15:54:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/16-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/01/16-rdf-wg-irc ←
15:54:32 <davidwood> Zakim, this is rdf
David Wood: Zakim, this is rdf ←
15:54:33 <Zakim> davidwood, I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be rdf".
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be rdf". ←
15:54:44 <davidwood> Zakim, this will be rdf
David Wood: Zakim, this will be rdf ←
15:54:44 <Zakim> ok, davidwood; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, davidwood; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes ←
15:55:05 <davidwood> Chair: David Wood
15:55:23 <davidwood> I think we will need a scribe replacement...
David Wood: I think we will need a scribe replacement... ←
15:57:46 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started ←
15:57:53 <Zakim> +Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus ←
15:58:09 <Zakim> +bhyland
Zakim IRC Bot: +bhyland ←
15:58:26 <davidwood> Zakim, bhyland is me
David Wood: Zakim, bhyland is me ←
15:58:27 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it ←
15:59:49 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
15:59:55 <ericP> Zakim, GVoice is me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, GVoice is me ←
15:59:55 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP; got it ←
16:00:31 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
16:00:44 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
16:00:50 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P14 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P14 is me ←
16:00:50 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
16:01:35 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
16:01:56 <Zakim> +GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: +GavinC ←
16:02:04 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Yves Raimond: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
16:02:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, davidwood, ericP, ??P13, SteveH, Arnaud, GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Guus, davidwood, ericP, ??P13, SteveH, Arnaud, GavinC ←
16:02:09 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P13 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P13 is me ←
16:02:10 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it ←
16:02:21 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
16:02:32 <Zakim> + +1.617.838.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.838.aaaa ←
16:02:35 <Zakim> +??P24
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P24 ←
16:02:40 <TallTed> Zakim, aaaa is me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, aaaa is me ←
16:02:40 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
16:02:46 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:02:47 <AZ> Zakim, ??P24 is me
Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, ??P24 is me ←
16:02:48 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←
16:02:48 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
16:02:49 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
16:02:49 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
16:03:10 <Zakim> + +1.408.992.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.408.992.aabb ←
16:03:15 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:03:25 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
16:03:25 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
16:04:00 <Zakim> +cygri
Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri ←
16:04:03 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
16:04:03 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
16:04:04 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
16:04:25 <Zakim> +??P26
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P26 ←
16:04:35 <markus> zakim, ??P26 is me
Markus Lanthaler: zakim, ??P26 is me ←
16:04:35 <Zakim> +markus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +markus; got it ←
16:04:49 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-01-09
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-01-09 ←
16:05:34 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.650.265.aacc ←
16:05:49 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aacc is me
Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.650.265.aacc is me ←
16:05:49 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it ←
16:05:51 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
16:05:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, davidwood, ericP, yvesr, SteveH, Arnaud, GavinC, Sandro, TallTed (muted), AZ, +1.408.992.aabb, AndyS, cygri, Ivan, markus, zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Guus, davidwood, ericP, yvesr, SteveH, Arnaud, GavinC, Sandro, TallTed (muted), AZ, +1.408.992.aabb, AndyS, cygri, Ivan, markus, zwu2 ←
16:05:52 <zwu2> zakim, mute me
16:05:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see zwu2, gavinc, AndyS, Arnaud, markus, AZ, Guus, RRSAgent, Zakim, cygri, tbaker, FabGandon, TallTed, gkellogg, ivan, SteveH, trackbot, mischat, davidwood, manu1, manu,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zwu2, gavinc, AndyS, Arnaud, markus, AZ, Guus, RRSAgent, Zakim, cygri, tbaker, FabGandon, TallTed, gkellogg, ivan, SteveH, trackbot, mischat, davidwood, manu1, manu, ←
16:05:55 <Zakim> ... yvesr, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... yvesr, sandro, ericP ←
16:05:55 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should now be muted ←
16:06:08 <cygri> scribe: cygri
(Scribe set to Richard Cyganiak)
16:06:15 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:06:16 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 9 January telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-01-09
David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 9 January telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-01-09 ←
16:06:29 <cygri> topic: Minutes of last meeting
16:06:47 <cygri> sandro: i fixed the problem in last week's minutes
Sandro Hawke: i fixed the problem in last week's minutes ←
16:07:03 <cygri> RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of the 9 January telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-01-09\
RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of the 9 January telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-01-09 ←
16:07:10 <davidwood> Review of action items
David Wood: Review of action items ←
16:07:10 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview ←
16:07:10 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open ←
16:07:16 <cygri> s/09\/09/
16:07:23 <cygri> topic: Review of action items
16:07:33 <gavinc> ACTION-190 was done a while ago?
Gavin Carothers: ACTION-190 was done a while ago? ←
16:07:33 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
16:07:57 <davidwood> ack AZ
David Wood: ack AZ ←
16:08:15 <cygri> AZ: I had an action to complete for yesterday; it's not yet finished
Antoine Zimmermann: I had an action to complete for yesterday; it's not yet finished ←
16:08:24 <cygri> … drafting the document on dataset semantics
… drafting the document on dataset semantics ←
16:08:35 <cygri> … hope to have a draft by end of the week, or beginning of next
… hope to have a draft by end of the week, or beginning of next ←
16:08:47 <cygri> … how do i publish it on the w3c server?
… how do i publish it on the w3c server? ←
16:09:06 <cygri> ivan: you should be able to write to mercurial
Ivan Herman: you should be able to write to mercurial ←
16:09:15 <cygri> … open a new folder, edit it there, and commit it
… open a new folder, edit it there, and commit it ←
16:09:25 <Zakim> + +33.4.92.96.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +33.4.92.96.aadd ←
16:09:33 <cygri> … once it becomes a proper W3C publication, webmaster copies it from mercurial
… once it becomes a proper W3C publication, webmaster copies it from mercurial ←
16:09:55 <cygri> davidwood: we will need to extend the charter soon
David Wood: we will need to extend the charter soon ←
16:10:00 <FabGandon> Zakim, +33.4.92.96.aadd is me
Fabien Gandon: Zakim, +33.4.92.96.aadd is me ←
16:10:00 <Zakim> +FabGandon; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +FabGandon; got it ←
16:10:01 <cygri> … so need to get our documents in order
… so need to get our documents in order ←
16:10:14 <cygri> … guus, status of the primer?
… guus, status of the primer? ←
16:10:20 <cygri> Guus: not much progress since last time
Guus Schreiber: not much progress since last time ←
16:10:39 <cygri> davidwood: we will need to get some work done in the next weeks to avoid embarrassment
David Wood: we will need to get some work done in the next weeks to avoid embarrassment ←
16:10:43 <davidwood> Topic: RDF Concepts
16:10:45 <cygri> scribe: gavinc
(Scribe set to Gavin Carothers)
16:10:46 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
16:10:46 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
16:10:56 <cygri> davidwood: we have some open issues
David Wood: we have some open issues [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
16:11:18 <cygri> … i think some of them can be handled quickly, others may need more discussion
Richard Cyganiak: … i think some of them can be handled quickly, others may need more discussion ←
16:11:22 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105: Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105: Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation ←
16:11:34 <cygri> ISSUE-105?
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-105? ←
16:11:34 <trackbot> ISSUE-105 -- Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-105 -- Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation -- open ←
16:11:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105 ←
16:12:35 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
16:12:45 <gavinc> cygri: This is a nebulous issue, there are multiple parts. One is the media types of graphs vs datasets
Richard Cyganiak: This is a nebulous issue, there are multiple parts. One is the media types of graphs vs datasets ←
16:13:03 <gavinc> ... this came up with JSON-LD.
... this came up with JSON-LD. ←
16:13:38 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
16:13:41 <gavinc> ... another is how do fragment identifiers work in datasets? If you have graph names with fragments does that mean anything?
... another is how do fragment identifiers work in datasets? If you have graph names with fragments does that mean anything? ←
16:14:24 <gavinc> ... I think the summary from before Christmas was that if we don't say anything that Datasets and Graphs can be used interchangeably. That's what people will do if we don't say anything anyway
... I think the summary from before Christmas was that if we don't say anything that Datasets and Graphs can be used interchangeably. That's what people will do if we don't say anything anyway ←
16:15:00 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
16:15:01 <gavinc> ... if we do say anything about the relationship between Datasets and Graphs we may be creeping back into defining dataset semantics which we said we wouldn't do.
... if we do say anything about the relationship between Datasets and Graphs we may be creeping back into defining dataset semantics which we said we wouldn't do. ←
16:15:19 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
16:15:30 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
16:15:51 <gavinc> davidwood: Goal is to determine if we can close this quickly
David Wood: Goal is to determine if we can close this quickly ←
16:16:03 <gavinc> sandro: I think JSON-LD says something about this
Sandro Hawke: I think JSON-LD says something about this ←
16:16:48 <pfps> Is Sandro saying that one can always return a trig document when an rdf graph is being requested?
Peter Patel-Schneider: Is Sandro saying that one can always return a trig document when an rdf graph is being requested? ←
16:17:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
16:17:11 <LeeF> zakim, IPcaller is me
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, IPcaller is me ←
16:17:11 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF; got it ←
16:17:18 <gavinc> davidwood: No, pfps, I don't think he said that.
David Wood: No, pfps, I don't think he said that. ←
16:17:19 <AndyS> Does not reflect concern on the list from Steve IIRC.
Andy Seaborne: Does not reflect concern on the list from Steve IIRC. ←
16:17:20 <LeeF> zakim, mute me please
Lee Feigenbaum: zakim, mute me please ←
16:17:21 <Zakim> LeeF should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: LeeF should now be muted ←
16:17:29 <Zakim> +??P36
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P36 ←
16:17:36 <sandro> PROPOSED: We advise people that when they are trying to get a graph and get a dataset instead (in Trig or JSON-LD), it's okay to just use the default graph as your graph, without issuing a warning or error.
PROPOSED: We advise people that when they are trying to get a graph and get a dataset instead (in Trig or JSON-LD), it's okay to just use the default graph as your graph, without issuing a warning or error. ←
16:17:44 <gavinc> pfps: If your asking for a graph you should never get back a dataset
Peter Patel-Schneider: If your asking for a graph you should never get back a dataset ←
16:18:04 <davidwood> ok
David Wood: ok ←
16:18:08 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
16:18:27 <Zakim> + +1.415.686.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.415.686.aaee ←
16:18:33 <gkellogg> zakim, I am aaee
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am aaee ←
16:18:33 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
16:18:35 <SteveH> +1 to pfps
Steve Harris: +1 to pfps ←
16:18:54 <gavinc> pfps: If I ask for a RDF document, and I get back something else, what should I do?
Peter Patel-Schneider: If I ask for a RDF document, and I get back something else, what should I do? ←
16:19:18 <gavinc> sandro: if you can't parse the TriG document you clearly you can't do anything
Sandro Hawke: if you can't parse the TriG document you clearly you can't do anything ←
16:19:20 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
16:19:23 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
16:19:27 <gavinc> ... but if you can, use the default graph
... but if you can, use the default graph ←
16:19:36 <davidwood> -1 from PatH (via phone)
David Wood: -1 from PatH (via phone) ←
16:19:43 <gavinc> pfps: if this is acceptable then providers will do it.
Peter Patel-Schneider: if this is acceptable then providers will do it. ←
16:19:47 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/106: Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/106: Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics ←
16:19:51 <Arnaud> should we really specify how an error is to be handled?
Arnaud Le Hors: should we really specify how an error is to be handled? ←
16:19:52 <SteveH> you absolutely should not interpret the default graph as if it were graph content
Steve Harris: you absolutely should not interpret the default graph as if it were graph content ←
16:19:53 <gavinc> davidwood: Moving on.
David Wood: Moving on. ←
16:19:54 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
16:19:55 <pfps> -1 from me because of implementation burden
Peter Patel-Schneider: -1 from me because of implementation burden ←
16:19:56 <cygri> ISSUE-106?
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-106? ←
16:19:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-106 -- Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-106 -- Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics -- open ←
16:19:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/106
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/106 ←
16:20:25 <gavinc> cygri: Mostly editoral. There is some content that moved between them.
Richard Cyganiak: Mostly editoral. There is some content that moved between them. ←
16:20:47 <gavinc> ... I guess this is mostly editoral, but I would like to keep open until there is a RDF Semantics draft
... I guess this is mostly editoral, but I would like to keep open until there is a RDF Semantics draft ←
16:21:10 <gavinc> davidwood: Propose to close?
David Wood: Propose to close? ←
16:21:42 <gavinc> cygri: I would like to keep it open, as there will be some work in the semantics draft...
Richard Cyganiak: I would like to keep it open, as there will be some work in the semantics draft... ←
16:22:01 <gavinc> PatH: I think they are all just editoral, no diffrence of opinion
Patrick Hayes: I think they are all just editoral, no diffrence of opinion ←
16:22:45 <gavinc> cygri: I would like to have a marker in the concepts, so that I can refer to the fact that there isn't a semantics draft for RDF concepts to point to
Richard Cyganiak: I would like to have a marker in the concepts, so that I can refer to the fact that there isn't a semantics draft for RDF concepts to point to ←
16:22:47 <TallTed> it's useful for bookkeeping; seems reasonable to leave it and move on
Ted Thibodeau: it's useful for bookkeeping; seems reasonable to leave it and move on ←
16:23:11 <gavinc> cygri: if the chairs are happier with it closed and an action instead that's fine
Richard Cyganiak: if the chairs are happier with it closed and an action instead that's fine ←
16:23:35 <gavinc> davidwood: I prefer to close and turn into action.
David Wood: I prefer to close and turn into action. ←
16:23:44 <gavinc> cygri: I'll do that.
Richard Cyganiak: I'll do that. ←
16:23:59 <gavinc> cygri: I raised it, I can close it?
Richard Cyganiak: I raised it, I can close it? ←
16:24:11 <gavinc> davidwood: Prefer to close and refer to action
David Wood: Prefer to close and refer to action ←
16:24:21 <gavinc> PatH: Ringing off
Patrick Hayes: Ringing off ←
16:24:27 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
16:24:56 <gavinc> ACTION on PatH to work with cygri to make there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics
ACTION on PatH to work with cygri to make there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics ←
16:24:56 <trackbot> Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/users>.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/users>. ←
16:25:03 <gavinc> ACTION PatH to work with cygri to make there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics
ACTION PatH to work with cygri to make there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics ←
16:25:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-221 - Work with cygri to make there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics [on Patrick Hayes - due 2013-01-23].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-221 - Work with cygri to make there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics [on Patrick Hayes - due 2013-01-23]. ←
16:25:30 <gavinc> CLOSE ISSUE-106 Converted to ACTION-221
CLOSE ISSUE-106 Converted to ACTION-221 ←
16:25:47 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to work with PatH to make sure there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics
ACTION: cygri to work with PatH to make sure there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics ←
16:25:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-222 - Work with PatH to make sure there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2013-01-23].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-222 - Work with PatH to make sure there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2013-01-23]. ←
16:25:54 <gavinc> CLOSE ISSUE-106
16:25:54 <trackbot> Closed ISSUE-106 Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ISSUE-106 Relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics. ←
16:25:57 <cygri> ACTION-222?
Richard Cyganiak: ACTION-222? ←
16:25:57 <trackbot> ACTION-222 -- Richard Cyganiak to work with PatH to make sure there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics -- due 2013-01-23 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-222 -- Richard Cyganiak to work with PatH to make sure there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics -- due 2013-01-23 -- OPEN ←
16:25:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/222
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/222 ←
16:26:30 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107: Revised definition of blank nodes
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107: Revised definition of blank nodes ←
16:26:31 <gavinc> ISSUE-107
16:26:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open ←
16:26:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107 ←
16:26:34 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
16:26:34 <ivan> trackbot, associate ACTION-222 with ISSUE-106
Ivan Herman: trackbot, associate ACTION-222 with ISSUE-106 ←
16:26:35 <trackbot> ACTION-222 (Work with PatH to make sure there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics) associated with ISSUE-106.
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-222 (Work with PatH to make sure there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics) associated with ISSUE-106. ←
16:27:00 <gavinc> cygri: We didn't resolve this in the last WD
Richard Cyganiak: We didn't resolve this in the last WD ←
16:27:26 <TallTed> trackbot, associate ACTION-221 with ISSUE-106
Ted Thibodeau: trackbot, associate ACTION-221 with ISSUE-106 ←
16:27:26 <trackbot> ACTION-221 (Work with cygri to make there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics) associated with ISSUE-106.
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-221 (Work with cygri to make there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics) associated with ISSUE-106. ←
16:27:30 <gavinc> ... next step to work with AZ to take one of the proposals and make both of us happy with it.
... next step to work with AZ to take one of the proposals and make both of us happy with it. ←
16:27:47 <gavinc> ack az
ack az ←
16:28:00 <gavinc> AZ: drafted a mail but didn't send it
Antoine Zimmermann: drafted a mail but didn't send it ←
16:28:12 <gavinc> ... I just have to find it and complete it in the next few days
... I just have to find it and complete it in the next few days ←
16:28:18 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/109: What's the consequence of a literal being ill-typed?
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/109: What's the consequence of a literal being ill-typed? ←
16:28:21 <ericP> i'm getting pressure to go to another call and don't think i'm critical here
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i'm getting pressure to go to another call and don't think i'm critical here ←
16:28:25 <gavinc> ISSUE-109
16:28:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-109 -- What's the consequence of a literal being ill-typed? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-109 -- What's the consequence of a literal being ill-typed? -- open ←
16:28:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/109
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/109 ←
16:28:49 <gavinc> davidwood: Lots of disciusion, no resolution
David Wood: Lots of discussion, no resolution ←
16:29:12 <gavinc> cygri: One way of doing this is making it part of the semantics. PatH said there was a way of doing that that makes sense to him.
Richard Cyganiak: One way of doing this is making it part of the semantics. PatH said there was a way of doing that that makes sense to him. ←
16:29:24 <gavinc> ... there would also need to be a small edit to RDF Concepts to make it happen.
... there would also need to be a small edit to RDF Concepts to make it happen. ←
16:29:26 <gkellogg> s/disciusion/discussion/
16:29:35 <ericP> -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/tip/rdf-turtle/coverage/tests/ atomic tests for Turtle
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/tip/rdf-turtle/coverage/tests/ atomic tests for Turtle ←
16:29:42 <ericP> (committed after much pain)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (committed after much pain) ←
16:29:46 <gavinc> ... it might be controversial
... it might be controversial ←
16:29:52 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:30:12 <gavinc> ... some clarification about what applications are supposed to do with malformed typed literals? is it an error or not?
... some clarification about what applications are supposed to do with malformed typed literals? is it an error or not? ←
16:30:20 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
16:30:24 <gavinc> pfps: If it's an error then where is the error message?
Peter Patel-Schneider: If it's an error then where is the error message? ←
16:30:30 <gavinc> ... it's NOT an error!
... it's NOT an error! ←
16:30:43 <gavinc> ... It's perfectly fine as far as RDF is concerned
... It's perfectly fine as far as RDF is concerned ←
16:30:46 <gavinc> ... what's the issue?
... what's the issue? ←
16:30:58 <gavinc> cygri: The issue is that the datatype can't assign a value.
Richard Cyganiak: The issue is that the datatype can't assign a value. ←
16:31:23 <gavinc> ... it clearly is an error, someone did something wrong publishing that data.
... it clearly is an error, someone did something wrong publishing that data. ←
16:31:37 <gavinc> ... You shouldn't be publishing that kind of data.
... You shouldn't be publishing that kind of data. ←
16:31:51 <gavinc> ... is this an error or not? The current spec doesn't say one way or another
... is this an error or not? The current spec doesn't say one way or another ←
16:31:59 <gavinc> pfps: I think everything is perfectly clear.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think everything is perfectly clear. ←
16:32:07 <gavinc> pfps: It isn't an error.
Peter Patel-Schneider: It isn't an error. ←
16:32:13 <gavinc> pfps: How can it be an error?
Peter Patel-Schneider: How can it be an error? ←
16:32:31 <yvesr> +1 with cygri - we should be clear on that, and it should be flagged by applications
Yves Raimond: +1 with cygri - we should be clear on that, and it should be flagged by applications ←
16:32:35 <gavinc> davidwood: any time the spec talks about an inconsistent graph...
David Wood: any time the spec talks about an inconsistent graph... ←
16:32:48 <pchampin> q+
16:32:49 <gavinc> sandro: An error is when someone does something they aren't supposed to do.
Sandro Hawke: An error is when someone does something they aren't supposed to do. ←
16:32:59 <gavinc> pfps: an error is when the system barfs
Peter Patel-Schneider: an error is when the system barfs ←
16:33:02 <LeeF> If we don't agree on what an error is then it doesn't seem so productive to discuss whether this condition is an error or not :)
Lee Feigenbaum: If we don't agree on what an error is then it doesn't seem so productive to discuss whether this condition is an error or not :) ←
16:33:06 <cygri> RDF 2004 says: "Such a case, while in error, is not syntactically ill-formed."
Richard Cyganiak: RDF 2004 says: "Such a case, while in error, is not syntactically ill-formed." ←
16:33:14 <TallTed> a mistyped literal, like "abc" typed as a datetime. that seems like an error...
Ted Thibodeau: a mistyped literal, like "abc" typed as a datetime. that seems like an error... ←
16:33:27 <AndyS> Quote text.
Andy Seaborne: Quote text. ←
16:33:33 <pchampin> q-
16:33:40 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
16:33:58 <gavinc> sandro: Lexical space provided by a regular expression...
Sandro Hawke: Lexical space provided by a regular expression... ←
16:34:09 <gavinc> pfps: if you go outside, stuff happens, but it's not an error
Peter Patel-Schneider: if you go outside, stuff happens, but it's not an error ←
16:34:22 <gavinc> ... then you need to have an error condition and error return
... then you need to have an error condition and error return ←
16:34:38 <gavinc> cygri: RDF Concepts says there is an error
Richard Cyganiak: 2004 RDF Concepts says there is an error ←
16:34:43 <gavinc> pfps: Then RDF Concepts is wrong.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Then RDF Concepts is wrong. ←
16:34:51 <gavinc> ... there should be some handling method for that error
... there should be some handling method for that error ←
16:35:02 <davidwood> s/RDF Concepts says there is an error/2004 RDF Concepts says there is an error/
16:35:20 <gavinc> cygri: No, it doesn't say what happens when you use a language tag that isn't a language, it doesn't say what to do if you use an IRI that isn't an IRI
Richard Cyganiak: No, it doesn't say what happens when you use a language tag that isn't a language, it doesn't say what to do if you use an IRI that isn't an IRI ←
16:35:34 <gavinc> pchampin: A data model can have an illtyped literal
Peter Patel-Schneider: A data model can have an illtyped literal ←
16:36:06 <gavinc> cygri: RDF 2004 says that in the case of an ill-typed it is an error but not a syntax error
Richard Cyganiak: RDF 2004 says that in the case of an ill-typed it is an error but not a syntax error ←
16:36:20 <gavinc> s/pchampin/pfps
16:36:30 <gavinc> pfps: It's a stupid thing to do, but not an "error"
Peter Patel-Schneider: It's a stupid thing to do, but not an "error" ←
16:36:39 <gavinc> cygri: I would like it to be an error
Richard Cyganiak: I would like it to be an error ←
16:36:47 <yvesr> should we do a strawpoll on whether we think it should be an error or not?
Yves Raimond: should we do a strawpoll on whether we think it should be an error or not? ←
16:36:53 <gavinc> pfps: That would be a change to the RDF Semantics
Peter Patel-Schneider: That would be a change to the RDF Semantics ←
16:36:57 <pchampin> I would like it to be an inconsistency as well
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I would like it to be an inconsistency as well ←
16:37:11 <davidwood> yvesr, we know now that we will not agree...
David Wood: yvesr, we know now that we will not agree... ←
16:37:20 <gavinc> sandro: Do I have to accept it? Do I have to ignore it? What do I do?
Sandro Hawke: Do I have to accept it? Do I have to ignore it? What do I do? ←
16:37:25 <gavinc> pfps: I'd like to keep doing what I do today, I accept it.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'd like to keep doing what I do today, I accept it. ←
16:38:11 <davidwood> AZ, can you please put that in the minutes?
David Wood: AZ, can you please put that in the minutes? ←
16:38:40 <sandro> so it's "in error" but not "an error" ?
Sandro Hawke: so it's "in error" but not "an error" ? ←
16:38:40 <AZ> I think that RDF 2004 saying "... while in error, is not syntactically ill formed" is actally meaning "... while stupid as hell, is not formally an error"
Antoine Zimmermann: I think that RDF 2004 saying "... while in error, is not syntactically ill formed" is actally meaning "... while stupid as hell, is not formally an error" ←
16:38:57 <sandro> +1 cygri it should be an inconsistency
Sandro Hawke: +1 cygri it should be an inconsistency ←
16:39:00 <gavinc> cygri: Semantics is strange in this regard. It would be simple to say that the presence of an ill typed literal creates an inconsistency
Richard Cyganiak: Semantics is strange in this regard. It would be simple to say that the presence of an ill typed literal creates an inconsistency ←
16:39:01 <AndyS> May not know the datatype map. Hence need to deal with it in some sense. Inconsistency is unknown.
Andy Seaborne: May not know the datatype map. Hence need to deal with it in some sense. Inconsistency is unknown. ←
16:39:06 <gavinc> pfps: That requires a change to the RDF Semantics
Peter Patel-Schneider: That requires a change to the RDF Semantics ←
16:39:27 <gavinc> davidwood: I think he did propose that.
David Wood: I think he did propose that. ←
16:39:41 <gavinc> pfps: Right now we have two documents that say error where there is no error.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Right now we have two documents that say error where there is no error. ←
16:40:10 <gavinc> cygri: We need to address this, we should change this from a Concepts into a Semantics issue.
Richard Cyganiak: We need to address this, we should change this from a Concepts into a Semantics issue. ←
16:40:46 <gavinc> davidwood: is there a pointer to the resolution being talked about in IRC?
David Wood: is there a pointer to the proposal being talked about in IRC? ←
16:41:11 <AndyS> s/resolution/proposal/
16:41:24 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0268.html
Andy Seaborne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Nov/0268.html ←
16:41:38 <gavinc> davidwood: PatH says he's fine with that. pfps you disagree?
David Wood: PatH says he's fine with that. pfps you disagree? ←
16:42:02 <gavinc> pfps: If the change is going to be made, it needs to be made correctly.
Peter Patel-Schneider: If the change is going to be made, it needs to be made correctly. ←
16:42:27 <gavinc> pfps: That proposal doesn't make sense.
Peter Patel-Schneider: That proposal doesn't make sense. ←
16:43:15 <gavinc> cygri: I don't know how to change that proposal into the semantics.
Richard Cyganiak: I don't know how to change that proposal into the semantics. ←
16:43:40 <gavinc> ... the mecanics would need to be worked out.
... the mecanics would need to be worked out. ←
16:44:09 <gavinc> pfps: The proposal is kind of weird. In any D entailment... ... ... ...
Peter Patel-Schneider: The proposal is kind of weird. In any D entailment... ... ... ... ←
16:44:50 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:44:56 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
16:44:57 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me ←
16:44:58 <Zakim> Ivan was not muted, ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan was not muted, ivan ←
16:45:02 <gavinc> davidwood: hoping to move on...
David Wood: hoping to move on... ←
16:45:13 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
16:45:26 <gavinc> ivan: What pfps described for D entailment, don't we already have that for XMLLiterals?
Ivan Herman: What pfps described for D entailment, don't we already have that for XMLLiterals? ←
16:45:55 <gavinc> cygri: The pure presense of an ill-typed literal doesn't cause an inconsistency. Only if there is a range statement.
Richard Cyganiak: The pure presense of an ill-typed literal doesn't cause an inconsistency. Only if there is a range statement. ←
16:46:28 <gavinc> ... same for all datatypes. You have to have a range statement AND an ill-typed literal to get an inconsistency.
... same for all datatypes. You have to have a range statement AND an ill-typed literal to get an inconsistency. ←
16:47:21 <gavinc> PatH: SOmething could be consistant in RDF, but not with a specific datatype map.
Patrick Hayes: SOmething could be consistant in RDF, but not with a specific datatype map. ←
16:47:23 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
16:47:23 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
16:47:31 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/111: Should RDF Concepts define any operations on RDF datasets?
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/111: Should RDF Concepts define any operations on RDF datasets? ←
16:47:34 <gavinc> davidwood: lets move on
David Wood: lets move on ←
16:47:36 <gavinc> ISSUE-111
16:47:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-111 -- Should RDF Concepts define any operations on RDF datasets? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-111 -- Should RDF Concepts define any operations on RDF datasets? -- open ←
16:47:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/111
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/111 ←
16:47:56 <gavinc> davidwood: If we find a resolution this will effect ISSUE-105
David Wood: If we find a resolution this will effect ISSUE-105 ←
16:48:03 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Dataset_Operations
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Dataset_Operations ←
16:48:36 <Zakim> -GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: -GavinC ←
16:49:20 <path> paste that again?
Patrick Hayes: paste that again? ←
16:49:42 <SteveH> path, http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Dataset_Operations
Steve Harris: path, http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Dataset_Operations ←
16:49:54 <path> ta
Patrick Hayes: ta ←
16:50:17 <Zakim> +GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: +GavinC ←
16:50:51 <davidwood> AZ:Tentative definition:
Antoine Zimmermann: Tentative definition: [ Scribe Assist by David Wood ] ←
16:50:51 <davidwood> """
David Wood: """ ←
16:50:51 <davidwood> Two RDF datasets (DG1, NG1) and (DG2, NG2) are dataset-isomorphic iff:
David Wood: Two RDF datasets (DG1, NG1) and (DG2, NG2) are dataset-isomorphic iff: ←
16:50:51 <davidwood> - DG1 and DG2 are graph-isomorphic;
David Wood: - DG1 and DG2 are graph-isomorphic; ←
16:50:51 <davidwood> - For each (n1,g1) in NG1, there exists (n2,g2) in NG2 such that n1=n2
David Wood: - For each (n1,g1) in NG1, there exists (n2,g2) in NG2 such that n1=n2 ←
16:50:51 <davidwood> and g1 and g2 are graph-isomorphic;
David Wood: and g1 and g2 are graph-isomorphic; ←
16:50:51 <davidwood> - For each (n2,g2) in NG2, there exists (n1,g1) in NG1 such that n1=n2
David Wood: - For each (n2,g2) in NG2, there exists (n1,g1) in NG1 such that n1=n2 ←
16:50:52 <davidwood> and g1 and g2 are graph-isomorphic.
David Wood: and g1 and g2 are graph-isomorphic. ←
16:50:52 <davidwood> """
David Wood: """ ←
16:51:09 <cygri> sandro: i was assuming we won't define any of this
Sandro Hawke: i was assuming we won't define any of this [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
16:51:17 <cygri> … given that we don't do semantics for datasets
Richard Cyganiak: … given that we don't do semantics for datasets ←
16:51:18 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
16:51:35 <cygri> … i'm not opposed to this but seems unnecessary
Richard Cyganiak: … i'm not opposed to this but seems unnecessary ←
16:51:37 <SteveH> +1 to sandro
Steve Harris: +1 to sandro ←
16:51:48 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
16:52:16 <davidwood> ack AZ
David Wood: ack AZ ←
16:53:26 <cygri> sandro: i guess we should do for datasets whatever we do for graphs
Sandro Hawke: i guess we should do for datasets whatever we do for graphs [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
16:53:27 <cygri> scribe: pchampin
(Scribe set to Pierre-Antoine Champin)
16:53:28 <pchampin> I can scribe
I can scribe ←
16:53:41 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
16:53:57 <AZ> AZ: isomorphism is not related to semantics, it's purely about structure
Antoine Zimmermann: isomorphism is not related to semantics, it's purely about structure [ Scribe Assist by Antoine Zimmermann ] ←
16:54:03 <zwu2> Sorry, have to go to another meeting.
Zhe Wu: Sorry, have to go to another meeting. ←
16:54:03 <pfps> Hmm, things are fine in Sunnyvale.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Hmm, things are fine in Sunnyvale. ←
16:54:06 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
16:54:12 <AZ> ...(not to be confused with equivalence)
Antoine Zimmermann: ...(not to be confused with equivalence) ←
16:54:50 <pchampin> cygri: we still need some discussion; is there anything that makes sense and would not create too much contention
Richard Cyganiak: we still need some discussion; is there anything that makes sense and would not create too much contention ←
16:55:24 <pchampin> path: what we could say: if you replace in a dataset a graph by an isomorphic graph, the two datasets are isomorphic
Patrick Hayes: what we could say: if you replace in a dataset a graph by an isomorphic graph, the two datasets are isomorphic ←
16:55:52 <pchampin> ... That extends simply the notion of graph-isomotphism to datasets.
... That extends simply the notion of graph-isomotphism to datasets. ←
16:56:05 <pchampin> AZ: this basically is what I proposed.
Antoine Zimmermann: this basically is what I proposed. ←
16:56:58 <pchampin> davidwood: should RDF concepts define only isomorphism on RDF datasets?
David Wood: should RDF concepts define only isomorphism on RDF datasets? ←
16:57:11 <pchampin> cygri: I'm not sure other operations are not useful
Richard Cyganiak: I'm not sure other operations are not useful ←
16:57:26 <pchampin> ... e.g. union
... e.g. union ←
16:57:31 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
16:57:40 <SteveH> it's not uneccessary, but there's not enough experience yet!
Steve Harris: it's not uneccessary, but there's not enough experience yet! ←
16:57:48 <pchampin> ... but may be I can be convinced it is not necessary
... but may be I can be convinced it is not necessary ←
16:58:02 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
16:58:06 <pchampin> path: my problem is that there are 3 different ways to define union,
Patrick Hayes: my problem is that there are 3 different ways to define union, ←
16:58:15 <sandro> yeah -- we don't have consensus on which kind of union to use
Sandro Hawke: yeah -- we don't have consensus on which kind of union to use ←
16:58:16 <pchampin> ... so that would take a lot of time to reach a consensus
... so that would take a lot of time to reach a consensus ←
16:58:50 <yvesr> i wonder if there's room to define all three of them, and give them different operatiosn name :)
Yves Raimond: i wonder if there's room to define all three of them, and give them different operatiosn name :) ←
16:59:00 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
16:59:11 <yvesr> UNION-MERGE, UNION-REPLACE, etc.
Yves Raimond: UNION-MERGE, UNION-REPLACE, etc. ←
16:59:23 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
17:00:00 <pchampin> sandro: defining different unions with different names would help people to have a simpler debate in the future
Sandro Hawke: defining different unions with different names would help people to have a simpler debate in the future ←
17:00:10 <AndyS> Blog about it.
Andy Seaborne: Blog about it. ←
17:00:13 <SteveH> I don't see the point of going to the effort of defining them all right now
Steve Harris: I don't see the point of going to the effort of defining them all right now ←
17:00:18 <SteveH> +1 to AndyS
Steve Harris: +1 to AndyS ←
17:00:24 <TallTed> +1 sandro -- name and define different (non-exhaustive!) possibilities, and then leave for future debate
Ted Thibodeau: +1 sandro -- name and define different (non-exhaustive!) possibilities, and then leave for future debate ←
17:00:35 <davidwood> Review/accept Pat's solution to http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/205: Add note to explanation of skolemization
David Wood: Review/accept Pat's solution to http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/205: Add note to explanation of skolemization ←
17:00:56 <sandro> davidwood: Sandro, Yves, etc, go ahead and do that if you want to.
David Wood: Sandro, Yves, etc, go ahead and do that if you want to. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:01:43 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
17:01:46 <AndyS> Remove the :
Andy Seaborne: Remove the : ←
17:01:47 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/205
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/205 ←
17:02:01 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization ←
17:02:46 <pchampin> cygri: it has been added, then changed after comments from Peter; I'd like Peter to check the current version (URL above)
Richard Cyganiak: it has been added, then changed after comments from Pat; I'd like Pat to check the current version (URL above) ←
17:02:57 <pchampin> s/Peter/Pat/
17:03:59 <davidwood> close ACTION-205
David Wood: close ACTION-205 ←
17:03:59 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-205 Add note to explanation of skolemization.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-205 Add note to explanation of skolemization. ←
17:04:19 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23: Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types?
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23: Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types? ←
17:04:30 <cygri> topic: ISSUE-23
17:04:49 <pchampin> davidwood: isn't issue 23 a duplicate?
David Wood: isn't ISSUE-23 a duplicate? ←
17:05:24 <pchampin> cygri: I think this was already discusses
Richard Cyganiak: I think this was already discusses ←
17:05:41 <pchampin> davidwood: suggest to close issue 23, the answer being yes
David Wood: suggest to close ISSUE-23, the answer being yes ←
17:06:06 <path> gavin, pedal harder.
Patrick Hayes: gavin, pedal harder. ←
17:06:29 <pchampin> markus: does this mean JSON-LD would require different media-types for single-graph / multi-graph?
Markus Lanthaler: does this mean JSON-LD would require different media-types for single-graph / multi-graph? ←
17:07:05 <pchampin> davidwood: no
David Wood: no ←
17:07:08 <TallTed> it's the shift from "one giant graph" of RDF2004 to "there are multiple graphs" of RDFnow ...
Ted Thibodeau: it's the shift from "one giant graph" of RDF2004 to "there are multiple graphs" of RDFnow ... ←
17:07:16 <AZ> +1 to close
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 to close ←
17:07:21 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-23; we are indeed defining new formats and new media types for multi-graph.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23; we are indeed defining new formats and new media types for multi-graph. ←
17:07:23 <SteveH> +1 to close
Steve Harris: +1 to close ←
17:07:23 <pchampin> gkellog: will this not raise problem if RDFa decides to support multiple graphs in the future?
Gregg Kellogg: will this not raise problem if RDFa decides to support multiple graphs in the future? ←
17:07:24 <path> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
17:07:25 <TallTed> answer is obviously "yes" and we've been doing it
Ted Thibodeau: answer is obviously "yes" and we've been doing it ←
17:07:32 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
17:07:34 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
17:07:38 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
17:07:40 <gkellogg> s/gkellog/gkellogg/
17:07:40 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
17:07:42 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
17:07:42 <sandro> understood that this is about Trig and doesn't affect RDFa or JSON-LD.
Sandro Hawke: understood that this is about Trig and doesn't affect RDFa or JSON-LD. ←
17:07:45 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:07:49 <gavinc_> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
17:07:50 <gkellogg> +0
Gregg Kellogg: +0 ←
17:07:52 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
17:07:53 <markus> +0
Markus Lanthaler: +0 ←
17:08:23 <pchampin> davidwood: we can't speculate on what RDFa will do in the future
David Wood: we can't speculate on what RDFa will do in the future ←
17:08:35 <cygri> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-23; we are indeed defining new formats and new media types for multi-graph.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-23; we are indeed defining new formats and new media types for multi-graph. ←
17:08:37 <davidwood> TOPIC: JSON-LD
17:08:47 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/16: What is the normative serialization of the JSON grammar?
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/16: What is the normative serialization of the JSON grammar? ←
17:08:51 <path> i have to ring off.
Patrick Hayes: i have to ring off. ←
17:09:00 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
17:09:15 <gavinc_> err... yeah, that's about What is JSON ;)
Gavin Carothers: err... yeah, that's about What is JSON ;) ←
17:09:29 <gavinc_> JSON, not RDF
Gavin Carothers: JSON, not RDF ←
17:09:31 <cygri> markus: i think this is about JSON itself
Markus Lanthaler: i think this is about JSON itself [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
17:09:56 <cygri> … JSON-LD uses the JSON RFC as the basis
Richard Cyganiak: … JSON-LD uses the JSON RFC as the basis ←
17:09:58 <AndyS> RFC4627
Andy Seaborne: RFC4627 ←
17:10:09 <gavinc_> +1 for RDF4627
Gavin Carothers: +1 for RDF4627 ←
17:10:10 <pchampin> markus: JSON-LD uses RFC 4627
Markus Lanthaler: JSON-LD uses RFC 4627 ←
17:10:36 <cygri> davidwood: propose to resolve this by saying that this WG uses JSON-LD to address the charter, which internally uses RFC4627
David Wood: propose to resolve this by saying that this WG uses JSON-LD to address the charter, which internally uses RFC4627 [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
17:10:54 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-16 by saying that this WG uses JSON-LD to address the charter, which internally uses RFC4627
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-16 by saying that this WG uses JSON-LD to address the charter, which internally uses RFC4627 ←
17:11:01 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
17:11:02 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
17:11:02 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
17:11:03 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
17:11:08 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
17:11:12 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
17:11:14 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
17:11:18 <pchampin> +1
+1 ←
17:11:30 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
17:11:31 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
17:11:32 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
17:11:36 <cygri> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-16 by saying that this WG uses JSON-LD to address the charter, which internally uses RFC4627
RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-16 by saying that this WG uses JSON-LD to address the charter, which internally uses RFC4627 ←
17:11:40 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/92: Mention RDF in the JSON-LD Syntax Introduction.
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/92: Mention RDF in the JSON-LD Syntax Introduction. ←
17:11:57 <pchampin> markus: that's done
Markus Lanthaler: that's done ←
17:12:07 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
17:12:11 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
17:12:14 <pchampin> PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-92 by saysing that it has been done
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-92 by saysing that it has been done ←
17:12:19 <gavinc_> +1 it's done
Gavin Carothers: +1 it's done ←
17:12:21 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
17:12:21 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
17:12:22 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
17:12:23 <pchampin> +1
+1 ←
17:12:24 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
17:12:24 <TallTed> +1 again/still
Ted Thibodeau: +1 again/still ←
17:12:24 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
17:12:28 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
17:12:46 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
17:12:54 <cygri> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-92 by saying that it has been done
RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-92 by saying that it has been done ←
17:13:01 <davidwood> Working Group status: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products
David Wood: Working Group status: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products ←
17:13:42 <davidwood> Topic: AOB
17:13:45 <markus> q+
Markus Lanthaler: q+ ←
17:13:50 <davidwood> ack markus
David Wood: ack markus ←
17:14:25 <cygri> markus: what's the group's position on IRI vs URL
Markus Lanthaler: what's the group's position on IRI vs URL [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
17:14:36 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me ←
17:14:36 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should no longer be muted ←
17:14:44 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
17:14:52 <cygri> … I propose we close the issue, and re-open it only if someone complains
Richard Cyganiak: … I propose we close the issue, and re-open it only if someone complains ←
17:14:53 <pchampin> markus: the JSON-LD group resolved to stick to the technically correct term IRI
Markus Lanthaler: the JSON-LD group resolved to stick to the technically correct term IRI ←
17:15:03 <cygri> davidwood: chair hat off, redefining terms is dangerous
David Wood: chair hat off, redefining terms is dangerous [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
17:15:18 <AndyS> Nice idea but URL-NG is not yet ready.
Andy Seaborne: Nice idea but URL-NG is not yet ready. ←
17:15:21 <cygri> sandro: communities use different terms
Sandro Hawke: communities use different terms [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
17:15:23 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
17:15:31 <cygri> davidwood: IRI is not a semweb-specific term
David Wood: IRI is not a semweb-specific term [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
17:15:32 <pchampin> sandro: this is not only about redefining terms; different communities use different terms
Sandro Hawke: this is not only about redefining terms; different communities use different terms ←
17:15:47 <ericP> there are lots of protocol RFCs to rewrite if we use "URL" to mean IRI
Eric Prud'hommeaux: there are lots of protocol RFCs to rewrite if we use "URL" to mean IRI ←
17:16:14 <cygri> ivan: someone proposed to use IRI, but put a comment in the document that explains the issue, stating that some people use URL to mean the same thing
Ivan Herman: someone proposed to use IRI, but put a comment in the document that explains the issue, stating that some people use URL to mean the same thing [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
17:16:36 <pchampin> ivan: we can add an editorial note stressing the fact that there is some inconsistency, but that this is not the job of this group to solve this inconsistency
Ivan Herman: we can add an editorial note stressing the fact that there is some inconsistency, but that this is not the job of this group to solve this inconsistency ←
17:16:59 <pchampin> sandro: the document could use "identifier" in 99% of the document,
Sandro Hawke: the document could use "identifier" in 99% of the document, ←
17:17:01 <cygri> sandro: editorially, you can probably say "identifier", and just define that term somewhere as meaning IRI/URL
Sandro Hawke: editorially, you can probably say "identifier", and just define that term somewhere as meaning IRI/URL [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
17:17:12 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
17:17:12 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
17:17:19 <pchampin> ... and add at some point "identifier means IRI, but you can consider is very like URL"
... and add at some point "identifier means IRI, but you can consider is very like URL" ←
17:17:28 <ivan> +1 to Gregg
Ivan Herman: +1 to Gregg ←
17:17:51 <pchampin> gkellogg: my position is that JSON-LD should comply with the rest of the documents of this WG, using IRI
Gregg Kellogg: my position is that JSON-LD should comply with the rest of the documents of this WG, using IRI ←
17:18:06 <cygri> sandro: stick with IRI, possibly move to URL in the future
Gregg Kellogg: stick with IRI, possibly move to URL in the future [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
17:18:10 <tbaker> +1 to Ivan and Gregg
Thomas Baker: +1 to Ivan and Gregg ←
17:18:16 <TallTed> we should use the correct word/acronym wherever possible, and say something like "others may use or have used URL or URI or other terms for IRI would have been correct; RDF-WG cannot unify/fix all such"
Ted Thibodeau: we should use the correct word/acronym wherever possible, and say something like "others may use or have used URL or URI or other terms for IRI would have been correct; RDF-WG cannot unify/fix all such" ←
17:18:22 <cygri> s/sandro: stick/gkellog: stick/
17:18:45 <Zakim> -Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus ←
17:18:54 <Zakim> - +1.408.992.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.408.992.aabb ←
17:18:57 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
17:18:59 <pchampin> davidwood: if you want a resolution from this WG, please ask it by mail
David Wood: if you want a resolution from this WG, please ask it by mail ←
17:19:03 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
17:19:09 <Zakim> -GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: -GavinC ←
17:19:11 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
17:19:36 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
17:19:41 <Zakim> -markus
Zakim IRC Bot: -markus ←
17:19:43 <Zakim> -cygri
Zakim IRC Bot: -cygri ←
17:19:49 <ericP> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/tip/rdf-turtle/coverage/tests/
Eric Prud'hommeaux: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/tip/rdf-turtle/coverage/tests/ ←
17:19:54 <TallTed> please to post that info to the list, ericP :-)
Ted Thibodeau: please to post that info to the list, ericP :-) ←
17:20:16 <cygri> RRSAgent, make logs public
Richard Cyganiak: RRSAgent, make logs public ←
17:20:35 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
17:20:48 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
17:21:47 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
17:23:49 <pchampin> scribe: pchampin
17:23:53 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
17:23:56 <Zakim> -davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood ←
17:23:58 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
17:24:00 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
17:24:09 <Zakim> -FabGandon
Zakim IRC Bot: -FabGandon ←
17:25:21 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#2) generated 2013-01-16 17:28:50 UTC by 'rcygania2', comments: 'fixed captialization in resolution, messed with topics, set scribe properly'