See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 09 March 2011
<ivan> agenda call
<ivan> scribenick: LeeF
<ivan> last meeting minutes
PROPOSED: Accept: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/12-swcg-minutes.html as minutes of the last meeting, thanks to Scott for scribing.
APPROVED: Accept: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/12-swcg-minutes.html as minutes of the last meeting, thanks to Scott for scribing.
ivan: next meeting in two weeks -
23 Mar 2011
... one topic for next meeting is about management of FOAF
vocabulary by DCMI
... next meeting has time zone craziness
... so the meeting will be 1 hour earlier for non-US
people
... the system team has setup tracker for the CG
<ivan> Void Vocabulary published
ivan: we have 4 active WGs
now
... (technology WGs)
... 5th WG to come soon - provenance
... some coordination issues have come up in the RDF WG
... we need to agree on how to handle these
... 1) agree how to handle coordination issues (e.g. something
beyond WG A reviews WG B's document)
... 2) look at specific issues that have come up
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to announce some other good news - rNews
manu: the IPTC just approved RDFa
for publishing news
... we might want to talk about supporting the news industry at
some point
ivan: any past experiences to help with coordination?
Guus: it was a lot easier back
when it was just RDF and OWL WGs, so we used the CG meetings to
agree on how to handle cross-group issues
... there were members active in both groups who could help
coordinate
Ian: it was a one-way street
because RDF was already there
... OWL needed to be consistent with established design of
RDF
ivan: should we reinstate
meetings to be every week?
... let's track coordination issues with tracker
... is this enough?
sandro: example?
<ivan> current issues
ivan: This is all Lee's fault.
sandro: what is the CG's
role?
... the CG can make sure that reviews are done or task forces
setup?
ivan: this group facilitates that
the issues are settled somewhere and somehow
... trying to figure out the best way to do that
manu: i don't think we need to
meet every week
... we can discuss many of these issues on the mailing list
<davidwood> +1 to bi-weekly meetings. I doubt I can make weekly meetings.
<sandro> +1 to bi-weekly
(scribe notes consensus on bi-weekly meeting)
ivan: might be urgency at
times... SPARQL is close to last call, e.g.
... for urgent things we can setup ad-hoc meetings
... i will try to keep this time slot free
... do we need joint task forces between groups?
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to propose combining JSON Task Force with RDF Web Apps WG
<Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to discuss the relative number of RDF WG issues related to other WGs.
davidwood: this might look better
in a couple of weeks - the RDF WG is churning a lot of new
topics right now
... my approach is to allow a lot of discussion to happen
before we take steps to rein in the discussion based on
charter
... hope by the F2F meeting (mid-April) we'll have an idea of
how much coordination we need to do with other WGs
<manu> LeeF: The main reason that I brought this up to Ivan is because the state of the RDF WG is such that it affects SPARQL WG
<manu> LeeF: Is this something the RDF WG is going to decide that is in charter and something that they want to pursue? We don't want to send the SPARQL documents to LC and then tie RDF WG's hands.
manu: if we decide on something
in this group, how is it implemented?
... is the assumption that we have a general understanding of
how to proceed and then the chairs implement it within their
WGs?
ivan: chairs should go to their respective groups and make the issues clear to them
sandro: the w3c process says that
dependencies between groups ask that one group comments on the
other group's document after Last Call
... that's a bit inefficient, so we're trying to shortcut that
so there are no surprises / disagreements
<sandro> ivan: "preempting the formal commenting dance"
ivan: is the discussion in the RDF WG on this something that should happen there, or leave this to SPARQL WG?
sandro: the RDF group is giving a group of users that are potentially dissatisfied with how SPARQL handles this a voice
<Zakim> LeeF, you wanted to ask for clarification, given that this is new in SPARQL
LeeF: i think that this isn't a core enough issue for the RDF WG to warrant a formal WG comment - I think that RDF WG members should be encouraged to comment on the SPARQL group's work
ivan: RDF WG members may not even be aware that the document exist
davidwood: don't want to put too much process in the way of finding consensus and closing issues
ivan: what if Lee or Axel write an email to the RDF WG saying "here is the document that is in preparation by the SPARQL WG; here's what it contains; please discuss it there"
<Guus> good idea to take action in RDF WG to comment on this SPARL document, but which document are we talking about (don't see the URI in the chat)
sandro: that works in this case, but not in the general case
ivan: agree
<scribe> ACTION: Axel to email the RDF WG regarding the http dataset protocol document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/09-swcg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Email the RDF WG regarding the http dataset protocol document [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-03-16].
Guus, it's this document: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/
<Guus> thanls
<manu> +1 to the basic notion that "Because of X we can't make progress" being the watermark for how we determine whether or not something is a Semantic Web Coordination Issue.
LeeF: SPARQL WG is pretty set
here, so I don't think this is a coordination issue until the
RDF WG decides that there is some blocking factor that SPARQL
needs to look at
... until then, I don't think this is a coordination issue,
just a RDF WG issue
<Guus> ok, Lee, you will get the floor during the Graphs TF discussion later to talk for a minute about this document
Guus, is this a separate call from the main RDF WG calls?
<manu> I agree with David that we should be having wide-ranging discussions on the RDF WG in the beginning - if we can't have those types of discussions there, then there really is no place that we can have them.
<manu> We should be able to make heretical statements about RDF in the RDF WG :)
I'd put in a personal note that I think it is useful as a WG to discuss the bounds of discussion -- people otherwise invest a LOT of time into discussions that are eventually going to be deemed out of scope, and that's not really fair to them
I think there's a fine line to walk between unnaturally preventing healthy discussion and making sure that everyone understands that not everything discussed is really in scope
<manu> LeeF - yes, agree
Guus++
<scribe> ACTION: David to blog about the plans of the RDF WG vis a vis the charter [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/09-swcg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Blog about the plans of the RDF WG vis a vis the charter [on David Wood - due 2011-03-16].
ivan: RDF WG discussion of
standardizing skolemized blank nodes
... similar issue in RDB2RDF WG
... might be similarities here?
<ivan> RDB2RDF WG Issue at hand
<ivan> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/9
mhausenblas: would like input from outside the WG
<Zakim> Guus, you wanted to propose to bring the Issue to the attention of the RDF WG
<manu> +1 to bring the issue to the RDF WG
<manu> It fundamentally affects all other groups... seems that decisions made in RDF WG will affect all of the RDF-based technologies (obviously) - so this seems like a general issue that the RDF WG should discuss
<scribe> ACTION: Michael to bring the RDB2RDF issue to the attention of the RDF WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/09-swcg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Bring the RDB2RDF issue to the attention of the RDF WG [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2011-03-16].
manu: wrapping up RDFa core work,
about to enter second last call and get Rec documents by June
or July
... that group is focused on publishing RDFa
... but has also picked up RDF API and RDFa API
... once we move away from publishing XHTML+RDFa and move to
the API, many of the WG members will be less active
... we'll have 3 people left
... to work on the APIs
... we also have a task force in the RDF WG to work on
JSON
... there is some amount of overlap between the RDF-in-JSON,
RDF API, and RDFa API
... they are designed to fit together
... it might be best to coordinate those 3 pieces of work into
a single working group (lowercase)
... i.e. into a single group that works
<Zakim> Guus, you wanted to say we did this before with RDFa
Guus: this is how we did the first version of RDFa (XHTML + BP group)
<sandro> (Note that groups can't just ignore charters, for Patent reasons at least. To go outside of charter, the charter must be amended.)
<Guus> [I have to leave, speak to some/many of you in an hour]
<davidwood> I also have another call
cheers
<ivan> trackbot, end telcon