12:53:55 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 12:53:55 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/21-rdf-wg-irc 12:53:57 Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 12:54:37 zakim, this is RDF WG 12:54:37 sorry, manu1, I do not see a conference named 'RDF WG' in progress or scheduled at this time 12:55:08 zakim, room for 7? 12:55:09 ok, manu1; conference Team_(rdf-wg)12:55Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 60 minutes until 1355Z 12:55:37 zakim, code? 12:55:37 the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu1 12:55:47 rrsagent, make logs public 12:55:55 rrsagent, make minutes 12:55:55 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/21-rdf-wg-minutes.html manu1 12:56:17 SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg 12:56:33 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0500.html 12:56:53 Team_(rdf-wg)12:55Z has now started 12:57:00 +??P0 12:57:07 zakim, I am ??P0 12:57:07 +manu1; got it 12:57:17 Chair: Manu 12:57:19 Scribe: Manu 12:57:32 scribenick: manu1 12:57:39 +??P1 12:57:42 zakim, ??P1 is me 12:57:42 +AndyS; got it 13:00:43 + +1.617.489.aaaa 13:00:44 Present: AndyS, Manu, SteveH 13:00:53 Present: AndyS, Manu, SteveH, Sandro 13:01:04 zakim, 1.617.489.aaaa is Sandro 13:01:04 sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named '1.617.489.aaaa' 13:01:10 zakim, aaaa is Sandro 13:01:10 +Sandro; got it 13:01:15 rrsagent, make minutes 13:01:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/21-rdf-wg-minutes.html manu1 13:01:24 zakim, who is on the call? 13:01:24 On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, Sandro 13:01:37 tomayac_ has joined #rdf-wg 13:01:51 zakim, code? 13:01:51 the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), tomayac_ 13:02:18 danbri_ has joined #rdf-wg 13:02:25 +??P3 13:02:34 Zakim, ??P3 is me 13:02:34 +SteveH; got it 13:02:36 zakim, who is on the call? 13:02:36 On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, Sandro, SteveH 13:03:18 LeeF has joined #rdf-wg 13:03:21 LeeF_ has joined #rdf-wg 13:03:25 + +1.404.978.aabb 13:03:46 zakim, aabb is tomayac_ 13:03:46 +tomayac_; got it 13:04:30 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0500.html 13:05:24 Topic: Market Segments 13:05:33 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON_User_Segments 13:05:46 + +1.617.553.aacc 13:05:51 zakim, aacc is me 13:05:51 +LeeF; got it 13:06:44 looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON_User_Segments 13:07:11 Manu: Let's talk about what we'd like this stuff to do for the communities 13:07:24 Sandro: I was getting lost, so I put that JSON USer segments bit together 13:07:52 Sandro: It became more clear for me by thinking about what people would be willing to do by publishing their JSON 13:08:09 Sandro: There are discrete levels, but the idea of the spectrum is pretty clear (communities) 13:08:26 Sandro: as for the data consumers, I asked whether or not they want anything to do with RDF. 13:08:35 which level is "RDF publishers, willing to publish in JSON"? 7? 13:08:39 (have to change phones. will be right back. sorry) 13:08:54 Sandro: We need to ensure that we don't bug the people that are just using JSON today 13:09:10 Sandro: all the way up to Group C - who want to use a library/API 13:09:18 +??P9 13:09:20 LeeF: +1 -- I attempted to answer that in my weekend email. 13:09:21 q+ 13:09:25 zakim, ??P9 is me 13:09:25 +ivan; got it 13:09:40 Sandro: Is level 3, 4 and 5 in scope? Need to discuss that. 13:09:43 -tomayac_ 13:09:51 +tomayac_ 13:09:57 AndyS, will check your mail, thanks 13:09:59 Sandro: Don't need to decide the in-scope bit. 13:10:14 (and back) 13:10:26 AndyS: I found this diagram very helpful, no numbers in boxes, but it occured to me that there is a dual-diagram? 13:11:27 AndyS: There may be other ways of looking at this - existing JSON publishers into RDF - will people w/ RDF want to provide it in a convenient way to JSON-style applications. 13:11:33 AndyS's email++ 13:11:44 Sandro: yes, that makes sense... maybe we can add that to the diagram 13:12:46 Manu: What would you like to see happen in the next 2-3 years? 13:12:50 "really interesting" == bad working group topic? :) 13:13:02 +1 :) 13:13:04 Sandro: Hard to tell at this point, interested in the green box 13:13:22 webr3, press zero and ask the operator to add you. 13:13:23 zakim, code? 13:13:23 the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu1 13:14:09 AndyS: with the greenish box, any technical pubs need some degree of proof/evidence. I'd like to see the evidence that it addresses them. 13:14:19 +[IPcaller] 13:14:21 +1 Andy 13:14:22 AndyS: The thing about the green-ish box - technical publications need proof/evidence behind them, attempting to address particular classes - close but not right prevents anything else from happening in that space. 13:14:37 zakim, IPcaller is webr3 13:14:37 +webr3; got it 13:14:40 zakim, who is on the call? 13:14:40 On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, Sandro, SteveH, LeeF, ivan, tomayac_, webr3 13:14:43 Zakim, i am IPcaller 13:14:43 sorry, webr3, I do not see a party named 'IPcaller' 13:14:49 Zakim, i am [IPcaller]+ 13:14:49 sorry, webr3, I do not see a party named '[IPcaller]+' 13:15:12 AndyS: Of the three cases, I'm particularly motivated by presenting RDF web applications via JSON... 13:15:26 andy: I'm particular motivated by presenting RDF info through JSON to RDF webapps. 13:15:40 andy: ... but I'm not sure how important that is. 13:16:22 andy: ... RDF serialization may not be important. 13:16:44 AndyS: Turtle is closer to what I'd like... 13:16:56 AndyS: Talis' format has elements of both. 13:17:39 AndyS: That's talking about RDF serialization... but we may want to support on a lossy format? 13:18:06 AndyS: Exporting data from RDF to JSON, but taking data in published RDF and giving it to JSON applications. 13:18:14 Sandro: RDF through JSON? 13:18:25 AndyS: an output format, need not round trip, but easier to read in json. "rdf in json" maybe. "rdf export in json" apps not 1st class RDF apps. 13:18:31 AndyS: It doesn't make the JSON applications first class RDF applications. 13:18:46 AndyS: Data Access JSON? 13:19:39 Manu: What's the target market? 13:19:43 manu: Andy, which apps and communities? 13:19:51 AndyS: Government data - data from different sources and doing mash-ups 13:19:58 AndyS: eg uk govt data mashups 13:20:14 AndyS: Combining government reference data and mashing/correlating - govt spending with school results. 13:20:54 SteveH: I've got two agendas - we work internally w/ RDF, but provide an API to our business parters in XML/JSON 13:21:15 SteveH: It would be interesting to directly expose our RDF, but businesses are moving very slowly toward that. 13:21:22 SteveH: as a company that works exclusively in RDF, but provides APIs to our partners (json and xml), it would be nice to expose the RDF in a nice form to our partners 13:21:29 SteveH: Deep but growing concern that this is going to turn into RDF/XML again 13:21:50 SteveH: Doing something very slightly wrong could set back this area for quite some time. 13:21:54 ... plus I'm worried about repeating some of the mistakes of RDF/XML. Doing something very-slightly-wrong could set back the field for a long time. 13:22:15 SteveH: We're interested in supporting financial industry/credit agencies, etc. 13:22:34 SteveH: Not really a field where web services are common - technologically backwards industry. 13:22:55 zakim, list attendees 13:22:55 As of this point the attendees have been manu1, AndyS, +1.617.489.aaaa, Sandro, SteveH, +1.404.978.aabb, tomayac_, +1.617.553.aacc, LeeF, ivan, webr3 13:23:31 SteveH: JSON-LD at first glance looked applicable, but then it started to look like an eyesore. 13:24:04 SteveH: Annotations scattered through the data rendered it unreadable. 13:24:11 SteveH: In principle you think that you can do RDF/XML, but it doesn't work out that way. 13:24:16 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0475.html 13:24:25 LeeF: I outlined our interest in that e-mail 13:24:45 LeeF: We work in an RDF world, we work in RDF serializations - we work in triples 13:24:55 LeeF: We work in an RDF world, but when we serve up RDF data to web apps, we use a json serializaton. We have a mild interest in a std in this area. 13:25:24 Andy's attempt to do the dual to Sandro's User Segmentation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0501.html 13:25:37 LeeF: Having a standard in this area would be great - we could interoperate well... but not a priority for us... just one step along that path, we don't have a particular need or interest in the JSON developer friendly way of reading standard JSON - but not a focus for us. 13:26:27 LeeF: We are interested in JSON for RDF - we're going to apply libraries to it, and shouldn't care about the serialization standard. 13:26:50 LeeF: Enterprise web developers - large companies using APIs to read data from endpoints - energy, financial services. 13:27:04 -LeeF 13:27:33 Ivan: The motivation for the charter... there are a large group of WebApps devs that ignore RDF 13:27:48 Ivan: Even in cases where they'd be better off with RDF 13:28:17 Ivan: All the people working in the social web XGs, they have walled gardens, any application that tries to merge the data would be better off using RDF 13:28:44 Ivan: but the kind of feedback that we get, RDF is too complicated, it's messy, etc. - it doesn't work for Web Apps folks. They have a point. 13:29:06 Ivan: What one would hope is that by having some sort of JSON view of RDF data, that might be good enough for many developers to use Linked Open Data. 13:29:35 q+ to ask Ivan about round-tripping 13:29:36 Ivan: My feeling if I look at Sandro's matrix, for those people, the kind of JTriples approach (RDF/JSON) would not work for them. 13:29:42 ack me 13:30:02 +LeeF 13:30:03 Ivan: Not saying those serializations would not be useful, but it's the same issues that they've been complaining about. 13:30:23 ack SteveH 13:30:23 SteveH, you wanted to ask Ivan about round-tripping 13:30:43 SteveH: Given your use case, I would think that you'd want to produce and consume data in the JSON syntax. 13:30:56 SteveH: Are you thinking just consuming or producing and consuming? 13:31:08 Ivan: Round-tripping would be good, but for many apps, it's not the case. 13:31:28 q+ to ask if the original data is RDF or other format? 13:31:30 Ivan: You want to read and mash-up as a consumer... but no clear opinion on that 13:31:39 ack AndyS 13:31:39 AndyS, you wanted to ask if the original data is RDF or other format? 13:31:47 AndyS: Is this where the original data is in RDF? 13:31:57 Ivan: Not necessarily. 13:32:11 AndyS: Where does the RDF come in, then? 13:32:26 Ivan: Some of the data is in RDF, but some of it isn't, what happens if I want to combine it? 13:32:28 ack me 13:32:31 zakim, who is on the call? 13:32:31 On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, Sandro, SteveH, ivan, tomayac_, webr3, LeeF 13:33:05 Thomas: Looking at Sandro's matrix... our WG should focus on the right-ish, lower-ish 1/3rd to 1/2 of it 13:33:26 Ivan: desire is combining data from different sources (/me hope that's the right summary) 13:33:33 Thomas: Don't need the need or feasibility for Twitter to use what we suggest. Make one format to rule the world... don't think that this is what we should do. 13:33:53 s/is it/it is/ 13:34:05 Thomas: The really easy win woudl be to convince DBPedia, Freebase, etc to use one custom format. 13:34:35 Thomas: If you look at what we use today - they all use different publishing formats... the lower-right-ish corner of the matrix 13:34:53 Thomas: What would be interesting is providing RDF goggles, but don't entirely understand whether it would be generalizable. 13:35:26 Thomas: One-off for each and every data provider... don't know if it would be globally useful to have data goggles. Maybe provide a roadmap for data providers telling them how they could do this. 13:35:55 ( webr3, is "rdf goggles" the green box? ) 13:35:59 Thomas: People that are already committed in thinking about the triple way, use the JSON format to express that data - that's what I'd like... like the object-based approach, maps better to the way JSON people think. 13:36:32 Thomas: Not really worried about the billion triples stuff... no real need for JSON triples, they say use N-Triples, don't need yet another exchange format for simple triples.. 13:36:59 ( sandro, originally I was using the term to mean something more like JSON-Schema crossed with GRDDL for JSON, an external map which had rules to transform json objects in to rdf) 13:37:13 Thomas: If there is a need, we can come up with a format for simple triples in JSON - we need an object based approach, getting namespaces right, prefixes right... string literals vs. URIs, many details 13:37:29 Thomas: We need to get those details right, microsyntaxes, deeply nested objects, etc. 13:37:56 Thomas: Endless discussions sometimes, but hope it is worth is. 13:38:33 Thomas: Would like Drupal, Wordpress folks to adopt this stuff... a common serializatin format for their data... you can use atom, but would be nicer to use JSON as the API. 13:38:57 Thomas: Also see a need for a lightweight feed for shopping sites - lots of individual items that they need to publish somewhere. 13:39:29 Nathan: I work in a few different spaces, different viewpoints on these competing needs. 13:40:18 Nathan: For folks that are invested in RDF - I see a strong need in 6B (Sandro's graph) - SPARQL results being standardized - good to have a single syntax across the wire, between SPARQL, between RDF systems, JSON incredibly easy and fast to parse. 13:40:38 Nathan: Node.js doesn't have nice XML support - custom parsers for TURTLE, speed is noticable... JSON is fast. 13:40:57 Nathan: The other side is working w/ lots of developers - enterprise to open source 13:41:35 Nathan: Explaining RDF to many of them - takeaway is that they like the follow-your-nose side of things, like shared schema, crawling 13:41:56 Nathan: Key-value stores and JSON stores - NoSQL movement at the backend - working w/ raw objects all the time 13:42:08 webr3: people like RDF, but really just fall back to the bits they like: (1) follow your nose, (2) shared schema, (3) kv stores / nosql 13:42:21 q+ 13:42:25 Nathan: Then they see the serializations, and then they giv eup on it - need a constrained RDF, simple datatypes - adding in date and adding in URI 13:42:57 Nathan: Those are the needs that I see - 6b and level 3, 4, and 5 groups - as long as we do one of them, I'd be happy, I'd like to do both 13:43:30 q+ too 13:43:34 ack ivan 13:43:36 Ivan: I think it's perfectly fine for many of those apps - whatever serialization we do, it is lossy - so lossy serializations would be fine for many of these groups. 13:43:38 ack too 13:44:08 Nathan: Where most of these people are not using RDF stores or triple stores - many are heavily invested in NoSQL stores, column databases, etc. 13:44:30 Nathan: They're moving away from RDBMS to object stores - data is not in RDF - but they would like to provide it as RDF. 13:44:48 Nathan: They can understand/import other peoples data... 13:44:59 +1 for keeping in mind the nosql community and the way these people think! 13:45:15 q+ with comment on RT-ing 13:45:20 Nathan: The whole round-trippable side of things I don't see as important - you can pull in some objects, you can produce some objects, but doesn't have to be RDF. 13:45:21 q+ to comment on RT-ing 13:45:27 zakim, who is on the call? 13:45:27 On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, Sandro, SteveH, ivan, tomayac_, webr3, LeeF 13:45:55 Sandro: See an argument that we don't see round-tripping, leaving out expressibilility - whatever we leave out, someone will need it 13:46:43 AndyS: It seems like it's not a technical issue - right? 13:46:56 agree w/ sandro, re blank nodes, it'd be simple to just leave out blank node identifiers and keep blank nodes (anonymous nested objects) 13:47:12 AndyS: If they saw a restricted mechainsm, they may have a different reaction. This may be why TURTLE is liked over RDF/XML. 13:47:25 Sandro: The problem here is one of hit with the firehose when they wanted a glass of water. 13:47:35 q+ 13:47:36 Sandro: Google RDF - you're not going to get anything useful 13:47:38 q- 13:48:15 Thomas: One of the things we should do is read through the direction on json.org and make sure to understand where the serialization comes from 13:48:32 Thomas: We need to think the JavaScript way - weak typing, etc. 13:48:51 Thomas: You can do strong typing, but you should enforce it. 13:49:45 s/should/shouldn't 13:51:30 i meant 2.0 and 2 dont make a diff, not "2" and 2. 13:53:17 as in "this slap in your face hurts me more than you" ;-) 13:55:02 This conference is in overtime; 4 ports must be freed 13:55:15 manu: read write data also very important moving forwards 13:55:26 q+ 13:56:32 I hear manu aiming at Level 4. 13:56:32 q+ 13:56:44 ack tomayac_ 13:56:53 Sandro: I think you're characterising level 4 13:59:41 Manu: If you can't follow-your-nose, you can get a default context from another website. 13:59:46 ack sandro 14:00:09 AndyS: GRDDL hasn't taken off, we need to reflect on why 14:00:33 SteveH: So, I'm skeptical that you can take something like any RDF and serialize it into JSON-LD that anyone would want to consume. 14:00:38 SteveH: I'm skeptical that you can serialize typical RDF into JSON-LD that anyone would want to consume. 14:00:49 SteveH: Serializing into TURTLE is pretty hard - into JSON would be really, really challenging 14:00:51 q+ 14:01:02 +1 skeptical 14:01:16 SteveH: The risk is that we create a serialization that's theoretically possible, but it may be too ugly to use. 14:01:42 Nathan: I think we need two serializations - take RDF as JSON, and another constrained one for bigger folks like Facebook, Twitter. 14:02:12 Nathan: merging the two might be doing RDF/XML all over again. 14:02:24 ack webr3 14:02:37 zakim, drop me 14:02:37 ivan is being disconnected 14:02:38 -ivan 14:02:38 -Sandro 14:02:51 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:02:51 On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, SteveH, tomayac_, webr3, LeeF 14:03:23 AndyS: I'm not worried about entire RDF serialization into JSON 14:03:36 AndyS: if you're going to do that, parse N-Triples 14:03:58 AndyS: I don't think it would do any harm to translate RDF into JSON completely 14:04:40 +1 to AndyS, I've heard the "that's fine but X is not good for us" argument hundreds of times 14:05:27 +1 to AndyS, of course 14:06:19 AndyS: The lossy RDF serialization - you have RDF and you want to give it to JSON apps 14:06:37 AndyS: Lossy translation of RDF down to JSON - you have RDF and you want to publish JSON 14:06:41 +1, but worry about putting names of companies on use cases, I know many many developers who would use objects+uri-ids+shared-properties 14:07:43 AndyS: When you try to convert data that is not RDF - it's difficult to do the detailed capture of meaning, we're going back to the knowledge acquisition task - difficult to do. 14:09:02 AndyS: The safest course would be to translate RDF to JSON in an easy way - JTriples, RDF/JSON 14:09:24 AndyS: JSON-LD is unproven territory, this WG on it's fast track is not the best place for it to happen. 14:09:45 Topic: Documents 14:10:02 SteveH: We're safe with SPARQL result set... anything else would be dangerous. 14:10:14 LeeF: I agree w/ Andy and Steve 14:10:18 not just SRJ, but any 3-column serialisation 14:10:58 Nathan: I have a split opinion, I agree with everyone - SPARQL result set is good - but we also need a way to do Objects w/ URI IDs - JSON-LD / JSN3 is overkill - maybe simplify them 14:11:13 Thomas: Pass... not knowledgeable enough on SPARQL. 14:11:48 q+ to ask manu a q quickly 14:12:31 ack SteveH 14:13:04 Nathan: Quick question... it seems like w/ JSON-LD - you would like it to cover every use case - very simple to very complex. 14:13:15 Nathan: Why do you want everything in the one serialization. 14:14:36 Linked Data API is an example of lossy RDF->JSON (the mapping is domain specific) 14:16:05 AndyS, JSN3 is like that, JSON-LD isn't 14:17:09 (brb) 14:17:13 ack webr3 14:17:15 ack webr 14:17:15 webr, you wanted to ask manu a q quickly 14:18:18 Nathan: JSN3 is setup in the Talis N3-way 14:18:26 Nathan: JSON-LD is different from JSN3 14:19:14 Nathan: There were three options - triples in JSON, TURLE-like view, objects in JSON 14:19:30 (back) 14:19:53 Nathan: triples in JSON -> RDF/JSON, TURTLE-like view -> JSN3, objects in JSON -> JSON-LD 14:20:21 AndyS: The SPARQL result JSON format is almost like a CSV file - it also inherits design criteria from the XML results format. 14:20:26 Nathan: JSON-LD currently like/covers all three (triples,turtles,objects) 14:20:33 +1 to AndyS on SPARQL JSON being ugly 14:20:37 AndyS: A solution to a problem at the time - it has taken off despite its history. 14:21:19 -SteveH 14:22:04 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:22:04 On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, tomayac_, webr3, LeeF 14:22:22 Thomas: Did we consider getting someone from the JavaScript community as an Invited expert? 14:22:30 SteveH has joined #rdf-wg 14:26:17 "give them something to hate" :D 14:29:45 -webr3 14:30:23 is someone going to www in india? 14:30:50 -manu1 14:30:52 -tomayac_ 14:30:52 -AndyS 14:30:58 ADJOURNED 14:31:07 -LeeF 14:31:08 Team_(rdf-wg)12:55Z has ended 14:31:11 Attendees were manu1, AndyS, +1.617.489.aaaa, Sandro, SteveH, +1.404.978.aabb, tomayac_, +1.617.553.aacc, LeeF, ivan, webr3 14:31:12 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:31:12 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/21-rdf-wg-minutes.html manu1 15:35:42 zakim, bye 15:35:42 Zakim has left #rdf-wg 15:35:46 rrsagent, bye 15:35:46 I see no action items