Chatlog 2012-04-25

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.

14:59:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:37 <RRSAgent> logging to
14:59:52 <Guus_> zakim, this is rdf
14:59:53 <Zakim> ok, Guus_; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
14:59:57 <sandro> trackbot, start meeting
15:00:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:00:02 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
15:00:02 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
15:00:03 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:00:03 <trackbot> Date: 25 April 2012
15:00:10 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:22 <AZ> zakim, who is here?
15:00:22 <Zakim> I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted
15:00:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, David_Wood, Guus, ??P4
15:00:23 <Zakim> On IRC I see Arnaud1, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, AZ, moustaki, swh, tbaker, gavinc, Guus_, danbri, MacTed, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu, manu1, NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP
15:00:41 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:00:45 <AZ> zakim, ??P4 is me
15:00:45 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
15:01:02 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:02 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:03 <Zakim> +??P8
15:01:03 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:01:11 <AndyS> zakim, ??P8 is me
15:01:11 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:01:22 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:24 <Guus_> zakim, who is here?
15:01:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, David_Wood, Guus, AZ, Arnaud (muted), AndyS, Ivan
15:01:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see cygri, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, AZ, moustaki, swh, tbaker, gavinc, Guus_, danbri, MacTed, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu, manu1, NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP
15:01:26 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
15:01:35 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
15:01:35 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
15:01:40 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:48 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aaaa
15:01:48 <danbri> (regrets, i'm preparing to give a webinar shortly)
15:02:00 <AlexHall> zakim, aaaa is me
15:02:00 <Zakim> +AlexHall; got it
15:02:05 <moustaki> Zakim, ??P0 is me
15:02:05 <Zakim> +moustaki; got it
15:02:21 <Arnaud> sending 40+ messages between 4am and 8am my time isn't fair!..
15:02:35 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:02:45 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:13 <Zakim> +??P15
15:03:28 <pchampin> zakim, ??P15 is me
15:03:28 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
15:03:33 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: 8 Feb --
15:03:52 <sandro> sandro has changed the topic to: RDF Agenda
15:03:54 <AlexHall> scribe: alexhall
15:04:01 <AlexHall> scribenick: alexhall
15:04:06 <FabGandon1> FabGandon1 has joined #rdf-wg
15:04:21 <AlexHall> topic: Admin
15:04:24 <Guus_> zakim, who is here?
15:04:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see moustaki, David_Wood, Guus, AZ, Arnaud, AndyS, Ivan, cygri, AlexHall, Sandro, pchampin
15:04:26 <Zakim> On IRC I see FabGandon1, pchampin, AlexHall, cygri, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, AndyS, AZ, yvesr, swh, tbaker, gavinc, Guus_, danbri, MacTed, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu, manu1,
15:04:26 <Zakim> ... NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP
15:04:36 <Zakim> +ericP
15:05:10 <AlexHall> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of April 18 telecon
15:05:26 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of April 18 telecon
15:05:35 <AlexHall> guus: Action item review
15:05:49 <Zakim> +gavinc
15:05:52 <Zakim> +??P18
15:06:30 <AlexHall> ... any progress on open action items?
15:06:33 <tbaker> zakim, ??P18 is probably tbaker
15:06:33 <Zakim> +tbaker?; got it
15:07:39 <AlexHall> ... no progress, move to next week
15:07:53 <AlexHall> topic: Work priorities
15:08:14 <AlexHall> guus: Our discussion on NG puts us at risk for the timetable in the charter
15:08:35 <AlexHall> ... it's a difficult issue but we have to face that fact, worth a discussion of priorities
15:08:52 <AlexHall> ... anything we can easily do quickly while keeping named graphs open?
15:09:04 <AlexHall> ... open floor for 5-10 minute discussion on this
15:09:27 <AlexHall> eric: what is our todo list? (i guess it's in the charter, should look at that)
15:09:45 <AlexHall> sandro: should be in the open issues list, might be more accurate
15:09:52 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
15:09:57 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:09:57 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:10:00 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:10:00 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:10:19 <AlexHall> david: we do have an email thread started by Sandro this morning for graph strawpoll
15:10:25 <ivan> q+
15:10:34 <AlexHall> guus: will get to that later, for now concentrate on issues outside of NGs
15:10:56 <AlexHall> ... right now have 29 open issues, should at least make sure we do the other ones that aren't graphs
15:10:59 <cygri> q+
15:11:17 <AlexHall> ... do we revive the RDF-JSON work?
15:11:29 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:11:29 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:11:41 <AlexHall> eric: had the impression we were waiting to see how JSON-LD shaped up to see if we need to do anything other than adopt it
15:12:04 <AlexHall> ted: LD is about making JSON linked, not making an RDF serialization in JSON
15:12:13 <pchampin> I don't agree either :)
15:12:24 <AlexHall> [disagreement from ivan, david]
15:12:27 <AndyS> +1 to MacTed.  That is my understanding of the primary use case.
15:12:47 <AlexHall> guus: can serialize any graph into JSON-LD
15:13:16 <AndyS> Sorry.
15:13:26 <cygri> q-
15:13:26 <AlexHall> can you scribe yourself, andy?
15:13:32 <AndyS> RDFa can encode any graph but UC is RDF in HTML doc.
15:14:05 <AlexHall> ivan: JSON-LD has gotten lots of traction in several places, this is a good thing
15:14:20 <AlexHall> guus: will it be ready to do anything with it by this summer?
15:14:26 <AlexHall> ivan: no, i don't think so
15:14:33 <Zakim> +[Sophia]
15:14:41 <AlexHall> guus: ok, doesn't need to be a work priority for us
15:14:51 <FabGandon1> Zakim, Sophia is me
15:14:51 <Zakim> +FabGandon1; got it
15:14:52 <Guus_> ack ivan
15:15:06 <AlexHall> ivan: don't know whether we got XMLLiterals completely closed
15:15:17 <AndyS> so even though JSON-LD can encode a graph, is it the right solution for RDF exchange? outside of adding semantics to JSON( which is a good thing to do).  
15:15:24 <AlexHall> ... also think there was another issue coming in about HTML5 literals, might need to decide on that
15:15:54 <AlexHall> cygri: based on information from poll, think there's enough information to make a proposal acceptable to wg
15:16:31 <AlexHall> ... aside from graph stuff, think ??? and HTML5 literals are the major open issues remaining
15:16:52 <AlexHall> ... wrt HTML5 literals, is that even an issue for this wg to consider?
15:17:22 <AlexHall> ivan: don't see any other wg that can pick it up
15:17:41 <cygri> ISSUE-63?
15:17:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-63 -- Introduce an HTML5 datatype -- open
15:17:41 <trackbot>
15:17:41 <AlexHall> guus: ivan, can you do this since you raised an issue for it?
15:18:32 <ivan> q+
15:18:37 <AndyS> Issue-63 needed for LDP-WG.
15:19:12 <AlexHall> guus: one other work item is to put out an update primer, that's on my plate
15:19:22 <AlexHall> ... don't think i'll be able to do anything on that until june
15:19:26 <gavinc> btw, ISSUE-63 is related to ISSUE-81
15:19:31 <gavinc> ISSUE-81?
15:19:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-81 -- How to represent HTML formated text in an RDF Literals -- raised
15:19:31 <trackbot>
15:19:58 <Guus_> q?
15:20:02 <Guus_> ack ivan
15:20:34 <AlexHall> ivan: one thing that came up early was discussion to change title of RDF Semantics document, reorganize to make the rules normative and deemphasize the model-theoretic semantics
15:20:37 <cygri> q+
15:20:48 <Guus_> ack cygri
15:20:51 <AlexHall> ... think it's a good thing to do but huge amount of editorial work
15:21:05 <AlexHall> cygri: is there an editors draft of RDF Semantics yet?
15:21:09 <AlexHall> [no]
15:21:35 <AlexHall> cygri: given that there are larger changes to the doc, would feel better if there were an editors draft by now.
15:22:22 <AlexHall> guus: suggest we should put it on the agenda for next week
15:22:36 <AlexHall> ... any more priorities?
15:23:22 <AlexHall> david: should ping peter and pat via email before next week
15:23:41 <AlexHall> topic: Turtle LC
15:23:56 <AlexHall> guus: thought we agreed to a different schedule last week than what's on the agenda
15:23:58 <cygri> q+
15:24:15 <AlexHall> gavin: yes, we agreed to have a draft ready by next week?
15:24:20 <AndyS> I emailed Eric and Gavin re ":" SPARQL change in local part of prefix names 
15:24:29 <AlexHall> guus: is that still a realistic goal?
15:24:33 <AlexHall> gavin: yes
15:24:34 <Guus_> ack cygri
15:24:41 <gavinc> AndyS, yep, and updated the Turtle grammar to contain the same thing
15:24:44 <AlexHall> guus: will put it on the agenda for next week
15:25:14 <ivan> +1 to Richard
15:25:19 <AlexHall> cygri: there has been significant editorial work done in RDF Concepts since last published working draft
15:25:48 <AlexHall> ... since there are small number of open issues, think we should do another public working draft soon to get feedback
15:26:11 <AlexHall> guus: do you plan to incorporate the XMLLiteral and HTML5 literal into the draft
15:26:45 <AlexHall> cygri: i think there are enough changes in there to publish without XML/HTML5 literals
15:27:40 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:27:41 <AlexHall> guus: leave the decision to you. i'm happy to come up with proposed working draft and do an internal review. turn-around time is ~3 weeks
15:27:56 <AlexHall> ivan: would be good to have it done before SemTech
15:28:08 <AlexHall> cygri: that seems doable and something good to aim for
15:28:16 <davidwood> Pat and Peter pinged re RDF Semantics editors draft.
15:28:19 <ivan> (SemTech starts on the 4th of June, FYI)
15:28:39 <AlexHall> guus: do you want to commit to a date to put it on the agenda, or wait to see how it goes? target may 9?
15:28:46 <davidwood> I don't know how much effort I can put into RDF Concepts between now and 9 May, but can try.
15:29:07 <AlexHall> cygri: would prefer to review XMLLiterals first before committing
15:29:43 <AlexHall> guus: think it's worth taking a week longer to include XMLLiteral changes. think we came pretty close to consensus and it was just a matter of phrasing.
15:30:20 <AlexHall> cygri: will put together a proposal for XMLLiterals in the next week, let's put it on the agenda for next week.
15:30:37 <Guus_> q?
15:30:43 <Zakim> +??P25
15:30:47 <AlexHall> guus: good, 3 non-graph items on agenda for next week (Turtle LC, RDF Semantics draft, XMLLiteral)
15:30:53 <AlexHall> topic: Named Graphs
15:31:08 <AlexHall> guus: suggestion is to start with sandro's strawpoll
15:31:34 <AlexHall> ... sandro, would you mind explaining this?
15:31:40 <Souri> zakim, P25 is me
15:31:40 <Zakim> sorry, Souri, I do not recognize a party named 'P25'
15:31:40 <sandro> subtopic: The default graph is asserted
15:31:40 <sandro>   "{<a> <b> <c>}" entails turtle("<a> <b> <c>")
15:31:51 <AlexHall> sandro: taking them in order, tried to go from simplest to most complicated
15:32:00 <Souri> zakim,?P25 is me
15:32:00 <Zakim> sorry, Souri, I do not recognize a party named '?P25'
15:32:18 <Souri> zakim,??P25 is me
15:32:18 <Zakim> +Souri; got it
15:32:23 <AlexHall> ... consensus seemed to be that this is OK, though antoine pointed out that entailment might not be the right word.
15:32:38 <sandro> +1
15:32:40 <Guus_> +1
15:32:40 <ivan> +1
15:32:42 <cygri> +1
15:32:44 <yvesr> +1
15:32:46 <davidwood> +1
15:32:47 <Souri> +1
15:32:48 <AZ> +1
15:32:53 <AlexHall>  +1
15:32:57 <FabGandon1> +1
15:32:58 <AZ> (although the terminology should be fixed)
15:33:03 <sandro> (agreed)
15:33:05 <sandro> subtopic: Named graphs are not asserted
15:33:05 <sandro>   "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" does not entail turtle("<a> <b> <c>")
15:33:11 <ivan> +1
15:33:26 <AZ> +1
15:33:28 <cygri> +1
15:33:28 <davidwood> +1
15:33:29 <sandro> +1
15:33:30 <tbaker> +1
15:33:31 <Souri> +1
15:33:32 <Guus_> +1
15:33:33 <AlexHall> sandro: think most people agreed that named graphs are not asserted, but there were a couple of disagreements
15:33:37 <AndyS> +1
15:33:39 <gavinc> +0
15:33:40 <AlexHall> ... could those people speak up?
15:33:46 <yvesr> +0
15:34:08 <MacTed> I'm not current on this thread ... and not sure I understand the proposition.
15:35:16 <AlexHall> gavin, can you please scribe your comment (didn't quite follow)?
15:35:56 <AlexHall> sandro: the point here is that there needs to be a way to talk about some triples without asserting them as true
15:36:05 <gavinc> gavinc: Not clear to me what the diffrence between "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" and GET <u> "<a> <b> <c>" is 
15:36:34 <AlexHall> sandro: who is saying the second one? in what language?
15:36:49 <AlexHall> david: can you even say that? don't you just say "Get <u>"?
15:37:51 <AlexHall> gavin: as a data publisher, what is the difference between publishing a single trig doc vs. publishing lots of turtle docs
15:37:54 <davidwood> q+ to ask whether they shouldn't just be two difference publication styles.
15:38:06 <ivan> q+
15:38:33 <AlexHall> sandro: the trig doc doesn't assert the contents of the graphs, publishing as turtle docs does
15:38:42 <Guus_> ack davidwood
15:38:42 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to ask whether they shouldn't just be two difference publication styles.
15:38:43 <AlexHall> gavin: don't really understand why that is the case
15:38:52 <sandro> gavin: It's just not clear to me why putting all my turtle documents in one big trig document would change the meaning.
15:39:29 <AlexHall> david: think this is a matter of style. it's a difference between quoting the contents of the graphs vs publishing them individually
15:39:49 <AlexHall> ... if i'm a publisher, the contents of both of those docs should be the same
15:39:49 <sandro> q?
15:39:53 <Guus_> ack ivan
15:39:55 <cygri> publishing something doesn't assert it.
15:40:09 <AlexHall> sandro: not sure about the semantics of publishing on the web here. don't necessarily see publishing on the web as being equivalent to asserting
15:40:13 <sandro> sandro: I think it may be possible to publish RDF on the Web without asserting it.  I'm not sure about that.
15:40:16 <gavinc> cygri, sure but the statement was  "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" does not entail turtle("<a> <b> <c>")
15:41:07 <ericP> ivan is saying "<u> a :ResolvableRDFResouce ." ?
15:41:20 <AlexHall> ivan: convention is that graph iri's are just labels, but maybe there is an extension where we can say that the labeled graphs are the same as what is published on those IRIs
15:41:28 <ivan> eric, yes, although we had about 50 different names for that class already:-)
15:41:30 <sandro> subtopic: Named graphs are opaque
15:41:30 <sandro>   "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}"  does not entail "<u> {<a> <b> _:x}"
15:41:41 <ivan> +1
15:41:42 <AZ> -1
15:41:44 <cygri> -1, i think
15:41:49 <cygri> q+
15:41:57 <ivan> q+
15:42:00 <AndyS> -1 -- it should entail (within the graph).  A graph is a graph everywhere.
15:42:08 <yvesr> -1, i think
15:42:14 <davidwood> +0.5 (I think)
15:42:15 <ericP> +1
15:42:26 <AlexHall> sandro: the reason i think this is the right thing to do is, you want to keep things from changing out from under you all the time
15:42:32 <pchampin> q+
15:42:37 <AndyS> (err - SPARQL entailment would have that entailment)
15:42:39 <AlexHall> ... the graph is not the same as its entailments
15:42:48 <Guus_> q?
15:43:00 <AlexHall> ... this is another way of saying that entailment has to be explicit.
15:43:03 <FabGandon1> -1, because I don't see why.
15:43:03 <Guus_> ack cygri
15:44:03 <ericP> i think we need to support the graph structure upon which SPARQL (and most of the world) relies
15:44:05 <AlexHall> cygri: two reasons i disagree. first, we are defining a semantics, so we shouldn't say we do something because this is how sparql works. sparql is defined in terms of graphs, but we're concerned about the logical assertions within those graphs
15:44:11 <AZ> SPARQL with entailment regime really gives you the implicit statements
15:44:33 <sandro> cygri: Entailment goes nicely with the partial graph semantics.
15:44:59 <AlexHall> ... second, i like the partial semantics approach
15:45:13 <AlexHall> ... it works well with entailments
15:45:29 <AlexHall> sandro: think this might be something we can't decide without more experience.
15:45:30 <AlexHall> q+
15:45:34 <Guus_> ack ivan
15:46:24 <AlexHall> ivan: when i have named graphs, what is in the named graphs is quoted. i'm not talking about entailment when i'm quoting.
15:47:05 <AlexHall> ... the entailment in the example is true if i'm explicitly doing entailment, but not otherwise
15:47:13 <sandro> zakim, who is muted?
15:47:13 <Zakim> I see Arnaud, tbaker? muted
15:47:15 <Guus_> ack pchampin
15:47:30 <AlexHall> pchampin: i agree with ivan
15:47:58 <cygri> +1 to that
15:48:10 <AlexHall> ... either we have to accept all kinds of inference in the curly brackets, or none
15:48:12 <sandro> +1 we acept all kinds of inference, or none, within curlies
15:48:23 <davidwood> +1 to no inferences or none
15:48:28 <AndyS> 0
15:48:30 <yvesr> +1
15:48:32 <pchampin> pchampin: either all inferences should be allowed inside the curly brackets, or none
15:48:34 <ericP> can we make a guess at a descriminating use case?
15:48:38 <Guus_> ack AlexHall
15:48:39 <ericP> i propose capturing that graph { :Fido a :Dog . :Dog rdfs:subClassOf :Mammal } has an RDFS entialment which include { :Fido a :Mammal }
15:48:45 <Souri> +1 to no inference
15:48:50 <ericP> s/include/includes/
15:49:55 <sandro> q?
15:50:24 <ericP> q+ to propose a test
15:50:27 <sandro> subtopic: Graph labels denote just like in RDF
15:50:27 <sandro>   "{<u1> owl:sameAs <u2>} <u1> {<a> <b> <c>}"
15:50:27 <sandro>   owl-entails
15:50:27 <sandro>   "<u2> {<a> <b> <c>}"
15:50:29 <ericP> q-
15:50:46 <ivan> +1
15:51:06 <AZ> -1 as the default but have a mechanism to switch to this case when needed
15:51:45 <AlexHall> sandro: point of this item is that you can use graph IRIs in RDF and have those IRIs talk about the actual graphs
15:52:16 <AlexHall> ... this is refuting the people who claim that the label doesn't denote the graph
15:52:18 <davidwood> -1 (I see no reason to *interpret* the semantics of owl:sameAs within RDF, but that would be fine within OWL)
15:52:38 <ericP> +1
15:52:39 <cygri> ±0. the question needs to be made clearer
15:52:44 <Zakim> -Arnaud
15:53:15 <AlexHall> sandro: using owl:sameAs as an example, not suggesting we incorporate OWL into RDF
15:53:20 <AZ> q+
15:53:27 <pchampin> q+
15:53:47 <sandro> { <u> dc:creator "David Wood" }    <u> { <a><b> <c> } 
15:54:05 <AlexHall> ... you can only get at this feature by incorporating some higher semantics where different IRIs can mean the same thing
15:54:11 <cygri> q+
15:54:15 <Zakim> -Guus
15:54:18 <AndyS> different issue because of label -> thing -> graph indirection
15:54:28 <sandro> sandro: are the terms "u" in the same general namespace, the I( .... )
15:54:31 <cygri> AndyS++
15:54:32 <sandro> q?
15:54:37 <davidwood> +0 (changed from previous after Sandro's explanation - I will need to think about it)
15:54:40 <AlexHall> ... or, in this dc:creator example, is the thing created by David Wood the graph within the braces?
15:54:41 <Guus_> my phone just broke down, it seems the battery is corrupt :-(
15:54:42 <sandro> ack AZ
15:54:43 <ivan> ack AZ
15:55:32 <Guus_> david, can you chair the last 15 min?
15:55:43 <Guus_> it would be great if we get through all 7
15:55:48 <Zakim> +Arnaud
15:55:49 <sandro> +1 AZ there is a use case against this   (I just don't think it's worth it.)
15:56:04 <Guus_> thanks ivan
15:56:17 <ivan> q?
15:56:35 <sandro> q?
15:56:37 <AlexHall> az: you can imagine that you have two IRIs used as a graph label for two different graphs, both denoting some resource that is the primary subject of those graphs
15:56:45 <sandro> q?
15:57:04 <ericP> <g1> { <bobama> a :American } , <g2> { <bobama> a :African }
15:57:09 <davidwood> gavinc, They use DNS as the basis to make their names, just like now
15:57:10 <ivan> ack pchampin 
15:57:20 <sandro> no ericP not that.
15:57:23 <AlexHall> ... you can't declare the names to be same without also declaring the graphs to be the same in this example
15:57:26 <ericP> why would i say <g1> = <g2> ?
15:57:50 <davidwood> gavinc, Oops, sorry.  I thought that was you.
15:58:12 <AlexHall> pchampin: afraid that this kind of inference would have lots of sparql implementers yelling at us
15:58:20 <AndyS> Two different datasets may have same <u> for different things (e..g <URL> viewed at 15:00, <URL> viewed at 16:00).  Good decision? globally no, but without agreement, it will happen.
15:58:31 <AlexHall> ... other than that this looks sensible, but afraid it might break things for implementers
15:58:39 <AZ> +1 pchampin 
15:58:56 <AlexHall> sandro: could this be handled by a sparql entailment regime?
15:58:59 <pchampin> SELECT * WHERE { <u> { ?s ?p ?o } }
15:59:01 <AZ> The entailment regime do not do anything with the graph labels
15:59:13 <AlexHall> pchampin: maybe, but only if the entailment regime also applies to graph labels
15:59:24 <sandro> +1 pchampin Good Question.
15:59:34 <sandro> q?
15:59:38 <AndyS> pchampin -- good point - enatilment only applies to BGP matching, not the named part
15:59:40 <AZ> (I reviewed SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes)
15:59:43 <AlexHall> entailment regime only applies to pattern matching within the context of a graph
16:00:08 <ivan> ack cygri 
16:00:15 <ivan> q?
16:00:50 <AZ> +1 cygri 
16:01:00 <ivan> +1 to cygri 
16:01:01 <AlexHall> cygri: the entailment regimes is something to keep in mind. one thing entailing something else doesn't necessarily mean the entailed thing goes back into the data structure.
16:01:17 <Zakim> +??P54
16:01:29 <cygri> { <u> dc:creator "David Wood" }    <u> { <a> <b> <c> }
16:01:32 <AlexHall> ... your tools uses those entailments sometimes when you tell it to
16:01:34 <sandro> cygri: I think I can say YES, but my sparql store doesn't have to compute these
16:01:38 <Guus_> zakim, ??p54 is me
16:01:38 <Zakim> +Guus_; got it
16:02:02 <sandro> cygri: In this example, the two <u>'s are the same thing.
16:02:10 <pchampin> q+
16:02:29 <AlexHall> ... regarding the dc:creator, i think the question of what the <u>'s denote is different from what relation that thing stands to the stuff in the graph.
16:02:37 <sandro> q?
16:02:48 <ivan> ack pchampin 
16:03:03 <AlexHall> guus: think we should speed this up to get to rest of questions on this telecon
16:03:11 <Souri> -1 for now b/c entailment today does not apply to graph labels -- the implications of this new extension is unclear to me
16:03:57 <AlexHall> pchampin: question to richard, when you say it doesn't mean the triples won't be automatically in your triple-store, do you mean just that they won't be materialized or that they won't be returned as query results to that graph?
16:04:05 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: (4) In a trig document like  { <u> .... }  ... <u> { ....<u> ... }  the three "<u>" terms mean the same thing.
16:04:09 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?
16:04:18 <sandro> +1
16:04:25 <ivan> +1
16:04:26 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pchampin (58%), Guus_ (100%)
16:04:45 <ericP> +1
16:04:46 <Guus_> zakim, mute me
16:04:46 <cygri> +1
16:04:48 <yvesr> +1
16:04:48 <pchampin> +1
16:04:49 <Zakim> Guus_ should now be muted
16:04:59 <AndyS> +1 (I think) but the labelling has the indirection so it is a bit complicated
16:05:12 <AZ> What do you mean by "mean the same thing"?
16:05:16 <AndyS> (caveat PatH's work)
16:05:20 <davidwood> +1
16:05:26 <MacTed> so ... <u> is scoped to Trig doc
16:05:28 <sandro> subtopic: Blank nodes labels have file scope
16:05:36 <ivan> -0.5
16:05:39 <cygri> ±1
16:05:43 <AndyS> MacTed - nice way of putting it.  +1
16:05:43 <sandro>
16:05:47 <pchampin> @AndyS agreed, labelling adds an indirection
16:05:53 <Guus_> +1
16:06:20 <Guus_> makes pragmatic sense 
16:06:20 <AZ> -0.3
16:06:21 <ivan> q+
16:06:22 <gavinc> +1
16:06:43 <ivan> ack ivan 
16:06:46 <davidwood> ±0
16:06:58 <Guus_> i thiunk that is what users would expect
16:07:02 <AlexHall> sandro: use case here is that blank nodes need to be shared between graphs, e.g. when inference results from one graph are stored in another and the bnode labels need to denote the same thing in both places
16:07:05 <tbaker> 0
16:07:13 <AndyS> It is cheaper and easier at scale to have file scope.  Problem exists even in RDF/XML in the bnodes id tracking.
16:07:20 <AlexHall> ivan: but RDF graphs today cannot share blank nodes
16:07:34 <AlexHall> i'm pretty sure RDF Semantics says nothing about bnode scope
16:07:35 <Guus_> I don't see the reason against
16:07:39 <ericP> +1
16:07:49 <gavinc> AlexHall, RDF semantics doesn't talk about more than one graph ;)
16:07:50 <AndyS> Surely RDF says exactly nothing one way or the other about anything across graphs
16:07:54 <MacTed> Bnodes (and their labels) are scoped to Gbox/Gsnap/Gtext.... yes?
16:08:10 <ivan> q?
16:08:18 <AlexHall> ivan: don't see how we can do this without skolemizing bnodes
16:08:39 <MacTed> Bnodes are to be discouraged ... for MANY reasons.  and this is one of those reasons.
16:09:10 <AlexHall> sandro: disadvantage is simplicity and performance in terms of tracking bnode labels across a large document
16:09:23 <ericP> +1
16:09:24 <Guus_> +1
16:09:25 <ivan> 0
16:09:25 <sandro> 5. Blank nodes labels have file scope
16:09:27 <tbaker> 0
16:09:28 <sandro> +1
16:09:30 <cygri> ±1
16:09:32 <pchampin> 0
16:09:36 <Souri> -0.5
16:09:48 <davidwood> ±0
16:09:49 <MacTed> I *think* +1
16:09:55 <AndyS> +1 file scope
16:09:58 <gavinc> +1, and avoid blank nodes wherever possible ;)
16:09:59 <AZ> -0.3
16:10:02 <yvesr> +1
16:10:05 <sandro> subtopic: In trig, @union can be used in place of the default graph
16:10:05 <AlexHall> ted: right now nothing says triple store implemeners have to allow for bnode sharing, doing so might prevent optimizations
16:10:13 <AZ> +1
16:10:19 <pchampin> out of curiosity, did you try your test on majors SPARQL implementations?
16:10:19 <MacTed> s/ted/ericP/
16:10:24 <pchampin> (regarding bnodes?)
16:10:31 <AZ> (or another kind of syntactic indicator)
16:10:46 <ivan> -1 in this format, not INSTEAD OF, but ADDITIONALLY to the default graph
16:11:11 <yvesr> it does seem a bit at odds with 2.
16:11:18 <AlexHall> sandro: this is basically a way of using trig to annotate sections of a graph
16:11:21 <sandro> purely syntactic sugar for repeating all the triples in all the named graphs.
16:11:23 <cygri> +0.5�
16:11:23 <ericP> +.4
16:11:26 <Guus_> +0
16:11:28 <gavinc> +0.1
16:11:32 <AndyS> Better *may* be RDF triples to say this - may be lots of different things to say.  Has some ordering problems/issues but a good idea.
16:11:39 <AndyS> +0.75
16:11:45 <Souri> +0.5
16:11:49 <davidwood> +0.5
16:12:02 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: In trig, @union  is syntacitc sugar for inlcuding all the named graph contrntst in the default graph
16:12:05 <ivan> +1
16:12:06 <sandro> +0.75
16:12:08 <ericP> +0.5
16:12:11 <AndyS> ivan's proposal would make processing easier (e..g see it at end of parse run)
16:12:13 <MacTed> s/contrntst/contents/
16:12:14 <tbaker> 0
16:12:20 <cygri> +0.5
16:12:22 <gavinc> (Syntax: Likely means that all declerations should come BEFORE the first graph statement)
16:12:23 <sandro> (we could change the word later,of course.)
16:12:25 <pchampin> +1
16:12:30 <MacTed> +0
16:12:31 <Guus_> +0 because not sure the cost of extra syntax is worth it
16:12:31 <AlexHall> 0
16:12:35 <ivan> q?
16:12:36 <Souri> +0.5
16:12:42 <FabGandon1> +0
16:12:45 <sandro> subtopic: Datasets only say which triples are known to be in a named graph, not which triples are *not* in that named graph.
16:12:57 <gavinc> +1
16:13:05 <AlexHall> sandro: this last one is the partial vs. complete semantics
16:13:15 <pchampin> q+
16:13:23 <davidwood> +1
16:13:24 <sandro>    The merge of "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" and "<u> {<a> <b> <d>}" is 
16:13:24 <sandro>    "<u> {<a> <b> <c>,<d>}".  
16:13:39 <Zakim> -FabGandon1
16:13:45 <sandro>    Also "<u> {<a> <b> <c>,<d>}" entails "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}".
16:14:04 <AlexHall> ... this implies an entailment test.
16:14:08 <AZ> if graphs are opaque, then no it does not hold
16:14:30 <pchampin> definitely looks like subgraph entailment to me!
16:14:35 <sandro> q?
16:14:38 <Zakim> +FabGandon1
16:14:39 <AndyS> I prefer "*if* you wish to merge the two datasets then that is what the merge is"
16:15:05 <AlexHall> ivan: this is inconsistent with our earlier statement that we have to either do all entailment or no entailment
16:15:13 <Souri> +1 (without the word "entailment")
16:15:16 <pchampin> q-
16:15:17 <ivan> +1
16:15:19 <AlexHall> sandro: it's entailment, but it's trig-entailment not rdf-entailment
16:15:19 <pchampin> I'm lost, then
16:15:31 <pchampin> q+
16:15:57 <davidwood> So, what does "implies" *mean*?
16:16:15 <AlexHall> eric: is this a referendum on whether we allow partial graphs, or on the semantics of those partial graphs?
16:16:31 <cygri> +0.8
16:16:32 <AndyS> +1 to first part, not sure what the consequence of second part is.
16:16:58 <pchampin> pchampin: rephrase my previous proposal: either trig-entailment should completely match rdf-entailment for labelled graphs, or it should do no rdf-entailmenet for labelled graphs at all
16:16:59 <ivan> ack pchampin 
16:17:03 <sandro> strawpoll: Partial, Complete, or Both --- (or Huh???)  :-)
16:17:13 <ericP> tbaker, you can write "partial, "complete" or "both" before you leave
16:18:00 <MacTed> partial must be default interpretation; want way to say "this graph is complete (or not)"; think we need both...
16:18:02 <sandro>    The merge of "<u> {<a> <b> <c>}" and "<u> {<a> <b> <d>}" is 
16:18:02 <sandro>    "<u> {<a> <b> <c>,<d>}".  
16:18:25 <Souri> +1 to partial
16:18:27 <Guus_> agree with partial being the default
16:18:29 <ericP> complete
16:18:30 <ivan> +1 to partial
16:18:32 <cygri> probably prefer partial
16:18:33 <davidwood> both
16:18:34 <Guus_> +1
16:18:38 <sandro> okay with either partial or complete, not sure about both at once
16:18:39 <davidwood> (at least partial)
16:18:46 <AlexHall> sandro: the point is that complete semantics says this example is inconsistent, partial at least allows it
16:18:50 <Zakim> -Souri
16:18:52 <pchampin> +0 (have to think over)
16:18:53 <AndyS> "huh???" and partial (may be app choice)
16:18:54 <AlexHall> partial
16:18:54 <Zakim> -moustaki
16:18:55 <AZ> +1 have both with an indicator to say which
16:19:09 <ericP> complete for datasets, partial for trig syntax, which is complete at the end of the document
16:19:16 <Guus_> thx ivan, to take over
16:19:22 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:19:24 <AlexHall> guus: adjourned
16:19:27 <Zakim> -AZ
16:19:30 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:19:35 <Zakim> -gavinc
16:19:37 <Zakim> -AlexHall
16:19:40 <Zakim> -Guus_
16:19:44 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:19:46 <Zakim> -cygri
16:20:35 <ericP> <bobama1> { <bobama1> a :American } , <bobama2> { <bobama2> a :African }
16:20:48 <ericP> <bobama1> = <bobama2>
16:20:58 <ericP> +1 to "don't do that"
16:21:18 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
16:21:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see David_Wood, Sandro, pchampin, ericP, MacTed, FabGandon1
16:21:21 <Zakim> On IRC I see FabGandon1, pchampin, AlexHall, cygri, Arnaud, RRSAgent, Zakim, yvesr, tbaker, gavinc, MacTed, AndyS, davidwood, manu, manu1, NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP
16:21:28 <AlexHall> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:21:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate AlexHall
16:21:38 <AlexHall> RRSAgent, make logs public