<trackbot> Date: 25 January 2012

<scribe> Scribe: Fabien Gandon

<scribe> ScribeNick: FabGandon

<danbri> hi folks, regrets from me ... laptop too overwhelmed to run Skype right now (giant mysql job)

<davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 18 Jan telecon:

<davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-01-18

<davidwood> Action item review:

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - item

<davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview

<davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open

Reviewers for XSD 1.1?

<davidwood> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-xmlschema11-1-20120119/ W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 1: Structures

<davidwood> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-xmlschema11-2-20120119/ W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes

they moved to proposed Rec and affect RDF

davidwood ... we need reviewers

Ivan: the first part does not impact us

<ericP> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/

<ericP> [[

<ericP> This second edition is not a new version, it merely incorporates the changes dictated by the corrections to errors found in the first edition as agreed by the XML Schema Working Group, as a convenience to readers. A separate list of all such corrections is available at http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-errata.

<ericP> ]]

davidwood: eg. of problems links between XMLLiteral and RDF Literals

<AndyS1> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-xmlschema11-1-20120119/

davidwood: we need to look at XSD Strings

<ericP> changes from schema 1.0 to 1.1

<AndyS1> and XSD decimal canonical form (FYI)

<ivan_> The changes URI is http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-xmlschema11-2-20120119/#changes

davidwood: we need someone to go through changes

ericP: I can do it

AlexHall: volonteer

<ivan_> changes

proposed: "ACTION: ericP and AlexHall to review changes in W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD)"

<davidwood> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-xmlschema11-2-20120119/#changes

<gavinc_> AndyS1, http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-xmlschema11-2-20120119/#f-decimalCanmap !

<ericP> ACTION: ericP to review changes in W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-xmlschema11-2-20120119/#changes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/25-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-135 - Review changes in W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-xmlschema11-2-20120119/#changes [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2012-02-01].

<ericP> ACTION: AlexHall to review changes in W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-xmlschema11-2-20120119/#changes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/25-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-136 - Review changes in W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-xmlschema11-2-20120119/#changes [on Alex Hall - due 2012-02-01].

Ivan: the changes in the datatypes may affect us too

<davidwood> I see "Conforming implementations may now support ·primitive· datatypes and facets in addition to those defined here."

Ivan: there might be changes for instance in data comparison

<davidwood> " this allows float and double to treat positive and negative zero as distinct values, but nevertheless to treat them as equal for purposes of bounds checking" (!) :)

<davidwood> ^^ These things are important to end users, after all

erciP: is there anyway for the structure to have an impact our data model ?

Ivan: my opinion is that we are not affected by structure
... but the RDF semantics makes a selection of the datatype and this may have to be reviewed.

RDF-ISSUE-82 (TriG repeated graph iris)

gavinc_: consensus on the second option changing "merge" to "union", blank nodes with the same plabel are considered the same
... no semantics for blank nodes between graphs with different labels
... inference graphs are kept different and are an example where same labels may mean same nodes
... no equivalent in RDF/XML or Turtle right now.

<AndyS1> +1

<ericP> +1

<cgreer> +1

<ivan_> 1

<zwu2> +1

<LeeF> +1

<Guus> +1

<AlexHall> +1

<gavinc_> +1

<Souri> +1

<gavinc_> "In a TriG document graph statements with the same graph IRI should be

<gavinc_> unioned to form a single RDF Graph. Blank nodes in each graph

<gavinc_> statement with the same label are considered to be the same blank

<gavinc_> node."

davidwood: any objection to the wording (strawpoll)

<MacTed> +1

davidwood: we have a consensus

<gavinc_> RESOLVE to close ISSUE-82 with the wording: "In a TriG document graph statements with the same graph IRI should be unioned to form a single RDF Graph. Blank nodes in each graph statement with the same label are considered to be the same blank node."

Named Graphs

<ericP> davidwood: +☮

<gavinc_> also on the wiki http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Example_of_Endorsement_Use_Case

davidwood: starting with the endorsement use case
... does anyone push this use case ?

MacTed: this use case could become very important

<LeeF> We don't ourselves do this sort of endorsement today, nor do our customers.

<gavinc_> It is a current use case for Lex Machina, Inc :D

<davidwood> OK, good

MacTed: there is a difference between me asserting and me endorsing

<gavinc_> The hash system in my example DOES NOT require trusting much at all

<gavinc_> +q

AndyS: controling the domain name of a graph name does ensure the trust i.e. there is a whole chain e.g. DNS

<ericP> i thought the point of this was to say "it's within..."

AndyS: the hash gives you stability / repeatability

gavinc_: endorsing without hashing may not be very useful

ericP: within your store you can rely on your architecture

<gavinc_> -q

AndyS: a lot of this can be done working with documents

cgreer: you don't want to endorse a graph that is merged with an other one.

gavinc_: my example works because there is an intermediary doc

ericP: can the provenance wg help here ?

AndyS: no they are at the URI level

davidwood: is the problem linked to the question of whether we name graphs with URI or not?

ivan: the general mechanism is we have a URI and we have a predicate

<Guus> +1 with Andy

<Guus> quints are out of scope, I would suggest

<Zakim> Guus, you wanted to ask which mechanism

<ericP> +1 to octs

<davidwood> -1 to octs :)

gavinc_: we can adapt the syntax without making them quints

<AndyS1> { eg:sandro eg:endorses <g1>. <g1> a rdf:StaticGraphContainer. } <g1> { ... the triples I'm endorsing ... }

<ivan_> +1 to David

<AndyS1> { eg:sandro eg:endorses <g1>. <g1> a rdf:StaticGraphContainer. } <g1> { ... the triples I'm endorsing ... }

<AndyS1> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Jan/0021.html

<AndyS1> (sandro's message -- includes multiple designs)

<cgreer> RDF doesn't disallow inconsistent graphs (+1 Guus)

ivan: one problem was when in OWL the types of merged containers are disjoint

Guus: I'm interested in the easy syntax
... examples of syntax would help the discussion

proposing: ACTION: Guus to write down an example of the syntaxes for the named graphs

Ivan: we could publish a version of Turtle tomorrow
... without changing it too much

<scribe> ACTION: Guus to write down an example of the syntaxes for the named graphs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/01/25-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-137 - Write down an example of the syntaxes for the named graphs [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-02-01].

ivan: then we have to decide whether or not we modify the RDF semantics

Guus: nobody has yet come up with a clear proposal to update the semantics

ivan: we need at least to write down in plain english the definitions of the core primitives

<MacTed> +1 Ivan's summary, "Named Graph" is inherently ambiguous, and must be defined multiply, for different contexts

<LeeF> I think we may be kidding ourselves if we think we're gong to get high-interoperability with defining this stuff multiple ways

<davidwood> MacTed: Define named graphs both by typing URIs and also by using predicates.

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Iven/Ivan/
Succeeded: s/lood/look/
Found Scribe: Fabien Gandon
Found ScribeNick: FabGandon
Default Present: Scott_Bauer
Present: Scott_Bauer

WARNING: Fewer than 3 people found for Present list!


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 25 Jan 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/01/25-rdf-wg-minutes.html
People with action items: alexhall ericp guus