Minutes of March 11, 2014 Property Graphs CG Telcon

12:05] <Ashok> present:Zhe, Ashok, Gregg, Ted
[12:07] <Ashok> Regrets:Kelvin, Andy
[12:07] <gkellogg> scribe: gkellogg
[12:08] <Ashok> - Approval of minutes from last meeting:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-propertygraphs/2014Feb/0030.html
[12:08] <gkellogg> RESOLVED: minutes approved
[12:08] ==TallTed changed the topic of #propertygraphs to: PropertyPaths CG - current agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-propertygraphs/2014Mar/0006.html
[12:08] <gkellogg> topic: email from Michael
[12:09] <gkellogg> ashok: He suggested that aligning with RDF would help with interchange, but he's not here today.
[12:09] <gkellogg> topic: email from Phil archer
[12:09] <gkellogg> ashok: Phil is telling us that we haven't got enough community support
[12:10] <gkellogg> ... They're not quite ready to start a WG
[12:10] <gkellogg> ... Question is, what can we do about this? Stop? Argue? ...
[12:11] <Ashok> Gregg:It's an uphill battle ... we did not get involvement from neo4j
[12:11] <gkellogg> gkellogg: Also the lack of Tinkerpop and other existing user groups (Facebook, LinkedIn ...)
[12:12] <gkellogg> ashok: it's a hard uphill battle
[12:12] <gkellogg> ... Phil asked about a CG report. I can write that and describe our recommendations from the Wiki page.
[12:13] <gkellogg> ... We need to point out that we did not get "heavy weight" players, and that's the situation.
[12:13] <gkellogg> ... Other CG members should comment and we can try and take this to Phil.
[12:13] <gkellogg> ... I'm not hopeful anything will happen, but we should attempt.
[12:14] <gkellogg> ... There's another aspect: a number people gregg, openlink and michael spoke about an RDF connection.
[12:14] <gkellogg> ... Should we talk about and push that? W3C wasn't anxious to go in this direction, but we can go again.
[12:15] <gkellogg> TallTed: RDF is still seen as a "poison pill"
[12:15] <gkellogg> ... It's obviously a miss-perception, but people associate untrue things with it, not least of which is RDF/XML
[12:17] <gkellogg> gkellogg: inevitably, PGs will have to come to terms with schema.org, which implies RDF to a certain degree.
[12:17] <gkellogg> ashok: michael also wanted to tie PGs to "Big Data"
[12:18] <gkellogg> ... Not sure how to do that, there are symmetries, I'm not sure how to do that
[12:19] <gkellogg> zwu: If we have a few more implementations in a couple of months, if Oracle, IBM and other vendors come up with PG solutions, it might be easier to approach standardization at that time.
[12:19] <gkellogg> ashok: yes that would help. If IBM were to step up, that would help. Same with Oracle.
[12:20] <gkellogg> ... If others implement and have customers, that would help.
[12:20] <gkellogg> zwu: It's up in the air right now; those with real products don't want to join, and those of us who aren't there yet want a standard.
[12:21] <gkellogg> ashok: We can tell W3C we'd like to wait a couple of months and let things develop
[12:22] <gkellogg> ashok: Phil discussed a workshop at the end of the year. If that happens, the CG members should definitely show up.
[12:22] <gkellogg> ... A BOF at TPAC would be a good idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12:23] <gkellogg> ... Two years ago, Wednesday was an "UnConference" that allowed people to self-organize such things.
[12:24] <gkellogg> TallTed: OpenLink's practice is to implement standards as they come about. I don't anticipate implementing anything in advance of that.
[12:25] <gkellogg> ... The people with existing products are probably more inclined to protect their customer base rather than open the field to competitors.
[12:25] <gkellogg> ashok: I don't understand it, but there may be some fear of a W3C standard.
[12:26] <gkellogg> ashok: I'll start on the report, and send out a pointer. Please contribute and add anythingyou think might be useful, and let's continue the discussion.
[12:27] <gkellogg> ... I'm not going to be here next Tuesday, so I recommend we cancel next week's call. We can meet again in two weeks (25 March) we can speak further about a report.
[12:28] <gkellogg> ... The call on 18 March is cancelled. I'll have something for us to look at and speak about other possible ideas to bring this forward.
[12:28] <Ashok> ADJOURNED
-- 
All the best, Ashok