14:56:32 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:56:32 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/02-rdf-wg-irc 14:57:36 Zakim, this is rdf-wg 14:57:36 sorry, davidwood1, I do not see a conference named 'rdf-wg' in progress or scheduled at this time 14:57:42 Zakim, this is rdf 14:57:42 ok, davidwood1; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM 14:57:44 +Guus 14:57:53 +??P3 14:57:58 +EricP 14:58:01 +Tom_Baker (was ??P3) 14:58:05 +??P8 14:58:31 pfps has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:54 Guus has joined #rdf-wg 14:59:17 cygri has joined #rdf-wg 14:59:23 +Sandro 14:59:32 +gavinc 14:59:48 Zakim, ??P3 is me 14:59:48 I already had ??P3 as Tom_Baker, yvesr 14:59:53 +mhausenblas 14:59:57 Zakim, who is on the phone? 14:59:57 On the phone I see bhyland, Guus, Tom_Baker, EricP, ??P8, Sandro, gavinc, mhausenblas 14:59:58 zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:59:58 zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me 14:59:59 ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:59:59 +cygri; got it 14:59:59 +??P15 14:59:59 +Ivan 15:00:02 Zakim, ??P8 is me 15:00:03 +yvesr; got it 15:00:10 zakim, mute me 15:00:10 Guus should now be muted 15:00:16 +??P16 15:00:25 zakim, ??P16 is me 15:00:25 +AndyS; got it 15:00:41 zakim, ??P15 is me 15:00:41 +pfps; got it 15:00:43 ack pfps 15:00:51 zakim, ack pfps 15:00:51 I see ??P15 on the speaker queue 15:00:56 ack ??P15 15:00:59 zakim, who is making noise? 15:01:01 q+ 15:01:12 q- 15:01:17 AndyS, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps (56%) 15:01:31 +??P18 15:01:37 zakim, ??P18 is probably danbri 15:01:37 +danbri?; got it 15:03:22 +Arnaud 15:03:29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_keyboard 15:03:41 AZ has joined #rdf-wg 15:03:47 bucking spring! 15:04:10 err, BUCKLING 15:04:10 zakim, mute me 15:04:10 Ivan should now be muted 15:04:11 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AIbRUjE1jyI/TdQUuKhmy-I/AAAAAAAAAGg/P_U7JwuMRIc/s1600/article-0-0C1972A800000578-285_634x568.jpg 15:04:45 +??P29 15:05:01 zakim, ??P29 15:05:01 I don't understand '??P29', AZ 15:05:05 zakim, ??P29 is me 15:05:05 +AZ; got it 15:05:21 +Souri 15:05:45 scribe: cygri 15:05:47 PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 25 Apr telecon: 15:05:47 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-04-25 15:05:54 Topic: Admin 15:06:01 Souri has joined #rdf-wg 15:06:16 Topic: Review of action items 15:06:16 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview 15:06:16 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open 15:06:17 RESOLUTION: accept the minutes of the 25 Apr telecon http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-04-25 15:06:27 Topic: Review of action items 15:06:37 ACTION-126? 15:06:37 ACTION-126 -- Richard Cyganiak to write up rdf:XMLLiteral proposal on the wiki -- due 2012-01-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:06:37 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/126 15:07:08 davidwood: ACTION-126 is complete 15:07:36 ACTION-152 15:07:39 ACTION-152? 15:07:39 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/152 15:07:47 zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 15:07:55 gavinc: ACTION-152 is overcome by events, can be closed 15:07:59 zakim, code? 15:07:59 the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2 15:08:02 q+ to talk re RDFS 15:08:10 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:08:10 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 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 Zakim, who is talking? 15:08:33 Zakim, who is talking? 15:08:40 +zwu2 15:08:42 gavinc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps (53%), EricP (18%) 15:08:44 zakim, mute me 15:08:44 zwu2 should now be muted 15:08:52 davidwood, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps (50%), danbri? (74%) 15:08:53 who's vaccum cleaning? 15:08:54 Zakim, mute pfps 15:08:54 pfps should now be muted 15:08:55 Zakim, mute pfps 15:08:55 pfps was already muted, davidwood 15:09:22 am i audible? 15:09:48 danbri: i'm editing rdf-schema and have actions there 15:09:56 ... but waiting for group decisions 15:10:11 davidwood: i don't think we're talking about much that affects rdf-schema 15:10:16 danbri: what about datatypes? 15:10:20 q+ 15:10:42 davidwood: some issues on that are on the agenda for today 15:10:47 q- 15:11:08 danbri: how about add two more months to these actions 15:11:17 Topic: RDF Concepts Proposals 15:11:28 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html 15:12:37 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XSD_Datatypes 15:13:20 +??P0 15:13:22 q+ 15:13:27 ack danbri 15:13:27 danbri, you wanted to talk re RDFS 15:13:30 ack AndyS 15:13:46 Zakim, ??P15 is me 15:13:46 I already had ??P15 as pfps, NickH 15:13:56 AndyS: xsd:precisionDecimal is defined in a Note, not a Rec 15:14:10 Zakim, ??P13 is me 15:14:10 I already had ??P13 as cygri, NickH 15:14:15 Zakim, ??P0 is me 15:14:15 +NickH; got it 15:14:27 Zakim, mute me 15:14:27 NickH should now be muted 15:14:28 http://www.w3.org/TR/xsd-precisionDecimal/ 15:14:32 q+ 15:14:41 ack pfps 15:14:41 WG Note 15:15:28 q+ 15:15:29 PatH has joined #rdf-wg 15:15:46 ack cygri 15:15:48 pfps: we should first figure out what's the relationship to OWL and RIF 15:16:13 +PatH 15:16:53 q+ 15:16:59 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XSD_Datatypes 15:17:10 cygri: what's in OWL and RIF doesn't constrain what we say in RDF 15:17:53 davidwood: we presumably will fold in some of the new XSD datatypes except where there's a reason against it 15:18:43 sandro: does the list of types affect conformance? 15:19:02 AndyS: read it as: here are some types you can use 15:19:12 especially as the 2004 text explicitly looks forward to the improvements we now have. 15:19:51 sandro: if it's a SHOULD in RDF, then any misalignment doesn't really affect anyone 15:20:10 ... they should be the same as a matter of convenience 15:20:32 zakim, unmute me 15:20:32 Ivan should no longer be muted 15:20:33 davidwood: RIF and OWL already failed to codify all the RDF 2004 datatypes. nothing we can do to fix that 15:20:41 q+ 15:20:48 ack ivan 15:21:21 ivan: for example xsd:gYear is not in owl, for reasons i can't remember 15:21:33 ... i can see no reason for not having it in RDF 15:22:00 ... for due diligence, we should check that all OWL and RIF datatypes are listed in RDF 15:22:32 davidwood: the only difference are the three new XSD types. the proposal is to fold these three in 15:22:33 it is fine for rdf to allow a dtype which owl or rif prohibits; the opposite is problematic. 15:22:42 q+ 15:23:03 PatH, RDF isn't allowing or prohibiting these, just "recommending" them. 15:23:07 ivan: it should be checked carefully that all the RIF+OWL types are in 15:23:10 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XSD_Datatypes is what your asking for Ivan 15:23:19 FYI: gYear is not comparable in F&O - it makes life interesting if strict. 15:23:22 -zwu2 15:23:30 davidwood: my only concern was why precisionDecimal wasn't in 15:23:33 ack pfps 15:24:04 +zwu2 15:24:04 pfps: the history with the xsd:gYear and related time types were in OWL1 15:24:17 ... they were in OWL1 15:24:43 ... they have no well-defined ordering, hence have problems in OWL and RIF 15:25:02 davidwood: nothing in this proposal talks about revisiting the RDF 2004 types 15:25:17 we could note the problems, however. 15:25:34 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html 15:25:43 q? 15:25:48 sandro: So this proposal in no way precludes removing gDay tomorrow. 15:25:50 issue-66? 15:25:50 ISSUE-66 -- Update XSD datatype map with new XSD 1.1 datatypes -- open 15:25:50 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/66 15:25:50 SPARQL is not like RIF here (don't know about OWL) ... SPARQL copes with "indeterminate", RIF does not. 15:25:53 sandro: the proposal doesn't preclude paring down the list later on 15:25:58 ack cygri 15:26:14 q+ 15:27:40 q+ 15:27:52 q- 15:27:55 q? 15:27:58 ack PatH 15:28:06 q- 15:28:18 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html 15:28:48 +1 15:28:50 +1 15:28:54 +1 15:28:59 +1 15:29:02 +1 15:29:05 zakim, who is noisy? 15:29:08 "allowed" -> "recommended" 15:29:08 +1 15:29:16 ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (9%), pfps (62%), Ivan (5%) 15:29:22 +1 15:29:26 -0, as I still worry about xsd:dateTime 15:29:36 +0 15:29:52 s/xsd:dateTime/xsd:duration/ 15:30:55 I'm actually not happy with the handling of timezones, or lack of, with those datatypes but that's orthogonal 15:30:55 There were no verbal objections to making AndyS's change in wording: 15:31:02 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html 15:31:03 +1 15:31:09 zakim, mute me 15:31:09 Ivan should now be muted 15:31:29 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 pfps, does this work for you? 15:32:05 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 ISSUE-87? 15:32:06 ISSUE-87 -- Revisit RDF 2004 datatypes that have proven troublesome in OWL and RIF -- raised 15:32:06 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/87 15:32:24 s/ISSUE-66/some new issue/ 15:33:03 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 +1 15:33:27 +1 15:33:28 +1 15:34:40 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 very, very clever. 15:35:11 +1 15:35:37 +1 15:35:47 +1 15:36:17 q+ 15:36:36 fofl, ericP 15:36:46 ack Ivan 15:37:07 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 ivan: Boris Motik looked at XSD 1.1 and from he said it looks fine 15:37:56 ... 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 +1 ivan 15:38:14 ... it's fine for OWL and RIF to restrict the list 15:38:28 q? 15:38:29 ... but we're not talking about OWL or RIF here. 15:38:39 RDF can (must) be more permissive than owl or rif 15:38:55 q+ 15:39:00 Overblown : +1 : Any DT is legal. 15:39:30 pfps: RDF can make its own choices. but it should consider OWL work 15:39:32 So we're clear we are talking about http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#duration 15:39:44 ack PatH 15:40:08 PatH: It is fine for RDF to be more permissive than OWL. 15:40:25 (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 PatH: RDF is more permissive. RDF allowing more is fine. the other way round would be a problem 15:40:35 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 danbri, good point. 15:40:54 ... as long as RDF doesn't obstruct OWL, it's fine 15:41:08 There is a later revision of XML Schema that has been correct and has a well defined value space 15:42:34 pfps: to play nice we should have the courtesy to ask the OWL WG 15:42:46 Rushing? The issue was opened in the spec itself in 2004! 15:42:50 ... and also RIF and SPARQL 15:43:14 q? 15:43:17 q+ 15:43:46 ... W3C has a long history where subsequent standards try very hard to cover all of RDF. we should not break this 15:43:47 This is called out in the Linked Data Platform WG charter. 15:44:25 q+ 15:44:27 ack Sandro 15:45:05 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 pfps: that would be the preferred route 15:47:18 +q 15:47:22 q+ 15:47:48 ack cygri 15:48:16 zakim, who is talking? 15:48:19 loud typing... 15:48:27 sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: cygri (86%), pfps (9%), Ivan (34%) 15:48:37 cygri: Datatypes being broken for RIF. OWL or SPARQL does not infer that they are broken for RDF. 15:48:38 ISSUE-87? 15:48:38 ISSUE-87 -- Revisit RDF 2004 datatypes that have proven troublesome in OWL and RIF -- raised 15:48:38 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/87 15:48:38 zakim mute ivan 15:48:39 zakim, mute me 15:48:39 Ivan should now be muted 15:49:15 s/danbri/davidwood/ 15:49:49 q+ 15:50:13 +1 cygri lets proceed, knowing issue-87 now exists 15:50:25 ack gavinc 15:51:27 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 pfps: we should ask OWL WG 15:52:17 ack PatH 15:52:19 sandro: can we proceed, knowing ISSUE-87 now exists? 15:52:34 pfps: i'd still vote against 15:53:02 PatH: we should reject the argument that RDF has a duty to align exactly with other specs like OWL and RIF 15:53:11 Technically, the OWL and RIF WGs still exist, in order to handle XSD 1.1 finally going to REC. (danbri) 15:53:27 ... the consequence would be that if OWL and RIF don't like something in RDF, we'd have to remove it 15:53:43 q? 15:53:45 ... actually, the most restrictive language is SPARQL 15:53:50 q+ 15:54:08 the bar for minimal implementation for SPARQL requires implementing a subset of these datatypes 15:54:17 q+ 15:54:27 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 the behavior is defined for use with other XSD datatypes 15:54:34 ack sandro 15:54:37 (behavior of SPARQL) 15:54:53 ... 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 sandro: we are chartered to look at compatibility 15:55:39 ack AndyS 15:56:09 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 ack pfps 15:56:40 pfps: i'm agreeing with sandro 15:57:03 ACTION: pfps to talk to the OWL WG about ISSUE-87 and xsd:duration 15:57:03 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 zakim, drop me 15:57:18 Ivan is being disconnected 15:57:18 -Ivan 15:57:24 ACTION-164? 15:57:24 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/164 15:57:36 -NickH 15:57:47 PROPOSAL: RDF-WG will work on an HTML datatype that would be defined in RDF Concepts. 15:57:47 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0010.html 15:57:56 q+ 15:58:07 ack cygri 15:58:50 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 ericP: This is like XMLLiteral but for HTML? 15:59:53 suggest we add GLDWG and LDP to Peter's list of WGs to consult. 16:00:15 cygri: yes. just for adding bits of HTML markup into strings. 16:00:42 i've certainly wanted to use this in the past 16:00:46 +1 and willing to work on 16:01:27 sandro, yes it might be very simple 16:01:46 +1 i see a need for it 16:01:46 also add RDB2RDF to the WGs in Peters list. 16:01:52 davidwood: can we get agreement that the working group wants to work on such a datatype? 16:01:54 +1 16:01:56 +1 16:01:57 -Souri 16:01:59 +1 16:02:01 +1 16:02:03 +1 16:02:09 +1 assuming it might just be a string, with a different name so you know it's got markup 16:02:12 +0 16:02:22 +0.1 16:02:27 +/- 0.001 16:03:22 RESOLUTION: RDF-WG will work on an HTML datatype that would be defined in RDF Concepts. 16:03:27 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 1. renaming “graph equivalence” to “graph isomorphism” in RDF Concepts, and 16:03:27 2. adding a sentence in the RDF Semantics section on simple entailment, stating that isomorphic graphs are equivalent under simple entailment? 16:03:28 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0011.html 16:03:50 +1 16:03:52 +1 16:04:20 I've read it. 16:04:23 suggestion -- somewhere say "blank node isomorphism" (not essential) 16:04:34 +0.5 16:05:10 dont like mentioning blank nodes more than absolutely necessary. 16:05:19 I agree with Pat 16:05:29 +1 16:05:30 so there. 16:05:33 +1 16:05:36 ±¾³ 16:06:11 ithnk 86 was nem. con. 16:06:11 +1 on 86 16:06:17 RESOLUTION: Resolve ISSUE-86 as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0011.html 16:07:00 Topic: Turtle LC 16:07:11 gavinc: there are still issues with the document 16:07:39 ... can we change definition of parsing from declarative to pseudocode? 16:07:47 ... there was an objection to that earlier on 16:08:07 ... i'm happy to rewrite it to pseudocode as the current one is not quite complete/correct 16:08:30 ... i don't recall who objected or why 16:08:59 ericP: there was discussion on whether or not to define it recursively 16:09:29 http://barad-dur.carothers.name./~gavin/rdf-wg/rdf-turtle/#sec-parsing-triples 16:09:57 regarding pseudocode, this seems to be the relevant Wikipedia documentation guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Algorithms_on_Wikipedia 16:10:32 that page says This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference 16:11:32 (technical discussion on current definition of turtle parsing) 16:12:07 q? 16:12:56 davidwood: can you do may 16th for a new draft? 16:13:13 q+ 16:13:21 good point. 16:13:36 ack cygri 16:13:42 davidwood, what kind of discontent are you expecting re named graphs? Just that it's not done yet? 16:14:15 danbri, no, just emotional reactions to the fact that we have spent a lot of time on it. Markets hate uncertainty. 16:14:43 +1 to both publications 16:14:55 everything refers to Concepts. 16:15:28 davidwood: can we have new RDF Concepts draft too by 16th? 16:15:32 cygri: ok 16:15:34 q+ 16:15:41 ack PatH 16:16:04 Close Action-163 16:16:04 ACTION-163 Send mail to ietf-types to request the media type application/n-triples closed 16:16:15 -pfps 16:16:27 PatH: we should also get feedback on datatypes etc from the new linked data protocol WG and from RDB2RDF 16:17:08 -yvesr 16:17:09 davidwood: adjourned 16:17:11 -zwu2 16:17:13 bye 16:17:15 -Arnaud 16:17:21 loitering 16:17:32 -gavinc 16:17:53 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:18:03 from Guus 0 mins ago, '"Space" would be acceptable for me. Vague enough :-). ' 16:18:08 zakim, who is on the call? 16:18:08 On the phone I see bhyland, Guus (muted), Tom_Baker, EricP, Sandro, cygri, AndyS, danbri?, AZ, PatH 16:18:25 zakim, unmute me 16:18:25 Guus should no longer be muted 16:18:47 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-layers/index.html# 16:21:21 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Graph_Terminology#Graph_Concept_Terminology 16:22:08 pat: go for the identity criteria... 16:26:28 (fwiw myspace used to give you different metadata depending on the country you did the GET from ... http://www.myspace.com/madonna seems quite generic now though, maybe fixed?) 16:26:54 apparently google does that. 16:27:23 Google does -- at least now it sometimes asks you if you want to switch. 16:28:32 f(x,y) = x is a projection. f(rdf, html) = rdf 16:29:51 For me -- containers, and boxes works better but that's personal preference. 16:30:23 +1 andy on projections. 16:31:01 BTW (1) Please link to SPARQL formal defs not the descriptive text and (2) refer to SPARQL Update (urgent) 16:31:05 -1 to sandro. authentication for example is a basic part of the web 16:31:27