IRC log of rdf-wg on 2011-05-11
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:21:13 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:21:13 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/11-rdf-wg-irc
- 14:21:15 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 14:21:15 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:21:17 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be 73394
- 14:21:17 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 39 minutes
- 14:21:18 [trackbot]
- Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
- 14:21:18 [trackbot]
- Date: 11 May 2011
- 14:21:28 [ivan]
- Chair: Guus
- 14:34:49 [Guus]
- Guus has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:38:06 [cygri]
- cygri has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:38:41 [cygri]
- cygri has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:48:11 [OlivierCorby]
- OlivierCorby has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:48:19 [Guus]
- Ricahrd: I will ask you to introduce briefly the ISUUE-40 status discussion, based on the text at the wiki page. OK?
- 14:49:46 [AZ]
- AZ has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:51:22 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
- 14:51:29 [Zakim]
- +Bert
- 14:51:38 [FabGandon]
- FabGandon has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:52:41 [Zakim]
- +wcandillon
- 14:53:11 [AZ]
- zakim, I'm wcandillon
- 14:53:11 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'I'm wcandillon', AZ
- 14:53:34 [Guus]
- zakim, whio is here?
- 14:53:34 [Zakim]
- sorry, Guus, I do not understand your question
- 14:53:40 [FabGandon]
- Zakim, who's on the phone
- 14:53:40 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who's on the phone', FabGandon
- 14:53:47 [Guus]
- zakim, who is here?
- 14:53:47 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Bert, wcandillon
- 14:53:54 [danbri]
- danbri has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:54:09 [FabGandon]
- Zakim, Bert is me
- 14:54:09 [Zakim]
- +FabGandon; got it
- 14:54:11 [AZ]
- zakim, wcandillon is me
- 14:54:11 [Zakim]
- +AZ; got it
- 14:54:57 [FabGandon]
- Zakim, mute AZ
- 14:54:57 [Zakim]
- AZ should now be muted
- 14:55:54 [ivan]
- zakim, dial ivan-voip
- 14:55:54 [Zakim]
- ok, ivan; the call is being made
- 14:55:55 [Zakim]
- +Ivan
- 14:55:58 [Zakim]
- +Guus_Schreiber
- 14:56:09 [AndyS]
- AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:56:39 [gavinc]
- gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:56:59 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 14:57:06 [AndyS]
- zakim, ??P6 is me
- 14:57:06 [Zakim]
- +AndyS; got it
- 14:57:16 [ivan]
- zakim, who is noisy?
- 14:57:27 [Zakim]
- ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus_Schreiber (13%), AndyS (19%)
- 14:57:29 [Zakim]
- +gavinc
- 14:58:13 [Zakim]
- +FabGandon.a
- 14:58:17 [Guus]
- zakim, who is here?
- 14:58:17 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see FabGandon, AZ (muted), Guus_Schreiber, Ivan, AndyS, gavinc, FabGandon.a
- 14:58:31 [SteveH_]
- SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:58:55 [FabGandon]
- Zakim, FabGandon.ais OlivierCorby
- 14:58:55 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'FabGandon.ais OlivierCorby', FabGandon
- 14:58:59 [mbrunati]
- mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:59:09 [FabGandon]
- Zakim, FabGandon.a is OlivierCorby
- 14:59:09 [Zakim]
- +OlivierCorby; got it
- 14:59:16 [mischat_]
- mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:59:21 [Zakim]
- +??P9
- 14:59:27 [LeeF]
- zakim, ??P9 is me
- 14:59:27 [Zakim]
- +LeeF; got it
- 14:59:55 [LeeF]
- scribenick: LeeF
- 15:00:00 [Zakim]
- +??P10
- 15:00:19 [mbrunati]
- zakim, ??P10 is me
- 15:00:19 [Zakim]
- +mbrunati; got it
- 15:00:26 [Zakim]
- +Peter_Patel-Schneider
- 15:00:31 [PatHayes]
- PatHayes has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:00:33 [pfps]
- pfps has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:01:19 [LeeF]
- Regrets: Scott_Bauer, Zhe_Wu, William_waites, Sandro
- 15:01:27 [LeeF]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.11
- 15:01:49 [AlexHall]
- AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:01:57 [Zakim]
- +AlexHall
- 15:02:29 [Zakim]
- +EricP
- 15:02:45 [Zakim]
- + +44.208.439.aaaa
- 15:03:37 [Zakim]
- +Souri
- 15:03:38 [mischat]
- s/are/our/
- 15:03:42 [AxelPolleres]
- AxelPolleres has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:03:45 [Zakim]
- +PatH
- 15:04:01 [Zakim]
- +AxelPolleres
- 15:04:10 [LeeF]
- topic: Admin
- 15:04:12 [Souri]
- Souri has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:04:29 [LeeF]
- Guus: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 04 May telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-04
- 15:04:38 [LeeF]
- RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of the 04 May telecon http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-04
- 15:04:46 [LeeF]
- subtopic: action items
- 15:04:56 [LeeF]
- Guus: F2F poll has been setup
- 15:05:04 [PatHayes]
- I still have an action item, I think, but I can't find the details of what exactly it is.
- 15:05:16 [ericP]
- ericP has changed the topic to: RDF-WG site meeting - Code: 26631, Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.11
- 15:05:17 [LeeF]
- close ACTION-41
- 15:05:18 [trackbot]
- ACTION-41 Set up poll about which site you'd use if we have a video link, pref murray hill vs cambridge/mit, and oct 4-5 vs oct-12-13. closed
- 15:05:20 [cygri_]
- cygri_ has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:05:25 [ericP]
- ericP has changed the topic to: RDF-WG weekly meeting - Code: 26631, Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.11
- 15:05:43 [LeeF]
- Guus: Open action on cygri re: ISSUE-15 options
- 15:05:50 [LeeF]
- ... stays pending
- 15:06:22 [SteveH]
- Zakim, aaaa is [Garlik]
- 15:06:22 [Zakim]
- +[Garlik]; got it
- 15:06:32 [SteveH]
- Zakim, [Garlik] has SteveH and mischat
- 15:06:32 [Zakim]
- +SteveH, mischat; got it
- 15:06:40 [LeeF]
- ACTION-21?
- 15:06:40 [trackbot]
- ACTION-21 -- Manu Sporny to create a doodle poll to find a time to have a call about RDF in JSON -- due 2011-03-23 -- CLOSED
- 15:06:40 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/21
- 15:06:45 [LeeF]
- ACTION-26?
- 15:06:46 [trackbot]
- ACTION-26 -- Patrick Hayes to write an description of action-21 -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN
- 15:06:46 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/26
- 15:06:47 [Zakim]
- +mhausenblas
- 15:06:58 [LeeF]
- ACTION-26: actually about ISSUE-21, not ACTION-21
- 15:06:59 [cygri_]
- zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
- 15:06:59 [Zakim]
- +cygri_; got it
- 15:07:00 [trackbot]
- ACTION-26 Write an description of action-21 notes added
- 15:07:31 [LeeF]
- Guus: action on danbri continues until August
- 15:07:48 [LeeF]
- Guus: 3 actions regarding tools for spec authoring
- 15:08:04 [LeeF]
- gavinc: looked at it but haven't yet written it up
- 15:08:35 [PatHayes]
- Pat is puzzled. There does not appear to be an issue-21 listed.
- 15:08:57 [sandro]
- issue-21?
- 15:08:57 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-21 -- Can Node-IDs be shared between parts of a quad/multigraph format? -- open
- 15:08:57 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/21
- 15:09:02 [LeeF]
- subtopic: October F2F2
- 15:09:10 [LeeF]
- Guus: there's a new poll at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/F2F2-EAST/
- 15:09:19 [LeeF]
- ... right now we've gotten 14 answers and there's a preference for the MIT location
- 15:09:36 [LeeF]
- ... and a slight preference for 12-13 Oct
- 15:10:11 [mischat]
- I can make UK remote thing ... is what I tried to convey in the poll
- 15:10:34 [LeeF]
- Guus: we'll handle venues for F2F3 after deciding on F2F2
- 15:11:06 [LeeF]
- Guus: hope to make a decision on which tool to use for spec authoring next week
- 15:11:34 [LeeF]
- ACTION: Guus to look at spec authoring tools
- 15:11:34 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-46 - Look at spec authoring tools [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-05-18].
- 15:11:59 [LeeF]
- topic: ISSUE-12: Reconcile various forms of string literals
- 15:12:21 [AZ]
- zakim, unmute me
- 15:12:21 [Zakim]
- AZ should no longer be muted
- 15:12:22 [LeeF]
- See http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12 and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0050.html
- 15:12:38 [LeeF]
- Guus: status?
- 15:12:47 [mischat]
- zakim, who is making noise ?
- 15:12:57 [Zakim]
- mischat, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AZ (70%), Guus_Schreiber (35%)
- 15:13:00 [danbri]
- danbri has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:13:36 [LeeF]
- AZ: Not very concerned about the decision, but reacted based on original decision that made the xsd:string URI archaic
- 15:14:22 [LeeF]
- AZ: Don't mind any kind of change to that proposal as long as it doesn't change the semantics of literals and not making xsd:string archaic because we still want to use xsd:string's in range restrictions of properties (e.g.)
- 15:14:31 [LeeF]
- q+ to point at Alex's comment
- 15:15:05 [Zakim]
- +OpenLink_Software
- 15:15:08 [gavinc]
- LeeF: Want to point at specific email from Allen.
- 15:15:21 [MacTed]
- Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
- 15:15:21 [Zakim]
- +MacTed; got it
- 15:15:23 [MacTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 15:15:23 [Zakim]
- MacTed should now be muted
- 15:15:29 [AndyS]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0090.html
- 15:15:34 [Zakim]
- + +31.20.598.aabb
- 15:15:41 [AlexHall]
- s/Allen/Alex
- 15:15:41 [gavinc]
- s/Allen/Alex
- 15:15:44 [LeeF]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0090.html
- 15:16:35 [LeeF]
- AlexHall: basic thoughts are that as long as plain literal strings and xsd:string's are syntactically distinct, the software stack needs to be able to treat them as such
- 15:16:43 [LeeF]
- ... not a good idea to tell systems to silently convert from one to the other
- 15:17:05 [LeeF]
- ... we recognize they're semantically equivalent... a lot of discussion around SPARQL which is a syntactic query
- 15:17:20 [LeeF]
- ... discussion around whether it's the job of the RDF WG to address this issue, or for SPARQL WG
- 15:17:25 [LeeF]
- q-
- 15:17:33 [gavinc]
- +q RDF Interfaces
- 15:17:33 [ericP]
- q+ to say there's a value to having the semantic equivalence apparent in the graph
- 15:17:37 [LeeF]
- AlexHall: is the issue specific to SPARQL or wider than that?
- 15:17:40 [SteveH]
- 1 and "1"^^xsd:integer are syntactically different, but one gets transformed to the other, I don't see the difference, except that historically "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string were different, for crazy historical reasons
- 15:17:43 [gavinc]
- -q RDF, Interfaces
- 15:17:48 [PatHayes]
- q+
- 15:17:52 [gavinc]
- +q to talk about RDF Interfaces
- 15:17:57 [LeeF]
- LeeF: SteveH++
- 15:18:12 [ivan]
- ack ericP
- 15:18:12 [Zakim]
- ericP, you wanted to say there's a value to having the semantic equivalence apparent in the graph
- 15:18:15 [LeeF]
- ericP: there's a fair value to having semantic equivalence apparent in the graph, and not just because of SPARQL
- 15:18:31 [Zakim]
- +NickH
- 15:18:41 [AlexHall]
- note, when i say "syntactic" i'm referring to the abstract syntax in RDF Concepts
- 15:18:54 [Guus]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:18:54 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see FabGandon, AZ, Guus_Schreiber, Ivan, AndyS, gavinc, OlivierCorby, LeeF, mbrunati, Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, EricP, [Garlik], Souri, PatH, AxelPolleres,
- 15:18:57 [Zakim]
- ... cygri_, MacTed (muted), danbri, NickH
- 15:18:58 [LeeF]
- ericP: are there use cases that make us want to have both xsd:string and the plain literal in the same graph
- 15:18:59 [Zakim]
- [Garlik] has SteveH, mischat
- 15:19:01 [ivan]
- language tag
- 15:19:05 [LeeF]
- s/graph/graph?
- 15:19:21 [LeeF]
- ericP: if not, then the advice not to use one or the other is advice to parser specification authors
- 15:19:46 [LeeF]
- q?
- 15:20:01 [LeeF]
- PatHayes: Agree with ?Lee? that silent rewriting is a bad idea
- 15:20:15 [LeeF]
- ... I'd like to hear what Peter has to say about this issue
- 15:20:26 [LeeF]
- ... have a recollection that there was a strong case made to remove untyped literals of any kind
- 15:20:43 [LeeF]
- ... but pressure came from higher layers of the layer cake which motivated rdf:PlainLiteral
- 15:20:46 [ericP]
- why is silent rewriting bad? (or worse than having divergence of these representations?)
- 15:20:53 [LeeF]
- ... i'm puzzled as to why we're going in the other direction
- 15:21:08 [LeeF]
- ... this WG should seriously consider the arguments made previously that untyped literals should be deprecated
- 15:21:28 [LeeF]
- ... we do need to pay attention to the rdf:PlainLiteral typing idea
- 15:21:28 [ivan]
- +1 to Pat on rdf:PlainLiteral
- 15:21:30 [ericP]
- i thing that saying "use plain literals, but consider its type to be xsd:string" makes most folks happy
- 15:21:46 [AndyS]
- +1 to ericP - I'd like to understand what problems it causes
- 15:21:54 [LeeF]
- pfps: the problem with plain literals is they don't have a datatype and so it's hard to say that a property is restricted to plain literals
- 15:21:59 [ivan]
- andy, eric: language tag!
- 15:22:02 [AndyS]
- (the silent rewriting)
- 15:22:11 [ivan]
- q+
- 15:22:17 [ivan]
- ack PatHayes
- 15:22:19 [gavinc]
- I thought they DO have a datatype?
- 15:22:21 [gavinc]
- rdf:PlainLiteral?
- 15:22:28 [gavinc]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/#Definition_of_the_rdf:PlainLiteral_Datatype
- 15:22:29 [LeeF]
- pfps: recommendation in new OWL documents is that OWL processors should silently do the conversion
- 15:22:51 [PatHayes]
- Silent rewriting is bad because I certainly dont want ANYONE rewriting my RDF. My reasons for making it the way I make it might be private, but I dont want some other system second-guessing me.
- 15:22:54 [LeeF]
- ... of course in OWL everything is semantic, so it's not like it's changing anything as far as OWL is concerned
- 15:23:04 [ericP]
- ivan, can you describe a use case which reveals the language tag problem inherent in andy and my proposal?
- 15:23:19 [LeeF]
- pfps: recommendation was to use "foo" by itself over the wire, but internally consider it to be typed with rdf:PlainLiteral
- 15:23:19 [AndyS]
- I prefer lang tag and lang tagless behave similarly - more than xsd:string and untyped lang literals
- 15:23:47 [ivan]
- Eric, I want my name to properly written and flagged as Hungarian in a foaf file, and I cannot do that in xsd:string
- 15:24:23 [LeeF]
- pfps: for OWL, "foo"^^rdf:PlainLiteral is the same as "foo"^^xsd:string
- 15:24:26 [LeeF]
- ivan: what about language tags?
- 15:24:30 [LeeF]
- pfps: no language tags here
- 15:24:32 [ericP]
- +1 to pfps's proposal
- 15:24:43 [PatHayes]
- Note, owl:sameAs, not 'same as'
- 15:24:54 [LeeF]
- gavinc: this comes up not just in parsing syntax, but in the recently published RDF interface working draft
- 15:25:18 [LeeF]
- ... when trying to implement it, you run into this problem, in that you have an expectation from programmers that native language strings get converted into _something_
- 15:25:30 [LeeF]
- ... it's very strange to try to figure out whether that should be xsd:string or rdf:PlainLiteral
- 15:25:40 [LeeF]
- ... no consensus in the APIs as to which one it actually does
- 15:25:44 [ivan]
- q+
- 15:25:48 [LeeF]
- ack gavinc
- 15:25:48 [Zakim]
- gavinc, you wanted to talk about RDF Interfaces
- 15:25:51 [ivan]
- ack gavinc
- 15:26:00 [LeeF]
- gavinc: the current RDF interfaces WD points out that the RDF WG is working on this
- 15:26:05 [LeeF]
- ... so we need some sort of conclusion
- 15:26:21 [LeeF]
- ack ivan
- 15:26:46 [LeeF]
- ivan: the discussion around the interface is on the fact that at the moment, the RDF Concepts defines equality of 2 literals purely on lexical level
- 15:26:56 [AZ]
- AZ has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:27:06 [LeeF]
- ... so strings of unicode characters must be equal, plus datatypes equal, plus languages (if present) equal
- 15:27:10 [LeeF]
- ... no notion of conversion to any kind of value
- 15:27:15 [PatHayes]
- q+
- 15:27:15 [LeeF]
- ... so not sure if relevant at this point
- 15:27:46 [LeeF]
- ... long discussion on interface document, because for programmers it's not intuitive that when you have two strings that both stand for a number which has equal (mathetmatical) value, the two literals are still different
- 15:27:56 [gavinc]
- Yes, "example" != "example"^^xsd:string
- 15:28:38 [AZ]
- RDF semantics say they are equivalent with XSD entailmùent
- 15:28:40 [PatHayes]
- That is *syntactic* equality. But they denote the same value. No contradiction.
- 15:28:43 [ericP]
- not a prob if "example"^^xsd:string is silently converted to "example"
- 15:28:45 [LeeF]
- Guus: pfps said at face to face that they are the same
- 15:28:52 [gavinc]
- But Literal("example").valueOf == Literal("example"^^xsd:string).valueOf
- 15:28:54 [LeeF]
- pfps: the issue is which level of entailment you want to live at
- 15:29:10 [LeeF]
- ivan: at core level there is no entailment, like in SPARQL
- 15:29:18 [LeeF]
- ericP: which is why SPARQL is the avatar for these problems
- 15:29:47 [LeeF]
- gavinc: when you use this in the interface, as soon as you use .valueOf() or use the API, they are _sometimes_ equal... which is strange!
- 15:30:01 [AndyS]
- SPARQL does not require all entailment : def for minimum.
- 15:30:03 [LeeF]
- ivan: true, but i'm sticking to the concepts there
- 15:30:33 [LeeF]
- Guus: seems clear we need to give more guidance, and we need a resolution that gives more guidance
- 15:30:41 [LeeF]
- ... marking as archaic doesn't seem to have concensus
- 15:30:46 [LeeF]
- PatHayes: i don't think there's a bug to repair here
- 15:30:54 [LeeF]
- ... we're just using the phrase "same as" in two different sense.
- 15:30:59 [LeeF]
- ... in concepts we're talking about syntax
- 15:31:22 [ivan]
- q+
- 15:31:24 [LeeF]
- q+ to ask Steve to verbally mention his 1 vs. "1"^^xsd:integer analogy
- 15:31:26 [ivan]
- ack PatHayes
- 15:31:34 [LeeF]
- Guus: people using this have trouble with the subtle difference
- 15:31:37 [LeeF]
- PatHayes: not very subtle
- 15:31:39 [LeeF]
- ack ivan
- 15:31:45 [gavinc]
- +q to sort of agree with PatHayes
- 15:31:47 [ericP]
- q+ to argue owl:sameAs will lead to cardinality challenges in SPARQL or rules with fresh variables in the head
- 15:32:08 [LeeF]
- ivan: the various tools around don't touch any sort of entailment by default, so that's what happens in SPARQL and RDF Interface
- 15:32:12 [LeeF]
- ... the bible stops at Concepts
- 15:32:18 [AlexHall]
- I think most people consider XSD-entailment too high a bar just to get string equivalence
- 15:32:24 [LeeF]
- ... anything about data type entailment is hidden in the cloud of the semantics document; it's rarely implemented
- 15:32:27 [cygri]
- +1 AlexHall
- 15:32:38 [tomayac]
- tomayac has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:32:41 [LeeF]
- ... is this a problem in the document?
- 15:32:44 [SteveH]
- +1 to AlexHall
- 15:32:49 [Guus]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:32:49 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see FabGandon, AZ, Guus_Schreiber, Ivan, AndyS, gavinc, OlivierCorby, LeeF, mbrunati, Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, EricP, [Garlik], Souri, PatH, AxelPolleres,
- 15:32:52 [Zakim]
- ... cygri_, MacTed (muted), danbri, NickH
- 15:32:53 [Zakim]
- [Garlik] has SteveH, mischat
- 15:33:02 [AndyS]
- D-entailment pulls in RDF and RDFS entailment - can we extract just "same value"?
- 15:33:03 [LeeF]
- PatHayes: is the problem that RDF is being used in a way that completely ignores its semantics?
- 15:33:09 [Souri]
- In practice, it is much easier to assume the kind of entailment that says "0010"^^xsd:integer = "10"^^xsd:integer ! Same could be true for "abc" and "abc"^^xsd:string!
- 15:33:24 [Zakim]
- +tomayac
- 15:33:33 [LeeF]
- PatHayes: is this just a problem of exposition?
- 15:33:37 [LeeF]
- Guus: essentially yes
- 15:33:53 [LeeF]
- ... we need to make very clear to the outside community that they should use the syntax in such a way that it doesn't give rise to the confusions that definitely exist
- 15:34:11 [Guus]
- q?
- 15:34:11 [LeeF]
- PatHayes: what confusions exist? we have 3 syntactic forms that are semantically equivalent. why don't we just say that that's what it is?
- 15:34:16 [LeeF]
- PatHayes: what is wanted?
- 15:34:17 [ericP]
- i think they want something *less*
- 15:34:20 [cygri]
- q+
- 15:35:30 [ivan]
- ack LeeF
- 15:35:30 [Zakim]
- LeeF, you wanted to ask Steve to verbally mention his 1 vs. "1"^^xsd:integer analogy
- 15:36:02 [AndyS]
- q+ to talk about language tags
- 15:36:10 [SteveH]
- +1 to LeeF
- 15:36:12 [ericP]
- +1
- 15:36:23 [ericP]
- (i think andyS is on board as well)
- 15:36:37 [LeeF]
- LeeF: we already have a precedent of different surface syntax mapping to the same abstract syntax with 1 and "1"^^xsd:integer
- 15:36:52 [ivan]
- q+
- 15:36:58 [LeeF]
- LeeF: why not do that with literals as well, so that both "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string parse to the same abstract syntax term (such as "foo"^^xsd:string)
- 15:36:58 [AndyS]
- (nearly - seems to get strange for langs)
- 15:37:11 [LeeF]
- AndyS, I agree that langs makes it a little weird
- 15:37:27 [LeeF]
- gavinc: there is an issue where rdf term equality is defined in the Concepts document, that never gives a hint about semantic equivalence
- 15:37:28 [SteveH]
- I disagree, lang tags just means you have to do ""^^xsd:string -> ""
- 15:37:30 [AZ]
- +1, I think most people want XSD entailment
- 15:37:31 [LeeF]
- ack gavinc
- 15:37:31 [Zakim]
- gavinc, you wanted to sort of agree with PatHayes
- 15:37:43 [PatHayes]
- OK, how about this resolution. We take the rdf:PlainLiteral idea seriously, and (since we can change RDF) we say that engines SHOULD silently convert plain literals to typed literals with an explicit, syntactic type of rdf:plainLiteral.
- 15:38:07 [AZ]
- people want that "1.0"^^xsd:decimal = "1"^^xsd:decimal, among other things
- 15:38:19 [gavinc]
- +1 AZ
- 15:38:43 [PatHayes]
- AZ, that is true, they are equal. So they have what they want, now.
- 15:38:53 [LeeF]
- ericP: when we say "same as" saying that xsd:string is same as untyped literal, that seems fine. if we do "owl:sameAs" then any system that preserves cardinality or does inference with fresh variables in the head will end up with different answers if we have "asdf" and "asdf"^^xsd:string being separate abstract syntax things but having rules that say you need to do owl:sameAs things
- 15:39:30 [LeeF]
- ericP: Lee's proposal seems to have some support - make one of them disappear from the abstract syntax
- 15:39:32 [AZ]
- PatHayes, they are equal only under D-entailment, where D includes {xsd:decimal}
- 15:39:46 [LeeF]
- ... the type of the "winner" is xsd:string
- 15:39:50 [LeeF]
- ack cygri
- 15:39:55 [LeeF]
- q- ericP
- 15:39:59 [LeeF]
- cygri: i see two options
- 15:40:01 [Guus]
- ack ericP
- 15:40:13 [LeeF]
- ... 1) what eric just said - make it so that there' sonly one option in the abstract syntax
- 15:40:19 [PatHayes]
- AZ, true. So, use that kind of entailment. Isnt this waht datatypes were invented for???
- 15:40:30 [LeeF]
- ... 2) leave the abstract syntax, and treat this as a usability problem of the specifications
- 15:40:50 [LeeF]
- ... as Pat noted, part of the problem is that to actually get value equality, you have to dive pretty deep
- 15:41:00 [PatHayes]
- The only-one-option option breaks because of language tagging, which cannot be got into xsd:string.
- 15:41:09 [LeeF]
- ... which gives you a lot of things orthogonal to the question of whether 1 == 1.0 and whether "a"^^xsd:string is the same as "a"
- 15:41:16 [AZ]
- PatHayes, I agree, we should tell people to use XSD entailment and stop caring about syntactic differences
- 15:41:30 [LeeF]
- ... maybe editorial work that can get literal equality stuff more in the foreground and decouple that from other datatype entailment stuff
- 15:42:23 [LeeF]
- AndyS: i like the idea of going to one datatype overall, but not necessarily comfortable with that being xsd:string
- 15:42:29 [ivan]
- +1 Andy
- 15:42:31 [SteveH]
- +1
- 15:42:37 [PatHayes]
- +1 AndyS
- 15:42:38 [LeeF]
- ... i think users expect that no lang tag and lang tag are closer together then no lang tag and xsd:string
- 15:42:48 [LeeF]
- ... you even see people that expect that without a lang tag match with a lang tag
- 15:42:59 [LeeF]
- ... e.g. see lots of questions online about querying dbpedia with a language tag
- 15:43:01 [Guus]
- +1 for pref of plain literal
- 15:43:13 [LeeF]
- ... so for user consistency would like to convert xsd:string to plain literals, no lang tag
- 15:43:16 [Souri]
- +1 to AndyS
- 15:43:16 [AndyS]
- ack me
- 15:43:16 [Zakim]
- AndyS, you wanted to talk about language tags
- 15:43:20 [LeeF]
- ... or create datatypes that reflect language tags
- 15:43:42 [LeeF]
- ericP: and datatype("asdf") is xsd:string?
- 15:43:44 [LeeF]
- AndyS: yes, in sparql
- 15:43:45 [PatHayes]
- We have a datatype which respects alnguage tags, it is rdf:PalinLIteral. ALl we need to do is to make this 'visible' in future RDF.
- 15:43:52 [PatHayes]
- PlainLIteral
- 15:44:04 [PatHayes]
- NOt PalinLIteral, aaaaargh
- 15:45:02 [cygri]
- q+
- 15:45:30 [LeeF]
- ivan: agree that xsd:string can't be the winner because of language tags
- 15:46:04 [LeeF]
- ivan: situation more complex because at the moment in the semantic documents everything for D-entailment is explicitly defined as an extension of RDFS entailment
- 15:46:09 [LeeF]
- ... so if we want to separate it, it's more of a change
- 15:46:30 [PatHayes]
- Ivan, very good point. I agree.
- 15:46:37 [gavinc]
- +1 Ivan, value equality of literals should not depend on RDFS
- 15:46:43 [LeeF]
- q?
- 15:46:45 [LeeF]
- ack ivan
- 15:46:47 [LeeF]
- ack cygri
- 15:46:50 [PatHayes]
- We need to revise this 'layered' aspect of the sematnics in an y case.
- 15:46:54 [Guus]
- ack cygri
- 15:47:09 [LeeF]
- cygri: i don't know how much this layering of entailments matters
- 15:47:11 [AZ]
- Where is it said that D-entailment must be an extension of RDFS-entailment?
- 15:47:34 [PatHayes]
- The 'layering' was really just exposition, it is not a deep matter to do it more separated.
- 15:47:50 [LeeF]
- ... the mathematics of the situation shouldn't stop us from pointing out useful entailments
- 15:47:53 [PatHayes]
- The entailments will change slightly, of course.
- 15:48:11 [ivan]
- AZ: "If D is a datatype map, a D-interpretation of a vocabulary V is any rdfs-interpretation I of V union {aaa: < aaa, x > in D for some x } ..."
- 15:48:15 [AndyS]
- AZ - the examples of D-ent use RDFS and the only test cases use RDFS at least
- 15:48:47 [LeeF]
- ivan: this is the only definition we have today
- 15:48:50 [PatHayes]
- NOt PURELY editorial, but it is do-able and I thinkwe should do it anyway.
- 15:48:51 [LeeF]
- ... and we need to live with / deal with that
- 15:48:55 [PatHayes]
- Ivan is right.
- 15:49:26 [PatHayes]
- IT is a technical change but its easy and I promise I will be able to do it.
- 15:50:30 [PatHayes]
- LOL
- 15:51:04 [LeeF]
- Scribe: (general disagreement between ivan and cygri about how closely bound d-entailment is with rdfs entailment)
- 15:51:32 [ericP]
- ivan, cygri, i think cygri is saying we could factor existing entailment with text which invites e.g. SPARQL to say it works on a new "entailment1" which is graph entailment plus string entailment
- 15:51:55 [ericP]
- i prefer a stronger statement like "there never *was* any "abc"^^xsd:string"
- 15:52:04 [ivan]
- eric, I agree, that might be useful, but that is not an editorial change on the semantics document. That *all* I was saying...
- 15:52:28 [LeeF]
- Guus: would like to action the editors to consider this discussion and propose changes to concepts document
- 15:52:38 [SteveH]
- ericP, I'm not convinced that d(xsd:string) entailment doesn't make things worse
- 15:52:56 [ericP]
- ditto - i propose: 1. The form "abc"^^xsd:string is a deprecated form of "abc", which systems should silently convert. 2. The datatype of "abc" is xsd:string. 3. The datatype of "abc"@hu is rdf:PlainLiteral .
- 15:53:02 [PatHayes]
- +1 AZ
- 15:53:05 [AndyS]
- eric's q of a while ago - where do both xsd:string and simple literal occur together (on the web)?
- 15:53:07 [SteveH]
- ericP, yeah
- 15:53:42 [SteveH]
- ericP, except 3. is a bit odd, but maybe we have no choice there
- 15:53:48 [ivan]
- eric, and what is wrong to say that the datatype of "abc" is also rdf:PlainLiteral?
- 15:53:52 [ivan]
- why having the two?
- 15:54:12 [LeeF]
- Guus: strawpoll -- are changes to RDF Concepts abstract syntax needed?
- 15:54:21 [ericP]
- +1 to attacking this on the abstract syntax level
- 15:54:26 [LeeF]
- +1
- 15:54:28 [SteveH]
- perhaps [question is too low levle]
- 15:54:30 [AlexHall]
- +1
- 15:54:33 [AndyS]
- I think lang+datatype will break code out there. I'd be surprised if there wasn't assumption of one OR the other
- 15:54:34 [ivan]
- +1 if it works:-)
- 15:54:39 [AZ]
- -0.5
- 15:54:43 [PatHayes]
- Need to clarify if these are expositonal.ecitorial changes or changes to content. I cna t vote yet.
- 15:54:45 [SteveH]
- AndyS, I can promise you there is:)
- 15:54:45 [cygri]
- +-0
- 15:54:51 [LeeF]
- cygri: +-0
- 15:54:54 [pfps]
- +1
- 15:54:58 [Souri]
- +1
- 15:54:58 [cygri]
- PatHayes, changes to content
- 15:55:03 [mbrunati]
- +1
- 15:55:05 [PatHayes]
- Then +1
- 15:55:05 [gavinc]
- +0
- 15:55:22 [LeeF]
- Guus: majority in favor, without details, i think this is something we should try to reach consensus around
- 15:55:36 [danbri]
- ∓0
- 15:55:36 [SteveH]
- q+
- 15:55:41 [LeeF]
- cygri: does anyone strongly believe that the abstract syntax should not be changed?
- 15:55:42 [AndyS]
- SteveH, yep - but I can change mime. It's people outside the WG ... who do data work
- 15:56:30 [PatHayes]
- It is not enough. If there are changes to the anstract syntax, this will send ripples through everything. The semantics will need to be revised to fit.
- 15:56:58 [AZ]
- +1 ivan, make it an issue and we'll discuss it on the ML
- 15:57:14 [PatHayes]
- Im not afraid, but I want the earth to stop moving.
- 15:58:22 [LeeF]
- PatHayes: are we talking about a change to the content or the exposition?
- 15:58:24 [LeeF]
- ericP: content
- 15:58:24 [Souri]
- To understand it better: If someone submits two triples: <a> <name> "Dan" . <a> <name> "Dan"^^xsd:string . Should these be combined into just *one* triple?: <a> <name> "Dan" .
- 15:58:31 [LeeF]
- PatHayes: we ought to understand soon what that change _is_ then
- 15:58:49 [PatHayes]
- lol
- 15:59:11 [ericP]
- Souri, i say that's one triple
- 15:59:20 [SteveH]
- I'd /like/ it to be one triple
- 15:59:28 [ericP]
- i suspect that everyone that +1'd had that idea
- 15:59:28 [PatHayes]
- What does 'submit' mean???
- 15:59:31 [SteveH]
- but I have no clear idea following the discussion
- 15:59:47 [AndyS]
- This was my problem reading F2F minutes - need an answer (one triple preferably)
- 15:59:49 [AlexHall]
- Yes, one triple, with the abstract syntax of said triple still under discussion
- 16:00:06 [LeeF]
- +1 to One triple
- 16:00:06 [danbri]
- Can we couch this in terms of rdfcore style test cases? ie. what does some test data entail?
- 16:00:32 [AndyS]
- +1 to danbri
- 16:01:34 [ivan]
- <a> <b> "01234"^^xsd:integer . <a> <b> "1234"^^xsd:integer is another example for the same question, these are not only string issues
- 16:01:40 [LeeF]
- PatHayes: i understand if this is about surface form
- 16:01:53 [LeeF]
- ... i can't make sense if we're talking about making them the same "in the merge"
- 16:01:57 [LeeF]
- ericP: i think people are voting for the former
- 16:02:16 [Souri]
- +1 to Ivan's question
- 16:02:17 [LeeF]
- q+ to disagree with ivan's other example being the same
- 16:03:06 [cygri]
- These two are the same single triple: <a> <b> 1 . <a> <b> "1"^^xsd:decimal .
- 16:03:30 [AlexHall]
- string equality is so close to syntactic equality that it makes sense to approach that in the abstract syntax
- 16:03:32 [Zakim]
- +[Garlik.a]
- 16:03:32 [AZ]
- cygri, this is true in turtle because of syntactic sugar
- 16:03:34 [Zakim]
- -AZ
- 16:03:59 [Souri]
- In practice, value-based equality is what people expect for literal equality
- 16:04:01 [LeeF]
- q-
- 16:04:02 [Zakim]
- +AZ
- 16:04:12 [SteveH]
- q-
- 16:04:28 [LeeF]
- cygri: I can make a proposal
- 16:05:04 [ivan]
- ISSUE-40?
- 16:05:04 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-40 -- Skolemization advice in the RDF dcocument -- raised
- 16:05:04 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/40
- 16:05:07 [AndyS]
- XSD sort of separates xsd:integer and xsd:decimal and sort of doesn't integer + integer => integer but same values and same type hierarchy
- 16:05:22 [LeeF]
- topic: ISSUE-40: Skelemization advice
- 16:05:31 [LeeF]
- Guus: it would be good to have discussion around ISSUE-40
- 16:05:36 [PatHayes]
- General question, how seriously attached to XSD should RDF be?
- 16:05:45 [LeeF]
- --> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/40 and http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Skolemization
- 16:06:04 [LeeF]
- topic: Revisit RDF Postponed Issue
- 16:06:18 [LeeF]
- Guus: start with issue 51
- 16:06:20 [LeeF]
- ISSUE-51?
- 16:06:20 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-51 -- Revisit "Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF" -- raised
- 16:06:20 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/51
- 16:06:24 [AndyS]
- PatHayes - I think it's good to pick a number system
- 16:06:50 [LeeF]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-51 noting that it's a duplicate of work the WG is already doing with multiple graphs
- 16:06:58 [PatHayes]
- Andy, agree, but was just asking baout the general mood right now.
- 16:07:15 [LeeF]
- +1
- 16:07:20 [Souri]
- +1
- 16:07:21 [AZ]
- +1
- 16:07:23 [pfps]
- +1
- 16:07:23 [cygri]
- +1
- 16:07:23 [mbrunati]
- +1
- 16:07:31 [LeeF]
- RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-51 noting that it's a duplicate of work the WG is already doing with multiple graphs
- 16:07:38 [LeeF]
- ISSUE-51: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-51 noting that it's a duplicate of work the WG is already doing with multiple graphs
- 16:07:39 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-51 Revisit "Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF" notes added
- 16:07:41 [LeeF]
- close ISSUE-51
- 16:07:41 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-51 Revisit "Suggestion that the concept of context is missing from RDF" closed
- 16:07:43 [LeeF]
- ISSUE-52?
- 16:07:43 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-52 -- Revisit "How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another document is asserted" -- raised
- 16:07:43 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/52
- 16:08:01 [LeeF]
- PROPOSED: to resolve CLOSE - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document
- 16:08:08 [cygri]
- +1
- 16:08:10 [AndyS]
- +1
- 16:08:10 [danbri]
- (so this was a timbl thing, he wanted to say that RDF wasn't just a data model ...)
- 16:08:11 [SteveH]
- +1
- 16:08:12 [AZ]
- +1
- 16:08:14 [danbri]
- +1
- 16:08:44 [pfps]
- q+
- 16:09:07 [LeeF]
- ericP: trying to understand what the resolution means ... sometihng like N3, or some way to speak of "everything asserted in another document"?
- 16:09:30 [PatHayes]
- (real) named graphs provide a meachanism for this, but we dont have named graphs yet. Hey ho.
- 16:09:38 [pfps]
- no, this is like the RDF WG saying that RDF embedded in HTML is always/sometimes/never true
- 16:09:47 [AndyS]
- example - a graph diff has add triples and delete triples - delete triples not asserted
- 16:09:50 [LeeF]
- ack pfps
- 16:10:01 [LeeF]
- pfps: this is asking us whether RDF in an Adobe document (e.g.) should be asserted or not
- 16:10:06 [danbri]
- q+
- 16:10:07 [LeeF]
- ... and we have nothing to say about that
- 16:10:07 [AndyS]
- +1 to pfps
- 16:10:15 [Zakim]
- -AxelPolleres
- 16:10:16 [Zakim]
- -[Garlik.a]
- 16:10:40 [Zakim]
- -AndyS
- 16:10:45 [pfps]
- +1 to close
- 16:10:50 [mbrunati]
- +1
- 16:10:54 [SteveH]
- +1
- 16:10:57 [LeeF]
- RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-52 - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document
- 16:11:02 [LeeF]
- ISSUE-52: RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-52 - this is the responsibility of the enclosing document
- 16:11:03 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-52 Revisit "How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another document is asserted" notes added
- 16:11:04 [danbri]
- all we need to say is that RDF is descriptive, that it's the kind of stuff that can be interpreted as making claims about world. Other specs tell you when you've got some direct claims, vs quotes etc.
- 16:11:06 [LeeF]
- close ISSUE-52
- 16:11:06 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-52 Revisit "How to indicate whether RDF embedded in another document is asserted" closed
- 16:11:08 [LeeF]
- ISSUE-53?
- 16:11:08 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-53 -- Revisit "RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion" -- raised
- 16:11:08 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/53
- 16:11:11 [AxelPolleres]
- AxelPolleres has left #rdf-wg
- 16:11:42 [pfps]
- +1 to close 53 as indicated
- 16:11:53 [ericP]
- Guus: "RDF assertions can be used to make claims about the world" addresses this?
- 16:12:11 [ericP]
- danbri: timbl brought this up years ago
- 16:12:25 [ericP]
- ... he wanted to say that this could be used to talk about the world
- 16:12:35 [danbri]
- 'assertionable'
- 16:12:48 [LeeF]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-53 with no change, and with the explanation that RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is making those assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by W3C's new Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wik
- 16:12:48 [LeeF]
- i/Main_Page - and by other application vocabularies. See also http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter for work linking cryptographically-assured notions of identity with RDF.
- 16:12:52 [AZ]
- it was originally raised by Dan Connolly apparently
- 16:12:56 [Souri]
- +1
- 16:12:58 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:12:59 [SteveH]
- +1
- 16:13:02 [danbri]
- +1 (but i'm seconding my own text)
- 16:13:03 [AZ]
- +1
- 16:13:04 [mbrunati]
- +1
- 16:13:06 [cygri]
- tl;dr but +1
- 16:13:29 [LeeF]
- RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-53 with no change, and with the explanation that RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is making those assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by W3C's new Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wik
- 16:13:29 [LeeF]
- i/Main_Page - and by other application vocabularies. See also http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter for work linking cryptographically-assured notions of identity with RDF.
- 16:13:34 [LeeF]
- ISSUE-53: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-53 with no change, and with the explanation that RDF semantics establishes that RDF statements can be used to make claims about the world. Figuring out who exactly is making those assertions is beyond the scope of the core technology. Some of these concerns may be addressed by the 'named graph' activity; others by W3C's new Provenance WG - http://www.w3.org/201
- 16:13:34 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-53 Revisit "RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion" notes added
- 16:13:34 [LeeF]
- 1/prov/wiki/Main_Page - and by other application vocabularies. See also http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/charter for work linking cryptographically-assured notions of identity with RDF.
- 16:13:37 [LeeF]
- close ISSUE-53
- 16:13:37 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-53 Revisit "RDF is not just a data model; an RDF statement is an assertion" closed
- 16:14:02 [pfps]
- +1 to not changing RDF/XML
- 16:14:02 [LeeF]
- PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-54 with no change, noting that this WG has no plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the collection mechanism at this time.
- 16:14:06 [LeeF]
- +1
- 16:14:11 [ivan]
- ISSUE-54?
- 16:14:11 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-54 -- Revisit "RDF collection syntax should allow literals" -- raised
- 16:14:11 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/54
- 16:14:53 [cygri]
- +1 to proposal
- 16:14:56 [pfps]
- i changed the title
- 16:14:58 [LeeF]
- ivan: note that the title is misleading
- 16:15:10 [LeeF]
- RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-54 with no change, noting that this WG has no plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the collection mechanism at this time.
- 16:15:15 [LeeF]
- ISSUE-54: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-54 with no change, noting that this WG has no plans for substantially changing RDF/XML or the collection mechanism at this time.
- 16:15:15 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-54 Revisit "RDF/XML collection syntax should allow literals" notes added
- 16:15:20 [LeeF]
- close ISSUE-54
- 16:15:20 [trackbot]
- ISSUE-54 Revisit "RDF/XML collection syntax should allow literals" closed
- 16:15:28 [LeeF]
- Guus: that's all, please fill in the F2F poll
- 16:15:29 [LeeF]
- ADJOURNED.
- 16:15:36 [mbrunati]
- bye
- 16:15:39 [AndyS]
- AndyS has left #rdf-wg
- 16:15:41 [Zakim]
- -mbrunati
- 16:15:42 [AZ]
- bye
- 16:15:43 [Zakim]
- -Souri
- 16:15:44 [Zakim]
- -FabGandon
- 16:15:45 [FabGandon]
- FabGandon has left #rdf-wg
- 16:15:45 [mbrunati]
- mbrunati has left #rdf-wg
- 16:15:46 [Zakim]
- -cygri_
- 16:15:46 [Zakim]
- -danbri
- 16:15:47 [Zakim]
- -PatH
- 16:15:47 [Zakim]
- -EricP
- 16:15:49 [NickH]
- bye!
- 16:15:50 [Zakim]
- -AlexHall
- 16:15:52 [Zakim]
- -OlivierCorby
- 16:15:54 [Zakim]
- -gavinc
- 16:15:54 [Zakim]
- -AZ
- 16:15:56 [Zakim]
- -Peter_Patel-Schneider
- 16:15:59 [Zakim]
- -NickH
- 16:16:03 [Zakim]
- -tomayac
- 16:16:04 [Zakim]
- -MacTed
- 16:16:45 [AlexHall]
- AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
- 16:16:56 [Zakim]
- -LeeF
- 16:16:58 [Zakim]
- -Guus_Schreiber
- 16:17:01 [LeeF]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 16:17:05 [Zakim]
- -Ivan
- 16:17:43 [LeeF]
- w3.org is being Very Slow
- 16:18:08 [SteveH]
- SteveH has joined #rdf-wg
- 16:35:01 [Zakim]
- disconnecting the lone participant, [Garlik], in SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
- 16:35:02 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
- 16:35:06 [Zakim]
- Attendees were FabGandon, AZ, Ivan, Guus_Schreiber, AndyS, gavinc, OlivierCorby, LeeF, mbrunati, Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, EricP, +44.208.439.aaaa, Souri, PatH,
- 16:35:08 [Zakim]
- ... AxelPolleres, SteveH, mischat, cygri_, MacTed, +31.20.598.aabb, danbri, NickH, tomayac, [Garlik]
- 18:06:35 [SteveH_]
- SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg
- 18:10:50 [danbri]
- danbri has joined #rdf-wg
- 18:38:43 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #rdf-wg