13:58:29 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-rdfa-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/04/28-rdfa-irc ←
13:58:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
13:58:33 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7332
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 7332 ←
13:58:33 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFa()10:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes ←
13:58:34 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Web Applications Working Group Teleconference
13:58:34 <trackbot> Date: 28 April 2011
13:58:45 <manu1> Chair: Manu
13:58:47 <manu1> Present: Ivan, Manu, Nathan, Ted, Benjamin, Steven, Shane, Thomas
13:58:58 <manu1> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Apr/0160.html
14:01:05 <MacTed> Zakim, code?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, code? ←
14:01:05 <Zakim> the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 7332 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.26.46.79.03 tel:+44.203.318.0479), MacTed ←
14:01:10 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←
14:01:10 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has not yet started, MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has not yet started, MacTed ←
14:01:11 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, tomayac, Steven, MacTed, danbri, Benjamin, ivan, webr3, manu1, manu, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, tomayac, Steven, MacTed, danbri, Benjamin, ivan, webr3, manu1, manu, trackbot ←
14:01:17 <MacTed> Zakim, this is 7332
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, this is 7332 ←
14:01:17 <Zakim> ok, MacTed; that matches SW_RDFa()10:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, MacTed; that matches SW_RDFa()10:00AM ←
14:01:21 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←
14:01:21 <Zakim> On the phone I see tomayac, Benjamin, OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see tomayac, Benjamin, OpenLink_Software ←
14:01:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, tomayac, Steven, MacTed, danbri, Benjamin, ivan, webr3, manu1, manu, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, tomayac, Steven, MacTed, danbri, Benjamin, ivan, webr3, manu1, manu, trackbot ←
14:01:28 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
14:01:28 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
14:01:30 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
14:01:30 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
14:01:40 <Zakim> +??P14
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P14 ←
14:01:50 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P14
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P14 ←
14:01:50 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
14:02:01 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:02:01 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:02:01 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
14:02:02 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
14:02:02 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:02:49 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
14:02:56 <ShaneM> zakim, ??P15 is ShaneM
Shane McCarron: zakim, ??P15 is ShaneM ←
14:02:56 <Zakim> +ShaneM; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ShaneM; got it ←
14:03:23 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
14:03:30 <webr3> Zakim, i am IPcaller
Nathan Rixham: Zakim, i am IPcaller ←
14:03:30 <Zakim> ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, webr3, I now associate you with [IPcaller] ←
14:04:07 <manu1> scribenick: MacTed
(Scribe set to Ted Thibodeau)
14:04:10 <manu1> Scribe: Ted
14:04:49 <Steven> zakim, dial steven-work
Steven Pemberton: zakim, dial steven-work ←
14:04:49 <Zakim> ok, Steven; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Steven; the call is being made ←
14:04:51 <Zakim> +Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: +Steven ←
14:05:24 <MacTed> Topic: Interest in RDF and RDFa API
14:05:24 <ivan> http://www.w3.org/mid/A0CD95FB-1D6F-43A1-8547-20A3D0E8C8BA@kit.edu
Ivan Herman: http://www.w3.org/mid/A0CD95FB-1D6F-43A1-8547-20A3D0E8C8BA@kit.edu ←
14:06:11 <webr3> lol, yeah i replied too: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2011Apr/0214.html
Nathan Rixham: lol, yeah i replied too: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2011Apr/0214.html ←
14:06:42 <webr3> Danny -> http://www.aifb.kit.edu/web/Denny_Vrandecic/en
Nathan Rixham: Danny -> http://www.aifb.kit.edu/web/Denny_Vrandecic/en ←
14:07:21 <manu1> Ivan: Danny Vrandečić is working with Wikipedia
Ivan Herman: Danny Vrandečić is working with Wikipedia [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:08:41 <manu1> Gavin Carothers implemented the Python RDF API as well
Manu Sporny: Gavin Carothers implemented the Python RDF API as well ←
14:09:10 <MacTed> ivan: how far are we from API used in Tabulator?
Ivan Herman: how far are we from API used in Tabulator? ←
14:09:23 <MacTed> webr3: quite close but with different method names and definitions
Nathan Rixham: quite close but with different method names and definitions ←
14:10:48 <manu1> Topic: Linked JSON Mailing List
14:12:03 <MacTed> manu: RDF WG decided that JSON serialization was beyond immediate scope
Manu Sporny: RDF WG decided that JSON serialization was beyond immediate scope ←
14:12:56 <MacTed> manu: has been talking with others outside of RDF WG group, and several within, who are interested in this work
Manu Sporny: has been talking with others outside of RDF WG group, and several within, who are interested in this work ←
14:13:39 <MacTed> manu: Gavin Carothers, Richard Cyganiak, Glenn McDonald, Harry Halpin... others
Manu Sporny: Gavin Carothers, Richard Cyganiak, Glenn McDonald, Harry Halpin... others ←
14:13:58 <webr3> mailing list works now
Nathan Rixham: mailing list works now ←
14:14:23 <MacTed> webr3: Linked JSON mailing list is up and running
Nathan Rixham: Linked JSON mailing list is up and running ←
14:15:20 <webr3> mailing list link - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/
Nathan Rixham: mailing list link - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/ ←
14:15:23 <MacTed> manu: hopes we'll all populate the list, and then decide how to focus the work -- tangible goals, etc., starting from stripped down spec, maybe the JSON-LD spec
Manu Sporny: hopes we'll all populate the list, and then decide how to focus the work -- tangible goals, etc., starting from stripped down spec, maybe the JSON-LD spec ←
14:16:14 <MacTed> webr3: also focused on Point Of Interest group right now
Nathan Rixham: also focused on Point Of Interest group right now ←
14:17:10 <MacTed> manu: thinks NYT could be enlisted for that group
Manu Sporny: thinks NYT could be enlisted for that group ←
14:17:11 <tomayac> +1 for getting the nyt people involved
Thomas Steiner: +1 for getting the nyt people involved ←
14:17:28 <MacTed> manu: We may want to pull in people from Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Manu Sporny: We may want to pull in people from Twitter, Facebook, etc. ←
14:18:35 <manu1> Topic: RDF API
14:18:38 <manu1> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/
Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/ ←
14:19:28 <manu1> There is talk about splitting the RDF API document into a lower-level and a higher-level document.
Manu Sporny: There is talk about splitting the RDF API document into a lower-level and a higher-level document. ←
14:19:28 <manu1> -1 for separate documents
Manu Sporny: -1 for separate documents ←
14:19:32 <ivan> +1 for separate documents
Ivan Herman: +1 for separate documents ←
14:19:34 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:19:37 <MacTed> webr3: 3 levels of API seem to be sketched out, (re)organization needs some work
Nathan Rixham: 3 levels of API seem to be sketched out, (re)organization needs some work ←
14:20:33 <MacTed> ivan: favors separate docs for Developer and User to avoid scaring people with details unnecessary to their purposes
Ivan Herman: favors separate docs for Developer and User to avoid scaring people with details unnecessary to their purposes ←
14:20:41 <webr3> +1 i have to admit
Nathan Rixham: +1 i have to admit ←
14:20:49 <manu1> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
14:20:54 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:20:55 <ivan> q-
Ivan Herman: q- ←
14:21:07 <MacTed> ivan: best to have documents that cover reader's needs without overwhelming
Ivan Herman: best to have documents that cover reader's needs without overwhelming ←
14:21:18 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:21:23 <ivan> ack manu1
Ivan Herman: ack manu1 ←
14:21:45 <MacTed> manu: prefers to have one document so whole API can be seen in one place, rather than having scattered jigsaw puzzle pieces
Manu Sporny: prefers to have one document so whole API can be seen in one place, rather than having scattered jigsaw puzzle pieces ←
14:22:20 <tomayac> +1 for one doc, as IMHO people who just want to code a mash-up won't read either...
Thomas Steiner: +1 for one doc, as IMHO people who just want to code a mash-up won't read either... ←
14:22:21 <MacTed> (I favor clearly distinct, relatively standalone sections within one doc...)
(I favor clearly distinct, relatively standalone sections within one doc...) ←
14:22:34 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
14:22:40 <webr3> q+
Nathan Rixham: q+ ←
14:23:24 <manu1> q+ to say that the OWL2 docs are very difficult to follow
Manu Sporny: q+ to say that the OWL2 docs are very difficult to follow ←
14:23:31 <MacTed> ivan: examples of broken up docs include OWL2, RIF -- they have one small doc which sketches how the other docs work together
Ivan Herman: examples of broken up docs include OWL2, RIF -- they have one small doc which sketches how the other docs work together ←
14:23:51 <manu1> ack IPCaller
Manu Sporny: ack IPCaller ←
14:23:57 <manu1> ack [IPCaller]
Manu Sporny: ack [IPCaller] ←
14:23:59 <MacTed> Zakim, [IPcaller] is webr3
Zakim, [IPcaller] is webr3 ←
14:23:59 <Zakim> +webr3; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +webr3; got it ←
14:24:45 <MacTed> webr3: very much feels splitting is needed, between tool makers and tool users
Nathan Rixham: very much feels splitting is needed, between tool makers and tool users ←
14:24:59 <ivan> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ example for an overview document
Ivan Herman: -> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ example for an overview document ←
14:25:22 <MacTed> webr3: lots of examples are needed, and a single doc will balloon
Nathan Rixham: lots of examples are needed, and a single doc will balloon ←
14:25:25 <manu1> ack web3
Manu Sporny: ack web3 ←
14:25:54 <webr3> manu, that could be the subject matter though.. OWL 2 is quite high level
Nathan Rixham: manu, that could be the subject matter though.. OWL 2 is quite high level ←
14:26:04 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:26:04 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say that the OWL2 docs are very difficult to follow
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say that the OWL2 docs are very difficult to follow ←
14:26:12 <MacTed> manu: diagram example makes sense, but the need for the diagram expresses the argument not to split...
Manu Sporny: diagram example makes sense, but the need for the diagram expresses the argument not to split... ←
14:26:40 <MacTed> ivan: OWL2 is an example of how to do, not a picture of just what would happen here
Ivan Herman: OWL2 is an example of how to do, not a picture of just what would happen here ←
14:27:38 <manu1> q+ to discuss what would go into this 2nd level document?
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss what would go into this 2nd level document? ←
14:27:49 <MacTed> ivan: RDFa esoterica (bnode, deep rdf discussions, 303, etc.) is likely to scare away the people we very much don't want to scare away
Ivan Herman: RDFa esoterica (bnode, deep rdf discussions, 303, etc.) is likely to scare away the people we very much don't want to scare away ←
14:27:57 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:27:57 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss what would go into this 2nd level document?
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss what would go into this 2nd level document? ←
14:28:09 <MacTed> manu: what would go in second level doc?
Manu Sporny: what would go in second level doc? ←
14:28:09 <webr3> manu, imho - RDFa API but for general RDF
Nathan Rixham: manu, imho - RDFa API but for general RDF ←
14:28:43 <webr3> 2nd level -> "a read only RDF API for end developers, like the RDFa API"
Nathan Rixham: 2nd level -> "a read only RDF API for end developers, like the RDFa API" ←
14:28:44 <MacTed> ivan: projection; document data interface; equivalent of RDFa environment (query, reference to RDF environment)
Ivan Herman: projection; document data interface; equivalent of RDFa environment (query, reference to RDF environment) ←
14:28:50 <Benjamin> q+ to recommend popular linked data use cases be backed by the second lewvel api
Benjamin Adrian: q+ to recommend popular linked data use cases be backed by the second lewvel api ←
14:28:58 <manu1> ack Benjamin
Manu Sporny: ack Benjamin ←
14:28:58 <Zakim> Benjamin, you wanted to recommend popular linked data use cases be backed by the second level API
Zakim IRC Bot: Benjamin, you wanted to recommend popular linked data use cases be backed by the second level API ←
14:29:03 <webr3> Benjamin +1
Nathan Rixham: Benjamin +1 ←
14:29:24 <manu1> q+ to discuss charter scope?
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss charter scope? ←
14:29:25 <MacTed> Benjamin: remembering, RDFa API was originally named Linked Data API ...
Benjamin Adrian: remembering, RDFa API was originally named Linked Data API ... ←
14:29:38 <MacTed> Benjamin: thinks we should create this second level API
Benjamin Adrian: thinks we should create this second level API ←
14:29:59 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:29:59 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss charter scope?
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss charter scope? ←
14:30:11 <MacTed> manu: are we chartered to work on such a second doc? are there toes we're going to step on?
Manu Sporny: are we chartered to work on such a second doc? are there toes we're going to step on? ←
14:30:14 <webr3> q+
Nathan Rixham: q+ ←
14:30:17 <manu1> RDF Core API?
Manu Sporny: RDF Core API? ←
14:30:32 <webr3> q-
Nathan Rixham: q- ←
14:30:34 <MacTed> ivan: RDF Core API, RDF API ... we can play around with names
Ivan Herman: RDF Core API, RDF API ... we can play around with names ←
14:30:41 <webr3> or "RDF Interfaces"
Nathan Rixham: or "RDF Interfaces" ←
14:30:49 <tomayac> q+
Thomas Steiner: q+ ←
14:30:51 <manu1> +1 to RDF Core API and another RDF API doc
Manu Sporny: +1 to RDF Core API and another RDF API doc ←
14:30:52 <webr3> for this api that is, and new one as "RDF API"
Nathan Rixham: for this api that is, and new one as "RDF API" ←
14:31:44 <MacTed> macted: "Linked Data API" would imply that "RDF" is all there is to "Linked Data" ... which isn't the case
Ted Thibodeau: "Linked Data API" would imply that "RDF" is all there is to "Linked Data" ... which isn't the case ←
14:31:57 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
14:32:00 <ivan> act tomayac
Ivan Herman: act tomayac ←
14:32:03 <manu1> ack tomayac
Manu Sporny: ack tomayac ←
14:32:08 <MacTed> manu: anyone with other concerns about splitting this?
Manu Sporny: anyone with other concerns about splitting this? ←
14:32:53 <MacTed> tomayac: people outside w3c are unlikely to look at these docs anyway... why are we concerned with addressing them?
Thomas Steiner: people outside w3c are unlikely to look at these docs anyway... why are we concerned with addressing them? ←
14:33:05 <webr3> tomayac, that would be sad if they don't imho - I'd want this doc to be focussed for those people, and if we are doign docs wrong, lets change that
Nathan Rixham: tomayac, that would be sad if they don't imho - I'd want this doc to be focussed for those people, and if we are doign docs wrong, lets change that ←
14:33:14 <MacTed> ivan: that seems to ask "why do this at all?"
Ivan Herman: that seems to ask "why do this at all?" ←
14:33:48 <MacTed> ivan: hopefully, if we do this well, letting people quickly do simple/easy things, without having to immediately dive into difficult things, that's a win
Ivan Herman: hopefully, if we do this well, letting people quickly do simple/easy things, without having to immediately dive into difficult things, that's a win ←
14:34:06 <MacTed> ivan: this will expose them to other things they may want to do, which require they learn the complex stuff, but that's OK
Ivan Herman: this will expose them to other things they may want to do, which require they learn the complex stuff, but that's OK ←
14:34:31 <tomayac> in my experience, all js coders search for js docs by $searchterm +mdc to make sure the mozilla docs come up. i can imagine something similar to happen for a browser-vendor-implemented rdfa api.
Thomas Steiner: in my experience, all js coders search for js docs by $searchterm +mdc to make sure the mozilla docs come up. i can imagine something similar to happen for a browser-vendor-implemented rdfa api. ←
14:34:48 <MacTed> ivan: for instance, quick-and-dirty read-only joins of DBpedia with Gene Data should be enabled by these docs
Ivan Herman: for instance, quick-and-dirty read-only joins of DBpedia with Gene Data should be enabled by these docs ←
14:35:10 <webr3> toayac, i do that :p lol +mdc
Nathan Rixham: toayac, i do that :p lol +mdc ←
14:35:18 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:35:28 <MacTed> manu: "+mdc" search term isn't that common in my experience
Manu Sporny: "+mdc" search term isn't that common in my experience ←
14:35:53 <MacTed> ivan: we should realize that w3c is currently developing *MANY* APIs ...
Ivan Herman: we should realize that w3c is currently developing *MANY* APIs ... ←
14:36:11 <MacTed> ivan: and if people are relying strictly on mozilla docs, then this is pointless ... which doesn't seem true
Ivan Herman: and if people are relying strictly on mozilla docs, then this is pointless ... which doesn't seem true ←
14:36:52 <MacTed> ivan: if we have the Core, others can implement extensions and other layers atop the Core to empower other uses
Ivan Herman: if we have the Core, others can implement extensions and other layers atop the Core to empower other uses ←
14:36:56 <webr3> q+
Nathan Rixham: q+ ←
14:37:00 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:37:02 <ivan> ack ivan
Ivan Herman: ack ivan ←
14:37:03 <manu1> ack webr3
Manu Sporny: ack webr3 ←
14:37:30 <MacTed> webr3: reiterating ivan's point, we build the Core / bare minimum that community can then build upon
Nathan Rixham: reiterating ivan's point, we build the Core / bare minimum that community can then build upon ←
14:37:47 <tomayac> to put it the right way: i was talking about core js, which mdc does a great job on documenting it, no one goes to the ECMA script spec for simple questions
Thomas Steiner: to put it the right way: i was talking about core js, which mdc does a great job on documenting it, no one goes to the ECMA script spec for simple questions ←
14:37:50 <manu1> q+ to say that people may want to add stuff to the RDF API (not RDF Core API)
Manu Sporny: q+ to say that people may want to add stuff to the RDF API (not RDF Core API) ←
14:37:58 <MacTed> webr3: we can then standardize/unify the things which others innovate and implement differently
Nathan Rixham: we can then standardize/unify the things which others innovate and implement differently ←
14:38:22 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:38:22 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say that people may want to add stuff to the RDF API (not RDF Core API)
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say that people may want to add stuff to the RDF API (not RDF Core API) ←
14:38:43 <MacTed> manu: another pro for the split is we can standardize RDF Core and few will want/need to change that
Manu Sporny: another pro for the split is we can standardize RDF Core and few will want/need to change that ←
14:38:52 <MacTed> manu: RDF Core - literals, graphs, nodes, etc.
Manu Sporny: RDF Core - literals, graphs, nodes, etc. ←
14:39:09 <MacTed> manu: RDF API - query mechanisms, document interface(s), etc.
Manu Sporny: RDF API - query mechanisms, document interface(s), etc. ←
14:39:21 <webr3> +1 agree
Nathan Rixham: +1 agree ←
14:39:26 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:39:27 <MacTed> manu: future innovation is expected to take place in RDF API, not in RDF Core
Manu Sporny: future innovation is expected to take place in RDF API, not in RDF Core ←
14:39:44 <webr3> q+ to bring focus back
Nathan Rixham: q+ to bring focus back ←
14:39:58 <manu1> ack webr3
Manu Sporny: ack webr3 ←
14:39:58 <Zakim> webr3, you wanted to bring focus back
Zakim IRC Bot: webr3, you wanted to bring focus back ←
14:39:58 <MacTed> ivan: RDF Core will basically reflect RDF concepts in JavaScript
Ivan Herman: RDF Core API will basically reflect RDF concepts in JavaScript ←
14:40:18 <MacTed> s/RDF Core/RDF Core API/
14:40:27 <MacTed> webr3: 1. are we going ahead with two docs?
Nathan Rixham: 1. are we going ahead with two docs? ←
14:40:43 <MacTed> webr3: 2. if so, we need to change the name from "RDF API" now...
Nathan Rixham: 2. if so, we need to change the name from "RDF API" now... ←
14:41:10 <MacTed> webr3: 3. are we getting rid of tripleset; are we sticking with node-node-node definition or constraining to RDF; etc?
Nathan Rixham: 3. are we getting rid of tripleset; are we sticking with node-node-node definition or constraining to RDF; etc? ←
14:41:17 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The current RDF API document should be split into two documents - the RDF Core API and the RDF API
PROPOSED: The current RDF API document should be split into two documents - the RDF Core API and the RDF API ←
14:41:19 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:41:19 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:41:21 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:41:25 <MacTed> +1
+1 ←
14:41:26 <ShaneM> +1
Shane McCarron: +1 ←
14:41:27 <Steven> +0
Steven Pemberton: +0 ←
14:41:28 <webr3> +1 but review name
Nathan Rixham: +1 but review name ←
14:41:45 <ShaneM> (I don't like the name RDF Core API really)
Shane McCarron: (I don't like the name RDF Core API really) ←
14:41:50 <Steven> Don't feel strongly in this case
Steven Pemberton: Don't feel strongly in this case ←
14:41:52 <webr3> RDF Core API, or RDF Interfaces ?
Nathan Rixham: RDF Core API, or RDF Interfaces ? ←
14:41:55 <tomayac> +0 name strange
Thomas Steiner: +0 name strange ←
14:42:51 <MacTed> naming confusion...
naming confusion... ←
14:43:06 <ShaneM> XHTML+RDFa, HTML+RDFa, RDFa Core, RDF Core API, RDF API, and RDFa API
Shane McCarron: XHTML+RDFa, HTML+RDFa, RDFa Core, RDF Core API, RDF API, and RDFa API ←
14:43:07 <webr3> +1 to what ivan just said
Nathan Rixham: +1 to what ivan just said ←
14:43:28 <webr3> RDF Interfaces, RDF API, RDFa API
Nathan Rixham: RDF Interfaces, RDF API, RDFa API ←
14:43:38 <Benjamin> sounds good
Benjamin Adrian: sounds good ←
14:43:40 <MacTed> "RDF Core API" becomes "RDF Interfaces API"; keep "RDF API" and "RDFa API"...
"RDF Core API" becomes "RDF Interfaces API"; keep "RDF API" and "RDFa API"... ←
14:43:44 <manu1> RESOLVED: The current RDF API document should be split into two documents - the RDF Interfaces and the RDF API
RESOLVED: The current RDF API document should be split into two documents - the RDF Interfaces and the RDF API ←
14:44:15 <MacTed> "RDF Core API" becomes "RDF Interfaces"
"RDF Core API" becomes "RDF Interfaces" ←
14:44:46 <manu1> Subtopic: Removing Triple Set / Graph Literal
14:44:56 <manu1> q+ to discuss removing Graph Literal
Manu Sporny: q+ to discuss removing Graph Literal ←
14:45:01 <Zakim> -Benjamin
Zakim IRC Bot: -Benjamin ←
14:45:35 <MacTed> ivan: what we said... (roughly) "the RDF WG is currently discussing the notion of graph identification. This WG will act based on their decision."
Ivan Herman: what we said... (roughly) "the RDF WG is currently discussing the notion of graph identification. This WG will act based on their decision." ←
14:46:20 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
14:46:20 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to discuss removing Graph Literal
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to discuss removing Graph Literal ←
14:46:50 <Zakim> + +44.123.456.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +44.123.456.aaaa ←
14:47:01 <Benjamin> zakim, i am aaaa
Benjamin Adrian: zakim, i am aaaa ←
14:47:01 <Zakim> +Benjamin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Benjamin; got it ←
14:47:19 <MacTed> [discussion of undefined term "Graph Literal"]
[discussion of undefined term "Graph Literal"] ←
14:47:37 <MacTed> q+
q+ ←
14:47:44 <manu1> ack MacTed
Manu Sporny: ack MacTed ←
14:48:17 <manu1> Ted: We don't need to define everything - we can use an ambiguous term for the time being
Ted Thibodeau: We don't need to define everything - we can use an ambiguous term for the time being [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:48:41 <manu1> Ted: We just say that we are not defining it, but we're putting it in as a placeholder.
Ted Thibodeau: We just say that we are not defining it, but we're putting it in as a placeholder. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:49:00 <webr3> Ivan, placeholder text, or interface with a note?
Nathan Rixham: Ivan, placeholder text, or interface with a note? ←
14:49:02 <manu1> Ted: It's up to the RDF WG to define this stuff, we make that clear in the document
Ted Thibodeau: It's up to the RDF WG to define this stuff, we make that clear in the document [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:50:21 <manu1> Ivan: Defining WebIDL that states that a Triple Set extends a Node and a Literal, it makes a technical decision, it oversteps our bounds
Ivan Herman: Defining WebIDL that states that a Triple Set extends a Node and a Literal, it makes a technical decision, it oversteps our bounds [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:50:22 <Benjamin> q+
Benjamin Adrian: q+ ←
14:50:37 <webr3> Ivan, as you said "what is the datatype" :p (not does it have a datatype)
Nathan Rixham: Ivan, as you said "what is the datatype" :p (not does it have a datatype) ←
14:50:47 <manu1> Ted: But why can't we just put a warning stating that the interface could change over time, based on what RDF WG finds.
Ted Thibodeau: But why can't we just put a warning stating that the interface could change over time, based on what RDF WG finds. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
14:51:16 <manu1> ack Benjamin
Manu Sporny: ack Benjamin ←
14:52:05 <MacTed> Benjamin: I think we should model RDF Interfaces by what has general consensus ... since this doesn't have general consensus, maybe it's not "core" yet?
Benjamin Adrian: I think we should model RDF Interfaces by what has general consensus ... since this doesn't have general consensus, maybe it's not "core" yet? ←
14:52:23 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
14:52:47 <webr3> we can define them (TripleSet/GraphLiteral) as extensions to the RDF Interfaces, just like OWL, or entailment, or SPARQL might
Nathan Rixham: we can define them (TripleSet/GraphLiteral) as extensions to the RDF Interfaces, just like OWL, or entailment, or SPARQL might ←
14:52:55 <webr3> (at a later date)
Nathan Rixham: (at a later date) ←
14:52:55 <MacTed> manu: seems like this will belong in RDF Interfaces once it's defined, so putting it outside "for now" is troublesome
Manu Sporny: seems like this will belong in RDF Interfaces once it's defined, so putting it outside "for now" is troublesome ←
14:53:28 <manu1> ack ivan
Manu Sporny: ack ivan ←
14:54:27 <MacTed> ivan: handwave is what's called for here
Ivan Herman: handwave is what's called for here ←
14:55:28 <MacTed> ivan: already because SPARQL does some loose association here, adding something about a "graph may have a URI" seems appropriate
Ivan Herman: already because SPARQL does some loose association here, adding something about a "graph may have a URI" seems appropriate ←
14:57:03 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
14:57:04 <manu1> PROPOSAL: The RDF Interfaces should mention a Graph identification concept, but should not specify any WebIDL yet - we should note that the RDF WG is currently discussing the details of this mechanism.
PROPOSED: The RDF Interfaces should mention a Graph identification concept, but should not specify any WebIDL yet - we should note that the RDF WG is currently discussing the details of this mechanism. ←
14:57:08 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
14:57:14 <webr3> +1
Nathan Rixham: +1 ←
14:57:23 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
14:57:23 <tomayac> +1
Thomas Steiner: +1 ←
14:57:26 <Steven> +0
Steven Pemberton: +0 ←
14:57:27 <ShaneM> ..... +1
Shane McCarron: ..... +1 ←
14:57:27 <MacTed> +1
+1 ←
14:57:56 <MacTed> Steven: no strong feelings... hence +0
Steven Pemberton: no strong feelings... hence +0 ←
14:58:09 <webr3> all that's left is: (node node node) or (rdfresource, namednode, node)
Nathan Rixham: all that's left is: (node node node) or (rdfresource, namednode, node) ←
14:58:32 <MacTed> ivan: 2 things remaining...
Ivan Herman: 2 things remaining... ←
14:58:40 <webr3> and, literal needs to keep lexical form from a serialization for comparison
Nathan Rixham: and, literal needs to keep lexical form from a serialization for comparison ←
14:58:43 <Zakim> -ShaneM
Zakim IRC Bot: -ShaneM ←
14:58:51 <MacTed> [discussion of remaining...]
[discussion of remaining...] ←
14:59:15 <manu1> Subtopic: Generalized Triples
14:59:42 <MacTed> ivan: Nathan found good set of argumentation why we would keep with (node node node) approach
Ivan Herman: Nathan found good set of argumentation why we would keep with (node node node) approach ←
15:00:15 <MacTed> ivan: thinks we should do so, include that text, and see whether community jumps at us
Ivan Herman: thinks we should do so, include that text, and see whether community jumps at us ←
15:00:51 <MacTed> webr3: basic argument is to allow more flexible code use/writing
Nathan Rixham: basic argument is to allow more flexible code use/writing ←
15:01:16 <MacTed> ivan: what is "literal as predicate"?
Ivan Herman: what is "literal as predicate"? ←
15:01:29 <MacTed> manu: use case is in JSON conversions
Manu Sporny: use case is in JSON conversions ←
15:01:38 <webr3> so does anybody object to node,node,node ?
Nathan Rixham: so does anybody object to node,node,node ? ←
15:02:04 <MacTed> PROPOSAL: The generalized triples approach, (node, node, node) should be kept in the RDF Interfaces document.
PROPOSED: The generalized triples approach, (node, node, node) should be kept in the RDF Interfaces document. ←
15:02:07 <MacTed> +1
+1 ←
15:02:09 <Steven> +1
Steven Pemberton: +1 ←
15:02:09 <webr3> +3
Nathan Rixham: +3 ←
15:02:11 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:02:13 <tomayac> +1 for keeping node^3
Thomas Steiner: +1 for keeping node^3 ←
15:02:14 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
15:02:16 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:02:28 <MacTed> RESOLVED: The generalized triples approach, (node, node, node) should be kept in the RDF Interfaces document.
RESOLVED: The generalized triples approach, (node, node, node) should be kept in the RDF Interfaces document. ←
15:02:55 <manu1> Subtopic: Interface for Literal and Equality Comparison
15:03:05 <MacTed> ivan: last thing -- current interface for literal makes assumption that when you get lexical value, you convert it into the "natural" value which is what you store
Ivan Herman: last thing -- current interface for literal makes assumption that when you get lexical value, you convert it into the "natural" value which is what you store ←
15:03:15 <MacTed> ivan: original lexical value should also be stored
Ivan Herman: original lexical value should also be stored ←
15:04:10 <MacTed> ivan: two lexical values are equal only if they match character-by-character ... even though "natural" values of different lexicals may be equal
Ivan Herman: two lexical values are equal only if they match character-by-character ... even though "natural" values of different lexicals may be equal ←
15:05:03 <manu1> <a> <b> "011"^^xsd:integer . <a> <b> "11"^^xsd:integer .
Manu Sporny: <a> <b> "011"^^xsd:integer . <a> <b> "11"^^xsd:integer . ←
15:05:50 <webr3> see - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Apr/0158.html
Nathan Rixham: see - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Apr/0158.html ←
15:05:52 <MacTed> ivan: these strings are not RDF equal, but they are numerically equivalent
Ivan Herman: these strings are not RDF equal, but they are numerically equivalent ←
15:05:55 <webr3> q+
Nathan Rixham: q+ ←
15:06:09 <manu1> ack webr3
Manu Sporny: ack webr3 ←
15:06:48 <webr3> What happens if we do this: createLiteral(100, "xsd:double").equals( createLiteral(+1e2, "xsd:double") ) === TRUE
Nathan Rixham: What happens if we do this: createLiteral(100, "xsd:double").equals( createLiteral(+1e2, "xsd:double") ) === TRUE ←
15:07:30 <webr3> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/#widl-RDFEnvironment-createLiteral
Nathan Rixham: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/#widl-RDFEnvironment-createLiteral ←
15:07:48 <MacTed> [discussion about limiting input to createLiteral() method]
[discussion about limiting input to createLiteral() method] ←
15:09:21 <webr3> right now, we have "The native value of the literal, if the datatype of the literal is not known by the implementation the nodes value must be the lexical representation of the value." at the minute
Nathan Rixham: right now, we have "The native value of the literal, if the datatype of the literal is not known by the implementation the nodes value must be the lexical representation of the value." at the minute ←
15:10:03 <webr3> q+ to say we have a nice short circuit in the API at the minute..
Nathan Rixham: q+ to say we have a nice short circuit in the API at the minute.. ←
15:10:11 <manu1> q+ to say that we may want to turn this into an ISSUE
Manu Sporny: q+ to say that we may want to turn this into an ISSUE ←
15:10:57 <manu1> ack manu1
Manu Sporny: ack manu1 ←
15:10:57 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to say that we may want to turn this into an ISSUE
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to say that we may want to turn this into an ISSUE ←
15:10:58 <MacTed> cleanup -- "The native value of the literal. If the datatype of the literal is not known by the implementation, the node's value must be the lexical representation of the value."
cleanup -- "The native value of the literal. If the datatype of the literal is not known by the implementation, the node's value must be the lexical representation of the value." ←
15:11:13 <webr3> we have "equals(tocompare) -> If tocompare is NOT an instance of RDFNode then the it must be compared with this nodes value."
Nathan Rixham: we have "equals(tocompare) -> If tocompare is NOT an instance of RDFNode then the it must be compared with this nodes value." ←
15:11:29 <Benjamin> q+ to shortly discuss scope and implementation of .equals(RDFNode) for BlankNodes.
Benjamin Adrian: q+ to shortly discuss scope and implementation of .equals(RDFNode) for BlankNodes. ←
15:12:03 <MacTed> ivan: suggests that we adjust wording, as this is not kosher RDF, and make note that some environments may not permit the new (correct) behavior
Ivan Herman: suggests that we adjust wording, as this is not kosher RDF, and make note that some environments may not permit the new (correct) behavior ←
15:12:07 <Zakim> -Steven
Zakim IRC Bot: -Steven ←
15:12:44 <webr3> +1 macted to SHOULD
Nathan Rixham: +1 macted to SHOULD ←
15:12:48 <manu1> ack webr3
Manu Sporny: ack webr3 ←
15:12:48 <Zakim> webr3, you wanted to say we have a nice short circuit in the API at the minute..
Zakim IRC Bot: webr3, you wanted to say we have a nice short circuit in the API at the minute.. ←
15:13:08 <Zakim> -webr3
Zakim IRC Bot: -webr3 ←
15:13:16 <MacTed> MacTed: SHOULD language seems to be what we should use... when you can, DO. when you can't, well, you can't!
Ted Thibodeau: SHOULD language seems to be what we should use... when you can, DO. when you can't, well, you can't! ←
15:13:29 <MacTed> webr3: my audio connection is gone - fell off the line
Nathan Rixham: my audio connection is gone - fell off the line ←
15:13:57 <webr3> what do we need to do for FPWD, I like as is and would like to push this to an issue for discussion
Nathan Rixham: what do we need to do for FPWD, I like as is and would like to push this to an issue for discussion ←
15:14:00 <MacTed> Benjamin: found it difficult to implement the notion of blank nodes as in the API
Benjamin Adrian: found it difficult to implement the notion of blank nodes as in the API ←
15:14:18 <manu1> Same here, I think we should push this off to an ISSUE
Manu Sporny: Same here, I think we should push this off to an ISSUE ←
15:15:19 <MacTed> ivan: blank node interface needs additional attribute, being the graph to which it belongs
Ivan Herman: blank node interface needs additional attribute, being the graph to which it belongs ←
15:15:46 <webr3> which graph?? what identifier?
Nathan Rixham: which graph?? what identifier? ←
15:16:07 <webr3> a graph in memory? something from a .createBlankNode()?
Nathan Rixham: a graph in memory? something from a .createBlankNode()? ←
15:16:19 <MacTed> the graph in which the bnode occurs
the graph in which the bnode occurs ←
15:16:23 <MacTed> whatever graph that might me...
whatever graph that might me... ←
15:16:33 <MacTed> (hey! we need graph identifiers!)
(hey! we need graph identifiers!) ←
15:16:37 <webr3> bnode.equals(bnode) should just return false.. it's a useless equality
Nathan Rixham: bnode.equals(bnode) should just return false.. it's a useless equality ←
15:17:09 <MacTed> webr3 - I don't think we can cover this well via IRC... voice carried much more info
webr3 - I don't think we can cover this well via IRC... voice carried much more info ←
15:18:59 <webr3> okay .. so few changes to RDF Interfaces as we discussed, equality to ISSUE ?
Nathan Rixham: okay .. so few changes to RDF Interfaces as we discussed, equality to ISSUE ? ←
15:19:15 <webr3> and vote on FPWD via mailing list to get a publish ?
Nathan Rixham: and vote on FPWD via mailing list to get a publish ? ←
15:19:47 <MacTed> discussion on FPWD readiness...
discussion on FPWD readiness... ←
15:20:50 <MacTed> manu: suggestions are 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer to start of document.
Manu Sporny: suggestions are 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer to start of document. ←
15:21:02 <webr3> +1
Nathan Rixham: +1 ←
15:21:05 <MacTed> manu: then, we go to FPWD ... and then we move forward to RDF API doc, keeping in mind that we need to do CR for RDFa docs.
Manu Sporny: then, we go to FPWD ... and then we move forward to RDF API doc, keeping in mind that we need to do CR for RDFa docs. ←
15:21:18 <MacTed> ivan: and then we come back to RDFa
Ivan Herman: and then we come back to RDFa ←
15:21:35 <MacTed> PROPOSAL: FPWD after 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer
PROPOSED: FPWD after 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer ←
15:21:45 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:21:45 <MacTed> +1
+1 ←
15:21:48 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:21:49 <tomayac> +1
Thomas Steiner: +1 ←
15:21:53 <Benjamin> +1
Benjamin Adrian: +1 ←
15:22:16 <MacTed> RESOLVED: FPWD after 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer
RESOLVED: FPWD after 1. change RDF API title to RDF Interfaces; 2. get to RDF API doc later; 3. make today's editorial changes and add "work in progress" disclaimer ←
15:24:01 <webr3> +1
Nathan Rixham: +1 ←
15:33:25 <Zakim> -tomayac
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -tomayac ←
15:33:49 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
15:34:05 <Zakim> -Benjamin
Zakim IRC Bot: -Benjamin ←
15:43:37 <Zakim> -manu1
(No events recorded for 9 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1 ←
15:43:38 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
15:43:38 <Zakim> SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFa()10:00AM has ended ←
15:43:40 <Zakim> Attendees were tomayac, Benjamin, MacTed, manu1, Ivan, ShaneM, Steven, webr3, +44.123.456.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were tomayac, Benjamin, MacTed, manu1, Ivan, ShaneM, Steven, webr3, +44.123.456.aaaa ←
Formatted by CommonScribe