15:03:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/04-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/01/04-rdf-wg-irc ←
15:03:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
15:03:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
15:03:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 57 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 57 minutes ←
15:03:09 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:03:09 <trackbot> Date: 04 January 2012
15:56:16 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 53 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started ←
15:56:23 <Zakim> + +1.707.861.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.707.861.aaaa ←
15:56:31 <gavinc> Zakim, aaaa is me
Gavin Carothers: Zakim, aaaa is me ←
15:56:31 <Zakim> +gavinc; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gavinc; got it ←
15:57:01 <Zakim> + +1.781.899.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.781.899.aabb ←
15:57:11 <sandro> zakim, aabb is me
Sandro Hawke: zakim, aabb is me ←
15:57:11 <Zakim> +sandro; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro; got it ←
15:57:17 <Zakim> + +31.20.598.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +31.20.598.aacc ←
15:57:28 <Guus> zakim, +31 is me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, +31 is me ←
15:57:28 <Zakim> +Guus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus; got it ←
15:58:00 <Zakim> +??P7
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P7 ←
15:58:20 <pchampin> hi
15:58:46 <Zakim> + +1.707.318.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.707.318.aadd ←
15:58:55 <cgreer> zakim, aadd is me
Charles Greer: zakim, aadd is me ←
15:58:55 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cgreer; got it ←
15:59:20 <Guus> we may need a scribe volunteer if Thomas doesn't join
Guus Schreiber: we may need a scribe volunteer if Thomas doesn't join ←
15:59:21 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:59:28 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
15:59:28 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
15:59:29 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:59:32 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPcaller is me ←
15:59:32 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:59:33 <Zakim> + +1.781.273.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.781.273.aaee ←
15:59:39 <AndyS> zakim, happy new year
Andy Seaborne: zakim, happy new year ←
15:59:39 <Zakim> I don't understand 'happy new year', AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'happy new year', AndyS ←
15:59:41 <MacTed> Zakim, aaee is OpenLink_Software
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, aaee is OpenLink_Software ←
15:59:41 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software; got it ←
15:59:50 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:59:50 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
15:59:51 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
15:59:51 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:59:51 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
16:00:18 <davidwood1> zakim, code?
David Wood: zakim, code? ←
16:00:18 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), davidwood1
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), davidwood1 ←
16:00:40 <Guus> zakim, who is here
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here ←
16:00:40 <Zakim> Guus, you need to end that query with '?'
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, you need to end that query with '?' ←
16:00:42 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aaff
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.898.aaff ←
16:00:50 <davidwood1> zakim, aaff is me
David Wood: zakim, aaff is me ←
16:00:50 <Zakim> +davidwood1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood1; got it ←
16:01:00 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
16:01:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see gavinc, sandro, Guus, pchampin, cgreer, AndyS, Ivan, MacTed (muted), ??P14, davidwood1
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see gavinc, sandro, Guus, pchampin, cgreer, AndyS, Ivan, MacTed (muted), ??P14, davidwood1 ←
16:01:04 <Zakim> On IRC I see AZ, pchampin, cgreer, AndyS, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, SteveH, AndyS1, danbri, mdmdm_, davidwood, gavinc, manu, yvesr, trackbot, manu1, NickH, sandro,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see AZ, pchampin, cgreer, AndyS, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, SteveH, AndyS1, danbri, mdmdm_, davidwood, gavinc, manu, yvesr, trackbot, manu1, NickH, sandro, ←
16:01:08 <Zakim> ... ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... ericP ←
16:01:08 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P14 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P14 is me ←
16:01:10 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it ←
16:01:18 <davidwood> zakim, davidwood1 is me
David Wood: zakim, davidwood1 is me ←
16:01:18 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it ←
16:01:35 <pchampin> I can scribe
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I can scribe ←
16:02:48 <Zakim> + +44.117.230.aagg
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.117.230.aagg ←
16:02:51 <pchampin> scribe: pchampin
(Scribe set to Pierre-Antoine Champin)
16:02:58 <danbri> zakim, +44.117.230.aagg is danbri
Dan Brickley: zakim, +44.117.230.aagg is danbri ←
16:02:58 <Zakim> +danbri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +danbri; got it ←
16:03:04 <pchampin> scribenick: pchampin
16:03:15 <Zakim> + +33.1.41.41.aahh
Zakim IRC Bot: + +33.1.41.41.aahh ←
16:03:24 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aaii
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.443.212.aaii ←
16:03:28 <AZ> zakim, aahh is me
Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, aahh is me ←
16:03:28 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←
16:03:35 <AlexHall> zakim, aaii is me
Alex Hall: zakim, aaii is me ←
16:03:37 <Zakim> +AlexHall; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexHall; got it ←
16:04:12 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aajj
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.553.aajj ←
16:04:29 <pchampin> topic: admin
16:04:33 <danbri> Guus, your audio is fine
Dan Brickley: Guus, your audio is fine ←
16:05:45 <Zakim> +Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony ←
16:06:07 <Scott_Bauer> Zakim, Tony is me
Scott Bauer: Zakim, Tony is me ←
16:06:07 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Scott_Bauer; got it ←
16:06:36 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:06:37 <pchampin> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon
PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon ←
16:06:43 <pchampin> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon
RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon ←
16:07:17 <Zakim> -yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: -yvesr ←
16:07:23 <gavinc> ACTION-124?
Gavin Carothers: ACTION-124? ←
16:07:23 <trackbot> ACTION-124 -- Gavin Carothers to raise issue around formated text literals -- due 2011-12-07 -- CLOSED
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-124 -- Gavin Carothers to raise issue around formated text literals -- due 2011-12-07 -- CLOSED ←
16:07:23 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/124
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/124 ←
16:07:24 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
16:07:24 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
16:07:25 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
16:08:28 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
16:08:33 <zwu2> zakim, what is the code?
Zhe Wu: zakim, what is the code? ←
16:08:33 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2 ←
16:08:33 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P3 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P3 is me ←
16:08:35 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it ←
16:08:46 <danbri> i lost audio
Dan Brickley: i lost audio ←
16:08:50 <danbri> via high-pitched screech
Dan Brickley: via high-pitched screech ←
16:09:13 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aakk
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.650.265.aakk ←
16:09:23 <Zakim> + +1.415.586.aall
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.415.586.aall ←
16:09:30 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aakk is me
Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.650.265.aakk is me ←
16:09:30 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it ←
16:09:55 <zwu2> Happy New Year!
16:10:04 <danbri> regrets from me for next week (project meeting)
Dan Brickley: regrets from me for next week (project meeting) ←
16:10:09 <Zakim> +??P18
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18 ←
16:10:15 <swh> Zakim, ??P18 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P18 is me ←
16:10:15 <Zakim> +swh; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +swh; got it ←
16:10:38 <pchampin> topic: RDFa LC
16:10:49 <pchampin> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Dec/0181.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Dec/0181.html ←
16:11:33 <cgreer> I'll volunteer for one
Charles Greer: I'll volunteer for one ←
16:11:34 <Zakim> +Eric
Zakim IRC Bot: +Eric ←
16:11:35 <pchampin> guus: RDFa is going to LC, so we will have to review the 4 documents
Guus Schreiber: RDFa is going to LC, so we will have to review the 4 documents ←
16:11:44 <LeeF> what are the 4 documents?
Lee Feigenbaum: what are the 4 documents? ←
16:11:55 <pchampin> david: it would be good to have volunteers
David Wood: it would be good to have volunteers ←
16:12:09 <pchampin> guus: I'd be happy to volunteer for the primer
Guus Schreiber: I'd be happy to volunteer for the primer ←
16:12:13 <ivan> to LeeF: rdfa core, rdfa+xhtml, rdfa lite, rdfa primer
Ivan Herman: to LeeF: rdfa core, rdfa+xhtml, rdfa lite, rdfa primer ←
16:12:14 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:12:37 <pchampin> david: would be good to have someone from the "named graph" discussion have a look at RDFa
David Wood: would be good to have someone from the "named graph" discussion have a look at RDFa ←
16:12:49 <AndyS> I think it uses it as the base, not the name
Andy Seaborne: I think it uses it as the base, not the name ←
16:12:52 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:12:52 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
16:13:02 <gavinc> AndyS, yeah, it doesn't talk about name
Gavin Carothers: AndyS, yeah, it doesn't talk about name ←
16:13:04 <pchampin> ... RDFa uses URIs to identify (name?) documents; similar to the discussions that occured in this group recently about graphs
... RDFa uses URIs to identify (name?) documents; similar to the discussions that occured in this group recently about graphs ←
16:13:06 <davidwood> AndyS, really?
David Wood: AndyS, really? ←
16:13:20 <AZ> what's the deadline for this ?
Antoine Zimmermann: what's the deadline for this ? ←
16:13:28 <danbri> (I'd like to understand this RDFa issue better...)
Dan Brickley: (I'd like to understand this RDFa issue better...) ←
16:13:36 <cgreer> I'll do lite, with the caveat that I may flood email list with questions
Charles Greer: I'll do lite, with the caveat that I may flood email list with questions ←
16:13:44 <davidwood> Manu's message says, "submit your comments before January 15th 2012"
David Wood: Manu's message says, "submit your comments before January 15th 2012" ←
16:13:44 <AndyS> davidwood, IIRC (so do check that!)
Andy Seaborne: davidwood, IIRC (so do check that!) ←
16:14:30 <AndyS> ... I thought it was triples in a doc c.f. triples in Turtle doc. Could be wrong, has been a while
Andy Seaborne: ... I thought it was triples in a doc c.f. triples in Turtle doc. Could be wrong, has been a while ←
16:14:42 <pchampin> ivan: (RDFa WG hat on) documents 'RDFa Lite' and 'XHTML+RDFa' are not of big importance for this group
Ivan Herman: (RDFa WG hat on) documents 'RDFa Lite' and 'XHTML+RDFa' are not of big interest for this group ←
16:14:58 <pchampin> s/importance/interest/
16:15:02 <gavinc> Yeah, but RDFa Lite is an INTERESTING publishing profile
Gavin Carothers: Yeah, but RDFa Lite is an INTERESTING publishing profile ←
16:15:04 <davidwood> RDFa Core refers to RDF Concepts in relation to graph definition.
David Wood: RDFa Core refers to RDF Concepts in relation to graph definition. ←
16:15:24 <davidwood> (sec. 3.7)
David Wood: (sec. 3.7) ←
16:15:28 <pchampin> ... (they may be interesting for individuals, of course)
... (they may be interesting for individuals, of course) ←
16:15:31 <pchampin> ... the most technically interesting is 'RDFa core'
... the most technically interesting is 'RDFa core' ←
16:15:31 <AZ> I'd like to read RDFa Core but 115th January is way too early for me
Antoine Zimmermann: I'd like to read RDFa Core but 115th January is way too early for me ←
16:16:02 <pchampin> gavin: I think RDF lite is intersting to see which minimal set was deemed useful by the RDFa WG
Gavin Carothers: I think RDF lite is intersting to see which minimal set was deemed useful by the RDFa WG ←
16:16:06 <danbri> zakim, q+ to say the only Core thing I see in RDFa, is stuff like "can #me in an html+rdfa doc be a URI for a human..."
Dan Brickley: zakim, q+ to say the only Core thing I see in RDFa, is stuff like "can #me in an html+rdfa doc be a URI for a human..." ←
16:16:07 <Zakim> I see ivan, danbri on the speaker queue
Zakim IRC Bot: I see ivan, danbri on the speaker queue ←
16:16:08 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
16:16:16 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
16:16:41 <pchampin> ivan: regarding the use of URIs in RDFa, I don't think it is related to named graphs
Ivan Herman: regarding the use of URIs in RDFa, I don't think it is related to named graphs ←
16:17:03 <pchampin> ... the URI of the RDFa document can appear as the subject of a triple, but that's all
... the URI of the RDFa document can appear as the subject of a triple, but that's all ←
16:17:29 <Guus> ack danbri
Guus Schreiber: ack danbri ←
16:17:29 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to say the only Core thing I see in RDFa, is stuff like "can #me in an html+rdfa doc be a URI for a human..."
Zakim IRC Bot: danbri, you wanted to say the only Core thing I see in RDFa, is stuff like "can #me in an html+rdfa doc be a URI for a human..." ←
16:17:31 <pchampin> david: I'm concerned there may be a subtle relation that we might have to take into account
David Wood: I'm concerned there may be a subtle relation that we might have to take into account ←
16:18:37 <pchampin> danbri: what about # URIs in RDFa: can they identify any resource?
Dan Brickley: what about # URIs in RDFa: can they identify any resource? ←
16:19:11 <cgreer> I volunteer
Charles Greer: I volunteer ←
16:19:12 <pchampin> ivan: from the RDF point of view, RDFa is "only" a serialization syntax (though a very special one)
Ivan Herman: from the RDF point of view, RDFa is "only" a serialization syntax (though a very special one) ←
16:19:33 <pchampin> danbri: in theory yes
Dan Brickley: in theory yes ←
16:20:13 <pchampin> guus: david and cgreer volunteer to review the 'RDFa core' document on behalf of the WG
Guus Schreiber: david and cgreer volunteer to review the 'RDFa core' document on behalf of the WG ←
16:20:22 <davidwood> From RDFa Core, section 7.2: "The base. This will usually be the IRI of the document being processed, but it could be some other IRI, set by some other mechanism, such as the (X)HTML base element. The important thing is that it establishes an IRI against which relative paths can be resolved."
David Wood: From RDFa Core, section 7.2: "The base. This will usually be the IRI of the document being processed, but it could be some other IRI, set by some other mechanism, such as the (X)HTML base element. The important thing is that it establishes an IRI against which relative paths can be resolved." ←
16:20:50 <pchampin> ... you send comments to the rdf-wg mailing list, and the group approves the comments
... you send comments to the rdf-wg mailing list, and the group approves the comments ←
16:20:59 <davidwood> That means, to me, that the base IRI is often going to be the *same as* the document URI, thus resulting in conflation of denotation of the graph and the document.
David Wood: That means, to me, that the base IRI is often going to be the *same as* the document URI, thus resulting in conflation of denotation of the graph and the document. ←
16:21:03 <davidwood> AndyS ^^
David Wood: AndyS ^^ ←
16:21:36 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
16:22:03 <davidwood> I don't think that needs to change in the RDFa Core document, but it does mean that our named graphs discussion should take note.
David Wood: I don't think that needs to change in the RDFa Core document, but it does mean that our named graphs discussion should take note. ←
16:22:22 <AndyS> davidwood - yes, good point. But the doc URI is not the graph name in every case -- it is in the web cache pattern.
Andy Seaborne: davidwood - yes, good point. But the doc URI is not the graph name in every case -- it is in the web cache pattern. ←
16:22:48 <Zakim> +AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ ←
16:22:54 <davidwood> AndyS, right
David Wood: AndyS, right ←
16:23:31 <pchampin> ACTION guus to review the 'RDFa primer'
ACTION guus to review the 'RDFa primer' ←
16:23:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-127 - Review the 'RDFa primer' [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-127 - Review the 'RDFa primer' [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-11]. ←
16:23:45 <AndyS> davidwood, does RDFa talk about the graph in any particular way? (c.f. N3 <> and <#> isms)
Andy Seaborne: davidwood, does RDFa talk about the graph in any particular way? (c.f. N3 <> and <#> isms) ←
16:23:55 <pchampin> ACTION davidwood and cgreer to review the 'RDFa core' document
ACTION davidwood and cgreer to review the 'RDFa core' document ←
16:23:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-128 - And cgreer to review the 'RDFa core' document [on David Wood - due 2012-01-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-128 - And cgreer to review the 'RDFa core' document [on David Wood - due 2012-01-11]. ←
16:24:22 <ivan> AndyS: unless a mistake has been made, no...
Andy Seaborne: unless a mistake has been made, no... [ Scribe Assist by Ivan Herman ] ←
16:24:30 <AZ> zakim, who is noisy?
Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, who is noisy? ←
16:24:40 <pchampin> topic: status comments received
16:24:41 <Zakim> AZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: gavinc (54%), Guus (30%), pchampin (95%), cgreer (9%), MacTed (15%)
Zakim IRC Bot: AZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: gavinc (54%), Guus (30%), pchampin (95%), cgreer (9%), MacTed (15%) ←
16:24:51 <ivan> zakim, mute pchampin
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute pchampin ←
16:24:51 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin should now be muted ←
16:25:04 <AndyS> ... which is why we review :-)
Andy Seaborne: ... which is why we review :-) ←
16:25:52 <davidwood> AndyS, I don''t think so. The current draft seems to refer all further definition of the graph to RDF Concepts (unless I'm missing something).
David Wood: AndyS, I don''t think so. The current draft seems to refer all further definition of the graph to RDF Concepts (unless I'm missing something). ←
16:26:02 <pchampin> guus: 3 comments on the Turtle document
Guus Schreiber: 3 comments on the Turtle document ←
16:26:36 <davidwood> I agree with Ivan that we should think of RDFa 1.1 as "just" another standard RDF serialization syntax.
David Wood: I agree with Ivan that we should think of RDFa 1.1 as "just" another standard RDF serialization syntax. ←
16:26:37 <pchampin> gavin: first is about the Turtle grammar not being LL(1), need to discuss it with gavin
Gavin Carothers: first is about the Turtle grammar not being LL(1), need to discuss it with eric ←
16:27:20 <AndyS> They are case-insensitive in SPARQL :-|
Andy Seaborne: They are case-insensitive in SPARQL :-| ←
16:27:43 <pchampin> ... second is about making literals case-insensitive, which I don't think we will
... second is about making literals case-insensitive, which I don't think we will ←
16:27:56 <pchampin> andy: in SPARQL they are (all keywords are)
Andy Seaborne: in SPARQL they are (all keywords are) ←
16:28:02 <ericP> gavinc, i can grammar geek with you after this call
Eric Prud'hommeaux: gavinc, i can grammar geek with you after this call ←
16:28:50 <pchampin> s/with gavin/with eric/
16:28:57 <AndyS> all keywords except "a" for rdf:type. With hindsight, a bit insistentent between bools and "a" but that's where we are and it's mostly harmless, Zaphod.
Andy Seaborne: all keywords except "a" for rdf:type. With hindsight, a bit insistentent between bools and "a" but that's where we are and it's mostly harmless, Zaphod. ←
16:29:40 <pchampin> gavin: I think all the issues have been answered on the mailing list
Gavin Carothers: I think all the issues have been answered on the mailing list ←
16:29:53 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
16:29:53 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
16:30:00 <sandro> something like, "Please respond and let us know whether this response addresses your concern."
Sandro Hawke: something like, "Please respond and let us know whether this response addresses your concern." ←
16:30:14 <AndyS> gavinc, ericP -- please make LL(1) unless strong reason not to. It helps people to cover as wide a spectrum of tools.
Andy Seaborne: gavinc, ericP -- please make LL(1) unless strong reason not to. It helps people to cover as wide a spectrum of tools. ←
16:30:33 <pchampin> guus: it would be good to open an issue for the comments, in order to formally acknowledge them and keep track of the resolution
Guus Schreiber: it would be good to open an issue for the comments, in order to formally acknowledge them and keep track of the resolution ←
16:31:18 <pchampin> topic: RDF-ISSUE-82 (TriG repeated graph iris)
16:31:24 <ericP> AndyS, i'm not yet convinced that it's not LL(1)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS, i'm not yet convinced that it's not LL(1) ←
16:31:30 <sandro> sandro: we need each comment to end in one of three buckets -- satisfied, objecting, or other (typically not answering our pings).
Sandro Hawke: we need each comment to end in one of three buckets -- satisfied, objecting, or other (typically not answering our pings). [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:31:33 <pchampin> guus: raised by gavin
Guus Schreiber: raised by gavin ←
16:32:18 <pchampin> gavin: in the last meeting, we agreed that a dataset could not repeat the same graph IRI several times
Gavin Carothers: in the last meeting, we agreed that a dataset could not repeat the same graph IRI several times ←
16:32:30 <pchampin> ... trying to explore the consequence on the Trig syntax
... trying to explore the consequence on the Trig syntax ←
16:33:02 <swh> "merge"?!
Steve Harris: "merge"?! ←
16:33:03 <pchampin> ... consensus seems to emerge on option 2:
... consensus seems to emerge on option 2: ←
16:33:13 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
16:33:28 <swh> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
16:33:29 <pchampin> ... if the same graph IRI appears several times in Trig, then merge their content in a single graph with that IRI
... if the same graph IRI appears several times in Trig, then merge their content in a single graph with that IRI ←
16:33:41 <AndyS> The discussion explains why not. (As is, needs 2 tokens lookahead - can rewrite current form to LL(1) but it will look strange -- easier to use the form that is more natural and LL(1) -- from SPARQL which also does the trailing dot for TriG ... long time)
Andy Seaborne: The discussion explains why not. (As is, needs 2 tokens lookahead - can rewrite current form to LL(1) but it will look strange -- easier to use the form that is more natural and LL(1) -- from SPARQL which also does the trailing dot for TriG ... long time) ←
16:33:41 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
16:33:45 <ivan> ack sandro
Ivan Herman: ack sandro ←
16:33:52 <ericP> AndyS, the trick in mapping EBNF to LL(1) is that +s and *s get mapped to e.g. { foo_plus: foo | foo_plus foo } while LALR(1) reverses that to { foo_plus: foo | foo foo_plus }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS, the trick in mapping EBNF to LL(1) is that +s and *s get mapped to e.g. { foo_plus: foo | foo_plus foo } while LALR(1) reverses that to { foo_plus: foo | foo foo_plus } ←
16:34:11 <AndyS> merge ==> more triples = union
Andy Seaborne: merge ==> more triples = union ←
16:34:30 <ericP> AndyS, sorry reverse those EBNF to L*(1) mappings
Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS, sorry reverse those EBNF to L*(1) mappings ←
16:34:33 <pchampin> sandro: it is not clear yet whether Trig solves our use cases (I think it does not)
Sandro Hawke: it is not clear yet whether Trig solves our use cases (I think it does not) ←
16:34:41 <AndyS> ericP -- er ... different issue -- it's mid rule. Later?
Andy Seaborne: ericP -- er ... different issue -- it's mid rule. Later? ←
16:34:44 <pchampin> ... so should we care about Trig at all?
... so should we care about Trig at all? ←
16:35:14 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
16:35:21 <davidwood> Sandro, yes, but it would seem that Trig is extensible to handle that use case.
David Wood: Sandro, yes, but it would seem that Trig is extensible to handle that use case. ←
16:35:34 <zwu2> not me :)
16:35:34 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to respond to sandro
Jeremy Carroll: q+ to respond to sandro ←
16:35:42 <LeeF> Sandro, when you say "our use cases" -- who is "our" referring to? and is there an applies "any" or "all" ?
Lee Feigenbaum: Sandro, when you say "our use cases" -- who is "our" referring to? and is there an applies "any" or "all" ? ←
16:35:49 <sandro> I'll believe it when I see it, davidwood.
Sandro Hawke: I'll believe it when I see it, davidwood. ←
16:35:54 <Guus> ack swh
Guus Schreiber: ack swh ←
16:36:13 <pchampin> swh: did Gavin mean litteraly an RDF merge?
Steve Harris: did Gavin mean litteraly an RDF merge? ←
16:36:28 <pchampin> ... should it be a merge or a union ?
... should it be a merge or a union ? ←
16:36:40 <LeeF> "munion"
Lee Feigenbaum: "munion" ←
16:37:01 <sandro> LeeF, "our" is RDF-WGs. I realize we haven't yet decided which use cases to accept, so I really just meant "potential use cases"
Sandro Hawke: LeeF, "our" is RDF-WGs. I realize we haven't yet decided which use cases to accept, so I really just meant "potential use cases" ←
16:37:09 <pchampin> ... different management of bnode identifiers appearing in multiple pairs of curly braces
... different management of bnode identifiers appearing in multiple pairs of curly braces ←
16:37:14 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
16:37:27 <pchampin> gavin: we have not decided that yet
Gavin Carothers: we have not decided that yet ←
16:37:43 <pchampin> ... my preference for option 1 (not allow it at all) is that it solves that problem
... my preferringence for option 1 (not allow it at all) is that it solves that problem ←
16:37:52 <LeeF> Sandro, it's pretty clear to me that trig solves many of those use cases, if not all, so i'm not sure why to suggest that we shouldn't care about it
Lee Feigenbaum: Sandro, it's pretty clear to me that trig solves many of those use cases, if not all, so i'm not sure why to suggest that we shouldn't care about it ←
16:37:52 <Guus> zakim, JeremyCarroll
Guus Schreiber: zakim, JeremyCarroll ←
16:37:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'JeremyCarroll', Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'JeremyCarroll', Guus ←
16:38:01 <Guus> ack JeremyCarroll
Guus Schreiber: ack JeremyCarroll ←
16:38:01 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to respond to sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: JeremyCarroll, you wanted to respond to sandro ←
16:38:41 <pchampin> jeremy: to answer sandro's comment: I believe Trig answers some use cases
Jeremy Carroll: to answer sandro's comment: I believe Trig answers some use cases ←
16:38:44 <swh> +1 to JeremyCarroll
Steve Harris: +1 to JeremyCarroll ←
16:38:56 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
16:38:57 <LeeF> Agree with gavin
Lee Feigenbaum: Agree with gavin ←
16:39:01 <LeeF> I read consensus in that email thread
Lee Feigenbaum: I read consensus in that email thread ←
16:39:15 <ivan> ack sandro
Ivan Herman: ack sandro ←
16:39:48 <pchampin> sandro: we are not chartered to standardize Trig; we are chartered to propose a syntax supporting multiple graphs
Sandro Hawke: we are not chartered to standardize Trig; we are chartered to propose a syntax supporting multiple graphs ←
16:40:12 <pchampin> ... if Trig does it, then ok. But if it doesn't, then we need to standardize something else.
... if Trig does it, then ok. But if it doesn't, then we need to standardize something else. ←
16:40:22 <JeremyCarroll> Jeremy: Sandro raised questions about URIs identifying graphs vs graph containers - these were not to do with Trig
Jeremy Carroll: Sandro raised questions about URIs identifying graphs vs graph containers - these were not to do with Trig [ Scribe Assist by Jeremy Carroll ] ←
16:42:11 <pchampin> sandro: In general I don't like starting from use cases, but as we don't seem to reach consensus, I think that's how we should proceed
Sandro Hawke: In general I don't like starting from use cases, but as we don't seem to reach consensus, I think that's how we should proceed ←
16:42:18 <pchampin> ... and see if Trig address them or not
... and see if Trig address them or not ←
16:43:10 <pchampin> ACTION jeremy to review sandro's use cases
ACTION jeremy to review sandro's use cases ←
16:43:10 <trackbot> Created ACTION-129 - Review sandro's use cases [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2012-01-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-129 - Review sandro's use cases [on Jeremy Carroll - due 2012-01-11]. ←
16:43:27 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC in general, and in specific: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Trust_Web_Opinions
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC in general, and in specific: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Trust_Web_Opinions ←
16:43:40 <sandro> (that's for jjc)
Sandro Hawke: (that's for jjc) ←
16:44:10 <pchampin> topic: named graphs
16:44:31 <sandro> -1 to ever calling in "named graphs" :-)
Sandro Hawke: -1 to ever callitg it "named graphs" :-) ←
16:44:58 <sandro> s/in/it/
16:45:09 <pchampin> subtopic: Issue: should/must the 4th slot be an IRI?
16:45:33 <pchampin> guus: last week resolution seems to imply that it should
Guus Schreiber: last week resolution seems to imply that it should ←
16:45:36 <LeeF> I would object to letting it be a bnode, probably
Lee Feigenbaum: I would object to letting it be a bnode, probably ←
16:45:42 <pchampin> ... can we reach consensus on that?
... can we reach consensus on that? ←
16:45:43 <swh> I might
Steve Harris: I might ←
16:45:45 <sandro> sandro: sometimes it might be a bnode.
Sandro Hawke: sometimes it might be a bnode. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:45:48 <swh> …even though Iv'e done it in the past :)
Steve Harris: …even though Iv'e done it in the past :) ←
16:45:49 <gavinc> I would object to letting it be a bnode
Gavin Carothers: I would object to letting it be a bnode ←
16:45:54 <pchampin> sandro: I think it should be allowed to be a bnode
Sandro Hawke: I think it should be allowed to be a bnode ←
16:46:04 <pchampin> david: what would be the use case?
David Wood: what would be the use case? ←
16:46:26 <swh> sandro, what about .well-known/genid
Steve Harris: sandro, what about .well-known/genid ←
16:46:28 <swh> ?
Steve Harris: ? ←
16:46:32 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
16:46:34 <Zakim> -danbri
Zakim IRC Bot: -danbri ←
16:46:46 <Zakim> -yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: -yvesr ←
16:47:08 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
16:47:13 <pchampin> sandro: in the trust use case, I want to talk about a set of 4 triples, and there is no point in giving a URI to this set
Sandro Hawke: in the trust use case, I want to talk about a set of 4 triples, and there is no point in giving a URI to this set ←
16:47:27 <yvesr> Zakim, ??p3 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??p3 is me ←
16:47:27 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it ←
16:47:29 <Zakim> -JeremyCarroll
Zakim IRC Bot: -JeremyCarroll ←
16:47:39 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
16:47:55 <pchampin> ... if you want to repeat it, a graph literal is not convenient
... if you want to repeat it, a graph literal is not convenient ←
16:47:57 <ivan> ack AndyS
Ivan Herman: ack AndyS ←
16:48:09 <Zakim> +danbri
Zakim IRC Bot: +danbri ←
16:49:01 <ivan> s/refer/referring/
16:49:10 <AndyS> q-
Andy Seaborne: q- ←
16:49:11 <pchampin> andy: there are two kinds of use for bnodes: things for which I don't want to mint a URI, and existential variables
Andy Seaborne: there are two kinds of use for bnodes: things for which I don't want to mint a URI, and existential variables ←
16:49:15 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is noisy? ←
16:49:22 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
16:49:25 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (44%), cgreer (4%), danbri (58%)
Zakim IRC Bot: ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (44%), cgreer (4%), danbri (58%) ←
16:49:29 <danbri> busted! sorry
Dan Brickley: busted! sorry ←
16:49:37 <pchampin> ... you seem to be using the first one
... you seem to be using the first one ←
16:49:40 <ivan> zakim, mute danbri
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute danbri ←
16:49:40 <Zakim> danbri should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: danbri should now be muted ←
16:50:09 <sandro> sandro: Yes, just the filler case, where I don't really want to mint a URI.
Sandro Hawke: Yes, just the filler case, where I don't really want to mint a URI. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:50:14 <swh> the "filler" case would require some syntactic gymnastics to make it work
Steve Harris: the "filler" case would require some syntactic gymnastics to make it work ←
16:50:32 <swh> e.g. [] { … triples … } … then what?
Steve Harris: e.g. [] { … triples … } … then what? ←
16:50:48 <pchampin> guus: why not go the the genid solution, then?
Guus Schreiber: why not go the the genid solution, then? ←
16:51:01 <swh> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
16:51:20 <swh> q-
Steve Harris: q- ←
16:51:40 <pchampin> sandro: makes sense if you get rid of bnodes everywhere, but if you keep bnodes, why not allow them there?
Sandro Hawke: makes sense if you get rid of bnodes everywhere, but if you keep bnodes, why not allow them there? ←
16:52:10 <ivan> +1 to steve!
Ivan Herman: +1 to steve! ←
16:52:19 <pchampin> swh: this could be handled by syntactic sugar in Trig
Steve Harris: this could be handled by syntactic sugar in Trig ←
16:52:23 <gavinc> +1 to steve
Gavin Carothers: +1 to steve ←
16:52:29 <pchampin> ... to generate the genid URI
... to generate the genid URI ←
16:52:41 <sandro> sandro: if you can use bnodes as pronouns for strings and lists, etc, then it'll be odd not to have them as pronouns for referring to RDF Graphs.
Sandro Hawke: if you can use bnodes as pronouns for strings and lists, etc, then it'll be odd not to have them as pronouns for referring to RDF Graphs. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:52:43 <AndyS> So when it comes out again it is a URI?
Andy Seaborne: So when it comes out again it is a URI? ←
16:52:49 <swh> AndyS, yes
Steve Harris: AndyS, yes ←
16:52:51 <pchampin> ... because bnodes would raise very bizarre questions regarding scoping
... because bnodes would raise very bizarre questions regarding scoping ←
16:52:58 <AndyS> ack swh
Andy Seaborne: ack swh ←
16:52:58 <pchampin> pchampin: +1 about the scoping problem
Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 about the scoping problem ←
16:53:11 <swh> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
16:53:35 <swh> I have some experience
Steve Harris: I have some experience ←
16:53:38 <AndyS> This sounds like as a shorthand for URIs issue, not bnodes.
Andy Seaborne: This sounds like as a shorthand for URIs issue, not bnodes. ←
16:54:00 <LeeF> Peter won't be here next week, I believe
Lee Feigenbaum: Peter won't be here next week, I believe ←
16:54:07 <pchampin> sandro: I would like to hear Pat's opinion about the scoping issue
Sandro Hawke: I would like to hear Pat's opinion about the scoping issue ←
16:54:54 <pchampin> swh: 3store explicitly supports graph identified by bnodes
Steve Harris: 3store explicitly supported graph identified by bnodes ←
16:55:02 <pchampin> s/supports/supported/
16:55:17 <pchampin> ... but we banned it in 4store and 5store, as it was too complicated to manage
... but we banned it in 4store and 5store, as it was too complicated to manage ←
16:55:33 <AndyS> F2F discussion: UC graphs: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#4__2e_9___28_A_PRIORITY__29__Trust_Web_Opinions
Andy Seaborne: F2F discussion: UC graphs: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#4__2e_9___28_A_PRIORITY__29__Trust_Web_Opinions ←
16:55:46 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
16:55:54 <AndyS> and also http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#1__2e_5___28_A_PRIORITY__29__Exchanging_the_contents_of_RDF_stores
Andy Seaborne: and also http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-12#1__2e_5___28_A_PRIORITY__29__Exchanging_the_contents_of_RDF_stores ←
16:55:57 <sandro> sandro: I might be convinced to support this restriction, like the no-subjects-as-literals, in the name of ease of implementaiton.
Sandro Hawke: I might be convinced to support this restriction, like the no-subjects-as-literals, in the name of ease of implementaiton. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:55:57 <zwu2> sorry I have to go to another meeting, bye.
Zhe Wu: sorry I have to go to another meeting, bye. ←
16:56:29 <pchampin> topic: IRI names for both graph containers and graphs?
16:56:51 <pchampin> guus: as neither Pat nor Richard are here, may be we can leave this discussion for next week,
Guus Schreiber: as neither Pat nor Richard are here, may be we can leave this discussion for next week, ←
16:57:01 <pchampin> ... unless someone wants to add something
... unless someone wants to add something ←
16:58:27 <pchampin> sandro: I think we should clean the UC list into something smaller, easier to grasp at once
Sandro Hawke: I think we should clean the UC list into something smaller, easier to grasp at once ←
16:58:42 <pchampin> ... are we going to publish our use cases?
... are we going to publish our use cases? ←
16:58:53 <pchampin> guus: I would be in favor of publishing them
Guus Schreiber: I would be in favor of publishing them ←
16:59:11 <pchampin> david: I concur
David Wood: I concur ←
17:01:00 <AndyS> Does anyone have an example where signing the doc is not sufficient?
Andy Seaborne: Does anyone have an example where signing the doc is not sufficient? ←
17:02:02 <gavinc> AndyS: PaySwarm does
Andy Seaborne: PaySwarm does [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
17:02:02 <ericP> AndyS, very large triple stores?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS, very large triple stores? ←
17:02:29 <danbri> zakim, who is talking?
Dan Brickley: zakim, who is talking? ←
17:02:30 <Guus> zakim, who is talking?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is talking? ←
17:02:33 <pchampin> guus: propose a UC about signing a graph (in order to state "I stated this graph")
Guus Schreiber: propose a UC about signing a graph (in order to state "I stated this graph") ←
17:02:33 <AndyS> gavinc ... interesting ... ptr?
Andy Seaborne: gavinc ... interesting ... ptr? ←
17:03:02 <pchampin> sandro: to endorse or to agree with a graph?
Sandro Hawke: to endorse or to agree with a graph? ←
17:03:20 <AndyS> ericP ... maybe but how does sign again to check?
Andy Seaborne: ericP ... maybe but how does sign again to check? ←
17:03:26 <swh> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
17:03:31 <danbri> who?
Dan Brickley: who? ←
17:03:40 <danbri> fb?
Dan Brickley: fb? ←
17:04:01 <danbri> swh, manu?
Dan Brickley: swh, manu? ←
17:04:09 <Zakim> danbri, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (23%)
Zakim IRC Bot: danbri, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (23%) ←
17:04:11 <ericP> AndyS, i think the discriminating use cases are when you don't need to sign
Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS, i think the discriminating use cases are when you don't need to sign ←
17:04:19 <ericP> ... just need to make assertions about it
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... just need to make assertions about it ←
17:04:21 <Zakim> Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 17 (4%), gavinc (18%), sandro (43%)
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 17 (4%), gavinc (18%), sandro (43%) ←
17:04:23 <swh> danbri, yes, manu, thanks
Steve Harris: danbri, yes, manu, thanks ←
17:04:38 <AndyS> The case I can see is sign-graph keeps sig across reencoding (e.g. into a store c.f. Eric - but any size)
Andy Seaborne: The case I can see is sign-graph keeps sig across reencoding (e.g. into a store c.f. Eric - but any size) ←
17:04:46 <swh> ack me
Steve Harris: ack me ←
17:04:52 <Guus> ack swh
Guus Schreiber: ack swh ←
17:05:53 <pchampin> guus: regarding the restaurant? UC, how would you write it down in Trig?
Guus Schreiber: regarding the restaurant? UC, how would you write it down in Trig? ←
17:05:55 <AndyS> UC is : http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Trust_Web_Opinions
Andy Seaborne: UC is : http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#.28A_PRIORITY.29_Trust_Web_Opinions ←
17:06:06 <sandro> { sandro endorses g1 }
Sandro Hawke: { sandro endorses g1 } ←
17:06:10 <AndyS> full version -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-prov/2011Sep/0003.html
Andy Seaborne: full version -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-prov/2011Sep/0003.html ←
17:06:14 <sandro> g1 { ... some triples }
Sandro Hawke: g1 { ... some triples } ←
17:06:35 <sandro> g1 owl:sameAs { ... some triples }
Sandro Hawke: g1 owl:sameAs { ... some triples } ←
17:07:15 <sandro> <addressyoufetchedfrom> { ... some triples }
Sandro Hawke: <addressyoufetchedfrom> { ... some triples } ←
17:07:23 <Guus> zakim, who is talking?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is talking? ←
17:07:41 <Zakim> Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (19%), AndyS (11%)
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (19%), AndyS (11%) ←
17:07:42 <gavinc> ... owl:sameAs only works with Resources/IRIs doesn't it?
Gavin Carothers: ... owl:sameAs only works with Resources/IRIs doesn't it? ←
17:07:43 <sandro> <addressyoufetchedfrom> graphStante { ... some triples }
Sandro Hawke: <addressyoufetchedfrom> graphStante { ... some triples } ←
17:07:48 <sandro> <addressyoufetchedfrom> graphState { ... some triples }
Sandro Hawke: <addressyoufetchedfrom> graphState { ... some triples } ←
17:08:01 <sandro> zakim, who is muted
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is muted ←
17:08:01 <Zakim> sandro, you need to end that query with '?'
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you need to end that query with '?' ←
17:08:03 <sandro> zakim, who is muted?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is muted? ←
17:08:03 <Zakim> I see pchampin, MacTed, danbri muted
Zakim IRC Bot: I see pchampin, MacTed, danbri muted ←
17:09:47 <sandro> <graph> ?RELATION? { ... triples ... }
Sandro Hawke: <graph> ?RELATION? { ... triples ... } ←
17:09:50 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
17:09:57 <pchampin> sandro: the example above is not compatible with Trig, as there is a predicate between the graph URI and the curly braces,
Sandro Hawke: the example above is not compatible with Trig, as there is a predicate between the graph URI and the curly braces, ←
17:10:03 <AndyS> Breaks n-quads as well.
Andy Seaborne: Breaks n-quads as well. ←
17:10:15 <pchampin> ... stating the relation between the graph IRI and the graph
... stating the relation between the graph IRI and the graph ←
17:10:15 <AndyS> q-
Andy Seaborne: q- ←
17:10:28 <sandro> OPTION 1: <graph> ?RELATION? { ... triples ... }
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 1: <graph> ?RELATION? { ... triples ... } ←
17:10:55 <sandro> OPTION 2: relation is always graphState, but there are immutable graph containers used as proxies
Sandro Hawke: OPTION 2: relation is always graphState, but there are immutable graph containers used as proxies ←
17:11:57 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Dec/0189.html
Andy Seaborne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Dec/0189.html ←
17:12:16 <pchampin> sandro: option 2 adds a semantics to Trig, so risks to break existing Trig
Sandro Hawke: option 2 adds a semantics to Trig, so risks to break existing Trig ←
17:12:43 <pchampin> ivan: then how do you express the sameAs relation with option 2?
Ivan Herman: then how do you express the sameAs relation with option 2? ←
17:13:04 <sandro> { sandro endorsesContentOf <g1>. <g1> a StaticGraphContainer } <g1> { some triples }
Sandro Hawke: { sandro endorsesContentOf <g1>. <g1> a StaticGraphContainer } <g1> { some triples } ←
17:13:52 <sandro> (a sketch of option 2)
Sandro Hawke: (a sketch of option 2) ←
17:14:20 <pchampin> guus: it would be good if someone could write this down
Guus Schreiber: it would be good if someone could write this down ←
17:15:09 <sandro> write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options.
Sandro Hawke: write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options. ←
17:15:16 <pchampin> sandro: it would be good to write down both use cases, both option, and how each option solves each UC
Sandro Hawke: it would be good to write down both use cases, both option, and how each option solves each UC ←
17:16:40 <sandro> sandro: yes, we can use Trig, or a variant, just be clear about what semantics you mean for TriG.
Sandro Hawke: yes, we can use Trig, or a variant, just be clear about what semantics you mean for TriG. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:16:59 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
17:17:07 <Zakim> -sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro ←
17:17:08 <Zakim> -gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -gavinc ←
17:17:08 <Zakim> -swh
Zakim IRC Bot: -swh ←
17:17:10 <Zakim> -cgreer
Zakim IRC Bot: -cgreer ←
17:17:12 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
17:17:13 <Zakim> -AlexHall
Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall ←
17:17:15 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
17:17:28 <Zakim> -davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood ←
17:17:30 <Zakim> -danbri
Zakim IRC Bot: -danbri ←
17:17:31 <Zakim> -Eric
Zakim IRC Bot: -Eric ←
17:17:40 <pchampin> ACTION guus to write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options
ACTION guus to write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options ←
17:17:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-130 - Write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-11].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-130 - Write down both uses cases, and how they are addressed by both options [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-11]. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe