IRC log of rdf-wg on 2011-08-31

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:52:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:52:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:52:58 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:53:34 [davidwood]
Chair: David Wood
14:53:38 [davidwood]
14:53:51 [davidwood]
Scribe: Mischa Tuffield
14:54:17 [davidwood]
ScribeNick: mischat
14:55:01 [mbrunati]
mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg
14:55:37 [mischat_]
mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg
14:56:34 [mischat_]
i might need help with the tidy up tasks at the end of the call
14:57:31 [davidwood]
mischat: No problem.
14:58:05 [sandro]
zakim, this is rdf
14:58:05 [Zakim]
ok, sandro; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
14:58:05 [AndyS]
zakim, this is RDF-WG
14:58:07 [Zakim]
sorry, AndyS, I do not see a conference named 'RDF-WG' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:58:09 [Zakim]
14:58:20 [Zakim]
14:58:23 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:32 [mischat]
zakim, ??P8 is me
14:58:32 [Zakim]
+mischat; got it
14:58:38 [mischat]
zakim, mute me
14:58:38 [Zakim]
mischat should now be muted
14:58:54 [Zakim]
14:58:56 [mischat]
zakim, unmute me
14:58:56 [Zakim]
mischat should no longer be muted
14:58:59 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P12 is me
14:58:59 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:59:16 [mischat]
one last thing to check before this starts
14:59:32 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:59:32 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:59:33 [Zakim]
14:59:39 [mischat]
when i do "foo: say hello" that means "person food. said hello"
14:59:47 [sandro]
14:59:50 [davidwood]
Zakim, who is here?
14:59:54 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.540.898.aaaa, Sandro, mischat, AndyS, Ivan
15:00:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see AlexHall, mischat, mbrunati, Zakim, RRSAgent, danbri, MacTed, cygri, ivan, tomayac, AndyS, sandro, trackbot, davidwood, manu1, yvesr, ericP, manu, NickH
15:00:15 [manu1]
zakim, code?
15:00:18 [davidwood]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:00:19 [Zakim]
+ +1.443.212.aabb
15:00:31 [AlexHall]
zakim, aabb is me
15:00:31 [Zakim]
15:00:35 [mischat]
manu1 the code 73394
15:00:38 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:40 [Zakim]
the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, manu1
15:00:40 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:00:45 [Zakim]
+davidwood; got it
15:00:49 [mbrunati]
zakim, +1.443.212.aabb is me
15:00:51 [Zakim]
15:00:58 [Zakim]
+AlexHall; got it
15:01:05 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:01:09 [Scott_Bauer]
Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:11 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:01:20 [Zakim]
sorry, mbrunati, I do not recognize a party named '+1.443.212.aabb'
15:01:24 [MacTed]
MacTed has changed the topic to: RDF-WG -- -- 2011-08-31 Agenda: (MacTed)
15:01:37 [mbrunati]
Zakim, +1.443.212.aabb is me
15:01:52 [zwu2]
zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:56 [Zakim]
sorry, mbrunati, I do not recognize a party named '+1.443.212.aabb'
15:01:56 [zwu2]
zakim, code?
15:01:57 [MacTed]
Zakim, aabb is mbrunati
15:01:59 [mischat]
mbrunati, try "zakim, aabb is me"
15:02:08 [mbrunati]
thanks misha
15:02:10 [Zakim]
the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, zwu2
15:02:14 [Zakim]
sorry, MacTed, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
15:02:26 [Zakim]
+ +1.404.978.aacc
15:02:35 [MacTed]
oh! because aabb is already AlexHall
15:02:37 [tomayac]
zakim, aacc is me
15:02:42 [Zakim]
+tomayac; got it
15:02:49 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:02:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see davidwood, Sandro, mischat, AndyS, Ivan, AlexHall, MacTed (muted), ??P18, tomayac
15:02:54 [Zakim]
On IRC I see zwu2, Scott_Bauer, AlexHall, mischat, mbrunati, Zakim, RRSAgent, danbri, MacTed, cygri, ivan, tomayac, AndyS, sandro, trackbot, davidwood, manu1, yvesr, ericP, manu,
15:02:57 [Zakim]
... NickH
15:03:01 [Zakim]
15:03:05 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.265.aadd
15:03:19 [zwu2]
zakim, +1.650.265.aadd is me
15:03:19 [Zakim]
+zwu2; got it
15:03:28 [davidwood]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 24 Aug telecon:
15:03:28 [davidwood]
15:03:28 [zwu2]
zakim, mute me
15:03:28 [Zakim]
zwu2 should now be muted
15:03:39 [Zakim]
15:03:44 [mischat]
davidwood: accepted the minutes from last week, any issues? any objections?
15:03:45 [manu1]
zakim, I am ??P35
15:03:45 [Zakim]
+manu1; got it
15:04:01 [davidwood]
Action item review:
15:04:01 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - item
15:04:01 [davidwood]
15:04:01 [davidwood]
15:04:03 [Zakim]
15:04:06 [mischat]
davidwood: resolve to accept the minutes now on to the action items
15:04:10 [Souri]
Souri has joined #RDF-WG
15:04:18 [Scott_Bauer]
Zakim, Tony is me
15:04:18 [Zakim]
+Scott_Bauer; got it
15:04:27 [ericP]
Zakim, please dial ericP-office
15:04:27 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
15:04:29 [Zakim]
15:04:36 [sandro]
15:04:36 [trackbot]
ACTION-65 -- Sandro Hawke to and Pat to consider what words to add to minimal proposal. -- due 2011-06-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:04:36 [trackbot]
15:04:43 [gavinc]
gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
15:04:44 [mischat]
davidwood: we are looking at pending action items, Pat and Sandro to look at "looking for a minimal proposal"
15:05:01 [mischat]
15:05:16 [mischat]
who is speaking ?
15:05:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.707.861.aaee
15:05:29 [gavinc]
Zakim, aaee is me
15:05:29 [Zakim]
+gavinc; got it
15:05:43 [mischat]
the action change of 65 -> 71, was about contacting the provenance WG
15:06:08 [mischat]
to see what proposal in the g* world would suit their needs.
15:06:28 [mischat]
it seems that Guus has made contact to the provenance WG, we are now waiting for them to respond
15:06:49 [mischat]
davidwood: Guus seemed to mark the action item as pending review, dave proposing that we close it
15:07:25 [mischat]
davidwood: this approach of contacting via an action item, as apposed to opening an issue which would have required action from the provenance WG
15:07:43 [PatH]
PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:07:49 [mischat]
davidwood: Guus seemed to have also closed issue 66, relating to 65
15:07:52 [PatH]
Sorry Im late
15:08:06 [AndyS]
It's done in email.
15:08:08 [mischat]
davidwood, perhaps "update" protocol
15:08:10 [mischat]
15:08:45 [AndyS]
15:08:52 [mischat]
ivan: pierre-A sent rejects, and has provided a review of the sparql 1.1 graphstore protocol
15:09:01 [AlexHall]
15:09:03 [mischat]
davidwood: happy to call the action as done
15:09:19 [mischat]
pierre-A, provided a review as per action item 68
15:09:28 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #rdf-wg
15:09:28 [mischat]
davidwood: 70 and 71 seem to be duplicates
15:09:53 [mischat]
ivan: left the work to be done by davidwood
15:09:57 [mischat]
15:09:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.553.aaff
15:10:06 [LeeF]
zakim, aaff is me
15:10:06 [Zakim]
+LeeF; got it
15:10:10 [mischat]
davidwood: Guss seems to have done action 75
15:10:13 [Zakim]
15:10:29 [mischat]
15:10:46 [mischat]
PatH: has done action 76
15:11:16 [mischat]
danbri: ?
15:11:34 [mischat]
15:11:57 [mischat]
davidwood: is performing the .well-known id action as we speak
15:13:18 [davidwood]
15:13:37 [mischat]
davidwood: as per action 68, it looks like PatH is going to follow the action item
15:13:52 [mischat]
davidwood: action item 68 points to an email which Pat will look at
15:14:15 [mischat]
gavinc: has finished his action item relating to the turtle spec
15:14:21 [mischat]
15:14:37 [mischat]
gavinc: has completed action 78
15:15:12 [mischat]
the above action item is about appending the N-triples content as an appendix to the turtle draft
15:15:38 [mischat]
davidwood: RDF concepts was published as a FPWD
15:15:39 [mischat]
15:15:49 [mischat]
davidwood: the above url should be added to our documents page ^^
15:15:57 [davidwood]
JSON work progress & planning
15:16:13 [davidwood]
Revisit ISSUE 2:
15:16:14 [mischat]
15:16:29 [PatH]
zakim, mute me
15:16:29 [Zakim]
PatH should now be muted
15:16:42 [mischat]
davidwood: following on from last week, issue 2 is pending, in terms of what what this WG should do re: JSON and RDF
15:16:46 [Zakim]
15:16:54 [NickH]
Zakim, ??P45 is me
15:16:54 [Zakim]
+NickH; got it
15:17:07 [mischat]
so, the current standing at the f2f was, note re: JSON-LD, and rec for Talis JSON
15:17:24 [mischat]
davidwood: is proposing that we don't make a rec of the Talis JSON work
15:17:28 [LeeF]
Happy with that!
15:17:35 [mischat]
and to wait on the incubation of JSON-LD
15:18:08 [mischat]
ivan: tried to summarise last weeks discussion. Feeling that that this group might not be best placed to produce a JSON document
15:18:10 [davidwood]
Proposal: Change ISSUE-2 resolution to (a) Not move RDF/JSON to REC.
15:18:21 [mischat]
ivan: due to not having active JSON folks
15:18:39 [NickH]
ivan: not sure that we all agreed about lack of JSON experience
15:18:57 [mischat]
ivan: post meeting, there was discussion on the mailing, the conclusion being that JSON-LD might suffice all of the use-case we had for JSON RDF stuff
15:19:30 [LeeF]
s/ivan: not sure that we all agreed about lack of JSON experience/ivan, not sure that we all agreed about lack of JSON experience
15:19:37 [mischat]
ivan: 1. this group won't produce to a JSON RDF spec, and we would try to spin off the JSON-LD work into a community group
15:20:01 [mischat]
ivan: the community group might attract the right people
15:20:46 [ivan]
15:20:52 [manu1]
15:20:54 [davidwood]
ack Ivan
15:20:57 [mischat]
davidwood: saw lots of people reaction re: JSON from within the WG. Why don't we ask people from the JSON community group to join our WG
15:20:57 [gavinc]
+q to avoid this question for now
15:21:09 [mischat]
davidwood: so that we can push this JSON work forward
15:21:51 [mischat]
ivan: looking at the core JS/JSON community, they might have difficult to communicate with the diehard RDF group
15:22:08 [PatH]
fwiw, i feel that this group should have a final sign-off, since there may be issues of formal compliance which the json folk simply dont care about, but we do.
15:22:16 [mischat]
ivan: wonders if they will find it hard to communicate with the RDF folks
15:22:37 [davidwood]
ack manu1
15:22:44 [mischat]
ivan: doesn't think from a social point of view any liaison would be ideal
15:23:15 [mischat]
manu1: there seems to be a strange barrier between the two groups. This is due to camps when people think about RDF and JSON
15:23:38 [mischat]
manu1: 1. people which have triplestore and the SW stack, and their needs re: transporting RDF via JSON
15:24:33 [mischat]
manu1: 2. the other group. People just getting into the linked data world. They can't afford the engineering effort to get stuck into the full SW tech stack. These folks don't want to use RDF, they want to use JSON
15:25:06 [mischat]
manu1: they may find it neat that RDF folks might be able to use their JSON
15:25:25 [mischat]
manu1: manu's company falls into the 2nd community
15:26:16 [mischat]
manu1: believes that group 2, and not interested in helping people which have requirements such as "we have to make it work with our triplestore", or "we need to make our JSON talk to our RDF data"
15:26:21 [LeeF]
15:26:50 [mischat]
manu1: believes that we need to incubate the work, and that we should move people from the RDF WG to the community group
15:27:02 [manu1]
15:27:03 [PatH]
listening to this social discussion makes me wonder if it might just not be the right time to standardize this stuff.
15:27:16 [davidwood]
ack gavinc
15:27:16 [Zakim]
gavinc, you wanted to avoid this question for now
15:27:30 [davidwood]
ack manu1
15:27:37 [mischat]
ivan: thinks that the community should push the work forward, and that when the JSON CG are ready they should present their work to the WG
15:27:59 [mischat]
manu1: doesn't think that this WG is the right place to push the work forward
15:28:23 [PatH]
I have exactly the dual concertn.
15:28:29 [PatH]
15:28:39 [mischat]
manu1: is worried about that when the JSON CG thinks they are finished, they are going to have changes imposed by the RDF WG
15:29:01 [mischat]
and manu1: thinks that moving specs between groups won't be a fruitful activity
15:30:12 [gavinc] ;)
15:30:20 [mischat]
davidwood: thinks we should clean up issue two before we press on
15:30:31 [PatH]
we are falling into a black hole of premature optimization. This standard will be obsolete within a year.
15:30:33 [mischat]
ivan: doesn't think we need to recharter
15:30:52 [AndyS]
q+ to ask what's the status of "make a Note on current practice stuff like Linked Data API" in issue/2 ?
15:31:00 [davidwood]
ack AndyS
15:31:00 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to ask what's the status of "make a Note on current practice stuff like Linked Data API" in issue/2 ?
15:31:10 [mischat]
davidwood: proposes that we vote, to remove "moving JSON from the rec"
15:31:39 [mischat]
AndyS: is asking about the "note current practice stuff like Linked Data API" ?
15:31:49 [mischat]
davidwood: thinks that the issue there is that we don't have an editor
15:32:14 [AndyS]
15:32:35 [Zakim]
15:32:56 [mischat]
davidwood: proposed that we make no resolution to "to move RDF JSON to rec"
15:33:00 [AndyS]
q+ to ask if we are going to advance it as a NOTE in the meantime or just pause work on it?
15:33:06 [yvesr]
Zakim, ??P0 is me
15:33:06 [Zakim]
+yvesr; got it
15:33:09 [davidwood]
ack AndyS
15:33:09 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to ask if we are going to advance it as a NOTE in the meantime or just pause work on it?
15:33:13 [mischat]
davidwood: i.e. we remove that statement from the resolution, so that we can push on
15:33:40 [mischat]
AndyS: what do you mean by "not move to rec" ?
15:33:54 [Zakim]
15:34:06 [mischat]
davidwood: is proposing that we do no work on the RDF JSON, i.e. we hold off on all work, until we know what we are going to do in terms of RDF and JSON
15:34:06 [PatH]
yvesr, we are just fixing peace in the middle east.
15:34:48 [mischat]
davidwood: just clarified that by "not moving to rec", does not mean "writing a note" it means "holding off work on the JSON RDF stuff for now"
15:35:07 [davidwood]
Proposed to remove the words "make a REC on something like Talis RDF/JSON" from the resolution to ISSUE-2
15:35:14 [tomayac]
15:35:16 [manu1]
15:35:17 [ivan]
15:35:18 [MacTed]
15:35:19 [mischat]
15:35:20 [sandro]
15:35:20 [zwu2]
15:35:20 [PatH]
15:35:22 [mbrunati]
15:35:24 [AlexHall]
15:35:24 [gavinc]
+1 (TQ)
15:35:28 [LeeF]
15:35:33 [NickH]
15:36:04 [yvesr]
15:36:15 [mischat]
the proposal is resolved. We are going to remove the words "make a REC on something like Talis RDF/JSON"
15:36:23 [manu1]
q+ to ask about JSON-LD Community Group
15:36:24 [mischat]
davidwood, will fix up the issue on the wiki
15:36:30 [gavinc]
Zakim, mute me
15:36:31 [Zakim]
gavinc should now be muted
15:36:54 [mischat]
davidwood: has updated issue2
15:37:01 [davidwood]
ISSUE-76 Empty Lexical Space Disagreement
15:37:01 [davidwood]
15:37:39 [PatH]
zakim, unmute me
15:37:39 [Zakim]
PatH should no longer be muted
15:37:42 [mischat]
davidwood: can PatH summarise issue 76
15:37:51 [manu1]
15:38:30 [mischat]
PatH: the intent for an empty lexical, so that any class name can be delivered as a datatype
15:39:12 [mischat]
PatH: this causes problems, because an empty lexical returned will never be a suitable answer to a useful question
15:39:51 [mischat]
davidwood: Richard seemed to suggest that if we modified Concepts we would have to touch XSD
15:41:03 [mischat]
davidwood: given that xsd is normative, we can't be changing that
15:41:28 [mischat]
PatH: believes that this discussion has yet to come up before in the RDF world nor in the XSD world
15:41:41 [davidwood]
Pat wrote: 3. No literal can denote any value in the value space of ex:empty.
15:42:17 [davidwood]
Antoine wrote: Point 3 is not correct. For instance, owl:real has an empty lexical space (as pointed out by Andy) and yet, there are plenty of literals that can denote a real number. "2"^^xsd:integer, "1.2"^^xsd:decimal, "1/3"^^owl:rational all denote elements of the value space of owl:real.
15:42:59 [mischat]
PatH: should have been more clear, you can't have a literal with that datatype
15:44:47 [mischat]
PatH: if we really want to allow empty lexical spaces, pat can update the semantic docs, but there would be a running thread of "assuming not an empty lexical space"
15:45:04 [ivan]
15:45:11 [mischat]
AndyS: asks where in the Semantics document would be need to be updates
15:45:31 [mischat]
PatH: said that he would go through the Semantics documents to see what needs changing
15:47:01 [mischat]
PatH: if we believes this is bug, he can make the changes to semantics, and will update the text
15:47:10 [davidwood]
15:47:26 [mischat]
PatH: notes that there is a conflict with the semantics and concepts.
15:47:40 [mischat]
davidwood: this that the core documents should agree is the salient point here
15:48:12 [mischat]
davidwood: doesn't believe that the resolution of this issue relies on the resolution of issue-12
15:48:27 [mischat]
davidwood: asked PatH whether he would need to wait for a resolution on issue12
15:48:33 [mischat]
PatH: said no
15:48:36 [davidwood]
ack ivan
15:49:31 [mischat]
PatH: taking a step backwards on the language-tag issues, 2 or 3 solutions which have been put forward. And ivan feels that the various solutions are a matter of taste
15:50:10 [mischat]
ivan: i thinks that we should put up a poll, where by the solutions are described in full, and then post poll, we should go with the solution the WG voted for
15:50:53 [mischat]
PatH: thinks we are talking about different things, we are still talking about the disagreement between RDF semantics and concept.
15:51:02 [mischat]
ivan: acknowledges this.
15:51:15 [mischat]
davidwood: asked PatH to work out the details with peter
15:51:40 [mischat]
resolution PatH has agreed to make the changes to the RDF Semantics and is happy to confirm the details with peter
15:51:40 [davidwood]
RESOLVED ISSUE-76: Pat Hayes (RDF Semantics editor) has agreed to make this change to RDF Semantics and will confirm the details with Peter.
15:52:00 [PatH]
15:52:12 [PatH]
zakim, mute me
15:52:12 [Zakim]
PatH should now be muted
15:52:13 [davidwood]
ISSUE-12 language-tagged literals
15:52:15 [mischat]
davidwood: onto language tag literals now …
15:52:38 [mischat]
ivan: proposed to setup a poll, with the 2-3 alternatives made explicit, and then the working group can move forward
15:52:57 [mischat]
ivan: doesn't think that the proposals are all the same from an end-user point of view
15:53:17 [mischat]
davidwood: thinks we have a summary of options, done by PatH on the 18th
15:53:31 [davidwood]
15:53:31 [PatH]
I will draft an email summarizing, for each alternative, what the pain points of that one are. There are some more alternatives now.
15:53:41 [mischat]
sandro: asked how he can find both PatH's and Pierre-A's summary
15:54:05 [PatH]
yes, and more uptodate
15:54:20 [mischat]
PatH: said he would draft an email summarising for each alternative, a more up-to-date summary
15:54:25 [davidwood]
Antoine's summary:
15:54:36 [mischat]
ivan: thinks that a poll is the way forward
15:54:38 [PatH]
i agree about the poll.
15:54:58 [PatH]
its my old action re-opened :-)
15:55:04 [SteveH]
SteveH has joined #rdf-wg
15:55:22 [PatH]
I will try to be objective, but good idea.
15:55:35 [PatH]
glad i am muted, guys.
15:55:47 [PatH]
fofl here
15:56:04 [mischat]
sandro: voices concerns about PatH's biased coming through too strongly in his summary, and would like that someone which doesn't agree with Pat would also chip in
15:56:15 [PatH]
15:56:26 [PatH]
will do
15:56:45 [mischat]
sandro: would like pierreA and PatH to work together to to produce the summary, as per sandro's suggestion
15:57:13 [PatH]
I have to leave in few minutes.
15:57:27 [mischat]
action PatH to work with pierreA to produce a summary of options re: language tags
15:57:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-80 - Work with pierreA to produce a summary of options re: language tags [on Patrick Hayes - due 2011-09-07].
15:57:44 [mischat]
action ivan to set up a poll when PatH and Pierre are done with action 80
15:57:44 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - ivan
15:57:44 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ivan, imikhail)
15:58:32 [davidwood]
action ivanh to set up a poll when PatH and Pierre are done with action 80
15:58:32 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ivanh
15:58:55 [mischat]
action ivanherman to set up a poll when PatH and Pierre are done with action 80
15:58:55 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ivanherman
15:59:00 [PatH]
does case matter?
15:59:26 [mischat]
action ivanh to set up a poll when PatH and Pierre are done with action 80
15:59:26 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ivanh
15:59:41 [PatH]
16:00:05 [davidwood]
16:00:23 [PatH]
hey, I have to leave. If i get any more actions, send me an email.
16:00:34 [mischat]
davidwood: now we are ending on triples
16:00:35 [gavinc]
zakim, unmute me
16:00:35 [Zakim]
gavinc should no longer be muted
16:00:44 [davidwood]
16:00:46 [mischat]
davidwood: been thinking about Lee's position on triples
16:00:53 [Zakim]
16:00:58 [gavinc]
Topic: N-Triples
16:01:34 [mischat]
davidwood: from a big vendor perspective, oracles perspective is valid, they don't want to break running code, and they don't want to confuse users
16:01:40 [AlexHall]
16:01:42 [mischat]
16:01:43 [zwu2]
it is me (Zhe) ivan
16:01:55 [zwu2]
hey :)
16:02:11 [mischat]
davidwood: wants to move forward re: aligning RDF and internationalisation
16:02:55 [ivan]
16:02:56 [MacTed]
a fairly clear proposal on this from Richard --
16:02:56 [mischat]
davidwood: it seems to davidwood the best way to move forward to create a UTF-8 version of ntriples ?
16:03:01 [zwu2]
zakim, unmute me
16:03:01 [Zakim]
zwu2 should no longer be muted
16:03:05 [zwu2]
16:03:07 [mischat]
davidwood: does this sound like a good idea to people ?
16:03:14 [davidwood]
ack zwu
16:04:16 [mischat]
zwu2: oracle are chatting internally about internationalisation and ntriples. and how this can go forward
16:04:46 [mischat]
zwu2: believes that an ascii ntriples, uft8 triples, and turtle should suffice
16:04:52 [davidwood]
ack ivan
16:05:07 [mischat]
davidwood: the down side to what zwu2 said is that we would have more docs
16:05:08 [NickH]
Having more formats isn't a great situation to be in
16:05:13 [NickH]
there are quite a lot already
16:05:49 [mischat]
ivan: so we wouldn't have multiple documents, it just would be a note in the turtle doc
16:05:55 [mischat]
16:05:57 [gavinc]
+q to mention that N-Triples is NOT well specified at the moment, and has no specific media type.
16:06:48 [Souri]
something like: N-Triple, Turtle, Turtle/N-Triple (N-Triple subset of Turtle that also allows UTF-8)
16:06:57 [mischat]
this note, would be fine with oracle, but leaving ntriples as ascii would be great, they don't object to having another utf8 ntriples format
16:07:03 [yvesr]
NickH, +1
16:07:24 [davidwood]
Zwu: Oracle does not object to creating a new version of ntriples with UTF-8 encoding, as long as ASCII-encoded ntriples remains an option.
16:07:26 [mischat]
as long as the ascii encode triples remains an option
16:07:41 [davidwood]
ack mischat
16:07:41 [AndyS]
That is possible via "application/n-triples;charset=ascii"
16:07:44 [mischat]
zwu2: oracle wants to ensure that existing software doesn't better
16:07:46 [mischat]
16:07:46 [ericP]
not sure that "remains an option" captures "has a distinct name", which i think they require
16:07:46 [NickH]
do we have to standardise ascii N-Triple at all then?
16:08:25 [yvesr]
zwu2, maybe stupid question - but does oracle actually support ntriples escaping, currently?
16:08:38 [zwu2]
yes yvesr
16:08:39 [ivan]
16:08:45 [davidwood]
ack gavinc
16:08:45 [Zakim]
gavinc, you wanted to mention that N-Triples is NOT well specified at the moment, and has no specific media type.
16:08:49 [NickH]
mischat, it is easier to make an N-Triples parser than a Turtle parser - very useful to specifiy a subset
16:08:52 [ericP]
manu1, i suspect it more about whether you can write UTF-8 N-Triples and act surprised when Oracle's tools don't swallow it
16:09:46 [mischat]
gavinc: according the grammar, almost all of the test cases, they don't adhere to the grammar
16:10:11 [ericP]
yeah, almost a branding issue
16:10:19 [mischat]
gavinc: doesn't think that people are using ntriples as specified
16:10:51 [ericP]
i'd say it's useful to have a label which unambiguously advertises to your capabilities to your users
16:11:20 [yvesr]
and what about just versioning the spec?
16:11:33 [mischat]
gavinc: states that the "ntriples" mutli-encoding spec could state how each of the encoding could be used
16:11:55 [ericP]
yvesr, prob is that v1 doesn't have a version identifier
16:11:57 [manu1]
q+ to suggest two levels of conformance - ASCII and UTF-8.
16:12:06 [AndyS]
EricP : isn't that label ";charset=ascii"? What about "text/turtle;charset=ascii"
16:12:09 [mischat]
davidwood: notes that there is a difference between a standard and a vendor specific serialisation
16:12:16 [yvesr]
ericP, we could refer to it using its date (like rdf 2004)?
16:12:22 [ericP]
AndyS, that's pretty compelling
16:12:43 [NickH]
16:13:05 [mischat]
davidwood: we are chartered to standardising turtle, and we have the chance to align ntriples with current internationalisation efforts
16:13:11 [ericP]
write "ASCII Turtle" on the box and "Accept: text/turle;charset=ascii"
16:14:32 [AlexHall]
zhe, over what interface does Oracle accept N-Triples documents? is it even HTTP?
16:14:44 [mischat]
gavinc: doesn't think that we need two specs, we can state that ntriples can be used either with ascii or utf8
16:14:49 [NickH]
even if it doesn't get standardised people will produce and parse N-Triples as utf8, rightly or wrongly
16:15:20 [davidwood]
ack ivan
16:15:41 [mischat]
zwu2: oracles wants to be able to say that they support a standard. 2 levels of affordances to the ntriples serialisations.
16:15:59 [manu1]
16:16:00 [Souri]
I am happy with the choices: N-Triple (classic - unchanged), Turtle, Turtle/N-Triple (N-Triple subset of Turtle that also allows UTF-8)
16:16:00 [mischat]
ivan: would we have a mime type for utf8 ntriples
16:16:02 [gavinc]
N-Triples Prime at the moment
16:16:14 [Souri]
I am happy with the choices: N-Triple (classic - unchanged), Turtle, Turtle/N-Triple (N-Triple subset of Turtle that also allows UTF-8)
16:16:17 [manu1]
q+ to make one final note about JSON-LD CG and RDF WG.
16:16:26 [mischat]
ivan: 2 media types: one for turtle and one for ntriples
16:17:06 [mischat]
ivan: the question would be, would we define a third mime type for triples ascii?
16:17:31 [Souri]
+1 agree to Ivan
16:17:45 [mischat]
gavinc: ntriples is not recommended as a transfer medium
16:18:04 [AndyS]
(cough) N-Triples does have a media type - it's text/plain (sec 3).
16:18:14 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
16:18:14 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
16:18:17 [gavinc]
16:18:25 [MacTed]
16:18:30 [gavinc]
it intentionally did not have one
16:18:36 [mischat]
MacTed: richard's very clear proposal ^^
16:20:16 [mischat]
gavinc: is pretty sure that richard's proposal has been added to turtle's current editor's draft (n-triples prime)
16:20:26 [gavinc]
16:21:07 [mischat]
davidwood: would we leave the ntriples in test-cases? and would be only have ntriples prime in the turtle doc?
16:21:10 [davidwood]
PROPOSED: Create a UTF version of ntriples in the Turtle REC, while making clear that the ASCII version of ntriples is still acceptable for use. ASCII ntriples would continue to live in the test cases document. File extensions and media types should be in conformance to the proposal at
16:21:26 [yvesr]
i wonder why oracle breaking 'standards compliance' would be an issue, as there's no w3c rec for ntriples atm?
16:21:26 [ivan]
16:21:38 [gavinc]
-1 To N-Triples still being in Test Cases
16:21:39 [yvesr]
16:21:53 [LeeF]
16:22:06 [mischat]
zwu2: asking him whether the ascii-ntriples goes into the rec ?
16:22:12 [zwu2]
16:22:40 [LeeF]
I don't care from a Cambridge Semantics point of view, but I don't think it's that helpful to the world to have 2 versions of n-triples
16:23:10 [yvesr]
LeeF, +1
16:23:11 [LeeF]
16:23:36 [MacTed]
+1 to overall proposal ... thinking that UTF-8 ntriples should then also be added to Test Cases
16:23:43 [NickH]
Could we have a new thing with a new name that is Ntriples Utf8?
16:23:45 [mischat]
gavinc: as an editor thinks we can specify a version of ntriples which can support ascii
16:23:54 [AndyS]
+0.75 (one form, use charset to disambiguiate)
16:24:08 [NickH]
and never standardise N-triples ASCII
16:24:26 [LeeF]
To me, having one version of a technology feels more important than unanimous consensus on an issue like this
16:24:44 [LeeF]
(And I don't care which version it is. :-)
16:24:46 [manu1]
16:24:46 [mischat]
i agree with AndyS here, one media type and charset to disambiguate seems like the right thing
16:24:52 [mischat]
16:24:59 [Souri]
A new name for the extended version: possible choices: N-Triples Prime, N-Triples/UTF-8
16:25:06 [manu1]
+0 (not a clear idea of the rammifications of the proposal)
16:26:05 [Souri]
Another choice for name: Turtle/N
16:26:13 [mischat]
davidwood: ntriples is not prohibited as something going across the wire
16:26:47 [manu1]
what about this - PROPOSAL: Allow two levels of conformance in N-Triples - people MAY use ASCII-only, but UTF-8 is RECOMMENDED.
16:26:52 [gavinc]
16:26:56 [AndyS]
ASCII N-triples , UTF-8 N-triples :: common name "N-triples" -- market decides exactly the def of common name.
16:27:09 [mischat]
16:27:19 [AndyS]
+1 to manu1
16:27:29 [manu1]
16:27:55 [mischat]
resolve we would have two version of ntriples, a utf8 and a us-ascii one
16:28:12 [mischat]
so that oracle's software won't break
16:28:13 [manu1]
I just wanted to say: I hope I didn't have too much of an anti-RDF vibe in what I said - I have a great deal of respect for the people in this group. I just don't think that this group is the right one to standardize the JSON-LD work.
16:28:18 [yvesr]
16:28:20 [Zakim]
16:28:22 [Zakim]
16:28:22 [davidwood]
RESOLVED: Create a UTF version of ntriples in the Turtle REC, while making clear that the ASCII version of ntriples is still acceptable for use.  ASCII ntriples would continue to live in the test cases document.  File extensions and media types should be in conformance to the proposal at
16:28:23 [mischat]
zwu2: just thanked gavinc for his hardwork
16:28:23 [Zakim]
16:28:24 [Zakim]
16:28:25 [Zakim]
16:28:27 [Zakim]
16:28:30 [Zakim]
16:28:31 [mbrunati]
16:28:34 [Zakim]
16:28:36 [Zakim]
16:28:36 [Zakim]
16:28:37 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
16:28:38 [Zakim]
16:28:40 [Zakim]
16:28:42 [Zakim]
16:28:44 [Zakim]
16:28:45 [Zakim]
16:28:50 [davidwood]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:28:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate davidwood
16:29:07 [Zakim]
16:30:29 [mischat]
do i need to do more stuff
16:30:30 [mischat]
16:30:46 [mischat]
i have only been an on incubator group with harry before
16:31:02 [mischat]
we did no post-scribe tidy-ups :)
16:31:10 [davidwood]
I think that's it. Thanks for scribing!
16:31:16 [mischat]
16:31:43 [mischat]
mischat has joined #rdf-wg
17:17:43 [mbrunati]
mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg
17:32:17 [Zakim]
17:33:10 [Zakim]
17:33:38 [manu1]
zakim, who is on the call?
17:33:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aharon
17:33:45 [manu1]
zakim, drop aharon
17:33:45 [Zakim]
aharon is being disconnected
17:33:47 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
17:33:48 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.540.898.aaaa, Sandro, mischat, AndyS, Ivan, +1.443.212.aabb, davidwood, AlexHall, MacTed, +1.404.978.aacc, tomayac, Souri, zwu2, manu1, Scott_Bauer, EricP,
17:33:51 [Zakim]
... +1.707.861.aaee, gavinc, +1.617.553.aaff, LeeF, PatH, NickH, yvesr, aharon
19:45:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-wg
20:17:37 [tomayac]
tomayac has joined #rdf-wg
20:36:11 [tomayac]
tomayac has joined #rdf-wg
21:31:40 [tomayac]
tomayac has joined #rdf-wg
21:35:05 [mischat]
mischat has joined #rdf-wg
22:38:22 [tomayac]
tomayac has joined #rdf-wg