IRC log of rdf-wg on 2012-02-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:58:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
15:58:56 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:58:58 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:58:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
15:59:00 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
15:59:00 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
15:59:01 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:59:01 [trackbot]
Date: 15 February 2012
15:59:41 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:59:45 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:45 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS
15:59:46 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, AZ, cygri, PatH, AndyS, danbri, ScottB, MacTed, ivan, mischat, yvesr, SteveH, manu1, gavinc, NickH, mdmdm, davidwood, manu, trackbot, sandro,
15:59:46 [Zakim]
... ericP
15:59:52 [gavinc]
Zakim, mute me
15:59:52 [Zakim]
sorry, gavinc, I don't know what conference this is
16:00:01 [gavinc]
Zakim, this is SW_RDFWG
16:00:01 [Zakim]
ok, gavinc; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
16:00:03 [AndyS]
zakim, this is 73394
16:00:03 [Zakim]
AndyS, this was already SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
16:00:05 [Zakim]
ok, AndyS; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
16:00:12 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:00:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P3, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Guus, [IPcaller], gavinc, ScottB
16:00:17 [yvesr]
Zakim, ??P3 is me
16:00:17 [Zakim]
+yvesr; got it
16:00:18 [Zakim]
16:00:23 [gavinc]
Zakim, mute me
16:00:23 [Zakim]
gavinc should now be muted
16:00:24 [Zakim]
16:00:35 [Guus]
Guus has joined #rdf-wg
16:00:38 [Zakim]
16:00:39 [cygri]
zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
16:00:39 [Zakim]
+cygri; got it
16:00:51 [Zakim]
16:00:51 [Guus]
zakim, who is here?
16:00:52 [AndyS]
zakim, IPcaller is me
16:00:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see yvesr, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Guus, gavinc (muted), ScottB, PatH, cygri, [IPcaller]
16:00:52 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Guus, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, AZ, cygri, PatH, AndyS, danbri, ScottB, MacTed, ivan, mischat, yvesr, SteveH, manu1, gavinc, NickH, mdmdm, davidwood, manu, trackbot,
16:00:52 [Zakim]
... sandro, ericP
16:00:55 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
16:00:56 [Zakim]
16:01:12 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #rdf-wg
16:01:20 [Zakim]
16:01:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.996.aaaa
16:01:39 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
16:01:44 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:01:44 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:01:45 [Zakim]
16:01:56 [Arnaud]
Zakim, *aaaa is me
16:01:56 [Zakim]
sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '*aaaa'
16:02:03 [Zakim]
+ +1.443.212.aabb
16:02:12 [AlexHall]
zakim, aabb is me
16:02:12 [Zakim]
+AlexHall; got it
16:02:19 [Arnaud]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:02:19 [Zakim]
+Arnaud; got it
16:02:37 [AZ]
\me zakim, ??P14 is me
16:03:18 [Zakim]
16:03:19 [ScottB]
Scribe: ScottB
16:03:44 [davidwood]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 08 Feb telecon:
16:03:44 [davidwood]
16:03:52 [ScottB]
Topic: Meetings from minutes last week
16:04:25 [ScottB]
David: closing issue or action 166 which doesn't exist
16:04:56 [ScottB]
… this is issue 66
16:05:21 [ScottB]
… this issue is updated
16:06:29 [Arnaud]
this was an interesting statement "I see you on the phone but I don't hear you" :)
16:06:46 [ScottB]
… will have to forgo accepting these minutes till later
16:06:58 [davidwood]
We will wait on the minutes of 8 Feb until they are cleaned up.
16:07:07 [davidwood]
Action item review:
16:07:07 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - item
16:07:07 [davidwood]
16:07:07 [davidwood]
16:07:15 [ScottB]
Topic: Action item review
16:07:45 [davidwood]
16:07:59 [ScottB]
David: Action-145 merge page with Sandros. believe this is complete
16:08:09 [davidwood]
close Action-145
16:08:09 [trackbot]
ACTION-145 Merge his page with Sandro's closed
16:08:12 [Zakim]
16:08:32 [ScottB]
Alex: back to action 166 could be 136
16:08:41 [ScottB]
… closed last week.
16:08:54 [Zakim]
16:09:18 [ScottB]
David: Eric will you edit the minutes to reflect this.
16:09:34 [ScottB]
Eric: I'll try to do this
16:10:06 [AlexHall]
16:11:14 [ScottB]
David: open actions that are past due.
16:11:26 [ScottB]
… quite a few are overdue.
16:12:33 [Zakim]
16:13:15 [ericP] now reflects the s/166/136/ change
16:13:16 [davidwood]
close Action-137
16:13:16 [trackbot]
ACTION-137 Write down an example of the syntaxes for the named graphs closed
16:13:27 [ScottB]
Scott is leaving the actions unscibed hoping thats the right thing to do.
16:14:46 [davidwood]
close Action-142
16:14:46 [trackbot]
ACTION-142 Repsond to multiline comments comment of Danny Ayres closed
16:16:35 [ScottB]
David: there is an agenda item for action 143
16:16:49 [davidwood]
close Action-143
16:16:49 [trackbot]
ACTION-143 Propose text to say that %nn is *NOT* unescaped while parsing Turtle closed
16:17:14 [ericP]
16:17:15 [ericP]
The <PERCENT> terminal matches %-encoding sequences. These sequences are not decoded during processing; a term written as <http://a.example/%66oo\-bar> in Turtle designates the RDF IRI http://a.example/%66oo-bar.
16:17:20 [ericP]
16:17:44 [cygri]
i think my ACTION-138 and ACTION-117 can also be closed
16:18:35 [gavinc]
ericP, change from to
16:18:37 [davidwood]
close Action-117
16:18:37 [trackbot]
ACTION-117 Check status of duration datatypes closed
16:18:56 [davidwood]
16:19:03 [davidwood]
close Action-138
16:19:03 [trackbot]
ACTION-138 Ask the group whether it needs to do anything about closed
16:19:26 [davidwood]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 08 Feb telecon:
16:19:26 [davidwood]
16:19:27 [ScottB]
David: back to the minutes
16:19:44 [ScottB]
RESOLVED: last weeks minutes accepted
16:20:21 [ScottB]
Topic: Turtle
16:21:27 [ScottB]
Eric: the copy paste is just one issue. treat the as an opaque string.
16:21:36 [ericP]
16:22:03 [gavinc]
16:23:14 [Zakim]
16:23:18 [ScottB]
… the other issue turtle strings and iri can use escape sequences. two types: one in the table listed and let char through otherwise thought of as punctuation.
16:23:19 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:23:19 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
16:23:20 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:23:20 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:23:25 [AndyS]
We are going to remove \t etc from IRIs (I hope!). ie. strings, IRI and prefixed name have different scape rules in the detail.
16:23:32 [AndyS]
16:23:41 [ScottB]
… clarifies that there is two types of escaping.
16:23:45 [davidwood]
ack AndyS
16:23:47 [gavinc]
Zakim, unmute me
16:23:47 [Zakim]
gavinc should no longer be muted
16:24:13 [ScottB]
Andy: suggest we take tab reline and double quote out of iris
16:24:49 [PatH]
do we have authority over iri syntax?
16:25:01 [ScottB]
… three kinds of escapes. code points, white space and double quotes.
16:25:19 [ScottB]
Gavin: the backslash quote is only in some string productions.
16:25:36 [ScottB]
Andy: It's clear which bits are which elements.
16:26:00 [ScottB]
Gavin: match the grammer
16:26:14 [ScottB]
Eric: this text is out of sync.
16:26:42 [ScottB]
Action: Eric to propose by next week text that replaces section 4.3
16:26:42 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-147 - Propose by next week text that replaces section 4.3 [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2012-02-22].
16:26:47 [PatH]
grammars rule.
16:28:17 [ericP]
<http://a.example/%66oo\-bar> in Turtle designates the RDF IRI http://a.example/%66oo-bar
16:28:23 [ScottB]
Eric: wrote an example
16:28:57 [davidwood]
16:29:09 [ScottB]
… will pick one approach and propose it.
16:29:21 [ScottB]
Topic: Named Graphs
16:29:53 [Guus]
16:29:53 [ScottB]
David: I'd like a brief discussion on how to use the next 45 minutes.
16:30:05 [davidwood]
ack Guus
16:30:40 [ScottB]
Guus: Discuss the solution design page started by Sandro and go over Pat's email.
16:30:57 [ScottB]
Andy: I'd like to hear what everyone's thinking.
16:31:03 [Guus]
16:31:58 [ScottB]
David: I think we have a lot of different use cases. Not clear what the field of perspectives are. Slow progress in understanding perspectives.
16:32:16 [ScottB]
… I have some hope that Pat's proposal will move us forward.
16:32:52 [Guus]
16:32:56 [ScottB]
Pat: We shouldn't have expected this would have been fixed quickly.
16:33:12 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:33:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see yvesr, Peter_Patel-Schneider, gavinc, ScottB, PatH, cygri, AndyS, David_Wood, AZ, Arnaud (muted), Ivan, AlexHall, EricP, Guus, danbri, MacTed (muted)
16:33:26 [ScottB]
Richard: I would be ok with the minimalist proposal.
16:33:51 [ScottB]
… look at how the proposals will work with deployed practice.
16:34:39 [pfps]
+1 to Richard's minimalism, but I will to see a painting before I am sure
16:35:10 [ScottB]
David: Two things inviolate, not chartered to break rdf. Does us no good to listen and change considerations.
16:35:38 [davidwood]
s/change/not change/
16:36:17 [cygri]
16:36:17 [ScottB]
Pat: I agree about making minimal changes to current deployment. A radical change in the semantics can be changed to match current usage.
16:36:39 [MacTed]
+s/can be changed to match/can be made to match/
16:36:43 [davidwood]
ack cygri
16:36:48 [MacTed]
s/can be changed to match/can be made to match/
16:36:54 [pfps]
I would argue that there has not been a change away from the current semantics!
16:37:24 [ScottB]
Richard: I've given up on not say anything at all in the semantics about named graphs.
16:38:17 [ScottB]
… I still think it's important to keep in mind the actual uses when talking semantics.
16:38:43 [PatH]
keep in mind actual users when thinking about semantics. I agree.
16:39:02 [ScottB]
16:40:31 [AZ]
+1 pfps
16:40:35 [ScottB]
Peter: current semantics is atemporal. It's not concerned with time. It's fine to use RDF as it is today.
16:40:45 [gavinc]
+1 pfps
16:41:00 [ScottB]
… all it says is that its a graph
16:41:30 [cygri]
16:41:50 [ScottB]
Pat: Using graphs to record data true at two different times and change the graph.
16:42:25 [ScottB]
Peter: Should be able to do what ever is desired and step outside the semantics.
16:42:32 [ericP]
sounds like this small theory fails to meet cygri's litmus of informing implementations
16:42:49 [ericP]
at least, not as much as we may want to inform (/standardize) them
16:43:17 [ScottB]
Pat: if you record daily changes in the graph. The assertion of a the same triple with a different label breaks the semantics.
16:43:19 [AndyS]
16:43:20 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
16:43:21 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
16:43:23 [MacTed]
16:43:38 [ScottB]
Peter: I don't see this as a violation.
16:43:39 [cygri]
16:44:10 [ericP]
peter: the semantics doesn't say anywhere that there should be one graph to bind them
16:44:12 [davidwood]
ack cygri
16:44:20 [ScottB]
David: Let's have this conversation off the call.
16:45:05 [ScottB]
Richard: Pat says what you say about changes to graphs is how people use this.
16:45:38 [ScottB]
… It's his position is that semantics break when this happens.
16:46:05 [ScottB]
… like Peter I can't see the problem in the semantics.
16:46:32 [ericP]
q+ to say that what the current semantics cover may be a non-issue if we have a shared goal of what the semantics *should* cover
16:46:59 [ScottB]
Pat: It depends on what you think semantics should be doing.
16:47:42 [ScottB]
… semantics should be about how ref graphs convey meaning.
16:47:43 [AndyS]
16:47:55 [ericP]
+1 to "make it valid to merge two graphs"
16:48:24 [ScottB]
… If graphs are sanctioned by the sematics to be temporal they can't be freely merged.
16:48:45 [pfps]
I don't see anything in RDF that says when it is acceptable to merge graphs - all that is there is what it means to merge graphs.
16:48:47 [ScottB]
@Pat, please edit my scribe as necessary.
16:49:24 [ScottB]
Pat: Every graph should find it's own interpretation
16:49:45 [ScottB]
Andy: Keep the URI's denoting the same thing, it's just the triples.
16:49:51 [Guus]
Peter: as I right to say your view is: if you merge two graphs you're on your own
16:49:52 [pfps]
If you took the stance that RDF says that it is always acceptable to merge graphs, then you would be sort of requiring that the Semantic Web was globally coherent. (I would have said consistent, but that's not quite right here.)
16:50:36 [pfps]
My view is that if you combine information from different parts of the Semantic Web, then it is up to you to be sure that they are compatible.
16:50:37 [davidwood]
pfps, isn't that a persistent misunderstanding of the Semantic Web by its detractors?
16:50:48 [AndyS]
+1 to pfps
16:50:50 [ScottB]
Pat: if there is a true functional semantics then it means what it means. If a triple means one thing one place and one thing in another, then it needs to be reflected in the semantics.
16:51:09 [ScottB]
Andy: It's just the true falseness.
16:51:30 [AndyS]
ack me - thanks Pat
16:51:34 [davidwood]
ack MacTed
16:51:37 [Guus]
I can libe with Peter's view, in the light of the charter
16:52:04 [pfps]
I think that my fundamental philosophical basis is that information in the Semantic Web is not necessarily "true", and that thus you have to be careful committing to bits of it.
16:52:04 [ScottB]
Ted: People may be using rdf to store information that's not rdf as defined.
16:52:12 [davidwood]
Yes, I can live with pfps's view
16:52:49 [ScottB]
… we can't treat anything as if is the same for all time.
16:53:04 [davidwood]
ack ericP
16:53:04 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to say that what the current semantics cover may be a non-issue if we have a shared goal of what the semantics *should* cover
16:53:35 [MacTed]
16:53:53 [pfps]
Unfortunately, it appears that some of disagreement is about "intended" meaning, which, in my opinion, necessarily brings in the less-well-understood parts of philosophy. :-(
16:54:00 [ScottB]
Eric: What do we hope to accomplish, to confidently merge documents? I propose we let Pat describe his proposal.
16:54:29 [ScottB]
… then we decide if we want to push things that far and discover use cases from that.
16:56:05 [ScottB]
Pat: I agree with David that we don't take things on faith. (Regarding rdf statements) Thats a separate issue from what I'm trying to describe.
16:56:22 [ScottB]
… People are using rdf in a temporal way.
16:57:00 [ScottB]
… Trusting sources is just too big an issue
16:57:37 [ScottB]
… We can come up with a way that provides a semantic foundation for this application of rdf.
16:57:38 [ericP]
+1 to "useful formulation", via use cases
16:57:55 [davidwood]
ack MacTed
16:57:58 [ScottB]
David: Trust is one of the more important use cases.
16:58:24 [danbri]
(I liked Pat's note, but there's perhaps slightly too much emphasis on time)
16:58:25 [ScottB]
Ted: Merging graphs forces rdf into authoritative true graph
16:58:41 [ScottB]
Pat: Semantics doesn't deal with trust.
16:59:11 [davidwood]
I think that trust was high on the SemWeb layer cake for a good reason. There was never a presumption in the early RDF community (to the best of my recollection) that anyone should implicitly trust all RDF statements, even when merging graphs.
16:59:26 [davidwood]
16:59:42 [danbri]
I suggest using 'foaf:age' instead of apple colour
16:59:53 [ScottB]
Pat: Do your three sources disagree with one another or are they describing a ripening apple.
17:00:07 [ScottB]
… they describe a sequence.
17:00:18 [ScottB]
… a fine semantic grain is needed.
17:00:42 [ScottB]
Pat: if the truth is contextual you can put a context on it.
17:01:15 [ScottB]
David: I think there is less contention now than earlier.
17:01:16 [danbri]
q+ to suggest 3 grounding scenarios: 1. 'age' of a person 2. file metadata: filesize 3. 'owner'. (better than Apple...)
17:01:24 [ericP]
i still think it would be useful to hear Pat discuss his proposal
17:02:02 [davidwood]
ack danbri
17:02:44 [MacTed]
17:02:48 [ScottB]
Dan: I suggest three examples, person age, file size, owner
17:03:24 [ScottB]
Zakim, who is on IRC?
17:03:29 [MacTed]
to be clearer... +1 to danbri's 3 examples
17:03:29 [Guus]
17:03:41 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to suggest 3 grounding scenarios: 1. 'age' of a person 2. file metadata: filesize 3. 'owner'. (better than Apple...)
17:03:52 [ScottB]
Guus: Zakim, who is on the call
17:03:58 [danbri]
(bye 'if we can't do these 3', i mean 'we should have a plausible story about describing humans, computer files, ownable things, ... such that we can suggest sensible rdf-based data patterns that address the reality of changing properties in these 3 areas)
17:04:28 [ScottB]
Zakim, who is on the call
17:04:30 [Zakim]
17:04:35 [Zakim]
17:04:43 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
17:05:26 [ScottB]
Guus: The name the graph and the meaning contained somewhere. This works for the first two cases
17:05:33 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, ScottB.
17:06:27 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the call', ScottB
17:06:32 [ScottB]
… we could say this vocabulary is just convention and doesn't affect semantics.
17:06:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see yvesr, Peter_Patel-Schneider, gavinc, ScottB, PatH, cygri, AndyS, David_Wood, AZ, Ivan, AlexHall, EricP, Guus, danbri, MacTed, Arnaud.a
17:07:17 [ScottB]
… first question is what should we be doing and second how should we do this.
17:07:36 [ericP]
17:07:52 [Zakim]
On IRC I see AlexHall, Arnaud, Guus, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, AZ, cygri, PatH, AndyS, danbri, ScottB, MacTed, ivan, mischat, yvesr, SteveH, manu1, gavinc, NickH, mdmdm, davidwood,
17:07:54 [ericP]
+1 to working through specific examples in <>\
17:07:56 [davidwood]
17:07:57 [Zakim]
... manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP
17:08:45 [Zakim]
17:08:51 [Zakim]
17:08:54 [ScottB]
Guus: Interpreted Pat's as not changing the data model but the semantics.
17:09:32 [ScottB]
… Do we want a statement in the semantics describing what happens when we merge documents.
17:10:58 [ScottB]
Ivan: we may define those classes like a static container
17:11:20 [ScottB]
Guus: if we predefine we go beyond the proposal.
17:11:42 [ScottB]
… issues such as what namespace etc, need to be brought up.
17:12:11 [ScottB]
Ivan: My rough feeling is that we may not need anything on the semantics.
17:12:23 [ScottB]
Guus: We have to take a decision on this.
17:12:48 [ScottB]
… if you are merging you are on your own.
17:13:02 [ScottB]
Pat: silence can be taken as agreement.
17:13:05 [davidwood]
17:13:23 [ScottB]
Guus: Static graph container seems to be the one thing that's a sticking point.
17:13:45 [ScottB]
Andy: Age of people, ownership are still an issue:
17:13:55 [ScottB]
17:14:45 [ScottB]
Eric: Everything gets written down in some sort of container. Snaps, an age representation doesn't exist.
17:14:54 [Guus]
q+ to talk about age/birth-date example
17:15:13 [ScottB]
… you're going to write it down in a container then make assertions about that container.
17:15:35 [ScottB]
Pat: The kosher way is to verify it.
17:15:39 [davidwood]
ack Guus
17:15:39 [Zakim]
Guus, you wanted to talk about age/birth-date example
17:16:10 [ivan]
q+ to ask the sub-graph issue with GET
17:16:23 [ScottB]
Guus: The age example -- you could always use birth date instead of age.
17:16:36 [ScottB]
… this may not be a good example.
17:16:39 [gavinc]
Person Snap!
17:17:27 [ScottB]
David: clarifying Guus' point. Much uncertainty about people who have died long ago in actual practice.
17:17:38 [davidwood]
ack Ivan
17:17:38 [Zakim]
ivan, you wanted to ask the sub-graph issue with GET
17:17:39 [ericP]
17:17:43 [ScottB]
Andy: Semantics shouldn't be involved in that issue.
17:18:04 [AndyS]
17:18:41 [ScottB]
Ivan: Other than static graph container. Does it mean when I do a get do I get what's in the curly brackets.
17:19:13 [ScottB]
Ivan: there might be another type of container, when I'm worried about things being there as a result of a get.
17:19:58 [ScottB]
Andy: Up till now only the static graph container has come up. There may be more kinds we should discuss.
17:20:04 [PatH]
17:20:12 [AndyS]
17:20:18 [ScottB]
Guus: write down the exampele
17:20:19 [Zakim]
17:20:21 [Zakim]
17:20:22 [Zakim]
17:20:23 [Zakim]
17:20:24 [Zakim]
17:20:25 [Zakim]
17:20:26 [Zakim]
17:20:28 [Zakim]
17:20:28 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
17:20:29 [AndyS]
17:20:32 [Zakim]
17:20:34 [Zakim]
17:20:41 [Zakim]
17:20:45 [Zakim]
17:21:58 [Zakim]
17:23:30 [davidwood]
rrsagent, make records public
17:23:45 [ericP]
17:23:51 [ScottB]
rrsAgent, make records public
17:25:53 [Zakim]
17:25:54 [Zakim]
17:25:58 [Zakim]
17:25:59 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
17:25:59 [Zakim]
Attendees were ScottB, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Guus, gavinc, yvesr, PatH, cygri, AndyS, David_Wood, +1.408.996.aaaa, Ivan, +1.443.212.aabb, AlexHall, Arnaud, AZ, EricP, danbri,
17:25:59 [Zakim]
... MacTed
17:28:59 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdf-wg
18:04:04 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has left #rdf-wg
18:10:51 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdf-wg
18:11:48 [mdmdm]
It seems to me that the issue of time discussed today is not in the charter, that Pat's proposal is a significant change to the semantics and that any significant changes to the semantics are expressly outside the scope of the WG per the charter.
18:45:44 [davidwood]
mdmdm, the RDF WG is chartered to "Standardize a model and semantics for multiple graphs and graphs stores". Therefore, discussion of semantics to support such a model is both chartered and appropriate.
18:46:09 [mdmdm]
I agree for multigraphs, but the time issue is a whole other ball of wax
18:47:00 [mdmdm]
my suggestion for a multigraph solution:
18:54:58 [davidwood]
19:23:13 [mdmdm]
I appreciate the consideration =)
19:45:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-wg
19:50:28 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg
19:50:49 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg
19:54:04 [davidwood]
mdmdm, Unfortunately this stuff isn't easy. Many people have put forward good ideas that work for them, but not for others. Threading the needle on all the various perspectives is why this work is best done in a Working Group instead of just proposed and adopted.
19:55:34 [mdmdm]
agreed. I'm just trying to participate in the conversation and put forth some new ideas to discuss
20:48:41 [mischat]
mischat has joined #rdf-wg
21:37:51 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg
22:33:04 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg
22:37:48 [mdmdm]
mdmdm has joined #rdf-wg
22:48:32 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg