From RDF Working Group Wiki
Please justify/explain non-obvious edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
<sandro> guest: David Wood 15:03:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see AZ, davidwood, Guus_Schreiber, cygri, ww (muted), [Garlik], Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, [Sophia] 15:03:37 <Zakim> [Garlik] has SteveH, mischat 15:03:41 <Zakim> +??P37 15:03:50 <pchampin> zakim, ??P37 is me 15:03:50 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it 15:04:10 <SteveH> scribenick: SteveH 15:04:22 <SteveH> scribe: SteveH 15:05:33 <SteveH> Guus: minuites 15:05:40 <SteveH> ... any objections.... 15:06:04 <SteveH> Resolved: accept minutes of last meeting 15:06:18 <SteveH> ... no actions pending review, open action items: 15:06:30 <SteveH> ... options for issue 15 15:06:55 <SteveH> cygri: it's related to graphs stuff, we should refactor it 15:07:06 <SteveH> ... start progress over again 15:07:21 <SteveH> Guus: it's on an agenda item 15:07:28 <SteveH> ... lets close this action, and see 15:07:55 <SteveH> ... 3rd action is on Sandro "start conversation on reservings"/ 15:08:22 <SteveH> [it might be .well-known] 15:08:52 <SteveH> cygri, it's whether we approach the IEFT now, or wait 15:09:09 <SteveH> Guus: can someone add a note saying what it means 15:09:17 <SteveH> davidwood: I'll add something 15:09:43 <cygri> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-Graph-Literal 15:09:48 <SteveH> cygri: ...about literals ^ 15:09:52 <davidwood> Thanks. My recent status change seems to have left me unable to edit the wiki. 15:10:39 <SteveH> Guus: nearing time when europeans will go on holiday 15:11:00 <SteveH> ... several ways - we can tke a break, or meet every week with a small group, or do telecons every 2 weeks over summertime 15:11:06 <SteveH> ... happy to accept other points 15:11:20 <cygri> trackbot, close ACTION-25 15:11:20 <trackbot> ACTION-25 Write up the different options re ISSUE-15 closed 15:11:22 <Zakim> +PatH 15:11:29 <SteveH> davidwood: we have one week where we know lots of people will be absent 15:11:37 <SteveH> Guus: does 2 weeks sound fine? 15:11:48 <ww> +1 every two weeks 15:12:03 <PHayes> PHayes has joined #rdf-wg 15:12:17 <cygri> SteveH: sparql keeps running through the summer, lots of americans on the group 15:12:20 <davidwood> +1 to 2 weeks 15:12:22 <SteveH> +1 15:12:26 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg 15:12:40 <SteveH> Guus: suggest we do every 2 weeks, back to normal on 3rd week of aug 15:12:47 <SteveH> Guus: I will propose a schedule 15:13:00 <SteveH> ACTION: Guus to propose schedule 15:13:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Propose schedule [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-06-15]. 15:13:24 <SteveH> ACTION-55: schedule for meetings over the summer that is 15:13:24 <trackbot> ACTION-55 Propose schedule notes added 15:13:28 <PHayes> Um..sorry Im late...why are we changing the schedule? 15:13:34 <Zakim> +Kingsley_Idehen 15:13:45 <MacTed> Zakim, Kingsley_Idehen is OpenLink_Software 15:13:45 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software; got it 15:13:54 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:13:54 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:13:58 <SteveH> Guus: SPARQL last call WD 15:13:59 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:13:59 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:14:09 <AlexHall> PatH, because Europeans are about to go on holiday. 15:14:20 <PHayes> Ah. 15:14:23 <SteveH> ... decided that we will have personal reviews from members + review on behalf of RDF WD 15:14:40 <SteveH> ... actions were not recorded 15:14:49 <pchampin> zakim, unmute me 15:14:49 <Zakim> pchampin should no longer be muted 15:15:06 <SteveH> pchampin: haven't had time to look into it 15:15:28 <SteveH> Guus: it's proper behaviour for us to respond quickly 15:15:42 <SteveH> ACTION: pchampin to review SPARQL LC WD document 15:15:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Review SPARQL LC WD document [on Pierre-Antoine Champin - due 2011-06-15]. 15:16:09 <SteveH> ACTION: Guus to contact Yves R. re. SPARQL reviews 15:16:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Contact Yves R. re. SPARQL reviews [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-06-15]. 15:16:44 <SteveH> Guus: Lee F. suggested we organise a short telecon to discuss graph terminology 15:18:14 <SteveH> davidwood: would be in the contxet of coord group 15:18:20 <SteveH> s/would/could/ 15:18:49 <SteveH> Guus: message of 16th May 15:19:00 <SteveH> ... 15th May in US 15:19:31 <SteveH> ACTION: Guus to organise telecon with SPARQL WG on graph terminology 15:19:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Organise telecon with SPARQL WG on graph terminology [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-06-15]. 15:19:44 <pchampin> of course 15:19:57 <SteveH> Guus: pchampin, would be nice if you could take into account discussion of string literals 15:20:12 <SteveH> Status of documentation 15:20:32 <SteveH> Guus: concepts document, it's in mercurial 15:20:43 <SteveH> ... I assume that most of the respec problems have been fixed 15:20:45 <cygri> RDF Concepts, editors draft: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html 15:20:57 <SteveH> ... I suggest to reuse old templates 15:21:14 <SteveH> cygri: one way to start would be take a copy of HTML files, especially header 15:21:19 <SteveH> ... you have to make some obvious changes 15:21:27 <SteveH> ... then insert the current content as published 15:21:47 <SteveH> Guus: I did that already for the primer 15:21:59 <SteveH> ... would be best is we started adding docs to repo 15:22:25 <ww> i tried writing a spec with respec.js attempting to put the vocabulary in rdfa inside it. didn't work very well... 15:22:28 <PHayes> I have to say, this whole process is utterly alien to me and I really have not even begun hjow to install the necessary software. As I have no idea what it is doing, I dont know how to know if I ge it right. 15:22:38 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg 15:23:34 <SteveH> PHayes: I'll learn how to do it, but it will take me a while 15:24:10 <SteveH> Guus: Richard sent a doc with shortnames for docuemnts, seems obvious 15:24:20 <SteveH> ... but why is it turtle, not rdf-turtle 15:24:24 <SteveH> cygri: either would be ok 15:24:35 <SteveH> Guus: we have rdf- infront of all of them 15:24:53 <SteveH> davidwood: I propose to make that change 15:25:11 <AZ> \me +1 to rdf- for all documents 15:25:46 <SteveH> cygri: we should have a page (on the wiki) about the documents 15:25:53 <SteveH> ... I could create 15:26:18 <SteveH> ACTION: cygri to create page on wiki about documents and editing 15:26:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-59 - Create page on wiki about documents and editing [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-06-15]. 15:26:58 <SteveH> Guus: will try for early Turtle draft, relatively little work, but work needs to be done 15:27:15 <SteveH> ACTION Guus to discuss Turtle doc schedule with ericP 15:27:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Discuss Turtle doc schedule with ericP [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-06-15]. 15:27:36 <SteveH> Guus: will attempt to report back next week 15:27:59 <PHayes> +1 to david 15:28:11 <SteveH> davidwood: can we leave the telecon slot open 15:28:19 <SteveH> [general agreement] 15:28:44 <SteveH> Guus: content issues 15:29:13 <SteveH> ... as far as I can see the main changes to concepts are graphs TF issues, have to reach consensus, but lots of open issues 15:29:25 <SteveH> ... wondering if its useful to do review next week 15:29:42 <SteveH> ... is someone willing to prepare that discussion 15:30:02 <davidwood> +1 to refocus discussion on graphs 15:30:08 <SteveH> ... about 10 issues open, propose we start discussing next week 15:30:19 <SteveH> ... re. concepts doc 15:30:31 <PHayes> Unfortunately this particular week is impossible for me, or I would volunteer. Good idea. 15:30:32 <pchampin> +1 15:31:03 <SteveH> ... issues are well documented, so should review issues, and assign actions 15:31:05 <cygri> +1 to reviewing the issues + deciding on actions 15:31:15 <SteveH> ... one issue is being tacked by telecon 15:31:36 <SteveH> ... we were close to consensus in last discussion 15:31:54 <SteveH> ... next week 30 mins minimum for review of status of graphs issues 15:32:18 <SteveH> ... last 5 postponed issues 15:32:44 <SteveH> ... ISSUE-58 15:32:57 <SteveH> ... david proposes we should close it as it's archaic 15:33:03 <pfps> +1 15:33:05 <SteveH> +1, close it 15:33:07 <PHayes> agreee close 15:33:07 <pchampin> +1 15:33:08 <AlexHall> +1 15:33:15 <AZ> +1 close 15:33:19 <cygri> +1 close 15:33:35 <SteveH> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-58, as being archaic. 15:33:39 <SteveH> by consensus 15:33:58 <SteveH> ISSUE-59 15:34:21 <SteveH> Guus: "RDF XML syntax can't represent arbitrary graphs" 15:34:25 <pfps> +10 to not upgrade RDF/XML to do this 15:34:34 <SteveH> +1 to close 15:34:40 <pfps> +1 to *close* 15:34:48 <AZ> +1 to close 15:34:49 <AlexHall> It's already noted in the specs 15:34:52 <AlexHall> +1 to close 15:34:57 <pfps> q+ 15:35:14 <pfps> q- 15:35:19 <PHayes> propose we leave this open for now, until we consider rdf/xml. No need to close it. 15:35:25 <davidwood> +1 to close 15:35:26 <cygri> ISSUE-59? 15:35:26 <trackbot> ISSUE-59 -- Revisit "The RDF/XML syntax can't represent an an arbritary graph structure" -- raised 15:35:26 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/59 15:36:45 <cygri> q+ 15:37:15 <Guus> ack cygri 15:37:25 <pfps> I don't see a possible future in which RDF/XML changes to represent all graphs. 15:37:30 <SteveH> +1 15:37:48 <PHayes> OK, 0 from me. 15:38:03 <pchampin> q+ 15:38:10 <Zakim> -MacTed 15:38:24 <pfps> q+ to say that Richard is confused 15:38:27 <MacTed> silly phone system.... 15:38:34 <pchampin> g- 15:38:37 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 15:38:38 <pchampin> q- 15:38:39 <PHayes> richard has a good point. THis may be a non-issue due to an old clerical error. 15:38:41 <cygri> issue description here: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-syntax-incomplete 15:38:45 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:38:45 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:38:48 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:38:48 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:38:58 <pchampin> q+ to understand who's confused 15:39:49 <SteveH> ACTION: pfps to check whether ISSUES-59 is still pertinient (may be obsolete) 15:39:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Check whether ISSUES-59 is still pertinient (may be obsolete) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2011-06-15]. 15:40:04 <ww> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0163.html <-- actions to add nodeID recorded 15:40:09 <pchampin> q- 15:40:14 <SteveH> ISSUE-60? 15:40:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-60 -- Revisit "Defining the interpretation of fragment identifiers in RDF embedded in other document formats" -- raised 15:40:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/60 15:40:28 <cygri> q+ 15:40:35 <SteveH> Guus: propose to continue 15:40:49 <cygri> ISSUE-37? 15:40:49 <trackbot> ISSUE-37 -- Handling of fragment identifiers in RDF embedded in other document formats -- raised 15:40:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/37 15:41:22 <SteveH> cygri: things like RDFa make this question more important, so this should be considered 15:41:39 <SteveH> Guus: we have an issue already, so we can close 60, redir to 37 15:42:09 <SteveH> ... can someone add a link to 37, and close 60? 15:42:19 <pfps> I'll do it, instead of my other action. 15:42:21 <cygri> +1 to close and redirect to ISSUE-37 15:42:41 <PHayes> FWIW, re. issue 59, the 26 july 2000 wg minutes say that this issue is "removed from the WG's issue list", not "postponed". 15:42:48 <SteveH> RESOLVED: by consensus to close ISSUE-60 and redirect to ISSUE-37 15:43:17 <pfps> go it 15:43:21 <pfps> got it 15:43:23 <PHayes> OK 15:43:29 <SteveH> Guus: looks like ISSUE-59 was an admin error 15:43:45 <SteveH> ISSUE-61? 15:43:45 <trackbot> ISSUE-61 -- Revisit "An XML literal without markup, e.g. "foo" should denote the same thing as the plain literal "foo"" -- raised 15:43:45 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/61 15:44:15 <pfps> I don't think that Issue-12 talks about XML literals now. 15:44:19 <SteveH> I don't believe that "foo" is a legal XMLLiteral, is it? 15:44:51 <SteveH> "<foo />" is legal, I think 15:44:59 <PHayes> +1 Steve. 15:45:51 <SteveH> Guus: prefer not to close it with the current text, quite sure that we will close it with the statement that it's misguided 15:45:58 <PHayes> I dont understand this issue? Was it to make "foo"^^^rdf:XMLLIteral be identical with something else? If so, what? 15:46:16 <AZ> Close it but do not mention Issue-12 15:46:21 <PHayes> +1 15:46:36 <SteveH> Guus: propose to close the issue stating that the statement is not true 15:46:51 <AZ> +1 15:46:57 <davidwood> +1 15:47:17 <AZ> "foo"^^^rdf:XMLLIteral owl:differentFrom "foo" 15:47:30 <SteveH> Guus: more discussion? 15:47:51 <SteveH> propose to close issue-61 stating that the answer should be no 15:47:57 <pchampin> +1 15:47:59 <SteveH> +1 15:48:01 <AZ> +1 use pfps proposal 15:48:02 <pfps> +1 15:48:02 <davidwood> +1 15:48:13 <SteveH> RESOLVED: close ISSUE-61 stating that the answer is "no" 15:48:29 <PHayes> Why do I keep thinking 'augean'? 15:48:39 <SteveH> ISSUE-62? 15:48:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-62 -- Revisit "The test cases manifest format has a semantic error" -- raised 15:48:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/62 15:48:56 <SteveH> Guus: propose to continue this issue, and look again when we're working on testcases 15:49:04 <SteveH> ... leave it open 15:49:06 <PHayes> +1 to doing nothing. 15:49:10 <SteveH> +1 15:49:13 <AZ> +1 15:49:36 <SteveH> ISSUE-12? 15:49:36 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 -- Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) -- open 15:49:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12 15:50:12 <SteveH> Guus: there's a thread about this, it appears we're close to consensus 15:50:22 <SteveH> ... would like discussion about things we don't have consensus about 15:50:28 <SteveH> ... plan for resolution next week 15:50:29 <PHayes> I think we need a better name for rdf:LanguageTaggedLIteral 15:50:49 <SteveH> PHayes: I think we're close to consensus, what about alt. proposal about using datatypes 15:51:26 <SteveH> ... about only remaining thing we're still debating is what we're calling this datatype, and how best to explain it so it doesn't sound complicated 15:51:38 <SteveH> Guus: it's important to spend time on naming 15:52:08 <SteveH> PHayes: there's on more issue, there's 2 ways to present it, the new datatype 15:52:26 <ww> so "chat"@fr -> "\"chat\"@fr"^^rdf:LTR ?? 15:52:43 <SteveH> ... one is to retain the current model sctrictly, but we have to use PlainLiteral device in abstract syntax, to include both parts in one string, easy, but ugly(?) 15:52:57 <cygri> q+ 15:53:14 <pfps> q- 15:53:17 <SteveH> ... or would could bite the bullet and treat it like its a datatype, but it takes a pair, the extension is trivial, some people things it's complex, but I don't agree 15:53:27 <SteveH> q? 15:53:32 <Guus> ack cygri 15:54:03 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg 15:54:17 <SteveH> cygri: there are several ways to handle connection between abs. syntax and semantics, one was is to leave PLs as they are, and say that rdf:LTS is not actually a DT, but a class 15:54:32 <SteveH> ... of all <string, langtag> pairs 15:54:39 <SteveH> ... worht considering, or do people object 15:54:47 <SteveH> PHayes: that's a viable option too 15:55:01 <SteveH> ... if you look how they get used, it's only used as a classname 15:55:06 <SteveH> ... or a token 15:55:34 <SteveH> ... we can just say that (something) without saying it's a DT 15:55:44 <SteveH> cygri: it seems that it's the least painful way 15:55:59 <ww> q+ 15:56:03 <SteveH> ... it might be a bit cleaner to do it with a DT, but we still have three things 15:56:15 <SteveH> ... seems to cause oposition from implementors 15:56:19 <SteveH> +1 15:56:25 <SteveH> ... maybe it would be a good option 15:56:25 <Guus> +1 for Richard's option 15:56:49 <PHayes> As long as it can be treated as a 'type' in SPARQL :-) 15:56:52 <SteveH> ... two more things, may still be disagreement, there's .... 15:56:54 <ww> zakim, unmute me 15:56:54 <Zakim> ww should no longer be muted 15:57:29 <SteveH> ww: this proposal seems like a half measure, intriduces an extra 3rd thing, and cant use rdf machiney to model langs, which we might want to do 15:57:38 <SteveH> ... we should leave open the possibility 15:57:44 <PHayes> Which proposal is Ww referring to? 15:57:48 <SteveH> ... having a tuple-space with datatype means we cant do that 15:57:58 <SteveH> cygri: i'm confused 15:58:19 <SteveH> ww: dt with string,lang pairs means the lang is disconnected 15:58:35 <SteveH> ... there should be a DT for LTS, with subtypes, for every language 15:58:42 <SteveH> ... leave the door open for modelling that 15:58:48 <SteveH> ... abolish langtags 15:58:48 <PHayes> q 15:58:52 <PHayes> +q 15:58:58 <SteveH> cygri: can't follow that 15:59:00 <Guus> ack ww 15:59:02 <SteveH> ... what is the proposal 15:59:21 <Guus> ack PHayes 15:59:37 <SteveH> ww: langtags abolished, strings are strngs, subsets of the sets of all strings that are strings in particular languages, subtypes of the string datatype 15:59:40 <PHayes> I dont htink that our users will tolerate our bainishing lang tags on literals. 15:59:44 <pchampin> that does not work; language are orthogonal to strings 16:00:10 <SteveH> PHayes: there is a sizeable user population that demanded them with passion, can't get rid of them 16:00:18 <SteveH> ... inc. the 23c i18n group 16:00:36 <SteveH> ww: not saying remove the function, just make it a kind of DT 16:01:00 <SteveH> [sounds like ww is describing langtags as datatypes option] 16:01:10 <ww> SteveH: yes 16:02:09 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdf-wg 16:02:27 <SteveH> ww: get rid of langtags yes, but map them to dts(?) 16:02:46 <SteveH> ... want to make languages a tree of datatypes 16:02:56 <cygri> q+ 16:03:08 <cygri> q- 16:03:11 <SteveH> PHayes: any proposal that removes langtags from syntax of RDF wont''t fly 16:03:12 <SteveH> +1 16:03:24 <SteveH> ww: will write proposal to list 16:03:43 <ww> zakim, mute me 16:03:43 <Zakim> ww should now be muted 16:03:54 <SteveH> cygri: some discussion is needed re. preference of different contrcete syntax forms 16:04:09 <SteveH> ... e.g. in NTriples would now have two options, "foo", "foo"^^xsd:string 16:04:23 <SteveH> ... there are different tradeoffs in different formats 16:04:38 <SteveH> ... in NTriples is good that there's not much syntax variation 16:04:55 <SteveH> ... would make things harder if I find both in the wild 16:05:12 <SteveH> ... should we say that one SHOULD, MUST or SHOULD NOT use one of these forms 16:05:22 <pchampin> q+ 16:05:23 <SteveH> ... or allow each spec to do it's own thing 16:05:35 <SteveH> ... I think I disagree with AndyS about some format issues 16:05:44 <SteveH> [what]s AndyS's position?} 16:05:53 <PHayes> +1 to getting all this VERY CLEAR, for sure. 16:05:59 <SteveH> Guus: shortest form is usally preferable 16:06:08 <SteveH> +1 to VERY CLEAR 16:06:41 <SteveH> cygri: AndyS says that authors SHOULD use the shortest form, in SPARQL results I would really like to be able to know whether the strings are going to have the DT or not 16:06:47 <SteveH> +1 to cygri 16:06:49 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg 16:06:57 <PHayes> Richard, you are shooting Andy in the foot here. 16:07:02 <SteveH> cygri: so a SHOULD isn't string enough to me 16:07:20 <SteveH> ... in turtle I don't see the need 16:07:26 <pchampin> s/string enough/strong enough/ 16:07:43 <SteveH> ... would like to see a stronger statement 16:07:43 <Guus> q? 16:07:50 <pchampin> ack me 16:08:00 <PHayes> Everyone wants the query language to be both semantically transparent and also sensitive to the smallest lexical detail. Cant have it both ways, guys. 16:08:20 <SteveH> pchampin: I agree for need for regularity, but maybe there are differences 16:08:28 <SteveH> ... NTriples I see 3 alternatives 16:08:36 <SteveH> ... allow both, bad idea 16:08:57 <SteveH> ... keep shortest one, best of three, but some iregulariy, string literals must be treated in special way 16:09:02 <PHayes> How much legacy RDF is there out there that uses one and not the other? Do we ahve a choic eot not allow both? 16:09:04 <pfps> I'm feeling very weirded-out by all this SPARQL stuff. RDF is supposed to be about *meaning*, not syntax, not even abstract syntax! 16:09:07 <cygri> q+ 16:09:10 <SteveH> ... enforce xsd:string, but breaks a lot of existing NTriples 16:09:27 <SteveH> ... for the sake of back-compat we have to keep shortest form 16:09:32 <PHayes> Yes, pfps, but querying is all about syntactic matching. You betcha. 16:09:53 <PHayes> q+ 16:10:09 <SteveH> Guus: users typically use the shortest form, but sparql query uses the DT form 16:10:26 <pfps> Well, not as far as I am concerned. Querying is about retrieving meaning. (As opposed to straight entailment, which is simpler.) 16:10:27 <SteveH> I would be -1 to SPARQL using the long form, that's a lot of bytes 16:10:56 <SteveH> pchampin: I would be in favour of MUST for NTriples and SPARQL res, but not others, but not sure which form is best 16:11:29 <SteveH> ... both would break some existing data, most reg. form is with the datatype 16:11:31 <SteveH> q+ 16:11:33 <PHayes> pfps, so listen to Richard. He wants to make queries which distinguish a from b when a = b is *necessary*. Any why not? Hos code has to handle the suyntax, not the meaning. 16:11:38 <SteveH> ... explicit is better than implicit 16:11:54 <SteveH> ... there are a lot of plain literals out there 16:11:55 <ww> less typing, more clarity and consistency - make developers lives easy as possible. 16:12:08 <Guus> ack cygri 16:12:12 <SteveH> cygri: for back compat we have to keep both forms valid 16:12:24 <ww> +1 cygri 16:12:25 <SteveH> ... we cant say that any forms would now be invalid in NTriples 16:12:28 <SteveH> +1 16:12:37 <Guus> +1 for not using MUST 16:12:40 <SteveH> ... when parsing both forms are valid, but when serialising, only use one form, 16:12:48 <pchampin> +1, enforced regularity would break backward compatibility 16:13:03 <pchampin> +1 about distinguishing old stuff/new stuff 16:13:07 <SteveH> PHayes: I agree with Richard, there's so much stuff out there, can't make it illigal 16:13:33 <SteveH> ... one meaning can be expressed two different ways, the tool should treat them as equivalent 16:13:52 <Guus> 2 min left 16:13:54 <SteveH> ... is results sensitive to the way the query is stated 16:13:56 <ww> +1 for tools treating them equivalently (and probably normalising them to w/ datatype internally) 16:14:29 <ww> +1 for fewer bytes on the wire 16:14:50 <PHayes> +1 to SteveH. 16:15:02 <SteveH> SteveH: the long form is less efficient 16:15:13 <SteveH> ... even though it's easier to canonicalise to 16:15:15 <pchampin> well, you are trading bandwith for (slight) code complexity 16:15:31 <pchampin> you're just moving the inefficiency somewhere else :) 16:15:33 <SteveH> Guus: is someone willing to look at cygri's proposal 16:15:41 <PHayes> LOL 16:15:53 <ww> pchampin: not only bandwidth - developers who look at it don't want to see extraneous cruft 16:16:16 <SteveH> Guus: next week re restart graphs discussion 16:16:25 <SteveH> ... hopefully can set a dte for graphs naming discussions 16:16:29 <cygri> ww, pchampin: by same argument, N-Triples should write 6 for "6"^^xsd:decimal 16:16:31 <Zakim> -PatH 16:16:34 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:16:35 <Zakim> -AlexHall 16:16:36 <AZ> bye 16:16:37 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider 16:16:42 <pchampin> +1 cygri :) 16:16:43 <Zakim> -AZ 16:16:45 <Zakim> -[Sophia] 16:16:51 <AlexHall> AlexHall has left #rdf-wg 16:17:14 <pchampin> bye all 16:17:17 <Zakim> -pchampin 16:17:17 <pchampin> pchampin has left #rdf-wg 16:17:18 <ww> cygri: that wouldn't be the end of the world, but agree there is a slippery slope 16:17:27 <SteveH> trackbot, end meeting 16:17:27 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:17:27 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.540.898.aaaa, Guus_Schreiber, +3539149aabb, SteveH, mischat, davidwood, Peter_Patel-Schneider, cygri, ww, AZ, +1.443.212.aacc, AlexHall, 16:17:28 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:17:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot 16:17:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:17:29 <RRSAgent> I see 6 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-rdf-wg-actions.rdf : 16:17:29 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus to propose schedule  16:17:29 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-rdf-wg-irc#T15-13-00 16:17:29 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pchampin to review SPARQL LC WD document  16:17:29 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-rdf-wg-irc#T15-15-42 16:17:29 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus to contact Yves R. re. SPARQL reviews  16:17:29 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-rdf-wg-irc#T15-16-09 16:17:29 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Guus to organise telecon with SPARQL WG on graph terminology  16:17:29 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-rdf-wg-irc#T15-19-31 16:17:29 <RRSAgent> ACTION: cygri to create page on wiki about documents and editing  16:17:29 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-rdf-wg-irc#T15-26-18 16:17:29 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pfps to check whether ISSUES-59 is still pertinient (may be obsolete)  16:17:29 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/06/08-rdf-wg-irc#T15-39-49 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000459