16:01:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/13-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/13-rdf-wg-irc ←
16:01:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
16:01:25 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
16:01:25 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now ←
16:01:26 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
16:01:26 <trackbot> Date: 13 February 2013
16:01:53 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
16:01:53 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, Guus ←
16:01:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, tbaker, davidwood, gkellogg, cygri, TallTed, SteveH, yvesr_, Arnaud, trackbot, mischat, manu1, manu, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, tbaker, davidwood, gkellogg, cygri, TallTed, SteveH, yvesr_, Arnaud, trackbot, mischat, manu1, manu, sandro, ericP ←
16:02:25 <PatH> Pat will get on the call when his phone has charged up a little, about 3 minutes.
Patrick Hayes: Pat will get on the call when his phone has charged up a little, about 3 minutes. ←
16:02:46 <TallTed> Zakim, this is 73394
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, this is 73394 ←
16:02:47 <Zakim> ok, TallTed; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, TallTed; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←
16:02:53 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←
16:02:53 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
16:02:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, tbaker, davidwood, gkellogg, cygri, TallTed, SteveH, yvesr_, Arnaud, trackbot, mischat, manu1, manu, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, tbaker, davidwood, gkellogg, cygri, TallTed, SteveH, yvesr_, Arnaud, trackbot, mischat, manu1, manu, sandro, ericP ←
16:03:07 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←
16:03:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
16:03:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, tbaker, davidwood, gkellogg, cygri, TallTed, SteveH, yvesr_, Arnaud, trackbot, mischat, manu1, manu, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, tbaker, davidwood, gkellogg, cygri, TallTed, SteveH, yvesr_, Arnaud, trackbot, mischat, manu1, manu, sandro, ericP ←
16:03:55 <tbaker> Tom is on the phone
Thomas Baker: Tom is on the phone ←
16:05:00 <Arnaud> zakim, mute me
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, mute me ←
16:05:00 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Arnaud, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
16:05:07 <manu> zakim, reboot
Manu Sporny: zakim, reboot ←
16:05:07 <Zakim> I don't understand 'reboot', manu
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'reboot', manu ←
16:05:37 <manu> scribenick: manu
(Scribe set to Manu Sporny)
16:05:40 <manu> scribe: manu
16:06:42 <manu> Proposal to accept minutes from last week, any objections?
Proposal to accept minutes from last week, any objections? ←
16:06:54 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
16:07:00 <manu> No objections. Minutes from last week accepted.
No objections. Minutes from last week accepted. ←
16:07:09 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, [GVoice] is me ←
16:07:09 <Zakim> sorry, ericP, I do not recognize a party named '[GVoice]'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ericP, I do not recognize a party named '[GVoice]' ←
16:07:22 <manu> Guus: Let's keep the the call short today, 45 minute call today.
Guus Schreiber: Let's keep the the call short today, 45 minute call today. ←
16:07:48 <manu> Topic: Action Item Review
16:07:57 <manu> Guus: Action 220 - Eric, update? Done?
Guus Schreiber: ACTION-220 - Eric, update? Done? ←
16:08:01 <manu> ericp: done
Eric Prud'hommeaux: done ←
16:08:41 <manu> ericp: I ran into some challenges, there was a comment where we didn't talk to the commenter. It was about resetting prefix/base. Without those, I have not been able to publish TURTLE as a CR.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I ran into some challenges, there was a comment where we didn't talk to the commenter. It was about resetting prefix/base. Without those, I have not been able to publish TURTLE as a CR. ←
16:09:02 <manu> guus: We'll review that a bit later, we would like to deal with this tomorrow. Your action item is completed.
Guus Schreiber: We'll review that a bit later, we would like to deal with this tomorrow. Your action item is completed. ←
16:09:38 <gkellogg> ISSUE-225?
16:09:38 <trackbot> ISSUE-225 does not exist.
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-225 does not exist. ←
16:09:45 <manu> guus: Extension request with TURTLE publication date? I can do that one. Action 214 is done.
Guus Schreiber: Extension request with TURTLE publication date? I can do that one. ACTION-214 is done. ←
16:09:46 <ericP> action-225?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ACTION-225? ←
16:09:46 <trackbot> ACTION-225 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to update extension request with Turtle publication dates -- due 2013-01-30 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-225 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to update extension request with Turtle publication dates -- due 2013-01-30 -- OPEN ←
16:09:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/225
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/225 ←
16:10:04 <manu> guus: Closing Pat's action 214
Guus Schreiber: Closing Pat's ACTION-214 ←
16:11:14 <Arnaud> next week? I thought w3m only meets every other week
Arnaud Le Hors: next week? I thought w3m only meets every other week ←
16:11:20 <manu> Present: Ted, Arnaud, Manu, EricP, Guus, PatH, SteveH, Gregg, DavidWood, cygri, markus, tbaker, AZ
16:12:02 <manu> guus: The extension request is in process, we'll continue until we hear back from them.
Guus Schreiber: The extension request is in process, we'll continue until we hear back from them. ←
16:12:50 <manu> Present+ tombaker
Present+ tombaker ←
16:12:54 <manu> Present+ cygri
Present+ cygri ←
16:13:18 <SteveH> Zakim, who's on the phone?
Steve Harris: Zakim, who's on the phone? ←
16:13:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
16:13:40 <manu> Present+ markus
Present+ markus ←
16:13:55 <PatH> what issue?
Patrick Hayes: what issue? ←
16:13:56 <manu> Guus: Should we discuss ISSUE-107
Guus Schreiber: Should we discuss ISSUE-107 ←
16:14:02 <cygri> ISSUE-107?
Richard Cyganiak: ISSUE-107? ←
16:14:02 <trackbot> ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open ←
16:14:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107 ←
16:14:05 <manu> Topic: ISSUE-107: Revised definition of blank nodes
16:14:12 <ericP> scribenick: ericP
(Scribe set to Eric Prud'hommeaux)
16:14:50 <markus> zakim, who's on the phone?
Markus Lanthaler: zakim, who's on the phone? ←
16:14:50 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
16:15:38 <ericP> manu: related to issue-107, JSON-LD serializes multiple graphs to RDF permitting the serializer to assign blank node labels for graphs
Manu Sporny: related to ISSUE-107, JSON-LD serializes multiple graphs to RDF permitting the serializer to assign blank node labels for graphs ←
16:16:18 <manu> datasetid:XYZ
Manu Sporny: datasetid:XYZ ←
16:16:19 <ericP> ... we got pushback from RDF-WG so we're working on a way that creates something like local IRIs dataset:foo
... we got pushback from RDF-WG so we're working on a way that creates something like local IRIs dataset:foo ←
16:16:23 <manu> graph:XYZ
Manu Sporny: graph:XYZ ←
16:16:27 <cygri> <#XYZ>
Richard Cyganiak: <#XYZ> ←
16:17:09 <ericP> ... we don't want to use fragment ids 'cause since we're using HTTP URLs, fragIDs give these graphs a global name
... we don't want to use fragment ids 'cause since we're using HTTP URLs, fragIDs give these graphs a global name ←
16:17:39 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
16:17:43 <ericP> q+
q+ ←
16:17:44 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
16:17:44 <ericP> q-
q- ←
16:18:03 <Guus> ack PatH
Guus Schreiber: ack PatH ←
16:18:35 <ericP> PatH: after reading the emails, i'm slightly puzzled by why not using fragIDs
Patrick Hayes: after reading the emails, i'm slightly puzzled by why not using fragIDs ←
16:18:51 <ericP> ... a fragID is really a local identifier
... a fragID is really a local identifier ←
16:18:54 <manu> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
16:19:38 <ericP> ... it seems like the perfect solution responding to the issues that were on the mailing list
... it seems like the perfect solution responding to the issues that were on the mailing list ←
16:20:27 <TallTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
16:20:32 <manu> ack manu
Manu Sporny: ack manu ←
16:21:12 <ericP> manu: anyone have a concearn with the fragID being tacked onto the IRI and creating permanent ids?
Manu Sporny: anyone have a concearn with the fragID being tacked onto the IRI and creating permanent ids? ←
16:21:21 <Guus> tom: can you chair?
Guus Schreiber: tom: can you chair? ←
16:21:40 <ericP> TallTed: because my IRI has a fragid today, doesn't mean it will tomorrow
Ted Thibodeau: because my IRI has a fragid today, doesn't mean it will tomorrow ←
16:21:56 <ericP> ... this will happen forever
... this will happen forever ←
16:21:57 <manu> [{'@graph': { ...}}, {'@graph': { ...}}] --> what is the name given for each graph name when converted to RDF?
Manu Sporny: [{'@graph': { ...}}, {'@graph': { ...}}] --> what is the name given for each graph name when converted to RDF? ←
16:21:59 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
16:22:10 <TallTed> ack me
Ted Thibodeau: ack me ←
16:22:44 <tbaker> yes, can chair
Thomas Baker: yes, can chair ←
16:22:49 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
16:23:19 <ericP> manu: this is a dataset that has two graphs, but they are unnamed. we don't force names in JSON, but serializing as RDF does require names
Manu Sporny: this is a dataset that has two graphs, but they are unnamed. we don't force names in JSON, but serializing as RDF does require names ←
16:23:35 <gkellogg> Could be <graph:1> { :s :p :o } <graph:2> { :s2 :p2 :o2}
Gregg Kellogg: Could be <graph:1> { :s :p :o } <graph:2> { :s2 :p2 :o2} ←
16:23:38 <ericP> ... an issue is that the fragIDs change from day to day
... an issue is that the fragIDs change from day to day ←
16:23:58 <SteveH> use UUIDs?
Steve Harris: use UUIDs? ←
16:24:20 <ericP> ... bnodes convey a clear message that you can't count on
... bnodes convey a clear message that you can't count on ←
16:24:22 <tbaker> returning chair to Guus
Thomas Baker: returning chair to Guus ←
16:24:33 <gkellogg> With frauds <#g1> { :s :p :o } <#g2> {:s2 :p2 :o2}
Gregg Kellogg: With fragids <#g1> { :s :p :o } <#g2> {:s2 :p2 :o2} ←
16:24:42 <gkellogg> s/frauds/fragids/
16:24:47 <ericP> PatH: so the message that you're sending is that these fragIDs shouldn't be used 'cause they are ephemoral
Patrick Hayes: so the message that you're sending is that these fragIDs shouldn't be used 'cause they are ephemoral ←
16:24:50 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
16:24:58 <Guus> ack PatH
Guus Schreiber: ack PatH ←
16:25:00 <ericP> ... but in RDF, they do have weight
... but in RDF, they do have weight ←
16:25:42 <ericP> ... so if you hand me an RDF dataset with faux-named graphs in it, are these names likely to be altered?
... so if you hand me an RDF dataset with faux-named graphs in it, are these names likely to be altered? ←
16:26:01 <ericP> manu: phrase that q: around bnodes.
Manu Sporny: phrase that q: around bnodes. ←
16:26:17 <Zakim> Zakim-bot will be restarted in 3 minutes to recover caller state; please save your agenda status. Apologies for the inconvenience
Zakim IRC Bot: Zakim-bot will be restarted in 3 minutes to recover caller state; please save your agenda status. Apologies for the inconvenience ←
16:26:22 <ericP> ... we could invent universal labels for things that bnodes label
... we could invent universal labels for things that bnodes label ←
16:28:28 <ericP> PatH: we need bnode labels in RDF 'cause we need to represent graph connectivity
Patrick Hayes: we need bnode labels in RDF 'cause we need to represent graph connectivity ←
16:28:40 <ericP> ... the analogous situation doens't arrise in graphs
... the analogous situation doens't arrise in graphs ←
16:29:07 <ericP> manu: in the JSON syntax, you can have the property of one subject talk about a graph without naming it
Manu Sporny: in the JSON syntax, you can have the property of one subject talk about a graph without naming it ←
16:29:22 <ericP> ... we represent that in JSON-LD without using any graph names whatsoever
... we represent that in JSON-LD without using any graph names whatsoever ←
16:29:29 <ericP> q+ to point out that JSON-LD is more expressive
q+ to point out that JSON-LD is more expressive ←
16:29:56 <ericP> ... this is the same process for creating bnode identifiers
... this is the same process for creating bnode identifiers ←
16:29:57 <gkellogg> { <> dc:created "today"} <> { :s :p :o } -- This might be some use case
Gregg Kellogg: { <> dc:created "today"} <> { :s :p :o } -- This might be some use case ←
16:30:30 <ericP> PatH: in your case you're using to identify soemthing else, to wit, a graph
Patrick Hayes: in your case you're using to identify soemthing else, to wit, a graph ←
16:30:50 <ericP> ack me
ack me ←
16:30:51 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to point out that JSON-LD is more expressive
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to point out that JSON-LD is more expressive ←
16:31:48 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
16:31:49 <SteveH> I can't imagine it causing any issues - the (JSON-LD) feature is weird, but replacing your graph labels with URIs won't hurt
Steve Harris: I can't imagine it causing any issues - the (JSON-LD) feature is weird, but replacing your graph labels with URIs won't hurt ←
16:31:53 <PatH> q-
Patrick Hayes: q- ←
16:32:11 <manu> ericp: I think we have a situation where RDF + named graphs has a certain expressivity... JSON-LD has a higher expressivity.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I think we have a situation where RDF + named graphs has a certain expressivity... JSON-LD has a higher expressivity. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:32:28 <PatH> yes.
Patrick Hayes: yes. ←
16:32:42 <manu> ericp: In RDF we can talk about literals, blank nodes, graphs... in JSON-LD we also permit blank nodes as the way for establishing connectivity to anonymous graphs.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: In RDF we can talk about literals, blank nodes, graphs... in JSON-LD we also permit blank nodes as the way for establishing connectivity to anonymous graphs. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:33:11 <manu> ericp: If bob says the moon is made of green cheese, in RDF we have to give that statement a name, in JSON-LD we don't have that.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: If bob says the moon is made of green cheese, in RDF we have to give that statement a name, in JSON-LD we don't have that. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:33:36 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
16:33:47 <manu> ericp: This brings up whether RDF should be modified to be more expressive?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: This brings up whether RDF should be modified to be more expressive? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:34:04 <manu> ericp: JSON-LD is more expressive than RDF in this instance.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: JSON-LD is more expressive than RDF in this instance. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:34:10 <PatH> that sounds like graph literals to me.
Patrick Hayes: that sounds like graph literals to me. ←
16:34:10 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
16:34:17 <PatH> q-
Patrick Hayes: q- ←
16:34:18 <cygri> 1. { _:a ex:p ex:o } and { _:b ex:p ex:o } are the same. wouldn't be the case if a and b were IRIs
Richard Cyganiak: 1. { _:a ex:p ex:o } and { _:b ex:p ex:o } are the same. wouldn't be the case if a and b were IRIs ←
16:34:30 <manu> Guus: You always lose something when going from more expressivity to less expressivity.
Guus Schreiber: You always lose something when going from more expressivity to less expressivity. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:34:36 <ericP> _:statement1 dc:author "Bob" . _:statement1 { :TheMoon :madeOf :greenCheese } .
_:statement1 dc:author "Bob" . _:statement1 { :TheMoon :madeOf :greenCheese } . ←
16:35:07 <manu> cygri: In the case above, the blank node IDs don't matter because they're the same graph.
Richard Cyganiak: In the case above, the blank node IDs don't matter because they're the same graph. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:35:16 <ericP> cygri: if i have to two graphs, with bnodes in then, the graphs are equivalent
Richard Cyganiak: if i have to two graphs, with bnodes in then, the graphs are equivalent ←
16:35:23 <ericP> ... i don't see that in name graphs
... i don't see that in name graphs ←
16:35:33 <manu> cygri: The other issue is that with blank node labels, when we merge two graphs, we may have to relabel nodes to avoid clashes.
Richard Cyganiak: The other issue is that with blank node labels, when we merge two graphs, we may have to relabel nodes to avoid clashes. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:35:54 <ericP> ... when parsing, if i see _:a in g1 and _:a in g2, i have to make sure that _:a in g2 is distinct
... when parsing, if i see _:a in g1 and _:a in g2, i have to make sure that _:a in g2 is distinct ←
16:36:14 <manu> cygri: once we've done this, we can merge the graphs. If we assigned labels based on some kind of canonicalization, we wouldn't have to do that because there wouldn't be any clashes.
Richard Cyganiak: once we've done this, we can merge the graphs. If we assigned labels based on some kind of canonicalization, we wouldn't have to do that because there wouldn't be any clashes. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:36:48 <ericP> scribenick: manu
(Scribe set to Manu Sporny)
16:36:50 <manu> cygri: If I take both of those reasons for blank node identifiers away, then basically they don't have to be special in the way that they are currently. The situation with graph names is not the same as arbitrary names in the graph.
Richard Cyganiak: If I take both of those reasons for blank node identifiers away, then basically they don't have to be special in the way that they are currently. The situation with graph names is not the same as arbitrary names in the graph. ←
16:36:52 <ericP> scribenick: manu
16:37:15 <PatH> new scheme or use fragIDs
Patrick Hayes: new scheme or use fragIDs ←
16:37:21 <manu> Guus: Does the creation of a new IRI scheme cause any concern?
Guus Schreiber: Does the creation of a new IRI scheme cause any concern? ←
16:37:54 <manu> cygri: I think it's a bad idea to introduce a new IRI scheme, it's a high barrier. Especially if it doesn't have any protocol associated with it. Non-protocol IRI schemes don't seem to work.
Richard Cyganiak: I think it's a bad idea to introduce a new IRI scheme, it's a high barrier. Especially if it doesn't have any protocol associated with it. Non-protocol IRI schemes don't seem to work. ←
16:38:30 <manu> cygri: Discussion in JSON-LD is to use new IRI scheme, I'm happy w/ using fragment IDs.
Richard Cyganiak: Discussion in JSON-LD is to use new IRI scheme, I'm happy w/ using fragment IDs. ←
16:38:43 <Guus> ack PatH
Guus Schreiber: ack PatH ←
16:38:50 <markus> q+
Markus Lanthaler: q+ ←
16:38:51 <manu> manu: Yeah, I guess we'll try for fragIDs.
Manu Sporny: Yeah, I guess we'll try for fragIDs. ←
16:39:02 <manu> Path: This sounds a lot like graph literals.
Patrick Hayes: This sounds a lot like graph literals. ←
16:39:04 <ericP> PatH: JSON-LD expressivity sounds like graph literals
Patrick Hayes: JSON-LD expressivity sounds like graph literals [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
16:39:33 <ericP> _:statement1 { :TheMoon :madeOf :greenCheese } dc:author "Bob".
Eric Prud'hommeaux: _:statement1 { :TheMoon :madeOf :greenCheese } dc:author "Bob". ←
16:39:50 <ericP> vs. _:statement1 dc:author "Bob" . _:statement1 { :TheMoon :madeOf :greenCheese } .
Eric Prud'hommeaux: vs. _:statement1 dc:author "Bob" . _:statement1 { :TheMoon :madeOf :greenCheese } . ←
16:40:00 <ericP> vs. <statement1> dc:author "Bob" . <statement1> { :TheMoon :madeOf :greenCheese } .
Eric Prud'hommeaux: vs. <statement1> dc:author "Bob" . <statement1> { :TheMoon :madeOf :greenCheese } . ←
16:40:11 <manu> Markus: How should collisions be handled, then? If you have a dataset/graph - how are you going to resolve fragment ID clashes?
Markus Lanthaler: How should collisions be handled, then? If you have a dataset/graph - how are you going to resolve fragment ID clashes? ←
16:40:20 <ericP> PatH, i see three different things htere
Eric Prud'hommeaux: PatH, i see three different things htere ←
16:40:33 <manu> cygri: There are solutions to this.
Richard Cyganiak: There are solutions to this. ←
16:41:15 <manu> path: You could strip off the document identifier and re-label all fragment identifiers in the document.
Patrick Hayes: You could strip off the document identifier and re-label all fragment identifiers in the document. ←
16:41:27 <manu> Topic: Semantics
16:41:41 <manu> Guus: What should we focus on, planning-wise?
Guus Schreiber: What should we focus on, planning-wise? ←
16:42:08 <manu> PatH: We should focus on interaction between Semantics and Concepts - we need blank node scope discussion.
Patrick Hayes: We should focus on interaction between Semantics and Concepts - we need blank node scope discussion. ←
16:42:18 <davidwood> +1 to PatH
David Wood: +1 to PatH ←
16:42:45 <manu> PatH: Datatype interpretations - The version in current semantics document is greatly simplified, the key point is the interpretation of ??? is a URI map, it would require a change to concepts.
Patrick Hayes: Datatype interpretations - The version in current semantics document is greatly simplified, the key point is the interpretation of ??? is a URI map, it would require a change to concepts. ←
16:42:54 <cygri> PatH, noted.
Richard Cyganiak: PatH, noted. ←
16:43:01 <manu> PatH: Draw the group attention to these two points of conflict.
Patrick Hayes: Draw the group attention to these two points of conflict. ←
16:43:16 <manu> Path: One of thse is an issue, the other is not.
Patrick Hayes: One of thse is an issue, the other is not. ←
16:43:38 <manu> PatH: I can make an issue for the other one, if you'd like.
Patrick Hayes: I can make an issue for the other one, if you'd like. ←
16:43:59 <manu> Guus: We have several proposals, not agreed on one. We need to resolve this. ISSUE-107 is tabled.
Guus Schreiber: We have several proposals, not agreed on one. We need to resolve this. ISSUE-107 is tabled. ←
16:44:08 <manu> PatH: I'll get an issue together for datatypes.
Patrick Hayes: I'll get an issue together for datatypes. ←
16:44:40 <manu> Guus: Any comments on the semantics document?
Guus Schreiber: Any comments on the semantics document? ←
16:44:56 <manu> PatH: Any comments on editorial matters, send them to me, would love to get feedback.
Patrick Hayes: Any comments on editorial matters, send them to me, would love to get feedback. ←
16:45:31 <manu> Topic: JSON-LD Update
16:46:11 <manu> gkellogg: We have completed work on resolving differences between ways of expressing the algorithms. Converged on a single representation, still need to hammer out some details.
Gregg Kellogg: We have completed work on resolving differences between ways of expressing the algorithms. Converged on a single representation, still need to hammer out some details. ←
16:46:17 <manu> gkellogg: Syntax document is ready for LC
Gregg Kellogg: Syntax document is ready for LC ←
16:46:32 <manu> gkellogg: Algorithms document, we are trying to finish before end of Feb 2013.
Gregg Kellogg: Algorithms document, we are trying to finish before end of Feb 2013. ←
16:46:38 <manu> Guus: Good, sounds like you're on track.
Guus Schreiber: Good, sounds like you're on track. ←
16:46:51 <manu> Guus: The discussion on graph identifiers, that was one of the few remaining issues?
Guus Schreiber: The discussion on graph identifiers, that was one of the few remaining issues? ←
16:47:22 <manu> gkellogg: Yes, we need to address what algorithm for collisions w/ fragIDs is going to be.
Gregg Kellogg: Yes, we need to address what algorithm for collisions w/ fragIDs is going to be. ←
16:47:34 <manu> Guus: There are no outstanding technical issues?
Guus Schreiber: There are no outstanding technical issues? ←
16:47:36 <cygri> markus, see http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids -- you can reserve a chunk of fragment id space through your media type. like <#_:XYZ>.
Richard Cyganiak: markus, see http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mimeTypesAndFragids -- you can reserve a chunk of fragment id space through your media type. like <#_:XYZ>. ←
16:47:42 <manu> gkellogg: There are some open technical issues, but nothing big.
Gregg Kellogg: There are some open technical issues, but nothing big. ←
16:48:05 <manu> Topic: Review of WG status
16:48:17 <manu> Guus: We have 8 open issues, we can focus on finishing the documents. We're in decent shape.
Guus Schreiber: We have 8 open issues, we can focus on finishing the documents. We're in decent shape. ←
16:48:24 <cygri> markus, just choose syntax so that it minimises the probability of stepping on too many toes
Richard Cyganiak: markus, just choose syntax so that it minimises the probability of stepping on too many toes ←
16:48:43 <manu> Guus: Publication of TURTLE CR - EricP and I can do that offline, after we adjourn.
Guus Schreiber: Publication of TURTLE CR - EricP and I can do that offline, after we adjourn. ←
16:49:00 <markus> thanks cygri, the problem I see however is that it would have to be done at the RDF (data model) layer.. if we just do it in JSON-LD we can't roundtrip to other serial. formats without changing IRIs
Markus Lanthaler: thanks cygri, the problem I see however is that it would have to be done at the RDF (data model) layer.. if we just do it in JSON-LD we can't roundtrip to other serial. formats without changing IRIs ←
16:49:41 <gkellogg> cygri: always the recursive issue of re-serializing a document already using such fragIDs. However, we can certainly establish a mechanism for avoiding collisions.
Richard Cyganiak: always the recursive issue of re-serializing a document already using such fragIDs. However, we can certainly establish a mechanism for avoiding collisions. [ Scribe Assist by Gregg Kellogg ] ←
16:49:55 <manu> EricP: Can anybody point us at where if/when we decided to not have syntax to reset base and prefix.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Can anybody point us at where if/when we decided to not have syntax to reset base and prefix. ←
16:50:20 <manu> Silence. SILENCE!
Silence. SILENCE! ←
16:50:33 <manu> Ted: is this specifically regarding Turtle?
Ted Thibodeau: is this specifically regarding Turtle? ←
16:50:45 <manu> Guus: Why don't we adjourn, the people that want to help can stay on the call.
Guus Schreiber: Why don't we adjourn, the people that want to help can stay on the call. ←
16:50:48 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/mid/CAPTxtVOvdssTMQyyHOGUi42Kw1_eM5VShTmz=52Nut82PMbjWA@mail.gmail.com
Eric Prud'hommeaux: http://www.w3.org/mid/CAPTxtVOvdssTMQyyHOGUi42Kw1_eM5VShTmz=52Nut82PMbjWA@mail.gmail.com ←
16:50:55 <manu> EricP: That was the one we never responded to.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: That was the one we never responded to. ←
16:51:07 <manu> EricP: Did we discuss it and decide that we don't want to have that feature?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Did we discuss it and decide that we don't want to have that feature? ←
16:52:06 <manu> EricP: Does anybody have recollection to unsetting base/prefix? RFC3986 says that you always have it from document/protocol/etc. Maybe you go back to it when you started parsing.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Does anybody have recollection to unsetting base/prefix? RFC3986 says that you always have it from document/protocol/etc. Maybe you go back to it when you started parsing. ←
16:52:30 <manu> EricP: We can say that there is no implementation experience, even though there was ample time for it to appear.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: We can say that there is no implementation experience, even though there was ample time for it to appear. ←
16:52:44 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
16:52:45 <manu> Guus: Is this a theoretical problem? It's never been reported that somebody wanted this reset syntax to work.
Guus Schreiber: Is this a theoretical problem? It's never been reported that somebody wanted this reset syntax to work. ←
16:52:55 <cygri> q+ to answer "use n-triples"
Richard Cyganiak: q+ to answer "use n-triples" ←
16:53:04 <markus> q-
Markus Lanthaler: q- ←
16:53:24 <manu> cygri: You could say that if you want to do concatentation of text files w/o checking them, use N-Triples.
Richard Cyganiak: You could say that if you want to do concatentation of text files w/o checking them, use N-Triples. ←
16:53:50 <manu> cygri: With TURTLE you have a slight possibility that a previously syntactically invalid file is now valid, but not in the way that you intend.
Richard Cyganiak: With TURTLE you have a slight possibility that a previously syntactically invalid file is now valid, but not in the way that you intend. ←
16:53:59 <manu> EricP: It can also move your base around, which is dangerous.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: It can also move your base around, which is dangerous. ←
16:54:16 <manu> EricP: If I concatenate that w/ something else, that might have expected the base to be something else.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: If I concatenate that w/ something else, that might have expected the base to be something else. ←
16:54:36 <manu> Ted: it may be valid to say that concatenating TURTLE is going to have valid results.
Ted Thibodeau: it may be valid to say that concatenating TURTLE is going to have valid results. ←
16:54:56 <manu> cygri: Concatenating TURTLE files may have unintended consequences. Maybe we should say that informatively.
Richard Cyganiak: Concatenating TURTLE files may have unintended consequences. Maybe we should say that informatively. ←
16:55:04 <manu> Guus: We should say that to the commenter.
Guus Schreiber: We should say that to the commenter. ←
16:55:44 <cygri> q-
Richard Cyganiak: q- ←
16:56:07 <manu> EricP: If we're going to do that, we should change text in the document. It'll push us back a bit later than tomorrow for publication. Another alternative is to say that concatenating any TURTLE file to an initial Turtle file, must consider as its base URI the URI that was left over from the previous TURTLE file and prefixes using relative IRIs may be ...
Eric Prud'hommeaux: If we're going to do that, we should change text in the document. It'll push us back a bit later than tomorrow for publication. Another alternative is to say that concatenating any TURTLE file to an initial Turtle file, must consider as its base URI the URI that was left over from the previous TURTLE file and prefixes using relative IRIs may be ... ←
16:56:32 <manu> Ted: Too complex, let's say "Concatenating TURTLE files can become problematic if @base and @prefix change.". Done.
Ted Thibodeau: Too complex, let's say "Concatenating TURTLE files can become problematic if @base and @prefix change.". Done. ←
16:56:41 <manu> cygri: Probably, you don't want to do it - let's say that.
Richard Cyganiak: Probably, you don't want to do it - let's say that. ←
16:56:56 <manu> PatH: You've got local scopes, you can't just concatenate them. Duh. :P
Patrick Hayes: You've got local scopes, you can't just concatenate them. Duh. :P ←
16:57:05 <manu> Guus: Proposal for wording?
Guus Schreiber: Proposal for wording? ←
16:58:01 <PatH> i leave eric muttering.....
Patrick Hayes: i leave eric muttering..... ←
16:58:24 <ericP> PROPOSED: add text [[ Note that concatonating Turtle files can lead to unexpected results, for instance, @base will change the BASE URI and re-used blank node labels will be merged."
PROPOSED: add text [[ Note that concatonating Turtle files can lead to unexpected results, for instance, @base will change the BASE URI and re-used blank node labels will be merged." ←
16:59:15 <gkellogg> +1, but the BNode naming issue says it's a problem for N-Triples too.
Gregg Kellogg: +1, but the BNode naming issue says it's a problem for N-Triples too. ←
16:59:40 <cygri> gkellogg, that's right, i forgot about that at first
Richard Cyganiak: gkellogg, that's right, i forgot about that at first ←
16:59:42 <TallTed> PROPOSED: add text [[ Note that concatenating Turtle files is not generally recommended as it can lead to unexpected results. For instance, @base may change the BASE URI, re-used blank node labels will be merged, and @prefixes may differ. ]]"
PROPOSED: add text [[ Note that concatenating Turtle files is not generally recommended as it can lead to unexpected results. For instance, @base may change the BASE URI, re-used blank node labels will be merged, and @prefixes may differ. ]]" ←
16:59:47 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#sec-parsing-example
Eric Prud'hommeaux: http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#sec-parsing-example ←
17:00:26 <cygri> PROPOSED: Note that concatenating Turtle files does not necessarily produce the RDF graph merge of the two serialized graphs...
PROPOSED: Note that concatenating Turtle files does not necessarily produce the RDF graph merge of the two serialized graphs... ←
17:01:20 <ericP> ... for instance, @base will change the BASE URI and re-used blank node labels will be merged."
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... for instance, @base will change the BASE URI and re-used blank node labels will be merged." ←
17:01:47 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
17:02:10 <TallTed> PROPOSED: add text [[ Note that concatenation of Turtle files does not necessarily produce the RDF graph merge of the two serialized graphs and can lead to unexpected results. For instance, @base may change the BASE URI, re-used blank node labels will be merged, and @prefixes may differ. ]]"
PROPOSED: add text [[ Note that concatenation of Turtle files does not necessarily produce the RDF graph merge of the two serialized graphs and can lead to unexpected results. For instance, @base may change the BASE URI, re-used blank node labels will be merged, and @prefixes may differ. ]]" ←
17:02:39 <Guus> add this text to http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#sec-parsing-example
Guus Schreiber: add this text to http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#sec-parsing-example ←
17:02:48 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
17:02:51 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
17:02:54 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
17:02:56 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
17:02:57 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
17:03:18 <manu> gkellogg, markus, PatH, ericP: I just passed the "let's use fragid's as graph names" past our CTO and he said that we would have to normalize the graph in order to do that... it breaks graph comparison if we don't do that... will discuss more and get back to you guys. It doesn't look like fragids are going to work, atm.
gkellogg, markus, PatH, ericP: I just passed the "let's use fragid's as graph names" past our CTO and he said that we would have to normalize the graph in order to do that... it breaks graph comparison if we don't do that... will discuss more and get back to you guys. It doesn't look like fragids are going to work, atm. ←
17:03:55 <cygri> ericP, you should point out that even adding the unsetting feature for @base and @prefix wouldn't achieve what the commenter wanted, due to blank node labels
Richard Cyganiak: ericP, you should point out that even adding the unsetting feature for @base and @prefix wouldn't achieve what the commenter wanted, due to blank node labels ←
17:04:03 <TallTed> RESOLVED: add text [[ Note that concatenation of Turtle files does not necessarily produce the RDF graph merge of the two serialized graphs and can lead to unexpected results. For instance, @base may change the BASE URI, re-used blank node labels will be merged, and @prefixes may differ. ]]" to http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#sec-parsing-example
RESOLVED: add text [[ Note that concatenation of Turtle files does not necessarily produce the RDF graph merge of the two serialized graphs and can lead to unexpected results. For instance, @base may change the BASE URI, re-used blank node labels will be merged, and @prefixes may differ. ]]" to http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#sec-parsing-example ←
17:04:35 <Guus> ACTION ericP to respond to commenter
Guus Schreiber: ACTION ericP to respond to commenter ←
17:04:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-228 - Respond to commenter [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-02-20].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-228 - Respond to commenter [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-02-20]. ←
17:04:52 <ericP> PROPOSED: respond to comment CAPTxtVOvdssTMQyyHOGUi42Kw1_eM5VShTmz=52Nut82PMbjWA@mail.gmail.com with [[ The WG discussed this and opted instead to add this text explaining what happens when Turtle files are concatonated. "
PROPOSED: respond to comment CAPTxtVOvdssTMQyyHOGUi42Kw1_eM5VShTmz=52Nut82PMbjWA@mail.gmail.com with [[ The WG discussed this and opted instead to add this text explaining what happens when Turtle files are concatonated. " ←
17:04:57 <markus> manu, I can't see how it could possibly work without breaking round-tripping to RDF
Markus Lanthaler: manu, I can't see how it could possibly work without breaking round-tripping to RDF ←
17:05:17 <manu> markus: Yeah, he's raising the same issue.
Markus Lanthaler: Yeah, he's raising the same issue. ←
17:05:47 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/mid/841A41F1-CC53-49E9-B073-4B1217C1CF62@evilfunhouse.com
Eric Prud'hommeaux: http://www.w3.org/mid/841A41F1-CC53-49E9-B073-4B1217C1CF62@evilfunhouse.com ←
17:05:52 <markus> manu, simplest solution. Require graph names in the data.. i.e., @id (containing an IRI) must be there for every named graph otherwise it's an error
Markus Lanthaler: manu, simplest solution. Require graph names in the data.. i.e., @id (containing an IRI) must be there for every named graph otherwise it's an error ←
17:06:11 <cygri> markus, manu, +1 to that
Richard Cyganiak: markus, manu, +1 to that ←
17:06:50 <cygri> ericP, i think it was here: </dev/null>
Richard Cyganiak: ericP, i think it was here: </dev/null> ←
17:06:59 <markus> cygri, sad to loose a nice feature.. now you have to use old-style reification to talk about statements
Markus Lanthaler: cygri, sad to loose a nice feature.. now you have to use old-style reification to talk about statements ←
17:07:13 <markus> ... or you have to mint an IRI for every stmt
Markus Lanthaler: ... or you have to mint an IRI for every stmt ←
17:07:47 <TallTed> +1 mint an IRI for every stmt ... but I know I'm lonely on this
Ted Thibodeau: +1 mint an IRI for every stmt ... but I know I'm lonely on this ←
17:07:49 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
17:07:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
17:07:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see AZ, markus, SteveH, Souri, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, gkellogg, cygri, TallTed, yvesr_, Arnaud, trackbot, mischat, manu1, manu, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see AZ, markus, SteveH, Souri, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, gkellogg, cygri, TallTed, yvesr_, Arnaud, trackbot, mischat, manu1, manu, sandro, ericP ←
17:08:39 <cygri> markus, use cases that need statement-level metadata are not the sweet spot for RDF
Richard Cyganiak: markus, use cases that need statement-level metadata are not the sweet spot for RDF ←
17:08:49 <markus> TallTed, then I don't really understand why we have bnodes at all
Markus Lanthaler: TallTed, then I don't really understand why we have bnodes at all ←
17:09:05 <SteveH> markus, you're not alone
Steve Harris: markus, you're not alone ←
17:09:15 <markus> good to know :-)
Markus Lanthaler: good to know :-) ←
17:10:24 <TallTed> bnodes are for entirely different purposes than named-statements (named-graphs of single-triples)
Ted Thibodeau: bnodes are for entirely different purposes than named-statements (named-graphs of single-triples) ←
17:10:45 <ericP> PROPOSED: in accordance with our recollection of earlier decisions, the WG had elected to keep the section on "Turtle in XHMTL " as a non-normative appendix in the Turtle spec
PROPOSED: in accordance with our recollection of earlier decisions, the WG had elected to keep the section on "Turtle in XHMTL " as a non-normative appendix in the Turtle spec ←
17:11:07 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
17:11:07 <cygri> -0
Richard Cyganiak: -0 ←
17:11:10 <TallTed> +0
Ted Thibodeau: +0 ←
17:11:43 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
17:12:50 <ericP> RESOLVED: in accordance with our recollection of earlier decisions, the WG had elected to keep the section on "Turtle in XHMTL " as a non-normative appendix in the Turtle spec
RESOLVED: in accordance with our recollection of earlier decisions, the WG had elected to keep the section on "Turtle in XHMTL " as a non-normative appendix in the Turtle spec ←
17:12:53 <cygri> I'm not objecting, just uncomfortable with lack of evidence.
Richard Cyganiak: I'm not objecting, just uncomfortable with lack of evidence. ←
17:13:19 <Guus> ACTION Guus to find the evidence
Guus Schreiber: ACTION Guus to find the evidence ←
17:13:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-229 - Find the evidence [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-02-20].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-229 - Find the evidence [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-02-20]. ←
17:14:13 <Guus> ADJOURNED
Guus Schreiber: ADJOURNED ←
17:14:17 <TallTed> +1 :-)
Ted Thibodeau: +1 :-) ←
17:14:21 <Guus> trackbot, end meeting
Guus Schreiber: trackbot, end meeting ←
17:14:21 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
17:14:21 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been (none)
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been (none) ←
17:14:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
17:14:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/13-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/02/13-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot ←
17:14:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
17:14:30 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←
Formatted by CommonScribe