IRC log of rdf-wg on 2012-02-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:00:41 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
16:00:41 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:00:43 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
16:00:43 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
16:00:45 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
16:00:45 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
16:00:46 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
16:00:46 [trackbot]
Date: 22 February 2012
16:00:57 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:00:57 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS
16:00:59 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, cgreer, Arnaud, gavinc, swh, AndyS, mischat, Guus, LeeF, MacTed, danbri, AndyS1, ivan, NickH, mdmdm, manu1, davidwood, manu, yvesr, trackbot, sandro, ericP
16:01:06 [swh]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
16:01:06 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, swh
16:01:09 [gavinc]
Zakim, this is 73394
16:01:11 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, cgreer, Arnaud, gavinc, swh, AndyS, mischat, Guus, LeeF, MacTed, danbri, AndyS1, ivan, NickH, mdmdm, manu1, davidwood, manu, yvesr, trackbot, sandro, ericP
16:01:14 [Zakim]
ok, gavinc; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
16:01:19 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus, Sandro, [IPcaller], gavinc, Arnaud, +1.949.567.aaaa, OpenLink_Software
16:01:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.707.318.aabb
16:01:29 [AndyS]
zakim, IPCaller is me
16:01:31 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
16:01:32 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
16:01:36 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
16:01:37 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
16:01:40 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
16:01:40 [cgreer]
zakim, aabb is me
16:01:45 [Zakim]
+cgreer; got it
16:01:49 [FabGandon]
FabGandon has joined #rdf-wg
16:01:50 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:02:08 [Guus]
zakim, who is here?
16:02:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus, Sandro, AndyS, gavinc, Arnaud, +1.949.567.aaaa, MacTed (muted), cgreer
16:02:12 [Zakim]
On IRC I see AZ, FabGandon, Zakim, RRSAgent, cgreer, Arnaud, gavinc, swh, AndyS, mischat, Guus, LeeF, MacTed, danbri, AndyS1, ivan, NickH, mdmdm, manu1, davidwood, manu, yvesr,
16:02:14 [Zakim]
... trackbot, sandro, ericP
16:02:24 [danbri]
(regrets from me, sorry!)
16:02:51 [Zakim]
16:02:56 [Zakim]
16:03:17 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
16:03:24 [cgreer]
area code 949
16:03:28 [swh]
Zakim, aaaa is me
16:03:29 [Zakim]
+swh; got it
16:03:37 [Zakim]
16:03:54 [Zakim]
16:03:54 [sandro]
bummer, danbri, but thanks for the nice perspective email.
16:04:30 [AZ]
Zakim, ??P7 is me
16:04:31 [Zakim]
+AZ; got it
16:05:10 [zwu2]
zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
16:05:16 [zwu2]
zakim, code?
16:05:16 [Zakim]
the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, zwu2
16:05:16 [Guus]
Nick: will you be able to scribe?
16:05:38 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:05:38 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:05:40 [Zakim]
16:05:51 [MacTed]
11:05:14 *** NickH has been idle 772 minutes
16:05:51 [MacTed]
I fear it falls to me...
16:05:55 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
16:05:55 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
16:07:53 [MacTed]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of 15-Feb,
16:08:11 [MacTed]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of 15-Feb,
16:08:23 [MacTed]
scribenick: MacTed
16:08:56 [Zakim]
16:08:57 [MacTed]
TOPIC: open action item review,
16:09:01 [gavinc]
ericP sent an email claiming victory
16:09:15 [MacTed]
16:09:15 [trackbot]
ACTION-147 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to propose by next week text that replaces section 4.3 -- due 2012-02-22 -- OPEN
16:09:15 [trackbot]
16:09:22 [davidwood]
16:09:37 [davidwood]
EricP: I need to slightly correct the proposal: the example of %-escaping has a \'d "-" in an IRI. I'll strike that when I no longer need to sit in judgement of my fellow man (jury duty).
16:09:43 [gavinc] vs
16:11:46 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:11:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus, Sandro, AndyS, gavinc, Arnaud (muted), swh, MacTed, cgreer, David_Wood, FabGandon, AlexHall, AZ, Ivan, zwu2
16:11:58 [davidwood]
zakim, who is talking?
16:12:09 [Zakim]
davidwood, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus (52%), MacTed (17%), Ivan (17%)
16:12:24 [AZ]
Pat sent regrets yes
16:12:33 [gavinc]
PatH, Regrets. I have to go give some talks at a local school.
16:13:48 [MacTed]
TOPIC: RDF-ISSUE-83 (HTML-rel-meta): RDF/XML: Incorrect reference for use of HTML rel="meta" [RDF General]
16:13:52 [MacTed]
16:13:52 [trackbot]
ISSUE-83 -- RDF/XML: Incorrect reference for use of HTML rel="meta" -- raised
16:13:52 [trackbot]
16:14:17 [MacTed]
16:16:19 [MacTed]
ivan: issue should be retargeted against Primer
16:17:20 [AlexHall]
eric sent regrets
16:17:36 [MacTed]
TOPIC: Named Graphs semantics
16:17:52 [gavinc]
err, ericP has jury duty
16:18:07 [MacTed]
starting from Pat Hayes' message and subsequent thread,
16:20:04 [Guus]
16:20:12 [gavinc]
+ vs . according to PatH "Suppose we allow the terminal dot of a triple to be written as a plus sign, to mean that this triple is being interpreted as depending on its graph context, ie it is really a quad with the graph name as its contextual parameter. Call this a contextual triple and say that the graph is then a context. Contexts are involved in the truth of the triples they contain, so they are quad-graphs in disguise. Then two graphs can be merged just when (
16:20:14 [gavinc]
a) neither is a context (Ie they are normal RDF graphs) or (b) they are the same context (ie have the same graph label.)"
16:20:21 [MacTed]
... group effort to summarize Pat's proposal and confirm understanding thereof ...
16:20:34 [sandro]
16:22:31 [MacTed]
... consensus seems to be that typical current usage of "." is what Pat has proposed for "+" ...
16:23:22 [MacTed]
... goal seems to be getting a hint of the cost of merging differently contextualized graphs ...
16:24:27 [AndyS]
16:24:35 [ivan]
ack sandro
16:24:37 [MacTed]
guus proposes straw poll: who thinks it would be useful to add syntax for this, at this time?
16:25:05 [MacTed]
16:25:12 [MacTed]
sandro: syntax addition is needed, perhaps not the current proposal
16:25:12 [ivan]
ack AndyS
16:25:53 [MacTed]
AndyS: if community perceives need for change, they'll pick up on the syntax. doesn't seem that syntax change will drive change well.
16:26:10 [zwu2]
+1 to AndyS
16:26:32 [MacTed]
Guus: consensus is it's worth consideration.
16:26:56 [gavinc]
16:27:16 [MacTed]
sandro: number of things that are truly immutable is so small as to be uninteresting
16:27:37 [MacTed]
... need to know the context for virtually everything, it seems
16:27:57 [davidwood]
Real world usage will continue to mix the '+' and '.' cases, so we need to be careful in defining the default case. I actually *prefer* to change the default case to being contextual.
16:28:04 [AndyS]
ack gavinc
16:28:09 [MacTed]
gavinc: distinction is needed between "statements which are near universally save to merge" and "statements which are likely to cause trouble if merged"
16:28:25 [MacTed]
16:28:29 [zwu2]
+1 to davidwood, I prefer to contexualize the default case
16:28:36 [davidwood]
16:29:38 [MacTed]
AndyS: Pat seems to be saying, "in the current theory, you can always merge statements." but does that respect common practice?
16:29:57 [MacTed]
AndyS: the graph that holds it seems to be an important aspect of a triple
16:30:14 [ivan]
ack davidwood
16:30:19 [Guus]
ack davidwood
16:30:44 [MacTed]
davidwood: Real world usage will continue to mix the '+' and '.' cases, so we need to be careful in defining the default case.
16:30:45 [MacTed]
davidwood: I think I actually *prefer* to change the default case to being contextual.
16:30:58 [Guus]
ack sandro
16:31:01 [ivan]
ack sandro
16:31:23 [MacTed]
sandro: the person making the statement often doesn't think it's contextual, but changed perspective can change that perception...
16:31:24 [davidwood]
+1 to Sandro
16:31:32 [zwu2]
16:32:13 [MacTed]
... big change to RDF theory, but probably not big change to RDF practice ...
16:33:07 [AlexHall]
+1 to the difference between theory and practice. people are already treating it as contextual.
16:33:32 [AndyS]
It's entailment between graphs that relies on the universal context.
16:33:39 [MacTed]
straw poll: "extant RDF should generally be considered to be contextual."
16:33:44 [AlexHall]
even when the context is just "the current state of my SPARQL store"
16:34:07 [AndyS]
... could phase as "gather some graphs together, then do current RDF stuff"
16:34:40 [Guus]
16:34:41 [davidwood]
16:34:45 [MacTed]
16:34:45 [AndyS]
16:34:47 [zwu2]
16:34:51 [AlexHall]
16:35:30 [AndyS]
caveat the "contextual" in a maybe-weak, non technical sense, maybe "scoped"
16:35:47 [gavinc]
16:35:53 [swh]
+1 to AndyS
16:35:56 [ivan]
16:36:03 [swh]
I think the question is way to vague / broad
16:36:09 [AZ]
+1 but I think everything is contextual, HTML pages too
16:36:10 [davidwood]
Yes, AndyS has a good point
16:36:22 [MacTed]
... consensus is "yes"
16:36:39 [ivan]
16:36:50 [gavinc]
In other words at least from my head "Merging RDF graphs while easier then merging SQL statements, is still hard"
16:37:19 [MacTed]
ivan: would like to understand where this leads us. 2 lines of discussion about named graphs, but where do they meet?
16:37:19 [AlexHall]
merging graphs is easy. deciding whether it's ok to merge them is hard :-)
16:37:27 [gavinc]
AlexHall, yes that +1
16:37:51 [zwu2]
we can leave the decision when to merge graphs to end users :)
16:37:58 [MacTed]
ivan: quad discussion around Pat's proposal, very interesting, came from Pat's action regarding time
16:38:14 [gavinc]
zwu2, current semantics say it's always easy and safe
16:38:42 [MacTed]
ivan: also typing discussion, from sandro et al
16:38:49 [MacTed]
sandro: typing consideration was one of several proposed solutions
16:39:02 [zwu2]
gavinc, I thought current semantics apply to graphs (of triples), not quads
16:39:46 [MacTed]
sandro: has been concentrating on N3-style solution and [other]; Pat seems to be proposing a 6th solution
16:40:07 [MacTed]
Guus: these discussions are different, but don't seem incompatible
16:40:26 [ivan]
16:40:26 [MacTed]
Guus: typing the graph container is something that couldn't (and shouldn't) show up in semantics doc
16:41:07 [MacTed]
Guus: one mechanism *may* be sufficient for use community
16:42:50 [MacTed]
ivan: partially disagreeing with Sandro's "6th solution" characterization of Pat's message. concerned about new mechanism coming into picture several months into work...
16:43:49 [MacTed]
sandro: named graphs has been a "lump in the carpet" since the early 90s. time dependence is also a big issue, which has now been raised with ties to named graphs.
16:44:21 [MacTed]
ivan: where is line between scope of this WG and "future efforts"?
16:44:23 [davidwood]
q+ to play Devil's advocate
16:44:38 [Guus]
ack ivan
16:44:38 [ivan]
ack ivan
16:44:44 [ivan]
ack davidwood
16:44:44 [Zakim]
davidwood, you wanted to play Devil's advocate
16:44:54 [MacTed]
sandro: may be time to review "other work" in Charter
16:45:14 [MacTed]
davidwood: 2 chartered items that relate: named graphs and fixing semantics
16:45:52 [MacTed]
davidwood: we seem to have made progress with these discussions. I'm inclined to let it continue a couple weeks longer.
16:46:54 [MacTed]
Guus: further discussion requires Pat's presence...
16:48:05 [MacTed]
sandro: maybe consensus feedback to Pat, "what's important about context?" may be helpful for progress
16:48:23 [MacTed]
davidwood: objections have been made to "context" as an overused word...
16:49:20 [MacTed]
davidwood: concern is that leaving separation of contextual/time-varying from non-contextual/time-invariant to publisher, is likely to be wrong
16:50:04 [MacTed]
sandro: agreement... best practice may be to provide a "period of applicability" for a given data set, e.g., dc:temporal metadata
16:51:11 [MacTed]
ivan: we may want to put aside the whole issue of time, for the time being...
16:52:00 [MacTed]
ivan: in practice, in practical usage, if I have a way to properly describe "named graphs," I can describe a bunch of triples and have a vocab to describe the time-related things... that may be enough, even if not terribly precise
16:52:41 [MacTed]
ivan: understood action on Pat to be "come up with vocabulary that would be enough for gathering sufficient time info for practical purposes"
16:53:10 [MacTed]
sandro: practical question is whether we can satisfy multi-graph uses without addressing time question
16:53:32 [MacTed]
ivan: ... without having a time ontology
16:54:33 [MacTed]
... so first pursue use cases that don't require time dependence solution
16:56:37 [AndyS]
Hmm - create islands where current pure semantics are true. Multiverse!
16:56:52 [MacTed]
(...scribe joins discussion and fails to summarize...)
16:58:24 [MacTed]
AndyS: perhaps we can do both: frame RDF semantics so there are "islands" of graphs where current "pure" semantics are true, free merging should work; then merging "islands" requires contextual info about those islands
16:58:43 [AlexHall]
sounds like a research project to me :-)
17:00:16 [AZ]
17:00:32 [MacTed]
sandro: "islands" seem to be larger graphs, which are collections of subgraphs
17:00:47 [AZ]
17:00:58 [MacTed]
AZ: makes me think of the propsal about semantics of data sets
17:01:52 [Zakim]
17:02:01 [MacTed]
Zakim, dial ericP-mobile
17:02:03 [Zakim]
ok, MacTed; the call is being made
17:02:06 [Zakim]
17:02:09 [Zakim]
17:02:34 [MacTed]
AZ: (summarizes proposal, draws connections between it and "islands" terminology)
17:03:14 [MacTed]
AndyS: asks for data set semantics to be mapped to a current use case
17:03:36 [sandro]
+1 Andy: AZ, please illustrate your proposal by showing how to address (some of) the use cases with it.
17:04:08 [MacTed]
tsunami merges all graphs
17:04:25 [MacTed]
s/tsunami merges all graphs/.../
17:05:05 [MacTed]
AZ: these semantics do not directly address all use cases, but at least gives framework by which to do so...
17:05:43 [MacTed]
action on AZ to illustrate how maps to current use cases
17:05:43 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
17:06:07 [AlexHall]
leave out the 'on'
17:06:36 [MacTed]
action on zimmerma to illustrate how maps to current use cases
17:06:36 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
17:06:41 [AndyS]
Action AndyS: Write email about the "islands" idea
17:06:41 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-148 - Write email about the "islands" idea [on Andy Seaborne - due 2012-02-29].
17:06:41 [AZ]
17:06:49 [MacTed]
action zimmerma to illustrate how maps to current use cases
17:06:49 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - zimmerma
17:06:58 [MacTed]
action azimmerm to illustrate how maps to current use cases
17:06:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-149 - Illustrate how maps to current use cases [on Antoine Zimmermann - due 2012-02-29].
17:07:04 [gavinc]
17:09:07 [MacTed]
Guus: seems we've made full progress there... ericP, can discuss action-147?
17:09:52 [Zakim]
17:10:14 [MacTed]
ericP: summarizes/restates content of email to list... linked form
17:10:18 [MacTed]
17:12:00 [Zakim]
17:12:01 [MacTed]
... change to be made, further discussion for next week ...
17:12:22 [Zakim]
17:12:23 [Zakim]
17:12:24 [Zakim]
17:12:26 [Zakim]
17:12:27 [Zakim]
17:12:27 [Zakim]
17:12:29 [Zakim]
17:12:31 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
17:12:34 [Zakim]
17:12:35 [Zakim]
17:12:54 [Zakim]
17:13:04 [gavinc]
17:13:13 [gavinc]
17:14:05 [gavinc]
Oooh, better URL
17:15:32 [MacTed]
17:16:07 [gavinc]
yep, then the "Preview Nicely formated version"
17:16:08 [MacTed]
17:16:09 [gavinc]
and fix
17:16:26 [davidwood]
Scribe page on wiki is now better:
17:16:31 [MacTed]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:16:53 [gavinc]
trackbot, end meeting
17:16:53 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:16:53 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Guus, Sandro, gavinc, Arnaud, +1.949.567.aaaa, +1.707.318.aabb, AndyS, MacTed, cgreer, David_Wood, FabGandon, swh, AlexHall, AZ, Ivan,
17:16:57 [Zakim]
... zwu2, EricP
17:17:01 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:17:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
17:17:02 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:17:02 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
17:17:02 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: AndyS to Write email about the "islands" idea [1]
17:17:02 [RRSAgent]
recorded in