07:55:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc ←
07:55:32 <sandro> zakim, dial Rhone_4
Sandro Hawke: zakim, dial Rhone_4 ←
07:55:32 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is ←
07:55:40 <sandro> zakim, this will be rdf
Sandro Hawke: zakim, this will be rdf ←
07:55:40 <Zakim> ok, sandro; I see SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM scheduled to start 115 minutes ago
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; I see SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM scheduled to start 115 minutes ago ←
07:56:22 <sandro> zakim, dial Rhone_4
Sandro Hawke: zakim, dial Rhone_4 ←
07:56:22 <Zakim> ok, sandro; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; the call is being made ←
07:56:23 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM has now started ←
07:56:25 <Zakim> +Rhone_4
Zakim IRC Bot: +Rhone_4 ←
08:31:58 <sandro> gkellogg, manu1 you're asleep, I imagine.
(No events recorded for 35 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: gkellogg, manu1 you're asleep, I imagine. ←
08:31:59 <sandro> but we're on the phone.
Sandro Hawke: but we're on the phone. ←
08:41:19 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
08:41:19 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc#T08-41-19
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc#T08-41-19 ←
08:41:25 <sandro> scribe: eric
(Scribe set to Eric Prud'hommeaux)
08:42:23 <sandro> meeting: RDF WG F2F3
08:42:31 <sandro> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/FTF3#Day_1
08:42:35 <sandro> chair: David, Guus
08:51:45 <sandro> Guest: Steve Speicher
08:42:57 <sandro> RRSAgent, make record public
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make record public ←
08:47:34 <ericP> topic: Introductions
08:47:50 <ericP> ericP: W3C, HCLS RDF geekery
Eric Prud'hommeaux: W3C, HCLS RDF geekery ←
08:48:05 <ericP> sandro: RDF geekery, eGov
Sandro Hawke: RDF geekery, eGov ←
08:48:22 <ericP> FabGandon: expertise in KR
Fabien Gandon: expertise in KR ←
08:48:32 <ericP> cygri: DERI galway ireland
Richard Cyganiak: DERI galway ireland ←
08:48:42 <ericP> ... databases, RDF sparql
... databases, RDF sparql ←
08:49:00 <ericP> Arnaud: standards guy at IBM, ex W3C staff
Arnaud Le Hors: standards guy at IBM, ex W3C staff ←
08:49:18 <ericP> pchampin: univ lyon (500m away)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: univ lyon (500m away) ←
08:49:25 <ericP> ivan: w3c
Ivan Herman: w3c ←
08:50:00 <ericP> FabGandon: ac rep of INRIA, was in this group until falling into an administrative black hole
Fabien Gandon: ac rep of INRIA, was in this group until falling into an administrative black hole ←
08:50:35 <ericP> Steve Speicher: IBM rational, member of LDP, using Rdf for tool integration
Steve Speicher: IBM rational, member of LDP, using Rdf for tool integration ←
08:51:09 <ericP> yves raimond: BBC, linked data for media industry
yves raimond: BBC, linked data for media industry ←
08:51:53 <ericP> @@1: yarcdata, eureka (rdf triple store), observer
Shoaib Mufti: yarcdata, eureka (rdf triple store), observer ←
08:52:23 <ericP> davidwood: selling RDF for food
David Wood: selling RDF for food ←
08:52:48 <ericP> Guus: prof of computer science in web and media at univ amsterdam
Guus Schreiber: prof of computer science in web and media at univ amsterdam ←
08:52:56 <ericP> ... working in cultural heritage
... working in cultural heritage ←
08:53:24 <ericP> s/@@1/Shoaib Mufti/
08:53:50 <sandro> Guest: Shaoib Mufti
08:55:34 <ericP> topic: Objectives
08:56:17 <ericP> davidwood: agenda organized around deliverable documents
David Wood: agenda organized around deliverable documents ←
08:56:25 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F3-objectives deliverable documents
-> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F3-objectives deliverable documents ←
08:56:59 <ericP> davidwood: Concepts, Turtle, JSON-LD are close
David Wood: Concepts, Turtle, JSON-LD are close ←
08:57:35 <ericP> Guus, JSON-LD not strictly in the critical path (for charter extension)
Guus, JSON-LD not strictly in the critical path (for charter extension) ←
08:57:39 <ericP> Guus: JSON-LD not strictly in the critical path (for charter extension)
Guus Schreiber: JSON-LD not strictly in the critical path (for charter extension) ←
08:58:07 <ericP> sandro: we need to be done with anything controversial
Sandro Hawke: we need to be done with anything controversial ←
08:59:26 <ericP> ivan: good if we have core docs at LC (Concepts) or CR (Turtle)
Ivan Herman: good if we have core docs at LC (Concepts) or CR (Turtle) ←
09:00:04 <ericP> davidwood: some of these docs don't require much update: XML and schema
David Wood: some of these docs don't require much update: XML and schema ←
09:00:09 <ericP> ... get to primer later
... get to primer later ←
09:00:38 <ericP> ivan: the primer is a note in many WGs
Ivan Herman: the primer is a note in many WGs ←
09:01:00 <ericP> sandro: though it's already a REC in RDF.
Sandro Hawke: though it's already a REC in RDF. ←
09:06:49 <ivan> s/@@1/Shoaib Mufti/
09:07:25 <cygri> topic: Migration Guide
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
09:07:27 <ericP> cygri: we should discuss a document or sections in other docs about upgrading from RDF 1.0
Richard Cyganiak: we should discuss a document or sections in other docs about upgrading from RDF 1.0 ←
09:08:13 <ericP> ... should address the fear that the change that 1.0->1.1 breaks stuff
... should address the fear that the change that 1.0->1.1 breaks stuff ←
09:10:00 <ericP> sandro: do we have any reason to believe that danbri will edit RDF Schema? (given that he's changed jobs since volunteering)
Sandro Hawke: do we have any reason to believe that danbri will edit RDF Schema? (given that he's changed jobs since volunteering) ←
09:10:36 <ericP> davidwood: no, so we need a second
David Wood: no, so we need a second ←
09:14:13 <ericP> cygri: re: evolution text, we can point out what's new and talk about what you have to do 'cause simple literals don't exist any more
Richard Cyganiak: re: evolution text, we can point out what's new and talk about what you have to do 'cause simple literals don't exist any more ←
09:15:07 <ericP> ivan: only non-additive change is the simple literal
Ivan Herman: only non-additive change is the simple literal ←
09:15:35 <ericP> ... until now, if i asked for the datatype for a simple literal, i got back nothing
... until now, if i asked for the datatype for a simple literal, i got back nothing ←
09:15:41 <sandro> see http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/
Sandro Hawke: see http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/ ←
09:15:52 <ericP> cygri: impact is low, but you might have to adapt some application code
Richard Cyganiak: impact is low, but you might have to adapt some application code ←
09:16:07 <ericP> ... spelling that out is worth doing
... spelling that out is worth doing ←
09:16:22 <ericP> ... e.g. if you use an RDF lib or store, here's what changes for you
... e.g. if you use an RDF lib or store, here's what changes for you ←
09:16:36 <ericP> ... .. if you edit another spec, here's what changes for you
... .. if you edit another spec, here's what changes for you ←
09:16:57 <ericP> ... only a paragraph or a few bullet points, but needs to be included
... only a paragraph or a few bullet points, but needs to be included ←
09:17:18 <ericP> sandro: OWL created a "New Features and Rationale"
Sandro Hawke: OWL created a "New Features and Rationale" ←
09:17:28 <ericP> ... would be smaller for us.
... would be smaller for us. ←
09:17:56 <ericP> yvesr: does it have to be a REC?
Yves Raimond: does it have to be a REC? ←
09:17:59 <ericP> sandro: no no
Sandro Hawke: no no ←
09:18:34 <ericP> davidwood: cygri's point about how in a couple years, folks won't care makes sense. should be a sepparate doc
David Wood: cygri's point about how in a couple years, folks won't care makes sense. should be a sepparate doc ←
09:19:33 <ericP> cygri: i can do it with another
Richard Cyganiak: i can do it with another ←
09:20:24 <ericP> davidwood: editors of the Concepts doc (cygri and davidwood) should edit New Features
David Wood: editors of the Concepts doc (cygri and davidwood) should edit New Features ←
09:20:51 <cygri> PROPOSAL: New Note: "RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide"
PROPOSED: New Note: "RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide" ←
09:20:56 <sandro> RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide
Sandro Hawke: RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide ←
09:21:13 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
09:21:15 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
09:21:15 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
09:21:16 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
09:21:17 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
09:21:20 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
09:21:21 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
09:21:22 <ericP> +1
+1 ←
09:21:36 <ivan> RESOLVED: New Note: "RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide"
RESOLVED: New Note: "RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide" ←
09:22:15 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/101
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/101 ←
09:22:53 <sandro> close issue-101
Sandro Hawke: close ISSUE-101 ←
09:22:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-101 Will RDF-WG produce a “What's New in RDF 1.1” document or migration guide? closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-101 Will RDF-WG produce a “What's New in RDF 1.1” document or migration guide? closed ←
09:23:58 <ericP> ACTION: davidwood to draft “What's New in RDF 1.1” document
ACTION: davidwood to draft “What's New in RDF 1.1” document ←
09:23:58 <trackbot> Could not create new action - action title not proper UTF-8
Trackbot IRC Bot: Could not create new action - action title not proper UTF-8 ←
09:24:08 <ericP> ACTION: davidwood to draft "What's New in RDF 1.1" document
ACTION: davidwood to draft "What's New in RDF 1.1" document ←
09:24:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-193 - Draft "What's New in RDF 1.1" document [on David Wood - due 2012-11-05].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-193 - Draft "What's New in RDF 1.1" document [on David Wood - due 2012-11-05]. ←
09:25:35 <ericP> topic: RDF Primer
09:26:38 <ericP> Guus: thinking about this from the persecptive of the TOC
Guus Schreiber: thinking about this from the persecptive of the TOC ←
09:27:44 <ericP> [syntax discussion]
[syntax discussion] ←
09:28:32 <ericP> ivan: could use the OWL Primer trick for multiple syntaxes
Ivan Herman: could use the OWL Primer trick for multiple syntaxes ←
09:28:50 <ericP> Guus: should be done with the Turtle first
Guus Schreiber: should be done with the Turtle first ←
09:29:18 <ericP> ... RDFa and JSON-LD are good candidates. RDF/XML?
... RDFa and JSON-LD are good candidates. RDF/XML? ←
09:29:26 <ericP> davidwood: RDF/XML will still be a REC
David Wood: RDF/XML will still be a REC ←
09:30:54 <ericP> ACTION: Guus to add to RDF Primary and ISSUE about multi-language representation
ACTION: Guus to add to RDF Primary and ISSUE about multi-language representation ←
09:30:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-194 - Add to RDF Primary and ISSUE about multi-language representation [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-11-05].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-194 - Add to RDF Primary and ISSUE about multi-language representation [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-11-05]. ←
09:31:19 <ericP> cygri: TOC looks similar to the RDF Concepts' TOC
Richard Cyganiak: TOC looks similar to the RDF Concepts' TOC ←
09:31:40 <ericP> ... RDF Concepts exposes the RDF data model
... RDF Concepts exposes the RDF data model ←
09:31:41 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
09:32:30 <ericP> ... should RDF Concepts have the introductory material?
... should RDF Concepts have the introductory material? ←
09:32:50 <ericP> ... for the Primer to be as effective as possible, it should have lots of examples
... for the Primer to be as effective as possible, it should have lots of examples ←
09:33:16 <ericP> ... the RDF Concepts intro doesn't do that; just gives an overview of the terminology
... the RDF Concepts intro doesn't do that; just gives an overview of the terminology ←
09:34:17 <ericP> [Guus shows the introductory text in Primer]
[Guus shows the introductory text in Primer] ←
09:34:52 <ericP> [general agreement that this intro is more basic than the intro in RDF Concepts]
[general agreement that this intro is more basic than the intro in RDF Concepts] ←
09:35:43 <ericP> ivan: being a visual type, i'd like to see images with discussions of graphs
Ivan Herman: being a visual type, i'd like to see images with discussions of graphs ←
09:36:00 <ericP> Guus: will discuss embedding SVG with cygri
Guus Schreiber: will discuss embedding SVG with cygri ←
09:38:22 <ericP> ... aiming for minimal examples which demonstrate graphs
... aiming for minimal examples which demonstrate graphs ←
09:38:27 <ericP> [general approval]
[general approval] ←
09:39:22 <Arnaud> typo in the first sentence of section 2.1: indetified -> identified
Arnaud Le Hors: typo in the first sentence of section 2.1: indetified -> identified ←
09:41:31 <sandro> guest: Tim Berners-Lee
09:41:44 <ericP> davidwood: developers' eyes glaze over at the "subject, predicate, object" text.
David Wood: developers' eyes glaze over at the "subject, predicate, object" text. ←
09:41:46 <ericP> ... using the text "two things and a relationship between them" seems to work
... using the text "two things and a relationship between them" seems to work ←
09:42:43 <ericP> Tim Berners-Lee: the graph eludes people, while turtle looks like a language to them
Tim Berners-Lee: the graph eludes people, while turtle looks like a language to them ←
09:43:30 <ericP> cygri: per yvesr, would like to point at the use case.
Richard Cyganiak: per yvesr, would like to point at the use case. ←
09:44:44 <ericP> Guus: avoiding syntax, discuss the basic concepts: iri, literal, and unfortunately the blank node
Guus Schreiber: avoiding syntax, discuss the basic concepts: iri, literal, and unfortunately the blank node ←
09:46:48 <yvesr> did we just skip vocabularies?
Yves Raimond: did we just skip vocabularies? ←
09:48:39 <ericP> ... what can we show with basic graphs?
... what can we show with basic graphs? ←
09:48:49 <ericP> cygri: graph equivalence and basic entailment
Richard Cyganiak: graph equivalence and basic entailment ←
09:51:28 <ericP> cygri: if we look at datasets out there, Dublic Core is everywhere
Richard Cyganiak: if we look at datasets out there, Dublic Core is everywhere ←
09:53:22 <ericP> ... might be a good guide to use examples of vocabs that folks will encounter in practice
... might be a good guide to use examples of vocabs that folks will encounter in practice ←
09:53:50 <ericP> ... skos is the 3rd most popular (after DC and FOAF)
... skos is the 3rd most popular (after DC and FOAF) ←
09:55:11 <ericP> Guus: i'd like to introduce in 6 or 7 printed pages
Guus Schreiber: i'd like to introduce in 6 or 7 printed pages ←
09:55:34 <ericP> ... rest in appendeces
... rest in appendeces ←
09:59:47 <ericP> ... focusing on common vocabularies
... focusing on common vocabularies ←
09:59:49 <ericP> davidwood: i find folks frequently have to invent vocabularies.
David Wood: i find folks frequently have to invent vocabularies. ←
10:00:13 <yvesr> yvesr: a way to structure the vocabulary section around use-cases would be to use DC and FOAF for people and artworks they made and create a new property using RDF Schema for 'is displayed in', to stitch two vocabularies together
Yves Raimond: a way to structure the vocabulary section around use-cases would be to use DC and FOAF for people and artworks they made and create a new property using RDF Schema for 'is displayed in', to stitch two vocabularies together [ Scribe Assist by Yves Raimond ] ←
10:00:13 <ericP> ... would like "of course, use others if available, but easy to invent as well"
... would like "of course, use others if available, but easy to invent as well" ←
10:00:30 <ericP> sandro: it's like programmers using libraries
Sandro Hawke: it's like programmers using libraries ←
10:00:41 <ericP> cygri: will it mention e.g. SPARQL?
Richard Cyganiak: will it mention e.g. SPARQL? ←
10:01:16 <ericP> ivan: there's no SPARQL primer
Ivan Herman: there's no SPARQL primer ←
10:01:22 <SteveS> SPARQL 1.1 Overview http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-overview-20120501/
Steve Speicher: SPARQL 1.1 Overview http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-overview-20120501/ ←
10:01:37 <ericP> ericP: top section of SPARQL serves as a primer
Eric Prud'hommeaux: top section of SPARQL serves as a primer ←
10:02:02 <sandro> sandro: I think there should be a tiny sparql example, like the first in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#basicpatterns
Sandro Hawke: I think there should be a tiny sparql example, like the first in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#basicpatterns [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:02:11 <sandro> ... and then it links to more
Sandro Hawke: ... and then it links to more ←
10:03:07 <ericP> Guus: remind me to point at http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/
Guus Schreiber: remind me to point at http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/ ←
10:03:38 <ericP> sandro: we should have every document published before asking for the charter extension
Sandro Hawke: we should have every document published before asking for the charter extension ←
10:05:27 <ericP> Guus: i need to make a statement about whether you refer to a page or a person
Guus Schreiber: i need to make a statement about whether you refer to a page or a person ←
10:06:12 <ericP> ivan: use hash IRIs and avoid indirection
Ivan Herman: use hash IRIs and avoid indirection ←
10:06:43 <sandro> sandro: "We use IRIs (which are basically the same as URLs) to refer to both Web Pages and things that are not Web Pages, like People and Places"
Sandro Hawke: "We use IRIs (which are basically the same as URLs) to refer to both Web Pages and things that are not Web Pages, like People and Places" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:09:04 <ericP> ACTION: Guus to provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan
ACTION: Guus to provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan ←
10:09:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-195 - Provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-11-05].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-195 - Provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-11-05]. ←
10:09:29 <ericP> ACTION: Guus to provide Primer document for review - due 3 Jan
ACTION: Guus to provide Primer document for review - due 3 Jan ←
10:09:29 <trackbot> Created ACTION-196 - provide Primer document for review [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-196 - provide Primer document for review [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-03]. ←
10:09:38 <ericP> drop action 4
10:09:56 <ericP> DROP ACTION-195
DROP ACTION-195 ←
10:10:31 <sandro> close action-195
Sandro Hawke: close ACTION-195 ←
10:10:31 <trackbot> ACTION-195 Provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-195 Provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan closed ←
10:33:09 <Arnaud> scribe: Arnaud
(No events recorded for 22 minutes)
(Scribe set to Arnaud Le Hors)
10:33:26 <Arnaud> topic: RDF/XML
10:34:49 <Arnaud> ACTION: Fabien to provide a new WD for the WG to review by Nov 21st telecon
ACTION: Fabien to provide a new WD for the WG to review by Nov 21st telecon ←
10:34:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-197 - Provide a new WD for the WG to review by Nov 21st telecon [on Fabien Gandon - due 2012-11-05].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-197 - Provide a new WD for the WG to review by Nov 21st telecon [on Fabien Gandon - due 2012-11-05]. ←
10:36:04 <Arnaud> davidwood: we will do the minimum
David Wood: we will do the minimum ←
10:36:54 <davidwood> The WG would like to vote on moving RDF/XML to FPWD on 28 Nov.
David Wood: The WG would like to vote on moving RDF/XML to FPWD on 28 Nov. ←
10:36:56 <Arnaud> FabGandon: I think there are 2 issues I need to look at but agree we should keep it to a minimum, WG has a lot more important things to do
Fabien Gandon: I think there are 2 issues I need to look at but agree we should keep it to a minimum, WG has a lot more important things to do ←
10:37:05 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
10:37:13 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
10:37:37 <Arnaud> ivan: we should aim at an edited recommendation which is easier to do
Ivan Herman: we should aim at an edited recommendation which is easier to do ←
10:38:04 <Arnaud> ... allows to skip several steps
... allows to skip several steps ←
10:38:28 <Arnaud> cygri: need to understand what it means for existing implementations
Richard Cyganiak: need to understand what it means for existing implementations ←
10:38:44 <Arnaud> ivan: don't see any change in the concepts that would impact RDF/XML
Ivan Herman: don't see any change in the concepts that would impact RDF/XML ←
10:39:41 <Arnaud> cygri: syntax hasn't changed but the change on literals may have an impact
Richard Cyganiak: syntax hasn't changed but the change on literals may have an impact ←
10:40:17 <Arnaud> ... this requires more thoughts
... this requires more thoughts ←
10:40:44 <Arnaud> ivan: yes, you're right. the section on mapping needs to change and this won't be just editorial
Ivan Herman: yes, you're right. the section on mapping needs to change and this won't be just editorial ←
10:41:00 <Arnaud> ... so we can't go the EPR route
... so we can't go the PER route ←
10:41:22 <davidwood> s/EPR/PER/
10:41:27 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
10:42:04 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
10:42:47 <Arnaud> sandro: if we go to CR we'll need people to implement it, is it going to be hard to get this?
Sandro Hawke: if we go to CR we'll need people to implement it, is it going to be hard to get this? ←
10:43:17 <Arnaud> ivan: rdflib has already implemented it
Ivan Herman: rdflib has already implemented it ←
10:43:59 <Arnaud> davidwood: we should decide whether rdf/xml will be extended to support html5 datatype
David Wood: we should decide whether rdf/xml will be extended to support html5 datatype ←
10:44:32 <sandro> PROPOSED: We we update RDF/XML to include special syntactic support for our new HTML datatype
PROPOSED: We we update RDF/XML to include special syntactic support for our new HTML datatype ←
10:44:38 <sandro> -0
Sandro Hawke: -0 ←
10:44:46 <Arnaud> ivan: except it's impossible to do
Ivan Herman: except it's impossible to do ←
10:45:06 <Arnaud> cygri: we could do it for a subset: xhtml
Richard Cyganiak: we could do it for a subset: xhtml ←
10:45:13 <AZ> -0.9
Antoine Zimmermann: -0.9 ←
10:45:27 <Arnaud> ... don't see much benefits in doing this
... don't see much benefits in doing this ←
10:45:27 <sandro> cygri: It would only work for XHTML, and for that you can use XMLLiteral
Richard Cyganiak: It would only work for XHTML, and for that you can use XMLLiteral [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:45:30 <Arnaud> ivan: I agree
Ivan Herman: I agree ←
10:46:18 <sandro> +1 include examples of HTML using CDATA
Sandro Hawke: +1 include examples of HTML using CDATA ←
10:46:18 <Arnaud> sandro: should we have something editorial explaining how to use cdata for this?
Sandro Hawke: should we have something editorial explaining how to use cdata for this? ←
10:46:34 <Arnaud> ivan: probably a good idea
Ivan Herman: probably a good idea ←
10:47:01 <Arnaud> davidwood: do we want to have a paragraph on this in rdf/xml?
David Wood: do we want to have a paragraph on this in rdf/xml? ←
10:47:07 <Arnaud> ivan: leave it to the editor
Ivan Herman: leave it to the editor ←
10:47:37 <Arnaud> fabgandon: will add it to the list and present it to the WG for review
Fabien Gandon: will add it to the list and present it to the WG for review ←
10:47:58 <Arnaud> topic: RDF Primer (reprise)
10:48:30 <Arnaud> guus: talking about datatypes, need to put some examples
Guus Schreiber: talking about datatypes, need to put some examples ←
10:48:47 <Arnaud> ... string, decimal, integer, boolean, datetime
... string, decimal, integer, boolean, datetime ←
10:48:56 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
10:48:57 <Arnaud> ... 5 key ones people typically use
... 5 key ones people typically use ←
10:49:05 <Arnaud> ... is that a good approach?
... is that a good approach? ←
10:49:14 <ivan> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
10:49:17 <Arnaud> sandro: would add double
Sandro Hawke: would add double ←
10:49:59 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
10:50:04 <Arnaud> davidwood: ldp has a different list
David Wood: ldp has a different list ←
10:50:49 <Arnaud> sandro: ldp's list is based on what programing languages use
Sandro Hawke: ldp's list is based on what programing languages use ←
10:51:39 <Arnaud> cygri: warn against drafting a list that gives the impression of being a recommended list, implying the rest is not recommended
Richard Cyganiak: warn against drafting a list that gives the impression of being a recommended list, implying the rest is not recommended ←
10:51:43 <Arnaud> guus: agree
Guus Schreiber: agree ←
10:52:21 <Arnaud> ivan: wouldn't mention xsd:string, and keep it to plain literals
Ivan Herman: wouldn't mention xsd:string, and keep it to plain literals ←
10:52:53 <Arnaud> guus: could have a background note saying you can skip this
Guus Schreiber: could have a background note saying you can skip this ←
10:53:40 <Arnaud> davidwood: wouldn't do more than this
David Wood: wouldn't do more than this ←
10:55:33 <sandro> 18.30 doors open
Sandro Hawke: 18.30 doors open ←
10:56:52 <Arnaud> topic: RDF Schema
10:57:12 <Arnaud> davidwood: unlikely Dan will edit this spec, we need a new editor
David Wood: unlikely Dan will edit this spec, we need a new editor ←
10:58:37 <Arnaud> arnaud: would be happy to help but have no background on what needs to be done so not sure I'm qualified
Arnaud Le Hors: would be happy to help but have no background on what needs to be done so not sure I'm qualified ←
10:59:23 <davidwood> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-schema/index.html
David Wood: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-schema/index.html ←
11:00:30 <davidwood> RESOLVED to mark rdf:Alt and rdf:Bag as archaic using the language at:
David Wood: RESOLVED to mark rdf:Alt and rdf:Bag as archaic using the language at: ←
11:00:30 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/ArchaicFeatures
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/ArchaicFeatures ←
11:00:46 <Arnaud> issue-77?
11:00:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open ←
11:00:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77 ←
11:01:12 <Arnaud> ivan: don't think there is a major work that needs to be done
Ivan Herman: don't think there is a major work that needs to be done ←
11:02:00 <cygri> subtopic: Collections and containers
11:02:00 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action (due to XMP and RSS 1.0)
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action (due to XMP and RSS 1.0) ←
11:02:42 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
11:03:04 <Arnaud> cygri: would like us to try to do better
Richard Cyganiak: would like us to try to do better ←
11:03:43 <Arnaud> won't we have a formal objection from Adobe?
won't we have a formal objection from Adobe? ←
11:04:10 <sandro> sandro: If they were to make a new version of XMP that did not to be backward compatible, THEN they should not use ______
Sandro Hawke: If they were to make a new version of XMP that did not to be backward compatible, THEN they should not use ______ [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:04:42 <Arnaud> davidwood: not sure they care, they haven't touched XMP in years
David Wood: not sure they care, they haven't touched XMP in years ←
11:04:57 <Arnaud> ivan: it's not just adobe, a lot of other people use it
Ivan Herman: it's not just adobe, a lot of other people use it ←
11:05:28 <Arnaud> sandro: steve harris still thinks there is nothing better than seq
Sandro Hawke: steve harris still thinks there is nothing better than seq ←
11:06:09 <sandro> eric: Having two broken solutions is worse than having one broken one
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Having two broken solutions is worse than having one broken one [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:06:28 <Arnaud> ivan: don't think we can decide on making it archaic
Ivan Herman: don't think we can decide on making it archaic ←
11:07:12 <Arnaud> ivan: we should provide guidance in the primer
Ivan Herman: we should provide guidance in the primer ←
11:07:19 <Arnaud> ... that's the place to do that
... that's the place to do that ←
11:07:24 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action (due to XMP and RSS 1.0). Instead, add guidance on avoiding Seq in the Primer.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action (due to XMP and RSS 1.0). Instead, add guidance on avoiding Seq in the Primer. ←
11:07:31 <Arnaud> sandro: would like to have it in the spec
Sandro Hawke: would like to have it in the spec ←
11:09:06 <Arnaud> cygri: tempted to say that we should talk about this is in concepts
Richard Cyganiak: tempted to say that we should talk about this is in concepts ←
11:09:32 <Arnaud> ... but that would be odd because it currently doesn't talk about vocabulary at all
... but that would be odd because it currently doesn't talk about vocabulary at all ←
11:10:35 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab ←
11:10:35 <Arnaud> ivan: maybe the schema spec is the right place
Ivan Herman: maybe the schema spec is the right place ←
11:11:59 <Arnaud> cygri: we should have an issue for well formed lists
Richard Cyganiak: we should have an issue for well formed lists ←
11:12:17 <sandro> my "well-formed list" proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0135.html
Sandro Hawke: my "well-formed list" proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0135.html ←
11:12:21 <Arnaud> davidwood: so the options are: primer, schema, or possibly concepts?
David Wood: so the options are: primer, schema, or possibly concepts? ←
11:12:39 <sandro> (which Steve Harris didnt like)
Sandro Hawke: (which Steve Harris didnt like) ←
11:13:04 <Arnaud> ... don't see a way to put in concepts without a syntax which is ugly
... don't see a way to put in concepts without a syntax which is ugly ←
11:13:14 <davidwood> Not in Concepts
David Wood: Not in Concepts ←
11:13:28 <Arnaud> cygri: yes, agree we should have somewhere but not in my spec! :-)
Richard Cyganiak: yes, agree we should have somewhere but not in my spec! :-) ←
11:14:29 <Arnaud> ivan: my feeling is that schema is probably the best place
Ivan Herman: my feeling is that schema is probably the best place ←
11:14:59 <Guus> q+ to ask about status of term "property" in Schema, Concepts, and Primer
Guus Schreiber: q+ to ask about status of term "property" in Schema, Concepts, and Primer ←
11:15:08 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
11:15:17 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
11:15:19 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
11:15:30 <davidwood> ack Guus
David Wood: ack Guus ←
11:15:30 <Zakim> Guus, you wanted to ask about status of term "property" in Schema, Concepts, and Primer
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, you wanted to ask about status of term "property" in Schema, Concepts, and Primer ←
11:16:46 <Arnaud> guus: have trouble writing data model in primer because predicate is talked about in different places
Guus Schreiber: have trouble writing data model in primer because predicate is talked about in different places ←
11:17:01 <Arnaud> ... property vs predicate
... property vs predicate ←
11:17:26 <Arnaud> ... is it useful to make the distinction in primer? it's very important for schema
... is it useful to make the distinction in primer? it's very important for schema ←
11:18:32 <Arnaud> cygri: schema is a language for definiing and describing properties and classes
Richard Cyganiak: schema is a language for definiing and describing properties and classes ←
11:18:49 <Arnaud> ... even if rdf schema didn't exist you would still have properties
... even if rdf schema didn't exist you would still have properties ←
11:19:18 <Arnaud> sandro: if we could do it all over again, it would be easier for user to call the middle slot property name
Sandro Hawke: if we could do it all over again, it would be easier for user to call the middle slot property name ←
11:19:52 <yvesr> is there an actual entailment that says :s :p :o => :p a rdf:Property?
Yves Raimond: is there an actual entailment that says :s :p :o => :p a rdf:Property? ←
11:19:52 <Arnaud> cygri: agree
Richard Cyganiak: agree ←
11:20:19 <Arnaud> guus: alternative suggestion is to just drop the term predicate
Guus Schreiber: alternative suggestion is to just drop the term predicate ←
11:21:20 <Arnaud> cygri: you could only talk about predicates later in the document
Richard Cyganiak: you could only talk about predicates later in the document ←
11:21:47 <Arnaud> ... just not use the terms subject predicate object
... just not use the terms subject predicate object ←
11:23:28 <sandro> Issue: Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs?
ISSUE: Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs? ←
11:23:28 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-102 - Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/102/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-102 - Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/102/edit . ←
11:24:00 <cygri> ISSUE-77?
11:24:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open ←
11:24:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77 ←
11:24:54 <Arnaud> sandro: would like to propose we agree to pick one single preferred solution for future developments
Sandro Hawke: would like to propose we agree to pick one single preferred solution for future developments ←
11:25:11 <Arnaud> davidwood: steve would say seq
David Wood: steve would say seq ←
11:26:09 <Arnaud> davidwood: don't think that works, we have different communities that like either
David Wood: don't think that works, we have different communities that like either ←
11:26:32 <Arnaud> ivan: sparql could have done it but didn't
Ivan Herman: sparql could have done it but didn't ←
11:27:01 <Arnaud> davidwood: ldp trying to work around this by defining a sort predicate
David Wood: ldp trying to work around this by defining a sort predicate ←
11:27:21 <Arnaud> ... this suggests that ordering is important
... this suggests that ordering is important ←
11:28:11 <Arnaud> eric: this is hard to solve and that's why sparql didn't do it
Eric Prud'hommeaux: this is hard to solve and that's why sparql didn't do it ←
11:29:51 <Arnaud> ivan: there is no clear choice between the two
Ivan Herman: there is no clear choice between the two ←
11:30:19 <Arnaud> ... ldp's solution is not rdf core
... ldp's solution is not rdf core ←
11:30:29 <Arnaud> sandro: we could introduce one
Sandro Hawke: we could introduce one ←
11:30:40 <Arnaud> cygri: not a good idea at this point in the process
Richard Cyganiak: not a good idea at this point in the process ←
11:30:57 <davidwood> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action. ←
11:31:08 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
11:31:13 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
11:31:17 <sandro> -0.99
Sandro Hawke: -0.99 ←
11:31:18 <yvesr> +0
Yves Raimond: +0 ←
11:31:37 <ericP> +0.99
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0.99 ←
11:31:42 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
11:31:45 <Arnaud> +1
+1 ←
11:31:54 <FabGandon> 0
Fabien Gandon: 0 ←
11:31:54 <Guus> 0
Guus Schreiber: 0 ←
11:31:56 <cygri> +0.001
Richard Cyganiak: +0.001 ←
11:32:15 <Arnaud> sandro: this is one of the hardest point in rdf
Sandro Hawke: this is one of the hardest point in rdf ←
11:32:31 <Arnaud> ... this is the best opportunity to steer the community
... this is the best opportunity to steer the community ←
11:33:01 <Arnaud> yvesr: what's your preference?
Yves Raimond: what's your preference? ←
11:33:08 <Arnaud> sandro: slight preference for list
Sandro Hawke: slight preference for list ←
11:33:15 <Arnaud> davidwood: I use seq!
David Wood: I use list! ←
11:33:32 <Arnaud> s/seq/list/
11:34:21 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Functions_and_Predicates_on_RIF_Lists
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Functions_and_Predicates_on_RIF_Lists ←
11:34:35 <Arnaud> ... quite happy with sandro's proposal to say xmp is fine the way it is but if you were to do another version there is a better way
... quite happy with sandro's proposal to say xmp is fine the way it is but if you were to do another version there is a better way ←
11:34:50 <Arnaud> ivan: don't think we'll get consensus
Ivan Herman: don't think we'll get consensus ←
11:35:09 <Arnaud> sandro: steve didn't object
Sandro Hawke: steve didn't object ←
11:35:40 <Arnaud> sandro: the best thing for the community is to specify one
Sandro Hawke: the best thing for the community is to specify one ←
11:36:14 <Arnaud> ... could live with anything, saying to use something else than seq would be a good start
... could live with anything, saying to use something else than seq would be a good start ←
11:36:38 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-77 marking rdf:Seq as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs)
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-77 marking rdf:Seq as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs) ←
11:36:42 <Arnaud> proposal: tentatively mark seq as archaic and see whether steve objects
PROPOSED: tentatively mark seq as archaic and see whether steve objects ←
11:36:53 <Arnaud> ivan: ok but need to ask steve
Ivan Herman: ok but need to ask steve ←
11:36:53 <Guus> q+ to say I was planning to use an example of the () collction notation of Turtle in the Primer
Guus Schreiber: q+ to say I was planning to use an example of the () collction notation of Turtle in the Primer ←
11:37:02 <davidwood> ack Guus
David Wood: ack Guus ←
11:37:02 <Zakim> Guus, you wanted to say I was planning to use an example of the () collction notation of Turtle in the Primer
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, you wanted to say I was planning to use an example of the () collction notation of Turtle in the Primer ←
11:37:09 <cygri> +0.5
Richard Cyganiak: +0.5 ←
11:37:13 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
11:37:31 <AZ> +0
Antoine Zimmermann: +0 ←
11:37:47 <davidwood> +1 (and will take an action to ask Steve H and the Adobe AC rep)
David Wood: +1 (and will take an action to ask Steve H and the Adobe AC rep) ←
11:37:51 <ivan> +1 provided we cross-check with possible oppenents
Ivan Herman: +1 provided we cross-check with possible oppenents ←
11:37:53 <yvesr> +0.5
Yves Raimond: +0.5 ←
11:37:58 <Arnaud> +1
+1 ←
11:39:26 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-77 marking rdf:Seq as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs)
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-77 marking rdf:Seq as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs) ←
11:40:47 <sandro> close issue-77
Sandro Hawke: close ISSUE-77 ←
11:40:47 <trackbot> ISSUE-77 Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-77 Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) closed ←
11:40:53 <Arnaud> ACTION: Arnaud to check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?)
ACTION: Arnaud to check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?) ←
11:40:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-198 - Check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?) [on Arnaud Le Hors - due 2012-11-05].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-198 - Check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?) [on Arnaud Le Hors - due 2012-11-05]. ←
11:41:09 <Arnaud> break for lunch
break for lunch ←
11:41:21 <Arnaud> come back at 1:30pm
come back at 1:30pm ←
11:57:24 <Zakim> +Tony
(No events recorded for 16 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony ←
12:01:51 <ScottB> Zakim, Tony is temporarily me
Scott Bauer: Zakim, Tony is temporarily me ←
12:01:51 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ScottB; got it ←
12:43:26 <sandro> Zakim, who is on the call?
(No events recorded for 41 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, who is on the call? ←
12:43:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB ←
12:44:49 <sandro> scribe: sandro
(Scribe set to Sandro Hawke)
12:44:53 <sandro> topic: RDF Concepts
12:45:00 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
RRSAgent, pointer? ←
12:45:00 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc#T12-45-00
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc#T12-45-00 ←
12:45:48 <sandro> cygri: we did the bulk of the work quite some time ago. the document is in pretty good shape, with some open issues marked.
Richard Cyganiak: we did the bulk of the work quite some time ago. the document is in pretty good shape, with some open issues marked. ←
12:46:04 <sandro> ... biggest was RDF Datasets, which has become easier because we scaled down our goals.
... biggest was RDF Datasets, which has become easier because we scaled down our goals. ←
12:46:26 <sandro> ... most of the rest is editorial. explanations. whether text should be in one spec or another.
... most of the rest is editorial. explanations. whether text should be in one spec or another. ←
12:46:32 <sandro> ... going throught the issues
... going throught the issues ←
12:46:42 <sandro> ... Defn of RDF Datasets?
... Defn of RDF Datasets? ←
12:46:59 <sandro> ... HashURIs / trig -- how do fragments work?
... HashURIs / trig -- how do fragments work? ←
12:48:11 <sandro> .... High Level Issues: Datasets, Fragments in multigraph syntax, Relationship between Semantics and Concepts documnets, and stuff in Primer vs Concepts.
.... High Level Issues: Datasets, Fragments in multigraph syntax, Relationship between Semantics and Concepts documnets, and stuff in Primer vs Concepts. ←
12:48:35 <sandro> subtopic: Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Primer
12:48:42 <sandro> cygri: Section 1.
Richard Cyganiak: Section 1. ←
12:50:19 <sandro> ... gives a background what the datamodel is useful for, rather than just starting with concepts
... gives a background what the datamodel is useful for, rather than just starting with concepts ←
12:50:25 <sandro> ... and gives context.
... and gives context. ←
12:51:01 <sandro> ... There's a lot of additional terminology, used all the time in RDF, but is nowhere defined. "Resource". "denote". ...
... There's a lot of additional terminology, used all the time in RDF, but is nowhere defined. "Resource". "denote". ... ←
12:51:11 <sandro> ... namespace, namespace IRI, etc
... namespace, namespace IRI, etc ←
12:51:28 <sandro> ... this is all "informative".
... this is all "informative". ←
12:51:50 <sandro> ... Does *not* give examples. That would make it bigger, and something different.
... Does *not* give examples. That would make it bigger, and something different. ←
12:52:17 <sandro> ... Is it okay that intro tackles these things?
... Is it okay that intro tackles these things? ←
12:52:42 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
12:52:46 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
12:53:17 <sandro> sandro: I think it's fine to have example to help the sophisticated reader understand this stuff
Sandro Hawke: I think it's fine to have example to help the sophisticated reader understand this stuff ←
12:53:32 <sandro> davidwood: what about syntax?
David Wood: what about syntax? ←
12:54:21 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
12:54:24 <sandro> sandro: I think it's fine to use Turtle. Assume on the first reading they wont know/care about what Turtle means formally.
Sandro Hawke: I think it's fine to use Turtle. Assume on the first reading they wont know/care about what Turtle means formally. ←
12:54:26 <Arnaud> q+
Arnaud Le Hors: q+ ←
12:54:35 <sandro> davidwood: And they'll have read Primer first.
David Wood: And they'll have read Primer first. ←
12:54:46 <sandro> ivan: I agree the Intro should be part of the document, yes.
Ivan Herman: I agree the Intro should be part of the document, yes. ←
12:55:01 <sandro> ivan: Examples -- I don't know. Probably yes,
Ivan Herman: Examples -- I don't know. Probably yes, ←
12:55:02 <Guus> q+ to say: yes
Guus Schreiber: q+ to say: yes ←
12:55:21 <sandro> ivan: But yes, keep Intro
Ivan Herman: But yes, keep Intro ←
12:55:29 <Guus> ack Arnaud
Guus Schreiber: ack Arnaud ←
12:55:37 <sandro> Arnaud: I don't know how far we can go with graphic represetnation in examples.
Arnaud Le Hors: I don't know how far we can go with graphic represetnation in examples. ←
12:56:07 <sandro> .. if you can stick to diagrams, that's great
.. if you can stick to diagrams, that's great ←
12:56:21 <sandro> davidwood: namespace IRI
David Wood: namespace IRI ←
12:57:00 <sandro> cygri: Examples should cover the stuff that's hard to visualize or grasp. That would help.
Richard Cyganiak: Examples should cover the stuff that's hard to visualize or grasp. That would help. ←
12:57:19 <sandro> .. I'm a little bit afraid that...
.. I'm a little bit afraid that... ←
12:57:40 <sandro> .. we should make clear the difference between Primer and Concepts Introduction.
.. we should make clear the difference between Primer and Concepts Introduction. ←
12:58:08 <sandro> .. There's a danger if this gets to helpful, with diagrams, that people will skip the Primer.
.. There's a danger if this gets to helpful, with diagrams, that people will skip the Primer. ←
12:58:33 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
12:58:50 <sandro> ivan: it's a judgement call. the RDFa spec has something of a tutorial style in it, with lots of examples. And we also have a primer. A lot of people still use the primer.
Ivan Herman: it's a judgement call. the RDFa spec has something of a tutorial style in it, with lots of examples. And we also have a primer. A lot of people still use the primer. ←
12:58:54 <sandro> q?
q? ←
12:59:08 <Arnaud> ack Guus
Arnaud Le Hors: ack Guus ←
12:59:08 <Zakim> Guus, you wanted to say: yes
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, you wanted to say: yes ←
12:59:26 <sandro> Guus: This section is short, so I don't see a problem. You give some definitions/references, like IRIs, that belong here.
Guus Schreiber: This section is short, so I don't see a problem. You give some definitions/references, like IRIs, that belong here. ←
12:59:49 <Guus> ack Guus
Guus Schreiber: ack Guus ←
12:59:56 <sandro> ... I can see your concern about examples; I think the idea of diagrams.
... I can see your concern about examples; I think the idea of diagrams. ←
13:01:32 <sandro> davidwood: Except for 1.4 (namespace IRIs) it seems like I have to read the primer first. 1.4 should stay in Concepts in order to make Concepts able to stand on its own. (Primer isn't normative.)
David Wood: Except for 1.4 (namespace IRIs) it seems like I have to read the primer first. 1.4 should stay in Concepts in order to make Concepts able to stand on its own. (Primer isn't normative.) ←
13:01:32 <Guus> q+
Guus Schreiber: q+ ←
13:01:49 <ivan> ack Guus
Ivan Herman: ack Guus ←
13:02:12 <sandro> guus: The primer will be talking about Properties, so it's rather different.
Guus Schreiber: The primer will be talking about Properties, so it's rather different. ←
13:03:46 <sandro> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html ←
13:04:17 <sandro> "This section should be removed from RDF Concepts and folded into [RDF-SCHEMA] which actually defines the terms in question. This is ACTION-121."
"This section should be removed from RDF Concepts and folded into [RDF-SCHEMA] which actually defines the terms in question. This is ACTION-121." ←
13:04:48 <sandro> cygri: All terms should be in the RDFS document, including the rdf: namespace.
Richard Cyganiak: All terms should be in the RDFS document, including the rdf: namespace. ←
13:05:12 <sandro> .. what goes in which is entirely a historical accident.
.. what goes in which is entirely a historical accident. ←
13:05:49 <sandro> ivan: Don't forget namespace document
Ivan Herman: Don't forget namespace document ←
13:05:57 <sandro> sandro: indeed, my action item
Sandro Hawke: indeed, my action item ←
13:06:57 <sandro> cyg: Relationship to Semantics....? it'd be nice to have a principle about which text goes where.
Richard Cyganiak: Relationship to Semantics....? it'd be nice to have a principle about which text goes where. ←
13:07:07 <sandro> subtopic: Fragment identifiers in dataset syntaxes
13:07:14 <sandro> cyg: media type registration
Richard Cyganiak: media type registration ←
13:07:52 <sandro> .. all the RDF syntaxes (should) refer to section 6 in concepts which talks about how hash URIs work here.
.. all the RDF syntaxes (should) refer to section 6 in concepts which talks about how hash URIs work here. ←
13:07:59 <sandro> .. does this apply in TriG as well?
.. does this apply in TriG as well? ←
13:08:13 <sandro> .. it's "mostly" the same as in RDF.
.. it's "mostly" the same as in RDF. ←
13:08:25 <sandro> .. but you MIGHT use it to name a graph, which is kind of a part of the document.
.. but you MIGHT use it to name a graph, which is kind of a part of the document. ←
13:08:55 <Guus> q+
Guus Schreiber: q+ ←
13:08:55 <Guus> q-
Guus Schreiber: q- ←
13:08:57 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:09:06 <yvesr> sandro: we still need the graph URIs to be spelled out in the same way as other URIs
Sandro Hawke: we still need the graph URIs to be spelled out in the same way as other URIs [ Scribe Assist by Yves Raimond ] ←
13:09:52 <sandro> cyg: If you used fragments like file1#graph1 then that mirrors other fragment syntaxes
Richard Cyganiak: If you used fragments like file1#graph1 then that mirrors other fragment syntaxes ←
13:10:03 <yvesr> s/cyg/cygri
13:10:04 <sandro> sandro: but you can use them repeatedly -- that's not like in HTML or XML
Sandro Hawke: but you can use them repeatedly -- that's not like in HTML or XML ←
13:10:41 <sandro> cygri: to me the graph name situation, it's not external to the document, so it seems different
Richard Cyganiak: to me the graph name situation, it's not external to the document, so it seems different ←
13:11:16 <sandro> ivan: pragmatically speaking, this is in the RFC's to direct general processors what to do with this content. and this bit in the RFC wouldn't help
Ivan Herman: pragmatically speaking, this is in the RFC's to direct general processors what to do with this content. and this bit in the RFC wouldn't help ←
13:11:39 <pchampin> q+ to make a crazy proposal
Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+ to make a crazy proposal ←
13:12:01 <sandro> cygri: Web crawling use case. Trig File in the wild. Claims "heres the content of this graph" so you dont want to put it in your store. But in the fragment case, it's safer.
Richard Cyganiak: Web crawling use case. Trig File in the wild. Claims "heres the content of this graph" so you dont want to put it in your store. But in the fragment case, it's safer. ←
13:12:12 <sandro> cygri: So there's a security thing here.
Richard Cyganiak: So there's a security thing here. ←
13:12:36 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:12:51 <sandro> cygri: The security issue only comes up if the graph name is external to the file.
Richard Cyganiak: The security issue only comes up if the graph name is external to the file. ←
13:13:31 <Guus> ack pchampin
Guus Schreiber: ack pchampin ←
13:13:31 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to make a crazy proposal
Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin, you wanted to make a crazy proposal ←
13:13:59 <sandro> pchampin: I'm guessing it's possible for a mime type to specify different meaning depending on their syntax. We could have a special syntax for fragments identifying graphs...
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I'm guessing it's possible for a mime type to specify different meaning depending on their syntax. We could have a special syntax for fragments identifying graphs... ←
13:14:21 <sandro> -1
-1 ←
13:14:56 <yvesr> -1
Yves Raimond: -1 ←
13:15:00 <sandro> pchampin: If TriG had a special syntax for identifying *graphs* in the documents, we would have a way to formally declare those URIs denote graphs.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: If TriG had a special syntax for identifying *graphs* in the documents, we would have a way to formally declare those URIs denote graphs. ←
13:15:16 <sandro> sandro: yes it would work, but not it's not a good idea. :-)
Sandro Hawke: yes it would work, but not it's not a good idea. :-) ←
13:15:44 <sandro> davidwood: We've had several discussions about how we can't rely on mime types anyway.
David Wood: We've had several discussions about how we can't rely on mime types anyway. ←
13:17:25 <sandro> cyg: I hear some skepticism about whether it's necessary to say anything special about fragments in dataset...
Richard Cyganiak: I hear some skepticism about whether it's necessary to say anything special about fragments in dataset... ←
13:17:39 <davidwood> Only 5 of the 10 issues listed at the top of Section 6 are still open
David Wood: Only 5 of the 10 issues listed at the top of Section 6 are still open ←
13:17:43 <yvesr> s/cyg/cygri
13:18:00 <sandro> sandro: I'd say don't try to hard, but go ahead if you like and we'll probably be fine with it.
Sandro Hawke: I'd say don't try to hard, but go ahead if you like and we'll probably be fine with it. ←
13:18:05 <sandro> cyg: okay.
Richard Cyganiak: okay. ←
13:18:12 <sandro> subtopic: Abstract syntax for datasets
13:18:30 <sandro> cygri: Section 4, pasted in SPARQL text, and issue box.
Richard Cyganiak: Section 4, pasted in SPARQL text, and issue box. ←
13:19:56 <sandro> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-multigraph 6. Abstract Syntax for Working with Multiple Graphs
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-multigraph 6. Abstract Syntax for Working with Multiple Graphs ←
13:20:18 <sandro> cygri: maybe we can delete the issue box and leave in that definition?
Richard Cyganiak: maybe we can delete the issue box and leave in that definition? ←
13:20:41 <sandro> davidwood: Probably soon, once issues are closed.
David Wood: Probably soon, once issues are closed. ←
13:20:41 <sandro> q+
q+ ←
13:21:27 <sandro> cygri: What we don't have in there are "gbox" and "graph store". We don't have David's circle diagram.
Richard Cyganiak: What we don't have in there are "gbox" and "graph store". We don't have David's circle diagram. ←
13:21:44 <sandro> ivan: I think it would be useful to put here.
Ivan Herman: I think it would be useful to put here. ←
13:22:05 <sandro> cyg: Not here. We don't define those things. That's more Infroamtive Intro
Richard Cyganiak: Not here. We don't define those things. That's more Infroamtive Intro ←
13:22:26 <sandro> .. Think of mutable gbox or graph store thing, then static snapshot is an RDF Dataset.
.. Think of mutable gbox or graph store thing, then static snapshot is an RDF Dataset. ←
13:23:05 <sandro> .. "gbox is a resource that can have a snapshot that is an RDF Graph" which doesn't seem useful to say Normatively. So I'd put it in 1.5
.. "gbox is a resource that can have a snapshot that is an RDF Graph" which doesn't seem useful to say Normatively. So I'd put it in 1.5 ←
13:23:09 <sandro> davidwood: Agreed
David Wood: Agreed ←
13:23:23 <sandro> cygri: I propose to just call it "gbox".
Richard Cyganiak: I propose to just call it "gbox". ←
13:23:28 <sandro> *laughter*
*laughter* ←
13:23:58 <sandro> davidwood: That's not the first time. :-)
David Wood: That's not the first time. :-) ←
13:24:00 <sandro> g-box
g-box ←
13:24:01 <sandro> gBox
gBox ←
13:24:04 <sandro> gb0x
gb0x ←
13:24:12 <sandro> q?
q? ←
13:24:33 <sandro> issue-5?
13:24:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-5 -- Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-5 -- Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? -- closed ←
13:24:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/5
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/5 ←
13:24:45 <sandro> issue-14?
13:26:46 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-14, based on previous resolutions. We're sticking with SPARQL's notions.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-14, based on previous resolutions. We're sticking with SPARQL's notions. ←
13:27:26 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
13:28:08 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
13:29:35 <davidwood> g-box
David Wood: g-box ←
13:30:02 <sandro> sandro: I have a preference for calling the pair a name-pair and calling the graph the named graph.
Sandro Hawke: I have a preference for calling the pair a name-pair and calling the graph the named graph. ←
13:30:23 <Guus> q+
Guus Schreiber: q+ ←
13:30:25 <davidwood> +1 to Sandro
David Wood: +1 to Sandro ←
13:30:50 <sandro> cygri: I think this is as pat says a harmless abuse of terminaology. I'm okay with some non-normative explanation of how things are used.
Richard Cyganiak: I think this is as pat says a harmless abuse of terminaology. I'm okay with some non-normative explanation of how things are used. ←
13:31:14 <sandro> guus: For the primer I wouldnt get into that.
Guus Schreiber: For the primer I wouldnt get into that. ←
13:31:30 <sandro> guus: Pat's think about name isn't a name.
Guus Schreiber: Pat's think about name isn't a name. ←
13:31:40 <sandro> guus: I like "labeled graph" better but it wouldn't stick.
Guus Schreiber: I like "labeled graph" better but it wouldn't stick. ←
13:33:10 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-14. We're sticking with the SPARQL definition of Named Graphs. Informative text will explain that “named” isn't to be taken too literally, and that “named graph” often refers only to the graph part of the pair.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-14. We're sticking with the SPARQL definition of Named Graphs. Informative text will explain that “named” isn't to be taken too literally, and that “named graph” often refers only to the graph part of the pair. ←
13:33:46 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
13:33:57 <pchampin> +1
13:33:57 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
13:34:03 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
13:34:24 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
13:34:27 <yvesr> +1 but would like 'not be to taken too literally' to be rephrased
Yves Raimond: +1 but would like 'not to be taken too literally' to be rephrased ←
13:34:38 <yvesr> s/be to/to be/
13:34:41 <sandro> cyg: "despite the use of the word 'name', the IRI does not necessarily denote the graph" (or something like that)
Richard Cyganiak: "despite the use of the word 'name', the IRI does not necessarily denote the graph" (or something like that) ←
13:35:17 <yvesr> s/cyg/cygri
13:35:23 <Arnaud> +0
Arnaud Le Hors: +0 ←
13:35:26 <davidwood> +1 given Richard's explanation
David Wood: +1 given Richard's explanation ←
13:35:33 <FabGandon> +1
Fabien Gandon: +1 ←
13:36:15 <sandro> close issue-14
13:36:20 <davidwood> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-14. We're sticking with the SPARQL definition of Named Graphs. Informative text will explain that “named” isn't to be taken too literally, and that “named graph” often refers only to the graph part of the pair.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-14. We're sticking with the SPARQL definition of Named Graphs. Informative text will explain that “named” isn't to be taken too literally, and that “named graph” often refers only to the graph part of the pair. ←
13:36:31 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15 ←
13:36:49 <sandro> issue-15
13:36:55 <davidwood> ISSUE-14 closed via the Web
David Wood: ISSUE-14 closed via the Web ←
13:37:04 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-15, the relationship is undefined.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-15, the relationship is undefined. ←
13:37:10 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
13:37:11 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
13:37:12 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
13:37:21 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
13:37:27 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
13:37:27 <cygri> Noting that this follows from the earlier resolution of not defining dataset semantics
Richard Cyganiak: Noting that this follows from the earlier resolution of not defining dataset semantics ←
13:37:42 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
13:37:50 <davidwood> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-15, the relationship is undefined.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-15, the relationship is undefined. ←
13:37:53 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/17
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/17 ←
13:38:53 <sandro> cyg: RDF Semantics says how to merge RDF Graphs. What about RDF Datasets?
Richard Cyganiak: RDF Semantics says how to merge RDF Graphs. What about RDF Datasets? ←
13:39:16 <davidwood> ISSUE-15 closed via the Web
David Wood: ISSUE-15 closed via the Web ←
13:40:41 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-17 -- there is no general purpose way to merge datasets; it can only be done with external knowledge.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-17 -- there is no general purpose way to merge datasets; it can only be done with external knowledge. ←
13:40:57 <sandro> yvesr: Do we need dataset isomorphism?
Yves Raimond: Do we need dataset isomorphism? ←
13:41:12 <sandro> cyg: It's in there for graphs for testing, beside that do we need it.
Richard Cyganiak: It's in there for graphs for testing, beside that do we need it. ←
13:41:33 <sandro> cyg: We might need something for testing, later on, yes.
Richard Cyganiak: We might need something for testing, later on, yes. ←
13:41:46 <cygri> +0
Richard Cyganiak: +0 ←
13:41:47 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
13:41:47 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
13:41:48 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
13:41:51 <FabGandon> +1
Fabien Gandon: +1 ←
13:41:53 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
13:41:56 <yvesr> +1 but we should spell it out
Yves Raimond: +1 but we should spell it out ←
13:42:01 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
13:42:03 <davidwood> +0.5
David Wood: +0.5 ←
13:42:45 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-17 -- there is no general purpose way to merge datasets; it can only be done with external knowledge.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-17 -- there is no general purpose way to merge datasets; it can only be done with external knowledge. ←
13:43:16 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-17 via the Web
David Wood: Closed ISSUE-17 via the Web ←
13:43:37 <sandro> yvesr: How about in a note?
Yves Raimond: How about in a note? ←
13:43:51 <sandro> ivan: yes, in some Dataset Semantics note, this stuff appears
Ivan Herman: yes, in some Dataset Semantics note, this stuff appears ←
13:43:53 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22 ←
13:44:02 <sandro> sandro: yes, it falls out pretty much automatically.
Sandro Hawke: yes, it falls out pretty much automatically. ←
13:44:09 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
13:45:02 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/22 ←
13:46:06 <sandro> sandro: I thought we resolved TriG would { } empty graphs
Sandro Hawke: I thought we resolved TriG would { } empty graphs ←
13:46:19 <sandro> cygri: SPARQL allows empty graphs.
Richard Cyganiak: SPARQL allows empty graphs. ←
13:46:44 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-03#resolution_4
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-03#resolution_4 ←
13:46:45 <sandro> cygri: I hope at least the abstract syntax has empty graphs.
Richard Cyganiak: I hope at least the abstract syntax has empty graphs. ←
13:47:01 <davidwood> "Our dataset syntax will allow for the expression of empty named graphs, whatever their semantics might be."
David Wood: "Our dataset syntax will allow for the expression of empty named graphs, whatever their semantics might be." ←
13:47:06 <sandro> (from before)
(from before) ←
13:47:33 <sandro> yvesr: The assymmetry between N-Quads and TriG
Yves Raimond: The assymmetry between N-Quads and TriG ←
13:47:45 <path> And their semantics is, they are trivially true in all interpretations.
Patrick Hayes: And their semantics is, they are trivially true in all interpretations. ←
13:47:55 <sandro> cygri: SPARQL handles that by saying stores can treat an empty graph as not existing.
Richard Cyganiak: SPARQL handles that by saying stores can treat an empty graph as not existing. ←
13:48:33 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-22 based on the previous resolution
David Wood: Closed ISSUE-22 based on the previous resolution ←
13:49:06 <sandro> cygri: "Note: N-Quads can't record the existings of empty names graphs" ... "Tools may not want to attach too much meaning to empty graphs"
Richard Cyganiak: "Note: N-Quads can't record the existings of empty names graphs" ... "Tools may not want to attach too much meaning to empty graphs" ←
13:49:36 <sandro> sandro: empty default graph?
Sandro Hawke: empty default graph? ←
13:49:54 <path> But Nquads can do this. One can use nulls, for example.
Patrick Hayes: But Nquads can do this. One can use nulls, for example. ←
13:49:59 <Zakim> +GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: +GavinC ←
13:50:02 <sandro> cyg: THeree is always a default graph
Richard Cyganiak: THeree is always a default graph ←
13:50:06 <Zakim> +GavinC.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +GavinC.a ←
13:50:20 <sandro> we do not hear Gavin
we do not hear Gavin ←
13:50:31 <yvesr> cygri: this is a TriG issue so should be tackled ther
Richard Cyganiak: this is a TriG issue so should be tackled there [ Scribe Assist by Yves Raimond ] ←
13:50:40 <yvesr> s/ther/there
13:51:05 <sandro> guus: People who use this might expect information loss
Guus Schreiber: People who use this might expect information loss ←
13:51:23 <path> I want to see the video of gavin merging with himself
Patrick Hayes: I want to see the video of gavin merging with himself ←
13:52:53 <Zakim> -GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: -GavinC ←
13:53:17 <sandro> trackbot, issue-1?
13:53:20 <trackbot> Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, issue-1?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, ISSUE-1?'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help ←
13:53:45 <cygri_> ACTION: cygri to add note on RDF Datasets noting that empty named graphs may not survive in some implementations
ACTION: cygri to add note on RDF Datasets noting that empty named graphs may not survive in some implementations ←
13:53:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-199 - Add note on RDF Datasets noting that empty named graphs may not survive in some implementations [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-11-05].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-199 - Add note on RDF Datasets noting that empty named graphs may not survive in some implementations [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-11-05]. ←
13:55:16 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps, but we recognize that people can do it by defining predicates that let them do it. We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps, but we recognize that people can do it by defining predicates that let them do it. We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary. ←
13:55:43 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
13:55:46 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
13:55:46 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
13:55:47 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
13:55:47 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
13:55:47 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
13:55:51 <FabGandon> +1
Fabien Gandon: +1 ←
13:55:55 <pchampin> +1
13:55:56 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
13:56:05 <davidwood> [almost] RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps, but we recognize that people can do it by defining predicates that let them do it. We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary.
David Wood: [almost] RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps, but we recognize that people can do it by defining predicates that let them do it. We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary. ←
13:56:15 <sandro> close issue-32
13:56:15 <trackbot> ISSUE-32 Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps? closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-32 Can we identify both g-boxes and g-snaps? closed ←
13:56:18 <path> -1
Patrick Hayes: -1 ←
13:56:18 <sandro> issue-29?
13:56:21 <trackbot> ISSUE-29 -- Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-29 -- Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? -- closed ←
13:56:21 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/29
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/29 ←
13:57:59 <sandro> sandro: This resolution text is just a note to ourselves to remind ourselves why we closed the resolution.
Sandro Hawke: This resolution text is just a note to ourselves to remind ourselves why we closed the resolution. ←
13:58:39 <sandro> patL: I think the resolution should end at " we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps."
Patrick Hayes: I think the resolution should end at " we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps." ←
13:58:49 <path> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
13:58:58 <AZ> s/patL/path/
13:59:00 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps. ←
13:59:05 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
13:59:07 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
13:59:10 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
13:59:11 <davidwood> PROPOSED: Close-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps. However, we recognize that people can identify graphs in a dataset syntax by defining predicates that let them do it. We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary.
PROPOSED: Close-32 -- we do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps. However, we recognize that people can identify graphs in a dataset syntax by defining predicates that let them do it. We may publish a NOTE which provides such a vocabulary. ←
13:59:11 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
13:59:12 <FabGandon> +1
Fabien Gandon: +1 ←
13:59:12 <sandro> +0.5 see IRC discussion here.
+0.5 see IRC discussion here. ←
13:59:13 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
13:59:51 <sandro> sandro: Pat, are you okay with David's phrasing?
Sandro Hawke: Pat, are you okay with David's phrasing? ←
14:00:42 <sandro> pat: Here's my problem. I am still under the impression that we have not come to any agreement as a WG. We have not chosen a vocab for this -- Sandro suggested one -- but we couldn't agree on it.
Patrick Hayes: Here's my problem. I am still under the impression that we have not come to any agreement as a WG. We have not chosen a vocab for this -- Sandro suggested one -- but we couldn't agree on it. ←
14:00:45 <davidwood> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps. ←
14:00:45 <AZ> +1 to the short version
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 to the short version ←
14:00:45 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps. ←
14:00:52 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
14:00:53 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
14:00:55 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
14:00:55 <FabGandon> +1
Fabien Gandon: +1 ←
14:00:57 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:00:57 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
14:00:59 <path> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
14:01:00 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
14:01:03 <pchampin> +1
14:01:06 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
14:01:08 <Guus> -1
Guus Schreiber: -1 ←
14:01:14 <Guus> oops typo
Guus Schreiber: oops typo ←
14:01:15 <sandro> ivan: No one does anything but vote until we say resolved
Ivan Herman: No one does anything but vote until we say resolved ←
14:01:18 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
14:01:21 <sandro> sandro: like scribe?
Sandro Hawke: like scribe? ←
14:01:26 <gavinc> 0
Gavin Carothers: 0 ←
14:01:37 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-32 -- We do not provide a standard way to identify g-boxes or g-snaps. ←
14:02:46 <gavinc> Yeah, we closed them by not having interoperability! Well done us! ;)
Gavin Carothers: Yeah, we closed them by not having interoperability! Well done us! ;) ←
14:02:47 <path> THis could be a model for quite a number of thorny problems.
Patrick Hayes: THis could be a model for quite a number of thorny problems. ←
14:02:48 <Zakim> + +1.617.838.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.838.aaaa ←
14:02:58 <MacTed> aaaa is me
Ted Thibodeau: aaaa is me ←
14:03:05 <MacTed> Zakim, aaaa is me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, aaaa is me ←
14:03:05 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
14:03:15 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←
14:03:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB, PatH, GavinC.a, MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB, PatH, GavinC.a, MacTed ←
14:03:16 <Zakim> On IRC I see shh, trackbot, cygri, path, davidwood, FabGandon, MacTed, SteveS, gavinc, ScottB, ivan, pchampin, mlnt, AndyS, Guus, AZ, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, yvesr, manu1,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see shh, trackbot, cygri, path, davidwood, FabGandon, MacTed, SteveS, gavinc, ScottB, ivan, pchampin, mlnt, AndyS, Guus, AZ, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, yvesr, manu1, ←
14:03:16 <Zakim> ... mischat, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... mischat, sandro, ericP ←
14:03:35 <ivan> zakim, GavinC.a is really Gavinc
Ivan Herman: zakim, GavinC.a is really Gavinc ←
14:03:35 <Zakim> +Gavinc; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Gavinc; got it ←
14:04:00 <cygri> subtopic: Next RDF Concepts WD
14:04:28 <sandro> cyg: New WDs of rdf-concepts. I can address the yellow boxes now, I think.
Richard Cyganiak: New WDs of rdf-concepts. I can address the yellow boxes now, I think. ←
14:04:49 <sandro> .. Can we go to Last Call? Or put out another WD first?
.. Can we go to Last Call? Or put out another WD first? ←
14:05:05 <path> In 2004 the semantics went through c. 30 drafts.
Patrick Hayes: In 2004 the semantics went through c. 30 drafts. ←
14:05:29 <sandro> guus: We owe it to the community to do a WD before Last Call
Guus Schreiber: We owe it to the community to do a WD before Last Call ←
14:05:39 <sandro> sandro: why?
Sandro Hawke: why? ←
14:05:45 <sandro> ivan: LC is just we're internally resolved on it, not community
Ivan Herman: LC is just we're internally resolved on it, not community ←
14:05:54 <path> Not a Call if you just put it out in public and invite comments.
Patrick Hayes: Not a Call if you just put it out in public and invite comments. ←
14:06:01 <sandro> sandro: You can go straight to last call
Sandro Hawke: You can go straight to last call ←
14:06:18 <path> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
14:06:21 <davidwood> It is a Call because we are calling for public comments
David Wood: It is a Call because we are calling for public comments ←
14:06:32 <sandro> cyg: Pragmatically -- it would be bad to publish LC of Concepts since we don't even have FPWD of everything else.
Richard Cyganiak: Pragmatically -- it would be bad to publish LC of Concepts since we don't even have FPWD of everything else. ←
14:06:39 <gavinc> +1 to not publishing a last call for data sets without a concrete syntax for datasets
Gavin Carothers: +1 to not publishing a last call for data sets without a concrete syntax for datasets ←
14:06:41 <sandro> ivan: true
Ivan Herman: true ←
14:07:04 <path> +1 to cyg.
Patrick Hayes: +1 to cyg. ←
14:07:25 <sandro> sandro: So, next WD of rdf-concepts within a month or so?
Sandro Hawke: So, next WD of rdf-concepts within a month or so? ←
14:07:35 <sandro> david: (reads W3C Process on Last Call)
David Wood: (reads W3C Process on Last Call) ←
14:08:36 <sandro> cyg: Yes.
Richard Cyganiak: Yes. ←
14:10:05 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:10:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB, PatH, Gavinc, MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB, PatH, Gavinc, MacTed ←
14:10:14 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
14:10:15 <sandro> topic: [COFFEE BREAK]
14:10:22 <gavinc> enjoy your coffee
Gavin Carothers: enjoy your coffee ←
14:10:43 <gavinc> 7.30 PDT
Gavin Carothers: 7.30 PDT ←
14:10:52 <MacTed> danke
Ted Thibodeau: danke ←
14:12:04 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
14:12:49 <gavinc> I have no idea how to provide any examples in TriG btw, give our resolution to ISSUE-15 :\
Gavin Carothers: I have no idea how to provide any examples in TriG btw, give our resolution to ISSUE-15 :\ ←
14:27:22 <Zakim> +??P8
(No events recorded for 14 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8 ←
14:27:27 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P8
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P8 ←
14:27:27 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
14:27:40 <Guus> welcome gregg, we're just in a break
Guus Schreiber: welcome gregg, we're just in a break ←
14:28:45 <Guus> we're 30 min late wrt our agenda
Guus Schreiber: we're 30 min late wrt our agenda ←
14:29:05 <Zakim> -ScottB
Zakim IRC Bot: -ScottB ←
14:30:19 <Zakim> +Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony ←
14:31:26 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
14:32:30 <Zakim> +MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed ←
14:33:21 <path> great sound tapestry of multiple languages.
Patrick Hayes: great sound tapestry of multiple languages. ←
14:33:28 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
14:33:37 <gkellogg> zakim: mute me
14:33:57 <gkellogg> zakim, mute me
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, mute me ←
14:33:57 <Zakim> gkellogg should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg should now be muted ←
14:34:33 <cygri> zakim, who is on the phone?
Richard Cyganiak: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:34:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see Rhone_4, Gavinc, gkellogg (muted), Tony, PatH, MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Rhone_4, Gavinc, gkellogg (muted), Tony, PatH, MacTed ←
14:34:34 <path> I once had a very bad curry in Marseilles.
Patrick Hayes: I once had a very bad curry in Marseilles. ←
14:34:50 <yvesr> :)
Yves Raimond: :) ←
14:35:11 <ScottB> Zakim, Tony is temporarily me
Scott Bauer: Zakim, Tony is temporarily me ←
14:35:11 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ScottB; got it ←
14:35:21 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:35:21 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
13:35:30 <cygri> scribe: AZ
(Scribe set to Antoine Zimmermann)
14:35:42 <AZ> topic: RDF Semantics
(No events recorded for 60 minutes)
14:35:58 <gavinc> mmm, yes indeed as I have meetings at 9am PDT
Gavin Carothers: mmm, yes indeed as I have meetings at 9am PDT ←
14:36:03 <AZ> Guus: but we'll start Turtle at 4:30 at the latest
Guus Schreiber: but we'll start Turtle at 4:30 at the latest ←
14:36:33 <gavinc> that means 30 minutes for Turtle yes?
Gavin Carothers: that means 30 minutes for Turtle yes? ←
14:36:39 <AZ> Guus: we may not reach issues re. Semantics VS Concepts
Guus Schreiber: we may not reach issues re. Semantics VS Concepts ←
14:37:04 <AZ> ... we hope to get to LC before end of Jan.
... we hope to get to LC before end of Jan. ←
14:37:24 <AZ> ... let's look at things to be resolved in semantics
... let's look at things to be resolved in semantics ←
14:37:36 <AZ> ... let's have Pat's view
... let's have Pat's view ←
14:37:56 <davidwood> GavinC, Turtle in 53 minutes
David Wood: GavinC, Turtle in 53 minutes ←
14:38:00 <davidwood> from now
David Wood: from now ←
14:38:30 <cygri> subtopic: Splitting the RDF Semantics document
14:38:39 <AZ> path: the situation as I see it...
Patrick Hayes: the situation as I see it... ←
14:38:52 <AZ> ... there several major changes that we resolved not doing
... there several major changes that we resolved not doing ←
14:39:24 <AZ> ... but regarding the doc it would be good to scale down the text
... but regarding the doc it would be good to scale down the text ←
14:39:47 <Guus> Open issues on RDF Semantics: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/9
Guus Schreiber: Open issues on RDF Semantics: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/9 ←
14:39:50 <AZ> ... now it contains both the formal and the "tutorial-like" part on semantics
... now it contains both the formal and the "tutorial-like" part on semantics ←
14:40:12 <AZ> ... let us separate the MT in a short doc
... let us separate the MT in a short doc ←
14:40:39 <AZ> ... and do a separate doc that summarise the inference rules and give the tutorial stuff
... and do a separate doc that summarise the inference rules and give the tutorial stuff ←
14:41:11 <AZ> ... and declare that these rules are non normative
... and declare that these rules are non normative ←
14:41:15 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
14:41:28 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
14:41:34 <cygri> q+ to ask about the third rule "tutorial on model theory"
Richard Cyganiak: q+ to ask about the third rule "tutorial on model theory" ←
14:41:55 <sandro> +1 splitting RDF Semantics into Normative part and Entailments.
Sandro Hawke: +1 splitting RDF Semantics into Normative part and Entailments. ←
14:41:57 <davidwood> ack Guus
David Wood: ack Guus ←
14:41:58 <AZ> ... the proof of completeness of rules etc would be removed
... the proof of completeness of rules etc would be removed ←
14:42:15 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
14:42:15 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask about the third rule "tutorial on model theory"
Zakim IRC Bot: cygri, you wanted to ask about the third rule "tutorial on model theory" ←
14:42:31 <AZ> cygri: good analysis of the current docs
Richard Cyganiak: good analysis of the current docs ←
14:42:50 <AZ> ... I like having a more focused doc that only treats the formal stuff
... I like having a more focused doc that only treats the formal stuff ←
14:43:52 <AZ> ... we should retain the rest in some form as a note
... we should retain the rest in some form as a note ←
14:44:08 <AZ> ... for people who want to know a bit more without having to get into MT
... for people who want to know a bit more without having to get into MT ←
14:44:26 <davidwood> Good idea
David Wood: Good idea ←
14:44:29 <AZ> ... I agree the rules should not be normative
... I agree the rules should not be normative ←
14:44:51 <AZ> ... the question is where the informative, more accessible things would go
... the question is where the informative, more accessible things would go ←
14:45:38 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:46:05 <AZ> ... About the "tutorial-like" parts on model theory, I found it somehow useful in some way
... About the "tutorial-like" parts on model theory, I found it somehow useful in some way ←
14:46:31 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
14:46:38 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
14:46:46 <AZ> path: we could keep the intro to MT in RDF semantics before formal definitions comes
Patrick Hayes: we could keep the intro to MT in RDF semantics before formal definitions comes ←
14:47:15 <AZ> ivan: I agree we can keep the intro on MT in RDF semantics as informative part
Ivan Herman: I agree we can keep the intro on MT in RDF semantics as informative part ←
14:47:33 <AZ> ... and we should put references to relevant books
... and we should put references to relevant books ←
14:47:39 <cygri> ivan++
Richard Cyganiak: ivan++ ←
14:48:06 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
14:48:13 <AZ> ... the rules would end up as a note
... the rules would end up as a note ←
14:48:45 <gavinc> MT would be another document, right? Okay, yes/
Gavin Carothers: MT would be another document, right? Okay, yes/ ←
14:49:39 <AZ> ... there are defintions in the MT (lean graphs, issues on bnodes, etc) which are normative so should be in RDF semantics
... there are defintions in the MT (lean graphs, issues on bnodes, etc) which are normative so should be in RDF semantics ←
14:49:51 <AZ> ... but may be needed in the doc on rules
... but may be needed in the doc on rules ←
14:50:11 <Guus> q+ to point out danger of doc proliferation
Guus Schreiber: q+ to point out danger of doc proliferation ←
14:50:24 <AZ> path: maybe we could keep things in one document
Patrick Hayes: maybe we could keep things in one document ←
14:50:44 <AZ> ivan: the different sections are for different audiences so it's better separated
Ivan Herman: the different sections are for different audiences so it's better separated ←
14:51:05 <AZ> Guus: I don't like document proliferation
Guus Schreiber: I don't like document proliferation ←
14:51:15 <davidwood> q+
David Wood: q+ ←
14:51:20 <davidwood> ack gus
David Wood: ack gus ←
14:51:23 <AZ> ... it's a burden on our readership
... it's a burden on our readership ←
14:51:24 <davidwood> ack guus
David Wood: ack guus ←
14:51:24 <Zakim> Guus, you wanted to point out danger of doc proliferation
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, you wanted to point out danger of doc proliferation ←
14:51:30 <path> maybe definitions of lean, merge etc,, should be in concepts?
Patrick Hayes: maybe definitions of lean, merge etc,, should be in concepts? ←
14:51:38 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
14:51:41 <AZ> ... I feel better with Pat's idea of keeping all this in one doc
... I feel better with Pat's idea of keeping all this in one doc ←
14:51:49 <Guus> ack davidwood
Guus Schreiber: ack davidwood ←
14:52:12 <AZ> davidwood: it's also a problem for our readers if the docs become insanely huge
David Wood: it's also a problem for our readers if the docs become insanely huge ←
14:52:18 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
14:52:51 <AZ> cygri: it makes sense to group content of docs in function of the readership rather than in terms of theme
Richard Cyganiak: it makes sense to group content of docs in function of the readership rather than in terms of theme ←
14:52:58 <path> +1 to cygri. documents are aimed at readership.
Patrick Hayes: +1 to cygri. documents are aimed at readership. ←
14:53:05 <sandro> +1 cygri: group documents based on readership. so keeping all three together isn't such a good idea
Sandro Hawke: +1 cygri: group documents based on readership. so keeping all three together isn't such a good idea ←
14:53:18 <Guus> ok, happy to be convinced
Guus Schreiber: ok, happy to be convinced ←
14:53:24 <AZ> ... keeping content of RDF semantics as it is is not a good idea
... keeping content of RDF semantics as it is is not a good idea ←
14:53:44 <AZ> ... although I agree doc proliferation is also a problem
... although I agree doc proliferation is also a problem ←
14:54:04 <MacTed> I generally prefer three distinct 50 page docs over one 150 page doc with three distinct chapters
Ted Thibodeau: I generally prefer three distinct 50 page docs over one 150 page doc with three distinct chapters ←
14:54:09 <AZ> Guus: happy to be convinced if there are very good reasons
Guus Schreiber: happy to be convinced if there are very good reasons ←
14:54:29 <davidwood> q+ re RAISED issues
David Wood: q+ re RAISED issues ←
14:54:33 <MacTed> (especially when they're commonly presented as one giant streaming HTML page)
Ted Thibodeau: (especially when they're commonly presented as one giant streaming HTML page) ←
14:54:35 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-9 (Bug in entailment rules)
14:54:41 <AZ> Guus: let us look at the open issues
Guus Schreiber: let us look at the open issues ←
14:54:48 <gavinc> www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/9
Gavin Carothers: www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/9 ←
14:55:12 <AZ> ... open and raised issues
... open and raised issues ←
14:55:21 <davidwood> q-
David Wood: q- ←
14:56:10 <AZ> path: the rules are incomplete and we should remove proofs and not express guarantees that they are complete
Patrick Hayes: the rules are incomplete and we should remove proofs and not express guarantees that they are complete ←
14:56:59 <AZ> ... there are rules that are computationally bad but necessary for completeness
... there are rules that are computationally bad but necessary for completeness ←
14:57:25 <AZ> cygri: could we transform this into an action
Richard Cyganiak: could we transform this into an action ←
14:57:52 <AZ> gavinc: we could make a resolution without closing the issue
Gavin Carothers: we could make a resolution without closing the issue ←
14:58:37 <AZ> Guus: we resolve to close the issue by having an action to solve it
Guus Schreiber: we resolve to close the issue by having an action to solve it ←
14:59:48 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Semantics editors accept an action to add the missing inference rule as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9
PROPOSED: Semantics editors accept an action to add the missing inference rule as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9 ←
15:00:19 <davidwood> Opened ISSUEs 84, 85, 90, 97 and 98
David Wood: Opened ISSUEs 84, 85, 90, 97 and 98 ←
15:00:27 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:00:29 <AZ> +1
+1 ←
15:00:30 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:00:33 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:00:44 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:00:45 <AZ> RESOLVED: Semantics editors accept an action to add the missing inference rule as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9
RESOLVED: Semantics editors accept an action to add the missing inference rule as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9 ←
15:00:54 <davidwood> CLOSE ISSUE-9
David Wood: CLOSE ISSUE-9 ←
15:01:21 <AZ> action: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9
ACTION: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9 ←
15:02:18 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-9 via the Web with the resolution comments (lost Tracker again)
David Wood: Closed ISSUE-9 via the Web with the resolution comments (lost Tracker again) ←
15:02:35 <AZ> cygri: we resolved that the list of datatypes should be removed from semantics and put in concepts
Richard Cyganiak: we resolved that the list of datatypes should be removed from semantics and put in concepts ←
15:02:40 <sandro> action: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9
ACTION: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9 ←
15:02:55 <AZ> ivan: but XMLliterals is the source of inconcistency
Ivan Herman: but XMLliterals is the source of inconcistency ←
15:03:24 <AZ> path: we don't need to have the list of datatypes and can refer to concepts
Patrick Hayes: we don't need to have the list of datatypes and can refer to concepts ←
15:04:20 <sandro> action: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9
ACTION: path to add the missing inference rules as pointed out in ISSUE-9; this closes ISSUE-9 ←
15:05:30 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-11 (Other semantics-related documents)
15:04:32 <cygri> q+ to talk about semantic extensions
Richard Cyganiak: q+ to talk about semantic extensions ←
15:05:02 <AZ> ivan: the POWDER IRI set (????) is an extension of RDF semantics
Ivan Herman: the POWDER IRI set (????) is an extension of RDF semantics ←
15:05:46 <AZ> ... it would be nice to have all things in one place
... it would be nice to have all things in one place ←
15:06:00 <AZ> path: it would be a mistake to try to put everything together as it can grow
Patrick Hayes: it would be a mistake to try to put everything together as it can grow ←
15:06:18 <AZ> ... we could say that they are legal extensions
... we could say that they are legal extensions ←
15:06:29 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:06:37 <AZ> ... and specify well what are formally semantic extensions
... and specify well what are formally semantic extensions ←
15:06:41 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:07:01 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
15:07:01 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to talk about semantic extensions
Zakim IRC Bot: cygri, you wanted to talk about semantic extensions ←
15:07:34 <AZ> cygri: the notion of semantic extension is not very well put in the doc but is mentionned
Richard Cyganiak: the notion of semantic extension is not very well put in the doc but is mentionned ←
15:07:43 <AZ> ... and IRIset semantics is a very good example of extension
... and IRIset semantics is a very good example of extension ←
15:08:17 <AZ> ... rdf:plainLiteral is now irrelevant with our decision on removing plain literals
... rdf:plainLiteral is now irrelevant with our decision on removing plain literals ←
15:08:48 <Guus> ack sandro
Guus Schreiber: ack sandro ←
15:08:48 <AZ> sandro: it's more important for OWL where you need this for property rangs
Sandro Hawke: it's more important for OWL where you need this for property range ←
15:08:57 <AZ> s/rangs/range/
15:11:04 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:11:44 <AZ> sandro: we need better explanations on what entailment is useful for the semantic web
Sandro Hawke: we need better explanations on what entailment is useful for the semantic web ←
15:12:29 <AZ> ... it seems that at the moment people have different expectations of what the semantics is for
... it seems that at the moment people have different expectations of what the semantics is for ←
15:13:45 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
15:13:48 <ivan> PROPOSED: the Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples
PROPOSED: the Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples ←
15:14:19 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
15:14:23 <AZ> +1
+1 ←
15:14:25 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:14:26 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:14:27 <Guus> =1
Guus Schreiber: =1 ←
15:14:30 <FabGandon> +1
Fabien Gandon: +1 ←
15:14:31 <path> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:14:36 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:14:42 <sandro> +1 but I'm scared about what that text might look like without a lot more discussion.
Sandro Hawke: +1 but I'm scared about what that text might look like without a lot more discussion. ←
15:14:52 <AZ> RESOLVED: The Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples
RESOLVED: The Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples ←
15:16:03 <AZ> Guus: do we postpone this for later?
Guus Schreiber: do we postpone this for later? ←
15:16:17 <AZ> ivan: rdf:plainLiteral does not change anything
Ivan Herman: rdf:plainLiteral does not change anything ←
15:16:38 <AZ> ... to the semantics document
... to the semantics document ←
15:17:31 <AZ> ... the question is only about the influence on RDF Semantics 1.1
... the question is only about the influence on RDF Semantics 1.1 ←
15:18:23 <AZ> path: any decision refering to rdf:plainLiteral would be a trivial change like 1 sentence
Patrick Hayes: any decision refering to rdf:plainLiteral would be a trivial change like 1 sentence ←
15:18:35 <gavinc> Close without prejudice?
Gavin Carothers: Close without prejudice? ←
15:18:43 <AZ> cygri: we should see if the OWL WG really care about what we do wrt plainLiteral
Richard Cyganiak: we should see if the OWL WG really care about what we do wrt plainLiteral ←
15:18:57 <AZ> ivan: they probably do not care
Ivan Herman: they probably do not care ←
15:19:32 <sandro> sandro: (thinking: so, no one cares about whether rdf:PlainLiteral is "ugly"....)
Sandro Hawke: (thinking: so, no one cares about whether rdf:PlainLiteral is "ugly"....) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:19:53 <davidwood> Close ISSUE-11 RESOLVED: the Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples
David Wood: Close ISSUE-11 RESOLVED: the Semantics document will make the notion of semantics extension more explicit, and will refer to the POWDER and the SPARQL Entailment Regimes as good examples ←
15:20:34 <davidwood> Close ISSUE-11 via the Web
David Wood: Close ISSUE-11 via the Web ←
15:21:50 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-70 via the Web
David Wood: Closed ISSUE-70 via the Web ←
15:22:00 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-85 (XSD 1.1, equality, and identity)
15:22:50 <AZ> issue-85?
15:23:33 <AZ> path: I don't know the difference between equality and identity
Patrick Hayes: I don't know the difference between equality and identity ←
15:23:49 <AZ> sandro: consider it's relation1 and relation2, and see what you get
Sandro Hawke: consider it's relation1 and relation2, and see what you get ←
15:24:35 <AZ> path: let us say that RDF semantics is defined in terms of identity
Patrick Hayes: let us say that RDF semantics is defined in terms of identity ←
15:25:20 <davidwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0294.html
David Wood: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0294.html ←
15:25:57 <AZ> ericP: SPARQL has operations that use identity and others equality
Eric Prud'hommeaux: SPARQL has operations that use identity and others equality ←
15:26:49 <davidwood> Alex Hall's Review of XSD Datatypes 1.1 Changes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0039.html
David Wood: Alex Hall's Review of XSD Datatypes 1.1 Changes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0039.html ←
15:27:18 <gavinc> SPARQL has both
Gavin Carothers: SPARQL has both ←
15:28:03 <AZ> ericP: SPARQL has eq and =
Eric Prud'hommeaux: SPARQL has eq and = ←
15:28:33 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:28:44 <AZ> ericP: it's the distinction you have in lisp
Eric Prud'hommeaux: it's the distinction you have in lisp ←
15:28:45 <gavinc> 1 == 1.0 or 1 != 1.0
Gavin Carothers: 1 == 1.0 or 1 != 1.0 ←
15:29:38 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
15:29:57 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#func-sameTerm SPARQL sameTerm operator
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#func-sameTerm SPARQL sameTerm operator ←
15:30:05 <AZ> davidwood: SPARQL distnguishes "2 numbers being equal" (=) and "2 strings are equal", the later requires computation
David Wood: SPARQL distnguishes "2 numbers being equal" (=) and "2 strings are equal", the later requires computation ←
15:31:33 <davidwood> Almost all computer languages make the same type of comparisons: Numbers and strings are compared differently.
David Wood: Almost all computer languages make the same type of comparisons: Numbers and strings are compared differently. ←
15:31:55 <AZ> cygri: ask alex (Alex Hall) from SPARQL 1.1 WG to know what he thinks the clarification should be
Richard Cyganiak: ask alex (Alex Hall) from SPARQL 1.1 WG to know what he thinks the clarification should be ←
15:33:28 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
15:34:28 <gavinc> Yes, computers are wrong ;)
Gavin Carothers: Yes, computers are wrong ;) ←
15:34:29 <sandro> sandro: In my book this is what D-Entailment is about. Do "01"^^xs:integer and "1"^^xs:integer co-refer ?
Sandro Hawke: In my book this is what D-Entailment is about. Do "01"^^xs:integer and "1"^^xs:integer co-refer ? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:34:35 <davidwood> a = a + 1
David Wood: a = a + 1 ←
15:35:15 <Arnaud> this is about a == b vs a.equals(b)
Arnaud Le Hors: this is about a == b vs a.equals(b) ←
15:35:24 <AZ> cygri: there may not be interest in discussing an issue we don't even know what it is about
Richard Cyganiak: there may not be interest in discussing an issue we don't even know what it is about ←
15:35:33 <davidwood> +1 to Arnaud noting that neither is =
David Wood: +1 to Arnaud noting that neither is = ←
15:35:35 <cygri> subtopic: ISSUE-98 (Graph semantics and dataset semantics)
15:35:40 <cygri> ISSUE-98?
15:36:24 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-98 because we are leaving the semantics of RDF datasets unspecified
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-98 because we are leaving the semantics of RDF datasets unspecified ←
15:36:49 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-98
David Wood: Closed ISSUE-98 ←
15:37:21 <gavinc> tomorrow is much worse
Gavin Carothers: tomorrow is much worse ←
15:37:24 <AZ> Guus: we leave the other issues on semantics for later
Guus Schreiber: we leave the other issues on semantics for later ←
15:37:29 <AZ> topic: Turtle
15:37:32 <ScottB> I'm going to have to sign off early
Scott Bauer: I'm going to have to sign off early ←
15:37:39 <Zakim> -ScottB
Zakim IRC Bot: -ScottB ←
15:37:54 <path> OK, I will drop out now. thanks.
Patrick Hayes: OK, I will drop out now. thanks. ←
15:38:02 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
15:38:11 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:38:20 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
15:38:20 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:38:30 <AZ> gavinc: the remaining issues are around test cases, how we publish them
Gavin Carothers: the remaining issues are around test cases, how we publish them ←
15:39:00 <cygri> subtopic: Test cases and CR exit criteria
15:39:05 <AZ> Guus: we plan to have a CR in 2 weeks, which seems unlikely
Guus Schreiber: we plan to have a CR in 2 weeks, which seems unlikely ←
15:40:00 <AZ> ericP: we still have Tim's comment
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we still have Tim's comment ←
15:41:34 <AZ> ivan: we can say the commenters we wait for 2 weekd for their answer and move on
Ivan Herman: we can say the commenters we wait for 2 weekd for their answer and move on ←
15:42:12 <AZ> ericP: if we don't get response, we assume agreement
Eric Prud'hommeaux: if we don't get response, we assume agreement ←
15:43:04 <AZ> ivan: tests don't have to be complete when we are in CR
Ivan Herman: tests don't have to be complete when we are in CR ←
15:43:34 <AZ> ... we have to say what we think is necessary to pass the test
... we have to say what we think is necessary to pass the test ←
15:44:18 <gavinc> Two implementations are likely to pass the tests, in reality 3 :P gkellogg, gavinc, and AndyS :P
Gavin Carothers: Two implementations are likely to pass the tests, in reality 3 :P gkellogg, gavinc, and AndyS :P ←
15:45:01 <AZ> ivan: the call for implementation is the CR
Ivan Herman: the call for implementation is the CR ←
15:45:24 <AZ> ... but we can skip it if you already have the required implementation already
... but we can skip it if you already have the required implementation already ←
15:45:34 <AZ> sandro: but we don't have the test suite yet
Sandro Hawke: but we don't have the test suite yet ←
15:45:40 <gavinc> q?
Gavin Carothers: q? ←
15:46:03 <AZ> ericP: we want 2 implementations
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we want 2 implementations ←
15:46:18 <sandro> PROPOSED: Our CR exit criterion for Turtle will be: two or more implementations passing all the approved tests in the test suite.
PROPOSED: Our CR exit criterion for Turtle will be: two or more implementations passing all the approved tests in the test suite. ←
15:46:25 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:46:27 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:46:28 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:46:29 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:46:30 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
15:46:33 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:46:33 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
15:46:34 <AZ> +1
+1 ←
15:46:37 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:46:53 <sandro> RESOLVED: Our CR exit criterion for Turtle will be: two or more implementations passing all the approved tests in the test suite.
RESOLVED: Our CR exit criterion for Turtle will be: two or more implementations passing all the approved tests in the test suite. ←
15:46:55 <Arnaud> q+
Arnaud Le Hors: q+ ←
15:47:09 <Guus> ack Arnoud
Guus Schreiber: ack Arnoud ←
15:47:16 <davidwood> ack Arnaud
David Wood: ack Arnaud ←
15:47:23 <gavinc> At risk features, PREFIX/BASE
Gavin Carothers: At risk features, PREFIX/BASE ←
15:47:36 <AZ> Arnaud: do we have an idea of when we are likely to have the 2 implemetnations
Arnaud Le Hors: do we have an idea of when we are likely to have the 2 implemetnations ←
15:47:46 <gkellogg> zakim, unmute me
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, unmute me ←
15:47:46 <Zakim> gkellogg should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: gkellogg should no longer be muted ←
15:48:02 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
15:48:07 <gavinc> Do at RISK features need to be resolved before CR?
Gavin Carothers: Do at RISK features need to be resolved before CR? ←
15:48:11 <AZ> sandro: we should have a rec before asking for more time
Sandro Hawke: we should have a rec before asking for more time ←
15:48:23 <Guus> ack AndyS
Guus Schreiber: ack AndyS ←
15:48:33 <gavinc> 1000 ;)
Gavin Carothers: 1000 ;) ←
15:48:37 <gavinc> yes it does
Gavin Carothers: yes it does ←
15:48:46 <sandro> Excellent!
Sandro Hawke: Excellent! ←
15:49:03 <AZ> AndyS: we need to define formally what the test suite is
Andy Seaborne: we need to define formally what the test suite is ←
15:49:28 <AZ> ericP: I expect it to be like the RDF/XML test suite
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I expect it to be like the RDF/XML test suite ←
15:50:02 <AZ> ... it gives correspondence between RDF/XML input and N-triples equivalent
... it gives correspondence between RDF/XML input and N-triples equivalent ←
15:50:05 <gavinc> Test Suite N-Triples
Gavin Carothers: Test Suite N-Triples ←
15:50:42 <AZ> sandro: there can be negative syntax test
Sandro Hawke: there can be negative syntax test ←
15:50:49 <AndyS> +1 to Sandro
Andy Seaborne: +1 to Sandro ←
15:51:15 <AZ> ... parsers can accept invalid input but we can have the test nonetheless
... parsers can accept invalid input but we can have the test nonetheless ←
15:51:49 <gkellogg> my parser implements a "strict" option, for this purpose
Gregg Kellogg: my parser implements a "strict" option, for this purpose ←
15:51:54 <yvesr> +1 to sandro as well
Yves Raimond: +1 to sandro as well ←
15:52:14 <AZ> ericP: we could say we require 2 turtle parsers that succeed on positive test and reject negative tests
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we could say we require 2 turtle parsers that succeed on positive test and reject negative tests ←
15:52:18 <gavinc> my parser has "explode_violently"
Gavin Carothers: my parser has "explode_violently" ←
15:52:25 <AndyS> as gkellogg -- RIOT has special strict mode.
Andy Seaborne: as gkellogg -- RIOT has special strict mode. ←
15:52:29 <gavinc> steaming nature bing the issue
Gavin Carothers: steaming nature bing the issue ←
15:52:42 <sandro> sandro: I think it would be good to have some "validating" parsers, parsers which can pass negative syntax tests.
Sandro Hawke: I think it would be good to have some "validating" parsers, parsers which can pass negative syntax tests. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:52:55 <AZ> ericP: negative test make sure that some things are not misinterpreted by some parsers
Eric Prud'hommeaux: negative test make sure that some things are not misinterpreted by some parsers ←
15:53:37 <sandro> gavin: we need to be able to emit some triples before failing
Gavin Carothers: we need to be able to emit some triples before failing [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:53:39 <AZ> gavinc: issues with streaming parsers
Gavin Carothers: issues with streaming parsers ←
15:53:48 <AndyS> some triples and an error is a "no"
Andy Seaborne: some triples and an error is a "no" ←
15:53:53 <sandro> +1 allow parser to emit triples before saying NOT-TURTLE.
Sandro Hawke: +1 allow parser to emit triples before saying NOT-TURTLE. ←
15:54:01 <AZ> ericP: I don't think streaming would be problem
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I don't think streaming would be problem ←
15:54:25 <gkellogg> Yes, I'll emit triples too, but raise an error on invalid input.
Gregg Kellogg: Yes, I'll emit triples too, but raise an error on invalid input. ←
15:54:32 <AZ> sandro: we are ok with having negative syntax test
Sandro Hawke: we are ok with having negative syntax tests ←
15:54:34 <AndyS> (or read to tmp place)
Andy Seaborne: (or read to tmp place) ←
15:54:37 <AZ> s/test/tests/
15:55:06 <sandro> consensus -- we're okay with having negative syntax tests, as long as it's okay to emit some triples before rejecting the input as not strictly turtle
Sandro Hawke: consensus -- we're okay with having negative syntax tests, as long as it's okay to emit some triples before rejecting the input as not strictly turtle ←
15:55:35 <AZ> ericP: catalogue the tests we have in terms of features tested
Eric Prud'hommeaux: catalogue the tests we have in terms of features tested ←
15:56:29 <AZ> ... test points to relevantdocument parts
... test points to relevant document parts ←
15:56:45 <AZ> s/relevantdocument/relevant document/
15:58:18 <sandro> subtopic: Can a turtle parser normalize xsd data?
15:57:51 <gkellogg> Serialize "foo" or "foo"^^xsd:string?
Gregg Kellogg: Serialize "foo" or "foo"^^xsd:string? ←
15:58:27 <AZ> ericP: if we write the tests according to their equivalent in N-triples, the Turtle will look very much like the N-triples
Eric Prud'hommeaux: if we write the tests according to their equivalent in N-triples, the Turtle will look very much like the N-triples ←
15:58:44 <sandro> eric: we could just make sure none of the test push against this.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we could just make sure none of the test push against this. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:59:01 <sandro> eric: So, let's just test canonical forms for datatype literals.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: So, let's just test canonical forms for datatype literals. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:59:12 <sandro> +1 that should work
Sandro Hawke: +1 that should work ←
16:00:01 <sandro> eric: XSD 1.0 vs XSD 1.1 doubles with trailing zero
Eric Prud'hommeaux: XSD 1.0 vs XSD 1.1 doubles with trailing zero [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:00:15 <AndyS> write the tests so NT has the exact same lexical form as input.
Andy Seaborne: write the tests so NT has the exact same lexical form as input. ←
16:00:48 <sandro> sandro: Let's just avoid anything like "1."^^xs:double or "1.0"^^xs:double
Sandro Hawke: Let's just avoid anything like "1."^^xs:double or "1.0"^^xs:double [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:02:02 <AZ> Guus: who's going to define the tests and the features tested
Guus Schreiber: who's going to define the tests and the features tested ←
16:02:47 <AZ> gavinc: I'd be happy to do that but it would be good to have support from someone else
Gavin Carothers: I'd be happy to do that but it would be good to have support from someone else ←
16:02:55 <AZ> gkellogg: ok to do it
Gregg Kellogg: ok to do it ←
16:02:58 <sandro> +1 gkellogg doing turtle test results reporting!
Sandro Hawke: +1 gkellogg doing turtle test results reporting! ←
16:03:12 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
16:03:23 <gavinc> q?
Gavin Carothers: q? ←
16:04:28 <sandro> +1 yes, the report generation -- making and colating EARL reports
Sandro Hawke: +1 yes, the report generation -- making and colating EARL reports ←
16:04:59 <gavinc> can help with hosting as well
Gavin Carothers: can help with hosting as well ←
16:05:25 <AZ> sandro: implementers should send EARL report or at least the tests passed
Sandro Hawke: implementers should send EARL report or at least the tests passed ←
16:05:30 <AndyS> q-
Andy Seaborne: q- ←
16:05:48 <sandro> sandro: I'm just asking for someone to be accepting the list of tests pasts, and generating a page of red/green test results.
Sandro Hawke: I'm just asking for someone to be accepting the list of tests pasts, and generating a page of red/green test results. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:06:35 <ericP> ACTION: ericP to document the testable features of Turtle
ACTION: ericP to document the testable features of Turtle ←
16:07:11 <AZ> Guus: we don't need to resolve featurse at risks
Guus Schreiber: we don't need to resolve features at risks ←
16:07:12 <sandro> Guus: gkellogg will maintain the implementation/test-results report
Guus Schreiber: gkellogg will maintain the implementation/test-results report [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:07:26 <AZ> s/featurse/features/
16:07:31 <AndyS> err .. "at risk" is OK for LC ... but CR?
Andy Seaborne: err .. "at risk" is OK for LC ... but CR? ←
16:09:02 <AZ> sandro: at risk means we wait for implementations to see
Sandro Hawke: at risk means we wait for implementations to see ←
16:10:14 <gavinc> fgandon
Gavin Carothers: fgandon ←
16:10:28 <AndyS> I thought NT was to be a separate doc.
Andy Seaborne: I thought NT was to be a separate doc. ←
16:11:11 <gavinc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#
Gavin Carothers: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html# ←
16:12:44 <sandro> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar
Sandro Hawke: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar ←
16:12:44 <gavinc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar feature at risk
Gavin Carothers: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar feature at risk ←
16:13:38 <gavinc> -0.9 :P so no you can't resolve it now :P
Gavin Carothers: -0.9 :P so no you can't resolve it now :P ←
16:13:50 <cygri> scribe: cygri
(Scribe set to Richard Cyganiak)
16:14:26 <cygri> [discussion of tests]
[discussion of tests] ←
16:14:37 <cygri> q?
q? ←
16:14:39 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
16:15:00 <cygri> Arnaud: Turtle's conformance section forces us to do negative tests
Arnaud Le Hors: Turtle's conformance section forces us to do negative tests ←
16:15:13 <gavinc> "This specification does not define how Turtle parsers handle non-conforming input documents."
Gavin Carothers: "This specification does not define how Turtle parsers handle non-conforming input documents." ←
16:15:15 <gavinc> No, it doesn't.
Gavin Carothers: No, it doesn't. ←
16:15:25 <sandro> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#conformance
Sandro Hawke: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#conformance ←
16:15:25 <ericP> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#conformance
Eric Prud'hommeaux: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/187f33366805/rdf-turtle/index.html#conformance ←
16:15:28 <cygri> sandro: are you looking at the right version?
Sandro Hawke: are you looking at the right version? ←
16:15:43 <cygri> Arnaud: no, sorry, nevermind
Arnaud Le Hors: no, sorry, nevermind ←
16:16:21 <Zakim> -Gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -Gavinc ←
16:17:03 <cygri> topic: Issue cleanup
16:17:17 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
16:17:19 <cygri> ivan: I'm looking at the open issues for the WG
Ivan Herman: I'm looking at the open issues for the WG ←
16:17:33 <cygri> ... there are more open graphs issues
... there are more open graphs issues ←
16:17:49 <cygri> ISSUE-23?
16:17:51 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/1
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/1 ←
16:17:53 <cygri> ISSUE-31?
16:17:55 <cygri> ISSUE-35?
16:17:58 <cygri> ISSUE-38?
16:18:09 <cygri> https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23
https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23 ←
16:18:16 <sandro> 23 == Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types?
Sandro Hawke: 23 == Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types? ←
16:18:17 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
16:18:56 <cygri> guus: do we have discussed concepts-semantics-relationship sufficiently?
Guus Schreiber: do we have discussed concepts-semantics-relationship sufficiently? ←
16:18:58 <cygri> cygri: I think yes
Richard Cyganiak: I think yes ←
16:19:13 <cygri> ISSUE-23?
16:19:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-23 -- Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-23 -- Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types? -- open ←
16:19:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23 ←
16:19:36 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
16:20:19 <cygri> ack me
ack me ←
16:20:34 <cygri> cygri: JSON-LD is currently a single- and multigraph syntax
Richard Cyganiak: JSON-LD is currently a single- and multigraph syntax ←
16:20:40 <cygri> guus: ok, let's not discuss now
Guus Schreiber: ok, let's not discuss now ←
16:20:42 <sandro> cygri: JSON-LD is multigraph and single graph!
Richard Cyganiak: JSON-LD is multigraph and single graph! [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:20:42 <sandro> sandro: damn.
Sandro Hawke: damn. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:20:46 <cygri> ISSUE-31?
16:20:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-31 -- Do we produce a standard (REC) syntax for conveying multiple graphs? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-31 -- Do we produce a standard (REC) syntax for conveying multiple graphs? -- open ←
16:20:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/31
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/31 ←
16:21:09 <cygri> ivan: this is to be closed, we have a resolution
Ivan Herman: this is to be closed, we have a resolution ←
16:21:22 <cygri> ISSUE-35?
16:21:22 <trackbot> ISSUE-35 -- Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-35 -- Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? -- open ←
16:21:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35 ←
16:21:40 <cygri> sandro: we decided to do that maybe in a Note
Sandro Hawke: we decided to do that maybe in a Note ←
16:21:45 <cygri> ... so it can be closed
... so it can be closed ←
16:21:47 <cygri> ISSUE-38
16:21:50 <cygri> ISSUE-38?
16:21:50 <trackbot> ISSUE-38 -- What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-38 -- What new vocabulary should be added to RDF to talk about graphs? -- open ←
16:21:50 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/38
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/38 ←
16:21:58 <sandro> issue-31 is admin -- we've already agreed on stuff that closes this.
Sandro Hawke: ISSUE-31 is admin -- we've already agreed on stuff that closes this. ←
16:22:48 <sandro> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-28 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-28 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE ←
16:22:58 <sandro> PROPOSED: close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE ←
16:23:05 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
16:23:11 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:23:12 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
16:23:13 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:23:14 <cygri> +1
+1 ←
16:23:15 <pchampin> +1
16:23:29 <yvesr> (but noting it would be great to have that note :) )
Yves Raimond: (but noting it would be great to have that note :) ) ←
16:23:32 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
16:23:34 <cygri> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-38 saying we're not going to do these in a REC, but might something like this in a WG NOTE ←
16:23:50 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
16:24:41 <cygri> ISSUE-95?
16:24:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-95 -- Turtle Inverse Property Syntax -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-95 -- Turtle Inverse Property Syntax -- open ←
16:24:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/95
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/95 ←
16:26:01 <davidwood> Closed ISSUE-31 via the Web
David Wood: Closed ISSUE-31 via the Web ←
16:26:12 <cygri> cygri: we have issues left in RDF General and Cleanup tasks
Richard Cyganiak: we have issues left in RDF General and Cleanup tasks ←
16:26:12 <davidwood> The resolution was here: RESOLVED: We will produce a W3C Recommendation for a dataset syntax, similar to TriG and to SPARQL's named graph syntax. This does not preclude recommending a syntax like n-quads. http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-03#resolution_2
David Wood: The resolution was here: RESOLVED: We will produce a W3C Recommendation for a dataset syntax, similar to TriG and to SPARQL's named graph syntax. This does not preclude recommending a syntax like n-quads. http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-03#resolution_2 ←
16:26:23 <cygri> guus: we should go through all remaining open issues tomorrow
Guus Schreiber: we should go through all remaining open issues tomorrow ←
16:27:00 <cygri> davidwood: we have mostly syntax issues left
David Wood: we have mostly syntax issues left ←
16:27:31 <davidwood> …and Notes
David Wood: …and Notes ←
16:28:47 <cygri> [discussion of scheduling for tomorrow]
[discussion of scheduling for tomorrow] ←
16:29:19 <cygri> RRSAgent, make logs public
RRSAgent, make logs public ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#3) generated 2012-10-29 17:56:53 UTC by 'rcygania2', comments: None