Minutes: XDI TC Telecon Friday 2015-01-16

[My apologies for getting these out so late. =Drummond]

XDI TC Minutes

Following are the minutes of the unofficial telecon of the XDI TC at:

Date:  Friday, 16 January 2015 USATime:  09:00AM - 10:30AM Pacific Time (16:00-17:30 UTC)
ATTENDING
Drummond ReedLes ChasenPhil WindleyPeter Davis
GUESTSREGRETS
Markus Sabadello

PRESENTATIONS/DISCUSSIONSReport from XDI Editors Subcommitteehttps://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/XdiOneSpecshttps://github.com/OASIS-XDI-Technical-Committee/xdi-spec-docbook

There was no editor’s call today. Peter asked what would be happening with Dan Blum and Hubert Le Van Gong given their new positions. Drummond said that:

Dan would still like to participate but will have to work it around his consulting schedule.

Hubert is interested in continued participation but unsure of how much bandwidth.

Drummond said he plans to step up participation and editing work as soon as he knows the outcome of the reorganization happening at his company.

XDI & RDF

Drummond produced a new document describing the four key differences between the RDF and XDI graph models and how these differences solve key problems in distributed data sharing. He sent a PDF file to the list to get a round of feedback before uploading to Kavi.

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/201501/msg00003/RDF-and-XDI-Graph-Models-v2.pdf 

This document grew out of our discussions about RDF and XDI in December. Since then, at Markus’ suggestion, Drummond added an explanation of the “HTTP Range 14” issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPRange-14 

Drummond explained that the purpose of this document is to explain to developers and architects interested in understanding the differences between RDF and XDI.

Phil agreed that the document was needed to answer the question: “Are we on the right side or the wrong side of ‘Perfect is the enemy of the good.’” This document has to answer the question, “Which side of that line are we on.”

Following are feedback notes as we reviewed the document

Phil:

A concrete example is needed in the addressing section

Peter: 

The document should refer to the Linked Data Platform spec. For example, the LD platform spec could solve the addressing problem via SPARQL bindings to HTTP. 

Persistence could be addressed with statements that label identifiers as persistent.

We should add some explanation and example of how XDI addresses are embedded in IRIs.

The SPARQL http binding would enable pointing at blank nodes; it could be profiled to do so.

Suggestion: add the literal value to the example XDI address in the Context section

Joseph

Add a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity–attribute–value_model

Drummond

To the example XDI address in the Context section, add indicators that parse it from an RDF perspective, i.e.,:

Graph name

Subject

Literal predicate

Drummond will send the Word doc to the list, then do a next draft after receiving additional feedback. He will then upload the next version to Kavi.

We had a short discussion around the proposed XDI Profile of RDF. Joseph asked if there would be a separate document that did a feature-by-feature comparison. Drummond and Peter said that such a section would basically serve as the Introduction section to the XDI Profile of RDF.

Peter proposed that there be a set of canonical examples of XDI graphs that are used in both the XDI native specs and the XDI RDF profile spec. Everyone agreed that would be very useful.
NEXT CALL
The next call is next week at the regular time.