14:21:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/01-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/01-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:21:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:21:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:21:23 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 39 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 39 minutes ←
14:21:24 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:21:24 <trackbot> Date: 01 June 2011
14:53:25 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 32 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started ←
14:53:32 <Zakim> +hsbauer
Zakim IRC Bot: +hsbauer ←
14:53:42 <Zakim> +Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus ←
14:53:57 <Scott_Bauer> zakim, hsbauer is me
Scott Bauer: zakim, hsbauer is me ←
14:53:57 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Scott_Bauer; got it ←
14:55:40 <Zakim> +davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood ←
14:56:12 <davidwood1> zakim, who is here?
David Wood: zakim, who is here? ←
14:56:12 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood ←
14:56:59 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:56:59 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:57:01 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:57:30 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, please dial ericP-office ←
14:57:30 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ericP; the call is being made ←
14:57:32 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
14:57:45 <Zakim> +??P25
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P25 ←
14:58:40 <Zakim> +??P22
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P22 ←
14:58:47 <Zakim> +??P26
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P26 ←
14:58:53 <mbrunati> zakim, ??P22 is me
Matteo Brunati: zakim, ??P22 is me ←
14:58:53 <Zakim> +mbrunati; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +mbrunati; got it ←
14:58:56 <SteveH_> Zakim, ??P26 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P26 is me ←
14:58:56 <Zakim> +SteveH_; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH_; got it ←
14:59:19 <Zakim> +AlexHall
Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexHall ←
14:59:47 <pchampin> zakim, who is here?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, who is here? ←
14:59:47 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, ??P25 (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, ??P25 (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall ←
15:00:05 <Zakim> +FabGandon
Zakim IRC Bot: +FabGandon ←
15:00:15 <pchampin> zakim, ??P25 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P25 is me ←
15:00:15 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:00:22 <Zakim> +??P30
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P30 ←
15:00:42 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
15:00:42 <AndyS> zakim, ??P30 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P30 is me ←
15:00:44 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:00:50 <Zakim> +pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps ←
15:01:03 <cmatheus> zakim, ??P30 is me
Christopher Matheus: zakim, ??P30 is me ←
15:01:03 <Zakim> I already had ??P30 as AndyS, cmatheus
Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P30 as AndyS, cmatheus ←
15:01:07 <Zakim> +wcandillon
Zakim IRC Bot: +wcandillon ←
15:01:20 <AZ> zakim, wcandillon is me
Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, wcandillon is me ←
15:01:20 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←
15:01:22 <Zakim> +LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF ←
15:01:35 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:01:35 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, ??P3, pfps, AZ, LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin (muted), mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, ??P3, pfps, AZ, LeeF ←
15:01:42 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
Zakim IRC Bot: +mhausenblas ←
15:01:42 <AZ> Yes
Antoine Zimmermann: Yes ←
15:01:46 <davidwood1> zakim, ??P30 is really me. Really! Please let me have it.
David Wood: zakim, ??P30 is really me. Really! Please let me have it. ←
15:01:49 <Zakim> I don't understand you, davidwood1
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand you, davidwood1 ←
15:01:56 <davidwood1> Zakim, I know :)
David Wood: Zakim, I know :) ←
15:01:57 <Zakim> I'm glad that smiley is there, davidwood1
Zakim IRC Bot: I'm glad that smiley is there, davidwood1 ←
15:02:01 <cmatheus> zakim, ??P3 is me
Christopher Matheus: zakim, ??P3 is me ←
15:02:05 <Zakim> +cmatheus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cmatheus; got it ←
15:02:48 <davidwood1> Chair: David Wood
15:02:51 <cygri> zakim, who is on the phone?
Richard Cyganiak: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:02:51 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas ←
15:02:52 <davidwood1> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
15:02:53 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
Richard Cyganiak: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me ←
15:02:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Scott_Bauer, Guus, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, pchampin, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, AndyS, cmatheus, pfps, AZ, LeeF, mhausenblas ←
15:02:54 <pchampin> zakim, mute me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, mute me ←
15:02:56 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri; got it ←
15:02:56 <Zakim> pchampin should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin should now be muted ←
15:03:03 <Zakim> +??P36
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P36 ←
15:03:10 <davidwood1> Scribe: Alex Hall
(Scribe set to Alex Hall)
15:03:21 <NickH> Zakim, ??P36 is BBC
Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, ??P36 is BBC ←
15:03:21 <Zakim> +BBC; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +BBC; got it ←
15:03:23 <davidwood1> Scribenick: AlexHall
15:03:30 <Zakim> +JeremyCarroll
Zakim IRC Bot: +JeremyCarroll ←
15:03:49 <Zakim> +Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri ←
15:04:22 <AlexHall> regrets: axel, pat, mischat, souri
15:04:25 <AlexHall> topic: Admin
<AlexHall> subtopic: Last week's minutes
15:04:55 <AlexHall> davidwood: there were several resolutions from last meeting, please review the minutes.
David Wood: there were several resolutions from last meeting, please review the minutes. ←
15:05:02 <zwu2> zakim, code?
15:05:02 <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 ←
15:05:13 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: minutes from last meeting accepted
RESOLVED: minutes from last meeting accepted ←
15:05:29 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is noisy? ←
15:05:30 <pfps> minutes look OK to me
Peter Patel-Schneider: minutes look OK to me ←
15:05:32 <Zakim> +zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2 ←
15:05:38 <zwu2> sorry I am late
15:05:39 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AZ (16%), Guus (5%), davidwood (59%), Ivan (25%)
Zakim IRC Bot: ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AZ (16%), Guus (5%), davidwood (59%), Ivan (25%) ←
15:05:50 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
15:05:50 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
15:06:19 <NickH> Zakim, BBC also has NickH
Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, BBC also has NickH ←
15:06:19 <Zakim> +NickH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +NickH; got it ←
15:06:24 <NickH> Zakim, BBC also has yvesr
Nicholas Humfrey: Zakim, BBC also has yvesr ←
15:06:24 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it ←
<AlexHall> subtopic: Action item review
15:06:30 <AlexHall> cygri: still working on writing up named graph proposals for action-25
Richard Cyganiak: still working on writing up named graph proposals for ACTION-25 ←
15:06:46 <AlexHall> ... happy to keep action open or accept help from others
... happy to keep action open or accept help from others ←
15:07:08 <pchampin> ACTION-25?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: ACTION-25? ←
15:07:08 <trackbot> ACTION-25 -- Richard Cyganiak to write up the different options re ISSUE-15 -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-25 -- Richard Cyganiak to write up the different options re ISSUE-15 -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN ←
15:07:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/25
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/25 ←
15:07:39 <Zakim> +sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro ←
15:07:55 <AlexHall> cygri: action-51 text is implemented in local copy and waiting for hg repository
Richard Cyganiak: ACTION-51 text is implemented in local copy and waiting for hg repository ←
15:08:11 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:08:18 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:08:18 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
15:08:20 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:08:20 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
15:08:45 <cygri> trackbot, close ACTION-51
Richard Cyganiak: trackbot, close ACTION-51 ←
15:08:45 <trackbot> ACTION-51 Implement ISSUE-40 resolution in RDF Concepts Editor's draft; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0238.html and replies for text closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-51 Implement ISSUE-40 resolution in RDF Concepts Editor's draft; see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0238.html and replies for text closed ←
15:08:55 <AlexHall> guus: still trying to figure out what purpose of action-51 was
Guus Schreiber: still trying to figure out what purpose of ACTION-47 was ←
15:09:04 <AlexHall> s/action-51/action-47
15:09:26 <AlexHall> topic: Language tags
15:09:26 <davidwood1> ISSUE-64, RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags?
David Wood: ISSUE-64, RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags? ←
15:09:26 <davidwood1> Richard's proposal to resolve: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0441.html
David Wood: Richard's proposal to resolve: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0441.html ←
15:09:26 <trackbot> ISSUE-64 RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags? notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-64 RFC 3066 or RFC 5646 for language tags? notes added ←
15:09:44 <AlexHall> davidwood: Richard has proposal to resolve language tag issue
David Wood: Richard has proposal to resolve language tag issue ←
15:10:05 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to express surprise at the current text
Jeremy Carroll: q+ to express surprise at the current text ←
15:10:14 <AlexHall> cygri: spec currently refers to obsoleted rfc 3066 for language tags
Richard Cyganiak: spec currently refers to obsoleted rfc 3066 for language tags ←
15:10:31 <AlexHall> ... proposal is to use latest rfc 5646
... proposal is to use latest rfc 5646 ←
15:10:38 <davidwood1> Pat's reformulation/explanation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0010.html
David Wood: Pat's reformulation/explanation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0010.html ←
15:10:56 <davidwood1> Lee F also expressed support: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0011.html
David Wood: Lee F also expressed support: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0011.html ←
15:11:10 <AlexHall> ... the new RFC has two notions of validity: well-formedness (grammar only) and validity (lang tag actually exists)
... the new RFC has two notions of validity: well-formedness (grammar only) and validity (lang tag actually exists) ←
15:11:52 <AlexHall> ... add a note that the previous RFC allowed lang tags that are no longer allowed under the latest version
... add a note that the previous RFC allowed lang tags that are no longer allowed under the latest version ←
15:12:01 <ericP> +1 ref'ing 5646, +1 to holding at well-formedness, +1 to explanatory note
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ref'ing 5646, +1 to holding at well-formedness, +1 to explanatory note ←
15:12:06 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:12:07 <AlexHall> ... adopt the loosest notion of well-formedness
... adopt the loosest notion of well-formedness ←
15:12:36 <AlexHall> davidwood: do you agree with pat's latest note on the mailing list?
David Wood: do you agree with pat's latest note on the mailing list? ←
15:12:49 <AlexHall> cygri: seems to be about a different issue
Richard Cyganiak: seems to be about a different issue ←
15:13:13 <AlexHall> davidwood: apologies, it was a different issue
David Wood: apologies, it was a different issue ←
15:14:23 <AlexHall> ???: when i read this note, it prompted me to drill down into original text around lang tags in the spec
Jeremy Carroll: when i read this note, it prompted me to drill down into original text around lang tags in the spec ←
15:14:57 <AZ> s/???/JeremyCarroll
15:15:03 <AlexHall> ... at some point there was a phrase to reference RFC 3066 or its successors
... at some point there was a phrase to reference RFC 3066 or its successors ←
15:15:20 <AlexHall> ... not sure what that phrase was dropped, would like to find out why
... not sure why that phrase was dropped, would like to find out why ←
15:15:43 <AZ> s/what/why/
15:16:07 <ericP> refs to unicode serve as a precedent for "or it's successors", but there are contracts which allow forward-thinking parsers to know what could be valid in the next decade or so
Eric Prud'hommeaux: refs to unicode serve as a precedent for "or it's successors", but there are contracts which allow forward-thinking parsers to know what could be valid in the next decade or so ←
15:16:25 <AlexHall> ... richard's point about validity vs. well-formedness was well taken and i support the proposal.
... richard's point about validity vs. well-formedness was well taken and i support the proposal. ←
15:16:51 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/64
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/64 ←
15:17:03 <pfps> OK by me
Peter Patel-Schneider: OK by me ←
15:17:25 <pfps> ... not that I care .... Issue 12, on the other hand ...
Peter Patel-Schneider: ... not that I care .... ISSUE-12, on the other hand ... ←
15:17:29 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:17:31 <cygri> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts as per Richard's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0441.html
PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts as per Richard's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0441.html ←
15:17:31 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
15:17:34 <AndyS> OK if syntax restriction - not depending on registry state
Andy Seaborne: OK if syntax restriction - not depending on registry state ←
15:17:35 <pfps> +0
15:17:36 <JeremyCarroll> +1
Jeremy Carroll: +1 ←
15:17:36 <davidwood1> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:17:36 <mbrunati> +1
Matteo Brunati: +1 ←
15:17:38 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:17:41 <zwu2> +1
15:17:43 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:17:55 <pchampin> +1
15:17:59 <cmatheus> +1
Christopher Matheus: +1 ←
15:18:03 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:18:04 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:18:39 <Zakim> -Scott_Bauer
Zakim IRC Bot: -Scott_Bauer ←
15:19:07 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer
Zakim IRC Bot: +Scott_Bauer ←
15:19:12 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts per Richard's proposal
RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-64 by updating RDF concepts per Richard's proposal ←
15:19:23 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:19:26 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
15:19:31 <cygri> ACTION: cygri to implement ISSUE-64 resolution
ACTION: cygri to implement ISSUE-64 resolution ←
15:19:31 <trackbot> Created ACTION-54 - Implement ISSUE-64 resolution [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-06-08].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-54 - Implement ISSUE-64 resolution [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-06-08]. ←
15:19:37 <davidwood1> Proposed text on replacing URIref with IRI
David Wood: Proposed text on replacing URIref with IRI ←
15:19:37 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/IRIs/RDFConceptsProposal
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/IRIs/RDFConceptsProposal ←
15:19:37 <davidwood1> Related email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0413.html
David Wood: Related email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0413.html ←
15:19:47 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll
David Wood: ack JeremyCarroll ←
15:19:47 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to express surprise at the current text
Zakim IRC Bot: JeremyCarroll, you wanted to express surprise at the current text ←
15:19:47 <JeremyCarroll> ack
Jeremy Carroll: ack ←
15:19:56 <Zakim> +[Sophia]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[Sophia] ←
15:20:04 <ivan> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/
Ivan Herman: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/ ←
15:20:14 <FabGandon> zakim, Sophia is me
Fabien Gandon: zakim, Sophia is me ←
15:20:14 <Zakim> +FabGandon; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +FabGandon; got it ←
15:20:30 <AlexHall> ivan: before we move on to other major issues, I have the hg repository set up and link is posted in IRC
Ivan Herman: before we move on to other major issues, I have the hg repository set up and link is posted in IRC ←
15:21:10 <davidwood1> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:21:39 <AlexHall> topic: Replacing URIref with IRI
15:21:47 <AlexHall> davidwood: This is Richard's text
David Wood: This is Richard's text ←
15:22:24 <AlexHall> cygri: link is posted in minutes. issue is that we need to replace references to URI Reference in Concepts with references to IRI
Richard Cyganiak: link is posted in minutes. issue is that we need to replace references to URI Reference in Concepts with references to IRI ←
15:22:48 <AlexHall> ... fortunately this simplifies things because IRI defines things which were previously defined in RDF
... fortunately this simplifies things because IRI defines things which were previously defined in RDF ←
15:23:00 <AlexHall> ... main issue is what to do with the left-over notes in Concepts
... main issue is what to do with the left-over notes in Concepts ←
15:23:29 <AlexHall> ... there are characters which were allowed in URIrefs which are no longer allowed in IRIs
... there are characters which were allowed in URIrefs which are no longer allowed in IRIs ←
15:23:37 <davidwood1> q+ to discuss IPv6 in ihost: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#page-7
David Wood: q+ to discuss IPv6 in ihost: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#page-7 ←
15:23:47 <AlexHall> ... add note to indicate that these are no longer allowed except in %-encoded form
... add note to indicate that these are no longer allowed except in %-encoded form ←
15:24:21 <AlexHall> ... also a note to discourage %-encoded characters in old text, not sure this is a good idea
... also a note to discourage %-encoded characters in old text, not sure this is a good idea ←
15:24:34 <AlexHall> q+ to discuss percent-encoding
q+ to discuss percent-encoding ←
15:24:51 <davidwood1> ack davidwood
David Wood: ack davidwood ←
15:24:51 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to discuss IPv6 in ihost: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#page-7
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to discuss IPv6 in ihost: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#page-7 ←
15:24:59 <AlexHall> ... would like feedback from others who have looked into it
... would like feedback from others who have looked into it ←
15:25:29 <AndyS> There is %-enc text in RFC => (summary) use % only as necessary and not wildly.
Andy Seaborne: There is %-enc text in RFC => (summary) use % only as necessary and not wildly. ←
15:25:36 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought
Jeremy Carroll: q+ to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought ←
15:25:47 <ericP> q?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q? ←
15:25:52 <AndyS> IPv6 are legal using []
Andy Seaborne: IPv6 are legal using [] ←
15:25:56 <AlexHall> davidwood: occurred to me since i'm dealing with IPv6 issues... IRI grammar seems to allow host names and IPv4 addresses but not IPv6
David Wood: occurred to me since i'm dealing with IPv6 issues... IRI grammar seems to allow host names and IPv4 addresses but not IPv6 ←
15:26:12 <AlexHall> ... anybody know why this is?
... anybody know why this is? ←
15:26:26 <davidwood1> IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]"
David Wood: IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]" ←
15:26:31 <SteveH> right
Steve Harris: right ←
15:26:34 <AlexHall> ???: IRI allows IPv6 addresses in square brackets
Steve Harris: IRI allows IPv6 addresses in square brackets ←
15:26:36 <SteveH> I've actually used them :)
Steve Harris: I've actually used them :) ←
15:26:46 <davidwood1> ack AlexHall
David Wood: ack AlexHall ←
15:26:46 <Zakim> AlexHall, you wanted to discuss percent-encoding
Zakim IRC Bot: AlexHall, you wanted to discuss percent-encoding ←
15:26:50 <AndyS> RFC2732 adds them
Andy Seaborne: RFC2732 adds them ←
15:27:04 <AZ> s/???/SteveH/
15:27:38 <AndyS> RFC 3986 page 19
Andy Seaborne: RFC 3986 page 19 ←
15:28:16 <AndyS> section 3.2.2. Host
Andy Seaborne: section 3.2.2. Host ←
15:28:22 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to say last note is too long!
Jeremy Carroll: q+ to say last note is too long! ←
15:30:23 <pchampin> is there any reference that we could refer to regarding this notion of "canonical IRI"?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: is there any reference that we could refer to regarding this notion of "canonical IRI"? ←
15:30:27 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll
David Wood: ack JeremyCarroll ←
15:30:27 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought and to say last note is too long!
Zakim IRC Bot: JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest editors' draft should be updated with new text and public review sought and to say last note is too long! ←
15:30:50 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:30:56 <pfps> +1 to Jeremy - it is better to defer than to copy
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to Jeremy - it is better to defer than to copy ←
15:31:34 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
15:31:36 <AlexHall> AlexHall: Intent of the original text with %-encoding seemed to be to avoid interoperability issues, so I agree with the new proposal in this regard.
Alex Hall: Intent of the original text with %-encoding seemed to be to avoid interoperability issues, so I agree with the new proposal in this regard. ←
15:31:48 <pfps> -1 to David - informative lists tend to become too normative
Peter Patel-Schneider: -1 to David - informative lists tend to become too normative ←
15:32:07 <cygri> q+ to ask jeremy how much is too long
Richard Cyganiak: q+ to ask jeremy how much is too long ←
15:32:14 <AlexHall> JeremyCarroll: Would like to simply defer to IRI section 5 for normalization
Jeremy Carroll: Would like to simply defer to IRI section 5 for normalization ←
15:32:31 <AlexHall> ... giving a long list here runs the risk of people thinking this is exhaustive or normative
... giving a long list here runs the risk of people thinking this is exhaustive or normative ←
15:33:06 <AlexHall> davidwood: having the list there is nice as a summary so people don't have to hunt down the list themselves
David Wood: having the list there is nice as a summary so people don't have to hunt down the list themselves ←
15:33:26 <AlexHall> cygri: the intent here is that they are informative, not normative, and this will be explicitly noted in the document.
Richard Cyganiak: the intent here is that they are informative, not normative, and this will be explicitly noted in the document. ←
15:34:09 <ericP> q+ to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs."
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs." ←
15:34:18 <davidwood1> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:34:22 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
15:34:36 <AlexHall> JeremyCarroll: Historically this section has been note-heavy, would prefer to see this stuff moved into a new section 3.7
Jeremy Carroll: Historically this section has been note-heavy, would prefer to see this stuff moved into a new section 3.7 ←
15:34:53 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
15:35:05 <pfps> moving to an informative section would help a lot!
Peter Patel-Schneider: moving to an informative section would help a lot! ←
15:35:25 <davidwood1> ack ericP
David Wood: ack ericP ←
15:35:25 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to propose adding "While RDF does not require normalization or IRIs, using only normalized IRI forms will improve the chances that non-RDF tools will consume and ←
15:35:29 <Zakim> ... produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs."
Zakim IRC Bot: ... produce the same IRIs and that other parties will reproduce the exact spelling of these IRIs." ←
15:35:38 <Zakim> +AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ ←
15:35:58 <AlexHall> ericP: seems the root issue is that producing non-normalized IRIs decreases the chance that other tools will produce the same form
Eric Prud'hommeaux: seems the root issue is that producing non-normalized IRIs decreases the chance that other tools will produce the same form ←
15:36:12 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:36:15 <AndyS> And other RDF apps.
Andy Seaborne: And other RDF apps. ←
15:36:20 <JeremyCarroll> with that text we are well on the way to section 3.7
Jeremy Carroll: with that text we are well on the way to section 3.7 ←
15:36:23 <davidwood1> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:36:36 <AlexHall> ... propose to add some text (quoted in IRC) to explain the motivations for this note.
... propose to add some text (quoted in IRC) to explain the motivations for this note. ←
15:37:08 <AlexHall> cygri: prefer to avoid motivations and give just a concise summary
Richard Cyganiak: prefer to avoid motivations and give just a concise summary ←
15:37:34 <AlexHall> davidwood: would like to cater to people who don't want to read through all the specs to get a good understanding
David Wood: would like to cater to people who don't want to read through all the specs to get a good understanding ←
15:38:02 <AlexHall> ... most conerns at this point seem to be editorial in nature
... most conerns at this point seem to be editorial in nature ←
15:38:29 <AlexHall> cygri: as soon as the working draft goes live this content will be added and i encourage further comments
Richard Cyganiak: as soon as the working draft goes live this content will be added and i encourage further comments ←
15:38:48 <AlexHall> ... don't think we need a resolution now but want interested people to keep any eye on it.
... don't think we need a resolution now but want interested people to keep any eye on it. ←
15:39:03 <AlexHall> Topic: Revisit RDF Postponed Issues
15:39:19 <AlexHall> davidwood: This always seems to get pushed down to the bottom of the agenda
David Wood: This always seems to get pushed down to the bottom of the agenda ←
15:39:36 <AlexHall> ... let's take a few minutes to knock some of these down now
... let's take a few minutes to knock some of these down now ←
<AlexHall> subtopic: ISSUE-55 Revisit "Request for a richer vocabulary for languages"
15:39:39 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/55
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/55 ←
15:40:01 <pfps> Issue-55 - not only no, but xxxx NO! the request is incorrect, anyway
Peter Patel-Schneider: ISSUE-55 - not only no, but hell NO! the request is incorrect, anyway ←
15:40:22 <pfps> s/xxxx/hell/
15:40:24 <LeeF> seconded
Lee Feigenbaum: seconded ←
15:40:34 <SteveH> yeah, lets not do that :)
Steve Harris: yeah, lets not do that :) ←
15:40:39 <AlexHall> PROPOSED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group
PROPOSED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group ←
15:40:39 <zwu2> +1 close it
15:40:41 <ivan> agreed with closing
Ivan Herman: agreed with closing ←
15:40:41 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
15:40:42 <pfps> +1
15:40:43 <mbrunati> +1
Matteo Brunati: +1 ←
15:40:44 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
15:40:53 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:40:57 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:40:58 <pchampin> +1
15:40:59 <cmatheus> +1
Christopher Matheus: +1 ←
15:41:02 <LeeF> ISSUE-55?
15:41:02 <trackbot> ISSUE-55 -- Revisit "Request for a richer vocabulary for languages" -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-55 -- Revisit "Request for a richer vocabulary for languages" -- raised ←
15:41:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/55
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/55 ←
15:41:03 <NickH> +1
Nicholas Humfrey: +1 ←
15:41:59 <JeremyCarroll> 2) With respect to the rules for comparing literals: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literal-Equality For reasons of standardization and ease of use, there should exist a higher level matching rule that allows one to search for (lang="en", str) and to get matches to more detailed tags (lang="en-gb", str). This higher level rule should be defined
Jeremy Carroll: 2) With respect to the rules for comparing literals: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literal-Equality For reasons of standardization and ease of use, there should exist a higher level matching rule that allows one to search for (lang="en", str) and to get matches to more detailed tags (lang="en-gb", str). This higher level rule should be defined ←
15:42:19 <AlexHall> JeremyCarroll: we should close saying lang-matches from SPARQL addresses this issue
Jeremy Carroll: we should close saying lang-matches from SPARQL addresses this issue ←
15:43:05 <ivan> issue-56?
15:43:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 -- Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-56 -- Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" -- raised ←
15:43:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56 ←
15:43:06 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/56 ←
15:43:07 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group
RESOLVED: To close ISSUE-55 as this is not considered the duty of this group ←
<AlexHall> subtopic: ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments"
15:43:20 <davidwood1> ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments"
David Wood: ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" ←
15:43:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-56 Revisit "A request for a semantics free predicate for comments" notes added ←
15:43:21 <pfps> +q
15:43:25 <Zakim> -Scott_Bauer
Zakim IRC Bot: -Scott_Bauer ←
15:43:51 <Zakim> +Scott_Bauer
Zakim IRC Bot: +Scott_Bauer ←
15:43:52 <davidwood1> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
15:43:53 <SteveH> rdfs:comment?
Steve Harris: rdfs:comment? ←
15:44:02 <JeremyCarroll> no - not rdfs:comment
Jeremy Carroll: no - not rdfs:comment ←
15:44:17 <JeremyCarroll> rdf:universal
Jeremy Carroll: rdf:universal ←
15:44:19 <SteveH> ok, then <!-- --> / #
Steve Harris: ok, then <!-- --> / # ←
15:44:27 <AlexHall> pfps: this is from Ian, there was annoyance in the OWL wg that rdfs:comment has semantics
Peter Patel-Schneider: this is from Ian, there was annoyance in the OWL wg that rdfs:comment has semantics ←
15:44:44 <AlexHall> ... that ship has sailed, rdfs:comment is there and has semantics
... that ship has sailed, rdfs:comment is there and has semantics ←
15:45:05 <AlexHall> ... no third party is allowed to add new predicates to the RDF namespace
... no third party is allowed to add new predicates to the RDF namespace ←
15:45:13 <AlexHall> ... we should close it
... we should close it ←
15:45:32 <cygri> +1 to closing
Richard Cyganiak: +1 to closing ←
15:45:33 <pfps> +1
15:45:35 <ericP> +0
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0 ←
15:45:36 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
15:45:37 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:45:37 <zwu2> +1
15:45:37 <mbrunati> +1
Matteo Brunati: +1 ←
15:45:39 <JeremyCarroll> +0
Jeremy Carroll: +0 ←
15:45:39 <Guus> +1 to closing
Guus Schreiber: +1 to closing ←
15:45:40 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:45:42 <SteveH> +0
Steve Harris: +0 ←
15:45:44 <cmatheus> +1
Christopher Matheus: +1 ←
15:45:45 <AlexHall> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56, we have no intention of addressing this.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-56, we have no intention of addressing this. ←
15:46:15 <pchampin> +0
15:46:21 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-56, we have no intention of addressing this.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-56, we have no intention of addressing this. ←
<AlexHall> subtopic: ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture"
15:47:23 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/57
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/57 ←
15:47:29 <pfps> q+ for issue-57
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ for ISSUE-57 ←
15:47:41 <davidwood1> ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture"
David Wood: ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture" ←
15:47:41 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture" notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-57 Revisit "A request to define subset of RDFS with a more conventional layered architecture" notes added ←
15:48:06 <AlexHall> is anybody speaking right now?
is anybody speaking right now? ←
15:49:28 <pfps> q+
15:49:40 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to peter
Jeremy Carroll: +1 to peter ←
15:49:50 <JeremyCarroll> close it, reject
Jeremy Carroll: close it, reject ←
15:49:54 <AlexHall> davidwood: instead of continuing, we should open it and revisit when we finish the specs
David Wood: instead of continuing, we should open it and revisit when we finish the specs ←
15:50:20 <AndyS> What would a more layered architecture look like? It's not just change of exposition.
Andy Seaborne: What would a more layered architecture look like? It's not just change of exposition. ←
15:50:33 <pchampin> q+ to ask about RDFS-DL ?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+ to ask about RDFS-DL ? ←
15:50:49 <davidwood1> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
15:50:49 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to discuss issue-57 and to
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to discuss ISSUE-57 and to ←
15:50:51 <AlexHall> pfps: we won't be addressing this in this WG
Peter Patel-Schneider: we won't be addressing this in this WG ←
15:51:15 <AlexHall> ... there was a request for some defined fragment of RDFS that fits nicely into OWL
... there was a request for some defined fragment of RDFS that fits nicely into OWL ←
15:52:13 <AlexHall> davidwood: sounds like yet another proposal for yet another subset of logical formalism
David Wood: sounds like yet another proposal for yet another subset of logical formalism ←
15:52:13 <pchampin> q-
15:52:14 <JeremyCarroll> q+
Jeremy Carroll: q+ ←
15:52:29 <Guus> propose to close by doing nothing, no strong expressed need
Guus Schreiber: propose to close by doing nothing, no strong expressed need ←
15:52:31 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll
David Wood: ack JeremyCarroll ←
15:53:23 <Guus> I don't think we need to spend telecon time on this, we are all in violent agreement :-)
Guus Schreiber: I don't think we need to spend telecon time on this, we are all in violent agreement :-) ←
15:54:00 <FabGandon> +1
Fabien Gandon: +1 ←
15:54:03 <ericP> +0
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +0 ←
15:54:04 <JeremyCarroll> +1
Jeremy Carroll: +1 ←
15:54:05 <AlexHall> PROPOSED: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it.
PROPOSED: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it. ←
15:54:05 <mbrunati> +1
Matteo Brunati: +1 ←
15:54:07 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
15:54:08 <pfps> +1 to crush the can
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to crush the can ←
15:54:09 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
15:54:10 <zwu2> +0
15:54:10 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
15:54:14 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:54:21 <ivan> 1
Ivan Herman: 1 ←
15:54:23 <yvesr> +0
Yves Raimond: +0 ←
15:54:24 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
15:54:28 <AlexHall> RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it.
RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-57 by stating that it's not in our charter and we have no intention of doing it. ←
15:54:33 <cmatheus> +1
Christopher Matheus: +1 ←
15:54:56 <davidwood1> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals
David Wood: ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals ←
15:54:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added ←
15:54:56 <davidwood1> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12 ←
15:55:16 <AlexHall> Topic: ISSUE-12 (string literals)
15:55:17 <davidwood1> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting)
David Wood: ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) ←
15:55:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-12 Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) notes added ←
15:55:47 <AlexHall> davidwood: I note that this item is marked as "time-permitting" in the charter
David Wood: I note that this item is marked as "time-permitting" in the charter ←
15:55:59 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:56:05 <pfps> +1 to keeping Pat simple :-)
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to keeping Pat simple :-) ←
15:56:17 <SteveH> "simple" != about 2k of text
Steve Harris: "simple" != about 2k of text ←
15:56:25 <AlexHall> ... who would like to speak for pat and his request to keep it simple?
... who would like to speak for pat and his request to keep it simple? ←
15:56:27 <davidwood1> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:56:28 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/mid/C2088CAC-65A4-4B20-B657-C48A0440DE69@ihmc.us is pat's mail
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/mid/C2088CAC-65A4-4B20-B657-C48A0440DE69@ihmc.us is pat's mail ←
15:56:48 <davidwood1> Ivan, that URI gives me a 404
David Wood: Ivan, that URI gives me a 404 ←
15:56:52 <cygri> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0430.html
Richard Cyganiak: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0430.html ←
15:56:58 <LeeF> Pat's email just re-expresses Richard's proposal, as far as i can tell.
Lee Feigenbaum: Pat's email just re-expresses Richard's proposal, as far as i can tell. ←
15:57:02 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain ←
15:57:03 <AlexHall> cygri: would not like to speak to what pat said, seems to just point out that the last proposal wasn't that complicated
Richard Cyganiak: would not like to speak to what pat said, seems to just point out that the last proposal wasn't that complicated ←
15:57:21 <ivan> sorry
Ivan Herman: sorry ←
15:57:29 <ivan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0010.html is pat's mail
Ivan Herman: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Jun/0010.html is pat's mail ←
15:57:31 <LeeF> +1 to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0430.html
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011May/0430.html ←
15:57:36 <AndyS> Remaining issue is class vs datatype because DATATYPE("foo"@en) =? rdf:TaggedThing
Andy Seaborne: Remaining issue is class vs datatype because DATATYPE("foo"@en) =? rdf:TaggedThing ←
15:57:37 <AlexHall> ... would like to talk about another proposal that addresses only strings without language tag
... would like to talk about another proposal that addresses only strings without language tag ←
15:57:50 <AlexHall> ... seems to be agreement on this aspect of it
... seems to be agreement on this aspect of it ←
15:58:28 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
15:58:58 <AlexHall> ... the proposal is to unify un-tagged string literals is to abolish the untagged plain literal in the abstract syntax and consider "foo" to be syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string in the concrete syntax
... the proposal is to unify un-tagged string literals by abolishing the untagged plain literal in the abstract syntax and consider "foo" to be syntactic sugar for "foo"^^xsd:string in the concrete syntax ←
15:59:29 <AlexHall> s/is to abolish/by abolishing/
15:59:31 <AndyS> To Pat's email - if only class, then DATATYPE() => error still?? Seems unhelpful.
Andy Seaborne: To Pat's email - if only class, then DATATYPE() => error still?? Seems unhelpful. ←
15:59:54 <AlexHall> pfps: like this proposal better than previous ones
Peter Patel-Schneider: like this proposal better than previous ones ←
16:00:46 <Zakim> -FabGandon
Zakim IRC Bot: -FabGandon ←
16:01:02 <AlexHall> ... have some compliant about the use of rdf:LangTaggedString, not sure it is needed and will require changes to RDF semantics, OWL, and SPARQL
... have some compliant about the use of rdf:LangTaggedString, not sure it is needed and will require changes to RDF semantics, OWL, and SPARQL ←
16:01:56 <JeremyCarroll> rdf:LangTaggedString = rdfs:Literal - union of all typed literals
Jeremy Carroll: rdf:LangTaggedString = rdfs:Literal - union of all typed literals ←
16:02:01 <AlexHall> ... thinks it's OK to handle rdf:LTS in OWL but need to verify
... thinks it's OK to handle rdf:LTS in OWL but need to verify ←
16:02:17 <davidwood1> ack SteveH
David Wood: ack SteveH ←
16:02:32 <AlexHall> ... would like to send a note to the OWL WG
... would like to send a note to the OWL WG ←
16:02:54 <Souri> Question - Will "abc" still be a valid RDF literal? For example, would it be ok for me present the following triple for insertion: <John> rdfs:label "John" , OR am I obliged to present: <John> rdfs:label "John"^^xsd:string ? Also, can SPARQL query return "John" as a value for a variable?
Souripriya Das: Question - Will "abc" still be a valid RDF literal? For example, would it be ok for me present the following triple for insertion: <John> rdfs:label "John" , OR am I obliged to present: <John> rdfs:label "John"^^xsd:string ? Also, can SPARQL query return "John" as a value for a variable? ←
16:03:02 <LeeF> q+
Lee Feigenbaum: q+ ←
16:03:11 <AlexHall> SteveH: my concern is that we previously resolved to do just the opposite, to turn xsd:string into plain literals
Steve Harris: my concern is that we previously resolved to do just the opposite, to turn xsd:string into plain literals ←
16:03:26 <LeeF> q-
Lee Feigenbaum: q- ←
16:03:43 <LeeF> (was going to ask where this is visible, but then Steve answered it)
Lee Feigenbaum: (was going to ask where this is visible, but then Steve answered it) ←
16:03:47 <Souri> I agree with Steve's concern
Souripriya Das: I share Steve's concern ←
16:03:48 <AlexHall> ... this seems to match what users expect, since most string data in the wild is not typed as xsd:string
... this seems to match what users expect, since most string data in the wild is not typed as xsd:string ←
16:03:59 <AlexHall> ... there is also concern about how this plays with SPARQL
... there is also concern about how this plays with SPARQL ←
16:04:38 <AndyS> +1 - SPARQL results must return non-DT string for xsd:string for this else massive surprises (= lots of support costs).
Andy Seaborne: +1 - SPARQL results must return non-DT string for xsd:string for this else massive surprises (= lots of support costs). ←
16:05:00 <davidwood1> q?
David Wood: q? ←
16:05:15 <Souri> s/agree with/share/
16:05:18 <AlexHall> ... SPARQL results will return lots of unexpected xsd:string datatypes
... SPARQL results will return lots of unexpected xsd:string datatypes ←
16:05:33 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
16:05:45 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:05:51 <davidwood1> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
16:06:03 <AlexHall> ... seems odd to go to all this trouble to remove plain literals from the abstract syntax and turn around and strip out xsd:string types on the way out of the system.
... seems odd to go to all this trouble to remove plain literals from the abstract syntax and turn around and strip out xsd:string types on the way out of the system. ←
16:06:05 <AndyS> q+ to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics
Andy Seaborne: q+ to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics ←
16:06:12 <pchampin> making a difference btw 2 kinds of strings is even more perverse
Pierre-Antoine Champin: making a difference btw 2 kinds of strings is even more perverse ←
16:07:01 <AlexHall> cygri: the only syntax that really needs changing is N-Triples
Richard Cyganiak: the only syntax that really needs changing is N-Triples ←
16:07:15 <JeremyCarroll> q+ to suggest predictability also helpful for XML
Jeremy Carroll: q+ to suggest predictability also helpful for XML ←
16:07:40 <AlexHall> ... syntactic sugar in most concrete syntaxes is bad because it reduces predictability
... syntactic sugar in most concrete syntaxes is bad because it reduces predictability ←
16:08:23 <AlexHall> ... forbidding one datatype in the abstract syntax is even more perverse than forbidding plain literals in one of the concrete syntaxes
... forbidding one datatype in the abstract syntax is even more perverse than forbidding plain literals in one of the concrete syntaxes ←
16:09:02 <sandro> SteveH, I liked deprecating xs:string until it looked like we could get rid of Plain Literals entirely (via using language-tags-as-datatypes).
Sandro Hawke: SteveH, I liked deprecating xs:string until it looked like we could get rid of Plain Literals entirely (via using language-tags-as-datatypes). ←
16:09:25 <davidwood1> Sandro, right. Me, too.
David Wood: Sandro, right. Me, too. ←
16:09:31 <ivan> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
16:09:32 <davidwood1> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
16:09:35 <Souri> We could have both "abc" and "abc"^^xsd:string as equivalent (identical when compared), but treat the simple literal form "abc" to be the canonical one.
Souripriya Das: We could have both "abc" and "abc"^^xsd:string as equivalent (identical when compared), but treat the simple literal form "abc" to be the canonical one. ←
16:09:35 <AlexHall> davidwood: none of the proposals seems to play nicely with all the various levels (semantics, concepts, RDF document set, implementations)
David Wood: none of the proposals seems to play nicely with all the various levels (semantics, concepts, RDF document set, implementations) ←
16:09:37 <sandro> I hope people wont be expected to emit the long form.
Sandro Hawke: I hope people wont be expected to emit the long form. ←
16:09:40 <davidwood1> ack AndyS
David Wood: ack AndyS ←
16:09:40 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to say we can have both : syntax vs semantics ←
16:09:50 <SteveH> sandro, I like lang tag -> datatype
Steve Harris: sandro, I like lang tag -> datatype ←
16:10:16 <AlexHall> AndyS: agree with Steve's concerns re. xsd:string in concrete syntaxes, think this could be abolished if we're careful
Andy Seaborne: agree with Steve's concerns re. xsd:string in concrete syntaxes, think this could be abolished if we're careful ←
16:10:17 <AlexHall> ...
... ←
16:10:22 <JeremyCarroll> +1 to andy / split surface syntax from abstract syntax
Jeremy Carroll: +1 to andy / split surface syntax from abstract syntax ←
16:10:29 <ericP> +1 to short-forms only in the serializations
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to short-forms only in the serializations ←
16:10:39 <davidwood1> ack JeremyCarroll
David Wood: ack JeremyCarroll ←
16:10:39 <Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest predictability also hel[ful for XML
Zakim IRC Bot: JeremyCarroll, you wanted to suggest predictability also hel[ful for XML ←
16:10:43 <yvesr> +1 to AndyS
Yves Raimond: +1 to AndyS ←
16:10:51 <AlexHall> ... but we can split the abstract and sufrace syntaxes and use different approaches in each
... but we can split the abstract and sufrace syntaxes and use different approaches in each ←
16:11:18 <AlexHall> Jeremy: If we're making N-Triples, Turtle more predictable then we should also make RDF/XML more predictable.
Jeremy Carroll: If we're making N-Triples, Turtle more predictable then we should also make RDF/XML more predictable. ←
16:11:57 <AlexHall> davidwood: If we ingest RDF literals, turn them into xsd:string internally, and emit them back as plain literals, is this consistent with what you said:
David Wood: If we ingest RDF literals, turn them into xsd:string internally, and emit them back as plain literals, is this consistent with what you said: ←
16:12:13 <AlexHall> AndyS: yes it is, and I can't think of a format where you wouldn't want to do that.
Andy Seaborne: yes it is, and I can't think of a format where you wouldn't want to do that. ←
16:12:30 <pfps> NO!
Peter Patel-Schneider: NO! ←
16:12:53 <AlexHall> davidwood: are we re-defining xsd:string?
David Wood: are we re-defining xsd:string? ←
16:12:57 <AlexHall> everybody: NO!
everybody: NO! ←
16:13:39 <Souri> q+
Souripriya Das: q+ ←
16:13:41 <AlexHall> ???: we're retroactively declaring that all plain literals without language tags are actually xsd:strings
???: we're retroactively declaring that all plain literals without language tags are actually xsd:strings ←
16:13:47 <sandro> At the RDF APIs will be much simpler, Andy.
Sandro Hawke: At the RDF APIs will be much simpler, Andy. ←
16:13:55 <sandro> At LEAST, the APIs....
Sandro Hawke: At LEAST, the APIs.... ←
16:14:48 <AndyS> sandro - not so simple?? - are serializers inside or outside such API?
Andy Seaborne: sandro - not so simple?? - are serializers inside or outside such API? ←
16:14:48 <AlexHall> davidwood: Volunteers to start a wiki page to collect all the places that are affected by Richard & Pat's ISSUE-12 proposal?
David Wood: Volunteers to start a wiki page to collect all the places that are affected by Richard & Pat's ISSUE-12 proposal? ←
16:15:22 <AndyS> Request for a consolidate text for R+P proposal.
Andy Seaborne: Request for a consolidate text for R+P proposal. ←
16:15:26 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain ←
16:16:53 <AndyS> Please rename - if we keep untagged-in-surface syntax, it's a bad name.
Andy Seaborne: Please rename - if we keep untagged-in-surface syntax, it's a bad name. ←
16:17:08 <AlexHall> cygri: it's been my understanding that this conversation has been only about string literals without language tags
Richard Cyganiak: it's been my understanding that this conversation has been only about string literals without language tags ←
16:17:39 <AlexHall> davidwood: can you combine this with the language-tag proposal?
David Wood: can you combine this with the language-tag proposal? ←
16:18:06 <AlexHall> cygri: point was to keep them separate because there is still disagreement about language tags
Richard Cyganiak: point was to keep them separate because there is still disagreement about language tags ←
16:18:45 <davidwood1> q?
David Wood: q? ←
16:18:51 <AlexHall> davidwood: request for somebody to add to the wiki page for this proposal a section that collects all documents which will need to change as a result of it.
David Wood: request for somebody to add to the wiki page for this proposal a section that collects all documents which will need to change as a result of it. ←
16:19:39 <davidwood1> ack Souri
David Wood: ack Souri ←
16:19:59 <AndyS> SPARQL query is doable / SPARQL XML results is not being opened this time => trickier
Andy Seaborne: SPARQL query is doable / SPARQL XML results is not being opened this time => trickier ←
16:20:20 <AlexHall> souri: looking at this proposal, intent seems to be that these two forms are declared equivalent
Souripriya Das: looking at this proposal, intent seems to be that these two forms are declared equivalent ←
16:20:45 <AlexHall> ... we should define a canonical form for the surface syntax so we know how to output the value in query results
... we should define a canonical form for the surface syntax so we know how to output the value in query results ←
16:20:59 <AlexHall> davidwood: we are over time
David Wood: we are over time ←
16:21:11 <zwu2> bye
16:21:12 <LeeF> regrets next week for semtech
Lee Feigenbaum: regrets next week for semtech ←
16:21:12 <AlexHall> ... think we've made progress
... think we've made progress ←
16:21:13 <yvesr> bye
Yves Raimond: bye ←
16:21:13 <pchampin> bye
Pierre-Antoine Champin: bye ←
16:21:13 <AndyS> regrets for next week - semtech
Andy Seaborne: regrets for next week - semtech ←
16:21:15 <AlexHall> ... adjourned.
... adjourned. ←
16:21:16 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
16:21:17 <Zakim> -davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood ←
16:21:17 <Zakim> -sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro ←
16:21:18 <JeremyCarroll> bye
Jeremy Carroll: bye ←
16:21:19 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
16:21:20 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:21:20 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
16:21:21 <Zakim> -SteveH_
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH_ ←
16:21:21 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
16:21:23 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
16:21:23 <mbrunati> bye
Matteo Brunati: bye ←
16:21:25 <Zakim> -cmatheus
Zakim IRC Bot: -cmatheus ←
16:21:27 <Zakim> -JeremyCarroll
Zakim IRC Bot: -JeremyCarroll ←
16:21:29 <Zakim> -mbrunati
Zakim IRC Bot: -mbrunati ←
16:21:31 <Zakim> -pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: -pfps ←
16:21:33 <Zakim> -Scott_Bauer
Zakim IRC Bot: -Scott_Bauer ←
16:21:35 <Zakim> -AlexHall
Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall ←
16:21:39 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
16:21:41 <Zakim> -Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri ←
16:21:43 <Zakim> -cygri
Zakim IRC Bot: -cygri ←
16:21:46 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
16:21:47 <Zakim> -Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus ←
16:21:49 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended ←
16:21:51 <Zakim> Attendees were Guus, Scott_Bauer, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, pchampin, AndyS, pfps, AZ, LeeF, cmatheus, cygri, BBC, JeremyCarroll, Souri, zwu2,
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Guus, Scott_Bauer, davidwood, Ivan, EricP, mbrunati, SteveH_, AlexHall, FabGandon, pchampin, AndyS, pfps, AZ, LeeF, cmatheus, cygri, BBC, JeremyCarroll, Souri, zwu2, ←
16:21:54 <Zakim> ... NickH, yvesr, sandro, MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: ... NickH, yvesr, sandro, MacTed ←
Formatted by CommonScribe