Re: Last Call: Five SPARQL 1.1 Drafts

[Sandro Hawke]

Reminder:

On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 20:05 +0100, Axel Polleres wrote:
> The W3C SPARQL WG is happy to announce the publication of 5 Last Call Working 
> Drafts [1]:
> 
> SPARQL 1.1 Query Language
>  --> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-query-20120105/
> SPARQL 1.1 Update
>  --> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-update-20120105/
> SPARQL 1.1 Protocol
>  --> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-protocol-20120105/
> SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes
>  --> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-entailment-20120105/
> SPARQL 1.1 Service Description
> --> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-service-description-20120105/
> 
> Publication as a Last Call Working Draft indicates that the SPARQL Working 
> Group
> believes it has addressed all substantive issues and that the documents are 
> stable.
> The Working Group expects to advance these specifications to Recommendation 
> Status.
> 
> The end date of the Last Call review period is
> 
>  *06 February 2012*

That's today, folks.  If you haven't looked at SPARQL 1.1 yet, right now
would be a good time,

 -- Sandro


> i.e., comments on these working drafts are due on or before this date.
> 
> Comments on this document should be sent to public-rdf-dawg-comme...@w3.org, a
> mailing list with a public archive, see 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments
> 
> The SPARQL WG welcomes reports of implementations, sent to the comments 
> address.
> If we gather sufficient evidence of interoperable implementations, the group 
> may
> request to skip its Call for Implementations (Candidate Recommendation) 
> drafts and
> have the next round of publications be Proposed Recommendations.
> 
> While some of the documents published in this round had been published as 
> "Last Call" 
> before already (SPARQL 1.1 Query Language, SPARQL 1.1 Update, SPARQL 1.1 
> Entailment Regimes, 
> SPARQL 1.1 Service Description,), the WG has decided to publish a 2nd Last 
> Call round of 
> these four documents, due to a set of not-large-but-substantive changes in 
> response to 
> LC1 comments:
> 
> * In SPARQL 1.1 Query Language:
> We have removed SHA224 from hash function choices
> We have added function STRBEFORE, STRAFTER, REPLACE
> We have broadened REGXP to take a first argument of xsd:string and 
> rdf:langString.
> We have defined DATATYPE on language tag literals.
> We allow aggregates in ORDER BY clause
> Grammar: Backslash character escapes in prefixed names
> Grammar: Fix: Allow ASK to take solution modifiers
> Grammar: Fix: AdditiveExpression: '?' => '*'
> 
> * In SPARQL 1.1 Update: the COPY, ADD, and MOVE operations are no longer 
> at-risk.
> 
> * In SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes, a section on property paths now clarifies 
> how property
>  path expressions are evaluated under an entailment regime and the 
> D-Entailment Regime has
>  been modified to require a certain datatype map and to return only canonical 
> representations
>  of literal bindings.
> 
> * In SPARQL 1.1 Service Description, clarifying text has been added to better
>  describe several components of the service description vocabulary, "SHOULD 
> NOT"
>  normative language has been changed to "MUST NOT" in the sd:EmptyGraphs 
> section, as
>  well as several updates have been made with respect to the description of 
> services
>  supporting Update requests.
> 
> 
> best regards,
> Axel Polleres, on behalf of the SPARQL WG
> 
> 1. http://www.w3.org/News/2012.html#entry-9312
> 

Re: recording meetings

[Sandro Hawke]

On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 20:18 +, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> A few quick follow up thoughts about this recording thing
> 
> (the transcripts are v useful to catch up and document what was said,
> but  a bit difficult and long to read. Recordings do have an important
> place for ppl who cannot attend the meetings)
> 
> a few other possibilities to explore:
> 
> - is there anyone really who would not consent to their voice being
> recorded in this group? aren't most people here to share and make
> their voice heard?
> 
> 
> - if not, or if they are a tiny minority, then permission to record
> could be a condition to participating in the call in the first place.
> 
> 
> - was thinking about the parallel with taking minutes, isnt a
> recording the same as minutes? 

My understanding is that taking notes on a conversation and recording
the conversation are, legally, entirely different.

Also, I think it's *possible*, given the way all-parties-consent laws
are written, that one needs consent from everyone on the call, even
people who are not speaking.

The practical solution is to announce at the start of the meeting, and
whenever taking questions, that the meeting is being recorded.  What I
don't know is if that's sufficient in every jurisdiction that could
possibly apply.   If anyone knows how to find that out, without paying
vast legal fees, that would be an interesting contribution.

It would also be nice to somehow keep a measure of how many people are
silenced by the idea of a recording being made.

   -- Sandro

> has anyone every objected to what they say in  a call be struck of the
> proceedings? would this be a legitimate/sane request (unless these had
> been recorded incorrectly of course). How can the law
> be different between recording an intervention in writing and/or using
> appropriate technology (voice)
> 
> 
> - a solution that does not require a muffle functionality to be in
> place yet, could be having two parallel calls going on
> one where the participants give consent to record their voice, where
> they can also speak and intervene, then a 
> 'listen only' call, where participants are not allowed to intervene
> (but can do so on IRC and email for example)
> Somehow it feels fair that if someone dont want their voice recorded,
> by so doing, also waive their right to make their voice heard. They
> can always post a note :-)
> 
> 
> Just thoughts for the record
> 
> 
> Til next
> 
> 
> PDM
> 
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Paola Di Maio
>  wrote:
> Take this opportunity to apologise for missing the last
> meeting (belated) I was travelling
> 
> 
> Sounds like there may be a new requirement for recording
> software feature: when the caller dials the call, should be
> asked to give consent to record, if this is not given, they
> should be able to participate in the call, however the
> recording should be 'muted' or substituted with some music or
> other drill. Should not be difficult to implement
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Sandro Hawke 
> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 07:52 -0800, Holm, Jeanne M
> (1760) wrote:
> > Nikos--
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure we'll be doing an audio recording, but
> let me check…
> 
> As I understand it, the laws around audio recording
> make it too risky.
> In particular, in some jurisdictions, including
> Massachusetts where our
> phone bridge is, the law requires consent from *all*
> parties for
> recording a telephone conversation.  Given the number
> of possible
> attendees, and the difficulty of identifying each of
> them, let alone
> getting their consent, I don't think it's practical.
> 
> 
>-- Sandro
> 
> >
> > We will be capturing the chat over IRC and that will
> be shortly a day
> > or two after the meeting.
> >
> >
> > --Jeanne
> >
> >
> **
> > Jeanne Holm
> > Evangelist, Data.gov
> > U.S. General Services Administratio

Re: recording meetings

[Sandro Hawke]

On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 09:51 -0800, Dave McAllister wrote:
> However, it is possible to record just the presentation portion,
> especially if using internet meeting software.  Since I'm only recording
> the presenter (and potentially other named speakers), and a moderator, it
> is easier to gain permission.

It looks to me like you might potentially need consent from everyone in
the audience, too, even though their voices aren't recorded, since they
are still, in a sense, a party to the conversation.  On the other hand,
it looks like maybe it's enough to announce clearly that you are
recording:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law

Since violating this is a criminal and civil matter, though, and there
might be other jurisdictions involved, I do not think it's a good idea
to record it without much more clear legal guidance.

> If it's just an audio stream though, it's probably not worth it.

Right.  :-)

-- Sandro

> davemc
> 
> -- 
> Dave McAllister
> Director, Open Source and Standards
> Core Services, Experience and Technology Organization
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> W: +1 408-536-3881
> GC: +1 650-523-4942
> 
> Linux Journal Editorial Adviser, http://www.linuxjournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/20/11 9:45 AM, "Sandro Hawke"  wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 07:52 -0800, Holm, Jeanne M (1760) wrote:
> >> Nikos--
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I'm not sure we'll be doing an audio recording, but let me checkŠ
> >
> >As I understand it, the laws around audio recording make it too risky.
> >In particular, in some jurisdictions, including Massachusetts where our
> >phone bridge is, the law requires consent from *all* parties for
> >recording a telephone conversation.  Given the number of possible
> >attendees, and the difficulty of identifying each of them, let alone
> >getting their consent, I don't think it's practical.
> >
> >
> >-- Sandro
> > 
> >> 
> >> We will be capturing the chat over IRC and that will be shortly a day
> >> or two after the meeting.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --Jeanne
> >> 
> >> **
> >> Jeanne Holm
> >> Evangelist, Data.gov
> >> U.S. General Services Administration
> >> Cell: (818) 434-5037
> >> Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm
> >> **
> >> 
> >> 
> >> From: Nikos Roussos 
> >> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:50:01 -0800
> >> To: Jeanne Holm 
> >> Cc: W3C eGov IG mailing list , Linked Data
> >> community 
> >> Subject: Re: W3C eGov Meeting Time Change: 20 December 5 pm Eastern
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Is there going to be an audio recording available after the meeting?
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Nikos Roussos
> >> about | linkedin
> >> 
> >> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Holm, Jeanne M (1760)
> >>  wrote:
> >> Hi all--
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Our W3C eGovernment Interest Group will be meeting tomorrow
> >> with an exciting agenda on licensing issues around government
> >> data and services.  One of our key speakers, Dr. Anne
> >> Fitzgerald, is joining us from Brisbane and we'll be shifting
> >> the time to better accommodate that time zone.  Apologies in
> >> advance for keeping our European colleagues up late, and a
> >> great opportunity for others to join at a more reasonable
> >> time.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 20 December, 10-11:30 pm GMT/5-6:30 pm EDT
> >> 21 December, 8-9:30 am Brisbane
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Speakers:
> >>   --Dr. Anne Fitzgerald, University of
> >> Queensland,
> >>http://www.law.qut.edu.au/staff/facstaff/afitzgerald.jsp
> >>   --Sarah Pearson and team, Creative
> >> Commons, http://creativecommons.org/
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Agenda:
> >>   --Licensing issues for open data and government services
> >>   --Impacts of licensing choices on providers and consumers of
> >> data and services
> >>   --Looking at specific uses of Creative Commons
> >>   --Open questions
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Verify your 

recording meetings

[Sandro Hawke]

On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 07:52 -0800, Holm, Jeanne M (1760) wrote:
> Nikos--
> 
> 
> I'm not sure we'll be doing an audio recording, but let me check…

As I understand it, the laws around audio recording make it too risky.
In particular, in some jurisdictions, including Massachusetts where our
phone bridge is, the law requires consent from *all* parties for
recording a telephone conversation.  Given the number of possible
attendees, and the difficulty of identifying each of them, let alone
getting their consent, I don't think it's practical.


-- Sandro
 
> 
> We will be capturing the chat over IRC and that will be shortly a day
> or two after the meeting.
> 
> 
> --Jeanne
> 
> **
> Jeanne Holm
> Evangelist, Data.gov
> U.S. General Services Administration
> Cell: (818) 434-5037
> Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm
> **
> 
> 
> From: Nikos Roussos 
> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:50:01 -0800
> To: Jeanne Holm 
> Cc: W3C eGov IG mailing list , Linked Data
> community 
> Subject: Re: W3C eGov Meeting Time Change: 20 December 5 pm Eastern
> 
> 
> 
> Is there going to be an audio recording available after the meeting?
> 
> -- 
> Nikos Roussos
> about | linkedin
> 
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Holm, Jeanne M (1760)
>  wrote:
> Hi all--
> 
> 
> Our W3C eGovernment Interest Group will be meeting tomorrow
> with an exciting agenda on licensing issues around government
> data and services.  One of our key speakers, Dr. Anne
> Fitzgerald, is joining us from Brisbane and we'll be shifting
> the time to better accommodate that time zone.  Apologies in
> advance for keeping our European colleagues up late, and a
> great opportunity for others to join at a more reasonable
> time.
> 
> 
> 20 December, 10-11:30 pm GMT/5-6:30 pm EDT
> 21 December, 8-9:30 am Brisbane
> 
> 
> Speakers:  
>   --Dr. Anne Fitzgerald, University of
> Queensland, http://www.law.qut.edu.au/staff/facstaff/afitzgerald.jsp 
>   --Sarah Pearson and team, Creative
> Commons, http://creativecommons.org/ 
> 
> 
> Agenda:
>   --Licensing issues for open data and government services
>   --Impacts of licensing choices on providers and consumers of
> data and services
>   --Looking at specific uses of Creative Commons
>   --Open questions
> 
> 
> Verify your local event time
> at 
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=W3C+eGovernment+Interest+Group+Licensing+Discussion&iso=20111220T17&p1=263&ah=1&am=30
>  
> 
> 
> To join, dial +1.617.761.6200 (for the Zakim bridge) and use
> conference 3468 ("EGOV")
> To join the chat, go to http://irc.w3.org/ and enter #egov for
> the channel.
> 
> 
> Looking forward to talking to you all tomorrow!
> 
> 
> --Jeanne Holm
> 
> **
> Jeanne Holm
> Evangelist, Data.gov
> U.S. General Services Administration
> Cell: (818) 434-5037
> Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn: JeanneHolm
> **
> 
> 

Government Linked Data (GLD) Working Group

[Sandro Hawke]

There is now a W3C Working Group on Government use of Linked Data. The
group's home page is here:

http://www.w3.org/2011/gld

The kickoff meeting is in just three week, near Washington D.C.  If you
are interested in participating, please fill out this survey:

   http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/gld-sched/

If you expect to attend this meeting (in person or remotely), please
take a serious look at the deliverables in the charter and pick one or
two items on which you'd be willing to give a 10-minute presentation,
helping people understand that topic.  If you can do this, please send
your topic(s) and a few thoughts to the chairs at
team-gld-cha...@w3.org.  Responses within the next week will help us
form the agenda and give us time to give you feedback.

The charter is here:

   http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter

This is important work, which I expect will be very rewarding for
people striving for five-star Government data.

       - Sandro Hawke, W3C staff contact

(Sorry for the accidental conflict with OKCon.  Scheduling is
hard.  We expect to have another meeting in Europe in the fall.)

Re: Preparing for the Gov Linked Data WG

[Sandro Hawke]

On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 12:20 +1000, Chris Beer wrote:
> Won't be able to get there unfortunately, but will be there in spirit :)
> 
> Looking forward to the WG though - will no doubt talk to you all when we 
> start telecons.
> 
> Cheers and best regards for the F2F kickoff

Thanks, Chris.

Meanwhile, people, please check your "CC" line.   Chris is the 4th
person to reply to everyone.  There are a lot of subscribers included
here.   [ To give this email some useful information: semantic-web has
1214, public-lod has 856, and public-egov-ig has 364.  I asked for
questions to be sent to team-gld-chairs, which has 3.  :-)  ]

And there's no need to RSVP by email at all -- that's what the form is
for:

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/gld-sched/

Thanks!

  -- Sandro

> Chris Beer (iPhone)
> 
> On 05/05/2011, at 4:06, Sandro Hawke  wrote:
> 
> > The first gathering of the anticipated W3C Government Linked Data
> > (GLD) Working Group [1] has been scheduled for June 29-30 at the NITRD
> > offices [2] in Arlington VA, minutes from downtown Washington DC.
> > Although the charter has not yet been formally approved, we have begun
> > planning this kickoff meeting, and would like to know which people are
> > likely to attend and which organizations are likely to be represented.
> > 
> > We would also like to select an optimal time for weekly teleconference
> > calls.  So, if you are expecting or hoping to participate in this
> > group, please provide information on both these subject using this
> > form:
> > 
> >http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/gld-sched
> > 
> > If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at
> > team-gld-cha...@w3.org.  Also, please help spread the word to people
> > who are likely to participate, but might not see this email.
> > 
> >   Sandro Hawke, W3C staff contact, for
> >   George Thomas (US HHS) and Bernadette Hyland (Talis), co-chairs
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/F2F1
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

Preparing for the Gov Linked Data WG

[Sandro Hawke]

The first gathering of the anticipated W3C Government Linked Data
(GLD) Working Group [1] has been scheduled for June 29-30 at the NITRD
offices [2] in Arlington VA, minutes from downtown Washington DC.
Although the charter has not yet been formally approved, we have begun
planning this kickoff meeting, and would like to know which people are
likely to attend and which organizations are likely to be represented.

We would also like to select an optimal time for weekly teleconference
calls.  So, if you are expecting or hoping to participate in this
group, please provide information on both these subject using this
form:

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/gld-sched

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at
team-gld-cha...@w3.org.  Also, please help spread the word to people
who are likely to participate, but might not see this email.

   Sandro Hawke, W3C staff contact, for
   George Thomas (US HHS) and Bernadette Hyland (Talis), co-chairs

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/F2F1

Security of Dereference in Linked Data

[Sandro Hawke]

On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 23:27 +0200, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Pat Hayes  wrote:
> [...]
> >> This is
> >> the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial procedure we
> >> should use to arbitrate between competing understandings of its meaning.
> >
> > Whoo, I doubt if that idea is going to fly. I sincerely hope not. Using
> > that, how would you determine the meaning of the DC vocabulary?
> 
> It's also worth bearing in mind that Web sites get hacked from time to
> time. W3C gets attacked regularly (but is pretty robust). The FOAF
> servers were compromised a year or two back (but the xmlns.com site
> was untouched). For a while, foaf-project.org was serving evil PHP and
> ugly links, as was my own home page. This kind of mischief should be
> kept in mind by anyone building a system that assumes you'll get
> canonical meaning from an HTTP GET...

My first answer to this is that lots and lots of society trusts the Web
in general and certain websites in particular.  Before the world learns
to adopt and trust linked data, the vocabulary servers are probably
going to have to become more robust and carefully managed.

My second answer is to mention a proposal I worked on some years back to
tackle this with crypto:  http://www.w3.org/2003/08/introhash/v2

I backed off that proposal because I think, at least for now, the first
answer is good enough.   But I still like the general idea of putting
hashes into URIs to make them more secure and to  allow for secure
mirroring, ... but we'll have to see if it becomes worthwhile some day.

  -- Sandro

Capturing the discussion (RE: Subjects as Literals)

[Sandro Hawke]

Would anyone be willing to try to capture the results of this thread in
a page or two of consensus (neutral point-of-view) text that would
explain the situation to at least a majority of the folks who've jumped
in here with misunderstandings?

To my reading, you (Michael) and Antoine are expressing that most
clearly, if you'd be willing.

It would be good, I think, to incorporate the ideas and perhaps the
structure used at the workshop:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF_Core_Charter_2010#Literals_as_Subjects

... but probably do it on another wiki page, eg:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Literals_as_Subjects (which does not yet
exist as I write this).

We could think of this as a FAQ response, where the Questions are
something like:
  Why can't I use Literals in the subject position in RDF?
  When are you going to change this?
  How can I work around this restriction?
and maybe:
  What would anyone want to use literals as subjects?
  What would it mean to use a literal as a predicate?

Hoping someone will feel inspired to tie this up with a nice bow,
-- Sandro

On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 23:40 +0200, Michael Schneider wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
> 
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 11:02 PM
> >To: Pat Hayes
> >Cc: Toby Inkster; Linked Data community; Semantic Web
> >Subject: Re: Subjects as Literals
> >
> >Pat Hayes wrote:
> >> However, before I lose any more of my SW friends, let me say at once
> >> that I am NOT arguing for this change to RDF.
> >
> >so after hundreds of emails, I have to ask - what (the hell) defines
> >RDF?
> >
> >I've read that 'The RDF Semantics as stated works fine with triples
> >which have any kind of syntactic node in any position in any
> >combination.'
> >
> >Do the 'RDF Semantics' define RDF? or do the serializations?
> 
> Every formal language is essentially defined by a (abstract) syntax and a
> semantics. The syntax defines which well-formed syntactic constructs exist,
> and the semantics gives meaning to these constructs. 
> 
> RDF is defined by the RDF Abstract Syntax, defined in [1], and the RDF
> Semantics, defined in [2]. 
> 
> Serializations of the (abstract) syntax, as RDF/XML [3] or N3 in the case of
> RDF, are concrete formalisms to encode the abstract syntax of a language
> into a stream of characters so a language construct can be technically
> stored and processed. A serialization does not fundamentally contribute to
> the specification of the language, but is of great importance anyway. An
> abstract syntax cannot really be stored or processed, but is more of a
> conceptual/mathematical model.
> 
> >simply - does RDF support literal subjects or not - I've read the
> >aforementioned sentence to read 'RDF Semantics support literal subjects'
> >or should I be reading 'RDF Semantics could support literal subjects' or
> >'does support literal subjects' or?
> 
> The RDF Semantics could, in principle, cope with generalized RDF, but the
> RDF Abstract Syntax does not support literal subjects. Therefore, RDF as a
> whole does not support literal subjects.
> 
> >Just seeking a definitive bit of clarity on 1: what defines RDF, 2: what
> >is *currently* supported in that definition.
> >
> >Preferably a serialization unspecific answer :)
> 
> Indeed. Even if a serialization of RDF would support literals in subjects,
> RDF as a formal language would still not support it. For instance, N3
> supports certain forms of rules, and TriG supports named graphs. But none of
> these syntactic constructs are supported by the RDF Abstract Syntax. So they
> are not supported by RDF. 
> 
> >Best & TIA,
> >
> >Nathan
> 
> Best,
> Michael
> 
> [1] 
> [2] 
> [3] 
> 
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schnei...@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> ===
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> ===
> 
> 
> 

Linked Data Spec (was Re: Subjects as Literals)

[Sandro Hawke]

On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:23 -0400, David Booth wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote:
> [ . . . ] 
> > foaf:knows a rdf:Property .
> > 
> > Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what it means. This is
> > the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial procedure we
> > should use to arbitrate between competing understandings of its meaning.
> 
> Right.  The document you get upon dereferencing -- the "follow your
> nose" document -- acts as a URI declaration.[1]
> 
> 1. http://dbooth.org/2007/uri-decl/ 

To be clear, this is your proposal, not a part of the current RDF
specifications.Your phrasing might confuse people about that.  

Your proposal is somewhat more specific than the general Linked Data
proposal, eg http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData

Two questions for the W3C community going forward are:

 * exactly what do we mean by Linked Data (ie do we follow
   David's proposal?)

 * in the general case, "should" data be published as RDF
   Linked Data?

The workshop output on these subjects is here:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF_Core_Charter_2010#Linked_Data_Work_Items

and see the strawpoll results:

http://www.w3.org/2010/06/rdf-work-items/table

If someone wants to re-factor and revise those proposals, I'd encourage
them to do it on that wiki, but on a new page.

Some of this work may end up being tackled as part of the eGovernment
Activity instead of the Semantic Web activity, perhaps.

-- Sandro

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

[Sandro Hawke]

On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:39 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> >> In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice 
> >> but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other 
> >> serializations of N3 to come along.
> > 
> > RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N3, mutated (in
> > some good ways and some bad ways, I suppose) by the community consensus
> > process.   RIF is simultaneously the heir to N3 and a standard business
> > rules format.
> > 
> > RIF's central syntax is XML-based, but there's room for a presentation
> > syntax that looks like N3.   RIF includes triples which can have
> > literals as subject, of course.  (In RIF, these triples are called
> > "frames".   Well, sets of triples with a shared subject are called
> > frames, technically.But they are defined by the spec to be an
> > extension of RDF triples.)
> 
> does it cover formulae in s and o position?
> 
> i.e. can the following be expressed (without reification):
> 
> { :thermostat :temp :high } log:implies { :heating :power "0" } .

It can express such rules.  That's the main thing it does.  It does not
consider rules to be triples, however.  Making rules just be triples is
an interesting trick timbl did in the design of N3, but it causes a few
problems, and the RIF Working Group decided instead to make rules be
first-class syntactic objects instead.   (The most obvious problem is:
where do you declare the variables?  Another is: how do you attach
metadata to the rule?   Many real-world rule systems have names and
other management information associated with each rule.)

As for putting formulas in the s and o position for non-rule
applications, I would argue that is, by definition, reification.  There
is a RIF Working Draft [1] on doing that, but it's not part of the
current standard.

   -- Sandro


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-in-rdf

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

[Sandro Hawke]

On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:10 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> In all honesty, if this doesn't happen, I personally will have no choice 
> but to move to N3 for the bulk of things, and hope for other 
> serializations of N3 to come along.

RIF (which became a W3C Recommendation last week) is N3, mutated (in
some good ways and some bad ways, I suppose) by the community consensus
process.   RIF is simultaneously the heir to N3 and a standard business
rules format.

RIF's central syntax is XML-based, but there's room for a presentation
syntax that looks like N3.   RIF includes triples which can have
literals as subject, of course.  (In RIF, these triples are called
"frames".   Well, sets of triples with a shared subject are called
frames, technically.But they are defined by the spec to be an
extension of RDF triples.)

 -- Sandro

Re: Subjects as Literals

[Sandro Hawke]

On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 22:14 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Ross Singer wrote:
> 
> > I suppose my questions here would be:
> >
> > 1) What's the use case of a literal as subject statement (besides
> > being an academic exercise)?
> 
> A few off the top of my head.
> 
> 1. Titles of books, music and other works might have properties such  
> as the date they were registered, who owns them, etc..
> 2. Dates may have significant properties such as being the day that  
> someone was shot or when war broke out.
> 3. Dates represented as character strings in some known date format  
> other than XSD can be asserted to be the same as a 'real' date by  
> writing things like
> 
> "01-02-1481" sameDateAs "01022010"^^xsd:date .
> "01-02-1481" isDateIn :MuslimCalendar .
> 
> I am sure that you can think of many more. In general, allowing  
> strings as subjects opens the door to a wide range of uses of RDF to  
> 'attach'  information to pieces of text. Another example which occurs  
> to me: this piece of text is the French translation of that piece of  
> text, expressed as a single RDF triple with two literals.
> 
> 4. It has been noted that one can map datatyping into RDF itself by  
> treating the datatypes as properties, and there are several use cases  
> for this. The natural way to do it involves having literals as  
> subject, since the dataype map goes from the string to the value:
> 
> "23" xsd:number "23"^^xsd:number .
> 
> 5. Also, allowing this "purely academically" has the notable advantage  
> of simplifying RDF(S) inferencing, including making the forward- 
> chaining rules simpler. Right now, there is a strange oddity involving  
> blank node instantiations. One can say things like 'the number of my  
> children is prime" by using an blank node:
> 
> :PatHayes hasNumberOfKids _:x .
> _:x :a :PrimeNumber .
> 
> But this legal RDF can't be instantiated in the obvious way:
> 
> :PatHayes hasNumberOfKids "3"^^xsd:number .
> "3"^^xsd:number :a "PrimeNumber .   
> 
> This trips up RDFS reasoners, which can often produce inferences by a  
> kind of sneaky use-a-bnode-instead maneuver even when the obvious  
> conclusion cannot be stated because of the restriction. (There are a  
> few examples in the RDF semantics document.) Removing the restriction  
> would enable reasoners to work more efficiently with a smaller set of  
> rules. (I gather that at least some of the RDFS rule engines out there  
> already do this, internally.)
> 
> > 2) Does literal as subject make sense in "linked data" (I ask mainly
> > from a "follow your nose" perspective) if blank nodes are considered
> > controversial?
> 
> Seems to me that from the linked data POV, anything that can be an  
> object should also be useable as a subject. Of course, that does allow  
> for the view that both of them should only ever be IRIs, I guess.

Thanks for the good use cases.

So, in my brief unofficial workshop report [1] I kind of oversimplified
(lied) about one thing.  In general, topics were included because they
had considerable support present at the workshop.  But not
Literals-as-Subject; it was included because TimBL said it was important
to him.  That means, however, it had no advocate in the room, so perhaps
it's no great surprise it ended at the bottom.   Fortunately, the
workshop is not the final arbiter here.

I think perhaps the biggest reason against Literals-as-Subject is this
RDF/XML concern.  To be clear, yes, RDF/XML is already unable to
serialize some graphs, but this would make the matter much worse.  It
would make RDF/XML be much more clearly a second-class serialization,
and several people expressed concerns that relegating RDF/XML to such a
position was not a good idea.

People also expressed (to my surprise) willingness to make small,
backward compatible changes to RDF/XML, if necessary to keep up with
changes in the model.  This was clear for "Add Graphs to RDF/XML" which
was 8th on the list, the first that didn't have tons of support, but was
still largely desired.

I think support for literals-as-subject could be added to RDF/XML in a
pretty okay way.   Something like a special property, rdf:aboutLiteral:

  
 3
  

In v1 parsers, it might generate an RDF namespace warning and it would
generate reasonable but not-quite-right triples: { _:x a ns:PrimeNumber;
_:x rdf:aboutLiteral 3}.  V2 parsers would generate the intended { 3 a
ns:PrimeNumber } triple.

(Opinion, Jeremy?  *If* we end up doing a v2 for graph naming, the
economic cost of also doing this becomes quite small.)

There's also a school of opposition here which is about aligning RDF
subjects with Object-Oriented Programming's objects.  For that school,
literals as subjects could be a real problem.   But I'm not sure anyone
takes that school very seriously now, so I'll let someone stand up and
argue that position if they want, rather than trying to do it for them.

-- Sandro

[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/rdf-work-items/tab

Re: The Ordered List Ontology

[Sandro Hawke]

On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 01:53 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Pat Hayes  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 30, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Pat Hayes  wrote:
> 
>  On Jun 30, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Toby Inkster wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:54:20 +0100
> > Dan Brickley  wrote:
> >
> >> That said, i'm sure sameAs and differentIndividual (or however  
> >> it is
> >> called) claims could probably make a mess, if added or removed...
> >
> > You can create some pretty awesome messes even without OWL:
> >
> >   # An rdf:List that loops around...
> >
> >   <#mylist> a rdf:List ;
> >   rdf:first <#Alice> ;
> >   rdf:next <#mylist> .
> >
> >   # A looping, branching mess...
> >
> >   <#anotherlist> a rdf:List ;
> >   rdf:first <#anotherlist> ;
> >   rdf:next <#anotherlist> .
> >
> 
>  They might be messy, but they are *possible* structures using  
>  pointers,
>  which is what the RDF vocabulary describes.  Its just about  
>  impossible to
>  guarantee that messes can't happen when all you are doing is  
>  describing
>  structures in an open-world setting. But I think the cure is to  
>  stop
>  thinking that possible-messes are a problem to be solved. So,  
>  there is
>  dung
>  in the road. Walk round it.
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>>
> >>> So this is a point that probably needs careful presentation to new
> >>> users of this technology. Educating people that they shouldn't  
> >>> believe
> >>> any random RDF they find in the Web, ... now that is pretty easy.
> >>> Still needs doing, but it shadows real world intuitions pretty well.
> >>>
> >>> If in real life you think the Daily Mail is full of nonsense, then  
> >>> it
> >>> isn't a huge leap to treat RDFized representations of their claims
> >>> with similar skepticism (eg. see
> >>> http://data.totl.net/cancer_causes.rdf for a great list of Things  
> >>> The
> >>> Daily Mail Say Might Cause Cancer).
> >>>
> >>> *However* it is going to be tough to persuade developers to treat a
> >>> basic data structure like List in the same way.
> >>
> >> Sure.  But what they need to grok is that RDF does not have ANY data
> >> structures in it (except maybe triples). It describes data  
> >> structures, just
> >> like it describes everything else. It does not PROVIDE data  
> >> structures.
> >> Maybe it should - make the case! - but then it will need to change  
> >> rather
> >> drastically in its very foundation. Triples describing lists are  
> >> not the
> >> same as triples-plus-lists.
> >
> > The issue is here that RDF started as a metadata format to "describe"
> > data I believe, and at this point with the Linked Data is now being
> > transformed into a generic language *for* data, period.
> 
> Is this really the case? I wasn't part of the very first RDF  
> initiative, but ever since I've been involved with it, its purpose was  
> pretty explicitly supposed to be for representing information - call  
> it data if you like - rather than anything "meta". I've never read  
> anything that suggest that RDF is supposed to be describing data. It  
> is supposed to be describing the world.

I agree.  See one of the inputs to RDF, MCF:
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-MCF-XML-970624/

"There is no useful distinction between the representational needs of
data and metadata."

> >  The lack of
> > lists (and hashes, and other things programmers are used to dealing
> > with) in a reasonable (read "non-XML") syntax is one of the primary
> > reasons the developer community has moved towards JSON.
> 
> Well, Im all for JSON, but JSON is a programming language, not a  
> language for stating facts in. If anything, JSON would be the  
> metalanguage here, being used to do things to RDF syntax, I presume.

Well, JSON is a syntax for serializing some kinds of data used in
programming languages; it's not a programming language itself.  I expect
W3C will be doing some more work in bridging RDF and JSON soon; my most
recent (unofficial) attempt is here:

http://decentralyze.com/2010/06/04/from-json-to-rdf-in-six-easy-steps-with-jron/

In that, I don't go into the difference between a data structure
language and a KR language, because it doesn't seem to me to be a
distinction most people need to worry about.  

   -- Sandro

RIF is a REC

[Sandro Hawke]

The Rule Interchange Format (RIF) is now a W3C Recommendation.

W3C News announcement:
  http://www.w3.org/News/2010#entry-8839

MITnews article, which provides a nice high-level view, written for an
audience who has never heard of the Semantic Web:
  http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/semantic-web-0622.html

I'll be very interested to see some linked data client libraries start
to harvest and use RIF.   It's one of the next big steps in making this
ecosystem really take off.

-- Sandro

Re: [dady] Dataset Dynamics meet-up at WWW2010

[Sandro Hawke]

> Changes in Linked Data sources (dataset dynamics) and how to deal with it
> are an important and emerging issue [1][2].
> 
> As already mentioned, there will be a dataset dynamics meet-up at WWW2010. I
> first planned to register a BoF, but it is still unclear if this is possible
> [3].
> 
> I'd now propose to have a break-out session at the W3C LOD Track [4] - as I
> won't be able to make it to WWW, Juergen Umbrich (in CC) would take care of
> the local organisation.

Sounds like a good idea, although I don't know what else might be on the
menu.

So, I just learned of the "dataset dynamics" term and community last
week (from Michael), but I've been thinking about this for many years.
I got inspired and sketched out a design a few months ago, which I think
is pretty good.  I've been hoping to return to it some day soon, but if
we're talking about this Thursday, I might was well share the drafts
now.

I think for the use cases I have in mind (large scale, ad hoc, real-time
mirroring of RDF), a key requirement is constant time (per triple) to
apply deltas, including maintaining a secure hash.  I was happy to see I
could (I think) meet this with some tweaking of blank nodes.  I sketched
both a delta format (gruf) and a subscription protocol (websub), which
are separate. 

Rough specs are here:
   http://websub.org/wiki/GRUF
   http://websub.org/wiki/Spec

  -- Sandro

> Cheers,
>   Michael
> 
> [1] http://esw.w3.org/DatasetDynamics
> [2] 
> http://data-gov.tw.rpi.edu/wiki/TWC_Data-gov_Vocabulary_Proposal#Change_of_d
> ataset
> [3] http://twitter.com/WWW2010/status/12452736301
> [4] http://esw.w3.org/Camps:LODCampW3CTrack#breakout
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas
> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> Ireland, Europe
> Tel. +353 91 495730
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> http://sw-app.org/about.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/dataset-dynamics/subscr
> ibe?hl=en

Re: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

[Sandro Hawke]

Sorry, no.  You're 99.9% right here, but I don't see why you think we
need to change "Locator" to "Linker".  "Locator" is a perfectly correct
term.  It is a string which is used to locate things.  Locating things
is like identifying them, except that you can also (in some sense)
access them.  That's exactly how we use URLs.  My airline calls the key
they assign to reservations, in their communications with the public, a
"record locator".

I think people got thrown off for a while in the 90s, because URLs
appear to include host names, and hosts are peices of equipment.  So
they thought each URL pointed to a peice of equipment.  That's not true,
of course, and I think we're pretty much over that misconception now.

Also, trying to change from "Locator" or "Linker" would (aside from
being not helpful) introduce more of this stuff:

> "URL? yeah kinda, you probably really ought to say URI but don't
> worry, you nearly got it"

which you nail perfectly.  If we changed from "Locator" to "Linker" we'd
have people saying, in that same tone of voice and to the same confused
and hurt audience: "Oh, of course you mean UR *Linker* don't you".

  -- Sandro

> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Ian Davis  wrote:
> > When talking to people who aren't semweb engineers then i use
> > URL/URI/link interchangeably. I don't think it matters because the 1%
> > that care will look it all up and get the distinction and the rest
> > will just get on and use RDF as shown.
> 
> Yeah, I find myself slipping between the two in the same sentence
> sometimes, even written or spoken.
> 
> I don't think it really super matters which we use, but the confusion
> is costly and pointless.
> 
> At the Augmented Reality Dev Camp here in Amsterdam yesterday, one of
> the comments was
> 
> http://twitter.com/garciacity/status/12339906312
> "So what is an URI? mentioned by steven pemberton and hans
> overbeek #ardevcamp "
> 
> This is perfectly reasonable question from an educated and technical
> audience member, and a perfectly avoidable one. I mean no disrespect
> to either of the fine speakers, or the audience member; the mess is
> not of their making. RDFa and Linked Data were presented to a mixed
> audience, some coders, some artists, game designers, augmented
> reality, mapping folk etc... a real big mix.; and I think it went over
> well, but this silly issue of URI/URL is a bug worth fixing. We should
> be able to say "URL" unapologetically, correctly and without fear of
> contradiction. It's a fine acronym; it just has the wrong expansion.
> Easily fixed, since most people (as you say) won't even bother to look
> it up.
> 
> My suggestion is that we flip things upside down. Too often "URL"
> comes across a being a kind of double-taboo (it's the old, incorrect
> name  and it's (to URN-advocates) the crappy, lower quality form
> of linking, prone to breakage, 404 etc). People who use "URL" often do
> it in a sort of self-deprecating way; they know they should probably
> say "URI" or perhaps "IRI"; or maybe they really mean "URI Reference"
> or is that "IRI Reference" to be really inclusive and modern? [And are
> they called URI schemes now, or IRI schemes? I truly have no idea.]
> 
> So let's pull URL out from the bottom of the pile, reinstate it at the
> top, and rework the acronym to remove the most troublesome part
> "Locator". By flipping that to something link-centric, we re-emphasise
> the core value of the Web, and turn the conversation away from
> pointless ratholes like "names/IDs vs addresses/locations" to
> something potentially *much* more productive: different types of
> URL-based linking.
> 
>  * the whole mess around 'UR*' makes it hard for even technically
> aware observers to talk clearly
>  * we don't have an actively used "top term" in the tech scene for all
> those identifying strings (URIs, URI Refs, IRIs, IRI Refs)
>  * the deprecated nature of 'URL' means we don't reward people for
> using it; we make them feel dumber instead of smarter. We say "URL?
> yeah kinda, you probably really ought to say URI but don't worry, you
> nearly got it" instead of "Yeah, URLs - universal resource linkers -
> it's all about linking; if you understand URLs you understand the core
> idea behind the Web" (and the Web of data, ... and the Web of things,
> ...)
> 
> There was a fuss a while back when the HTML5 spec was using "URL"
> instead of "URI"; however that was without the proposed
> reconceptualisation here. I'd hate to stir up a fuss, but I think we
> have a lot of interesting ingredients:
> 
> * the term 'URL' isn't being used in a technical sense currently - I
> consider it available for careful redeployment
> * many of us are already using it informally as an overarching
> umbrella term ('cos we know it works)
> * it has massive market-presence and is understood pretty well by the public
> * we really badly need an umbrella term that hides the URI vs IRI vs
> *RI-Ref distinction from normal humans
> * 'uni

Re: Fwd: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker

[Sandro Hawke]

> Wonder what would happen if we just called them "Links"?
> 
> Seems to be pretty unambiguous, if I say "Link" to TimBL or my Mum they
> both know what I mean, and it appears to produce the desired mental
> picture when used.
> 
> Link, short for HyperLink - Link as in Linked Data.
> 
> Keep the URI/URL/IRI for those who need to know the exact syntax of a Link.
> 
> ?

I strongly support danbri's critique; I don't quite agree on his
solution.

In particular, I think "Locator" is just fine for the L in URL.  I bet
99% of the world is perfectly comfortable with the idea that "location"
on the web means "website".  Think about it: we say "website" with no
problem.  Meanwhile, in English, "site" and "location" are nearly
perfect synonyms.

Some of the push for URNs came from a notion that is now obviously
absurd, that using a URL confined you to one particular machine room.
(I agree it's still harder than it should be to distribute the servers
for a website, but it is possible, and nearly all the big sites do it.
It's not that hard; www.w3.org was served from hosts on different
continents in the mid-90s.)

In speaking, I feely use "link", "address", and "Web address" (along
with URL and URI), with slightly different connotations.  To me, a link
is a more abstract entity than an URL, comprising both the occurance of
some link text and the resource identified by that link text.  In
particular, due to the state of the world, without changing the link
text, a link can become broken.  So the link is not the link text, when
we're being very precise.  "Address" and "Web address" are good, but to
me they emphasize the use in a browser, by humans.  If I want to
emphasize the string of characters, and particularly a string of
characters that might not lead to a human-usable website, then URL or
URI is better.

I think the difference between URL and URI is that you can, when the
system is functioning properly, dereference URLs.  That's not
necessarily the case with URIs.  In RDF, you are required to use some
kind of URIs/IRIs.  In Linked Data, your URIs also need to be URLs.

IRIs raise a different problem.  There's a crucial technical difference
between IRIs and URIs.  In specs, we have to be very careful about which
we're talking about.  (IRIs are unicode strings, URIs are ascii strings.
If an interface (like HTTP) can only handle ascii, I need to know that
fact, so I can percent-encode my non-ascii characters first.)  Of
course, most people don't want to care about this, and many don't need
to.  I'm hoping that "URL" can gloss over this difference.

In short, I propose that whenever we might say "URI" or "IRI", but we
intend it to be dereferenceable, we just say "URL".  When doing Linked
Data, all URIs should be derefeferenceable, so in the Linked Data world,
we should pretty much always just say "URL".  This what I've been doing,
more and more over the years, and I haven't seen it cause any problems.

(Come on in, the water is fine.)

 -- Sandro

> Dan Brickley wrote:
> > So - I'm serious. The term 'URI' has never really worked as something
> > most Web users encounter and understand.
> > 
> > For RDF, SemWeb and linked data efforts, this is a problem as our data
> > model is built around URIs.
> > 
> > If 'URL' can be brought back from limbo as a credible technical term,
> > and rebranded around the concept of 'linkage', I think it'll go a long
> > way towards explaining what we're up to with RDF.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > 
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Dan Brickley 
> > Date: Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:52 AM
> > Subject: backronym proposal: Universal Resource Linker
> > To: u...@w3.org
> > Cc: Tim Berners-Lee 
> > 
> > 
> > I'll keep this short. The official term for Web identifiers, URI,
> > isn't widely known or understood. The I18N-friendly variant IRI
> > confuses many (are we all supposed to migrate to use it; or just in
> > our specs?), while the most widely used, understood and (for many)
> > easiest to pronounce, 'URL' (for Uniform Resource Locator) has been
> > relegated to 'archaic form' status. At the slightest provocation this
> > community dissapears down the rathole of URI-versus-URN, and until
> > this all settles down we are left with an uncomfortable disconnect
> > between how those in-the-know talk about Web identifiers, and those
> > many others who merely use it.
> > 
> > As of yesterday, I've been asked "but what is a URI?" one too many
> > times. I propose a simple-minded fix: restore 'URL' as the most
> > general term for Web identifiers, and re-interpret 'URL' as "Universal
> > Resource Linker". Most people won't care, but if they investigate,
> > they'll find out about the re-naming. This approach avoids URN vs URI
> > kinds of distinction, scores 2 out of 3 for use of intelligible words,
> > and is equally appropriate to classic browser/HTML, SemWeb and other
> > technical uses. What's not to like? The Web is all about links, and
> > urls are how we

OWL 2 is now a W3C Proposed Recommendation

[Sandro Hawke]

Following a successful Candidate Recommendation phase, during which we
received reports of more than a dozen implementations [1], OWL 2 has
advanced to Proposed Recommendation.  During this four-week phase, W3C
member organizations [2] have a chance decide whether OWL 2 should be
published as a W3C Recommendation.

We have published new versions of the documents [3], but the changes
since Candidate Recommendation are all minor and editorial.  (The
changes are detailed in a changelog in each document.)  No changes to
software or ontologies should be required.

The new publications are linked from our documentation roadmap:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-overview-20090922/#Documentation_Roadmap

Comments are best sent to public-owl-comme...@w3.org.  General
discussion of OWL 2 is probably best done on public-owl-...@w3.org [4].

-- Sandro   (W3C Staff Contact, OWL WG)

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
[3] http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item166
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/

Re: Linked Data Mash-a-thon

[Sandro Hawke]

> > Let me rephrase: I urge everybody to try to explain what Linked Data  
> > and the
> > Semantic Web is to 1) web developer 2) CEO 3) VC investors 4) my  
> > parents 5)
> > Oprah!
> 
> Except of 1), don't try to explain what Linked Data is: show them cool  
> applications instead and how they can benefit from them.

I think both prospects are doomed.  Linked Data is as cool as ethernet
or fiber optics or RAID or GPL or Python or gzip or JPEG or
transactional processing.  Those are all very, very cool to the people
who use them.  They are great technologies that solve a whole set of
problems very nicely, and end-users have seen great benefits.  Sometimes
end-users even notice.  But you can't really expect end-users to look
too deeply, or care too much about what's happening inside the box.

-- Sandro

government linked data (new group at W3C)

[Sandro Hawke]

The W3C eGovernment Interest Group is in the process being re-chartered,
and the new focus is largely on government data, including gathering
experience and advising governments on how to publish linked data and
use other Semantic Web technologies.

If this is something you're interested in, please consider at least
joining our mailing list (not just for W3C members):

   http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/participation#mailinglist

If you're part of a W3C member organization, please make sure your AC
Rep [1] has reviewed the charter [2], and expressed their support and/or
given other feedback on the proposal using the comments form:
  
   http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/eGov2/   [member only]

Assuming the eGov group is re-chartered, we intend to form task forces
able to focus as necessary on particular parts of the problem space.  If
you join the mailing list or the IG now, you'll be able to help guide
the formation of those task forces.

 -- Sandro   http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/

[1] http://www.w3.org/Member/ACList   [member only]
[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/eGov/ig-charter

Re: Dons flame resistant (3 hours) interface about Linked Data URIs

[Sandro Hawke]

> On 10.07.2009 10:53:32, Toby Inkster wrote:
> >What would it mean for the file to have a dc:created property? Would the
> >value of that property be my date of birth, or would it be the date I
> >first uploaded my data?
> >
> >The classic example is that if I use the same URL to represent myself
> >and my web page, then how can I state that I am the creator of my web
> >page without also asserting that I'm my own father.
> 
> By simply using two different properties?
> 
> These are the typical (and correct) arguments, but they are grounded 
> in an AI/logics purism(?) that *maybe* shouldn't be taken too seriously
> on the public SemWeb. They are of course practically motivated as well,
> but the practitioner here is someone with a reasoning background, not 
> necessarily a web developer in a web agency.
> 
> We could most probably use Hugh's approach/idea and still solve all 
> our practical problems.
> 
> Why did we give URIs to properties? To tell us what types of resources 
> they relate. They should support us, not restrict us. So, 
> 
> twitter:bengee is me (in Web 2.0 speak)
> 
> The page has a creation date: 
>twitter:bengee ex1:created "2007" .
>(ex1:created relates a document to a date)
> 
> I have a birthday: 
>twitter:bengee ex2:birthday "08-14" .
>(ex2:birthday relates an agent to a date)
> 
> The page has a creator:
>twitter:bengee ex1:author twitter:bengee .
>(ex1:author relates a document to an agent)
> 
> I have a father: 
>twitter:bengee ex2:father "Bodo" .
>(ex2:father relates an agent to an agent)
> 
> Now, this is totally blasphemic RDF *in our current view*, but
> heck would it make publishing easy. And with properly annotated
> properties, it would be easy to detect whether a term refers to
> a document or a NIR, and the syntax is pretty obvious about whether
> we are talking about a resource or the label of a resource. And hey,
> no more arguing about whether a vcard is a person or not. And we 
> could get rid of our =FCber-complicated XFN converters ;)
> 
> Simple querying works easily, directly on the instance data,
> and ontologies could be used for more automatic disambiguation.
> 
> So, dc:created can't tell you whether it refers to a person or a 
> document? Predicate FAIL, not Subject fail, maybe?
> 
> This is all rather tongue-in-cheek, of course, we've been here a couple 
> of times, I'm happy with the current specs, and different URIs for NIRs 
> and docs make a lot of sense, but we as a community should be prepared 
> that people will just use their homepages and OpenIDs as direct 
> identifiers (XFN, anyone?). Our apps will have to deal with the situation,
> and it's actually not too difficult to implement such a disambiguation 
> step. When I read a blog post and drag an author link on my address book,
> I want to add a person, not a page, and my address book should not say 
> "Ey dude, not a person" (well, would be cool if it could, though). 

I think we can make ex2:birthday work within the current understanding
of how URIs work in RDF, with all the correct formality.  We just say
that the ex2:birthday is doing a kind of indirect reference, which is
perfectly equivalent to some other RDF graph which uses the more common
direct style.

Specifically, the semantics of ex2:birthday are given by this rule:

  forall ?page ?date
  { ?page ex2:birthday ?date. } 
iff
  exists ?person
 { ?page rx:primarySubject ?person.
   ?person ex:rdf-birthday ?date. }

where rx is http://www.w3.org/2008/09/rx, or some equivalent, and
ex:rdf-birthday is the more commonly found kind of birthday predicate.

I'm not specifically advocating doing this -- it has some drawbacks --
but I see the appeal.

 -- Sandro

backlinks / Re: bootstrapping decentralized sparql

[Sandro Hawke]

> we all like to think "p2p", distributed, etc.
> but the fact is that we love it too much, disregarding the basic
> economic reasons that underly how the world (in fairness) works.
> 
> But lets put a constraint.
> 
> Lets imagine that we dont live forever and tha tthe time one should
> work on a topic should be limited (e.g. 10years is a good span so i
> began in 2002, 3 years left) dont you want to see some actual
> advantange delivered to the end user within this timeframe? I do and
> very strongly.

Yes, I thought it a little ironic that you, of all people, were being
cast as a centralist.  (I'm sure no insult was intended by anyone, of
course.)  In practice, yes, we'd all love more decentralization, if we
could have it for free but sometimes it's impractically expensive.

Let me try to be more clear about my use case, though.  I am in no way
complaining about Google or Sindice; they are great.  But by their
nature (as I understand it, at least), they are not complete, and will
not be able to do one particular (important) thing I want.

I'd like to be able to run queries like this: tell me all showings of
Star Trek in Cambridge, MA, on 2009-05-17.  (I'm not talking about the
natural language part of that; I just want to be able to run the SPARQL
equivalent of that natural language query.)  And I really do want the
answer to be complete; if a showing is missing from my result set,
that's because that showing is not being properly published.  (Right
now, Google has a special mechanism, different from its normal search
engine, to handle this particular example, because it's so compelling.
I want something general, of course, that handles all queries -- not
just movie times.)

I think this is doable if by "properly published" we include the notion
of backlinking.  I propose this rule: whenever you publish some RDF, you
must notify all the backlink servers for all the URIs you use in your
content.  If you don't do that, your content will not be fully
searchable.  (In some cases, you will have to register a SPARQL end
point, instead of numerous graphs.  This is part of what makes this
feasible.)

So, I'm picturing a market for backlink servers.  Everyone minting URIs
for other people to use should pick some (probably two or three)
backlink servers.  They don't have to run the service themselves.  They
might or might not have to pay for the service, depending how the market
evolves.

It might be that Sindice comes to dominate this market; they (you)
probably have the best base technology to use for it at the moment.  But
the point is that if there is a market, and a standard interface, then
the service can probably be relied upon.

  -- Sandro

bootstrapping decentralized sparql

[Sandro Hawke]

> > The interesting questions is can we have stateless SPARQL servers that
> > distribute the query to other SPARQL servers, and what metadata do they
> > need to do that well?  
> > I guess voiD is supposed to address that; I don't
> > know how well it does it, etc.  (I haven't had a chance to follow this
> > work much recently.)
> >   
> Yes, VoiD graphs cover that. The thing we need to do is standardize the 
> auto-discovery patterns so that smart federated SPARQL is feasible :-)
> 
> Example of a VoiD graph: http://lod.openlinksw.com/void/Dataset .

Thanks.  Yeah, I looked at VoiD, briefly, after we talked about it
Tuesday, although I don't fully understand it.

But I think I'm picturing something a little different.  (I think.)  The
key part I'm imagining is back-links (or track-backs).  I think folks
who publish ontologies ought, generally, to keep track (on a voluntary,
automatic, delegated basis) of who is using them.

For example, I suggest the RDF graph at "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/";
(which introduces all the FOAF terms) should include some triples like:
  <> rx:tracker 
  <> rx:tracker 

... and those two trackers should be (REST) services where folks can
report a graph which uses a (specific) FOAF term and folks also query
for graphs which use a (specific) FOAF term.  It's a bit like
PingTheSemanticWeb or Sindice, but decentralized based on the ontologies
used.

Obviously there are some scaling details to work out, but my sense is
it's generally doable.  It may be that some terms (like rdf:type) are
too common to be worth indexing.  And some sites will have complex,
dynamic graph structures and will want to make sure they are registered
properly.  (For instance, livejournal should probably register one
SPARQL endpoint instead of its 10+ million dynamically-generated foaf
files.)

The result here will be that a query for a foaf:Person with a
foaf:firstName of "Sandro" can be *complete*, at least across all graphs
which choose to register themselves as having data about instances of
the foaf:Person class and triples using the foaf:firstName property.

I think running the tracker for an ontology should fundamentally be the
responsibility of the ontology hoster/maintainers (eg Dan and Libby for
FAOF), although I would expect there to be public tracking services, so
all they really have to do is sign up with one or more and point at them
with some rx:tracker triples.

(My apologies if someone has already proposed this, or even built it.  I
can't come close to following everything going on.)

  -- Sandro

Re: Yet Another LOD cloud browser

[Sandro Hawke]

> Sure; I just disagree that a browser that essentially gives a view of
> one linked data portal should be promoted as a "linked data browser".
> By that definition something like http://revyu.com/ is a linked data
> browser.
>
> Long ago in what used to be called the Semantic Web world, it was
> thought that collecting rdf from out there and loading it into a
> single store and then writing applications over it (such as CS
> AKTiveSpace) constituted a Semantic Web application.
>
> But then some time later, but also long ago, we realised that it was
> only an application using semantic web technologies, as there was no
> web involved.  I think we are in danger of repeating this
> misconception and distraction again in the Linked Data world.
>
> Fundamentally the data that your browser works over is a single Linked
> Data site. This site may have data that has been gathered from lots of
> places, and URIs that reflect those places somehow in the text, but in
> the end it is a single site.
>
> I don't think I can give your browser any URI I choose that resolves
> using http to a typical LD document?  If not, it is not a linked data
> browser.
> 
> I used to have a mantra: "Putting the Web into Semantic Web".  It now
> seems I need to say "Putting the Web back into Linked Data", or even
> "Putting the Web into the Web of Data".
> 
> It may be we will just have to differ on this; however I would be really
> interested to know if I am alone in my view -- any comments from others?

I'm with you 100% here.   

Tabulator is an example of a "real" client-side semantic web browser.
At one point I had working server-side code that was similar; like
Kingsley's machine, it had a large database of site's data it had been
loaded with, BUT if you ever used a URI it hadn't already tried, it put
that URI on the high-priority harvesting queue, and (when things worked
well) had slurped in the data before you got your response -- so it
appeared to have all the LOD data in it.  SPARQL servers can do that
too, and I imagine some do.

The interesting questions is can we have stateless SPARQL servers that
distribute the query to other SPARQL servers, and what metadata do they
need to do that well?  I guess voiD is supposed to address that; I don't
know how well it does it, etc.  (I haven't had a chance to follow this
work much recently.)

 -- Sandro

Re: vCard - Old vs. New?

[Sandro Hawke]

> On 6 May 2009, at 21:43, Peter Mika wrote:
> 
> > We agreed that the proposal for Representing VCard in RDF
> >  by Renato Iannella is NOW DEPRECATED.
> 
> As the author of the above this is news to me!
> 
> Can anyone declare a W3C NOTE as deprecated?
> 
> I was always happy and open to update the W3C Note to changing  
> requirements

Interestingly, it doesn't seem like this question has ever come up
before.  If there were a Working Group with this in scope, it could
(following appropriate process) publish a new version at that same
location, but short of that, there's no handy solution.  Harry and I
have talked about it, though, and will try to come up with something.

(Obviously it would depend on there being some kind of community
consensus on what to do about it, or at least approval from you and/or
your employer at the time (IPR Systems).  They're no longer W3C members;
do you know if they have any involvement in this area any more?)

  -- Sandro

new OWL 2 draft, "Document Overview"

[Sandro Hawke]

In response to feedback during Last Call, the OWL Working Group produced
a short overview document, which is now available for public review:

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

Please send any comments on this document to public-owl-comme...@w3.org
as soon as possible.  Our current schedule calls for a next round of
publications in mid-April, and we'd like to be able to incorporate
feedback on this draft in those next releases.

 -- Sandro  (W3C Staff Contact, OWL Working Group)

Re: W3C RIF BLD Last Call (10 days left in comment period)

[Sandro Hawke]

[ Folks, please try to pick *one* mailing list for a reply, if you want
to make a public-discussion reply.  I'll reply to Henry on semantic-web,
as the most general list.  Comments which you want to be taken as formal
input to any Working Group need to be sent the comment list named in the
document you're commenting on.  -- Sandro ]

> Just on first reading I find the syntax to be quite problematic. It  
> clashes with other well known syntaxes namely Turtle, SPARQL and N3.
> 
> The two problems I see is that in those languages square brackets are  
> used for blank nodes, and { } to delimit graphs.
> 
> As an example take the following
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rif-rdf-owl-20080730/#RDF_Compatibility
> 
> [[
> Forall ?x ?y ?z (?x[ex:uncleOf -> ?z] :-
> And(?x[ex:brotherOf -> ?y] ?y[ex:parentOf -> ?z]))
> ]]
> 
> If I were to write the above in SPARQL I think you meant to say
> 
> [[
> PREFIX ex: <http://example.org/rif>
> 
> CONSTRUCT { ?x ex:uncleOf ?z }
> WHERE {
>   ?x ex:brotherOf ?y .
>   ?y ex:parehtOf ?z .
> }
> ]]
> 
> In N3 similarly
> 
> [[
> { ?x ex:brotherOf ?y .
>?y ex:parehtOf ?z . } => { ?x ex:uncleOf ?z . }
> ]]
> 
> SPARQL is already widely deployed, and there are a lot of N3 rules out  
> there, that are very useful guides for people working their way around  
> the web. There is even more Turtle around, and it is a blessing that  
> it is now being used, as RDF/XML though very nice in many ways, leads  
> to a huge amount of confusion.
> 
> My feeling is that the current human readable syntax, not being  
> aligned with SPARQL is going to create confusion unecessarily. It  
> seems to be that an attempt should be made to get something that fits  
> better with SPARQL and N3 intuitions, so as to make the learning curve  
> as light as possible for people who are new to this world.
> 
>   Henry
> 
> On 9 Sep 2008, at 16:51, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > The W3C specifications for logic rules and for using rules with RDF  
> > and
> > OWL are in their "Last Call" public comment period.  This is the time
> > for people to read them and tell us about anything that doesn't seem
> > right.  After this, if you don't like something in the spec, it will  
> > be
> > increasingly hard to get it changed.  We would like comments by
> > September 19 in order to consider them for our next set of revisions.
> >
> > For more details, see this e-mail I sent August 1st:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Aug/0002.html
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -- Sandro

W3C RIF BLD Last Call (10 days left in comment period)

[Sandro Hawke]

The W3C specifications for logic rules and for using rules with RDF and
OWL are in their "Last Call" public comment period.  This is the time
for people to read them and tell us about anything that doesn't seem
right.  After this, if you don't like something in the spec, it will be
increasingly hard to get it changed.  We would like comments by
September 19 in order to consider them for our next set of revisions.

For more details, see this e-mail I sent August 1st:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Aug/0002.html

Thanks!

 -- Sandro

Re: freebase parallax: user interface for browsing graphs of data

[Sandro Hawke]

> I wasn't actually expecting such an intense reaction to just 
> "javascript:{}". I wonder if that might put off newcomers, who believe 
> that the slightest profanity against The URIs on this mailing list will 
> always trigger such adverse reactions.

I think it's a bit like people driving on the correct side of the road.
On little dirt roads, who cares?  You drive to avoid the pot-holes and
low branches.  But to someone who is used to fast highways, seeing
someone drive on the wrong side of the road is (rightly) horrifying

(This is not a crazy metaphor -- it's an example of the
context-dependent importance of adhering to standards, written and
unwritten.)

  -- Sandro

Re: freebase parallax: user interface for browsing graphs of data

[Sandro Hawke]

> I've been exploring some user interface ideas for browsing graphs (of 
> data in Freebase) in a user-friendly way, which I think might be 
> applicable to some of the data that you have. The screencast should explain:
> 
> http://mqlx.com/~david/parallax/
> 
> Please let me know what you think!

Very nice.   

I haven't been following freebase/metaweb at all.  I did a little
research after watching your presentation, but I can't quite figure out
how relevant parallax is for the Semantic Web.  It looks to me like it
could be turned into an open/standard web system (a Semantic Web
Browser) but it is not one right now.  Perhaps the changes would be only
in the backend; maybe none of the GUI code would have to change.  Have I
understood that right?  If it's true, what's the legal status of the
code.  Can someone else turn it into a Semantic Web browser?  And/or: do
you have any plans to?

-- Sandro