IRC log of rdf-wg on 2012-04-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:09:34 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:09:34 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:09:36 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:09:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:09:38 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
14:09:38 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 51 minutes
14:09:39 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:09:39 [trackbot]
Date: 11 April 2012
14:19:35 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
14:28:09 [danbri_]
danbri_ has joined #rdf-wg
14:45:28 [gavinc]
gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
14:57:15 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
14:57:15 [pchampin_]
pchampin_ has joined #rdf-wg
14:57:21 [Zakim]
14:57:26 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P0 is me
14:57:26 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:57:34 [AndyS]
trackbot, start meeting
14:57:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
14:57:39 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:57:40 [trackbot]
Date: 11 April 2012
14:57:56 [AndyS]
zakim, this is 73394
14:57:56 [Zakim]
ok, AndyS; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
14:58:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.540.898.aaaa
14:58:09 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:58:09 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:58:11 [Zakim]
14:58:20 [NickH]
+44.203.318.0479 isn't Zakim anymore!
14:58:30 [NickH]
it is some American company
14:59:08 [Zakim]
14:59:20 [NickH]
Zakim, ??P3 is me
14:59:20 [Zakim]
+NickH; got it
14:59:21 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:27 [NickH]
NickH: still here
14:59:31 [NickH]
14:59:39 [davidwood]
Zakim, who is here?
14:59:39 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AndyS, +1.540.898.aaaa, Ivan, NickH
14:59:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see tbaker, pchampin_, gavinc, danbri_, AndyS, Zakim, RRSAgent, swh, MacTed, LeeF, mischat, ivan, Arnaud, davidwood, manu1, manu, yvesr_, NickH, trackbot, sandro, ericP
14:59:52 [davidwood]
Zakim, aaaa is me
14:59:52 [Zakim]
+davidwood; got it
14:59:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.707.861.aabb
15:00:00 [NickH]
Zakim, mute me
15:00:00 [Zakim]
NickH should now be muted
15:00:04 [gavinc]
Zakim, aabb is me
15:00:04 [Zakim]
+gavinc; got it
15:00:39 [PatH]
PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.899.aacc
15:01:45 [davidwood]
tbaker, please try again
15:01:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.996.aadd
15:02:13 [Zakim]
15:02:15 [Arnaud]
zakim, aadd is me
15:02:15 [Zakim]
+Arnaud; got it
15:02:25 [Zakim]
15:02:28 [pchampin_]
zakim, ??P8 is me
15:02:29 [Zakim]
+pchampin_; got it
15:02:42 [tbaker]
zakim, ??P13 is tbaker
15:02:45 [Zakim]
+tbaker; got it
15:02:51 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
15:02:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AndyS, davidwood, Ivan, NickH (muted), gavinc, +1.781.899.aacc, Arnaud, pchampin_, tbaker
15:03:03 [Zakim]
On IRC I see PatH, tbaker, pchampin_, gavinc, danbri_, AndyS, Zakim, RRSAgent, swh, MacTed, LeeF, mischat, ivan, Arnaud, davidwood, manu1, manu, yvesr_, NickH, trackbot, sandro,
15:03:08 [Zakim]
... ericP
15:03:10 [Zakim]
15:03:12 [sandro]
zakim, aacc is Sandro
15:03:16 [Zakim]
+Sandro; got it
15:03:16 [swh]
Zakim, ??P14 is me
15:03:24 [Zakim]
+ +31.20.598.aaee
15:03:26 [Zakim]
+swh; got it
15:03:28 [Guus]
Guus has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:37 [Zakim]
15:03:44 [ivan]
zakim, aaee is Guus
15:03:55 [Zakim]
+Guus; got it
15:03:58 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.273.aaff
15:04:09 [MacTed]
Zakim, aaff is OpenLink_Software
15:04:19 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software; got it
15:04:30 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:04:39 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Softwareis temporarily me
15:04:41 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:04:46 [pchampin_]
scribe: pchampin
15:04:47 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:04:48 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:04:51 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'OpenLink_Softwareis temporarily me', MacTed
15:04:56 [Zakim]
sorry, MacTed, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:05:00 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:05:01 [davidwood]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 4 Apr telecon:
15:05:01 [davidwood]
15:05:06 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:05:06 [pchampin_]
topic: last week minutes
15:05:27 [PatH]
zakim, mute me
15:05:32 [Zakim]
PatH should now be muted
15:05:38 [Souri]
Souri has joined #RDF-WG
15:05:40 [pchampin_]
RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 4 Apr telecon
15:05:44 [davidwood]
Action item review:
15:05:44 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - item
15:05:44 [davidwood]
15:05:44 [davidwood]
15:05:54 [pchampin_]
topic: action item review
15:06:15 [Zakim]
15:06:29 [gavinc]
Andy's review is complete. And we asked Pierre Antoine not to do it yet
15:06:41 [AZ]
zakim, ??P25 is me
15:06:41 [Zakim]
+AZ; got it
15:06:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.603.897.aagg
15:07:15 [AndyS]
15:07:15 [Souri]
zakim, aagg is me
15:07:16 [Zakim]
+Souri; got it
15:07:32 [AndyS]
15:07:44 [Zakim]
15:07:56 [AndyS]
My review is gone-as-much as i can - need to do grammar
15:09:31 [AndyS]
close ACTION-157
15:09:31 [trackbot]
ACTION-157 Review Turtle LC draft by April 9 closed
15:09:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.324.aahh
15:09:56 [pchampin_]
david: Tom Baker is with us today
15:10:05 [ericP]
Zakim, aahh is me
15:10:05 [Zakim]
+ericP; got it
15:10:09 [pchampin_]
... he is involved in the RDF for Library group
15:10:19 [ivan]
15:10:23 [pchampin_]
... and came to us to discuss a use case he has for named graphs
15:10:36 [ivan]
s/Library group/Library Incubator group/
15:10:47 [pchampin_]
... may be an important one to include in our short list
15:11:06 [pchampin_]
topic: named graphs
15:11:23 [gavinc]
Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR)
15:11:24 [davidwood]
s/Library Incubator group/Library Linked Data Interest Group/
15:11:40 [pchampin_]
tom: distinction between general properties of a resource (title, subject)
15:12:04 [ivan]
s/Data Interest Group/Data Incubator Group/
15:12:08 [pchampin_]
... and very specific properties (e.g. the fact that it's missing a page)
15:12:49 [PatH]
zakim, unmute me
15:12:49 [Zakim]
PatH should no longer be muted
15:13:05 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:13:05 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:13:07 [pchampin_]
... FRBR has different levels, from very generic to very specific (Work/Expression/Manifestation/Item)
15:13:17 [pchampin_]
... semantized as four disjoint classes
15:13:52 [pchampin_]
... problem: in the end of the day, I'm describing a book, a single thing, not 4 distinct entities
15:14:34 [pchampin_]
... if I'm describing a bible, some properties will apply to the Work or the Expression
15:14:41 [pchampin_]
... while some others will apply to the Item
15:14:47 [ivan]
-> Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records
15:14:48 [Zakim]
15:14:55 [pchampin_]
... but I don't want to have to specify to which it applies for every property
15:15:39 [pchampin_]
... idea: to use named graphs
15:15:44 [Zakim]
15:16:09 [pchampin_]
... you have 4 chunks of statements :
15:16:15 [ivan]
-> Tom's email with the details
15:16:32 [pchampin_]
work-level, expression-level, manifestation-level, item-level
15:16:50 [pchampin_]
... work-level, expression-level, manifestation-level, item-level
15:17:14 [pchampin_]
... each maintained at different level (national library for the work-level, personal? for item-level)
15:17:33 [pchampin_]
... better solution than to copy-paste info from high-level to low-level?
15:18:33 [pchampin_]
... refering to "frames" as a mean to merge information from different levels; is that the same as a graph?
15:18:53 [PatH]
15:18:54 [davidwood]
15:19:00 [gavinc]
15:19:57 [pchampin_]
david: where do you see the line between what should be handled by RDF itself, and what should be handled by a higher level application?
15:20:51 [ivan]
ack PatH
15:20:59 [pchampin_]
tom: the notion of "frame" seems to be close to the notion of named graph, hence relevant for RDF
15:21:05 [davidwood]
tbaker: Hopes that RDF will support named graphs and merges of named graphs.
15:21:08 [davidwood]
ack PatH
15:21:30 [pchampin_]
... then the way item-level inherits manifestation-level but not the other way around would be application specific
15:21:49 [pchampin_]
pat: why named graphs? why not simply graphs?
15:22:35 [pchampin_]
tom: provenance is an important feature for the library world
15:24:10 [pchampin_]
pat: then what do you want to name? a static graph or a "box" whose content may change in time?
15:25:09 [pchampin_]
tom: that would rather be the "box"
15:25:17 [pchampin_]
... although there would be some versioning issue,
15:25:42 [pchampin_]
... you would want to be able to access a previous version of a given description level
15:25:46 [davidwood]
ack gavinc
15:26:15 [tbaker]
URL of the FRBR use case mentioned by Gavin?
15:26:18 [pchampin_]
gavin: I hope that some of our use cases match, as they come from an implementation of FRBR in RDF
15:27:35 [tbaker]
+1 for dynamic
15:27:44 [pchampin_]
gavin: in that implementation, the naming *had* to be dynamic (i.e. name "boxes" rather than static graphs)
15:27:57 [pchampin_]
... as different organizations maintained different levels
15:28:30 [pchampin_]
... and they had to reference someone else's description, despite the fact that this description might evolve
15:28:40 [tbaker]
q+ to ask if Gavin has proposed something quite similar to this concept?
15:29:35 [pchampin_]
gavin: not everything true about the work has to be true about the item
15:29:58 [davidwood]
ack tbaker
15:29:58 [Zakim]
tbaker, you wanted to ask if Gavin has proposed something quite similar to this concept?
15:29:59 [pchampin_]
... e.g. the title of the item may include the words "2nd edition", while the title of the work does not include them
15:30:01 [PatH]
q+ for my third q
15:30:42 [pchampin_]
tbaker: this is an interesting question to the library people
15:30:51 [pchampin_]
... which use case are about FRBR, precisely?
15:31:30 [pchampin_]
gavin: the term FRBR does not appear explicitly, but several of them come from that implementation
15:31:40 [pchampin_]
... an example is: using the subject of the graph as the name of the graph
15:31:40 [PatH]
tbaker says +1 for dynamic but he also wants strict provenancing for old versions, so there has to be some static stuff under the hood.
15:32:29 [pchampin_]
tbaker: this notion of primary subject is an important question for us
15:32:29 [tbaker]
15:33:05 [PatH]
i will stay on the q until this topic is done.
15:33:12 [ericP]
15:33:13 [pchampin_]
david: we've been discussing a way to associate information to the graph itself, rather than the graph content
15:33:23 [Zakim]
15:33:25 [pchampin_]
... would that address this question about the primary subject?
15:33:33 [ericP]
q+ to present two representations <>
15:33:35 [davidwood]
ack PatH
15:33:35 [Zakim]
PatH, you wanted to discuss my third q
15:33:37 [pchampin_]
tbaker: yes, that would be helpful
15:34:01 [ericP]
15:34:11 [gavinc]
+q to answer why you need named graphs
15:34:50 [gavinc]
15:35:07 [pchampin_]
eric: what is the motivation again for having separate graphs rather than one big graph?
15:35:14 [pchampin_]
... (see URL above)
15:35:28 [pchampin_]
tbaker: the motivation is to have the different graphs maintained by different people
15:35:40 [pchampin_]
... and different provenance information associate with them
15:37:18 [MacTed]
descriptionOfWork generated by, transcribed by, input by...
15:37:18 [MacTed]
work generated by, edited by, printed by...
15:37:18 [MacTed]
regarding "primary subject", these may be useful predicates -- foaf:primaryTopic , foaf:topic
15:37:28 [ericP]
15:37:51 [davidwood]
ack ericP
15:37:51 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to present two representations <>
15:39:24 [gavinc]
btw there should be relationships between work1G expression1G manifestation1G and item1G
15:39:30 [gavinc]
otherwise I have no idea why you'd bother ;)
15:39:43 [ivan]
15:39:51 [davidwood]
Social convention is allowed :)
15:41:23 [MacTed]
15:41:28 [pchampin_]
eric: where would I put information stating "Moby Dick is a bad whale"?
15:41:33 [ericP]
15:42:04 [pchampin_]
tbaker: this is the kind of question that would generate a lot of discussion in the library community
15:42:13 [ericP]
gavinc, can you give me a relationship to add to the trig?
15:42:16 [pchampin_]
... everyone agrees that it is good to have different levels
15:42:23 [PatH]
tom just made the case for rdf :-)
15:42:24 [ericP]
(between work1G and expression1G)
15:42:34 [pchampin_]
... but there is disagreement about where to draw the line
15:42:47 [gavinc]
ericP: will help ;)
15:42:57 [davidwood]
ack ivan
15:43:59 [PatH]
15:44:04 [pchampin_]
ivan: in eric's example, the graphs are mostly not relating to each other
15:44:16 [pchampin_]
... so something must be missing
15:44:36 [mox601]
mox601 has joined #rdf-wg
15:44:58 [pchampin_]
... how do you expect the properties to "fly" from work to item, e.g.,
15:45:11 [pchampin_]
... do you expect a generic mechanism to take care of this for you?
15:45:13 [gavinc]
15:45:24 [gavinc]
Example FRBR relationships
15:45:25 [pchampin_]
... or would that be FRBR-specific rules?
15:45:38 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:45:38 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:46:19 [MacTed]
there are triples left out of the "Many Named Graphs" example
15:46:33 [pchampin_]
tbaker: re. FRBR-specific rule, same answer as to David's question sooner.
15:46:34 [MacTed]
they *are* there in the "One RDF Graph" ... and they *should* be in the second as well
15:46:36 [gavinc]
frbr:realization, frbr:realizationOf etc
15:48:14 [MacTed]
15:48:41 [MacTed]
q+ to say inference is commonplace for e.g., subclassOf
15:49:38 [pchampin_]
tbaker: the "inheritance" rules would be FRBR-specific; but what can be generic is how to merge different kinds of informations stored in different named graphs
15:49:46 [ericP] copies the subject relationships from the turtle (but no graph relationships)
15:50:04 [tbaker]
Ivan: we have to be able to express somehow that we take the union of those four graphs and operate rules on the union of the four graphs.
15:50:23 [pchampin_]
ivan: from your example, I understand that we need a mechanism to merge the content of several graphs together
15:50:42 [pchampin_]
... so that we can then do something with that union of graphs: like rules, RDFS, etc...
15:51:17 [tbaker]
Pat: If I understand FRBR, can see that there need to be links starting from item and going to more general... A chain from the item back up to the work. What I don't see is any particular need for links going down the hierarchy.
15:52:24 [gavinc]
PatH, realization, realizationOf
15:53:36 [davidwood]
15:53:40 [pchampin_]
tbaker: one would want to be able to follow the relations in both directions
15:53:40 [davidwood]
ack PatH
15:54:04 [Zakim]
15:54:13 [gavinc]
15:54:29 [danbri_]
folks, sorry I can't join the call. I wrote a giant something on FRBR a year ago; ... short version: FRBR is about describing mass-produced entities, and the link to our notion of 'class' needs examining.
15:54:43 [pchampin_]
pat: why not using class-instance relation in the FRBR hierarchy instead of specific relations?
15:54:49 [davidwood]
Thanks, danbri
15:54:58 [pchampin_]
... e.g. Items are instances of the corresponding Expression
15:55:11 [ericP]
-> with some N3 handle inference
15:55:18 [gavinc]
+1 danbri
15:55:53 [Zakim]
15:56:00 [davidwood]
ack MacTed
15:56:00 [Zakim]
MacTed, you wanted to say inference is commonplace for e.g., subclassOf
15:56:25 [tbaker]
+1 danbri's post on public-lld
15:57:00 [pchampin_]
macted: the fact that FRBR does not model it as class-instance does not prevent one's specific ontology to add that relation and use it for inference
15:57:26 [pchampin_]
s/corresponding Expression/corresponding Manifestation/
15:57:55 [pchampin_]
tbaker: there has been counter-proposals to the 4 distinct levels
15:58:00 [PatH]
+1 also danbri which even has a T-shirt design
15:58:05 [pchampin_]
... someone made a proposal with only 3 levels
15:58:18 [pchampin_]
... music catalogs have a different classification
15:58:46 [davidwood]
15:58:56 [danbri]
(tshirt example ... that's as close as I've come to finding a role for OWL in my life :)
15:59:02 [tbaker]
q+ to ask about next steps
15:59:36 [pchampin_]
macted: what about containers?
15:59:54 [pchampin_]
tbaker: this is another big discussion
16:00:04 [davidwood]
ack tbaker
16:00:04 [Zakim]
tbaker, you wanted to ask about next steps
16:00:25 [Zakim]
16:01:20 [pchampin_]
david: I propose to put tom's use cases in our short list
16:02:01 [sandro]
Pat: What Tom seems to need is the ability to get at graphs, at bits of graphs, and do reasoning with those bits of graphs [ scribe attempt ]
16:02:26 [davidwood]
…also to attach metadata to graphs
16:02:43 [PatH]
Toms use case needs named graphs to support provenance information, metadata, and inference access to the contents of the named graphs, all combined in application-specific ways.
16:03:40 [ericP]
<> uses graphs to perform inferences performed by ?p ?o in <>
16:03:43 [tbaker]
q+ to suggest putting it in wiki with Eric's example
16:04:04 [pchampin_]
sandro: sounds very general, difficult to say if it is addressed or not
16:04:14 [pchampin_]
pat: this is more of an aggregate use case
16:04:17 [davidwood]
ack tbaker
16:04:17 [Zakim]
tbaker, you wanted to suggest putting it in wiki with Eric's example
16:06:06 [pchampin_]
david: could Tom and Eric formulate these use cases on the wiki?
16:06:40 [tbaker]
q+ to quickly respond to Pat
16:06:49 [ivan]
16:06:53 [ivan]
ack tbaker
16:06:53 [Zakim]
tbaker, you wanted to quickly respond to Pat
16:07:05 [gavinc]
There is AN ontology which may be horribly wrong
16:07:25 [davidwood]
ACTION: EricP to work with Tom Baker to add the FRBR use case to
16:07:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-162 - Work with Tom Baker to add the FRBR use case to [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2012-04-18].
16:07:45 [pchampin_]
pat: my concern is: should we focus first on RDF or on the ontology? but let's go on RDF
16:09:02 [davidwood]
16:09:02 [pchampin_]
tbaker: focusing on the RDF and named graphs will help keep the core of the ontology simple [scribe hopse he got it right]
16:09:08 [davidwood]
ack ivan
16:09:33 [PatH]
This may be a first, discussing ontology standards while emptying a cat litter tray.
16:09:33 [pchampin_]
ivan: I don't feel that we are so far off to address Tom's use cases
16:10:12 [PatH]
+1 to ivan on union issue.
16:10:20 [gavinc]
Need to be able to construct unions too!
16:10:32 [PatH]
i feel jubilant.
16:10:48 [tbaker]
I feel jubiliant that Pat feels jubilant
16:10:48 [pchampin_]
... if we agree that the default graph of a dataset would always be the union of all the named graph, then we might have what Tom needs
16:11:36 [sandro]
16:11:38 [sandro]
16:12:08 [AndyS]
Maybe it is not feature of the TriG exchanged, but is done with the named graph once received.
16:12:11 [pchampin_]
... there should be no semantic problem; it's the syntactical details that need to be worked out
16:12:20 [ericP]
-> persuant to ACTION-162
16:12:51 [AndyS]
Maybe it is not feature of the TriG exchanged, but is about what is done with the collection of named graphs once received. -- requirement no dft graph in this case.
16:12:54 [tbaker]
Dave: Proposal already addresses metadata on graphs (Ivan's formalization of Sandro's as tweaked by Pat). The deltas are in relation to where we want to draw the line on inference.
16:13:01 [PatH]
we never say X is always Y if we can give users an easy way to say this particular X is a Y
16:13:25 [pchampin_]
david: the remaining question would then be: where do we draw the line for inference, right?
16:13:30 [tbaker]
Ivan: We draw the line on inference. Ontology-based inference based on FRBR is out there, we should not touch, but in my proposal, inferencing done only on the default graph.
16:14:01 [tbaker]
... This is not the way tom wants to use them. Rather: take the union and do inference on that. Additional trick needed.
16:14:01 [pchampin_]
... with a mechanism to "quote" some of the graphs (i.e. keep them out of inference)
16:14:24 [davidwood]
ack sandro
16:14:25 [tbaker]
Dave: In order to facilitate that inferencing, Tom's proposal may be missing a layer.
16:14:30 [sandro]
sandro: How about we have Merge-Default-Graph-Datasets and Explicit-Default-Graph-Datasets, and use Trig {} to serialize the difference?
16:14:43 [pchampin_]
david: it seems to me that Tom's proposal is missing a layer, though
16:15:09 [davidwood]
Does the inferencing requirement suggest the need for a graph that holds named graphs (single-level nesting)?
16:15:10 [tbaker]
Sandro: As Ivan puts it: in SPARQL world, two types of datasets. Never been explicit about ... .
16:15:14 [PatH]
I have to go very soon.
16:15:25 [pchampin_]
sandro: in the SPARQL world, there has always been two kinds of dataset
16:15:27 [AndyS]
16:15:35 [davidwood]
ack AndyS
16:15:50 [pchampin_]
... need a way to make this explicit in Trig
16:16:10 [PatH]
I got to go, sorry.
16:16:17 [Zakim]
16:16:18 [Zakim]
16:16:36 [tbaker]
Thank you all for the great input - looking forward to follow-up!
16:16:54 [davidwood]
Thanks, tbaker!
16:16:56 [AndyS]
Thanks Tom.
16:17:46 [davidwood]
16:20:04 [ericP]
tbaker, take a peek at <> ?
16:20:59 [Zakim]
16:21:15 [tbaker]
ok - do we want to fold in some of the text from
16:21:57 [mischat]
mischat has joined #rdf-wg
16:24:55 [Zakim]
16:25:17 [Zakim]
16:25:20 [ericP]
tbaker, yeah, i linked to it as a placeholder. it should absolutely recapitulate everything that folks need to swap in the decisions parameters
16:25:55 [davidwood]
pchampin, please see the directions at the top of
16:28:36 [sandro]
Guest: Tom Baker
16:31:20 [Zakim]
16:31:22 [Zakim]
16:31:29 [Zakim]
16:32:50 [Zakim]
16:38:48 [Zakim]
16:51:30 [ericP]
sandro, use case is that it makes librarians confident that they're not losing information that they deem critical
16:52:30 [ericP]
regardless of whether a patron of the library benefits (i have no position on this), this can be viewed as a marketing opportunity
16:56:53 [sandro]
17:01:32 [Zakim]
17:02:12 [sandro]
really, just,... no.
17:05:40 [ericP]
tbaker, <> now links to <>
17:07:45 [ericP]
17:09:22 [sandro]
ericP, want me to join again? Dunno if Zakim will let me.
17:09:41 [ericP]
sandro, we're wrapping up
17:09:46 [sandro]
17:09:57 [ericP]
i'll be at the 'tute in 15 mins but working with karen for 1.5 hrs
17:10:02 [ericP]
avail after that
17:10:06 [davidwood]
17:10:17 [Zakim]
17:10:20 [davidwood]
17:11:12 [sandro]
I remain convince this work is Extremely Wrong. Oh well. Have fun jumping off a cliff, guys.
17:11:36 [sandro]
(or maybe I'm just missing something.)
17:12:29 [davidwood]
sandro, Where is your email with your proof that named graphs didn't need to be nested?
17:12:30 [tbaker]
sandro, did you put a proof on the mailing list why nested named graphs are not needed?
17:13:02 [sandro]
Amazingly, Ted, we think so in completely different ways.
17:13:03 [Zakim]
17:13:09 [Zakim]
17:13:12 [Zakim]
17:13:13 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
17:13:13 [Zakim]
Attendees were AndyS, +1.540.898.aaaa, Ivan, NickH, davidwood, +1.707.861.aabb, gavinc, +1.781.899.aacc, +1.408.996.aadd, Arnaud, pchampin_, tbaker, Sandro, +31.20.598.aaee, swh,
17:13:13 [Zakim]
... PatH, Guus, +1.781.273.aaff, MacTed, AZ, +1.603.897.aagg, Souri, LeeF, +1.617.324.aahh, ericP
17:13:59 [MacTed]
sorry, wrong agreement. I'm wanting to see the proof I seem to have overlooked.
17:15:44 [sandro]
I'm not sure where the email is. The idea is simple: alice says { bob says { charlie says { <a> <b> <c> } } } can be encoded in trig like { g1 a graph; g2 a graph; g3 a graph; g4 a graph; alice says g1 } <g1> { bob says g2 } <g2> {charlie says g3} <g3> { <a> <b> <c> }
17:20:30 [sandro]
danbri, tbaker MacTed ...?
17:21:06 [danbri]
rings a vague bell!
17:21:34 [danbri]
17:21:51 [danbri]
it has alice/bob/charlie
17:22:00 [danbri]
but then so do lots of examples :)
17:22:40 [sandro]
to put it mildly. alice and bob might be more popular than x and y, soon.
17:22:54 [tbaker]
tbaker = tbaker, AFAICT
17:23:04 [sandro]
although I try to only use them for human-ish agents.
17:24:03 [tbaker]
17:33:23 [MacTed]
sandro - so the proof was that Trig notation need not support nested graphs, not that graphs need not be nested. OK. That I can buy.
17:35:34 [sandro]
nesting is a syntactic concept.
17:36:02 [davidwood]
Ah, that one. I recall objecting to that proof based on the fact that Alice wasn't endorsing Bob's triples, but minting some of her own. Ivan agreed, IIRC.
17:36:22 [davidwood]
I don't think we need to nest, though.
17:36:52 [davidwood]
Yes, it is a syntactic concept if we have a universal way to refer to a graph, e.g. by URI.
17:38:09 [sandro]
I think the endorsement conversation was different. BTW, someone from Cambridge Semantics suggested a better example to me yesterday, :Republicans :believe { ... some facts ... }
17:39:16 [sandro]
No, nesting is always a syntactic concept. Period. If we have a flexible enough way to refer to graphs, than we can express things that might otherwise need nesting, without having nesting.
17:39:40 [sandro]
(and with the 6.1 trig semantics, we have something flexible enough, and don't need nesting.)
17:41:44 [sandro]
And to be clear, I just mean nesting in the sense of putting one curly-brace expression within another one. Of course there are non-syntactic notions of "nesting", but I don't know what those might have to do with named graphs.
17:42:11 [sandro]
Sorry I'm being so grumpy today.
17:42:19 [sandro]
FRBR always makes me like that.
17:42:29 [sandro]
17:44:15 [MacTed]
I submit... :Republicans :believe { ... some statements ... }
17:44:42 [MacTed]
and likewise :Democrats :believe { ... some statements ... }
17:45:00 [MacTed]
rather than suggesting any of those statements are actual facts :-)
17:47:52 [MacTed]
putting one curly-brace expression inside another is necessary if we don't have named {g-box, g-snap, g-text}s. thus we need named {g-box, g-snap, g-text}s.
17:49:22 [sandro]
Right, but proposal 6.1 gives us named g-snaps, so we don't need to put curly brace expresisons inside each other.
17:49:42 [sandro]
And yes, I appreciate the balance of including both major political parties.
17:50:27 [sandro]
How about :monotheists :believe { eg:gods owl:cardinality 1 }
17:50:28 [sandro]
17:51:18 [sandro]
(where eg:gods is the property connecting people to the gods which they have some kind of relationship to. )
17:51:26 [sandro]
17:53:31 [danbri]
17:53:38 [sandro]
Maybe they do, but you don't have read-access to their servers.
17:54:02 [sandro]
if they were to follow you back, you could DM them!
18:00:18 [MacTed]
I think they call that "prayer"
18:00:34 [sandro]
18:01:04 [davidwood]
If prayer worked, we wouldn't need a WG
18:03:36 [sandro]
well, be careful what you wish for.
18:03:41 [sandro]
maybe I wished for full employment. :-)
18:03:48 [sandro]
18:43:41 [mox601]
mox601 has joined #rdf-wg
18:44:12 [swh]
swh has joined #rdf-wg
19:00:01 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-wg