IRC log of rdf-wg on 2011-10-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:58:43 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:58:43 [moustaki]
Zakim, this is rdf-wg
14:58:43 [Zakim]
sorry, moustaki, I do not see a conference named 'rdf-wg' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:58:45 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
14:58:46 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:58:46 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:58:46 [trackbot]
Date: 05 October 2011
14:58:55 [moustaki]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:58:55 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, moustaki
14:58:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, moustaki, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, cygri, mischat, ivan, AndyS, davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP
14:59:35 [yvesr]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:35 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, yvesr
14:59:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, cygri, mischat, ivan, AndyS, davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP
14:59:45 [cygri_]
cygri_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:03 [iand]
iand has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:12 [yvesr]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:13 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, yvesr
15:00:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see iand, cygri_, RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, cygri, mischat, ivan, AndyS, davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro,
15:00:21 [Zakim]
... ericP
15:00:23 [Guus]
Guus has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:30 [gavinc]
trackbot, start meeting
15:00:30 [davidwood]
Zakim, this is rdfwg
15:00:31 [Zakim]
ok, davidwood; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
15:00:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:00:34 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
15:00:35 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:00:35 [trackbot]
Date: 05 October 2011
15:00:38 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
15:00:39 [swh]
swh has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:42 [yvesr]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:44 [Zakim]
I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted
15:00:44 [davidwood]
Chair: David Wood
15:00:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ??P4, Peter_Patel-Schneider, ??P7, David_Wood, +1.707.861.aaaa
15:00:46 [Zakim]
15:00:50 [Zakim]
15:00:52 [swh]
Zakim, what is the code?
15:00:53 [yvesr]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
15:00:54 [Zakim]
15:00:56 [Zakim]
the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, swh
15:00:56 [gavinc]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:00:58 [Zakim]
+yvesr; got it
15:01:00 [Zakim]
15:01:02 [Zakim]
+gavinc; got it
15:01:02 [mischat]
mischat has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:03 [cygri_]
zakim, nunolopes is me
15:01:04 [Zakim]
15:01:05 [ww]
zakim, ??P14 is me
15:01:06 [Zakim]
15:01:08 [Zakim]
+cygri_; got it
15:01:10 [Zakim]
+ww; got it
15:01:11 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:17 [ww]
zakim, please mute me
15:01:18 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:22 [Zakim]
15:01:25 [Zakim]
ww should now be muted
15:01:26 [Zakim]
15:01:28 [AndyS1]
zakim, ??P15 is me
15:01:29 [yvesr]
scribe: yvesr
15:01:30 [Zakim]
15:01:32 [Zakim]
+AndyS1; got it
15:01:37 [gavinc]
zakim, who is talking?
15:01:37 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:41 [Zakim]
15:01:49 [Zakim]
gavinc, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: David_Wood (4%)
15:01:52 [davidwood]
Scribe Yves Raimond
15:01:59 [davidwood]
Scribe: Yves raimond
15:02:01 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:01 [Zakim]
15:02:08 [Zakim]
15:02:09 [davidwood]
scribenick: yvesr
15:02:13 [Zakim]
15:02:13 [Guus]
zakim, ??p18 is me
15:02:14 [Zakim]
+Guus; got it
15:02:19 [Guus]
zakim, mute me
15:02:19 [Zakim]
Guus should now be muted
15:02:20 [swh]
Zakim, ??P13 is me
15:02:21 [Zakim]
+swh; got it
15:02:24 [Zakim]
15:02:30 [Zakim]
15:02:31 [Zakim]
15:02:37 [SteveH]
Zakim, SteveH is me
15:02:37 [Zakim]
sorry, SteveH, I do not recognize a party named 'SteveH'
15:02:38 [Zakim]
+ +1.443.212.aabb
15:02:47 [SteveH]
Zakim, swh is me
15:02:47 [Zakim]
+SteveH; got it
15:02:52 [Scott_Bauer]
Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:53 [AlexHall]
zakim, aabb is me
15:02:53 [Zakim]
+AlexHall; got it
15:02:54 [iand]
15:02:56 [Zakim]
+ +
15:03:07 [AZ]
Zakim, aacc is me
15:03:07 [Zakim]
+AZ; got it
15:03:13 [iand]
mischat: one of us is p16, one is p17
15:03:18 [Zakim]
15:03:21 [Guus]
[partial regrets, have to leave after 30 min for the airport]
15:03:22 [iand]
i was p17
15:03:27 [Zakim]
15:03:34 [mischat]
zakim, ??P16 is me
15:03:35 [Zakim]
+mischat; got it
15:03:38 [mbrunati]
mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:39 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:03:39 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:03:41 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:03:41 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:03:46 [mischat]
zakim, mute me
15:03:46 [Zakim]
mischat should now be muted
15:03:51 [Zakim]
15:03:52 [davidwood]
Zakim, ??P17 is iand
15:03:53 [Zakim]
I already had ??P17 as MacTed, davidwood
15:04:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.507.261.aadd
15:04:18 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's here?
15:04:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see yvesr, David_Wood, gavinc, ww (muted), cygri_, Arnaud, Ivan, AndyS1, Guus (muted), SteveH, mischat (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, AZ, MacTed (muted),
15:04:21 [Zakim]
... ??P26, +1.507.261.aadd
15:04:22 [Zakim]
On IRC I see mbrunati, Scott_Bauer, AlexHall, AZ, mischat, SteveH, Guus, iand, cygri, RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, AndyS,
15:04:24 [Zakim]
... davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP
15:04:26 [Zakim]
15:04:38 [Souri]
Souri has joined #RDF-WG
15:04:45 [Scott_Bauer]
Zakim, aadd is me
15:04:45 [Zakim]
+Scott_Bauer; got it
15:04:48 [Zakim]
15:05:04 [Scott_Bauer]
Zakim, mute me
15:05:04 [Zakim]
Scott_Bauer should now be muted
15:05:16 [yvesr]
davidwood: i'd like to go through the scribe list
15:05:19 [Zakim]
15:05:26 [iand]
zakim, ??p26 is me
15:05:26 [Zakim]
+iand; got it
15:05:26 [yvesr]
davidwood: adding new members on the scribe list
15:05:34 [Zakim]
15:05:36 [mbrunati]
today only via irc, phone problems
15:06:03 [AndyS1]
15:06:06 [Guus]
15:06:10 [yvesr]
davidwood: minutes accepted
15:06:20 [yvesr]
TOPIC: action items review
15:06:38 [yvesr]
davidwood: lisiase with html data task force for turtle in html
15:06:45 [yvesr]
davidwood: corresponding action closed
15:07:00 [yvesr]
15:07:09 [gavinc]
sadly did it twice thanks to gmail :(
15:07:29 [yvesr]
davidwood: Guus had two action items
15:07:45 [Guus]
we haven't done that yet, will talk to Fabien
15:08:23 [yvesr]
TOPIC: F2F planning
15:08:41 [yvesr]
davidwood: f2f either at MIT or BBC
15:08:59 [mischat]
please update this page with your intentions
15:09:57 [mischat]
yvesr: the bbc are struggling to get the video conference system working, at a bare minimum we will have a webcam. everything is behind a proxy,
15:10:35 [mischat]
davidwood: people should turn up a bit earlier at the bbc so that we can make sure that everyone gets online and set before the MIT lot turn up
15:10:56 [mischat]
yvesr: people should email Yves if you want to hang out and have dinner after the days play
15:11:52 [ivan]
15:11:53 [yvesr]
TOPIC: scribe list
15:11:56 [davidwood]
15:12:09 [yvesr]
davidwood: who should we drop off the scribe list?
15:12:22 [mischat]
nathan hasn't for a while
15:12:25 [yvesr]
davidwood: any suggestions for people that have not shown up?
15:12:47 [mischat]
axel ?
15:12:54 [gavinc]
Nathan Rixham
15:13:12 [yvesr]
ivan: Mohamed hasn't shown up, and Nathan
15:13:18 [mischat]
how about Axel Polleres
15:13:19 [mischat]
15:13:27 [pfps]
zakim, who is here?
15:13:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see yvesr, David_Wood, gavinc, ww (muted), cygri_, Arnaud, Ivan, AndyS1, Guus (muted), SteveH, mischat (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, AZ, MacTed (muted),
15:13:31 [Zakim]
... Scott_Bauer (muted), Souri, iand, Sandro
15:13:34 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Souri, mbrunati, Scott_Bauer, AlexHall, AZ, mischat, SteveH, Guus, iand, cygri, RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, AndyS,
15:13:36 [Zakim]
... davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP
15:13:46 [yvesr]
ivan: Axel? Matteo?
15:14:48 [yvesr]
ivan: Jean-Francois?
15:15:10 [Scott_Bauer]
I'm on the call as well
15:15:16 [Zakim]
15:15:46 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute ??p2
15:15:46 [Zakim]
??P2 should now be muted
15:15:50 [NickH]
zakim, ??P2 is me
15:15:50 [Zakim]
+NickH; got it
15:15:52 [NickH]
15:16:27 [ww]
davidwood: i am not on the list! but happy to scribe after the F2F
15:16:44 [yvesr]
ivan: heard back from our admin that the zakim channel is opened on both days
15:16:54 [ivan]
code: 733294 ("RDF2WG")
15:16:57 [yvesr]
sandro: the code will be rdf2wg
15:16:59 [sandro]
for F2F
15:17:09 [yvesr]
sandro: i will update the wiki page
15:17:27 [mbrunati]
sorry for the last weeks, not enough time ( we are making a contest on open data ), F2F probably only remote for the BBC place, and december not able to scribe ( my marriage )
15:17:34 [yvesr]
TOPIC: Named Graphs
15:17:41 [sandro]
15:17:49 [yvesr]
davidwood: we have two proposals
15:18:01 [yvesr]
davidwood: ... and we have a f2f next week
15:18:08 [yvesr]
davidwood: ... we need to have a good plan by next week
15:18:17 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:18:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see yvesr, David_Wood, gavinc, ww (muted), cygri_, Arnaud, Ivan, AndyS1, Guus (muted), SteveH, mischat (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, AZ, MacTed (muted),
15:18:21 [Zakim]
... Scott_Bauer (muted), Souri, iand, Sandro, NickH (muted)
15:18:46 [Guus]
15:19:39 [davidwood]
15:20:14 [yvesr]
davidwood: the graph task forcepage needs to be updated
15:20:29 [yvesr]
s/forcepage/force page
15:20:46 [sandro]
action: richard to update (but hopes others will help)
15:20:47 [yvesr]
cygri: i can do it, but it would be good if someone could contribute as well
15:20:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-94 - Update (but hopes others will help) [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-12].
15:20:57 [yvesr]
davidwood: the two proposals come from sandro and cygri
15:21:05 [davidwood]
15:21:16 [yvesr]
davidwood: the use-cases page needs to be cleaned up
15:21:40 [yvesr]
davidwood: sandro tried to get to the core of those use-cases in his recent emails with the proveance xg
15:21:52 [yvesr]
davidwood: it would be good to define test cases from these use cases
15:22:02 [yvesr]
davidwood: which would serve as a basis for evaluation
15:22:15 [ivan]
15:22:35 [yvesr]
davidwood: it might be possible to collapse some use cases together
15:23:22 [davidwood]
ack ivan
15:23:54 [cygri]
15:24:09 [yvesr]
ivan: we need to be looking at just 5 or 4 use cases, otherwise we'll be lost
15:24:17 [gavinc]
Zakim, mute me
15:24:17 [Zakim]
gavinc should now be muted
15:24:22 [yvesr]
davidwood: right now, we have 27 use cases
15:24:30 [yvesr]
davidwood: ... most of those overlap
15:24:39 [yvesr]
davidwood: ... it woul dbe better if we had 5!
15:24:46 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #rdf-wg
15:24:54 [davidwood]
ack cygri
15:25:18 [yvesr]
cygri: agreed that 27 use cases is too much, but it doesn't make sense to pick just one
15:25:46 [yvesr]
cygri: some of the use-cases come from practical use cases
15:25:47 [sandro]
+1 the fish-restaurant use case should not be the only one. there are more immediate ones.
15:25:57 [yvesr]
cygri: ... rather than just 'this is what we could do'
15:26:27 [sandro]
15:26:58 [sandro]
cygri: 1.6, 1.2
15:27:04 [yvesr]
cygri: particularly interesting ones are, to me, 1.6 - versioning, 1.1 - overlap between content of graphs,
15:27:11 [davidwood]
15:27:26 [yvesr]
cygri: ... i'd like everyone in the group to do that on the mailing list
15:27:36 [sandro]
+1: please nominate your favorite use case.
15:27:44 [sandro]
15:27:53 [yvesr]
davidwood: provencance use cases are important
15:27:59 [davidwood]
15:28:02 [ww]
i would argue that 6.2 bears on provenance
15:28:05 [yvesr]
davidwood: ... that's why we are liaising with the provencance xg
15:28:10 [gavinc]
I like 5.2
15:28:12 [mischat]
15:28:15 [yvesr]
15:28:29 [gavinc]
rather 5.2 is rather important to TopQuadrant
15:28:43 [pchampin]
pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
15:28:45 [sandro]
15:28:52 [SteveH]
1.5 is important to us
15:29:05 [mischat]
yvesr: has just added in a use-case given to him by Denny, about wiki based issues in the wikimedia project
15:29:06 [yvesr]
yvesr: new use case from Denny, about Wikidata (Wikimedia project)
15:29:33 [Scott_Bauer]
4.8 has become obsolete and could be safely eliminated from the list if it overlaps with others
15:29:40 [Guus]
I will provide example data (triples) about the Europeana Data Model use case, about metadata of heritage objects, including provenance data
15:29:50 [yvesr]
davidwood: we need to evaluate proposals against test cases derived from use cases
15:29:53 [Guus]
Target is by Friday
15:30:09 [Guus]
[have to drop off]
15:30:13 [yvesr]
davidwood: it needs to be done before the F2F
15:30:27 [Zakim]
15:30:30 [Zakim]
15:30:31 [yvesr]
davidwood: 48 hours
15:30:32 [Zakim]
15:31:05 [pchampin]
zakim, ??p30 is me
15:31:05 [Zakim]
+pchampin; got it
15:31:45 [yvesr]
davidwood: would sandro and cygri be prepared to give an overview of the respective proposals on named graphs? and how they relate to UC?
15:31:57 [yvesr]
sandro: i don't think i have a proposal, exactly
15:32:48 [yvesr]
sandro: i might be able to give a list of questions or a summary options
15:33:11 [yvesr]
cygri: i can present my proposal
15:33:22 [Scott_Bauer]
I should have referred to 4.7, "Applying Named Graphs to a Terminology Server" based on the alternate url above.
15:33:31 [Zakim]
15:33:33 [NickH]
zakim, ??P2 is me
15:33:33 [Zakim]
+NickH; got it
15:33:39 [NickH]
zakim, mute me
15:33:39 [Zakim]
NickH should now be muted
15:33:43 [sandro]
action: sandro to present after Richard, F2F2 day 1, about where we might need more than his proposal gives us.
15:33:43 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-95 - Present after Richard, F2F2 day 1, about where we might need more than his proposal gives us. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-10-12].
15:34:11 [yvesr]
davidwood: focus at the F2F on use-cases, and turn them into test cases
15:34:19 [davidwood]
15:34:21 [cygri]
15:34:27 [davidwood]
ack cygri
15:34:31 [yvesr]
action: cygri to present his proposal for named graphs at the F2F
15:34:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-96 - Present his proposal for named graphs at the F2F [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-12].
15:34:33 [SteveH]
15:35:08 [yvesr]
cygri: i am strugginlg to find the UC that motivates the argument made by PatH and Pierre-Antoine
15:36:32 [yvesr]
pchampin: i can't speak for PatH, but maybe i can work on a negative example where i show the freedom given by cygri's proposal could be harmful
15:37:24 [yvesr]
pchampin: a lot of use cases are arguing that an IRI in a graph can be used to access a graph in a dataset
15:37:34 [yvesr]
pchampin: cygri call that a social convention
15:37:55 [yvesr]
pchampin: i think it has surprising consequences
15:38:25 [sandro]
hard to hear davidwood
15:38:28 [MacTed]
Zakim, who's noisy?
15:38:33 [sandro]
15:38:39 [Zakim]
MacTed, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: David_Wood (62%), pchampin (22%)
15:39:02 [cygri]
pchampin, if you could write up that use case (negative or not), that would be much appreciated
15:39:15 [pchampin]
@cygri I will
15:39:16 [yvesr]
davidwood: ability to access a graph by an IRI seems like a non-issue
15:39:27 [yvesr]
davidwood: struggling to understand the counter-argument
15:39:38 [pfps]
what happens when there is a mismatch between a quad and actuality?
15:40:07 [sandro]
the same thing as happens any other time there is bad data, pfps, I think....
15:40:47 [pfps]
but if quads carry actuality then having them wrong is like having 7 be 8!
15:41:47 [davidwood]
cygri, can you please scribe your comments into IRC?
15:41:48 [sandro]
15:42:20 [yvesr]
pfps: there is an issue having the semantics of rdf pushing into the semantics of quads
15:42:26 [sandro]
15:42:51 [yvesr]
davidwood: isn't the point of rdf that anybody can say anything about anything?
15:42:59 [yvesr]
davidwood: if i choose to say that 7 is 8, it's fine
15:43:10 [yvesr]
pfps: it's different than rdf saying that 7 is 8
15:43:26 [yvesr]
pfps: we don't have a proposal for how the semantics would work
15:43:51 [yvesr]
pfps: they can be right, but not very useful
15:43:55 [sandro]
thus the drive to make sure our usecases are ... useful. :-)
15:44:31 [cygri]
cygri: i think we agree that in implementations, IRIs can be used to access graphs. the disagreement is about how graph names should be treated in the formal semantics. minimalist position: the semantics should be concerned with single graphs only. alternative position: the semantics should make graph IRIs denote the graphs
15:44:38 [Zakim]
15:45:03 [Zakim]
15:45:08 [yvesr]
pfps: the semantics should be concerned with single graphs only
15:45:25 [yvesr]
pfps: right now, they do
15:45:37 [yvesr]
davidwood: should the rdf semantics ignore named graphs?
15:45:50 [yvesr]
pfps: you could push those notions in the rdf semantics, but it might not be helpful
15:46:30 [yvesr]
davidwood: if you have a syntax that allows for named graphs, would you efectively just add triple?
15:46:39 [yvesr]
s/triple/a triple/
15:47:01 [ww]
statement identifiers...
15:47:03 [yvesr]
davidwood: does it *need* to impact the semantics?
15:47:21 [yvesr]
pfps: leaving named graphs out of semantics looses something, but it might be more trouble than it's worth
15:47:35 [Souri]
15:47:42 [gavinc]
zakim, unmute me
15:47:42 [Zakim]
gavinc should no longer be muted
15:47:53 [yvesr]
gavinc: i thought everybody agreed that reification is broken, in rdf
15:47:59 [pfps]
RDF reification is more trouble (>0) than it is worth (<=0)
15:48:24 [yvesr]
davidwood: but could it help us out of the named graphs problem?
15:48:39 [yvesr]
davidwood: a bounded type of reification, specific to named graphs
15:48:44 [Zakim]
15:49:13 [Andy]
Are we agreed how reification is broken? (and I think it is broken)
15:49:22 [Zakim]
15:49:23 [NickH]
zakim, ??P2 is me
15:49:23 [Zakim]
+NickH; got it
15:49:25 [NickH]
zakim, mute me
15:49:25 [Zakim]
NickH should now be muted
15:49:29 [sandro]
15:49:45 [davidwood]
ack SteveH
15:50:10 [yvesr]
SteveH: some of the proposals seem to be trying to rule out certain things that people are currently doing
15:50:16 [gavinc]
15:50:18 [sandro]
SteveH: some of the proposals seem to be trying to rule out things some people are doing in SPARQL.
15:50:29 [yvesr]
SteveH: we shouldn't do that - we should support creating some structure around what people are doing right now
15:50:42 [yvesr]
SteveH: we don't want to be enormously disruptive
15:50:52 [yvesr]
davidwood: you overestimate our impact on the market
15:50:56 [cygri]
15:51:01 [yvesr]
SteveH: but we should try not to get ignored
15:51:05 [pchampin]
@SteveH: the graph IRI as defined by the RDF spec does not have to be the graph IRI as used by SPARQL
15:51:24 [Zakim]
15:51:24 [yvesr]
sandro: i can name one of these proposals
15:51:26 [pchampin]
though we should be careful to name it differently, of course
15:51:55 [yvesr]
sandro: using graph tags to specify the subject of the doc
15:51:56 [LeeF]
I think that that's a pretty common practice, isn't it?
15:52:24 [gavinc]
Yes, TopQuadrant is aware that we shouldn't be doing that ;)
15:52:25 [yvesr]
sandro: other examples would be mandating that a graph URI must be dereferencable
15:52:35 [yvesr]
15:52:38 [LeeF]
I'm pretty sure dbpedia's SPARQL end point names graphs with the subject of the graph (at least, it did at some point)
15:52:41 [LeeF]
Anzo does it as well, in some modes
15:52:46 [yvesr]
sandro: we shouldn't impact on anybody's code
15:53:04 [gavinc]
O'Reilly Media's does too
15:53:15 [cygri]
LeeF: the one at doesn't. the DBPedia Live one might do it
15:53:20 [yvesr]
sandro: i think it is bad practice to use the subject as the base id of the graph
15:53:24 [LeeF]
15:53:48 [yvesr]
sandro: maybe we can reach a proposal that is actually helpful, motivating people to switch
15:53:52 [yvesr]
davidwood: like RDFa 1.1
15:54:05 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:54:05 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:54:33 [gavinc]
Btw, the confusion here is rather bad. TopQurant software uses the same "method", everything tends to ask about Base URI
15:55:10 [yvesr]
SteveH: we should look at the linked data work, with no strict conventions about how to name graph
15:55:24 [yvesr]
davidwood: if you're right, then we don't need standards
15:55:35 [LeeF]
cygri, my experience might have been a long time ago, as well.
15:55:36 [yvesr]
SteveH: we still should recommend what to do
15:55:37 [gavinc]
Where base URI == OWL Ontology == Base URI 3986 == Graph Name :\
15:55:40 [davidwood]
That wasn't me!
15:55:43 [LeeF]
cygri, also the chance that i'm hopelessly confused :)
15:55:45 [Andy]
+1 to advice and suggestions and "good practice" docs
15:55:47 [ww]
15:55:53 [sandro]
15:55:58 [sandro]
15:55:58 [NickH]
15:56:06 [davidwood]
ack sandro
15:56:08 [gavinc]
+1 to andy on advice and good (not best) practices
15:56:08 [Zakim]
15:56:32 [Zakim]
15:56:41 [yvesr]
sandro: responding to what pfps said - i don't have a particular position - but intution is that we need more than we have now
15:56:59 [ivan]
15:57:10 [davidwood]
ack ivan
15:57:12 [pfps]
it appears that we need use cases and worked out solutions to see what machinery is needed
15:57:47 [sandro]
yeah. :-(
15:57:53 [sandro]
(frown because it's hard work.)
15:58:01 [cygri]
15:58:15 [davidwood]
That's why we need to move toward test cases
15:58:18 [cygri]
15:58:25 [davidwood]
ack cygri
15:59:16 [yvesr]
cygri: how to map terminology to use-cases? (e.g. subgraphs)
15:59:33 [yvesr]
cygri: ... in that document ivan wrote about graphs
15:59:50 [yvesr]
ivan: that document talked about graph literals, where you hit the issue of sub-graphs etc.
15:59:59 [yvesr]
ivan: those propoerties were mainly coming from that
16:00:16 [yvesr]
ivan: if we don't have graph literals at all, the problem becomes very different
16:00:22 [pchampin]
16:00:27 [Souri]
Why don't we just present graphs as a way of scoping (using a IRI tags) for RDF's uniqueness requirement? How people use graphs is their business.
16:01:01 [yvesr]
pchampin: graph literals may be very important
16:01:12 [yvesr]
ivan: i didn't say they weren't
16:01:26 [sandro]
ivan: if we have graph literals then those additional properties are important
16:01:57 [sandro]
pchampin: If we don't give special semantics to graph IRIs, then we'll need more ways to talk about graphs.
16:02:17 [Souri]
16:02:40 [yvesr]
pchampin: if we refuse to give special semantics to graph IRIs, my intuition is that it would become more important - we need to know how to treat a graph IRI
16:03:17 [pchampin]
pchampin: ... that we can express in RDF what is the relation btw a graph and its IRI in a give dataset
16:03:24 [pfps]
what kind of special semantics?
16:03:29 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:03:48 [yvesr]
davidwood: strawman proposal about RDF datasets
16:03:50 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:03:50 [davidwood]
Strawman proposal Richard:
16:04:00 [pchampin]
@pfps: that the graph IRI actually denotes the g-snap, for example
16:04:20 [yvesr]
sandro: i thought we were going through the issues list?
16:04:50 [yvesr]
davidwood: this specific issue is abstract syntax to talk about multiple graphs
16:04:55 [Zakim]
16:05:24 [yvesr]
davidwood: i will go through the issues list, preparing for the F2F
16:06:19 [yvesr]
cygri: the strawman proposal is more or less a copy of the SPARQL 1.1 spec, expect it avoids saying that the graph name is an identifier for the graph
16:06:35 [NickH]
zakim, ??P2 is me
16:06:35 [Zakim]
I already had ??P2 as Bert, NickH
16:06:37 [Zakim]
16:06:43 [NickH]
zakim, ??P54 is me
16:06:43 [Zakim]
+NickH; got it
16:06:49 [NickH]
zakim, mute me
16:06:49 [Zakim]
NickH should now be muted
16:06:55 [ww]
[I have to drop off the call, apologies]
16:07:03 [Zakim]
16:07:29 [yvesr]
cygri: it motivates the need for syntaxes, to write those different graphs
16:07:42 [yvesr]
cygri: it's important to have a strawman there
16:08:03 [pfps]
Looks benign to me, and useful to pull into RDF Concepts.
16:08:31 [Andy]
and RDF-WG is doing syntax for something like this.
16:08:40 [yvesr]
davidwood: does it look benign to everyone?
16:09:00 [yvesr]
sandro: i don't understand why the default graph doesn't have a name
16:09:12 [yvesr]
davidwood: should it not have necessarily a name>
16:09:17 [yvesr]
16:09:27 [pfps]
the sentence *could* just be removed.
16:09:37 [yvesr]
pfps: thereis nothing really wrong with that, the sentence could be removed
16:09:45 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
16:09:45 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
16:10:07 [yvesr]
pfps: that sentence could be somewhere else?
16:10:18 [pchampin]
proposal: the default graph has no name, but could be identical to a named graph
16:10:29 [yvesr]
MacTed: if you use a default graph, it is not named
16:10:40 [Andy]
"There is no name for the default graph role."
16:10:41 [yvesr]
MacTed: if it is, then you use a named graph
16:10:45 [pfps]
the sentence about the default graph not having a name could just be removed, without affecting the meaning of the section
16:10:52 [pchampin]
@sandro: I think we mean g-snaps here
16:10:58 [pfps]
"There is no name for the default graph."
16:11:08 [yvesr]
sandro: a dataset is entirely g-snap
16:11:33 [Souri]
16:11:39 [Andy]
sandro - That is true in SPARQL - its immutable (a graph store is mutable)
16:11:46 [sandro]
+1 to removing "The default graph does not have a name."
16:11:53 [yvesr]
cygri: it might be a good idea to remove the sentence if it brings confusion - it is redundant
16:12:13 [yvesr]
cygri: +1 to sandro, datasets are only composed of g-snaps
16:12:30 [yvesr]
cygri: what we have here is essentially a 'dataset snap'
16:12:52 [gavinc]
-0.5 to removing "The default graph does not have a name"
16:12:54 [yvesr]
cygri: it is just a snapshot
16:13:42 [gavinc]
16:13:55 [pfps]
around here it was snapping trees - courtesy of tropical storm Irene :-)
16:14:54 [yvesr]
sandro: if you think of that in terms of syntax, it makes it very clear that th edefalut graph doesn't have a name
16:15:20 [yvesr]
sandro: why do you need to do that to name the triples that are already in the default graph?
16:15:30 [gavinc]
TriG does NOT have triples without {}
16:15:37 [sandro]
david: Why do you have the move the triples into curly braces to give them a name?
16:15:41 [yvesr]
MacTed: either they exist in a named graph, either they don't
16:15:57 [gavinc]
the {}s may not have a graph_name as it's optional
16:15:59 [sandro]
sorry, Gavin, call it DTriG or something.
16:16:32 [gavinc]
sandro, np. But people have claimed that TriG is better for not having anything outside of {}s ;)
16:17:02 [yvesr]
MacTed: default graph is a g-box, it can't be a g-snap
16:17:27 [Andy]
The default graph is a set - it can not change. It is a g-snap. a dataset is a "set"
16:17:30 [sandro]
(right, I think Ted is wrong about dataset/gbox)
16:17:43 [yvesr]
Andy, +1
16:18:00 [yvesr]
sandro: the default graph is not a g-box
16:18:14 [yvesr]
sandro: in practice, you can treat it as mutable, but in theory it is immutable
16:18:37 [LeeF]
I don't agree with sandro on everything, but definitely agree with him on this :)
16:18:47 [gavinc]
16:18:55 [cygri]
“RDF graph” as per RDF Concepts = g-snap
16:19:06 [yvesr]
davidwood: in rdf concepts, every time we say the word graph, we mean g-snap
16:19:10 [yvesr]
cygri: agreed
16:19:21 [yvesr]
cygri: defined as a set of triples, in the mathematical sense
16:19:32 [yvesr]
cygri: when you add a triple, you get a different graph
16:19:53 [yvesr]
davidwood: if you change a graph in a dataset, then you change the dataset
16:20:28 [gavinc]
Why not Graph Store?
16:20:35 [yvesr]
sandro: maybe we could consider a container of immutable graphs?
16:20:51 [Andy]
PUT http://example/gbox
16:21:13 [yvesr]
sandro: a 'graph dispenser'
16:21:16 [Souri]
I am happy :-) with just presenting graphs as a way of scoping (using a IRI tags) for RDF's uniqueness requirement. I think how people use graphs is their business.
16:21:26 [LeeF]
As gavinc says, SPARQL 1.1 calls the container a "graph store"
16:21:35 [LeeF]
(SPARQL 1.1 Update, specifically)
16:21:37 [Andy]
16:21:51 [gavinc]
as does SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol
16:21:56 [Zakim]
16:21:57 [LeeF]
16:22:03 [Zakim]
16:22:04 [sandro]
@souri have you looked at the Graphs use cases? Do you know how to address them (without this stuff)?
16:22:14 [Zakim]
16:22:15 [yvesr]
16:22:16 [Zakim]
16:22:17 [Zakim]
16:22:17 [Zakim]
16:22:18 [mbrunati]
16:22:20 [Zakim]
16:22:20 [Zakim]
16:22:20 [Zakim]
16:22:22 [yvesr]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:22:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate yvesr
16:22:23 [Zakim]
16:22:25 [Zakim]
16:22:25 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
16:22:27 [Zakim]
16:22:29 [Zakim]
16:22:30 [Zakim]
16:22:31 [MacTed]
it might be worthwhile to do a global search-and-replace, s/graph/g-snap/ ... and then read
16:22:33 [Zakim]
16:22:35 [Zakim]
16:22:37 [Zakim]
16:22:38 [Zakim]
16:24:11 [mischat_]
mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg
16:24:40 [mischat_]
mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg
16:24:47 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdf-wg
16:29:54 [iand]
iand has left #rdf-wg
16:37:20 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has left #rdf-wg
17:21:17 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
17:24:21 [Zakim]
17:24:46 [swh]
swh has joined #rdf-wg
17:29:29 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, pchampin, in SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
17:29:36 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
17:29:38 [Zakim]
Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, David_Wood, +1.707.861.aaaa, yvesr, gavinc, Arnaud, cygri_, ww, Ivan, AndyS1, Guus, +1.443.212.aabb, SteveH, AlexHall, +, AZ,
17:29:43 [Zakim]
... mischat, MacTed, +1.507.261.aadd, Souri, Scott_Bauer, iand, Sandro, NickH, pchampin, LeeF
17:46:41 [mischat_]
mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg
18:14:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-wg
19:38:32 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-wg