15:58:06 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 15:58:06 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/16-rdf-wg-irc 15:58:08 RRSAgent, make logs world 15:58:10 Zakim, this will be 73394 15:58:11 Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 15:58:11 Date: 16 November 2011 15:58:15 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, davidwood 15:58:17 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 15:58:25 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:58:25 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, yvesr 15:58:27 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, cgreer, AZ, pfps, AndyS, Guus, gavinc, MacTed, SteveH, cygri, mischat, ivan, LeeF, davidwood, yvesr, mdmdm, manu1, trackbot, manu, sandro, NickH, 15:58:29 ... ericP 15:59:09 AndyS has left #rdf-wg 15:59:17 AndyS has joined #rdf-wg 15:59:44 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:59:44 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS 15:59:45 On IRC I see AndyS, RRSAgent, Zakim, cgreer, AZ, pfps, Guus, gavinc, MacTed, SteveH, cygri, mischat, ivan, LeeF, davidwood, yvesr, mdmdm, manu1, trackbot, manu, sandro, NickH, 15:59:48 ... ericP 16:00:16 zakim, this is RDF 16:00:16 ok, AndyS; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM 16:00:22 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:00:22 On the phone I see ??P0, David, +30889aaaa, ??P3, ericP, +1.707.861.aabb 16:00:31 zakim, ??P3 is me 16:00:31 +AndyS; got it 16:00:35 Zakim, aabb is me 16:00:36 +gavinc; got it 16:00:37 Zakim, ??P0 is me 16:00:38 +yvesr; got it 16:00:41 + +1.707.318.aacc 16:00:42 +Peter_Patel-Schneider 16:00:53 trackbot, start meeting 16:00:54 zakim, aacc is me 16:00:54 +cgreer; got it 16:00:55 RRSAgent, make logs world 16:00:57 Zakim, this will be 73394 16:00:57 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now 16:00:57 zakim, who is here? 16:00:58 Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 16:00:58 Date: 16 November 2011 16:00:58 I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted 16:01:00 Arnaud has joined #rdf-wg 16:01:01 On the phone I see yvesr, David, +30889aaaa, AndyS, ericP, gavinc, cgreer, Peter_Patel-Schneider 16:01:03 AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg 16:01:04 On IRC I see AndyS, RRSAgent, Zakim, cgreer, AZ, pfps, Guus, gavinc, MacTed, SteveH, cygri, mischat, ivan, LeeF, davidwood, yvesr, mdmdm, manu1, trackbot, manu, sandro, NickH, 16:01:07 ... ericP 16:01:15 +Arnaud_LeHors 16:01:36 + +1.443.212.aadd 16:01:43 zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 16:01:45 zakim, aadd is me 16:01:45 +AlexHall; got it 16:01:46 zakim, +30 is me 16:01:46 +Guus; got it 16:01:47 Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg 16:01:51 zakim, dial ivan-voip 16:01:51 ok, ivan; the call is being made 16:01:51 zakim, code? 16:01:52 the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2 16:01:53 +Ivan 16:02:01 cygri_ has joined #rdf-wg 16:02:31 + +1.650.265.aaee 16:02:38 zakim, +aaee is me 16:02:42 sorry, zwu2, I do not recognize a party named '+aaee' 16:02:45 +mhausenblas 16:02:47 +Tony 16:02:49 zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me 16:02:50 +cygri_; got it 16:02:53 +sandro 16:02:53 zakim, +1.650.265.aaee is me 16:02:54 +zwu2; got it 16:02:56 Zakim, Tony is me 16:02:56 +Scott_Bauer; got it 16:03:01 strapoll: telecon on Thanksgiving? 16:03:13 0 16:03:14 sandro has changed the topic to: 16 Nov -- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.11.16 16:03:31 0 16:03:34 0 16:03:37 -1 (I can't attend) 16:03:37 0 (can make TC, but if insuffcient numbers likely, maybe skip) 16:03:43 Telecon on day BEFORE thanksgiving (aka busiest travel day of the year?) 16:03:54 0 16:04:40 scribenick pfps 16:05:01 scribenick: pfps 16:05:17 +Souri 16:05:37 accept minutes 16:05:52 + +33.4.77.42.aaff 16:05:52 minutes accepted 16:06:47 guus: action items 16:06:58 scribe: pfps 16:07:01 zakim, +33.4.77.42.aaff is me 16:07:01 +AZ; got it 16:08:28 guus: all pending actions done 16:08:42 s/pending/pending-review/ 16:08:57 zakim, who is here? 16:08:58 On the phone I see yvesr, David, Guus, AndyS, ericP, gavinc, cgreer, Peter_Patel-Schneider, Arnaud_LeHors (muted), AlexHall, Ivan, zwu2, cygri_, Scott_Bauer, sandro, Souri, AZ 16:09:01 guus: open action review 16:09:05 On IRC I see cygri, Scott_Bauer, zwu2, AlexHall, Arnaud, AndyS, RRSAgent, Zakim, cgreer, AZ, pfps, Guus, gavinc, MacTed, SteveH, mischat, ivan, LeeF, davidwood, yvesr, mdmdm, 16:09:09 ... manu1, trackbot, manu, sandro, NickH, ericP 16:09:15 zakim, cygri_ is cygri 16:09:15 +cygri; got it 16:09:30 guus: action 73 - fabien will handle in December 16:09:41 swh has joined #rdf-wg 16:09:53 guus: action 82 continued 16:10:07 guus: action 94 continued 16:10:53 +??P31 16:10:57 guus: action 99 continued 16:11:02 Zakim, ??P31 is me 16:11:02 +swh; got it 16:11:29 guus: action 100 16:11:33 sandro: in progress 16:11:54 Souri has joined #rdf-wg 16:11:58 guus: is action 99 critical? 16:12:02 sandro: no 16:12:42 guus: close it in favour of 100? 16:12:50 sandro: OK 16:13:02 guus: action 106 16:13:02 close action-99 16:13:02 ACTION-99 Look at ISSUE-11 in relation to SPARQL 1.1 closed 16:13:22 gavin: waiting for action in Concepts 16:13:43 cygri: waiting for approval from Peter and Pat 16:14:34 cygri: will push next week 16:14:52 guus: action 111 continued 16:15:13 ACTION: cygri to add list of XSD types to Concepts (assuming no objection from PatH or pfps) until 2011-11-25 16:15:14 Created ACTION-122 - Add list of XSD types to Concepts (assuming no objection from PatH or pfps) until 2011-11-25 [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-11-23]. 16:15:21 ACTION-122? 16:15:21 ACTION-122 -- Richard Cyganiak to add list of XSD types to Concepts (assuming no objection from PatH or pfps) until 2011-11-25 -- due 2011-11-23 -- OPEN 16:15:21 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/122 16:15:38 guus: action 114 continued 16:15:51 guus: action 115 16:16:05 sandro: did get a reaction from Adobe 16:16:10 guus: so closed 16:17:31 sandro: reaction was rather negative to changes, but deprecation wasn't explicitly mentioned 16:18:43 action 116 continued 16:18:43 Sorry, couldn't find user - 116 16:18:49 +??P32 16:18:49 guus: action 116 continued 16:19:02 zakim, i am ??P32 16:19:03 +mischat; got it 16:19:07 zakim, mute me 16:19:07 mischat should now be muted 16:19:17 guus: action 117 - email seen, but still continue 16:19:26 guus: action 118 - email seen, but still continue 16:19:30 No progress on action 119, maybe this coming week, but not definite (did warn there might be a delay - it came to pass :-|) 16:19:46 guus: action 129 continue 16:19:59 guus: action 120 and 121 continue 16:20:40 guus: next week is 'Murican Turkey week 16:20:42 s/action 129/action 119/ 16:21:19 guus: skip a week, next telecon is 30 November 16:21:27 ISSUE-79 16:22:14 guus: issue 79 16:22:34 ISSUE-79? 16:22:34 ISSUE-79 -- What is the value of a literal whose datatype IRI is not a datatype? -- raised 16:22:34 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/79 16:23:20 cygri: option 3 - no change to semantics - appears to be the winner, wording may be a bit tricky 16:23:53 guus: consensus may be achieved in the near future 16:24:15 ISSUE-37? 16:24:15 ISSUE-37 -- Handling of fragment identifiers in RDF embedded in other document formats -- pending review 16:24:15 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/37 16:24:23 ISSUE-69? 16:24:23 ISSUE-69 -- Handling of fragment identifiers in RDF Concepts -- pending review 16:24:23 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/69 16:24:26 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-fragID 16:24:55 guus: proposal from minutes 16:26:11 ivan, this has a great deal to do with Turtle in HTML's meaning btw 16:26:17 and how it interacts with RDFa 16:26:37 cygri: I have new text for RDF Concepts - some review may be warranted, maybe even by TAG 16:27:05 guus: consensus on the proposal? 16:28:00 gavinc: text should address situations where RDF is embedded in other document types 16:28:15 cygri: there is a bit there already - please check it out 16:28:23 q+ 16:28:48 guus: this appears to be all about wording, not anything technical 16:29:32 yvesr: some of the wording may be a bit confusing for neophytes 16:30:34 ack yvesr 16:30:52 q? 16:31:04 Zakim, mute me 16:31:04 gavinc should now be muted 16:31:06 +1 16:31:07 +1 16:31:37 PROPOSAL: accept new RDF Concepts section 7 16:32:07 PROPOSAL: resolve ISSUE-37 and ISSUE-69 by accepting new RDF Concepts section 7 as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Nov/0056.html 16:32:11 +1, depending on rephrasing 'Since IRIs in RDF graphs can denote anything, this can be something external to the representation, or even external to the “shared information space” known as the Web.' to something simpler, like 'IRIs in RDF graphs can denote anything, so this is also true for fragment identifiers' 16:32:20 +1 16:32:23 +1 16:32:32 +1 16:32:34 +1 16:32:40 + +1.650.917.aagg 16:32:56 RESOLVED: resolve ISSUE-37 and ISSUE-69 by accepting new RDF Concepts section 7 as described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Nov/0056.html 16:32:57 +1 16:33:12 ISSUE-13? 16:33:12 ISSUE-13 -- Review RDF XML Literals -- open 16:33:12 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/13 16:33:14 JeremyCarroll has joined #rdf-wg 16:33:51 Zakim, aagg is JeremyCarroll 16:33:51 +JeremyCarroll; got it 16:33:59 guus: jeremy? (good timing) 16:34:16 guus: you wanted to make the point that things have changed, and there is a mess to be fixed 16:34:35 jeremy: I'm only the messenger 16:35:08 guus: change requires a new design 16:35:15 ivan: there are some emails on the subject 16:35:27 guus: we need a proposal to move forward 16:35:47 guus: can someone distil a proposal out of the emails? 16:36:34 cygri: design from email was close to a last-call design from 2003, can we just pull something from there? 16:38:24 jeremy: problem with first design is that in RDF/XML the literal is not an XML element, but is instead something else, so processing is ugly 16:38:35 ivan: is there any way around that at all? 16:38:52 jeremy: this was a historical artifact even in 2003 16:39:02 does anyone really use this? 16:39:48 q+ 16:39:58 ivan: canonicalization is only needed when comparing XMLLiteral values 16:40:20 sandro: No. 'cause as far as I know raptor, python rdflib, and sesame don't work according to the spec ;) 16:40:52 jeremy: value space is then equivalence classes under canonicalization, so implementations don't have to canonicalization 16:40:54 q+ 16:41:23 q- 16:41:36 q+ to ask if wrapper element is really needed 16:41:46 q+ to say that implementations don't have to canonicalize even under the current situation 16:42:25 +1000 16:42:37 andy: can we excise XMLLiterals from base RDF, thus lessening their impact? 16:42:54 ooh, that sounds sensible 16:43:03 +1 16:43:03 cygri: I would even prefer them to be optional in datatype maps 16:43:16 q+ to say that there was considerable pushback on this 16:43:33 (still need to deal with in RDF/XML syntax) 16:44:13 ack AndyS 16:44:15 ack AndyS 16:44:18 ack cygri 16:44:18 cygri, you wanted to ask if wrapper element is really needed 16:44:19 ack cygri 16:44:27 Yes, well XML got a lot less sexy since 2003 16:44:28 ack pfps 16:44:28 pfps, you wanted to say that implementations don't have to canonicalize even under the current situation and to say that there was considerable pushback on this 16:44:29 ack pfps 16:44:40 q+ 16:44:41 It is no longer 2003 16:44:46 pfps: there was considerable pushback on making XMLLiteral optional in 2003 16:45:13 cygri: this may have been for internationalization, which should be muted now 16:45:36 i believe cygri's proposal sacrifices {

" } == {

" } 16:45:37 q+ to mention syntax 16:45:39 if we search hard, we might even find someone who's used that 16:45:47 http://www.google.com/trends?q=XML 16:46:16 ack AndyS 16:46:35 pfps: the people who wanted RDFXML to be the one syntax for RDF wanted XMLLiteral to be required 16:46:46 ack JeremyCarroll 16:46:46 JeremyCarroll, you wanted to mention syntax 16:46:59 andy: there are more syntaxes now, so the situation may have changed 16:47:15 jeremy: historical concerns were also a concern in 2003 16:47:53 PROPOSAL: Move XMLLiteral from Concepts and Semantics into a Note 16:48:25 why can't it go into RDF/XML ? 16:48:38 ivan: proposal would be that XMLLiteral is just like any other datatype, and not even as important as XML datatypes 16:49:02 andy: document on XMLLiteral could be REC nor NOTE 16:49:11 s/nor/or/ 16:49:12 q? 16:49:48 suggest to go with with keeping it in doc as opaque datatype 16:49:48 ivan: separate document may be overkill - how about in the document but maybe optional? 16:49:55 ivan +0.9 16:50:17 Put it in syntax? (as mischat) 16:50:21 given that is only used in rdfxml why not move it in there ? 16:50:39 Various mentions in semantics 16:50:40 q+ to ask if the goal is that folks not have to canonicalize, or not have to parse, store and serialize "blah blah blah"^^rdf:XMLLiteral ? 16:50:43 cygri: moving it out of the core documents is appealing, but it is mostly harmless to keep it in 16:51:03 andy: how about making it an appendix? 16:51:07 mischat, that would mean you couldn't do RDF/XML -> Turtle without loss - not necessarily a big thing 16:51:08 pfps: how about making it a footnote? 16:51:30 guus: let's get the editor to propose wording 16:51:44 swh you can't at the moment, re: uriRef and iri , and other things iirc 16:52:01 guus: proposal - keep XMLLiteral in documents, but make it optional 16:52:08 q- 16:52:11 ivan: OK by me 16:52:36 jeremy: opposition to this proposal is likely to be outside this group 16:53:17 ericP: are we expecting canonicalization 16:53:45 jeremy: yes, we expect canonicalization, but there are people who don't, and won't 16:54:08 ivan: can we state where canonicalization is to happen? 16:54:18 ivan: currently many implementations don't conform here 16:54:49 q+ 16:55:01 jeremy: early canonicalization is easier, particularly in XMLLiteral 16:55:03 q+ 16:55:13 q+ for a modest proposal 16:55:49 ack ivan 16:55:52 ack ivan 16:56:16 an example http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/misc-200-xmlliteral 16:56:29 ivan: jeremy - I do not agree that XMLLiteral is used only in RDFXML, e.g., DRUPAL 16:56:33 HTML in RDF is another matter. 16:56:41 i'd like to do this in turtle: <> dc:title "E=mc2" 16:56:53 q+ to point out that XMLLiterals in Turtle are almost all invalid 16:57:19 cygri, { <> dc:title "E=mc2"^^rdf:XMLLiteral } > 16:57:37 Nope, that's not valid either ericP ;) 16:57:42 jeremy: if you are creating XMLLiterals you should be doing it right (which is not easy) 16:57:50 ack pfps 16:57:50 pfps, you wanted to discuss a modest proposal 16:58:01 <> dc:title "E=mc2"^^my:HTMLLiteral ;) 16:58:05 jeremy: was misscribed .... 16:58:15 pfps +1 16:58:26 +1 I like the idea of "just string".... 16:58:27 pfps: how about making XMLLiteral be string, and pushing off to parsing 16:58:28 +1 16:59:14 why canonicalize it in RDF/XML ? 16:59:29 sandro, because RDF/XML does that already 16:59:51 guus: so the datatype is basically just a semaphore 17:00:12 Oh god, oh god, oh god 17:00:25 jeremy: then RDF/XML spec specifies canonicalization, and value space is canonicalization equivalence classes 17:00:28 not a bad implementation :) 17:00:37 pfps: this would not be my proposal 17:00:50 ipeter's proposal makes the spec easier; I like that 17:01:00 ivan: in a triple store, what do I do with an XML Literal 17:01:11 q+ 17:01:20 pfps: in my proposal, it is just a string - I think that this codifies current practice 17:01:24 q- 17:02:17 FILTER(007 = 7) is true. 17:02:56 Strict, minimal pattern matching (RDF) and FILTER (XSD) differ 17:03:26 q+ to add to Ricghard's point 17:03:26 cygri: canonicalization is because RDF/XML parsers change the input, so canonicalization is the only way to recover 17:03:50 q+ 17:03:57 cygri: so canonicalization in RDF/XML makes sense, and everyone else just leaves it alone 17:04:10 ack cygri 17:04:26 i think cygri's suggestion applies to RDF/XML using parseType="Literal", but probably not to E=mc<sup>2</sup> 17:04:33 cygri: canonicalization for comparison appears to be missing a use case 17:04:48 ack JeremyCarroll 17:04:48 ericP, yes, i meant only parseType="Literal" 17:05:00 jeremy: RDF/XML spec also requires ignoring some syntax features 17:05:03 ack ivan 17:05:15 JeremyCarroll, you wanted to add to Ricghard's point 17:05:33 q? 17:05:46 ivan: in turtle, XMLLiteral is just passed through; why do differently in RDF/XML? 17:06:12 ivan: RDF/XML parsing does something 17:06:59 q? 17:07:02 cygri: RDF/XML parsers use an XML parser, which may modify strings 17:07:32 q+ to say RDF/XML's parseType="Literal" would produce a subset of the possible lexical space. turtle-writers looking for equivalence with stuff parsed in RDF/XML would probably want to utter their text in a canonical form. 17:07:48 ivan: agreed, but who cares, d-entailment will fix 17:08:17 cygri: but RDF says that these changes should not occur when storing 17:08:29 No 17:08:31 ivan: so change MUST to SHOULD 17:08:32 They don't 17:08:51 raptor, rdflib, etc 17:08:54 pfps: I agree with gavin 17:08:56 ack ericP 17:08:56 ericP, you wanted to say RDF/XML's parseType="Literal" would produce a subset of the possible lexical space. turtle-writers looking for equivalence with stuff parsed in RDF/XML 17:09:02 ... would probably want to utter their text in a canonical form. 17:09:46 gavinc: RDFXML parsing produces a subset of the literal space, others should stick to this subset but need not 17:09:58 s/gavinc/eric/ 17:10:46 Zakim, who is speaking? 17:10:59 swh, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (9%), Ivan (84%) 17:11:12 ivan: literal space has a bunch of XML Literals, parsers do different things 17:11:38 guus: continue debate and see where we get 17:12:15 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:13:10 guus: action on issue 76 on semantics 17:13:22 Whoohoo! Named Graphs! 17:13:26 Topic: Named Graphs 17:13:59 guus: some consensus that graph names should be URIs 17:14:10 sandro: what 17:14:16 guus: the four slot 17:14:35 sandro: graph label was also not objectionable 17:14:48 sandro: don't call it 'graph name', call it "graph label" or "fourth column" 17:14:57 guus: any more consensus? 17:15:18 Question! 17:15:21 q+ 17:15:43 guus: closing pending issues 17:16:16 ah well 17:16:20 -q :( 17:16:26 bye 17:16:30 -JeremyCarroll 17:16:32 -sandro 17:16:32 thanks 17:16:34 -ericP 17:16:35 -Souri 17:16:35 -swh 17:16:36 -David 17:16:36 -cygri 17:16:38 -AndyS 17:16:39 -AlexHall 17:16:41 -gavinc 17:16:43 -Ivan 17:16:45 -Arnaud_LeHors 17:16:47 -AZ 17:16:49 -yvesr 17:17:00 So we're about half way into the WG time line... expected publication date for TriG? :\ 17:17:26 -Guus 17:17:28 -zwu2 17:17:37 -mischat 17:17:45 trackbot, end meeting 17:17:45 Zakim, list attendees 17:17:45 As of this point the attendees have been David, +30889aaaa, ericP, +1.707.861.aabb, AndyS, gavinc, yvesr, +1.707.318.aacc, Peter_Patel-Schneider, cgreer, Arnaud_LeHors, 17:17:46 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:17:46 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/16-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot 17:17:47 RRSAgent, bye 17:17:47 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/16-rdf-wg-actions.rdf : 17:17:47 ACTION: cygri to add list of XSD types to Concepts (assuming no objection from PatH or pfps) until 2011-11-25 [1] 17:17:47 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/16-rdf-wg-irc#T16-15-13 17:17:49 ... +1.443.212.aadd, AlexHall, Guus, Ivan, sandro, zwu2, Scott_Bauer, Souri, AZ, cygri, swh, mischat, +1.650.917.aagg, JeremyCarroll