15:02:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/21-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/11/21-rdf-wg-irc ←
15:03:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
15:03:02 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
15:03:02 <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 ←
15:03:03 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:03:03 <trackbot> Date: 21 November 2012
15:50:00 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, rdf-wg
(No events recorded for 46 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, rdf-wg ←
15:50:01 <Zakim> On IRC I see rdf-wg, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu, yvesr, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see rdf-wg, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu, yvesr, sandro, ericP ←
15:51:30 <tbaker> zakim, who is on the call?
Thomas Baker: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:51:30 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, tbaker
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, tbaker ←
15:51:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see tbaker, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu, yvesr, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see tbaker, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu, yvesr, sandro, ericP ←
15:51:37 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started ←
15:51:38 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
15:52:07 <ericP> tbaker, are you trying to debug something?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: tbaker, are you trying to debug something? ←
15:52:20 <ericP> i've joined (started) the call in case that helps
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i've joined (started) the call in case that helps ←
15:53:18 <tbaker> Yes an irc client on my iPhone
Thomas Baker: Yes an irc client on my iPhone ←
15:53:44 <Zakim> +??P2
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P2 ←
15:53:52 <ericP> ahh, you're just asking questions of Zakim 'cause he's likely to answer
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ahh, you're just asking questions of Zakim 'cause he's likely to answer ←
15:54:11 <tbaker> Will be only on irc today - in car.
Thomas Baker: Will be only on irc today - in car. ←
15:54:13 <tbaker> Yes
Thomas Baker: Yes ←
15:57:04 <Zakim> +pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps ←
16:00:38 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.898.aaaa ←
16:00:39 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
16:00:39 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/11/21-rdf-wg-irc#T16-00-39
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2012/11/21-rdf-wg-irc#T16-00-39 ←
16:00:53 <davidwood> Zakim, aaaa is mw
David Wood: Zakim, aaaa is mw ←
16:00:53 <Zakim> +mw; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +mw; got it ←
16:01:01 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
16:01:05 <davidwood> Zakim, aaaa is me
David Wood: Zakim, aaaa is me ←
16:01:05 <Zakim> sorry, davidwood, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, davidwood, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' ←
16:01:13 <davidwood> Zakim, mw is me
David Wood: Zakim, mw is me ←
16:01:13 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it ←
16:01:48 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
16:01:50 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:01:54 <AndyS> zakim, P14 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, P14 is me ←
16:01:54 <Zakim> sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'P14'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'P14' ←
16:01:58 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
16:01:58 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
16:02:00 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
16:02:00 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
16:02:00 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
16:02:12 <pchampin_> zakim, ??P14 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P14 is me ←
16:02:12 <Zakim> +pchampin_; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin_; got it ←
16:02:40 <yvesr> scribenick: yvesr
(Scribe set to Yves Raimond)
16:02:40 <davidwood> Chair: David Wood
16:02:50 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
16:02:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, ??P2, pfps, davidwood, Sandro, pchampin_, AndyS, Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see EricP, ??P2, pfps, davidwood, Sandro, pchampin_, AndyS, Ivan ←
16:02:52 <Zakim> On IRC I see pchampin_, pfps, tbaker, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu, yvesr, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see pchampin_, pfps, tbaker, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu, yvesr, sandro, ericP ←
16:02:52 <Zakim> +MHausenblas
Zakim IRC Bot: +MHausenblas ←
16:02:52 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
16:03:36 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.897.aabb ←
16:03:38 <Zakim> - +1.603.897.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.603.897.aabb ←
16:03:52 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.897.aacc ←
16:04:14 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: RDF-WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/ -- agenda will be http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.11.21
Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: RDF-WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/ -- agenda will be http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.11.21 ←
16:04:45 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
Richard Cyganiak: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me ←
16:04:45 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri; got it ←
16:04:48 <AndyS> zakim, who is making noise?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is making noise? ←
16:04:50 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 7 Nov telecon:
David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 7 Nov telecon: ←
16:04:50 <davidwood>
16:04:50 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-11-07
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-11-07 ←
16:04:59 <Zakim> AndyS, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (39%), Ivan (60%)
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (39%), Ivan (60%) ←
16:05:12 <yvesr> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 7 Nov telecon
RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 7 Nov telecon ←
16:05:28 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
16:05:28 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
16:05:36 <davidwood> Review of action items
David Wood: Review of action items ←
16:05:36 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview ←
16:05:36 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open ←
16:05:58 <yvesr> davidwood: andys completed two actions
David Wood: andys completed two actions ←
16:06:01 <Arnaud> zakim, unmute me
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, unmute me ←
16:06:01 <Zakim> Arnaud was not muted, Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: Arnaud was not muted, Arnaud ←
16:06:08 <Zakim> +??P17
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P17 ←
16:06:20 <markus> zakim, ??P17 is me
Markus Lanthaler: zakim, ??P17 is me ←
16:06:20 <Zakim> +markus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +markus; got it ←
16:06:32 <yvesr> Arnaud: my action is about the rdf schema document, we were unsure danbri would be able to edit it
Arnaud Le Hors: my action is about the rdf schema document, we were unsure danbri would be able to edit it ←
16:06:38 <yvesr> Arnaud: danbri said he will be able to do it
Arnaud Le Hors: danbri said he will be able to do it ←
16:06:39 <davidwood> CLOSE ACTION-198
David Wood: CLOSE ACTION-198 ←
16:06:39 <trackbot> ACTION-198 Check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?) closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-198 Check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?) closed ←
16:06:50 <davidwood> CLOSE ACTION-206
David Wood: CLOSE ACTION-206 ←
16:06:50 <trackbot> ACTION-206 Put Turtle tests into W3C space. closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-206 Put Turtle tests into W3C space. closed ←
16:06:56 <davidwood> CLOSE ACTION-207
David Wood: CLOSE ACTION-207 ←
16:06:56 <trackbot> ACTION-207 Do some documentation/README for the tests. closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-207 Do some documentation/README for the tests. closed ←
16:06:57 <yvesr> Arnaud: but is there much work to do, now we resolved on rdf:Seq?
Arnaud Le Hors: but is there much work to do, now we resolved on rdf:Seq? ←
16:07:01 <AndyS> AndyS actions - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0223.html
Andy Seaborne: AndyS actions - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0223.html ←
16:07:05 <yvesr> Arnaud: So I think that takes care of my action
Arnaud Le Hors: So I think that takes care of my action ←
16:07:19 <yvesr> davidwood: Moving on to open actions
David Wood: Moving on to open actions ←
16:07:30 <Zakim> + +081165aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +081165aadd ←
16:07:38 <yvesr> sandro: I want to talk about my IETF action
Sandro Hawke: I want to talk about my IETF action ←
16:07:39 <sandro> http://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xml
Sandro Hawke: http://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xml ←
16:07:39 <AZ> Zakim, aadd is me
Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, aadd is me ←
16:07:39 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←
16:07:56 <davidwood> CLOSE ACTION-82
David Wood: CLOSE ACTION-82 ←
16:07:56 <trackbot> ACTION-82 Draft well-known URI template and propose WG resolution that it is "stable" enough for IETF. closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-82 Draft well-known URI template and propose WG resolution that it is "stable" enough for IETF. closed ←
16:08:01 <yvesr> sandro: genid is now registered
Sandro Hawke: genid is now registered ←
16:08:10 <cygri> excellent!
Richard Cyganiak: excellent! ←
16:08:27 <yvesr> davidwood: we'll move on to RDF Concepts
David Wood: we'll move on to RDF Concepts ←
16:08:31 <yvesr> topic: RDF Concepts
16:08:54 <cygri> ISSUE-104?
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-104? ←
16:08:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-104 -- Too many informative Notes in RDF Concepts -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-104 -- Too many informative Notes in RDF Concepts -- open ←
16:08:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/104
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/104 ←
16:09:00 <davidwood> Check for consensus on http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/104 (Too many Notes)
David Wood: Check for consensus on http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/104 (Too many Notes) ←
16:09:00 <davidwood> 1. PROPOSAL: Delete four informative Notes from Concepts as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0131.html
David Wood: 1. PROPOSAL: Delete four informative Notes from Concepts as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0131.html ←
16:09:07 <yvesr> davidwood: let's move on to check on consensus on ISSUE-104
David Wood: let's move on to check on consensus on ISSUE-104 ←
16:09:38 <yvesr> cygri: The background for the issue is that there is a lot of informative text in RDF Concepts
Richard Cyganiak: The background for the issue is that there is a lot of informative text in RDF Concepts ←
16:09:56 <yvesr> ... It was pointed out that this can be overwhelming
... It was pointed out that this can be overwhelming ←
16:10:11 <yvesr> ... The places I identified were based on my own bias
... The places I identified were based on my own bias ←
16:10:33 <yvesr> ... The four that are listed in this email are: 1) Concerns with XML 1.1
... The four that are listed in this email are: 1) Concerns with XML 1.1 ←
16:10:47 <yvesr> ... 2) Confusing language tags with locales
... 2) Confusing language tags with locales ←
16:10:57 <yvesr> ... 3) Some details about how to use schema assets
... 3) Some details about how to use schema assets ←
16:11:29 <yvesr> ... 4) Section regarding language tags
... 4) Section regarding language tags ←
16:11:45 <yvesr> ... If no one wants to speak up for any of them, then I'll drop them
... If no one wants to speak up for any of them, then I'll drop them ←
16:11:47 <pfps> These notes were added in response to external comments, I believe. However, I still support removing them. Just don't lose them, because there may be cries to reinstate them.
Peter Patel-Schneider: These notes were added in response to external comments, I believe. However, I still support removing them. Just don't lose them, because there may be cries to reinstate them. ←
16:12:15 <yvesr> davidwood: There has been a discussion on the mailing list, this should be relatively uncontroversial
David Wood: There has been a discussion on the mailing list, this should be relatively uncontroversial ←
16:12:24 <yvesr> cygri: I agree with what pfps said on IRC
Richard Cyganiak: I agree with what pfps said on IRC ←
16:12:47 <yvesr> ... But I think 8 years later we might try again to remove them
... But I think 8 years later we might try again to remove them ←
16:12:57 <yvesr> ... If people are concerned about it then we can reinstate them
... If people are concerned about it then we can reinstate them ←
16:13:01 <yvesr> ... They don't add much value
... They don't add much value ←
16:13:24 <yvesr> davidwood: We could make a WG resolution that we are going to resolve ISSUE-104
David Wood: We could make a WG resolution that we are going to resolve ISSUE-104 ←
16:13:51 <Zakim> + +1.603.438.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.438.aaee ←
16:14:03 <zwu2> zakim, aaee is me
16:14:03 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it ←
16:14:04 <yvesr> sandro: davidwood is saying the document should provide a pointer
Sandro Hawke: davidwood is saying the resolution should provide a pointer ←
16:14:27 <yvesr> davidwood: We should vote on this
David Wood: We should vote on this ←
16:14:37 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
16:14:39 <yvesr> yvesr: +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
16:14:46 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:14:46 <pchampin_> +1
16:14:47 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
16:14:47 <sandro> s/document/resolution/
16:14:47 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
16:14:52 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
16:14:55 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
16:14:59 <sandro> +0.5 (I like more info....)
Sandro Hawke: +0.5 (I like more info....) ←
16:15:03 <pfps> +1
16:15:08 <tbaker> +1
Thomas Baker: +1 ←
16:15:10 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
16:15:21 <zwu2> +1
16:15:44 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0131.html
Sandro Hawke: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0131.html ←
16:15:51 <AZ> ok +1
Antoine Zimmermann: ok +1 ←
16:15:53 <sandro> (that's the proposal we're voting on)
Sandro Hawke: (that's the proposal we're voting on) ←
16:16:13 <yvesr> RESOLVED: Delete four informative Notes from Concepts as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0131.html
RESOLVED: Delete four informative Notes from Concepts as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0131.html ←
16:16:17 <davidwood> Check for consensus on ISSUE-110 (Term for g-box)
David Wood: Check for consensus on ISSUE-110 (Term for g-box) ←
16:16:17 <davidwood> PROPOSAL 1: Informally call g-boxes “RDF sources” in Concepts
David Wood: PROPOSAL 1: Informally call g-boxes “RDF sources” in Concepts ←
16:16:52 <davidwood> PROPOSAL 2: Keep the informal term “g-box” in Concepts
David Wood: PROPOSAL 2: Keep the informal term “g-box” in Concepts ←
16:17:12 <yvesr> davidwood: This is an editorial issue in Concepts
David Wood: This is an editorial issue in Concepts ←
16:17:31 <yvesr> ... There has been a discussion on the mailing list
... There has been a discussion on the mailing list ←
16:17:39 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
16:17:44 <yvesr> ... Unless there are any objections, we should leave that as an editorial issue
... Unless there are any objections, we should leave that as an editorial issue ←
16:17:44 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
16:17:44 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
16:17:51 <yvesr> sandro: I'd like a WG decision on this
Sandro Hawke: I'd like a WG decision on this ←
16:17:54 <AndyS> RDF sources
Andy Seaborne: RDF sources ←
16:17:59 <AZ> 1
16:18:00 <sandro> 1
Sandro Hawke: 1 ←
16:18:00 <yvesr> yvesr, RDF sources
yvesr, RDF sources ←
16:18:01 <pfps> RDF sources
Peter Patel-Schneider: RDF sources ←
16:18:04 <zwu2> RDF sources sounds better
Zhe Wu: RDF sources sounds better ←
16:18:07 <markus> RDF sources
Markus Lanthaler: RDF sources ←
16:18:11 <cygri> fine with either
Richard Cyganiak: fine with either ←
16:18:17 <davidwood> RDF Sources (1)
David Wood: RDF Sources (1) ←
16:18:18 <pfps> \me down with g-men and g-boxes!
Peter Patel-Schneider: \me down with g-men and g-boxes! ←
16:18:20 <sandro> 1 for "rdf sources" 2 for "g-box"
Sandro Hawke: 1 for "rdf sources" 2 for "g-box" ←
16:18:25 <pchampin_> no preference for me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: no preference for me ←
16:18:30 <ericP> 2
16:18:40 <tbaker> +1 rdf sources
Thomas Baker: +1 rdf sources ←
16:18:48 <Souri> 1
Souripriya Das: 1 ←
16:18:53 <Arnaud> 0, no real preference, both proposals have their pros and cons
Arnaud Le Hors: 0, no real preference, both proposals have their pros and cons ←
16:19:13 <yvesr> davidwood: I believe the vote has come down on the side of RDF sources
David Wood: I believe the vote has come down on the side of RDF sources ←
16:19:21 <yvesr> ... If anyone objects, could they please speak up
... If anyone objects, could they please speak up ←
16:19:23 <Arnaud> rdf sources sound better
Arnaud Le Hors: rdf sources sound better ←
16:19:44 <yvesr> ... Let's resolve ISSUE-110 by calling them RDF Sources in concepts
... Let's resolve ISSUE-110 by calling them RDF Sources in concepts ←
16:19:48 <Arnaud> g-box seems more precise/technical
Arnaud Le Hors: g-box seems more precise/technical ←
16:19:53 <yvesr> RESOLVED: Informally call g-boxes “RDF sources” in Concepts
RESOLVED: Informally call g-boxes “RDF sources” in Concepts ←
16:20:32 <sandro> (closes issue-110)
Sandro Hawke: (closes ISSUE-110) ←
16:20:35 <yvesr> pfps: g-box is RDF sources, g-snaps are RDF graphs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: g-box is RDF sources, g-snaps are RDF graphs ←
16:20:41 <yvesr> s/pfps/ericp
16:20:55 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
16:20:55 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/11/21-rdf-wg-irc#T16-20-55
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2012/11/21-rdf-wg-irc#T16-20-55 ←
16:21:23 <yvesr> davidwood: We need to close ISSUE-104 and ISSUE-110
David Wood: We need to close ISSUE-104 and ISSUE-110 ←
16:21:30 <yvesr> ... We need to assign reviewers for RDF concepts
... We need to assign reviewers for RDF concepts ←
16:21:46 <AZ> I can review Concepts
Antoine Zimmermann: I can review Concepts ←
16:22:15 <yvesr> cygri: Some background, I'll implement those changes and we still have time today we might talk about two outstanding issues, by the end of the day we should have the next Working Draft
Richard Cyganiak: Some background, I'll implement those changes and we still have time today we might talk about two outstanding issues, by the end of the day we should have the next Working Draft ←
16:22:24 <yvesr> ... That's why we need some reviewers for
... That's why we need some reviewers for ←
16:22:55 <yvesr> cygri: There's only one obstacle in the way to last call, there are a couple of oustanding issues marked throughout the document
Richard Cyganiak: There's only one obstacle in the way to last call, there are a couple of oustanding issues marked throughout the document ←
16:23:18 <yvesr> ... There is at least one more around fragment identifiers and dataset syntaxes
... There is at least one more around fragment identifiers and dataset syntaxes ←
16:23:24 <yvesr> ... There might be some other issues as well
... There might be some other issues as well ←
16:23:49 <yvesr> ... The main issue with going to Last Call while we still don't have first Working Drafts on closely related documents
... The main issue with going to Last Call while we still don't have first Working Drafts on closely related documents ←
16:24:12 <davidwood> Open issues related to Concepts: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/8
David Wood: Open issues related to Concepts: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/8 ←
16:24:16 <yvesr> ... As soon as we have those, I don't see any big problems
... As soon as we have those, I don't see any big problems ←
16:24:29 <yvesr> davidwood: In the tracker we still have 7 issues opened
David Wood: In the tracker we still have 7 issues opened ←
16:24:34 <yvesr> ... Before we get to Last Call
... Before we get to Last Call ←
16:24:47 <yvesr> cygri: An interesting one is the dataset transformation one (isomorphism etc.)
Richard Cyganiak: An interesting one is the dataset transformation one (isomorphism etc.) ←
16:24:53 <yvesr> ... I'll bring them up on the mailing list
... I'll bring them up on the mailing list ←
16:25:01 <yvesr> davidwood: We have AZ volunteering to review
David Wood: We have AZ volunteering to review ←
16:25:13 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
16:25:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see EricP, ??P2, pfps, davidwood, Sandro, pchampin_, AndyS, Ivan (muted), Arnaud (muted), cygri, +1.603.897.aacc, markus, AZ, zwu2, MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see EricP, ??P2, pfps, davidwood, Sandro, pchampin_, AndyS, Ivan (muted), Arnaud (muted), cygri, +1.603.897.aacc, markus, AZ, zwu2, MacTed ←
16:25:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see FabGandon, zwu2, cygri, markus, Souri, AZ, pchampin_, pfps, tbaker, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see FabGandon, zwu2, cygri, markus, Souri, AZ, pchampin_, pfps, tbaker, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, ivan, mischat, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, Arnaud, trackbot, manu1, manu, ←
16:25:16 <Zakim> ... yvesr, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... yvesr, sandro, ericP ←
16:25:33 <yvesr> davidwood: pfps would you be interested in reviewiewing concepts?
David Wood: pfps would you be interested in reviewiewing concepts? ←
16:25:55 <yvesr> pfps: Yes, I can do it
Peter Patel-Schneider: Yes, I can do it ←
16:26:03 <yvesr> ... It'll probably get done soon
... It'll probably get done soon ←
16:26:49 <cygri> ACTION: pfps to review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html
ACTION: pfps to review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html ←
16:26:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-210 - Review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2012-11-28].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-210 - Review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2012-11-28]. ←
16:27:02 <cygri> ACTION: AZ to review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html
ACTION: AZ to review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html ←
16:27:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-211 - Review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html [on Antoine Zimmermann - due 2012-11-28].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-211 - Review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html [on Antoine Zimmermann - due 2012-11-28]. ←
16:27:14 <davidwood> ACTION: AZ to review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html
ACTION: AZ to review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html ←
16:27:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-212 - Review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html [on Antoine Zimmermann - due 2012-11-28].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-212 - Review RDF-Concepts ED http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html [on Antoine Zimmermann - due 2012-11-28]. ←
16:27:48 <yvesr> gavinc: On the Turtle document, the main work is to review the tests
Gavin Carothers: On the Turtle document, the main work is to review the tests ←
16:27:52 <davidwood> Topic: Turtle LC
16:27:56 <yvesr> ... We also noticed some bug in the grammar
... We also noticed some bug in the grammar ←
16:28:05 <cygri> AZ, i'll send you an email when today's resolutions are implemented, should be later today
Richard Cyganiak: AZ, i'll send you an email when today's resolutions are implemented, should be later today ←
16:28:09 <cygri> pfps, i'll send you an email when today's resolutions are implemented, should be later today
Richard Cyganiak: pfps, i'll send you an email when today's resolutions are implemented, should be later today ←
16:28:28 <yvesr> ... There are some machine ways of generating coverage of language features
... There are some machine ways of generating coverage of language features ←
16:28:33 <yvesr> ... We did that in SPARQL 1.1
... We did that in SPARQL 1.0 ←
16:28:39 <yvesr> ... It did help us identify issues
... It did help us identify issues ←
16:28:45 <AndyS> s/1.1/1.0/
16:28:47 <yvesr> ... I am working on it now for Turtle
... I am working on it now for Turtle ←
16:29:11 <AndyS> +1 to eric checking coverage
Andy Seaborne: +1 to eric checking coverage ←
16:29:53 <yvesr> gavinc: If we do the coverage tests, we can identify that we don't have any tests for example using a SPARQL-like PREFIX
Eric Prud'hommeaux: If we do the coverage tests, we can identify that we don't have any tests for example using a SPARQL-like PREFIX ←
16:30:19 <AndyS> s/gavinc/EricP/
16:30:43 <yvesr> ... How do I take an XML document and test a set of XML paths? There are multiple ways to do it - does anyone have a preferred way?
... How do I take an XML document and test a set of XML paths? There are multiple ways to do it - does anyone have a preferred way? ←
16:31:07 <yvesr> AndyS: The important bit is the report of the coverage
Andy Seaborne: The important bit is the report of the coverage ←
16:31:28 <yvesr> ericP: If people are happy that I run it on my laptop, then I'll go ahead
Eric Prud'hommeaux: If people are happy that I run it on my laptop, then I'll go ahead ←
16:31:41 <yvesr> ... But please tell me if you want to be able to run it elsewhere
... But please tell me if you want to be able to run it elsewhere ←
16:31:54 <yvesr> ericP: If we have a lot of tests that test the same features
Eric Prud'hommeaux: If we have a lot of tests that test the same features ←
16:32:01 <yvesr> ... It makes it harder for us to manage
... It makes it harder for us to manage ←
16:32:24 <yvesr> AndyS: There will be duplication
Andy Seaborne: There will be duplication ←
16:32:48 <yvesr> ... Turtle is simpler, so managing the tests shouldn't be too bad
... Turtle is simpler, so managing the tests shouldn't be too bad ←
16:33:27 <yvesr> ericP: Whether we like redundancy is a question of taste
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Whether we like redundancy is a question of taste ←
16:33:51 <yvesr> AndyS: Should we beginning to ask to use the test suite outside of the working group?
Andy Seaborne: Should we beginning to ask to use the test suite outside of the working group? ←
16:34:02 <yvesr> davidwood: I don't think it's too early to start engaging with people
David Wood: I don't think it's too early to start engaging with people ←
16:34:22 <yvesr> ericP: It would be nice to have the test suite nailed down before going to last call
Eric Prud'hommeaux: It would be nice to have the test suite nailed down before going to last call ←
16:34:32 <yvesr> davidwood: Who would like to take an action to ask dajobe?
David Wood: Who would like to take an action to ask dajobe? ←
16:34:56 <yvesr> ACTION: davidwood to contact dajobe about Turtle and test suites
ACTION: davidwood to contact dajobe about Turtle and test suites ←
16:34:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-213 - Contact dajobe about Turtle and test suites [on David Wood - due 2012-11-28].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-213 - Contact dajobe about Turtle and test suites [on David Wood - due 2012-11-28]. ←
16:35:02 <Zakim> + +33.4.92.96.aaff
Zakim IRC Bot: + +33.4.92.96.aaff ←
16:35:27 <yvesr> davidwood: do we have anyone from JSON-LD today?
David Wood: do we have anyone from JSON-LD today? ←
16:35:30 <yvesr> markus: I'm here
Markus Lanthaler: I'm here ←
16:35:32 <davidwood> Topic: JSON-LD
16:35:34 <FabGandon> Zakim, aaff is me
Fabien Gandon: Zakim, aaff is me ←
16:35:34 <Zakim> +FabGandon; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +FabGandon; got it ←
16:35:34 <yvesr> topic: JSON-LD
16:35:53 <yvesr> markus: Yesterday we were able to resolve the last remaining issues for the syntax specification
Markus Lanthaler: Yesterday we were able to resolve the last remaining issues for the syntax specification ←
16:36:01 <yvesr> ... The issues are resolved, the spec is being updated
... The issues are resolved, the spec is being updated ←
16:36:09 <yvesr> ... There are a few minor open issues for the APIs
... There are a few minor open issues for the APIs ←
16:36:25 <yvesr> ... But mostly details around the algorithms
... But mostly details around the algorithms ←
16:36:42 <yvesr> ... The spec has to be updated, and then it will be ready for another round of reviews
... The spec has to be updated, and then it will be ready for another round of reviews ←
16:37:08 <yvesr> davidwood: cygri made some suggestions around the language about RDF in the JSON-LD specs
David Wood: cygri made some suggestions around the language about RDF in the JSON-LD specs ←
16:37:16 <yvesr> cygri: I had an action to provide some input there
Richard Cyganiak: I had an action to provide some input there ←
16:37:37 <yvesr> ... One of the thing that happened in the mean time is that the relationship between the syntax and the api has been discussed
... One of the thing that happened in the mean time is that the relationship between the syntax and the api has been discussed ←
16:37:58 <yvesr> ... The data model will not be part of the syntax document, but part of what used to be the API Document (to be renamed)
... The data model will not be part of the syntax document, but part of what used to be the API Document (to be renamed) ←
16:38:14 <yvesr> ... What was an issue around the syntax document will be an issue around that other document
... What was an issue around the syntax document will be an issue around that other document ←
16:38:30 <yvesr> ... Within the JSON-LD community group there is a pretty good idea on how to resolve this
... Within the JSON-LD community group there is a pretty good idea on how to resolve this ←
16:38:46 <yvesr> cygri: By next week we should get a more subtstantial update
Richard Cyganiak: By next week we should get a more subtstantial update ←
16:39:35 <yvesr> markus: There has been some discussions around JSON-LD as a graph syntax or as a dataset syntax
Markus Lanthaler: There has been some discussions around JSON-LD as a graph syntax or as a dataset syntax ←
16:39:37 <cygri> ISSUE-105?
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-105? ←
16:39:37 <trackbot> ISSUE-105 -- Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-105 -- Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation -- open ←
16:39:37 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105 ←
16:39:50 <yvesr> ... We are not very sure where the RDF WG is headed in terms of dataset syntaxes
... We are not very sure where the RDF WG is headed in terms of dataset syntaxes ←
16:39:56 <yvesr> ... We're waiting on that decision
... We're waiting on that decision ←
16:40:24 <yvesr> sandro: It will be difficult as it will be difficult to align
Sandro Hawke: It will be difficult as it will be difficult to align ←
16:40:49 <yvesr> ... JSON-LD seems like it is a dataset syntax, but on the other hand datasets are not assertive in any sense
... JSON-LD seems like it is a dataset syntax, but on the other hand datasets are not assertive in any sense ←
16:41:01 <yvesr> ... They don't convey information about the world the way a graph syntax does
... They don't convey information about the world the way a graph syntax does ←
16:41:40 <yvesr> sandro: JSON-LD will have to drive the response to that issue
Sandro Hawke: JSON-LD will have to drive the response to that issue ←
16:42:14 <yvesr> cygri: What the WG decided not to define how an RDF dataset can be treated as a logical expression
Richard Cyganiak: What the WG decided not to define how an RDF dataset can be treated as a logical expression ←
16:42:31 <yvesr> ... Graphs can be treated as logical expressions, but not datasets
... Graphs can be treated as logical expressions, but not datasets ←
16:42:42 <yvesr> ... Whether that's a problem remains to be seen
... Whether that's a problem remains to be seen ←
16:42:57 <yvesr> sandro: I think JSON-LD needs to be treated as a logical expression
Sandro Hawke: I think JSON-LD needs to be treated as a logical expression ←
16:43:03 <ivan> json-ld is 'just' a syntax
Ivan Herman: json-ld is 'just' a syntax ←
16:43:18 <yvesr> AndyS: Where does JSON-LD needs logical assertions?
Andy Seaborne: Where does JSON-LD needs logical assertions? ←
16:43:26 <yvesr> sandro: I think the use-case is data merging
Sandro Hawke: I think the use-case is data merging ←
16:43:35 <yvesr> ... You can't merge JSON
... You can't merge JSON ←
16:43:52 <yvesr> ... And you can't merge JSON-LD if you don't treat them as conveying RDF
... And you can't merge JSON-LD if you don't treat them as conveying RDF ←
16:44:12 <yvesr> AndyS: I am trying to find something that's a technical aspect of JSON-LD that this impacts
Andy Seaborne: I am trying to find something that's a technical aspect of JSON-LD that this impacts ←
16:44:36 <yvesr> sandro: The default graph has special standing as a logical expression
Sandro Hawke: The default graph has special standing as a logical expression ←
16:44:42 <yvesr> ... where it doesn't in datasets in general
... where it doesn't in datasets in general ←
16:44:57 <sandro> Sandro: I think we need the default graph in a JSON-LD dataset to be a logical express -- like an RDF graph -- and unlike Datasets in general.
Sandro Hawke: I think we need the default graph in a JSON-LD dataset to be a logical express -- like an RDF graph -- and unlike Datasets in general. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:44:59 <yvesr> cygri: A question here would be around use-case
Richard Cyganiak: A question here would be around use-case ←
16:45:09 <yvesr> ... When would that be a problem?
... When would that be a problem? ←
16:45:30 <yvesr> sandro: The case is when you get data from a bunch of different JSON-LD sources and want to merge it
Sandro Hawke: The case is when you get data from a bunch of different JSON-LD sources and want to merge it ←
16:45:43 <yvesr> ... How do you know that the default graph is actually the contet
... How do you know that the default graph is actually the content ←
16:45:47 <yvesr> s/contet/content
16:45:49 <pchampin_> q+
16:45:58 <yvesr> AndyS: You could argue it's up to the application
Andy Seaborne: You could argue it's up to the application ←
16:46:00 <pfps> +1 to applications being in control
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to applications being in control ←
16:46:17 <yvesr> sandro: I guess my point is that iif it's up to the application, you could just use JSON
Sandro Hawke: I guess my point is that iif it's up to the application, you could just use JSON ←
16:46:19 <ivan> +1 to applications, too
Ivan Herman: +1 to applications, too ←
16:46:29 <pfps> Huh? JSON-LD isn't any different from Trig, so there shouldn't be anything more there.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Huh? JSON-LD isn't any different from Trig, so there shouldn't be anything more there. ←
16:46:30 <pchampin_> q-
16:46:32 <yvesr> AndyS: The application should be in control of which graph to merge and which graph not to merge
Andy Seaborne: The application should be in control of which graph to merge and which graph not to merge ←
16:46:38 <ivan> +1 to pfps
Ivan Herman: +1 to pfps ←
16:47:03 <yvesr> sandro: You need to be able to a data source using just the URI and know you're getting a graph from it
Sandro Hawke: You need to be able to a data source using just the URI and know you're getting a graph from it ←
16:47:08 <yvesr> ... You don't get that from JSON-LD
... You don't get that from JSON-LD ←
16:47:26 <yvesr> ... The intention is that if the provider wants to give you a graph, they can
... The intention is that if the provider wants to give you a graph, they can ←
16:47:31 <pfps> After all, I might use JSON-LD in a context where the unnamed graph doesn't have any special precedence.
Peter Patel-Schneider: After all, I might use JSON-LD in a context where the unnamed graph doesn't have any special precedence. ←
16:47:46 <yvesr> AndyS: We are talking in the absence of the key developers
Andy Seaborne: We are talking in the absence of the key developers ←
16:47:57 <pfps> However, there is something here. Suppose that you are looking for a graph, and you get a dataset. What do you do then?
Peter Patel-Schneider: However, there is something here. Suppose that you are looking for a graph, and you get a dataset. What do you do then? ←
16:48:02 <yvesr> sandro: I just wanted to point out they shouldn't wait on us to resolve that issue
Sandro Hawke: I just wanted to point out they shouldn't wait on us to resolve that issue ←
16:48:22 <pchampin_> :-D
Pierre-Antoine Champin: :-D ←
16:48:25 <pchampin_> q+
16:48:51 <markus> could we specify in JSON-LD that we treat the default graph in that specific way or would that be at odds with something?
Markus Lanthaler: could we specify in JSON-LD that we treat the default graph in that specific way or would that be at odds with something? ←
16:49:09 <markus> sandro: that might resolve the issue
Sandro Hawke: that might resolve the issue [ Scribe Assist by Markus Lanthaler ] ←
16:49:13 <sandro> sandro: I think it would solve the problem for JSON-LD to say: you can treat this is as graph source, if you want, and when you do, you get the default graph.
Sandro Hawke: I think it would solve the problem for JSON-LD to say: you can treat this is as graph source, if you want, and when you do, you get the default graph. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:49:23 <yvesr> cygri: What exactly is going on when you publish datasets on the web and how that compares with publishing graphs? It is a big issue, and should be high priority
Richard Cyganiak: What exactly is going on when you publish datasets on the web and how that compares with publishing graphs? It is a big issue, and should be high priority ←
16:49:35 <pchampin_> q-
16:50:11 <yvesr> davidwood: Let's move on to ISSUE-107 and ISSUE-109
David Wood: Let's move on to ISSUE-107 and ISSUE-109 ←
16:50:21 <yvesr> topic: RDF Concepts
16:50:33 <cygri> ISSUE-107?
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-107? ←
16:50:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-107 -- Definition of blank nodes (editorial-ish) -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-107 -- Definition of blank nodes (editorial-ish) -- open ←
16:50:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107 ←
16:50:38 <yvesr> davidwood: Let's look first at ISSUE-107
David Wood: Let's look first at ISSUE-107 ←
16:50:40 <davidwood> ISSUE-107 (Blank Nodes definition) has turned out to be more “interesting” than expected, so I propose to move it towards the end of the agenda as:
David Wood: ISSUE-107 (Blank Nodes definition) has turned out to be more “interesting” than expected, so I propose to move it towards the end of the agenda as: ←
16:50:40 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Change RDF Concepts section 3.4 and 3.5 with updated text proposed on http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/B-Scopes
PROPOSED: Change RDF Concepts section 3.4 and 3.5 with updated text proposed on http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/B-Scopes ←
16:51:10 <yvesr> cygri: Issue 107 started out as some editorial comments on how blank nodes are worded in the 2004 spec
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-107 started out as some editorial comments on how blank nodes are worded in the 2004 spec ←
16:51:19 <yvesr> ... It has grown a bit beyong an editorial issue
... It has grown a bit beyong an editorial issue ←
16:51:31 <yvesr> ... As we have come to terms with that issue around scopes of blank nodes
... As we have come to terms with that issue around scopes of blank nodes ←
16:51:40 <yvesr> ... It is not spelled out properly in the 2004 spec
... It is not spelled out properly in the 2004 spec ←
16:51:53 <yvesr> ... The b-scopes proposal is one attempt to make that notion of scope explicit
... The b-scopes proposal is one attempt to make that notion of scope explicit ←
16:52:07 <yvesr> ... It shouldn't change anything to any of the previous resolutions
... It shouldn't change anything to any of the previous resolutions ←
16:52:25 <yvesr> ... What it does is that it defines the term 'scope' that other specifications can use
... What it does is that it defines the term 'scope' that other specifications can use ←
16:52:43 <yvesr> ... When do blank nodes need to be relabeled?
... When do blank nodes need to be relabeled? ←
16:52:59 <yvesr> ... RDF documents (be a dataset or a graph) are their own scope
... RDF documents (be a dataset or a graph) are their own scope ←
16:53:05 <yvesr> ... Beyond that, it's up to the implementation
... Beyond that, it's up to the implementation ←
16:53:18 <yvesr> ... I am not sure we have consensus this is what we should do
... I am not sure we have consensus this is what we should do ←
16:53:36 <ericP> q+ to ask if the issue text is still the proposal
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask if the issue text is still the proposal ←
16:53:43 <davidwood> ack ericP
David Wood: ack ericP ←
16:53:43 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if the issue text is still the proposal
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask if the issue text is still the proposal ←
16:54:05 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/B-Scopes
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/B-Scopes ←
16:54:13 <yvesr> ericP: The text in the proposal - is that the final text? Or was it refined in the email chain?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: The text in the proposal - is that the final text? Or was it refined in the email chain? ←
16:54:28 <yvesr> cygri: Yes, it is - it's not what is in ISSUE-107 though
Richard Cyganiak: Yes, it is - it's not what is in ISSUE-107 though ←
16:54:57 <yvesr> ... But the discussion on ISSUE-107 led to that proposal
... But the discussion on ISSUE-107 led to that proposal ←
16:55:09 <yvesr> ... This proposal would close 107 as well
... This proposal would close 107 as well ←
16:55:29 <yvesr> ericP: I would suggest changing the first sentence - a blank node is a node without a label
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I would suggest changing the first sentence - a blank node is a node without a label ←
16:55:56 <yvesr> ... Sorry, was looking at the wrong text
... Sorry, was looking at the wrong text ←
16:56:01 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
16:56:34 <yvesr> davidwood: My understanding is that blank nodes never need to be relabelled
David Wood: My understanding is that blank nodes never need to be relabelled ←
16:56:45 <yvesr> ... Is that correct or has the discussion moved on?
... Is that correct or has the discussion moved on? ←
16:57:09 <yvesr> cygri: Blank nodes need to be relabeled when moving to a different scopes and the blank node identifier is already in use in the new scope
Richard Cyganiak: Blank nodes need to be relabeled when moving to a different scopes and the blank node identifier is already in use in the new scope ←
16:57:28 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
16:57:37 <yvesr> ... This should be addressed in the proposal
... This should be addressed in the proposal ←
16:58:02 <davidwood> ack AZ
David Wood: ack AZ ←
16:58:23 <yvesr> AZ: I think the notion of scope is not something that should be in the abstract syntax
Antoine Zimmermann: I think the notion of scope is not something that should be in the abstract syntax ←
16:58:32 <yvesr> ... It should be addressed in Concepts
... It should be addressed in Concepts ←
16:58:44 <yvesr> ... The notion of scope is inherent to the notion of blank nodes
... The notion of scope is inherent to the notion of blank nodes ←
16:58:50 <yvesr> ... They 'cary' their scope
... They 'cary' their scope ←
16:59:15 <yvesr> ... The blank nodes get a scope whenever they are put in a document
... The blank nodes get a scope whenever they are put in a document ←
16:59:35 <yvesr> ... You don't copy the abstract syntax - you copy documents
... You don't copy the abstract syntax - you copy documents ←
17:00:06 <yvesr> ... You can take the same bnode, put it in another document, it will be the same bnode but with a different scope
... You can take the same bnode, put it in another document, it will be the same bnode but with a different scope ←
17:00:17 <yvesr> cygri: I don't think that works
Richard Cyganiak: I don't think that works ←
17:00:41 <yvesr> ... For two reasons, 1) Yes it is correct scopes are important for documents but that's by far not the only place
... For two reasons, 1) Yes it is correct scopes are important for documents but that's by far not the only place ←
17:00:48 <yvesr> ... e.g. in the RDB2RDF working group
... e.g. in the RDB2RDF working group ←
17:00:59 <yvesr> ... One of the most difficult issue we had to solve was around blank nodes
... One of the most difficult issue we had to solve was around blank nodes ←
17:01:33 <yvesr> ... Implementations can define their own scope, and some do
... Implementations can define their own scope, and some do ←
17:01:53 <yvesr> ... I don't think it's possible to solve the issue by just considering documents
... I don't think it's possible to solve the issue by just considering documents ←
17:02:17 <yvesr> ... 2) Mathematical structures are not copied around, but blank nodes are copied around, which is addressed by this proposal
... 2) Mathematical structures are not copied around, but blank nodes are copied around, which is addressed by this proposal ←
17:02:50 <yvesr> AZ: I don't think you copy whatever is in the abstract syntax, you copy a representation of it
Antoine Zimmermann: I don't think you copy whatever is in the abstract syntax, you copy a representation of it ←
17:03:12 <yvesr> ... I meant documents in a very broad sense, which would include how RDF graphs are represented in memory for example
... I meant documents in a very broad sense, which would include how RDF graphs are represented in memory for example ←
17:03:35 <yvesr> cygri: The reason why we have the abstract structure is to specify this broad concept of documents
Richard Cyganiak: The reason why we have the abstract structure is to specify this broad concept of documents ←
17:03:40 <sandro> I wonder about the first sentence being more like "A blank node is an abstract syntax entity which corresponds one-to-one to pairs of blank node identifiers (which are Unicode strings) and scopes." Perhaps semantically that's slightly cleaner.
Sandro Hawke: I wonder about the first sentence being more like "A blank node is an abstract syntax entity which corresponds one-to-one to pairs of blank node identifiers (which are Unicode strings) and scopes." Perhaps semantically that's slightly cleaner. ←
17:03:46 <yvesr> ... What you're suggesting is to introduce a new layer
... What you're suggesting is to introduce a new layer ←
17:04:13 <yvesr> AZ: There is the abstract syntax, and all the concrete forms of represneting this abstract syntax, in-memory, serialisations, etc.
Antoine Zimmermann: There is the abstract syntax, and all the concrete forms of represneting this abstract syntax, in-memory, serialisations, etc. ←
17:04:35 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
17:04:47 <yvesr> cygri: The reason this abstract syntax exist is to identify a generic way to talk about RDF graphs, across all representations
Richard Cyganiak: The reason this abstract syntax exist is to identify a generic way to talk about RDF graphs, across all representations ←
17:04:55 <AndyS> sandro's approach is interesting
Andy Seaborne: sandro's approach is interesting ←
17:04:56 <yvesr> ... The notion of scope of blank nodes fits exactly into that
... The notion of scope of blank nodes fits exactly into that ←
17:05:12 <sandro> davidwood?
Sandro Hawke: davidwood? ←
17:05:12 <yvesr> ... That's exactly why we have it
... That's exactly why we have it ←
17:05:25 <yvesr> AZ: I don't think it should be attached to a bnode
Antoine Zimmermann: I don't think it should be attached to a bnode ←
17:05:39 <pchampin_> +1 cygri: as scope is a common feature of all concrete syntaxes, it has its place in the abstract syntax
Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 cygri: as scope is a common feature of all concrete syntaxes, it has its place in the abstract syntax ←
17:05:39 <davidwood> yeah - 1 min
David Wood: yeah - 1 min ←
17:05:43 <yvesr> ... If you put a bnode in a graph, which is represented somewhere, then the bnode really gains its scope
... If you put a bnode in a graph, which is represented somewhere, then the bnode really gains its scope ←
17:05:59 <sandro> also maybe s/scope/blank node scope/
Sandro Hawke: also maybe s/scope/blank node scope/ ←
17:06:05 <yvesr> ... When you're talking just about triples, then I don't see why there would be a scope
... When you're talking just about triples, then I don't see why there would be a scope ←
17:06:28 <yvesr> davidwood: I think you both laid out your positions, there is disagreement on this issue
David Wood: I think you both laid out your positions, there is disagreement on this issue ←
17:06:32 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
17:06:38 <yvesr> ... I would like to move the more detailed disccusion to the mailing list
... I would like to move the more detailed disccusion to the mailing list ←
17:07:01 <yvesr> sandro: I really like this approach in general - I just wonder a little bit about fresh blank nodes being defined
Sandro Hawke: I really like this approach in general - I just wonder a little bit about fresh blank nodes being defined ←
17:07:17 <yvesr> ... Maybe we can say something about a blank node being reused?
... Maybe we can say something about a blank node being reused? ←
17:07:28 <cygri> sandro, define "not used" :-)
Richard Cyganiak: sandro, define "not used" :-) ←
17:07:45 <yvesr> sandro: Maybe AZ can propose a change that would address that?
Sandro Hawke: Maybe AZ can propose a change that would address that? ←
17:08:05 <yvesr> sandro: A blank node is a pair of bnode identifier and scope
Sandro Hawke: A blank node is a pair of bnode identifier and scope ←
17:08:20 <yvesr> ... I think weneed to address this question around reuse of bnode identifiers
... I think weneed to address this question around reuse of bnode identifiers ←
17:08:57 <yvesr> cygri: I don't have a feeling of how much support this idea has
Richard Cyganiak: I don't have a feeling of how much support this idea has ←
17:09:00 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
17:09:03 <sandro> PROPOSED: We like http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/B-Scopes
PROPOSED: We like http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/User:Rcygania2/B-Scopes ←
17:09:06 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:09:09 <pchampin_> +1
17:09:16 <yvesr> ... Some indication of how much support it has would be helpful
... Some indication of how much support it has would be helpful ←
17:09:18 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:09:21 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
17:09:22 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
17:09:24 <AZ> -1
Antoine Zimmermann: -1 ←
17:09:27 <zwu2> +1
17:09:32 <yvesr> yvesr, +0.5
yvesr, +0.5 ←
17:09:33 <MacTed> +1 to the general idea. not sure whether it's better to introduce "scope" in context of "bnode" or vice versa ... or put them parallel
Ted Thibodeau: +1 to the general idea. not sure whether it's better to introduce "scope" in context of "bnode" or vice versa ... or put them parallel ←
17:09:47 <AndyS> 0
Andy Seaborne: 0 ←
17:09:56 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
17:10:24 <yvesr> AndyS: I have some issues with the text as well
Andy Seaborne: I have some issues with the text as well ←
17:10:43 <yvesr> ... It starts to talk about scopes of identifiers, then goes on to talk about scopes of blank nodes
... It starts to talk about scopes of identifiers, then goes on to talk about scopes of blank nodes ←
17:11:26 <yvesr> sandro: Could this be cleaned up with some tweaks?
Sandro Hawke: Could this be cleaned up with some tweaks? ←
17:11:33 <yvesr> AndyS: Yes, I think so
Andy Seaborne: Yes, I think so ←
17:11:56 <yvesr> ... But I am still a bit uneasy there is something deeper going on
... But I am still a bit uneasy there is something deeper going on ←
17:12:42 <yvesr> davidwood: Can you suggest changes to the text that address that issue around identifiers?
David Wood: Can you suggest changes to the text that address that issue around identifiers? ←
17:12:50 <yvesr> AndyS: No, because I think something deeper is going on
Andy Seaborne: No, because I think something deeper is going on ←
17:13:23 <sandro> has Pat weighed in on this, in email?
Sandro Hawke: has Pat weighed in on this, in email? ←
17:13:30 <yvesr> AndyS: A database is also a kind of document, it only matters when things go in and out of it
Andy Seaborne: A database is also a kind of document, it only matters when things go in and out of it ←
17:13:37 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
17:13:41 <davidwood> ack AndyS
David Wood: ack AndyS ←
17:14:00 <cygri> sandro, it's basically PatH's “surfaces” proposal, repackaged
Richard Cyganiak: sandro, it's basically PatH's “surfaces” proposal, repackaged ←
17:14:09 <yvesr> ... A way would be to make bnode have global scopes
... A way would be to make bnode have global scopes ←
17:14:11 <davidwood> sandro, yes, PatH has
David Wood: sandro, yes, PatH has ←
17:14:11 <sandro> but has he commented on this text?
Sandro Hawke: but has he commented on this text? ←
17:14:32 <yvesr> AndyS: I think we share similar concerns with AZ, maybe not to the same degree
Andy Seaborne: I think we share similar concerns with AZ, maybe not to the same degree ←
17:14:52 <yvesr> davidwood: We'll have to end it here
David Wood: We'll have to end it here ←
17:15:15 <yvesr> davidwood: AOB, and we'll adjourn
David Wood: AOB, and we'll adjourn ←
17:15:21 <ivan> zakim, drop me
Ivan Herman: zakim, drop me ←
17:15:21 <Zakim> Ivan is being disconnected
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan is being disconnected ←
17:15:22 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
17:15:24 <zwu2> bye & happy thanksgiving!
Zhe Wu: bye & happy thanksgiving! ←
17:15:28 <Zakim> -FabGandon
Zakim IRC Bot: -FabGandon ←
Formatted by CommonScribe