14:58:27 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/29-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:58:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:58:31 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:58:31 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes ←
14:58:32 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:58:32 <trackbot> Date: 29 May 2013
14:58:45 <AndyS> zakim, this is 73394
Andy Seaborne: zakim, this is 73394 ←
14:58:45 <Zakim> AndyS, I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be 73394".
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be 73394". ←
14:59:24 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started ←
14:59:30 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
14:59:42 <pfps> zakim, gvoice is me
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, gvoice is me ←
14:59:42 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps; got it ←
15:00:04 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:00:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:00:06 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
15:00:07 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:00:23 <AndyS> zakim, who is making noise?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is making noise? ←
15:00:34 <Zakim> AndyS, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (47%)
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (47%) ←
15:00:37 <Zakim> +davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood ←
15:00:42 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
15:00:43 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
15:00:44 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:00:56 <pfps> zakim, mute me
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, mute me ←
15:00:57 <Zakim> pfps should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps should now be muted ←
15:00:59 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
15:00:59 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
15:01:00 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:01:51 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:01:51 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
15:01:53 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:01:53 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:01:55 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF WG -- current agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.05.29
Ted Thibodeau: TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF WG -- current agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.05.29 ←
15:02:33 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
15:02:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see pfps (muted), Sandro, AndyS, davidwood, Ivan (muted), TallTed (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pfps (muted), Sandro, AndyS, davidwood, Ivan (muted), TallTed (muted) ←
15:02:36 <Zakim> On IRC I see TallTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, pfps, Guus, gkellogg, SteveH, ivan, davidwood, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see TallTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, pfps, Guus, gkellogg, SteveH, ivan, davidwood, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat ←
15:02:42 <Zakim> +??P36
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P36 ←
15:02:47 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P36 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P36 is me ←
15:02:47 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
15:03:01 <pfps> Ivan's comments are benign
Peter Patel-Schneider: Ivan's comments are benign ←
15:03:27 <Zakim> +Guus_Schreiber
Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus_Schreiber ←
15:03:30 <Zakim> + +1.619.663.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.619.663.aaaa ←
15:04:07 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
15:04:16 <Zakim> +??P41
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P41 ←
15:04:20 <zwu2> zakim, +1.619.663.aaaa is me
Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.619.663.aaaa is me ←
15:04:20 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it ←
15:04:55 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P41 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P41 is me ←
15:04:55 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it ←
15:05:02 <zwu2> zakim, mute me
15:05:02 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should now be muted ←
15:05:20 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim
David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim ←
15:05:20 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Guus_Schreiber
Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Guus_Schreiber ←
15:05:33 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim
David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim ←
15:05:33 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AndyS ←
15:05:47 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim
David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim ←
15:05:47 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose yvesr ←
15:05:50 <markus> scribe: markus
(Scribe set to Markus Lanthaler)
15:05:54 <markus> zakim, code?
zakim, code? ←
15:05:54 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus ←
15:06:00 <yvesr> sorry, very noisy around here
Yves Raimond: sorry, very noisy around here ←
15:06:04 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim
David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim ←
15:06:04 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose davidwood ←
15:06:13 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a victim
David Wood: Zakim, pick a victim ←
15:06:14 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AndyS ←
15:06:26 <Zakim> +??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←
15:06:26 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
15:06:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see pfps (muted), Sandro, AndyS, davidwood, Ivan (muted), TallTed (muted), SteveH, Guus_Schreiber, zwu2 (muted), ericP, yvesr, ??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pfps (muted), Sandro, AndyS, davidwood, Ivan (muted), TallTed (muted), SteveH, Guus_Schreiber, zwu2 (muted), ericP, yvesr, ??P9 ←
15:06:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see markus, zwu2, TallTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, pfps, Guus, gkellogg, SteveH, ivan, davidwood, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see markus, zwu2, TallTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, pfps, Guus, gkellogg, SteveH, ivan, davidwood, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat ←
15:06:31 <markus> zakim, ??P9 is me
zakim, ??P9 is me ←
15:06:31 <Zakim> +markus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +markus; got it ←
15:06:39 <Guus> chair: davidwood
15:06:41 <yvesr> davidwood: i can give it a shot, but will need some help in case it gets too noisy here
David Wood: i can give it a shot, but will need some help in case it gets too noisy here [ Scribe Assist by Yves Raimond ] ←
15:07:09 <davidwood> Topic: Admin
15:07:16 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 22 May telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-22
David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 22 May telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-22 ←
15:07:26 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:07:54 <markus> RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 22 May telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-22
RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 22 May telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-22 ←
15:08:02 <davidwood> Review of action items
David Wood: Review of action items ←
15:08:02 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview ←
15:08:02 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open ←
15:08:22 <pfps> I closed the items that were discussed at the last telecon.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I closed the items that were discussed at the last telecon. ←
15:08:24 <markus> davidwood: does anyone want claim some action items?
David Wood: does anyone want claim some action items? ←
15:09:36 <markus> ... what about blank nodes as graph names?
... what about blank nodes as graph names? ←
15:09:44 <markus> andys: I did nothing
Andy Seaborne: I did nothing ←
15:09:51 <markus> sandro: that should be on hold, right?
Sandro Hawke: that should be on hold, right? ←
15:09:53 <davidwood> Topic: Turtle
15:10:04 <davidwood> Features at risk: proposal by Gavin:
David Wood: Features at risk: proposal by Gavin: ←
15:10:04 <davidwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0173.html
David Wood: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0173.html ←
15:10:12 <markus> davidwood: we have some features at risk
David Wood: we have some features at risk ←
15:10:23 <davidwood> Poll at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/at-sign/
David Wood: Poll at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/at-sign/ ←
15:10:28 <davidwood> PROPOSED: Allow PREFIX and BASE in Turtle, and thus keep the feature in the document. This is based on the poll results at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/at-sign/results
PROPOSED: Allow PREFIX and BASE in Turtle, and thus keep the feature in the document. This is based on the poll results at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/at-sign/results ←
15:10:29 <markus> ... we had a poll & based on the results of that poll we have a proposal
... we had a poll & based on the results of that poll we have a proposal ←
15:10:53 <Guus> zakim, who is talking?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is talking? ←
15:11:04 <Zakim> Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (4%), davidwood (19%)
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (4%), davidwood (19%) ←
15:11:12 <sandro> zakim, mute andys
Sandro Hawke: zakim, mute andys ←
15:11:12 <Zakim> AndyS should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS should now be muted ←
15:11:30 <sandro> zakim, unmute andys
Sandro Hawke: zakim, unmute andys ←
15:11:30 <Zakim> AndyS should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS should no longer be muted ←
15:11:32 <davidwood> Zakim, mute me
David Wood: Zakim, mute me ←
15:11:32 <Zakim> davidwood should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood should now be muted ←
15:11:34 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:11:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see pfps (muted), Sandro, AndyS, davidwood (muted), Ivan (muted), TallTed (muted), SteveH, Guus_Schreiber, zwu2 (muted), ericP, yvesr, markus, Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pfps (muted), Sandro, AndyS, davidwood (muted), Ivan (muted), TallTed (muted), SteveH, Guus_Schreiber, zwu2 (muted), ericP, yvesr, markus, Arnaud ←
15:11:41 <davidwood> Zakim, unmute me
David Wood: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:11:41 <Zakim> davidwood should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood should no longer be muted ←
15:11:44 <sandro> zakim, mute me
Sandro Hawke: zakim, mute me ←
15:11:44 <Zakim> Sandro should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Sandro should now be muted ←
15:11:45 <sandro> zakim mute steveh
Sandro Hawke: zakim mute steveh ←
15:11:49 <sandro> zakim, mute steveh
Sandro Hawke: zakim, mute steveh ←
15:11:49 <Zakim> SteveH should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: SteveH should now be muted ←
15:11:49 <markus> zakim, mute me
zakim, mute me ←
15:11:50 <pfps> zakim, who is talking?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is talking? ←
15:11:50 <Zakim> markus should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: markus should now be muted ←
15:11:52 <AndyS> zakim, who is making noise
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is making noise ←
15:11:52 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is making noise', AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is making noise', AndyS ←
15:11:53 <sandro> zakim, mute ericP
Sandro Hawke: zakim, mute ericP ←
15:11:54 <Zakim> ericP should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP should now be muted ←
15:11:54 <zwu2> zakim, mute me
15:11:54 <Zakim> zwu2 was already muted, zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 was already muted, zwu2 ←
15:11:57 <Guus> zakim, mute me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, mute me ←
15:11:57 <Zakim> Guus_Schreiber should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus_Schreiber should now be muted ←
15:12:00 <sandro> zakim, mute yvesr
Sandro Hawke: zakim, mute yvesr ←
15:12:00 <Zakim> yvesr should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: yvesr should now be muted ←
15:12:03 <AndyS> zakim, who is noisy
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is noisy ←
15:12:03 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is noisy', AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'who is noisy', AndyS ←
15:12:04 <Zakim> pfps, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (3%)
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (3%) ←
15:12:04 <Guus> zakim, unmute me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, unmute me ←
15:12:04 <Zakim> Guus_Schreiber should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus_Schreiber should no longer be muted ←
15:12:05 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:12:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see pfps (muted), Sandro (muted), AndyS, davidwood, Ivan (muted), TallTed (muted), SteveH (muted), Guus_Schreiber, zwu2 (muted), ericP (muted), yvesr (muted), markus
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pfps (muted), Sandro (muted), AndyS, davidwood, Ivan (muted), TallTed (muted), SteveH (muted), Guus_Schreiber, zwu2 (muted), ericP (muted), yvesr (muted), markus ←
15:12:05 <Zakim> ... (muted), Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: ... (muted), Arnaud ←
15:12:10 <sandro> zakim, mute markus
Sandro Hawke: zakim, mute markus ←
15:12:10 <Zakim> markus was already muted, sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: markus was already muted, sandro ←
15:12:15 <AndyS> zakim, who is making noise?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is making noise? ←
15:12:20 <sandro> zakim, mute andys
Sandro Hawke: zakim, mute andys ←
15:12:20 <Zakim> AndyS should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS should now be muted ←
15:12:25 <Zakim> AndyS, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (27%)
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (27%) ←
15:12:28 <sandro> zakim, unmute me
Sandro Hawke: zakim, unmute me ←
15:12:28 <Zakim> Sandro should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Sandro should no longer be muted ←
15:12:31 <markus> zakim, unmute me
zakim, unmute me ←
15:12:31 <Zakim> markus should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: markus should no longer be muted ←
15:12:37 <ericP> ack me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack me ←
15:12:47 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
15:13:17 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:13:24 <davidwood> PROPOSED: Allow PREFIX and BASE in Turtle, and thus keep the feature in the document. This is based on the poll results at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/at-sign/results
PROPOSED: Allow PREFIX and BASE in Turtle, and thus keep the feature in the document. This is based on the poll results at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/at-sign/results ←
15:13:27 <AndyS> zakim, ipcaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ipcaller is me ←
15:13:29 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:13:32 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:13:48 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:13:58 <SteveH> "You're not allowed to see the results of this questionnaire."
Steve Harris: "You're not allowed to see the results of this questionnaire." ←
15:14:02 <AndyS> Make public?
Andy Seaborne: Make public? ←
15:14:02 <SteveH> from the link
Steve Harris: from the link ←
15:14:04 <TallTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:14:09 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
15:14:10 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
15:14:12 <zwu2> +1
15:14:28 <davidwood> No opinion 2
David Wood: No opinion 2 ←
15:14:28 <davidwood> Slight preference for allowing PREFIX and BASE 5
David Wood: Slight preference for allowing PREFIX and BASE 5 ←
15:14:28 <davidwood> Slight preference for disallowing PREFIX and BASE 4
David Wood: Slight preference for disallowing PREFIX and BASE 4 ←
15:14:28 <davidwood> Strong preference for allowing PREFIX and BASE, but can live with disallowing 4
David Wood: Strong preference for allowing PREFIX and BASE, but can live with disallowing 4 ←
15:14:28 <davidwood> Strong preference for disallowing PREFIX and BASE, but can live with allowing 1
David Wood: Strong preference for disallowing PREFIX and BASE, but can live with allowing 1 ←
15:14:28 <davidwood> We must allow PREFIX and BASE; I cannot live with disallowing.
David Wood: We must allow PREFIX and BASE; I cannot live with disallowing. ←
15:14:28 <davidwood> We must disallow PREFIX and BASE; I cannot live with allowing.
David Wood: We must disallow PREFIX and BASE; I cannot live with allowing. ←
15:14:35 <SteveH> tat's fine
Steve Harris: tat's fine ←
15:14:44 <markus> davidwood: the last two are 0
David Wood: the last two are 0 ←
15:15:17 <markus> ... 9 with preference for keeping PREFIX and BASE vs. 5 for disallowing them
... 9 with preference for keeping PREFIX and BASE vs. 5 for disallowing them ←
15:15:57 <davidwood> RESOLVED: Allow PREFIX and BASE in Turtle, and thus keep the feature in the document. This is based on the poll results at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/at-sign/results
RESOLVED: Allow PREFIX and BASE in Turtle, and thus keep the feature in the document. This is based on the poll results at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/at-sign/results ←
15:15:57 <davidwood>
15:16:08 <AndyS> send email to comments?
Andy Seaborne: send email to comments? ←
15:16:21 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?
David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←
15:16:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see pfps (muted), Sandro, davidwood, Ivan (muted), TallTed (muted), SteveH (muted), Guus_Schreiber, zwu2 (muted), ericP, yvesr (muted), markus, Arnaud (muted),
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pfps (muted), Sandro, davidwood, Ivan (muted), TallTed (muted), SteveH (muted), Guus_Schreiber, zwu2 (muted), ericP, yvesr (muted), markus, Arnaud (muted), ←
15:16:24 <Zakim> ... AndyS, PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: ... AndyS, PatH ←
15:16:24 <Zakim> On IRC I see PatH, tbaker, Arnaud, markus, zwu2, TallTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, pfps, Guus, gkellogg, SteveH, ivan, davidwood, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see PatH, tbaker, Arnaud, markus, zwu2, TallTed, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, pfps, Guus, gkellogg, SteveH, ivan, davidwood, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat ←
15:16:45 <markus> ... Andy, do you have some comments regarding the Turtle test suite?
... Andy, do you have some comments regarding the Turtle test suite? ←
15:17:13 <markus> AndyS: no, not really. We need to freeze it so that we can start asking for official conformance reports
Andy Seaborne: no, not really. We need to freeze it so that we can start asking for official conformance reports ←
15:17:25 <markus> davidwood: I'm not sure what the procedure here is
David Wood: I'm not sure what the procedure here is ←
15:17:45 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:18:01 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
15:18:03 <markus> ???: we basically just need to decide that they are done. Some people asked for changes
Eric Prud'hommeaux: we basically just need to decide that they are done. Some people asked for changes ←
15:18:20 <markus> ... we need to check whether all the requests have been handled
... we need to check whether all the requests have been handled ←
15:18:55 <markus> sandro: editorial changes are required. We need to ensure that all links point to the same test suite
Sandro Hawke: editorial changes are required. We need to ensure that all links point to the same test suite ←
15:19:10 <markus> davidwood: eric, can you make those editorial changes?
David Wood: eric, can you make those editorial changes? ←
15:19:14 <markus> s/???/eric/
15:19:25 <markus> eric: I can do it in 2 weeks.. busy before that
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I can do it in 2 weeks.. busy before that ←
15:20:08 <markus> ... there are some issues regarding the base. Is a README file sufficient?
... there are some issues regarding the base. Is a README file sufficient? ←
15:20:13 <markus> sandro: fine for me
Sandro Hawke: fine for me ←
15:20:34 <AndyS> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/040e24cdacf2/rdf-turtle/reports/index.html
Andy Seaborne: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/040e24cdacf2/rdf-turtle/reports/index.html ←
15:21:27 <AndyS> where does the reports/index.html go?
Andy Seaborne: where does the reports/index.html go? ←
15:21:51 <sandro> please fix: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Test_Suite and http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle-CR-Request#Implementation_Information and http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Main_Page
Sandro Hawke: please fix: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Test_Suite and http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle-CR-Request#Implementation_Information and http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Main_Page ←
15:22:20 <markus> eric: another question, should we add an archive (tar/zip)?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: another question, should we add an archive (tar/zip)? ←
15:22:28 <markus> sandro: that would be great I think
Sandro Hawke: that would be great I think ←
15:23:33 <davidwood> Topic: Other documents
15:23:58 <markus> davidwood: does anyone has any comments for Concepts, Schema, or JSON-LD?
David Wood: does anyone has any comments for Concepts, Schema, or JSON-LD? ←
15:24:08 <ericP> ACTION: ericP to add tarball to http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/
ACTION: ericP to add tarball to http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/ ←
15:24:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-266 - Add tarball to http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/ [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-06-05].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-266 - Add tarball to http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/ [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-06-05]. ←
15:24:24 <markus> ... I think we came to the conclusion to leave RDF/XML alone and not re-publish it
... I think we came to the conclusion to leave RDF/XML alone and not re-publish it ←
15:24:28 <ericP> ACTION: ericP to update http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Test_Suite http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle-CR-Request#Implementation_Information http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Main_Page to point to http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/
ACTION: ericP to update http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Test_Suite http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle-CR-Request#Implementation_Information http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Main_Page to point to http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/ ←
15:24:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-267 - Update http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Test_Suite http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle-CR-Request#Implementation_Information http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Main_Page to point to http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/ [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-06-05].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-267 - Update http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Test_Suite http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle-CR-Request#Implementation_Information http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Main_Page to point to http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/ [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-06-05]. ←
15:25:05 <markus> arnaud: I can work on it the second part of June
Guus Schreiber: I can work on it the second part of June ←
15:25:14 <yvesr> s/arnaud/Guus
15:25:15 <davidwood> s/arnaud/guus/
15:25:19 <ericP> ACTION: ericP to review tests comments in http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments to make sure all are addressed
ACTION: ericP to review tests comments in http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments to make sure all are addressed ←
15:25:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-268 - Review tests comments in http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments to make sure all are addressed [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-06-05].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-268 - Review tests comments in http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments to make sure all are addressed [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-06-05]. ←
15:25:31 <markus> ... there's actually not that much to do. So we should still be able to get a version out for summer (primer)
... there's actually not that much to do. So we should still be able to get a version out for summer (primer) ←
15:25:46 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
15:26:11 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
15:26:24 <davidwood> Topic: JSON-LD LC2
15:26:39 <ericP> davidwood, can i get a second to help with ACTION-268? it's kinda big
Eric Prud'hommeaux: davidwood, can i get a second to help with ACTION-268? it's kinda big ←
15:26:43 <markus> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk ←
15:27:04 <davidwood> ericP: ack
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ack [ Scribe Assist by David Wood ] ←
15:27:25 <PatH> sandro's echo is arguing with him.
Patrick Hayes: sandro's echo is arguing with him. ←
15:27:33 <davidwood> AndyS, would you be willing to help ericP with ACTION-268?
David Wood: AndyS, would you be willing to help ericP with ACTION-268? ←
15:27:34 <markus> markus: I have been traveling so I'm probably not completely up to date. There's nothing pressing but we would like to get formal resolutions for our features at risk. I will prepare concrete proposals for next week
Markus Lanthaler: I have been traveling so I'm probably not completely up to date. There's nothing pressing but we would like to get formal resolutions for our features at risk. I will prepare concrete proposals for next week ←
15:27:36 <markus> sandro: we didn't have a chance to talk about the round-tripping issue and the use of futures
Sandro Hawke: we didn't have a chance to talk about the round-tripping issue and the use of futures ←
15:27:48 <markus> ... so we may wanna leave them as feature as risk throughout CR
... so we may wanna leave them as feature as risk throughout CR ←
15:28:05 <ericP> AndyS, it involves reading through the comments and responding to the commenters
Eric Prud'hommeaux: AndyS, it involves reading through the comments and responding to the commenters ←
15:28:21 <sandro> sandro: Use of futures SHOULD remain at risk, as per Director
Sandro Hawke: Use of futures SHOULD remain at risk, as per Director [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:28:24 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments has a place where one can sign up to "own" an issue
Eric Prud'hommeaux: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments has a place where one can sign up to "own" a comment ←
15:28:41 <markus> davidwood: I think we should spend the rest of our time with concepts and semantics
David Wood: I think we should spend the rest of our time with concepts and semantics ←
15:28:43 <ericP> s/an issue/a comment/
15:28:44 <sandro> sandro: but it would be nice to resolve others.
Sandro Hawke: but it would be nice to resolve others. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:28:54 <davidwood> Topic: LC Drafts of Concepts and Semantics
15:29:16 <markus> davidwood: I think the big issue to knock out today is ISSUE-131
David Wood: I think the big issue to knock out today is ISSUE-131 ←
15:29:20 <davidwood> ISSUE-131?
15:29:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- How can one create an RDF dataset without being a web server? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-131 -- How can one create an RDF dataset without being a web server? -- open ←
15:29:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/131
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/131 ←
15:29:34 <AndyS> is the wiki up to date?
Andy Seaborne: is the wiki up to date? ←
15:29:44 <markus> ... we have some proposals
... we have some proposals ←
15:29:44 <AndyS> (about turtle test comments)
Andy Seaborne: (about turtle test comments) ←
15:29:56 <davidwood> PROPOSED-A: Close ISSUE-131 with rdf-concepts saying that RDF syntaxes and toolkits MAY support RDF (graph and/or dataset) serializations which use relative URIs and a base that is only determined by the receiver.
David Wood: PROPOSED-A: Close ISSUE-131 with rdf-concepts saying that RDF syntaxes and toolkits MAY support RDF (graph and/or dataset) serializations which use relative URIs and a base that is only determined by the receiver. ←
15:29:56 <davidwood>
15:29:56 <davidwood> PROPOSED-B: Close ISSUE-131 by allowing blank nodes as graph names.
David Wood: PROPOSED-B: Close ISSUE-131 by allowing blank nodes as graph names. ←
15:29:56 <davidwood>
15:29:56 <davidwood> PROPOSED-C: Close ISSUE-131 without adding any text on this subject to our specifications.
David Wood: PROPOSED-C: Close ISSUE-131 without adding any text on this subject to our specifications. ←
15:31:04 <markus> sandro: last week I talked about the difficulty I came across when creating a dataset when you are not a web server (as you can't make up good URIs)
Sandro Hawke: last week I talked about the difficulty I came across when creating a dataset when you are not a web server (as you can't make up good URIs) ←
15:31:23 <markus> ... I proposed to allow bnodes as graph names
... I proposed to allow bnodes as graph names ←
15:31:37 <markus> ... that caused some pushback
... that caused some pushback ←
15:31:40 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:31:53 <markus> ... thus I created those three proposals
... thus I created those three proposals ←
15:32:00 <SteveH> I think A is more-or-less what we do in this situation
Steve Harris: I think A is more-or-less what we do in this situation ←
15:32:13 <ericP> q+ to ask what these relative URIs look like in an RDF DB
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask what these relative URIs look like in an RDF DB ←
15:32:16 <SteveH> e.g. piped in data on the command line
Steve Harris: e.g. piped in data on the command line ←
15:32:20 <pfps> I am totally confused as to how PROPOSED-A could possibly work.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I am totally confused as to how PROPOSED-A could possibly work. ←
15:32:22 <markus> ... one is to allow relative URIs even though you don't know how to resolve them (bit like hand-waving)
... one is to allow relative URIs even though you don't know how to resolve them (bit like hand-waving) ←
15:32:35 <AndyS> link to proposals email therad
Andy Seaborne: link to proposals email therad ←
15:32:38 <AndyS> ?
Andy Seaborne: ? ←
15:32:41 <davidwood> ack ericP
David Wood: ack ericP ←
15:32:41 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask what these relative URIs look like in an RDF DB
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask what these relative URIs look like in an RDF DB ←
15:33:18 <markus> eric: is that approach possible? What do I put in for the URIs if I put such data in my DB?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: is that approach possible? What do I put in for the URIs if I put such data in my DB? ←
15:33:48 <pfps> +1 to eric
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to eric ←
15:33:53 <markus> ... there needs to be some specific ID to prevent clashes
... there needs to be some specific ID to prevent clashes ←
15:33:53 <SteveH> q+ to ask what people do now?
Steve Harris: q+ to ask what people do now? ←
15:34:16 <markus> sandro: I know I made that proposal but since I don't like it I don't wanna defend it
Sandro Hawke: I know I made that proposal but since I don't like it I don't wanna defend it ←
15:34:55 <SteveH> +1 to Pat re. option A and B
Steve Harris: +1 to Pat re. option A and B ←
15:35:02 <pfps> options? aren't we on "PROPOSED"
Peter Patel-Schneider: options? aren't we on "PROPOSED" ←
15:35:07 <markus> pat: my reaction is that options 1 and 2 are possible but should not be mandated
Patrick Hayes: my reaction is that options 1 and 2 are possible but should not be mandated ←
15:35:12 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0199.html -- NB Proposals do not align to options
Andy Seaborne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0199.html -- NB Proposals do not align to options ←
15:35:26 <markus> ... I'm in favor of allowing bnodes as graph names (option 3)
... I'm in favor of allowing bnodes as graph names (option 4) ←
15:36:07 <sandro> s/option 3/option 4/
15:36:23 <pfps> as far as semantics is concerned there is no issue with relative IRIs, so long as they are resolved by the time that the graph is constructed, but this resolution is the issue
Peter Patel-Schneider: as far as semantics is concerned there is no issue with relative IRIs, so long as they are resolved by the time that the graph is constructed, but this resolution is the issue ←
15:37:06 <davidwood> ack SteveH
David Wood: ack SteveH ←
15:37:07 <Zakim> SteveH, you wanted to ask what people do now?
Zakim IRC Bot: SteveH, you wanted to ask what people do now? ←
15:37:49 <markus> markus: JSON-LD allows that (currently feature at risk)
Markus Lanthaler: JSON-LD allows that (currently feature at risk) ←
15:38:14 <sandro> SteveH: getting data from the command line ... something other than fetching it ... we just use the standard base as if it was sucked from that location.
Steve Harris: getting data from the command line ... something other than fetching it ... we just use the standard base as if it was sucked from that location. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:38:22 <AndyS> There is always a base - if nothing else, the system has a fallback one (for us, usually unique)
Andy Seaborne: There is always a base - if nothing else, the system has a fallback one (for us, usually unique) ←
15:38:42 <yvesr> SteveH, could you give some examples of some of these issues?
Yves Raimond: SteveH, could you give some examples of some of these issues? ←
15:38:42 <davidwood> We do exactly the same thing that SteveH does - and agree that it feels "a bit dirty", but it works.
David Wood: We do exactly the same thing that SteveH does - and agree that it feels "a bit dirty", but it works. ←
15:38:45 <sandro> SteveH: Having blank nodes as graph identifiers would be a mistake
Steve Harris: Having blank nodes as graph identifiers would be a mistake [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:39:18 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:39:24 <sandro> "* ivan rdflib actually implements bnodes as graph names..."
Sandro Hawke: "* ivan rdflib actually implements bnodes as graph names..." ←
15:39:31 <AndyS> PROPOSED-C is the "no change"
Andy Seaborne: PROPOSED-C is the "no change" ←
15:39:59 <yvesr> SWI does as well afair
Yves Raimond: SWI does as well afair ←
15:40:32 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:40:51 <PatH> q
Patrick Hayes: q ←
15:41:03 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
15:41:06 <yvesr> i confirm it does indeed work in swi-prolog too
Yves Raimond: i confirm it does indeed work in swi-prolog too ←
15:41:26 <AndyS> Why not just the text as it is? RFC says there is always a base.
Andy Seaborne: Why not just the text as it is? RFC says there is always a base. ←
15:41:34 <SteveH> +! to AndyS
Steve Harris: +! to AndyS ←
15:41:40 <davidwood> From the JSON-LD minutes: RESOLUTION: JSON-LD will continue to support blank node identifiers for properties and graph names. When converting data to RDF 1.1, the specification will not introduce any special checks to handle these specific cases. It is up to the implementations to figure out how to convert this data to something conformant to RDF 1.1. http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-02-26/#resolution-3
David Wood: From the JSON-LD minutes: RESOLUTION: JSON-LD will continue to support blank node identifiers for properties and graph names. When converting data to RDF 1.1, the specification will not introduce any special checks to handle these specific cases. It is up to the implementations to figure out how to convert this data to something conformant to RDF 1.1. http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-02-26/#resolution-3 ←
15:42:14 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:42:15 <ericP> A:-.5 B:+1 C:-.9
Eric Prud'hommeaux: A:-.5 B:+1 C:-.9 ←
15:42:18 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
15:42:27 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
15:42:29 <AndyS> RFC 3986 ==> (5.1.4) Default Base URI (application-dependent)
Andy Seaborne: RFC 3986 ==> (5.1.4) Default Base URI (application-dependent) ←
15:42:58 <markus> pat: I keep hearing that current systems don't implement bnodes and thus we can't do it.
Patrick Hayes: I keep hearing that current systems don't implement bnodes and thus we can't do it. ←
15:42:59 <sandro> pat: What's the problem with blank nodes as graph identifiers?
Patrick Hayes: What's the problem with blank nodes as graph identifiers? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:43:01 <pfps> parsers break
Peter Patel-Schneider: parsers break ←
15:43:12 <ericP> i've not seen a prob with bnodes as graph identifiers
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i've not seen a prob with bnodes as graph identifiers ←
15:43:13 <markus> ... could someone explains what breaks if we do allow that?
... could someone explains what breaks if we do allow that? ←
15:43:55 <markus> ???: nothing breaks. We had a store which allowed it but users disliked it
Steve Harris: nothing breaks. We had a store which allowed it but users disliked it ←
15:44:09 <sandro> SteveH: 3store, 2 gens away, allowed it. Mostly users didnt like it because it wasn't obvious where the blank nodes came from. They were sort of minted anonymously. They came from implicit graphs that came from reasoning. This produced a general sort of feeling of unhappiness.
Steve Harris: 3store, 2 gens away, allowed it. Mostly users didnt like it because it wasn't obvious where the blank nodes came from. They were sort of minted anonymously. They came from implicit graphs that came from reasoning. This produced a general sort of feeling of unhappiness. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:44:17 <ericP> s/???: nothing/SteveH: nothing/
15:44:53 <markus> ... there's all kind of interesting questions around having variables being existential identifiers
... there's all kind of interesting questions around having variables being existential identifiers ←
15:45:02 <markus> ... it wasn't clean or elegant in any way
... it wasn't clean or elegant in any way ←
15:45:06 <sandro> ... people wanted to know if they were really existential variables, like blank nodes, since they're not in the graph. We never tries to solve that. Interesting semantics around having an identifier be an existential vairable. Having this further in the system didn't really help, and it was a bit ugly.
Sandro Hawke: ... people wanted to know if they were really existential variables, like blank nodes, since they're not in the graph. We never tries to solve that. Interesting semantics around having an identifier be an existential vairable. Having this further in the system didn't really help, and it was a bit ugly. ←
15:45:10 <davidwood> The RDF WG resolved "Datasets can use blank nodes as graph names, not just IRIs." at https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-15#resolution_2, but rescinded it the following week at https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-22#resolution_2 to an objection on the mailing list.
David Wood: The RDF WG resolved "Datasets can use blank nodes as graph names, not just IRIs." at https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-15#resolution_2, but rescinded it the following week at https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-22#resolution_2 to an objection on the mailing list. ←
15:45:15 <sandro> ... it annoyed people and didnt acieve something over UUIDs.
Sandro Hawke: ... it annoyed people and didnt acieve something over UUIDs. ←
15:45:19 <markus> ... there wasn't a fundamental problem why it didn't work
... there wasn't a fundamental problem why it didn't work ←
15:45:23 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:45:27 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
15:45:43 <markus> sandro: I take to opportunity to ask the same question
Sandro Hawke: I take to opportunity to ask the same question ←
15:46:17 <markus> ... I wanted to ask steve what happens if you do it multiple times (same base used?)
... I wanted to ask steve what happens if you do it multiple times (same base used?) ←
15:46:26 <sandro> steve: We used the same static base URI for every time.
Steve Harris: We used the same static base URI for every time. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:46:29 <markus> steveh: it is a statically defined URI
Steve Harris: it is a statically defined URI ←
15:47:14 <markus> andys: UUID generation is implemented in every OS these days
Andy Seaborne: UUID generation is implemented in every OS these days ←
15:47:33 <markus> sandro: but you can't get to it from JavaScript e.g. You have to reimplement it yourself
Sandro Hawke: but you can't get to it from JavaScript e.g. You have to reimplement it yourself ←
15:47:55 <davidwood> There are JS libraries for UUID generation. It is not like you have to implement it yourself.
David Wood: There are JS libraries for UUID generation. It is not like you have to implement it yourself. ←
15:48:00 <markus> davidwood: the fact that something is possible one way doesn't mean that we should make it illgegal doing it in another way
???: the fact that something is possible one way doesn't mean that we should make it illgegal doing it in another way ←
15:48:11 <davidwood> s/davidwood/???/
15:48:15 <PatH> that was path
Patrick Hayes: that was path ←
15:48:24 <davidwood> s/???/patH/
15:48:33 <PatH> that was path
Patrick Hayes: that was path ←
15:48:34 <davidwood> ack AndyS
David Wood: ack AndyS ←
15:48:56 <ericP> i think the static URI parsing trig will keep appending to the resolved graph names: { a :Diff ; :from <from> ; :to <to> } <from> { ... } <to> { ... }
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i think the static URI parsing trig will keep appending to the resolved graph names: { a :Diff ; :from <from> ; :to <to> } <from> { ... } <to> { ... } ←
15:49:08 <markus> andys: I'm just looking at the RFC about how to establish the base.. the last step is to fall back to an application supplied base
Andy Seaborne: I'm just looking at the RFC about how to establish the base.. the last step is to fall back to an application supplied base ←
15:49:49 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:49:50 <ericP> the implementation burden for UUIDs seems much higher than that for bnodes as graph labels
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the implementation burden for UUIDs seems much higher than that for bnodes as graph labels ←
15:50:30 <markus> markus: but isn't the problem that there is no (stable) URL?
Markus Lanthaler: but isn't the problem that there is no (stable) URL? ←
15:50:36 <SteveH> ericP, I strongly disagree
Steve Harris: ericP, I strongly disagree ←
15:50:58 <markus> davidwood: typically you get it from the web server. sandro is concerned about situations when there's no web server
David Wood: typically you get it from the web server. sandro is concerned about situations when there's no web server ←
15:51:19 <SteveH> this is a VERY old problem
Steve Harris: this is a VERY old problem ←
15:51:29 <SteveH> and it's not tripped people up yet
Steve Harris: and it's not tripped people up yet ←
15:51:43 <markus> sandro: in RDF we typically handle this by allowing either URIs or blank nodes.. this introduces a third type.. a late bound/resolved URI
Sandro Hawke: in RDF we typically handle this by allowing either URIs or blank nodes.. this introduces a third type.. a late bound/resolved URI ←
15:51:56 <ericP> i don't think i've ever had to code something funny to handle bnodes as identifiers. i just have to relax the trig parser.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i don't think i've ever had to code something funny to handle bnodes as identifiers. i just have to relax the trig parser. ←
15:51:57 <davidwood> +1 to SteveH
David Wood: +1 to SteveH ←
15:52:07 <markus> ... I'm concerned about that. There were no standardized datasets before
... I'm concerned about that. There were no standardized datasets before ←
15:52:10 <SteveH> in application != having an explicit BASE
Steve Harris: in application != having an explicit BASE ←
15:52:21 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
15:52:27 <markus> andys: I see that as an argument to not standardize that now
Andy Seaborne: I see that as an argument to not standardize that now ←
15:52:34 <markus> sandro: not standardizing datasets?
Sandro Hawke: not standardizing datasets? ←
15:52:56 <markus> andys: yes.. not allowing bnodes as graph names (we don't have experience)
Andy Seaborne: yes.. not allowing bnodes as graph names (we don't have experience) ←
15:52:56 <sandro> q+ to ask about n-quads
Sandro Hawke: q+ to ask about n-quads ←
15:53:32 <markus> davidwood: there is implementation experience (n3 formulae in triple stores)
David Wood: there is implementation experience (n3 formulae in triple stores) ←
15:54:24 <markus> path: the case for disallowing bnodes is ridicously weak
Patrick Hayes: the case for disallowing bnodes is ridicously weak ←
15:54:26 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
15:54:42 <markus> ... the strongest point is that it can be implemented by other means and that people disliked it
... the strongest point is that it can be implemented by other means and that people disliked it ←
15:54:55 <SteveH> I've not heard a strong, or well-reasoned argument in favour
Steve Harris: I've not heard a strong, or well-reasoned argument in favour ←
15:54:59 <markus> ... on the other hand we have people like the JSON-LD guys who have really strong arguments
... on the other hand we have people like the JSON-LD guys who have really strong arguments ←
15:55:09 <SteveH> RDF has too much rope as it is
Steve Harris: RDF has too much rope as it is ←
15:55:29 <markus> ... allowing bnodes doesn't mean that other mechanisms are disallowed such as skolemization to get rid of the bnodes
... allowing bnodes doesn't mean that other mechanisms are disallowed such as skolemization to get rid of the bnodes ←
15:55:53 <davidwood> ack sandro
David Wood: ack sandro ←
15:55:53 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about n-quads
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to ask about n-quads ←
15:56:26 <markus> sandro: Am I right that N-Quads couldn't serialize one of these relative datasets because the require absolute URIs?
Sandro Hawke: Am I right that N-Quads couldn't serialize one of these relative datasets because the require absolute URIs? ←
15:56:54 <markus> andys: that's a non-question
Andy Seaborne: that's a non-question ←
15:57:16 <markus> sandro: I don't consider that as a non-question is the defacto test-language isn't able to serialize it
Sandro Hawke: I don't consider that as a non-question is the defacto test-language isn't able to serialize it ←
15:58:23 <markus> andys: you can have relative IRIs in the documents you are sending but if you are putting it into a store you convert it to absolute IRIs which you can serialize in N-Quads
Andy Seaborne: you can have relative IRIs in the documents you are sending but if you are putting it into a store you convert it to absolute IRIs which you can serialize in N-Quads ←
15:58:37 <markus> davidwood: but your application has to make up the base
David Wood: but your application has to make up the base ←
15:58:39 <ericP> q?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q? ←
15:58:41 <ericP> q+
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ ←
15:59:02 <davidwood> ack ericP
David Wood: ack ericP ←
15:59:22 <Guus> q+ to make a meta remark
Guus Schreiber: q+ to make a meta remark ←
15:59:59 <sandro> davidwood, I think we're okay going long on meeting time.
Sandro Hawke: davidwood, I think we're okay going long on meeting time. ←
16:00:08 <davidwood> sandro, ack
David Wood: sandro, ack ←
16:00:48 <PatH> I am not sure what the semantics of a thing with relative IRIs could be. Semantically, each implementation of it would be a distinct entity with its own semantics.
Patrick Hayes: I am not sure what the semantics of a thing with relative IRIs could be. Semantically, each implementation of it would be a distinct entity with its own semantics. ←
16:00:54 <markus> ericp: if the test I'm executing is in N-Quads I need to extend the test harness to ensure that the generated base URI is deterministic
Eric Prud'hommeaux: if the test I'm executing is in N-Quads I need to extend the test harness to ensure that the generated base URI is deterministic ←
16:00:59 <PatH> :-)
Patrick Hayes: :-) ←
16:01:00 <markus> ... the other option is to allow bnodes
... the other option is to allow bnodes ←
16:01:20 <markus> ... so either we change N-Quads or we need to add something entertaining to the test harness
... so either we change N-Quads or we need to add something entertaining to the test harness ←
16:01:20 <SteveH> we don't need to change anything re. relative URIs, it already works that way now!
Steve Harris: we don't need to change anything re. relative URIs, it already works that way now! ←
16:01:27 <SteveH> people think this is new for some reason?
Steve Harris: people think this is new for some reason? ←
16:01:33 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
16:01:40 <davidwood> ack Guus
David Wood: ack Guus ←
16:01:40 <Zakim> Guus, you wanted to make a meta remark
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, you wanted to make a meta remark ←
16:02:08 <markus> guus: if we are not going to resolve this within the next two weeks we are in trouble
Guus Schreiber: if we are not going to resolve this within the next two weeks we are in trouble ←
16:02:16 <markus> davidwood: we can also do nothing
David Wood: we can also do nothing ←
16:02:27 <sandro> -1
Sandro Hawke: -1 ←
16:02:30 <pfps> I thought that the core of the "relative" process is that there is something that turns these relative IRIs into absolute IRIs just before the real triples are created
Peter Patel-Schneider: I thought that the core of the "relative" process is that there is something that turns these relative IRIs into absolute IRIs just before the real triples are created ←
16:02:31 <markus> guus: than we agree on proposal C
Guus Schreiber: than we agree on proposal C ←
16:02:52 <markus> sandro: I don't agree, we need to choose the best option
Sandro Hawke: I don't agree, we need to choose the best option ←
16:03:18 <PatH> pfps, but my point theni s that the datathingie *with relative IRIs* itself has no semantics.
Patrick Hayes: pfps, but my point theni s that the datathingie *with relative IRIs* itself has no semantics. ←
16:03:21 <markus> guus: I don't say we choose proposal C, but that's what we need to do if we can't reach consensus within two week
Guus Schreiber: I don't say we choose proposal C, but that's what we need to do if we can't reach consensus within two week ←
16:03:31 <sandro> STRAWPOLL: (proposed-a (relative URIs)), proposed-b (blank node graph names), proposed-c: do nothing)
STRAWPOLL: (proposed-a (relative URIs)), proposed-b (blank node graph names), proposed-c: do nothing) ←
16:03:35 <ericP> A:-.5 B:+1 C:-.9
Eric Prud'hommeaux: A:-.5 B:+1 C:-.9 ←
16:03:36 <SteveH> technically, A and C are equivalent, as far as I can see
Steve Harris: technically, A and C are equivalent, as far as I can see ←
16:03:38 <PatH> It is a kind of schema.
Patrick Hayes: It is a kind of schema. ←
16:03:46 <markus> sandro: no, we could also go with proposal A then
Sandro Hawke: no, we could also go with proposal A then ←
16:03:57 <pfps> path: yes, but the datathingie is not an RDF graph, nor does it contain RDF triples, so it doesn't deserve any semantics
Patrick Hayes: yes, but the datathingie is not an RDF graph, nor does it contain RDF triples, so it doesn't deserve any semantics [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
16:04:23 <SteveH> it's not ambiguous, it's in the RFC
Steve Harris: it's not ambiguous, it's in the RFC ←
16:04:23 <pfps> how can proposal A be a "may"?
Peter Patel-Schneider: how can proposal A be a "may"? ←
16:04:38 <markus> A: -0; B: +1; C: -1
A: -0; B: +1; C: -1 ←
16:04:49 <davidwood> A; +1, B: −0 (because cygri has already objected), C: −0.5
David Wood: A; +1, B: −0 (because cygri has already objected), C: −0.5 ←
16:04:55 <SteveH> A: -0 B: -1 C: +1
Steve Harris: A: -0 B: -1 C: +1 ←
16:04:58 <sandro> PROPOSED-A Close ISSUE-131 with rdf-concepts saying that RDF syntaxes and toolkits MAY support RDF (graph and/or dataset) serializations which use relative URIs and a base that is only determined by the receiver.
Sandro Hawke: PROPOSED-A Close ISSUE-131 with rdf-concepts saying that RDF syntaxes and toolkits MAY support RDF (graph and/or dataset) serializations which use relative URIs and a base that is only determined by the receiver. ←
16:04:59 <yvesr> A:0 B:+0.9 C: -0.9
Yves Raimond: A:0 B:+0.9 C: -0.9 ←
16:05:02 <PatH> pfps: Well, OK, but that does seem strange (to me). Datasets are defined so that they cannot possibly have any data...
Peter Patel-Schneider: Well, OK, but that does seem strange (to me). Datasets are defined so that they cannot possibly have any data... [ Scribe Assist by Patrick Hayes ] ←
16:05:05 <zwu2> A:-0; B: -1, C:+1
16:05:12 <davidwood> PROPOSED-A: Close ISSUE-131 with rdf-concepts saying that RDF syntaxes and toolkits MAY support RDF (graph and/or dataset) serializations which use relative URIs and a base that is only determined by the receiver.
David Wood: PROPOSED-A: Close ISSUE-131 with rdf-concepts saying that RDF syntaxes and toolkits MAY support RDF (graph and/or dataset) serializations which use relative URIs and a base that is only determined by the receiver. ←
16:05:12 <davidwood>
16:05:12 <davidwood> PROPOSED-B: Close ISSUE-131 by allowing blank nodes as graph names.
David Wood: PROPOSED-B: Close ISSUE-131 by allowing blank nodes as graph names. ←
16:05:12 <davidwood>
16:05:12 <davidwood> PROPOSED-C: Close ISSUE-131 without adding any text on this subject to our specifications.
David Wood: PROPOSED-C: Close ISSUE-131 without adding any text on this subject to our specifications. ←
16:05:18 <sandro> A:-.5 B+1: C: -.9
Sandro Hawke: A:-.5 B+1: C: -.9 ←
16:05:19 <AndyS> 0.5 / -0.5 / 1 (A is not good use of editor time)
Andy Seaborne: 0.5 / -0.5 / 1 (A is not good use of editor time) ←
16:05:25 <TallTed> A: +0.5 B: +1 C: -0.5
Ted Thibodeau: A: +0.5 B: +1 C: -0.5 ←
16:05:25 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:05:44 <PatH> A:-1 B:+1 C:-1
Patrick Hayes: A:-1 B:+1 C:-1 ←
16:05:44 <pfps> A: -0.5 B: +0.9 C +0.5
Peter Patel-Schneider: A: -0.5 B: +0.9 C +0.5 ←
16:05:47 <markus> davidwood: proposal B is exactly what Richard objected to
David Wood: proposal B is exactly what Richard objected to ←
16:06:10 <markus> andys: why do we reopen this one and nothing else
Andy Seaborne: why do we reopen this one and nothing else ←
16:06:21 <ivan> A: 0.5 B: -0 (same issue as david with FO) C: -0.5
Ivan Herman: A: 0.5 B: -0 (same issue as david with FO) C: -0.5 ←
16:06:21 <markus> davidwood: I'm not comfortable with this one
David Wood: I'm not comfortable with this one ←
16:07:10 <sandro> eric: Cost of B to SPARQL? SPARQL implementors would feel a pressure to add support for blank node graph names.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Cost of B to SPARQL? SPARQL implementors would feel a pressure to add support for blank node graph names. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:07:23 <SteveH> SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH _:abc { ?s ?p ?o } } doesn't do what you want in SPARQL
Steve Harris: SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH _:abc { ?s ?p ?o } } doesn't do what you want in SPARQL ←
16:07:25 <davidwood> So, we have objections to B and C, but none on A (even though people don't like it very much).
David Wood: So, we have objections to B and C, but none on A (even though people don't like it very much). ←
16:07:30 <pfps> I'm not seeing a *COST* there
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm not seeing a *COST* there ←
16:07:31 <markus> eric: maybe we should do a quick cost-analysis. What do SPARQL implementers need to change? What if LDP decides to use that as patch format?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: maybe we should do a quick cost-analysis. What do SPARQL implementers need to change? What if LDP decides to use that as patch format? ←
16:07:33 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
16:07:56 <davidwood> Correction, we have objections to all three
David Wood: Correction, we have objections to all three ←
16:07:59 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:08:07 <AndyS> +1 to SteveH
Andy Seaborne: +1 to SteveH ←
16:08:09 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
16:08:11 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
16:08:22 <markus> ivan: I would like to understand that objection
Ivan Herman: I would like to understand that objection ←
16:08:50 <markus> ... relative URIs do not appear in the abstract syntax - just in serializations
... relative URIs do not appear in the abstract syntax - just in serializations ←
16:08:58 <sandro> yeah, I really don't like serializations that are no g-snaps.
Sandro Hawke: yeah, I really don't like serializations that are no g-snaps. ←
16:09:07 <markus> ... which means that they have to invent a way to transform them to absolute URIs
... which means that they have to invent a way to transform them to absolute URIs ←
16:09:21 <markus> path: it's not an objection in the sense of a formal objection
Patrick Hayes: it's not an objection in the sense of a formal objection ←
16:10:00 <markus> ivan: it's purely a matter of serialization and has nothing to do with concepts and semantics
Ivan Herman: it's purely a matter of serialization and has nothing to do with concepts and semantics ←
16:10:06 <SteveH> this ambiguous situation already exists, and is commonly used, no amount of wishing will make it go away - we could ban it, but that would be crazy
Steve Harris: this ambiguous situation already exists, and is commonly used, no amount of wishing will make it go away - we could ban it, but that would be crazy ←
16:10:13 <ericP> how about if we just use rdf:reification (which permits bnodes as rdf:Statement names)?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: how about if we just use rdf:reification (which permits bnodes as rdf:Statement names)? ←
16:10:33 <markus> path: what happens if we go with route A? What is the result? Is it a document?
Patrick Hayes: what happens if we go with route A? What is the result? Is it a document? ←
16:11:02 <markus> ... there's one dataset at one end and a different at the other end because there are different bases
... there's one dataset at one end and a different at the other end because there are different bases ←
16:11:11 <TallTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
16:11:13 <markus> davidwood: there's no dataset on the first end
Patrick Hayes: there's no dataset on the first end ←
16:11:15 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:11:15 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
16:11:24 <davidwood> s/davidwood/path/
16:11:26 <markus> path: well, but different systems will produce different datasets
Patrick Hayes: well, but different systems will produce different datasets ←
16:11:31 <markus> ivan: that's true
Ivan Herman: that's true ←
16:11:45 <SteveH> PatH, this happens now <s> <p> "o" . is a legit RDF serialisation
Steve Harris: PatH, this happens now <s> <p> "o" . is a legit RDF serialisation ←
16:11:50 <AndyS> Same is true of Turtle today of graphs. <s> <p> <o> .
Andy Seaborne: Same is true of Turtle today of graphs. <s> <p> <o> . ←
16:11:57 <SteveH> right
Steve Harris: right ←
16:12:16 <markus> eric: the issue here is that bnodes as identifiers are useful
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the issue here is that bnodes as identifiers are useful ←
16:12:26 <davidwood> ack TallTed
David Wood: ack TallTed ←
16:12:30 <markus> sandro: I think you are misunderstanding, we are talking about relative URIs
Sandro Hawke: I think you are misunderstanding, we are talking about relative URIs ←
16:12:36 <AndyS> And they are different bnodes in every dataset parsed out of same doc at different times.
Andy Seaborne: And they are different bnodes in every dataset parsed out of same doc at different times. ←
16:13:03 <markus> davidwood: sandro, if you are not a web server you are creating this thingy but you are not publishing to the world
David Wood: sandro, if you are not a web server you are creating this thingy but you are not publishing to the world ←
16:13:11 <markus> sandro: no, I would like to publish it to the world
Sandro Hawke: no, I would like to publish it to the world ←
16:13:34 <markus> davidwood: but once you hand it over to the web server it can decide how to do that
David Wood: but once you hand it over to the web server it can decide how to do that ←
16:14:04 <markus> sandro: if I'm part of the web server then yes. But if there are intermediaries etc. then it gets problematic
Sandro Hawke: if I'm part of the web server then yes. But if there are intermediaries etc. then it gets problematic ←
16:14:10 <SteveH> how is that different to what happens in RDF?
Steve Harris: how is that different to what happens in RDF? ←
16:14:13 <markus> ... it may end up in different places with different graph names
... it may end up in different places with different subjects ←
16:14:24 <SteveH> s/graph name/subject/ - so what?
16:14:31 <markus> q+
q+ ←
16:14:32 <TallTed> if I (stupid web client) am pushing to web server, server can assign a final URI ... which I should receive from that server for further pushes (whether to same or different web server)
Ted Thibodeau: if I (stupid web client) am pushing to web server, server can assign a final URI ... which I should receive from that server for further pushes (whether to same or different web server) ←
16:14:45 <AndyS> ?? multiple names (of resources) are the norm -- no UNA
Andy Seaborne: ?? multiple names (of resources) are the norm -- no UNA ←
16:15:15 <markus> sandro: the problem is that you can't create an anonymous dataset on the client
Sandro Hawke: the problem is that you can't create an anonymous dataset on the client ←
16:15:54 <markus> eric: until you get to the server you can't use the standard specs/tooling
Eric Prud'hommeaux: until you get to the server you can't use the standard specs/tooling ←
16:15:54 <sandro> sandro: Only a webserve can create a standard dataset. Anything else has to work as part of an application, in a not-standard way.
Sandro Hawke: Only a webserve can create a standard dataset. Anything else has to work as part of an application, in a not-standard way. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:16:33 <SteveH> *sigh* we don't get to disallow relative URIs
Steve Harris: *sigh* we don't get to disallow relative URIs ←
16:16:41 <davidwood> ack markus
David Wood: ack markus ←
16:16:49 <sandro> no one is trying to disallow relative URIs.
Sandro Hawke: no one is trying to disallow relative URIs. ←
16:17:20 <yvesr> markus, +1
Yves Raimond: markus, +1 ←
16:17:25 <SteveH> a significant proportion of real users don't like bNodes in graphs - adding them as graph (non)identifiers isn't going to be popular
Steve Harris: a significant proportion of real users don't like bNodes in graphs - adding them as graph (non)identifiers isn't going to be popular ←
16:17:25 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
16:17:25 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
16:17:26 <sandro> marcus: How is a blank-node graph name any different from a blank-node subject?
Markus Lanthaler: How is a blank-node graph name any different from a blank-node subject? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:17:28 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
16:17:55 <markus> markus: my question is what the difference to bnodes for subjects is. if I can't assign a URI to a subject I use a bnode, why can't I just do the same for graphs?
Markus Lanthaler: my question is what the difference to bnodes for subjects is. if I can't assign a URI to a subject I use a bnode, why can't I just do the same for graphs? ←
16:18:08 <markus> s/marcus/markus/
16:18:16 <yvesr> SteveH, hmm - i wouldn't think so - all RDFa users or JSON-LD users are creating lots of bnodes without even realising it
Yves Raimond: SteveH, hmm - i wouldn't think so - all RDFa users or JSON-LD users are creating lots of bnodes without even realising it ←
16:18:44 <markus> sandro: Richard didn't make a formal objection he just said he might do
Sandro Hawke: Richard didn't make a formal objection he just said he might do ←
16:19:42 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:19:45 <markus> davidwood: let's please try to continue this discussion on the mailing list
David Wood: let's please try to continue this discussion on the mailing list ←
16:19:53 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me ←
16:19:53 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should no longer be muted ←
16:20:21 <pfps> it would be nice to get more information from Deri on why they are threatening to object
Peter Patel-Schneider: it would be nice to get more information from Deri on why they are threatening to object ←
16:20:37 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
16:20:42 <markus> eric: can I propose that the editors of concepts and semantics would remove all references to datasets from the documents so that we can go to LC?
Patrick Hayes: can I propose that the editors of concepts and semantics would remove all references to datasets from the documents so that we can go to LC? ←
16:20:52 <markus> davidwood: prob. simpler to mark as at risk
David Wood: prob. simpler to mark as at risk ←
16:20:58 <SteveH> I would object too
Steve Harris: I would object too ←
16:21:09 <ericP> s/eric: can I/PatH: can I/
16:21:15 <SteveH> I wasn't here two weeks ago
Steve Harris: I wasn't here two weeks ago ←
16:21:20 <markus> ivan: Richard said he will raise a formal objection could the chairs talk to Richard directly
Ivan Herman: Richard said he will raise a formal objection could the chairs talk to Richard directly ←
16:21:24 <SteveH> will explain in email
Steve Harris: will explain in email ←
16:21:38 <markus> sandro: maybe we can ask anyone who would object to send a mail to the mailing list
Sandro Hawke: maybe we can ask anyone who would object to send a mail to the mailing list ←
16:22:16 <markus> ivan: I know that Richard is extremely busy but we need to get the discussion rolling
Ivan Herman: I know that Richard is extremely busy but we need to get the discussion rolling ←
16:22:16 <AndyS> zhe?
Andy Seaborne: zhe? ←
16:22:37 <zwu2> I would object too, AndyS
Zhe Wu: I would object too, AndyS ←
16:22:46 <markus> eric: could we just mark it as feature at risk which would give SPARQL implementers time
Eric Prud'hommeaux: could we just mark it as feature at risk which would give SPARQL implementers time ←
16:22:56 <davidwood> Richard's latest comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0201.html
David Wood: Richard's latest comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0201.html ←
16:23:00 <markus> ... which might satisfy people who are concerned
... which might satisfy people who are concerned ←
16:23:23 <markus> ivan: we can certainly do that but I'm not sure that it's wise given we have two potential formal objections within our group
Ivan Herman: we can certainly do that but I'm not sure that it's wise given we have two potential formal objections within our group ←
16:23:53 <markus> ivan: Richard's response doesn't contain arguments against it
Ivan Herman: Richard's response doesn't contain arguments against it ←
16:24:10 <markus> andys: well, he said why he doesn't like it
Andy Seaborne: well, he said why he doesn't like it ←
16:24:50 <markus> path: my basic point is that we should only disallow if there are very good reasons to disallow
Patrick Hayes: my basic point is that we should only disallow if there are very good reasons to disallow ←
16:25:03 <SteveH> yes, I beiieve quite strongly in don't change without a good reason
Steve Harris: yes, I beiieve quite strongly in don't change without a good reason ←
16:25:08 <markus> ... other people think that we should not change unless there are very good reasons to change
... other people think that we should not change unless there are very good reasons to change ←
16:25:08 <sandro> pat: We should only disallow something when there is a strong reason for that. Other people are taking a "don't change unless there's a strong reason" position, which is also reasonable.
Patrick Hayes: We should only disallow something when there is a strong reason for that. Other people are taking a "don't change unless there's a strong reason" position, which is also reasonable. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:25:15 <AndyS> Want to hear a response to -- (17:07:23) SteveH: SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH _:abc { ?s ?p ?o } } doesn't do what you want in SPARQL
Andy Seaborne: Want to hear a response to -- (17:07:23) SteveH: SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH _:abc { ?s ?p ?o } } doesn't do what you want in SPARQL ←
16:25:17 <SteveH> we;ve spent millions of dollars implementing the specs we have
Steve Harris: we;ve spent millions of dollars implementing the specs we have ←
16:25:43 <SteveH> anyway, email later
Steve Harris: anyway, email later ←
16:25:51 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:25:51 <sandro> AndyS, I want to understand that. What does it do? What should it do? Steve, can you explain in email?
Sandro Hawke: AndyS, I want to understand that. What does it do? What should it do? Steve, can you explain in email? ←
16:25:52 <Zakim> -davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood ←
16:25:54 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
16:25:56 <zwu2> thanks
16:25:57 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
16:26:05 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
16:26:07 <Zakim> -pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: -pfps ←
16:26:15 <Zakim> -yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: -yvesr ←
16:26:26 <PatH> I dont find the millions of dollars argument at all persuasive. In a word: tough. Or, go tell that to Microsoft.
Patrick Hayes: I dont find the millions of dollars argument at all persuasive. In a word: tough. Or, go tell that to Microsoft. ←
16:27:16 <AndyS> sandro - you should provide the explanation as part of your proposal - it's an implication of the design.
Andy Seaborne: sandro - you should provide the explanation as part of your proposal - it's an implication of the design. ←
16:28:25 <Zakim> -Guus_Schreiber
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus_Schreiber ←
16:39:20 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
16:39:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, SteveH, ericP, markus, AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Sandro, SteveH, ericP, markus, AndyS ←
16:40:52 <AndyS> GSP requires naming?
Andy Seaborne: GSP requires naming? ←
16:41:11 <sandro> sandro: Blank nodes are the worst possible approach, except for all the other approaches.
Sandro Hawke: Blank nodes are the worst possible approach, except for all the other approaches. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:42:21 <SteveH> IMHO <http://graph.prefix/$uuid> is better in every way
Steve Harris: IMHO <http://graph.prefix/$uuid> is better in every way ←
16:42:41 <SteveH> in reality there a no clients that can't generate something equivalent to a UUID
Steve Harris: in reality there a no clients that can't generate something equivalent to a UUID ←
16:42:44 <sandro> <sandro> pat: We should only disallow something when there is a strong reason for that. Other people are taking a "don't change unless there's a strong reason" position, which is also reasonable.
Sandro Hawke: <sandro> pat: We should only disallow something when there is a strong reason for that. Other people are taking a "don't change unless there's a strong reason" position, which is also reasonable. ←
16:44:31 <sandro> zakim, who is making noise?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is making noise? ←
16:44:44 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (20%), AndyS (50%)
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (20%), AndyS (50%) ←
16:46:13 <SteveH> people are always free to add non-standard features to RDF...
Steve Harris: people are always free to add non-standard features to RDF... ←
16:46:35 <davidwood> You, too, SteveH ;)
David Wood: You, too, SteveH ;) ←
16:47:39 <SteveH> there's lots of different entailment rules that could come out...
Steve Harris: there's lots of different entailment rules that could come out... ←
16:47:49 <SteveH> yet
Steve Harris: yet ←
16:48:01 <SteveH> owl people will want them
Steve Harris: owl people will want them ←
16:52:24 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
16:52:26 <Zakim> -markus
Zakim IRC Bot: -markus ←
16:52:39 <AndyS> I could support some text that noted it MAY happen in a later WG (and other possible features).
Andy Seaborne: I could support some text that noted it MAY happen in a later WG (and other possible features). ←
16:52:46 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
16:52:46 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:52:47 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:52:47 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended ←
16:52:48 <Zakim> Attendees were pfps, Sandro, AndyS, davidwood, Ivan, TallTed, SteveH, Guus_Schreiber, ericP, zwu2, yvesr, markus, Arnaud, PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were pfps, Sandro, AndyS, davidwood, Ivan, TallTed, SteveH, Guus_Schreiber, ericP, zwu2, yvesr, markus, Arnaud, PatH ←
17:32:24 <gavinc> Please see recent email regrading proposed changes to Turtle to meet todays resolution. ( gkellogg, ericP, AndyS )
(No events recorded for 39 minutes)
Gavin Carothers: Please see recent email regrading proposed changes to Turtle to meet todays resolution. ( gkellogg, ericP, AndyS ) ←
17:32:53 <AndyS> yes.
Andy Seaborne: yes. ←
17:34:28 <AndyS> What do you want from me? (it will have to be tomorrow)
Andy Seaborne: What do you want from me? (it will have to be tomorrow) ←
17:34:51 <gavinc> Nothing, if you can live those.
Gavin Carothers: Nothing, if you can live those. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe