Chatlog 2011-03-21

See panel, original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain non-obvious edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

12:53:55 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
12:53:55 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/21-rdf-wg-irc
12:53:57 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
12:54:37 <manu1> zakim, this is RDF WG
12:54:37 <Zakim> sorry, manu1, I do not see a conference named 'RDF WG' in progress or scheduled at this time
12:55:08 <manu1> zakim, room for 7?
12:55:09 <Zakim> ok, manu1; conference Team_(rdf-wg)12:55Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 60 minutes until 1355Z
12:55:37 <manu1> zakim, code?
12:55:37 <Zakim> the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu1
12:55:47 <manu1> rrsagent, make logs public
12:55:55 <manu1> rrsagent, make minutes
12:55:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/21-rdf-wg-minutes.html manu1
12:56:17 <SteveH_> SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg
12:56:33 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0500.html
12:56:53 <Zakim> Team_(rdf-wg)12:55Z has now started
12:57:00 <Zakim> +??P0
12:57:07 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P0
12:57:07 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
12:57:17 <manu1> Chair: Manu
12:57:19 <manu1> Scribe: Manu
12:57:32 <manu1> scribenick: manu1
12:57:39 <Zakim> +??P1
12:57:42 <AndyS> zakim, ??P1 is me
12:57:42 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
13:00:43 <Zakim> + +1.617.489.aaaa
13:00:53 <manu1> Present: AndyS, Manu, SteveH, Sandro, LeeF, ThomasS, IvanH, NathanR
13:01:04 <sandro> zakim, 1.617.489.aaaa is Sandro
13:01:04 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named '1.617.489.aaaa'
13:01:10 <sandro> zakim, aaaa is Sandro
13:01:10 <Zakim> +Sandro; got it
13:01:15 <manu1> rrsagent, make minutes
13:01:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/21-rdf-wg-minutes.html manu1
13:01:24 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
13:01:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, Sandro
13:01:37 <tomayac_> tomayac_ has joined #rdf-wg
13:01:51 <tomayac_> zakim, code?
13:01:51 <Zakim> the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), tomayac_
13:02:18 <danbri_> danbri_ has joined #rdf-wg
13:02:25 <Zakim> +??P3
13:02:34 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P3 is me
13:02:34 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
13:02:36 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
13:02:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, Sandro, SteveH
13:03:18 <LeeF> LeeF has joined #rdf-wg
13:03:21 <LeeF_> LeeF_ has joined #rdf-wg
13:03:25 <Zakim> + +1.404.978.aabb
13:03:46 <sandro> zakim, aabb is tomayac_ 
13:03:46 <Zakim> +tomayac_; got it
13:04:30 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0500.html
13:05:24 <manu1> Topic: Market Segments and RDF in JSON direction
13:05:33 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON_User_Segments
13:05:46 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aacc
13:05:51 <LeeF> zakim, aacc is me
13:05:51 <Zakim> +LeeF; got it
13:06:44 <sandro> looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON_User_Segments
13:07:11 <manu1> Manu: Let's talk about what we'd like this stuff to do for the various communities involved
13:07:24 <manu1> Sandro: I was getting lost in all of the options, so I put that JSON User segments bit together
13:07:52 <manu1> Sandro: It became more clear for me by thinking about what people would be willing to do by publishing their JSON
13:08:09 <manu1> Sandro: There are discrete levels, but the idea of the spectrum is pretty clear (communities)
13:08:26 <manu1> Sandro: as for the data consumers, I asked whether or not they want anything to do with RDF.
13:08:35 <LeeF> which level is "RDF publishers, willing to publish in JSON"? 7?
13:08:39 <tomayac_> (have to change phones. will be right back. sorry)
13:08:54 <manu1> Sandro: We need to ensure that we don't bug the people that are just using JSON today
13:09:10 <manu1> Sandro: all the way up to Group C - who want to use a library/API
13:09:18 <Zakim> +??P9
13:09:20 <AndyS> LeeF: +1 -- I attempted to answer that in my weekend email. 
13:09:21 <AndyS> q+
13:09:25 <ivan> zakim, ??P9 is me
13:09:25 <Zakim> +ivan; got it
13:09:40 <manu1> Sandro: Is level 3, 4 and 5 in scope? Need to discuss that.
13:09:43 <Zakim> -tomayac_
13:09:51 <Zakim> +tomayac_
13:09:57 <LeeF> AndyS, will check your mail, thanks
13:09:59 <manu1> Sandro: Don't need to decide the in-scope bit just yet, will need to eventually.
13:10:14 <tomayac_> (and back)
13:10:26 <manu1> AndyS: I found this diagram very helpful, no numbers in boxes, but it occured to me that there is a dual-diagram?
13:11:27 <manu1> AndyS: There may be other ways of looking at this - existing JSON publishers into RDF - will people w/ RDF want to provide it in a convenient way to JSON-style applications.
13:11:33 <LeeF> AndyS's email++
13:11:44 <manu1> Sandro: yes, that makes sense... maybe we can add that to the diagram
13:12:46 <manu1> Manu: What would you like to see happen in the next 2-3 years?
13:12:50 <LeeF> "really interesting" == bad working group topic? :)
13:13:02 <SteveH> +1 :)
13:13:04 <manu1> Sandro: Hard to tell at this point, interested in the green box
13:13:22 <sandro> webr3, press zero and ask the operator to add you.
13:13:23 <manu1> zakim, code?
13:13:23 <Zakim> the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), manu1
13:14:09 <sandro> AndyS: with the greenish box, any technical pubs need some degree of proof/evidence.   I'd like to see the evidence that it addresses them.
13:14:19 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
13:14:21 <sandro> +1 Andy
13:14:22 <manu1> AndyS: The thing about the green-ish box - technical publications need proof/evidence behind them, attempting to address particular classes - close but not right prevents anything else from happening in that space.
13:14:37 <sandro> zakim, IPcaller is webr3 
13:14:37 <Zakim> +webr3; got it
13:14:40 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
13:14:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, Sandro, SteveH, LeeF, ivan, tomayac_, webr3
13:14:43 <webr3> Zakim, i am IPcaller
13:14:43 <Zakim> sorry, webr3, I do not see a party named 'IPcaller'
13:14:49 <webr3> Zakim, i am [IPcaller]+
13:14:49 <Zakim> sorry, webr3, I do not see a party named '[IPcaller]+'
13:15:12 <manu1> AndyS: Of the three cases, I'm particularly motivated by presenting RDF web applications via JSON... 
13:15:26 <sandro> andy: I'm particular motivated by presenting RDF info through JSON to RDF webapps.
13:15:40 <sandro> andy: ... but I'm not sure how important that is.
13:16:22 <AndyS> andy: ... RDF serialization may not be important.
13:16:44 <manu1> AndyS: Turtle is closer to what I'd like...
13:16:56 <manu1> AndyS: Talis' format has elements of both.
13:17:39 <manu1> AndyS: That's talking about RDF serialization... but we may want to support on a lossy format?
13:18:06 <manu1> AndyS: Exporting data from RDF to JSON, but taking data in published RDF and giving it to JSON applications.
13:18:14 <manu1> Sandro: RDF through JSON?
13:18:25 <sandro> AndyS: an output format, need not round trip, but easier to read in json.   "rdf in json" maybe.    "rdf export in json"   apps not 1st class RDF apps.
13:18:31 <manu1> AndyS: It doesn't make the JSON applications first class RDF applications.
13:18:46 <manu1> AndyS: Data Access JSON?
13:19:39 <manu1> Manu: What's the target market?
13:19:43 <sandro> manu: Andy, which apps and communities?
13:19:51 <manu1> AndyS: Government data - data from different sources and doing mash-ups
13:19:58 <sandro> AndyS: eg uk govt data mashups
13:20:14 <manu1> AndyS: Combining government reference data and mashing/correlating - govt spending with school results.
13:20:54 <manu1> SteveH: I've got two agendas - we work internally w/ RDF, but provide an API to our business parters in XML/JSON
13:21:15 <manu1> SteveH: It would be interesting to directly expose our RDF, but businesses are moving very slowly toward that.
13:21:22 <sandro> SteveH: as a company that works exclusively in RDF, but provides APIs to our partners (json and xml), it would be nice to expose the RDF in a nice form to our partners
13:21:29 <manu1> SteveH: Deep but growing concern that this is going to turn into RDF/XML again
13:21:50 <manu1> SteveH: Doing something very slightly wrong could set back this area for quite some time.
13:21:54 <sandro> ... plus I'm worried about repeating some of the mistakes of RDF/XML.   Doing something very-slightly-wrong could set back the field for a long time.
13:22:15 <manu1> SteveH: We're interested in supporting financial industry/credit agencies, etc.
13:22:34 <manu1> SteveH: Not really a field where web services are common - technologically backwards industry.
13:22:55 <sandro> zakim, list attendees
13:22:55 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been manu1, AndyS, +1.617.489.aaaa, Sandro, SteveH, +1.404.978.aabb, tomayac_, +1.617.553.aacc, LeeF, ivan, webr3
13:23:31 <manu1> SteveH: JSON-LD at first glance looked applicable, but then it started to look like an eyesore.
13:24:04 <sandro> SteveH: Annotations scattered through the data rendered it unreadable.
13:24:11 <manu1> SteveH: In principle you think that you can do RDF/XML, but it doesn't work out that way.
13:24:16 <LeeF> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0475.html
13:24:25 <manu1> LeeF: I outlined our interest in that e-mail
13:24:45 <manu1> LeeF: We work in an RDF world, we work in RDF serializations - we work in triples
13:24:55 <sandro> LeeF: We work in an RDF world, but when we serve up RDF data to web apps, we use a json serializaton.   We have a mild interest in a std in this area.
13:25:24 <AndyS> Andy's attempt to do the dual to Sandro's User Segmentation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0501.html
13:25:37 <manu1> LeeF: Having a standard in this area would be great - we could interoperate well... but not a priority for us... just one step along that path, we don't have a particular need or interest in the JSON developer friendly way of reading standard JSON - but not a focus for us.
13:26:27 <manu1> LeeF: We are interested in JSON for RDF - we're going to apply libraries to it, and shouldn't care about the serialization standard.
13:26:50 <manu1> LeeF: Enterprise web developers - large companies using APIs to read data from endpoints - energy, financial services.
13:27:04 <Zakim> -LeeF
13:27:33 <manu1> Ivan: The motivation for the charter... there are a large group of WebApps devs that ignore RDF
13:27:48 <manu1> Ivan: Even in cases where they'd be better off with RDF
13:28:17 <manu1> Ivan: All the people working in the social web XGs, they have walled gardens, any application that tries to merge the data would be better off using RDF
13:28:44 <manu1> Ivan: but the kind of feedback that we get, RDF is too complicated, it's messy, etc. - it doesn't work for Web Apps folks. They have a point.
13:29:06 <manu1> Ivan: What one would hope is that by having some sort of JSON view of RDF data, that might be good enough for many developers to use Linked Open Data.
13:29:35 <SteveH> q+ to ask Ivan about round-tripping
13:29:36 <manu1> Ivan: My feeling if I look at Sandro's matrix, for those people, the kind of JTriples approach (RDF/JSON) would not work for them.
13:29:42 <AndyS> ack me
13:30:02 <Zakim> +LeeF
13:30:03 <manu1> Ivan: Not saying those serializations would not be useful, but it's the same issues that they've been complaining about.
13:30:23 <manu1> ack SteveH
13:30:23 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to ask Ivan about round-tripping
13:30:43 <manu1> SteveH: Given your use case, I would think that you'd want to produce and consume data in the JSON syntax.
13:30:56 <manu1> SteveH: Are you thinking just consuming or producing and consuming?
13:31:08 <manu1> Ivan: Round-tripping would be good, but for many apps, it's not the case.
13:31:28 <AndyS> q+ to ask if the original data is RDF or other format?
13:31:30 <manu1> Ivan: You want to read and mash-up as a consumer... but no clear opinion on that
13:31:39 <manu1> ack AndyS
13:31:39 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask if the original data is RDF or other format?
13:31:47 <manu1> AndyS: Is this where the original data is in RDF?
13:31:57 <manu1> Ivan: Not necessarily.
13:32:11 <manu1> AndyS: Where does the RDF come in, then?
13:32:26 <manu1> Ivan: Some of the data is in RDF, but some of it isn't, what happens if I want to combine it?
13:32:28 <AndyS> ack me
13:32:31 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
13:32:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, Sandro, SteveH, ivan, tomayac_, webr3, LeeF
13:33:05 <manu1> Thomas: Looking at Sandro's matrix... our WG should focus on the right-ish, lower-ish 1/3rd to 1/2 of it
13:33:26 <AndyS> Ivan: desire is combining data from different sources  (/me hope that's the right summary)
13:33:33 <manu1> Thomas: Don't need the need or feasibility for Twitter to use what we suggest. Make one format to rule the world... don't think that this is what we should do.
13:33:53 <ivan> s/is it/it is/
13:34:05 <manu1> Thomas: The really easy win woudl be to convince DBPedia, Freebase, etc to use one custom format.
13:34:35 <manu1> Thomas: If you look at what we use today - they all use different publishing formats... the lower-right-ish corner of the matrix
13:34:53 <manu1> Thomas: What would be interesting is providing RDF goggles, but don't entirely understand whether it would be generalizable.
13:35:26 <manu1> Thomas: One-off for each and every data provider... don't know if it would be globally useful to have data goggles. Maybe provide a roadmap for data providers telling them how they could do this. 
13:35:55 <sandro> ( webr3, is "rdf goggles" the green box? )
13:35:59 <manu1> Thomas: People that are already committed in thinking about the triple way, use the JSON format to express that data - that's what I'd like... like the object-based approach, maps better to the way JSON people think.
13:36:32 <manu1> Thomas: Not really worried about the billion triples stuff... no real need for JSON triples, they say use N-Triples, don't need yet another exchange format for simple triples..
13:36:59 <webr3> ( sandro, originally I was using the term to mean something more like JSON-Schema crossed with GRDDL for JSON, an external map which had rules to transform json objects in to rdf)
13:37:13 <manu1> Thomas: If there is a need, we can come up with a format for simple triples in JSON - we need an object based approach, getting namespaces right, prefixes right... string literals vs. URIs, many details
13:37:29 <manu1> Thomas: We need to get those details right, microsyntaxes, deeply nested objects, etc.
13:37:56 <manu1> Thomas: Endless discussions sometimes, but hope it is worth is.
13:38:33 <manu1> Thomas: Would like Drupal, Wordpress folks to adopt this stuff... a common serializatin format for their data... you can use atom, but would be nicer to use JSON as the API.
13:38:57 <manu1> Thomas: Also see a need for a lightweight feed for shopping sites - lots of individual items that they need to publish somewhere.
13:39:29 <manu1> Nathan: I work in a few different spaces, different viewpoints on these competing needs.
13:40:18 <manu1> Nathan: For folks that are invested in RDF - I see a strong need in 6B (Sandro's graph) - SPARQL results being standardized - good to have a single syntax across the wire, between SPARQL, between RDF systems, JSON incredibly easy and fast to parse.
13:40:38 <manu1> Nathan: Node.js doesn't have nice XML support - custom parsers for TURTLE, speed is noticable... JSON is fast.
13:40:57 <manu1> Nathan: The other side is working w/ lots of developers - enterprise to open source
13:41:35 <manu1> Nathan: Explaining RDF to many of them - takeaway is that they like the follow-your-nose side of things, like shared schema, crawling
13:41:56 <manu1> Nathan: Key-value stores and JSON stores - NoSQL movement at the backend - working w/ raw objects all the time
13:42:08 <sandro> webr3:  people like RDF, but really just fall back to the bits they like:  (1) follow your nose,  (2) shared schema,  (3) kv stores / nosql
13:42:21 <ivan> q+
13:42:25 <manu1> Nathan: Then they see the serializations, and then they giv eup on it - need a constrained RDF, simple datatypes - adding in date and adding in URI
13:42:57 <manu1> Nathan: Those are the needs that I see - 6b and level 3, 4, and 5 groups - as long as we do one of them, I'd be happy, I'd like to do both
13:43:30 <webr3> q+ too
13:43:34 <ivan> ack ivan
13:43:36 <manu1> Ivan: I think it's perfectly fine for many of those apps - whatever serialization we do, it is lossy - so lossy serializations would be fine for many of these groups.
13:43:38 <manu1> ack too
13:44:08 <manu1> Nathan: Where most of these people are not using RDF stores or triple stores - many are heavily invested in NoSQL stores, column databases, etc.
13:44:30 <manu1> Nathan: They're moving away from RDBMS to object stores - data is not in RDF - but they would like to provide it as RDF.
13:44:48 <manu1> Nathan: They can understand/import other peoples data... 
13:44:59 <tomayac_> +1 for keeping in mind the nosql community and the way these people think!
13:45:15 <sandro> q+ with comment on RT-ing
13:45:20 <manu1> Nathan: The whole round-trippable side of things I don't see as important - you can pull in some objects, you can produce some objects, but doesn't have to be RDF.
13:45:21 <sandro> q+ to comment on RT-ing
13:45:27 <manu1> zakim, who is on the call?
13:45:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, Sandro, SteveH, ivan, tomayac_, webr3, LeeF
13:45:55 <manu1> Sandro: See an argument that we don't see round-tripping, leaving out expressibilility - whatever we leave out, someone will need it
13:46:43 <manu1> AndyS: It seems like it's not a technical issue - right?
13:46:56 <webr3> agree w/ sandro, re blank nodes, it'd be simple to just leave out blank node identifiers and keep blank nodes (anonymous nested objects)
13:47:12 <manu1> AndyS: If they saw a restricted mechainsm, they may have a different reaction. This may be why TURTLE is liked over RDF/XML.
13:47:25 <manu1> Sandro: The problem here is one of hit with the firehose when they wanted a glass of water.
13:47:35 <tomayac_> q+
13:47:36 <manu1> Sandro: Google RDF - you're not going to get anything useful
13:47:38 <sandro> q-
13:48:15 <manu1> Thomas: One of the things we should do is read through the direction on json.org and make sure to understand where the serialization comes from
13:48:32 <manu1> Thomas: We need to think the JavaScript way - weak typing, etc.
13:48:51 <manu1> Thomas: You can do strong typing, but you shouldn't enforce it.
13:51:30 <tomayac_> i meant 2.0 and 2 dont make a diff, not "2" and 2. 
13:53:17 <tomayac_> as in "this slap in your face hurts me more than you" ;-)
13:53:14 <manu1> Manu: I am extremely concerned about meeting Web Application developers half-way. I think the biggest issue that the semantic web community has had is getting massive adoption of it's technologies. RDFa is one of the success stories - what other semantic web format has had the adoption curve that it has? That is, we met developers half-way and good things happened. We need to do the same with the data formats for RDF. TURTLE and SPARQL have been out there for quite a number of years, but adoption has been constrained to the semantic web developer community. I have a great deal of respect for the people that work on the Semantic Web stuff. There's enough of it out there already, another RDF serialization isn't going to drastically change things. We need to focus on helping the Web developers out there, not the semantic application developers.
13:53:50 <manu1> Manu: That is, we haven't seen a big adoption by companies like Facebook and Twitter - they're using JSON because it's simple and maps well to what their developers are using. Unless we meet people like that half-way, they're not going to adopt a way of publishing semantic web data. They think object-based, not triple-based - we need to meet them half-way on that - we need to disrupt as little as possible. However, these companies are just examples of the types of developers that we want to attract into the Semantic Web world - it wouldn't take a great deal of effort to do that and that's what JSON-LD focuses on doing.
13:55:02 <Zakim> This conference is in overtime; 4 ports must be freed
13:55:15 <webr3> manu: read write data also very important moving forwards
13:55:26 <sandro> q+
13:56:32 <sandro> I hear manu aiming at Level 4.
13:56:32 <SteveH> q+
13:56:44 <manu1> ack tomayac_
13:56:53 <manu1> Sandro: I think you're characterising level 4
13:59:41 <manu1> Manu: If you can't follow-your-nose, you can get a default context from another website.
13:59:46 <manu1> ack sandro
14:00:09 <manu1> AndyS: GRDDL hasn't taken off, we need to reflect on why
14:00:33 <manu1> SteveH: So, I'm skeptical that you can take something like any RDF and serialize it into JSON-LD that anyone would want to consume.
14:00:38 <sandro> SteveH: I'm skeptical that you can serialize typical RDF into JSON-LD that anyone would want to consume.
14:00:49 <manu1> SteveH: Serializing into TURTLE is pretty hard - into JSON would be really, really challenging
14:00:51 <webr3> q+
14:01:02 <sandro> +1 skeptical 
14:01:16 <manu1> SteveH: The risk is that we create a serialization that's theoretically possible, but it may be too ugly to use.
14:01:42 <manu1> Nathan: I think we need two serializations - take RDF as JSON, and another constrained one for bigger folks like Facebook, Twitter.
14:02:12 <manu1> Nathan: merging the two might be doing RDF/XML all over again.
14:02:24 <webr3> ack webr3
14:02:37 <ivan> zakim, drop me
14:02:37 <Zakim> ivan is being disconnected
14:02:38 <Zakim> -ivan
14:02:38 <Zakim> -Sandro
14:02:51 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:02:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, SteveH, tomayac_, webr3, LeeF
14:09:45 <manu1> Topic: Starting Documents
14:03:23 <manu1> AndyS: I'm not worried about entire RDF serialization into JSON
14:03:36 <manu1> AndyS: if you're going to do that, parse N-Triples
14:03:58 <manu1> AndyS: I don't think it would do any harm to translate RDF into JSON completely
14:04:40 <SteveH> +1 to AndyS, I've heard the "that's fine but X is not good for us" argument hundreds of times
14:05:27 <LeeF> +1 to AndyS, of course
14:06:19 <manu1> AndyS: The lossy RDF serialization - you have RDF and you want to give it to JSON apps
14:06:37 <manu1> AndyS: Lossy translation of RDF down to JSON - you have RDF and you want to publish JSON
14:06:41 <webr3> +1, but worry about putting names of companies on use cases, I know many many developers who would use objects+uri-ids+shared-properties
14:07:43 <manu1> AndyS: When you try to convert data that is not RDF - it's difficult to do the detailed capture of meaning, we're going back to the knowledge acquisition task - difficult to do.
14:09:02 <manu1> AndyS: The safest course would be to translate RDF to JSON in an easy way - JTriples, RDF/JSON
14:09:24 <manu1> AndyS: JSON-LD is unproven territory, this WG on it's fast track is not the best place for it to happen.
14:10:02 <manu1> SteveH: We're safe with SPARQL result set... anything else would be dangerous.
14:10:14 <manu1> LeeF: I agree w/ Andy and Steve
14:10:18 <SteveH> not just SRJ, but any 3-column serialisation
14:10:58 <manu1> Nathan: I have a split opinion, I agree with everyone - SPARQL result set is good - but we also need a way to do Objects w/ URI IDs - JSON-LD / JSN3 is overkill - maybe simplify them
14:11:13 <manu1> Thomas: Pass... not knowledgeable enough on SPARQL.
14:11:48 <webr3> q+ to ask manu a q quickly
14:12:31 <manu1> ack SteveH
14:13:04 <manu1> Nathan: Quick question... it seems like w/ JSON-LD - you would like it to cover every use case - very simple to very complex.
14:13:15 <manu1> Nathan: Why do you want everything in the one serialization?
14:13:45 <manu1> Manu: I think that's a common misconception with JSON-LD - right now it looks like the kitchen sink. I wrote the document like that to cover every use case, fully expecting that we'd rip features out of JSON-LD - things like type coercion and normalization, etc. I wrote those sections knowing that there would be people that would ask for those features - some of them are vital, some of them are not. For example, we don't need microsyntaxes or type coercion if we agree that the serialization will be lossy. Much of JSON-LD can be whittled down to a simpler format - but we will need to address the "Why didn't you add feature X?" people, and the spec does that pre-emptively at the moment.
14:14:36 <AndyS> Linked Data API is an example of lossy RDF->JSON (the mapping is domain specific)
14:16:05 <webr3> AndyS, JSN3 is like that, JSON-LD isn't
14:17:09 <tomayac_> (brb)
14:17:13 <webr3> ack webr3
14:17:15 <webr3> ack webr
14:17:15 <Zakim> webr, you wanted to ask manu a q quickly
14:18:18 <manu1> Nathan: JSN3 is setup in the Talis N3-way
14:18:26 <manu1> Nathan: JSON-LD is different from JSN3
14:19:14 <manu1> Nathan: There were three options - triples in JSON, TURLE-like view, objects in JSON
14:19:30 <tomayac_> (back)
14:19:53 <manu1> Nathan: triples in JSON -> RDF/JSON, TURTLE-like view -> JSN3, objects in JSON -> JSON-LD
14:20:21 <manu1> AndyS: The SPARQL result JSON format is almost like a CSV file - it also inherits design criteria from the XML results format.
14:20:26 <webr3> Nathan: JSON-LD currently like/covers all three (triples,turtles,objects)
14:20:33 <SteveH> +1 to AndyS on SPARQL JSON being ugly
14:20:37 <manu1> AndyS: A solution to a problem at the time - it has taken off despite its history.
14:21:19 <Zakim> -SteveH
14:22:04 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
14:22:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see manu1, AndyS, tomayac_, webr3, LeeF
14:22:22 <manu1> Thomas: Did we consider getting someone from the JavaScript community as an Invited expert?
14:22:22 <manu1> Nathan: Maybe Dave Longley from Digital Bazaar?
14:22:24 <manu1> Manu: Dave and I worked on JSON-LD together, I doubt that he'd have a very different take on JSON-LD than I do - plus it would be another Invited Expert from the same company (which W3C may frown upon).
14:22:26 <manu1> Manu: Perhaps someone like John Resig?
14:22:29 <manu1> Nathan: The problem with most JSON developers is that they're just that - they don't have the skillset that combines semantic web and JSON.
14:22:30 <SteveH> SteveH has joined #rdf-wg
14:26:17 <webr3> "give them something to hate" :D
14:28:26 <manu1> AndyS: Perhaps best thing to do at this point is think about this sort of stuff for a week.
14:28:29 <manu1> Manu: Let's follow-up on the mailing list - then wait at least a week to reconvene a JSON-specific discussion.
14:29:45 <Zakim> -webr3
14:30:50 <Zakim> -manu1
14:30:52 <Zakim> -tomayac_
14:30:52 <Zakim> -AndyS
14:30:58 <AndyS> ADJOURNED
14:31:07 <Zakim> -LeeF
14:31:08 <Zakim> Team_(rdf-wg)12:55Z has ended
14:31:11 <Zakim> Attendees were manu1, AndyS, +1.617.489.aaaa, Sandro, SteveH, +1.404.978.aabb, tomayac_, +1.617.553.aacc, LeeF, ivan, webr3
14:31:12 <manu1> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:31:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/21-rdf-wg-minutes.html manu1
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000296