:dateTime/xsd:duration/
15:30:55 <Arnaud> I'm actually not happy with the handling of timezones, or lack of, with those datatypes but that's orthogonal
15:30:55 <davidwood> There were no verbal objections to making AndyS's change in wording:
15:31:02 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of recommended XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:31:02 <davidwood>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html
15:31:03 <gavinc> +1
15:31:09 <ivan> zakim, mute me
15:31:09 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
15:31:29 <cygri> RESOLUTION: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of recommended XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:32:02 <cygri> pfps, does this work for you?
15:32:02 <cygri> Subtopic: xsd:duration and reviewing problematic datatypes from RDF 2004
15:32:05 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:duration to the table of recommended XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:32:06 <cygri> ISSUE-87?
15:32:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-87 -- Revisit RDF 2004 datatypes that have proven troublesome in OWL and RIF -- raised
15:32:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/87
15:32:24 <davidwood> s/ISSUE-66/some new issue/
15:33:03 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Add xsd:duration to the table of recommended XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:33:14 <gavinc> +1
15:33:27 <PatH> +1
15:33:28 <ivan> +1
15:34:40 <gavinc> Also xsd:duration is a two value tuple with months and seconds. The duration modal used in HTML and microformats is also now aligned with this model
15:34:49 <sandro> very, very clever.
15:35:11 <davidwood> +1
15:35:37 <sandro> +1
15:35:47 <yvesr> +1
15:36:17 <ivan> q+
15:36:36 <PatH> fofl, ericP
15:36:46 <davidwood> ack Ivan
15:37:07 <cygri> pfps: XSD has had problems in the past. OWL WG looked at XSD 1.1 drafts to check what works, and xsd:duration didn't pass the bar
15:37:30 <cygri> ivan: Boris Motik looked at XSD 1.1 and from he said it looks fine
15:37:56 <cygri> ... also: if a datatype doesn't work in OWL or RIF, that's not a reason to not allow it or remove it from RDF
15:38:07 <PatH> +1 ivan
15:38:14 <cygri> ... it's fine for OWL and RIF to restrict the list
15:38:28 <davidwood> q?
15:38:29 <cygri> ... but we're not talking about OWL or RIF here.
15:38:39 <PatH> RDF can (must) be more permissive than owl or rif
15:38:55 <PatH> q+
15:39:00 <AndyS> Overblown : +1 : Any DT is legal.
15:39:30 <cygri> pfps: RDF can make its own choices. but it should consider OWL work
15:39:32 <gavinc> So we're clear we are talking about http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#duration 
15:39:44 <davidwood> ack PatH
15:40:08 <davidwood> PatH: It is fine for RDF to be more permissive than OWL.
15:40:25 <danbri> (aside, I keep running into requests for fuzzier dates, e.g. in a cultural heritage setting, or vague info in geneaology; I've no expectation RDF's core will address this...) 
15:40:28 <cygri> PatH: RDF is more permissive. RDF allowing more is fine. the other way round would be a problem
15:40:35 <gavinc> The old text said: xsd:duration does not have a well-defined value space (this may be corrected in later revisions of XML Schema datatypes, in which case the revised datatype would be suitable for use in RDF datatyping
15:40:51 <davidwood> danbri, good point.
15:40:54 <cygri> ... as long as RDF doesn't obstruct OWL, it's fine
15:41:08 <gavinc> There is a later revision of XML Schema that has been correct and has a well defined value space
15:42:34 <cygri> pfps: to play nice we should have the courtesy to ask the OWL WG
15:42:46 <gavinc> Rushing? The issue was opened in the spec itself in 2004!
15:42:50 <cygri> ... and also RIF and SPARQL
15:43:14 <sandro> q?
15:43:17 <sandro> q+
15:43:46 <cygri> ... W3C has a long history where subsequent standards try very hard to cover all of RDF. we should not break this
15:43:47 <AndyS> This is called out in the Linked Data Platform WG charter.
15:44:25 <cygri> q+
15:44:27 <davidwood> ack Sandro
15:45:05 <cygri> sandro: we might be able to amend this in OWL when we re-open the OWL WG due to XSD 1.1 REC
15:45:12 <cygri> pfps: that would be the preferred route
15:47:18 <gavinc> +q
15:47:22 <PatH> q+
15:47:48 <davidwood> ack cygri
15:48:16 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
15:48:19 <PatH> loud typing...
15:48:27 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: cygri (86%), pfps (9%), Ivan (34%)
15:48:37 <davidwood> cygri: Datatypes being broken for RIF. OWL or SPARQL does not infer that they are broken for RDF.
15:48:38 <cygri> ISSUE-87?
15:48:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-87 -- Revisit RDF 2004 datatypes that have proven troublesome in OWL and RIF -- raised
15:48:38 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/87
15:48:38 <gavinc> zakim mute ivan
15:48:39 <ivan> zakim, mute me
15:48:39 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
15:49:15 <sandro> s/danbri/davidwood/
15:49:49 <sandro> q+
15:50:13 <sandro> +1 cygri     lets proceed, knowing issue-87 now exists
15:50:25 <davidwood> ack gavinc
15:51:27 <cygri> gavinc: jeremy and alex revisited xsd:duration and said the value space is now fine. whom are we looking for to provide another answer?
15:51:48 <cygri> pfps: we should ask OWL WG
15:52:17 <davidwood> ack PatH
15:52:19 <cygri> sandro: can we proceed, knowing ISSUE-87 now exists?
15:52:34 <cygri> pfps: i'd still vote against
15:53:02 <cygri> PatH: we should reject the argument that RDF has a duty to align exactly with other specs like OWL and RIF
15:53:11 <sandro> Technically, the OWL and RIF WGs still exist, in order to handle XSD 1.1 finally going to REC.   (danbri)
15:53:27 <cygri> ... the consequence would be that if OWL and RIF don't like something in RDF, we'd have to remove it
15:53:43 <sandro> q?
15:53:45 <cygri> ... actually, the most restrictive language is SPARQL
15:53:50 <AndyS> q+
15:54:08 <ericP> the bar for minimal implementation for SPARQL requires implementing a subset of these datatypes
15:54:17 <pfps> q+
15:54:27 <danbri> where in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html or nearby does it say the OWL group is still chartered by W3C?
15:54:28 <ericP> the behavior is defined for use with other XSD datatypes
15:54:34 <ivan> ack sandro 
15:54:37 <ericP> (behavior of SPARQL)
15:54:53 <cygri> ... so i would object to consulting the other WGs unless we do something that interferes with their work. adding a datatype doesn't
15:55:07 <cygri> sandro: we are chartered to look at compatibility
15:55:39 <davidwood> ack AndyS
15:56:09 <cygri> AndyS: SPARQL doens't "ban" anything. it's extensible. there's a core set of types that you need to implement. anythign else can be added
15:56:18 <davidwood> ack pfps
15:56:40 <cygri> pfps: i'm agreeing with sandro
15:57:03 <cygri> ACTION: pfps to talk to the OWL WG about ISSUE-87 and xsd:duration
15:57:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-164 - Talk to the OWL WG about ISSUE-87 and xsd:duration [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2012-05-09].
15:57:18 <ivan> zakim, drop me
15:57:18 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
15:57:18 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:57:24 <cygri> ACTION-164?
15:57:24 <trackbot> ACTION-164 -- Peter Patel-Schneider to talk to the OWL WG about ISSUE-87 and xsd:duration -- due 2012-05-09 -- OPEN
15:57:24 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/164
15:57:36 <Zakim> -NickH
15:57:24 <cygri> Subtopic: HTML datatype
15:57:47 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: RDF-WG will work on an HTML datatype that would be defined in RDF Concepts.
15:57:47 <davidwood>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0010.html
15:57:56 <cygri> q+
15:58:07 <davidwood> ack cygri
15:58:50 <gavinc> cygri: Intent to see if there is anyone who thinks the WG shouldn't do the work to figure what the technical soution might be
15:59:20 <gavinc> ericP: This is like XMLLiteral but for HTML?
15:59:53 <PatH> suggest we add GLDWG and LDP to Peter's list of WGs to consult.
16:00:15 <cygri> cygri: yes. just for adding bits of HTML markup into strings.
16:00:42 <ericP> i've certainly wanted to use this in the past
16:00:46 <gavinc> +1 and willing to work on
16:01:27 <gavinc> sandro, yes it might be very simple
16:01:46 <ericP> +1 i see a need for it
16:01:46 <PatH> also add RDB2RDF to the WGs in Peters list.
16:01:52 <cygri> davidwood: can we get agreement that the working group wants to work on such a datatype?
16:01:54 <Arnaud> +1
16:01:56 <davidwood> +1
16:01:57 <Zakim> -Souri
16:01:59 <PatH> +1
16:02:01 <AndyS> +1
16:02:03 <zwu2> +1
16:02:09 <sandro> +1 assuming it might just be a string, with a different name so you know it's got markup
16:02:12 <pfps> +0
16:02:22 <AZ> +0.1
16:02:27 <danbri> +/- 0.001
16:03:22 <cygri> RESOLUTION:  RDF-WG will work on an HTML datatype that would be defined in RDF Concepts.
16:03:22 <cygri> Subtopic: Graph equivalence vs graph isomorphism
16:03:27 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Resolve http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/86 (GraphIsomorphism): Incompatible definitions of “graph equivalence” between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics by:
16:03:27 <davidwood> 	1.	renaming “graph equivalence” to “graph isomorphism” in RDF Concepts, and
16:03:27 <davidwood> 	2.	adding a sentence in the RDF Semantics section on simple entailment, stating that isomorphic graphs are equivalent under simple entailment?
16:03:28 <davidwood>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0011.html
16:03:50 <PatH> +1
16:03:52 <AZ> +1
16:04:20 <pfps> I've read it.
16:04:23 <AndyS> suggestion -- somewhere say "blank node isomorphism" (not essential)
16:04:34 <pfps> +0.5
16:05:10 <PatH> dont like mentioning blank nodes more than absolutely necessary.
16:05:19 <pfps> I agree with Pat
16:05:29 <davidwood> +1
16:05:30 <PatH> so there.
16:05:33 <zwu2> +1
16:05:36 <danbri> ±¾³
16:06:11 <PatH> ithnk 86 was nem. con.
16:06:11 <tbaker> +1 on 86
16:06:17 <cygri> RESOLUTION: Resolve ISSUE-86 as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0011.html
16:07:00 <cygri> Topic: Turtle LC
16:07:11 <cygri> gavinc: there are still issues with the document
16:07:39 <cygri> ... can we change definition of parsing from declarative to pseudocode?
16:07:47 <cygri> ... there was an objection to that earlier on
16:08:07 <cygri> ... i'm happy to rewrite it to pseudocode as the current one is not quite complete/correct
16:08:30 <cygri> ... i don't recall who objected or why
16:08:59 <cygri> ericP: there was discussion on whether or not to define it recursively
16:09:29 <gavinc> http://barad-dur.carothers.name./~gavin/rdf-wg/rdf-turtle/#sec-parsing-triples
16:09:57 <danbri> regarding pseudocode, this seems to be the relevant Wikipedia documentation guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Algorithms_on_Wikipedia 
16:10:32 <PatH> that page says  This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference
16:11:32 <cygri> (technical discussion on current definition of turtle parsing)
16:12:07 <davidwood> q?
16:12:56 <cygri> davidwood: can you do may 16th for a new draft?
16:13:13 <cygri> q+
16:13:21 <PatH> good point.
16:13:36 <davidwood> ack cygri
16:13:42 <danbri> davidwood, what kind of discontent are you expecting re named graphs? Just that it's not done yet?
16:14:15 <davidwood> danbri, no, just emotional reactions to the fact that we have spent a lot of time on it.  Markets hate uncertainty.
16:14:43 <Guus> +1 to both publications
16:14:55 <PatH> everything refers to Concepts.
16:15:28 <cygri> davidwood: can we have new RDF Concepts draft too by 16th?
16:15:32 <cygri> cygri: ok
16:15:34 <PatH> q+
16:15:41 <davidwood> ack PatH
16:16:04 <davidwood> Close Action-163
16:16:04 <trackbot> ACTION-163 Send mail to ietf-types to request the media type application/n-triples closed
16:16:15 <Zakim> -pfps
16:16:27 <cygri> PatH: we should also get feedback on datatypes etc from the new linked data protocol WG and from RDB2RDF
16:17:08 <Zakim> -yvesr
16:17:09 <cygri> davidwood: adjourned
16:17:11 <Zakim> -zwu2
16:17:13 <zwu2> bye
16:17:15 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:17:21 <PatH> loitering
16:17:32 <Zakim> -gavinc
16:17:53 <cygri> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:18:03 <danbri> from Guus 0 mins ago, '"Space" would be acceptable for me. Vague enough :-). '
16:18:08 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
16:18:08 <Zakim> On the phone I see bhyland, Guus (muted), Tom_Baker, EricP, Sandro, cygri, AndyS, danbri?, AZ, PatH
16:18:25 <Guus> zakim, unmute me
16:18:25 <Zakim> Guus should no longer be muted
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000389