Chatlog 2012-01-11

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.

15:54:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
15:54:04 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:54:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:54:06 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
15:54:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
15:54:08 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
15:54:09 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:54:09 <trackbot> Date: 11 January 2012
15:54:11 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdf-wg
15:55:34 <Guus> Guus has joined #rdf-wg
15:56:05 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:56:05 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, yvesr
15:56:06 <Zakim> On IRC I see Guus, cygri, Zakim, RRSAgent, AZ, MacTed, LeeF, mischat, ivan, SteveH, AndyS1, manu, davidwood, mdmdm_, gavinc, trackbot, yvesr, manu1, NickH, sandro, ericP
15:57:11 <ericP> i'll be 10 mins late...
15:57:18 <SteveH> SteveH has left #rdf-wg
15:57:39 <swh> swh has joined #rdf-wg
15:59:44 <swh> Zakim, who's on the phone?
15:59:44 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, swh
15:59:46 <Zakim> On IRC I see swh, Guus, cygri, Zakim, RRSAgent, AZ, MacTed, LeeF, mischat, ivan, AndyS1, manu, davidwood, mdmdm_, gavinc, trackbot, yvesr, manu1, NickH, sandro, ericP
15:59:48 <cgreer> cgreer has joined #rdf-wg
15:59:59 <gavinc> Zakim, start meeting
16:00:00 <Zakim> I don't understand 'start meeting', gavinc
16:00:06 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
16:00:12 <swh> Zakim, this will be RDF-WG
16:00:12 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, swh
16:00:14 <gavinc> Zakim this is rdfwf
16:00:44 <swh> Zakim, this will be RDFWG
16:00:44 <Zakim> ok, swh, I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM already started
16:00:53 <swh> Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:00:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, gavinc, ??P2, +1.206.494.aaaa, mhausenblas, cgreer
16:00:55 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
16:00:57 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
16:00:59 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P0 is me
16:01:03 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
16:01:22 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #rdf-wg
16:01:25 <Zakim> +??P10
16:01:32 <AndyS> zakim, ??P10 is me
16:01:34 <swh> Zakim, ??P2 is me
16:01:35 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
16:01:41 <Zakim> +swh; got it
16:01:45 <Zakim> +??P11
16:01:49 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:50 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:01:56 <mischat> zakim, ??P11 is me 
16:01:57 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, gavinc, swh, +1.206.494.aaaa, cygri, cgreer, AndyS, ??P11
16:01:59 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:02:01 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:02:01 <AZ> zakim, aaaa is me
16:02:09 <Zakim> +mischat; got it
16:02:13 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
16:02:16 <mischat> zakim, mute me 
16:02:17 <Zakim> + +1.408.996.aabb
16:02:37 <Zakim> mischat should now be muted
16:02:46 <Arnaud> zakim, aabb is me
16:03:13 <Zakim> +Arnaud; got it
16:03:35 <Zakim> +sandro
16:04:26 <Zakim> +David_Wood
16:04:46 <davidwood> Zakim, David_Wood is me
16:04:47 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
16:04:53 <Zakim> +LeeF
16:05:05 <mischat> davidwood: ww is not here today, i will scribe 
16:05:27 <mischat> davidwood: i will send you an email on that front 
16:05:42 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 4 Jan telecon:
16:05:42 <davidwood>
16:05:53 <mischat> davidwood: any objections to accepting the minutes ?
16:06:00 <JeremyCarroll> JeremyCarroll has joined #rdf-wg
16:06:02 <mischat> RESOLVE accept minutes 
16:06:05 <davidwood> Action item review:
16:06:05 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - item
16:06:05 <davidwood>
16:06:05 <davidwood>
16:06:40 <mischat> davidwood: moving on to open actions … 
16:07:00 <Zakim> +JeremyCarroll
16:07:09 <mischat> davidwood: sandro any update on action 82(?)
16:07:16 <sandro> action-82?
16:07:16 <trackbot> ACTION-82 -- Sandro Hawke to draft well-known URI template and propose WG resolution that it is "stable" enough for IETF. -- due 2011-09-14 -- OPEN
16:07:16 <trackbot>
16:07:25 <mischat> davidwood: any updates on action 98 ?
16:07:33 <mischat> action-98 ?
16:07:33 <trackbot> ACTION-98 -- Sandro Hawke to rdf: and rdfs: namespace should resolve to something that meets best practices -- due 2011-12-31 -- OPEN
16:07:33 <trackbot>
16:08:01 <mischat> davidwood: shouldn't this be something for the w3c systems team
16:08:15 <mischat> davidwood: should someone else do this action?
16:08:55 <mischat> sandro: should we be following what the foaf ns does ?
16:08:59 <Zakim> +Souri
16:09:30 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg
16:09:43 <cygri> q+
16:09:43 <mischat> davidwood: should we do it the way SKOS does it ?
16:10:03 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: is sandro being too picky here ? 
16:10:24 <cygri>
16:10:32 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
16:10:33 <mischat> cygri: there is a document best practices for the vocabs
16:10:36 <yvesr> i think danbri is not overly keen on the way FOAF is published
16:10:39 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:10:39 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
16:10:40 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
16:10:40 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
16:10:41 <mischat> cygri: we should follow the above document ^^ 
16:10:45 <yvesr> mainly because they're stuck on 0.1 :)
16:11:10 <mischat> sandro: what is the user experience when users as for HTML 
16:11:10 <mischat> ?
16:11:40 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: we need 10 lines of HTML, here is the RDF, this is the namespace 
16:12:01 <mischat> sandro: doesn't want to do that project 
16:12:03 <Zakim> +EricP
16:12:34 <sandro>
16:12:47 <gavinc> 
16:12:48 <mischat> davidwood: right now if we resolve a url like above ^^, as it stands we get no HTML 
16:13:10 <mischat> davidwood: we shouldn't get RDFXML when asking for a human readable document 
16:13:52 <gavinc> eh, _n isn't that bad in javascript ;)
16:14:14 <mischat> davidwood: so where are we at now … 
16:14:18 <sandro> zakim, who is making noise?
16:14:28 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: cgreer (9%), Arnaud (5%), sandro (34%), davidwood (30%)
16:14:58 <mischat> agenda: RDFa working group last call
16:15:12 <mischat> davidwood: manu asks us to review the RDFa documents 
16:15:26 <mischat> davidwood: davidwood will ping Guus about this 
16:15:45 <mischat> davidwood: charles have you reviewed the RDFa doc ?
16:15:53 <Zakim> -JeremyCarroll
16:16:09 <mischat> charles : happy with the RDFa doc he reviewed 
16:16:45 <ivan> q+
16:16:47 <mischat> davidwood: we should be reviewing the document in terms of what the RDF WG are interested in document 
16:17:01 <cygri> q-
16:17:03 <mischat> davidwood: was reviewing with an RDF WG hat on 
16:17:11 <davidwood> ack ivan
16:17:33 <mischat> ivan: charles please submit under your own name
16:17:34 <gavinc> +q to ask about CURIEs
16:17:56 <mischat> ivan: you can tell from the RDFa, that they are staying clear of the named graph issue 
16:17:58 <davidwood> ack gavinc
16:17:58 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to ask about CURIEs
16:18:04 <mischat> s/charles/cgreer/
16:18:18 <mischat> gavinc: has gone through the RDFa curie's section 
16:18:37 <mischat> gavinc: was wondering whether we should comment on the differences between CURIEs and prefixing ?
16:18:47 <mischat> ivan: which difference are you referring to ?
16:19:24 <cygri> q+ to ask whether they aren't the same now
16:19:25 <mischat> gavinc: the set of URIs which can be represented in CURIES is different from the set of IRIs that SPARQL's & RDF prefixes can represent
16:19:39 <mischat> gavinc: CURIEs don't work with XML 
16:19:51 <mischat> gavinc: CURIE has a broader set than XML names 
16:20:04 <mischat> gavinc: XML names are valid CURIES and prefix names … 
16:20:14 <Zakim> +JeremyCarroll
16:20:28 <mischat> gavinc: we talked about this when talking about Turtle 
16:20:41 <ericP> q?
16:20:57 <mischat> davidwood: it would be happy if this would be noted in the spec 
16:21:07 <mischat> davidwood: because it is a syntax issue 
16:21:11 <AndyS> CURIE is very open : prefix+local for anything, then says other syntaxes can restrict.
16:21:14 <davidwood> ack cygri
16:21:14 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask whether they aren't the same now
16:21:20 <mischat> cygri: can you give an example please ?
16:21:35 <mischat> gavinc: not right now
16:21:37 <cygri> ack me���
16:21:56 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: 2 use-case to motivated CURIE, 1) ending in numbers 
16:22:01 <mischat> as per the IPTC 
16:22:24 <mischat> ivan: would like to see a very detailed example please :)
16:22:31 <cygri> thanks in advance gavinc!
16:22:36 <mischat> davidwood: before next week please 
16:22:47 <mischat> ericP: you have 2 hours ;)
16:23:00 <mischat> moving on … 
16:23:27 <mischat> davidwood: sandro or ivan, what is the best way to get these comments from this WG to the RDFa WG ?
16:23:38 <mischat> ivan: ideally we should send the comments to their mailing list 
16:24:12 <mischat> ivan: because when they go to CR, it will be easier for the RDFa folks to handle. Please send comments to the RDFa mailing list 
16:24:22 <mischat> davidwood: a link to the public-comments list ?
16:24:38 <mischat> ivan: please use the rdfa wg's list 
16:24:44 <ivan> W3C RDFWA WG <>
16:25:21 <mischat> ivan:  please use ^^ 
16:25:23 <gavinc> hey look an example! CURIE: db:resource/Albert_Einstein vs. PNAME db:resource\/Albert_Einstein that's just escaping, will see about others
16:25:49 <mischat> topic: named graphs 
16:26:19 <mischat> davidwood: sandro wanted Pat's on scoping, Pat sent an email about it 
16:26:31 <mischat> davidwood: Pat would rather not have bnodes in the 4th column 
16:26:45 <swh> +1 to not allowing bNodes in the 4th slot
16:26:45 <mischat> davidwood: can we make progress based on cygri being here and Pat's email. 
16:27:08 <davidwood> "2c: if we allow bnodes in the 4th position, then please lets make a firm decision what their intended scope is going to be, and that they cannot also occur in other positions in the same graph store. But I vote to not allow bnodes in 4th position in any case."
16:27:20 <mischat> davidwood: Pat's comments re: bnode in 4th slot ^^
16:27:25 <cygri> q+ to suggest straw poll, let's allow only IRIs in the 4th slot
16:27:37 <mischat> +1 to not having them either 
16:27:54 <mischat> sandro: the scope for bnode is a document 
16:28:40 <Zakim> -davidwood
16:28:42 <mischat> sandro: doesn't think that Pat's comment address his use-case from last week 
16:28:47 <JeremyCarroll> q+
16:29:13 <mischat> cygri: is confused, quote from Pat was about bnodes and not IRI 
16:29:22 <mischat> i parsed that from the conversation too, fwiwi 
16:29:26 <Zakim> +??P22
16:29:38 <mischat> cygri: are we considering using bnodes in the 4th slot ?
16:29:45 <Zakim> +davidwood
16:30:10 <mischat> cygri: as all the existing syntax, sparql, currently don't support bnodes in the 4th slot 
16:30:28 <AZ> NQuads allows anything in 4th position
16:30:36 <davidwood> q?
16:30:43 <cygri> ack me
16:30:43 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to suggest straw poll, let's allow only IRIs in the 4th slot
16:30:46 <mischat> ericP: you can use a variable which matches in a bnode in SPARQL 
16:31:05 <cygri> AZ, fair enough
16:31:17 <mischat> AndyS: you can use it in SPARQL query, but datasets don't allow for bnodes in the 4th slot 
16:31:18 <davidwood> ack JeremyCarroll
16:31:35 <sandro> andy: SPARQL datasets dont allow bnodes in the URI part of the pair
16:31:40 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: re-capping conversation with Pat from 6 years back 
16:31:50 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: wanted the bnodes in the 4th slot, as he is a big fan 
16:31:53 <AndyS> (checking) sandro UC is convenience of not needing to mint a URI
16:32:05 <AndyS> s/URI/IRI/ <<--- arrg
16:32:11 <ericP> q?
16:32:22 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: couldn't see how to get the RDF graph isomorphism with bnodes in 4th slot 
16:32:40 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: this causes problems when software testing 
16:32:49 <ericP> q+ to ask if that's an artifact of the popular algorythm for isomorphisms
16:33:20 <swh> q+ to talk about use
16:33:30 <mischat> sandro: doesn't want bnodes in the 4th slot, but we haven't agreed on a design for our use-cases 
16:34:08 <ericP> JeremyCarroll, if i exhaust a mapping of bnodes to bnodes, why would the additional permutations of having a graph named by a bnode be any harder than the other permutations?
16:34:09 <mischat> sandro: and dismissing bnodes there, is limiting our final design space, i.e. why limit ourselves now, before we have a design, based upon agreed use-cases 
16:34:13 <gavinc> on the other hand, constricting the design space can help force a design?
16:34:29 <mischat> davidwood: can you walk through the use-case, which you think definitely requires a bnode there 
16:35:35 <mischat> sandro: if you want to state that "dave asserts these triples", would require a IRI, but a bnode would allow us not to mint a new IRI 
16:35:52 <AndyS> q+ to say IF we allow 4th slot bNodes, THEN limiting such bNodes to only 4th slot seems rather odd.
16:36:05 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: skolemisation is the work around for this 
16:36:56 <sandro> JeremyCarroll: In general using blank nodes is a good way to indicate that we didnt have a good way to agree on a URI for the thing.
16:36:58 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: a blank-node would allow different people to articulate that they are talking about the same thing, without agreeing upon what the IRI should be minted before hand 
16:36:58 <sandro> +1 
16:37:03 <ivan> q+
16:37:16 <davidwood> ack ericP
16:37:16 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if that's an artifact of the popular algorythm for isomorphisms
16:37:39 <yvesr> JeremyCarroll, +1 - skolemisation would imply reconciliation a-posteriori, but i think i also understand why it could be a cause fo concerns
16:38:36 <sandro> JeremyCarroll: If one bnode is also used as a graph name, then isomorphism is more complicated
16:38:47 <swh> q-
16:39:02 <davidwood> ack AndyS
16:39:02 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to say IF we allow 4th slot bNodes, THEN limiting such bNodes to only 4th slot seems rather odd.
16:39:36 <mischat> AndyS: Pat's point about if used in 4th slot, is not clear 
16:40:45 <mox601> mox601 has joined #rdf-wg
16:41:04 <AZ> q+ to say that what's allowed in the 4th slot probably depends on what it identifies
16:41:10 <JeremyCarroll> q+
16:41:16 <mischat> AndyS: there is a balance to be struck, sometimes it is better to mint a URI, we should find if there is a use-case for not wanting to name a set of triples 
16:41:25 <mischat> AndyS: perhaps using the "_". 
16:42:16 <swh> q+
16:42:23 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: AndyS was suggesting that bnodes used in the 4th column shouldn't be used in the g-snap named by that bnode
16:42:39 <davidwood> ack ivan
16:42:52 <mischat> sandro: we shouldn't limit our design space without clear objective/use-cases in mind 
16:43:21 <sandro> sandro: we should build up designs, rather than chopping off options blindly
16:43:51 <sandro> +1 ivan: it's like the use of [...] in turtle 
16:43:56 <swh> +1 to ivan
16:44:17 <AndyS> Relative IRIs do that?  e.g. <#abc1>
16:44:19 <swh> maybe .well-known/genid
16:44:21 <JeremyCarroll> JeremyCarroll: we could restrict bnodes as graph names to ones that are only used in graphs named with an IRI
16:44:23 <mischat> ivan: do we need a way in the syntax to mint a new IRI for a use, which is scoped to a document. Bnodes are used in turtle, for when users don't care or want to mint a new IRI, something like [ … ] in bnode, which mints a new IRI and not a bnode 
16:44:36 <mischat> personally that is why I use bnodes 
16:44:37 <JeremyCarroll> JeremyCarroll: that wouild meet most of my objections, and maybe Pat's
16:45:02 <JeremyCarroll> JeremyCarroll: this for me, proves Sandro's point, that we shouldn't chop off the design space a priori
16:45:05 <mischat> AndyS: if you parse a file with that syntatic sugar, would you get the same IRI generated ?
16:45:22 <pchampin> q+
16:45:27 <JeremyCarroll> q-
16:45:58 <pchampin> q-
16:46:01 <mischat> ivan: most people use bnodes when they don't want/care to mint a new IRI
16:46:16 <davidwood> ack AZ
16:46:16 <Zakim> AZ, you wanted to say that what's allowed in the 4th slot probably depends on what it identifies
16:46:54 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to suggest a straw poll on either making decision now or postponing til after the rest of the design is made
16:47:07 <gavinc> +q to propose a VERY concrete use case for Named Graphs
16:47:32 <mischat> AZ: maybe we will know how to restrict the 4th slot if we know that it identifies. If it is just a label for a graph, it doesn't matter if it is a literal, IRI or a bnode. 
16:47:46 <cygri> q+
16:47:48 <mischat> AZ: so the question to answer is, "what does the 4th slot identify" ?
16:47:56 <davidwood> ack swh
16:48:29 <mischat> swh: doesn't feel convinced that we haven't exhausted all of the use-cases 
16:48:42 <mischat> swh: has been working with quad-stores for 10 years or so 
16:49:06 <mischat> swh: initially we didn't rule out bnodes in the 4th slot, but it has turned out that people don't actual use them 
16:49:47 <mischat> davidwood: feels that we are in a bit of a deadlock here.
16:49:49 <davidwood> ack JeremyCarroll
16:49:49 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest a straw poll on either making decision now or postponing til after the rest of the design is made
16:49:53 <mischat> sandro: we need to revisit the design 
16:50:13 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: 2nd'ing sandro's position re: revisiting the design 
16:50:14 <gavinc> -q
16:50:19 <sandro> s/revisit/discuss
16:51:09 <ivan> -> Sandro's three design aproaches
16:51:23 <davidwood> ack cygri
16:51:35 <swh> it's an existential variable!
16:51:43 <mischat> davidwood: doesn't think it seems minor given the ramifications for the semantics, for the various syntax, and the implementations 
16:52:02 <mischat> s/davidwood/cygri/
16:52:16 <swh> JeremyCarroll, cwm isn't the only system to have graph IDs that are bNodes, 3store did too, it just wasn't very popular
16:52:21 <swh> …with users
16:53:07 <mischat> cygri: re: AZ's point, we need to figure out what the interpretation of a dataset. Is it true/false? This will help cygri figure out the semantics of a dataset .
16:53:13 <sandro> yes, absolutely
16:53:18 <AZ> q+
16:53:31 <cygri> ack me
16:53:40 <davidwood> ack AZ
16:53:42 <sandro> a dataset must have truth conditions, yes. being true or false.
16:54:12 <cygri> sandro, i disagree. is a dataset containing several versions of a graph true or false?
16:54:15 <mischat> AZ: the semantics of a dataset hasn't been decided upon yet, AZ proposed one, Pat didn't like it, but he don't have any progress on this front 
16:54:36 <cygri> thanks AZ
16:54:48 <mischat> AZ: we don't even have the beginnings of what a dataset is yet, this work needs to be performed 
16:55:48 <AZ> s/he don't have any progress/we don't have any progress/
16:56:35 <mischat> sandro: is talking about the use case re: graphs ^^ 
16:56:38 <gavinc> +q for concrete use case
16:57:22 <mischat> Use case 1 : Several systems want to use the data gathered by one RDF crawler.  They don't need simultaneous access to older versions of the data.
16:57:31 <mischat> Use case 2: Several systems want to use the data gathered by one RDF crawler.  They need simultaneous access to older versions of the data.
16:57:58 <mischat> davidwood: can you find a real-world example for use-case 2 
16:58:01 <swh> we do provenance of that kind, and we don't model it that way
16:58:09 <AndyS>
16:58:21 <gavinc> Archiving Crawler Concrete!
16:58:23 <mischat> sandro: people would like to know how and why data has changed 
16:58:44 <mischat> sandro: would allow for provenance data to be modelled in RDF 
16:58:54 <mischat> Use-case 3 : A system wants to convey to another system in RDF that some person agrees with or disagrees with certain RDF triples.
16:59:20 <mischat> sandro: these 3 use-case could easily be modelled in trig and in nquads 
16:59:51 <mischat> sandro: the syntaxes get used in different ways, and all of the ways can be used to model the use-cases 
17:00:32 <mischat> sandro: enumerated these are called the ways : Trig/REST, Trig/Equality, and Trig/bnode 
17:00:33 <sandro> third approach:                eg:sandro eg:endorses { ... the triples I'm endorsing ... }
17:00:59 <gavinc> +q
17:02:13 <sandro> and third design on UC1 is:                    <> rdf:graphState { ... triples recently fetched from there }
17:03:05 <mischat> davidwood: most discussion was around the 3rd solution, and we haven't had much discussion on this, probably due to the timing of the email
17:03:06 <davidwood> ack gavinc
17:03:07 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to discuss concrete use case and to 
17:03:56 <mischat> gavinc: we are talking about archiving data on the web, as one of our use-cases, and we have an ISO standard for it at the moment 
17:04:38 <JeremyCarroll> please post link
17:04:40 <gavinc>
17:04:44 <cygri> i've worked with it
17:04:55 <mischat> gavinc: in our use-case, without RDF, and without the SW cached in, when people have designed archiving systems for the web, they minted URIs 
17:04:56 <cygri> most off-the-shelf crawlers support it
17:05:12 <mischat> gavinc: a standard for archiving data from the web ^^
17:05:29 <mischat> gavinc: so why are we talking about archiving the web, without minting new IRIs
17:06:06 <JeremyCarroll> ISO 28500.
17:06:17 <mischat> sandro: please put your comments in context 
17:06:37 <mischat> gavinc: use-case 2 is not necessary for needing 
17:06:56 <mischat>  s/needing/motivating bnodes in the 4th column/
17:07:38 <cygri> davidwood++
17:07:45 <mischat> davidwood: please motivation use-case 3 
17:07:51 <mischat> s/motivation/motivate/ 
17:08:00 <cygri> q+
17:08:13 <LeeF> Don't people build their own technology for something like this if they want to do it? How does the Tim Clark type group of people do it? 
17:08:42 <davidwood> ack cygri
17:08:42 <mischat> sandro: doesn't think that anyone is publishing data for use-case 3 because there are no mechanisms for people to make use of the practices described in use-case 3 
17:09:03 <davidwood> LeeF, Tim Clark type group?
17:09:22 <gavinc> Specific every WARC record must have an IRI
17:09:28 <LeeF> project formerly known as SWAN - think it became the scientific discourse sub-group of the SW HCLS IG
17:09:33 <LeeF> but i don't know a lot about what it's been up to
17:09:38 <LeeF> ericP?
17:09:54 <davidwood> WARC specifies a URI, not an IRI
17:10:20 <mischat> cygri: doesn't believe that the use-case 3 should be top of our agenda 
17:11:23 <LeeF> I'm not that interested in this use case :-)
17:11:53 <swh> yes, lets ask the question about who's interested
17:12:12 <gavinc> since you can create a new graph that contains only the subgraph, and endorse that
17:12:22 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: thinks that we can endorse a graph, but not a subgraph, and doesn't think this is a major issue
17:12:31 <AndyS> Also - converse is whether it is a requirement to be solved - middle ground of "not blocked"
17:12:44 <mischat> davidwood: can we have a straw-poll about who is interested in use-case 3 ?
17:12:49 <LeeF> Talking about graph versus talking about subgraph?
17:12:52 <MacTed> sorry... link to this?
17:12:52 <JeremyCarroll> i am interested in uc3 ... 
17:12:55 <AndyS> +0.25
17:13:15 <davidwood> +0
17:13:33 <JeremyCarroll> q+ tp talk about owl test cases
17:13:35 <mischat> swh: finds it hard to know what use-case 3 is talking about 
17:13:43 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to talk about owl test cases
17:13:48 <davidwood> MacTed, UC3 in
17:13:53 <MacTed> danke
17:14:47 <davidwood> ack JeremyCarroll
17:14:48 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to talk about owl test cases
17:15:31 <swh> SELECT ?s ?p ?o WHERE { eg:sandro eg:endorses ?g } GRAPH ?g { ?s ?p ?o }}
17:15:40 <LeeF> syntax error!
17:15:41 <mischat> JeremyCarroll: in the owl test case, there are manifest files which stated that one graph entails another graph. JeremyCarroll thinks this is a different concrete use case regarding what sandro is talking about 
17:15:45 <swh> all the triples endorsed by eg:sandro
17:15:54 <swh> sorry LeeF :)
17:15:57 <mischat> sandro: thinks that use-case 4 is touching upon what JeremyCarroll mentioned above ^^
17:16:12 <ericP> +1 to PML use case
17:16:13 <LeeF> at least you didn't write "SELECT ?s, ?p, ?o" :-D
17:16:14 <MacTed> +1 interested in expressing endorsement (agreement with, has confidence in, etc.) of <arbitrary g-snap>
17:16:31 <Zakim> -JeremyCarroll
17:16:40 <AZ> thx
17:16:41 <Zakim> -cygri
17:16:41 <AZ> buy
17:16:42 <Zakim> -Souri
17:16:43 <swh> LeeF, yeah, after years I finally stopped putting the , in there :)
17:16:43 <Zakim> -Arnaud
17:16:43 <Zakim> -yvesr
17:16:44 <Zakim> -gavinc
17:16:45 <Zakim> -sandro
17:16:47 <Zakim> -davidwood
17:16:48 <Zakim> -AZ
17:16:48 <Zakim> -swh
17:16:50 <Zakim> -MacTed
17:16:52 <Zakim> -pchampin
17:16:53 <Zakim> -mischat
17:16:57 <cgreer> cgreer has left #rdf-wg
17:16:58 <Zakim> -EricP
17:17:00 <Zakim> -AndyS
17:17:02 <Zakim> -Ivan
17:17:21 <Zakim> -cgreer
17:17:25 <Arnaud> Arnaud has left #rdf-wg
17:17:36 <AndyS> Did we make progress today?
17:17:42 <Zakim> -LeeF
17:17:42 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
17:17:43 <Zakim> Attendees were gavinc, +1.206.494.aaaa, cgreer, cygri, yvesr, AndyS, swh, Ivan, mischat, AZ, +1.408.996.aabb, Arnaud, sandro, davidwood, LeeF, JeremyCarroll, Souri, MacTed, EricP,
17:17:45 <Zakim> ... pchampin
17:17:52 <LeeF> There's a disconnect somewhere here
17:17:59 <mischat> do I have to do things now 
17:18:08 <mischat> make scribe logs or something 
17:18:13 <LeeF> Because I think that people are disagreeing over what needs to happen (if anything) in a design to support UC3
17:18:17 <mischat> been on holiday for a while :)
17:18:26 <cygri> trackbot, make logs public
17:18:26 <trackbot> Sorry, cygri, I don't understand 'trackbot, make logs public'. Please refer to for help
17:18:33 <LeeF> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:18:39 <cygri> ah.
17:18:44 <LeeF> mischat, think you want this