IRC log of rdf-wg on 2012-01-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

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]
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]
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]
15:59:29 [cygri]
zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
15:59:29 [Zakim]
+cygri; got it
16:00:04 [Zakim]
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]
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]
16:02:58 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:03:12 [Zakim]
16:03:45 [Zakim]
16:04:20 [Zakim]
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]
16:07:04 [Zakim]
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]
16:08:16 [zwu2]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
16:31:42 [sandro]
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]
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]
16:35:14 [JeremyCarroll]
16:35:17 [cygri]
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]
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]
16:47:09 [AndyS]
David: Jeremy - what was your idea to avoid that?
16:47:13 [AndyS]
ack cygri
16:47:22 [AndyS]
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]
16:49:13 [AndyS]
... progress is limited. Seems that schedule forces us towards the minimal route.
16:50:35 [sandro]
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]
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]
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]
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]
17:00:32 [cygri]
q+ to ask about merging datasets
17:00:37 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
17:19:23 [Zakim]
17:19:25 [Zakim]
17:19:28 [Zakim]
17:19:28 [AZ]
17:19:30 [Zakim]
17:19:30 [Zakim]
17:19:31 [Zakim]
17:19:33 [Zakim]
17:19:40 [Zakim]
17:19:43 [Zakim]
17:19:59 [ericP]
Zakim, who is here?
17:19:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus, eric
17:20:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see danbri, JeremyCarroll, gavinc, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, AndyS, MacTed, LeeF, cygri, mischat, manu1, mdmdm, davidwood, manu, trackbot, yvesr, NickH, sandro, ericP
17:20:21 [ericP]
Zakim, please draft minutes
17:20:21 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'please draft minutes', ericP
17:20:38 [ericP]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:20:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ericP
17:20:47 [ericP]
RRSAgent, please make log world-visible
17:21:08 [Zakim]
17:21:52 [AndyS]
ericP - wasn't it already done by "start meeting" ??
17:22:06 [gavinc]
17:22:11 [AndyS]
17:23:17 [AndyS]
AKA I was already processing the log and worried it was a different meeting!!!
17:31:32 [Zakim]
17:31:33 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
17:31:35 [Zakim]
Attendees were Guus, MacTed, cygri, AndyS, zwu2, Ivan, sandro, Scott_Bauer, AZ, LeeF, JeremyCarroll, gavinc, eric, NickH, bhyland1, davidwood
17:47:07 [mdmdm]
hi, I have some questions for the experts: why do Named Graphs need a name mapping(n) to associate an IRI with a graph? why aren't graphs like any other resource that obtain their IRIs from the IS mapping of the interpretation? why isn't there an rdf:Graph class?
17:48:39 [gavinc]
Excellent question ;)
17:49:37 [gavinc]
However if you were hoping for an answer...
17:51:00 [mdmdm]
ideally what I'm hoping is the WG would just add the rdf:Graph class term to the vocabulary and give it the same meaning its defined to have in the normative syntax: a set of RDF statements
17:52:19 [gavinc] is that a g-box, g-snap, or g-text? ;)
17:54:41 [MacTed]
clearly rdf:Graph is the superclass encompassing rdf:Gsnap, rdf:Gbox, rdf:Gtext ...
17:54:42 [mdmdm]
i think g-snap has been pretty well determined to be an immutable set of statements (parsed triples), which is what the semantics considers to be a graph
17:55:21 [MacTed]
(and rdf:Graph is now pronounced "arr dee eff giraffe")
17:56:56 [mdmdm]
I've been thinking about this a lot and have a proposal .. in rough draft form here:
18:39:17 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg
19:27:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-wg
19:51:33 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg
21:40:43 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
22:40:45 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg
23:03:06 [MacTed]
MacTed has joined #rdf-wg
23:08:33 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg