<sandro> Guest: Paul Groth
<sandro> Guest: Steven Pemberton
<sandro> Present: Ivan, Mischa, Dan_Brickley, Matheus, Peter, Jan, Baget, Humfrey, Yves, Cygri, Champin, Fabien, Steve, Matteo, Sandro, Wood, Guus
<sandro> Remote: AZ, Gavin, Zhe, Corby, MacTed, Pat, Tom, AlexHall, webr3, LeeF, manu, souri
07:21:55 <tomayac> bonjour monsieur!
Thomas Steiner: bonjour monsieur! ←
07:33:17 <tomayac> "the conference is restricted at this time" => have the dial-in details changed? using rdfwg1# code
(No events recorded for 11 minutes)
Thomas Steiner: "the conference is restricted at this time" => have the dial-in details changed? using rdfwg1# code ←
07:34:05 <FabGandon> should work but we haven't called yet and a number of participants are still missing in the room
Fabien Gandon: should work but we haven't called yet and a number of participants are still missing in the room ←
07:34:26 <tomayac> 9:30 sharp-ish ;-)
Thomas Steiner: 9:30 sharp-ish ;-) ←
07:40:29 <Steven_> zakim, list
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Steven Pemberton: zakim, list ←
07:40:29 <Zakim> I see SW_RDFWG(RDFWG1)2:00AM active and no others scheduled to start in the next 15 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: I see SW_RDFWG(RDFWG1)2:00AM active and no others scheduled to start in the next 15 minutes ←
07:40:49 <FabGandon> we will have to do an adhoc teleconf the teleconf chanel is not available for today
Fabien Gandon: we will have to do an adhoc teleconf the teleconf chanel is not available for today ←
07:41:13 <Steven_> zakim, code?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, code? ←
07:41:13 <Zakim> the conference code is 733941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), Steven_
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 733941 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), Steven_ ←
07:41:38 <FabGandon> trying again...
Fabien Gandon: trying again... ←
07:41:40 <Steven_> zakim, who is on the call?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, who is on the call? ←
07:41:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see OlivierCorby, OlivierCorby.a, OlivierCorby.aa, OlivierCorby.aaa
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see OlivierCorby, OlivierCorby.a, OlivierCorby.aa, OlivierCorby.aaa ←
07:42:13 <PatH> Same message here
Patrick Hayes: Same message here ←
07:42:23 <tomayac> same here
Thomas Steiner: same here ←
07:42:45 <davidwood> We're working on it - please stand by
David Wood: We're working on it - please stand by ←
07:42:56 <Steven_> zakim, room for 15 for 600 minutes?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, room for 15 for 600 minutes? ←
07:42:58 <Zakim> ok, Steven_; conference Team_(rdf-wg)07:42Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 600 minutes until 1742Z
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven_; conference Team_(rdf-wg)07:42Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 600 minutes until 1742Z ←
07:43:06 <davidwood> We'll announce a new dial in code shortly
David Wood: We'll announce a new dial in code shortly ←
07:43:12 <FabGandon> dial 26631
Fabien Gandon: dial 26631 ←
07:43:18 <davidwood> PLEASE USE CONFERENCE CODE 26631
David Wood: PLEASE USE CONFERENCE CODE 26631 ←
07:43:35 <Steven_> Steven_ has changed the topic to: CODE is 26631
Steven Pemberton: Steven_ has changed the topic to: CODE is 26631 ←
07:43:41 <davidwood> Sorry for the confusion. Our bridge was not configured as we expected.
David Wood: Sorry for the confusion. Our bridge was not configured as we expected. ←
07:44:04 <Steven_> zakim, who is on the call?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, who is on the call? ←
07:44:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see OlivierCorby, OlivierCorby.a, OlivierCorby.aa, OlivierCorby.aaa
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see OlivierCorby, OlivierCorby.a, OlivierCorby.aa, OlivierCorby.aaa ←
07:44:21 <NickH> Good Morning!
Nicholas Humfrey: Good Morning! ←
07:44:25 <Steven_> zakim, this is rdf-wg
Steven Pemberton: zakim, this is rdf-wg ←
07:44:25 <Zakim> Steven_, this was SW_RDFWG(RDFWG1)2:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: Steven_, this was SW_RDFWG(RDFWG1)2:00AM ←
07:44:27 <Zakim> ok, Steven_; that matches Team_(rdf-wg)07:42Z
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven_; that matches Team_(rdf-wg)07:42Z ←
07:44:33 <Steven_> zakim, who is on the call?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, who is on the call? ←
07:44:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, PatH, tomayac, OlivierCorby
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room, PatH, tomayac, OlivierCorby ←
07:44:40 <OlivierCorby> Hi, phone is ok now
Olivier Corby: Hi, phone is ok now ←
07:44:48 <Zakim> +AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ ←
07:45:46 <PatH> Sound quality is rather poor today
Patrick Hayes: Sound quality is rather poor today ←
07:45:50 <FabGandon> scribe: Fabien
(Scribe set to Fabien Gandon)
07:46:40 <FabGandon> guus: identifying the 4 issues to be discussed
Guus Schreiber: identifying the 4 issues to be discussed ←
07:46:50 <Steven> 30, 31, 15
Steven Pemberton: 30, 31, 15 ←
07:46:51 <FabGandon> ... 5 30 31 and 15
... 5 30 31 and 15 ←
07:46:57 <gavinc> zakim, the code is?
Gavin Carothers: zakim, the code is? ←
07:46:57 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, gavinc.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, gavinc. ←
07:47:03 <Steven> zakim, code?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, code? ←
07:47:03 <Zakim> the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), Steven ←
07:47:32 <FabGandon> cygri: 31 is a bit out of the list
Richard Cyganiak: 31 is a bit out of the list ←
07:47:52 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/30
Mischa Tuffield: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/30 ←
07:48:06 <FabGandon> davidwood: sugest we start with issue 30
David Wood: suggest we start with ISSUE-30 ←
07:48:06 <Zakim> +gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: +gavinc ←
07:48:07 <FabGandon> Topic: Four issues of "Named Graphs".
07:48:08 <FabGandon> subtopic: Aligning SPARQL notions and RDF 1.1 g-* notions.
07:48:18 <FabGandon> ISSUE-30: How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?
ISSUE-30: How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? ←
07:48:18 <trackbot> ISSUE-30 How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-30 How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? notes added ←
07:48:20 <Steven> s/sugest/suggest/
07:49:47 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#rdfDataset <-- sparql dataset as per rdf sparql query 1.0
Mischa Tuffield: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#rdfDataset <-- sparql dataset as per rdf sparql query 1.0 ←
07:50:23 <FabGandon> Cygri : SPARQL defines Dataset as data data model used in SPARQL query i.e. collection of graph = one default graph and a set of named graphs <IRI,Graph>
Cygri : SPARQL defines Dataset as data data model used in SPARQL query i.e. collection of graph = one default graph and a set of named graphs <IRI,Graph> ←
07:50:33 <tomayac> AZ: +1, sound is low quality :-(
Antoine Zimmermann: +1, sound is low quality :-( [ Scribe Assist by Thomas Steiner ] ←
07:50:47 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal
Mischa Tuffield: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs/RDF-Datasets-Proposal ←
07:51:19 <FabGandon> ... they use the term named graph and it is a g-snap in our terminology because immutable
... they use the term named graph and it is a g-snap in our terminology because immutable ←
07:51:50 <pchampin> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-sparql11-update-20091022/#sec_graphStore
Pierre-Antoine Champin: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-sparql11-update-20091022/#sec_graphStore ←
07:52:37 <PatH> +q
Patrick Hayes: +q ←
07:52:43 <FabGandon> ... graph store :"unlike an RDF dataset, named graphs can be added to or deleted from a graph store"
... graph store :"unlike an RDF dataset, named graphs can be added to or deleted from a graph store" ←
07:53:03 <FabGandon> ivan: the mutability is on the store not on the graph
Ivan Herman: the mutability is on the store not on the graph ←
07:53:49 <FabGandon> ... are the graphs explicitly immutable ?
... are the graphs explicitly immutable ? ←
07:53:51 <PatH> sound quality is poor but usable
Patrick Hayes: sound quality is poor but usable ←
07:54:26 <FabGandon> cygri : the spec are not specific on this ; not really addressed
cygri : the spec are not specific on this ; not really addressed ←
07:54:57 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
07:55:17 <FabGandon> ivan: IMO the dataset is a set of g-boxes
Ivan Herman: IMO the dataset is a set of g-boxes ←
07:55:38 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
07:55:38 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, PatH, tomayac, OlivierCorby, AZ, gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room, PatH, tomayac, OlivierCorby, AZ, gavinc ←
07:55:52 <FabGandon> cygri: the evaluation of a SPARQL query is defined against an immutable dataset
Richard Cyganiak: the evaluation of a SPARQL query is defined against an immutable dataset ←
07:56:09 <davidwood> q+ to discuss graph store relationships to g-boxes and g-snaps.
David Wood: q+ to discuss graph store relationships to g-boxes and g-snaps. ←
07:56:34 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
07:56:39 <ivan> ack PatH
Ivan Herman: ack PatH ←
07:56:42 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
07:56:47 <FabGandon> PatH: we shouldn’t be agnostic we should say what the graph is e.g. we should say it is a g-box that has a name
Patrick Hayes: we shouldn’t be agnostic we should say what the graph is e.g. we should say it is a g-box that has a name ←
07:57:25 <FabGandon> cygri: SPARQL uses the term named graph, the IRI is the name for the graph in SPARQL
Richard Cyganiak: SPARQL uses the term named graph, the IRI is the name for the graph in SPARQL ←
07:57:59 <mischat> PatH: there is no need to introduce confusion
Patrick Hayes: there is no need to introduce confusion [ Scribe Assist by Mischa Tuffield ] ←
07:57:59 <AZ> We can certainly see a SPARQL dataset as a snapshot of the graph store (the graph store is mutable but the snapshot is fixed to define what's the result of a query)
Antoine Zimmermann: We can certainly see a SPARQL dataset as a snapshot of the graph store (the graph store is mutable but the snapshot is fixed to define what's the result of a query) ←
07:58:47 <FabGandon> PatH: RDF should specify the semantic of names if there is to be an interpretation of that name
PatH: RDF should specify the semantic of names if there is to be an interpretation of that name ←
07:59:14 <FabGandon> ... if we don't we leave the question open to endless discussions.
... if we don't we leave the question open to endless discussions. ←
07:59:53 <davidwood> +1 to PatH, in that if we define what we mean we won't have misunderstandings as we do with "information resource" or "what *is* RDF".
David Wood: +1 to PatH, in that if we define what we mean we won't have misunderstandings as we do with "information resource" or "what *is* RDF". ←
08:00:41 <JFB> +1 to PatH: if there is some specifing meaning to names, it must be formalized in RDF Semantics
Jean-François Baget: +1 to PatH: if there is some specifing meaning to names, it must be formalized in RDF Semantics ←
08:00:42 <FabGandon> PatH: we need to declare in a declarative text what the interpretation is for the IRI naming a graph.
Patrick Hayes: we need to declare in a declarative text what the interpretation is for the IRI naming a graph. ←
08:01:34 <FabGandon> cygri: Can we use the name of doc as the name of graph.
Richard Cyganiak: Can we use the name of doc as the name of graph. ←
08:01:44 <FabGandon> PatH: we can't prevent that
Patrick Hayes: we can't prevent that ←
08:03:10 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to discuss graph store relationships to g-boxes and g-snaps.
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to discuss graph store relationships to g-boxes and g-snaps. ←
08:03:57 <FabGandon> davidwood: several graph stores are maintainers of g-boxes implemented as multiple reader single writer
David Wood: several graph stores are maintainers of g-boxes implemented as multiple reader single writer ←
08:04:38 <FabGandon> ... when a query comes in they generate sets of g-snaps from the current state of the g-boxes.
... when a query comes in they generate sets of g-snaps from the current state of the g-boxes. ←
08:05:12 <FabGandon> SteveH: yes that's what happens.
Steve Harris: yes that's what happens. ←
08:05:30 <PatH> we have yet to specify what a g-box is semantically. We will have to speak of states and g-snaps there.
Patrick Hayes: we have yet to specify what a g-box is semantically. We will have to speak of states and g-snaps there. ←
08:06:22 <PatH> in other words, this box/snap issue will have to be dealt with there in any case.
Patrick Hayes: in other words, this box/snap issue will have to be dealt with there in any case. ←
08:06:31 <sandro> guus: When you do a SPARQL Query, you are querying at a point in time, so you are querying against the set of g-snaps which is the current contents of those g-boxes.
Guus Schreiber: When you do a SPARQL Query, you are querying at a point in time, so you are querying against the set of g-snaps which is the current contents of those g-boxes. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:06:32 <FabGandon> Guus: at that point there is no conflict between our view and SPARQL
Guus Schreiber: at that point there is no conflict between our view and SPARQL ←
08:06:40 <davidwood> PatH: Yes
Patrick Hayes: Yes [ Scribe Assist by David Wood ] ←
08:06:56 <davidwood> Yes, there is no conflict.
David Wood: Yes, there is no conflict. ←
08:07:00 <FabGandon> subtopic: relation between the graph and its name.
08:07:40 <sandro> pchampin: I want to be able to use my own arbitrary data as the "graph" name in SPARQL.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I want to be able to use my own arbitrary data as the "graph" name in SPARQL. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:08:00 <FabGandon> pchampin: I feel uncomfortable with fixing the semantics of the relation name of graphs and the store ; it depends on my use of the quadstore
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I feel uncomfortable with fixing the semantics of the relation name of graphs and the store ; it depends on my use of the quadstore ←
08:08:57 <FabGandon> cygri: I don’t see this machinery as answering a large demand ; I don’t feel there is a huge demand on fixing that semantics
Richard Cyganiak: I don’t see this machinery as answering a large demand ; I don’t feel there is a huge demand on fixing that semantics ←
08:09:27 <FabGandon> ... what do we gain from defining the interpretation of named graphs ?
... what do we gain from defining the interpretation of named graphs ? ←
08:09:56 <pchampin> sometimes, I name a graph in my quad store with the URI of the g-box this graph comes from,
Pierre-Antoine Champin: sometimes, I name a graph in my quad store with the URI of the g-box this graph comes from, ←
08:10:08 <pchampin> sometimes, I name it with the URI of the resource it is about
Pierre-Antoine Champin: sometimes, I name it with the URI of the resource it is about ←
08:10:09 <FabGandon> danbri: are you confortable with the level of interoperability that would set?
Dan Brickley: are you confortable with the level of interoperability that would set? ←
08:10:36 <sandro> +1 danbri we need more interop between datastores (there is breakage when people use different styles of URIs)
Sandro Hawke: +1 danbri we need more interop between datastores (there is breakage when people use different styles of URIs) ←
08:11:10 <pfps> I don't know how the RDF semantics is going to speak to things like timestamping downloads of RDF documents.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't know how the RDF semantics is going to speak to things like timestamping downloads of RDF documents. ←
08:11:38 <FabGandon> PatH: defining the semantics will not have so much implication on the implementation that seems to be feared. The idea is not to interfere with the machinery.
Patrick Hayes: defining the semantics will not have so much implication on the implementation that seems to be feared. The idea is not to interfere with the machinery. ←
08:11:42 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
08:11:46 <danbri> it's something like a lack of mechanism for saying how *my* sparql store is managed. One might use 'the URI I fetched = the graph URI', another uses a uuid: per-transaction, and a table-of-contents history graph. Sure I can send SPARQL queries across both at same time, but the results might be barely meaningful.
Dan Brickley: it's something like a lack of mechanism for saying how *my* sparql store is managed. One might use 'the URI I fetched = the graph URI', another uses a uuid: per-transaction, and a table-of-contents history graph. Sure I can send SPARQL queries across both at same time, but the results might be barely meaningful. ←
08:13:10 <FabGandon> sandro: the machinery will complain for instance if I use the URI of a graph to identify a person and these classes are disjoint.
Sandro Hawke: the machinery will complain for instance if I use the URI of a graph to identify a person and these classes are disjoint. ←
08:13:59 <danbri> PatH, the triples could have semantics, but their bundling and tagging with graph URIs could lack semantics
Dan Brickley: PatH, the triples could have semantics, but their bundling and tagging with graph URIs could lack semantics ←
08:14:03 <pchampin> q+ to talk about named graphs in SPARQL endpoints
Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+ to talk about named graphs in SPARQL endpoints ←
08:14:10 <FabGandon> SteveH: there are many use cases where we don't want to do some logical inference on top of RDF.
Steve Harris: there are many use cases where we don't want to do some logical inference on top of RDF. ←
08:14:53 <pchampin> +1 danbri: I write no *triple* stating that a person is a graph :-)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 danbri: I write no *triple* stating that a person is a graph :-) ←
08:15:01 <sandro> Pat: It violates the semantics of the language to have the name of a graph also be the name of a person.
Patrick Hayes: It violates the semantics of the language to have the name of a graph also be the name of a person. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:15:15 <FabGandon> cygri: How does the fact of using a URI for a graph and a person raises a problem in SPARQL?
Richard Cyganiak: How does the fact of using a URI for a graph and a person raises a problem in SPARQL? ←
08:15:20 <AZ> A name can name several things, like in OWL 2 DL, a name can name a class and a property
Antoine Zimmermann: A name can name several things, like in OWL 2 DL, a name can name a class and a property ←
08:15:38 <pgroth> could we do both? a name and a tag?
Paul Groth: could we do both? a name and a tag? ←
08:15:40 <AZ> and classes are disjoint from properties in OWL 2 DL
Antoine Zimmermann: and classes are disjoint from properties in OWL 2 DL ←
08:15:42 <FabGandon> PatH: lets not call it the names then.
Patrick Hayes: lets not call it the names then. ←
08:16:43 <sandro> +1 pat
Sandro Hawke: +1 pat ←
08:16:51 <FabGandon> pfps: RDF is agnostic as to the use of the same IRI to name a graph or a person.
Peter Patel-Schneider: RDF is agnostic as to the use of the same IRI to name a graph or a person. ←
08:16:51 <ivan> ack pchampin
Ivan Herman: ack pchampin ←
08:16:51 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to talk about named graphs in SPARQL endpoints
Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin, you wanted to talk about named graphs in SPARQL endpoints ←
08:17:21 <sandro> pchampin: I'm using the "graph id" as merely a "tag"
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I'm using the "graph id" as merely a "tag" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:17:38 <FabGandon> pchampin: ok to say it’s not really a name but merely a tag.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: ok to say it’s not really a name but merely a tag. ←
08:18:07 <sandro> +100000 the world here would be MUCH CLEARER if SPARQL forced you to only use graph IDs that you own!!
Sandro Hawke: +100000 the world here would be MUCH CLEARER if SPARQL forced you to only use graph IDs that you own!! ←
08:18:24 <cygri> sandro -100000
Richard Cyganiak: sandro -100000 ←
08:18:56 <pfps> sandro - so you think that you shouldn't use "anyone else's" IRIs in a named graph?
Peter Patel-Schneider: sandro - so you think that you shouldn't use "anyone else's" IRIs in a named graph? ←
08:19:03 <cygri> q+ to disagree with sandro -- web crawling use case
Richard Cyganiak: q+ to disagree with sandro -- web crawling use case ←
08:19:34 <FabGandon> sandro: I wish SPARQL restricted you to use only URIs that you own i.e. use graphs in a domain you control
Sandro Hawke: I wish SPARQL restricted you to use only URIs that you own i.e. use graphs in a domain you control ←
08:20:01 <danbri> sandro, that feels to me like having the SQL spec specify that you can only store things that are true
Dan Brickley: sandro, that feels to me like having the SQL spec specify that you can only store things that are true ←
08:20:09 <pchampin> I sure was not suggesting to restrict SPARQL... :-/
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I sure was not suggesting to restrict SPARQL... :-/ ←
08:20:35 <pchampin> just pointing out that its flexibility allows for different practices... beyong "naming according to Pat"
Pierre-Antoine Champin: just pointing out that its flexibility allows for different practices... beyong "naming according to Pat" ←
08:20:41 <FabGandon> cygri: strong use case against that : when you crawl the web you want to use the URI from where you got the data.
Richard Cyganiak: strong use case against that : when you crawl the web you want to use the URI from where you got the data. ←
08:21:17 <FabGandon> sandro: it may be more efficient but you create interoperability problems.
Sandro Hawke: it may be more efficient but you create interoperability problems. ←
08:21:34 <sandro> Utility is at odds with Interoperability.
Sandro Hawke: Utility is at odds with Interoperability. ←
08:21:37 <PatH> hard to hear..
Patrick Hayes: hard to hear.. ←
08:21:44 <sandro> Local utility vs Global utility.
Sandro Hawke: Local utility vs Global utility. ←
08:21:53 <yvesr> another use case is ACL on quad stores
Yves Raimond: another use case is ACL on quad stores ←
08:22:15 <FabGandon> pchampin: not suggesting restricting what SPARQL allows to do ; just advocating flexibility.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: not suggesting restricting what SPARQL allows to do ; just advocating flexibility. ←
08:22:41 <cygri> q+ to talk about n3
Richard Cyganiak: q+ to talk about n3 ←
08:22:44 <FabGandon> pgroth: I wonder if we don't need a typing mechanism.
Paul Groth: I wonder if we don't need a typing mechanism. ←
08:22:44 <sandro> pgroth: There's "naming graph" and there's graph tags.
Paul Groth: There's "naming graph" and there's graph tags. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:22:55 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to talk about n3
Zakim IRC Bot: cygri, you wanted to talk about n3 ←
08:23:39 <FabGandon> cygri: if you want a graph associated with a URI in N3 you need to put a predicate in-between.
Richard Cyganiak: if you want a graph associated with a URI in N3 you need to put a predicate in-between. ←
08:24:09 <danbri> is this OK SPARQL? http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=TaJVsste
Dan Brickley: is this OK SPARQL? http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=TaJVsste ←
08:24:19 <FabGandon> ... there is something in the middle that indicates the relation, don't restrict that because in SPARQL it is not restricted.
... there is something in the middle that indicates the relation, don't restrict that because in SPARQL it is not restricted. ←
08:25:19 <yvesr> danbri, i guess it would - why wouldn't it?
Yves Raimond: danbri, i guess it would - why wouldn't it? ←
08:25:42 <FabGandon> pfps: in RDF everything is a resources: a graph must be an resource or not ; how can we disconnect graph from that if we name them with IRI?
Peter Patel-Schneider: in RDF everything is a resources: a graph must be an resource or not ; how can we disconnect graph from that if we name them with IRI? ←
08:26:01 <danbri> q+ to try http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=TaJVsste
Dan Brickley: q+ to try http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=TaJVsste ←
08:26:52 <FabGandon> Guus: we need to identify the things we do agree on.
Guus Schreiber: we need to identify the things we do agree on. ←
08:26:55 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to try http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=TaJVsste
Zakim IRC Bot: danbri, you wanted to try http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=TaJVsste ←
08:27:14 <PatH> sounds like a sparql RDF dataset is not a collection of named graphs. Which surprises me, but I can live with.
Patrick Hayes: sounds like a sparql RDF dataset is not a collection of named graphs. Which surprises me, but I can live with. ←
08:27:20 <FabGandon> danbri: I want to talk about this test case http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=TaJVsste
Dan Brickley: I want to talk about this test case http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=TaJVsste ←
08:28:14 <FabGandon> ... this is a SPARQL query querying different databases.
... this is a SPARQL query querying different databases. ←
08:28:36 <FabGandon> ... can we name graphs with mailto:bla@bla.bla
... can we name graphs with mailto:bla@bla.bla ←
08:28:38 <PatH> but see what pat just wrote.
Patrick Hayes: but see what pat just wrote. ←
08:29:08 <FabGandon> yes we can
yes we can ←
08:29:37 <FabGandon> davidwood: some people say we should always use http://
David Wood: some people say we should always use http:// ←
08:29:55 <FabGandon> danbri: there is a drift from using http:// URIs
Dan Brickley: there is a drift from using http:// URIs ←
08:30:07 <FabGandon> SteveH: I don't see anything wrong with that.
Steve Harris: I don't see anything wrong with that. ←
08:30:25 <sandro> sandro: This is just neats vs scruffies --- the graph might be a (scruffy) tag, or might be a name of a proper RDF graph.
Sandro Hawke: This is just neats vs scruffies --- the graph might be a (scruffy) tag, or might be a name of a proper RDF graph. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:30:29 <FabGandon> danbri: what about the provenance perspective?
Dan Brickley: what about the provenance perspective? ←
08:30:34 <pfps> well, a SPARQL RDF dataset is defined as potentially containing "named graphs" as this is the first (as far as I know) W3C mention of "named graph", then SPARQL wins and SPARQL RDF datasets have named graphs
Peter Patel-Schneider: well, a SPARQL RDF dataset is defined as potentially containing "named graphs" as this is the first (as far as I know) W3C mention of "named graph", then SPARQL wins and SPARQL RDF datasets have named graphs ←
08:31:10 <pfps> the upshot of this is that the RDF WG may need a new name for what we have been calling named graphs
Peter Patel-Schneider: the upshot of this is that the RDF WG may need a new name for what we have been calling named graphs ←
08:31:27 <FabGandon> pgroth: we care about pointing at a resource or at a graph talking about a resource.
Paul Groth: we care about pointing at a resource or at a graph talking about a resource. ←
08:31:37 <FabGandon> ... we need to be able to point at the content.
... we need to be able to point at the content. ←
08:32:04 <PatH> pfps, suggest rather we keep named graphs but allow datasets to be something else.
Patrick Hayes: pfps, suggest rather we keep named graphs but allow datasets to be something else. ←
08:32:30 <danbri> so my example lets me represent the (likely derrived from other stuff) info that Pat says Guus is the name of the holder of his homepage
Dan Brickley: so my example lets me represent the (likely derrived from other stuff) info that Pat says Guus is the name of the holder of his homepage ←
08:32:52 <pfps> then we need to quickly get SPARQL not to "use up" this name - oops too late, named graphs is already in SPARQL 1.0
Peter Patel-Schneider: then we need to quickly get SPARQL not to "use up" this name - oops too late, named graphs is already in SPARQL 1.0 ←
08:33:40 <pgroth> i like the idea of a default interpretation
Paul Groth: i like the idea of a default interpretation ←
08:33:47 <FabGandon> pchampin: graphs are resources they need naming and not necessarily a named attached to a SPARQL endpoint.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: graphs are resources they need naming and not necessarily a named attached to a SPARQL endpoint. ←
08:33:51 <pgroth> that the iri is the name of the graph
Paul Groth: that the iri is the name of the graph ←
08:34:10 <SteveH> q+ to talk about <uri> :relation <graph>
Steve Harris: q+ to talk about <uri> :relation <graph> ←
08:34:33 <FabGandon> pfps: do RDF graphs have to be resources ?
Peter Patel-Schneider: do RDF graphs have to be resources ? ←
08:34:55 <danbri> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#gloss ''Resource (n.)(as used in RDF)(i) An entity; anything in the universe. (ii) As a class name: the class of everything; the most inclusive category possible.''
Dan Brickley: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#gloss ''Resource (n.)(as used in RDF)(i) An entity; anything in the universe. (ii) As a class name: the class of everything; the most inclusive category possible.'' ←
08:35:09 <PatH> aaaargh. what are 'levels'????
Patrick Hayes: aaaargh. what are 'levels'???? ←
08:35:16 <FabGandon> cygri: graphs are in the abstract syntax; resources are in the model theory
Richard Cyganiak: graphs are in the abstract syntax; resources are in the model theory ←
08:36:18 <FabGandon> pchampin: graphs must be resources
Pierre-Antoine Champin: graphs must be resources ←
08:36:23 <sandro> pfps: We have A and Not-A (where A=Graphs are Resources)
Peter Patel-Schneider: We have A and Not-A (where A=Graphs are Resources) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:37:20 <sandro> pat: Of COURSE graphs are resources. The model theory clearly says everything is a resource.
Patrick Hayes: Of COURSE graphs are resources. The model theory clearly says everything is a resource. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:37:26 <JFB> +1 everything is a resource, if I am, why wouldn't a graph be ?
Jean-François Baget: +1 everything is a resource, if I am, why wouldn't a graph be ? ←
08:37:28 <FabGandon> PatH: there are no such notions of levels ; thats not the pb.
Patrick Hayes: there are no such notions of levels ; thats not the pb. ←
08:37:50 <pchampin> +1
08:37:54 <sandro> pat: We could say that SPARQL Datasets are about tagged graphs NOT naming.
Patrick Hayes: We could say that SPARQL Datasets are about tagged graphs NOT naming. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:37:55 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
08:37:57 <sandro> +1 pat
Sandro Hawke: +1 pat ←
08:37:59 <mischat> +1
Mischa Tuffield: +1 ←
08:38:00 <danbri> +1
Dan Brickley: +1 ←
08:38:12 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
08:38:24 <danbri> q+ to suggest [eventual] best practice note on how *in practice* people are associating URIs with bundles-of-triples
Dan Brickley: q+ to suggest [eventual] best practice note on how *in practice* people are associating URIs with bundles-of-triples ←
08:38:34 <FabGandon> ... if we say we tag graphs and not we name then we can stop arguing
... if we say we tag graphs and not we name then we can stop arguing ←
08:39:02 <AZ> But then, how one talks about a graph in triples?
Antoine Zimmermann: But then, how one talks about a graph in triples? ←
08:39:29 <FabGandon> davidwood: I need a clarification on the difference between the name and a tag.
David Wood: I need a clarification on the difference between the name and a tag. ←
08:39:30 <ivan> ack SteveH
Ivan Herman: ack SteveH ←
08:39:30 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to talk about <uri> :relation <graph>
Zakim IRC Bot: SteveH, you wanted to talk about <uri> :relation <graph> ←
08:40:14 <FabGandon> PatH: the difference is in the relation, tag is neutral.
Patrick Hayes: the difference is in the relation, tag is neutral. ←
08:40:16 <danbri> 'bundles'
Dan Brickley: 'bundles' ←
08:40:30 <pgroth> why can't we have a default interpretation ?
Paul Groth: why can't we have a default interpretation ? ←
08:40:48 <sandro> possible consensus: SPARQL "named graphs" are not "named" in the logical sense.
Sandro Hawke: possible consensus: SPARQL "named graphs" are not "named" in the logical sense. ←
08:40:58 <cygri> +1 ivan
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ivan ←
08:40:59 <danbri> pgroth, because there are multiple equally respectable default db management habits
Dan Brickley: pgroth, because there are multiple equally respectable default db management habits ←
08:41:27 <gavinc> FROM NAMED
Gavin Carothers: FROM NAMED ←
08:42:01 <sandro> :'(''
Sandro Hawke: :'('' ←
08:42:20 <FabGandon> ivan: we don't have much choice, the term "named graph" is already used in the whole SPARQL community.
Ivan Herman: we don't have much choice, the term "named graph" is already used in the whole SPARQL community. ←
08:42:40 <pgroth> danbri, but default doesn't mean you have to
Paul Groth: danbri, but default doesn't mean you have to ←
08:43:14 <sandro> sandro: Can we at least tell people this is a misleading name?
Sandro Hawke: Can we at least tell people this is a misleading name? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:43:19 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
08:43:56 <PatH> potentially misleading
Patrick Hayes: potentially misleading ←
08:44:02 <danbri> From a SPARQL perspective, it is legitimate to (a) tag graph-bundles with URI the triples were dereferenced from (b) to tag graph-bundles with URI for the party who made the claim (c) or a trasaction ID, eg. uuid:
Dan Brickley: From a SPARQL perspective, it is legitimate to (a) tag graph-bundles with URI the triples were dereferenced from (b) to tag graph-bundles with URI for the party who made the claim (c) or a trasaction ID, eg. uuid: ←
08:44:13 <sandro> More Consensus: SPARQL "named graphs" are not necessarily "named" in the logical sense, or RDF graphs.
Sandro Hawke: More Consensus: SPARQL "named graphs" are not necessarily "named" in the logical sense, or RDF graphs. ←
08:44:25 <sandro> FabGandon we have "tagged boxes" and we will call them "named graphs"
Sandro Hawke: FabGandon we have "tagged boxes" and we will call them "named graphs" ←
08:44:38 <pchampin> q+ to raise some concern about the semantics of NQuads, then
Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+ to raise some concern about the semantics of NQuads, then ←
08:44:49 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to suggest [eventual] best practice note on how *in practice* people are associating URIs with bundles-of-triples
Zakim IRC Bot: danbri, you wanted to suggest [eventual] best practice note on how *in practice* people are associating URIs with bundles-of-triples ←
08:44:56 <PatH> can we introduce the terminology of "sparql naming"
Patrick Hayes: can we introduce the terminology of "sparql naming" ←
08:45:12 <davidwood> q+ to as about naming of RDF
David Wood: q+ to as about naming of RDF ←
08:45:26 <FabGandon> danbri: may be we should first document the current uses of "named graphs"
Dan Brickley: may be we should first document the current uses of "named graphs" ←
08:45:40 <mischat> q+ to ask about the difference in FROM NAMED and the GRAPH URI
Mischa Tuffield: q+ to ask about the difference in FROM NAMED and the GRAPH URI ←
08:45:52 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
08:45:57 <sandro> +1 danbri: document the common practices for using sparql graphs names.
Sandro Hawke: +1 danbri: document the common practices for using sparql graphs names. ←
08:45:58 <PatH> I dont want to start policing sparql usage.
Patrick Hayes: I dont want to start policing sparql usage. ←
08:46:09 <FabGandon> ... I have three in mind but may be we should have a wiki page to collect them
... I have three in mind but may be we should have a wiki page to collect them ←
08:46:12 <davidwood> No, we certainly don't
David Wood: No, we certainly don't ←
08:46:13 <danbri> path --- absolutely not policing, but documenting
Dan Brickley: path --- absolutely not policing, but documenting ←
08:46:17 <yvesr> PatH, not policing, surevying what's actually happening
Yves Raimond: PatH, not policing, surevying what's actually happening ←
08:46:18 <PatH> just keep terminology clean
Patrick Hayes: just keep terminology clean ←
08:46:22 <PatH> OK
Patrick Hayes: OK ←
08:46:27 <danbri> -- so we can send SPARQL queries that use GRAPH to services managed in a certain fashion
Dan Brickley: -- so we can send SPARQL queries that use GRAPH to services managed in a certain fashion ←
08:46:51 <FabGandon> pchampin: NQuads is used to dump a full store
Pierre-Antoine Champin: NQuads is used to dump a full store ←
08:46:55 <danbri> eg. see http://pastebin.com/TaJVsste ... maybe you have a DB I could usefully send that query to; but maybe Ivan's SPARQL db is managed with a different GRAPH/URI policy
Dan Brickley: eg. see http://pastebin.com/TaJVsste ... maybe you have a DB I could usefully send that query to; but maybe Ivan's SPARQL db is managed with a different GRAPH/URI policy ←
08:47:02 <danbri> ...so naming those deployment patterns
Dan Brickley: ...so naming those deployment patterns ←
08:47:02 <mischat> i do think that best practices for linked data re: graphs and named graphs
Mischa Tuffield: i do think that best practices for linked data re: graphs and named graphs ←
08:47:03 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to as about naming of RDF
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to as about naming of RDF ←
08:47:05 <FabGandon> ivan: NQuad is juts syntax
Ivan Herman: NQuad is juts syntax ←
08:47:06 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to raise some concern about the semantics of NQuads, then
Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin, you wanted to raise some concern about the semantics of NQuads, then ←
08:47:20 <danbri> FDR!
Dan Brickley: FDR! ←
08:47:39 <FabGandon> davidwood: concerned about redefining everything.
davidwood: concerned about redefining everything. ←
08:48:09 <FabGandon> sandro: SPARQL named graphs has little to do with named g-boxes.
Sandro Hawke: SPARQL named graphs has little to do with named g-boxes. ←
08:48:13 <ivan> ack mischat
Ivan Herman: ack mischat ←
08:48:13 <Zakim> mischat, you wanted to ask about the difference in FROM NAMED and the GRAPH URI
Zakim IRC Bot: mischat, you wanted to ask about the difference in FROM NAMED and the GRAPH URI ←
08:48:23 <FabGandon> Guss: SPARQL is agnostic about.
Guss: SPARQL is agnostic about. ←
08:49:04 <FabGandon> mischat: It is nice that SPARQL doesn’t force you to use the URL of the doc for the named graph.
Mischa Tuffield: It is nice that SPARQL doesn’t force you to use the URL of the doc for the named graph. ←
08:49:23 <sandro> steve: FROM NAMED pulls a graph from some undefined place and puts it in the set of named graphs, but... [lost]
Sandro Hawke: steve: FROM NAMED pulls a graph from some undefined place and puts it in the set of named graphs, but... [lost] ←
08:50:05 <FabGandon> SteveH: the exact behavior of the default graph changes from store to store.
Steve Harris: the exact behavior of the default graph changes from store to store. ←
08:50:25 <cygri> +1 mischat
Richard Cyganiak: +1 mischat ←
08:50:32 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
08:50:42 <danbri> yup
Dan Brickley: yup ←
08:50:59 <FabGandon> mischat: the best practices could be in a note and not in rec.
Mischa Tuffield: the best practices could be in a note and not in rec. ←
08:51:54 <FabGandon> davidwood: we don't want to get in the way of LOD
David Wood: we don't want to get in the way of LOD ←
08:53:06 <FabGandon> ivan: too early to phrase it as a resolution ?
Ivan Herman: too early to phrase it as a resolution ? ←
08:53:11 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-30 saying that SPARQL Datasets and Named Graphs have no strict or formal connection to a logic of RDF "naming" of Graphs.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-30 saying that SPARQL Datasets and Named Graphs have no strict or formal connection to a logic of RDF "naming" of Graphs. ←
08:53:29 <pfps> PROPOSED the upcoming notion of multiple graphs is not necessarily the same as named graphs in SPARQL
Peter Patel-Schneider: PROPOSED the upcoming notion of multiple graphs is not necessarily the same as named graphs in SPARQL ←
08:53:49 <danbri> perhaps - SPARQL quads are not the kinds of thing that can be interpreted as True vs False; RDF WG quads might or might not add more...
Dan Brickley: perhaps - SPARQL quads are not the kinds of thing that can be interpreted as True vs False; RDF WG quads might or might not add more... ←
08:54:11 <PatH> suggest that the key point is that just because sparql uses a uri to, um, identify a graph, it does not mean that the uri can be used to refer to the graph in an rdf triple.
Patrick Hayes: suggest that the key point is that just because sparql uses a uri to, um, identify a graph, it does not mean that the uri can be used to refer to the graph in an rdf triple. ←
08:54:52 <FabGandon> ivan: we currently have no formal connection between the name and the graph in RDF
Ivan Herman: we currently have no formal connection between the name and the graph in RDF ←
08:54:53 <danbri> ie. we can ask if the triple "uri-for-guus :homepage http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/" is true or not; but we can't yet ask if the quad "{uri-for-graph} uri-for-guus :homepage http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/" is true or false
Dan Brickley: ie. we can ask if the triple "uri-for-guus :homepage http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/" is true or not; but we can't yet ask if the quad "{uri-for-graph} uri-for-guus :homepage http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/" is true or false ←
08:55:32 <AZ> PatH +1
Antoine Zimmermann: PatH +1 ←
08:55:42 <danbri> (path, +1 to what?)
Dan Brickley: (path, +1 to what?) ←
08:55:53 <FabGandon> Guus: who agrees with PatH ?
Guus Schreiber: who agrees with PatH ? ←
08:56:13 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
08:56:26 <FabGandon> PatH: you can use the URI but there is no guaranty that it refers to the graph.
PatH: you can use the URI but there is no guaranty that it refers to the graph. ←
08:56:27 <sandro> sandro: Pat means "refer" in a model theory sense, not a computer science sense.
Sandro Hawke: Pat means "refer" in a model theory sense, not a computer science sense. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
08:57:05 <gavinc> So what does: SELECT ?s WHERE {GRAPH ?s { ?s ?p ?o }} end up meaning in this case?
Gavin Carothers: So what does: SELECT ?s WHERE {GRAPH ?s { ?s ?p ?o }} end up meaning in this case? ←
08:57:17 <FabGandon> yvesr: we don't know what a multiple graph is and therefore can we talk about it in a resolution?
Yves Raimond: we don't know what a multiple graph is and therefore can we talk about it in a resolution? ←
08:58:25 <FabGandon> ivan: when we have clarified notions then we can come back to that question.
Ivan Herman: when we have clarified notions then we can come back to that question. ←
08:58:28 <yvesr> we can't resolve an issue where half of the question is still undefined
Yves Raimond: we can't resolve an issue where half of the question is still undefined ←
08:58:56 <PatH> i like 'thruth'
Patrick Hayes: i like 'thruth' ←
08:59:07 <FabGandon> ... the issue should be postponed.
... the issue should be postponed. ←
08:59:11 <danbri> quadly thruthyness
Dan Brickley: quadly thruthyness ←
08:59:22 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
Ivan Herman: rrsagent, pointer? ←
08:59:22 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2011/04/14-rdf-wg-irc#T08-59-22
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2011/04/14-rdf-wg-irc#T08-59-22 ←
08:59:22 <PatH> :-)
Patrick Hayes: :-) ←
08:59:32 <FabGandon> Guus: we can close that issue and open and more precise one.
Guus Schreiber: we can close that issue and open and more precise one. ←
08:59:37 <JFB> +1 for semantics of a predicate that would capture SPARQL's behaviour, but we're not ready yet for that
Jean-François Baget: +1 for semantics of a predicate that would capture SPARQL's behaviour, but we're not ready yet for that ←
08:59:54 <yvesr> issue-30 might be dependent on issue-15
Yves Raimond: ISSUE-30 might be dependent on ISSUE-15 ←
09:00:36 <FabGandon> pchampin: this question is linked to issue 15 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15
Pierre-Antoine Champin: this question is linked to ISSUE-15 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15 ←
09:00:44 <sandro> issue-15?
09:00:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-15 -- What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-15 -- What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc -- open ←
09:00:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15 ←
09:00:45 <mischat> again, you could have a best practices document stating how you can use named graphs in a quad store in a truthy way, but neither rdf nor sparql mandates this, but it would be a good thing for quad store/linked data interoperability -- would be a good note for a primer
Mischa Tuffield: again, you could have a best practices document stating how you can use named graphs in a quad store in a truthy way, but neither rdf nor sparql mandates this, but it would be a good thing for quad store/linked data interoperability -- would be a good note for a primer ←
09:02:00 <FabGandon> Guus: 30 is about alignment with SPARQL and 15 is about our internal changes to RDF.
Guus Schreiber: 30 is about alignment with SPARQL and 15 is about our internal changes to RDF. ←
09:02:31 <FabGandon> ... in solving issue 15 we should not conflict with SPARQL.
... in solving ISSUE-15 we should not conflict with SPARQL. ←
09:02:37 <PatH> yes, fine
Patrick Hayes: yes, fine ←
09:02:53 <PatH> yes,
Patrick Hayes: yes, ←
09:03:14 <PatH> sorry cant unmute but agree with what you are saying
Patrick Hayes: sorry cant unmute but agree with what you are saying ←
09:03:26 <FabGandon> Guus: we should remove dataset from issue 15 this is addressed in issue 30
Guus Schreiber: we should remove dataset from ISSUE-15 this is addressed in ISSUE-30 ←
09:03:47 <sandro> PROPOSED: ISSUE-15 is about our internal notions of multiple graphs, while ISSUE-30 is about how that related to SPARQL's notion. We do not expect the association of IRIs and graphs in SPARQL datasets to be RDF's identification/reference relationship.
PROPOSED: ISSUE-15 is about our internal notions of multiple graphs, while ISSUE-30 is about how that related to SPARQL's notion. We do not expect the association of IRIs and graphs in SPARQL datasets to be RDF's identification/reference relationship. ←
09:04:03 <FabGandon> davidwood: etc. is not precise enough , issue 15 should be rephrased properly
David Wood: etc. is not precise enough , ISSUE-15 should be rephrased properly ←
09:04:48 <danbri> proposed: "While it is attractive to seek more clarity on relationship between some graph of triples and URIs they're tagged with, ... we note that SPARQL deployments have assigned URIs in a variety of ways, each of which being useful and compliant. There may be value in documenting these deployment styles (e.g. URIs for docs, abstract graphs, human sources or transaction IDs) so that SPARQL stores and serializations of URI-tagged triples can b
PROPOSED: "While it is attractive to seek more clarity on relationship between some graph of triples and URIs they're tagged with, ... we note that SPARQL deployments have assigned URIs in a variety of ways, each of which being useful and compliant. There may be value in documenting these deployment styles (e.g. URIs for docs, abstract graphs, human sources or transaction IDs) so that SPARQL stores and serializations of URI-tagged triples can b ←
09:04:48 <danbri> e made more richly interoperable."
Dan Brickley: e made more richly interoperable." ←
09:05:02 <FabGandon> Guus: we should start with defining our own terminology before aligning with SPARQL.
Guus: we should start with defining our own terminology before aligning with SPARQL. ←
09:05:11 <cygri> proposed: "Named Graphs in SPARQL “loosely associate” IRIs and graphs. They do not “name” graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs."
PROPOSED: "Named Graphs in SPARQL “loosely associate” IRIs and graphs. They do not “name” graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs." ←
09:06:20 <FabGandon> ISSUE-30: cygri proposes "Named Graphs in SPARQL “loosely associate” IRIs and graphs. They do not “name” graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs."
ISSUE-30: cygri proposes "Named Graphs in SPARQL “loosely associate” IRIs and graphs. They do not “name” graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs." ←
09:06:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-30 How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-30 How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? notes added ←
09:07:12 <danbri> i tried ' each of which being useful and compliant' instead of 'loosly' (above)
Dan Brickley: i tried ' each of which being useful and compliant' instead of 'loosly' (above) ←
09:07:23 <sandro> "are simple associations"
Sandro Hawke: "are simple associations" ←
09:07:35 <AZ> Maybe: "Named Graphs in SPARQL associate IRIs and graphs *but* they do not “name” graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs."
Antoine Zimmermann: Maybe: "Named Graphs in SPARQL associate IRIs and graphs *but* they do not “name” graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs." ←
09:07:42 <FabGandon> PatH: don't like the word "loosely" prefer : temporary
PatH: don't like the word "loosely" prefer : temporary ←
09:08:14 <sandro> PROPOSED: Named Graphs in SPARQL associate IRIs and graphs *but* they do not “name” graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not necessarily establish graphs as referents of IRIs
PROPOSED: Named Graphs in SPARQL associate IRIs and graphs *but* they do not “name” graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not necessarily establish graphs as referents of IRIs ←
09:08:35 <AZ> I would not put the necessarily there
Antoine Zimmermann: I would not put the necessarily there ←
09:08:51 <mischat> SteveH: sparql uses the verb "graph" to talk about arbitrary graphs and the "named graphs" for graphs which which can be fetched via http, or is that just my pov?
Steve Harris: sparql uses the verb "graph" to talk about arbitrary graphs and the "named graphs" for graphs which which can be fetched via http, or is that just my pov? [ Scribe Assist by Mischa Tuffield ] ←
09:09:03 <sandro> PROPOSED: Named Graphs in SPARQL associate IRIs and graphs *but* they do not necessarily "name" graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs
PROPOSED: Named Graphs in SPARQL associate IRIs and graphs *but* they do not necessarily "name" graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs ←
09:09:10 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
09:09:14 <pfps> +1
09:09:15 <cygri> +1 sandro
Richard Cyganiak: +1 sandro ←
09:09:16 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
09:09:16 <mbrunati> +1
Matteo Brunati: +1 ←
09:09:20 <pchampin> +1
09:09:23 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
09:09:24 <cmatheus> +1
Christopher Matheus: +1 ←
09:09:26 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
09:09:27 <danbri> +1
Dan Brickley: +1 ←
09:09:32 <zwu2> +0
09:09:33 <NickH> +1
Nicholas Humfrey: +1 ←
09:09:38 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
09:09:51 <mischat> +1
Mischa Tuffield: +1 ←
09:10:04 <mischat> any objections for this being added as a note to issue-30 ?
Mischa Tuffield: any objections for this being added as a note to ISSUE-30 ? ←
09:10:04 <FabGandon> ISSUE-30: Proposed WG position : Named Graphs in SPARQL associate IRIs and graphs *but* they do not necessarily “name” graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs.
ISSUE-30: Proposed WG position : Named Graphs in SPARQL associate IRIs and graphs *but* they do not necessarily “name” graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs. ←
09:10:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-30 How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-30 How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs? notes added ←
09:10:07 <sandro> RESOLVED: Named Graphs in SPARQL associate IRIs and graphs *but* they do not necessarily "name" graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs (relevant to ISSUE-30)
RESOLVED: Named Graphs in SPARQL associate IRIs and graphs *but* they do not necessarily "name" graphs in the strict model-theoretic sense. A SPARQL Dataset does not establish graphs as referents of IRIs (relevant to ISSUE-30) ←
09:10:31 <cygri> ISSUE-15?
09:10:31 <FabGandon> subtopic: link between the name and the triples of the graph.
09:10:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-15 -- What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-15 -- What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc -- open ←
09:10:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/15 ←
09:10:56 <PatH> +1 also my vote
Patrick Hayes: +1 also my vote ←
09:11:11 <FabGandon> davidwood: moving to ISSUE 15 ; let's try to rephrase it.
David Wood: moving to ISSUE-15 ; let's try to rephrase it. ←
09:11:41 <AZ> AZ: isn't it implicitly asking "how" one can associate a URI to a g-* ?
Antoine Zimmermann: isn't it implicitly asking "how" one can associate a URI to a g-* ? [ Scribe Assist by Antoine Zimmermann ] ←
09:12:00 <PatH> propose, uri always refers to g-box, but some boxes are immutable.
Patrick Hayes: propose, uri always refers to g-box, but some boxes are immutable. ←
09:12:12 <pgroth> agree with pat
Paul Groth: agree with pat ←
09:12:16 <FabGandon> sandro: g-boxes, g-snap, g-text could be named
Sandro Hawke: g-boxes, g-snap, g-text could be named ←
09:12:48 <PatH> because a snap is always a state (of a box) rather than a resource in its own right.
Patrick Hayes: because a snap is always a state (of a box) rather than a resource in its own right. ←
09:12:48 <FabGandon> ivan: can we have a predicate to say this IRI identifies this g-box ?
Ivan Herman: can we have a predicate to say this IRI identifies this g-box ? ←
09:13:15 <pgroth> although i need to refer to a g-snap
Paul Groth: although i need to refer to a g-snap ←
09:13:51 <pchampin> PatH: can't a number have a URI ??
Patrick Hayes: can't a number have a URI ?? [ Scribe Assist by Pierre-Antoine Champin ] ←
09:14:06 <FabGandon> pgroth: would that prevent you to refer to a particular state of a box ?
Paul Groth: would that prevent you to refer to a particular state of a box ? ←
09:14:22 <PatH> dont think it can be done just using a predicate unless we endow that predicate with spoecial semantic force.
Patrick Hayes: dont think it can be done just using a predicate unless we endow that predicate with spoecial semantic force. ←
09:14:37 <danbri> (around foaf/webid/foaf+ssl and so on, we'll start seeing people identifying concrete sets of well known triples by hash of their encoding, eg. the triples W3C served for the RDF ns for the last 5 years)
Dan Brickley: (around foaf/webid/foaf+ssl and so on, we'll start seeing people identifying concrete sets of well known triples by hash of their encoding, eg. the triples W3C served for the RDF ns for the last 5 years) ←
09:15:00 <FabGandon> ivan: the snap vs. box is exactly about mutability
Ivan Herman: the snap vs. box is exactly about mutability ←
09:15:03 <pchampin> PatH??: <someuri> owl:sameas 42
Pierre-Antoine Champin: PatH??: <someuri> owl:sameas 42 ←
09:15:57 <PatH> sure, that is ok, but states are transient.
Patrick Hayes: sure, that is ok, but states are transient. ←
09:16:28 <FabGandon> davidwood: if a g-box is a resource than we can talk about it.
David Wood: if a g-box is a resource than we can talk about it. ←
09:16:49 <sandro> q+ to say the difference
Sandro Hawke: q+ to say the difference ←
09:16:59 <FabGandon> pgroth: so what is a snap then if not an immutable box ?
Paul Groth: so what is a snap then if not an immutable box ? ←
09:17:29 <FabGandon> sandro: another difference is equality.
Sandro Hawke: another difference is equality. ←
09:17:45 <gavinc> The NAME is not part of the g-snap
Gavin Carothers: The NAME is not part of the g-snap ←
09:17:54 <danbri> sandro, does that work ok w/ bnodes? do we have samegraphness defined adequately for graphs w/ bnodes?
Dan Brickley: sandro, does that work ok w/ bnodes? do we have samegraphness defined adequately for graphs w/ bnodes? ←
09:18:14 <FabGandon> davidwood: two g-snaps may have the same content and still be different snaps.
David Wood: two g-snaps may have the same content and still be different snaps. ←
09:18:27 <FabGandon> ... we haven't decided on that yet.
... we haven't decided on that yet. ←
09:18:50 <sandro> danbri, yes, but you also have to allow bnodes to be shared between graphs.
Sandro Hawke: danbri, yes, but you also have to allow bnodes to be shared between graphs. ←
09:18:51 <FabGandon> ... it depends on how we resolve issue 15
... it depends on how we resolve ISSUE-15 ←
09:18:53 <SteveH> q+ to ask Sandro about why two g-boxes can't be equal [unless I got the wrong end of the stick]
Steve Harris: q+ to ask Sandro about why two g-boxes can't be equal [unless I got the wrong end of the stick] ←
09:19:16 <gavinc> ... I don't think g-snaps had names?
Gavin Carothers: ... I don't think g-snaps had names? ←
09:19:42 <PatH> stephen, two anythings cannot be equal.
Patrick Hayes: stephen, two anythings cannot be equal. ←
09:19:54 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
09:19:54 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to say the difference
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to say the difference ←
09:19:55 <sandro> ack sandro
Sandro Hawke: ack sandro ←
09:19:57 <ivan> ack sandro
Ivan Herman: ack sandro ←
09:19:58 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
09:20:03 <danbri> (sandro, eg. if there is an rdf/xml file bundled with Jena that is packaged old version of DC schema; and the similar-but-different triples we get from a DCMI namespace URI fetch ... )
Dan Brickley: (sandro, eg. if there is an rdf/xml file bundled with Jena that is packaged old version of DC schema; and the similar-but-different triples we get from a DCMI namespace URI fetch ... ) ←
09:20:10 <FabGandon> subtopic: REST and named graphs.
09:20:39 <FabGandon> PatH: The guiding abstraction should be the REST model
Patrick Hayes: The guiding abstraction should be the REST model ←
09:21:54 <FabGandon> davidwood: reprensentations are not resources by default
David Wood: reprensentations are not resources by default ←
09:22:04 <davidwood> ack pchampin
David Wood: ack pchampin ←
09:22:08 <ivan> ack PatH
Ivan Herman: ack PatH ←
09:22:13 <sandro> it's the g-text that's the representation, not the g-snap.
Sandro Hawke: it's the g-text that's the representation, not the g-snap. ←
09:22:29 <FabGandon> sandro: the representation is the g-text, a string
Sandro Hawke: the representation is the g-text, a string ←
09:22:33 <danbri> PatH, does "is not a resource" there mean "not a Web/http resource" rather than "is not a resource-considered-as-synonym-for-thing"?
Dan Brickley: PatH, does "is not a resource" there mean "not a Web/http resource" rather than "is not a resource-considered-as-synonym-for-thing"? ←
09:22:46 <danbri> (if you can channel for timbl...)
Dan Brickley: (if you can channel for timbl...) ←
09:22:46 <FabGandon> pchampin: the g-snap is the state of the resource
Pierre-Antoine Champin: the g-snap is the state of the resource ←
09:22:51 <yvesr> g-box - resource ; g-snap - state ; g-text : representation
Yves Raimond: g-box - resource ; g-snap - state ; g-text : representation ←
09:22:58 <pgroth> g-box = resource, g-snap = content negotiation, g-text = state serlization
Paul Groth: g-box = resource, g-snap = content negotiation, g-text = state serlization ←
09:22:58 <PatH> sorry, sandro is right. but the snap is an abstraction/parsing of the text.
Patrick Hayes: sorry, sandro is right. but the snap is an abstraction/parsing of the text. ←
09:23:01 <mischat> g-snap is information resource at time T ?
Mischa Tuffield: g-snap is information resource at time T ? ←
09:23:10 <davidwood> ack pgroth
David Wood: ack pgroth ←
09:23:15 <ivan> ack pgroth
Ivan Herman: ack pgroth ←
09:23:30 <PatH> and so is similarly unidentifiable.
Patrick Hayes: and so is similarly unidentifiable. ←
09:23:36 <JFB> g-snap: state of the resource or state of the representation ?
Jean-François Baget: g-snap: state of the resource or state of the representation ? ←
09:23:48 <PatH> yes, sandro is right.
Patrick Hayes: yes, sandro is right. ←
09:23:54 <yvesr> pgroth: i don't agree - g-snap != content-negotiation
Yves Raimond: pgroth, i don't agree - g-snap != content-negotiation ←
09:23:54 <pchampin> @JFB: state of the resource
Pierre-Antoine Champin: @JFB: state of the resource ←
09:24:06 <yvesr> s/pgroth:/pgroth,/
09:24:17 <FabGandon> cygri: you can't talk about the representation.
Richard Cyganiak: you can't talk about the representation. ←
09:24:49 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
09:24:56 <PatH> danbri, i want those to be the same sense of resource
Patrick Hayes: danbri, i want those to be the same sense of resource ←
09:25:15 <FabGandon> davidwood: a representation is not a resource but with an additional step you can choose to make an identifier for that representation and talk about it.
David Wood: a representation is not a resource but with an additional step you can choose to make an identifier for that representation and talk about it. ←
09:25:28 <pchampin> data: URIs ?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: data: URIs ? ←
09:25:34 <pchampin> I mean "data colon URIs"
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I mean "data colon URIs" ←
09:25:38 <davidwood> ack SteveH
David Wood: ack SteveH ←
09:25:38 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to ask Sandro about why two g-boxes can't be equal [unless I got the wrong end of the stick]
Zakim IRC Bot: SteveH, you wanted to ask Sandro about why two g-boxes can't be equal [unless I got the wrong end of the stick] ←
09:27:18 <sandro> sandro: Two g-boxes remain distinct even though their contents/state might happen to be the same at some point in time.
Sandro Hawke: Two g-boxes remain distinct even though their contents/state might happen to be the same at some point in time. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:27:42 <FabGandon> q?
q? ←
09:27:51 <PatH> sandro, sorry to introduce extra confusion.
Patrick Hayes: sandro, sorry to introduce extra confusion. ←
09:28:33 <PatH> +1 to pfps
Patrick Hayes: +1 to pfps ←
09:28:37 <sandro> q+ to talk about use cases
Sandro Hawke: q+ to talk about use cases ←
09:28:54 <FabGandon> pfps: We could say we don’t change the semantics, Quads are syntax
Peter Patel-Schneider: We could say we don’t change the semantics, Quads are syntax ←
09:29:34 <mischat> i like the idea that RDF semantics not changing, and using quads as syntax, +1 to pfps
Mischa Tuffield: i like the idea that RDF semantics not changing, and using quads as syntax, +1 to pfps ←
09:29:44 <PatH> i think there are now also quints, sexts, etc..
Patrick Hayes: i think there are now also quints, sexts, etc.. ←
09:29:45 <danbri> I can't understand how the same meeting can, 30 mins ago, accept resources=all things in the universe, yet 5 mins ago, deny that the stuff you get back from an HTTP request is a resource. Ug.
Dan Brickley: I can't understand how the same meeting can, 30 mins ago, accept resources=all things in the universe, yet 5 mins ago, deny that the stuff you get back from an HTTP request is a resource. Ug. ←
09:30:01 <sandro> pchampin, you're right, I think, that data: URIs give us identifiers for representations / g-texts.
Sandro Hawke: pchampin, you're right, I think, that data: URIs give us identifiers for representations / g-texts. ←
09:30:25 <danbri> (even without handy URIs they're still things and therefore Resources in rdfsemantics sense)
Dan Brickley: (even without handy URIs they're still things and therefore Resources in rdfsemantics sense) ←
09:30:27 <FabGandon> ... RDF semantics defines the meaning of the underlying data structure but not augmented with a semantics for datasets.
... RDF semantics defines the meaning of the underlying data structure but not augmented with a semantics for datasets. ←
09:30:48 <sandro> danbri, we didn't agree with that -- it was just claimed and ignored. :-)
Sandro Hawke: danbri, we didn't agree with that -- it was just claimed and ignored. :-) ←
09:31:47 <pfps> so, after all the stuff that I said, I still remain agnostic as to which direction to go
Peter Patel-Schneider: so, after all the stuff that I said, I still remain agnostic as to which direction to go ←
09:32:00 <FabGandon> subtopic: defining Graph primitives in RDF semantics.
09:32:34 <FabGandon> ivan: if we have predicates to link IRI and g-* we need to define them in the RDF semantics
Ivan Herman: if we have predicates to link IRI and g-* we need to define them in the RDF semantics ←
09:33:14 <PatH> yes, we do. so the semantics will have to deal with the *-ideas.
Patrick Hayes: yes, we do. so the semantics will have to deal with the *-ideas. ←
09:33:36 <PatH> yes, exactly.
Patrick Hayes: yes, exactly. ←
09:33:47 <FabGandon> pfps: if you want to talk about this inside the RDF voc you have to define it in the RDF semantics indeed.
Peter Patel-Schneider: if you want to talk about this inside the RDF voc you have to define it in the RDF semantics indeed. ←
09:33:59 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
09:34:06 <pfps> from an OWL perspective, the "don't change the semantics view" is very seductive
Peter Patel-Schneider: from an OWL perspective, the "don't change the semantics view" is very seductive ←
09:34:25 <SteveH> also from the DB implementors view
Steve Harris: also from the DB implementors view ←
09:34:42 <PatH> extend does not imply change, hoever.
Patrick Hayes: extend does not imply change, hoever. ←
09:34:45 <sandro> ISSUE: Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that?
ISSUE: Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? ←
09:34:46 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-35 - Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-35 - Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35/edit . ←
09:34:46 <FabGandon> Guus: should there be an rdf:Graph primitive ?
Guus Schreiber: should there be an rdf:Graph primitive ? ←
09:35:00 <sandro> (from Guus and David -- I don't understand the question.)
Sandro Hawke: (from Guus and David -- I don't understand the question.) ←
09:35:23 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to talk about use cases
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to talk about use cases ←
09:35:40 <FabGandon> pfps: if g-boxes just want to have fun they need to be in the semantics.
Peter Patel-Schneider: if g-boxes just want to have fun they need to be in the semantics. ←
09:37:06 <FabGandon> sandro: one of the scenarios is "annotating graphs" e.g. be able to select a part of graph state things about it.
Sandro Hawke: one of the scenarios is "annotating graphs" e.g. be able to select a part of graph state things about it. ←
09:38:26 <FabGandon> pchampin: we need a vocabulary for the g-* e.g. just to be about to talk about them when we load them.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: we need a vocabulary for the g-* e.g. just to be about to talk about them when we load them. ←
09:39:44 <FabGandon> PatH: if the notion of g-box is important then the semantics has to clarify that notion it does not need to be a revolution.
Patrick Hayes: if the notion of g-box is important then the semantics has to clarify that notion it does not need to be a revolution. ←
09:39:50 <FabGandon> subtopic: REST and Named graphs (bis).
09:39:52 <pfps> perhaps, but by this same argument, the semantics should specify what happens when you go an HTTP get on a URL
Peter Patel-Schneider: perhaps, but by this same argument, the semantics should specify what happens when you go an HTTP get on a URL ←
09:40:07 <mischat> i am not sure about the adoption rate of '<> rdf:type rdf:Statement.' , do people even ever use them ...
Mischa Tuffield: i am not sure about the adoption rate of '<> rdf:type rdf:Statement.' , do people even ever use them ... ←
09:40:19 <PatH> not that bad, peter...
Patrick Hayes: not that bad, peter... ←
09:40:58 <sandro> PROPOSED: We aligned g-* with REST, where g-box=information resource, g-snap=state of the resource, g-text=representation of the state of the resource
PROPOSED: We aligned g-* with REST, where g-box=information resource, g-snap=state of the resource, g-text=representation of the state of the resource ←
09:41:07 <FabGandon> cygri: documenting the alignment with REST may be useful for us but not in the deliverables ; it is too complex and time-consuming.
Richard Cyganiak: documenting the alignment with REST may be useful for us but not in the deliverables ; it is too complex and time-consuming. ←
09:42:02 <FabGandon> ivan: would lead to endless discussions.
Ivan Herman: would lead to endless discussions. ←
09:42:18 <sandro> PROPOSED: We understand that g-* aligns with REST, with g-box=information resource, g-snap=state of the resource, g-text=representation of the state of the resource
PROPOSED: We understand that g-* aligns with REST, with g-box=information resource, g-snap=state of the resource, g-text=representation of the state of the resource ←
09:42:53 <pchampin> NB: a predicate would not state the relation between a URI and a graph, but between a resource (identified by a URI) and a graph
Pierre-Antoine Champin: NB: a predicate would not state the relation between a URI and a graph, but between a resource (identified by a URI) and a graph ←
09:43:22 <PatH> i think we will be doing the world a disservice if we leave ambiguity and confusion. That is what the last RDF WG did, but there is a decade of practice now to guide us.
Patrick Hayes: i think we will be doing the world a disservice if we leave ambiguity and confusion. That is what the last RDF WG did, but there is a decade of practice now to guide us. ←
09:43:33 <mischat> sandro, perhaps s/state of the resource/state of the resource at time t/
Mischa Tuffield: sandro, perhaps s/state of the resource/state of the resource at time t/ ←
09:43:35 <pfps> do we have a failrly coherent document that describes REST?
Peter Patel-Schneider: do we have a failrly coherent document that describes REST? ←
09:43:58 <sandro> PROPOSED: We understand that g-* aligns with REST, with g-box=information resource, g-snap=state of the resource (at time t), g-text=representation of the state of the resource (at time t)
PROPOSED: We understand that g-* aligns with REST, with g-box=information resource, g-snap=state of the resource (at time t), g-text=representation of the state of the resource (at time t) ←
09:44:03 <PatH> zakim, mute me
Patrick Hayes: zakim, mute me ←
09:44:03 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: PatH should now be muted ←
09:44:21 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
09:44:22 <pfps> NB: I do understand that coherency is rather absent in the REST universe.
Peter Patel-Schneider: NB: I do understand that coherency is rather absent in the REST universe. ←
09:44:24 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
09:44:26 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
09:44:30 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
09:44:31 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
09:44:33 <zwu2> +1
09:44:36 <danbri> -1
Dan Brickley: -1 ←
09:44:40 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
09:44:51 <JFB> +1
Jean-François Baget: +1 ←
09:44:57 <mbrunati> +1
Matteo Brunati: +1 ←
09:45:06 <ivan> 0
Ivan Herman: 0 ←
09:45:14 <sandro> (clarify -- this is only for the subset of IRs that can be respresented in RDF.)
Sandro Hawke: (clarify -- this is only for the subset of IRs that can be respresented in RDF.) ←
09:45:18 <pfps> +.5 as I'm not exactly sure just what REST is
Peter Patel-Schneider: +.5 as I'm not exactly sure just what REST is ←
09:45:24 <JFB> @AZ yes, found that surprising
Jean-François Baget: @AZ yes, found that surprising ←
09:45:24 <PatH> az, that will teach you to make lumpy custard.
Patrick Hayes: az, that will teach you to make lumpy custard. ←
09:45:46 <Zakim> +AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ ←
09:46:02 <NickH> +1 (but agree that REST isn't very well specified)
Nicholas Humfrey: +1 (but agree that REST isn't very well specified) ←
09:46:09 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
09:46:12 <FabGandon> danbri: some environments don’t have a notion of REST.
Dan Brickley: some environments don’t have a notion of REST. ←
09:46:13 <pchampin> -1
09:46:43 <FabGandon> Guus: we are only considering the notions behind REST.
Guus Schreiber: we are only considering the notions behind REST. ←
09:46:57 <danbri> REST is good, but it doesn't seem a 1:1 relationship to me
Dan Brickley: REST is good, but it doesn't seem a 1:1 relationship to me ←
09:47:07 <sandro> pchampin: my concern is that we might be missing some more complicated resources whose state is not represented by a graph, because it's not just time.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: my concern is that we might be missing some more complicated resources whose state is not represented by a graph, because it's not just time. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:47:16 <SteveH> +1 to danbri, but I don't think it detracts from the analogy
Steve Harris: +1 to danbri, but I don't think it detracts from the analogy ←
09:47:19 <PatH> seems to me that if its not related to restthen I dont know why we even have these distinctions ourselves.
Patrick Hayes: seems to me that if its not related to restthen I dont know why we even have these distinctions ourselves. ←
09:47:21 <pchampin> e.g. authentication, etc
Pierre-Antoine Champin: e.g. authentication, etc ←
09:47:33 <SteveH> pchampin, right, or cookies for e.g.
Steve Harris: pchampin, right, or cookies for e.g. ←
09:47:34 <cygri> good point pchampin. language negotiation etc
Richard Cyganiak: good point pchampin. language negotiation etc ←
09:47:43 <danbri> maybe i'm pulling Web-derrived data from a local Lucene store; from Mahout clustering, or prolog, doing stuff in code and stuffing bits into graphs with URI tags. REST is in the environment but the data flow is much more complex than fetch'n'store
Dan Brickley: maybe i'm pulling Web-derrived data from a local Lucene store; from Mahout clustering, or prolog, doing stuff in code and stuffing bits into graphs with URI tags. REST is in the environment but the data flow is much more complex than fetch'n'store ←
09:47:46 <pchampin> yes, this too
Pierre-Antoine Champin: yes, this too ←
09:48:02 <sandro> guus: two groups; (1) json, (2) skolemization
Guus Schreiber: two groups; (1) json, (2) skolemization [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:48:13 <tomayac> json += tomayac
Thomas Steiner: json += tomayac ←
09:48:19 <PatH> will skolem have a phone link?
Patrick Hayes: will skolem have a phone link? ←
09:48:39 <FabGandon> ISSUE-15: Text to be further discussed : "We understand that g-* aligns with REST, with g-box=information resource, g-snap=state of the resource (at time t), g-text=representation of the state of the resource (at time t)"
ISSUE-15: Text to be further discussed : "We understand that g-* aligns with REST, with g-box=information resource, g-snap=state of the resource (at time t), g-text=representation of the state of the resource (at time t)" ←
09:48:39 <trackbot> ISSUE-15 What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-15 What is the relationship between the IRI and the triples in a dataset/quad-syntax/etc notes added ←
09:48:44 <danbri> SteveH, sure, considered as an analogy it can be instructive (and in fact I'm trying to extend REST concepts a bit more into XMPP message types)
Dan Brickley: SteveH, sure, considered as an analogy it can be instructive (and in fact I'm trying to extend REST concepts a bit more into XMPP message types) ←
10:09:29 <pfps> Topic: skolemization (whatever that is!)
(No events recorded for 20 minutes)
10:09:36 <tomayac> is there a dial-in no. for json?
Thomas Steiner: is there a dial-in no. for json? ←
10:09:49 <pfps> no dialin for json yet
Peter Patel-Schneider: no dialin for json yet ←
10:09:56 <Zakim> +zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2 ←
10:10:00 <pfps> and there won't be one
Peter Patel-Schneider: and there won't be one ←
10:10:02 <sandro> no dialin for json ever, sorry.
Sandro Hawke: no dialin for json ever, sorry. ←
10:10:05 <davidwood> zakim, who is on the phone?
David Wood: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
10:10:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, tomayac, gavinc, AZ, zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room, tomayac, gavinc, AZ, zwu2 ←
10:10:09 <zwu2> zakim, mute me
10:10:09 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should now be muted ←
10:10:40 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
10:10:52 <PatH> zakim, mute me
Patrick Hayes: zakim, mute me ←
10:10:52 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: PatH should now be muted ←
10:11:02 <mischat> tomayac: do you want to be dialled in ?
Thomas Steiner: do you want to be dialled in ? [ Scribe Assist by Mischa Tuffield ] ←
10:11:12 <yvesr> scribe: yvesr
(Scribe set to Yves Raimond)
10:11:12 <danbri> so - what are we skolemising and why?
Dan Brickley: so - what are we skolemising and why? ←
10:11:19 <mischat> do JSON people want to call in
Mischa Tuffield: do JSON people want to call in ←
10:11:20 <sandro> topic: Skolemization Breakout
10:11:21 <pgroth> the skolemization has taken over this chat room
Paul Groth: the skolemization has taken over this chat room ←
10:11:27 <pfps> The problem, as I see it, is that RDF stores hold blank nodes, but they have problems sending identifiers for these blank nodes out in response to queries and getting them back.
Peter Patel-Schneider: The problem, as I see it, is that RDF stores hold blank nodes, but they have problems sending identifiers for these blank nodes out in response to queries and getting them back. ←
10:11:29 <mischat> yeah we are about to set up a voice thing
Mischa Tuffield: yeah we are about to set up a voice thing ←
10:11:31 <mischat> i sec
Mischa Tuffield: i sec ←
10:11:40 <yvesr> SteveH: long-standing issue in the way bnodes are defined
Steve Harris: long-standing issue in the way bnodes are defined ←
10:11:49 <yvesr> SteveH: close-enough to existential variables in rdf
Steve Harris: close-enough to existential variables in rdf ←
10:12:02 <yvesr> SteveH: most implementations turn it into an internal identifier
Steve Harris: most implementations turn it into an internal identifier ←
10:12:05 <sandro> SteveH: I have a longstanding issue who how bnodes are defined, as existential variables. But the reality is that all the triplestores turn it into an internal identifier.
Steve Harris: I have a longstanding issue who how bnodes are defined, as existential variables. But the reality is that all the triplestores turn it into an internal identifier. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:12:13 <yvesr> SteveH: turning them into 'skolems'
Steve Harris: turning them into 'skolems' ←
10:12:21 <cygri> (JSON breakout is happening over in the #rdf-json channel)
Richard Cyganiak: (JSON breakout is happening over in the #rdf-json channel) ←
10:12:46 <sandro> pfps: So far, they havent' done anything wrong.
Peter Patel-Schneider: So far, they havent' done anything wrong. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:13:09 <Zakim> -tomayac
Zakim IRC Bot: -tomayac ←
10:13:13 <yvesr> SteveH: 2 problems - 1) bnodes in the wild (when there shouldn't be) and 2) people deliberately writing them (i.e. FOAF)
Steve Harris: 2 problems - 1) bnodes in the wild (when there shouldn't be) and 2) people deliberately writing them (i.e. FOAF) ←
10:13:27 <danbri> q+ to account for the foaf case
Dan Brickley: q+ to account for the foaf case ←
10:13:42 <PatH> there is also a strong deprtecation of bnode use in the linked data community.
Patrick Hayes: there is also a strong deprtecation of bnode use in the linked data community. ←
10:13:44 <sandro> SteveH: But sometimes you encounter bnodes in the wild, where it would be nice to have URIs, as in foaf. In practice it's annoying.
Steve Harris: But sometimes you encounter bnodes in the wild, where it would be nice to have URIs, as in foaf. In practice it's annoying. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:13:46 <yvesr> SteveH: in FOAF, you end up using inverse functional properties to identify individuals
Steve Harris: in FOAF, you end up using inverse functional properties to identify individuals ←
10:13:54 <davidwood> Zakim, open the queue
David Wood: Zakim, open the queue ←
10:13:54 <Zakim> ok, davidwood, the speaker queue is open
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, davidwood, the speaker queue is open ←
10:14:09 <danbri> q+ to account for the foaf case
Dan Brickley: q+ to account for the foaf case ←
10:14:24 <sandro> q+ to present proposal
Sandro Hawke: q+ to present proposal ←
10:14:43 <yvesr> SteveH: People are missing a feature from relational databases (not assigning an explicit primary key)
Steve Harris: People are missing a feature from relational databases (not assigning an explicit primary key) ←
10:15:03 <yvesr> SteveH: some triple stores have internal uri schems to talk about bnodes
Steve Harris: some triple stores have internal uri schems to talk about bnodes ←
10:15:12 <sandro> SteveH: Folks also have internal URI schemes for talking about bnodes. People really want this for SPARQL round-tripping.
Steve Harris: Folks also have internal URI schemes for talking about bnodes. People really want this for SPARQL round-tripping. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:15:14 <davidwood> ack danbri
David Wood: ack danbri ←
10:15:14 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to account for the foaf case
Zakim IRC Bot: danbri, you wanted to account for the foaf case ←
10:15:15 <yvesr> SteveH: those can surface in query results - and can be used in queries
Steve Harris: those can surface in query results - and can be used in queries ←
10:15:18 <pfps> q+
10:15:28 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
10:15:38 <pfps> q+ to say that such RDF stores aren't really doing anything 'wrong'
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to say that such RDF stores aren't really doing anything 'wrong' ←
10:15:48 <yvesr> danbri: There's a reason for the FOAF choice - leading to anonymous resources
Dan Brickley: There's a reason for the FOAF choice - leading to anonymous resources ←
10:16:02 <yvesr> danbri: no owl:sameAs, not clear what to do with resources
Dan Brickley: no owl:sameAs, not clear what to do with resources ←
10:16:19 <yvesr> danbri: identifying people with properties was a pragmatic decision
Dan Brickley: identifying people with properties was a pragmatic decision ←
10:16:44 <yvesr> davidwood: how would you do it today?
David Wood: how would you do it today? ←
10:17:07 <yvesr> danbri: if you were in a position to assign uris for other people, then FOAF would have gone for URIs
Dan Brickley: if you were in a position to assign uris for other people, then FOAF would have gone for URIs ←
10:17:24 <yvesr> danbri: bnodes are a pain to deal with...
Dan Brickley: bnodes are a pain to deal with... ←
10:17:44 <yvesr> q+
q+ ←
10:18:01 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
10:18:01 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to present proposal
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to present proposal ←
10:18:01 <ivan> ack sandro
Ivan Herman: ack sandro ←
10:18:06 <sandro> steveH: The assigned URIs leak out of query interface, which is what makes them useful.
Steve Harris: The assigned URIs leak out of query interface, which is what makes them useful. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:18:31 <danbri> original statement of the foafy smushing stuff: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200012/msg00597.html
Dan Brickley: original statement of the foafy smushing stuff: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200012/msg00597.html ←
10:18:44 <yvesr> sandro: Long discussion on the semantic-web list a couple of weeks ago - a proposal was done that adress everyone's requeirements
Sandro Hawke: Long discussion on the semantic-web list a couple of weeks ago - a proposal was done that adress everyone's requeirements ←
10:19:09 <yvesr> sandro: pick one of two uri pattern choices to skolemize bnodes
Sandro Hawke: pick one of two uri pattern choices to skolemize bnodes ←
10:19:29 <yvesr> sandro: http://... if you want to dereference, or tag:...
Sandro Hawke: http://... if you want to dereference, or tag:... ←
10:20:03 <yvesr> sandro: if you encounter one of those uris, it's machine generated
Sandro Hawke: if you encounter one of those uris, it's machine generated ←
10:20:17 <yvesr> sandro: those uris can be considered as disposable
Sandro Hawke: those uris can be considered as disposable ←
10:20:19 <danbri> so the first dozen or so FOAF files used genid: as a URI scheme, eg. http://svn.foaf-project.org/foaftown/2010/allfactoids/copies/danbri/danbri-foaf.rdf ... about="genid:poulter" etc
Dan Brickley: so the first dozen or so FOAF files used genid: as a URI scheme, eg. http://svn.foaf-project.org/foaftown/2010/allfactoids/copies/danbri/danbri-foaf.rdf ... about="genid:poulter" etc ←
10:21:00 <FabGandon> yvesr: how do you know they are machine generated?
Yves Raimond: how do you know they are machine generated? [ Scribe Assist by Fabien Gandon ] ←
10:21:13 <PatH> it is always valid to 'deskolemize', so we dont need to say anything about that.
Patrick Hayes: it is always valid to 'deskolemize', so we dont need to say anything about that. ←
10:21:20 <FabGandon> SteveH: because they have genid
Steve Harris: because they have genid [ Scribe Assist by Fabien Gandon ] ←
10:21:39 <yvesr> danbri: reserved uri pattern - genid in the uri means that it is machine generated
Dan Brickley: reserved uri pattern - genid in the uri means that it is machine generated ←
10:21:42 <sandro> 1. If you're going to Skolemize, use a URI like this:
Sandro Hawke: 1. If you're going to Skolemize, use a URI like this: ←
10:21:42 <sandro> - http://example.org/.well-known/genid/[whatever]
Sandro Hawke: - http://example.org/.well-known/genid/[whatever] ←
10:21:42 <sandro> - tag:example.org,2011/.well-known/genid/[whatever]
Sandro Hawke: - tag:example.org,2011/.well-known/genid/[whatever] ←
10:21:42 <sandro> 2. If you encounter one of these URIs:
Sandro Hawke: 2. If you encounter one of these URIs: ←
10:21:42 <sandro>
10:21:43 <sandro> - you know it's machine generated
Sandro Hawke: - you know it's machine generated ←
10:21:45 <sandro> - consider it more disposable, more mergeable
Sandro Hawke: - consider it more disposable, more mergeable ←
10:22:08 <PatH> +1 to speaker. genid is better.
Patrick Hayes: +1 to stevenh. genid is better. ←
10:22:11 <gavinc> eg: generate-id() in XPath/XSLT
Gavin Carothers: eg: generate-id() in XPath/XSLT ←
10:22:12 <sandro> We mean LITERALLY the string "genid".
Sandro Hawke: We mean LITERALLY the string "genid". ←
10:22:13 <yvesr> SteveH: Prefers genid over bnodes
Steve Harris: Prefers genid over bnodes ←
10:22:40 <PatH> s/speaker/stevenh
10:22:43 <yvesr> SteveH: you might want to use "genids" to identify graphs
Steve Harris: you might want to use "genids" to identify graphs ←
10:22:51 <davidwood> ?
David Wood: ? ←
10:22:53 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
10:22:57 <yvesr> sandro: Use "genid" or "gensym"?
Sandro Hawke: Use "genid" or "gensym"? ←
10:23:00 <davidwood> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
10:23:00 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say that such RDF stores aren't really doing anything 'wrong'
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to say that such RDF stores aren't really doing anything 'wrong' ←
10:23:05 <ivan> ack pfps
Ivan Herman: ack pfps ←
10:23:49 <davidwood> q+ to mention the use of made-up ids as a pattern to replace bnodes
David Wood: q+ to mention the use of made-up ids as a pattern to replace bnodes ←
10:24:07 <yvesr> JFB: bnodes are stronger - they can never be used in another graph
Jean-François Baget: bnodes are stronger - they can never be used in another graph ←
10:24:18 <yvesr> SteveH: this is already dropped in sparql-update
Steve Harris: this is already dropped in sparql-update ←
10:24:53 <yvesr> pfps: Technically, it is not a valid entailment
Peter Patel-Schneider: Technically, it is not a valid entailment ←
10:25:24 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
10:25:35 <danbri> related prev discussion: sergey melnik tried to create a canonical URIs for bnode/anon resources - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0046.html
Dan Brickley: related prev discussion: sergey melnik tried to create a canonical URIs for bnode/anon resources - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0046.html ←
10:25:59 <sandro> pfps: As long as these are fresh, you wont get any incorrect inferences.
Peter Patel-Schneider: As long as these are fresh, you wont get any incorrect inferences. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:26:20 <yvesr> pfps: SPARQL-update validates the leaky bnodes, what this proposal says is that graph stores are able to make that transformation
Peter Patel-Schneider: SPARQL-update validates the leaky bnodes, what this proposal says is that graph stores are able to make that transformation ←
10:26:25 <sandro> pfps: This says an RDF store is entitled to change bnodes like this.
Peter Patel-Schneider: This says an RDF store is entitled to change bnodes like this. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:27:05 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
10:27:08 <sandro> pfps: "RDF graphs stores can, on their own recognisance, do this transformation"
Peter Patel-Schneider: "RDF graphs stores can, on their own recognisance, do this transformation" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:27:37 <yvesr> PatH: the fact that such uris can leak out is a good thing
Patrick Hayes: the fact that such uris can leak out is a good thing ←
10:27:51 <yvesr> PatH: We don't have to worry about leakage
Patrick Hayes: We don't have to worry about leakage ←
10:27:52 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
10:28:22 <davidwood> ack yvesr
David Wood: ack yvesr ←
10:28:51 <zwu2> cannot hear much
10:28:55 <PatH> zakim, mute me
Patrick Hayes: zakim, mute me ←
10:28:55 <Zakim> PatH should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: PatH should now be muted ←
10:29:19 <PatH> sound is very patchy.
Patrick Hayes: sound is very patchy. ←
10:29:25 <PatH> better
Patrick Hayes: better ←
10:31:07 <davidwood> ack davidwood
David Wood: ack davidwood ←
10:31:07 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to mention the use of made-up ids as a pattern to replace bnodes
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to mention the use of made-up ids as a pattern to replace bnodes ←
10:31:31 <yvesr> yvesr: RDFa creates lots of bnodes in the wild
Yves Raimond: RDFa creates lots of bnodes in the wild ←
10:31:56 <yvesr> yvesr: and sometimes there are things that you can't identify, or don't want to mint a URI for (e.g. transient things)
Yves Raimond: and sometimes there are things that you can't identify, or don't want to mint a URI for (e.g. transient things) ←
10:32:01 <danbri> ivan, in your homepage you have <div id="container" about="http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me" typeof="foaf:Person dc:Agent"> .... that's the verbose aspect. But maybe you could use a relative URI at least?
Dan Brickley: ivan, in your homepage you have <div id="container" about="http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me" typeof="foaf:Person dc:Agent"> .... that's the verbose aspect. But maybe you could use a relative URI at least? ←
10:32:22 <yvesr> davidwood: I don't think there is soemthing wrong with bnodes, and it's fine to skolemize them
David Wood: I don't think there is something wrong with bnodes, and it's fine to skolemize them ←
10:32:37 <yvesr> s/soemthing/something/
10:33:04 <yvesr> davidwood: Machines should do the job, transparently
David Wood: Machines should do the job, transparently ←
10:33:40 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
10:33:45 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
10:33:45 <sandro> q+ to draft proposal
Sandro Hawke: q+ to draft proposal ←
10:33:50 <yvesr> SteveH: what you want is a bnode syntax, not a bnode semantics
Steve Harris: what you want is a bnode syntax, not a bnode semantics ←
10:34:14 <yvesr> ivan: I can understand that a number of people would want to derefence these things
Ivan Herman: I can understand that a number of people would want to derefence these things ←
10:34:19 <PatH> sandro, type it.
Patrick Hayes: sandro, type it. ←
10:34:21 <yvesr> ivan: what happens when you derefence them?
Ivan Herman: what happens when you derefence them? ←
10:34:24 <sandro> PROPOSAL: It's okay for systems to Skolemize bnodes, replacing them with IRIs of the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. Must be reg'd with IETF.
PROPOSED: It's okay for systems to Skolemize bnodes, replacing them with IRIs of the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. Must be reg'd with IETF. ←
10:34:33 <yvesr> ivan: what advice do you give, and how are people to set it up?
Ivan Herman: what advice do you give, and how are people to set it up? ←
10:34:57 <yvesr> ivan: the first uri pattern is an http:// uri, and needs to be dereferencable - what does it do?
Ivan Herman: the first uri pattern is an http:// uri, and needs to be dereferencable - what does it do? ←
10:34:58 <PatH> should be fine for these to give 404s.
Patrick Hayes: should be fine for these to give 404s. ←
10:35:03 <davidwood> SteveH: Yes, I want the usefulness of bnode semantics with a simple, automated bnode syntax assistance.
Steve Harris: Yes, I want the usefulness of bnode semantics with a simple, automated bnode syntax assistance. [ Scribe Assist by David Wood ] ←
10:35:29 <yvesr> ivan: do we want to get this reflected in various syntaxes?
Ivan Herman: do we want to get this reflected in various syntaxes? ←
10:35:48 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
10:36:20 <yvesr> SteveH: what we would do in 4store would be to generate bnode skolems based on a prefix
Steve Harris: what we would do in 4store would be to generate bnode skolems based on a prefix ←
10:36:32 <yvesr> SteveH: prefix is defined in configuration
Steve Harris: prefix is defined in configuration ←
10:36:52 <yvesr> SteveH: accessible as any other identifier in the store
Steve Harris: accessible as any other identifier in the store ←
10:37:30 <yvesr> ivan: you're using your SPARQL engine as a tool - the W3C needs to provide a global mechanism for what happens when you derefence a http://...genid... uri
Ivan Herman: you're using your SPARQL engine as a tool - the W3C needs to provide a global mechanism for what happens when you derefence a http://...genid... uri ←
10:37:35 <PatH> sandro, if these are supposed to refer to non-information resources, then according to http-range-14, they ought to give a 303 redirect. Can they have a # ending to remove this requirement?
Patrick Hayes: sandro, if these are supposed to refer to non-information resources, then according to http-range-14, they ought to give a 303 redirect. Can they have a # ending to remove this requirement? ←
10:38:22 <yvesr> q+
q+ ←
10:38:58 <yvesr> ivan: Linked Data people don't want to have bnodes in their graph
Ivan Herman: Linked Data people don't want to have bnodes in their graph ←
10:39:19 <yvesr> pfps: there's no way to make them happy
Peter Patel-Schneider: there's no way to make them happy ←
10:39:35 <yvesr> ivan: there is a way to set up a simple service somewhere that would do the job
Ivan Herman: there is a way to set up a simple service somewhere that would do the job ←
10:39:41 <sandro> PatH, how about if it's http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id]#
Sandro Hawke: PatH, how about if it's http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id]# ←
10:40:13 <PatH> fine with me, as long as doesnt require a 303 mechanism
Patrick Hayes: fine with me, as long as doesnt require a 303 mechanism ←
10:40:18 <davidwood> q+ to discuss broadness of skolemization (stores, validation, services, etc)
David Wood: q+ to discuss broadness of skolemization (stores, validation, services, etc) ←
10:40:23 <yvesr> SteveH: if you dereference a bnode, one thing you could do is to just say 'this is a bnode'
Steve Harris: if you dereference a bnode, one thing you could do is to just say 'this is a bnode' ←
10:40:42 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
10:40:42 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to draft proposal
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to draft proposal ←
10:40:56 <sandro> PROPOSAL: It's okay for systems to Skolemize bnodes, replacing them with IRIs of the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id]# or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. Must be reg'd with IETF.
PROPOSED: It's okay for systems to Skolemize bnodes, replacing them with IRIs of the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id]# or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. Must be reg'd with IETF. ←
10:41:00 <danbri> q+ to express risk of single point of failure / keeping a bnode-description-service secure is nontrivial, costly work
Dan Brickley: q+ to express risk of single point of failure / keeping a bnode-description-service secure is nontrivial, costly work ←
10:41:38 <yvesr> sandro: the hash is to stay clear of httpRange-14
Sandro Hawke: the hash is to stay clear of httpRange-14 ←
10:41:52 <gavinc> Annoyed but not strong/formal objection to using tag: --0?
Gavin Carothers: Annoyed but not strong/formal objection to using tag: --0? ←
10:41:58 <yvesr> sandro:
10:42:02 <PatH> +1 danbri, should not presume a service of any kind.
Patrick Hayes: +1 danbri, should not presume a service of any kind. ←
10:42:07 <yvesr> SteveH: i can think of lots of reasons not to do that
Steve Harris: i can think of lots of reasons not to do that ←
10:42:15 <sandro> gavinc, why does the tag bother you? what would you prefer?
Sandro Hawke: gavinc, why does the tag bother you? what would you prefer? ←
10:42:40 <yvesr> davidwood: uri lookups cost time and money
David Wood: uri lookups cost time and money ←
10:42:50 <gavinc> tag was designed specificly for HUMAN generated uniqueness
Gavin Carothers: tag was designed specificly for HUMAN generated uniqueness ←
10:42:50 <davidwood> ack yvesr
David Wood: ack yvesr ←
10:43:04 <gavinc> q+
Gavin Carothers: q+ ←
10:43:05 <danbri> (re bit.ly / tinyurl analogy, ... it's taking us a month of HTTP requests to bit.ly to expand otherwise mysterious shortlinks from a twitter crawl, ... they only allow 2 lookups / second ... single points of control worrying)
Dan Brickley: (re bit.ly / tinyurl analogy, ... it's taking us a month of HTTP requests to bit.ly to expand otherwise mysterious shortlinks from a twitter crawl, ... they only allow 2 lookups / second ... single points of control worrying) ←
10:44:22 <pchampin> shouldn't we add "fresh IRI" in Sandro's proposal?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: shouldn't we add "fresh IRI" in Sandro's proposal? ←
10:44:41 <sandro> yvesr: I don't like Skolem ids leaking out.
Yves Raimond: I don't like Skolem ids leaking out. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:44:54 <danbri> LOD community have established the convention than any party can invent HTTP URIs freely, for anything and anyone; so why not just generate LOD URIs or uuid: URIs? I don't see this proposal adding value to those options
Dan Brickley: LOD community have established the convention than any party can invent HTTP URIs freely, for anything and anyone; so why not just generate LOD URIs or uuid: URIs? I don't see this proposal adding value to those options ←
10:44:56 <FabGandon> WRT the service approach, beyond the risk of single point of failure it is a point of centralization in the model and in general centralization is not good for web arch IMHO
Fabien Gandon: WRT the service approach, beyond the risk of single point of failure it is a point of centralization in the model and in general centralization is not good for web arch IMHO ←
10:44:58 <PatH> all specifically RDF uses dont require dereferencing. Seems like main purpose of these being recognizable is to AVOID dereferencing them.
Patrick Hayes: all specifically RDF uses dont require dereferencing. Seems like main purpose of these being recognizable is to AVOID dereferencing them. ←
10:45:37 <davidwood> ack gavinc
David Wood: ack gavinc ←
10:45:39 <zwu2> q+
10:45:42 <ivan> ack gavinc
Ivan Herman: ack gavinc ←
10:45:45 <sandro> sandro: Maybe "*if* you're going to skolemize, you SHOULD use one of these two forms"
Sandro Hawke: Maybe "*if* you're going to skolemize, you SHOULD use one of these two forms" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:46:23 <PatH> disagree. should be free to skolemize any way you like, as long as it is 'frtesh'
Patrick Hayes: disagree. should be free to skolemize any way you like, as long as it is 'frtesh' ←
10:46:24 <yvesr> gavinc: seems very wrong to use tag uris
Gavin Carothers: seems very wrong to use tag uris ←
10:46:29 <PatH> fresh
Patrick Hayes: fresh ←
10:46:50 <yvesr> gavinc: is UUID terrible?
Gavin Carothers: is UUID terrible? ←
10:47:16 <yvesr> SteveH: minting a new UUID for all bnodes is not very affordable
Steve Harris: minting a new UUID for all bnodes is not very affordable ←
10:47:27 <yvesr> gavinc: we got rid of all bnodes at o'reilly because of that
Gavin Carothers: we got rid of all bnodes at o'reilly because of that ←
10:47:28 <davidwood> Sandro thinks yes, UUIDs doesn't allow you to use genie
David Wood: Sandro thinks yes, UUIDs doesn't allow you to use genid ←
10:47:40 <davidwood> s/genie/genid/
10:47:49 <yvesr> q?
q? ←
10:48:27 <yvesr> ivan: is it true that the tag: scheme says 'it is for humans'?
Ivan Herman: is it true that the tag: scheme says 'it is for humans'? ←
10:48:51 <yvesr> gavinc: the generation mechanism needs to happen by humans
Gavin Carothers: the generation mechanism needs to happen by humans ←
10:48:58 <davidwood> ack davidwood
David Wood: ack davidwood ←
10:48:58 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to discuss broadness of skolemization (stores, validation, services, etc)
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to discuss broadness of skolemization (stores, validation, services, etc) ←
10:49:11 <zwu2> zakim, unmute me
10:49:11 <Zakim> zwu2 should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should no longer be muted ←
10:49:25 <yvesr> davidwood: There is opportunity to use skolemisation in quite a lot of places, not only in stores
David Wood: There is opportunity to use skolemisation in quite a lot of places, not only in stores ←
10:49:50 <yvesr> davidwood: input, output, validation process, skolemization services
David Wood: input, output, validation process, skolemization services ←
10:49:52 <pchampin> q+ to talk about the fresh URIs and them leaking from the store
Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+ to talk about the fresh URIs and them leaking from the store ←
10:50:14 <sandro> PROPOSAL: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, they SHOULD use URIs of the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id]# or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF.
PROPOSED: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, they SHOULD use URIs of the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id]# or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF. ←
10:50:14 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
10:50:15 <yvesr> davidwood: if you're doing skolemization, you SHOULD do it in the way we're defining
David Wood: if you're doing skolemization, you SHOULD do it in the way we're defining ←
10:50:22 <danbri> ack danbri
Dan Brickley: ack danbri ←
10:50:22 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to express risk of single point of failure / keeping a bnode-description-service secure is nontrivial, costly work
Zakim IRC Bot: danbri, you wanted to express risk of single point of failure / keeping a bnode-description-service secure is nontrivial, costly work ←
10:50:22 <davidwood> ack danbri
David Wood: ack danbri ←
10:50:35 <davidwood> zakim, close the queue
David Wood: zakim, close the queue ←
10:50:35 <Zakim> ok, davidwood, the speaker queue is closed
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, davidwood, the speaker queue is closed ←
10:50:44 <PatH> prposal. it is permissible to replace bnodes by URIs provided that the URIs are 'fresh', ie not used in any other rdf graph. It is recommended to include a string /genid/. one way is sandro's prposal.
Patrick Hayes: prposal. it is permissible to replace bnodes by URIs provided that the URIs are 'fresh', ie not used in any other rdf graph. It is recommended to include a string /genid/. one way is sandro's prposal. ←
10:50:59 <danbri> q-
Dan Brickley: q- ←
10:51:04 <yvesr> ivan: Would that effect any of the syntaxes, and how?
Ivan Herman: Would that effect any of the syntaxes, and how? ←
10:51:07 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
10:51:07 <yvesr> SteveH: it wouldn't
Steve Harris: it wouldn't ←
10:51:08 <danbri> I defer; question withdrawn
Dan Brickley: I defer; question withdrawn ←
10:51:15 <yvesr> SteveH: it wouldn't be the parser's job to do it
Steve Harris: it wouldn't be the parser's job to do it ←
10:51:22 <yvesr> SteveH: it doesn't have enough information
Steve Harris: it doesn't have enough information ←
10:51:33 <yvesr> ivan: for RDFa, it would make sense - and it might make sense for Turtle files too
Ivan Herman: for RDFa, it would make sense - and it might make sense for Turtle files too ←
10:51:49 <yvesr> ivan: many people use the square brackets - lazyness
Ivan Herman: many people use the square brackets - lazyness ←
10:51:50 <danbri> ( I assume args for the skolem function is not just the textual input, but also the base URI...)
Dan Brickley: ( I assume args for the skolem function is not just the textual input, but also the base URI...) ←
10:52:06 <yvesr> ivan: i should be able to tell the parser to mint me some URIs for those
Ivan Herman: i should be able to tell the parser to mint me some URIs for those ←
10:52:23 <sandro> PROPOSAL: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, they SHOULD use fresh URIs of the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id][#] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF.
PROPOSED: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, they SHOULD use fresh URIs of the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id][#] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF. ←
10:52:24 <davidwood> +1 to PatH's proposal
David Wood: +1 to PatH's proposal ←
10:52:32 <davidwood> ack zwu
David Wood: ack zwu ←
10:52:39 <yvesr> SteveH: reverse transformation - output documents *with* bnodes
Steve Harris: reverse transformation - output documents *with* bnodes ←
10:53:08 <mischat_> Webr3 about?
Mischa Tuffield: Webr3 about? ←
10:53:12 <yvesr> zwu2: if you have one triple in a store, :john :friendOf _:a
Zhe Wu: if you have one triple in a store, :john :friendOf _:a ←
10:53:16 <PatH> steveh, it is always valid to 'deskolemize' with bnodes.
Patrick Hayes: steveh, it is always valid to 'deskolemize' with bnodes. ←
10:53:24 <yvesr> zwu2: you would get back a skolemized bnode
Zhe Wu: you would get back a skolemized bnode ←
10:53:31 <mischat_> webr3, if you are about join #rdf-json
Mischa Tuffield: webr3, if you are about join #rdf-json ←
10:53:36 <yvesr> zwu2: if we're using that skolemized bnode as a query
Zhe Wu: if we're using that skolemized bnode as a query ←
10:53:44 <yvesr> are we supposed to return :john or not?
are we supposed to return :john or not? ←
10:53:49 <yvesr> zwu2: are we supposed to return :john or not?
Zhe Wu: are we supposed to return :john or not? ←
10:53:52 <yvesr> SteveH: yes
Steve Harris: yes ←
10:54:08 <PatH> yes. once it is a uri, you can do this.
Patrick Hayes: yes. once it is a uri, you can do this. ←
10:54:09 <yvesr> davidwood: if identifiers leak out to the outside world, it maintains validity
David Wood: if identifiers leak out to the outside world, it maintains validity ←
10:54:31 <yvesr> ivan: if i use the bnode filter operation in a SPARQL query, what happens?
Ivan Herman: if i use the bnode filter operation in a SPARQL query, what happens? ←
10:54:37 <yvesr> ivan: does it match the skolemized bnode?
Ivan Herman: does it match the skolemized bnode? ←
10:54:47 <yvesr> SteveH: that's an issue for us
Steve Harris: that's an issue for us ←
10:54:49 <PatH> zakim, unmute me.
Patrick Hayes: zakim, unmute me. ←
10:54:49 <Zakim> PatH should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: PatH should no longer be muted ←
10:54:56 <yvesr> SteveH: we need to define if they count as bnodes or not
Steve Harris: we need to define if they count as bnodes or not ←
10:55:12 <yvesr> ivan: as a user, who doesn't understand this stuff, i would expect the bnode function to work
Ivan Herman: as a user, who doesn't understand this stuff, i would expect the bnode function to work ←
10:55:21 <yvesr> SteveH: in 4store, it would answer true
Steve Harris: in 4store, it would answer true ←
10:55:39 <yvesr> SteveH: it only gets skolemized on the export
Steve Harris: it only gets skolemized on the export ←
10:55:47 <yvesr> SteveH: internal consistency
Steve Harris: internal consistency ←
10:55:47 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
10:55:48 <davidwood> ack pchampin
David Wood: ack pchampin ←
10:55:49 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to talk about the fresh URIs and them leaking from the store
Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin, you wanted to talk about the fresh URIs and them leaking from the store ←
10:55:53 <ivan> ack pchampin
Ivan Herman: ack pchampin ←
10:56:34 <yvesr> pchampin: We shoudl specify what is ok for the system to do
Pierre-Antoine Champin: We shoudl specify what is ok for the system to do ←
10:56:39 <PatH> az, no problem
Patrick Hayes: az, no problem ←
10:56:43 <yvesr> pchampin: We should specify what the system would return
Pierre-Antoine Champin: We should specify what the system would return ←
10:56:44 <SteveH> AZ, that wouldn't be legal RDF syntax, though you could write it by hand
Steve Harris: AZ, that wouldn't be legal RDF syntax, though you could write it by hand ←
10:56:57 <davidwood> PatH, can you please resend your proposal?
David Wood: PatH, can you please resend your proposal? ←
10:56:58 <yvesr> pfps: Troubles finding the SPARQL bnode definition
Peter Patel-Schneider: Troubles finding the SPARQL bnode definition ←
10:57:25 <danbri> pat hayes
Dan Brickley: pat hayes ←
10:57:40 <SteveH> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#func-isBlank
Steve Harris: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#func-isBlank ←
10:57:49 <SteveH> ...the BNODE() function actually mints bNodes
Steve Harris: ...the BNODE() function actually mints bNodes ←
10:57:50 <yvesr> PatH: genid SHOULD be in the URI but not absolutely required
Patrick Hayes: genid SHOULD be in the URI but not absolutely required ←
10:57:58 <SteveH> but I think it was understood what was being discussed
Steve Harris: but I think it was understood what was being discussed ←
10:58:07 <yvesr> PatH: it should be possible for people to invent URIs and use them
Patrick Hayes: it should be possible for people to invent URIs and use them ←
10:58:15 <yvesr> PatH: they could use software to do that automatically
Patrick Hayes: they could use software to do that automatically ←
10:59:08 <yvesr> PatH: We should not allow skolems that are specific to a single query
Patrick Hayes: We should not allow skolems that are specific to a single query ←
10:59:24 <sandro> PatH: Note that Skolemization is not valid in an antecedent (eg query).
Patrick Hayes: Note that Skolemization is not valid in an antecedent (eg query). [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:59:31 <sandro> SteveH: that's fine.
Steve Harris: that's fine. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:59:40 <PatH> prposal. it is permissible to replace bnodes by URIs provided that the URIs are 'fresh', ie not used in any other rdf graph. It is recommended to include a string /genid/. one way is sandro's prposal.
Patrick Hayes: prposal. it is permissible to replace bnodes by URIs provided that the URIs are 'fresh', ie not used in any other rdf graph. It is recommended to include a string /genid/. one way is sandro's prposal. ←
10:59:46 <yvesr> SteveH: the skolemization process has to be stable
Steve Harris: the skolemization process has to be stable ←
11:00:00 <yvesr> davidwood: Can we get consensus around this proposal?
David Wood: Can we get consensus around this proposal? ←
11:00:19 <yvesr> davidwood: are there concerns around sandro's mandated use?
David Wood: are there concerns around sandro's mandated use? ←
11:00:43 <yvesr> davidwood: if you're going to skolemize, you need to use a globally unique URI
David Wood: if you're going to skolemize, you need to use a globally unique URI ←
11:00:49 <sandro> freshness is iffy -- since you want stability....
Sandro Hawke: freshness is iffy -- since you want stability.... ←
11:00:52 <yvesr> davidwood: and we encourage you to do it in a way
David Wood: and we encourage you to do it in a way ←
11:01:46 <danbri> -1 where did 'allowed' enter the rdf universe?
Dan Brickley: -1 where did 'allowed' enter the rdf universe? ←
11:01:49 <zwu2> as long as generated uri is fresh to the triple store, it is good enough
Zhe Wu: as long as generated uri is fresh to the triple store, it is good enough ←
11:01:54 <yvesr> -1 as well
-1 as well ←
11:02:01 <danbri> -> say what it means, not what people can/can't do
Dan Brickley: -> say what it means, not what people can/can't do ←
11:02:22 <PatH> must be fresh, should include /genid/
Patrick Hayes: must be fresh, should include /genid/ ←
11:02:47 <yvesr> sandro: MAY is you're allowed to
Sandro Hawke: MAY is you're allowed to ←
11:02:58 <yvesr> pfps: SHOULD is you should do it, unless there's a very good reason not to
Peter Patel-Schneider: SHOULD is you should do it, unless there's a very good reason not to ←
11:03:16 <PatH> sandro, why is freshness "iffy"
Patrick Hayes: sandro, why is freshness "iffy" ←
11:03:37 <danbri> proposed: "A graph transformed such that each bnode is replaced with a fresh bnode [meeting some constraints], ... then that new graph is true under the same conditions of the original."
PROPOSED: "A graph transformed such that each bnode is replaced with a fresh bnode [meeting some constraints], ... then that new graph is true under the same conditions of the original." ←
11:03:40 <danbri> q+ to propose
Dan Brickley: q+ to propose ←
11:04:10 <danbri> we are not the SPARQL WG
Dan Brickley: we are not the SPARQL WG ←
11:04:12 <yvesr> davidwood: if systems are going to leak bnodes, they must use fresh uris
David Wood: if systems are going to leak bnodes, they must use fresh uris ←
11:04:52 <yvesr> SteveH: consistent mapping between internal representation and external id
Steve Harris: consistent mapping between internal representation and external id ←
11:05:02 <zwu2> so we can reuse "fresh" uris
Zhe Wu: so we can reuse "fresh" uris ←
11:05:11 <sandro> PROPOSAL: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, they MUST use fresh URI (per bnode) and SHOULD follow the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id][#] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF.
PROPOSED: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, they MUST use fresh URI (per bnode) and SHOULD follow the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id][#] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF. ←
11:05:20 <yvesr> danbri: we're not the SPARQL working group - so I think this language inappropriate
Dan Brickley: we're not the SPARQL working group - so I think this language inappropriate ←
11:05:33 <yvesr> danbri: we should instead say something about graph structures
Dan Brickley: we should instead say something about graph structures ←
11:06:11 <yvesr> ivan: current RDF documents already talk about skolemization
Ivan Herman: current RDF documents already talk about skolemization ←
11:06:31 <yvesr> ivan: the only thing we're saying here is that if it is used, you should use this pattern
Ivan Herman: the only thing we're saying here is that if it is used, you should use this pattern ←
11:06:52 <danbri> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#prf
Dan Brickley: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#prf ←
11:06:54 <yvesr> pfps: RDF Semantics talk about skolemization
Peter Patel-Schneider: RDF Semantics talk about skolemization ←
11:07:51 <yvesr> sandro: you need a web service to do the skolemization
Sandro Hawke: you need a web service to do the skolemization ←
11:08:00 <PatH> wha?
Patrick Hayes: wha? ←
11:08:05 <yvesr> ???
??? ←
11:08:18 <danbri> madness!!!
Dan Brickley: madness!!! ←
11:08:18 <yvesr> SteveH: you can't guarantee uniqueness
Steve Harris: you can't guarantee uniqueness ←
11:08:30 <danbri> (that's a technical term, no disrespect intended)
Dan Brickley: (that's a technical term, no disrespect intended) ←
11:09:12 <PatH> call it 'bnode purging' and people will love it.
Patrick Hayes: call it 'bnode purging' and people will love it. ←
11:09:16 <yvesr> sandro: tag: skolemized bnode are more horrible than bnode
Sandro Hawke: tag: skolemized bnode are more horrible than bnode ←
11:09:35 <danbri> PatH, can it be couched more declaratively? this 'should' stuff worries me
Dan Brickley: PatH, can it be couched more declaratively? this 'should' stuff worries me ←
11:09:40 <JFB> RDF Semantics talks about Skolemization in Appendix A. Its notion of freshness is "fresh in the current graph"
Jean-François Baget: RDF Semantics talks about Skolemization in Appendix A. Its notion of freshness is "fresh in the current graph" ←
11:09:42 <yvesr> ivan: the R2RML folks are fighting with the same problem
Ivan Herman: the R2RML folks are fighting with the same problem ←
11:09:46 <PatH> danbri, yes.
Patrick Hayes: danbri, yes. ←
11:10:01 <yvesr> ivan: what happens when the DB doesn't have a (publicly exposable) primary key
Ivan Herman: what happens when a table in the DB doesn't have a (publicly exposable) primary key ←
11:10:13 <PatH> jfb, no, that is not what was intended.
Patrick Hayes: jfb, no, that is not what was intended. ←
11:10:14 <pchampin> s/the DB/a table in the DB/
11:10:19 <sandro> PatH, in "you need a web service to do the skolemization" , I mean to be particularly useful, and make people happy you did the Skolemization....
Sandro Hawke: PatH, in "you need a web service to do the skolemization" , I mean to be particularly useful, and make people happy you did the Skolemization.... ←
11:10:45 <danbri> sandro, what are you seeing as the args to the skolemisation function? not just a document + base_uri?
Dan Brickley: sandro, what are you seeing as the args to the skolemisation function? not just a document + base_uri? ←
11:10:49 <yvesr> ivan: if we come up with this note, we need to send it to the R2RML group - potential first users
Ivan Herman: if we come up with this note, we need to send it to the R2RML group - potential first users ←
11:11:17 <sandro> PROPOSAL: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, they MUST use fresh URI (per bnode) and SHOULD follow the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id][#] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF.
PROPOSED: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, they MUST use fresh URI (per bnode) and SHOULD follow the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id][#] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF. ←
11:11:37 <sandro> PROPOSAL: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, they MUST use a fresh URI (per bnode) and SHOULD follow the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id][#] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF.
PROPOSED: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, they MUST use a fresh URI (per bnode) and SHOULD follow the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id][#] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id]. Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF. ←
11:11:44 <sandro> objections from danbri and yves.
Sandro Hawke: objections from danbri and yves. ←
11:11:49 <PatH> unhappy with 'disposable'
Patrick Hayes: unhappy with 'disposable' ←
11:12:13 <yvesr> danbri: very short URIs are important to me
Dan Brickley: very short URIs are important to me ←
11:12:19 <yvesr> danbri: don't force me to use this long pattern
Dan Brickley: don't force me to use this long pattern ←
11:12:25 <sandro> danbri: short URIs are important to me. don't force me to do it this way.
Dan Brickley: short URIs are important to me. don't force me to do it this way. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:12:41 <yvesr> SteveH: uri pattern is quite verbose
Steve Harris: uri pattern is quite verbose ←
11:12:45 <PatH> and would prefer to just say 'SHOULD include string /genid/'
Patrick Hayes: and would prefer to just say 'SHOULD include string /genid/' ←
11:12:49 <danbri> sorry - am sounding grumpier than I am. This could be a useful pattern for some.
Dan Brickley: sorry - am sounding grumpier than I am. This could be a useful pattern for some. ←
11:12:50 <sandro> SteveH: for the non-deref form I prefer something smaller.
Steve Harris: for the non-deref form I prefer something smaller. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:13:08 <zwu2> how about genid:local_unique_id
Zhe Wu: how about genid:local_unique_id ←
11:13:14 <yvesr> danbri: if we cut the proposal to the first MUST, any objections?
Dan Brickley: if we cut the proposal to the first MUST, any objections? ←
11:13:35 <PatH> and sandro's particular form offered as an offtheshelf solution.
Patrick Hayes: and sandro's particular form offered as an offtheshelf solution. ←
11:13:39 <yvesr> all: what does disposable mean?
all: what does disposable mean? ←
11:13:44 <yvesr> pfps: all pragmatics from here
Peter Patel-Schneider: all pragmatics from here ←
11:13:54 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
11:14:20 <yvesr> sandro: you can skolemize, at some cost
Sandro Hawke: you can skolemize, at some cost ←
11:14:33 <danbri> when you said "You're changing the data", that's in the right direction pfps
Dan Brickley: when you said "You're changing the data", that's in the right direction pfps ←
11:14:56 <PatH> you always can skolemize. It is not valid, but it preserves satisfiability.
Patrick Hayes: you always can skolemize. It is not valid, but it preserves satisfiability. ←
11:15:02 <yvesr> sandro: proposition restrcited to MUST is actually stronger - want to expose the fact that it has been skolemized
Sandro Hawke: proposition restrcited to MUST is actually stronger - want to expose the fact that it has been skolemized ←
11:15:36 <yvesr> sandro: genid:... would be good, but needs to be pushed through the IETF
Sandro Hawke: genid:... would be good, but needs to be pushed through the IETF ←
11:15:54 <yvesr> ivan: this is a pain
Ivan Herman: this is a pain ←
11:16:11 <yvesr> sandro: don't want to be stuck in the IETF
Sandro Hawke: don't want to be stuck in the IETF ←
11:16:24 <zwu2> you guys are not hungry, are you?
Zhe Wu: you guys are not hungry, are you? ←
11:16:25 <danbri> the crux seems to be 'is it still in some appropriate equivalence class of graphs from the original? or has it been inappropriately interfered with..."
Dan Brickley: the crux seems to be 'is it still in some appropriate equivalence class of graphs from the original? or has it been inappropriately interfered with..." ←
11:16:43 <PatH> why do we need to involve the IETF???
Patrick Hayes: why do we need to involve the IETF??? ←
11:17:00 <gavinc> scheme registration :(
Gavin Carothers: scheme registration :( ←
11:17:03 <yvesr> PatH, for a potential new uri scheme for those skolems
PatH, for a potential new uri scheme for those skolems ←
11:17:09 <pchampin> PatH: if we want a genid: URI scheme
Patrick Hayes: if we want a genid: URI scheme [ Scribe Assist by Pierre-Antoine Champin ] ←
11:17:11 <pfps> if we want to use URIs of the form genid:... we need to get approval
Peter Patel-Schneider: if we want to use URIs of the form genid:... we need to get approval ←
11:17:20 <PatH> screw a new scheme. they are just uris.
Patrick Hayes: screw a new scheme. they are just uris. ←
11:17:42 <yvesr> SteveH: are the two graphs the same? the skolemized and the original one?
Steve Harris: are the two graphs the same? the skolemized and the original one? ←
11:17:53 <ivan> Pat, the issue is that the proposed URI-s are ugly and long...
Ivan Herman: Pat, the issue is that the proposed URI-s are ugly and long... ←
11:18:01 <PatH> we need pertmission to include some text inside a URI??
Patrick Hayes: we need pertmission to include some text inside a URI?? ←
11:18:30 <sandro> we need permission to say that all URIs containing certain text have a certain meaning, Pat.
Sandro Hawke: we need permission to say that all URIs containing certain text have a certain meaning, Pat. ←
11:18:34 <PatH> ivan, that is another issue.
Patrick Hayes: ivan, that is another issue. ←
11:18:35 <yvesr> you can't project from skolemized to original, but you can the other way around
you can't project from skolemized to original, but you can the other way around ←
11:18:52 <yvesr> FabGandon: you can't project from skolemized to original, but you can the other way around
Fabien Gandon: you can't project from skolemized to original, but you can the other way around ←
11:18:59 <PatH> we artent saying anything about meaning, sandro.
Patrick Hayes: we artent saying anything about meaning, sandro. ←
11:19:17 <PatH> we are just making them recognizable.
Patrick Hayes: we are just making them recognizable. ←
11:19:58 <PatH> dawn is breaking here.
Patrick Hayes: dawn is breaking here. ←
11:20:04 <yvesr> davidwood: if we're close to a solution, let's keep on on that
David Wood: if we're close to a solution, let's keep on on that ←
11:21:04 <sandro> PROPOSAL: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, without doing damage to the graph, they MUST use a fresh URI (per bnode) and SHOULD follow the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id][#] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id] (or, someday, genid:...). Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF.
PROPOSED: If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, without doing damage to the graph, they MUST use a fresh URI (per bnode) and SHOULD follow the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id][#] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id] (or, someday, genid:...). Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF. ←
11:21:31 <FabGandon> yvesr: still not happy with the SHOULD part
Yves Raimond: still not happy with the SHOULD part [ Scribe Assist by Fabien Gandon ] ←
11:21:40 <PatH> -1 to that. way too restricting. overkill.
Patrick Hayes: -1 to that. way too restricting. overkill. ←
11:21:53 <FabGandon> ... not confortable with specifying a URI parttern.
Fabien Gandon: ... not confortable with specifying a URI parttern. ←
11:22:00 <pchampin> still uncomfortable with the "disposable" part; I don't know what that means
Pierre-Antoine Champin: still uncomfortable with the "disposable" part; I don't know what that means ←
11:22:05 <zwu2> +0
11:22:13 <FabGandon> ivan: happier with IETF pattern
Ivan Herman: happier with IETF pattern [ Scribe Assist by Fabien Gandon ] ←
11:22:15 <PatH> agree with fabgandon
Patrick Hayes: agree with fabgandon ←
11:22:45 <FabGandon> Fabien happier with genid:
Fabien Gandon: Fabien happier with genid: ←
11:23:07 <PatH> we do not need to get IETF involved.
Patrick Hayes: we do not need to get IETF involved. ←
11:23:35 <pchampin> PatH: if we want genid: URIs, we do
Patrick Hayes: if we want genid: URIs, we do [ Scribe Assist by Pierre-Antoine Champin ] ←
11:23:39 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
11:23:42 <PatH> have a good lunch, guys.
Patrick Hayes: have a good lunch, guys. ←
11:23:55 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
11:23:59 <AZ> enjoy your meal
Antoine Zimmermann: enjoy your meal ←
11:24:04 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
11:24:18 <PatH> pchampin: I do not neeed he IETF t put 'gnid' into a URI name.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I do not neeed he IETF t put 'gnid' into a URI name. [ Scribe Assist by Patrick Hayes ] ←
11:24:41 <PatH> Anyway, back to email :-)
Patrick Hayes: Anyway, back to email :-) ←
11:25:09 <gavinc> about:, irc:, javascript:, jar:, rsync:, ssh:, ... need the IETF is a nice idea, the world doesn't exactly agree ;)
Gavin Carothers: about:, irc:, javascript:, jar:, rsync:, ssh:, ... need the IETF is a nice idea, the world doesn't exactly agree ;) ←
11:25:33 <gavinc> heck, if WHATWG has its way with the IETF ... no comment
Gavin Carothers: heck, if WHATWG has its way with the IETF ... no comment ←
11:25:54 <Zakim> -gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -gavinc ←
12:02:29 <ivan> -> http://www.w3.org/mid/4DA6A6AD.70205@deri.org -> Antoine's objection to yesterday's resolution
(No events recorded for 36 minutes)
Ivan Herman: -> http://www.w3.org/mid/4DA6A6AD.70205@deri.org -> Antoine's objection to yesterday's resolution ←
12:02:55 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0307.html instead
Ivan Herman: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0307.html instead ←
12:03:02 <danbri> 404
Dan Brickley: 404 ←
12:03:04 <danbri> ah
Dan Brickley: ah ←
12:03:19 <ivan> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0309.html Lee's reply
Ivan Herman: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0309.html Lee's reply ←
12:05:51 <gavinc> zakim, code?
Gavin Carothers: zakim, code? ←
12:05:51 <Zakim> the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), gavinc ←
12:06:18 <danbri> zakim, who is on the phone?
Dan Brickley: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
12:06:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room ←
12:06:19 <mischat> can people here the room ?
Mischa Tuffield: can people hear the room ? ←
12:06:19 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
12:06:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room ←
12:06:23 <mischat> s/here/hear/
12:06:27 <Zakim> +gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: +gavinc ←
12:06:53 <sandro> topic: Debrief Breakouts
12:07:03 <sandro> subtopic: JSON Breakout Debrief
12:07:34 <cmatheus> scribe:cmatheus
(Scribe set to Christopher Matheus)
12:07:34 <cmatheus> cygri: talked about note to enumerate problem JSON space
Richard Cyganiak: talked about note to enumerate problem JSON space ←
12:07:51 <cmatheus> three examples; linked data, BBC, NYT
three examples; linked data, BBC, NYT ←
12:08:01 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.443.212.aabb ←
12:08:16 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
12:08:25 <cmatheus> part of problem: data always connected to some api
part of problem: data always connected to some api ←
12:08:31 <AlexHall> zakim, +1.443.212.aabb is me
Alex Hall: zakim, +1.443.212.aabb is me ←
12:08:31 <Zakim> +AlexHall; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexHall; got it ←
12:08:47 <cmatheus> linked data approach provides tools but its complicated
linked data approach provides tools but its complicated ←
12:09:30 <cmatheus> talked about focusing on simple actions a json developer might want to take: enumerate instances, describe instance
talked about focusing on simple actions a json developer might want to take: enumerate instances, describe instance ←
12:10:21 <cmatheus> mischat: will also enlist help form rdfa TF
Mischa Tuffield: will also enlist help form rdfa TF ←
12:10:26 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
12:10:35 <ivan> zakim, open queue
Ivan Herman: zakim, open queue ←
12:10:35 <Zakim> ok, ivan, the speaker queue is open
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan, the speaker queue is open ←
12:10:39 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
12:10:48 <ivan> ack
Ivan Herman: ack ←
12:10:49 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
12:10:54 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
12:11:37 <Zakim> +??P18
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18 ←
12:11:48 <cmatheus> ivan: discussion with Sandro about rdf web app working group (rdfa wg)
Ivan Herman: discussion with Sandro about rdf web app working group (rdfa wg) ←
12:11:58 <webr3> Zakim, I am ??P18
Nathan Rixham: Zakim, I am ??P18 ←
12:11:58 <Zakim> +webr3; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +webr3; got it ←
12:12:30 <cmatheus> ivan: their intention is for low level things to be hidden from JS user
Ivan Herman: their intention is for low level things to be hidden from JS user ←
12:12:53 <cmatheus> whatever comes out of that group should be coordinated
whatever comes out of that group should be coordinated ←
12:13:04 <cmatheus> need to keep groups in sync
need to keep groups in sync ←
12:13:33 <cmatheus> guus: does this mean our use case numbver one is being done by rdfs wg?
Guus Schreiber: does this mean our use case numbver one is being done by rdfs wg? ←
12:13:43 <cmatheus> ivan: it's in the bin
Ivan Herman: it's in the bin ←
12:13:56 <danbri> 'in the bin?' = trash?
Dan Brickley: 'in the bin?' = trash? ←
12:14:13 <webr3> next week..
Nathan Rixham: next week.. ←
12:14:26 <cmatheus> according to plan rdfa api will be published next week
according to plan rdfa api will be published next week ←
12:14:41 <cmatheus> this group should look at that document
this group should look at that document ←
12:15:05 <cmatheus> guus: reporting of second breakout?
Guus Schreiber: reporting of second breakout? ←
12:15:22 <sandro> subtopic: Report of Skolemization Breakout
12:15:40 <cmatheus> steveh: problem is if you have bnodes and you want to run a query to get them out there's no way to do that.
Steve Harris: problem is if you have bnodes and you want to run a query to get them out there's no way to do that. ←
12:15:58 <cmatheus> plan is to provide a standard skolemize method to let you get them out
plan is to provide a standard skolemize method to let you get them out ←
12:16:16 <cmatheus> everyone agreed this was good
everyone agreed this was good ←
12:16:35 <sandro> SteveH: If you query a sparql store and get bnodes out, there's no way to ask about them. We'd like to stdize a way to allow those bnodes to be given lables (be IRI nodes) so you can ask more. The sticky part is about indicating which nodes started out live as bnodes.
Steve Harris: If you query a sparql store and get bnodes out, there's no way to ask about them. We'd like to stdize a way to allow those bnodes to be given lables (be IRI nodes) so you can ask more. The sticky part is about indicating which nodes started out live as bnodes. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:16:44 <cmatheus> sticky part whether it's desirable to have a way to tell that these started out as bnodes.
sticky part whether it's desirable to have a way to tell that these started out as bnodes. ←
12:17:19 <Zakim> +LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF ←
12:18:02 <cmatheus> guus: is there consensus that you should be able to tell that they were blank nodes?
Guus Schreiber: is there consensus that you should be able to tell that they were blank nodes? ←
12:18:44 <Zakim> +AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ ←
12:18:46 <Steven> -> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/14-rdf-json-minutes.html Minutes of JSON breakout
Steven Pemberton: -> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/14-rdf-json-minutes.html Minutes of JSON breakout ←
12:18:53 <cmatheus> davidwood: core issue: how are people external to the skolem process able to tell they were bnodes.
David Wood: core issue: how are people external to the skolem process able to tell they were bnodes. ←
12:18:57 <danbri> (@cygri, I made a twitter list with rdfwg members, from your post - https://twitter.com/#!/danbri/rdfwg )
Dan Brickley: (@cygri, I made a twitter list with rdfwg members, from your post - https://twitter.com/#!/danbri/rdfwg ) ←
12:19:45 <cmatheus> question to peter: do you object to there being a way to be able to tell that these are bnodes?
question to peter: do you object to there being a way to be able to tell that these are bnodes? ←
12:19:53 <sandro> davidwood: Peter, do you object to there being a mechanism for indicating skolem nodes?
David Wood: Peter, do you object to there being a mechanism for indicating skolem nodes? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:20:07 <sandro> Peter: I object to it being mandated.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I object to it being mandated. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:20:16 <cmatheus> peter: against it being manditory
Peter Patel-Schneider: against it being manditory ←
12:20:34 <cmatheus> as a consum I don't need to know whether someone skolemized.
as a consum I don't need to know whether someone skolemized. ←
12:20:40 <sandro> peter: As a consumer, I don't need to know, in all cases, whether Skolemization was done. It would be nice to know, but it's not even a should.
Peter Patel-Schneider: As a consumer, I don't need to know, in all cases, whether Skolemization was done. It would be nice to know, but it's not even a should. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:20:58 <gavinc> +q to ask if isBlank() behavior should stay the same with skolemized or non skolemized?
Gavin Carothers: +q to ask if isBlank() behavior should stay the same with skolemized or non skolemized? ←
12:20:59 <cmatheus> it's nice if we all did it or all agreed on doing it.
it's nice if we all did it or all agreed on doing it. ←
12:21:18 <danbri> so was this skolemised? http://data.linkedmdb.org/page/film/2014 ... who cares!
Dan Brickley: so was this skolemised? http://data.linkedmdb.org/page/film/2014 ... who cares! ←
12:21:24 <sandro> SteveH: I want to be able to mint URIs that are skolem constants for bnodes such that when I get them back I can tell they were bnodes?
Steve Harris: I want to be able to mint URIs that are skolem constants for bnodes such that when I get them back I can tell they were bnodes? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:21:55 <cmatheus> steveh: if the producer gets the bnodes back should they be able to tell if they were created as bnodes? different from having any user being able to tell.
Steve Harris: if the producer gets the bnodes back should they be able to tell if they were created as bnodes? different from having any user being able to tell. ←
12:22:20 <cmatheus> davidwood: in short, we were not able to get consensus
David Wood: in short, we were not able to get consensus ←
12:22:23 <gavinc> -q
Gavin Carothers: -q ←
12:22:31 <cmatheus> guus: will leave it open for the moment
Guus Schreiber: will leave it open for the moment ←
12:22:38 <sandro> danbri, there are several practical situations when I would care, yes.
Sandro Hawke: danbri, there are several practical situations when I would care, yes. ←
12:23:07 <cmatheus> guus: turning to clean up
Guus Schreiber: turning to clean up ←
12:23:15 <SteveH> danbri, if someone does INSERT DATA { <http://data.linkedmdb.org/page/film/2014> ... } and it's ont of my bNodes, I really need to be able to tell
Steve Harris: danbri, if someone does INSERT DATA { <http://data.linkedmdb.org/page/film/2014> ... } and it's ont of my bNodes, I really need to be able to tell ←
12:23:24 <SteveH> otherwise it will screw up the data
Steve Harris: otherwise it will screw up the data ←
12:23:58 <cmatheus> sandro: yesterday issue 10: deprecated, will use archaic
Sandro Hawke: yesterday ISSUE-10: deprecated, will use archaic ←
12:24:13 <cmatheus> issues on xs:string, containers
issues on xs:string, containers ←
12:24:57 <cmatheus> next item for today: reification
next item for today: reification ←
12:25:04 <cmatheus> this is issue-25
12:25:35 <cmatheus> propse that we leave this until after we have a replacement for it
propse that we leave this until after we have a replacement for it ←
12:26:08 <cmatheus> issue-26: trivial, rdfxml syntax has two ways to state subject: rdf:about and rdf:id
ISSUE-26: trivial, rdfxml syntax has two ways to state subject: rdf:about and rdf:id ←
12:26:08 <trackbot> ISSUE-26 Should we deprecate rdf:ID on RDF/XML node elements? (use rdf:about instead) notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-26 Should we deprecate rdf:ID on RDF/XML node elements? (use rdf:about instead) notes added ←
12:26:26 <cmatheus> proposal to mark idea as archaic
proposal to mark idea as archaic ←
12:26:47 <cmatheus> Steveh: it can be usefull to use rdf:id to ensure you don't reuse an id
Steve Harris: it can be usefull to use rdf:id to ensure you don't reuse an id ←
12:26:56 <sandro> SteveH: rdf:ID can be useful to find times when you accidentally use it twice....
Steve Harris: rdf:ID can be useful to find times when you accidentally use it twice.... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:26:59 <cmatheus> (since rdf:id's must be unique)
(since rdf:id's must be unique) ←
12:27:08 <AlexHall> do most rdf/xml parsers enforce the uniqueness of rdf:ID?
Alex Hall: do most rdf/xml parsers enforce the uniqueness of rdf:ID? ←
12:27:08 <cmatheus> guus: no objection to marking archaic
Guus Schreiber: no objection to marking archaic ←
12:27:40 <cmatheus> cygri: I would argue against it. it's a minor issue. fixes a minor problem among the many rdf has.
Richard Cyganiak: I would argue against it. it's a minor issue. fixes a minor problem among the many rdf has. ←
12:27:51 <cmatheus> if this is the only change let's not go there
if this is the only change let's not go there ←
12:28:00 <gavinc> Googling for rdf:ID lists documents which give conflicting advice on using it vs. rdf:about
Gavin Carothers: Googling for rdf:ID lists documents which give conflicting advice on using it vs. rdf:about ←
12:28:17 <cmatheus> sandro: wouldn't suggest that we go to much lenght to fix, but would recommend author's not to suggest using rdf:id
Sandro Hawke: wouldn't suggest that we go to much lenght to fix, but would recommend author's not to suggest using rdf:id ←
12:28:52 <danbri> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-ID-xml-base
Dan Brickley: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax-ID-xml-base ←
12:28:58 <cmatheus> guus: there is a cost involved to learning to use rdf:id vs. rdf:about
Guus Schreiber: there is a cost involved to learning to use rdf:id vs. rdf:about ←
12:29:03 <danbri> "So for example if rdf:ID="name", that would be equivalent to rdf:about="#name". rdf:ID provides an additional check since the same name can only appear once in the scope of an xml:base value (or document, if none is given), so is useful for defining a set of distinct, related terms relative to the same RDF URI reference."
Dan Brickley: "So for example if rdf:ID="name", that would be equivalent to rdf:about="#name". rdf:ID provides an additional check since the same name can only appear once in the scope of an xml:base value (or document, if none is given), so is useful for defining a set of distinct, related terms relative to the same RDF URI reference." ←
12:29:32 <cmatheus> danbri: rdf:node_id are for bnodes
Dan Brickley: rdf:node_id are for bnodes ←
12:29:34 <danbri> q+
Dan Brickley: q+ ←
12:30:25 <cmatheus> sandro: no body advocating rdf:id is a good thing just that it's not worth doing much about it
Sandro Hawke: no body advocating rdf:id is a good thing just that it's not worth doing much about it ←
12:30:53 <sandro> PROPOSED: We don't think people should be using rdf:ID, but maybe it's not worth expressing this sentiment in any documents.
PROPOSED: We don't think people should be using rdf:ID, but maybe it's not worth expressing this sentiment in any documents. ←
12:31:28 <webr3> so why not just deprecate it?
Nathan Rixham: so why not just deprecate it? ←
12:31:35 <cmatheus> guus: no one arguing for keeping it
Guus Schreiber: no one arguing for keeping it ←
12:31:42 <sandro> webr3, lots of people just gave their reasons.
Sandro Hawke: webr3, lots of people just gave their reasons. ←
12:31:46 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
12:31:54 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
12:31:59 <cmatheus> ivan: I would not touch rdf/xml
Ivan Herman: I would not touch rdf/xml ←
12:32:10 <pchampin> @web3: we deprecated the term 'deprecate' yesterday :)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: @web3: we deprecated the term 'deprecate' yesterday :) ←
12:32:13 <SteveH> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rdf%3AID%22 suggests we should keep it
Steve Harris: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rdf%3AID%22 suggests we should keep it ←
12:32:17 <cmatheus> if we begin to do something with it we will have to do a serious job
if we begin to do something with it we will have to do a serious job ←
12:32:56 <cmatheus> danbri: rdf spec grammar, rdf:id can be used to check name reuse
Dan Brickley: rdf spec grammar, rdf:id can be used to check name reuse ←
12:33:12 <sandro> danbri: By saying anything, we complicated the RDF environment.
Dan Brickley: By saying anything, we complicated the RDF environment. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:33:16 <cmatheus> if we say anything at all we add complexity to rdf environment.
if we say anything at all we add complexity to rdf environment. ←
12:33:24 <pfps> q+
12:33:35 <cmatheus> guus: propose we do not change
Guus Schreiber: propose we do not change ←
12:33:40 <ivan> ack danbri
Ivan Herman: ack danbri ←
12:33:42 <ivan> ack pfps
Ivan Herman: ack pfps ←
12:33:46 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-26 doing nothing.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-26 doing nothing. ←
12:33:49 <cmatheus> pfps: because it is being used we should do something about it
Peter Patel-Schneider: because it is being used we should do something about it ←
12:33:57 <LeeF> ISSUE-26?
12:33:57 <trackbot> ISSUE-26 -- Should we deprecate rdf:ID on RDF/XML node elements? (use rdf:about instead) -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-26 -- Should we deprecate rdf:ID on RDF/XML node elements? (use rdf:about instead) -- open ←
12:33:57 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/26
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/26 ←
12:34:07 <gavinc> I think my objection to rdf:ID is what happens if your xml:base ends with a / ;)
Gavin Carothers: I think my objection to rdf:ID is what happens if your xml:base ends with a / ;) ←
12:34:29 <gavinc> the issue is "appending the attribute value to the result of appending "#""
Gavin Carothers: the issue is "appending the attribute value to the result of appending "#"" ←
12:34:38 <NickH> Why is getting rid of rdf:ID more effort than getting rid of XMLLiteral / xsd:String etc?
Nicholas Humfrey: Why is getting rid of rdf:ID more effort than getting rid of XMLLiteral / xsd:String etc? ←
12:34:42 <cmatheus> davidwood: why if it caused confusion and we agree we shouldn't use it, why should we continue to accept it?
David Wood: why if it caused confusion and we agree we shouldn't use it, why should we continue to accept it? ←
12:34:49 <danbri> q+ to propose that we replace rdf:about and rdf:resource with rdf:uri, i.e. <foaf:Person rdf:uri="#me"><foaf:homepage rdf:uri="/"></foaf:Person>
Dan Brickley: q+ to propose that we replace rdf:about and rdf:resource with rdf:uri, i.e. <foaf:Person rdf:uri="#me"><foaf:homepage rdf:uri="/"></foaf:Person> ←
12:34:55 <cmatheus> marking it archaic is not removing it
marking it archaic is not removing it ←
12:35:11 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-26 doing nothing.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-26 doing nothing. ←
12:35:12 <NickH> sorry for the inaccuracy
Nicholas Humfrey: sorry for the inaccuracy ←
12:35:18 <danbri> q-
Dan Brickley: q- ←
12:35:36 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
12:35:38 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
12:35:39 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
12:35:40 <danbri> +1
Dan Brickley: +1 ←
12:35:41 <pfps> +0
12:35:41 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
12:35:42 <pchampin> +1
12:35:42 <mbrunati> 1
Matteo Brunati: 1 ←
12:35:43 <gavinc> -0
Gavin Carothers: -0 ←
12:35:43 <cmatheus>cmatheus::+1
Christopher Matheus: :+1 ←
12:35:44 <sandro> +0 (I understand)
Sandro Hawke: +0 (I understand) ←
12:35:44 <webr3> +0
Nathan Rixham: +0 ←
12:35:47 <JFB> +1/3
Jean-François Baget: +1/3 ←
12:35:51 <davidwood> +0
David Wood: +0 ←
12:35:57 <mischat> +1
Mischa Tuffield: +1 ←
12:36:00 <NickH> Why is marking rdf:ID as archaic more effort than marking XMLLiteral / xsd:String etc archaic?
Nicholas Humfrey: Why is marking rdf:ID as archaic more effort than marking XMLLiteral / xsd:String etc archaic? ←
12:36:05 <FabGandon> +2/3
Fabien Gandon: +2/3 ←
12:36:07 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-26 doing nothing.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-26 doing nothing. ←
12:36:33 <davidwood> NickH: Because marking rdf:ID as archaic would require a change to the RDF/XML document.
Nicholas Humfrey: Because marking rdf:ID as archaic would require a change to the RDF/XML document. [ Scribe Assist by David Wood ] ←
12:36:34 <cmatheus> sandro: rdf:value
Sandro Hawke: rdf:value ←
12:36:49 <cmatheus> all I can say, mark it as archaic
all I can say, mark it as archaic ←
12:36:51 <danbri> NickH - because those are *vocabulary* constructs which affect the entire ecosystem - rdfa, turtle, json, sparql, owl...
Dan Brickley: NickH - because those are *vocabulary* constructs which affect the entire ecosystem - rdfa, turtle, json, sparql, owl... ←
12:37:01 <sandro> SteveH: I like rdf:value
Steve Harris: I like rdf:value [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:37:05 <sandro> Guus: I like it too!
Guus Schreiber: I like it too! [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:37:07 <cmatheus> FabGandon: it's in a best practice note
Fabien Gandon: it's in a best practice note ←
12:37:26 <LeeF> SCOVO uses rdf:value (for better or for worse)
Lee Feigenbaum: SCOVO uses rdf:value (for better or for worse) ←
12:37:26 <NickH> danbri / davidwood thanks
Nicholas Humfrey: danbri / davidwood thanks ←
12:37:33 <webr3> I like rdf:value just wish it was defined more clearly
Nathan Rixham: I like rdf:value just wish it was defined more clearly ←
12:37:39 <LeeF> (http://sw.joanneum.at/scovo/schema.html)
Lee Feigenbaum: (http://sw.joanneum.at/scovo/schema.html) ←
12:37:53 <sandro> Guus: In representation of museum data, we annotate with a bnode structure and then use a rdf:value for what's really pointed to.
Guus Schreiber: In representation of museum data, we annotate with a bnode structure and then use a rdf:value for what's really pointed to. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:37:54 <cmatheus> guus: example of its use: have things about values such as its dimension
Guus Schreiber: example of its use: have things about values such as its dimension ←
12:38:13 <gavinc> +q Dublin Core also uses it
Gavin Carothers: +q Dublin Core also uses it ←
12:38:13 <danbri> rdf:value was partly from reification, and partly for n-ary -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jul/0252.html
Dan Brickley: rdf:value was partly from reification, and partly for n-ary -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2010Jul/0252.html ←
12:38:26 <gavinc> +q to talk mention that Dublin Core also uses it
Gavin Carothers: +q to talk mention that Dublin Core also uses it ←
12:38:29 <sandro> guus: Lots of people use this pattern, effectively.
Guus Schreiber: Lots of people use this pattern, effectively. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:38:41 <danbri> it's a bit like toString()
Dan Brickley: it's a bit like toString() ←
12:38:45 <FabGandon> Note 3 in SWBPWG http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/#sec-notes
Fabien Gandon: Note 3 in SWBPWG http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/#sec-notes ←
12:38:46 <cmatheus> guus: this is a property that points to the value
Guus Schreiber: this is a property that points to the value ←
12:38:54 <cmatheus> it's highly deployed in some communities
it's highly deployed in some communities ←
12:39:39 <LeeF> Even if it was the most hated thing in the spec, I don't think we ought to deprecate it if it's as widely in use as it appears.
Lee Feigenbaum: Even if it was the most hated thing in the spec, I don't think we ought to deprecate it if it's as widely in use as it appears. ←
12:39:53 <danbri> re weights-and-measures, http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/ uses it for exactly that -- search for <n:units rdf:resource="http://www.nist.gov/units/Pounds"/>
Dan Brickley: re weights-and-measures, http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/ uses it for exactly that -- search for <n:units rdf:resource="http://www.nist.gov/units/Pounds"/> ←
12:39:54 <cmatheus> Steveh: done work with numeric data, want to be able to lterals as subjects in a sense
Steve Harris: done work with numeric data, want to be able to lterals as subjects in a sense ←
12:40:00 <yvesr> SteveH, was it signal processign related stuff?
Yves Raimond: SteveH, was it signal processign related stuff? ←
12:40:09 <yvesr> SteveH, had to do the same for this kind of things
Yves Raimond: SteveH, had to do the same for this kind of things ←
12:40:10 <cmatheus> ivan: when you need to add a unit to a value this is perhaps the best way to do it
Ivan Herman: when you need to add a unit to a value this is perhaps the best way to do it ←
12:40:16 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-27 doing nothing (not marking rdf:value as archaic).
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-27 doing nothing (not marking rdf:value as archaic). ←
12:40:20 <gavinc> -q
Gavin Carothers: -q ←
12:40:21 <pfps> -1
12:40:21 <webr3> +1
Nathan Rixham: +1 ←
12:40:22 <SteveH> yvesr, no, demographics
Steve Harris: yvesr, no, demographics ←
12:40:23 <cmatheus> danbri: was in the original recommendation for that purpose
Dan Brickley: was in the original recommendation for that purpose ←
12:40:23 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
12:40:24 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
12:40:26 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
12:40:30 <AZ> +0
Antoine Zimmermann: +0 ←
12:40:33 <SteveH> yvesr, but I think it might also be used in LV2
Steve Harris: yvesr, but I think it might also be used in LV2 ←
12:40:35 <pchampin> q?
12:40:37 <gavinc> +q to talk mention that Dublin Core also uses it
Gavin Carothers: +q to talk mention that Dublin Core also uses it ←
12:40:39 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
12:40:40 <cmatheus> cygri: would like evidence on its deployment
Richard Cyganiak: would like evidence on its deployment ←
12:40:42 <mbrunati> +1
Matteo Brunati: +1 ←
12:40:43 <SteveH> yvesr, for presets and defaults
Steve Harris: yvesr, for presets and defaults ←
12:40:55 <FabGandon> +1/2
Fabien Gandon: +1/2 ←
12:40:58 <cmatheus> pfps: I've seen it. always badly.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I've seen it. always badly. ←
12:41:03 <sandro> pfps: Every single case where I've seen it used, it's used badly.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Every single case where I've seen it used, it's used badly. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:41:05 <cmatheus> danbri: how could you tell?
Dan Brickley: how could you tell? ←
12:41:27 <cmatheus> pfps: there's always a back handed agreement for how it is used
Peter Patel-Schneider: there's always a back handed agreement for how it is used ←
12:41:30 <sandro> pfps: ... where there is a backhanded agreement about what it really means, and where the meaning is really different in every case.
Peter Patel-Schneider: ... where there is a backhanded agreement about what it really means, and where the meaning is really different in every case. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:41:39 <cmatheus> ivan: this can be done because it is an open ended property
Ivan Herman: this can be done because it is an open ended property ←
12:41:48 <cmatheus> pfps: destroys the utility of rdf
Peter Patel-Schneider: destroys the utility of rdf ←
12:42:00 <cmatheus> rdf:value is used as a local property
rdf:value is used as a local property ←
12:42:06 <webr3> +1 pfps
Nathan Rixham: +1 pfps ←
12:42:15 <cmatheus> cygri: where used they should have defined a local property
Richard Cyganiak: where used they should have defined a local property ←
12:42:21 <cmatheus> guus: that's not true
Guus Schreiber: that's not true ←
12:42:22 <webr3> it's centered on out of band knowledge about the data
Nathan Rixham: it's centered on out of band knowledge about the data ←
12:42:22 <AZ> +1 cygri
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 cygri ←
12:42:30 <sandro> cygri: I would argue that every time it's used, a local property should be defined for that.
Richard Cyganiak: I would argue that every time it's used, a local property should be defined for that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:42:37 <cmatheus> rdf:value is for something where we don't have a solution
rdf:value is for something where we don't have a solution ←
12:42:56 <cmatheus> steveh: like rdfs:label -- it's a handy thing to have around
Steve Harris: like rdfs:label -- it's a handy thing to have around ←
12:43:00 <webr3> rdfs:label is a typed link, rdf:value is untyped
Nathan Rixham: rdfs:label is a typed link, rdf:value is untyped ←
12:43:05 <sandro> issue-27
12:43:09 <sandro> issue-27?
12:43:10 <trackbot> ISSUE-27 -- Should we deprecate rdf:value? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-27 -- Should we deprecate rdf:value? -- open ←
12:43:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/27
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/27 ←
12:43:31 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#rdfvalue
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#rdfvalue ←
12:43:36 <cmatheus> guus: rdf:label points to a string instead of name and rdf:value points to the value
Guus Schreiber: rdf:label points to a string instead of name and rdf:value points to the value ←
12:43:48 <cmatheus> same kind of function as rdf:label
same kind of function as rdf:label ←
12:43:51 <mischat> ?q
Mischa Tuffield: ?q ←
12:43:56 <danbri> ±0
Dan Brickley: ±0 ←
12:44:16 <danbri> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value "rdf:value has no meaning on its own. It is provided as a piece of vocabulary that may be used in idioms such as illustrated in example 16 of the RDF primer [RDF-PRIMER]. Despite the lack of formal specification of the meaning of this property, there is value in defining it to encourage the use of a common idiom in examples of this kind."
Dan Brickley: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value "rdf:value has no meaning on its own. It is provided as a piece of vocabulary that may be used in idioms such as illustrated in example 16 of the RDF primer [RDF-PRIMER]. Despite the lack of formal specification of the meaning of this property, there is value in defining it to encourage the use of a common idiom in examples of this kind." ←
12:44:18 <cmatheus> pfps: don't mark it as archaic but realize you're making a bad mistake
Peter Patel-Schneider: don't mark it as archaic but realize you're making a bad mistake ←
12:44:20 <LeeF> Can we put an action to address this in the updated primer?
Lee Feigenbaum: Can we put an action to address this in the updated primer? ←
12:44:22 <danbri> ie. RDFS current encourages its use
Dan Brickley: ie. RDFS current encourages its use ←
12:44:33 <cmatheus> sandro: do you want document to say something about it?
Sandro Hawke: do you want document to say something about it? ←
12:44:42 <gavinc> Does Dublin Core do it wrong? http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf-notes/
Gavin Carothers: Does Dublin Core do it wrong? http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-rdf-notes/ ←
12:44:54 <cmatheus> pfps: no. every time it's been used its been used badly.
Peter Patel-Schneider: no. every time it's been used its been used badly. ←
12:45:05 <webr3> pfps +1
Nathan Rixham: pfps +1 ←
12:45:10 <sandro> pfps: Every time I've seen rdf:value it's been bad practice, destroying the "beauty" of RDF.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Every time I've seen rdf:value it's been bad practice, destroying the "beauty" of RDF. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:45:19 <webr3> it's like <a href="boo">, untyped
Nathan Rixham: it's like <a href="boo">, untyped ←
12:45:19 <pchampin> @sandro the example in the RDF primer is a bad one :-( (weight)
Pierre-Antoine Champin: @sandro the example in the RDF primer is a bad one :-( (weight) ←
12:45:30 <cmatheus> pfps: rdf:value is the same as rdf:thispropertydoesn'tmeana*?/thing
Peter Patel-Schneider: rdf:value is the same as rdf:thispropertydoesn'tmeana*?/thing ←
12:45:38 <cmatheus> sandro: is this resolved?
Sandro Hawke: is this resolved? ←
12:45:47 <sandro> pfps: I'm not formally objecting to this proposal.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm not formally objecting to this proposal. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:45:59 <Zakim> -Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: -Meeting_Room ←
12:46:00 <webr3> should it a couple of new properties be defined for common uses of rdf:value ..
Nathan Rixham: should it a couple of new properties be defined for common uses of rdf:value .. ←
12:46:03 <gavinc> ah
Gavin Carothers: ah ←
12:46:08 <gavinc> and there goes the phone
Gavin Carothers: and there goes the phone ←
12:46:09 <Steven> zakim, who is noisy?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, who is noisy? ←
12:46:10 <cmatheus> cygri: is there some text on good use of rdf:value?
Richard Cyganiak: is there some text on good use of rdf:value? ←
12:46:11 <danbri> q+ to note a bug in RDFS spec; it references Primer example 16 -- an example that doesn't even use rdf:value.
Dan Brickley: q+ to note a bug in RDFS spec; it references Primer example 16 -- an example that doesn't even use rdf:value. ←
12:46:17 <sandro> Guus: I disagree with Peter's characterization
Guus Schreiber: I disagree with Peter's characterization [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:46:22 <Zakim> Steven, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: gavinc (4%)
Zakim IRC Bot: Steven, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: gavinc (4%) ←
12:46:23 <sandro> davidwood: As do I.
David Wood: As do I. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:46:42 <cmatheus> I would disagree with some of the things in the Primer
I would disagree with some of the things in the Primer ←
12:46:45 <sandro> cygri: The use for units of measure is extremely questionable.
Richard Cyganiak: The use for units of measure is extremely questionable. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:47:06 <Steven> zakim, code?
Steven Pemberton: zakim, code? ←
12:47:06 <Zakim> the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), Steven ←
12:47:08 <cmatheus> there's a lot of work on how to measure units of measure, they come up with different solutions
there's a lot of work on how to measure units of measure, they come up with different solutions ←
12:47:13 <gavinc> No, I can not hear.
Gavin Carothers: No, I can not hear. ←
12:47:35 <cmatheus> Sandro: meeting room got hung up on
Sandro Hawke: meeting room got hung up on ←
12:47:53 <sandro> s/Sandor/Sandro/
Sandro Hawke: s/Sandor/Sandro/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
12:48:12 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: +Meeting_Room ←
12:48:50 <cmatheus> cygri: if you just use rdf:value and have addition properties hanging off of value telling you what the value means, that's bad
Richard Cyganiak: if you just use rdf:value and have addition properties hanging off of value telling you what the value means, that's bad ←
12:49:48 <yvesr> :fft rdf:value "..."
Yves Raimond: :fft rdf:value "..." ←
12:50:03 <cmatheus> the Primer leads people into bad modeling and we should do something about it
the Primer leads people into bad modeling and we should do something about it ←
12:50:11 <sandro> cygri: The primer gives bad modeling advice, and I don't like that.
Richard Cyganiak: The primer gives bad modeling advice, and I don't like that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:50:14 <pchampin> +1 cygri
Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 cygri ←
12:50:16 <yvesr> :fft :derived_from :signal .
Yves Raimond: :fft :derived_from :signal . ←
12:50:20 <yvesr> all good practice, imho
Yves Raimond: all good practice, imho ←
12:50:21 <cmatheus> guus: we can close this and open a new issue about the Primer
Guus Schreiber: we can close this and open a new issue about the Primer ←
12:50:25 <NickH> yvesr: so avoid repeating very large literal values?
Nicholas Humfrey: yvesr, so avoid repeating very large literal values? ←
12:50:30 <cmatheus> cygri: okay
Richard Cyganiak: okay ←
12:50:37 <yvesr> NickH, yep
Yves Raimond: NickH, yep ←
12:50:49 <gavinc> -q
Gavin Carothers: -q ←
12:50:53 <yvesr> s/yvesr:/yvesr,/
12:51:22 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-27, not marking rdf:value as archaic, but with the understand that the modeling advice in RDF Primer will be revisited.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-27, not marking rdf:value as archaic, but with the understand that the modeling advice in RDF Primer will be revisited. ←
12:51:26 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
12:51:28 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
12:51:37 <danbri> q?
Dan Brickley: q? ←
12:51:39 <danbri> ack danbri
Dan Brickley: ack danbri ←
12:51:39 <Zakim> danbri, you wanted to note a bug in RDFS spec; it references Primer example 16 -- an example that doesn't even use rdf:value.
Zakim IRC Bot: danbri, you wanted to note a bug in RDFS spec; it references Primer example 16 -- an example that doesn't even use rdf:value. ←
12:51:44 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
12:51:47 <danbri> ahh, i forgot already
Dan Brickley: ahh, i forgot already ←
12:51:49 <cygri> -0
Richard Cyganiak: -0 ←
12:51:59 <davidwood> Dublin Core uses rdf:value in the same manner as the examples in the RDF spec. I think it is therefore compliant.
David Wood: Dublin Core uses rdf:value in the same manner as the examples in the RDF spec. I think it is therefore compliant. ←
12:52:00 <AZ> +0
Antoine Zimmermann: +0 ←
12:52:00 <danbri> action danbri danbri, you wanted to note a bug in RDFS spec; it references Primer example 16 -- an example that doesn't even use rdf:value.
Dan Brickley: action danbri danbri, you wanted to note a bug in RDFS spec; it references Primer example 16 -- an example that doesn't even use rdf:value. ←
12:52:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Danbri, you wanted to note a bug in RDFS spec; it references Primer example 16 -- an example that doesn't even use rdf:value. [on Dan Brickley - due 2011-04-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-33 - Danbri, you wanted to note a bug in RDFS spec; it references Primer example 16 -- an example that doesn't even use rdf:value. [on Dan Brickley - due 2011-04-21]. ←
12:52:05 <pchampin> +1
12:52:27 <cmatheus> sandro: can put an Action on Richard to review primer
Sandro Hawke: can put an Action on Richard to review primer ←
12:52:58 <cmatheus> cygri: I think there is a technical issue about a bug in the rdf Primer about advice on use of rdf:value
Richard Cyganiak: I think there is a technical issue about a bug in the rdf Primer about advice on use of rdf:value ←
12:53:23 <cmatheus> guus: could result in Primer ignoring rdf:value
Guus Schreiber: could result in Primer ignoring rdf:value ←
12:53:33 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-27, not marking rdf:value as archaic, but with the understand that the modeling advice in RDF Primer will be revisited.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-27, not marking rdf:value as archaic, but with the understand that the modeling advice in RDF Primer will be revisited. ←
12:54:17 <cmatheus> sandro: only plan to spend another 35 minutes here
Sandro Hawke: only plan to spend another 35 minutes here ←
12:54:28 <cmatheus> those were all the ones marked as Archic
those were all the ones marked as Archaic ←
12:54:43 <cmatheus> s/Archic/Archaic/
12:54:43 <FabGandon> issue-6?
12:54:43 <trackbot> ISSUE-6 -- Handling RDF Errata -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-6 -- Handling RDF Errata -- open ←
12:54:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/6
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/6 ←
12:55:03 <FabGandon> issue-7?
12:55:04 <trackbot> ISSUE-7 -- Leftover issues from the RDF Core WG -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-7 -- Leftover issues from the RDF Core WG -- open ←
12:55:04 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/7
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/7 ←
12:55:12 <cmatheus> ivan: issue 6: handling of Errata
Ivan Herman: ISSUE-6: handling of Errata ←
12:55:14 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata
Mischa Tuffield: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/errata ←
12:55:29 <cmatheus> we have to have a mechanism not to forget these
we have to have a mechanism not to forget these ←
12:55:38 <mischat> this related to danbri's suggestion of going through the archives
Mischa Tuffield: this relates to danbri's suggestion of going through the archives ←
12:55:46 <mischat> s/related/relates/
12:56:01 <cmatheus> nothing earthshakingly major
nothing earthshakingly major ←
12:56:24 <cmatheus> issue-7: some issues left open from previous working group
ISSUE-7: some issues left open from previous working group ←
12:56:24 <trackbot> ISSUE-7 Leftover issues from the RDF Core WG notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-7 Leftover issues from the RDF Core WG notes added ←
12:56:45 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#/%23futures
Mischa Tuffield: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#/%23futures ←
12:56:53 <cmatheus> danbri: brief comment on list
Dan Brickley: brief comment on list ←
12:57:07 <cmatheus> some were engineering hacks, left for next group
some were engineering hacks, left for next group ←
12:57:20 <webr3> +1
Nathan Rixham: +1 ←
12:57:21 <cmatheus> ivan: we still need to go through them
Ivan Herman: we still need to go through them ←
12:57:34 <cmatheus> davidwood: propose a telecom to discuss these
David Wood: propose a telecom to discuss these ←
12:57:40 <yvesr> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects :)
Yves Raimond: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects :) ←
12:57:47 <cmatheus> pfps: someone should go through them ahead of time
Peter Patel-Schneider: someone should go through them ahead of time ←
12:57:59 <cmatheus> davidwood: I volunteer to do that
David Wood: I volunteer to do that ←
12:58:17 <cmatheus> ivan: IRI versus URI story
Ivan Herman: IRI versus URI story ←
12:58:18 <sandro> ACTION: wood prepare resolutions to dispose of each of the leftover items, http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#/%23futures
ACTION: wood prepare resolutions to dispose of each of the leftover items, http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#/%23futures ←
12:58:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-34 - Prepare resolutions to dispose of each of the leftover items, http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#/%23futures [on David Wood - due 2011-04-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-34 - Prepare resolutions to dispose of each of the leftover items, http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#/%23futures [on David Wood - due 2011-04-21]. ←
12:58:25 <cmatheus> frankly I am lost with the details
frankly I am lost with the details ←
12:58:53 <gavinc> Jeremy had something on what needed to be updated with the IRIs, but I seem to have miss placed it.
Gavin Carothers: Jeremy had something on what needed to be updated with the IRIs, but I seem to have miss placed it. ←
12:58:54 <cmatheus> Andy and Eric know a lot about that
Andy and Eric know a lot about that ←
12:58:59 <FabGandon> issue-8?
12:58:59 <trackbot> ISSUE-8 -- Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-8 -- Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents -- open ←
12:58:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/8
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/8 ←
12:59:40 <cmatheus> sandro: we want to look at every where we say something about URI and replace it with IRI
Sandro Hawke: we want to look at every where we say something about URI and replace it with IRI ←
12:59:53 <ivan> The IRI Spec[1] is from 2005, and it may be necessary to retrofit it to RDF. Eg, what is the relationship between "http://xn--rsum-bpad.example.org/" and "http://xn--rsum-bpad.example.org/"? Are they the same resource or not? Note that SPARQL has something on that[2]...
Ivan Herman: The IRI Spec[1] is from 2005, and it may be necessary to retrofit it to RDF. Eg, what is the relationship between "http://xn--rsum-bpad.example.org/" and "http://xn--rsum-bpad.example.org/"? Are they the same resource or not? Note that SPARQL has something on that[2]... ←
13:00:39 <gavinc> Jeremy thought there were a few when we spoke about it. But again, I've missplaced the record of that conversation
Gavin Carothers: Jeremy thought there were a few when we spoke about it. But again, I've missplaced the record of that conversation ←
13:00:51 <sandro> "http://résumé.example.org" and "http://xn--rsum-bpad.example.org"?
Sandro Hawke: "http://résumé.example.org" and "http://xn--rsum-bpad.example.org"? ←
13:01:03 <cmatheus> ivan: (showing on the screen an issue with url's in irc)
Ivan Herman: (showing on the screen an issue with url's in irc) ←
13:01:37 <cmatheus> are the displayed iri's refereing to same resource or not?
are the displayed iri's refereing to same resource or not? ←
13:02:10 <cmatheus> cygri: two iri's are identifcal if the characters are the same, except in a number of cases...
Richard Cyganiak: two iri's are identical if the characters are the same, except in a number of cases... ←
13:02:24 <cmatheus> s/identifcal/identical/
13:02:25 <davidwood> q+
David Wood: q+ ←
13:02:58 <cmatheus> the one uri can be normalized into the other
the one uri can be normalized into the other ←
13:03:25 <cmatheus> guus: if it's a problem we can flag it but's it's not in the realm of where we should go
Guus Schreiber: if it's a problem we can flag it but's it's not in the realm of where we should go ←
13:03:44 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#syntaxTerms
Mischa Tuffield: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#syntaxTerms ←
13:03:47 <cmatheus> mischat: if we go this way we will need to have best practise note on this
Mischa Tuffield: if we go this way we will need to have best practise note on this ←
13:03:53 <cmatheus> sandro: example?
Sandro Hawke: example? ←
13:03:55 <sandro> mischat: back-tick is valid in URI-References but not IRIs.
Mischa Tuffield: back-tick is valid in URI-References but not IRIs. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:04:08 <cmatheus> mischat: a back tick. caused our app to go down.
Mischa Tuffield: a back tick. caused our app to go down. ←
13:04:25 <cmatheus> davidwood: I've seen issues with that, I think it was with back tick.
David Wood: I've seen issues with that, I think it was with back tick. ←
13:04:36 <gavinc> for reference, IRI spec: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987
Gavin Carothers: for reference, IRI spec: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987 ←
13:04:46 <cmatheus> guus: objet to description of issues -- it's outside of scope
Guus Schreiber: objet to description of issues -- it's outside of scope ←
13:05:11 <pchampin> from the charter (required section): Clarify the usage of IRI references for RDF resources
Pierre-Antoine Champin: from the charter (required section): Clarify the usage of IRI references for RDF resources ←
13:05:18 <cmatheus> mischat: rdf group was guessing at what iris would look like
Mischa Tuffield: rdf group was guessing at what iris would look like ←
13:05:32 <cmatheus> davidwood: issue from implementation standdpoint
David Wood: issue from implementation standdpoint ←
13:05:50 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
13:06:00 <cmatheus> when trying to index rdf, if you have to do a lot of checking, implementers will screem, Talis for one.
when trying to index rdf, if you have to do a lot of checking, implementers will screem, Talis for one. ←
13:06:00 <ivan> ack davidwood
Ivan Herman: ack davidwood ←
13:06:27 <cmatheus> if we said an iri and uri were equivalent that would cause serious practical problems
if we said an iri and uri were equivalent that would cause serious practical problems ←
13:06:43 <cmatheus> steveH: I understand what you're saying but don't understand the technical problem
Steve Harris: I understand what you're saying but don't understand the technical problem ←
13:07:04 <gavinc> +q
Gavin Carothers: +q ←
13:07:15 <cmatheus> davidwood: when ingesting rdf you must say whether this uri is equivalent to some other uri's in your system
David Wood: when ingesting rdf you must say whether this uri is equivalent to some other uri's in your system ←
13:07:15 <sandro> SteveH: Every triplestore I know just uses utf-8, so the question is which chars are allowed.
Steve Harris: Every triplestore I know just uses utf-8, so the question is which chars are allowed. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:07:29 <cmatheus> steveh: it just changes your grammar
Steve Harris: it just changes your grammar ←
13:07:35 <cmatheus> davidwood: you may be right
David Wood: you may be right ←
13:07:42 <cmatheus> SteveH: I'm pretty sure I am
Steve Harris: I'm pretty sure I am ←
13:07:43 <ivan> ack davidwood
Ivan Herman: ack davidwood ←
13:07:47 <sandro> SteveH: SPARQL says they have to be the same normalized utf-8 byte string.
Steve Harris: SPARQL says they have to be the same normalized utf-8 byte string. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:07:50 <mischat> q+
Mischa Tuffield: q+ ←
13:07:54 <cmatheus> davidwood: I'm talking about in SPARQL
David Wood: I'm talking about in SPARQL ←
13:08:00 <cmatheus> the specs say different things
the specs say different things ←
13:08:07 <cmatheus> cygri: I don't think they do
Richard Cyganiak: I don't think they do ←
13:08:23 <cmatheus> in RDF world things are conistent
in RDF world things are conistent ←
13:08:37 <cmatheus> s/sconistent/consistent/
s/sconistent/consistent/ (warning: replacement failed) ←
13:08:51 <mischat> i don't think they are consistent, you can a SPARQL INSERT triples which you cant CONSTRUCT as valid RDF/XML
Mischa Tuffield: i don't think they are consistent, you can a SPARQL INSERT triples which you cant CONSTRUCT as valid RDF/XML ←
13:08:55 <cmatheus> there's no way you can align this with the rest of the web architecture
there's no way you can align this with the rest of the web architecture ←
13:09:08 <SteveH> mischat, no you cant
Steve Harris: mischat, no you cant ←
13:09:08 <cmatheus> but can give recommendations.
but can give recommendations. ←
13:09:16 <SteveH> mischat, oh, wait, not maybe that's right
Steve Harris: mischat, oh, wait, not maybe that's right ←
13:09:18 <sandro> cygri: We can (and should) give recommendations to publishers about how to mint URIs to avoid these problems, like don't say :80 and dont use uppercase URI scheme or host names.
Richard Cyganiak: We can (and should) give recommendations to publishers about how to mint URIs to avoid these problems, like don't say :80 and dont use uppercase URI scheme or host names. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:09:22 <mischat> it is right SteveH
Mischa Tuffield: it is right SteveH ←
13:09:26 <cmatheus> if you avoid certain things then you will get same result
if you avoid certain things then you will get same result ←
13:09:32 <davidwood> correction: I was *not* talking about SPARQL, but Turtle or other forms of ingesting into a store, and then only in the case where we decided that a given IRI was equivalent to a different character string URI.
David Wood: correction: I was *not* talking about SPARQL, but Turtle or other forms of ingesting into a store, and then only in the case where we decided that a given IRI was equivalent to a different character string URI. ←
13:09:35 <cmatheus> worth writing up as an aid to users of rdf
worth writing up as an aid to users of rdf ←
13:09:51 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
13:09:52 <cmatheus> ivan: this discussion went beyond what I intended
Ivan Herman: this discussion went beyond what I intended ←
13:09:57 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
13:10:38 <cmatheus> but look what happend when we just but the same iri's through two different systems and got very different results
but look what happend when we just but the same iri's through two different systems and got very different results ←
13:10:48 <cmatheus> this is something we need to address
this is something we need to address ←
13:10:49 <gavinc> I think the section in question is: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref
Gavin Carothers: I think the section in question is: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref ←
13:10:56 <cmatheus> guus: this is not something we're going to solve
Guus Schreiber: this is not something we're going to solve ←
13:11:12 <mischat> this is the IRI RFC http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
Mischa Tuffield: this is the IRI RFC http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt ←
13:11:19 <gavinc> The RFC lists a set of normalization methods http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987
Gavin Carothers: The RFC lists a set of normalization methods http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987 ←
13:11:29 <cmatheus> ivan: why? there is a document that says how to implement a system that will do the right thing
Ivan Herman: why? there is a document that says how to implement a system that will do the right thing ←
13:11:45 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:11:46 <cmatheus> davidwood: what is the sate of iri's in the standard (RC)
David Wood: what is the sate of iri's in the standard (RC) ←
13:11:58 <cmatheus> cygri: it's implemented in all browsers
Richard Cyganiak: it's implemented in all browsers ←
13:12:19 <davidwood> ack gavinc
David Wood: ack gavinc ←
13:12:24 <cmatheus> davidwood: that's different from the state of the standard
David Wood: that's different from the state of the standard ←
13:13:01 <cmatheus> gavinc: we went through this a month ago but I can't find the work we did -- not sure if it got lost in the shuffle
Gavin Carothers: we went through this a month ago but I can't find the work we did -- not sure if it got lost in the shuffle ←
13:13:15 <cmatheus> we didn't think the spec was as brioken as some of the people are saying
we didn't think the spec was as brioken as some of the people are saying ←
13:13:22 <cmatheus> sorry, I don't remember the details
sorry, I don't remember the details ←
13:13:36 <sandro> davidwood, it's a PROPOSED STANDARD, per http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#STDbySTD
Sandro Hawke: davidwood, it's a PROPOSED STANDARD, per http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html#STDbySTD ←
13:13:48 <sandro> (like almost everything)
Sandro Hawke: (like almost everything) ←
13:14:17 <cmatheus> mischat: the issue I have is I can issert certain triples, with content with a back tick, and then retrive it and I get something different.
Mischa Tuffield: the issue I have is I can issert certain triples, with content with a back tick, and then retrive it and I get something different. ←
13:14:50 <cmatheus> ivan: there are cetrtain charcters that you cannot put into a xml doc, but in turtle it would not be a problem
Ivan Herman: there are cetrtain charcters that you cannot put into a xml doc, but in turtle it would not be a problem ←
13:14:54 <sandro> (although URI RFC-3986 is actually a "STANDARD" STD-66 )
Sandro Hawke: (although URI RFC-3986 is actually a "STANDARD" STD-66 ) ←
13:15:05 <cmatheus> pfps: turtle is currently stuck at uri's
Peter Patel-Schneider: turtle is currently stuck at uri's ←
13:15:45 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
13:15:54 <cmatheus> gavinc: I don't think turtle is cemented to uris
Gavin Carothers: I don't think turtle is cemented to uris ←
13:16:03 <davidwood> IRIs seem to be an IETF standards-track (but not standard) RFC (3987), which does not expire. There is a newer proposal, which will expire in Sep 2011 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis/)
David Wood: IRIs seem to be an IETF standards-track (but not standard) RFC (3987), which does not expire. There is a newer proposal, which will expire in Sep 2011 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis/) ←
13:16:07 <cmatheus> gramar refers to iris
gramar refers to iris ←
13:16:08 <Guus> ack mischat
Guus Schreiber: ack mischat ←
13:16:37 <cmatheus> sandor: we should revisit this when Eric and Andy (perhaps Jeremy) are around
Sandro Hawke: we should revisit this when Eric and Andy (perhaps Jeremy) are around ←
13:16:43 <cmatheus> ivan: issue 9
13:16:54 <sandro> s/sandor/sandro/
13:17:01 <cmatheus> small thing for Pat and Peter from der Horst
small thing for Pat and Peter from der Horst ←
13:17:04 <cygri> davidwood: that's the same as the URI RFC
David Wood: that's the same as the URI RFC [ Scribe Assist by Richard Cyganiak ] ←
13:17:18 <cmatheus> an obvious thing that the editor has to take care of
an obvious thing that the editor has to take care of ←
13:17:30 <cmatheus> issue 11, more complicated
13:18:19 <cmatheus> docs published by other wg's that extended the rdf semantics or contained elements related to rdf semantics
docs published by other wg's that extended the rdf semantics or contained elements related to rdf semantics ←
13:18:45 <cmatheus> implementors focusing on rdf have to visit all docs
implementors focusing on rdf have to visit all docs ←
13:19:07 <cmatheus> rdf plain literal added vocabulary
rdf plain literal added vocabulary ←
13:19:32 <cmatheus> POWDER likewise
POWDER likewise ←
13:19:46 <FabGandon> issue-11?
13:19:46 <trackbot> ISSUE-11 -- Reconciliation of various, semantics-oriented documents with the core RDF ones -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-11 -- Reconciliation of various, semantics-oriented documents with the core RDF ones -- open ←
13:19:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/11
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/11 ←
13:20:14 <cmatheus> SPARQL 1.1 has Entailment Regimes
SPARQL 1.1 has Entailment Regimes ←
13:20:25 <cmatheus> something we should look at
something we should look at ←
13:20:36 <cmatheus> guus: is there anything we need to do now
Guus Schreiber: is there anything we need to do now ←
13:20:36 <danbri> ( @davidwood, i made a first cut at suggesting closure of the old RDFCore issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0317.html )
Dan Brickley: ( @davidwood, i made a first cut at suggesting closure of the old RDFCore issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0317.html ) ←
13:20:42 <cmatheus> ivan: probably not
Ivan Herman: probably not ←
13:20:56 <cmatheus> guus: let's leave this open but ensure it gets resolved
Guus Schreiber: let's leave this open but ensure it gets resolved ←
13:21:07 <cmatheus> ivan: string literals handled
Ivan Herman: string literals handled ←
13:21:31 <cmatheus> xml literals discussed and still open
xml literals discussed and still open ←
13:21:36 <cmatheus> that's all
that's all ←
13:23:31 <cmatheus> ivan: (discussion about POWDER extension to rdf schema...)
Ivan Herman: (discussion about POWDER extension to rdf schema...) ←
13:24:10 <cmatheus> guus: bad idea that there are many different groups dealing with these issues
Guus Schreiber: bad idea that there are many different groups dealing with these issues ←
13:25:22 <cmatheus> ivan: not proposing to do any extra work -- need to make references to the other sources of relevant information
Ivan Herman: not proposing to do any extra work -- need to make references to the other sources of relevant information ←
13:25:45 <cmatheus> guus: if we need to do more than references than this needs to be handled at a higher organizational level
Guus Schreiber: if we need to do more than references than this needs to be handled at a higher organizational level ←
13:26:16 <cmatheus> guus: suggest 20 minute break
Guus Schreiber: suggest 20 minute break ←
13:26:40 <cmatheus> in final session. short planning round for next F2F
in final session. short planning round for next F2F ←
13:26:52 <cmatheus> will come back and discuss document set
will come back and discuss document set ←
13:27:11 <cmatheus> and candidate docs
and candidate docs ←
13:27:13 <davidwood> danbri: Thanks. That list is very helpful. I'll start with your list and see if I have any different ideas. I plan to add that discussion to the agenda for next Wed.
Dan Brickley: Thanks. That list is very helpful. I'll start with your list and see if I have any different ideas. I plan to add that discussion to the agenda for next Wed. [ Scribe Assist by David Wood ] ←
13:27:21 <Zakim> -webr3
Zakim IRC Bot: -webr3 ←
13:27:38 <gavinc> ?
Gavin Carothers: ? ←
13:27:42 <gavinc> I heard my name?
Gavin Carothers: I heard my name? ←
13:28:00 <Zakim> -AlexHall
Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall ←
13:28:07 <gavinc> or not ;)
Gavin Carothers: or not ;) ←
13:36:25 <mischat> this is the excerpt from the IRI rfc which highlights my issue with roundtripping RDF
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
Mischa Tuffield: this is the excerpt from the IRI rfc which highlights my issue with roundtripping RDF ←
13:36:26 <mischat> http://pastebin.com/ZiQHQ2ab
Mischa Tuffield: http://pastebin.com/ZiQHQ2ab ←
13:39:42 <Zakim> +zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2 ←
13:48:11 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aacc
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.443.212.aacc ←
13:48:18 <FabGandon> I wonder if it wouldn't be an easyer position to consider that every IRI loaded in a triple store is first turned into its ASCII version and then treated as the URI before including the character by character comparison.
Fabien Gandon: I wonder if it wouldn't be an easyer position to consider that every IRI loaded in a triple store is first turned into its ASCII version and then treated as the URI before including the character by character comparison. ←
13:48:50 <AlexHall> zakim, +1.443.212.aacc is me
Alex Hall: zakim, +1.443.212.aacc is me ←
13:48:50 <Zakim> +AlexHall; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexHall; got it ←
13:49:25 <gavinc> No, the spec is already clear that URIs are unicode
Gavin Carothers: No, the spec is already clear that URIs are unicode ←
13:49:44 <gavinc> "A URI reference within an RDF graph (an RDF URI reference) is a Unicode string"
Gavin Carothers: "A URI reference within an RDF graph (an RDF URI reference) is a Unicode string" ←
13:50:46 <cygri> scribe: cygri
(Scribe set to Richard Cyganiak)
13:50:51 <cygri> scribenick: cygri
13:50:53 <FabGandon> still we could have the transformation before and always work on the transformed version, no?
Fabien Gandon: still we could have the transformation before and always work on the transformed version, no? ←
13:51:04 <zwu2> zakim, mute me
13:51:04 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should now be muted ←
13:51:24 <cygri> Topic: Next F2F meeting
13:52:08 <cygri> guus: there's pressure towards balance between european and north american locations
Guus Schreiber: there's pressure towards balance between european and north american locations ←
13:52:01 <cygri> LeeF: I'd recommend considering the sort of 2-site w/ video conference F2F that has been successful for SPARQL WG.
Lee Feigenbaum: I'd recommend considering the sort of 2-site w/ video conference F2F that has been successful for SPARQL WG. ←
13:52:15 <cygri> ... The problem is that for time zones that only really works for US East Coast + UK (or so)
... The problem is that for time zones that only really works for US East Coast + UK (or so) ←
13:52:23 <cygri> ivan: W3C will have technical plenary week
Ivan Herman: W3C will have technical plenary week ←
13:52:33 <cygri> ... where several WGs meet
... where several WGs meet ←
13:52:32 <cygri> ... http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/
... http://www.w3.org/2011/11/TPAC/ ←
13:52:45 <cygri> ... Santa Clara Marriott, Santa Clara, California, (Silicon Valley) USA 31 October to 4 November 2011
... Santa Clara Marriott, Santa Clara, California, (Silicon Valley) USA 31 October to 4 November 2011 ←
13:53:10 <cygri> ... I try to convince the RDF apps WG to have their F2F there
... I try to convince the RDF apps WG to have their F2F there ←
13:53:38 <cygri> ... downside is that it's the week after ISWC
... downside is that it's the week after ISWC ←
13:54:09 <cygri> davidwood: we might want to have the F2F meetings earlier rather than later
David Wood: we might want to have the F2F meetings earlier rather than later ←
13:54:47 <cygri> ivan: july/august not a good time for europeans
Ivan Herman: july/august not a good time for europeans ←
13:56:31 <cygri> guus: suppose we would do it at TPAC, for whom would that be an obstacle?
Guus Schreiber: suppose we would do it at TPAC, for whom would that be an obstacle? ←
13:57:17 <cygri> SteveH: time difference is a problem
Steve Harris: time difference is a problem ←
13:58:09 <cygri> davidwood: I question whether we should have a west coast f2f
David Wood: I question whether we should have a west coast f2f ←
13:57:47 <gavinc> Sigh.
Gavin Carothers: Sigh. ←
13:58:11 <cygri> zwu2: CA in US sounds great
Zhe Wu: CA in US sounds great ←
13:58:26 <cygri> sandro: how about right before ISWC?
Sandro Hawke: how about right before ISWC? ←
13:59:03 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.897.aadd ←
13:59:31 <Souri> zakim, aadd is me
Souripriya Das: zakim, aadd is me ←
13:59:31 <Zakim> +Souri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri; got it ←
13:59:57 <cygri> ivan: other WGs: sparql, rdb2rdf, provenance, government linked data
Ivan Herman: other WGs: sparql, rdb2rdf, provenance, government linked data ←
14:00:38 <cygri> steveh: east coast much easier than west coast
Steve Harris: east coast much easier than west coast ←
14:00:54 <cygri> sandro: i'm happy to host at W3C, if i can find a room
Sandro Hawke: i'm happy to host at MIT, if i can find a room ←
14:01:02 <cygri> s/W3C/MIT/
14:01:17 <cygri> pfps: happy to host at bell labs
Peter Patel-Schneider: happy to host at bell labs ←
14:01:56 <cygri> guus: so, east coast location, 1st half of october?
Guus Schreiber: so, east coast location, 1st half of october? ←
14:02:21 <cygri> pfps: better earlier, end of september (more distance to tpac)
Peter Patel-Schneider: better earlier, end of september (more distance to tpac) ←
14:02:44 <cygri> guus: week of 26th september?
Guus Schreiber: week of 26th september? ←
14:02:54 <cygri> SteveH: clash with SemTech London
Steve Harris: clash with SemTech London ←
14:03:11 <cygri> FabGandon: week of 12th of september?
Fabien Gandon: week of 12th of september? ←
14:04:03 <cygri> SteveH: we could host at Garlik
Steve Harris: we could host at Garlik ←
14:04:16 <cygri> pfps: find someone at oxford?
Peter Patel-Schneider: find someone at oxford? ←
14:06:11 <cygri> guus: week of 3rd october, boston?
Guus Schreiber: week of 3rd october, boston? ←
14:06:33 <cygri> sandro: remote participants, are you likely to be able to make this?
Sandro Hawke: remote participants, are you likely to be able to make this? ←
14:04:18 <cygri> gavinc: MIT sounds better then Europe
Gavin Carothers: MIT sounds better then Europe ←
14:06:16 <cygri> ... TPAC sounds the best still
... TPAC sounds the best still ←
14:06:57 <cygri> ... I can travel if it's in the US; europe less likely
... I can travel if it's in the US; europe less likely ←
14:06:25 <danbri> (I don't know what I can attend nor where, but prefer east coast as most plausible)
Dan Brickley: (I don't know what I can attend nor where, but prefer east coast as most plausible) ←
14:07:04 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
14:07:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see gavinc, LeeF, AZ, Meeting_Room, zwu2 (muted), AlexHall, Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see gavinc, LeeF, AZ, Meeting_Room, zwu2 (muted), AlexHall, Souri ←
14:07:12 <cygri> LeeF: Yes
Lee Feigenbaum: Yes ←
14:07:44 <cygri> ... Possibly if it were scheduled with our input :)
... Possibly if it were scheduled with our input :) ←
14:07:57 <cygri> ... The challenge this time was the date being picked without input, and hving existingcommitments
... The challenge this time was the date being picked without input, and hving existingcommitments ←
14:07:13 <cygri> Souri: East Coast is the best for me. Europe is doubtful.
Souripriya Das: East Coast is the best for me. Europe is doubtful. ←
14:07:19 <zwu2_> zakim, unmute me
14:07:19 <Zakim> sorry, zwu2_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, zwu2_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
14:07:58 <cygri> davidwood: to the remote americans: would you be able to come to a f2f in europe in the future?
David Wood: to the remote americans: would you be able to come to a f2f in europe in the future? ←
14:08:00 <cygri> zwu2: CA is fine. East coast will do too
Zhe Wu: CA is fine. East coast will do too ←
14:08:06 <cygri> AlexHall: No, I don't anticipate being able to travel to Europe
Alex Hall: No, I don't anticipate being able to travel to Europe ←
14:08:17 <cygri> souri: east cost is best, europe problematic
Souripriya Das: east cost is best, europe problematic ←
14:08:29 <cygri> AZ: I don't know if will be able to come to the US
Antoine Zimmermann: I don't know if will be able to come to the US ←
14:08:40 <cygri> ... My situation after August is quite unclear
... My situation after August is quite unclear ←
14:08:56 <cygri> davidwood: this tells me we should alternate meetings between europe and US
David Wood: this tells me we should alternate meetings between europe and US ←
14:09:04 <cygri> ivan: tpac still best
Ivan Herman: tpac still best ←
14:09:37 <cygri> guus: i'll set up a poll
Guus Schreiber: i'll set up a poll ←
14:09:59 <cygri> Souri: We had a very good setup for SPARQL f2f last time using video connections between Cambridge/MIT and Oxford.
Souripriya Das: We had a very good setup for SPARQL f2f last time using video connections between Cambridge/MIT and Oxford. ←
14:10:21 <cygri> ACTION: guus to set up poll regarding F2F date
ACTION: guus to set up poll regarding F2F date ←
14:10:21 <trackbot> Created ACTION-35 - Set up poll regarding F2F date [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-04-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-35 - Set up poll regarding F2F date [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-04-21]. ←
14:10:26 <cygri> gavinc: 2 video remote sites would also be excellent
Gavin Carothers: 2 video remote sites would also be excellent ←
14:11:59 <cygri> guus: options will be: US east cost: Boston or Murray Hill
Guus Schreiber: options will be: US east cost: Boston or Murray Hill ←
14:12:07 <cygri> ... and TPAC
... and TPAC ←
14:12:29 <zwu2_> is CA a choice at all?
Zhe Wu: is CA a choice at all? ←
14:13:00 <gavinc> CA, US ... not CA Canada
Gavin Carothers: CA, US ... not CA Canada ←
14:12:53 <gavinc> well
Gavin Carothers: well ←
14:12:43 <gavinc> TPAC is CA
Gavin Carothers: TPAC is CA ←
14:13:11 <zwu2_> yes CA, US
14:12:40 <cygri> Topic: Scribing
14:12:53 <cygri> sandro: would be helpful if scribes could use topics and subtopics
Sandro Hawke: would be helpful if scribes could use topics and subtopics ←
14:12:53 <cygri> (IRC commands for scribe are “Topic: xyz” and “Subtopic: xyzxyz”)
(IRC commands for scribe are “Topic: xyz” and “Subtopic: xyzxyz”) ←
14:13:10 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-04-13 and http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-04-14
Mischa Tuffield: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-04-13 and http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-04-14 ←
14:14:19 <cygri> Topic: RDF document set and finding editors
14:14:29 <cygri> guus: this was on telecon agenda for a long time
Guus Schreiber: this was on telecon agenda for a long time ←
14:14:43 <cygri> ... strong preference for not creating completely new set of docs
... strong preference for not creating completely new set of docs ←
14:14:50 <cygri> ... but update the existing RDF Core documents
... but update the existing RDF Core documents ←
14:15:03 <cygri> ... have new editors and update these documents
... have new editors and update these documents ←
14:15:25 <cygri> sandro: seems to depend on how big the changes are
Sandro Hawke: seems to depend on how big the changes are ←
14:15:49 <cygri> guus: for instance RDF Concepts would have to add sections on terminology and other things
Guus Schreiber: for instance RDF Concepts would have to add sections on terminology and other things ←
14:16:04 <cygri> ... hopefully not too many changes to RDF Semantics
... hopefully not too many changes to RDF Semantics ←
14:16:12 <cygri> ... primer should be completely new rewritten version
... primer should be completely new rewritten version ←
14:16:19 <cygri> ... test cases we have to see
... test cases we have to see ←
14:16:51 <cygri> ivan: test cases were REC in 2004. i don't see why they should be
Ivan Herman: test cases were REC in 2004. i don't see why they should be ←
14:17:16 <cygri> .. formally, would that mean we re-use the same short names?
.. formally, would that mean we re-use the same short names? ←
14:17:31 <cygri> ... so would they formally be new versions of the same documents?
... so would they formally be new versions of the same documents? ←
14:18:30 <cygri> cygri: we should use the same short names to avoid having multiple REC documents floating around
Richard Cyganiak: we should use the same short names to avoid having multiple REC documents floating around ←
14:18:35 <cygri> ivan: what does SPARQL do?
Ivan Herman: what does SPARQL do? ←
14:18:36 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
14:18:48 <cygri> steveh: (scribe got lost. not yet decided?)
Steve Harris: (scribe got lost. not yet decided?) ←
14:18:57 <Zakim> +AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ ←
14:19:15 <cygri> guus: good guideline: substantial changes => new short name
Guus Schreiber: good guideline: substantial changes => new short name ←
14:19:28 <cygri> steveh: in SPARQL isn't decided yet
Steve Harris: in SPARQL isn't decided yet ←
14:19:43 <cygri> sandro: OWL rewrote everything and new short names
Sandro Hawke: OWL rewrote everything and new short names ←
14:19:50 <cygri> davidwood: that was not a good idea
David Wood: that was not a good idea ←
14:20:07 <cygri> guus: i don't hear objections, so let's work on that assumption
Guus Schreiber: i don't hear objections, so let's work on that assumption ←
14:20:16 <sandro> sandro: sounds like we're just talking about 2nd editions of Recs, not new Recs.
Sandro Hawke: sounds like we're just talking about 2nd editions of Recs, not new Recs. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:20:40 <cygri> Subtopic: RDF Concepts
14:20:41 <cygri> guus: these are lots of documents
Guus Schreiber: these are lots of documents ←
14:21:01 <cygri> ... RDF Concepts. main change will be graph terminology
... RDF Concepts. main change will be graph terminology ←
14:21:40 <cygri> ivan: and archaization? and XMLLiteral?
Ivan Herman: and archaization? and XMLLiteral? ←
14:22:37 <cygri> cygri: i can be editor on that one
Richard Cyganiak: i can be editor on that one ←
14:22:41 <cygri> davidwood: me too
David Wood: me too ←
14:22:41 <sandro> guus: eds, Richard and David
Guus Schreiber: eds, Richard and David [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:22:45 <cygri> Subtopic: RDF Semantics
14:22:48 <cygri> guus: RDF Semantics
Guus Schreiber: RDF Semantics ←
14:23:29 <cygri> ... ideal would be pfps and PatH
... ideal would be pfps and PatH ←
14:23:35 <cygri> pfps: ok
14:23:35 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
14:23:40 <sandro> ACTION: guus to ask Pat to be an editor of RDF Semantics
ACTION: guus to ask Pat to be an editor of RDF Semantics ←
14:23:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-36 - Ask Pat to be an editor of RDF Semantics [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-04-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-36 - Ask Pat to be an editor of RDF Semantics [on Guus Schreiber - due 2011-04-21]. ←
14:24:00 <cygri> Subtopic: RDF Schema
14:24:15 <cygri> guus: RDF Schema
Guus Schreiber: RDF Schema ←
14:24:29 <sandro> Guus: DanBri, will you edit RDF Vocab?
Guus Schreiber: DanBri, will you edit RDF Vocab? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:24:36 <cygri> danbri: ok
Dan Brickley: ok ←
14:24:45 <cygri> sandro: can we change the name to "RDF Schema"?
Sandro Hawke: can we change the name to "RDF Schema"? ←
14:24:57 <sandro> ISSUE: Should we change the title of rdf-schema to use the word "Schema" ?
ISSUE: Should we change the title of rdf-schema to use the word "Schema" ? ←
14:24:57 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-36 - Should we change the title of rdf-schema to use the word "Schema" ? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/36/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-36 - Should we change the title of rdf-schema to use the word "Schema" ? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/36/edit . ←
14:25:00 <cygri> Subtopic: Turtle Syntax
14:25:31 <cygri> guus: Turtle
Guus Schreiber: Turtle ←
14:25:39 <cygri> ivan: EricP has volunteered to do that
Ivan Herman: EricP has volunteered to do that ←
14:26:38 <cygri> mischat: i'm willing to help but might not be able to help much with syntax/grammar
Mischa Tuffield: i'm willing to help but might not be able to help much with syntax/grammar ←
14:27:00 <cygri> ivan: amount of work on turtle might not be much
Ivan Herman: amount of work on turtle might not be much ←
14:27:13 <cygri> gavinc: I'd be happy to provide test cases?
Gavin Carothers: I'd be happy to provide test cases? ←
14:28:43 <cygri> mischat: i'll take it into consideration. if andy wants do do it, i won't feel bad
Mischa Tuffield: i'll take it into consideration. if andy wants do do it, i won't feel bad ←
14:29:02 <cygri> guus: we need to publish FPWDs soon. turtle obvious candidate
Guus Schreiber: we need to publish FPWDs soon. turtle obvious candidate ←
14:29:56 <cygri> ... mid-june should be doable
... mid-june should be doable ←
14:27:19 <danbri> I guess the concept we're going for is "2nd Edition" for most of these? sandro/ivan - is that defined in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules somewhere?
Dan Brickley: I guess the concept we're going for is "2nd Edition" for most of these? sandro/ivan - is that defined in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules somewhere? ←
14:27:45 <sandro> danbri, yes.
Sandro Hawke: danbri, yes. ←
14:28:11 <sandro> danbri, I've never done it myself, but I've seen it.
Sandro Hawke: danbri, I've never done it myself, but I've seen it. ←
14:30:00 <cygri> Subtopic: N-Triples Syntax
14:30:32 <cygri> guus: possible other documents: n-triples
Guus Schreiber: possible other documents: n-triples ←
14:31:08 <cygri> sandro: n-triples might be appendix of turtle, or appendix of test cases
Sandro Hawke: n-triples might be appendix of turtle, or appendix of test cases ←
14:31:21 <cygri> guus: might be a separate piece of work anyways
Guus Schreiber: might be a separate piece of work anyways ←
14:31:29 <cygri> ... spread out the responsibilities
... spread out the responsibilities ←
14:31:58 <cygri> mischat: AndyS's page http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/N-Triples-Format
Mischa Tuffield: AndyS's page http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/N-Triples-Format ←
14:32:01 <cygri> cygri: andy did a wiki page on n-triples
Richard Cyganiak: andy did a wiki page on n-triples ←
14:33:06 <zwu2_> zakim, unmute me
14:33:06 <Zakim> sorry, zwu2_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, zwu2_, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
14:34:00 <cygri> sandro: zwu2, can you be ed of n-triples to make sure nothing bad happens to it?
Sandro Hawke: zwu2, can you be ed of n-triples to make sure nothing bad happens to it? ←
14:34:02 <cygri> zwu2: i can do that
14:34:08 <zwu2_> zakim, who is here
14:34:09 <Zakim> zwu2_, you need to end that query with '?'
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2_, you need to end that query with '?' ←
14:34:14 <zwu2_> zakim, who is here?
14:34:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see gavinc, LeeF, Meeting_Room, zwu2, AlexHall, Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see gavinc, LeeF, Meeting_Room, zwu2, AlexHall, Souri ←
14:34:20 <sandro> sandro: does it matter to you, Zhe, whether you are credited as an editor for that work?
Sandro Hawke: does it matter to you, Zhe, whether you are credited as an editor for that work? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:34:27 <sandro> Zhe: I'm okay either way there.
Zhe Wu: I'm okay either way there. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:35:21 <cygri> Souri: I can help on the n-triples -- my org (Oracle) has heavy investment on n-triples
Souripriya Das: I can help on the n-triples -- my org (Oracle) has heavy investment on n-triples ←
14:34:48 <danbri> (asking informally, I'm told that "Second Editions" typically get their own short-name in /TR/ --- but to check with the webmaster team)
Dan Brickley: (asking informally, I'm told that "Second Editions" typically get their own short-name in /TR/ --- but to check with the webmaster team) ←
14:35:22 <cygri> Subtopic: RDF/JSON
14:35:23 <cygri> guus: json
Guus Schreiber: json ←
14:35:24 <cygri> davidwood: i'll take an action to ask talis about a possible editor for the json rdf-to-rdf thing
David Wood: i'll take an action to ask talis about a possible editor for the json rdf-to-rdf thing ←
14:35:28 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is here? ←
14:35:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see gavinc, LeeF, Meeting_Room, zwu2, AlexHall, Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see gavinc, LeeF, Meeting_Room, zwu2, AlexHall, Souri ←
14:35:43 <zwu2_> q-
14:36:01 <cygri> cygri: souri just volunteered to help on n-triples
Richard Cyganiak: souri just volunteered to help on n-triples ←
14:36:15 <cygri> guus: anyone else for rdf/json?
Guus Schreiber: anyone else for rdf/json? ←
14:36:33 <cygri> ivan: only other person i can think of is tomayac
Ivan Herman: only other person i can think of is tomayac ←
14:36:47 <sandro> action: wood to ask Talis to provide an editor for JSON
ACTION: wood to ask Talis to provide an editor for JSON ←
14:36:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-37 - Ask Talis to provide an editor for JSON [on David Wood - due 2011-04-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-37 - Ask Talis to provide an editor for JSON [on David Wood - due 2011-04-21]. ←
14:36:56 <cygri> ... asking him would be a good idea
... asking him would be a good idea ←
14:37:13 <cygri> action: ivan to ask thomas about RDF/JSON editorship
ACTION: ivan to ask thomas about RDF/JSON editorship ←
14:37:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Ask thomas about RDF/JSON editorship [on Ivan Herman - due 2011-04-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-38 - Ask thomas about RDF/JSON editorship [on Ivan Herman - due 2011-04-21]. ←
14:38:00 <cygri> Subtopic: JSON Recipes Note
14:38:10 <cygri> guus: JSON recipes note
Guus Schreiber: JSON recipes note ←
14:38:43 <cygri> ... we had some volunteers: mishat, NickH, mbrunati
... we had some volunteers: mischat, NickH, mbrunati ←
14:38:50 <cygri> ... and i'll volunteer one of my postdocs
... and i'll volunteer one of my postdocs ←
14:38:58 <cygri> yvesr: i want to contribute to that note as well
Yves Raimond: i want to contribute to that note as well ←
14:39:28 <cygri> s/mishat/mischat/
14:39:35 <cygri> Subtopic: RDF Primer
14:39:37 <cygri> guus: rdf primer
Guus Schreiber: rdf primer ←
14:39:42 <cygri> ... i volunteer
... i volunteer ←
14:39:54 <cygri> LeeF: I would like to devote time to the rdf primer, though not necessarily as an editor.
Lee Feigenbaum: I would like to devote time to the rdf primer, though not necessarily as an editor. ←
14:39:59 <cygri> FabGandon: me
Fabien Gandon: me ←
14:40:05 <cygri> pchampin: me
14:40:18 <cygri> cmatheus: me
Christopher Matheus: me ←
14:40:56 <cygri> ivan: we need one, max two people to lead it, and perhaps a larger number of contributors
Ivan Herman: we need one, max two people to lead it, and perhaps a larger number of contributors ←
14:43:03 <mischat> :)
Mischa Tuffield: :) ←
14:43:27 <davidwood> davidwood: Guus and Fabian to edit the Primer, with many contributors expected.
David Wood: Guus and Fabian to edit the Primer, with many contributors expected. [ Scribe Assist by David Wood ] ←
14:43:39 <cygri> cygri: so primer will have guus, FabGandon as lead editors, with possibly many contributors
Richard Cyganiak: so primer will have guus, FabGandon as lead editors, with possibly many contributors ←
14:44:00 <cygri> Subtopic: TriG/N-Quads Syntax
14:45:45 <cygri> cygri: on TriG/N-Quads, probably not a new doc but part of turtle ... i can help there
Richard Cyganiak: on TriG/N-Quads, probably not a new doc but part of turtle ... i can help there ←
14:46:00 <cygri> Subtopic: RDF/XML Syntax
14:46:16 <cygri> ivan: RDF/XML ... we may not touch it at all, but might want to check with henry
Ivan Herman: RDF/XML ... we may not touch it at all, but might want to check with henry ←
14:47:33 <cygri> sandro: henry made clear that he won't do the RDF/XML work himself
Sandro Hawke: henry made clear that he won't do the RDF/XML work himself ←
14:47:48 <cygri> ... are there errata against RDF/XML?
... are there errata against RDF/XML? ←
14:48:24 <cygri> FabGandon: i'm happy to apply the errata
Fabien Gandon: i'm happy to apply the errata ←
14:46:18 <zwu2_> I don't hate rdf/xml at all
Zhe Wu: I don't hate rdf/xml at all ←
14:46:52 <zwu2_> I just don't write manually in rdf/xml much
Zhe Wu: I just don't write manually in rdf/xml much ←
14:46:59 <mischat> i am a bit of a fan, it has the most robust tooling
Mischa Tuffield: i am a bit of a fan, it has the most robust tooling ←
14:47:10 <mischat> i dont like writing any rdf by hand
Mischa Tuffield: i dont like writing any rdf by hand ←
14:47:27 <sandro> I happily misread that, mischat, as the most robust trolling.
Sandro Hawke: I happily misread that, mischat, as the most robust trolling. ←
14:47:42 <AlexHall> the problem with rdf/xml is when newcomers confuse the xml syntax with the rdf semantics
Alex Hall: the problem with rdf/xml is when newcomers confuse the xml syntax with the rdf semantics ←
14:47:48 <danbri> (btw re Turtle, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/N3Alternatives might be interesting)
Dan Brickley: (btw re Turtle, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/N3Alternatives might be interesting) ←
14:49:44 <yvesr> AlexHall, and people using xpath on rdf/xml
Yves Raimond: AlexHall, and people using xpath on rdf/xml ←
14:49:52 <yvesr> caused us so much problems at the BBC
Yves Raimond: caused us so much problems at the BBC ←
14:50:06 <yvesr> you change serialiser, and you end up breaking applications
Yves Raimond: you change serialiser, and you end up breaking applications ←
14:50:09 <zwu2_> tricky to use xpath I guess
Zhe Wu: tricky to use xpath I guess ←
14:50:32 <yvesr> maybe an xpath-able version of rdf/xml would be in order? don't know though...
Yves Raimond: maybe an xpath-able version of rdf/xml would be in order? don't know though... ←
14:50:33 <gavinc> zwu, tricky is an understatement
Gavin Carothers: zwu, tricky is an understatement ←
14:50:40 <zwu2_> :)
14:51:38 <AlexHall> yvesr, it's in the charter as a time-permitting feature
Alex Hall: yvesr, it's in the charter as a time-permitting feature ←
14:49:00 <cygri> Subtopic: Tools for editors
14:49:56 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
14:50:23 <cygri> danbri: practicalities around CVS access? use mercurial?
Dan Brickley: practicalities around CVS access? use mercurial? ←
14:50:58 <cygri> sandro: four options: 1. edit xhtml in cvs; 2. use xmlspec
Sandro Hawke: four options: 1. edit xhtml in cvs; 2. use xmlspec ←
14:51:10 <danbri> w3c mercurial repo: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/
Dan Brickley: w3c mercurial repo: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ ←
14:51:48 <cygri> ... 3. respec (an html5 and js thing)
... 3. respec (an html5 and js thing) ←
14:50:48 <danbri> danbri: http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html
Dan Brickley: http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html [ Scribe Assist by Dan Brickley ] ←
14:52:28 <cygri> ivan: respec works well for me
Ivan Herman: respec works well for me ←
14:53:21 <cygri> ... only downside: we have to transform old docs into respec. initial price.
... only downside: we have to transform old docs into respec. initial price. ←
14:53:34 <pchampin> pchampin: the Media Annotation WG uses respec for the API document
Pierre-Antoine Champin: the Media Annotation WG uses respec for the API document [ Scribe Assist by Pierre-Antoine Champin ] ←
14:53:41 <pchampin> pchampin: http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html
Pierre-Antoine Champin: http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html [ Scribe Assist by Pierre-Antoine Champin ] ←
14:53:53 <cygri> sandro: 4th option: use the wiki. there's a script to put stuff from xhtml into the wiki, and another for the way back
Sandro Hawke: 4th option: use the wiki. there's a script to put stuff from xhtml into the wiki, and another for the way back ←
14:54:12 <danbri> I was thinking more about the testcases repository (as a consensus documentation tool / decision record) -> should that be w3c cvs datespace again, or mercurial?
Dan Brickley: I was thinking more about the testcases repository (as a consensus documentation tool / decision record) -> should that be w3c cvs datespace again, or mercurial? ←
14:55:21 <cygri> ivan: (more respec advocacy)
Ivan Herman: (more respec advocacy) ←
14:55:51 <cygri> sandro: if we don't use my code, i won't do the pubs
Sandro Hawke: if we don't use my code, i won't do the pubs ←
14:55:59 <cygri> FabGandon: upside of using the wiki: no cvs
Fabien Gandon: upside of using the wiki: no cvs ←
14:56:11 <cygri> ivan: downside is that ppl hate wiki markup
Ivan Herman: downside is that ppl hate wiki markup ←
14:56:34 <cygri> sandro: i should look at respec and look at how it handles [something]
Sandro Hawke: i should look at respec and look at how it handles [something] ←
14:56:38 <sandro> ACTION: sandro look at respec's handling of references
ACTION: sandro look at respec's handling of references ←
14:56:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Look at respec's handling of references [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-04-21].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-39 - Look at respec's handling of references [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-04-21]. ←
14:57:05 <cygri> SteveH: don't use xmlspec
Steve Harris: don't use xmlspec ←
14:57:36 <cygri> ... especially if only small changes, just do them in xht�ml
... especially if only small changes, just do them in xht�ml ←
14:58:10 <mischat> mischat: votes for a distributed version control system instead of a centralised one
Mischa Tuffield: votes for a distributed version control system instead of a centralised one [ Scribe Assist by Mischa Tuffield ] ←
14:59:17 <Souri> Souri: based upon my R2RML editing experience: +1 for option 1 (edit xhtml in cvs); +0.5 for option 4 (wiki)
Souripriya Das: based upon my R2RML editing experience: +1 for option 1 (edit xhtml in cvs); +0.5 for option 4 (wiki) [ Scribe Assist by Souripriya Das ] ←
14:57:35 <danbri> so should RDFS spec be in HTML/RDFa? if so, which vocabulary terms should it include RDF claims about? rdf+rdfs?
Dan Brickley: so should RDFS spec be in HTML/RDFa? if so, which vocabulary terms should it include RDF claims about? rdf+rdfs? ←
14:59:19 <danbri> http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2010/06/16/why_we_chose_mercurial_as_our_dvcs/
Dan Brickley: http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2010/06/16/why_we_chose_mercurial_as_our_dvcs/ ←
14:59:20 <cygri> Topic: AOB
14:59:59 <sandro> sandro: (discussion of whether emacs can reify skolemized bnodes....)
Sandro Hawke: (discussion of whether emacs can reify skolemized bnodes....) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:00:03 <yvesr> yvesr: (in rdf/xml...)
Yves Raimond: (in rdf/xml...) [ Scribe Assist by Yves Raimond ] ←
15:02:01 <Zakim> -gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -gavinc ←
15:02:02 <sandro> Bye remote folks!
Sandro Hawke: Bye remote folks! ←
15:02:06 <zwu2_> bye and have a safe trip home!
Zhe Wu: bye and have a safe trip home! ←
15:02:17 <manu> Have a safe trip back home to everyone there - :)
Manu Sporny: Have a safe trip back home to everyone there - :) ←
15:02:31 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
15:02:39 <Zakim> -AlexHall
Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall ←
15:02:46 <cygri> guus: adjourned
Guus Schreiber: adjourned ←
15:02:57 <cygri> trackbot, generate minutes
trackbot, generate minutes ←
15:02:57 <trackbot> Sorry, cygri, I don't understand 'trackbot, generate minutes'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, cygri, I don't understand 'trackbot, generate minutes'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help ←
15:03:11 <cygri> RRSAgent, generate minutes
RRSAgent, generate minutes ←
15:03:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/14-rdf-wg-minutes.html cygri
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/04/14-rdf-wg-minutes.html cygri ←
15:03:14 <Zakim> -Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri ←
15:03:54 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
Formatted by CommonScribe