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 http://www.w3.org/2012/02/22-rdf-wg-irc
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]: +David_Wood
16:02:56 [Zakim]: +FabGandon
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]: +AlexHall
16:03:54 [Zakim]: +??P7
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 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), 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]: +Ivan
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, http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-02-15
16:08:11 [MacTed]: RESOLVED: accept minutes of 15-Feb, http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-02-15
16:08:23 [MacTed]: scribenick: MacTed
16:08:56 [Zakim]: +zwu2
16:08:57 [MacTed]: TOPIC: open action item review, http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
16:09:01 [gavinc]: ericP sent an email claiming victory
16:09:15 [MacTed]: action-147?
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]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/147
16:09:22 [davidwood]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-escapes
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]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-strings vs http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-escapes
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]: issue-83?
16:13:52 [trackbot]: ISSUE-83 -- RDF/XML: Incorrect reference for use of HTML rel="meta" -- raised
16:13:52 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/83
16:14:17 [MacTed]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0092.html
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, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0094.html
16:20:04 [Guus]: q?
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]: q+
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]: q+
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]: s/useful/acceptable/
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]: +q
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]: s/save/safe/
16:28:29 [zwu2]: +1 to davidwood, I prefer to contexualize the default case
16:28:36 [davidwood]: q+
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]: +1
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]: +1
16:34:41 [davidwood]: +1
16:34:45 [MacTed]: +1
16:34:45 [AndyS]: +1
16:34:47 [zwu2]: +1
16:34:51 [AlexHall]: +1
16:35:30 [AndyS]: caveat the "contextual" in a maybe-weak, non technical sense, maybe "scoped"
16:35:47 [gavinc]: +1
16:35:53 [swh]: +1 to AndyS
16:35:56 [ivan]: +1
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]: q+
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]: q+
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]: q+
17:00:32 [MacTed]: sandro: "islands" seem to be larger graphs, which are collections of subgraphs
17:00:47 [AZ]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal
17:00:58 [MacTed]: AZ: makes me think of the propsal about semantics of data sets
17:01:52 [Zakim]: +Sandro.a
17:02:01 [MacTed]: Zakim, dial ericP-mobile
17:02:03 [Zakim]: ok, MacTed; the call is being made
17:02:06 [Zakim]: +EricP
17:02:09 [Zakim]: -Sandro
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 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal 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]: azimmerm
17:06:49 [MacTed]: action zimmerma to illustrate how http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal maps to current use cases
17:06:49 [trackbot]: Sorry, couldn't find user - zimmerma
17:06:58 [MacTed]: action azimmerm to illustrate how http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal maps to current use cases
17:06:58 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-149 - Illustrate how http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal maps to current use cases [on Antoine Zimmermann - due 2012-02-29].
17:07:04 [gavinc]: Azimmerm
17:09:07 [MacTed]: Guus: seems we've made full progress there... ericP, can discuss action-147?
17:09:52 [Zakim]: -AndyS
17:10:14 [MacTed]: ericP: summarizes/restates content of email to list... linked form http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/147
17:10:18 [MacTed]: s/form/from/
17:12:00 [Zakim]: -zwu2
17:12:01 [MacTed]: ... change to be made, further discussion for next week ...
17:12:22 [Zakim]: -Sandro
17:12:23 [Zakim]: -AlexHall
17:12:24 [Zakim]: -Ivan
17:12:26 [Zakim]: -swh
17:12:27 [Zakim]: -EricP
17:12:27 [Zakim]: -Arnaud
17:12:29 [Zakim]: -Guus
17:12:31 [AlexHall]: AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
17:12:34 [Zakim]: -FabGandon
17:12:35 [Zakim]: -AZ
17:12:54 [Zakim]: -cgreer
17:13:04 [gavinc]: http://www.w3.org/2009/CommonScribe/manual.html
17:13:13 [gavinc]: http://www.w3.org/2009/CommonScribe/panel/
17:14:05 [gavinc]: Oooh, better URL https://www.w3.org/2009/CommonScribe/panel/?group=rdf-wg&go=Use+This+Group
17:15:32 [MacTed]: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/index.php?title=Chatlog_2012-02-22&redirect=no
17:16:07 [gavinc]: yep, then the "Preview Nicely formated version"
17:16:08 [MacTed]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-02-22
17:16:09 [gavinc]: and fix
17:16:26 [davidwood]: Scribe page on wiki is now better: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Scribes
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 http://www.w3.org/2012/02/22-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
17:17:02 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, bye
17:17:02 [RRSAgent]: I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/22-rdf-wg-actions.rdf :
17:17:02 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: AndyS to Write email about the "islands" idea [1]
17:17:02 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2012/02/22-rdf-wg-irc#T17-06-41