IRC log of rdf-wg on 2011-11-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:23:44 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:23:44 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc
14:23:46 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs world
14:23:46 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:23:48 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be 73394
14:23:48 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 37 minutes
14:23:49 [trackbot]: Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:23:49 [trackbot]: Date: 02 November 2011
14:52:29 [Zakim]: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
14:52:36 [Zakim]: +guus
14:53:14 [Zakim]: +Scott_Bauer
14:53:54 [Guus]: Guus has joined #rdf-wg
14:54:14 [Zakim]: +gavinc
14:54:55 [ivan]: zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:54:55 [Zakim]: ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:54:57 [Zakim]: +Ivan
14:56:39 [gavinc]: Good morning
15:00:03 [swh]: swh has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:10 [AndyS]: AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:29 [mischat_]: mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:38 [Zakim]: +??P3
15:00:44 [swh]: Zakim, ??P3 is [Garlik]
15:00:44 [Zakim]: +[Garlik]; got it
15:01:10 [swh]: Zakim, [Garlik] has me, mischat
15:01:10 [Zakim]: +swh, mischat; got it
15:01:11 [Zakim]: +bhyland
15:01:15 [Zakim]: + +1.707.318.aaaa
15:01:20 [davidwood]: Zakim, bhyland is me
15:01:20 [Zakim]: +davidwood; got it
15:01:41 [Zakim]: +??P7
15:01:43 [Guus]: zakim, who is here?
15:01:43 [Zakim]: On the phone I see guus, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, Ivan, [Garlik], davidwood, +1.707.318.aaaa, ??P7
15:01:45 [Zakim]: [Garlik] has swh, mischat
15:01:45 [Zakim]: -??P7
15:01:46 [Zakim]: On IRC I see mischat_, AndyS, swh, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, MacTed, danbri, mischat, mox601, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu1, manu, NickH, ericP, trackbot, sandro
15:01:52 [Zakim]: +OpenLink_Software
15:01:52 [PatH]: PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:59 [Scott_Bauer]: Scribe: Scott_Bauer
15:02:06 [MacTed]: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:02:06 [Zakim]: +MacTed; got it
15:02:08 [MacTed]: Zakim, mute me
15:02:08 [Zakim]: MacTed should now be muted
15:02:09 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
15:02:17 [AndyS]: zakim, IPCaller is me
15:02:17 [Zakim]: +AndyS; got it
15:02:31 [Guus]: zakim, who is here?
15:02:31 [Zakim]: On the phone I see guus, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, Ivan, [Garlik], davidwood, +1.707.318.aaaa, MacTed (muted), AndyS
15:02:34 [Zakim]: [Garlik] has swh, mischat
15:02:37 [Zakim]: On IRC I see PatH, mischat, AndyS, swh, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, MacTed, danbri, mox601, AndyS1, ivan, davidwood, manu1, manu, NickH, ericP, trackbot, sandro
15:03:02 [Zakim]: +PatH
15:03:07 [cygri]: cygri has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:24 [AlexHall]: AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
15:04:01 [Zakim]: +AlexHall
15:04:18 [Scott_Bauer]: scribenick: Scott_Bauer
15:04:27 [Scott_Bauer]: Topic: Admin
15:04:38 [PatH]: zakim, mute me
15:04:38 [Zakim]: PatH should now be muted
15:05:18 [Zakim]: +mhausenblas
15:05:23 [cygri]: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
15:05:23 [Zakim]: +cygri; got it
15:05:25 [Scott_Bauer]: PROPOSED: accept last weeks minutes
15:05:54 [Guus]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-10-19
15:06:02 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: should be 19 rather than 5
15:06:10 [Scott_Bauer]: … of October
15:06:32 [PatH]: mhausenblas owl:sameAs cygri?
15:06:35 [davidwood]: (fixed link to old minutes in agenda)
15:06:40 [Scott_Bauer]: RESOLVED: minutes are accepted
15:06:43 [Souri]: Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:06:49 [CGI734]: CGI734 has joined #rdf-wg
15:06:57 [Scott_Bauer]: Topic: Action Items
15:07:02 [zwu2]: zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
15:07:24 [Zakim]: +Souri
15:07:31 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: Action-3 to be closed
15:07:43 [Zakim]: +ericP
15:07:56 [Zakim]: +zwu2
15:08:09 [PatH]: zakim, unmute me
15:08:09 [Zakim]: PatH should no longer be muted
15:08:20 [gavinc]: Looks like Sandro and Richard have a lot to do ;)
15:08:22 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: quite a number of open items
15:09:06 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: need to discuss the primer with Fabien
15:10:05 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: will continue all for Richard, Sandro
15:11:17 [Scott_Bauer]: sandro: issue three was an attempt to close issues at the end of the face to face.
15:11:34 [Scott_Bauer]: … need to find student to go through old comments
15:11:51 [Scott_Bauer]: … suggest we reopen issue 3
15:12:13 [cygri]: ISSUE-3?
15:12:13 [trackbot]: ISSUE-3 -- Between us, we need to study the feedback we got via http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/ on the previous round of specs (and errata) -- open
15:12:13 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/3
15:13:03 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: if you could edit issue 3
15:13:18 [PatH]: zakim, mute me
15:13:18 [Zakim]: PatH should now be muted
15:13:49 [davidwood]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/111 updated to be more clear.
15:14:00 [Scott_Bauer]: Topic: Telecon next week
15:14:01 [Zakim]: -ericP
15:14:18 [Zakim]: +ericP
15:14:38 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: time change noted for next week -- back to the same time.
15:14:56 [cygri]: ISSUE-71?
15:14:56 [trackbot]: ISSUE-71 -- Reconcile various forms of string literals (time permitting) -- pending review
15:14:56 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/71
15:15:02 [Scott_Bauer]: Topic: Issue 71
15:15:31 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: amendment proposal from Jerermy Carrroll
15:15:51 [PatH]: zakim, unmute me
15:15:51 [Zakim]: PatH should no longer be muted
15:16:11 [Scott_Bauer]: … Richard is the amendment ok for you?
15:16:15 [gavinc]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Oct/0385.html
15:16:53 [Scott_Bauer]: … Jeremy is an expert in the language labels.
15:17:00 [AndyS]: +1 to proposal
15:17:03 [PatH]: +q
15:17:09 [Scott_Bauer]: cygri: this looks ok, it's just a clarification.
15:17:47 [swh]: I find the wording a bit strange
15:17:56 [swh]: +1 to PatH
15:18:00 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: I have no objections to the modification but I do to the other.
15:18:22 [AlexHall]: i guess that's why RIF uses "symbol space" instead of "datatype"
15:19:03 [Scott_Bauer]: cygri: Two separate concepts that deal with datatype IRIS. Typed datatype iri and a lexicalform
15:19:31 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: Data type IRI used as an IRI?
15:19:34 [Zakim]: -ericP
15:19:38 [gavinc_]: gavinc_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:19:41 [Scott_Bauer]: cygri: it's just an IRI
15:19:45 [Zakim]: +ericP
15:19:55 [Scott_Bauer]: … nothing that requires it to be a datatype.
15:20:07 [Scott_Bauer]: … not syntactically invalid
15:20:31 [Scott_Bauer]: … the intention is that this is IRI is exceptional
15:20:40 [AlexHall]: q+
15:20:59 [Scott_Bauer]: … used in a datatype position but just an IRI
15:21:28 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: That seems to be wrong to put it in that position
15:21:35 [gavinc]: Zakim, mute me
15:21:35 [Zakim]: gavinc should now be muted
15:22:07 [Scott_Bauer]: cygri: I don't think we can really improve on the design
15:22:25 [Scott_Bauer]: … I don't' think we want to revisit the design
15:22:35 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: I agree
15:24:02 [Scott_Bauer]: cygri: RDF concepts, section 5 on datatypes denoted by one or more uri references. There is nothing that requires them to be connected
15:24:25 [swh]: Zakim, who is speaking?
15:24:35 [Zakim]: swh, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (9%), PatH (70%)
15:24:58 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: I find this design unacceptable
15:25:41 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: This is called a datatype thats not a datatype.
15:25:47 [AndyS]: q+ to ask if we have formally decided on the URI as rdf:langString (helps SPARQL finish)
15:25:53 [Scott_Bauer]: … let's take it off line
15:26:19 [cygri]: q+
15:26:34 [PatH]: zakim, mute me
15:26:34 [Zakim]: PatH should now be muted
15:26:36 [Scott_Bauer]: AndyS: Is that going to be the URI?
15:27:00 [Zakim]: -ericP
15:27:03 [PatH]: but that iri will not actually occur in the literal...
15:27:04 [Scott_Bauer]: cygri: There was no discussion of the specific URI
15:27:35 [Scott_Bauer]: cygri: Should it be called something different?
15:27:45 [AndyS]: ack me
15:27:45 [Zakim]: AndyS, you wanted to ask if we have formally decided on the URI as rdf:langString (helps SPARQL finish)
15:27:47 [Zakim]: +ericP
15:27:48 [cygri]: ack me
15:28:00 [PatH]: no objections to the label..
15:28:02 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: I suggest we keep the label. Is that ok Andy?
15:28:19 [ericP]: q-
15:28:34 [PatH]: q-
15:29:29 [Scott_Bauer]: AlexHall: Datatype IRI that's not and IRI reminds me of how REST defines the simple space. Some of these are also datatypes.
15:29:50 [AlexHall]: s/REST/RIF/
15:30:02 [Scott_Bauer]: Topic: issue 77
15:30:10 [AlexHall]: s/simple/symbol/
15:30:16 [cygri]: ISSUE-77?
15:30:16 [trackbot]: ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open
15:30:16 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77
15:30:33 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: RDF seq and lists discussion
15:31:19 [swh]: I don't think there's much consensus
15:31:56 [Scott_Bauer]: AndyS: I don't see a consensus forming.
15:32:32 [PatH]: link to wikipage?
15:32:37 [gavinc]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Ordered
15:32:50 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: First Proposal just call them sequence and list downplay as containers. Consensus on this?
15:33:14 [Scott_Bauer]: Andy: I haven't seen push back or support.
15:33:22 [PatH]: people DO call them sequence and list, in fact.
15:33:40 [swh]: yeah
15:33:41 [gavinc]: I think there is some level of consensus on well formedness as well
15:33:43 [PatH]: zakim, unmute me.
15:33:43 [Zakim]: PatH should no longer be muted
15:33:50 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: Semantics proposal is just to remove the semantics.
15:34:32 [ivan]: q+
15:34:34 [AndyS]: well formedness for Seqs was pushed back at : two rdf:_1 to indicate equal rank
15:34:41 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: We may not need to remove that. We may just not need so many at once (containers)
15:34:45 [Zakim]: -ericP
15:35:26 [AlexHall]: q-
15:35:31 [Zakim]: +ericP
15:35:40 [Guus]: ack AlexHall
15:35:54 [Guus]: ack ivan
15:36:24 [Scott_Bauer]: Ivan: The current semantics would define an infinite amount of axiomatic triples.
15:37:26 [Scott_Bauer]: … we get interoperability issues.
15:38:10 [Scott_Bauer]: … certain conclusions in semantics are used in those properties?
15:38:47 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: I agree is would be better if there was a clearer normative statement.
15:38:49 [ivan]: q+
15:39:30 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: We should amend the text.
15:39:40 [Scott_Bauer]: Ivan: We should do this quickly
15:40:07 [Scott_Bauer]: … sparql does define one approach to this.
15:40:28 [ivan]: q+
15:40:29 [Scott_Bauer]: … look at this and see if we can use it to define it.
15:40:40 [Zakim]: -ericP
15:40:52 [Zakim]: +ericP
15:41:34 [ivan]: -> the SPARQL document to look at http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/
15:42:28 [Scott_Bauer]: Action: PatH review the sparql specifications for consistency with rdf semantics for container properties
15:42:28 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-114 - review the sparql specifications for consistency with rdf semantics for container properties [on Patrick Hayes - due 2011-11-09].
15:42:45 [Zakim]: +Sandro
15:42:47 [PatH]: zakim, mute me
15:42:47 [Zakim]: PatH should now be muted
15:43:23 [Scott_Bauer]: Ivan: We have one major user that uses the container properties -- Adobe
15:43:35 [swh]: q+
15:43:40 [ivan]: ack ivan
15:43:42 [Scott_Bauer]: … Should we contact them regarding these changes.
15:43:49 [gavinc]: Hi Sandro!
15:43:53 [davidwood]: +1 to Ivan. We have been presuming that Adobe will care about terminology.
15:44:17 [swh]: q-
15:44:25 [PatH]: i think there was a consensus not to deprecate or otherwise be rude about containers?
15:44:37 [swh]: not consensus
15:44:49 [PatH]: OK
15:45:25 [Scott_Bauer]: Action: sandro will discuss the issue of the container properties and deprecation with Adobe.
15:45:25 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-115 - Will discuss the issue of the container properties and deprecation with Adobe. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2011-11-09].
15:45:49 [swh]: q+
15:46:37 [PatH]: it means if they do use it they have to take a shower afterwards.
15:47:04 [swh]: q?
15:47:11 [Scott_Bauer]: Topic: Well Formed Lists
15:47:33 [AndyS]: q+
15:47:40 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: Is there consensus on this
15:47:58 [Scott_Bauer]: sandro: I think so -- question is what would we do with the definition.
15:48:02 [PatH]: zakim, unmute me
15:48:02 [Zakim]: PatH should no longer be muted
15:48:40 [Scott_Bauer]: SteveH: It's not ok to ask Adobe if its ok to deprectate
15:49:03 [cygri]: q+
15:49:05 [Scott_Bauer]: … the containers
15:49:24 [cygri]: q-
15:49:27 [PatH]: +q re wellformed lists. Is the idea to have wellformed triples or a different 'native' structure?
15:49:47 [swh]: q-
15:49:58 [Scott_Bauer]: AndyS: Lists cannot be shared. Can't have two triples pointing to the same object.
15:50:26 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: can you clarify that?
15:50:48 [Scott_Bauer]: AndyS: It's linked specifically on the turtle page.
15:50:49 [gavinc]: I think PatH it's that IF they are well formed triples they CAN be implemented as a 'native' structure
15:51:17 [Zakim]: +ericP.a
15:51:26 [Zakim]: -ericP
15:51:33 [AndyS]: """ Each list node has exactly one inbound arc; for all but the first node, it's an rdf:rest arc from the previous node. """
15:51:55 [PatH]: ok, clearly we need to check the definition very carefully.
15:52:19 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: I don't hear anybody saying it is a problem.
15:52:28 [gavinc]: "(Perhaps there is a clearer definition using more math.) " ;)
15:52:45 [Scott_Bauer]: … leaving this to further list discussion.
15:52:47 [PatH]: gavinc, yes. in fact there are several...
15:53:05 [PatH]: zakim, mute me
15:53:05 [Zakim]: PatH should now be muted
15:53:21 [Scott_Bauer]: sandro: would like to approach Adobe for feedback on the possibility.
15:54:04 [Scott_Bauer]: Topic: To mark Lists as archaic or not.
15:54:25 [Scott_Bauer]: sandro: see Steve's summary
15:54:44 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: If we are stuck we go with the minimal option.
15:54:59 [Scott_Bauer]: … proposal one.
15:55:09 [PatH]: lists archaic??
15:55:45 [PatH]: +1 to guus. minimal change.
15:56:18 [Scott_Bauer]: Sandro you may need to self scribe I'm not hearing you well
15:56:53 [Scott_Bauer]: sandro: should we get rid of one of them?
15:57:06 [Scott_Bauer]: … sequences or lists?
15:57:27 [PatH]: not clear to me what the alternative(s?) are.
15:57:40 [cygri]: sandro: no one is happy with containers, no one is happy with collections. should we try to actually fix the problem? is there will in the wg to approach this?
15:57:55 [cygri]: q+
15:58:03 [AndyS]: ack me
15:58:11 [PatH]: ah. not obvious to me that this is a problem to solve here.
15:58:15 [PatH]: q-
15:58:31 [Zakim]: +Sandro.a
15:58:53 [Zakim]: -Sandro
15:59:07 [Scott_Bauer]: cygri: The other proposals include a list ontology and a datatype that is a list of UI/s
15:59:24 [PatH]: +1 cygri
15:59:32 [Guus]: +1 to Richard: not really in scope for this WG
15:59:42 [swh]: +1
15:59:49 [Scott_Bauer]: … seems like this should be carefully considered and explored in some other venue.
15:59:53 [swh]: good for an XG (or whatever the current thing is)
15:59:55 [ivan]: +1 to richard
16:00:06 [cygri]: ack me
16:00:33 [gavinc]: +☃ to cygri
16:00:33 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: Proposal one the most likely option.
16:01:18 [Scott_Bauer]: sandro: We are taking a big step by endorsing turtle and it will be painful to have all these turtle lists out there.
16:01:26 [PatH]: i dont see any simple way to get this tidied up now. whatever we do will be a crock at this stage.
16:02:03 [gavinc]: ... ( 1, 2, 3) ?type .
16:02:22 [AndyS]: Turtle exists in the wild already - I worry about changing current meaning.
16:02:23 [Scott_Bauer]: … could perhaps use parenthesis for rdf list
16:02:39 [swh]: +1 to AndyS
16:02:43 [PatH]: list datatype, maybe.
16:02:47 [gavinc]: +1000 to AndyS
16:02:56 [PatH]: +1 andy
16:03:04 [AndyS]: ():List ():Seq with () as list MIGHT work.
16:03:34 [PatH]: lists can have sublists?
16:03:50 [Scott_Bauer]: Topic: Named Graph Issues
16:03:50 [AndyS]: PatH - yes
16:04:14 [sandro]: sandro has joined #rdf-wg
16:04:43 [AndyS]: PatH, an object of rdf:first can be a list by Sandro's wording and by Turtle syntax. Unusual but legal.
16:04:44 [gavinc]: +q what TriG draft currently says
16:04:50 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: Consensus model for moving forward is to agree on the minimal model.
16:04:52 [gavinc]: +q to say what TriG draft currently says
16:05:07 [gavinc]: Zakim, unmute me
16:05:07 [Zakim]: gavinc should no longer be muted
16:05:25 [gavinc]: A graph statement pairs an IRI with a RDF Graph. It is intended that triple statements made about that IRI are being made about the graph. The triple statements that make up the graph are enclosed in {}.
16:05:50 [PatH]: zakim, unmute me
16:05:50 [Zakim]: PatH should no longer be muted
16:05:57 [PatH]: +q
16:06:05 [AndyS]: I like the approach Guus outlines. Document different practices.
16:06:05 [ivan]: ack gavinc
16:06:05 [Zakim]: gavinc, you wanted to say what TriG draft currently says
16:06:09 [Guus]: ack gavinc
16:06:14 [Guus]: ack patH
16:06:26 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: The second sentence "made using that IRI" would be better
16:06:40 [gavinc]: A graph statement pairs an IRI with a RDF Graph. It is intended that triple statements made using that IRI are being made about the graph. The triple statements that make up the graph are enclosed in {}.
16:06:40 [PatH]: zakim, mute me
16:06:40 [Zakim]: PatH should now be muted
16:06:51 [Scott_Bauer]: sandro: informal that the IRI denotes the graph
16:07:11 [Scott_Bauer]: gavinc: We match that grammar in a number of places.
16:07:16 [ericP]: can i simplify
16:07:16 [ericP]: SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 }
16:07:16 [ericP]: SERVICE <S1> { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p2> ?o2 } } }
16:07:16 [ericP]: to
16:07:16 [ericP]: SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 ; <p2> ?o2 } }
16:07:19 [ericP]: ?
16:07:39 [sandro]: Yeah, "using that IRI" not "*about* that IRI".
16:08:12 [Scott_Bauer]: ericP: One persons notion of a graph doesn't have to match another's. Sandro seems to say they probably should.
16:08:36 [swh]: I'm not even sure that's an ideal world
16:08:37 [Scott_Bauer]: sandro: That's probably going farther than we can right now.
16:08:44 [gavinc]: In a TriG document a graph IRI must not be used to label more then one graph. The IRI of a graph statement may be omitted. In this case the graph is considered the default graph of the RDF Dataset.
16:08:47 [swh]: -∞ to those being equivalent
16:08:51 [PatH]: zakim, unmute me
16:08:51 [Zakim]: PatH should no longer be muted
16:08:57 [PatH]: +q
16:09:04 [AndyS]: Not the same - need extra assumptions.
16:09:16 [Scott_Bauer]: gavinc: TRIG doesn't deal with transactions
16:09:41 [ericP]: can i simplify
16:09:41 [ericP]: SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 }
16:09:41 [ericP]: { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p2> ?o2 } } }
16:09:41 [ericP]: to
16:09:41 [ericP]: SELECT * WHERE { GRAPH <G1> { ?s <p1> ?o1 ; <p2> ?o2 } }
16:09:44 [ericP]: ?
16:09:55 [PatH]: IRIs have globsal scope, so they must be the same according to the semantics.
16:10:01 [Scott_Bauer]: gavinc: It says you can't label them twice.
16:10:02 [Guus]: ack PatH
16:10:13 [AndyS]: That is OK.
16:10:14 [Scott_Bauer]: ericP: I'll retract this line of reasoning.
16:10:14 [Souri]: s/globsal /global /
16:10:33 [swh]: what if one dataset is a canned state from 1 year ago?
16:10:37 [gavinc]: I agree for versions of global that include everyone getting to have their own globe
16:10:40 [swh]: or just hasn't been updated
16:10:54 [swh]: yet
16:10:56 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: We have an IRI and it denotes a graph. Nothing about only inside a data set.
16:11:03 [cygri]: it's not the deployed RDF world either
16:11:26 [swh]: it's not representative of how technology actually works
16:11:40 [gavinc]: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/index.html#sec-trig-intro current TriG draft
16:11:58 [Scott_Bauer]: sandro: it would be nice if an IRI refers to the same graph but that's not how sparql works.
16:12:00 [AndyS]: +1 to cygri -- not just SPARQL, just easier to write down currently.
16:12:20 [Scott_Bauer]: … can't just mandate this (Consensus at the face to face)
16:12:21 [AndyS]: ... in fact predates SPARQL.
16:13:02 [Scott_Bauer]: PatH: I thought a resolution was made to have the IRI denote the graph.
16:13:38 [AndyS]: History - SPARQL followed/consensus of subset of deployed usage even back then.
16:13:45 [Scott_Bauer]: gavinc: No one could agree on denotes
16:13:50 [swh]: +1 to AndyS
16:14:32 [Scott_Bauer]: sandro: You can't stop the IRI's from denoting something in RDF, but does it denote the graph.
16:15:16 [Scott_Bauer]: … Maybe something at the top of the TRIG document that says how this works.
16:15:35 [gavinc]: I'm not hearing anyone complain about "It is intended that triple statements made using that IRI are being made about the graph."
16:15:52 [Scott_Bauer]: guus: You could give guidance on what the relationship would identify. Can we reach consensus?
16:16:27 [Scott_Bauer]: AndyS: The IRI denotes the graph is what I get out of the statement.
16:16:36 [AndyS]: Not AndyS
16:16:48 [AndyS]: q+
16:16:58 [cygri]: PatH: The IRI denotes the graph is what I get out of the statement.
16:17:02 [Scott_Bauer]: swh: What Gavin said doesn't ring any alarm bells.
16:17:04 [PatH]: tnx
16:17:24 [Guus]: ack AndyS
16:17:29 [sandro]: sandro: Maybe we can try to flush out the implications of gavin's text.
16:18:02 [AndyS]: q-
16:18:40 [AndyS]: Need to use IRI in triple and IRI-graph association consistently but it's easy to get it wrong.
16:19:16 [Scott_Bauer]: AndyS: The chief problem is this is global. Don't say denote if that isn't' what's meant.
16:19:23 [gavinc]: Sure, PatH but people can something else about that IRI and the world will be happily inconsistent
16:19:39 [AndyS]: s/AndyS/PatH/
16:19:47 [AndyS]: e.g. <iri> : size "57 bytes" using <iri> to denote the g-snap
16:19:52 [swh]: bye
16:19:54 [Zakim]: -Souri
16:19:55 [AndyS]: bye
16:19:56 [Zakim]: -PatH
16:19:57 [Zakim]: -[Garlik]
16:19:58 [Zakim]: -cygri
16:19:59 [zwu2]: bye
16:19:59 [Zakim]: -Sandro.a
16:19:59 [Zakim]: -MacTed
16:19:59 [Zakim]: -davidwood
16:20:02 [Zakim]: -AlexHall
16:20:03 [Zakim]: -ericP.a
16:20:05 [Zakim]: -Ivan
16:20:05 [Zakim]: -gavinc
16:20:06 [AlexHall]: AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
16:20:16 [Zakim]: - +1.707.318.aaaa
16:20:42 [Zakim]: -AndyS
16:20:43 [PatH]: Me too
16:20:50 [PatH]: Us brits all sound alike
16:21:39 [Scott_Bauer]: Action: PatH Send message to list about consequences of TRIG document statements about graph RI's
16:21:40 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-116 - Send message to list about consequences of TRIG document statements about graph RI's [on Patrick Hayes - due 2011-11-09].
16:22:04 [Scott_Bauer]: trackbot, end meeting
16:22:04 [trackbot]: Zakim, list attendees
16:22:04 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been guus, Scott_Bauer, gavinc, Ivan, swh, mischat, +1.707.318.aaaa, davidwood, MacTed, AndyS, PatH, AlexHall, cygri, Souri, ericP, zwu2, Sandro
16:22:05 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:22:05 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
16:22:06 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, bye
16:22:06 [RRSAgent]: I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-actions.rdf :
16:22:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: PatH review the sparql specifications for consistency with rdf semantics for container properties [1]
16:22:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc#T15-42-28
16:22:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: sandro will discuss the issue of the container properties and deprecation with Adobe. [2]
16:22:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc#T15-45-25
16:22:06 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: PatH Send message to list about consequences of TRIG document statements about graph RI's [3]
16:22:06 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-rdf-wg-irc#T16-21-39