IRC log of ledp on 2011-12-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

01:15:33 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #ledp
01:58:22 [timbl]
timbl has joined #ledp
02:06:21 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #ledp
03:28:35 [ballen]
ballen has joined #ledp
03:38:39 [sspeiche]
sspeiche has joined #LEDP
03:40:20 [sspeiche]
sspeiche has left #LEDP
03:42:11 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #ledp
04:41:23 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #ledp
13:00:31 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #ledp
13:00:31 [RRSAgent]
logging to
13:00:39 [dbooth]
rrsagent, make logs public
13:02:26 [dbooth]
Topic: Semantic Web Application Patterns: Pipelines, Versioning and Validation
13:03:44 [dbooth]
by David Booth
13:04:59 [dbooth]
13:07:10 [martynas]
martynas has joined #ledp
13:07:20 [julius]
julius has joined #ledp
13:10:01 [SteveBattle]
dbooth is talking
13:10:03 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #ledp
13:10:40 [SteveBattle]
joined new startup PangenX in healthcare
13:11:01 [SteveBattle]
Addressing the semantic integration problem
13:11:28 [SteveBattle]
create the illusion of a single unified data source
13:11:36 [SteveBattle]
...using RDF in the middle
13:11:53 [sspeiche]
sspeiche has joined #LEDP
13:12:01 [SteveBattle]
There's some kind of data production pipeline
13:13:34 [SteveBattle]
Question: Martin Nally: We made people turn data at the edge into http resources
13:14:24 [SteveBattle]
use ontologies/rules etc within the data pipeline
13:14:52 [SteveBattle]
David Wood: Suggests breakout session about minimal server for HTTP+RDF
13:15:15 [timbl]
timbl has joined #ledp
13:15:21 [SteveBattle]
Illustrates with Cleveland Clinic reporting pipeline
13:15:43 [SteveBattle]
A dependency graph
13:16:01 [SteveBattle]
Each node is a consumer and producer of data
13:17:01 [SteveBattle]
Martin Nally: Suggests a comparison of standard ETL techniques with an RDF based approach would be interesting.
13:17:41 [SteveBattle]
Convert into RDF at the edges - but you're not done, plenty more work to do.
13:18:01 [SteveBattle]
David Wood: LeeF is going to talk about data segmentation - also relevant.
13:18:37 [SteveBattle]
Need to be smart about tracking when data changes - not doing redundant work
13:18:56 [SteveBattle]
open source project "RDF Pipeline" PoC
13:19:11 [SteveBattle]
The pipeline (graph) is described in RDF
13:20:03 [SteveBattle]
Each node is a processing stage combining a wrapper and update code
13:20:10 [bheitman]
bheitman has joined #ledp
13:20:29 [SteveBattle]
Each node declares its inputs (as an RDF List)
13:20:41 [SteveBattle]
Each node has a URL
13:20:50 [ale_de_vries]
ale_de_vries has joined #ledp
13:21:32 [SteveBattle]
The updaters are found in well known places (not described in the RDF)
13:21:48 [SteveBattle]
The updater does the interesting work
13:22:04 [SteveBattle]
This is like RDF Make / Ant
13:22:45 [SteveBattle]
Updaters have their own policy about when to recompute their output (lazy, eager, periodic etc)
13:23:34 [SteveBattle]
The wrappers are typed (eg. FileNode, SparqlGraphNode)
13:24:01 [SteveBattle]
FileNode is simply a wrapper for a shell-script
13:24:23 [SteveBattle]
The SparqlGraphNode inputs and outputs to/from named graphs
13:24:47 [SteveBattle]
Wrappers handle inter-node communication, HTTP by default
13:25:20 [SteveBattle]
If you have 2 nodes in the same JVM you don't need to go out to HTTP, the wrapper can be directly invoked
13:25:49 [SteveBattle]
This is a framework not an API. based on an RDF description.
13:26:07 [SteveBattle]
This is language agnostic - you don't even need to use RDF
13:26:30 [SteveBattle]
part 2: Ontologies and rules for semantic transfromations
13:26:46 [SteveBattle]
uses SPARQL as a rules language (see also SPIN)
13:27:18 [SteveBattle]
(unlike SPIN) this uses SPARQL INSERT
13:27:53 [SteveBattle]
This is more efficient than using CONSTRUCT, because data is handled within the triple-store
13:28:14 [SteveBattle]
Uses dynamic combination of named graphs
13:28:42 [SteveBattle]
equivalent to multiple from named clauses
13:28:54 [SteveBattle]
David Wood: Mulgara does something like this
13:30:08 [SteveBattle]
My question: Why not use the multiple from named construct? Because you might have thousands (e.g. think of patient records)
13:30:33 [SteveBattle]
TBL: Have you considered other graph operations?
13:32:02 [SteveBattle]
David Wood: Algenraic operation s sneak in through real-world use-cases
13:32:28 [SteveBattle]
TBL: Are you looking for the language for writing pipeline operations. eg. In CWM you merge and filter graphs.
13:33:32 [SteveBattle]
The motivation is that ad-hoc pipelines are a nightmare to maintain.
13:35:02 [SteveBattle]
Martin Nally: Was this produced for a customer? Would be more convinced there's a market if a major customer had demanded this.
13:35:47 [SteveBattle]
Oracle has an RDF product (Oracle semantic technology)
13:37:20 [Cornelia]
Cornelia has joined #ledp
13:37:24 [SteveBattle]
There will be RDF support in DB2 - not a major announcement, just incremental development.
13:38:16 [SteveBattle]
Martin Nally: Is there a role for the W3C to compile information about customer use-cases.
13:39:01 [SteveBattle]
TBL: W3C will do education outreach, including case-studies.
13:39:02 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #ledp
13:39:31 [SteveBattle]
These will explain the ROI
13:40:15 [SteveBattle]
David Wood: Aware of a use-case where they have millions of (named) graphs. They run into exactly this kind of processing problem.
13:40:28 [SteveBattle]
Last points about URI versioning
13:40:36 [ballen]
ballen has joined #ledp
13:40:39 [SteveBattle]
Change the URI or the semantics?
13:41:00 [SteveBattle]
point 1: Publish your versioning policy whatever way you go.
13:41:51 [SteveBattle]
Point 2: Old and new URIs can co-exist (in RDF). Doesn't break extant software
13:43:03 [SteveBattle]
Martin Nally: Works well in publishing web. Read/Write web is more problematic
13:43:12 [ericP]
13:43:51 [SteveBattle]
How to validate in an open world?
13:44:04 [AlanYagoda]
AlanYagoda has joined #ledp
13:44:12 [SteveBattle]
1: model integrity: is what I'm producing sensible?
13:44:48 [SteveBattle]
2: Suitability for use - this is defined by the consumer with own expectations.
13:45:19 [SteveBattle]
Producers supply validator for the data they produce, the consumer for the data they expect.
13:45:32 [SteveBattle]
"SPARQL is my hammer"
13:46:34 [SteveBattle]
Martin Nally: How do I publish my validation (rules) ahead of time - not just a runtime task.
13:46:55 [SteveBattle]
dbooth: The validator is a design-time construct serving that purpose
13:47:59 [SteveBattle]
Martin Nally: There's runtime variability. How do we capture that?
13:48:11 [ericP]
[slide 24]
13:48:46 [SteveBattle]
How do you describe that _structure_ (metadata)?
13:49:18 [SteveBattle]
The consumer expects more that just RDF
13:49:43 [SteveBattle]
Sandro: first approx is a description of the vocabulary
13:50:03 [sandro]
13:50:32 [SteveBattle]
Then the constraints on the data.
13:51:36 [SteveBattle]
Martin Nally: Schema can be used to form and constrain data. Can SPARQL be used in the same way?
13:52:12 [SteveBattle]
Sandro: Easy to write inscrutable SPARQL
13:52:54 [SteveBattle]
Sandro: Should be possible to use SPARQL (ASK) and schema interchangeably
13:53:37 [SteveBattle]
dboot: SPARQL ASK can be used as a validator
13:54:18 [SteveBattle]
Martin: This is a view definition, it can be used in different ways.
13:55:16 [SteveBattle]
Question: Isn't RDF self-describing? Properties you (the consumer) recognises can be used however they like. What's the role of validation?
13:55:37 [SteveBattle]
TBL: For example, in geodata there's a lat for every long.
13:56:10 [SteveBattle]
dbooth: has finished
13:56:39 [martynas]
I wanna mention SPIN again - it has some vocabulary for validation. Haven't tried it though
13:58:00 [SteveBattle]
One more question: How does this contrast with SPARQL motion?
13:58:21 [SteveBattle]
dbooth: that has a centralized architecture
13:58:52 [SteveBattle]
EricP begins
13:59:13 [ericP]
13:59:21 [SteveBattle]
on slide 2
13:59:32 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #ledp
13:59:54 [SteveBattle]
About Web Access Control
14:00:35 [SteveBattle]
If the atomicity is the document you end up with hundreds of named hraphs expressing the ACLs
14:01:17 [SteveBattle]
Express ACLs for a particular graph pattern, not a particular document.
14:01:42 [SteveBattle]
Analogous to Oracle label security
14:01:51 [cmatheus]
cmatheus has joined #ledp
14:02:02 [SteveBattle]
Existing Abstract POlicy Language
14:02:20 [SteveBattle]
helthcare dominated by XACML
14:02:59 [SteveBattle]
XACML needs to be profiled, leans heavily on HL7
14:04:34 [SteveBattle]
The expressivity eg. "SalesManager in Boston implies access to regional projections". A bunch of conjunctions
14:05:01 [SteveBattle]
Enforcement ensures request falls within the policy
14:05:18 [SteveBattle]
Expressed in RDF "just for fun"
14:06:00 [SteveBattle]
Enforcement by SPARQL extension functions used in a SPARQL filter. Standard tooling doesn't do anything for you.
14:06:26 [SteveBattle]
Virtual views (SPARQL constructs create a virtual view)
14:06:39 [SteveBattle]
Give syou control over what the consumer can see.
14:07:12 [SteveBattle]
For example you can hide private information
14:08:07 [SteveBattle]
Sprinkle the access controlled data in SPARQL OPTIONALS that will leave the sensitive data unbound.
14:09:17 [SteveBattle]
Each optional has a condition that looks at the access (named) graph for authorisation
14:09:35 [SteveBattle]
slide 13
14:09:52 [SteveBattle]
ACLs are visibly next to the sensitive information.
14:10:05 [SteveBattle]
Makes it easier to debug and inspect
14:11:58 [SteveBattle]
Arbitrary SPARQL expressivity: eg. you can have conditions that are selective on the medication.
14:12:26 [SteveBattle]
XACML doesn't give you that degree of expressivity
14:13:07 [SteveBattle]
Martin: IBM has done some query rewriting for security - ran into performance issues
14:14:19 [SteveBattle]
dbooth: Was the performance issue because they were doing it on the fly.
14:14:45 [SteveBattle]
Martin: No not construction, but execution of the (rewritten) query.
14:15:27 [SteveBattle]
dbooth: What did you do instead?
14:16:13 [SteveBattle]
Martin: fell back to something closer to the virtual graphs. Jena built this at a lower level rather than doing this in-query.
14:17:37 [SteveBattle]
EricP: data obligation (time sensitivity) is hard.
14:18:32 [SteveBattle]
Policy injection (of patterns from a XACML) is future work.
14:19:18 [SteveBattle]
Contrast with Oracle object level security - the users will choose.
14:19:49 [SteveBattle]
Question: Is fine grained access control (at the triple level) really useful?
14:20:01 [cmatheus]
cmatheus has joined #ledp
14:21:04 [LeeF]
14:22:05 [SteveBattle]
Elsevier: We need to create views that particular customers can see.
14:22:34 [SteveBattle]
EricP has finished
14:23:09 [SteveBattle]
LeeF up next
14:24:03 [LeeF]
14:24:19 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #ledp
14:24:28 [LeeF]
14:24:57 [SteveBattle]
"Data Segmenting in Anzo"
14:25:15 [dbooth]
Topic: Data Segmenting in Anzo
14:25:21 [dbooth]
by Lee Feigenbaum
14:25:29 [SteveBattle]
Where do we see value in the loinked data space
14:26:06 [SteveBattle]
Cambridge Semantics support deployment of the Anzo platform.
14:26:32 [SteveBattle]
Our hammer is named graphs.
14:27:22 [SteveBattle]
Smallest unit of granularity for versioning, access control. Using TriG
14:28:25 [SteveBattle]
Does everything go into a named graph? single triples (eg. for statement level control) ?
14:29:00 [ballen]
ballen has joined #ledp
14:29:09 [SteveBattle]
Do named graphs correspond to documents? sometimes docs are artificial constructs.
14:30:05 [SteveBattle]
Or all triples sharing the same subject - gets the job done. subject triple closure.
14:30:39 [SteveBattle]
concise bounded description - though the moral is to avoid bnodes where possible.
14:32:33 [SteveBattle]
Use annotation to denote some properties as internal. eg. The wheels of a car are treated as 'internal' to the car (and end up in the same named graph) rather than having separate graphs for each wheel.
14:33:02 [SteveBattle]
TBL: You're treating the direction of the relationship as being significant.
14:33:48 [SteveBattle]
EricP: You're making access control decisions.
14:34:48 [SteveBattle]
TBL: RDF isn't a tree - don't do object oriented programming in disguise.
14:35:02 [sandro]
TBL: with this design, my decision about modeling with "parent" vs "child" becomes an Access Control decision. Direction of link shouldn't matter.
14:35:57 [rulesguy]
rulesguy has joined #ledp
14:36:31 [SteveBattle]
dbooth: The direction is being used as a heuristic way to organize the data.
14:37:11 [SteveBattle]
Sandro: The unit of AC is a subject oriented graph.
14:39:11 [SteveBattle]
TBL: This makes it harder to navigate to the parent - it ends up in a different named graph.
14:39:13 [sandro]
sandro: do we automatically also get to see who the subject parents are, or who the children are, having been given access o the subject graph...?
14:39:58 [SteveBattle]
The impact is that we end up with millions of small (named) graphs
14:40:30 [SteveBattle]
But this corresponds with the natural granularity for permissions.
14:40:56 [SteveBattle]
The challenge is to find the right graph
14:41:39 [SteveBattle]
...and sometimes multiple graphs (eg. including both the parents and children of a resource)
14:42:12 [SteveBattle]
The graph name is the same as the resource name
14:42:37 [SteveBattle]
Ora: RDF lets you use the same name for different things so that's OK
14:43:55 [SteveBattle]
Sandro: You mean the name (URI) of the subject? Yes
14:44:21 [ora]
ora has joined #ledp
14:45:00 [SteveBattle]
Elsevier: We treat named graphs as a simple kind of packaging. They are combined later for a given application.
14:45:49 [SteveBattle]
eg in notepad: ex:Lee { ex:Lee a ex:Person; ex:name "Lee" }
14:46:06 [SteveBattle]
That was TriG, the name ex:Lee serves two roles
14:47:07 [SteveBattle]
not kosher but pragmatic
14:48:03 [SteveBattle]
The fallback is a system-wide sparql query.
14:48:25 [sandro]
( IMHO, the reason Lee hasn't come across problems with this is they're not really doing decentralization / linked data. )
14:48:40 [mcdonoug]
mcdonoug has joined #ledp
14:48:59 [SteveBattle]
graphs are replicated (cached) on the client
14:49:51 [SteveBattle]
Now for linked - data... everything exposed as LD. It dereferences URIs.
14:50:40 [SteveBattle]
LD priniciples are not used internally, but for public consumption.
14:52:40 [SteveBattle]
Sandro: Does it do 303 redirects?
14:52:54 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #ledp
14:54:09 [SteveBattle]
Impractical to enumerate millions of FROM..NAMED. Similar to dbooth but we call them 'named datasets'.
14:54:51 [SteveBattle]
TBL: It's a virtual union graph
14:55:41 [SteveBattle]
RDFS, OWL used as expressive data model (not really open world semantics)
14:55:58 [SteveBattle]
publish RDFa and support JSON serializations.
14:56:22 [SteveBattle]
SPARQL rules. Like dbooth, used CONSTRUCT but switched to INSERT
14:56:47 [SteveBattle]
SPARQL ASK for preconditions and validation
14:57:38 [SteveBattle]
Message: Anzo driven by semweb technologies, but it needs to be integrated within conventional software architectures.
14:57:58 [SteveBattle]
Wary of standards that don't affect interoperability
14:57:58 [SteveBattle]
14:58:53 [sandro]
Lee: The time is totally ripe for a new Semantic Web Education / Outreach effort.
14:59:00 [SteveBattle]
time is ripe for education and outreach. We're often asked to use their tools against arbitrary SPARQL endpoint. The answer is NO.
14:59:29 [SteveBattle]
SPARQL 1.1. service description may make this easier.
15:00:10 [SteveBattle]
standards needed for: advertising content of linked data sources, SPARQL endpoints
15:00:35 [SteveBattle]
standards for named datasets and other SPARQL extensions
15:01:02 [SteveBattle]
David: What extensions?
15:01:21 [SteveBattle]
A few hundred function extensions.
15:03:18 [SteveBattle]
Question: Do you have a feeling for the right kind of sizing for graphs in typical application?
15:03:49 [SteveBattle]
Answer: It depends on the application, depending on performance metrics
15:04:33 [SteveBattle]
Have you looked at Kasabi (re advertising content of LD)? Will look into it.
15:06:33 [SteveBattle]
David Wood: Taking an action item to set up group to look into use/extensions/federation of SPARQL
15:07:22 [SteveBattle]
e.g. what functions, extensions are supported by an endpoint.
15:07:38 [SteveBattle]
David Wood: Also which predicates. vocabulary
15:07:46 [SteveBattle]
TBL: That's a different level
15:08:46 [SteveBattle]
There are a few different aspects, different groups are concerned with different aspects, they need to get together and agree, adopt and implement.
15:09:31 [SteveBattle]
David Wood: There's a core of people who would be interested in talking about this and making a member submission.
15:09:54 [SteveBattle]
EricP has picked up the ball and taken the action item.
15:10:22 [SteveBattle]
LeeF has finished
15:11:00 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #ledp
15:11:44 [betehess]
betehess has joined #ledp
15:11:57 [betehess]
scribe: Alexandre
15:12:02 [betehess]
scribenick: betehess
15:12:13 [betehess]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
15:12:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate betehess
15:14:28 [betehess]
title: Linked Enterprise Data Patterns Workshop - day 2
15:14:31 [betehess]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
15:14:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate betehess
15:15:13 [betehess]
chair: Eric Prud'hommeaux
15:16:19 [betehess]
s/title: /meeting: /
15:16:22 [betehess]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
15:16:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate betehess
15:17:08 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #ledp
15:23:30 [betehess]
[note: DS will stand for David Schaengold, RevelytiX]
15:23:44 [betehess]
15:23:56 [betehess]
DS: starting a background on revelytix
15:24:03 [dbooth]
Topic: Validation of Distributed Enterprise Data is Necessary, and RIF Can Help
15:24:03 [betehess]
... we're in DC area
15:24:14 [dbooth]
15:24:25 [betehess]
... we're profitable
15:24:31 [dbooth]
by David Schaengold (Revelytix)
15:24:34 [betehess]
... around 35 people
15:24:53 [betehess]
... will explain our software architecture
15:25:14 [betehess]
... we have different kind of stores
15:25:22 [betehess]
... it's not exactly a semweb architecture
15:25:30 [betehess]
... it's more like data integration
15:25:48 [betehess]
... we have rdbms, flat files, sometimes triple stores, etc.
15:26:06 [ericP]
ericP has changed the topic to:
15:26:23 [betehess]
... we have spider, an implementation of r2rml
15:27:00 [betehess]
... and then a module for sparql query federation
15:27:25 [betehess]
... r2rml in an emerging standards (at w3c)
15:27:46 [betehess]
... relation to rdf ML
15:28:14 [betehess]
Ora: how do you tweack the sql for your database?
15:28:45 [betehess]
... speaking about case where databases can't do some kind of joins
15:28:56 [betehess]
ashok: you have full power of sql
15:29:32 [betehess]
Ora: let me ask again: there are some stuff you can't do with SQL, like @@@
15:29:38 [sandro]
"hide" ???
15:29:57 [sandro]
(something which "can't do self-join")
15:30:17 [betehess]
DS: we can take advantages of indexes, and other things
15:30:42 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #ledp
15:30:53 [betehess]
... the result set is embedded into triples, that can be given to spider
15:31:16 [betehess]
... spdier does optimizations during the federation
15:31:27 [betehess]
... we intend to support virtualized queries
15:31:49 [betehess]
... related to enterprise ontologies
15:32:40 [betehess]
... we love sparql, but http is kind of slow
15:32:47 [betehess]
... Sherpa is an adapter that is faster
15:33:08 [betehess]
... between sparql federation and spider
15:33:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #ledp
15:33:24 [ericP]
Zakim, this is ledp
15:33:24 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; that matches SW_(LEDP)7:30AM
15:33:29 [betehess]
... so, we've run into problems
15:33:46 [betehess]
... for example at the integration level
15:34:07 [betehess]
... for example when you unify IDs among different stores
15:34:27 [betehess]
... so we thought using owl or sparql
15:34:47 [betehess]
... but they have different modelization capabilities
15:35:14 [betehess]
[DS giving examples of limits of sparql/owl]
15:35:44 [betehess]
DS: we need *one* language
15:35:49 [betehess]
... for the set of rules
15:36:00 [betehess]
... we're using RIF
15:36:30 [betehess]
[ enumerating key points for RIF from the slides ]
15:36:51 [betehess]
DS: RIF has 2 dialects
15:38:07 [betehess]
... SPARQL is not a rule language
15:38:13 [betehess]
... so we don't validation with it
15:38:44 [betehess]
... there is no distinction between sparql query and sparql rule
15:38:48 [betehess]
... too confusing
15:39:38 [ora]
earlier, the database I was referring to was "Hive" (for Hadoop)
15:39:52 [betehess]
s/like @@@/like Hive/
15:40:12 [betehess]
ora: is it even considered as SQL-compliant?
15:40:31 [betehess]
s/ora: is/ora, is/
15:41:20 [ora]
no, it isn't, it is "SQL-like"
15:41:23 [betehess]
DS: just by clicking a button, we can know which source is concerned
15:41:24 [LeeF]
Permantn link to my slies:
15:41:35 [rulesguy]
I am curious to see RIF used as a 'rule language' as opposed to a 'rule interchange format'
15:41:42 [LeeF]
15:41:54 [betehess]
... triples are frames, will give an example later
15:42:22 [betehess]
... here is the example
15:42:32 [betehess]
... [see slides for the query]
15:42:50 [betehess]
... it's a disjoint property written in owl
15:43:09 [betehess]
... if you know rdf, it's easy to write
15:43:30 [betehess]
sandro: it's not the interchange format
15:43:36 [betehess]
... it's a convenient syntax
15:43:47 [ericP]
davidwood, Arnaud, ashok, et al, proposals for breaks? strawman:
15:43:57 [betehess]
timbl: but these people wrote a parser for that
15:44:20 [betehess]
sandro: there is some history there, we chose XML and RDF for the exchange format
15:44:48 [betehess]
DS: problem: we don't have NOT
15:45:03 [betehess]
... I mean not generic negation
15:45:09 [betehess]
... but we needed it
15:45:32 [betehess]
... sometimes, we can use built-in predicates
15:45:45 [betehess]
... if rules are too complex, you need it
15:46:08 [betehess]
... our solution: implement Not() with rif:error()
15:46:54 [betehess]
... we anticipate there will be a profusion of zero argument predicate in the future
15:47:25 [davidwood]
ericp, We should have a breakout regarding the definition of a minimal RDF/REST server.
15:47:46 [betehess]
sandro: rif:error is not part of RIF core
15:48:03 [betehess]
DS: but we use it a lot, we'll be happy to see it standardized
15:48:34 [betehess]
... the rules have labels in documents, we see it in the output
15:48:52 [betehess]
... so we can show you all the uris that triggered an error
15:49:10 [betehess]
... there is no inference here
15:49:29 [betehess]
timbl: and there are tagged as strings?
15:49:31 [davidwood]
ericp, ...and another breakout regarding pattern collection (I think). Let's poll immediately following David S's talk.
15:49:33 [betehess]
DS: not sure
15:49:43 [betehess]
sandro: this is addressed by RDF 1.1
15:50:06 [betehess]
DS: we have entailments as a bonus
15:50:23 [cmatheus]
cmatheus has joined #ledp
15:50:50 [betehess]
... we don't use not() here
15:51:06 [betehess]
... we do entailment before validation
15:51:19 [betehess]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:51:19 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate betehess
15:51:54 [betehess]
... you can try it out
15:52:01 [betehess]
... download spyder, it's free
15:52:17 [betehess]
... not currently open-source, but we're working on it (maybe next year)
15:52:30 [betehess]
... spinner is the federated query engine
15:52:44 [betehess]
... and Rex is the RIF-implementation
15:53:12 [betehess]
@@@: was told they would open-source it before semtech in June
15:53:18 [betehess]
... not sure what that meant
15:53:39 [betehess]
... looked on the Web right now, there is still a license agreement
15:54:14 [betehess]
... so maybe there is a misunderstanding about free and open
15:54:26 [betehess]
DS: we want to make the source available
15:54:33 [betehess]
... I don't know about the license
15:54:42 [betehess]
... just want people to be able to use it
15:55:22 [betehess]
s/@@@: was/davidwood: was/
15:55:37 [betehess]
davidwood: maybe it's just a communication issue
15:56:01 [betehess]
DS: there is code overlap between spyder and spinner
15:56:14 [betehess]
... but you don't see it operationally
15:56:30 [Sumalaika]
Sumalaika has joined #ledp
15:57:04 [betehess]
DS: we haven't implementation the sending of email from the rules yet
15:57:09 [betehess]
DS: thanks
15:57:17 [betehess]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:57:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate betehess
15:57:33 [betehess]
davidwood: what will be the breakout sessions?
15:57:42 [betehess]
... trying to do that before eric comes back
15:58:56 [dbooth]
15:59:04 [davidschaengold]
davidschaengold has joined #ledp
15:59:08 [betehess]
RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:59:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate betehess
15:59:31 [dbooth]
Topic: Breakout discussions
15:59:35 [betehess]
[people trying to organize the breakout sessions]
16:00:37 [dbooth]
i/by David Booth/scribenick: SteveBattle
16:00:43 [dbooth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dbooth
16:02:16 [dbooth]
i/EricP begins/Topic: Web Access Control
16:06:37 [sandro]
Martin: (1) LDEP Basic Profile / 101 Curriculum. Self-contained set.
16:08:08 [Zakim]
16:08:37 [dbooth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:08:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dbooth
16:09:29 [Sumalaika]
so topics (1) Missing specifications (2) Education (3) ROI
16:13:03 [Sumalaika]
(A) Missing Specifications (B) Education and ROI
16:13:17 [sandro]
sandro: How about we each breakout makes a list of deliverables?
16:16:46 [betehess]
[trying to identity the deliverables a group would create]
16:17:14 [betehess]
timbl: I see 3 deliverables
16:17:24 [betehess]
... spec of the basic profile
16:17:30 [betehess]
... which is not best practice
16:17:49 [betehess]
... then tutorial for developers new to this world
16:18:09 [betehess]
... and a whiter paper for management
16:18:59 [betehess]
@elsevier@: the tutorial is a set of resources to get started
16:19:13 [betehess]
davidwood: it's already on the web
16:19:21 [betehess]
people: there are too many resources
16:19:59 [betehess]
@elsevier@: the thing is that you still have to make choice
16:20:22 [betehess]
... it's different from providing a minimal profile to achieve something
16:20:58 [betehess]
... we have big players in this room, that want to do linked data
16:21:20 [betehess]
... we can reduce freedom to make easier to start
16:21:45 [betehess]
timbl: pagination is a feature part of the spec
16:22:36 [bheitman]
here is the Linked Data Patterns text:
16:22:40 [bheitman]
16:22:50 [betehess]
Cornelia: profile is basically a subset of things that already exist. I see a Linked Data pattern spec being missing. trying to solve the identity for example
16:23:08 [sandro]
16:23:14 [betehess]
Arnaud: they are not always subsets
16:23:27 [betehess]
... it can be about combining specs
16:23:34 [betehess]
... I'm ok to choose another name
16:23:45 [betehess]
... doesn't have to be totally new
16:23:47 [sandro]
16:23:52 [betehess]
... it's more about putting things together
16:24:38 [betehess]
16:24:42 [Sumalaika]
There are topics that come up over and over again in LD prpojects
16:24:51 [Sumalaika]
They need specific attention
16:25:00 [Sumalaika]
e.g., URL opqueness
16:25:09 [Sumalaika]
Resource Identity
16:25:20 [Sumalaika]
these topics need attention urgently
16:25:22 [betehess]
@@: depending on your community, you starting point is different
16:25:37 [betehess]
... so we need to identify the enterprise developer we want to reach
16:25:58 [betehess]
... for example, take the pet store from the jee community
16:26:15 [betehess]
timbl: I've got a worry
16:26:23 [betehess]
... take anzo clients, they are all different
16:26:47 [betehess]
... if it's too simple, people may think they can do it with only XML
16:27:30 [betehess]
... dangerous to tell people how to do things if they come to the LD world
16:27:53 [betehess]
... for example, sometime ETL are good in some situations, sometimes they are not adapted
16:28:34 [betehess]
@@: I agree, but we have to be specific
16:28:42 [betehess]
... because we may not make any progress
16:28:49 [betehess]
... maybe one example is not example
16:28:56 [betehess]
... we need the courage to be specific
16:29:20 [betehess]
... my sugegstions are:
16:29:24 [timbl]
No server is available to handle this request.
16:29:30 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #ledp
16:29:31 [betehess]
... 1. describing the target, what they know, etc.
16:29:42 [betehess]
... 2. get specific about examples
16:30:25 [betehess]
... usecases can be expressed as examples
16:30:38 [betehess]
ericP: let see if we can identify some patterns
16:30:56 [betehess]
... people see that outreach is a major issue
16:31:18 [betehess]
Arnaud: one of the problem is the lack of definition
16:31:23 [betehess]
... could see that at IBM
16:31:24 [davidwood]
Linked Data materials:
16:31:32 [davidwood]
Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space By Tom Heath and Chris Bizer Linked Data Patterns Edited by Leigh Dodds and Ian Davis Linking Enterprise Data (the entire book is on the Web) The Joy of Data: A cookbook for publishing Linked Data on the Web By Bernadette Hyland Slides:
16:31:33 [davidwood] Book chapter to be online shortly. Linked Data 101 Searching for "linked data tutorial" on Google brings up lots of developer-oriented materials.
16:31:33 [betehess]
... can't point to one single document
16:32:02 [betehess]
... we need an official standing, like spec, not just a note from timbl
16:32:12 [betehess]
... would make a lot easier for people to understand
16:32:30 [betehess]
davidwood: that would just add one more resource on the Web
16:32:42 [betehess]
@@: it's not about creating more patterns
16:32:51 [betehess]
... it's about identifying the important ones
16:33:05 [betehess]
... I think there is core set we can identify
16:33:10 [dbooth]
16:33:29 [betehess]
... as a basis to start in an enterprise context
16:33:42 [betehess]
Arnaud: martin we have at least 2 different communities
16:33:48 [betehess]
... so maybe 2 different profiles?
16:33:55 [betehess]
... that's why profiles are for
16:34:19 [betehess]
... makes it very hard for us to communicate to clients
16:34:39 [betehess]
... it will help putting names on these concepts
16:34:46 [betehess]
sandro: will tell a story here
16:34:57 [betehess]
... some time ago, UK produces a bunch of data
16:35:14 [betehess]
... first org I knew that just said: let's just try to do it
16:35:34 [betehess]
... when they finished, the came to us, saying it had to be standardized
16:35:41 [betehess]
... at that time, it was only govs
16:35:48 [betehess]
... no enterprise were there!
16:35:50 [sandro]
16:36:08 [betehess]
... the charter says things about best practices
16:36:13 [betehess]
... including linked data system
16:36:18 [betehess]
... so that people can point to it
16:36:25 [betehess]
... it's sort a basic profile
16:36:33 [betehess]
... next is about how to build vocabularies
16:36:41 [betehess]
... then how to publish
16:37:16 [betehess]
Cornelia: and there is security too
16:37:33 [betehess]
sandro: just concerned that gov people had not participated to this workshop
16:37:51 [betehess]
... sensing there is some energy here
16:38:04 [betehess]
... so maybe we can recharter the other group
16:38:13 [betehess]
Arnaud: I looked at this charter before
16:38:34 [betehess]
... but with the gov context
16:38:44 [betehess]
... but maybe there is a significant overlap here
16:39:07 [betehess]
sandro: yes but it can make things more difficult, for example URIs construction
16:39:27 [betehess]
Arnaud: URIs creation can be very domain specific
16:40:18 [betehess]
sandro: lot of invited experts
16:40:26 [betehess]
... due to structure of w3c
16:40:47 [betehess]
... you find DERI, RPI, etc.
16:40:53 [davidwood]
16:41:08 [betehess]
... there are active people, but that's difficult
16:41:13 [betehess]
... still a lot of work here
16:41:31 [betehess]
... no FPWD yet
16:42:10 [betehess]
dbooth: there is clearly an overlap
16:42:26 [betehess]
... I also had these goggles on when I looked at the charter
16:42:39 [betehess]
Cornelia: would help for education, outreach
16:43:10 [betehess]
ericP: there is opportunity for bringing other Members
16:43:43 [betehess]
davidwood: there are issues that don't happen with govs, like IP
16:44:04 [betehess]
... will participants participate with such a charter
16:44:18 [betehess]
Cornelia: at least, I will press my legal department to participate
16:44:30 [betehess]
... but there is definitely IP
16:44:56 [betehess]
sandro: but people can say that standards is more important for than IP :-)
16:45:13 [betehess]
Arnaud: don't commit for IBM, but I don't foresee any issue at this point
16:45:39 [betehess]
martin: my fear is that if it's out of scope
16:45:48 [betehess]
... we came here with enterprise in mind
16:46:12 [betehess]
sandro: ibm, emc, oracle are gib players for govs as well
16:46:29 [betehess]
... so enterprise data for you can be gov data for them
16:47:02 [betehess]
timbl: gov data is more about read, enterprise needs read/write
16:47:21 [betehess]
Arnaud: @sandro, as the group can't do everything, pratically, ,what are they doing?
16:47:36 [betehess]
sandro: dont really know, we have task force to tackle problems
16:48:20 [sandro]
s/task force to tackle problems/people who accepted each item/
16:49:03 [betehess]
davidwood: we can write deliverables in the charter to make it more concrete
16:49:13 [betehess]
martin: yes, and I would add deadlines
16:49:40 [betehess]
... that's why defining the kind of persona you want to reach
16:49:45 [betehess]
... so that you can focus on
16:50:02 [betehess]
ericP: so, pet store could be too small
16:50:10 [betehess]
... and may not provide enough details
16:50:23 [betehess]
... so if you say you 1, 2, 3, ...
16:50:29 [betehess]
... it can be much bigger
16:51:36 [betehess]
ashok: there is a CG about that
16:51:41 [betehess]
... anyone knows about it?
16:51:46 [betehess]
people: we don't know it
16:52:16 [betehess]
s/about that/about networked data/
16:52:16 [sandro]
16:52:44 [Zakim]
16:53:51 [betehess]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:53:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate betehess
16:53:57 [Zakim]
16:55:01 [betehess]
sandro: I'm a bit worried about Gov data group, because they have not made commitments yet
16:55:48 [davidwood]
Government Linked Data Cookbook draft:
16:56:03 [betehess]
sandro: there may be answers to most of the questions, but they have not shared them with the group yet
16:56:28 [betehess]
ericP: also, we may produce something that is not a charter, but close enough
16:56:42 [betehess]
... so we start documenting work that IBM has done
16:56:48 [betehess]
... can help see the overlap
16:57:10 [betehess]
sandro: can't build a community without a place to do that
16:57:15 [betehess]
ericP: mailing list?
16:57:36 [betehess]
timbl: we should try to find the content for the deliverable
16:57:42 [betehess]
... what to we need to specify
16:58:07 [betehess]
... making sure that some things are not messed up
16:58:15 [betehess]
... like sparql update for example :-)
16:58:43 [betehess]
... we had people speaking about collections, seems important
16:58:49 [betehess]
... maybe webacls too?
16:59:56 [betehess]
Arnaud: liked how tim framed it earlier
17:00:10 [betehess]
... that's a standard, a spec
17:00:14 [betehess]
... speaks about compliance
17:00:21 [sandro]
"Linked Data Basic Platform" -- compliances
17:00:26 [betehess]
[break for lunch]
17:00:46 [betehess]
RRSAgent, create minutes
17:00:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate betehess
17:14:17 [sspeiche]
sspeiche has joined #LEDP
17:19:17 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #ledp
17:20:56 [mohawk]
mohawk has joined #ledp
17:49:44 [ora]
ora has joined #ledp
17:52:30 [ballen]
ballen has joined #ledp
17:52:54 [bheitman]
scribenick bheitman
17:53:31 [bheitman]
scribenick: bheitman
17:54:02 [dbooth]
Topic: Discussion of how to proceed
17:54:51 [bheitman]
eris is bringing up the list of possible deliverables
17:55:10 [bheitman]
eric of course
17:55:58 [bheitman]
john: how is enterprise data distinct from linked open data ?
17:56:42 [bheitman]
ericP: we will run into debates as the differences between enterprise and open data is not clear, and this could be about any kind of linked data
17:57:51 [bheitman]
discussion about use cases for data which requires read / write data
17:58:53 [bheitman]
timbl: for crowdsourced data, people need to change the data
17:59:28 [bheitman]
... governements have different problems with LD, enterprises have different ones again
18:00:01 [bheitman]
timbl: a chain of data providers where one buys data from the previous is a very enterprise thing
18:00:38 [bheitman]
ericP: the gov LD and the enterprise LD people can work together on the intersection
18:00:55 [bheitman]
david booth: would it make sense to recharter the gov LD group ?
18:01:27 [bheitman]
martin nally: we should not add a new thing to a dormant working group
18:02:22 [bheitman]
arnaud le hors: we could take over that part of gov LD group
18:02:49 [dbooth]
DavidWood: I strongly object to the assertion that the gov LD group is dead.
18:03:26 [bheitman]
ericP goes through gov LD out of scope list.
18:03:42 [bheitman]
ericP: almost everything in the out of scope list is in scope for us here
18:04:37 [bheitman]
david wood: in an enterprise context you want to define e.g. a relationship to XML
18:05:12 [bheitman]
TimBL: this new group would be about creating a core architecture
18:05:33 [bheitman]
... any client who conforms can use that system, you can build any kind of app on top
18:06:06 [bheitman]
david wood: we need to define all the edges, how do you get to RDF ?
18:06:32 [bheitman]
david booth: its too ambitious to require it to work with any client
18:06:49 [bheitman]
TimBL: this is just about the spec, not the "on ramp" guide
18:06:54 [console]
console has joined #ledp
18:07:12 [bheitman]
... its about some turlte, some control onotology... (?)
18:07:24 [bheitman]
... a linked data basic plattform
18:07:49 [dbooth]
s/any client/any app/
18:08:03 [bheitman]
sandro: similar to the w3c web app plattform name
18:08:44 [bheitman]
ericP: are we moving towards a linked enterprise data charter ? who thinks this is wrong ?
18:08:59 [bheitman]
sandro: this is about solving martin nally's use case
18:09:17 [sandro]
... in an entirely standards-compliant manner
18:09:48 [sandro]
tim: With Access Control as an Optional deliverable.
18:09:50 [bheitman]
timbl: we might not handle access controll in this charter,.
18:10:10 [bheitman]
... sometimes when people handle problem a, they realise they have enough for a spec for prob b as well
18:10:35 [bheitman]
ericp: if we use martins story whch is very short, then this is a very doable task
18:10:57 [bheitman]
martin nally: we are looking at a short term solution
18:11:16 [bheitman]
... this is about solving small problems to gain something in the short term
18:11:30 [bheitman]
... i would be nervous about being too ambitious
18:12:01 [bheitman]
ashok: we should do this fairly quickly without a 4-5 year work group
18:12:19 [bheitman]
ashok and ericp: lets do it in 6 months
18:12:38 [bheitman]
david booth: what do you want to sacrifice for that ?
18:13:25 [bheitman]
consensus about taking out a lot
18:13:37 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #ledp
18:14:43 [bheitman]
arnaud le hors : dont try to solve everything, scope it so that the result is useful
18:14:45 [sandro]
(not consensus, I think)
18:15:05 [bheitman]
sandro: sorry, was not sure how to document a quick discussion
18:15:31 [bheitman]
arnaud le hors: the reminder can be part of the next version
18:15:38 [sandro]
"schedule-driven", "deadline-driven", "time-boxed"
18:16:12 [bheitman]
timbl describes
18:16:54 [bheitman]
timbl: we can use to describe test cases for read write data
18:17:30 [dbooth]
18:18:01 [sandro]
s/timbl: we can use to describe test cases for read write data/timbl: we can use as one example of a platform implementation/
18:18:57 [bheitman]
ericP: the list of topics for the ld platfotrm basic profile contains many entries which are output of other working groups
18:20:10 [bheitman]
sandro: we could make an interest group which uses the expected specs as input. we could have a mailing list , maybe a few phone calls
18:20:49 [bheitman]
discussion about writing a primer for linked enterprise data (?)
18:21:10 [bheitman]
sandro: there is no list of what precisely describes linked data. there is no spec or primer (?)
18:21:26 [bheitman]
martin nally: we need this kind of document
18:21:45 [bheitman]
ericP: a primer could be sufficient
18:22:07 [bheitman]
alexandre b.: a primer is not enough
18:22:07 [sandro]
sandro: What's needed is a definition of Linked Data, which is basically a list of specs needed.
18:22:43 [bheitman]
ericP: is our time best spent writing a spec . or a primer which explores same use cases as IBM has already explored
18:22:57 [bheitman]
arnaud le hors: you can claim compliance against a primer
18:23:09 [bheitman]
member:arnaud le hors: you can *NOT claim compliance against a primer
18:23:12 [sandro]
Arnaud: You can't claim conformance with a Primer.
18:23:46 [bheitman]
martin nally: we have about 5 tools in ibm rational, they work together because we made some choices together
18:24:02 [bheitman]
... others will make other choices, thats the problem
18:24:22 [bheitman]
ericP: looks like we will need a test suite and such
18:24:58 [bheitman]
david wood: why could you not claim compliance with a primer if it is a package of standards ?
18:25:55 [bheitman]
arnaud le hors: what we are tallking about is about talking about a combination of standards
18:26:20 [bheitman]
lee feigenbaum: too me its pretty clear that there is more then one way to use the standards, a spec would mean that there is a clear way.
18:26:54 [dbooth]
bheitman: This sounds a lot like the AWWW. Defines high level concepts and how they work together.
18:27:12 [dbooth]
18:27:46 [timbl]
18:27:49 [dbooth]
timbl: Design issues docs ended up like a primer.
18:28:03 [dbooth]
... I've added questions that got asked.
18:28:37 [bheitman]
timbl: this introduces new details. there is a little bit of spec in there, the rest is about how to test things
18:29:05 [bheitman]
... its nothing to which you can claim compliance too. there is just one test, you would need several thousand tests
18:29:48 [bheitman]
... profile means, saying which level of which standard to use together
18:29:58 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We want a Working Group to produce a W3C Recommendation which defines a Linked Data Platform -- something that solves IBM Rational's use case (presented yesterday). We expect this to be an enumeration of specs which constitute lnked data, with some small additional specs to cover things like pagination, if necessary.
18:30:34 [dbooth]
18:30:58 [bheitman]
arnaud le hours seconds it
18:32:02 [davidwood]
-0, because I question the need/desire for a WG, but agree with the deliverable.
18:32:35 [bheitman]
john battle: make sure its about constructive use of specs
18:32:44 [davidwood]
Could this instead be a Member Submission that could be subsequently blessed by W3?
18:32:50 [dbooth]
s/john battle/SteveBattle/
18:32:57 [bheitman]
ora: sounds like a conglomeration of specs
18:33:13 [davidwood]
s/john battle/steve battle/
18:33:42 [bheitman]
ora: I am not opposing this, I am just wondern what it means for the process
18:34:00 [bheitman]
john wood: why do we need a seperate working group
18:34:43 [bheitman]
arnaud le hors: making a submission is definitively on our agenda
18:34:50 [sandro]
18:34:52 [LeeF]
s/john wood/david wood
18:35:26 [bheitman]
ericP: many successfull working groups started as member submissions
18:35:59 [bheitman]
sandro: it would be possible as a starting point to specifcy that the group can fall back on a working group
18:36:21 [bheitman]
david booth: an interest group is an alternative
18:36:53 [sandro]
arnaud: what's your resistance to the WG, DavidW ?
18:37:15 [LeeF]
I agree wholeheartedly with dwood
18:37:17 [bheitman]
david wood: there is a lot of time spent unproductively in a working group
18:37:22 [sandro]
davidwood: They spend a lot of time. The process, the sociology, ....
18:38:12 [bheitman]
... there might be a possibility for parts of the deliverable to be made by different existing groups
18:38:28 [bheitman]
arnaud le hors: should the deliverable be hosted by an existing working group or by a new one ?
18:38:35 [sandro]
davidw: I support it being a Rec, but not necessarily a new group.
18:38:41 [bheitman]
david wood: we should use the w3c process in a lighter way
18:39:03 [bheitman]
david booth: I am not convinced that it needs this level
18:39:18 [ballen]
ballen has joined #ledp
18:39:33 [bheitman]
ericP: we need tests.
18:39:35 [betehess]
my take is that the Recommendation is the only way to have a strong enough voice to exist within the Semantic Web ecosystem
18:40:04 [bheitman]
ericP: if we want the recommendation because we want tests, then we can write the tests independently
18:40:47 [bheitman]
martin nally: we can not get serious traction of this tech in ibm if it is not a standard
18:41:11 [sandro]
martin: The reality is we'll never really convert even other parts of IBM without this being a standards. A Note or Best Practice or whatever is not enough.
18:41:28 [dbooth]
Fair enough.
18:42:12 [bheitman]
timbl: the working group chartering process has a lot of flexibility, so e.g. face to face meetings are optional
18:42:37 [bheitman]
.. you cant have a member submission but do it behind closed doors
18:43:57 [bheitman]
david wood: i like the idea of a meta spec
18:45:13 [sandro]
RESOLVED: We want a Working Group to produce a W3C Recommendation which defines a Linked Data Platform -- something that solves IBM Rational's use case (presented yesterday). We expect this to be an enumeration of specs which constitute linked data, with some small additional specs to cover things like pagination, if necessary.
18:45:16 [sandro]
(no objections)
18:45:37 [sandro]
(obviously lots of people could word-smith that phrasing.)
18:45:59 [bheitman]
ericP: it looks like we have enough resources
18:47:05 [bheitman]
arnaud le hors: IBM can not work for something 6 months before submitting it as a spec (?)
18:47:18 [dbooth]
s/can not/should not/
18:47:27 [sspeiche]
18:48:04 [bheitman]
... we should not work behind closed doors on this
18:48:32 [betehess]
scribenick: Cornelia
18:48:38 [Nally]
Nally has joined #ledp
18:48:45 [sspeiche]
Which is an updated version of what we have done(learned) by work done in public at
18:48:58 [Cornelia]
sandro: Use a community group to create the member submission?
18:49:22 [tlr]
note you don't need a member submission if you have a community group. But you can set up those groups very quickly and easily for initial exploration.
18:49:33 [Cornelia]
Timbl: what about submitting something very close to what IBM already has, right away?
18:50:21 [Cornelia]
sandro: use the community group to allow inclusion on the member submission
18:51:08 [Cornelia]
ashok: It takes a long time for the lawyers of places like Oracle to bless employees to join even community groups
18:51:14 [timbl]
saved copy of pad:
18:51:30 [Cornelia]
ericP: Not everyone offering advice must be a member of the community group
18:52:17 [Cornelia]
arnaud: I'm not against community groups but I don't want to be sidetracked by that. I don't want it to delay the formation of the working group
18:52:41 [Cornelia]
ericP: the community group will want editorial control
18:53:54 [Cornelia]
arnaud: Suggest taking current document, allow others to sign on in support, and make that a member submission as is.
18:54:09 [Cornelia]
sandro: What about overlap with other standards?
18:54:48 [Cornelia]
... i.e. REST and SPARQL - do we have them stop this and we take it on or let them do a 1.0?
18:55:12 [Cornelia]
EricP: Do we have any evidence that what they are doing here isn't what we would want?
18:55:24 [Cornelia]
sandro: yes. PATCH
18:55:45 [Cornelia]
Timbl: The PATCH paragraph is informational and loaded with SHOULDs
18:55:45 [Arnaud]
18:56:40 [Cornelia]
LeeF: no one in the working group uses PATCH
18:57:06 [Cornelia]
EricP: I am hearing that there are people who use PATCH
18:58:09 [LeeF]
18:58:40 [Cornelia]
Martin: the way that I read the spec: "If you know RDF, etc. and want to expose resources, do REST, here's how you do it"
18:58:48 [sandro]
LEE, want to paste the Ed's Draft, too?
18:59:11 [Cornelia]
... my people are not coming from that "graph store" perspective. They know resources, not "named graphs"
18:59:48 [Cornelia]
... people coming from different planets
19:00:59 [betehess]
this is basically what I'll *need* to specify anyway for the Validator Suite project, as it will rely on all that stuff:
19:01:25 [LeeF]
editor's draft of Graph Store Protocol -
19:01:45 [timbl]
19:02:14 [Cornelia]
timbl: discussion around ms-author-via header and how it can be used to detect that something is editable
19:02:51 [Cornelia]
... but this pattern isn't written up anywhere
19:03:31 [Cornelia]
... discussion around a spec that mostly references other specs.
19:04:06 [Cornelia]
timbl: <rant>
19:04:25 [Cornelia]
... there have been a lot of things that have not been written because they are too small.
19:04:51 [Cornelia]
... but if you just defined that one predicate (for example) there are a huge number of things you can do as a result
19:05:29 [Cornelia]
19:06:07 [Cornelia]
EricP: I think we are arguing about the editorial nature of a spec.
19:06:53 [Cornelia]
sandro: I want to come back to the question of whether SPARQL REST should be moved from the current working group
19:07:44 [Cornelia]
davidwood: I'm a bit concerned about this workshop resulting in taking something away from the core SPARQL WG
19:08:04 [Cornelia]
sandro: The REST part is arguably not core
19:08:11 [timbl]
19:08:25 [timbl]
19:08:40 [timbl]
davidwood ^
19:08:48 [Cornelia]
timbl: Can someone from SPARQL working group ... do what?...
19:08:59 [Cornelia]
yes - LeeF
19:10:33 [Cornelia]
EricP: SPARQL endpoint vs. Web resource
19:11:58 [Cornelia]
sandro: Doing a RESTful interface over a graph takes some work
19:12:19 [Cornelia]
timbl: disjoint from the read/write web
19:12:43 [Cornelia]
martin: I don't want to tell every web programmer at IBM that their resources are graphs.
19:12:57 [Cornelia]
timbl: We will talk about web abstractions, not graphs
19:13:51 [Cornelia]
sandro: When do we try to work through this SPARQL/web resource issue? Before the WG?
19:14:04 [davidwood]
I took an action to make a public comment to the SPARQL WG regarding the lack of PATCH support in IE's XMLHttpRequest object.
19:15:07 [Cornelia]
sandro: This work group must have input into SPARQL HTTP spec
19:15:41 [Cornelia]
martin: it seems odd that the spec assumes an RDF store - it's an implementation detail.
19:16:20 [Cornelia]
timbl: All of the SPARQL implementations operate against an RDF store
19:18:39 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: Might make sense to have what timbl suggests - that this WG write their version of the spec
19:19:00 [Cornelia]
sandro: with the same test suite across the two groups
19:19:21 [LeeF]
I'm highly suspicious of what seems to be an underlying assumption here that standards get widespread adoption from popularly-accessible specs, rather than from copying working examples, working code, and educational materials
19:20:02 [Cornelia]
EricP: I have some outstanding issues here
19:20:25 [Cornelia]
... are we poking our fingers into SPARQL's affairs
19:20:30 [davidwood]
Sent email to re IE's lack of PATCH support in its XMLHttpRequest object.
19:20:50 [Cornelia]
... a r/w interface that is web oriented
19:20:54 [davidwood]
LeeF, ^
19:21:07 [LeeF]
thanks, davidwood
19:21:55 [timbl]
19:22:39 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: There is a document already out there and I invite comments but I don't want to spend a lot of time preparing the member submission.
19:22:59 [Cornelia]
... there will be authors and co-submitters.
19:23:02 [timbl]
19:23:15 [timbl]
19:23:32 [Cornelia]
... goal to have member submission in Jan 2012
19:24:57 [Cornelia]
davidwood: when I look at the I see lots of gaps
19:25:33 [Cornelia]
Cornelia: this is not what is proposed as a member submission. The developer works article is.
19:26:02 [sspeiche]
A proposal started by IBM
19:26:22 [Cornelia]
Discussion on the way to collaboratively edit...
19:26:41 [Cornelia]
googledocs, W3C Wiki, word doc?
19:27:15 [Cornelia]
timbl: we can put the docs in a database and use the w/r web to post updates
19:27:29 [Cornelia]
davidwood: I would rather use w3 infrastructure.
19:27:40 [Cornelia]
timbl: would then have a history in cvs
19:28:02 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: Davidwood has a good point. How do we move forward
19:28:23 [Cornelia]
... next step: Have a look at the dev works article and provide comments
19:28:40 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #ledp
19:28:55 [Cornelia]
sspeiche: and also indicate the level of engagement you would have.
19:29:09 [Cornelia]
sandro: I can create a mailing list.
19:29:29 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: maybe not public yet?
19:30:35 [Cornelia]
timbl: I think you want to make it public because there are likely a lot of interested parties outside of this group.
19:32:13 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: concerned that too large a forum might delay getting the member submission in.
19:33:59 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: Let's not over engineer the process of providing the member submission
19:34:32 [Cornelia]
sandro: r/w web is only 10% of the problem in linked data
19:34:41 [Cornelia]
timbl: pagination
19:34:50 [Cornelia]
sandro: validation
19:35:14 [Cornelia]
The above are other parts of the problem.
19:36:04 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: the working group needs to decide these things. Not prior to the working group formation.
19:36:31 [Cornelia]
davidwood: the more immediate concern is getting a good member submission.
19:36:54 [Cornelia]
sandro: The charter is a bigger problem. Need community consensus
19:37:12 [Cornelia]
davidwood: Agree that we need to engage the existing linked data community
19:37:19 [Cornelia]
... how do we do that?
19:38:00 [Cornelia]
sandro: In ... we did a survey, ...
19:38:30 [sandro]
sandro: for the RDF 1.1 WG we did a survey before the charter
19:38:47 [sandro]
davidwood: the charter needs to be shopped 1-1 to the enterprises.
19:39:16 [Cornelia]
timbl: Suggest sandro could publish the current draft charter relatively immediately.
19:39:43 [ballen]
ballen has joined #ledp
19:39:51 [Cornelia]
sandro: someone needs to talk to Microsoft and various other players to see if they would come on board.
19:40:05 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: How are charters created these days?
19:40:17 [Cornelia]
sandro: I do them in public
19:40:45 [Cornelia]
dbooth: Do you mean public or member?
19:40:49 [Cornelia]
sandro: public
19:41:56 [Cornelia]
Cornelia: why are we calling out MSFT in particular?
19:42:41 [sspeiche]
What about Google?
19:42:51 [Cornelia]
davidwood: they are big, browser vendor, ...
19:43:09 [Cornelia]
19:43:13 [Cornelia]
... Amazon?
19:43:41 [Cornelia]
davidwood: some are in the room. IBM, Oracle, EMC,...
19:43:41 [sandro]
who else should be in the group, maybe...?
19:44:00 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: What do we need to produce for this workshop?
19:44:16 [LeeF]
How about the people actually doing enterprise semantic web? e.g. topquadrant? or is enterprise semantic web disjoint from enterprise linked data?
19:44:32 [Cornelia]
EricP: This decision, the formation of the WG and the member submission, are the most significant.
19:44:44 [Cornelia]
... everyone please give me your slides.
19:44:52 [ora]
ora has joined #ledp
19:45:25 [sandro]
LeeF, certainly we should discuss it with them.
19:45:45 [dbooth]
Eric's email:
19:46:08 [Cornelia]
EricP: Resolution
19:46:16 [Cornelia]
... IBM hold keys to member submission
19:46:35 [Arnaud]
19:46:36 [Cornelia]
... people will contact Arnaud to indicate interest in participating in this.
19:47:58 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: We will keep the member submission process lean. This is just the starting point.
19:49:00 [betehess]
Arnaud, what's the ETA for the IBM's Member Submission?
19:49:13 [Cornelia]
sandro: Many people in the room have remained silent on this. Any concerns?
19:49:34 [Cornelia]
There were none voiced.
19:49:49 [Cornelia]
EricP: Sandro to own the charter
19:50:01 [Cornelia]
sandro: modulo w3c staffing issues.
19:50:37 [Cornelia]
?: If we are not creating a mailing list then were do we communicate?
19:50:56 [Cornelia]
sandro: I will create a mailing list for charter discussions.
19:51:22 [betehess]
sandro, I will be working on this stuff anyway because of the W3C Validator Suite
19:51:56 [Cornelia]
EricP: Where do we have technical discussions?
19:52:16 [Cornelia]
... or do we want to have those direct with Arnaud?
19:52:41 [Cornelia]
timbl: TOC for the spec could happen on this new mailing list.
19:52:52 [sandro] created.
19:53:25 [Cornelia]
... actually solving technical problems maybe on an interest group list
19:53:44 [Cornelia]
sandro: suggest having those discussion on the new list
19:53:58 [Cornelia]
davidwood: with alerts to the interest group lists.
19:54:06 [timbl]
19:55:52 [Cornelia]
davidwood: Details on who wants to be or should be on the member submission?
19:56:31 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: interested in having others there. Said (from EMC) expressed an interest earlier. Nokia says they are interested.
19:56:51 [Cornelia]
davidwood: 3 round stones are interested (albiet a small company)
19:57:03 [Cornelia]
revelitix also interested.
19:57:20 [davidwood]
Oracle, too
19:58:03 [Cornelia]
Arnaud: Is there anything else, beyond the formation of the WG, that this workshop would like to recommend?
19:58:16 [Cornelia]
timbl: such as tutorials, etc.
20:00:40 [Cornelia]
sandro: primers for different audiences, i.e. gov, enterprise, EU gov, ... maybe?
20:00:57 [Cornelia]
... there are others who can write those (other than W3C)
20:01:22 [Cornelia]
sandro: Other things?
20:01:40 [Cornelia]
Cornelia: ROI for selling the concept in the enterprise
20:01:52 [Cornelia]
timbl: As case studies
20:02:19 [Cornelia]
ryan: We need hard facts in those.
20:02:47 [Cornelia]
timbl: NASA use case
20:03:45 [Cornelia]
sandro: this and others had the form - we tried x at cost(x) and failed then did RDF and succeeded
20:04:07 [Cornelia]
ora: we have a lot of qualitative data but little quantitative
20:05:00 [Cornelia]
davidwood: 60% of the cost of a product is in maintenance and some large percentage of that is in assessment
20:05:15 [Cornelia]
... can Elsivier provide such numbers?
20:05:33 [Cornelia]
Brad: Have to think about that.
20:06:00 [Cornelia]
davidwood: there are other people I can go to and ask
20:06:17 [Cornelia]
sandro: Who is going to write this up and publish it?
20:06:28 [Cornelia]
timbl: Talk to Ivan
20:07:27 [Cornelia]
sandro: davidwood will gather case studies. Only those without proprietary information
20:07:41 [Cornelia]
davidwood: Only those without proprietary information
20:09:10 [Cornelia]
davidwood: Usecases, casestudies already up for collection
20:09:33 [Cornelia]
... add ROI information as something to collect
20:09:44 [Arnaud]
20:10:18 [Cornelia]
sandro: I'd like to have this group review these case studies, use cases, ROIs
20:11:02 [Cornelia]
timbl: suggest ian jacobs to do interview
20:12:23 [Cornelia]
timbl: the list of workshop participants should be distributed. Any objections?
20:13:05 [Cornelia]
davidwood: chairs will send out pointer to minutes, contact list, appropriate mailing list, etc.
20:14:32 [Cornelia]
Meeting is adjourned
20:14:55 [betehess]
RRSAgent, generate minutes
20:14:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate betehess
20:15:39 [Sumalaika]
Sumalaika has joined #ledp
20:35:35 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #ledp
20:36:23 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #ledp
20:38:25 [Cornelia]
Cornelia has joined #ledp
20:47:29 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #ledp
20:53:39 [timbl]
timbl has joined #ledp
20:54:07 [betehess]
20:55:41 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #ledp
21:45:09 [mcdonoug]
mcdonoug has joined #ledp
22:16:06 [dbooth]
rrsagent, draft minutes
22:16:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate dbooth
22:18:17 [ora]
ora has joined #ledp
22:35:00 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, [MIT-G449], in SW_(LEDP)7:30AM
22:35:02 [Zakim]
SW_(LEDP)7:30AM has ended
22:35:04 [Zakim]
Attendees were [MIT-G449], Ralph
23:09:03 [sspeiche]
sspeiche has joined #LEDP
23:11:54 [sspeiche]
sspeiche has left #LEDP