14:17:56 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:17:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/03-rdf-wg-irc 14:17:58 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:17:58 Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 14:18:00 Zakim, this will be 73394 14:18:00 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 42 minutes 14:18:01 Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 14:18:01 Date: 03 October 2012 14:18:07 Chair: David Wood 14:57:08 ScottB has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:41 pfps has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:47 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started 14:58:54 +davidwood 14:59:08 Zakim, who is here? 14:59:08 On the phone I see davidwood 14:59:09 On IRC I see pfps, ScottB, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, mischat, MacTed, ivan, LeeF, SteveH, manu1, manu, gkellogg, yvesr, davidwood, trackbot, ericP, sandro 14:59:22 I am IRC only today 14:59:25 zakim, code? 14:59:25 the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan 14:59:35 cygri has joined #rdf-wg 14:59:39 +Tony 14:59:53 +[IPcaller] 14:59:57 Zakim, Tony is temporarily me 14:59:57 +ScottB; got it 15:00:05 zakim, IPcaller is me 15:00:05 +AndyS; got it 15:00:07 +Sandro 15:00:47 +ivan 15:00:49 pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:02 +??P10 15:01:06 zakim, I am ??P10 15:01:06 +gkellogg; got it 15:01:13 cgreer has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:28 +??P11 15:01:39 gavinc has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:43 + +1.408.996.aaaa 15:01:44 Arnaud has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:56 +mhausenblas 15:01:58 zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me 15:01:58 +cygri; got it 15:02:02 +??P16 15:02:06 Zakim, ??P16 is me 15:02:06 +SteveH; got it 15:02:09 + +1.707.318.aabb 15:02:12 +gavinc 15:02:58 Zakim, who is here? 15:02:58 On the phone I see davidwood, ScottB, AndyS, Sandro, ivan, gkellogg, pchampin, +1.408.996.aaaa, cygri, SteveH, +1.707.318.aabb, gavinc 15:03:00 On IRC I see Arnaud, gavinc, cgreer, pchampin, cygri, pfps, ScottB, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, mischat, MacTed, ivan, LeeF, SteveH, manu1, manu, gkellogg, yvesr, davidwood, trackbot, 15:03:00 ... ericP, sandro 15:03:06 AZ has joined #rdf-wg 15:03:18 Guus has joined #rdf-wg 15:03:52 zakim, aabb is cgreer 15:03:52 +cgreer; got it 15:03:57 zakim, aabb is me 15:03:57 sorry, cgreer, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb' 15:04:14 +Guus_Schreiber 15:04:37 +OpenLink_Software 15:04:42 +??P22 15:04:43 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:04:44 +MacTed; got it 15:04:45 Zakim, mute me 15:04:45 MacTed should now be muted 15:05:11 Zakim, ??P22 is me 15:05:11 +AZ; got it 15:05:11 scribe: pchampin 15:05:25 PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 26 September: 15:05:25 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-09-26 15:05:45 RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 26 September: 15:05:45 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-09-26 15:05:58 Topic: Review of action items 15:07:12 cygri: I mostly offline next week 15:07:22 ... I can post my comments to the list next sunday 15:07:25 s/next/this/ 15:07:30 s/next/this/ 15:08:30 david: can we have another reviewer for Provenance Constraints document? 15:08:59 ivan: this document is the furthest away from the WG 15:09:33 +[GVoice] 15:10:05 apologies, all -- burried in prov constraints 15:10:37 david: some discussions that happened on the mailing list, related to datasets, seemed also related to the Constraints document 15:10:47 ... so we might want someone to review it 15:11:06 +??P27 15:11:16 ivan: the problem is that the document is hard to read, very mathematical 15:11:36 ... and hard to understand in isolation 15:11:55 ... the Provenance data-model is a pre-requisite 15:11:57 q+ 15:12:02 q+ to ask what we hope to get out of a review 15:12:20 AZ: I can give it a try, but the deadlines for the reviews will be hard to meet 15:12:26 Zakim, ??P27 is me 15:12:26 +yvesr; got it 15:14:06 ivan: it would be more efficient for us if we came back to the Prov-WG 15:14:18 ... and ask them to ask us the questions they have for our WG 15:15:05 you can still put an action on me, even if there is a chance that it'll be overdue 15:15:29 q? 15:15:32 ack mq 15:15:32 david: I'll try to get that done 15:15:34 ack me 15:15:34 ericP, you wanted to ask what we hope to get out of a review 15:15:37 ack me 15:15:46 http://www.w3.org/2012/10/prov-dm 15:15:52 http://www.w3.org/2012/10/prov-constraints 15:15:57 http://www.w3.org/2012/10/prov-constraints#worksOnGraphStore 15:16:31 eric: I spent some time reading both documents 15:16:35 ... above are my notes about them 15:17:00 ... could help Antoine in his review 15:17:27 PatH has joined #rdf-wg 15:17:53 Could be important to LDP 15:18:08 +PatH 15:19:28 david: after a quick look at the document, it seems to me that many stores already do that 15:19:39 ... storing bookkeeping data in a dedicated graph 15:21:28 erciP, how do you create those annotations? edit HTML in the source? 15:21:59 cygri, yup, look for .mark (i suffered a lack of imagination at the time) 15:22:00 topic: FTF3 15:22:13 david: I cleaned up the participants list on the wiki 15:22:39 cygri, ".mark" in the style block and e.g. ... elsewhere 15:23:06 ... If anybody has specific agenda request, please post them to the mailing list 15:23:27 ericP, i'll have to do my annotations on paper this time because i won't have a computer around for it, so i'll pass this time. i can see though how this can be very useful for reviewing big documents 15:23:43 topic: graphs 15:24:18 david: we had several proposals for the Trig syntax 15:25:23 PROPOSED: This Working Group will not provide a Formal Semantics for RDF Datasets or for our Dataset Syntax (eg trig). In the future, the WG will decide whether to include something simple (relevant to datasets) in the RDF 1.1 Semantics, such as [ name-entails just when N=N' and G entails G'. ] and the WG may publish some information about dataset semantics in WG NOTES. 15:25:27 ... but we should first try to settle on the dataset semantic proposal 15:25:48 q+ 15:25:58 ack AZ 15:26:50 AZ: I think there was another proposal last time, from Pat and Peter, defining an entailment for datasets 15:27:27 david: I think there was still contention about the meaning of the default graph 15:27:33 q+ 15:27:50 q+ 15:28:18 AZ: it is not about the *meaning* of the default graph, only a constraint on entailment 15:28:33 david: and what do you think are the ramifications? 15:28:49 AZ: it constrains a little bit more how you can possibly interpret a dataset as a whole 15:29:04 STRAWPOLL: Have no Dataset Semantics (in the lifetime of this WG) http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-09-26#line0228 15:29:17 +1 15:29:21 q? 15:29:26 ack cygri 15:29:33 david: the answer last week to the strawpoll above was mostly "no we shoulnd't" 15:29:46 ( davidwood was just repeating STRAWPOLL from last week ) 15:30:01 yes 15:30:04 cygri: an argument against Antoine's proposal (and Pat's): 15:30:36 call Antoines proposal "componentwise" entasilment to save time. 15:30:40 ... it is potentially dangerous to put a sketch of semantics that does not solve any problem on its own 15:31:04 cygri: A reason against both these proposals is: it's potentially dangerous to put a sketch of a semantics in there, where we know it's not really a solution to anything, just a minimal part of the picture, that no one felt like formally objecting against. If we don't have consensus on a USEFUL and in some sense COMOPLETE, then better to leave semantics unconstrained, leave it to future work. 15:31:07 +1 cygri 15:31:12 ... so if we can not agree on a "full package", then let's not constrain at all 15:31:37 cygri: These proposals would be constraining future WGs. 15:31:45 ... or any future work (future RDF WG) would have to deal with those constraints 15:32:03 cygri: It's kind of setting up a minefield for future research. 15:33:01 ack PatH 15:33:17 david: the proposal is to not define a semantics, and may be give reference to *examples* of how it could be done 15:33:30 pat: My proposal is not a constraint because it's just defining a term. 15:33:45 pat: my proposal does not constrain any future work 15:34:02 ... it merely proposes a terminology to talk about this kind of problem 15:34:25 q+ 15:34:53 ... the problem with Antoine's proposal is that an inconsistent default graph makes the entire dataset inconcistent 15:35:00 pat: The problem with the somewhat larger proposal is that an inconsistent default graph leads to entailing everything. 15:35:09 ... hence the dataset would entail anything, regardless of what is in the named graphs 15:35:15 ack AZ 15:35:42 AZ: my proposal does not implies that 15:35:52 ... we don't define a notion of semantics 15:36:23 ... it just says that an inconsistent default graph will entail any default graph, not dataset 15:36:54 pat: entailment is assumed to be truth-preserving 15:37:15 ... so from that definition of truth, one would derive a definition of truth 15:37:24 what's the argument against a semantic without default graphs? (as was proposed above) 15:37:44 ... what you need is only to talk about entailment between graphs 15:38:25 PROPOSED: This Working Group will not provide a Formal Semantics for RDF Datasets or for our Dataset Syntax (eg trig). In the future, the WG will decide whether to include something simple (relevant to datasets) in the RDF 1.1 Semantics, such as [ name-entails just when N=N' and G entails G'. ] and the WG may publish some information about dataset semantics in WG NOTES. 15:38:43 ... The "modest proposal" just extends RDF-entailment with "named entailment" 15:39:00 PROPOSED: This Working Group will not provide a Formal Semantics for RDF Datasets or for our Dataset Syntax (eg trig). In the future, the WG will decide whether to include something simple (relevant to datasets) in the RDF 1.1 Semantics and the WG may publish some information about dataset semantics in WG NOTES. 15:39:28 q+ 15:39:34 ack cygri 15:39:38 +1 15:39:53 david: would the group be more comfortable with the 2nd proposal above? 15:41:02 q+ 15:41:04 cygri: this is a slippery slope, as Pat's proposal makes it very easy to derive a dataset entailment from Pat's named-entailement 15:41:18 ... and we would end up where we didn't want to be in the first place 15:41:37 PROPOSED: This Working Group will not include in a Rec-Track document any semantics for RDF Datasets or for our Dataset Syntax (eg trig). 15:41:54 pat: the difference is between defining something and saying that people must use it 15:42:00 q- 15:42:06 people happen to ignore the semantics already when they need to, and fall back to it when they want to. No one seems to care today 15:42:18 possible proposal: this Working Group will not provide a Formal Semantics for RDF Datasets or for our Dataset Syntax (eg trig). In the future (that is, in a different WG), a formal semantics may be defined, or simply constraints on what entailment might be. 15:42:37 +1 15:42:46 +1 15:42:48 I understand 15:43:17 PROPOSED: This Working Group will not provide a Formal Semantics for RDF Datasets or for our Dataset Syntax (eg trig). In the future, the WG will decide whether to include something simple (relevant to datasets) in the RDF 1.1 Semantics and the WG may publish some information about dataset semantics in WG NOTES. 15:43:26 +1 15:43:41 whoops, ignore that 15:43:44 PROPOSED: This Working Group will not provide a Formal Semantics for RDF Datasets or for our Dataset Syntax (eg trig). The WG may publish some information about dataset semantics in WG NOTES. 15:43:49 +1 15:43:50 +1 15:43:52 +1 15:43:55 +1 15:43:55 +1 15:43:56 +1 15:43:56 +1 15:43:58 +1 15:43:58 +1 15:43:58 +1 15:44:06 +1 15:44:06 +1 15:44:24 +1 15:44:24 (i'd like to see the note published too) 15:44:24 +1 Ivan 15:44:29 +1 15:44:44 RESOLVED: This Working Group will not provide a Formal Semantics for RDF Datasets or for our Dataset Syntax (eg trig). The WG may publish some information about dataset semantics in WG NOTES. 15:44:49 party time! 15:44:54 We have enough material to write a book about dataset semantics! 15:44:55 victory! 15:44:57 tea and cake? 15:45:18 although i still think we need to really evaluate whether we want default graphs in trig 15:45:20 ivan: ok with the proposal, but I really would like the note to be published 15:45:31 ... we should really discuss it at the F2F 15:46:00 ... a note may list various conflicting approaches 15:46:24 MacTed suggested adding a ftf agendum regarding a dataset semantics Note. 15:46:34 I'd be glad to contribute to such a note 15:46:44 sandro: we need to be careful that, even if the note is not normative, some people might use it as if it was 15:47:00 +1 a descriptive NOTE (not a sort of "we think you should do this" kind of note.) 15:47:02 PROPOSED: Implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way. 15:47:03 topic: trig syntax 15:47:13 sandro, +1 to that 15:47:30 PROPOSED: We will produce a W3C Recommendation for a dataset syntax, similar to TriG and to SPARQL's named graph syntax. 15:48:23 PROPOSED: We will produce a W3C Recommendation for a dataset syntax, similar to TriG and to SPARQL's named graph syntax. This does not preclude another syntax, eg n-quads 15:48:25 PROPOSED: We will produce a W3C Recommendation for a dataset syntax, similar to TriG and to SPARQL's named graph syntax. This does not preclude recommending a syntax like n-quads. 15:48:28 +1 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html 15:48:32 +1 15:48:34 +1 15:48:34 +1 15:48:35 The default graph in/out {} plays in here. 15:48:37 +1 15:48:37 +1 15:48:38 1 15:48:40 +1 15:48:40 +0.2 15:48:41 +1 15:48:42 +1 15:48:43 +1 15:48:44 +1 15:48:50 +1 15:48:55 model for that note might be http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/ 15:49:07 +1 15:49:08 RESOLVED: We will produce a W3C Recommendation for a dataset syntax, similar to TriG and to SPARQL's named graph syntax.  This does not preclude recommending a syntax like n-quads. 15:49:25 +1 to Pat 15:49:25 PROPOSED: We'll request a media-type for this syntax which is different from the media-type for Turtle.  (That is, we will not consider this language to supplant Turtle and take over the name, becoming the new "Turtle", as was once proposed.) 15:49:35 +1 15:49:37 +1 15:49:41 +1 15:49:42 +1 15:49:42 +1 15:49:43 +1 15:49:44 +1 15:49:45 +1 15:49:47 +1 15:49:47 +1 15:49:48 +1 15:49:51 +1 15:49:58 0 15:50:02 RESOLVED: We'll request a media-type for this syntax which is different from the media-type for Turtle.  (That is, we will not consider this language to supplant Turtle and take over the name, becoming the new "Turtle", as was once proposed.) 15:50:02 +0 15:50:14 PROPOSED: Our dataset syntax will allow for the expression of empty named graphs, whatever their semantics might be (to be decided). The syntax is an empty curly-braces expression, as in " { }". 15:50:23 +1 15:50:25 -0.999... 15:50:38 PROPOSED: Our dataset syntax will allow for the expression of empty named graphs, whatever their semantics might be. The syntax is an empty curly-braces expression, as in " { }". 15:50:43 -0.5 15:51:03 +1 15:51:22 q+ 15:51:30 agreed gavinc 15:51:35 q+ 15:51:55 union 15:51:56 q- 15:51:56 gavinc's example -- {} \n {:s :p :o} 15:52:09 Q 15:52:18 q+ 15:52:30 ack pchampin 15:52:37 ack cygri 15:52:44 gavin: the mention about the syntax may be confusing 15:53:04 ... as further expressions may make the graph non-empty after all 15:53:15 ... (see example above quoted by AndyS) 15:53:22 -cgreer 15:53:46 cygri: The abstract syntax of datasets makes a distinction between an empty named graph and the named graph not existing in the dataset. Given that, and no semantics, we need that distinction in the syntax. 15:53:47 +cgreer 15:54:04 +1 cygri 15:54:50 +0.5 cygri 15:54:54 ack PatH 15:55:18 the semantics is not defined at all 15:55:27 pat: the semantics of empty graphs is well defined; they are trivially true 15:55:40 (of empty *named* graph i mean) 15:56:00 q+ 15:56:21 ... there is another issue; what happens when someone empties a graph by deleting everything inside it? 15:56:33 +q to say that I'm not saying that there are no empty graphs, just that empty graphs in a UNION syntax get funky 15:56:35 ... (something about the impossible dataset, I didn't quite get it) 15:56:39 ack pchampin 15:56:57 sound very broken 15:57:00 +LeeF 15:57:07 q+ to reply to Gavin saying sure, but we can handle it. 15:57:12 SPARQL Update has DROP 15:57:16 we cant hear... 15:57:25 ack 15:57:27 ack me 15:57:35 SPARQL has CLEAR 15:57:38 CLEAR empties the named graph; DROP drops the name 15:57:50 pchampin: is there a mechanism in SPARQL-update to remove a graph by name 15:57:56 ... rather than removing all the triples in a named graph 15:58:05 ... which is different if empty graphs are allowed? 15:58:06 q? 15:58:12 ack me 15:58:17 analogous to SQL DELETE * FROM table and DROP table 15:58:18 ack gavinc 15:58:18 gavinc, you wanted to say that I'm not saying that there are no empty graphs, just that empty graphs in a UNION syntax get funky 15:58:22 SPARQL Update attempts to support quadstores by allowing stores to silently "remove" a graph that has no triples 15:58:47 That is, SPARQL Update tries to let empty graphs be basically the same as non-existent graphs 15:59:06 q+ 15:59:09 no one else can state it later *in the same document* 15:59:27 q- 15:59:30 gavin: with the union semantics, it is strange to express empty graphs in Trig 15:59:31 ack sandro 15:59:31 sandro, you wanted to reply to Gavin saying sure, but we can handle it. 15:59:42 ivan, pat, sandro: why??? 15:59:43 PROPOSED: Our dataset syntax will allow for the expression of empty named graphs, whatever their semantics might be. 15:59:52 +1 15:59:58 +1 15:59:59 +1 16:00:02 +0 16:00:02 +1 16:00:03 +1 16:00:03 +1 16:00:06 +0 16:00:09 +1 16:00:10 +1 16:00:12 o AndyS 's point, that sounds sigular 16:00:15 +0 16:00:19 and n-quads can't represent that easily 16:00:30 SteveH, that was my main concern 16:00:30 RESOLVED: Our dataset syntax will allow for the expression of empty named graphs, whatever their semantics might be. 16:00:33 out TriG-like? 16:00:38 *our 16:00:40 SteveH, introducing some assymetry between n-quads and trig 16:00:41 [[ {

, } ]] - [[ {

} ]] == [[ {

} ]] ? seems probably pretty uncontroversial 16:00:45 [[ {

} ]] - [[ {

} ]] == [[ { } ]] ? or maybe [[ ]] ? 16:01:08 this was about the trig-like syntax, yes. 16:01:33 RESOLVED: We will call our recommended dataset syntax "TriG", but informally and in the media type, "trig". (This was in relation to the TriG-like syntax). 16:01:54 PROPOSED: We will call our recommended dataset syntax "TriG", but informally and in the media type, "trig". 16:02:06 PROPOSED: We will call a recommended dataset syntax "TriG", but informally and in the media type, "trig". 16:02:20 davidwood: Yes, the empty named graph resolution was about trig, not n-quads (if we do that). 16:02:51 wHAT'S wRONG wITH iT? 16:03:23 +0 no idea why it' 16:03:29 s called TriG in the first 16:03:33 -0.1 16:03:45 -0.5 16:03:57 +0 16:04:01 +1 16:04:02 =0 I have no opinion 16:04:11 +1 16:04:14 -0.1 16:04:18 The point about Turtle-related name is a good one - informally TriG will be used regardless but Turtle-NG is interesting. 16:04:19 arnaud: I'm concerned by the proliferation of formats. 16:04:32 +1 16:04:33 +1 16:04:34 +0 (depends how close that serialisation ends up being to existing TriG) 16:04:37 +1 16:04:44 +1.1 16:04:49 oops +0.1 16:04:58 -0.1 16:05:00 arnaud: I understand why TriG should be distinct from Turtle, 16:05:14 ... but I'm affraid the proliferation of formats would hinder adoption 16:05:16 q+ 16:05:18 sandro: TriG is like tar or zip; nothing like turtle.... 16:05:23 RESOLVED: We will call a recommended dataset syntax "TriG", but informally and in the media type, "trig". 16:05:30 ack ivan 16:05:38 ... I understand the technical arguments, but from a marketting point of view it sounds bad 16:05:51 I don't think we have a resolution 16:05:59 ivan: I agree with Arnaud 16:07:05 +1 to Arnaud's point; prefer not to resolve 16:07:09 Turtle Dataset Extension? 16:07:10 votes other than -1 and +1 don't actually count, formally. 16:07:32 sandro, how do we abstain then? that's what I wanted to do 16:07:39 wrt media type, i mean 16:07:50 well, sure, you abstained -- that means not counting, right? 16:07:59 . o O ( Turtle++? Turtle#? Turtle-bis? ) 16:08:17 q? 16:08:26 Turtle4G 16:08:27 ivan: we have two very similar language, and instead of stressing out the similarity, we introduce a completely different name 16:08:31 sandro, I didn't believe so, but I'm confident yur knowledge of process is better than mine 16:08:46 Turtle-for-Datasets (TFD)? 16:09:06 q+ 16:09:41 q+ 16:09:57 q+ 16:10:05 "Turtle Package Language" 16:10:08 ack sandro 16:10:10 TurtlePack 16:10:15 I support TriG being separate from Turtle, but it even sounds like a complicated story to me nonetheless :-) 16:10:26 david: I think that it is not that complicated, provided that we give the appropriate guidance to people in using those different languages 16:10:33 .... 16:10:34 TurtleShell! 16:10:51 turtle's hell? 16:10:54 come use the RDF Semantic Web Linked Data RDFS OWL SPARQL RIF RDF/XML Turtle TRIG NQuads JSON-LD stack 16:10:55 Turtle{} 16:10:55 q? 16:11:00 ack SteveH 16:11:35 steveh: I abstain because I wait to see what it looks like to decide how it should be named 16:11:38 if it quacks like a turtle..? Hmmm. 16:11:53 ... if it looks like TriG, let's call it TriG 16:12:24 q- 16:12:25 sandro: true, we can defer that decision 16:12:55 NOT RESOLVED: We will call a recommended dataset syntax "TriG", but informally and in the media type, "trig". 16:13:02 ivan: I think the last proposal was not resolved 16:13:09 3 minutes to go. 16:13:14 Zakim, unmute me 16:13:14 MacTed should no longer be muted 16:13:22 Is there another proposal that has more support? 16:13:30 Nameless Graph Syntax 16:13:43 AndyS, that's taken: http://code.google.com/p/oort/wiki/Grit 16:13:47 PROPOSED: We will call a recommended dataset syntax "TriG", but informally and in the media type, "trig". 16:13:49 +1 16:13:50 +1 16:13:51 +1 16:13:51 +1 16:13:51 +1 16:13:52 +1 16:13:52 0 16:13:54 Zakim, mute me 16:13:54 MacTed should now be muted 16:13:54 0 16:13:56 +1 16:13:59 -0.9999... 16:14:06 +1 16:14:07 +0 16:14:12 +0.1 16:14:12 +0 (for the same reason as above!) 16:14:13 -0.2 16:14:18 -0.5 16:14:20 -0.5 16:14:34 this is not a formal objection, just making my opinion clear... 16:14:36 in fact it is = to -1 16:14:43 passed with a scrape from ivans fender 16:15:13 RESOLVED: We will call a recommended dataset syntax "TriG", but informally and in the media type, "trig". 16:15:13 people aren'y happy, but they can live with it. 16:15:18 s/-0.9999.../-0.9/ 16:15:20 right 16:15:28 PROPOSED: In our dataset syntax, a "=" MUST NOT appear between the name and the graph. 16:15:33 +1 16:15:33 +1 16:15:42 +1 16:15:45 +1 16:15:47 +1 16:15:48 +1 16:15:49 +1 16:15:50 +1 16:15:51 +1 16:15:52 +1 16:15:52 +1 16:15:53 +1 16:15:54 +1 16:15:58 +1 16:15:59 +0.5 16:16:02 +1 16:16:05 where "our dataset syntax" is the TriG-like one 16:16:12 sandro: "=" was optional in the original TriG syntax, but 16:16:14 yay, draft now matches resolution ;) 16:16:14 yes, indeed. 16:16:17 +1 16:16:17 ... people rarely used it, and 16:16:22 ... it does not match the semantics 16:16:23 RESOLVED: In our TriG dataset syntax, a "=" MUST NOT appear between the name and the graph. 16:16:36 PROPOSED: In our TriG dataset syntax, the case-insensitive keyword "graph" MUST NOT appear before the name, in a name-graph pair. 16:16:43 q+ 16:16:46 +1 16:16:52 that's a concern with calling the syntax TriG though, as it's not anymore compatible with old-TriG 16:16:53 +1 16:17:07 pchampin, i'm just being pedantic 16:17:12 yvesr, yes, but in practice no-one used the = 16:17:13 +1 16:17:13 +1 16:17:21 +1 16:17:22 ack ivan 16:17:49 ivan: the problem with the GRAPH keyword, 16:18:05 ... but we are creating a strange incompatibility with Turtle 16:18:28 q+ 16:18:29 yes well allowing BASE and PREFIX was a mistake, but no one else seems to think so :P 16:18:41 ... where we have accepted SPARQL-like constructs 16:18:41 allowing BOTH was a mistake 16:18:44 ack SteveH 16:19:04 +1 SteveH 16:19:23 steveh: I thought this was a feature "at-risk" 16:19:38 ... so it might not be kept anyway 16:19:57 +1 to "at risk" 16:19:59 ivan: ok, so I would put it "at-risk" in our TriG as well 16:20:08 PROPOSED: In our TriG dataset syntax, the case-insensitive keyword "graph" MUST NOT appear before the name, in a name-graph pair. This is to be an "at risk" feature. 16:20:10 ... depending on the outcome of Turtle 16:20:14 +1 16:20:19 +1 16:20:23 +1 16:20:23 +1 16:20:25 +1 16:20:26 +1 16:20:26 +1 16:20:31 +1 as revised 16:20:31 +1 16:20:34 +1 16:20:34 ±0 16:20:43 +1 (make the at risk related to TTL) 16:20:43 (the AT RISK be between "MUST NOT" and "MAY") 16:21:01 +1 16:21:05 +1 16:21:09 +0 16:21:21 RESOLVED: In our TriG dataset syntax, the case-insensitive keyword "graph" MUST NOT appear before the name, in a name-graph pair.  This is to be an "at risk" feature. 16:21:57 -ivan 16:21:57 ✈ 16:21:58 -gkellogg 16:21:59 -cygri 16:22:00 -ScottB 16:22:00 -yvesr 16:22:01 trailing . is in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#sec-graph-statements 16:22:01 -davidwood 16:22:01 -SteveH 16:22:02 sandro: we're just left with "default graph" stuff. 16:22:02 - +1.408.996.aaaa 16:22:04 -MacTed 16:22:06 -AZ 16:22:09 -AndyS 16:22:11 -cgreer 16:22:12 -PatH 16:22:14 -gavinc 16:22:16 -Sandro 16:22:18 -ericP 16:22:20 -Guus_Schreiber 16:22:34 \u26F4 16:23:33 gavinc, oh, jeez +1 to no trailing . - I didn't even know that was legal 16:23:50 :D 16:23:52 exactly 16:24:28 ditto. 16:24:39 -LeeF 16:32:03 AndyS has left #rdf-wg 16:33:15 :) 16:35:00 disconnecting the lone participant, pchampin, in SW_RDFWG()11:00AM 16:35:02 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended 16:35:02 Attendees were davidwood, ScottB, AndyS, Sandro, ivan, gkellogg, +1.408.996.aaaa, pchampin, cygri, SteveH, +1.707.318.aabb, gavinc, cgreer, Guus_Schreiber, MacTed, AZ, ericP, 16:35:02 ... yvesr, PatH, LeeF 18:04:16 mischat has joined #rdf-wg 18:42:12 Zakim has left #rdf-wg 20:04:12 gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-wg 20:11:34 gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-wg 21:59:42 gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-wg