15:07:36 <AndyS> scribenick: AndyS
(Scribe set to Andy Seaborne)
15:07:43 <AndyS> scribe: AndyS
15:06:54 <AndyS> topic: admin
15:07:49 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 12 June telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-12
David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 12 June telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-12 ←
15:07:52 <AndyS> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.19
15:07:57 <pfps> minutes are fine
Peter Patel-Schneider: minutes are fine ←
15:08:24 <davidwood> RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 12 June telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-12
RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 12 June telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-12 ←
15:08:30 <ericP> davidwood, i'm in the LDP F2F, but can switch over here when talking about Turtle
Eric Prud'hommeaux: davidwood, i'm in the LDP F2F, but can switch over here when talking about Turtle ←
15:08:35 <davidwood> Review of action items
David Wood: Review of action items ←
15:08:36 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview ←
15:08:36 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open ←
15:08:41 <AndyS> topic: Action items
15:09:13 <davidwood> ACTION-226?
15:09:13 <trackbot> ACTION-226 -- Richard Cyganiak to implement ISSUE-111 resolution -- due 2013-02-13 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-226 -- Richard Cyganiak to implement ISSUE-111 resolution -- due 2013-02-13 -- OPEN ←
15:09:13 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/226
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/226 ←
15:09:24 <AndyS> pfps: Close action on ACTION-226 for ISSUE-111
Peter Patel-Schneider: Close action on ACTION-226 for ISSUE-111 ←
15:09:36 <AndyS> ... no-op.
... no-op. ←
15:10:12 <AndyS> Close ACTION-226
Close ACTION-226 ←
15:10:12 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-226 Implement ISSUE-111 resolution.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-226 Implement ISSUE-111 resolution. ←
15:10:53 <davidwood> ACTION-256?
15:10:54 <trackbot> ACTION-256 -- Gavin Carothers to link TriG to new text in RDF Concepts -- due 2013-05-01 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-256 -- Gavin Carothers to link TriG to new text in RDF Concepts -- due 2013-05-01 -- OPEN ←
15:10:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/256
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/256 ←
15:10:55 <AndyS> pfps: Need work on ACTION-256
Peter Patel-Schneider: Need work on ACTION-256 ←
15:11:11 <ericP> ACTION: ericP to respond to LC issues (11, 12, 18, 37)
ACTION: ericP to respond to LC issues (11, 12, 18, 37) ←
15:11:12 <trackbot> Created ACTION-273 - Respond to LC issues (11, 12, 18, 37) [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-06-26].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-273 - Respond to LC issues (11, 12, 18, 37) [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-06-26]. ←
15:11:39 <Zakim> +??P35
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P35 ←
15:11:40 <ericP> that should close 271
Eric Prud'hommeaux: that should close 271 ←
15:11:42 <markus> zakim, ??P35 is me
Markus Lanthaler: zakim, ??P35 is me ←
15:11:42 <Zakim> +markus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +markus; got it ←
15:11:58 <AndyS> (Archaeology occurs)
(Archaeology occurs) ←
15:13:26 <Zakim> +Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri ←
15:13:27 <gavinc> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#sec-graph-statements
Gavin Carothers: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#sec-graph-statements ←
15:13:42 <sandro> sandro: I see the resolution to issue-131 has not yet been reflected in rdf-concepts. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-dataset
Sandro Hawke: I see the resolution to ISSUE-131 has not yet been reflected in rdf-concepts. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-dataset [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:13:49 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:14:00 <AndyS> pfps: action-107 has not made it into concepts.
Peter Patel-Schneider: ACTION-107 has not made it into concepts. ←
15:14:05 <AndyS> ACTION-107?
15:14:05 <trackbot> ACTION-107 -- Richard Cyganiak to add a note to RDF Concepts re ISSUE-75 -- due 2011-10-20 -- CLOSED
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-107 -- Richard Cyganiak to add a note to RDF Concepts re ISSUE-75 -- due 2011-10-20 -- CLOSED ←
15:14:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/107
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/107 ←
15:14:09 <Guus> zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, +[IPcaller] is me ←
15:14:09 <Zakim> sorry, Guus, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Guus, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' ←
15:14:30 <Guus> zaki, IPCaller is me
Guus Schreiber: zaki, IPCaller is me ←
15:14:35 <AndyS> gavinc: wrong action?
Gavin Carothers: wrong action? ←
15:15:00 <Guus> zakim, IPCaller is me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
15:15:00 <Zakim> +Guus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus; got it ←
15:15:12 <Guus> zakim, mute me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, mute me ←
15:15:12 <Zakim> Guus should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus should now be muted ←
15:15:27 <AndyS> pfps: 24 April ... blank nodes can be shared
Peter Patel-Schneider: 24 April ... blank nodes can be shared ←
15:15:41 <AndyS> gavinc: done ... need more for blank node for graph names.
Gavin Carothers: done ... need more for blank node for graph names. ←
15:15:43 <davidwood> https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-12#resolution_1
David Wood: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-12#resolution_1 ←
15:16:15 <AndyS> davidwood: I'll do that
David Wood: I'll do that ←
15:16:41 <davidwood> ACTION: davidwood to implement https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-12#resolution_1 in Concepts
ACTION: davidwood to implement https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-12#resolution_1 in Concepts ←
15:16:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-274 - Implement https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-12#resolution_1 in Concepts [on David Wood - due 2013-06-26].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-274 - Implement https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-12#resolution_1 in Concepts [on David Wood - due 2013-06-26]. ←
15:17:18 <AndyS> pfps: success on action-272
Peter Patel-Schneider: success on ACTION-272 ←
15:18:11 <PatH> noisy typing
Patrick Hayes: noisy typing ←
15:18:16 <AndyS> davidwood: proposal to deal with public comments which are discussion and formal comments
David Wood: proposal to deal with public comments which are discussion and formal comments ←
15:18:16 <pfps> action-272 is closed
Peter Patel-Schneider: ACTION-272 is closed ←
15:18:29 <sandro> close action-272
Sandro Hawke: close ACTION-272 ←
15:18:30 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-272 Send email describing the differences between Antoine's view and the current draft (eg you don't know what the datatype interpretation is).
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-272 Send email describing the differences between Antoine's view and the current draft (eg you don't know what the datatype interpretation is). ←
15:18:31 <Guus> for the record, I closed action 271, done
Guus Schreiber: for the record, I closed ACTION-271, done ←
15:19:02 <AndyS> ... list is part of the formal process but it has had "other stuff" recently (and before). Need to get under control.
... list is part of the formal process but it has had "other stuff" recently (and before). Need to get under control. ←
15:19:26 <AndyS> ... danger of loosing (real) comments
... danger of losing (real) comments ←
15:19:35 <pfps> q+
15:19:41 <TallTed> s/loosing/losing/
15:19:50 <AndyS> ... so please do not reply until there is a formal thing to say as decided by a chair.
... so please do not reply until there is a formal thing to say as decided by a chair. ←
15:20:10 <pfps> q- because Pat said what I wanted to
Peter Patel-Schneider: q- because Pat said what I wanted to ←
15:20:15 <davidwood> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
15:20:25 <AndyS> path: std response for incoming.
Patrick Hayes: std response for incoming. ←
15:20:34 <AndyS> ... will draft text
... will draft text ←
15:20:42 <AndyS> sandro: set up as autoreply
Sandro Hawke: set up as autoreply ←
15:21:13 <AndyS> gavinc: where should be the discussion be?
Gavin Carothers: where should be the discussion be? ←
15:21:28 <Guus> semantic-web list is the propoer forum for many discussions
Guus Schreiber: semantic-web list is the propoer forum for many discussions ←
15:21:46 <AndyS> davidwood: else where eg. semantic-web@w3.org ... need to have a functioning comments process
David Wood: else where eg. semantic-web@w3.org ... need to have a functioning comments process ←
15:21:52 <Guus> publi-comments only for relevant design dcomments
Guus Schreiber: publi-comments only for relevant design dcomments ←
15:21:53 <pfps> +1 to this sentiment
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1 to this sentiment ←
15:22:45 <PatH> Proposed autorespond text: DUring the Last Call period, this email list is restricted to change requests on the LC documents and official responses to those requests. Members of the WG will not respond to more general comments or discussions on this list. PLease re-post your comment on a different public list. THank you.
Patrick Hayes: Proposed autorespond text: DUring the Last Call period, this email list is restricted to change requests on the LC documents and official responses to those requests. Members of the WG will not respond to more general comments or discussions on this list. PLease re-post your comment on a different public list. THank you. ←
15:22:54 <AndyS> gavinc: e.g. discussion on turtle as has happened.
Gavin Carothers: e.g. discussion on turtle as has happened. ←
15:23:04 <pfps> q+
15:23:29 <pfps> the autorespond text should be permanent, not just during last call
Peter Patel-Schneider: the autorespond text should be permanent, not just during last call ←
15:23:47 <AndyS> Extra list? rdf-spec-discuss? Specifically NOT comments.
Extra list? rdf-spec-discuss? Specifically NOT comments. ←
15:23:51 <davidwood> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
15:24:19 <Guus> in other groups we have always done it this way: first propose a draft response to the WG
Guus Schreiber: in other groups we have always done it this way: first propose a draft response to the WG ←
15:24:27 <PatH> SO lets add a pointer to that list in the autrespond text.
Patrick Hayes: SO lets add a pointer to that list in the autrespond text. ←
15:24:29 <AndyS> pfps: semantic-web@ is for this.
Peter Patel-Schneider: semantic-web@ is for this. ←
15:25:15 <AndyS> ... drive-by email lists
... drive-by email lists ←
15:25:20 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:25:59 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
15:25:59 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should no longer be muted ←
15:26:00 <AndyS> davidwood: pat/text :: sandro/setup auto :: davidwood/tell list
David Wood: pat/text :: sandro/setup auto :: davidwood/tell list ←
15:26:05 <Guus> the message to the chairs should normally be cc or to WG as a whole, so all can see what;s happening
Guus Schreiber: the message to the chairs should normally be cc or to WG as a whole, so all can see what;s happening ←
15:26:46 <AndyS> sandro: TallTed -- please pass on this conversation to Kingsley.
Sandro Hawke: TallTed -- please pass on this conversation to Kingsley. ←
15:27:06 <AndyS> TallTed: OK - will try.
Ted Thibodeau: OK - will try. ←
15:27:31 <TallTed> TallTed: I suggest a message from the Chair to all WG members, as Kingsley isn't the only one not on this call.
Ted Thibodeau: I suggest a message from the Chair to all WG members, as Kingsley isn't the only one not on this call. [ Scribe Assist by Ted Thibodeau ] ←
15:27:31 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:27:31 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:27:35 <AndyS> topic: LC Drafts of Concepts and Semantics
15:27:58 <AndyS> davidwood: semantics first
David Wood: semantics first ←
15:28:06 <davidwood> Discussion thread on review by Antoine of Semantics:
David Wood: Discussion thread on review by Antoine of Semantics: ←
15:28:06 <davidwood> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0085.html
David Wood: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0085.html ←
15:28:34 <AndyS> (scribe has not followed this thread in email in all details)
(scribe has not followed this thread in email in all details) ←
15:29:05 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:29:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.408.992.aaaa, gkellogg, davidwood, Ivan, PatH, AndyS, TallTed (muted), Sandro, AZ, GavinC, markus, Souri, Guus (muted)
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.408.992.aaaa, gkellogg, davidwood, Ivan, PatH, AndyS, TallTed (muted), Sandro, AZ, GavinC, markus, Souri, Guus (muted) ←
15:30:09 <Zakim> +??P5
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P5 ←
15:30:12 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:30:16 <pchampin> zakim, ??P5 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P5 is me ←
15:30:16 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:30:17 <AndyS> AZ: datatype URIs -- new design has just a set of IRIs , no maps -- we need to know what they denote
Antoine Zimmermann: datatype URIs -- new design has just a set of IRIs , no maps -- we need to know what they denote ←
15:30:44 <AndyS> ... second issue is entailment of set sof RDF graphs (scribe: union discussion?)
... second issue is entailment of set sof RDF graphs (scribe: union discussion?) ←
15:31:47 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:31:50 <AndyS> ... set entails the union, it was each of the sets. Does not follow normal practice. RDF is not the same as conjunction (correct?)
... set entails the union, it was each of the sets. Does not follow normal practice. RDF is not the same as conjunction (correct?) ←
15:32:26 <AndyS> ... will provide some proposed text that meets my concerns.
... will provide some proposed text that meets my concerns. ←
15:32:50 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:33:10 <PatH> q
Patrick Hayes: q ←
15:34:23 <AndyS> ivan: restrictions on datatype URIs ... normative text around it covers the conditions ... semantic conditions are not all in the maths
Ivan Herman: restrictions on datatype URIs ... normative text around it covers the conditions ... semantic conditions are not all in the maths ←
15:35:02 <AndyS> AZ: pfps argues there is not real difference as RDF 2004. But then I don't don't understand why the new design/ expression of design is better.
Antoine Zimmermann: pfps argues there is not real difference as RDF 2004. But then I don't don't understand why the new design/ expression of design is better. ←
15:35:07 <sandro> It's editorial, but important editorially.
Sandro Hawke: It's editorial, but important editorially. ←
15:35:28 <pfps> there may be a point on the definition of entailment on sets of graphs
Peter Patel-Schneider: there may be a point on the definition of entailment on sets of graphs ←
15:35:34 <AndyS> ivan: better exposition
Ivan Herman: better exposition ←
15:35:59 <Guus> +1 to Ivan
Guus Schreiber: +1 to Ivan ←
15:36:05 <AndyS> ... a big issue has been the limted readership of the doc
... a big issue has been the limted readership of the doc ←
15:36:46 <AndyS> AZ: I am not saying it is the same design.
Antoine Zimmermann: I am not saying it is the same design. ←
15:37:17 <Guus> ack PatH
Guus Schreiber: ack PatH ←
15:38:04 <AndyS> path: latest draft has some improvements - let's discuss relative to that
Patrick Hayes: latest draft has some improvements - let's discuss relative to that ←
15:38:14 <AndyS> ... fixes a small point
... fixes a small point ←
15:38:31 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
15:38:53 <AndyS> ... a slight difference to 2004 is that 2004 D-mapping allows xsd:string mapping to data times
... a slight difference to 2004 is that 2004 D-mapping allows xsd:string mapping to data times ←
15:39:18 <AndyS> ... and now it is not allowed to have a different D-entailment
... and now it is not allowed to have a different D-entailment ←
15:39:30 <Guus> Note that LC for Semantics is on our critical path; we have to have very good reasons NOT to go there; Feature at Risk is a possibility I guess
Guus Schreiber: Note that LC for Semantics is on our critical path; we have to have very good reasons NOT to go there; Feature at Risk is a possibility I guess ←
15:39:33 <AndyS> ... also I belive/hope that doc is more accessible.
... also I belive/hope that doc is more accessible. ←
15:39:36 <pfps> not only is it illegal to mess with, e.g, xs datatypes, the mechanism in RDF is now consonant with the mechanism in xs datatypes
Peter Patel-Schneider: not only is it illegal to mess with, e.g, xs datatypes, the mechanism in RDF is now consonant with the mechanism in xs datatypes ←
15:40:05 <AndyS> AZ: can add a constraint that these IRIs must map to the normal meaning
Antoine Zimmermann: can add a constraint that these IRIs must map to the normal meaning ←
15:40:28 <AndyS> path: but then no need for a map
Patrick Hayes: but then no need for a map ←
15:40:38 <AndyS> AZ: custom datatypes
Antoine Zimmermann: custom datatypes ←
15:40:57 <pfps> q+
15:41:06 <Guus> ack AZ
Guus Schreiber: ack AZ ←
15:41:30 <AndyS> path: can only recognize IRIs that are datatypes
Patrick Hayes: can only recognize IRIs that are datatypes ←
15:42:28 <AndyS> ... IF e.g. GET shows that it is a datatype, then must use that defn of the datatype.
... IF e.g. GET shows that it is a datatype, then must use that defn of the datatype. ←
15:42:30 <gavinc> "RDF processors which are not able to determine which datatype is identifier by an IRI cannot recognize that IRI, and should treat any literals type with that IRI as unknown names." this is bit we are talking about?
Gavin Carothers: "RDF processors which are not able to determine which datatype is identifier by an IRI cannot recognize that IRI, and should treat any literals type with that IRI as unknown names." this is bit we are talking about? ←
15:43:53 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:44:29 <davidwood> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
15:44:59 <PatH> gavinC, yes.
Patrick Hayes: gavinC, yes. ←
15:45:08 <AndyS> (discussion of the true purpose of the MT doc)
(discussion of the true purpose of the MT doc) ←
15:45:41 <gavinc> btw, I like the language on what to do when there is an unknown datatype in the new semantics document then the old one. I had no clue what to do with unknown datatypes based on the old one, and the new one is VERY clear and even uses MAY/SHOULD. It's MUCH better
Gavin Carothers: btw, I like the language on what to do when there is an unknown datatype in the new semantics document then the old one. I had no clue what to do with unknown datatypes based on the old one, and the new one is VERY clear and even uses MAY/SHOULD. It's MUCH better ←
15:46:16 <AZ> The normal Web machinery is not existing in the current version either
Antoine Zimmermann: The normal Web machinery is not existing in the current version either ←
15:48:10 <davidwood> Gentlemen, I suggest you use the queue to respond. It will assist in limiting emotion.
David Wood: Gentlemen, I suggest you use the queue to respond. It will assist in limiting emotion. ←
15:49:20 <Guus> +1 to peter
Guus Schreiber: +1 to peter ←
15:50:55 <AndyS> davidwood: Thank you for the discussion. AZ - do you need time to work on a proposal.
David Wood: Thank you for the discussion. AZ - do you need time to work on a proposal. ←
15:51:17 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:51:31 <AndyS> AZ: easier for me to work on a proposal for datatypes. Will try to do it quite quickly.
Antoine Zimmermann: easier for me to work on a proposal for datatypes. Will try to do it quite quickly. ←
15:51:36 <pfps> q+
15:51:43 <AndyS> ... for other issue - less clear.
... for other issue - less clear. ←
15:52:03 <AndyS> davidwood: can we go to LC?
David Wood: can we go to LC? ←
15:52:05 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:52:14 <AndyS> (someone) no
(someone) no ←
15:52:45 <PatH> +1 Ivan
Patrick Hayes: +1 Ivan ←
15:53:47 <pfps> Antoine appears to feel that there is something wrong in the current situation, so I don't think that agrees that it is just stylistic
Peter Patel-Schneider: Antoine appears to feel that there is something wrong in the current situation, so I don't think that agrees that it is just stylistic ←
15:54:18 <AndyS> AZ: This is not me raising a new issue.
Antoine Zimmermann: This is not me raising a new issue. ←
15:54:42 <Guus> antoine is right about the timing, but we're just not overcoming this disagreement
Guus Schreiber: antoine is right about the timing, but we're just not overcoming this disagreement ←
15:56:35 <pfps> the question here, I think, is whether there is something technically wrong in the current semantics
Peter Patel-Schneider: the question here, I think, is whether there is something technically wrong in the current semantics ←
15:57:08 <pfps> q+ to talk about entailment
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to talk about entailment ←
15:57:39 <Guus> zakim, unmute me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, unmute me ←
15:57:39 <Zakim> Guus should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus should no longer be muted ←
15:57:53 <davidwood> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
15:57:53 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to talk about entailment
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to talk about entailment ←
15:59:03 <AZ> Not defined in term of merge
Antoine Zimmermann: Not defined in term of merge ←
15:59:17 <AndyS> pfps: I now see the point about in the "union" strand of discussion
Peter Patel-Schneider: I now see the point about in the "union" strand of discussion ←
15:59:18 <Guus> zakim, mute me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, mute me ←
15:59:18 <Zakim> Guus should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus should now be muted ←
15:59:29 <AZ> defined according to traditional conjunction
Antoine Zimmermann: defined according to traditional conjunction ←
16:00:11 <manu> zaim, code?
Manu Sporny: zaim, code? ←
16:00:16 <manu> zakim, code?
Manu Sporny: zakim, code? ←
16:00:16 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu ←
16:00:26 <Zakim> +??P53
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P53 ←
16:00:33 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
16:00:34 <manu> zakim, I am ??P53
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P53 ←
16:00:35 <Zakim> +manu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu; got it ←
16:01:44 <AndyS> pfps: example - split one graph in two , share bnode across the halfs.
Peter Patel-Schneider: example - split one graph in two , share bnode across the halfs. ←
16:02:03 <AZ> q?
Antoine Zimmermann: q? ←
16:02:06 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
16:02:16 <AndyS> ... union rejoins the use of blank nodes ... merge looses the connection in the original big graph.
... union rejoins the use of blank nodes ... merge looses the connection in the original big graph. ←
16:03:38 <pchampin> q?
16:03:45 <pchampin> q+
16:04:38 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
16:04:43 <gavinc> can't we just lean on datasets? Where we SAY that blank nodes are shared inside a dataset?
Gavin Carothers: can't we just lean on datasets? Where we SAY that blank nodes are shared inside a dataset? ←
16:04:46 <pfps> entailments of sets of RDF graphs - 2004 effectively uses merge 2013 uses union
Peter Patel-Schneider: entailments of sets of RDF graphs - 2004 effectively uses merge 2013 uses union ←
16:05:17 <pfps> q+
16:05:32 <AndyS> path: because we have said we will support shared bnodes then merge would make this meaningless.
Patrick Hayes: because we have said we will support shared bnodes then merge would make this meaningless. ←
16:06:48 <AndyS> ... lots of pictures in the current doc to explain this all.
... lots of pictures in the current doc to explain this all. ←
16:06:51 <sandro> Ahhhh. Yes, Merge is kind of .... wacky ... now. There should just be UNION and also a COPY_GRAPH operation the replace blank nodes with a fresh ones.
Sandro Hawke: Ahhhh. Yes, Merge is kind of .... wacky ... now. There should just be UNION and also a COPY_GRAPH operation the replace blank nodes with a fresh ones. ←
16:06:55 <davidwood> ack AZ
David Wood: ack AZ ←
16:07:02 <pchampin> q-
16:07:09 <pfps> I don't agree with this analysis by Pat - people will not determine our stance on combining graphs by the definition of entailment
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't agree with this analysis by Pat - people will not determine our stance on combining graphs by the definition of entailment ←
16:07:16 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
16:07:19 <PatH> q+ again
Patrick Hayes: q+ again ←
16:08:06 <AndyS> AZ: if a system knows two bnodes are the same they can use union
Antoine Zimmermann: if a system knows two bnodes are the same they can use union ←
16:09:03 <Souri> Then, is the following correct? (users decide which of the following to use when combining) UNION => reuse bNode labels, MERGE => generate new unique bNode labels
Souripriya Das: Then, is the following correct? (users decide which of the following to use when combining) UNION => reuse bNode labels, MERGE => generate new unique bNode labels ←
16:09:44 <pchampin> +1 Pat
Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 Pat ←
16:09:49 <ivan> +1 to Pat
Ivan Herman: +1 to Pat ←
16:09:50 <AndyS> Example -- :mary :hasChild _:b . :john :hasChild _:b .
Example -- :mary :hasChild _:b . :john :hasChild _:b . ←
16:10:13 <AndyS> path: in that graph - mary and john have a child in common.
Patrick Hayes: in that graph - mary and john have a child in common. ←
16:10:33 <pchampin> AZ, thought experiment: does a graph entail the same thing as the union of all its triples (considered as singleton graphs)?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: AZ, thought experiment: does a graph entail the same thing as the union of all its triples (considered as singleton graphs)? ←
16:10:50 <AndyS> AZ: in subgraphs {:mary :hasChild _:b } { :john :hasChild _:b }
Antoine Zimmermann: in subgraphs {:mary :hasChild _:b } { :john :hasChild _:b } ←
16:11:02 <AZ> it's not a bug!
Antoine Zimmermann: it's not a bug! ←
16:11:12 <AndyS> Path: bug is that the idea of bnode scope is not in the definitions.
Patrick Hayes: bug is that the idea of bnode scope is not in the definitions. ←
16:11:34 <Zakim> -Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri ←
16:11:49 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←
16:11:57 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, [GVoice] is me ←
16:11:57 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP; got it ←
16:12:24 <pfps> this actually has little to do with blank nodes per se, as the same issue arises with free variables in FOL formulae if you interpret free variables existentially
Peter Patel-Schneider: this actually has little to do with blank nodes per se, as the same issue arises with free variables in FOL formulae if you interpret free variables existentially ←
16:13:00 <pchampin> the question is: where is the quantifier of those existential variables?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: the question is: where is the quantifier of those existential variables? ←
16:13:02 <davidwood> Zakim, mute ericP
David Wood: Zakim, mute ericP ←
16:13:02 <Zakim> ericP should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP should now be muted ←
16:13:25 <pfps> q+ to say that blank nodes *do* work like variables in quantifier-free first-order formulae
Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ to say that blank nodes *do* work like variables in quantifier-free first-order formulae ←
16:13:27 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
16:13:28 <pchampin> AZ seems to assume that it is at the graph level
Pierre-Antoine Champin: AZ seems to assume that it is at the graph level ←
16:14:01 <pchampin> by deciding that graph can share blank nodes, my interpretation is that we decided that it could be at a higher level
Pierre-Antoine Champin: by deciding that graph can share blank nodes, my interpretation is that we decided that it could be at a higher level ←
16:14:21 <pchampin> q?
16:14:35 <AndyS> You can't share bNodes unless they originate from the same place because of all syntax parsing havign scoped labels.
You can't share bNodes unless they originate from the same place because of all syntax parsing havign scoped labels. ←
16:14:44 <AndyS> davidwood: time
David Wood: time ←
16:14:48 <Zakim> -Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus ←
16:14:49 <davidwood> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
16:14:49 <Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say that blank nodes *do* work like variables in quantifier-free first-order formulae
Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, you wanted to say that blank nodes *do* work like variables in quantifier-free first-order formulae ←
16:14:49 <pfps> take a formula P(x) and another formula Q(x), when you form their conjunction you don't change the variables, you just put an "and" over them (i.e., union them)
Peter Patel-Schneider: take a formula P(x) and another formula Q(x), when you form their conjunction you don't change the variables, you just put an "and" over them (i.e., union them) ←
16:15:16 <davidwood> ack again
David Wood: ack again ←
16:16:00 <AndyS> Next time can we progress the TriG Turtle NQ, NT which have slipped again.
Next time can we progress the TriG Turtle NQ, NT which have slipped again. ←
16:16:16 <PatH> I guess I feel that I have explained my posiiton as clearly and as fully as I can, and that the current draft also explains it as clearly as I know how. I rest my case.
Patrick Hayes: I guess I feel that I have explained my posiiton as clearly and as fully as I can, and that the current draft also explains it as clearly as I know how. I rest my case. ←
16:16:23 <AndyS> Should be "easy" to agree to go to publication or find a process to get there.
Should be "easy" to agree to go to publication or find a process to get there. ←
16:16:26 <Zakim> -manu
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu ←
16:16:49 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
16:16:52 <AndyS> davidwood: I have worked through pfps review of concepts
David Wood: I have worked through pfps review of concepts ←
16:16:52 <pchampin> bye
Pierre-Antoine Champin: bye ←
16:16:55 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:16:56 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:16:56 <Zakim> - +1.408.992.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.408.992.aaaa ←
16:16:56 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
16:16:57 <Zakim> -davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood ←
16:16:57 <Zakim> -GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: -GavinC ←
16:16:57 <AndyS> ADJOURNED
ADJOURNED ←
16:16:58 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
16:17:00 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
16:17:01 <Zakim> -markus
Zakim IRC Bot: -markus ←
16:17:03 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
16:17:32 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
16:17:37 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:17:43 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended ←
16:17:44 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.408.992.aaaa, Ivan, davidwood, PatH, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed, Sandro, +081165aabb, AZ, GavinC, markus, Souri, Guus, pchampin, manu, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.408.992.aaaa, Ivan, davidwood, PatH, AndyS, gkellogg, TallTed, Sandro, +081165aabb, AZ, GavinC, markus, Souri, Guus, pchampin, manu, ericP ←
Formatted by CommonScribe