IRC log of rdf-wg on 2012-05-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:56:32 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:56:32 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/02-rdf-wg-irc
14:57:36 [davidwood1]
Zakim, this is rdf-wg
14:57:36 [Zakim]
sorry, davidwood1, I do not see a conference named 'rdf-wg' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:57:42 [davidwood1]
Zakim, this is rdf
14:57:42 [Zakim]
ok, davidwood1; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
14:57:44 [Zakim]
+Guus
14:57:53 [Zakim]
+??P3
14:57:58 [Zakim]
+EricP
14:58:01 [Zakim]
+Tom_Baker (was ??P3)
14:58:05 [Zakim]
+??P8
14:58:31 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:54 [Guus]
Guus has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:17 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:23 [Zakim]
+Sandro
14:59:32 [Zakim]
+gavinc
14:59:48 [yvesr]
Zakim, ??P3 is me
14:59:48 [Zakim]
I already had ??P3 as Tom_Baker, yvesr
14:59:53 [Zakim]
+mhausenblas
14:59:57 [yvesr]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
14:59:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bhyland, Guus, Tom_Baker, EricP, ??P8, Sandro, gavinc, mhausenblas
14:59:58 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:59:58 [cygri]
zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
14:59:59 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:59:59 [Zakim]
+cygri; got it
14:59:59 [Zakim]
+??P15
14:59:59 [Zakim]
+Ivan
15:00:02 [yvesr]
Zakim, ??P8 is me
15:00:03 [Zakim]
+yvesr; got it
15:00:10 [Guus]
zakim, mute me
15:00:10 [Zakim]
Guus should now be muted
15:00:16 [Zakim]
+??P16
15:00:25 [AndyS]
zakim, ??P16 is me
15:00:25 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
15:00:41 [pfps]
zakim, ??P15 is me
15:00:41 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
15:00:43 [pfps]
ack pfps
15:00:51 [pfps]
zakim, ack pfps
15:00:51 [Zakim]
I see ??P15 on the speaker queue
15:00:56 [pfps]
ack ??P15
15:00:59 [AndyS]
zakim, who is making noise?
15:01:01 [davidwood1]
q+
15:01:12 [davidwood1]
q-
15:01:17 [Zakim]
AndyS, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps (56%)
15:01:31 [Zakim]
+??P18
15:01:37 [danbri]
zakim, ??P18 is probably danbri
15:01:37 [Zakim]
+danbri?; got it
15:03:22 [Zakim]
+Arnaud
15:03:29 [gavinc]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_M_keyboard
15:03:41 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:47 [gavinc]
bucking spring!
15:04:10 [gavinc]
err, BUCKLING
15:04:10 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:04:10 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:04:11 [cygri]
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AIbRUjE1jyI/TdQUuKhmy-I/AAAAAAAAAGg/P_U7JwuMRIc/s1600/article-0-0C1972A800000578-285_634x568.jpg
15:04:45 [Zakim]
+??P29
15:05:01 [AZ]
zakim, ??P29
15:05:01 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P29', AZ
15:05:05 [AZ]
zakim, ??P29 is me
15:05:05 [Zakim]
+AZ; got it
15:05:21 [Zakim]
+Souri
15:05:45 [cygri]
scribe: cygri
15:05:47 [davidwood]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 25 Apr telecon:
15:05:47 [davidwood]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-04-25
15:05:54 [cygri]
Topic: Admin
15:06:01 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:06:16 [davidwood]
Topic: Review of action items
15:06:16 [davidwood]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
15:06:16 [davidwood]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
15:06:17 [cygri]
RESOLUTION: accept the minutes of the 25 Apr telecon http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-04-25
15:06:27 [cygri]
Topic: Review of action items
15:06:37 [cygri]
ACTION-126?
15:06:37 [trackbot]
ACTION-126 -- Richard Cyganiak to write up rdf:XMLLiteral proposal on the wiki -- due 2012-01-07 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:06:37 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/126
15:07:08 [cygri]
davidwood: ACTION-126 is complete
15:07:36 [cygri]
ACTION-152
15:07:39 [cygri]
ACTION-152?
15:07:39 [trackbot]
ACTION-152 -- Gavin Carothers to create new issue for :'s in the local part of prefix names -- due 2012-03-21 -- OPEN
15:07:39 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/152
15:07:47 [zwu2]
zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
15:07:55 [cygri]
gavinc: ACTION-152 is overcome by events, can be closed
15:07:59 [zwu2]
zakim, code?
15:07:59 [Zakim]
the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2
15:08:02 [danbri]
q+ to talk re RDFS
15:08:10 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:08:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bhyland, Guus (muted), Tom_Baker, EricP, yvesr, Sandro, gavinc, cygri, pfps, Ivan (muted), AndyS, danbri?, Arnaud, AZ, Souri
15:08:23 [danbri]
I have "Danbri, you wanted to note a bug in RDFS spec; it references Primer example 16 -- an example that doesn't even use rdf:value." and "Move all content of RDF Concepts section 3 (“RDF Vocabulary IRI and Namespace”), and merge it into RDF Schema section 1 as appropriate (or create a new section?)"
15:08:30 [gavinc]
Zakim, who is talking?
15:08:33 [davidwood]
Zakim, who is talking?
15:08:40 [Zakim]
+zwu2
15:08:42 [Zakim]
gavinc, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps (53%), EricP (18%)
15:08:44 [zwu2]
zakim, mute me
15:08:44 [Zakim]
zwu2 should now be muted
15:08:52 [Zakim]
davidwood, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: pfps (50%), danbri? (74%)
15:08:53 [Arnaud]
who's vaccum cleaning?
15:08:54 [ericP]
Zakim, mute pfps
15:08:54 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
15:08:55 [davidwood]
Zakim, mute pfps
15:08:55 [Zakim]
pfps was already muted, davidwood
15:09:22 [danbri]
am i audible?
15:09:48 [cygri]
danbri: i'm editing rdf-schema and have actions there
15:09:56 [cygri]
... but waiting for group decisions
15:10:11 [cygri]
davidwood: i don't think we're talking about much that affects rdf-schema
15:10:16 [cygri]
danbri: what about datatypes?
15:10:20 [cygri]
q+
15:10:42 [cygri]
davidwood: some issues on that are on the agenda for today
15:10:47 [cygri]
q-
15:11:08 [cygri]
danbri: how about add two more months to these actions
15:11:17 [davidwood]
Topic: RDF Concepts Proposals
15:11:28 [davidwood]
PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:duration, xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of allowed XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:11:28 [davidwood]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html
15:12:37 [davidwood]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XSD_Datatypes
15:13:20 [Zakim]
+??P0
15:13:22 [AndyS]
q+
15:13:27 [danbri]
ack danbri
15:13:27 [Zakim]
danbri, you wanted to talk re RDFS
15:13:30 [davidwood]
ack AndyS
15:13:46 [NickH]
Zakim, ??P15 is me
15:13:46 [Zakim]
I already had ??P15 as pfps, NickH
15:13:56 [davidwood]
AndyS: xsd:precisionDecimal is defined in a Note, not a Rec
15:14:10 [NickH]
Zakim, ??P13 is me
15:14:10 [Zakim]
I already had ??P13 as cygri, NickH
15:14:15 [NickH]
Zakim, ??P0 is me
15:14:15 [Zakim]
+NickH; got it
15:14:27 [NickH]
Zakim, mute me
15:14:27 [Zakim]
NickH should now be muted
15:14:28 [AndyS]
http://www.w3.org/TR/xsd-precisionDecimal/
15:14:32 [pfps]
q+
15:14:41 [davidwood]
ack pfps
15:14:41 [AndyS]
WG Note
15:15:28 [cygri]
q+
15:15:29 [PatH]
PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:15:46 [davidwood]
ack cygri
15:15:48 [cygri]
pfps: we should first figure out what's the relationship to OWL and RIF
15:16:13 [Zakim]
+PatH
15:16:53 [ivan]
q+
15:16:59 [davidwood]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XSD_Datatypes
15:17:10 [cygri]
cygri: what's in OWL and RIF doesn't constrain what we say in RDF
15:17:53 [cygri]
davidwood: we presumably will fold in some of the new XSD datatypes except where there's a reason against it
15:18:43 [cygri]
sandro: does the list of types affect conformance?
15:19:02 [cygri]
AndyS: read it as: here are some types you can use
15:19:12 [PatH]
especially as the 2004 text explicitly looks forward to the improvements we now have.
15:19:51 [cygri]
sandro: if it's a SHOULD in RDF, then any misalignment doesn't really affect anyone
15:20:10 [cygri]
... they should be the same as a matter of convenience
15:20:32 [ivan]
zakim, unmute me
15:20:32 [Zakim]
Ivan should no longer be muted
15:20:33 [cygri]
davidwood: RIF and OWL already failed to codify all the RDF 2004 datatypes. nothing we can do to fix that
15:20:41 [pfps]
q+
15:20:48 [davidwood]
ack ivan
15:21:21 [cygri]
ivan: for example xsd:gYear is not in owl, for reasons i can't remember
15:21:33 [cygri]
... i can see no reason for not having it in RDF
15:22:00 [cygri]
... for due diligence, we should check that all OWL and RIF datatypes are listed in RDF
15:22:32 [cygri]
davidwood: the only difference are the three new XSD types. the proposal is to fold these three in
15:22:33 [PatH]
it is fine for rdf to allow a dtype which owl or rif prohibits; the opposite is problematic.
15:22:42 [cygri]
q+
15:23:03 [sandro]
PatH, RDF isn't allowing or prohibiting these, just "recommending" them.
15:23:07 [cygri]
ivan: it should be checked carefully that all the RIF+OWL types are in
15:23:10 [gavinc]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/XSD_Datatypes is what your asking for Ivan
15:23:19 [AndyS]
FYI: gYear is not comparable in F&O - it makes life interesting if strict.
15:23:22 [Zakim]
-zwu2
15:23:30 [cygri]
davidwood: my only concern was why precisionDecimal wasn't in
15:23:33 [davidwood]
ack pfps
15:24:04 [Zakim]
+zwu2
15:24:04 [cygri]
pfps: the history with the xsd:gYear and related time types were in OWL1
15:24:17 [cygri]
... they were in OWL1
15:24:43 [cygri]
... they have no well-defined ordering, hence have problems in OWL and RIF
15:25:02 [cygri]
davidwood: nothing in this proposal talks about revisiting the RDF 2004 types
15:25:17 [PatH]
we could note the problems, however.
15:25:34 [davidwood]
PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:duration, xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of allowed XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:25:34 [davidwood]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html
15:25:43 [davidwood]
q?
15:25:48 [sandro]
sandro: So this proposal in no way precludes removing gDay tomorrow.
15:25:50 [sandro]
issue-66?
15:25:50 [trackbot]
ISSUE-66 -- Update XSD datatype map with new XSD 1.1 datatypes -- open
15:25:50 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/66
15:25:50 [AndyS]
SPARQL is not like RIF here (don't know about OWL) ... SPARQL copes with "indeterminate", RIF does not.
15:25:53 [cygri]
sandro: the proposal doesn't preclude paring down the list later on
15:25:58 [davidwood]
ack cygri
15:26:14 [PatH]
q+
15:27:40 [ivan]
q+
15:27:52 [ivan]
q-
15:27:55 [gavinc]
q?
15:27:58 [davidwood]
ack PatH
15:28:06 [PatH]
q-
15:28:18 [davidwood]
PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of allowed XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:28:18 [davidwood]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html
15:28:48 [sandro]
+1
15:28:50 [ivan]
+1
15:28:54 [davidwood]
+1
15:28:59 [AZ]
+1
15:29:02 [yvesr]
+1
15:29:05 [ivan]
zakim, who is noisy?
15:29:08 [AndyS]
"allowed" -> "recommended"
15:29:08 [danbri]
+1
15:29:16 [Zakim]
ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (9%), pfps (62%), Ivan (5%)
15:29:22 [Arnaud]
+1
15:29:26 [pfps]
-0, as I still worry about xsd:dateTime
15:29:36 [tbaker]
+0
15:29:52 [pfps]
s/xsd:dateTime/xsd:duration/
15:30:55 [Arnaud]
I'm actually not happy with the handling of timezones, or lack of, with those datatypes but that's orthogonal
15:30:55 [davidwood]
There were no verbal objections to making AndyS's change in wording:
15:31:02 [davidwood]
PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of recommended XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:31:02 [davidwood]
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0009.html
15:31:03 [gavinc]
+1
15:31:09 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:31:09 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:31:29 [cygri]
RESOLUTION: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of recommended XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:32:02 [cygri]
pfps, does this work for you?
15:32:05 [davidwood]
PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:duration to the table of recommended XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:32:06 [cygri]
ISSUE-87?
15:32:06 [trackbot]
ISSUE-87 -- Revisit RDF 2004 datatypes that have proven troublesome in OWL and RIF -- raised
15:32:06 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/87
15:32:24 [davidwood]
s/ISSUE-66/some new issue/
15:33:03 [davidwood]
PROPOSAL: Add xsd:duration to the table of recommended XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1 (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
15:33:14 [gavinc]
+1
15:33:27 [PatH]
+1
15:33:28 [ivan]
+1
15:34:40 [gavinc]
Also xsd:duration is a two value tuple with months and seconds. The duration modal used in HTML and microformats is also now aligned with this model
15:34:49 [sandro]
very, very clever.
15:35:11 [davidwood]
+1
15:35:37 [sandro]
+1
15:35:47 [yvesr]
+1
15:36:17 [ivan]
q+
15:36:36 [PatH]
fofl, ericP
15:36:46 [davidwood]
ack Ivan
15:37:07 [cygri]
pfps: XSD has had problems in the past. OWL WG looked at XSD 1.1 drafts to check what works, and xsd:duration didn't pass the bar
15:37:30 [cygri]
ivan: Boris Motik looked at XSD 1.1 and from he said it looks fine
15:37:56 [cygri]
... also: if a datatype doesn't work in OWL or RIF, that's not a reason to not allow it or remove it from RDF
15:38:07 [PatH]
+1 ivan
15:38:14 [cygri]
... it's fine for OWL and RIF to restrict the list
15:38:28 [davidwood]
q?
15:38:29 [cygri]
... but we're not talking about OWL or RIF here.
15:38:39 [PatH]
RDF can (must) be more permissive than owl or rif
15:38:55 [PatH]
q+
15:39:00 [AndyS]
Overblown : +1 : Any DT is legal.
15:39:30 [cygri]
pfps: RDF can make its own choices. but it should consider OWL work
15:39:32 [gavinc]
So we're clear we are talking about http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#duration
15:39:44 [davidwood]
ack PatH
15:40:08 [davidwood]
PatH: It is fine for RDF to be more permissive than OWL.
15:40:25 [danbri]
(aside, I keep running into requests for fuzzier dates, e.g. in a cultural heritage setting, or vague info in geneaology; I've no expectation RDF's core will address this...)
15:40:28 [cygri]
PatH: RDF is more permissive. RDF allowing more is fine. the other way round would be a problem
15:40:35 [gavinc]
The old text said: xsd:duration does not have a well-defined value space (this may be corrected in later revisions of XML Schema datatypes, in which case the revised datatype would be suitable for use in RDF datatyping
15:40:51 [davidwood]
danbri, good point.
15:40:54 [cygri]
... as long as RDF doesn't obstruct OWL, it's fine
15:41:08 [gavinc]
There is a later revision of XML Schema that has been correct and has a well defined value space
15:42:34 [cygri]
pfps: to play nice we should have the courtesy to ask the OWL WG
15:42:46 [gavinc]
Rushing? The issue was opened in the spec itself in 2004!
15:42:50 [cygri]
... and also RIF and SPARQL
15:43:14 [sandro]
q?
15:43:17 [sandro]
q+
15:43:46 [cygri]
... W3C has a long history where subsequent standards try very hard to cover all of RDF. we should not break this
15:43:47 [AndyS]
This is called out in the Linked Data Platform WG charter.
15:44:25 [cygri]
q+
15:44:27 [davidwood]
ack Sandro
15:45:05 [cygri]
sandro: we might be able to amend this in OWL when we re-open the OWL WG due to XSD 1.1 REC
15:45:12 [cygri]
pfps: that would be the preferred route
15:47:18 [gavinc]
+q
15:47:22 [PatH]
q+
15:47:48 [davidwood]
ack cygri
15:48:16 [sandro]
zakim, who is talking?
15:48:19 [PatH]
loud typing...
15:48:27 [Zakim]
sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: cygri (86%), pfps (9%), Ivan (34%)
15:48:37 [davidwood]
cygri: Datatypes being broken for RIF. OWL or SPARQL does not infer that they are broken for RDF.
15:48:38 [cygri]
ISSUE-87?
15:48:38 [trackbot]
ISSUE-87 -- Revisit RDF 2004 datatypes that have proven troublesome in OWL and RIF -- raised
15:48:38 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/87
15:48:38 [gavinc]
zakim mute ivan
15:48:39 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:48:39 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:49:15 [sandro]
s/danbri/davidwood/
15:49:49 [sandro]
q+
15:50:13 [sandro]
+1 cygri lets proceed, knowing issue-87 now exists
15:50:25 [davidwood]
ack gavinc
15:51:27 [cygri]
gavinc: jeremy and alex revisited xsd:duration and said the value space is now fine. whom are we looking for to provide another answer?
15:51:48 [cygri]
pfps: we should ask OWL WG
15:52:17 [davidwood]
ack PatH
15:52:19 [cygri]
sandro: can we proceed, knowing ISSUE-87 now exists?
15:52:34 [cygri]
pfps: i'd still vote against
15:53:02 [cygri]
PatH: we should reject the argument that RDF has a duty to align exactly with other specs like OWL and RIF
15:53:11 [sandro]
Technically, the OWL and RIF WGs still exist, in order to handle XSD 1.1 finally going to REC. (danbri)
15:53:27 [cygri]
... the consequence would be that if OWL and RIF don't like something in RDF, we'd have to remove it
15:53:43 [sandro]
q?
15:53:45 [cygri]
... actually, the most restrictive language is SPARQL
15:53:50 [AndyS]
q+
15:54:08 [ericP]
the bar for minimal implementation for SPARQL requires implementing a subset of these datatypes
15:54:17 [pfps]
q+
15:54:27 [danbri]
where in http://www.w3.org/2007/06/OWLCharter.html or nearby does it say the OWL group is still chartered by W3C?
15:54:28 [ericP]
the behavior is defined for use with other XSD datatypes
15:54:34 [ivan]
ack sandro
15:54:37 [ericP]
(behavior of SPARQL)
15:54:53 [cygri]
... so i would object to consulting the other WGs unless we do something that interferes with their work. adding a datatype doesn't
15:55:07 [cygri]
sandro: we are chartered to look at compatibility
15:55:39 [davidwood]
ack AndyS
15:56:09 [cygri]
AndyS: SPARQL doens't "ban" anything. it's extensible. there's a core set of types that you need to implement. anythign else can be added
15:56:18 [davidwood]
ack pfps
15:56:40 [cygri]
pfps: i'm agreeing with sandro
15:57:03 [cygri]
ACTION: pfps to talk to the OWL WG about ISSUE-87 and xsd:duration
15:57:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-164 - Talk to the OWL WG about ISSUE-87 and xsd:duration [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2012-05-09].
15:57:18 [ivan]
zakim, drop me
15:57:18 [Zakim]
Ivan is being disconnected
15:57:18 [Zakim]
-Ivan
15:57:24 [cygri]
ACTION-164?
15:57:24 [trackbot]
ACTION-164 -- Peter Patel-Schneider to talk to the OWL WG about ISSUE-87 and xsd:duration -- due 2012-05-09 -- OPEN
15:57:24 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/164
15:57:36 [Zakim]
-NickH
15:57:47 [davidwood]
PROPOSAL: RDF-WG will work on an HTML datatype that would be defined in RDF Concepts.
15:57:47 [davidwood]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0010.html
15:57:56 [cygri]
q+
15:58:07 [davidwood]
ack cygri
15:58:50 [gavinc]
cygri: Intent to see if there is anyone who thinks the WG shouldn't do the work to figure what the technical soution might be
15:59:20 [gavinc]
ericP: This is like XMLLiteral but for HTML?
15:59:53 [PatH]
suggest we add GLDWG and LDP to Peter's list of WGs to consult.
16:00:15 [cygri]
cygri: yes. just for adding bits of HTML markup into strings.
16:00:42 [ericP]
i've certainly wanted to use this in the past
16:00:46 [gavinc]
+1 and willing to work on
16:01:27 [gavinc]
sandro, yes it might be very simple
16:01:46 [ericP]
+1 i see a need for it
16:01:46 [PatH]
also add RDB2RDF to the WGs in Peters list.
16:01:52 [cygri]
davidwood: can we get agreement that the working group wants to work on such a datatype?
16:01:54 [Arnaud]
+1
16:01:56 [davidwood]
+1
16:01:57 [Zakim]
-Souri
16:01:59 [PatH]
+1
16:02:01 [AndyS]
+1
16:02:03 [zwu2]
+1
16:02:09 [sandro]
+1 assuming it might just be a string, with a different name so you know it's got markup
16:02:12 [pfps]
+0
16:02:22 [AZ]
+0.1
16:02:27 [danbri]
+/- 0.001
16:03:22 [cygri]
RESOLUTION: RDF-WG will work on an HTML datatype that would be defined in RDF Concepts.
16:03:27 [davidwood]
PROPOSAL: Resolve http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/86 (GraphIsomorphism): Incompatible definitions of “graph equivalence” between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics by:
16:03:27 [davidwood]
1.renaming “graph equivalence” to “graph isomorphism” in RDF Concepts, and
16:03:27 [davidwood]
2.adding a sentence in the RDF Semantics section on simple entailment, stating that isomorphic graphs are equivalent under simple entailment?
16:03:28 [davidwood]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0011.html
16:03:50 [PatH]
+1
16:03:52 [AZ]
+1
16:04:20 [pfps]
I've read it.
16:04:23 [AndyS]
suggestion -- somewhere say "blank node isomorphism" (not essential)
16:04:34 [pfps]
+0.5
16:05:10 [PatH]
dont like mentioning blank nodes more than absolutely necessary.
16:05:19 [pfps]
I agree with Pat
16:05:29 [davidwood]
+1
16:05:30 [PatH]
so there.
16:05:33 [zwu2]
+1
16:05:36 [danbri]
±¾³
16:06:11 [PatH]
ithnk 86 was nem. con.
16:06:11 [tbaker]
+1 on 86
16:06:17 [cygri]
RESOLUTION: Resolve ISSUE-86 as proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0011.html
16:07:00 [cygri]
Topic: Turtle LC
16:07:11 [cygri]
gavinc: there are still issues with the document
16:07:39 [cygri]
... can we change definition of parsing from declarative to pseudocode?
16:07:47 [cygri]
... there was an objection to that earlier on
16:08:07 [cygri]
... i'm happy to rewrite it to pseudocode as the current one is not quite complete/correct
16:08:30 [cygri]
... i don't recall who objected or why
16:08:59 [cygri]
ericP: there was discussion on whether or not to define it recursively
16:09:29 [gavinc]
http://barad-dur.carothers.name./~gavin/rdf-wg/rdf-turtle/#sec-parsing-triples
16:09:57 [danbri]
regarding pseudocode, this seems to be the relevant Wikipedia documentation guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Algorithms_on_Wikipedia
16:10:32 [PatH]
that page says This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference
16:11:32 [cygri]
(technical discussion on current definition of turtle parsing)
16:12:07 [davidwood]
q?
16:12:56 [cygri]
davidwood: can you do may 16th for a new draft?
16:13:13 [cygri]
q+
16:13:21 [PatH]
good point.
16:13:36 [davidwood]
ack cygri
16:13:42 [danbri]
davidwood, what kind of discontent are you expecting re named graphs? Just that it's not done yet?
16:14:15 [davidwood]
danbri, no, just emotional reactions to the fact that we have spent a lot of time on it. Markets hate uncertainty.
16:14:43 [Guus]
+1 to both publications
16:14:55 [PatH]
everything refers to Concepts.
16:15:28 [cygri]
davidwood: can we have new RDF Concepts draft too by 16th?
16:15:32 [cygri]
cygri: ok
16:15:34 [PatH]
q+
16:15:41 [davidwood]
ack PatH
16:16:04 [davidwood]
Close Action-163
16:16:04 [trackbot]
ACTION-163 Send mail to ietf-types to request the media type application/n-triples closed
16:16:15 [Zakim]
-pfps
16:16:27 [cygri]
PatH: we should also get feedback on datatypes etc from the new linked data protocol WG and from RDB2RDF
16:17:08 [Zakim]
-yvesr
16:17:09 [cygri]
davidwood: adjourned
16:17:11 [Zakim]
-zwu2
16:17:13 [zwu2]
bye
16:17:15 [Zakim]
-Arnaud
16:17:21 [PatH]
loitering
16:17:32 [Zakim]
-gavinc
16:17:53 [cygri]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:18:03 [danbri]
from Guus 0 mins ago, '"Space" would be acceptable for me. Vague enough :-). '
16:18:08 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:18:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bhyland, Guus (muted), Tom_Baker, EricP, Sandro, cygri, AndyS, danbri?, AZ, PatH
16:18:25 [Guus]
zakim, unmute me
16:18:25 [Zakim]
Guus should no longer be muted
16:18:47 [sandro]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-layers/index.html#
16:21:21 [danbri]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Graph_Terminology#Graph_Concept_Terminology
16:22:08 [danbri]
pat: go for the identity criteria...
16:26:28 [danbri]
(fwiw myspace used to give you different metadata depending on the country you did the GET from ... http://www.myspace.com/madonna seems quite generic now though, maybe fixed?)
16:26:54 [PatH]
apparently google does that.
16:27:23 [AndyS]
Google does -- at least now it sometimes asks you if you want to switch.
16:28:32 [AndyS]
f(x,y) = x is a projection. f(rdf, html) = rdf
16:29:51 [AndyS]
For me -- containers, and boxes works better but that's personal preference.
16:30:23 [PatH]
+1 andy on projections.
16:31:01 [AndyS]
BTW (1) Please link to SPARQL formal defs not the descriptive text and (2) refer to SPARQL Update (urgent)
16:31:05 [cygri]
-1 to sandro. authentication for example is a basic part of the web
16:31:27 [sandro]
but cygri it's not supposed to give you significantly different content.
16:31:32 [danbri]
q+ to suggest layers also useful talking about processing pipelines; and to give an authenticated use case
16:31:33 [AndyS]
Base URIs !!!!
16:31:52 [danbri]
all your Base URIs belong... ?
16:32:47 [AndyS]
:-) virtual hosts change the RDF - the name of a layer affects the possible representation.
16:32:50 [danbri]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:32:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bhyland, Guus, Tom_Baker, EricP, Sandro, cygri, AndyS, danbri?, AZ, PatH
16:34:13 [danbri]
can i give a concrete example pls?
16:34:16 [danbri]
re historical-data.org
16:35:28 [PatH]
lets hear danbris example before i have to leave.
16:38:02 [cygri]
q+
16:38:07 [danbri]
q-
16:39:50 [danbri]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8562801.stm
16:40:03 [AndyS]
g-acces
16:40:09 [AndyS]
g-access
16:40:27 [AndyS]
representation (AWWW)
16:40:48 [danbri]
it's like g-text + packet describing where/whence it came
16:40:57 [sandro]
g-resource
16:41:14 [PatH]
so. If I follow all this, the issue is that real life web access is way messier than looking into a box, so do we take IRI names to refer to an idealized box, or to the actual thing, if there is one, that the Web provides to serve HTTP GET?
16:41:17 [danbri]
it's a "pickled/packaged REST response"
16:41:54 [PatH]
pointer to those more recent formal accounts?
16:41:54 [danbri]
how many of http://www.alexa.com/topsites only vary by time?
16:42:11 [AndyS]
Hmm - Because it's complicated and messy, people simplify,leads to the different meanings of graph and other language.
16:42:43 [Zakim]
-EricP
16:42:45 [danbri]
let's not make too much of a sentence from a phd thesis
16:43:38 [danbri]
PatH, can you say anything about how surfaces fit with our more recent discussions?
16:44:21 [PatH]
ill try. ZThey are orthogonal to this issue i think.
16:44:52 [danbri]
( http://panopticlick.eff.org/browser-uniqueness.pdf )
16:48:05 [tbaker]
sandro++
16:48:42 [Zakim]
-Sandro
16:48:51 [Zakim]
-Guus
16:48:56 [AZ]
bye
16:49:00 [Zakim]
-AZ
16:51:33 [AndyS]
Bye all
16:51:39 [Zakim]
-AndyS
16:57:33 [sandro]
wrong channel tbaker ?
16:58:23 [tbaker]
No - A book/TED talk was mentioned - didn't catch name
17:00:53 [Zakim]
-danbri?
17:01:00 [Zakim]
-cygri
17:01:01 [danbri]
interesting stuff, cheers all
17:03:12 [PatH]
http://www.thefilterbubble.com/
17:04:08 [Zakim]
-PatH
17:04:11 [Zakim]
-bhyland
17:04:14 [Zakim]
-Tom_Baker
17:04:15 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
17:04:16 [Zakim]
Attendees were bhyland, Guus, EricP, Tom_Baker, Sandro, gavinc, cygri, Ivan, yvesr, AndyS, pfps, danbri?, Arnaud, AZ, Souri, zwu2, NickH, PatH
17:25:00 [gavinc]
gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
17:55:45 [cygri]
cygri has joined #rdf-wg
17:56:42 [cygri]
ACTION: pfps to note in RDF Semantics section on Simple Entailment that the RDF Concepts term “graph isomorphism” is the same as “graph equivalence” under simple entailment
17:56:42 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-165 - Note in RDF Semantics section on Simple Entailment that the RDF Concepts term “graph isomorphism” is the same as “graph equivalence” under simple entailment [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2012-05-09].
17:57:31 [cygri]
ACTION: PatH to remove list of XSD datatypes and related discussion from RDF Semantics (and reference the list in RDF Concepts instead, if appropriate)
17:57:31 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-166 - Remove list of XSD datatypes and related discussion from RDF Semantics (and reference the list in RDF Concepts instead, if appropriate) [on Patrick Hayes - due 2012-05-09].
17:57:36 [cygri]
ACTION-165?
17:57:36 [trackbot]
ACTION-165 -- Peter Patel-Schneider to note in RDF Semantics section on Simple Entailment that the RDF Concepts term “graph isomorphism” is the same as “graph equivalence” under simple entailment -- due 2012-05-09 -- OPEN
17:57:36 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/165
17:57:39 [cygri]
ACTION-166?
17:57:39 [trackbot]
ACTION-166 -- Patrick Hayes to remove list of XSD datatypes and related discussion from RDF Semantics (and reference the list in RDF Concepts instead, if appropriate) -- due 2012-05-09 -- OPEN
17:57:40 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/166
19:20:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-wg
20:24:18 [danbri]
danbri has joined #rdf-wg