Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2011-11-02
From RDF Working Group Wiki
See panel, original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.
Please justify/explain non-obvious edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:23:44 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:23:44 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc 14:23:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:23:46 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 14:23:48 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394 14:23:48 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 37 minutes 14:23:49 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 14:23:49 <trackbot> Date: 02 November 2011 14:52:29 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started 14:52:36 <Zakim> +guus 14:53:14 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer 14:53:54 <Guus> Guus has joined #rdf-wg 14:54:14 <Zakim> +gavinc 14:54:55 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:54:55 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:54:57 <Zakim> +Ivan 14:56:39 <gavinc> Good morning 15:00:03 <swh> swh has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:10 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:29 <mischat_> mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:38 <Zakim> +??P3 15:00:44 <swh> Zakim, ??P3 is [Garlik] 15:00:44 <Zakim> +[Garlik]; got it 15:01:10 <swh> Zakim, [Garlik] has me, mischat 15:01:10 <Zakim> +swh, mischat; got it 15:01:11 <Zakim> +bhyland 15:01:15 <Zakim> + +1.707.318.aaaa 15:01:20 <davidwood> Zakim, bhyland is me 15:01:20 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it 15:01:41 <Zakim> +??P7 15:01:43 <Guus> zakim, who is here? 15:01:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see guus, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, Ivan, [Garlik], davidwood, +1.707.318.aaaa, ??P7 15:01:45 <Zakim> [Garlik] has swh, mischat 15:01:45 <Zakim> -??P7 15:01:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see mischat_, AndyS, swh, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, MacTed, danbri, mischat, mox601, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu1, manu, NickH, ericP, trackbot, sandro 15:01:52 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software 15:01:52 <PatH> PatH has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:59 <Scott_Bauer> Scribe: Scott_Bauer 15:02:06 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:02:06 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:02:08 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:02:08 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:02:09 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:02:17 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me 15:02:17 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 15:02:31 <Guus> zakim, who is here? 15:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see guus, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, Ivan, [Garlik], davidwood, +1.707.318.aaaa, MacTed (muted), AndyS 15:02:34 <Zakim> [Garlik] has swh, mischat 15:02:37 <Zakim> On IRC I see PatH, mischat, AndyS, swh, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, MacTed, danbri, mox601, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu1, manu, NickH, ericP, trackbot, sandro 15:03:02 <Zakim> +PatH 15:03:07 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdf-wg 15:03:24 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg 15:04:01 <Zakim> +AlexHall 15:04:18 <Scott_Bauer> scribenick: Scott_Bauer 15:04:27 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: Admin 15:04:38 <PatH> zakim, mute me 15:04:38 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted 15:05:18 <Zakim> +mhausenblas 15:05:23 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me 15:05:23 <Zakim> +cygri; got it 15:05:25 <Scott_Bauer> PROPOSED: accept last weeks minutes 15:05:54 <Guus> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-19 15:06:02 <Scott_Bauer> guus: should be 19 rather than 5 15:06:10 <Scott_Bauer> … of October 15:06:32 <PatH> mhausenblas owl:sameAs cygri? 15:06:35 <davidwood> (fixed link to old minutes in agenda) 15:06:40 <Scott_Bauer> RESOLVED: minutes are accepted 15:06:43 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg 15:06:49 <CGI734> CGI734 has joined #rdf-wg 15:06:57 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: Action Items 15:07:02 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 15:07:24 <Zakim> +Souri 15:07:31 <Scott_Bauer> guus: Action-3 to be closed 15:07:43 <Zakim> +ericP 15:07:56 <Zakim> +zwu2 15:08:09 <PatH> zakim, unmute me 15:08:09 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted 15:08:20 <gavinc> Looks like Sandro and Richard have a lot to do ;) 15:08:22 <Scott_Bauer> guus: quite a number of open items 15:09:06 <Scott_Bauer> guus: need to discuss the primer with Fabien 15:10:05 <Scott_Bauer> guus: will continue all for Richard, Sandro 15:11:17 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: issue three was an attempt to close issues at the end of the face to face. 15:11:34 <Scott_Bauer> … need to find student to go through old comments 15:11:51 <Scott_Bauer> … suggest we reopen issue 3 15:12:13 <cygri> ISSUE-3? 15:12:13 <trackbot> ISSUE-3 -- Between us, we need to study the feedback we got via http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/ on the previous round of specs (and errata) -- open 15:12:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/3 15:13:03 <Scott_Bauer> guus: if you could edit issue 3 15:13:18 <PatH> zakim, mute me 15:13:18 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted 15:13:49 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/111 updated to be more clear. 15:14:00 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: Telecon next week 15:14:01 <Zakim> -ericP 15:14:18 <Zakim> +ericP 15:14:38 <Scott_Bauer> guus: time change noted for next week -- back to the same time. 15:14:56 <cygri> ISSUE-71? 15:14:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-71 -- Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) -- pending review 15:14:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/71 15:15:02 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: Issue 71 15:15:31 <Scott_Bauer> guus: amendment proposal from Jerermy Carrroll 15:15:51 <PatH> zakim, unmute me 15:15:51 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted 15:16:11 <Scott_Bauer> … Richard is the amendment ok for you? 15:16:15 <gavinc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0385.html 15:16:53 <Scott_Bauer> … Jeremy is an expert in the language labels. 15:17:00 <AndyS> +1 to proposal 15:17:03 <PatH> +q 15:17:09 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: this looks ok, it's just a clarification. 15:17:47 <swh> I find the wording a bit strange 15:17:56 <swh> +1 to PatH 15:18:00 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: I have no objections to the modification but I do to the other. 15:18:22 <AlexHall> i guess that's why RIF uses "symbol space" instead of "datatype" 15:19:03 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: Two separate concepts that deal with datatype IRIS. Typed datatype iri and a lexicalform 15:19:31 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: Data type IRI used as an IRI? 15:19:34 <Zakim> -ericP 15:19:38 <gavinc_> gavinc_ has joined #rdf-wg 15:19:41 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: it's just an IRI 15:19:45 <Zakim> +ericP 15:19:55 <Scott_Bauer> … nothing that requires it to be a datatype. 15:20:07 <Scott_Bauer> … not syntactically invalid 15:20:31 <Scott_Bauer> … the intention is that this is IRI is exceptional 15:20:40 <AlexHall> q+ 15:20:59 <Scott_Bauer> … used in a datatype position but just an IRI 15:21:28 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: That seems to be wrong to put it in that position 15:21:35 <gavinc> Zakim, mute me 15:21:35 <Zakim> gavinc should now be muted 15:22:07 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: I don't think we can really improve on the design 15:22:25 <Scott_Bauer> … I don't' think we want to revisit the design 15:22:35 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: I agree 15:24:02 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: RDF concepts, section 5 on datatypes denoted by one or more uri references. There is nothing that requires them to be connected 15:24:25 <swh> Zakim, who is speaking? 15:24:35 <Zakim> swh, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (9%), PatH (70%) 15:24:58 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: I find this design unacceptable 15:25:41 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: This is called a datatype thats not a datatype. 15:25:47 <AndyS> q+ to ask if we have formally decided on the URI as rdf:langString (helps SPARQL finish) 15:25:53 <Scott_Bauer> … let's take it off line 15:26:19 <cygri> q+ 15:26:34 <PatH> zakim, mute me 15:26:34 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted 15:26:36 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS: Is that going to be the URI? 15:27:00 <Zakim> -ericP 15:27:03 <PatH> but that iri will not actually occur in the literal... 15:27:04 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: There was no discussion of the specific URI 15:27:35 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: Should it be called something different? 15:27:45 <AndyS> ack me 15:27:45 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask if we have formally decided on the URI as rdf:langString (helps SPARQL finish) 15:27:47 <Zakim> +ericP 15:27:48 <cygri> ack me 15:28:00 <PatH> no objections to the label.. 15:28:02 <Scott_Bauer> guus: I suggest we keep the label. Is that ok Andy? 15:28:19 <ericP> q- 15:28:34 <PatH> q- 15:29:29 <Scott_Bauer> AlexHall: Datatype IRI that's not and IRI reminds me of how REST defines the simple space. Some of these are also datatypes. 15:29:50 <AlexHall> s/REST/RIF/ 15:30:02 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: issue 77 15:30:10 <AlexHall> s/simple/symbol/ 15:30:16 <cygri> ISSUE-77? 15:30:16 <trackbot> ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open 15:30:16 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77 15:30:33 <Scott_Bauer> guus: RDF seq and lists discussion 15:31:19 <swh> I don't think there's much consensus 15:31:56 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS: I don't see a consensus forming. 15:32:32 <PatH> link to wikipage? 15:32:37 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Ordered 15:32:50 <Scott_Bauer> guus: First Proposal just call them sequence and list downplay as containers. Consensus on this? 15:33:14 <Scott_Bauer> Andy: I haven't seen push back or support. 15:33:22 <PatH> people DO call them sequence and list, in fact. 15:33:40 <swh> yeah 15:33:41 <gavinc> I think there is some level of consensus on well formedness as well 15:33:43 <PatH> zakim, unmute me. 15:33:43 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted 15:33:50 <Scott_Bauer> guus: Semantics proposal is just to remove the semantics. 15:34:32 <ivan> q+ 15:34:34 <AndyS> well formedness for Seqs was pushed back at : two rdf:_1 to indicate equal rank 15:34:41 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: We may not need to remove that. We may just not need so many at once (containers) 15:34:45 <Zakim> -ericP 15:35:26 <AlexHall> q- 15:35:31 <Zakim> +ericP 15:35:40 <Guus> ack AlexHall 15:35:54 <Guus> ack ivan 15:36:24 <Scott_Bauer> Ivan: The current semantics would define an infinite amount of axiomatic triples. 15:37:26 <Scott_Bauer> … we get interoperability issues. 15:38:10 <Scott_Bauer> … certain conclusions in semantics are used in those properties? 15:38:47 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: I agree is would be better if there was a clearer normative statement. 15:38:49 <ivan> q+ 15:39:30 <Scott_Bauer> guus: We should amend the text. 15:39:40 <Scott_Bauer> Ivan: We should do this quickly 15:40:07 <Scott_Bauer> … sparql does define one approach to this. 15:40:28 <ivan> q+ 15:40:29 <Scott_Bauer> … look at this and see if we can use it to define it. 15:40:40 <Zakim> -ericP 15:40:52 <Zakim> +ericP 15:41:34 <ivan> -> the SPARQL document to look at http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/ 15:42:28 <Scott_Bauer> Action: PatH review the sparql specifications for consistency with rdf semantics for container properties 15:42:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-114 - review the sparql specifications for consistency with rdf semantics for container properties [on Patrick Hayes - due 2011-11-09]. 15:42:45 <Zakim> +Sandro 15:42:47 <PatH> zakim, mute me 15:42:47 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted 15:43:23 <Scott_Bauer> Ivan: We have one major user that uses the container properties -- Adobe 15:43:35 <swh> q+ 15:43:40 <ivan> ack ivan 15:43:42 <Scott_Bauer> … Should we contact them regarding these changes. 15:43:49 <gavinc> Hi Sandro! 15:43:53 <davidwood> +1 to Ivan. We have been presuming that Adobe will care about terminology. 15:44:17 <swh> q- 15:44:25 <PatH> i think there was a consensus not to deprecate or otherwise be rude about containers? 15:44:37 <swh> not consensus 15:44:49 <PatH> OK 15:45:25 <Scott_Bauer> Action: sandro will discuss the issue of the container properties and deprecation with Adobe. 15:45:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Will discuss the issue of the container properties and deprecation with Adobe. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-11-09]. 15:45:49 <swh> q+ 15:46:37 <PatH> it means if they do use it they have to take a shower afterwards. 15:47:04 <swh> q? 15:47:11 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: Well Formed Lists 15:47:33 <AndyS> q+ 15:47:40 <Scott_Bauer> guus: Is there consensus on this 15:47:58 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: I think so -- question is what would we do with the definition. 15:48:02 <PatH> zakim, unmute me 15:48:02 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted 15:48:40 <Scott_Bauer> SteveH: It's not ok to ask Adobe if its ok to deprectate 15:49:03 <cygri> q+ 15:49:05 <Scott_Bauer> … the containers 15:49:24 <cygri> q- 15:49:27 <PatH> +q re wellformed lists. Is the idea to have wellformed triples or a different 'native' structure? 15:49:47 <swh> q- 15:49:58 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS: Lists cannot be shared. Can't have two triples pointing to the same object. 15:50:26 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: can you clarify that? 15:50:48 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS: It's linked specifically on the turtle page. 15:50:49 <gavinc> I think PatH it's that IF they are well formed triples they CAN be implemented as a 'native' structure 15:51:17 <Zakim> +ericP 15:51:26 <Zakim> -ericP 15:51:33 <AndyS> """ Each list node has exactly one inbound arc; for all but the first node, it's an rdf:rest arc from the previous node. """ 15:51:55 <PatH> ok, clearly we need to check the definition very carefully. 15:52:19 <Scott_Bauer> guus: I don't hear anybody saying it is a problem. 15:52:28 <gavinc> "(Perhaps there is a clearer definition using more math.) " ;) 15:52:45 <Scott_Bauer> … leaving this to further list discussion. 15:52:47 <PatH> gavinc, yes. in fact there are several... 15:53:05 <PatH> zakim, mute me 15:53:05 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted 15:53:21 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: would like to approach Adobe for feedback on the possibility. 15:54:04 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: To mark Lists as archaic or not. 15:54:25 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: see Steve's summary 15:54:44 <Scott_Bauer> guus: If we are stuck we go with the minimal option. 15:54:59 <Scott_Bauer> … proposal one. 15:55:09 <PatH> lists archaic?? 15:55:45 <PatH> +1 to guus. minimal change. 15:56:18 <Scott_Bauer> Sandro you may need to self scribe I'm not hearing you well 15:56:53 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: should we get rid of one of them? 15:57:06 <Scott_Bauer> … sequences or lists? 15:57:27 <PatH> not clear to me what the alternative(s?) are. 15:57:40 <cygri> sandro: no one is happy with containers, no one is happy with collections. should we try to actually fix the problem? is there will in the wg to approach this? 15:57:55 <cygri> q+ 15:58:03 <AndyS> ack me 15:58:11 <PatH> ah. not obvious to me that this is a problem to solve here. 15:58:15 <PatH> q- 15:58:31 <Zakim> +Sandro 15:58:53 <Zakim> -Sandro 15:59:07 <Scott_Bauer> cygri: The other proposals include a list ontology and a datatype that is a list of UI/s 15:59:24 <PatH> +1 cygri 15:59:32 <Guus> +1 to Richard: not really in scope for this WG 15:59:42 <swh> +1 15:59:49 <Scott_Bauer> … seems like this should be carefully considered and explored in some other venue. 15:59:53 <swh> good for an XG (or whatever the current thing is) 15:59:55 <ivan> +1 to richard 16:00:06 <cygri> ack me 16:00:33 <gavinc> +☃ to cygri 16:00:33 <Scott_Bauer> guus: Proposal one the most likely option. 16:01:18 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: We are taking a big step by endorsing turtle and it will be painful to have all these turtle lists out there. 16:01:26 <PatH> i dont see any simple way to get this tidied up now. whatever we do will be a crock at this stage. 16:02:03 <gavinc> ... ( 1, 2, 3) ?type . 16:02:22 <AndyS> Turtle exists in the wild already - I worry about changing current meaning. 16:02:23 <Scott_Bauer> … could perhaps use parenthesis for rdf list 16:02:39 <swh> +1 to AndyS 16:02:43 <PatH> list datatype, maybe. 16:02:47 <gavinc> +1000 to AndyS 16:02:56 <PatH> +1 andy 16:03:04 <AndyS> ():List ():Seq with () as list MIGHT work. 16:03:34 <PatH> lists can have sublists? 16:03:50 <Scott_Bauer> Topic: Named Graph Issues 16:03:50 <AndyS> PatH - yes 16:04:14 <sandro> sandro has joined #rdf-wg 16:04:43 <AndyS> PatH, an object of rdf:first can be a list by Sandro's wording and by Turtle syntax. Unusual but legal. 16:04:44 <gavinc> +q what TriG draft currently says 16:04:50 <Scott_Bauer> guus: Consensus model for moving forward is to agree on the minimal model. 16:04:52 <gavinc> +q to say what TriG draft currently says 16:05:07 <gavinc> Zakim, unmute me 16:05:07 <Zakim> gavinc should no longer be muted 16:05:25 <gavinc> A graph statement pairs an IRI with a RDF Graph. It is intended that triple statements made about that IRI are being made about the graph. The triple statements that make up the graph are enclosed in {}. 16:05:50 <PatH> zakim, unmute me 16:05:50 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted 16:05:57 <PatH> +q 16:06:05 <AndyS> I like the approach Guus outlines. Document different practices. 16:06:05 <ivan> ack gavinc 16:06:05 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to say what TriG draft currently says 16:06:09 <Guus> ack gavinc 16:06:14 <Guus> ack patH 16:06:26 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: The second sentence "made using that IRI" would be better 16:06:40 <gavinc> A graph statement pairs an IRI with a RDF Graph. It is intended that triple statements made using that IRI are being made about the graph. The triple statements that make up the graph are enclosed in {}. 16:06:40 <PatH> zakim, mute me 16:06:40 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted 16:06:51 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: informal that the IRI denotes the graph 16:07:11 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc: We match that grammar in a number of places. 16:07:16 <ericP> can i simplify 16:07:16 <ericP> SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 } 16:07:16 <ericP> SERVICE <S1> { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p2> ?o2 } } } 16:07:16 <ericP> to 16:07:16 <ericP> SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 ; <p2> ?o2 } } 16:07:19 <ericP> ? 16:07:39 <sandro> Yeah, "using that IRI" not "*about* that IRI". 16:08:12 <Scott_Bauer> ericP: One persons notion of a graph doesn't have to match another's. Sandro seems to say they probably should. 16:08:36 <swh> I'm not even sure that's an ideal world 16:08:37 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: That's probably going farther than we can right now. 16:08:44 <gavinc> In a TriG document a graph IRI must not be used to label more then one graph. The IRI of a graph statement may be omitted. In this case the graph is considered the default graph of the RDF Dataset. 16:08:47 <swh> -∞ to those being equivalent 16:08:51 <PatH> zakim, unmute me 16:08:51 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted 16:08:57 <PatH> +q 16:09:04 <AndyS> Not the same - need extra assumptions. 16:09:16 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc: TRIG doesn't deal with transactions 16:09:41 <ericP> can i simplify 16:09:41 <ericP> SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 } 16:09:41 <ericP> { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p2> ?o2 } } } 16:09:41 <ericP> to 16:09:41 <ericP> SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 ; <p2> ?o2 } } 16:09:44 <ericP> ? 16:09:55 <PatH> IRIs have globsal scope, so they must be the same according to the semantics. 16:10:01 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc: It says you can't label them twice. 16:10:02 <Guus> ack PatH 16:10:13 <AndyS> That is OK. 16:10:14 <Scott_Bauer> ericP: I'll retract this line of reasoning. 16:10:14 <Souri> s/globsal /global / 16:10:33 <swh> what if one dataset is a canned state from 1 year ago? 16:10:37 <gavinc> I agree for versions of global that include everyone getting to have their own globe 16:10:40 <swh> or just hasn't been updated 16:10:54 <swh> yet 16:10:56 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: We have an IRI and it denotes a graph. Nothing about only inside a data set. 16:11:03 <cygri> it's not the deployed RDF world either 16:11:26 <swh> it's not representative of how technology actually works 16:11:40 <gavinc> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#sec-trig-intro current TriG draft 16:11:58 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: it would be nice if an IRI refers to the same graph but that's not how sparql works. 16:12:00 <AndyS> +1 to cygri -- not just SPARQL, just easier to write down currently. 16:12:20 <Scott_Bauer> … can't just mandate this (Consensus at the face to face) 16:12:21 <AndyS> ... in fact predates SPARQL. 16:13:02 <Scott_Bauer> PatH: I thought a resolution was made to have the IRI denote the graph. 16:13:38 <AndyS> History - SPARQL followed/consensus of subset of deployed usage even back then. 16:13:45 <Scott_Bauer> gavinc: No one could agree on denotes 16:13:50 <swh> +1 to AndyS 16:14:32 <Scott_Bauer> sandro: You can't stop the IRI's from denoting something in RDF, but does it denote the graph. 16:15:16 <Scott_Bauer> … Maybe something at the top of the TRIG document that says how this works. 16:15:35 <gavinc> I'm not hearing anyone complain about "It is intended that triple statements made using that IRI are being made about the graph." 16:15:52 <Scott_Bauer> guus: You could give guidance on what the relationship would identify. Can we reach consensus? 16:16:27 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS: The IRI denotes the graph is what I get out of the statement. 16:16:36 <AndyS> Not AndyS 16:16:48 <AndyS> q+ 16:16:58 <cygri> PatH: The IRI denotes the graph is what I get out of the statement. 16:17:02 <Scott_Bauer> swh: What Gavin said doesn't ring any alarm bells. 16:17:04 <PatH> tnx 16:17:24 <Guus> ack AndyS 16:17:29 <sandro> sandro: Maybe we can try to flush out the implications of gavin's text. 16:18:02 <AndyS> q- 16:18:40 <AndyS> Need to use IRI in triple and IRI-graph association consistently but it's easy to get it wrong. 16:19:16 <Scott_Bauer> AndyS: The chief problem is this is global. Don't say denote if that isn't' what's meant. 16:19:23 <gavinc> Sure, PatH but people can something else about that IRI and the world will be happily inconsistent 16:19:39 <AndyS> s/AndyS/PatH/ 16:19:47 <AndyS> e.g. <iri> : size "57 bytes" using <iri> to denote the g-snap 16:19:52 <swh> bye 16:19:54 <Zakim> -Souri 16:19:55 <AndyS> bye 16:19:56 <Zakim> -PatH 16:19:57 <Zakim> -[Garlik] 16:19:58 <Zakim> -cygri 16:19:59 <zwu2> bye 16:19:59 <Zakim> -Sandro 16:19:59 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:19:59 <Zakim> -davidwood 16:20:02 <Zakim> -AlexHall 16:20:03 <Zakim> -ericP 16:20:05 <Zakim> -Ivan 16:20:05 <Zakim> -gavinc 16:20:06 <AlexHall> AlexHall has left #rdf-wg 16:20:16 <Zakim> - +1.707.318.aaaa 16:20:42 <Zakim> -AndyS 16:20:43 <PatH> Me too 16:20:50 <PatH> Us brits all sound alike 16:21:39 <Scott_Bauer> Action: PatH Send message to list about consequences of TRIG document statements about graph RI's 16:21:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-116 - Send message to list about consequences of TRIG document statements about graph RI's [on Patrick Hayes - due 2011-11-09]. 16:22:04 <Scott_Bauer> trackbot, end meeting 16:22:04 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:22:04 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been guus, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, Ivan, swh, mischat, +1.707.318.aaaa, davidwood, MacTed, AndyS, PatH, AlexHall, cygri, Souri, ericP, zwu2, Sandro 16:22:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:22:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot 16:22:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:22:06 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-actions.rdf : 16:22:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PatH review the sparql specifications for consistency with rdf semantics for container properties [1] 16:22:06 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc#T15-42-28 16:22:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: sandro will discuss the issue of the container properties and deprecation with Adobe. [2] 16:22:06 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc#T15-45-25 16:22:06 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PatH Send message to list about consequences of TRIG document statements about graph RI's [3] 16:22:06 <RRSAgent> recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc#T16-21-39 # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000399