Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Chatlog 2013-02-20
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.
16:03:32 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim 16:03:32 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Guus (muted) 16:03:42 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim 16:03:42 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg 16:03:45 <Zakim> +??P32 16:03:53 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim 16:03:53 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tbaker 16:03:58 <markus> zakim, ??P32 is me 16:03:58 <Zakim> +markus; got it 16:04:00 <Zakim> + +1.408.992.aaee 16:04:08 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim 16:04:08 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg 16:04:13 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg 16:04:19 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here 16:04:19 <Zakim> davidwood, you need to end that query with '?' 16:04:27 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #rdf-wg 16:04:29 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here? 16:04:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see tbaker, davidwood, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed (muted), Guus (muted), ivan, manu, Sandro, markus, +1.408.992.aaee 16:04:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see Arnaud, pfps, cgreer, markus, ScottB, PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, TallTed, ivan, SteveH, AndyS, manu, davidwood, yvesr, mischat, manu1, trackbot, 16:04:31 <Zakim> ... sandro, ericP 16:04:35 <Zakim> + +1.707.874.aaff 16:04:46 <cgreer> zakim, aaff is me 16:04:46 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it 16:04:57 <Zakim> +??P35 16:05:04 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P35 is me 16:05:04 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it 16:05:07 <AndyS> scribenick: AndyS 16:05:10 <Zakim> +Arnaud 16:05:15 <pfps> Zakim, aaee is me 16:05:15 <Zakim> +pfps; got it 16:05:46 <AndyS> topic: admin 16:05:48 <Zakim> +Souri 16:05:54 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 February telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-13 16:06:03 <Zakim> +PatH 16:06:08 <AndyS> +1 16:06:14 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg 16:06:15 <pfps> They're beautiful. 16:06:24 <davidwood> RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 13 February telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-13 16:06:33 <davidwood> Review of action items 16:06:33 <davidwood> ▪ http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview 16:06:33 <davidwood> ▪ http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open 16:06:40 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 16:06:57 <AndyS> 27 open actions 16:07:14 <davidwood> Topic: Extension request 16:07:17 <Zakim> +Tony 16:07:34 <ScottB> zakim, Tony is temporarily me 16:07:34 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it 16:07:38 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aagg 16:07:52 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aagg is me 16:07:52 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it 16:07:52 <AndyS> davidwood: request informally approved, waiting for formal confirmation 16:07:55 <zwu2> zakim, mute me 16:07:55 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted 16:09:15 <AndyS> davidwood: design time over, now complete docs during the extension 16:09:47 <AndyS> ... docs to get out soon -- semantics, concepts. 16:10:07 <AndyS> topic: Turtle 16:10:10 <AndyS> q+ 16:10:11 <Guus> zakim, unmute me 16:10:11 <Zakim> Guus should no longer be muted 16:10:25 <AndyS> davidwood: congrats to all 16:10:38 <davidwood> ack AndyS 16:10:39 <PatH> One quick request. There is a CSS script that COncepts apparently used. Where can I get the original of that? Send email offline. 16:11:22 <AndyS> andys: what's the impl feedback process? 16:11:58 <davidwood> Implementors should inform public-rdf-comments 16:13:01 <AndyS> davidwood: a quick blog to note process and EARL reports. 16:13:03 <Guus> q+ 16:13:15 <davidwood> ack Guus 16:13:40 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here? 16:13:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see tbaker, davidwood, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed (muted), Guus, ivan, manu, Sandro, markus, pfps, cgreer, SteveH, Arnaud (muted), Souri, PatH, ScottB, zwu2 (muted) 16:13:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see zwu2, Souri, Arnaud, pfps, cgreer, markus, ScottB, PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, TallTed, ivan, SteveH, AndyS, manu, davidwood, yvesr, mischat, manu1, 16:13:44 <Zakim> ... trackbot, sandro, ericP 16:14:38 <AndyS> gkellogg: is it Eric's tests as well? 16:14:47 <davidwood> ACTION: davidwood to write a blog post announcing Turtle to CR 16:14:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-230 - Write a blog post announcing Turtle to CR [on David Wood - due 2013-02-27]. 16:15:48 <davidwood> ACTION: davidwood to create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors. 16:15:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors. [on David Wood - due 2013-02-27]. 16:15:58 <AndyS> gkellogg: please rerun tests to be upto date 16:16:09 <AndyS> davidwood: need to track CR comments 16:16:26 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me 16:16:26 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted 16:17:11 <AndyS> ivan: all changes now need to be tracked 16:17:20 <AndyS> ... we're in process mode now 16:17:49 <AndyS> topic: semantics 16:18:18 <davidwood> ▪ Should we allow blank nodes to be used as graph names? That is, allow a graph name to be both (IRI, graph), and (blank node, graph). 16:18:18 <davidwood> NB -- JSON-LD has a preference to allow blank nodes as graph names. 16:18:18 <davidwood> From Manu: PROPOSAL: Allow blank nodes to be used as graph names. Specifically, allow associating (IRI, graph) and (blank node, graph) when naming graphs. 16:19:16 <AndyS> manu: review of JSON-LD status. Has bnode ids fro graphs and also unlabelled graphs. 16:19:24 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me 16:19:24 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted 16:19:27 <AndyS> ... long discussions 16:19:52 <AndyS> ... part 2 -- denotation of graph (values) 16:20:17 <AndyS> ... only interpretation possible 16:20:29 <AndyS> (Andy notes that claim is false) 16:20:47 <pfps> The method used for containers works for me. I'm not in favour of making any further changes to the semantics. 16:21:24 <AndyS> PatH: opportunity to add the semantic condition that bNode denotes the graph. 16:21:53 <manu> q+ to state that Web Payments is going to assert that IRIs and blank node identifiers denote graphs. We have to. 16:22:20 <pfps> q+ 16:22:20 <AndyS> ... bnodes for labels can be used to put metadata into datasets 16:23:01 <AndyS> sandro: skolemization would break that condition? 16:23:21 <AndyS> path: not really - we don't stop IRIs denoting graphs 16:25:07 <AndyS> sandro: neutral on proposal 16:25:39 <manu> I think that somebody using an IRI to name a graph previously, where the IRI doesn't denote the graph, did something non-standard and we don't need to support that in RDF Concepts 1.1 (we are breaking some deployments, but for the greater good of the Web) 16:25:49 <SteveH> q+ 16:26:03 <davidwood> ack manu 16:26:03 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to state that Web Payments is going to assert that IRIs and blank node identifiers denote graphs. We have to. 16:26:08 <pfps> even if you are using the skolem namespace I don't think that you can infer the denotation 16:26:54 <AndyS> manu: web payments will use denotation 16:27:02 <ivan> q+ 16:27:12 <davidwood> ack pfps 16:27:16 <PatH> pfps, you cany infer it but we can impose it as a condition. 16:27:29 <manu> +100 to pfps! 16:27:34 <PatH> cany//can't 16:27:36 <manu> -1 for it being too late :) 16:27:43 <AndyS> pfps: not done properly; it's too late. 16:27:46 <Zakim> -Guus 16:28:49 <manu> q+ to ask pfps if he'd be okay with blank nodes as graph names, but -1 on denotation? 16:29:00 <zwu2> +1 to pfps 16:29:05 <SteveH> +1 16:29:11 <ivan> +1 16:29:47 <manu> It's a big problem for us! 16:29:55 <manu> (for the web payments work) 16:30:01 <manu> it's a big problem for digital signatures. 16:30:10 <manu> it's a big problem for RDF Dataset Normalization. 16:30:18 <AndyS> manu - do you recognize that forcing one decision is a problem for others? 16:30:36 <manu> Which decision am I forcing, andys? 16:30:38 <SteveH> manu, we do all that stuff, and we don't use blank graphs 16:30:52 <manu> SteveH, then what's the solution? 16:31:01 <SteveH> q? 16:31:02 <Souri> +1 against use of bNode for graphs 16:31:14 <davidwood> ack SteveH 16:31:57 <pfps> If we put graph name denotation into RDF then the semantics has to be expanded to include graphs as a new datatype 16:32:04 <AndyS> manu - you asked for denotation only in JSON-LD. Other people do different things. You case is fine - it's one amongst several - other uses are important to their users. 16:32:18 <AndyS> SteveH: taken out of 3Store 16:32:22 <PatH> its not a change to how rdf works. 16:32:48 <davidwood> ack ivan 16:33:18 <AndyS> ivan: time issues 16:34:56 <davidwood> ack manu 16:34:56 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask pfps if he'd be okay with blank nodes as graph names, but -1 on denotation? 16:35:46 <AndyS> manu: 2 proposals - one syntax, one semantics 16:36:05 <AndyS> .. can accept first, not the second 16:36:11 <pfps> If SPARQL doesn't allow blank nodes as names in datasets, then I don't see a need for us to. 16:36:23 <PatH> then i disagree. bnodes the dont denote really arre meaningless. 16:36:24 <AndyS> ivan: denotation is controversal 16:36:43 <AndyS> manu: new evidence 16:36:54 <PatH> peter, sparql does allow it, i gather. 16:37:15 <PatH> q+ 16:37:38 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy? 16:37:46 <AndyS> SPARQL does not but it's no big deal. One line change. (someone set things up for future posibilities :-) 16:37:50 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (39%), manu (99%) 16:38:25 <SteveH> manu, several people have suggested perfectly workable solutions 16:38:44 <pfps> the method proposed that gets rid of blank nodes doesn't require minting new IRIs, you just have an infinite number of them pre-allocated (like rdf:_<n>) and choose in order 16:39:01 <AndyS> ivan: propose to close second proposal 16:39:27 <AndyS> q+ to say what SPARQL actually says 16:39:38 <manu> steveh, no, they haven't - we've spent a great deal of time trying to apply those solutions - they are half-baked, or don't work. 16:39:51 <manu> pfps: Isn't that a new IRI scheme? 16:40:17 <gkellogg> andys: a definition of a dataset in SPARQL says it's an IRI; the mechanics, translation to algebra and evaluation are neutral, because you can't write it. 16:40:19 <manu> pfps: graph:_nnn <-- new IRI scheme, most of the folks on this mailing list didn't want that, right? 16:40:30 <gkellogg> … Blank nodes would be variables. 16:40:54 <gkellogg> … SPARQL would work with BNodes for properties, it doesn't interpret them. 16:41:03 <SteveH> but there are no (real) blank node in sparql 16:41:31 <gkellogg> … I don't know if actual engines would blow up or not, but structurally, it wouldn't make a difference. 16:41:40 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#sparqlDataset 16:41:40 <SteveH> 4store and 5store would blow up, that section of the index (bnode as graph ID) doesn't exist 16:41:51 <davidwood> ack PatH 16:41:57 <AndyS> q- 16:42:35 <SteveH> strawpoll? 16:43:00 <AndyS> davidwood: we have the freedom but not the time to deviate from SPARQL 16:46:03 <ivan> q+ 16:46:10 <cgreer> cgreer has joined #rdf-wg 16:46:33 <AndyS> manu: can JSON-LD use bNode id for graphs in datasets? 16:47:05 <davidwood> ack ivan 16:47:18 <SteveH> IIUC manu asked about nquads… that's not OK 16:47:21 <SteveH> for me 16:47:46 <AndyS> ivan: maybe a way out but may have consequences outside JSON-LD. 16:48:04 <gkellogg> BNodes for property IDs in JSON-LD will already make these other applications blow up. 16:48:05 <AndyS> ... no reason for deciding one over the other. 16:49:54 <AndyS> davidwood: try to find a loose framework that allows variation. 16:51:08 <SteveH> that must already happen, because of bNode predicates 16:51:23 <SteveH> that's not legal in RDF and can't be serialised 16:51:23 <AndyS> ivan: suggest a warning in JSON-LD about the consequences outside JSON-LD 16:51:27 <markus> the warnings are already there: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#data-model and again here http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#relationship-to-rdf 16:52:01 <AndyS> davidwood: how bad is this? 16:53:16 <AndyS> markus - quite. Various tricky points there - e.g. lists in data model (wish that were true) We just don't ask! 16:53:36 <PatH> q+ 16:53:41 <AndyS> manu: causes an issue - need to label the graph in some way 16:53:46 <markus> andys, I know :-) 16:54:08 <AndyS> ... reinventing bnode ids 16:54:41 <PatH> Let me withdraw my blocking vote decision here. I dont like semantics=free bnodeIDs, but I think compatibility with JSON is more important than my aesthetics. SO I will vote for the syntax without the sematnics. <grinds teeth.> 16:55:36 <AndyS> ivan: will break other use cases 16:58:11 <PatH> The key point for Steve seems to be that he did have this but was ASKED to remove it. WHo asked him and what were their reasons? 16:59:49 <PatH> Ivan, there are recent emails showing that SPARQL in fact works fine with this case. 17:00:06 <PatH> +1 to Manu 17:00:09 <SteveH> PatH, I don't see how that can be the case 17:00:30 <Souri> I like the (alternate) proposal of minting a new IRI (it avoids the new requirement of allowing bnode identifying a graph) 17:00:32 <PatH> Its not a change to RDF *at all*. It might be a change to SPARQL. 17:01:22 <SteveH> PatH, what about the case where the bNode identified by _:aaa is used as a graph label, but doesn't appear in any graph? 17:02:04 <AndyS> manu; new info - normalization, JSON-LD, documents without base URI 17:02:11 <AndyS> manu: new info - normalization, JSON-LD, documents without base URI 17:02:32 <davidwood> ack PatH 17:03:14 <PatH> Steve, what about it? Its kind of silly (semantically) but harmless. 17:03:21 <manu> New information to blank nodes as graph name labels - Did the WG consider RDF Dataset Normalization when you discussed this? 17:03:35 <Arnaud> I have to drop off for another call, I find unfortunate that the number of incompatibilities between JSON-LD and RDF keeps increasing 17:03:38 <SteveH> PatH, but it wouldn't be a node (and it'��s what manu is proposing to do, FWIW) 17:04:11 <manu> Did the WG consider how the decision would affect JSON-LD developers, specifically how forcing them to use an identifier where they don't have to use one (when expressing a blank node) 17:04:16 <PatH> religious = doctrinal :-) 17:04:24 <AndyS> ivan: don't know it means to have no base URI. 17:04:57 <Arnaud> which isn't to say that we should let JSON-LD influence RDF, I find this slightly odd because I don't think the syntax should necessarily influence the model 17:05:07 <AndyS> ... normalization is significant but was worked on it elsewhere. 17:05:13 <Zakim> -Arnaud 17:05:32 <gkellogg> I don't think that normalization actually requires that graph names include BNode identifiers, it just does if JSON-LD allows them, and that output should be normalized. 17:05:34 <AndyS> ... this WG has not picked up that work. 17:06:02 <AndyS> ... at this time and this point in process, it's hard to take that on. 17:06:02 <PatH> SteveH, ?? of course it would be a node. Bnodes are nodes. 17:06:18 <SteveH> PatH, well, only if they appear in a graph, surely?! 17:06:49 <AndyS> manu: we have a solution. Need a direction from this WG 17:06:52 <davidwood> q? 17:06:59 <PatH> IWhy? We are allowing IRIs to be labels. why no other kinds of node? 17:07:04 <AndyS> .. bnode was the thing we choose at the time. 17:08:09 <SteveH> it doesn't require a new URI scheme, you could use the skolem one 17:08:11 <pfps> I don't see how this group is on the hook for doing anything here. 17:08:18 <AndyS> manu: new URI scheme is an alternative but not as attractive. 17:08:44 <pfps> q+ 17:09:35 <davidwood> ack pfps 17:10:47 <SteveH> IIRC, you're required to have a base URI, as per RFC 2396 17:10:53 <PatH> The hostility isn't necessary. 17:13:26 <PatH> +1 to manu 17:13:39 <AndyS> davidwood: if docs standardized as currently stated - manu - what happens? 17:14:23 <AndyS> manu: we will use specific IRIs for the dataset. 17:14:23 <PatH> Thats skolemizing, in fact. 17:16:22 <AndyS> davidwood: will skolemization work for you? 17:16:51 <AndyS> manu: will reply on the list 17:17:04 <PatH> Well not quite. 17:17:39 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdf-wg 17:18:07 <manu> AndyS: You can't do that without taking inter-graph connectivity into account. 17:18:07 <PatH> For the record, now we have extra time, how much extra time do we have (The WG, not the call)? 17:18:15 <manu> you can't just "hash a graph" to get a name. 17:18:22 <AndyS> davidwood: wish we had more time ... 17:19:48 <AndyS> ADJOURNED # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000406