Chatlog 2011-10-05

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

14:58:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:41 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:58:43 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:58:43 <moustaki> Zakim, this is rdf-wg
14:58:43 <Zakim> sorry, moustaki, I do not see a conference named 'rdf-wg' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:58:45 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
14:58:46 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:58:46 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
14:58:46 <trackbot> Date: 05 October 2011
14:58:55 <moustaki> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:58:55 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, moustaki
14:58:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, moustaki, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, cygri, mischat, ivan, AndyS, davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP
14:59:35 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:35 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, yvesr
14:59:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, cygri, mischat, ivan, AndyS, davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP
14:59:45 <cygri_> cygri_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:03 <iand> iand has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:12 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:13 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, yvesr
15:00:19 <Zakim> On IRC I see iand, cygri_, RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, cygri, mischat, ivan, AndyS, davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro,
15:00:21 <Zakim> ... ericP
15:00:23 <Guus> Guus has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:30 <gavinc> trackbot, start meeting
15:00:30 <davidwood> Zakim, this is rdfwg
15:00:31 <Zakim> ok, davidwood; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
15:00:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:00:34 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
15:00:35 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:00:35 <trackbot> Date: 05 October 2011
15:00:38 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
15:00:39 <swh> swh has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:42 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:00:44 <Zakim> I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted
15:00:44 <davidwood> Chair: David Wood
15:00:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P4, Peter_Patel-Schneider, ??P7, David_Wood, +1.707.861.aaaa
15:00:46 <Zakim> -??P7
15:00:52 <swh> Zakim, what is the code?
15:00:53 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P4 is me
15:00:54 <Zakim> +??P14
15:00:56 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, swh
15:00:56 <gavinc> zakim, aaaa is me
15:00:58 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
15:01:00 <Zakim> +nunolopes
15:01:02 <Zakim> +gavinc; got it
15:01:02 <mischat> mischat has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:03 <cygri_> zakim, nunolopes is me
15:01:05 <ww> zakim, ??P14 is me
15:01:06 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:01:08 <Zakim> +cygri_; got it
15:01:10 <Zakim> +ww; got it
15:01:11 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:17 <ww> zakim, please mute me
15:01:18 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:22 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:01:25 <Zakim> ww should now be muted
15:01:26 <Zakim> +??P15
15:01:28 <AndyS1> zakim, ??P15 is me
15:01:29 <yvesr> scribe: yvesr
15:01:30 <Zakim> +??P13
15:01:32 <Zakim> +AndyS1; got it
15:01:37 <gavinc> zakim, who is talking?
15:01:37 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:41 <Zakim> -??P13
15:01:49 <Zakim> gavinc, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: David_Wood (4%)
15:01:52 <davidwood> Scribe Yves Raimond
15:01:59 <davidwood> Scribe: Yves raimond
15:02:01 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:01 <Zakim> +??P18
15:02:08 <Zakim> +??P13
15:02:09 <davidwood> scribenick: yvesr
15:02:13 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
15:02:13 <Guus> zakim, ??p18 is me
15:02:14 <Zakim> +Guus; got it
15:02:19 <Guus> zakim, mute me
15:02:19 <Zakim> Guus should now be muted
15:02:20 <swh> Zakim, ??P13 is me
15:02:21 <Zakim> +swh; got it
15:02:24 <Zakim> +??P16
15:02:30 <Zakim> +??P17
15:02:31 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
15:02:37 <SteveH> Zakim, SteveH is me
15:02:37 <Zakim> sorry, SteveH, I do not recognize a party named 'SteveH'
15:02:38 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aabb
15:02:47 <SteveH> Zakim, swh is me
15:02:47 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
15:02:52 <Scott_Bauer> Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:53 <AlexHall> zakim, aabb is me
15:02:53 <Zakim> +AlexHall; got it
15:02:54 <iand> oops
15:02:56 <Zakim> + +
15:03:07 <AZ> Zakim, aacc is me
15:03:07 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
15:03:13 <iand> mischat: one of us is p16, one is p17
15:03:18 <Zakim> -??P17
15:03:21 <Guus> [partial regrets, have to leave after 30 min for the airport]
15:03:22 <iand> i was p17
15:03:27 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:03:34 <mischat> zakim, ??P16 is me
15:03:35 <Zakim> +mischat; got it
15:03:38 <mbrunati> mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:39 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:03:39 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:03:41 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:03:41 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:03:46 <mischat> zakim, mute me 
15:03:46 <Zakim> mischat should now be muted
15:03:51 <Zakim> +??P26
15:03:52 <davidwood> Zakim, ??P17 is iand
15:03:53 <Zakim> I already had ??P17 as MacTed, davidwood
15:04:12 <Zakim> + +1.507.261.aadd
15:04:18 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:04:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, David_Wood, gavinc, ww (muted), cygri_, Arnaud, Ivan, AndyS1, Guus (muted), SteveH, mischat (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, AZ, MacTed (muted),
15:04:21 <Zakim> ... ??P26, +1.507.261.aadd
15:04:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see mbrunati, Scott_Bauer, AlexHall, AZ, mischat, SteveH, Guus, iand, cygri, RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud1, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, AndyS,
15:04:24 <Zakim> ... davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP
15:04:26 <Zakim> +Souri
15:04:38 <Souri> Souri has joined #RDF-WG
15:04:45 <Scott_Bauer> Zakim, aadd is me
15:04:45 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer; got it
15:04:48 <Zakim> -??P26
15:05:04 <Scott_Bauer> Zakim, mute me
15:05:04 <Zakim> Scott_Bauer should now be muted
15:05:16 <yvesr> davidwood: i'd like to go through the scribe list
15:05:19 <Zakim> +??P26
15:05:26 <iand> zakim, ??p26 is me
15:05:26 <Zakim> +iand; got it
15:05:26 <yvesr> davidwood: adding new members on the scribe list
15:05:34 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:05:36 <mbrunati> today only via irc, phone problems
15:06:03 <AndyS1> +1
15:06:06 <Guus> +1
15:06:10 <yvesr> davidwood: minutes accepted
15:06:20 <yvesr> TOPIC: action items review
15:06:38 <yvesr> davidwood: lisiase with html data task force for turtle in html
15:06:45 <yvesr> davidwood: corresponding action closed
15:07:00 <yvesr> s/lisiase/liaise
15:07:09 <gavinc> sadly did it twice thanks to gmail :(
15:07:29 <yvesr> davidwood: Guus had two action items
15:07:45 <Guus> we haven't done that yet, will talk to Fabien
15:08:23 <yvesr> TOPIC: F2F planning
15:08:41 <yvesr> davidwood: f2f either at MIT or BBC
15:08:59 <mischat> please update this page with your intentions
15:09:57 <mischat> yvesr: the bbc are struggling to get the video conference system working, at a bare minimum we will have a webcam. everything is behind a proxy, 
15:10:35 <mischat> davidwood: people should turn up a bit earlier at the bbc so that we can make sure that everyone gets online and set before the MIT lot turn up 
15:10:56 <mischat> yvesr: people should email Yves if you want to hang out and have dinner after the days play
15:11:52 <ivan> q+
15:11:53 <yvesr> TOPIC: scribe list
15:11:56 <davidwood>
15:12:09 <yvesr> davidwood: who should we drop off the scribe list?
15:12:22 <mischat> nathan hasn't for a while 
15:12:25 <yvesr> davidwood: any suggestions for people that have not shown up?
15:12:47 <mischat> axel ?
15:12:54 <gavinc> Nathan Rixham 
15:13:12 <yvesr> ivan: Mohamed hasn't shown up, and Nathan
15:13:18 <mischat> how about 	Axel Polleres 
15:13:19 <mischat> ?
15:13:27 <pfps> zakim, who is here?
15:13:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, David_Wood, gavinc, ww (muted), cygri_, Arnaud, Ivan, AndyS1, Guus (muted), SteveH, mischat (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, AZ, MacTed (muted),
15:13:31 <Zakim> ... Scott_Bauer (muted), Souri, iand, Sandro
15:13:34 <Zakim> On IRC I see Souri, mbrunati, Scott_Bauer, AlexHall, AZ, mischat, SteveH, Guus, iand, cygri, RRSAgent, AndyS1, Zakim, Arnaud, yvesr, pfps, gavinc, ww, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, AndyS,
15:13:36 <Zakim> ... davidwood, manu, NickH, trackbot, manu1, sandro, ericP
15:13:46 <yvesr> ivan: Axel? Matteo?
15:14:48 <yvesr> ivan: Jean-Francois?
15:15:10 <Scott_Bauer> I'm on the call as well
15:15:16 <Zakim> +??P2
15:15:46 <MacTed> Zakim, mute ??p2
15:15:46 <Zakim> ??P2 should now be muted
15:15:50 <NickH> zakim, ??P2 is me
15:15:50 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
15:15:52 <NickH> thanks!
15:16:27 <ww> davidwood: i am not on the list! but happy to scribe after the F2F
15:16:44 <yvesr> ivan: heard back from our admin that the zakim channel is opened on both days
15:16:57 <yvesr> sandro: the code will be rdf2wg
15:16:59 <sandro> for F2F
15:17:09 <yvesr> sandro: i will update the wiki page
15:17:27 <mbrunati> sorry for the last weeks, not enough time ( we are making a contest on open data ),  F2F probably only remote for the BBC place, and december not able to scribe ( my marriage ) 
15:17:34 <yvesr> TOPIC: Named Graphs
15:17:41 <sandro> s/sandro:/david:/
15:17:49 <yvesr> davidwood: we have two proposals
15:18:01 <yvesr> davidwood: ... and we have a f2f next week
15:18:08 <yvesr> davidwood: ... we need to have a good plan by next week
15:18:17 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
15:18:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, David_Wood, gavinc, ww (muted), cygri_, Arnaud, Ivan, AndyS1, Guus (muted), SteveH, mischat (muted), Peter_Patel-Schneider, AlexHall, AZ, MacTed (muted),
15:18:21 <Zakim> ... Scott_Bauer (muted), Souri, iand, Sandro, NickH (muted)
15:18:46 <Guus> yes
15:19:39 <davidwood>
15:20:14 <yvesr> davidwood: the graph task  forcepage needs to be updated
15:20:29 <yvesr> s/forcepage/force page
15:20:46 <sandro> action: richard to update (but hopes others will help)
15:20:47 <yvesr> cygri: i can do it, but it would be good if someone could contribute as well
15:20:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Update (but hopes others will help) [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-12].
15:20:57 <yvesr> davidwood: the two proposals come from sandro and cygri 
15:21:05 <davidwood>
15:21:16 <yvesr> davidwood: the use-cases page needs to be cleaned up
15:21:40 <yvesr> davidwood: sandro tried to get to the core of those use-cases in his recent emails with the proveance xg
15:21:52 <yvesr> davidwood: it would be good to define test cases from these use cases
15:22:02 <yvesr> davidwood: which would serve as a basis for evaluation
15:22:15 <ivan> q+
15:22:35 <yvesr> davidwood: it might be possible to collapse some use cases together
15:23:22 <davidwood> ack ivan
15:23:54 <cygri> q+
15:24:09 <yvesr> ivan: we need to be looking at just 5 or 4 use cases, otherwise we'll be lost
15:24:17 <gavinc> Zakim, mute me
15:24:17 <Zakim> gavinc should now be muted
15:24:22 <yvesr> davidwood: right now, we have 27 use cases
15:24:30 <yvesr> davidwood: ... most of those overlap
15:24:39 <yvesr> davidwood: ... it woul dbe better if we had 5!
15:24:46 <LeeF> LeeF has joined #rdf-wg
15:24:54 <davidwood> ack cygri
15:25:18 <yvesr> cygri: agreed that 27 use cases is too much, but it doesn't make sense to pick just one
15:25:46 <yvesr> cygri: some of the use-cases come from practical use cases
15:25:47 <sandro> +1 the fish-restaurant use case should not be the only one.   there are more immediate ones.
15:25:57 <yvesr> cygri: ... rather than just 'this is what we could do'
15:26:27 <sandro>
15:26:58 <sandro> cygri: 1.6,   1.2
15:27:04 <yvesr> cygri: particularly interesting ones are, to me, 1.6 - versioning, 1.1 - overlap between content of graphs, 
15:27:11 <davidwood> s/1.2/1.1/
15:27:26 <yvesr> cygri: ... i'd like everyone in the group to do that on the mailing list
15:27:36 <sandro> +1: please nominate your favorite use case.
15:27:44 <sandro> s/://
15:27:53 <yvesr> davidwood: provencance use cases are important
15:27:59 <davidwood> q?
15:28:02 <ww> i would argue that 6.2 bears on provenance
15:28:05 <yvesr> davidwood: ... that's why we are liaising with the provencance xg
15:28:10 <gavinc> I like 5.2
15:28:12 <mischat>  s/xg/wg/
15:28:15 <yvesr> s/provencance/provenance
15:28:29 <gavinc> rather 5.2 is rather important to TopQuadrant
15:28:43 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
15:28:52 <SteveH> 1.5 is important to us
15:29:05 <mischat> yvesr: has just added in a use-case given to him by Denny, about wiki based issues in the wikimedia project 
15:29:06 <yvesr> yvesr: new use case from Denny, about Wikidata (Wikimedia project)
15:29:33 <Scott_Bauer> 4.8 has become obsolete and could be safely eliminated from the list if it overlaps with others
15:29:40 <Guus> I will provide example data (triples) about the Europeana Data Model use case, about metadata of heritage objects, including provenance data
15:29:50 <yvesr> davidwood: we need to evaluate proposals against test cases derived from use cases
15:29:53 <Guus> Target is by Friday
15:30:09 <Guus> [have to drop off]
15:30:13 <yvesr> davidwood: it needs to be done before the F2F
15:30:27 <Zakim> -Guus
15:30:30 <Zakim> -NickH
15:30:31 <yvesr> davidwood: 48 hours
15:30:32 <Zakim> +??P30
15:31:05 <pchampin> zakim, ??p30 is me
15:31:05 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
15:31:45 <yvesr> davidwood: would sandro and cygri be prepared to give an overview of the respective proposals on named graphs? and how they relate to UC?
15:31:57 <yvesr> sandro: i don't think i have a proposal, exactly
15:32:48 <yvesr> sandro: i might be able to give a list of questions or a summary options
15:33:11 <yvesr> cygri: i can present my proposal
15:33:22 <Scott_Bauer> I should have referred to 4.7, "Applying Named Graphs to a Terminology Server" based on the alternate url above.
15:33:31 <Zakim> +??P2
15:33:33 <NickH> zakim, ??P2 is me
15:33:33 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
15:33:39 <NickH> zakim, mute me
15:33:39 <Zakim> NickH should now be muted
15:33:43 <sandro> action: sandro to present after Richard, F2F2 day 1, about where we might need more than his proposal gives us.
15:33:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Present after Richard, F2F2 day 1, about where we might need more than his proposal gives us. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-10-12].
15:34:11 <yvesr> davidwood: focus at the F2F on use-cases, and turn them into test cases
15:34:19 <davidwood> q?
15:34:21 <cygri> q+
15:34:27 <davidwood> ack cygri
15:34:31 <yvesr> action: cygri to present his proposal for named graphs at the F2F
15:34:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Present his proposal for named graphs at the F2F [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-10-12].
15:34:33 <SteveH> q+
15:35:08 <yvesr> cygri: i am strugginlg to find the UC that motivates the argument made by PatH and Pierre-Antoine
15:36:32 <yvesr> pchampin: i can't speak for PatH, but maybe i can work on a negative example where i show the freedom given by cygri's proposal could be harmful
15:37:24 <yvesr> pchampin: a lot of use cases are arguing that an IRI in a graph can be used to access a graph in a dataset
15:37:34 <yvesr> pchampin: cygri call that a social convention
15:37:55 <yvesr> pchampin: i think it has surprising consequences
15:38:25 <sandro> hard to hear davidwood 
15:38:28 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
15:38:33 <sandro> better
15:38:39 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: David_Wood (62%), pchampin (22%)
15:39:02 <cygri> pchampin, if you could write up that use case (negative or not), that would be much appreciated
15:39:15 <pchampin> @cygri I will
15:39:16 <yvesr> davidwood: ability to access a graph by an IRI seems like a non-issue
15:39:27 <yvesr> davidwood: struggling to understand the counter-argument
15:39:38 <pfps> what happens when there is a mismatch between a quad and actuality?
15:40:07 <sandro> the same thing as happens any other time there is bad data, pfps, I think....
15:40:47 <pfps> but if quads carry actuality then having them wrong is like having 7 be 8!
15:41:47 <davidwood> cygri, can you please scribe your comments into IRC?
15:41:48 <sandro> q?
15:42:20 <yvesr> pfps: there is an issue having the semantics of rdf pushing into the semantics of quads
15:42:26 <sandro> q+
15:42:51 <yvesr> davidwood: isn't the point of rdf that anybody can say anything about anything?
15:42:59 <yvesr> davidwood: if i choose to say that 7 is 8, it's fine
15:43:10 <yvesr> pfps: it's different than rdf saying that 7 is 8
15:43:26 <yvesr> pfps: we don't have a proposal for how the semantics would work
15:43:51 <yvesr> pfps: they can be right, but not very useful
15:43:55 <sandro> thus the drive to make sure our usecases are ... useful.  :-)
15:44:31 <cygri> cygri: i think we agree that in implementations, IRIs can be used to access graphs. the disagreement is about how graph names should be treated in the formal semantics. minimalist position: the semantics should be concerned with single graphs only. alternative position: the semantics should make graph IRIs denote the graphs
15:44:38 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:45:03 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:45:08 <yvesr> pfps: the semantics should be concerned with single graphs only
15:45:25 <yvesr> pfps: right now, they do
15:45:37 <yvesr> davidwood: should the rdf semantics ignore named graphs?
15:45:50 <yvesr> pfps: you could push those notions in the rdf semantics, but it might not be helpful
15:46:30 <yvesr> davidwood: if you have a syntax that allows for named graphs, would you efectively just add  triple?
15:46:39 <yvesr> s/triple/a triple/
15:47:01 <ww> statement identifiers...
15:47:03 <yvesr> davidwood: does it *need* to impact the semantics?
15:47:21 <yvesr> pfps: leaving named graphs out of semantics looses something, but it might be more trouble than it's worth
15:47:35 <Souri> s/looses/loses/
15:47:42 <gavinc> zakim, unmute me
15:47:42 <Zakim> gavinc should no longer be muted
15:47:53 <yvesr> gavinc: i thought everybody agreed that reification is broken, in rdf
15:47:59 <pfps> RDF reification is more trouble (>0) than it is worth (<=0)
15:48:24 <yvesr> davidwood: but could it help us out of the named graphs problem?
15:48:39 <yvesr> davidwood: a bounded type of reification, specific to named graphs
15:48:44 <Zakim> -NickH
15:49:13 <Andy> Are we agreed how reification is broken? (and I think it is broken)
15:49:22 <Zakim> +??P2
15:49:23 <NickH> zakim, ??P2 is me
15:49:23 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
15:49:25 <NickH> zakim, mute me
15:49:25 <Zakim> NickH should now be muted
15:49:29 <sandro> q?
15:49:45 <davidwood> ack SteveH
15:50:10 <yvesr> SteveH: some of the proposals seem to be trying to rule out certain things that people are currently doing
15:50:16 <gavinc> +1
15:50:18 <sandro> SteveH: some of the proposals seem to be trying to rule out things some people are doing in SPARQL.
15:50:29 <yvesr> SteveH: we shouldn't do that - we should support creating some structure around what people are doing right now
15:50:42 <yvesr> SteveH: we don't want to be enormously disruptive
15:50:52 <yvesr> davidwood: you overestimate our impact on the market
15:50:56 <cygri> SteveH++
15:51:01 <yvesr> SteveH: but we should try not to get ignored
15:51:05 <pchampin> @SteveH: the graph IRI as defined by the RDF spec does not have to be the graph IRI as used by SPARQL
15:51:24 <Zakim> +LeeF
15:51:24 <yvesr> sandro: i can name one of these proposals
15:51:26 <pchampin> though we should be careful to name it differently, of course
15:51:55 <yvesr> sandro: using graph tags to specify the subject of the doc
15:51:56 <LeeF> I think that that's a pretty common practice, isn't it?
15:52:24 <gavinc> Yes, TopQuadrant is aware that we shouldn't be doing that ;)
15:52:25 <yvesr> sandro: other examples would be mandating that a graph URI must be dereferencable
15:52:35 <yvesr> s/sandro/SteveH
15:52:38 <LeeF> I'm pretty sure dbpedia's SPARQL end point names graphs with the subject of the graph (at least, it did at some point)
15:52:41 <LeeF> Anzo does it as well, in some modes
15:52:46 <yvesr> sandro: we shouldn't impact on anybody's code
15:53:04 <gavinc> O'Reilly Media's does too
15:53:15 <cygri> LeeF: the one at doesn't. the DBPedia Live one might do it
15:53:20 <yvesr> sandro: i think it is bad practice to use the subject as the base id of the graph
15:53:24 <LeeF> s/LeeF:/LeeF,
15:53:48 <yvesr> sandro: maybe we can reach a proposal that is actually helpful, motivating people to switch
15:53:52 <yvesr> davidwood: like RDFa 1.1
15:54:05 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:54:05 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:54:33 <gavinc> Btw, the confusion here is rather bad. TopQurant software uses the same "method", everything tends to ask about Base URI
15:55:10 <yvesr> SteveH: we should look at the linked data work, with no strict conventions about how to name graph
15:55:24 <yvesr> davidwood: if you're right, then we don't need standards
15:55:35 <LeeF> cygri, my experience might have been a long time ago, as well.
15:55:36 <yvesr> SteveH: we still should recommend what to do
15:55:37 <gavinc> Where base URI == OWL Ontology == Base URI 3986 == Graph Name :\ 
15:55:40 <davidwood> That wasn't me!
15:55:43 <LeeF> cygri, also the chance that i'm hopelessly confused :)
15:55:45 <Andy> +1 to advice and suggestions and "good practice" docs
15:55:47 <ww> MAY/SHOULD vs MUST?
15:55:53 <sandro> s/davidwood/sandro/
15:55:58 <sandro> q?
15:55:58 <NickH> SteveH++
15:56:06 <davidwood> ack sandro
15:56:08 <gavinc> +1 to andy on advice and good (not best) practices
15:56:08 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:56:32 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:56:41 <yvesr> sandro: responding to what pfps said - i don't have a particular position - but intution is that we need more than we have now
15:56:59 <ivan> q+
15:57:10 <davidwood> ack ivan
15:57:12 <pfps> it appears that we need use cases and worked out solutions to see what machinery is needed
15:57:47 <sandro> yeah.  :-(
15:57:53 <sandro> (frown because it's hard work.)
15:58:01 <cygri> pfps++
15:58:15 <davidwood> That's why we need to move toward test cases
15:58:18 <cygri> q+
15:58:25 <davidwood> ack cygri
15:59:16 <yvesr> cygri: how to map terminology to use-cases? (e.g. subgraphs)
15:59:33 <yvesr> cygri: ... in that document ivan wrote about graphs
15:59:50 <yvesr> ivan: that document talked about graph literals, where you hit the issue of sub-graphs etc.
15:59:59 <yvesr> ivan: those propoerties were mainly coming from that
16:00:16 <yvesr> ivan: if we don't have graph literals at all, the problem becomes very different
16:00:22 <pchampin> q+
16:00:27 <Souri> Why don't we just present graphs as a way of scoping (using a IRI tags) for RDF's uniqueness requirement? How people use graphs is their business.
16:01:01 <yvesr> pchampin: graph literals may be very important
16:01:12 <yvesr> ivan: i didn't say they weren't
16:01:26 <sandro> ivan: if we have graph literals then those additional properties are important
16:01:57 <sandro> pchampin: If we don't give special semantics to graph IRIs, then we'll need more ways to talk about graphs.
16:02:17 <Souri> q+
16:02:40 <yvesr> pchampin: if we refuse to give special semantics to graph IRIs, my intuition is that it would become more important - we need to know how to treat a graph IRI
16:03:17 <pchampin> pchampin: ... that we can express in RDF what is the relation btw a graph and its IRI in a give dataset
16:03:24 <pfps> what kind of special semantics?
16:03:29 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:03:48 <yvesr> davidwood: strawman proposal about RDF datasets
16:03:50 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:03:50 <davidwood> Strawman proposal Richard:
16:04:00 <pchampin> @pfps: that the graph IRI actually denotes the g-snap, for example
16:04:20 <yvesr> sandro: i thought we were going through the issues list?
16:04:50 <yvesr> davidwood: this specific issue is abstract syntax to talk about multiple graphs
16:04:55 <Zakim> -NickH
16:05:24 <yvesr> davidwood: i will go through the issues list, preparing for the F2F
16:06:19 <yvesr> cygri: the strawman proposal is more or less a copy of the SPARQL 1.1 spec, expect it avoids saying that the graph name is an identifier for the graph
16:06:35 <NickH> zakim, ??P2 is me
16:06:35 <Zakim> I already had ??P2 as Bert, NickH
16:06:37 <Zakim> +??P54
16:06:43 <NickH> zakim, ??P54 is me
16:06:43 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
16:06:49 <NickH> zakim, mute me
16:06:49 <Zakim> NickH should now be muted
16:06:55 <ww> [I have to drop off the call, apologies]
16:07:03 <Zakim> -ww
16:07:29 <yvesr> cygri: it motivates the need for syntaxes, to write those different graphs
16:07:42 <yvesr> cygri: it's important to have a strawman there 
16:08:03 <pfps> Looks benign to me, and useful to pull into RDF Concepts.
16:08:31 <Andy> and RDF-WG is doing syntax for something like this.
16:08:40 <yvesr> davidwood: does it look benign to everyone?
16:09:00 <yvesr> sandro: i don't understand why the default graph doesn't have a name
16:09:12 <yvesr> davidwood: should it not have necessarily a name>
16:09:17 <yvesr> s/>/?
16:09:27 <pfps> the sentence *could* just be removed.
16:09:37 <yvesr> pfps: thereis nothing really wrong with that, the sentence could be removed
16:09:45 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
16:09:45 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
16:10:07 <yvesr> pfps: that sentence could be somewhere else?
16:10:18 <pchampin> proposal: the default graph has no name, but could be identical to a named graph
16:10:29 <yvesr> MacTed: if you use a default graph, it is not named
16:10:40 <Andy> "There is no name for the default graph role."
16:10:41 <yvesr> MacTed: if it is, then you use a named graph
16:10:45 <pfps> the sentence about the default graph not having a name could just be removed, without affecting the meaning of the section
16:10:52 <pchampin> @sandro: I think we mean g-snaps here
16:10:58 <pfps> "There is no name for the default graph."
16:11:08 <yvesr> sandro: a dataset is entirely g-snap
16:11:33 <Souri> q-
16:11:39 <Andy> sandro - That is true in SPARQL - its immutable  (a graph store is mutable)
16:11:46 <sandro> +1 to removing "The default graph does not have a name."
16:11:53 <yvesr> cygri: it might be a good idea to remove the sentence if it brings confusion - it is redundant
16:12:13 <yvesr> cygri: +1 to sandro, datasets are only composed of g-snaps
16:12:30 <yvesr> cygri: what we have here is essentially a 'dataset snap'
16:12:52 <gavinc> -0.5 to removing "The default graph does not have a name"
16:12:54 <yvesr> cygri: it is just a snapshot
16:13:42 <gavinc> EXACTLY one.
16:13:55 <pfps> around here it was snapping trees - courtesy of tropical storm Irene  :-)
16:14:54 <yvesr> sandro: if you think of that in terms of syntax, it makes it very clear that th edefalut graph doesn't have a name
16:15:20 <yvesr> sandro: why do you need to do that to name the triples that are already in the default graph?
16:15:30 <gavinc> TriG does NOT have triples without {}
16:15:37 <sandro> david: Why do you have the move the triples into curly braces to give them a name?
16:15:41 <yvesr> MacTed: either they exist in a named graph, either they don't
16:15:57 <gavinc> the {}s may not have a graph_name as it's optional
16:15:59 <sandro> sorry, Gavin, call it DTriG or something.
16:16:32 <gavinc> sandro, np. But people have claimed that TriG is better for not having anything outside of {}s ;)
16:17:02 <yvesr> MacTed: default graph is a g-box, it can't be a g-snap
16:17:27 <Andy> The default graph is a set - it can not change. It is a g-snap.  a dataset is a "set"
16:17:30 <sandro> (right, I think Ted is wrong about dataset/gbox)
16:17:43 <yvesr> Andy, +1
16:18:00 <yvesr> sandro: the default graph is not a g-box
16:18:14 <yvesr> sandro: in practice, you can treat it as mutable, but in theory it is immutable
16:18:37 <LeeF> I don't agree with sandro on everything, but definitely agree with him on this :)
16:18:47 <gavinc> Yeah
16:18:55 <cygri> “RDF graph” as per RDF Concepts = g-snap
16:19:06 <yvesr> davidwood: in rdf concepts, every time we say the word graph, we mean g-snap
16:19:10 <yvesr> cygri: agreed
16:19:21 <yvesr> cygri: defined as a set of triples, in the mathematical sense
16:19:32 <yvesr> cygri: when you add a triple, you get a different graph
16:19:53 <yvesr> davidwood: if you change a graph in a dataset, then you change the dataset
16:20:28 <gavinc> Why not Graph Store?
16:20:35 <yvesr> sandro: maybe we could consider a container of immutable graphs?
16:20:51 <Andy> PUT http://example/gbox
16:21:13 <yvesr> sandro: a 'graph dispenser'
16:21:16 <Souri> I am happy :-) with just presenting graphs as a way of scoping (using a IRI tags) for RDF's uniqueness requirement. I think how people use graphs is their business.
16:21:26 <LeeF> As gavinc says, SPARQL 1.1 calls the container a "graph store"
16:21:35 <LeeF> (SPARQL 1.1 Update, specifically)
16:21:37 <Andy> +1
16:21:51 <gavinc> as does SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol
16:21:56 <Zakim> -NickH
16:21:57 <LeeF> aye
16:22:03 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
16:22:04 <sandro> @souri have you looked at the Graphs use cases?    Do you know how to address them (without this stuff)?
16:22:14 <Zakim> -LeeF
16:22:15 <yvesr> bye!
16:22:16 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:22:17 <Zakim> -cygri_
16:22:17 <Zakim> -Souri
16:22:18 <mbrunati> bye
16:22:20 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:22:20 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:22:20 <Zakim> -Scott_Bauer
16:22:22 <yvesr> RRSAgent, generate minutes
16:22:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate yvesr
16:22:23 <Zakim> -AlexHall
16:22:25 <Zakim> -AZ
16:22:25 <AlexHall> AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
16:22:27 <Zakim> -David_Wood
16:22:29 <Zakim> -gavinc
16:22:30 <Zakim> -iand
16:22:31 <MacTed> it might be worthwhile to do a global search-and-replace, s/graph/g-snap/ ... and then read
16:22:33 <Zakim> -AndyS1
16:22:35 <Zakim> -mischat
16:22:37 <Zakim> -yvesr
16:22:38 <Zakim> -MacTed
16:24:11 <mischat_> mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg
16:24:40 <mischat_> mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg
16:24:47 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdf-wg
16:29:54 <iand> iand has left #rdf-wg
16:37:20 <Arnaud> Arnaud has left #rdf-wg
17:21:17 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
17:24:21 <Zakim> -SteveH
17:24:46 <swh> swh has joined #rdf-wg
17:29:29 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, pchampin, in SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
17:29:36 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
17:29:38 <Zakim> Attendees were Peter_Patel-Schneider, David_Wood, +1.707.861.aaaa, yvesr, gavinc, Arnaud, cygri_, ww, Ivan, AndyS1, Guus, +1.443.212.aabb, SteveH, AlexHall, +, AZ,
17:29:43 <Zakim> ... mischat, MacTed, +1.507.261.aadd, Souri, Scott_Bauer, iand, Sandro, NickH, pchampin, LeeF
17:46:41 <mischat_> mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg
18:14:25 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-wg
19:38:32 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg