RDF Working Group

Minutes of 20 February 2013

Seen
Andy Seaborne, Arnaud Le Hors, Charles Greer, David Wood, Gregg Kellogg, Guus Schreiber, Ivan Herman, Manu Sporny, Markus Lanthaler, Patrick Hayes, Peter Patel-Schneider, Sandro Hawke, Scott Bauer, Souripriya Das, Steve Harris, Ted Thibodeau, Zhe Wu
Scribe
Andy Seaborne
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. accept the minutes of the 13 February telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-13 link
Topics
16:03:32 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim

David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim

16:03:32 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Guus (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Guus (muted)

16:03:42 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim

David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim

16:03:42 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg

Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg

16:03:45 <Zakim> +??P32

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P32

16:03:53 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim

David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim

16:03:53 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tbaker

Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tbaker

16:03:58 <markus> zakim, ??P32 is me

Markus Lanthaler: zakim, ??P32 is me

16:03:58 <Zakim> +markus; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +markus; got it

16:04:00 <Zakim> + +1.408.992.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.408.992.aaee

16:04:08 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim

David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim

16:04:08 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg

Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg

16:04:19 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here

David Wood: Zakim, who is here

16:04:19 <Zakim> davidwood, you need to end that query with '?'

Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you need to end that query with '?'

16:04:29 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?

David Wood: Zakim, who is here?

16:04:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see tbaker, davidwood, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed (muted), Guus (muted), ivan, manu, Sandro, markus, +1.408.992.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see tbaker, davidwood, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed (muted), Guus (muted), ivan, manu, Sandro, markus, +1.408.992.aaee

16:04:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see Arnaud, pfps, cgreer, markus, ScottB, PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, TallTed, ivan, SteveH, AndyS, manu, davidwood, yvesr, mischat, manu1, trackbot,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Arnaud, pfps, cgreer, markus, ScottB, PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, TallTed, ivan, SteveH, AndyS, manu, davidwood, yvesr, mischat, manu1, trackbot,

16:04:31 <Zakim> ... sandro, ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: ... sandro, ericP

16:04:35 <Zakim> + +1.707.874.aaff

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.707.874.aaff

16:04:46 <cgreer> zakim, aaff is me

Charles Greer: zakim, aaff is me

16:04:46 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +cgreer; got it

16:04:57 <Zakim> +??P35

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P35

16:05:04 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P35 is me

Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P35 is me

16:05:04 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it

16:05:07 <AndyS> scribenick: AndyS

(Scribe set to Andy Seaborne)

16:05:10 <Zakim> +Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud

16:05:15 <pfps> Zakim, aaee is me

Peter Patel-Schneider: Zakim, aaee is me

16:05:15 <Zakim> +pfps; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps; got it

16:05:46 <AndyS> topic: admin

1. admin

16:05:48 <Zakim> +Souri

Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri

16:05:54 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 February telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-13

David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 February telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-13

16:06:03 <Zakim> +PatH

Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH

16:06:08 <AndyS> +1

+1

16:06:15 <pfps> They're beautiful.

Peter Patel-Schneider: They're beautiful.

16:06:24 <davidwood> RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 13 February telecon:  http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-13

RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 13 February telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-13

16:06:33 <davidwood> Review of action items

David Wood: Review of action items

16:06:33 <davidwood> 	▪	http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview

David Wood: ▪ http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview

16:06:33 <davidwood> 	▪	http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open

David Wood: ▪ http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open

16:06:57 <AndyS> 27 open actions

27 open actions

16:07:14 <davidwood> Topic: Extension request

2. Extension request

16:07:17 <Zakim> +Tony

Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony

16:07:34 <ScottB> zakim, Tony is temporarily me

Scott Bauer: zakim, Tony is temporarily me

16:07:34 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +ScottB; got it

16:07:38 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aagg

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.650.265.aagg

16:07:52 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aagg is me

Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.650.265.aagg is me

16:07:52 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it

16:07:52 <AndyS> davidwood: request informally approved, waiting for formal confirmation

David Wood: request informally approved, waiting for formal confirmation

16:07:55 <zwu2> zakim, mute me

Zhe Wu: zakim, mute me

16:07:55 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should now be muted

16:09:15 <AndyS> davidwood: design time over, now complete docs during the extension

David Wood: design time over, now complete docs during the extension

16:09:47 <AndyS> ... docs to get out soon -- semantics, concepts.

... docs to get out soon -- semantics, concepts.

16:10:07 <AndyS> topic: Turtle

3. Turtle

16:10:10 <AndyS> q+

q+

16:10:11 <Guus> zakim, unmute me

Guus Schreiber: zakim, unmute me

16:10:11 <Zakim> Guus should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Guus should no longer be muted

16:10:25 <AndyS> davidwood: congrats to all

David Wood: congrats to all

16:10:38 <davidwood> ack AndyS

David Wood: ack AndyS

16:10:39 <PatH> One quick request. There is a CSS script that COncepts apparently used. Where can I get the original of that? Send email offline.

Patrick Hayes: One quick request. There is a CSS script that COncepts apparently used. Where can I get the original of that? Send email offline.

16:11:22 <AndyS> andys: what's the impl feedback process?

Andy Seaborne: what's the impl feedback process?

16:11:58 <davidwood> Implementors should inform public-rdf-comments

David Wood: Implementors should inform public-rdf-comments

16:13:01 <AndyS> davidwood: a quick blog to note process and EARL reports.

David Wood: a quick blog to note process and EARL reports.

16:13:03 <Guus> q+

Guus Schreiber: q+

16:13:15 <davidwood> ack Guus

David Wood: ack Guus

16:13:40 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?

David Wood: Zakim, who is here?

16:13:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see tbaker, davidwood, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed (muted), Guus, ivan, manu, Sandro, markus, pfps, cgreer, SteveH, Arnaud (muted), Souri, PatH, ScottB, zwu2 (muted)

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see tbaker, davidwood, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed (muted), Guus, ivan, manu, Sandro, markus, pfps, cgreer, SteveH, Arnaud (muted), Souri, PatH, ScottB, zwu2 (muted)

16:13:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see zwu2, Souri, Arnaud, pfps, cgreer, markus, ScottB, PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, TallTed, ivan, SteveH, AndyS, manu, davidwood, yvesr, mischat, manu1,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zwu2, Souri, Arnaud, pfps, cgreer, markus, ScottB, PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, TallTed, ivan, SteveH, AndyS, manu, davidwood, yvesr, mischat, manu1,

16:13:44 <Zakim> ... trackbot, sandro, ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: ... trackbot, sandro, ericP

16:14:38 <AndyS> gkellogg: is it Eric's tests as well?

Gregg Kellogg: is it Eric's tests as well?

16:14:47 <davidwood> ACTION: davidwood to write a blog post announcing Turtle to CR

ACTION: davidwood to write a blog post announcing Turtle to CR

16:14:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-230 - Write a blog post announcing Turtle to CR [on David Wood - due 2013-02-27].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-230 - Write a blog post announcing Turtle to CR [on David Wood - due 2013-02-27].

16:15:48 <davidwood> ACTION: davidwood to create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors.

ACTION: davidwood to create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors.

16:15:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors. [on David Wood - due 2013-02-27].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-231 - Create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors. [on David Wood - due 2013-02-27].

16:15:58 <AndyS> gkellogg: please rerun tests to be upto date

Gregg Kellogg: please rerun tests to be upto date

16:16:09 <AndyS> davidwood: need to track CR comments

David Wood: need to track CR comments

16:16:26 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

16:16:26 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted

16:17:11 <AndyS> ivan: all changes now need to be tracked

Ivan Herman: all changes now need to be tracked

16:17:20 <AndyS> ... we're in process mode now

... we're in process mode now

16:17:49 <AndyS> topic: semantics

4. semantics

16:18:18 <davidwood> 	▪	Should we allow blank nodes to be used as graph names? That is, allow a graph name to be both (IRI, graph), and (blank node, graph).

David Wood: ▪ Should we allow blank nodes to be used as graph names? That is, allow a graph name to be both (IRI, graph), and (blank node, graph).

16:18:18 <davidwood> NB -- JSON-LD has a preference to allow blank nodes as graph names.

David Wood: NB -- JSON-LD has a preference to allow blank nodes as graph names.

16:18:18 <davidwood> From Manu: PROPOSAL: Allow blank nodes to be used as graph names. Specifically, allow associating (IRI, graph) and (blank node, graph) when naming graphs.

David Wood: From Manu: PROPOSAL: Allow blank nodes to be used as graph names. Specifically, allow associating (IRI, graph) and (blank node, graph) when naming graphs.

16:19:16 <AndyS> manu: review of JSON-LD status.  Has bnode ids fro graphs and also unlabelled graphs.

Manu Sporny: review of JSON-LD status. Has bnode ids fro graphs and also unlabelled graphs.

16:19:24 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

16:19:24 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted

16:19:27 <AndyS> ... long discussions

... long discussions

16:19:52 <AndyS> ... part 2 -- denotation of graph (values)

... part 2 -- denotation of graph (values)

16:20:17 <AndyS> ... only interpretation possible

... only interpretation possible

16:20:29 <AndyS> (Andy notes that claim is false)

(Andy notes that claim is false)

16:20:47 <pfps> The method used for containers works for me.  I'm not in favour of making any further changes to the semantics.

Peter Patel-Schneider: The method used for containers works for me. I'm not in favour of making any further changes to the semantics.

16:21:24 <AndyS> PatH: opportunity to add the semantic condition that bNode denotes the graph.

Patrick Hayes: opportunity to add the semantic condition that bNode denotes the graph.

16:21:53 <manu> q+ to state that Web Payments is going to assert that IRIs and blank node identifiers denote graphs. We have to.

Manu Sporny: q+ to state that Web Payments is going to assert that IRIs and blank node identifiers denote graphs. We have to.

16:22:20 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

16:22:20 <AndyS> ... bnodes for labels can be used to put metadata into datasets

... bnodes for labels can be used to put metadata into datasets

16:23:01 <AndyS> sandro: skolemization would break that condition?

Sandro Hawke: skolemization would break that condition?

16:23:21 <AndyS> path: not really - we don't stop IRIs denoting graphs

Patrick Hayes: not really - we don't stop IRIs denoting graphs

16:25:07 <AndyS> sandro: neutral on proposal

Sandro Hawke: neutral on proposal

16:25:39 <manu> I think that somebody using an IRI to name a graph previously, where the IRI doesn't denote the graph, did something non-standard and we don't need to support that in RDF Concepts 1.1 (we are breaking some deployments, but for the greater good of the Web)

Manu Sporny: I think that somebody using an IRI to name a graph previously, where the IRI doesn't denote the graph, did something non-standard and we don't need to support that in RDF Concepts 1.1 (we are breaking some deployments, but for the greater good of the Web)

16:25:49 <SteveH> q+

Steve Harris: q+

16:26:03 <davidwood> ack manu

David Wood: ack manu

16:26:03 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to state that Web Payments is going to assert that IRIs and blank node identifiers denote graphs. We have to.

Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to state that Web Payments is going to assert that IRIs and blank node identifiers denote graphs. We have to.

16:26:08 <pfps> even if you are using the skolem namespace I don't think that you can infer the denotation

Peter Patel-Schneider: even if you are using the skolem namespace I don't think that you can infer the denotation

16:26:54 <AndyS> manu: web payments will use denotation

Manu Sporny: web payments will use denotation

16:27:02 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

16:27:12 <davidwood> ack pfps

David Wood: ack pfps

16:27:16 <PatH> pfps, you cany infer it but we can impose it as a condition.

Patrick Hayes: pfps, you cany infer it but we can impose it as a condition.

16:27:29 <manu> +100 to pfps!

Manu Sporny: +100 to pfps!

16:27:34 <PatH> cany//can't

Patrick Hayes: cany//can't

16:27:36 <manu> -1 for it being too late :)

Manu Sporny: -1 for it being too late :)

16:27:43 <AndyS> pfps: not done properly; it's too late.

Peter Patel-Schneider: not done properly; it's too late.

16:27:46 <Zakim> -Guus

Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus

16:28:49 <manu> q+ to ask pfps if he'd be okay with blank nodes as graph names, but -1 on denotation?

Manu Sporny: q+ to ask pfps if he'd be okay with blank nodes as graph names, but -1 on denotation?

16:29:00 <zwu2> +1 to pfps

Zhe Wu: +1 to pfps

16:29:05 <SteveH> +1

Steve Harris: +1

16:29:11 <ivan> +1

Ivan Herman: +1

16:29:47 <manu> It's a big problem for us!

Manu Sporny: It's a big problem for us!

16:29:55 <manu> (for the web payments work)

Manu Sporny: (for the web payments work)

16:30:01 <manu> it's a big problem for digital signatures.

Manu Sporny: it's a big problem for digital signatures.

16:30:10 <manu> it's a big problem for RDF Dataset Normalization.

Manu Sporny: it's a big problem for RDF Dataset Normalization.

16:30:18 <AndyS> manu - do you recognize that forcing one decision is a problem for others?

manu - do you recognize that forcing one decision is a problem for others?

16:30:36 <manu> Which decision am I forcing, andys?

Manu Sporny: Which decision am I forcing, andys?

16:30:38 <SteveH> manu, we do all that stuff, and we don't use blank graphs

Steve Harris: manu, we do all that stuff, and we don't use blank graphs

16:30:52 <manu> SteveH, then what's the solution?

Manu Sporny: SteveH, then what's the solution?

16:31:01 <SteveH> q?

Steve Harris: q?

16:31:02 <Souri> +1 against use of bNode for graphs

Souripriya Das: +1 against use of bNode for graphs

16:31:14 <davidwood> ack SteveH

David Wood: ack SteveH

16:31:57 <pfps> If we put graph name denotation into RDF then the semantics has to be expanded to include graphs as a new datatype

Peter Patel-Schneider: If we put graph name denotation into RDF then the semantics has to be expanded to include graphs as a new datatype

16:32:04 <AndyS> manu - you asked for denotation only in JSON-LD. Other people do different things.  You case is fine - it's one amongst several - other uses are important to their users.

manu - you asked for denotation only in JSON-LD. Other people do different things. You case is fine - it's one amongst several - other uses are important to their users.

16:32:18 <AndyS> SteveH: taken out of 3Store

Steve Harris: taken out of 3Store

16:32:22 <PatH> its not a change to how rdf works.

Patrick Hayes: its not a change to how rdf works.

16:32:48 <davidwood> ack ivan

David Wood: ack ivan

16:33:18 <AndyS> ivan: time issues

Ivan Herman: time issues

16:34:56 <davidwood> ack manu

David Wood: ack manu

16:34:56 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask pfps if he'd be okay with blank nodes as graph names, but -1 on denotation?

Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to ask pfps if he'd be okay with blank nodes as graph names, but -1 on denotation?

16:35:46 <AndyS> manu: 2 proposals - one syntax, one semantics

Manu Sporny: 2 proposals - one syntax, one semantics

16:36:05 <AndyS> .. can accept first, not the second

.. can accept first, not the second

16:36:11 <pfps> If SPARQL doesn't allow blank nodes as names in datasets, then I don't see a need for us to.

Peter Patel-Schneider: If SPARQL doesn't allow blank nodes as names in datasets, then I don't see a need for us to.

16:36:23 <PatH> then i disagree. bnodes the dont denote really arre meaningless.

Patrick Hayes: then i disagree. bnodes the dont denote really arre meaningless.

16:36:24 <AndyS> ivan: denotation is controversal

Ivan Herman: denotation is controversal

16:36:43 <AndyS> manu: new evidence

Manu Sporny: new evidence

16:36:54 <PatH> peter, sparql does allow it, i gather.

Patrick Hayes: peter, sparql does allow it, i gather.

16:37:15 <PatH> q+

Patrick Hayes: q+

16:37:38 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?

Ivan Herman: zakim, who is noisy?

16:37:46 <AndyS> SPARQL does not but it's no big deal.  One line change. (someone set things up for future posibilities :-)

SPARQL does not but it's no big deal. One line change. (someone set things up for future posibilities :-)

16:37:50 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (39%), manu (99%)

Zakim IRC Bot: ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (39%), manu (99%)

16:38:25 <SteveH> manu, several people have suggested perfectly workable solutions

Steve Harris: manu, several people have suggested perfectly workable solutions

16:38:44 <pfps> the method proposed that gets rid of blank nodes doesn't require minting new IRIs, you just have an infinite number of them pre-allocated (like rdf:_<n>) and choose in order

Peter Patel-Schneider: the method proposed that gets rid of blank nodes doesn't require minting new IRIs, you just have an infinite number of them pre-allocated (like rdf:_<n>) and choose in order

16:39:01 <AndyS> ivan: propose to close second proposal

Ivan Herman: propose to close second proposal

16:39:27 <AndyS> q+ to say what SPARQL actually says

q+ to say what SPARQL actually says

16:39:38 <manu> steveh, no, they haven't - we've spent a great deal of time trying to apply those solutions - they are half-baked, or don't work.

Manu Sporny: steveh, no, they haven't - we've spent a great deal of time trying to apply those solutions - they are half-baked, or don't work.

16:39:51 <manu> pfps: Isn't that a new IRI scheme?

Peter Patel-Schneider: Isn't that a new IRI scheme? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

16:40:17 <gkellogg> andys: a definition of a dataset in SPARQL says it's an IRI; the mechanics, translation to algebra and evaluation are neutral, because you can't write it.

Andy Seaborne: a definition of a dataset in SPARQL says it's an IRI; the mechanics, translation to algebra and evaluation are neutral, because you can't write it. [ Scribe Assist by Gregg Kellogg ]

16:40:19 <manu> pfps: graph:_nnn <-- new IRI scheme, most of the folks on this mailing list didn't want that, right?

Peter Patel-Schneider: graph:_nnn <-- new IRI scheme, most of the folks on this mailing list didn't want that, right? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

16:40:30 <gkellogg> … Blank nodes would be variables.

Gregg Kellogg: … Blank nodes would be variables.

16:40:54 <gkellogg> … SPARQL would work with BNodes for properties, it doesn't interpret them.

Gregg Kellogg: … SPARQL would work with BNodes for properties, it doesn't interpret them.

16:41:03 <SteveH> but there are no (real) blank node in sparql

Steve Harris: but there are no (real) blank node in sparql

16:41:31 <gkellogg> … I don't know if actual engines would blow up or not, but structurally, it wouldn't make a difference.

Gregg Kellogg: … I don't know if actual engines would blow up or not, but structurally, it wouldn't make a difference.

16:41:40 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#sparqlDataset

http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#sparqlDataset

16:41:40 <SteveH> 4store and 5store would blow up, that section of the index (bnode as graph ID) doesn't exist

Steve Harris: 4store and 5store would blow up, that section of the index (bnode as graph ID) doesn't exist

16:41:51 <davidwood> ack PatH

David Wood: ack PatH

16:41:57 <AndyS> q-

q-

16:42:35 <SteveH> strawpoll?

Steve Harris: strawpoll?

16:43:00 <AndyS> davidwood: we have the freedom but not the time to deviate from SPARQL

David Wood: we have the freedom but not the time to deviate from SPARQL

16:46:03 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

16:46:33 <AndyS> manu: can JSON-LD use bNode id for graphs in datasets?

Manu Sporny: can JSON-LD use bNode id for graphs in datasets?

16:47:05 <davidwood> ack ivan

David Wood: ack ivan

16:47:18 <SteveH> IIUC manu asked about nquads… that's not OK

Steve Harris: IIUC manu asked about nquads… that's not OK

16:47:21 <SteveH> for me

Steve Harris: for me

16:47:46 <AndyS> ivan: maybe a way out but may have consequences outside JSON-LD.

Ivan Herman: maybe a way out but may have consequences outside JSON-LD.

16:48:04 <gkellogg> BNodes for property IDs in JSON-LD will already make these other applications blow up.

Gregg Kellogg: BNodes for property IDs in JSON-LD will already make these other applications blow up.

16:48:05 <AndyS> ... no reason for deciding one over the other.

... no reason for deciding one over the other.

16:49:54 <AndyS> davidwood: try to find a loose framework that allows variation.

David Wood: try to find a loose framework that allows variation.

16:51:08 <SteveH> that must already happen, because of bNode predicates

Steve Harris: that must already happen, because of bNode predicates

16:51:23 <SteveH> that's not legal in RDF and can't be serialised

Steve Harris: that's not legal in RDF and can't be serialised

16:51:23 <AndyS> ivan: suggest a warning in JSON-LD about the consequences outside JSON-LD

Ivan Herman: suggest a warning in JSON-LD about the consequences outside JSON-LD

16:51:27 <markus> the warnings are already there: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#data-model and again here http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#relationship-to-rdf

Markus Lanthaler: the warnings are already there: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#data-model and again here http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#relationship-to-rdf

16:52:01 <AndyS> davidwood: how bad is this?

David Wood: how bad is this?

16:53:16 <AndyS> markus - quite.  Various tricky points there - e.g. lists in data model (wish that were true) We just don't ask!

markus - quite. Various tricky points there - e.g. lists in data model (wish that were true) We just don't ask!

16:53:36 <PatH> q+

Patrick Hayes: q+

16:53:41 <AndyS> manu: causes an issue - need to label the graph in some way

Manu Sporny: causes an issue - need to label the graph in some way

16:53:46 <markus> andys, I know :-)

Markus Lanthaler: andys, I know :-)

16:54:08 <AndyS> ... reinventing bnode ids

... reinventing bnode ids

16:54:41 <PatH> Let me withdraw my blocking vote decision here. I dont like semantics=free bnodeIDs, but I think compatibility with JSON is more important than my aesthetics. SO I will vote for the syntax without the sematnics. <grinds teeth.>

Patrick Hayes: Let me withdraw my blocking vote decision here. I dont like semantics=free bnodeIDs, but I think compatibility with JSON is more important than my aesthetics. SO I will vote for the syntax without the sematnics. <grinds teeth.>

16:55:36 <AndyS> ivan: will break other use cases

Ivan Herman: will break other use cases

16:58:11 <PatH> The key point for Steve seems to be that he did have this but was ASKED to remove it. WHo asked him and what were their reasons?

Patrick Hayes: The key point for Steve seems to be that he did have this but was ASKED to remove it. WHo asked him and what were their reasons?

16:59:49 <PatH> Ivan, there are recent emails showing that SPARQL in fact works fine with this case.

Patrick Hayes: Ivan, there are recent emails showing that SPARQL in fact works fine with this case.

17:00:06 <PatH> +1 to Manu

Patrick Hayes: +1 to Manu

17:00:09 <SteveH> PatH, I don't see how that can be the case

Steve Harris: PatH, I don't see how that can be the case

17:00:30 <Souri> I like the (alternate) proposal of minting a new IRI (it avoids the new requirement of allowing bnode identifying a graph)

Souripriya Das: I like the (alternate) proposal of minting a new IRI (it avoids the new requirement of allowing bnode identifying a graph)

17:00:32 <PatH> Its not a change to RDF *at all*. It might be a change to SPARQL.

Patrick Hayes: Its not a change to RDF *at all*. It might be a change to SPARQL.

17:01:22 <SteveH> PatH, what about the case where the bNode identified by _:aaa is used as a graph label, but doesn't appear in any graph?

Steve Harris: PatH, what about the case where the bNode identified by _:aaa is used as a graph label, but doesn't appear in any graph?

17:02:04 <AndyS> manu; new info - normalization, JSON-LD, documents without base URI

manu; new info - normalization, JSON-LD, documents without base URI

17:02:11 <AndyS> manu: new info - normalization, JSON-LD, documents without base URI

Manu Sporny: new info - normalization, JSON-LD, documents without base URI

17:02:32 <davidwood> ack PatH

David Wood: ack PatH

17:03:14 <PatH> Steve, what about it? Its kind of silly (semantically) but harmless.

Patrick Hayes: Steve, what about it? Its kind of silly (semantically) but harmless.

17:03:21 <manu> New information to blank nodes as graph name labels - Did the WG consider RDF Dataset Normalization when you discussed this?

Manu Sporny: New information to blank nodes as graph name labels - Did the WG consider RDF Dataset Normalization when you discussed this?

17:03:35 <Arnaud> I have to drop off for another call, I find unfortunate that the number of incompatibilities between JSON-LD and RDF keeps increasing

Arnaud Le Hors: I have to drop off for another call, I find unfortunate that the number of incompatibilities between JSON-LD and RDF keeps increasing

17:03:38 <SteveH> PatH, but it wouldn't be a node (and it'��s what manu is proposing to do, FWIW)

Steve Harris: PatH, but it wouldn't be a node (and it'��s what manu is proposing to do, FWIW)

17:04:11 <manu> Did the WG consider how the decision would affect JSON-LD developers, specifically how forcing them to use an identifier where they don't have to use one (when expressing a blank node)

Manu Sporny: Did the WG consider how the decision would affect JSON-LD developers, specifically how forcing them to use an identifier where they don't have to use one (when expressing a blank node)

17:04:16 <PatH> religious = doctrinal :-)

Patrick Hayes: religious = doctrinal :-)

17:04:24 <AndyS> ivan: don't know it means to have no base URI.

Ivan Herman: don't know it means to have no base URI.

17:04:57 <Arnaud> which isn't to say that we should let JSON-LD influence RDF, I find this slightly odd because I don't think the syntax should necessarily influence the model

Arnaud Le Hors: which isn't to say that we should let JSON-LD influence RDF, I find this slightly odd because I don't think the syntax should necessarily influence the model

17:05:07 <AndyS> ... normalization is significant but was worked on it elsewhere.

... normalization is significant but was worked on it elsewhere.

17:05:13 <Zakim> -Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud

17:05:32 <gkellogg> I don't think that normalization actually requires that graph names include BNode identifiers, it just does if JSON-LD allows them, and that output should be normalized.

Gregg Kellogg: I don't think that normalization actually requires that graph names include BNode identifiers, it just does if JSON-LD allows them, and that output should be normalized.

17:05:34 <AndyS> ... this WG has not picked up that work.

... this WG has not picked up that work.

17:06:02 <AndyS> ... at this time and this point in process, it's hard to take that on.

... at this time and this point in process, it's hard to take that on.

17:06:02 <PatH> SteveH, ?? of course it would be a node. Bnodes are nodes.

Patrick Hayes: SteveH, ?? of course it would be a node. Bnodes are nodes.

17:06:18 <SteveH> PatH, well, only if they appear in a graph, surely?!

Steve Harris: PatH, well, only if they appear in a graph, surely?!

17:06:49 <AndyS> manu: we have a solution.  Need a direction from this WG

Manu Sporny: we have a solution. Need a direction from this WG

17:06:52 <davidwood> q?

David Wood: q?

17:06:59 <PatH> IWhy? We are allowing IRIs to be labels. why no other kinds of node?

Patrick Hayes: IWhy? We are allowing IRIs to be labels. why no other kinds of node?

17:07:04 <AndyS> .. bnode was the thing we choose at the time.

.. bnode was the thing we choose at the time.

17:08:09 <SteveH> it doesn't require a new URI scheme, you could use the skolem one

Steve Harris: it doesn't require a new URI scheme, you could use the skolem one

17:08:11 <pfps> I don't see how this group is on the hook for doing anything here.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't see how this group is on the hook for doing anything here.

17:08:18 <AndyS> manu: new URI scheme is an alternative but not as attractive.

Manu Sporny: new URI scheme is an alternative but not as attractive.

17:08:44 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+

17:09:35 <davidwood> ack pfps

David Wood: ack pfps

17:10:47 <SteveH> IIRC, you're required to have a base URI, as per RFC 2396

Steve Harris: IIRC, you're required to have a base URI, as per RFC 2396

17:10:53 <PatH> The hostility isn't necessary.

Patrick Hayes: The hostility isn't necessary.

17:13:26 <PatH> +1 to manu

Patrick Hayes: +1 to manu

17:13:39 <AndyS> davidwood: if docs standardized as currently stated - manu - what happens?

David Wood: if docs standardized as currently stated - manu - what happens?

17:14:23 <AndyS> manu: we will use specific IRIs for the dataset.

Manu Sporny: we will use specific IRIs for the dataset.

17:14:23 <PatH> Thats skolemizing, in fact.

Patrick Hayes: Thats skolemizing, in fact.

17:16:22 <AndyS> davidwood: will skolemization work for you?

David Wood: will skolemization work for you?

17:16:51 <AndyS> manu: will reply on the list

Manu Sporny: will reply on the list

17:17:04 <PatH> Well not quite.

Patrick Hayes: Well not quite.

17:18:07 <manu> AndyS: You can't do that without taking inter-graph connectivity into account.

Andy Seaborne: You can't do that without taking inter-graph connectivity into account. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

17:18:07 <PatH> For the record, now we have extra time, how much extra time do we have (The WG, not the call)?

Patrick Hayes: For the record, now we have extra time, how much extra time do we have (The WG, not the call)?

17:18:15 <manu> you can't just "hash a graph" to get a name.

Manu Sporny: you can't just "hash a graph" to get a name.

17:18:22 <AndyS> davidwood: wish we had more time ...

David Wood: wish we had more time ...

17:19:48 <AndyS> ADJOURNED

ADJOURNED



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#1) generated 2013-02-20 18:09:26 UTC by 'aseaborne', comments: None