14:30:24 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:30:24 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/08/22-rdf-wg-irc 14:30:26 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:30:26 Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 14:30:28 Zakim, this will be 73394 14:30:29 Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 14:30:29 Date: 22 August 2012 14:30:33 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 30 minutes 14:30:34 Chair: Ivan 14:31:25 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting agenda, 2012-08-22: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.08.22 14:47:56 Regrets: Arnaud, Yves, Scott, Zhe 14:54:46 tbaker has joined #rdf-wg 14:56:01 Scribe: Tom Baker 14:56:18 scribenick: tbaker 14:57:00 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started 14:57:07 +??P0 14:57:17 zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:57:17 ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:57:19 +Ivan 14:57:35 SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg 14:57:35 zakim, ??P0 is tbaker 14:57:35 +tbaker; got it 14:57:52 rrsagent, please draft minutes 14:57:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/08/22-rdf-wg-minutes.html tbaker 14:58:15 gkellogg has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:19 rrsagent, please make record public 14:59:59 AZ has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:04 +??P2 15:00:09 zakim, ??P2 is me 15:00:09 +AndyS; got it 15:00:21 cgreer has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:25 SteveH has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:26 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:00:26 On the phone I see tbaker, Ivan, AndyS 15:00:28 +??P4 15:00:53 zakim, ??P4 is SteveH 15:00:53 +SteveH; got it 15:01:06 thanks AndyS 15:01:16 +cgreer 15:01:24 +sandro 15:01:37 +??P9 15:01:39 PatH has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:49 +??P8 15:01:55 zakim, I am ??P8 15:01:55 +gkellogg; got it 15:02:11 zakim, ??P9 is me 15:02:11 +AZ; got it 15:02:29 +gavinc 15:03:00 zakim, who is on the call? 15:03:00 On the phone I see tbaker, Ivan, AndyS, SteveH, cgreer, sandro, AZ, gkellogg, gavinc 15:03:39 AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg 15:04:28 + +1.443.212.aaaa 15:04:29 Topic: minutes of last meeting 15:04:41 +[OpenLink] 15:04:44 zakim, aaaa is AlexHall 15:04:44 +AlexHall; got it 15:04:47 Zakim, [OpenLink] is temporarily me 15:04:47 +MacTed; got it 15:04:49 Zakim, mute me 15:04:49 MacTed should now be muted 15:04:57 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-08-08 last meeting's minutes 15:05:19 I'll be on the call in a few mins 15:05:22 RESOLVED - minutes accepted 15:05:24 Souri has joined #rdf-wg 15:05:31 + +1.603.897.aabb 15:05:31 Topic: review of actions 15:05:42 zakim, aabb is Souri 15:05:42 +Souri; got it 15:05:58 alanr has joined #rdf-wg 15:06:15 +Alan_Ruttenberg 15:06:28 Ivan: See one action from Pat - discussion of Provenance - he's not yet on call. Propose to postpone - he needs resolution on draft identification issue before we can proceed. 15:06:33 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/overdue Overdue actions 15:06:36 ... Bunch of overdue actions: 15:07:15 ... Some are a few months old... Sandro: one from Sept 2011 - still open? 15:07:44 ... ACTION-82 and ACTION-98 still pending. 15:08:08 ... ACTION-100: ask editors of SPARQL... 15:08:21 Sandro: never quite understood that. 15:08:25 close action-100 15:08:25 ACTION-100 Ask editors of SPARQL Entailment Regimes what they'd suggest RDF specs says about their work. closed 15:08:30 +PatH 15:09:02 Ivan: Pat, action on your for past year to modify RDF semantics... (ACTION-120) 15:09:04 action-120? 15:09:04 ACTION-120 -- Patrick Hayes to modify RDF Semantics appropriately to hard-code the class extension of rdf:langString to the set of all pairs of strings and language tags -- due 2011-11-16 -- OPEN 15:09:04 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/120 15:09:25 action-140? 15:09:25 ACTION-140 -- Patrick Hayes to review XSD in RDF and OWL from semantics perspective -- due 2012-02-08 -- OPEN 15:09:25 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/140 15:09:45 ... Propose to close ACTION-140. 15:09:45 close action-140 15:09:45 ACTION-140 Review XSD in RDF and OWL from semantics perspective closed 15:10:05 cygri has joined #rdf-wg 15:10:11 ... Pat, ACTION-166 15:10:22 +cygri 15:10:27 Pat: Leave ACTION-166 and ACTION-170 open. 15:10:48 Ivan: ACTION-179 for Sandro - what was that? 15:11:23 Sandro: We included test cases in namespace. Waiting for Ian to return from vacation. 15:11:44 pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 15:11:46 Ivan: Do we want to leave it open until inverse-property sugar issue is closed? 15:11:57 close action-180 15:11:57 ACTION-180 Create a proposal for inverse property syntax in Turtle closed 15:12:13 close action-181 15:12:13 ACTION-181 Start wiki page for F2F closed 15:12:25 Topic: F2F meeting 15:12:39 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/FTF3 Wiki page for f2f 15:12:58 zakim, mute me 15:12:58 PatH should now be muted 15:13:04 Ivan: Urge you to sign up for right category - whether you intend to come, or come in remotely. 15:13:06 https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/95 15:13:17 ... Sandro, do we have way to handle remote participation? 15:13:22 Open ISSUE-95 15:13:31 ... We will have a phone, hardware, and line? 15:13:33 I guess that doesn't work from IRC. 15:13:43 Sandro: I think so, but haven't confirmed. 15:13:53 Ivan: Five people already want to come in remotely. 15:14:08 ACTION: Sandro to check on hardware for meeting. 15:14:08 Created ACTION-182 - Check on hardware for meeting. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2012-08-29]. 15:14:30 Topic: Next meeting 15:14:45 Ivan: Starting next week, vacations are over. 15:14:58 ... I mean two weeks - 5 September. 15:15:40 sudo zakim? 15:15:40 Zakim, unmute me 15:15:40 MacTed should no longer be muted 15:15:50 Zakim, mute me 15:15:50 MacTed should now be muted 15:16:08 ... We got through the admin actions! 15:16:09 Topic: Graph identification 15:16:22 Ivan: Just for the record... 15:16:27 -> http://www.w3.org/2012/08/RDFNG.html proposal document 15:16:57 pchampin_ has joined #rdf-wg 15:17:04 ... you all got this mail. Probably nobody is completely happy. We try to find consensus at some level and move out of current deadlock. 15:17:37 ... Three major areas. David tried to get agreement on fundamentals. If accepted, a bunch of details. Gives us guidelines. 15:17:57 ... Proposal to focus on 3 issues first: 1) terminology around NGs that would end up in Concepts, 15:18:09 ... 2) What we do with Semantics. Some discussion with Antoine, Sandro, etc. 15:18:23 ... 3) General guideline for TRIX syntax for NGs. 15:18:41 ... Do you all agree, or propose something radically different? 15:18:45 zakim, unmute me 15:18:45 PatH should no longer be muted 15:19:01 ... Take silence as agreement. 15:19:03 q 15:19:08 q 15:19:10 ... Start with things that will end up in Concepts. 15:19:37 +1 15:19:46 Pat: Would not start with terminology, then semantics - would reverse the order. 15:19:56 +1 overall to that doc 15:20:06 Sandro: It was that we would decide to decide terminology. 15:20:37 Ivan: Not the specific terms to use. We try to identify the missing bit of terminology. Most of the things are coming from SPARQL documents. 15:20:39 +EricP 15:21:20 can there be a summary of the points of contention? 15:21:22 ... In that document, we coined RDF Spaces, or GBox (coined ages ago) - by trying to find the right term for that - don't want to go there now - we have some sort of symmetry of concepts that could go into Concepts. 15:21:39 ... Comments on that issue? 15:21:43 q? 15:21:47 1+ 15:21:49 q+ 15:21:52 q+ 15:22:00 ack alanr 15:22:29 Alan: Coming in to see if I can help. Could someone summarize history of points of contention? 15:22:47 Ivan: "Short" overview of past 18 months would be complicated... 15:23:07 Zakim, unmute me 15:23:07 MacTed should no longer be muted 15:23:13 Everyone disagrees, but ends up not disagreeing and we end up talking about g-boxes a lot. 15:23:20 ... Volunteers for 2-minute overview? 15:23:48 Pat: I'll give it a shot... SPARQL has provided constructions - graphs with URIs attached - and we have been debating what this means in RDF terms. 15:24:03 ... Basic issues: whether graph names really name the graph, or name something else. 15:24:15 ... If they do name something, what do they name? 15:24:25 ... A flavor of the issues... 15:24:43 Zakim, mute me 15:24:43 gavinc should now be muted 15:24:50 ... This bundle of issues got mixed up with notion that people think of graphs, often, as something that is mutable. 15:25:39 ack cygri 15:25:47 ... [Pat lists the over 4-5 alternative suggestions for what a graph URI could denote] 15:26:15 Richard: ONe of the reasons why this graph discussion is difficult: we don't really have agreement on the big-picture goal of this effort. 15:26:16 +1 to richard 15:27:30 ... At the end of the day, we don't _have_ to do anything. SPARQL has already standardized solutions to the problems we are trying to solve - pretty good. So why is RDFWG dealing with this? Yes, in charter, but what does it mean for us to be successful in this work? Do we create point of reference for multigraph work? Use cases we want to address? 15:27:56 q? 15:27:58 ... Different opinions on this. Difficult to know what we need to do to be successful. 15:28:53 q+ 15:28:55 Sandro: Think - second of Richard's options - should define things such that more use cases become tractable. In Use Case document, federated phone book. Many people want to express "change over time" 15:29:35 ... Someone could come along and define that vocabulary. Terminology and model for how to work with multiple graphs in interoperable way. Easy to come up with stand-alone solution. Challenge: exchange with others. 15:29:47 Richard: What is missing from what SPARQL already standardizes? 15:30:12 Sandro: The metadata - a way to hook URIs - this thing has this property - currently not clear what you are talking about. 15:30:14 q+ 15:30:20 ack ivan 15:30:24 Classes have extensions. RDF Graphs have things that look at lot like extensions. Classes can be closed. RDF Graphs sees to want to be either open or closed. I wonder whether a) an extension to the ref semantics that adds a graph extension in addition to a property and class extension. b) Any of the use cases for using the graph name to mean other than the extension can not be handled by (a) and the fact that the domain of discourse of RDF is ref:Resource = any 15:30:25 Richard: So even semantics to use [] in default graph. 15:30:35 q+ to discuss my comment 15:31:15 Ivan: Also think - agree with Richard that most things we need have been defined by SPARQL. That said, need place clearly referenceable for this, and only this, topic, that is not bounced to the query language. 15:31:27 ... Will not be clear to people what this means. 15:31:40 + +1.540.538.aacc 15:31:43 q+ 15:32:01 zakim, aacc is dwood 15:32:01 +dwood; got it 15:32:02 \ 15:32:07 ... Reason why SPARQL terminology would be taken into Concept document - to be in line with SPARQL, but also to extract and put somewhere that people can cite. 15:32:08 ack PatH 15:32:28 Pat: Disagree. Don't think SPARQL has indeed defined these constructions. 15:32:28 alan, one issue is whether our not my graph corresponds to your graph 15:32:52 ... To amplify what Sandro says: Difficult to come up with framework that can be extended for notions of time, etc. 15:32:53 it does, by the approach I propose. That would be consistent with use of all other URIs 15:33:01 consistency is good 15:33:15 q? 15:33:19 ack alanr 15:33:19 alanr, you wanted to discuss my comment 15:33:22 ... People using RDF at edges - BBC, etc - important to clarify this big issue to help these people. 15:33:23 tbaker: time needs to be its own project - very involved 15:33:29 FWIW, I've not seen this being discussed in the real world 15:33:31 +1 AndyS 15:34:13 zakim, mute me 15:34:13 PatH should now be muted 15:34:32 Alan: So shouldn't be a competition, but ability to cover cases - want to re-use as much as possible. In semantic extensions for RDF - class extensions in RDFS - a URI can have several different "attachments". One of these should be for RDF graph. Has this been discussed? 15:35:03 ... Need basics: "mutable" sets, document-like thinks. Something like class extension - "semantic extension"? 15:35:30 agenda? 15:35:39 graphs can be in the rdf universe, so there can be classes of them. 15:35:43 ... If you have an RDF resource that can mean essentially anything - if it has a graph extension - this would give you possibility of extending graphs to additional, more restrictive things. 15:35:44 q+ 15:35:48 q+ 15:35:51 ack AZ 15:35:52 is that enough for you? 15:36:22 s/+1 AndyS/+1 PatH/ 15:36:23 :-) 15:36:39 q- 15:36:43 +??P26 15:36:56 Antoine: Agree with Pat when he says lots of things not defined by SPARQL. Doesn't explain what conclusions you can draw from dataset. We know what to draw from one graph, but not from a pair of Name-Graph. This is needed (in answer to Richard). 15:37:00 ack cygri 15:37:02 q? 15:37:04 q+ 15:37:05 I don't see the need for "pair" any more than we need "pair" for describing the URI, resource it refers to 15:37:14 there's a name, and then there's a thing that it names 15:37:19 that's the basis of RDF 15:37:28 ack MacTed 15:37:34 +1 alanr 15:37:41 davidwood has joined #rdf-wg 15:38:09 Ted: What Alan said re: basics - agree. We need mutable container and immutable set which might be held in a container - those basics are in the proposed document. Why do we have to re-hash instead of focusing on proposed document? 15:38:16 lets do that, indeed. 15:38:22 pat: does the idea of a semantic extension that gives a resource a graph extension work? 15:38:23 Ivan: Lost Richard? 15:39:02 ... Agree with Ted. Feel that document contains what we can agree upon now. Fills in one hole - the mutable Something. 15:39:02 alanr: maybe but it seems like semantic overkill. 15:39:12 document will do as a name - that's what is used in other contexts 15:39:30 ... Would appreciate agreement that this is the right direction? 15:39:39 compared to the semantic onslaught on graphs it seems relatively easy ;-) 15:39:47 q? 15:39:55 Proposed: The WG agrees to close the loop on RDF terminology, reflecting the mutability/non mutability issue as also raised by the SPARQL 1.1. What we mean by "closing" is reflected in the symmetry of Figure 1 in the RDF Graph Identification proposal document. 15:39:55 ... Will put in what David wrote... 15:40:11 re: terminology, there are objectional uses, e.g. "dataset" 15:40:18 which means a lot of things 15:40:21 ... Emphasizing that the terminology used in that section is not final. 15:40:39 Sandro: So we will find a way to talk about GBox and GSnap. 15:40:42 Right, should remember our consensus where it exists :) 15:40:46 sets are not mutable 15:40:53 that's that 15:40:57 I think we all agree on this diagram when the labels are erased :-) 15:40:59 mathematics defines this 15:41:02 It's just semantics! 15:41:09 +??P28 15:41:11 zakim, unmute me 15:41:11 PatH should no longer be muted 15:41:13 zakim, ??P28 is me 15:41:13 +LeeF; got it 15:41:14 (I don't like the "pair" business) 15:41:17 hi! 15:41:19 q+ 15:41:21 q? 15:41:25 that shouldn't bet there imo 15:41:27 Alanr, we have discussed this to death and is why we have the current understanding of mutable and immutable terms. 15:41:34 Ivan: Straw poll on the proposal? 15:41:38 +1 15:41:40 +1 15:41:42 +1 15:41:42 david, discussed what? 15:41:43 +1 15:41:46 +1 15:41:47 +1 15:41:48 +1 Sure, why not 15:41:50 +? 15:41:52 +1 15:41:53 +1 15:41:56 +1 to section Concepts at least 15:42:03 +1 to uh, whatever the proposal is 15:42:07 alanr, we all know that math sets are immutable. 15:42:16 +1 15:42:17 Proposed: The WG agrees to close the loop on RDF terminology, reflecting the mutability/non mutability issue as also raised by the SPARQL 1.1. What we mean by "closing" is reflected in the symmetry of Figure 1 in the RDF Graph Identification proposal document. 15:42:18 +1 15:42:21 +1 15:42:28 +1 15:42:32 +1 15:42:35 -0.5 15:42:39 Ivan: Guideline on what we discuss. 15:43:11 Richard: Back now. I don't understand the proposal. 15:43:19 not sure why datasets are just not classes of ref graph 15:43:20 ... What is being proposed? 15:43:26 s/ref/rdf/ 15:43:33 this is more straw poll than proposal, is it not? 15:43:35 Sandro: We will use GBox and GSnap for now. Reaffirming. 15:43:57 PatH, I'm glad to hear that we all agree on the diagram modulo the terms. 15:44:04 eric: for an outsider, completely confusing 15:44:10 Pat: Could Sandro number that document? We could cite by number... 15:44:32 s/number that/number nodes in that/ 15:44:43 sandro: that's what gbox/gsnap are. 15:44:45 pat: fair enough 15:45:32 Ivan: More to that, to be fair. One year ago, we invented new terms only when they did not clearly exist in SPARQL. That document: 90% SPARQL + only one term not defined and used by SPARQL. If we could find a proper English term for what we are calling RDF Spaces, we could close this and move on. 15:45:45 gavinc +1 15:46:09 Sandro: No. Two problems: the term we agree on. But also the problem that the world uses terminology inconsistently. E.g., "RDF Graph". 15:46:16 lets not go there now. 15:46:19 odd to be writing a standard for people who won't read standards to figure out what technical terms mean 15:46:26 Ivan: But we can't go back and tell SPARQL they need to re-write. 15:47:05 []: No way to dodge ongoing confusing because terms used in ambiguous ways by alot of people. So that group uses terminology in an obsolete fashion. 15:47:14 q+ 15:47:20 Ivan: So you want to come up with terms different from those used for a long time? 15:47:20 s/[]/macted/ 15:47:21 q- 15:47:29 q- 15:47:40 It's not the SPARQL-WG - it's the community. SPARQL 1.0 followed community. It will continue. As PatH said "be loose about it" (can't remember the exact phrase) 15:47:41 q+ to proposed minting URIs, then creating definitions, then assigning terms. 15:48:08 X: Only terms we have used consistently: GBox and GSnap. Every term we come up with that incorporates the word graph maintains confusing because it has so many meanings. Leads to interoperability failure. 15:48:13 s/X/Andy/ 15:48:13 I don't agree: can you point to a place where "RDF Graph" is misused in the last 6 months in our WG? 15:48:21 Im beginning to understand why Moses had a bad temper. 15:48:22 s/Andy/X/ 15:48:31 s/X/Ted/ 15:49:11 q+ 15:49:14 the gbox /gsnap terms are hard to improve upon 15:49:14 "RDF Graph" is defined in RDF Concepts. We could change that, but I don't see the point. Someone will object to any term. At some point, we just need to adopt a set of terms and use them consistently. 15:49:29 Andy: My point: think we're using SPARQL WG as symbol for "general community". Even SPARQL 1.0 was reacting to the community. "Graph" will be used loosely - will not change. 15:49:33 SO? 15:49:38 zakim, who is talking> 15:49:38 I don't understand 'who is talking>', sandro 15:49:40 q+ to ask whether fixing use of terminology is a goal of this WG 15:49:40 zakim, who is talking? 15:49:41 q? 15:49:41 Y: Except RDF graph is used inconsistency too. 15:49:43 just need the 3rd term for the grsph label 15:49:44 ack alanr 15:49:44 alanr, you wanted to proposed minting URIs, then creating definitions, then assigning terms. 15:49:50 sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (25%), MacTed (28%), Alan_Ruttenberg (42%), Ivan (50%) 15:50:10 We should *not* borrow trouble by pretending that we know who in reader space might find a consistent term confusing. 15:50:14 Alan: In order to not get stuck on names, Gavin has suggesting giving [] - seems sensible. 15:50:51 ... I agree that in the way we try to build ontologies, we are all types. We assign URIs then work hard on definitions. Then when we're done we can worrry about names. 15:50:56 The concept of "Graph" is not part of the RDF concepts, it's normal that it can be misused in the RDF community 15:51:03 ... If you look at this as six types. 15:51:07 so rather than "mint URIs" you mean "mint opaque URIs" 15:51:09 Ivan: They are not necessarily types. 15:51:17 fwiw, my recent prposal was to bless the sloppiness of the general usage. Think of it as RDF Unitarianism. 15:51:21 ack cygri 15:51:21 cygri, you wanted to ask whether fixing use of terminology is a goal of this WG 15:51:27 Alan: Why not? Each term refers to something that has properties. That is what a type is. 15:51:49 Richard: Lots of terms that we use and that needed to be agreed, and do not correspond to types - e.g., subject, predicate.... 15:51:52 a type is precisely a bunch of things that share properties 15:52:30 pat: hate to disagree, but really, do you think that will help interoperability? 15:52:40 ... Am I hearing from some that they have the ambition to fix the misuse of terminology in the community? Do we want to come up with a terminology that my include, or deviate from, existing terminology? Is this a requirement for WG to succeed. 15:53:01 Sandro Btw goal and requirement. Hard to succeed if we don't get the terminology. 15:53:04 sandro: I think good terminology will help us a lot. 15:53:08 The goal is, IMO, to align our new documents with terms that are used in other W3 documents and extend as needed (but only as needed). 15:53:13 Y: Trying to get new set not prone to misuse. 15:53:31 alanr, i dont think terminology is relevant to interoperation much at all. 15:53:40 q? 15:53:45 Ivan: That train may be gone. I would now be happy if we could document exactly the way terminology used out there, and only add terminology where needed to make things clear. 15:54:01 ... Turn around Richard's question: What would you like to see there? 15:54:17 zakim, mute me. 15:54:17 PatH should now be muted 15:54:43 Richard: Would like to see, eventually, the bits of SPARQL - RDF datasets definition - the upper half of [this circle in the diagram - URL please!]. 15:55:01 pat: I interpreted "sloppiness of general usage" to mean no distinct set of names, each of which means a specific sort of thing. Did you mean something different? 15:55:22 Diagram appears here: http://www.w3.org/2012/08/RDFNG.html#concepts 15:55:43 ... in the lower half of the document, mutable RDF dataset, then slot that binds [x]. Both not particularly happy with terms there now and not 100% convinced why we need them all. Hence: what are we trying to achieve? Do we want to... 15:55:50 davidwood has joined #rdf-wg 15:56:11 you need a glossary and translation guide. 15:56:22 ... SPARQL Update defines Graph Store - do we want to cover that? If we want to cover all relevant concepts from RDF specs, then we need. But if goal is to cover use cases, then unclear whether needed. 15:56:41 ... The GBox thing: we need to define something. The rest: not sure we need. 15:56:47 tbaker: according to the diagram "mutable ref dataset" is a contradiction in terms 15:56:55 s/ref/rdf/ 15:56:58 alanr, not exactly. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Aug/0075.html 15:57:31 ... Will need something for GBox - explain how this concept relates to real world where things change. 15:57:31 q? 15:57:48 PatH, +1 15:58:18 Please note that this WG never changes :) 15:58:48 pat: concur in general, and note FixedResource in web document language. Ability to subclass is essential, which is why I'm surprised these aren't considered types. Then they could be organized 15:59:25 q+ 15:59:29 so immutable ref graph (according to document) is analogous to FixedResource 15:59:33 davidwood, lol. 15:59:48 Y: Things which change over time - exists in nature. If you have to express this concept, must be able to discuss State A and State B - name them. I'd like to think these are Datasets (in current). Prefer to call GSnap. Temporal snapshot of a thing which changes over time (usefully called GBox). If we didn't need, we wouldn't have come up with them and used them so consistently. We... 15:59:50 ...have demonstrated that we need these. 15:59:52 Perhaps we should add the terms g-box, g-box and g-snap to the diagram, if only temporarily. 16:00:08 -Souri 16:00:15 Richard: I said GBox - we will need. So we're not disagreeing about that. 16:00:16 davidwood has joined #rdf-wg 16:00:22 pat: also note that in web arch, we don't sanction just *any* change. We say that "cool uris don't change" 16:00:34 ... Not sure we need Slots and Graph Store, or equivalents. Lower-right part. 16:00:55 ack ivan 16:00:56 Y: Hear what you are saying. I think those things make the picture clearer. 16:01:03 But when they do, we dont say that a definition has been violated. 16:01:14 This person who hasn't been part,will be rather shocked at this diagram 16:01:21 To me, the symmetry of the diagram proves that all the concepts should be represented. That helps comprehension. 16:01:47 Ivan: Agree with Pat. When we came up with this diagram, things became clearer - i.e., concepts that are already out there. I personally think the lower half of the doc is necessary. 16:01:53 q+ 16:02:02 you have a perfectly good set of tools to define and relate terms (RDF/OWL) and instead you decide to use ad-hoc stuff. Eat your own dogwood? 16:02:16 dogwood? 16:02:17 ... Not sure about changing existing terms, where we might create more harm by changing than by using terms that are sloppily used. 16:02:19 ack cygri 16:02:25 dogfood :) 16:02:31