Chatlog 2012-01-18

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.

15:53:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
15:53:57 <RRSAgent> logging to
15:53:59 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:53:59 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
15:54:01 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
15:54:01 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
15:54:02 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:54:02 <trackbot> Date: 18 January 2012
15:56:49 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
15:56:56 <Zakim> +Guus
15:57:45 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
15:57:59 <zwu2> zakim, code?
15:57:59 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, zwu2
15:58:35 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:58:42 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:58:42 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:58:44 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:58:44 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:59:24 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
15:59:29 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
15:59:29 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
16:00:04 <Zakim> +??P9
16:00:12 <AndyS> zakim, ??P9 is me
16:00:12 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
16:00:29 <Zakim> + +1.603.438.aaaa
16:00:45 <zwu2> zakim, +1.603.438.aaaa is me
16:00:45 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
16:01:09 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:01:10 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:01:11 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:01:28 <Scott_Bauer> Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
16:02:08 <zwu2> Scribe: zwu2
16:02:09 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
16:02:09 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, MacTed (muted), cygri, AndyS, zwu2, Ivan
16:02:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see Scott_Bauer, zwu2, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, danbri, AndyS, MacTed, LeeF, cygri, mischat, ivan, manu1, mdmdm, davidwood, manu, trackbot, yvesr, NickH, sandro, ericP
16:02:42 <Zakim> +sandro
16:02:58 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:03:12 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer
16:03:45 <Zakim> +AZ
16:04:20 <Zakim> +LeeF
16:04:20 <AZ> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, MacTed (muted), cygri, AndyS, zwu2, Ivan, sandro, Scott_Bauer, AZ, LeeF
16:04:50 <LeeF> I have to leave after 60 minutes.
16:05:07 <zwu2> maybe we can finish in 40 minutes :)
16:05:27 <AndyS> Ok - I can scribe the last part
16:05:38 <zwu2> thanks Andy!
16:05:58 <zwu2> topic: Admin
16:06:29 <zwu2> proposed: accept the minutes of the 11 Jan telecon
16:06:34 <gavinc> gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
16:06:48 <zwu2> Resolved: accept the minutes of the 11 Jan telecon
16:06:51 <Zakim> +JeremyCarroll
16:07:04 <Zakim> +gavinc
16:07:05 <zwu2> topic: Action item review
16:07:31 <zwu2> guus: RDF primer
16:07:38 <JeremyCarroll> JeremyCarroll has joined #rdf-wg
16:08:00 <zwu2> guus: sando, 3 actions for you
16:08:12 <Zakim> +EricP
16:08:16 <zwu2> s/sando/sandro
16:09:10 <davidwood> Zakim, code?
16:09:10 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, davidwood
16:09:18 <zwu2> guus: action 100
16:09:29 <zwu2> ... sandro has not reported back
16:09:45 <zwu2> guus: we will come back to it
16:09:47 <Zakim> +??P31
16:09:53 <NickH> zakim, ??31 is me
16:09:53 <Zakim> sorry, NickH, I do not recognize a party named '??31'
16:10:02 <NickH> zakim, ??P31 is me
16:10:02 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
16:10:06 <zwu2> action-117?
16:10:06 <trackbot> ACTION-117 -- Jeremy Carroll to check status of duration datatypes -- due 2011-11-16 -- OPEN
16:10:06 <trackbot>
16:10:09 <NickH> Zakim, mute me
16:10:09 <Zakim> NickH should now be muted
16:10:24 <zwu2> guus: suggest Jeremy to drop it
16:10:34 <zwu2> ... if we don't expect much progress from it
16:11:06 <zwu2> ... we can re-assign also
16:11:25 <gavinc> Zakim, who is making noise?
16:11:36 <Zakim> gavinc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (33%), zwu2 (57%), JeremyCarroll (44%)
16:11:38 <zwu2> jeremy: the reason for this action is that duration datatypes were in a mess in RDF 1.0
16:11:46 <Zakim> +bhyland1
16:11:50 <zwu2> I just did. sorry
16:11:54 <davidwood> Zakim, bhyland is me
16:11:54 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
16:12:25 <zwu2> guus: why don't we record an issue so we don't lose track of it.
16:12:45 <zwu2> cygri: you can re-assign it to me
16:12:53 <zwu2> jeremy: ok
16:13:16 <zwu2> cygri: set the time frame in a month 
16:13:52 <cygri> this is related to ISSUE-66
16:14:04 <zwu2> action-118?
16:14:04 <trackbot> ACTION-118 -- Jeremy Carroll to summarize issues relating to XSD canonicalization -- due 2011-11-16 -- OPEN
16:14:04 <trackbot>
16:14:33 <zwu2> jeremy: again, I don't have a realistic schedule at this moment
16:15:02 <cygri> ISSUE-13?
16:15:02 <trackbot> ISSUE-13 -- Review RDF XML Literals -- open
16:15:02 <trackbot>
16:15:06 <zwu2> guus: we can generate an issue based on this action
16:15:13 <zwu2> ... I will drop the action
16:15:50 <zwu2> action-129?
16:15:50 <trackbot> ACTION-129 -- Jeremy Carroll to review sandro's use cases -- due 2012-01-11 -- OPEN
16:15:50 <trackbot>
16:16:19 <zwu2> jeremy: I haven't done much
16:16:50 <cygri> work in progress:
16:17:04 <zwu2> cygri: have done some work in wiki
16:17:05 <JeremyCarroll> jeremy: I have looked at this and done what it is I will do, not much 
16:17:08 <zwu2> ... not quite ready
16:17:18 <zwu2> ... take me another week to complete the last bits
16:17:40 <gavinc> Charles
16:17:48 <gavinc> Charles Greer
16:17:48 <zwu2> topic: RDFa LC
16:18:21 <zwu2> david: it is not clear what the meeting should focus on
16:18:32 <sandro> regrets for next three weeks due to WG F2F meetings
16:18:43 <gavinc> These are PRE last call comments
16:18:55 <zwu2> guus: david, can you summarize
16:19:14 <zwu2> david, it is action 128, did charles send his review?
16:19:32 <zwu2> ... since it is overdue, we should call it completed, I did send my comments to RDF WG
16:19:41 <zwu2> ...
16:20:27 <zwu2> ... my message focused on name of documents in RDFa
16:20:34 <zwu2> ... how they related to graphs
16:20:57 <zwu2> ... I did not have significant problem with RDFa core itself
16:21:14 <zwu2> guus: did you send it to RDFa?
16:21:22 <zwu2> david: yes. it's due on 16th
16:21:31 <zwu2> ... ivan encouraged me to
16:21:53 <zwu2> guus: for the record, could you put a pointer in our archive
16:22:10 <zwu2> ... send a message and put a link in the action item
16:22:25 <zwu2> guus: what do we do about Gavin's comments?
16:22:49 <zwu2> gavin: talking to Andy and Eric, wrote the problems we saw
16:22:56 <zwu2> ... CURIE grammar
16:23:23 <zwu2> ... most people intend to express with CURIE can be expressed using prefix name mechanisms
16:23:54 <zwu2> ... talked to a few RDFa implementers (they don't use CURIE syntax)
16:24:15 <gavinc> don't use the EXACT CURIE syntax
16:24:20 <zwu2> guus: I suggested send Gavin's comments to RDFa WG
16:24:24 <davidwood> Closed and annotated action 128 with the link to my message to the RDFa WG:
16:24:52 <MacTed> +1
16:25:07 <zwu2> guus: shall we record an action item?
16:25:16 <zwu2> ivan: RDFa WG schedule is the same time
16:25:28 <zwu2> action Gavin to send RDFa comments to RDFa WG
16:25:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-131 - Send RDFa comments to RDFa WG [on Gavin Carothers - due 2012-01-25].
16:25:59 <zwu2> guus: did a review of the RDFa primer
16:26:12 <zwu2> ... will send it to RDFa WG
16:26:32 <zwu2> ivan: this does not have to go through LC
16:26:59 <zwu2> ivan: href is an HTML document
16:27:12 <JeremyCarroll> concerning xsd canonicalization
16:28:04 <zwu2> action guus: send Guus' comments to RDFa WG
16:28:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-132 - Send Guus' comments to RDFa WG [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-25].
16:28:15 <zwu2> guus: I will do it today
16:28:28 <zwu2> topic: RDF-ISSUE-82
16:28:35 <zwu2> guus: repeated graph iris
16:28:39 <gavinc> sent top RDFa WG
16:28:39 <zwu2> issue-82?
16:28:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-82 -- How should repeated graph iri labels be handled in TriG -- raised
16:28:39 <trackbot>
16:28:56 <zwu2> ... there appears to have strong consensus on option 2
16:28:59 <zwu2> ... why don't we resolve it
16:29:19 <zwu2> gavin: I don't see any reason not to adopt it
16:29:34 <sandro> -1
16:29:35 <zwu2> ... happy to resolve it now
16:30:39 <LeeF> someone is beeping
16:30:39 <LeeF> :)
16:30:59 <davidwood> I would be happier to make some progress, even if it is an interim step that might be overcome if we decide not to use TriG.
16:31:10 <sandro> sandro: I don't think we should be settling things about TriG until we knownwhether Trig addresses our use cases.
16:31:13 <zwu2> guus: suggest Gavin to write down refined text
16:31:26 <zwu2> ... we should move forward 
16:31:40 <sandro> fine.
16:31:42 <sandro> -0
16:31:48 <zwu2> david: I don't see much harm in resolving this issue
16:32:13 <sandro> it means I don't like it, but I wont stand in the way
16:32:15 <zwu2> gavin: it took us a year to reach the status of turtle, we only have a year left
16:33:03 <sandro> which solution is he going with?
16:33:04 <zwu2> action: gavin to proposal final wording for issue-82
16:33:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-133 - Proposal final wording for issue-82 [on Gavin Carothers - due 2012-01-25].
16:33:23 <zwu2> s/Proposal/Propose
16:33:35 <sandro> (yeah, I dont think 2 is right for some use cases, but well see when we get there.)
16:33:35 <zwu2> topic: Named Graphs
16:33:45 <zwu2> guus: we have Sandro's use cases
16:33:57 <zwu2> ... today more examples came it
16:34:13 <danbri> danbri has joined #rdf-wg
16:34:24 <zwu2> ... last week we had a meta strawpoll
16:34:32 <NickH> Test cases++
16:34:42 <zwu2> ... how do we move forward from here
16:35:13 <sandro> q+
16:35:14 <JeremyCarroll> q+
16:35:17 <cygri> q+
16:35:23 <zwu2> ... shall we use concrete examples as a way to move forward
16:35:33 <Guus> ack sandro
16:35:49 <NickH> painful beeping
16:35:52 <zwu2> sandro, there are beeps
16:36:47 <zwu2> sandro, are you suggesting focus on the use cases?
16:36:48 <cygri> the use case i mentioned is just one of the many from the wiki:
16:37:04 <sandro> yes, a new page would be good
16:37:11 <sandro> i've swamped, but really want to do it.
16:37:30 <zwu2> cygri: may I ask why
16:37:34 <sandro> the old page is too long
16:37:44 <zwu2> ... what will be the difference between the new page and this old wiki
16:37:56 <AndyS> I'm confused -- Is it copying over existing UCs or creating new ones?
16:38:17 <zwu2> cygri: I have spent quite some effort shaping that wiki page up
16:38:40 <sandro> maybe "flagship" use cases, or something like that.
16:39:03 <zwu2> david: the goal of the new page is to focus on a small number of use cases, then we can talk about designs
16:39:32 <zwu2> ... we have to have a handle on designs that match some use cases
16:39:41 <zwu2> ... simplify to move forward
16:39:46 <sandro> (I only did three, so far)
16:40:15 <zwu2> cygri: from use cases, we get requirements
16:40:29 <zwu2> ... there may be a requirement arises from multiple use cases 
16:41:28 <zwu2> guus: I think it will be very useful to rephrase use cases as requirements
16:41:50 <sandro> +1 guus
16:41:52 <zwu2> david: richard I don't think we should get rid of that wiki use case page
16:42:50 <zwu2> action guus: create a new section on use case page 
16:42:50 <sandro> maybe "Simplified Use Cases" or "Flagship Use Cases"
16:42:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-134 - Create a new section on use case page  [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-25].
16:43:07 <zwu2> ... requirement based on use cases
16:43:27 <AndyS> scribe: AndyS
16:43:32 <AndyS> scribenick: AndyS
16:43:35 <Zakim> -zwu2
16:44:03 <Guus> ack JeremyCarroll
16:44:23 <sandro> q+ to address JJC
16:44:32 <AndyS> jeremy: about NG, how about writing text and discuss that -- maybe agreement quite quickly.
16:44:52 <AndyS> ... focus on text rather the philosophical viewpoints.
16:45:37 <AndyS> sandro: Two ways to read trig leading to different impls.
16:45:39 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?
16:45:50 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (39%), sandro (54%), Ivan (42%)
16:46:13 <AndyS> ... (hard to hear) ... Trig for labels, and trig for locations.
16:46:17 <AndyS> q+
16:47:09 <AndyS> David: Jeremy - what was your idea to avoid that?
16:47:13 <AndyS> ack cygri
16:47:22 <AndyS> q-
16:47:42 <sandro> sandro:  I think me three strawman designs show that code would be different on the clients and the servers, so it's not just unimporant disagreement.
16:48:10 <AndyS> cygri: Minimal proposal - tagging, not exact meaning, not tied to HTTP.  BNode scope to be done.  
16:48:24 <AndyS> ... sandro, path say that's not enough.
16:48:32 <AndyS> .. sandro wants to tei to HTTP
16:48:37 <AndyS> s/tei/tie/
16:49:13 <AndyS> ... progress is limited.  Seems that schedule forces us towards the minimal route.
16:50:35 <sandro> q+
16:50:52 <AndyS> ... tie to HTTP is going to be hard to make work because assumes dereference part of the process.  Doesn't work - RDF is disconnected from the protocol currently.
16:51:10 <AndyS> ... this seems to be useful.
16:51:27 <ivan> q+
16:51:35 <AndyS> David: can we agree on that couple/decouple point? protocol, NG
16:51:58 <AndyS> ack sandro
16:51:59 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to address JJC and to 
16:52:01 <Guus> ack sandro
16:52:52 <AndyS> sandro: sounds reasonable,  Tie to HTTP not most important me, but do need client-server tie. (?? hard to hear a complete sentence)
16:53:23 <AndyS> ... make HTTP part separate.
16:53:34 <AndyS> ack  ivan
16:53:45 <Guus> q+
16:54:28 <sandro> sandro: It's fine to have the HTTP part be separate -- that's part of Linked Data, not RDF.   What's important is to show how to solve the use cases in a way that actually works, interoperably.
16:54:30 <AndyS> ivan: partial response to cygri: a bit of a repeat ... there are two viewpoints, hard to find consensus, but timing forcing is not the proper way.
16:54:49 <AndyS> ... acknowledge that and have two syntaxes for the two relationships.
16:55:14 <AndyS> ... sometimes no relationship, sometimes HTTP version, sometimes "named graph" 
16:56:03 <AndyS> Guus: chair hat off
16:56:23 <davidwood> ack Guus
16:56:54 <AndyS> ...of  Sandros 3 solutions (Trig/REST first) capture current practice and gives a mechanism, semantics. 
16:56:59 <Guus> { eg:sandro eg:endorses <g1>.                   <g1> a rdf:StaticGraphContainer.                 }             <g1> { ... the triples I'm endorsing ... }
16:57:30 <AndyS> (there is always a container)
16:58:03 <AndyS> .. and its noted in one of the graphs about how the URI is used.
16:58:06 <sandro> +1 this is a reasonable, workable solution.
16:59:05 <AndyS> (key is the rdf:type statement not that its a container)
16:59:21 <AndyS> Guus: reasonable area for consenus?
16:59:23 <sandro> q?
16:59:58 <AndyS> ivan: More precise of what I said ... the "syntax" is the rdf:type  triple.
17:00:12 <AndyS> Guus: rdf:type optional 
17:00:13 <davidwood> q+ to comment on rdf:type usage once Guus regains the chair
17:00:26 <JeremyCarroll> q+
17:00:32 <cygri> q+ to ask about merging datasets
17:00:37 <Zakim> -LeeF
17:00:52 <AndyS> guus: put chair hat on
17:01:17 <AndyS> David: I like that we are using RDF as the mechanism.  Wide variety of UCs covered.
17:01:24 <AndyS> ack davidwood
17:01:24 <ivan> ack davidwood 
17:01:43 <JeremyCarroll> Zakim, unmute me
17:01:49 <AndyS> ack jeremy
17:01:56 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to comment on rdf:type usage once Guus regains the chair
17:02:18 <ivan> ack JeremyCarroll 
17:02:20 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll was not muted, JeremyCarroll
17:02:32 <sandro> then you want my third design, JJC
17:02:33 <AndyS> Jeremy: I worry about optional features and interoperability.  better is to go simple.
17:03:38 <AndyS> ... interoperability depends on the rdf:type e.g. non-monotonic interpretation.
17:03:59 <MacTed> best practice = self-description, self-documentation, introspection... container holds things; things might also be containers; recurse.
17:03:59 <MacTed> common practice = anything not stated is unknown, and there are many things which might not be stated for many reasons -- and there can't be much enforcement of defaults
17:04:05 <AndyS> guus: what about defining good practice or would you want "MUST" text
17:04:23 <AndyS> jeremy: general point - significant cost in optionals and choices.
17:04:41 <AndyS> ack cygri
17:04:44 <Guus> ack cygri
17:04:57 <AndyS> cygri: 2 questions ...
17:05:36 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to ask about merging datasets
17:05:46 <AndyS> .. 1 - <g1> a graph name, two different assertions as to kind of reference.  Conflict on merge.
17:06:22 <sandro> yes -- one drawback of this design is we can get conflicts in the RDF that should be handled carefully.
17:06:44 <AndyS> ?? These conflicts already exist.
17:06:44 <ivan> the relationship made explicit is the third option of sandro
17:07:03 <ivan> <a> pred { ? } is the _only_ acceptable syntax then...
17:07:22 <AndyS> cygri: relationship view typing, not a triple.
17:07:37 <AndyS> cygri: relationship indirect via typing, not a triple.
17:08:20 <AndyS> david: what about callimachus?  We type URIs to provide a hint for rendering.  
17:08:55 <AndyS> scribe thinks RDFS domain/range converts property uses to types.
17:09:19 <AndyS> cygri: may confuse who said what
17:09:20 <Guus> q?
17:10:07 <AndyS> cygri: depending on the collection of types offered by us leads to likely clashes (e.g. mutable AND immutable)
17:10:34 <AndyS> q+
17:10:46 <sandro> Formally, I suppose we're just using the fact that    <x,y,z> can be expressed as <x,y'(z)> 
17:10:52 <gavinc> hashing helps ;)
17:10:57 <AndyS> cygri: endorse container or graph?
17:11:10 <sandro> (in TriG/REST)
17:11:12 <gavinc> Endorsement CAN NOT use only a name.
17:11:39 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to Richard
17:11:40 <AndyS> cygri: mechanism leads easily to problems.
17:11:54 <sandro> gavinc, right, with endorsement you need to provide some other triples, but this still works.
17:11:59 <AndyS> david: we should design for interop if they follow the rules.
17:12:25 <JeremyCarroll> Richard: we have a responsibility to have a design that doesn;t make problems inevitable 
17:12:25 <AndyS> cygri: as I understand it, conflict happens inside the rules.
17:12:35 <sandro> I agree the conflict is a challenge, but it doesnt make it unworkable.
17:13:09 <AndyS> guus: smallest extension, worth seeing if we can make it workable.
17:13:50 <Guus> q?
17:14:00 <AndyS> cygri: is dataset merge required?
17:14:51 <Guus> i will ack sandro after this
17:15:06 <AndyS> ack me
17:15:17 <davidwood> Interesting point, AndyS
17:15:27 <Zakim> -JeremyCarroll
17:15:42 <AndyS> AndyS: Is dataset merge different or saame as graph merge?  Have check untrusted graph to merge usefully.
17:15:56 <sandro> sandro: I think this dataset merging problem is comparable to the graph merging problem and can probably be solved that same way.
17:16:04 <ivan> In OWL terms what we are saying is that the different types are disjoint, so if a merged graph has a 'double' typing then there is an inconsistency
17:16:25 <Guus> q?
17:16:31 <sandro> agreed, Ivan.
17:17:05 <AndyS> guus: some progress - suggest next week to look at the solutions proposed.
17:17:09 <Zakim> -gavinc
17:17:14 <sandro> (sadly, I'll be in other WG F2F meetings both of the next two weeks.)
17:17:38 <cygri> (me too next week)
17:18:06 <sandro> Im kind of use case driven here.
17:18:20 <sandro> Propose a use case, and Ill try to show what types we might need.
17:18:24 <AndyS> ivan: sandro away - is it possible to dig into the typing approach by writing proposed 4-ish types for the different way to use the mechanmis.
17:18:29 <sandro> I did that.
17:18:42 <sandro> I
17:18:54 <sandro> I'm going to TRY to write up the solutions better on the wiki
17:18:57 <AndyS> (no direct naming?)
17:19:21 <AndyS> ADJOURNED
17:19:23 <Zakim> -Ivan
17:19:25 <Zakim> -cygri
17:19:28 <Zakim> -AndyS
17:19:28 <AZ> bye
17:19:30 <Zakim> -davidwood
17:19:30 <Zakim> -MacTed
17:19:31 <Zakim> -sandro
17:19:33 <Zakim> -AZ