<sandro> Guest: Antoine (AZ) Zimmerman
14:32:52 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/25-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/05/25-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:32:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:32:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:32:56 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 28 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 28 minutes ←
14:32:57 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:32:57 <trackbot> Date: 25 May 2011
14:33:10 <ivan> Chair: David Wood
14:53:21 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 20 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started ←
14:53:28 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
14:54:33 <FabGandon> Zakim says code is not valid ?
Fabien Gandon: Zakim says code is not valid ? ←
14:54:49 <ivan> ??
Ivan Herman: ?? ←
14:54:52 <ivan> may be early...
Ivan Herman: may be early... ←
14:55:04 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:55:04 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:55:05 <Zakim> -??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P6 ←
14:55:05 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
14:55:06 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:55:31 <Zakim> +Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony ←
14:55:54 <moustaki> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Yves Raimond: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:55:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P6, Ivan, Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P6, Ivan, Tony ←
14:55:57 <Scott_Bauer> zakim, Tony is me
Scott Bauer: zakim, Tony is me ←
14:55:57 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Scott_Bauer; got it ←
14:56:02 <moustaki> Zakim, ??P6 is yvesr
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P6 is yvesr ←
14:56:02 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it ←
14:57:12 <Zakim> +??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←
14:57:22 <NickH> Zakim, ??P9 is me
Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, ??P9 is me ←
14:57:22 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
14:57:22 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +NickH; got it ←
14:59:36 <Zakim> +Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: +Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
15:00:32 <zwu2> code?
15:00:33 <NickH> FabGandon, it works for me
Nicholas Humfrey: FabGandon, it works for me ←
15:00:35 <Zakim> +??P11
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P11 ←
15:00:42 <zwu2> what is the conference code?
Zhe Wu: what is the conference code? ←
15:00:45 <mbrunati> zakim, P11 is me
Matteo Brunati: zakim, P11 is me ←
15:00:45 <Zakim> sorry, mbrunati, I do not recognize a party named 'P11'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, mbrunati, I do not recognize a party named 'P11' ←
15:00:54 <moustaki> zwu2: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.25
Yves Raimond: zwu2, http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.05.25 ←
15:00:55 <Zakim> +??P12
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P12 ←
15:01:00 <mbrunati> zakim, ??P11 is me
Matteo Brunati: zakim, ??P11 is me ←
15:01:00 <Zakim> +mbrunati; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +mbrunati; got it ←
15:01:01 <zwu2> thanks
15:01:06 <moustaki> s/zwu2:/zwu2,
15:01:11 <SteveH> Zakim, ??p12 is [Garlik]
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??p12 is [Garlik] ←
15:01:12 <Zakim> +[Garlik]; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +[Garlik]; got it ←
15:01:12 <Zakim> +koalie
Zakim IRC Bot: +koalie ←
15:01:15 <zwu2> zakim, what is the conference code?
Zhe Wu: zakim, what is the conference code? ←
15:01:15 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), zwu2 ←
15:01:19 <SteveH> Zakim, [Garlik] has SteveH, mischat
Steve Harris: Zakim, [Garlik] has SteveH, mischat ←
15:01:19 <Zakim> +SteveH, mischat; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH, mischat; got it ←
15:01:21 <Zakim> +AlexHall
Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexHall ←
15:01:33 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
15:01:40 <ivan> zakim, koalie is fabien
Ivan Herman: zakim, koalie is fabien ←
15:01:40 <Zakim> +fabien; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +fabien; got it ←
15:01:46 <Zakim> + +1.415.586.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.415.586.aaaa ←
15:01:48 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:01:53 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
15:01:53 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:01:55 <Zakim> +zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2 ←
15:01:58 <cmatheus> zakim, ??P16 is me
Christopher Matheus: zakim, ??P16 is me ←
15:01:58 <Zakim> +cmatheus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cmatheus; got it ←
15:02:01 <FabGandon> zakim, fabien is FabGandon
Fabien Gandon: zakim, fabien is FabGandon ←
15:02:01 <Zakim> +FabGandon; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +FabGandon; got it ←
15:02:15 <FabGandon> Scribe: FabGandon
(Scribe set to Fabien Gandon)
15:02:21 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
Zakim IRC Bot: +mhausenblas ←
15:02:22 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
Richard Cyganiak: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me ←
15:02:22 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri; got it ←
15:02:33 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
15:02:40 <cmatheus> I'm muted on this end.
Christopher Matheus: I'm muted on this end. ←
15:02:58 <ericP> Zakim, please mute cmatheus
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, please mute cmatheus ←
15:02:58 <Zakim> cmatheus should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: cmatheus should now be muted ←
15:03:00 <Zakim> +sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro ←
15:03:03 <ericP> Zakim, please unmute cmatheus
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, please unmute cmatheus ←
15:03:03 <Zakim> cmatheus should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: cmatheus should no longer be muted ←
15:03:21 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
15:03:29 <Zakim> +??P27
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27 ←
15:03:45 <AndyS> zakim, ??P27 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P27 is me ←
15:03:45 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:04:14 <Zakim> +Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri ←
15:04:38 <cmatheus> no.
Christopher Matheus: no. ←
15:04:46 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
15:04:51 <cmatheus> ack me
Christopher Matheus: ack me ←
15:04:54 <ericP> Zakim, unmute cmatheus
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, unmute cmatheus ←
15:04:54 <Zakim> cmatheus was not muted, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: cmatheus was not muted, ericP ←
15:05:11 <cmatheus> let me hang up and try gain.
Christopher Matheus: let me hang up and try gain. ←
15:05:19 <Zakim> -cmatheus
Zakim IRC Bot: -cmatheus ←
15:05:32 <davidwood> Oops
David Wood: Oops ←
15:05:33 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
15:05:36 <davidwood> On my way now
David Wood: On my way now ←
15:05:37 <davidwood> Sorry
David Wood: Sorry ←
15:05:55 <cmatheus> zakim, ??P16 is me
Christopher Matheus: zakim, ??P16 is me ←
15:05:55 <Zakim> +cmatheus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cmatheus; got it ←
15:06:24 <davidwood> Err, I can't join the telecon; "The conference is restricted at this time"
David Wood: Err, I can't join the telecon; "The conference is restricted at this time" ←
15:06:34 <sandro> sure you got the right code...??
Sandro Hawke: sure you got the right code...?? ←
15:06:42 <davidwood> Sandro, yes
David Wood: Sandro, yes ←
15:06:51 <SteveH> maybe up to our limit?
Steve Harris: maybe up to our limit? ←
15:06:52 <sandro> (that's the error if you make a typo in the conference code.)
Sandro Hawke: (that's the error if you make a typo in the conference code.) ←
15:06:57 <Zakim> +??P31
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P31 ←
15:07:01 <ww> zakim, ??P31 is me
William Waites: zakim, ??P31 is me ←
15:07:01 <Zakim> +ww; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ww; got it ←
15:07:11 <ericP> davidwood, if that fails, i can try to conference you in with my phone
Eric Prud'hommeaux: davidwood, if that fails, i can try to conference you in with my phone ←
15:07:12 <ww> zakim, mute me
William Waites: zakim, mute me ←
15:07:12 <Zakim> ww should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ww should now be muted ←
15:07:48 <davidwood> No, still getting the error message :(
David Wood: No, still getting the error message :( ←
15:08:23 <davidwood> EricP, thanks. I'm at +1.540.898.1842
David Wood: EricP, thanks. I'm at +1.540.898.1842 ←
15:08:51 <sandro> davidwood, the problem is likely in DTMF signalling between your phone and zakim -- some digit is probably not being conveyed correctly.
Sandro Hawke: davidwood, the problem is likely in DTMF signalling between your phone and zakim -- some digit is probably not being conveyed correctly. ←
15:09:15 <ww> rfc2833 ftw!
William Waites: rfc2833 ftw! ←
15:09:20 <davidwood> Sandro, OK.
David Wood: Sandro, OK. ←
15:09:21 <sandro> (I had a cell phone where 2/5/8/0 didn't make it through to Zakim.)
Sandro Hawke: (I had a cell phone where 2/5/8/0 didn't make it through to Zakim.) ←
15:09:25 <davidwood> Yay. Thanks to EricP.
David Wood: Yay. Thanks to EricP. ←
15:10:13 <FabGandon> yes
yes ←
15:11:08 <FabGandon> davidwood: issues with missing parts in minutes from the last telecon
David Wood: issues with missing parts in minutes from the last telecon ←
15:11:31 <FabGandon> ... no objection now to accept the minutes
... no objection now to accept the minutes ←
15:11:41 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:11:51 <FabGandon> RESOLVED: minutes from last meeting accepted
RESOLVED: minutes from last meeting accepted ←
15:11:56 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:11:57 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
15:12:36 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:12:45 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:12:46 <FabGandon> ivan: We should now try to register what ever name we chose.
Ivan Herman: We should now try to register what ever name we chose. ←
15:12:51 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
15:12:52 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:12:57 <cygri> steveh i'll let you go first
Richard Cyganiak: steveh i'll let you go first ←
15:13:18 <FabGandon> sandro: we need a formal document
Sandro Hawke: we need a stable document ←
15:13:26 <sandro> s/formal/stable/
15:13:33 <sandro> ... for IETF registration
Sandro Hawke: ... for IETF registration ←
15:14:37 <FabGandon> ACTION: sandro to prepare document for IETF registration
ACTION: sandro to prepare document for IETF registration ←
15:15:15 <sandro> ACTION: sandro to start conversation on reservince our well-known string.
ACTION: sandro to start conversation on reservince our well-known string. ←
15:15:15 <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Start conversation on reservince our well-known string. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-06-01].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-52 - Start conversation on reservince our well-known string. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-06-01]. ←
15:15:26 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:15:39 <FabGandon> davidwood: how long for the document to be ready?
David Wood: how long for the document to be ready? ←
15:16:09 <FabGandon> cygri: we haven't decided on the name
Richard Cyganiak: we haven't decided on the name ←
15:16:20 <davidwood> I expect the RDF Concepts doc to be in draft in the next couple of months.
David Wood: I expect the RDF Concepts doc to be in draft in the next couple of months. ←
15:16:22 <davidwood> ack SteveH
David Wood: ack SteveH ←
15:16:53 <sandro> +1 a WG Note on this
Sandro Hawke: +1 a WG Note on this ←
15:17:02 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:17:02 <FabGandon> SteveH: we could do a strow poll for the name now.
Steve Harris: we could do a strow poll for the name now. ←
15:17:22 <SteveH> genid for name
Steve Harris: genid for name ←
15:17:24 <cygri> bnode, skolem, gensym, genid
Richard Cyganiak: bnode, skolem, gensym, genid ←
15:17:28 <yvesr> node for name?
Yves Raimond: node for name? ←
15:17:34 <mischat> blank
Mischa Tuffield: blank ←
15:17:35 <FabGandon> davidwood: good ideas for a name?
David Wood: good ideas for a name? ←
15:17:40 <yvesr> id
Yves Raimond: id ←
15:17:40 <pfps> I like steveH ;_)
Peter Patel-Schneider: I like steveH ;_) ←
15:17:47 <zwu2> bnode, genid
15:18:09 <Zakim> +nick.a
Zakim IRC Bot: +nick.a ←
15:18:13 <AndyS> I prefer a name that is for blank nodes - not generic (e.g. genid) that makes spotting bnodes harder.
Andy Seaborne: I prefer a name that is for blank nodes - not generic (e.g. genid) that makes spotting bnodes harder. ←
15:18:16 <PatH> I dont think we should use 'bnode'
Patrick Hayes: I dont think we should use 'bnode' ←
15:18:19 <davidwood> genid is good for me because it is short. well-known is not.
David Wood: genid is good for me because it is short. well-known is not. ←
15:18:22 <SteveH> +1 to PatH
Steve Harris: +1 to PatH ←
15:18:30 <davidwood> -1 to bnode
David Wood: -1 to bnode ←
15:18:34 <JeremyCarroll> I prefer something generic
Jeremy Carroll: I prefer something generic ←
15:18:38 <NickH> snode
Nicholas Humfrey: snode ←
15:18:42 <FabGandon> ivan: a number of people against "bnode"
Ivan Herman: a number of people against "bnode" ←
15:18:45 <JeremyCarroll> -1 to bnode
Jeremy Carroll: -1 to bnode ←
15:19:05 <AZ> +1 genid
Antoine Zimmerman: +1 genid ←
15:19:10 <cygri> +1 to skolem
Richard Cyganiak: +1 to skolem ←
15:19:16 <PatH> I like genid as being the least bad of the lot.
Patrick Hayes: I like genid as being the least bad of the lot. ←
15:19:18 <ivan> +1 to skolem or genid
Ivan Herman: +1 to skolem or genid ←
15:19:20 <AndyS> Let's still do the strawpoll to get the balance.
Andy Seaborne: Let's still do the strawpoll to get the balance. ←
15:19:21 <SteveH> +1 t genid
Steve Harris: +1 t genid ←
15:19:22 <davidwood> skolem would work for me
David Wood: skolem would work for me ←
15:19:27 <FabGandon> +1 genid
+1 genid ←
15:19:30 <yvesr> -1 to skolem
Yves Raimond: -1 to skolem ←
15:19:32 <mbrunati> probably blank or skolem
Matteo Brunati: probably blank or skolem ←
15:19:43 <yvesr> we should remove that whole skolem terminology imho
Yves Raimond: we should remove that whole skolem terminology imho ←
15:19:50 <ww> and blank?
William Waites: and blank? ←
15:19:54 <zwu2> no -1 to genid yet
15:20:02 <FabGandon> davidwood: strow poll bnode, genid and skolem
David Wood: strow poll bnode, genid and skolem ←
15:20:04 <davidwood> Straw poll: bnode, genid or skolem
David Wood: Straw poll: bnode, genid or skolem ←
15:20:11 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: bnode, genid, skolem --- numbers of each
STRAWPOLL: bnode, genid, skolem --- numbers of each ←
15:20:22 <SteveH> -1, +1, -1
Steve Harris: -1, +1, -1 ←
15:20:22 <AndyS> The argument was for other systems to be able spot these from the URI.
Andy Seaborne: The argument was for other systems to be able spot these from the URI. ←
15:20:23 <PatH> -1/+1/0
Patrick Hayes: -1/+1/0 ←
15:20:25 <sandro> +0 / +1 / +0
Sandro Hawke: +0 / +1 / +0 ←
15:20:25 <davidwood> +1 genid, +1 skolem, −1 bnode
David Wood: +1 genid, +1 skolem, −1 bnode ←
15:20:27 <ivan> -1,+1,+1
Ivan Herman: -1,+1,+1 ←
15:20:30 <ww> +2, +1 +3
William Waites: +2, +1 +3 ←
15:20:30 <zwu2> +1/+1/-1
15:20:31 <yvesr> +1, 0, -1
Yves Raimond: +1, 0, -1 ←
15:20:35 <NickH> -1, +1, -1
Nicholas Humfrey: -1, +1, -1 ←
15:20:41 <cygri> -1/0/+1
Richard Cyganiak: -1/0/+1 ←
15:20:43 <PatH> You did say 'slash'
Patrick Hayes: You did say 'slash' ←
15:20:50 <mbrunati> -1, , -1, 0
Matteo Brunati: -1, , -1, 0 ←
15:20:53 <AlexHall> -1/+1/-0
15:20:53 <AndyS> +1/0/-1
Andy Seaborne: +1/0/-1 ←
15:20:58 <JeremyCarroll> +0/+1/+0.5
Jeremy Carroll: +0/+1/+0.5 ←
15:21:05 <mischat> 0/1/0
Mischa Tuffield: 0/1/0 ←
15:21:05 <ww> 0/-1/+2
William Waites: 0/-1/+1 ←
15:21:08 <Souri> +1,0,-1
Souripriya Das: +1,0,-1 ←
15:21:10 <ww> s/2/1
15:21:23 <ww> zakim, unmute me
William Waites: zakim, unmute me ←
15:21:23 <Zakim> ww should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ww should no longer be muted ←
15:21:43 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:21:44 <mbrunati> mmm, skolem +1
Matteo Brunati: mmm, skolem +1 ←
15:21:51 <sandro> ww: it's entirely aesthetics and personal preference -- nothing serious -- just a name.
William Waites: it's entirely aesthetics and personal preference -- nothing serious -- just a name. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:21:55 <FabGandon> ww: no serious issues with any of the names
William Waites: no serious issues with any of the names ←
15:22:06 <ww> zakim, mute me
William Waites: zakim, mute me ←
15:22:06 <Zakim> ww should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ww should now be muted ←
15:22:18 <FabGandon> mbrunati: why not use blank nodes?
Matteo Brunati: why not use blank nodes? ←
15:22:21 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:22:44 <ww> skuri?
William Waites: skuri? ←
15:22:48 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:22:57 <FabGandon> cygri: the text of the resolution introduces the term "skolem"
Richard Cyganiak: the text of the resolution introduces the term "skolem" ←
15:23:03 <yvesr> q+
Yves Raimond: q+ ←
15:23:04 <AndyS> It stands in place of a blank node and it is distinguished by this. so my "skolem" -1 => 0
Andy Seaborne: It stands in place of a blank node and it is distinguished by this. so my "skolem" -1 => 0 ←
15:23:13 <davidwood> ack SteveH
David Wood: ack SteveH ←
15:23:15 <FabGandon> ... not too much sense to discuss that now
... not too much sense to discuss that now ←
15:23:47 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:23:59 <PatH> They are skolem constants but the 'skolem' terminiology goes way beyond this usage, so this is a very simple case.
Patrick Hayes: They are skolem constants but the 'skolem' terminiology goes way beyond this usage, so this is a very simple case. ←
15:24:01 <FabGandon> SteveH: introduce more obscure jargon is not a good idea and the term "genid" is already largely used
Steve Harris: introduce more obscure jargon is not a good idea and the term "genid" is already largely used ←
15:24:02 <davidwood> ack yvesr
David Wood: ack yvesr ←
15:24:02 <NickH> I agree with SteveH
Nicholas Humfrey: I agree with SteveH ←
15:24:32 <sandro> but which is jargon?? "skolem" is in every dictionary.
Sandro Hawke: but which is jargon?? "skolem" is in every dictionary. ←
15:24:42 <FabGandon> yvesr: we have enough jargon to not include yet another term
Yves Raimond: we have enough jargon to not include yet another term ←
15:24:58 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:25:08 <FabGandon> davidwood: strow poll favours genid and objections have been resolved
David Wood: strow poll favours genid and objections have been resolved ←
15:26:13 <JeremyCarroll> q+
Jeremy Carroll: q+ ←
15:26:15 <PatH> Welcome to a working group :-)
Patrick Hayes: Welcome to a working group :-) ←
15:26:19 <FabGandon> cygri: we need a real formal term for thisand on the list skolem was the last candidates
Richard Cyganiak: we need a real formal term for thisand on the list skolem was the last candidates ←
15:26:22 <davidwood> ack JeremyCarroll
David Wood: ack JeremyCarroll ←
15:27:02 <FabGandon> JeremyCarroll: we are talking about the scheme name not the text.
Jeremy Carroll: we are talking about the scheme name not the text. ←
15:27:17 <FabGandon> davidwood: strow poll to accept "genid"
David Wood: strow poll to accept "genid" ←
15:27:18 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll use genid as the .well-known name
PROPOSED: We'll use genid as the .well-known name ←
15:27:21 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:27:21 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
15:27:23 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmerman: +1 ←
15:27:25 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:27:26 <zwu2> +1
15:27:27 <JeremyCarroll> +1
Jeremy Carroll: +1 ←
15:27:27 <mbrunati> +1
Matteo Brunati: +1 ←
15:27:28 <AndyS> Abstain (a +0)
Andy Seaborne: Abstain (a +0) ←
15:27:28 <cmatheus> +1
Christopher Matheus: +1 ←
15:27:29 <FabGandon> +1
+1 ←
15:27:29 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:27:30 <ww> +0
William Waites: +0 ←
15:27:30 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:27:30 <cygri> -0
Richard Cyganiak: -0 ←
15:27:30 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:27:35 <mischat> +1
Mischa Tuffield: +1 ←
15:27:37 <pfps> +0
15:27:38 <NickH> +1
Nicholas Humfrey: +1 ←
15:27:39 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:27:48 <sandro> RESOLVED: We'll use genid as the .well-known name
RESOLVED: We'll use genid as the .well-known name ←
15:28:18 <SteveH> are we having a note on genid?
Steve Harris: are we having a note on genid? ←
15:28:33 <sandro> close action-49
Sandro Hawke: close ACTION-49 ←
15:28:34 <trackbot> ACTION-49 Propose revised wording for ISSUE-40 text, possibly also for section 3.2 of RDF Concepts closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-49 Propose revised wording for ISSUE-40 text, possibly also for section 3.2 of RDF Concepts closed ←
15:28:37 <sandro> close action-50
Sandro Hawke: close ACTION-50 ←
15:28:37 <trackbot> ACTION-50 Propose edits to fix wording for ISSUE-40 resolution closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-50 Propose edits to fix wording for ISSUE-40 resolution closed ←
15:28:56 <ww> second proposal for note on genid
William Waites: second proposal for note on genid ←
15:28:58 <AndyS> +1 to a note or some such WG communication (more than a blog entry)
Andy Seaborne: +1 to a note or some such WG communication (more than a blog entry) ←
15:29:14 <SteveH> I can contribute to a note if we want one
Steve Harris: I can contribute to a note if we want one ←
15:29:50 <FabGandon> cygri: I can update the editor draft on my machine and put it online.
Richard Cyganiak: I can update the editor draft on my machine and put it online. ←
15:29:54 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:30:12 <FabGandon> sandro: we need a note or Rec publish I think
Sandro Hawke: we need a note or Rec publish I think ←
15:30:42 <FabGandon> ... are we going to do the note or note?
... are we going to do the note or note? ←
15:31:07 <FabGandon> davidwood: we can then republish content in the concept doc.
David Wood: we can then republish content in the concept doc. ←
15:31:19 <SteveH> q-
Steve Harris: q- ←
15:31:33 <FabGandon> cygri: two paragraphs, not worth a note.
Richard Cyganiak: two paragraphs, not worth a note. ←
15:31:36 <SteveH> I don't agree about visbility FWIW
Steve Harris: I don't agree about visbility FWIW ←
15:31:43 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:31:51 <FabGandon> davidwood: do we agree not to produce a note?
David Wood: do we agree not to produce a note? ←
15:32:02 <FabGandon> ... yes
... yes ←
15:32:25 <FabGandon> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/25
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/25 ←
15:32:36 <FabGandon> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/33
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/33 ←
15:33:05 <FabGandon> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/48
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/48 ←
15:33:13 <FabGandon> PatH: done
Patrick Hayes: done ←
15:33:47 <FabGandon> ... text in the wiki shows it's done
... text in the wiki shows it's done ←
15:33:56 <FabGandon> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/51
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/51 ←
15:34:34 <FabGandon> Topic: editing documents.
15:35:34 <FabGandon> davidwood: email thread about editing documents
David Wood: email thread about editing documents ←
15:35:59 <FabGandon> ivan: ready to create a repository / archive
Ivan Herman: ready to create a repository / archive ←
15:36:28 <FabGandon> ... decide on short names for the docs
... decide on short names for the docs ←
15:36:50 <FabGandon> ... decide on RDF 1.1 vs. RDF Next
... decide on RDF 1.1 vs. RDF Next ←
15:37:24 <FabGandon> ... who should be on the front page of docs and what are the rules to decide the names that appear
... who should be on the front page of docs and what are the rules to decide the names that appear ←
15:38:34 <JeremyCarroll> I have an AOB item - I will add myself to queue at end of meeting
Jeremy Carroll: I have an AOB item - I will add myself to queue at end of meeting ←
15:38:56 <davidwood> JeremyCarroll, ok
David Wood: JeremyCarroll, ok ←
15:39:12 <FabGandon> ivan: we should make it clear that we are not making a radical change to RDF
Ivan Herman: we should make it clear that we are not making a radical change to RDF ←
15:39:14 <SteveH> I prefer year'd versions
Steve Harris: I prefer year'd versions ←
15:39:25 <SteveH> the current one tends to be called RDF '04 anyway
Steve Harris: the current one tends to be called RDF '04 anyway ←
15:39:30 <sandro> +1 years
Sandro Hawke: +1 years ←
15:39:41 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to Ivan
Jeremy Carroll: +1 to Ivan ←
15:39:42 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:40:05 <cygri> +1 to ivan ... but RDF '13 is also not bad
Richard Cyganiak: +1 to ivan ... but RDF '13 is also not bad ←
15:40:12 <davidwood> ack SteveH
David Wood: ack SteveH ←
15:40:15 <FabGandon> ivan: I prefer 1.1 since it reflects the additions we are making
Ivan Herman: I prefer 1.1 since it reflects the additions we are making ←
15:40:47 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to explain 2004
Jeremy Carroll: q+ to explain 2004 ←
15:40:59 <FabGandon> SteveH: 1.1 is the way forward if we go for numbers but I prefer the years.
Steve Harris: 1.1 is the way forward if we go for numbers but I prefer the years. ←
15:41:01 <davidwood> ack JeremyCarroll
David Wood: ack JeremyCarroll ←
15:41:01 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to explain 2004
Zakim IRC Bot: JeremyCarroll, you wanted to explain 2004 ←
15:41:33 <sandro> JeremyCarroll: "2004" results from that group having messed up, making bigger changes than they meant to.
Jeremy Carroll: "2004" results from that group having messed up, making bigger changes than they meant to. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:41:46 <sandro> JeremyCarroll: We should have given ourselves a number.
Jeremy Carroll: We should have given ourselves a number. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:42:08 <FabGandon> JeremyCarroll: having a number now is a good idea
Jeremy Carroll: having a number now is a good idea ←
15:42:14 <AndyS> Is the rdf: URI changing ? (no) It has a year as has RDFS so year is a bit confusing here.
Andy Seaborne: Is the rdf: URI changing ? (no) It has a year as has RDFS so year is a bit confusing here. ←
15:42:29 <SteveH> AndyS, good point
Steve Harris: AndyS, good point ←
15:42:33 <Zakim> -cmatheus
Zakim IRC Bot: -cmatheus ←
15:42:41 <pfps> +1.1 :-)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1.1 :-) ←
15:42:46 <FabGandon> JeremyCarroll: I like 1.1
Jeremy Carroll: I like 1.1 ←
15:43:03 <SteveH> RDF-beta
Steve Harris: RDF-beta ←
15:43:13 <mbrunati> like 1.1
Matteo Brunati: like 1.1 ←
15:43:14 <Souri> +1.1 to 1.1
Souripriya Das: +1.1 to 1.1 ←
15:43:22 <pfps> +2 to 1.1
Peter Patel-Schneider: +2 to 1.1 ←
15:43:23 <AZ> +1 to 1.1
Antoine Zimmerman: +1 to 1.1 ←
15:43:24 <ericP> 1.1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: 1.1 ←
15:43:26 <SteveH> 1.1
Steve Harris: 1.1 ←
15:43:29 <cygri> 1.1
Richard Cyganiak: 1.1 ←
15:43:29 <zwu2> +1 to 1.1
15:43:31 <AndyS> 1.1
Andy Seaborne: 1.1 ←
15:43:31 <davidwood> +1.1 to 1.1
David Wood: +1.1 to 1.1 ←
15:43:31 <ivan> 1.1
Ivan Herman: 1.1 ←
15:43:32 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to 1.1
Jeremy Carroll: +1 to 1.1 ←
15:43:33 <yvesr> +1 to 1.1
Yves Raimond: +1 to 1.1 ←
15:43:34 <mischat> 1.1
Mischa Tuffield: 1.1 ←
15:43:38 <NickH> +1.1
Nicholas Humfrey: +1.1 ←
15:43:39 <AlexHall> 1.1
15:43:41 <FabGandon> davidwood: strow poll on 1.1 vs years
David Wood: strow poll on 1.1 vs years ←
15:43:47 <FabGandon> 1.1
1.1 ←
15:43:53 <zwu2> is there a big difference between 1.1 or 1.5?
Zhe Wu: is there a big difference between 1.1 or 1.5? ←
15:43:55 <ericP> 1½?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: 1½? ←
15:43:56 <ww> 1 + epsilon
William Waites: 1 + epsilon ←
15:44:36 <NickH> I hope that there won't be enough changes for it to be 1.5
Nicholas Humfrey: I hope that there won't be enough changes for it to be 1.5 ←
15:44:42 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:44:48 <sandro> RESOLVED: The thing we're working on is "RDF 1.1"
RESOLVED: The thing we're working on is "RDF 1.1" ←
15:44:48 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:45:32 <SteveH> SPARQL-WD added "11" to the end of the shortname
Steve Harris: SPARQL-WD added "11" to the end of the shortname ←
15:45:34 <FabGandon> ivan: for the URIs all docs we produce have a short name + 1.1
Ivan Herman: for the URIs all docs we produce have a short name + 1.1 ←
15:46:48 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ ←
15:47:34 <ivan> rdf-mt-11
Ivan Herman: rdf-mt-11 ←
15:47:44 <sandro> vs rdf11-mt ?
Sandro Hawke: vs rdf11-mt ? ←
15:47:57 <cygri> +1 for rdf11-xxx
Richard Cyganiak: +1 for rdf11-xxx ←
15:48:02 <FabGandon> ivan: reuse of the old shot names should be considered only at the end when we publish the final rec
Ivan Herman: reuse of the old shot names should be considered only at the end when we publish the final rec ←
15:48:09 <SteveH> +1 for rdf11-*
Steve Harris: +1 for rdf11-* ←
15:48:11 <AndyS> actually it's /sparql11-update/ etc for SPARQL
Andy Seaborne: actually it's /sparql11-update/ etc for SPARQL ←
15:49:30 <ivan> PROPOSED: for short names we would use rdf11-X where rdf-X stands for the current recommendations
PROPOSED: for short names we would use rdf11-X where rdf-X stands for the current recommendations ←
15:49:40 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:49:41 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:49:42 <zwu2> +1
15:49:43 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
15:49:44 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:49:44 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:49:45 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:49:45 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
15:49:46 <mbrunati> +1
Matteo Brunati: +1 ←
15:49:47 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
15:49:48 <ww> +1
William Waites: +1 ←
15:49:52 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmerman: +1 ←
15:50:00 <NickH> +1
Nicholas Humfrey: +1 ←
15:50:07 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
15:50:09 <pfps> +1
15:50:11 <PatH> 0
Patrick Hayes: 0 ←
15:50:18 <FabGandon> +1
+1 ←
15:50:19 <PatH> Hey, I *am* retired.
Patrick Hayes: Hey, I *am* retired. ←
15:50:19 <ivan> RESOLVED: for short names we would use rdf11-X where rdf-X stands for the current recommendations
RESOLVED: for short names we would use rdf11-X where rdf-X stands for the current recommendations ←
15:50:41 <ivan> ISSUE-8?
15:50:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-8 -- Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-8 -- Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents -- open ←
15:50:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/8
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/8 ←
15:50:56 <FabGandon> Topic: Incorporate IRI-s into the RDF documents
15:51:14 <JeremyCarroll> +10
Jeremy Carroll: +10 ←
15:51:22 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
15:52:02 <ericP> q+ to say there are a zillion forms of protocol dependent and independent normalizations which we don't want to do
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say there are a zillion forms of protocol dependent and independent normalizations which we don't want to do ←
15:52:12 <pfps> +1 to ericP
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to ericP ←
15:52:18 <SteveH> q+ to talk about security
Steve Harris: q+ to talk about security ←
15:52:23 <AlexHall> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0469.html
Alex Hall: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0469.html ←
15:52:24 <davidwood> ack ericP
David Wood: ack ericP ←
15:52:24 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say there are a zillion forms of protocol dependent and independent normalizations which we don't want to do
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say there are a zillion forms of protocol dependent and independent normalizations which we don't want to do ←
15:52:25 <AndyS> Unless we go for completely normalising IRIs e.g. /x/../y (which i bleive is wrong by IRI spec as RDF does not produce the IRI - it transfers it)
Andy Seaborne: Unless we go for completely normalising IRIs e.g. /x/../y (which i bleive is wrong by IRI spec as RDF does not produce the IRI - it transfers it) ←
15:52:27 <ericP> various unicode forms etc.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: various unicode forms etc. ←
15:52:45 <ivan> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0469.html mail including Felix Sasaki's advice
Ivan Herman: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0469.html mail including Felix Sasaki's advice ←
15:52:58 <davidwood> ack SteveH
David Wood: ack SteveH ←
15:52:58 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to talk about security
Zakim IRC Bot: SteveH, you wanted to talk about security ←
15:53:24 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:53:35 <FabGandon> SteveH: we should keep in mine that RDF is for machines
Steve Harris: we should keep in mind that RDF is for machines ←
15:53:43 <JeremyCarroll> Note: Applications using IRIs as identity tokens with no relationship to a protocol MUST use the Simple String Comparison (see section 5.3.1).
Jeremy Carroll: Note: Applications using IRIs as identity tokens with no relationship to a protocol MUST use the Simple String Comparison (see section 5.3.1). ←
15:53:48 <FabGandon> s/mine/mind
15:53:51 <JeremyCarroll> from RFC 3987
Jeremy Carroll: from RFC 3987 ←
15:54:01 <ivan> PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE 8 by keeping IRI-s and their punycode equivalent separate as different URI References in RDF
PROPOSED: resolve ISSUE-8 by keeping IRI-s and their punycode equivalent separate as different URI References in RDF ←
15:54:02 <JeremyCarroll> this decision is in accord with this REQUIREMENT
Jeremy Carroll: this decision is in accord with this REQUIREMENT ←
15:54:16 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:54:17 <SteveH> seconded
Steve Harris: seconded ←
15:54:17 <JeremyCarroll> +1
Jeremy Carroll: +1 ←
15:54:18 <AlexHall> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0604.html --> proposed text from ericP which defines IRI equivalence as Unicode equivalence and discourages use of punycode in RDF IRIs
Alex Hall: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0604.html --> proposed text from ericP which defines IRI equivalence as Unicode equivalence and discourages use of punycode in RDF IRIs ←
15:54:18 <zwu2> +1
15:54:19 <PatH> Do we call them URI refs or IRIs?
Patrick Hayes: Do we call them URI refs or IRIs? ←
15:54:19 <ww> +1
William Waites: +1 ←
15:54:20 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:54:23 <pfps> +1
15:54:24 <mbrunati> +1
Matteo Brunati: +1 ←
15:54:25 <FabGandon> +1
+1 ←
15:54:27 <AlexHall> +1
15:54:30 <PatH> +1 to substance
Patrick Hayes: +1 to substance ←
15:54:46 <AndyS> IRIs
Andy Seaborne: IRIs ←
15:54:50 <PatH> OK
Patrick Hayes: OK ←
15:55:00 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
15:55:19 <FabGandon> ivan: we use URI Ref and then editors can change it to IRIs
Ivan Herman: we use URI Ref and then editors can change it to IRIs ←
15:55:19 <ivan> RESOLVED: resolve ISSUE 8 by keeping IRI-s and their punycode equivalent separate as different URI References in RDF
RESOLVED: resolve ISSUE-8 by keeping IRI-s and their punycode equivalent separate as different URI References in RDF ←
15:55:39 <AndyS> caution: URI reference != RDF URI reference
Andy Seaborne: caution: URI reference != RDF URI reference ←
15:55:53 <sandro> ACTION: david to officially inform the RDFa WG of our decision on ISSUE-8
ACTION: david to officially inform the RDFa WG of our decision on ISSUE-8 ←
15:55:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-53 - Officially inform the RDFa WG of our decision on ISSUE-8 [on David Wood - due 2011-06-01].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-53 - Officially inform the RDFa WG of our decision on ISSUE-8 [on David Wood - due 2011-06-01]. ←
15:56:18 <JeremyCarroll> http://www.rfc-ref.org/RFC-TEXTS/3987/chapter5.html#sub1 link for my quote
Jeremy Carroll: http://www.rfc-ref.org/RFC-TEXTS/3987/chapter5.html#sub1 link for my quote ←
15:56:41 <ivan> ISSUE-12?
15:56:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 -- Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-12 -- Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) -- open ←
15:56:41 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12 ←
15:56:44 <FabGandon> ISSUE-12?
15:56:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 -- Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-12 -- Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) -- open ←
15:56:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12 ←
15:57:13 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/LanguageTaggedStringDatatypeProposal
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/LanguageTaggedStringDatatypeProposal ←
15:57:13 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/EntailmentProposal
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/EntailmentProposal ←
15:57:19 <FabGandon> Topic: Reconcile various forms of string literals
15:58:43 <sandro> scribe: sandro
(Scribe set to Sandro Hawke)
15:59:05 <AndyS> I asked Jena users and developers for feedback - little enthusiasm - more energy for just xsd:string to be deprecated and no other changes made.
Andy Seaborne: I asked Jena users and developers for feedback - little enthusiasm - more energy for just xsd:string to be deprecated and no other changes made. ←
15:59:07 <sandro> davidwood: Looking at the mailing list, it seems possible to get a decision.
David Wood: Looking at the mailing list, it seems possible to get a decision. ←
15:59:14 <sandro> q+
q+ ←
15:59:25 <PatH> There was some email pushback...
Patrick Hayes: There was some email pushback... ←
15:59:31 <SteveH> I'm not exactly happy about the proposal
Steve Harris: I'm not exactly happy about the proposal ←
15:59:36 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
15:59:40 <pfps> I'm not happy with the proposal.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm not happy with the proposal. ←
15:59:43 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:59:45 <Zakim> -FabGandon
Zakim IRC Bot: -FabGandon ←
15:59:53 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
16:00:34 <SteveH> +1 to sandro, lang dt equivalent is cleaning, from some perspective
Steve Harris: +1 to sandro, lang dt equivalent is cleaning, from some perspective ←
16:00:41 <SteveH> *cleaner
Steve Harris: *cleaner ←
16:00:48 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to accept action to respond to this qu in e mail
Jeremy Carroll: q+ to accept action to respond to this qu in e mail ←
16:00:53 <davidwood> ack SteveH
David Wood: ack SteveH ←
16:01:02 <sandro> sandro: what happened to the proposal to use languages as datatypes?
Sandro Hawke: what happened to the proposal to use languages as datatypes? ←
16:01:20 <pfps> q+
16:01:28 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to steve
Jeremy Carroll: +1 to steve ←
16:01:30 <sandro> steve: I don't find this idea of non-string lexical values as a win. it's a step sideways.
Steve Harris: I don't find this idea of non-string lexical values as a win. it's a step sideways. ←
16:01:36 <ww> I think @en is (should be) syntax sugar for ^^englishString
William Waites: I think @en is (should be) syntax sugar for ^^englishString ←
16:02:04 <sandro> PatH: Yes, it's a step sideways. Motivated by trying to preserve the current situation. Not a magic solution, preserve status quo.
Patrick Hayes: Yes, it's a step sideways. Motivated by trying to preserve the current situation. Not a magic solution, preserve status quo. ←
16:02:19 <davidwood> Might @en become a subclass of xsd:string?
David Wood: Might @en become a subclass of xsd:string? ←
16:02:21 <sandro> SteveH: Why take lanugage tags off the table? I found that fairly elegant.
Steve Harris: Why take lanugage tags off the table? I found that fairly elegant. ←
16:02:42 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
16:02:53 <sandro> PatH: Can you make that more preceise? Making language tags, with their complex subtyping, into datatypes would be hell.
Patrick Hayes: Can you make that more preceise? Making language tags, with their complex subtyping, into datatypes would be hell. ←
16:02:58 <ivan> -> http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ as a good reference on language tags
Ivan Herman: -> http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ as a good reference on language tags ←
16:03:08 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
16:03:17 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
16:03:18 <sandro> SteveH: Some URI prefix then all possible language tags -- that would be kind of ugly, but all proposals here are ugly.
Steve Harris: Some URI prefix then all possible language tags -- that would be kind of ugly, but all proposals here are ugly. ←
16:03:20 <ivan> This is the generic form of a language tag: language-extlang-script-region-variant-extension-privateuse
Ivan Herman: This is the generic form of a language tag: language-extlang-script-region-variant-extension-privateuse ←
16:03:27 <davidwood> ack JeremyCarroll
David Wood: ack JeremyCarroll ←
16:03:27 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to accept action to respond to this qu in e mail
Zakim IRC Bot: JeremyCarroll, you wanted to accept action to respond to this qu in e mail ←
16:03:28 <SteveH> we'd end up with rdflang:<all-possible-langtags>
Steve Harris: we'd end up with rdflang:<all-possible-langtags> ←
16:03:33 <AndyS> q+ to say that we don't need to do the subtyping / lang tag meaning (which I agree is a bad fit)
Andy Seaborne: q+ to say that we don't need to do the subtyping / lang tag meaning (which I agree is a bad fit) ←
16:03:37 <PatH> Sorry to jump in.
Patrick Hayes: Sorry to jump in. ←
16:03:44 <PatH> +1 Andy
Patrick Hayes: +1 Andy ←
16:03:57 <AndyS> q-
Andy Seaborne: q- ←
16:04:05 <sandro> JeremyCarroll: Language tags are complicated, they are NOT like data types, but it's too complex to explain why they are not. Like chinese -- very complex language tags. Cannot be discussed on the call.
Jeremy Carroll: Language tags are complicated, they are NOT like data types, but it's too complex to explain why they are not. Like chinese -- very complex language tags. Cannot be discussed on the call. ←
16:04:29 <ww> I would like an explanation
William Waites: I would like an explanation ←
16:04:31 <ivan> zh-Hant-HK is the chinese with traditional scripts as used in Hong Kong
Ivan Herman: zh-Hant-HK is the chinese with traditional scripts as used in Hong Kong ←
16:04:32 <PatH> Suggest anyone who likes the idea, go read the lang tag spec.
Patrick Hayes: Suggest anyone who likes the idea, go read the lang tag spec. ←
16:04:34 <SteveH> ASK { rdflang:en ?p rdflang:en-GB } => false
Steve Harris: ASK { rdflang:en ?p rdflang:en-GB } => false ←
16:04:43 <ww> (on the list)
William Waites: (on the list) ←
16:04:47 <sandro> sandro: I disagree with some of your argument --- a string is a string.
Sandro Hawke: I disagree with some of your argument --- a string is a string. ←
16:04:55 <davidwood> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
16:05:01 <sandro> sandro: it is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT how complex the matching is.
Sandro Hawke: it is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT how complex the matching is. ←
16:05:03 <PatH> No, they are NOT strings. Tags are related in complex ways which do not correspond to simple language/dialect or language/region cases.
Patrick Hayes: No, they are NOT strings. Tags are related in complex ways which do not correspond to simple language/dialect or language/region cases. ←
16:05:39 <sandro> pfps: I;m very uncomforable changing the guts of RDF for minimal benefit
Peter Patel-Schneider: I;m very uncomforable changing the guts of RDF for minimal benefit ←
16:05:48 <PatH> Peter, can you point to an actual problem? I can see none.
Patrick Hayes: Peter, can you point to an actual problem? I can see none. ←
16:05:59 <JeremyCarroll> I agree with peter too!!
Jeremy Carroll: I agree with peter too!! ←
16:06:04 <sandro> pfps: I'm against the proposal overall -- not specifically agreeing with JeremyCarroll (although I do, also)
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm against the proposal overall -- not specifically agreeing with JeremyCarroll (although I do, also) ←
16:06:21 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:06:22 <sandro> davidwood: i think it's clear we wont resolve this today.
David Wood: i think it's clear we wont resolve this today. ←
16:06:26 <pfps> I didn't say that there was a problem, just that there was a change to the fundamentals of RDF.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I didn't say that there was a problem, just that there was a change to the fundamentals of RDF. ←
16:06:35 <sandro> davidwood: JeremyCarroll is right to move it to the list.
David Wood: JeremyCarroll is right to move it to the list. ←
16:06:43 <PatH> So, its our task to adjust RDF to suit ourselves.
Patrick Hayes: So, its our task to adjust RDF to suit ourselves. ←
16:06:45 <JeremyCarroll> my AOB: Propose congratulations to Gavin, Kindli and Patrick
Jeremy Carroll: my AOB: Propose congratulations to Gavin, Kindli and Patrick ←
16:07:03 <sandro> topic: Other Business
16:07:21 <PatH> Seconded.
Patrick Hayes: Seconded. ←
16:07:30 <sandro> JeremyCarroll: Gavin and Kindli had a baby, Patrick (1 day old). :-)
Jeremy Carroll: Gavin and Kindli had a baby, Patrick (1 day old). :-) ←
16:07:39 <PatH> Particularly as he has a really good name.
Patrick Hayes: Particularly as he has a really good name. ←
16:07:48 <zwu2> +1
16:08:52 <sandro> sandro: how abuut we talk about the issue for remaining time...
Sandro Hawke: how abuut we talk about the issue for remaining time... ←
16:08:57 <sandro> topic: back to String Literals
16:09:11 <sandro> pfps: I don't see what motivates all this in RDF.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't see what motivates all this in RDF. ←
16:09:18 <ww> language tags seem like a funny special case in the data model
William Waites: language tags seem like a funny special case in the data model ←
16:09:22 <PatH> The change is mathematically trivial, and the RDF machinery isnt very deep anyway.
Patrick Hayes: The change is mathematically trivial, and the RDF machinery isnt very deep anyway. ←
16:09:27 <ericP> the choice between "abc" and "abc"^^xsd:string is arbitrary and stymies unification
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the choice between "abc" and "abc"^^xsd:string is arbitrary and stymies unification ←
16:09:35 <ericP> (pfps)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (pfps) ←
16:10:18 <PatH> We have to choose between tyuping a <striong, tag> pair, or writing "string@tag"
Patrick Hayes: We have to choose between tyuping a <striong, tag> pair, or writing "string@tag" ←
16:10:28 <sandro> pfps: Conceptually, adding a slew of datatypes (eg rdflang:en) that doesnt change the machinery nearly as much. I don't think it's a good idea, but it's not really a chance to the RDF machinery.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Conceptually, adding a slew of datatypes (eg rdflang:en) that doesnt change the machinery nearly as much. I don't think it's a good idea, but it's not really a chance to the RDF machinery. ←
16:10:39 <sandro> pfps: is there an infinite number of languages?
Peter Patel-Schneider: is there an infinite number of languages? ←
16:10:45 <sandro> ivan: it's large but finite.
Ivan Herman: it's large but finite. ←
16:10:59 <ivan> language-extlang-script-region-variant-extension-privateuse
Ivan Herman: language-extlang-script-region-variant-extension-privateuse ←
16:11:33 <ww> zakim, unmute me
William Waites: zakim, unmute me ←
16:11:33 <Zakim> ww should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ww should no longer be muted ←
16:12:03 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
16:12:10 <ivan> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
16:12:13 <sandro> PatH: infinity is not the problem -- it's the complexity.
Patrick Hayes: infinity is not the problem -- it's the complexity. ←
16:12:14 <sandro> q+
q+ ←
16:12:14 <ww> q+
William Waites: q+ ←
16:12:18 <JeremyCarroll> one human being can invent an infinite number of privater use tags
Jeremy Carroll: one human being can invent an infinite number of privater use tags ←
16:12:29 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/ ←
16:12:31 <sandro> pat: region means something differrent in each language.
Patrick Hayes: region means something differrent in each language. ←
16:12:33 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
16:13:14 <davidwood> ack ww
David Wood: ack ww ←
16:13:14 <sandro> ww: i agree it's very complicated; one might want to model this stuff in RDF -- if it's a datatype, then there's a chance of doing that. This simplifies this.
William Waites: i agree it's very complicated; one might want to model this stuff in RDF -- if it's a datatype, then there's a chance of doing that. This simplifies this. ←
16:13:18 <AndyS> and lang tag canonicalization is quite complex (it's not lower case)
Andy Seaborne: and lang tag canonicalization is quite complex (it's not lower case) ←
16:13:25 <ericP> q+
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ ←
16:13:26 <sandro> q?
q? ←
16:13:30 <sandro> ack sandro
ack sandro ←
16:13:31 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
16:13:43 <PatH> Language tags are widely used. Has any of these uers expressed a desire to replace them with RDF?
Patrick Hayes: Language tags are widely used. Has any of these uers expressed a desire to replace them with RDF? ←
16:13:48 <SteveH> AndyS, there is a (RDF?) document that recommends lowercase normalisation
Steve Harris: AndyS, there is a (RDF?) document that recommends lowercase normalisation ←
16:13:55 <SteveH> AndyS, abstract syntax maybe
Steve Harris: AndyS, abstract syntax maybe ←
16:14:03 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:14:06 <davidwood> q+ to ask about language tags and xsd:string
David Wood: q+ to ask about language tags and xsd:string ←
16:14:07 <PatH> +q
Patrick Hayes: +q ←
16:14:10 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
16:14:11 <ww> zakim, mute me
William Waites: zakim, mute me ←
16:14:12 <davidwood> ack ericP
David Wood: ack ericP ←
16:14:13 <Zakim> ww should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ww should now be muted ←
16:14:17 <sandro> sandro: just treat the language tag as opaque. that's the most elegant solution here.
Sandro Hawke: just treat the language tag as opaque. that's the most elegant solution here. ←
16:14:25 <AndyS> steveH - yes. It's not what RFC 4646 says :-(
Andy Seaborne: steveH - yes. It's not what RFC 4646 says :-( ←
16:14:35 <PatH> That does not work when datatype names become class names in RDFS.
Patrick Hayes: That does not work when datatype names become class names in RDFS. ←
16:14:57 <PatH> We need to establish the subclass relationships.
Patrick Hayes: We need to establish the subclass relationships. ←
16:15:00 <sandro> ericP: The only logic I've seen on language tags is LangMatches, as in SPARQL -- simple to implement -- I think Sandro's notion of treat them as opaque, or a little bit if "L-Entailment" on lang-matches, those tricks would work and simplify RDF.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: The only logic I've seen on language tags is LangMatches, as in SPARQL -- simple to implement -- I think Sandro's notion of treat them as opaque, or a little bit if "L-Entailment" on lang-matches, those tricks would work and simplify RDF. ←
16:15:31 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
16:15:35 <PatH> What is the value space of these dataypes??
Patrick Hayes: What is the value space of these dataypes?? ←
16:16:14 <sandro> ivan: Because the number of lang dts is huge, I want to be clear that we do not introduce into an RDFS reasoner to put in a huge number of class definitions.
Ivan Herman: Because the number of lang dts is huge, I want to be clear that we do not introduce into an RDFS reasoner to put in a huge number of class definitions. ←
16:16:20 <sandro> (of course not, if it's opaque.)
(of course not, if it's opaque.) ←
16:16:39 <sandro> ivan: "every datatype we know has to be defined to be a class".
Ivan Herman: "every datatype we know has to be defined to be a class". ←
16:16:48 <ww> I'm finding this discussion very interesting but unfortunately have to go
William Waites: I'm finding this discussion very interesting but unfortunately have to go ←
16:16:48 <sandro> ivan: we can wave our hands, perhaps.
Ivan Herman: we can wave our hands, perhaps. ←
16:17:08 <AndyS> PatH - exactly! - they have (presumably) the same value space (unicode string) which is a problem.
Andy Seaborne: PatH - exactly! - they have (presumably) the same value space (unicode string) which is a problem. ←
16:17:14 <sandro> ivan: In OWL-2-RL every DT needs a triple added.
Ivan Herman: In OWL-2-RL every DT needs a triple added. ←
16:17:27 <Zakim> -ww
Zakim IRC Bot: -ww ←
16:17:37 <sandro> I suggest value space is pairs (string, language tag).
I suggest value space is pairs (string, language tag). ←
16:17:38 <PatH> The classes of valaues are determined by the datatype spec. If we follow the tag specs, this gets very com,plicated and might not even fit into the RDFS class model. If we don't, the our reasoners will not deal with the datatypes correctly.
Patrick Hayes: The classes of valaues are determined by the datatype spec. If we follow the tag specs, this gets very com,plicated and might not even fit into the RDFS class model. If we don't, the our reasoners will not deal with the datatypes correctly. ←
16:17:58 <sandro> ADJOURN
ADJOURN ←
16:18:03 <JeremyCarroll> bye
Jeremy Carroll: bye ←
16:18:05 <Zakim> -[Garlik]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[Garlik] ←
16:18:06 <Zakim> -Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri ←
16:18:07 <Zakim> -yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: -yvesr ←
16:18:09 <Zakim> -JeremyCarroll
Zakim IRC Bot: -JeremyCarroll ←
16:18:09 <zwu2> bye
16:18:09 <AZ> bye
Antoine Zimmerman: bye ←
16:18:10 <mbrunati> ok, bye
Matteo Brunati: ok, bye ←
16:18:10 <Zakim> -Peter_Patel-Schneider
Zakim IRC Bot: -Peter_Patel-Schneider ←
16:18:13 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
16:18:14 <Zakim> -cygri
Zakim IRC Bot: -cygri ←
Formatted by CommonScribe