16:03:32 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim
David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim ←
16:03:32 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Guus (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Guus (muted) ←
16:03:42 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim
David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim ←
16:03:42 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg ←
16:03:45 <Zakim> +??P32
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P32 ←
16:03:53 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim
David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim ←
16:03:53 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tbaker
Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tbaker ←
16:03:58 <markus> zakim, ??P32 is me
Markus Lanthaler: zakim, ??P32 is me ←
16:03:58 <Zakim> +markus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +markus; got it ←
16:04:00 <Zakim> + +1.408.992.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.408.992.aaee ←
16:04:08 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim
David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim ←
16:04:08 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg ←
16:04:19 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here
David Wood: Zakim, who is here ←
16:04:19 <Zakim> davidwood, you need to end that query with '?'
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you need to end that query with '?' ←
16:04:29 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
16:04:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see tbaker, davidwood, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed (muted), Guus (muted), ivan, manu, Sandro, markus, +1.408.992.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see tbaker, davidwood, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed (muted), Guus (muted), ivan, manu, Sandro, markus, +1.408.992.aaee ←
16:04:31 <Zakim> On IRC I see Arnaud, pfps, cgreer, markus, ScottB, PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, TallTed, ivan, SteveH, AndyS, manu, davidwood, yvesr, mischat, manu1, trackbot,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Arnaud, pfps, cgreer, markus, ScottB, PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, TallTed, ivan, SteveH, AndyS, manu, davidwood, yvesr, mischat, manu1, trackbot, ←
16:04:31 <Zakim> ... sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... sandro, ericP ←
16:04:35 <Zakim> + +1.707.874.aaff
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.707.874.aaff ←
16:04:46 <cgreer> zakim, aaff is me
Charles Greer: zakim, aaff is me ←
16:04:46 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cgreer; got it ←
16:04:57 <Zakim> +??P35
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P35 ←
16:05:04 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P35 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P35 is me ←
16:05:04 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
16:05:07 <AndyS> scribenick: AndyS
(Scribe set to Andy Seaborne)
16:05:10 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
16:05:15 <pfps> Zakim, aaee is me
Peter Patel-Schneider: Zakim, aaee is me ←
16:05:15 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps; got it ←
16:05:46 <AndyS> topic: admin
16:05:48 <Zakim> +Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri ←
16:05:54 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 February telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-13
David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 February telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-13 ←
16:06:03 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
16:06:08 <AndyS> +1
+1 ←
16:06:15 <pfps> They're beautiful.
Peter Patel-Schneider: They're beautiful. ←
16:06:24 <davidwood> RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 13 February telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-13
RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 13 February telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-13 ←
16:06:33 <davidwood> Review of action items
David Wood: Review of action items ←
16:06:33 <davidwood> ▪ http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
David Wood: ▪ http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview ←
16:06:33 <davidwood> ▪ http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
David Wood: ▪ http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open ←
16:06:57 <AndyS> 27 open actions
27 open actions ←
16:07:14 <davidwood> Topic: Extension request
16:07:17 <Zakim> +Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony ←
16:07:34 <ScottB> zakim, Tony is temporarily me
Scott Bauer: zakim, Tony is temporarily me ←
16:07:34 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ScottB; got it ←
16:07:38 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aagg
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.650.265.aagg ←
16:07:52 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aagg is me
Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.650.265.aagg is me ←
16:07:52 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it ←
16:07:52 <AndyS> davidwood: request informally approved, waiting for formal confirmation
David Wood: request informally approved, waiting for formal confirmation ←
16:07:55 <zwu2> zakim, mute me
16:07:55 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should now be muted ←
16:09:15 <AndyS> davidwood: design time over, now complete docs during the extension
David Wood: design time over, now complete docs during the extension ←
16:09:47 <AndyS> ... docs to get out soon -- semantics, concepts.
... docs to get out soon -- semantics, concepts. ←
16:10:07 <AndyS> topic: Turtle
16:10:10 <AndyS> q+
q+ ←
16:10:11 <Guus> zakim, unmute me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, unmute me ←
16:10:11 <Zakim> Guus should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus should no longer be muted ←
16:10:25 <AndyS> davidwood: congrats to all
David Wood: congrats to all ←
16:10:38 <davidwood> ack AndyS
David Wood: ack AndyS ←
16:10:39 <PatH> One quick request. There is a CSS script that COncepts apparently used. Where can I get the original of that? Send email offline.
Patrick Hayes: One quick request. There is a CSS script that COncepts apparently used. Where can I get the original of that? Send email offline. ←
16:11:22 <AndyS> andys: what's the impl feedback process?
Andy Seaborne: what's the impl feedback process? ←
16:11:58 <davidwood> Implementors should inform public-rdf-comments
David Wood: Implementors should inform public-rdf-comments ←
16:13:01 <AndyS> davidwood: a quick blog to note process and EARL reports.
David Wood: a quick blog to note process and EARL reports. ←
16:13:03 <Guus> q+
Guus Schreiber: q+ ←
16:13:15 <davidwood> ack Guus
David Wood: ack Guus ←
16:13:40 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
16:13:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see tbaker, davidwood, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed (muted), Guus, ivan, manu, Sandro, markus, pfps, cgreer, SteveH, Arnaud (muted), Souri, PatH, ScottB, zwu2 (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see tbaker, davidwood, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed (muted), Guus, ivan, manu, Sandro, markus, pfps, cgreer, SteveH, Arnaud (muted), Souri, PatH, ScottB, zwu2 (muted) ←
16:13:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see zwu2, Souri, Arnaud, pfps, cgreer, markus, ScottB, PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, TallTed, ivan, SteveH, AndyS, manu, davidwood, yvesr, mischat, manu1,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zwu2, Souri, Arnaud, pfps, cgreer, markus, ScottB, PatH, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, TallTed, ivan, SteveH, AndyS, manu, davidwood, yvesr, mischat, manu1, ←
16:13:44 <Zakim> ... trackbot, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... trackbot, sandro, ericP ←
16:14:38 <AndyS> gkellogg: is it Eric's tests as well?
Gregg Kellogg: is it Eric's tests as well? ←
16:14:47 <davidwood> ACTION: davidwood to write a blog post announcing Turtle to CR
ACTION: davidwood to write a blog post announcing Turtle to CR ←
16:14:47 <trackbot> Created ACTION-230 - Write a blog post announcing Turtle to CR [on David Wood - due 2013-02-27].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-230 - Write a blog post announcing Turtle to CR [on David Wood - due 2013-02-27]. ←
16:15:48 <davidwood> ACTION: davidwood to create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors.
ACTION: davidwood to create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors. ←
16:15:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors. [on David Wood - due 2013-02-27].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-231 - Create a wiki page to track Turtle CR comments and notify the editors. [on David Wood - due 2013-02-27]. ←
16:15:58 <AndyS> gkellogg: please rerun tests to be upto date
Gregg Kellogg: please rerun tests to be upto date ←
16:16:09 <AndyS> davidwood: need to track CR comments
David Wood: need to track CR comments ←
16:16:26 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:16:26 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
16:17:11 <AndyS> ivan: all changes now need to be tracked
Ivan Herman: all changes now need to be tracked ←
16:17:20 <AndyS> ... we're in process mode now
... we're in process mode now ←
16:17:49 <AndyS> topic: semantics
16:18:18 <davidwood> ▪ Should we allow blank nodes to be used as graph names? That is, allow a graph name to be both (IRI, graph), and (blank node, graph).
David Wood: ▪ Should we allow blank nodes to be used as graph names? That is, allow a graph name to be both (IRI, graph), and (blank node, graph). ←
16:18:18 <davidwood> NB -- JSON-LD has a preference to allow blank nodes as graph names.
David Wood: NB -- JSON-LD has a preference to allow blank nodes as graph names. ←
16:18:18 <davidwood> From Manu: PROPOSAL: Allow blank nodes to be used as graph names. Specifically, allow associating (IRI, graph) and (blank node, graph) when naming graphs.
David Wood: From Manu: PROPOSAL: Allow blank nodes to be used as graph names. Specifically, allow associating (IRI, graph) and (blank node, graph) when naming graphs. ←
16:19:16 <AndyS> manu: review of JSON-LD status. Has bnode ids fro graphs and also unlabelled graphs.
Manu Sporny: review of JSON-LD status. Has bnode ids fro graphs and also unlabelled graphs. ←
16:19:24 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
16:19:24 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
16:19:27 <AndyS> ... long discussions
... long discussions ←
16:19:52 <AndyS> ... part 2 -- denotation of graph (values)
... part 2 -- denotation of graph (values) ←
16:20:17 <AndyS> ... only interpretation possible
... only interpretation possible ←
16:20:29 <AndyS> (Andy notes that claim is false)
(Andy notes that claim is false) ←
16:20:47 <pfps> The method used for containers works for me. I'm not in favour of making any further changes to the semantics.
Peter Patel-Schneider: The method used for containers works for me. I'm not in favour of making any further changes to the semantics. ←
16:21:24 <AndyS> PatH: opportunity to add the semantic condition that bNode denotes the graph.
Patrick Hayes: opportunity to add the semantic condition that bNode denotes the graph. ←
16:21:53 <manu> q+ to state that Web Payments is going to assert that IRIs and blank node identifiers denote graphs. We have to.
Manu Sporny: q+ to state that Web Payments is going to assert that IRIs and blank node identifiers denote graphs. We have to. ←
16:22:20 <pfps> q+
16:22:20 <AndyS> ... bnodes for labels can be used to put metadata into datasets
... bnodes for labels can be used to put metadata into datasets ←
16:23:01 <AndyS> sandro: skolemization would break that condition?
Sandro Hawke: skolemization would break that condition? ←
16:23:21 <AndyS> path: not really - we don't stop IRIs denoting graphs
Patrick Hayes: not really - we don't stop IRIs denoting graphs ←
16:25:07 <AndyS> sandro: neutral on proposal
Sandro Hawke: neutral on proposal ←
16:25:39 <manu> I think that somebody using an IRI to name a graph previously, where the IRI doesn't denote the graph, did something non-standard and we don't need to support that in RDF Concepts 1.1 (we are breaking some deployments, but for the greater good of the Web)
Manu Sporny: I think that somebody using an IRI to name a graph previously, where the IRI doesn't denote the graph, did something non-standard and we don't need to support that in RDF Concepts 1.1 (we are breaking some deployments, but for the greater good of the Web) ←
16:25:49 <SteveH> q+
Steve Harris: q+ ←
16:26:03 <davidwood> ack manu
David Wood: ack manu ←
16:26:03 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to state that Web Payments is going to assert that IRIs and blank node identifiers denote graphs. We have to.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to state that Web Payments is going to assert that IRIs and blank node identifiers denote graphs. We have to. ←
16:26:08 <pfps> even if you are using the skolem namespace I don't think that you can infer the denotation
Peter Patel-Schneider: even if you are using the skolem namespace I don't think that you can infer the denotation ←
16:26:54 <AndyS> manu: web payments will use denotation
Manu Sporny: web payments will use denotation ←
16:27:02 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:27:12 <davidwood> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
16:27:16 <PatH> pfps, you cany infer it but we can impose it as a condition.
Patrick Hayes: pfps, you cany infer it but we can impose it as a condition. ←
16:27:29 <manu> +100 to pfps!
Manu Sporny: +100 to pfps! ←
16:27:34 <PatH> cany//can't
Patrick Hayes: cany//can't ←
16:27:36 <manu> -1 for it being too late :)
Manu Sporny: -1 for it being too late :) ←
16:27:43 <AndyS> pfps: not done properly; it's too late.
Peter Patel-Schneider: not done properly; it's too late. ←
16:27:46 <Zakim> -Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus ←
16:28:49 <manu> q+ to ask pfps if he'd be okay with blank nodes as graph names, but -1 on denotation?
Manu Sporny: q+ to ask pfps if he'd be okay with blank nodes as graph names, but -1 on denotation? ←
16:29:00 <zwu2> +1 to pfps
16:29:05 <SteveH> +1
Steve Harris: +1 ←
16:29:11 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:29:47 <manu> It's a big problem for us!
Manu Sporny: It's a big problem for us! ←
16:29:55 <manu> (for the web payments work)
Manu Sporny: (for the web payments work) ←
16:30:01 <manu> it's a big problem for digital signatures.
Manu Sporny: it's a big problem for digital signatures. ←
16:30:10 <manu> it's a big problem for RDF Dataset Normalization.
Manu Sporny: it's a big problem for RDF Dataset Normalization. ←
16:30:18 <AndyS> manu - do you recognize that forcing one decision is a problem for others?
manu - do you recognize that forcing one decision is a problem for others? ←
16:30:36 <manu> Which decision am I forcing, andys?
Manu Sporny: Which decision am I forcing, andys? ←
16:30:38 <SteveH> manu, we do all that stuff, and we don't use blank graphs
Steve Harris: manu, we do all that stuff, and we don't use blank graphs ←
16:30:52 <manu> SteveH, then what's the solution?
Manu Sporny: SteveH, then what's the solution? ←
16:31:01 <SteveH> q?
Steve Harris: q? ←
16:31:02 <Souri> +1 against use of bNode for graphs
Souripriya Das: +1 against use of bNode for graphs ←
16:31:14 <davidwood> ack SteveH
David Wood: ack SteveH ←
16:31:57 <pfps> If we put graph name denotation into RDF then the semantics has to be expanded to include graphs as a new datatype
Peter Patel-Schneider: If we put graph name denotation into RDF then the semantics has to be expanded to include graphs as a new datatype ←
16:32:04 <AndyS> manu - you asked for denotation only in JSON-LD. Other people do different things. You case is fine - it's one amongst several - other uses are important to their users.
manu - you asked for denotation only in JSON-LD. Other people do different things. You case is fine - it's one amongst several - other uses are important to their users. ←
16:32:18 <AndyS> SteveH: taken out of 3Store
Steve Harris: taken out of 3Store ←
16:32:22 <PatH> its not a change to how rdf works.
Patrick Hayes: its not a change to how rdf works. ←
16:32:48 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
16:33:18 <AndyS> ivan: time issues
Ivan Herman: time issues ←
16:34:56 <davidwood> ack manu
David Wood: ack manu ←
16:34:56 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask pfps if he'd be okay with blank nodes as graph names, but -1 on denotation?
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to ask pfps if he'd be okay with blank nodes as graph names, but -1 on denotation? ←
16:35:46 <AndyS> manu: 2 proposals - one syntax, one semantics
Manu Sporny: 2 proposals - one syntax, one semantics ←
16:36:05 <AndyS> .. can accept first, not the second
.. can accept first, not the second ←
16:36:11 <pfps> If SPARQL doesn't allow blank nodes as names in datasets, then I don't see a need for us to.
Peter Patel-Schneider: If SPARQL doesn't allow blank nodes as names in datasets, then I don't see a need for us to. ←
16:36:23 <PatH> then i disagree. bnodes the dont denote really arre meaningless.
Patrick Hayes: then i disagree. bnodes the dont denote really arre meaningless. ←
16:36:24 <AndyS> ivan: denotation is controversal
Ivan Herman: denotation is controversal ←
16:36:43 <AndyS> manu: new evidence
Manu Sporny: new evidence ←
16:36:54 <PatH> peter, sparql does allow it, i gather.
Patrick Hayes: peter, sparql does allow it, i gather. ←
16:37:15 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
16:37:38 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?
Ivan Herman: zakim, who is noisy? ←
16:37:46 <AndyS> SPARQL does not but it's no big deal. One line change. (someone set things up for future posibilities :-)
SPARQL does not but it's no big deal. One line change. (someone set things up for future posibilities :-) ←
16:37:50 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (39%), manu (99%)
Zakim IRC Bot: ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (39%), manu (99%) ←
16:38:25 <SteveH> manu, several people have suggested perfectly workable solutions
Steve Harris: manu, several people have suggested perfectly workable solutions ←
16:38:44 <pfps> the method proposed that gets rid of blank nodes doesn't require minting new IRIs, you just have an infinite number of them pre-allocated (like rdf:_<n>) and choose in order
Peter Patel-Schneider: the method proposed that gets rid of blank nodes doesn't require minting new IRIs, you just have an infinite number of them pre-allocated (like rdf:_<n>) and choose in order ←
16:39:01 <AndyS> ivan: propose to close second proposal
Ivan Herman: propose to close second proposal ←
16:39:27 <AndyS> q+ to say what SPARQL actually says
q+ to say what SPARQL actually says ←
16:39:38 <manu> steveh, no, they haven't - we've spent a great deal of time trying to apply those solutions - they are half-baked, or don't work.
Manu Sporny: steveh, no, they haven't - we've spent a great deal of time trying to apply those solutions - they are half-baked, or don't work. ←
16:39:51 <manu> pfps: Isn't that a new IRI scheme?
Peter Patel-Schneider: Isn't that a new IRI scheme? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:40:17 <gkellogg> andys: a definition of a dataset in SPARQL says it's an IRI; the mechanics, translation to algebra and evaluation are neutral, because you can't write it.
Andy Seaborne: a definition of a dataset in SPARQL says it's an IRI; the mechanics, translation to algebra and evaluation are neutral, because you can't write it. [ Scribe Assist by Gregg Kellogg ] ←
16:40:19 <manu> pfps: graph:_nnn <-- new IRI scheme, most of the folks on this mailing list didn't want that, right?
Peter Patel-Schneider: graph:_nnn <-- new IRI scheme, most of the folks on this mailing list didn't want that, right? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:40:30 <gkellogg> … Blank nodes would be variables.
Gregg Kellogg: … Blank nodes would be variables. ←
16:40:54 <gkellogg> … SPARQL would work with BNodes for properties, it doesn't interpret them.
Gregg Kellogg: … SPARQL would work with BNodes for properties, it doesn't interpret them. ←
16:41:03 <SteveH> but there are no (real) blank node in sparql
Steve Harris: but there are no (real) blank node in sparql ←
16:41:31 <gkellogg> … I don't know if actual engines would blow up or not, but structurally, it wouldn't make a difference.
Gregg Kellogg: … I don't know if actual engines would blow up or not, but structurally, it wouldn't make a difference. ←
16:41:40 <AndyS> http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#sparqlDataset
http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/#sparqlDataset ←
16:41:40 <SteveH> 4store and 5store would blow up, that section of the index (bnode as graph ID) doesn't exist
Steve Harris: 4store and 5store would blow up, that section of the index (bnode as graph ID) doesn't exist ←
16:41:51 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
16:41:57 <AndyS> q-
q- ←
16:42:35 <SteveH> strawpoll?
Steve Harris: strawpoll? ←
16:43:00 <AndyS> davidwood: we have the freedom but not the time to deviate from SPARQL
David Wood: we have the freedom but not the time to deviate from SPARQL ←
16:46:03 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:46:33 <AndyS> manu: can JSON-LD use bNode id for graphs in datasets?
Manu Sporny: can JSON-LD use bNode id for graphs in datasets? ←
16:47:05 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
16:47:18 <SteveH> IIUC manu asked about nquads… that's not OK
Steve Harris: IIUC manu asked about nquads… that's not OK ←
16:47:21 <SteveH> for me
Steve Harris: for me ←
16:47:46 <AndyS> ivan: maybe a way out but may have consequences outside JSON-LD.
Ivan Herman: maybe a way out but may have consequences outside JSON-LD. ←
16:48:04 <gkellogg> BNodes for property IDs in JSON-LD will already make these other applications blow up.
Gregg Kellogg: BNodes for property IDs in JSON-LD will already make these other applications blow up. ←
16:48:05 <AndyS> ... no reason for deciding one over the other.
... no reason for deciding one over the other. ←
16:49:54 <AndyS> davidwood: try to find a loose framework that allows variation.
David Wood: try to find a loose framework that allows variation. ←
16:51:08 <SteveH> that must already happen, because of bNode predicates
Steve Harris: that must already happen, because of bNode predicates ←
16:51:23 <SteveH> that's not legal in RDF and can't be serialised
Steve Harris: that's not legal in RDF and can't be serialised ←
16:51:23 <AndyS> ivan: suggest a warning in JSON-LD about the consequences outside JSON-LD
Ivan Herman: suggest a warning in JSON-LD about the consequences outside JSON-LD ←
16:51:27 <markus> the warnings are already there: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#data-model and again here http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#relationship-to-rdf
Markus Lanthaler: the warnings are already there: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#data-model and again here http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#relationship-to-rdf ←
16:52:01 <AndyS> davidwood: how bad is this?
David Wood: how bad is this? ←
16:53:16 <AndyS> markus - quite. Various tricky points there - e.g. lists in data model (wish that were true) We just don't ask!
markus - quite. Various tricky points there - e.g. lists in data model (wish that were true) We just don't ask! ←
16:53:36 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
16:53:41 <AndyS> manu: causes an issue - need to label the graph in some way
Manu Sporny: causes an issue - need to label the graph in some way ←
16:53:46 <markus> andys, I know :-)
Markus Lanthaler: andys, I know :-) ←
16:54:08 <AndyS> ... reinventing bnode ids
... reinventing bnode ids ←
16:54:41 <PatH> Let me withdraw my blocking vote decision here. I dont like semantics=free bnodeIDs, but I think compatibility with JSON is more important than my aesthetics. SO I will vote for the syntax without the sematnics. <grinds teeth.>
Patrick Hayes: Let me withdraw my blocking vote decision here. I dont like semantics=free bnodeIDs, but I think compatibility with JSON is more important than my aesthetics. SO I will vote for the syntax without the sematnics. <grinds teeth.> ←
16:55:36 <AndyS> ivan: will break other use cases
Ivan Herman: will break other use cases ←
16:58:11 <PatH> The key point for Steve seems to be that he did have this but was ASKED to remove it. WHo asked him and what were their reasons?
Patrick Hayes: The key point for Steve seems to be that he did have this but was ASKED to remove it. WHo asked him and what were their reasons? ←
16:59:49 <PatH> Ivan, there are recent emails showing that SPARQL in fact works fine with this case.
Patrick Hayes: Ivan, there are recent emails showing that SPARQL in fact works fine with this case. ←
17:00:06 <PatH> +1 to Manu
Patrick Hayes: +1 to Manu ←
17:00:09 <SteveH> PatH, I don't see how that can be the case
Steve Harris: PatH, I don't see how that can be the case ←
17:00:30 <Souri> I like the (alternate) proposal of minting a new IRI (it avoids the new requirement of allowing bnode identifying a graph)
Souripriya Das: I like the (alternate) proposal of minting a new IRI (it avoids the new requirement of allowing bnode identifying a graph) ←
17:00:32 <PatH> Its not a change to RDF *at all*. It might be a change to SPARQL.
Patrick Hayes: Its not a change to RDF *at all*. It might be a change to SPARQL. ←
17:01:22 <SteveH> PatH, what about the case where the bNode identified by _:aaa is used as a graph label, but doesn't appear in any graph?
Steve Harris: PatH, what about the case where the bNode identified by _:aaa is used as a graph label, but doesn't appear in any graph? ←
17:02:04 <AndyS> manu; new info - normalization, JSON-LD, documents without base URI
manu; new info - normalization, JSON-LD, documents without base URI ←
17:02:11 <AndyS> manu: new info - normalization, JSON-LD, documents without base URI
Manu Sporny: new info - normalization, JSON-LD, documents without base URI ←
17:02:32 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
17:03:14 <PatH> Steve, what about it? Its kind of silly (semantically) but harmless.
Patrick Hayes: Steve, what about it? Its kind of silly (semantically) but harmless. ←
17:03:21 <manu> New information to blank nodes as graph name labels - Did the WG consider RDF Dataset Normalization when you discussed this?
Manu Sporny: New information to blank nodes as graph name labels - Did the WG consider RDF Dataset Normalization when you discussed this? ←
17:03:35 <Arnaud> I have to drop off for another call, I find unfortunate that the number of incompatibilities between JSON-LD and RDF keeps increasing
Arnaud Le Hors: I have to drop off for another call, I find unfortunate that the number of incompatibilities between JSON-LD and RDF keeps increasing ←
17:03:38 <SteveH> PatH, but it wouldn't be a node (and it'��s what manu is proposing to do, FWIW)
Steve Harris: PatH, but it wouldn't be a node (and it'��s what manu is proposing to do, FWIW) ←
17:04:11 <manu> Did the WG consider how the decision would affect JSON-LD developers, specifically how forcing them to use an identifier where they don't have to use one (when expressing a blank node)
Manu Sporny: Did the WG consider how the decision would affect JSON-LD developers, specifically how forcing them to use an identifier where they don't have to use one (when expressing a blank node) ←
17:04:16 <PatH> religious = doctrinal :-)
Patrick Hayes: religious = doctrinal :-) ←
17:04:24 <AndyS> ivan: don't know it means to have no base URI.
Ivan Herman: don't know it means to have no base URI. ←
17:04:57 <Arnaud> which isn't to say that we should let JSON-LD influence RDF, I find this slightly odd because I don't think the syntax should necessarily influence the model
Arnaud Le Hors: which isn't to say that we should let JSON-LD influence RDF, I find this slightly odd because I don't think the syntax should necessarily influence the model ←
17:05:07 <AndyS> ... normalization is significant but was worked on it elsewhere.
... normalization is significant but was worked on it elsewhere. ←
17:05:13 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
17:05:32 <gkellogg> I don't think that normalization actually requires that graph names include BNode identifiers, it just does if JSON-LD allows them, and that output should be normalized.
Gregg Kellogg: I don't think that normalization actually requires that graph names include BNode identifiers, it just does if JSON-LD allows them, and that output should be normalized. ←
17:05:34 <AndyS> ... this WG has not picked up that work.
... this WG has not picked up that work. ←
17:06:02 <AndyS> ... at this time and this point in process, it's hard to take that on.
... at this time and this point in process, it's hard to take that on. ←
17:06:02 <PatH> SteveH, ?? of course it would be a node. Bnodes are nodes.
Patrick Hayes: SteveH, ?? of course it would be a node. Bnodes are nodes. ←
17:06:18 <SteveH> PatH, well, only if they appear in a graph, surely?!
Steve Harris: PatH, well, only if they appear in a graph, surely?! ←
17:06:49 <AndyS> manu: we have a solution. Need a direction from this WG
Manu Sporny: we have a solution. Need a direction from this WG ←
17:06:52 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
17:06:59 <PatH> IWhy? We are allowing IRIs to be labels. why no other kinds of node?
Patrick Hayes: IWhy? We are allowing IRIs to be labels. why no other kinds of node? ←
17:07:04 <AndyS> .. bnode was the thing we choose at the time.
.. bnode was the thing we choose at the time. ←
17:08:09 <SteveH> it doesn't require a new URI scheme, you could use the skolem one
Steve Harris: it doesn't require a new URI scheme, you could use the skolem one ←
17:08:11 <pfps> I don't see how this group is on the hook for doing anything here.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't see how this group is on the hook for doing anything here. ←
17:08:18 <AndyS> manu: new URI scheme is an alternative but not as attractive.
Manu Sporny: new URI scheme is an alternative but not as attractive. ←
17:08:44 <pfps> q+
17:09:35 <davidwood> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
17:10:47 <SteveH> IIRC, you're required to have a base URI, as per RFC 2396
Steve Harris: IIRC, you're required to have a base URI, as per RFC 2396 ←
17:10:53 <PatH> The hostility isn't necessary.
Patrick Hayes: The hostility isn't necessary. ←
17:13:26 <PatH> +1 to manu
Patrick Hayes: +1 to manu ←
17:13:39 <AndyS> davidwood: if docs standardized as currently stated - manu - what happens?
David Wood: if docs standardized as currently stated - manu - what happens? ←
17:14:23 <AndyS> manu: we will use specific IRIs for the dataset.
Manu Sporny: we will use specific IRIs for the dataset. ←
17:14:23 <PatH> Thats skolemizing, in fact.
Patrick Hayes: Thats skolemizing, in fact. ←
17:16:22 <AndyS> davidwood: will skolemization work for you?
David Wood: will skolemization work for you? ←
17:16:51 <AndyS> manu: will reply on the list
Manu Sporny: will reply on the list ←
17:17:04 <PatH> Well not quite.
Patrick Hayes: Well not quite. ←
17:18:07 <manu> AndyS: You can't do that without taking inter-graph connectivity into account.
Andy Seaborne: You can't do that without taking inter-graph connectivity into account. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
17:18:07 <PatH> For the record, now we have extra time, how much extra time do we have (The WG, not the call)?
Patrick Hayes: For the record, now we have extra time, how much extra time do we have (The WG, not the call)? ←
17:18:15 <manu> you can't just "hash a graph" to get a name.
Manu Sporny: you can't just "hash a graph" to get a name. ←
17:18:22 <AndyS> davidwood: wish we had more time ...
David Wood: wish we had more time ... ←
17:19:48 <AndyS> ADJOURNED
ADJOURNED ←
Formatted by CommonScribe