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