14:59:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/25-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/04/25-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:59:52 <Guus_> zakim, this is rdf
Guus Schreiber: zakim, this is rdf ←
14:59:53 <Zakim> ok, Guus_; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Guus_; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←
14:59:57 <sandro> trackbot, start meeting
Sandro Hawke: trackbot, start meeting ←
15:00:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
15:00:02 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
15:00:02 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now ←
15:00:03 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:00:03 <trackbot> Date: 25 April 2012
15:00:22 <AZ> zakim, who is here?
Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, who is here? ←
15:00:22 <Zakim> I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted
Zakim IRC Bot: I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted ←
15:00:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, David_Wood, Guus, ??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P0, David_Wood, Guus, ??P4 ←
15:00:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see Arnaud1, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, AZ, moustaki, swh, tbaker, gavinc, Guus_, danbri, MacTed, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu, manu1, NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Arnaud1, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, AZ, moustaki, swh, tbaker, gavinc, Guus_, danbri, MacTed, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu, manu1, NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP ←
15:00:41 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:00:45 <AZ> zakim, ??P4 is me
Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, ??P4 is me ←
15:00:45 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←
15:01:02 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
15:01:02 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
15:01:03 <Zakim> +??P8
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8 ←
15:01:03 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:01:11 <AndyS> zakim, ??P8 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P8 is me ←
15:01:11 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:01:24 <Guus_> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
15:01:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, David_Wood, Guus, AZ, Arnaud (muted), AndyS, Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P0, David_Wood, Guus, AZ, Arnaud (muted), AndyS, Ivan ←
15:01:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see cygri, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, AZ, moustaki, swh, tbaker, gavinc, Guus_, danbri, MacTed, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu, manu1, NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see cygri, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, AZ, moustaki, swh, tbaker, gavinc, Guus_, danbri, MacTed, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu, manu1, NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP ←
15:01:26 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
Zakim IRC Bot: +mhausenblas ←
15:01:35 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
Richard Cyganiak: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me ←
15:01:35 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri; got it ←
15:01:48 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.443.212.aaaa ←
15:01:48 <danbri> (regrets, i'm preparing to give a webinar shortly)
Dan Brickley: (regrets, i'm preparing to give a webinar shortly) ←
15:02:00 <AlexHall> zakim, aaaa is me
Alex Hall: zakim, aaaa is me ←
15:02:00 <Zakim> +AlexHall; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexHall; got it ←
15:02:05 <moustaki> Zakim, ??P0 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P0 is me ←
15:02:05 <Zakim> +moustaki; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +moustaki; got it ←
15:02:21 <Arnaud> sending 40+ messages between 4am and 8am my time isn't fair!..
Arnaud Le Hors: sending 40+ messages between 4am and 8am my time isn't fair!.. ←
15:02:35 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:03:13 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
15:03:28 <pchampin> zakim, ??P15 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P15 is me ←
15:03:28 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:03:33 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: 8 Feb -- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.04.25
Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: 8 Feb -- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.04.25 ←
15:03:52 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: RDF Agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.04.25
Sandro Hawke: sandro has changed the topic to: RDF Agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.04.25 ←
15:03:54 <AlexHall> scribe: alexhall
(Scribe set to Alex Hall)
15:04:01 <AlexHall> scribenick: alexhall
15:04:21 <AlexHall> topic: Admin
15:04:24 <Guus_> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
15:04:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see moustaki, David_Wood, Guus, AZ, Arnaud, AndyS, Ivan, cygri, AlexHall, Sandro, pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see moustaki, David_Wood, Guus, AZ, Arnaud, AndyS, Ivan, cygri, AlexHall, Sandro, pchampin ←
15:04:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see FabGandon1, pchampin, AlexHall, cygri, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, AZ, yvesr, swh, tbaker, gavinc, Guus_, danbri, MacTed, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu, manu1,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see FabGandon1, pchampin, AlexHall, cygri, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, AZ, yvesr, swh, tbaker, gavinc, Guus_, danbri, MacTed, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu, manu1, ←
15:04:26 <Zakim> ... NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP ←
15:04:36 <Zakim> +ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP ←
15:05:10 <AlexHall> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of April 18 telecon
PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of April 18 telecon ←
15:05:26 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of April 18 telecon
RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of April 18 telecon ←
15:05:35 <AlexHall> guus: Action item review
Guus Schreiber: Action item review ←
15:05:49 <Zakim> +gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: +gavinc ←
15:05:52 <Zakim> +??P18
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18 ←
15:06:30 <AlexHall> ... any progress on open action items?
... any progress on open action items? ←
15:06:33 <tbaker> zakim, ??P18 is probably tbaker
Thomas Baker: zakim, ??P18 is probably tbaker ←
15:06:33 <Zakim> +tbaker?; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +tbaker?; got it ←
15:07:39 <AlexHall> ... no progress, move to next week
... no progress, move to next week ←
15:07:53 <AlexHall> topic: Work priorities
15:08:14 <AlexHall> guus: Our discussion on NG puts us at risk for the timetable in the charter
Guus Schreiber: Our discussion on NG puts us at risk for the timetable in the charter ←
15:08:35 <AlexHall> ... it's a difficult issue but we have to face that fact, worth a discussion of priorities
... it's a difficult issue but we have to face that fact, worth a discussion of priorities ←
15:08:52 <AlexHall> ... anything we can easily do quickly while keeping named graphs open?
... anything we can easily do quickly while keeping named graphs open? ←
15:09:04 <AlexHall> ... open floor for 5-10 minute discussion on this
... open floor for 5-10 minute discussion on this ←
15:09:27 <AlexHall> eric: what is our todo list? (i guess it's in the charter, should look at that)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: what is our todo list? (i guess it's in the charter, should look at that) ←
15:09:45 <AlexHall> sandro: should be in the open issues list, might be more accurate
Sandro Hawke: should be in the open issues list, might be more accurate ←
15:09:52 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:09:57 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:09:57 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
15:10:00 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:10:00 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
15:10:19 <AlexHall> david: we do have an email thread started by Sandro this morning for graph strawpoll
David Wood: we do have an email thread started by Sandro this morning for graph strawpoll ←
15:10:25 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:10:34 <AlexHall> guus: will get to that later, for now concentrate on issues outside of NGs
Guus Schreiber: will get to that later, for now concentrate on issues outside of NGs ←
15:10:56 <AlexHall> ... right now have 29 open issues, should at least make sure we do the other ones that aren't graphs
... right now have 29 open issues, should at least make sure we do the other ones that aren't graphs ←
15:10:59 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:11:17 <AlexHall> ... do we revive the RDF-JSON work?
... do we revive the RDF-JSON work? ←
15:11:29 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:11:29 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
15:11:41 <AlexHall> eric: had the impression we were waiting to see how JSON-LD shaped up to see if we need to do anything other than adopt it
Eric Prud'hommeaux: had the impression we were waiting to see how JSON-LD shaped up to see if we need to do anything other than adopt it ←
15:12:04 <AlexHall> ted: LD is about making JSON linked, not making an RDF serialization in JSON
Ted Thibodeau: LD is about making JSON linked, not making an RDF serialization in JSON ←
15:12:13 <pchampin> I don't agree either :)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I don't agree either :) ←
15:12:24 <AlexHall> [disagreement from ivan, david]
[disagreement from ivan, david] ←
15:12:27 <AndyS> +1 to MacTed. That is my understanding of the primary use case.
Andy Seaborne: +1 to MacTed. That is my understanding of the primary use case. ←
15:12:47 <AlexHall> guus: can serialize any graph into JSON-LD
Guus Schreiber: can serialize any graph into JSON-LD ←
15:13:16 <AndyS> Sorry.
Andy Seaborne: Sorry. ←
15:13:26 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
15:13:26 <AlexHall> can you scribe yourself, andy?
can you scribe yourself, andy? ←
15:13:32 <AndyS> RDFa can encode any graph but UC is RDF in HTML doc.
Andy Seaborne: RDFa can encode any graph but UC is RDF in HTML doc. ←
15:14:05 <AlexHall> ivan: JSON-LD has gotten lots of traction in several places, this is a good thing
Ivan Herman: JSON-LD has gotten lots of traction in several places, this is a good thing ←
15:14:20 <AlexHall> guus: will it be ready to do anything with it by this summer?
Guus Schreiber: will it be ready to do anything with it by this summer? ←
15:14:26 <AlexHall> ivan: no, i don't think so
Ivan Herman: no, i don't think so ←
15:14:33 <Zakim> +[Sophia]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[Sophia] ←
15:14:41 <AlexHall> guus: ok, doesn't need to be a work priority for us
Guus Schreiber: ok, doesn't need to be a work priority for us ←
15:14:51 <FabGandon1> Zakim, Sophia is me
Fabien Gandon: Zakim, Sophia is me ←
15:14:51 <Zakim> +FabGandon1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +FabGandon1; got it ←
15:14:52 <Guus_> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
15:15:06 <AlexHall> ivan: don't know whether we got XMLLiterals completely closed
Ivan Herman: don't know whether we got XMLLiterals completely closed ←
15:15:17 <AndyS> so even though JSON-LD can encode a graph, is it the right solution for RDF exchange? outside of adding semantics to JSON( which is a good thing to do).
Andy Seaborne: so even though JSON-LD can encode a graph, is it the right solution for RDF exchange? outside of adding semantics to JSON( which is a good thing to do). ←
15:15:24 <AlexHall> ... also think there was another issue coming in about HTML5 literals, might need to decide on that
... also think there was another issue coming in about HTML5 literals, might need to decide on that ←
15:15:54 <AlexHall> cygri: based on information from poll, think there's enough information to make a proposal acceptable to wg
Richard Cyganiak: based on information from poll, think there's enough information to make a proposal acceptable to wg ←
15:16:31 <AlexHall> ... aside from graph stuff, think ??? and HTML5 literals are the major open issues remaining
... aside from graph stuff, think ??? and HTML5 literals are the major open issues remaining ←
15:16:52 <AlexHall> ... wrt HTML5 literals, is that even an issue for this wg to consider?
... wrt HTML5 literals, is that even an issue for this wg to consider? ←
15:17:22 <AlexHall> ivan: don't see any other wg that can pick it up
Ivan Herman: don't see any other wg that can pick it up ←
15:17:41 <cygri> ISSUE-63?
15:17:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Introduce an HTML5 datatype -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-63 -- Introduce an HTML5 datatype -- open ←
15:17:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/63
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/63 ←
15:17:41 <AlexHall> guus: ivan, can you do this since you raised an issue for it?
Guus Schreiber: ivan, can you do this since you raised an issue for it? ←
15:18:32 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:18:37 <AndyS> Issue-63 needed for LDP-WG.
Andy Seaborne: ISSUE-63 needed for LDP-WG. ←
15:19:12 <AlexHall> guus: one other work item is to put out an update primer, that's on my plate
Guus Schreiber: one other work item is to put out an update primer, that's on my plate ←
15:19:22 <AlexHall> ... don't think i'll be able to do anything on that until june
... don't think i'll be able to do anything on that until june ←
15:19:26 <gavinc> btw, ISSUE-63 is related to ISSUE-81
Gavin Carothers: btw, ISSUE-63 is related to ISSUE-81 ←
15:19:31 <gavinc> ISSUE-81?
15:19:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-81 -- How to represent HTML formated text in an RDF Literals -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-81 -- How to represent HTML formated text in an RDF Literals -- raised ←
15:19:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/81
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/81 ←
15:19:58 <Guus_> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:20:02 <Guus_> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
15:20:34 <AlexHall> ivan: one thing that came up early was discussion to change title of RDF Semantics document, reorganize to make the rules normative and deemphasize the model-theoretic semantics
Ivan Herman: one thing that came up early was discussion to change title of RDF Semantics document, reorganize to make the rules normative and deemphasize the model-theoretic semantics ←
15:20:37 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:20:48 <Guus_> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
15:20:51 <AlexHall> ... think it's a good thing to do but huge amount of editorial work
... think it's a good thing to do but huge amount of editorial work ←
15:21:05 <AlexHall> cygri: is there an editors draft of RDF Semantics yet?
Richard Cyganiak: is there an editors draft of RDF Semantics yet? ←
15:21:09 <AlexHall> [no]
[no] ←
15:21:35 <AlexHall> cygri: given that there are larger changes to the doc, would feel better if there were an editors draft by now.
Richard Cyganiak: given that there are larger changes to the doc, would feel better if there were an editors draft by now. ←
15:22:22 <AlexHall> guus: suggest we should put it on the agenda for next week
Guus Schreiber: suggest we should put it on the agenda for next week ←
15:22:36 <AlexHall> ... any more priorities?
... any more priorities? ←
15:23:22 <AlexHall> david: should ping peter and pat via email before next week
David Wood: should ping peter and pat via email before next week ←
15:23:41 <AlexHall> topic: Turtle LC
15:23:56 <AlexHall> guus: thought we agreed to a different schedule last week than what's on the agenda
Guus Schreiber: thought we agreed to a different schedule last week than what's on the agenda ←
15:23:58 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:24:15 <AlexHall> gavin: yes, we agreed to have a draft ready by next week?
Gavin Carothers: yes, we agreed to have a draft ready by next week? ←
15:24:20 <AndyS> I emailed Eric and Gavin re ":" SPARQL change in local part of prefix names
Andy Seaborne: I emailed Eric and Gavin re ":" SPARQL change in local part of prefix names ←
15:24:29 <AlexHall> guus: is that still a realistic goal?
Guus Schreiber: is that still a realistic goal? ←
15:24:33 <AlexHall> gavin: yes
Gavin Carothers: yes ←
15:24:34 <Guus_> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
15:24:41 <gavinc> AndyS, yep, and updated the Turtle grammar to contain the same thing
Gavin Carothers: AndyS, yep, and updated the Turtle grammar to contain the same thing ←
15:24:44 <AlexHall> guus: will put it on the agenda for next week
Guus Schreiber: will put it on the agenda for next week ←
15:25:14 <ivan> +1 to Richard
Ivan Herman: +1 to Richard ←
15:25:19 <AlexHall> cygri: there has been significant editorial work done in RDF Concepts since last published working draft
Richard Cyganiak: there has been significant editorial work done in RDF Concepts since last published working draft ←
15:25:48 <AlexHall> ... since there are small number of open issues, think we should do another public working draft soon to get feedback
... since there are small number of open issues, think we should do another public working draft soon to get feedback ←
15:26:11 <AlexHall> guus: do you plan to incorporate the XMLLiteral and HTML5 literal into the draft
Guus Schreiber: do you plan to incorporate the XMLLiteral and HTML5 literal into the draft ←
15:26:45 <AlexHall> cygri: i think there are enough changes in there to publish without XML/HTML5 literals
Richard Cyganiak: i think there are enough changes in there to publish without XML/HTML5 literals ←
15:27:41 <AlexHall> guus: leave the decision to you. i'm happy to come up with proposed working draft and do an internal review. turn-around time is ~3 weeks
Guus Schreiber: leave the decision to you. i'm happy to come up with proposed working draft and do an internal review. turn-around time is ~3 weeks ←
15:27:56 <AlexHall> ivan: would be good to have it done before SemTech
Ivan Herman: would be good to have it done before SemTech ←
15:28:08 <AlexHall> cygri: that seems doable and something good to aim for
Richard Cyganiak: that seems doable and something good to aim for ←
15:28:16 <davidwood> Pat and Peter pinged re RDF Semantics editors draft.
David Wood: Pat and Peter pinged re RDF Semantics editors draft. ←
15:28:19 <ivan> (SemTech starts on the 4th of June, FYI)
Ivan Herman: (SemTech starts on the 4th of June, FYI) ←
15:28:39 <AlexHall> guus: do you want to commit to a date to put it on the agenda, or wait to see how it goes? target may 9?
Guus Schreiber: do you want to commit to a date to put it on the agenda, or wait to see how it goes? target may 9? ←
15:28:46 <davidwood> I don't know how much effort I can put into RDF Concepts between now and 9 May, but can try.
David Wood: I don't know how much effort I can put into RDF Concepts between now and 9 May, but can try. ←
15:29:07 <AlexHall> cygri: would prefer to review XMLLiterals first before committing
Richard Cyganiak: would prefer to review XMLLiterals first before committing ←
15:29:43 <AlexHall> guus: think it's worth taking a week longer to include XMLLiteral changes. think we came pretty close to consensus and it was just a matter of phrasing.
Guus Schreiber: think it's worth taking a week longer to include XMLLiteral changes. think we came pretty close to consensus and it was just a matter of phrasing. ←
15:30:20 <AlexHall> cygri: will put together a proposal for XMLLiterals in the next week, let's put it on the agenda for next week.
Richard Cyganiak: will put together a proposal for XMLLiterals in the next week, let's put it on the agenda for next week. ←
15:30:37 <Guus_> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:30:43 <Zakim> +??P25
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P25 ←
15:30:47 <AlexHall> guus: good, 3 non-graph items on agenda for next week (Turtle LC, RDF Semantics draft, XMLLiteral)
Guus Schreiber: good, 3 non-graph items on agenda for next week (Turtle LC, RDF Semantics draft, XMLLiteral) ←
15:30:53 <AlexHall> topic: Named Graphs
15:31:08 <AlexHall> guus: suggestion is to start with sandro's strawpoll
Guus Schreiber: suggestion is to start with sandro's strawpoll ←
15:31:34 <AlexHall> ... sandro, would you mind explaining this?
... sandro, would you mind explaining this? ←
15:31:40 <Souri> zakim, P25 is me
Souripriya Das: zakim, P25 is me ←
15:31:40 <Zakim> sorry, Souri, I do not recognize a party named 'P25'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Souri, I do not recognize a party named 'P25' ←
15:31:40 <sandro> subtopic: The default graph is asserted
15:31:40 <sandro> "{<a> <b> <c>}" entails turtle("<a> <b> <c>")
Sandro Hawke: "{<a> <b> <c>}" entails turtle("<a> <b> <c>") ←
15:31:51 <AlexHall> sandro: taking them in order, tried to go from simplest to most complicated
Sandro Hawke: taking them in order, tried to go from simplest to most complicated ←
15:32:00 <Souri> zakim,?P25 is me
Souripriya Das: zakim,?P25 is me ←
15:32:00 <Zakim> sorry, Souri, I do not recognize a party named '?P25'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Souri, I do not recognize a party named '?P25' ←
15:32:18 <Souri> zakim,??P25 is me
Souripriya Das: zakim,??P25 is me ←
15:32:18 <Zakim> +Souri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri; got it ←
15:32:23 <AlexHall> ... consensus seemed to be that this is OK, though antoine pointed out that entailment might not be the right word.
... consensus seemed to be that this is OK, though antoine pointed out that entailment might not be the right word. ←
15:32:38 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:32:40 <Guus_> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
15:32:40 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:32:42 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
15:32:44 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:32:46 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:32:47 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
15:32:48 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:32:53 <AlexHall> +1
+1 ←
15:32:57 <FabGandon1> +1
Fabien Gandon: +1 ←
15:32:58 <AZ> (although the terminology should be fixed)
Antoine Zimmermann: (although the terminology should be fixed) ←
15:33:03 <sandro> (agreed)
Sandro Hawke: (agreed) ←
15:33:05 <sandro> subtopic: Named graphs are not asserted
15:33:05 <sandro> "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" does not entail turtle("<a> <b> <c>")
Sandro Hawke: "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" does not entail turtle("<a> <b> <c>") ←
15:33:11 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:33:26 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:33:28 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
15:33:28 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:33:29 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:33:30 <tbaker> +1
Thomas Baker: +1 ←
15:33:31 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
15:33:32 <Guus_> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
15:33:33 <AlexHall> sandro: think most people agreed that named graphs are not asserted, but there were a couple of disagreements
Sandro Hawke: think most people agreed that named graphs are not asserted, but there were a couple of disagreements ←
15:33:37 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
15:33:39 <gavinc> +0
Gavin Carothers: +0 ←
15:33:40 <AlexHall> ... could those people speak up?
... could those people speak up? ←
15:33:46 <yvesr> +0
Yves Raimond: +0 ←
15:34:08 <MacTed> I'm not current on this thread ... and not sure I understand the proposition.
Ted Thibodeau: I'm not current on this thread ... and not sure I understand the proposition. ←
15:35:16 <AlexHall> gavin, can you please scribe your comment (didn't quite follow)?
gavin, can you please scribe your comment (didn't quite follow)? ←
15:35:56 <AlexHall> sandro: the point here is that there needs to be a way to talk about some triples without asserting them as true
Sandro Hawke: the point here is that there needs to be a way to talk about some triples without asserting them as true ←
15:36:05 <gavinc> gavinc: Not clear to me what the diffrence between "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" and GET <u> "<a> <b> <c>" is
Gavin Carothers: Not clear to me what the diffrence between "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" and GET <u> "<a> <b> <c>" is [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
15:36:34 <AlexHall> sandro: who is saying the second one? in what language?
Sandro Hawke: who is saying the second one? in what language? ←
15:36:49 <AlexHall> david: can you even say that? don't you just say "Get <u>"?
David Wood: can you even say that? don't you just say "Get <u>"? ←
15:37:51 <AlexHall> gavin: as a data publisher, what is the difference between publishing a single trig doc vs. publishing lots of turtle docs
Gavin Carothers: as a data publisher, what is the difference between publishing a single trig doc vs. publishing lots of turtle docs ←
15:37:54 <davidwood> q+ to ask whether they shouldn't just be two difference publication styles.
David Wood: q+ to ask whether they shouldn't just be two difference publication styles. ←
15:38:06 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:38:33 <AlexHall> sandro: the trig doc doesn't assert the contents of the graphs, publishing as turtle docs does
Sandro Hawke: the trig doc doesn't assert the contents of the graphs, publishing as turtle docs does ←
15:38:42 <Guus_> ack davidwood
Guus Schreiber: ack davidwood ←
15:38:42 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to ask whether they shouldn't just be two difference publication styles.
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to ask whether they shouldn't just be two difference publication styles. ←
15:38:43 <AlexHall> gavin: don't really understand why that is the case
Gavin Carothers: don't really understand why that is the case ←
15:38:52 <sandro> gavin: It's just not clear to me why putting all my turtle documents in one big trig document would change the meaning.
Gavin Carothers: It's just not clear to me why putting all my turtle documents in one big trig document would change the meaning. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:39:29 <AlexHall> david: think this is a matter of style. it's a difference between quoting the contents of the graphs vs publishing them individually
David Wood: think this is a matter of style. it's a difference between quoting the contents of the graphs vs publishing them individually ←
15:39:49 <AlexHall> ... if i'm a publisher, the contents of both of those docs should be the same
... if i'm a publisher, the contents of both of those docs should be the same ←
15:39:49 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:39:53 <Guus_> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
15:39:55 <cygri> publishing something doesn't assert it.
Richard Cyganiak: publishing something doesn't assert it. ←
15:40:09 <AlexHall> sandro: not sure about the semantics of publishing on the web here. don't necessarily see publishing on the web as being equivalent to asserting
Sandro Hawke: not sure about the semantics of publishing on the web here. don't necessarily see publishing on the web as being equivalent to asserting ←
15:40:13 <sandro> sandro: I think it may be possible to publish RDF on the Web without asserting it. I'm not sure about that.
Sandro Hawke: I think it may be possible to publish RDF on the Web without asserting it. I'm not sure about that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:40:16 <gavinc> cygri, sure but the statement was "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" does not entail turtle("<a> <b> <c>")
Gavin Carothers: cygri, sure but the statement was "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" does not entail turtle("<a> <b> <c>") ←
15:41:07 <ericP> ivan is saying "<u> a :ResolvableRDFResouce ." ?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ivan is saying "<u> a :ResolvableRDFResouce ." ? ←
15:41:20 <AlexHall> ivan: convention is that graph iri's are just labels, but maybe there is an extension where we can say that the labeled graphs are the same as what is published on those IRIs
Ivan Herman: convention is that graph iri's are just labels, but maybe there is an extension where we can say that the labeled graphs are the same as what is published on those IRIs ←
15:41:28 <ivan> eric, yes, although we had about 50 different names for that class already:-)
Ivan Herman: eric, yes, although we had about 50 different names for that class already:-) ←
15:41:30 <sandro> subtopic: Named graphs are opaque
15:41:30 <sandro> "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" does not entail "<u> {<a> <b> _:x}"
Sandro Hawke: "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" does not entail "<u> {<a> <b> _:x}" ←
15:41:41 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:41:42 <AZ> -1
Antoine Zimmermann: -1 ←
15:41:44 <cygri> -1, i think
Richard Cyganiak: -1, i think ←
15:41:49 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:41:57 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:42:00 <AndyS> -1 -- it should entail (within the graph). A graph is a graph everywhere.
Andy Seaborne: -1 -- it should entail (within the graph). A graph is a graph everywhere. ←
15:42:08 <yvesr> -1, i think
Yves Raimond: -1, i think ←
15:42:14 <davidwood> +0.5 (I think)
David Wood: +0.5 (I think) ←
15:42:15 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:42:26 <AlexHall> sandro: the reason i think this is the right thing to do is, you want to keep things from changing out from under you all the time
Sandro Hawke: the reason i think this is the right thing to do is, you want to keep things from changing out from under you all the time ←
15:42:32 <pchampin> q+
15:42:37 <AndyS> (err - SPARQL entailment would have that entailment)
Andy Seaborne: (err - SPARQL entailment would have that entailment) ←
15:42:39 <AlexHall> ... the graph is not the same as its entailments
... the graph is not the same as its entailments ←
15:42:48 <Guus_> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:43:00 <AlexHall> ... this is another way of saying that entailment has to be explicit.
... this is another way of saying that entailment has to be explicit. ←
15:43:03 <FabGandon1> -1, because I don't see why.
Fabien Gandon: -1, because I don't see why. ←
15:43:03 <Guus_> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
15:44:03 <ericP> i think we need to support the graph structure upon which SPARQL (and most of the world) relies
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think we need to support the graph structure upon which SPARQL (and most of the world) relies ←
15:44:05 <AlexHall> cygri: two reasons i disagree. first, we are defining a semantics, so we shouldn't say we do something because this is how sparql works. sparql is defined in terms of graphs, but we're concerned about the logical assertions within those graphs
Richard Cyganiak: two reasons i disagree. first, we are defining a semantics, so we shouldn't say we do something because this is how sparql works. sparql is defined in terms of graphs, but we're concerned about the logical assertions within those graphs ←
15:44:11 <AZ> SPARQL with entailment regime really gives you the implicit statements
Antoine Zimmermann: SPARQL with entailment regime really gives you the implicit statements ←
15:44:33 <sandro> cygri: Entailment goes nicely with the partial graph semantics.
Richard Cyganiak: Entailment goes nicely with the partial graph semantics. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:44:59 <AlexHall> ... second, i like the partial semantics approach
... second, i like the partial semantics approach ←
15:45:13 <AlexHall> ... it works well with entailments
... it works well with entailments ←
15:45:29 <AlexHall> sandro: think this might be something we can't decide without more experience.
Sandro Hawke: think this might be something we can't decide without more experience. ←
15:45:30 <AlexHall> q+
q+ ←
15:45:34 <Guus_> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
15:46:24 <AlexHall> ivan: when i have named graphs, what is in the named graphs is quoted. i'm not talking about entailment when i'm quoting.
Ivan Herman: when i have named graphs, what is in the named graphs is quoted. i'm not talking about entailment when i'm quoting. ←
15:47:05 <AlexHall> ... the entailment in the example is true if i'm explicitly doing entailment, but not otherwise
... the entailment in the example is true if i'm explicitly doing entailment, but not otherwise ←
15:47:13 <sandro> zakim, who is muted?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is muted? ←
15:47:13 <Zakim> I see Arnaud, tbaker? muted
Zakim IRC Bot: I see Arnaud, tbaker? muted ←
15:47:15 <Guus_> ack pchampin
Guus Schreiber: ack pchampin ←
15:47:30 <AlexHall> pchampin: i agree with ivan
Pierre-Antoine Champin: i agree with ivan ←
15:47:58 <cygri> +1 to that
Richard Cyganiak: +1 to that ←
15:48:10 <AlexHall> ... either we have to accept all kinds of inference in the curly brackets, or none
... either we have to accept all kinds of inference in the curly brackets, or none ←
15:48:12 <sandro> +1 we acept all kinds of inference, or none, within curlies
Sandro Hawke: +1 we acept all kinds of inference, or none, within curlies ←
15:48:23 <davidwood> +1 to no inferences or none
David Wood: +1 to no inferences or none ←
15:48:28 <AndyS> 0
Andy Seaborne: 0 ←
15:48:30 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:48:32 <pchampin> pchampin: either all inferences should be allowed inside the curly brackets, or none
Pierre-Antoine Champin: either all inferences should be allowed inside the curly brackets, or none [ Scribe Assist by Pierre-Antoine Champin ] ←
15:48:34 <ericP> can we make a guess at a descriminating use case?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: can we make a guess at a descriminating use case? ←
15:48:38 <Guus_> ack AlexHall
Guus Schreiber: ack AlexHall ←
15:48:39 <ericP> i propose capturing that graph { :Fido a :Dog . :Dog rdfs:subClassOf :Mammal } has an RDFS entialment which include { :Fido a :Mammal }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i propose capturing that graph { :Fido a :Dog . :Dog rdfs:subClassOf :Mammal } has an RDFS entialment which includes { :Fido a :Mammal } ←
15:48:45 <Souri> +1 to no inference
Souripriya Das: +1 to no inference ←
15:48:50 <ericP> s/include/includes/
15:49:55 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:50:24 <ericP> q+ to propose a test
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to propose a test ←
15:50:27 <sandro> subtopic: Graph labels denote just like in RDF
15:50:27 <sandro> "{<u1> owl:sameAs <u2>} <u1> {<a> <b> <c>}"
Sandro Hawke: "{<u1> owl:sameAs <u2>} <u1> {<a> <b> <c>}" ←
15:50:27 <sandro> owl-entails
Sandro Hawke: owl-entails ←
15:50:27 <sandro> "<u2> {<a> <b> <c>}"
Sandro Hawke: "<u2> {<a> <b> <c>}" ←
15:50:29 <ericP> q-
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q- ←
15:50:46 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:51:06 <AZ> -1 as the default but have a mechanism to switch to this case when needed
Antoine Zimmermann: -1 as the default but have a mechanism to switch to this case when needed ←
15:51:45 <AlexHall> sandro: point of this item is that you can use graph IRIs in RDF and have those IRIs talk about the actual graphs
Sandro Hawke: point of this item is that you can use graph IRIs in RDF and have those IRIs talk about the actual graphs ←
15:52:16 <AlexHall> ... this is refuting the people who claim that the label doesn't denote the graph
... this is refuting the people who claim that the label doesn't denote the graph ←
15:52:18 <davidwood> -1 (I see no reason to *interpret* the semantics of owl:sameAs within RDF, but that would be fine within OWL)
David Wood: -1 (I see no reason to *interpret* the semantics of owl:sameAs within RDF, but that would be fine within OWL) ←
15:52:38 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:52:39 <cygri> ±0. the question needs to be made clearer
Richard Cyganiak: ±0. the question needs to be made clearer ←
15:52:44 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
15:53:15 <AlexHall> sandro: using owl:sameAs as an example, not suggesting we incorporate OWL into RDF
Sandro Hawke: using owl:sameAs as an example, not suggesting we incorporate OWL into RDF ←
15:53:20 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
15:53:27 <pchampin> q+
15:53:47 <sandro> { <u> dc:creator "David Wood" } <u> { <a><b> <c> }
Sandro Hawke: { <u> dc:creator "David Wood" } <u> { <a><b> <c> } ←
15:54:05 <AlexHall> ... you can only get at this feature by incorporating some higher semantics where different IRIs can mean the same thing
... you can only get at this feature by incorporating some higher semantics where different IRIs can mean the same thing ←
15:54:11 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:54:15 <Zakim> -Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus ←
15:54:18 <AndyS> different issue because of label -> thing -> graph indirection
Andy Seaborne: different issue because of label -> thing -> graph indirection ←
15:54:28 <sandro> sandro: are the terms "u" in the same general namespace, the I( .... )
Sandro Hawke: are the terms "u" in the same general namespace, the I( .... ) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:54:31 <cygri> AndyS++
Richard Cyganiak: AndyS++ ←
15:54:32 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:54:37 <davidwood> +0 (changed from previous after Sandro's explanation - I will need to think about it)
David Wood: +0 (changed from previous after Sandro's explanation - I will need to think about it) ←
15:54:40 <AlexHall> ... or, in this dc:creator example, is the thing created by David Wood the graph within the braces?
... or, in this dc:creator example, is the thing created by David Wood the graph within the braces? ←
15:54:41 <Guus_> my phone just broke down, it seems the battery is corrupt :-(
Guus Schreiber: my phone just broke down, it seems the battery is corrupt :-( ←
15:54:42 <sandro> ack AZ
Sandro Hawke: ack AZ ←
15:54:43 <ivan> ack AZ
Ivan Herman: ack AZ ←
15:55:32 <Guus_> david, can you chair the last 15 min?
Guus Schreiber: david, can you chair the last 15 min? ←
15:55:43 <Guus_> it would be great if we get through all 7
Guus Schreiber: it would be great if we get through all 7 ←
15:55:48 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:55:49 <sandro> +1 AZ there is a use case against this (I just don't think it's worth it.)
Sandro Hawke: +1 AZ there is a use case against this (I just don't think it's worth it.) ←
15:56:04 <Guus_> thanks ivan
Guus Schreiber: thanks ivan ←
15:56:17 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
15:56:35 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:56:37 <AlexHall> az: you can imagine that you have two IRIs used as a graph label for two different graphs, both denoting some resource that is the primary subject of those graphs
Antoine Zimmermann: you can imagine that you have two IRIs used as a graph label for two different graphs, both denoting some resource that is the primary subject of those graphs ←
15:56:45 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:57:04 <ericP> <g1> { <bobama> a :American } , <g2> { <bobama> a :African }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: <g1> { <bobama> a :American } , <g2> { <bobama> a :African } ←
15:57:09 <davidwood> gavinc, They use DNS as the basis to make their names, just like now
David Wood: gavinc, They use DNS as the basis to make their names, just like now ←
15:57:10 <ivan> ack pchampin
Ivan Herman: ack pchampin ←
15:57:20 <sandro> no ericP not that.
Sandro Hawke: no ericP not that. ←
15:57:23 <AlexHall> ... you can't declare the names to be same without also declaring the graphs to be the same in this example
... you can't declare the names to be same without also declaring the graphs to be the same in this example ←
15:57:26 <ericP> why would i say <g1> = <g2> ?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: why would i say <g1> = <g2> ? ←
15:57:50 <davidwood> gavinc, Oops, sorry. I thought that was you.
David Wood: gavinc, Oops, sorry. I thought that was you. ←
15:58:12 <AlexHall> pchampin: afraid that this kind of inference would have lots of sparql implementers yelling at us
Pierre-Antoine Champin: afraid that this kind of inference would have lots of sparql implementers yelling at us ←
15:58:20 <AndyS> Two different datasets may have same <u> for different things (e..g <URL> viewed at 15:00, <URL> viewed at 16:00). Good decision? globally no, but without agreement, it will happen.
Andy Seaborne: Two different datasets may have same <u> for different things (e..g <URL> viewed at 15:00, <URL> viewed at 16:00). Good decision? globally no, but without agreement, it will happen. ←
15:58:31 <AlexHall> ... other than that this looks sensible, but afraid it might break things for implementers
... other than that this looks sensible, but afraid it might break things for implementers ←
15:58:39 <AZ> +1 pchampin
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 pchampin ←
15:58:56 <AlexHall> sandro: could this be handled by a sparql entailment regime?
Sandro Hawke: could this be handled by a sparql entailment regime? ←
15:58:59 <pchampin> SELECT * WHERE { <u> { ?s ?p ?o } }
Pierre-Antoine Champin: SELECT * WHERE { <u> { ?s ?p ?o } } ←
15:59:01 <AZ> The entailment regime do not do anything with the graph labels
Antoine Zimmermann: The entailment regime do not do anything with the graph labels ←
15:59:13 <AlexHall> pchampin: maybe, but only if the entailment regime also applies to graph labels
Pierre-Antoine Champin: maybe, but only if the entailment regime also applies to graph labels ←
15:59:24 <sandro> +1 pchampin Good Question.
Sandro Hawke: +1 pchampin Good Question. ←
15:59:34 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:59:38 <AndyS> pchampin -- good point - enatilment only applies to BGP matching, not the named part
Andy Seaborne: pchampin -- good point - enatilment only applies to BGP matching, not the named part ←
15:59:40 <AZ> (I reviewed SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes)
Antoine Zimmermann: (I reviewed SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes) ←
15:59:43 <AlexHall> entailment regime only applies to pattern matching within the context of a graph
entailment regime only applies to pattern matching within the context of a graph ←
16:00:08 <ivan> ack cygri
Ivan Herman: ack cygri ←
16:00:15 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
16:00:50 <AZ> +1 cygri
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 cygri ←
16:01:00 <ivan> +1 to cygri
Ivan Herman: +1 to cygri ←
16:01:01 <AlexHall> cygri: the entailment regimes is something to keep in mind. one thing entailing something else doesn't necessarily mean the entailed thing goes back into the data structure.
Richard Cyganiak: the entailment regimes is something to keep in mind. one thing entailing something else doesn't necessarily mean the entailed thing goes back into the data structure. ←
16:01:17 <Zakim> +??P54
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P54 ←
16:01:29 <cygri> { <u> dc:creator "David Wood" } <u> { <a> <b> <c> }
Richard Cyganiak: { <u> dc:creator "David Wood" } <u> { <a> <b> <c> } ←
16:01:32 <AlexHall> ... your tools uses those entailments sometimes when you tell it to
... your tools uses those entailments sometimes when you tell it to ←
16:01:34 <sandro> cygri: I think I can say YES, but my sparql store doesn't have to compute these
Richard Cyganiak: I think I can say YES, but my sparql store doesn't have to compute these [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:01:38 <Guus_> zakim, ??p54 is me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, ??p54 is me ←
16:01:38 <Zakim> +Guus_; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus_; got it ←
16:02:02 <sandro> cygri: In this example, the two <u>'s are the same thing.
Richard Cyganiak: In this example, the two <u>'s are the same thing. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:02:10 <pchampin> q+
16:02:29 <AlexHall> ... regarding the dc:creator, i think the question of what the <u>'s denote is different from what relation that thing stands to the stuff in the graph.
... regarding the dc:creator, i think the question of what the <u>'s denote is different from what relation that thing stands to the stuff in the graph. ←
16:02:37 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
16:02:48 <ivan> ack pchampin
Ivan Herman: ack pchampin ←
16:03:03 <AlexHall> guus: think we should speed this up to get to rest of questions on this telecon
Guus Schreiber: think we should speed this up to get to rest of questions on this telecon ←
16:03:11 <Souri> -1 for now b/c entailment today does not apply to graph labels -- the implications of this new extension is unclear to me
Souripriya Das: -1 for now b/c entailment today does not apply to graph labels -- the implications of this new extension is unclear to me ←
16:03:57 <AlexHall> pchampin: question to richard, when you say it doesn't mean the triples won't be automatically in your triple-store, do you mean just that they won't be materialized or that they won't be returned as query results to that graph?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: question to richard, when you say it doesn't mean the triples won't be automatically in your triple-store, do you mean just that they won't be materialized or that they won't be returned as query results to that graph? ←
16:04:05 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: (4) In a trig document like { <u> .... } ... <u> { ....<u> ... } the three "<u>" terms mean the same thing.
STRAWPOLL: (4) In a trig document like { <u> .... } ... <u> { ....<u> ... } the three "<u>" terms mean the same thing. ←
16:04:09 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is noisy? ←
16:04:18 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:04:25 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:04:26 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pchampin (58%), Guus_ (100%)
Zakim IRC Bot: ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pchampin (58%), Guus_ (100%) ←
16:04:45 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
16:04:46 <Guus_> zakim, mute me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, mute me ←
16:04:46 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
16:04:48 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
16:04:48 <pchampin> +1
16:04:49 <Zakim> Guus_ should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus_ should now be muted ←
16:04:59 <AndyS> +1 (I think) but the labelling has the indirection so it is a bit complicated
Andy Seaborne: +1 (I think) but the labelling has the indirection so it is a bit complicated ←
16:05:12 <AZ> What do you mean by "mean the same thing"?
Antoine Zimmermann: What do you mean by "mean the same thing"? ←
16:05:16 <AndyS> (caveat PatH's work)
Andy Seaborne: (caveat PatH's work) ←
16:05:20 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
16:05:26 <MacTed> so ... <u> is scoped to Trig doc
Ted Thibodeau: so ... <u> is scoped to Trig doc ←
16:05:28 <sandro> subtopic: Blank nodes labels have file scope
16:05:36 <ivan> -0.5
Ivan Herman: -0.5 ←
16:05:39 <cygri> ±1
Richard Cyganiak: ±1 ←
16:05:43 <AndyS> MacTed - nice way of putting it. +1
Andy Seaborne: MacTed - nice way of putting it. +1 ←
16:05:43 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Graphs_Design_6.1#Blank_Nodes
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Graphs_Design_6.1#Blank_Nodes ←
16:05:47 <pchampin> @AndyS agreed, labelling adds an indirection
Pierre-Antoine Champin: @AndyS agreed, labelling adds an indirection ←
16:05:53 <Guus_> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
16:06:20 <Guus_> makes pragmatic sense
Guus Schreiber: makes pragmatic sense ←
16:06:20 <AZ> -0.3
Antoine Zimmermann: -0.3 ←
16:06:21 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:06:22 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
16:06:43 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
16:06:46 <davidwood> ±0
David Wood: ±0 ←
16:06:58 <Guus_> i thiunk that is what users would expect
Guus Schreiber: i thiunk that is what users would expect ←
16:07:02 <AlexHall> sandro: use case here is that blank nodes need to be shared between graphs, e.g. when inference results from one graph are stored in another and the bnode labels need to denote the same thing in both places
Sandro Hawke: use case here is that blank nodes need to be shared between graphs, e.g. when inference results from one graph are stored in another and the bnode labels need to denote the same thing in both places ←
16:07:05 <tbaker> 0
Thomas Baker: 0 ←
16:07:13 <AndyS> It is cheaper and easier at scale to have file scope. Problem exists even in RDF/XML in the bnodes id tracking.
Andy Seaborne: It is cheaper and easier at scale to have file scope. Problem exists even in RDF/XML in the bnodes id tracking. ←
16:07:20 <AlexHall> ivan: but RDF graphs today cannot share blank nodes
Ivan Herman: but RDF graphs today cannot share blank nodes ←
16:07:34 <AlexHall> i'm pretty sure RDF Semantics says nothing about bnode scope
i'm pretty sure RDF Semantics says nothing about bnode scope ←
16:07:35 <Guus_> I don't see the reason against
Guus Schreiber: I don't see the reason against ←
16:07:39 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
16:07:49 <gavinc> AlexHall, RDF semantics doesn't talk about more than one graph ;)
Gavin Carothers: AlexHall, RDF semantics doesn't talk about more than one graph ;) ←
16:07:50 <AndyS> Surely RDF says exactly nothing one way or the other about anything across graphs
Andy Seaborne: Surely RDF says exactly nothing one way or the other about anything across graphs ←
16:07:54 <MacTed> Bnodes (and their labels) are scoped to Gbox/Gsnap/Gtext.... yes?
Ted Thibodeau: Bnodes (and their labels) are scoped to Gbox/Gsnap/Gtext.... yes? ←
16:08:10 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
16:08:18 <AlexHall> ivan: don't see how we can do this without skolemizing bnodes
Ivan Herman: don't see how we can do this without skolemizing bnodes ←
16:08:39 <MacTed> Bnodes are to be discouraged ... for MANY reasons. and this is one of those reasons.
Ted Thibodeau: Bnodes are to be discouraged ... for MANY reasons. and this is one of those reasons. ←
16:09:10 <AlexHall> sandro: disadvantage is simplicity and performance in terms of tracking bnode labels across a large document
Sandro Hawke: disadvantage is simplicity and performance in terms of tracking bnode labels across a large document ←
16:09:23 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
16:09:24 <Guus_> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
16:09:25 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
16:09:25 <sandro> 5. Blank nodes labels have file scope
Sandro Hawke: 5. Blank nodes labels have file scope ←
16:09:27 <tbaker> 0
Thomas Baker: 0 ←
16:09:28 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:09:30 <cygri> ±1
Richard Cyganiak: ±1 ←
16:09:32 <pchampin> 0
16:09:36 <Souri> -0.5
Souripriya Das: -0.5 ←
16:09:48 <davidwood> ±0
David Wood: ±0 ←
16:09:49 <MacTed> I *think* +1
Ted Thibodeau: I *think* +1 ←
16:09:55 <AndyS> +1 file scope
Andy Seaborne: +1 file scope ←
16:09:58 <gavinc> +1, and avoid blank nodes wherever possible ;)
Gavin Carothers: +1, and avoid blank nodes wherever possible ;) ←
16:09:59 <AZ> -0.3
Antoine Zimmermann: -0.3 ←
16:10:02 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
16:10:05 <sandro> subtopic: In trig, @union can be used in place of the default graph
16:10:05 <AlexHall> ted: right now nothing says triple store implemeners have to allow for bnode sharing, doing so might prevent optimizations
Eric Prud'hommeaux: right now nothing says triple store implemeners have to allow for bnode sharing, doing so might prevent optimizations ←
16:10:13 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
16:10:19 <pchampin> out of curiosity, did you try your test on majors SPARQL implementations?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: out of curiosity, did you try your test on majors SPARQL implementations? ←
16:10:19 <MacTed> s/ted/ericP/
16:10:24 <pchampin> (regarding bnodes?)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: (regarding bnodes?) ←
16:10:31 <AZ> (or another kind of syntactic indicator)
Antoine Zimmermann: (or another kind of syntactic indicator) ←
16:10:46 <ivan> -1 in this format, not INSTEAD OF, but ADDITIONALLY to the default graph
Ivan Herman: -1 in this format, not INSTEAD OF, but ADDITIONALLY to the default graph ←
16:11:11 <yvesr> it does seem a bit at odds with 2.
Yves Raimond: it does seem a bit at odds with 2. ←
16:11:18 <AlexHall> sandro: this is basically a way of using trig to annotate sections of a graph
Sandro Hawke: this is basically a way of using trig to annotate sections of a graph ←
16:11:21 <sandro> purely syntactic sugar for repeating all the triples in all the named graphs.
Sandro Hawke: purely syntactic sugar for repeating all the triples in all the named graphs. ←
16:11:23 <cygri> +0.5�
Richard Cyganiak: +0.5� ←
16:11:23 <ericP> +.4
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +.4 ←
16:11:26 <Guus_> +0
Guus Schreiber: +0 ←
16:11:28 <gavinc> +0.1
Gavin Carothers: +0.1 ←
16:11:32 <AndyS> Better *may* be RDF triples to say this - may be lots of different things to say. Has some ordering problems/issues but a good idea.
Andy Seaborne: Better *may* be RDF triples to say this - may be lots of different things to say. Has some ordering problems/issues but a good idea. ←
16:11:39 <AndyS> +0.75
Andy Seaborne: +0.75 ←
16:11:45 <Souri> +0.5
Souripriya Das: +0.5 ←
16:11:49 <davidwood> +0.5
David Wood: +0.5 ←
16:12:02 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: In trig, @union is syntacitc sugar for inlcuding all the named graph contrntst in the default graph
STRAWPOLL: In trig, @union is syntacitc sugar for inlcuding all the named graph contents in the default graph ←
16:12:05 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:12:06 <sandro> +0.75
Sandro Hawke: +0.75 ←
16:12:08 <ericP> +0.5
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0.5 ←
16:12:11 <AndyS> ivan's proposal would make processing easier (e..g see it at end of parse run)
Andy Seaborne: ivan's proposal would make processing easier (e..g see it at end of parse run) ←
16:12:13 <MacTed> s/contrntst/contents/
16:12:14 <tbaker> 0
Thomas Baker: 0 ←
16:12:20 <cygri> +0.5
Richard Cyganiak: +0.5 ←
16:12:22 <gavinc> (Syntax: Likely means that all declerations should come BEFORE the first graph statement)
Gavin Carothers: (Syntax: Likely means that all declerations should come BEFORE the first graph statement) ←
16:12:23 <sandro> (we could change the word later,of course.)
Sandro Hawke: (we could change the word later,of course.) ←
16:12:25 <pchampin> +1
16:12:30 <MacTed> +0
Ted Thibodeau: +0 ←
16:12:31 <Guus_> +0 because not sure the cost of extra syntax is worth it
Guus Schreiber: +0 because not sure the cost of extra syntax is worth it ←
16:12:31 <AlexHall> 0
0 ←
16:12:35 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
16:12:36 <Souri> +0.5
Souripriya Das: +0.5 ←
16:12:42 <FabGandon1> +0
Fabien Gandon: +0 ←
16:12:45 <sandro> subtopic: Datasets only say which triples are known to be in a named graph, not which triples are *not* in that named graph.
16:12:57 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
16:13:05 <AlexHall> sandro: this last one is the partial vs. complete semantics
Sandro Hawke: this last one is the partial vs. complete semantics ←
16:13:15 <pchampin> q+
16:13:23 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
16:13:24 <sandro> The merge of "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" and "<u> {<a> <b> <d>}" is
Sandro Hawke: The merge of "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" and "<u> {<a> <b> <d>}" is ←
16:13:24 <sandro> "<u> {<a> <b> <c>,<d>}".
Sandro Hawke: "<u> {<a> <b> <c>,<d>}". ←
16:13:39 <Zakim> -FabGandon1
Zakim IRC Bot: -FabGandon1 ←
16:13:45 <sandro> Also "<u> {<a> <b> <c>,<d>}" entails "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}".
Sandro Hawke: Also "<u> {<a> <b> <c>,<d>}" entails "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}". ←
16:14:04 <AlexHall> ... this implies an entailment test.
... this implies an entailment test. ←
16:14:08 <AZ> if graphs are opaque, then no it does not hold
Antoine Zimmermann: if graphs are opaque, then no it does not hold ←
16:14:30 <pchampin> definitely looks like subgraph entailment to me!
Pierre-Antoine Champin: definitely looks like subgraph entailment to me! ←
16:14:35 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
16:14:38 <Zakim> +FabGandon1
Zakim IRC Bot: +FabGandon1 ←
16:14:39 <AndyS> I prefer "*if* you wish to merge the two datasets then that is what the merge is"
Andy Seaborne: I prefer "*if* you wish to merge the two datasets then that is what the merge is" ←
16:15:05 <AlexHall> ivan: this is inconsistent with our earlier statement that we have to either do all entailment or no entailment
Ivan Herman: this is inconsistent with our earlier statement that we have to either do all entailment or no entailment ←
16:15:13 <Souri> +1 (without the word "entailment")
Souripriya Das: +1 (without the word "entailment") ←
16:15:16 <pchampin> q-
16:15:17 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:15:19 <AlexHall> sandro: it's entailment, but it's trig-entailment not rdf-entailment
Sandro Hawke: it's entailment, but it's trig-entailment not rdf-entailment ←
16:15:19 <pchampin> I'm lost, then
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I'm lost, then ←
16:15:31 <pchampin> q+
16:15:57 <davidwood> So, what does "implies" *mean*?
David Wood: So, what does "implies" *mean*? ←
16:16:15 <AlexHall> eric: is this a referendum on whether we allow partial graphs, or on the semantics of those partial graphs?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: is this a referendum on whether we allow partial graphs, or on the semantics of those partial graphs? ←
16:16:31 <cygri> +0.8
Richard Cyganiak: +0.8 ←
16:16:32 <AndyS> +1 to first part, not sure what the consequence of second part is.
Andy Seaborne: +1 to first part, not sure what the consequence of second part is. ←
16:16:58 <pchampin> pchampin: rephrase my previous proposal: either trig-entailment should completely match rdf-entailment for labelled graphs, or it should do no rdf-entailmenet for labelled graphs at all
Pierre-Antoine Champin: rephrase my previous proposal: either trig-entailment should completely match rdf-entailment for labelled graphs, or it should do no rdf-entailmenet for labelled graphs at all [ Scribe Assist by Pierre-Antoine Champin ] ←
16:16:59 <ivan> ack pchampin
Ivan Herman: ack pchampin ←
16:17:03 <sandro> strawpoll: Partial, Complete, or Both --- (or Huh???) :-)
STRAWPOLL: Partial, Complete, or Both --- (or Huh???) :-) ←
16:17:13 <ericP> tbaker, you can write "partial, "complete" or "both" before you leave
Eric Prud'hommeaux: tbaker, you can write "partial, "complete" or "both" before you leave ←
16:18:00 <MacTed> partial must be default interpretation; want way to say "this graph is complete (or not)"; think we need both...
Ted Thibodeau: partial must be default interpretation; want way to say "this graph is complete (or not)"; think we need both... ←
16:18:02 <sandro> The merge of "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" and "<u> {<a> <b> <d>}" is
Sandro Hawke: The merge of "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" and "<u> {<a> <b> <d>}" is ←
16:18:02 <sandro> "<u> {<a> <b> <c>,<d>}".
Sandro Hawke: "<u> {<a> <b> <c>,<d>}". ←
16:18:25 <Souri> +1 to partial
Souripriya Das: +1 to partial ←
16:18:27 <Guus_> agree with partial being the default
Guus Schreiber: agree with partial being the default ←
16:18:29 <ericP> complete
Eric Prud'hommeaux: complete ←
16:18:30 <ivan> +1 to partial
Ivan Herman: +1 to partial ←
16:18:32 <cygri> probably prefer partial
Richard Cyganiak: probably prefer partial ←
16:18:33 <davidwood> both
David Wood: both ←
16:18:34 <Guus_> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
16:18:38 <sandro> okay with either partial or complete, not sure about both at once
Sandro Hawke: okay with either partial or complete, not sure about both at once ←
16:18:39 <davidwood> (at least partial)
David Wood: (at least partial) ←
16:18:46 <AlexHall> sandro: the point is that complete semantics says this example is inconsistent, partial at least allows it
Sandro Hawke: the point is that complete semantics says this example is inconsistent, partial at least allows it ←
16:18:50 <Zakim> -Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri ←
16:18:52 <pchampin> +0 (have to think over)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: +0 (have to think over) ←
16:18:53 <AndyS> "huh???" and partial (may be app choice)
Andy Seaborne: "huh???" and partial (may be app choice) ←
16:18:54 <AlexHall> partial
partial ←
16:18:54 <Zakim> -moustaki
Zakim IRC Bot: -moustaki ←
16:18:55 <AZ> +1 have both with an indicator to say which
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 have both with an indicator to say which ←
16:19:09 <ericP> complete for datasets, partial for trig syntax, which is complete at the end of the document
Eric Prud'hommeaux: complete for datasets, partial for trig syntax, which is complete at the end of the document ←
16:19:16 <Guus_> thx ivan, to take over
Guus Schreiber: thx ivan, to take over ←
16:19:22 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:19:24 <AlexHall> guus: adjourned
Guus Schreiber: adjourned ←
16:19:27 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
16:19:30 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:19:35 <Zakim> -gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -gavinc ←
16:19:37 <Zakim> -AlexHall
Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall ←
16:19:40 <Zakim> -Guus_
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus_ ←
16:19:44 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
16:19:46 <Zakim> -cygri
Zakim IRC Bot: -cygri ←
16:20:35 <ericP> <bobama1> { <bobama1> a :American } , <bobama2> { <bobama2> a :African }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: <bobama1> { <bobama1> a :American } , <bobama2> { <bobama2> a :African } ←
16:20:48 <ericP> <bobama1> = <bobama2>
Eric Prud'hommeaux: <bobama1> = <bobama2> ←
16:20:58 <ericP> +1 to "don't do that"
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to "don't do that" ←
16:21:18 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←
16:21:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see David_Wood, Sandro, pchampin, ericP, MacTed, FabGandon1
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see David_Wood, Sandro, pchampin, ericP, MacTed, FabGandon1 ←
16:21:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see FabGandon1, pchampin, AlexHall, cygri, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, yvesr, tbaker, gavinc, MacTed, AndyS, davidwood, manu, manu1, NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see FabGandon1, pchampin, AlexHall, cygri, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, yvesr, tbaker, gavinc, MacTed, AndyS, davidwood, manu, manu1, NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP ←
16:21:28 <AlexHall> RRSAgent, draft minutes
RRSAgent, draft minutes ←
16:21:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/25-rdf-wg-minutes.html AlexHall
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/04/25-rdf-wg-minutes.html AlexHall ←
16:21:38 <AlexHall> RRSAgent, make logs public
RRSAgent, make logs public ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#2) generated 2012-04-25 17:02:38 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'added subtopics'