14:52:51 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:52:51 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/31-rdf-wg-irc 14:52:58 Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 14:53:34 Chair: David Wood 14:53:38 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.08.31 14:53:51 Scribe: Mischa Tuffield 14:54:17 ScribeNick: mischat 14:55:01 mbrunati has joined #rdf-wg 14:55:37 mischat_ has joined #rdf-wg 14:56:34 i might need help with the tidy up tasks at the end of the call 14:57:31 mischat: No problem. 14:58:05 zakim, this is rdf 14:58:05 ok, sandro; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM 14:58:05 zakim, this is RDF-WG 14:58:07 sorry, AndyS, I do not see a conference named 'RDF-WG' in progress or scheduled at this time 14:58:09 +??P8 14:58:20 -??P7 14:58:23 AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:32 zakim, ??P8 is me 14:58:32 +mischat; got it 14:58:38 zakim, mute me 14:58:38 mischat should now be muted 14:58:54 +??P12 14:58:56 zakim, unmute me 14:58:56 mischat should no longer be muted 14:58:59 zakim, ??P12 is me 14:58:59 +AndyS; got it 14:59:16 one last thing to check before this starts 14:59:32 zakim, dial ivan-voip 14:59:32 ok, ivan; the call is being made 14:59:33 +Ivan 14:59:39 when i do "foo: say hello" that means "person food. said hello" 14:59:47 yes. 14:59:50 Zakim, who is here? 14:59:54 On the phone I see +1.540.898.aaaa, Sandro, mischat, AndyS, Ivan 15:00:05 On IRC I see AlexHall, mischat, mbrunati, Zakim, RRSAgent, danbri, MacTed, cygri, ivan, tomayac, AndyS, sandro, trackbot, davidwood, manu1, yvesr, ericP, manu, NickH 15:00:15 zakim, code? 15:00:18 Zakim, aaaa is me 15:00:19 + +1.443.212.aabb 15:00:31 zakim, aabb is me 15:00:31 +OpenLink_Software 15:00:35 manu1 the code 73394 15:00:38 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:00:40 the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu1 15:00:40 Zakim, mute me 15:00:45 +davidwood; got it 15:00:49 zakim, +1.443.212.aabb is me 15:00:51 +??P18 15:00:58 +AlexHall; got it 15:01:05 +MacTed; got it 15:01:09 Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:11 MacTed should now be muted 15:01:20 sorry, mbrunati, I do not recognize a party named '+1.443.212.aabb' 15:01:24 MacTed has changed the topic to: RDF-WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/ -- 2011-08-31 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2011.08.31 (MacTed) 15:01:37 Zakim, +1.443.212.aabb is me 15:01:52 zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:56 sorry, mbrunati, I do not recognize a party named '+1.443.212.aabb' 15:01:56 zakim, code? 15:01:57 Zakim, aabb is mbrunati 15:01:59 mbrunati, try "zakim, aabb is me" 15:02:08 thanks misha 15:02:10 the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2 15:02:14 sorry, MacTed, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb' 15:02:26 + +1.404.978.aacc 15:02:35 oh! because aabb is already AlexHall 15:02:37 zakim, aacc is me 15:02:42 +tomayac; got it 15:02:49 Zakim, who's here? 15:02:49 On the phone I see davidwood, Sandro, mischat, AndyS, Ivan, AlexHall, MacTed (muted), ??P18, tomayac 15:02:54 On IRC I see zwu2, Scott_Bauer, AlexHall, mischat, mbrunati, Zakim, RRSAgent, danbri, MacTed, cygri, ivan, tomayac, AndyS, sandro, trackbot, davidwood, manu1, yvesr, ericP, manu, 15:02:57 ... NickH 15:03:01 +Souri 15:03:05 + +1.650.265.aadd 15:03:19 zakim, +1.650.265.aadd is me 15:03:19 +zwu2; got it 15:03:28 PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 24 Aug telecon: 15:03:28 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-08-24 15:03:28 zakim, mute me 15:03:28 zwu2 should now be muted 15:03:39 +??P35 15:03:44 davidwood: accepted the minutes from last week, any issues? any objections? 15:03:45 zakim, I am ??P35 15:03:45 +manu1; got it 15:04:01 Action item review: 15:04:01 Sorry, couldn't find user - item 15:04:01 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview 15:04:01 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open 15:04:03 +Tony 15:04:06 davidwood: resolve to accept the minutes now on to the action items 15:04:10 Souri has joined #RDF-WG 15:04:18 Zakim, Tony is me 15:04:18 +Scott_Bauer; got it 15:04:27 Zakim, please dial ericP-office 15:04:27 ok, ericP; the call is being made 15:04:29 +EricP 15:04:36 action-65? 15:04:36 ACTION-65 -- Sandro Hawke to and Pat to consider what words to add to minimal proposal. -- due 2011-06-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW 15:04:36 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/65 15:04:43 gavinc has joined #rdf-wg 15:04:44 davidwood: we are looking at pending action items, Pat and Sandro to look at "looking for a minimal proposal" 15:05:01 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/71 15:05:16 who is speaking ? 15:05:21 + +1.707.861.aaee 15:05:29 Zakim, aaee is me 15:05:29 +gavinc; got it 15:05:43 the action change of 65 -> 71, was about contacting the provenance WG 15:06:08 to see what proposal in the g* world would suit their needs. 15:06:28 it seems that Guus has made contact to the provenance WG, we are now waiting for them to respond 15:06:49 davidwood: Guus seemed to mark the action item as pending review, dave proposing that we close it 15:07:25 davidwood: this approach of contacting via an action item, as apposed to opening an issue which would have required action from the provenance WG 15:07:43 PatH has joined #rdf-wg 15:07:49 davidwood: Guus seemed to have also closed issue 66, relating to 65 15:07:52 Sorry Im late 15:08:06 It's done in email. 15:08:08 davidwood, perhaps "update" protocol 15:08:10 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/68 15:08:45 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0231.html 15:08:52 ivan: pierre-A sent rejects, and has provided a review of the sparql 1.1 graphstore protocol 15:09:01 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0228.html 15:09:03 davidwood: happy to call the action as done 15:09:19 pierre-A, provided a review as per action item 68 15:09:28 LeeF has joined #rdf-wg 15:09:28 davidwood: 70 and 71 seem to be duplicates 15:09:53 ivan: left the work to be done by davidwood 15:09:57 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/75 15:09:58 + +1.617.553.aaff 15:10:06 zakim, aaff is me 15:10:06 +LeeF; got it 15:10:10 davidwood: Guss seems to have done action 75 15:10:13 +PatH 15:10:29 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/76 15:10:46 PatH: has done action 76 15:11:16 danbri: ? 15:11:34 s/danbri:/danbri,/ 15:11:57 davidwood: is performing the .well-known id action as we speak 15:13:18 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/68 15:13:37 davidwood: as per action 68, it looks like PatH is going to follow the action item 15:13:52 davidwood: action item 68 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/68 points to an email which Pat will look at 15:14:15 gavinc: has finished his action item relating to the turtle spec 15:14:21 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/78 15:14:37 gavinc: has completed action 78 15:15:12 the above action item is about appending the N-triples content as an appendix to the turtle draft 15:15:38 davidwood: RDF concepts was published as a FPWD 15:15:39 http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2011/08/30/rdf1-1-concepts-published/ 15:15:49 davidwood: the above url should be added to our documents page ^^ 15:15:57 JSON work progress & planning 15:16:13 Revisit ISSUE 2: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/2 15:16:14 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/2 15:16:29 zakim, mute me 15:16:29 PatH should now be muted 15:16:42 davidwood: following on from last week, issue 2 is pending, in terms of what what this WG should do re: JSON and RDF 15:16:46 +??P45 15:16:54 Zakim, ??P45 is me 15:16:54 +NickH; got it 15:17:07 so, the current standing at the f2f was, note re: JSON-LD, and rec for Talis JSON 15:17:24 davidwood: is proposing that we don't make a rec of the Talis JSON work 15:17:28 Happy with that! 15:17:35 and to wait on the incubation of JSON-LD 15:18:08 ivan: tried to summarise last weeks discussion. Feeling that that this group might not be best placed to produce a JSON document 15:18:10 Proposal: Change ISSUE-2 resolution to (a) Not move RDF/JSON to REC. 15:18:21 ivan: due to not having active JSON folks 15:18:39 ivan: not sure that we all agreed about lack of JSON experience 15:18:57 ivan: post meeting, there was discussion on the mailing, the conclusion being that JSON-LD might suffice all of the use-case we had for JSON RDF stuff 15:19:30 s/ivan: not sure that we all agreed about lack of JSON experience/ivan, not sure that we all agreed about lack of JSON experience 15:19:37 ivan: 1. this group won't produce to a JSON RDF spec, and we would try to spin off the JSON-LD work into a community group 15:20:01 ivan: the community group might attract the right people 15:20:46 q+ 15:20:52 q+ 15:20:54 ack Ivan 15:20:57 davidwood: saw lots of people reaction re: JSON from within the WG. Why don't we ask people from the JSON community group to join our WG 15:20:57 +q to avoid this question for now 15:21:09 davidwood: so that we can push this JSON work forward 15:21:51 ivan: looking at the core JS/JSON community, they might have difficult to communicate with the diehard RDF group 15:22:08 fwiw, i feel that this group should have a final sign-off, since there may be issues of formal compliance which the json folk simply dont care about, but we do. 15:22:16 ivan: wonders if they will find it hard to communicate with the RDF folks 15:22:37 ack manu1 15:22:44 ivan: doesn't think from a social point of view any liaison would be ideal 15:23:15 manu1: there seems to be a strange barrier between the two groups. This is due to camps when people think about RDF and JSON 15:23:38 manu1: 1. people which have triplestore and the SW stack, and their needs re: transporting RDF via JSON 15:24:33 manu1: 2. the other group. People just getting into the linked data world. They can't afford the engineering effort to get stuck into the full SW tech stack. These folks don't want to use RDF, they want to use JSON 15:25:06 manu1: they may find it neat that RDF folks might be able to use their JSON 15:25:25 manu1: manu's company falls into the 2nd community 15:26:16 manu1: believes that group 2, and not interested in helping people which have requirements such as "we have to make it work with our triplestore", or "we need to make our JSON talk to our RDF data" 15:26:21 manu1++ 15:26:50 manu1: believes that we need to incubate the work, and that we should move people from the RDF WG to the community group 15:27:02 q+ 15:27:03 listening to this social discussion makes me wonder if it might just not be the right time to standardize this stuff. 15:27:16 ack gavinc 15:27:16 gavinc, you wanted to avoid this question for now 15:27:30 ack manu1 15:27:37 ivan: thinks that the community should push the work forward, and that when the JSON CG are ready they should present their work to the WG 15:27:59 manu1: doesn't think that this WG is the right place to push the work forward 15:28:23 I have exactly the dual concertn. 15:28:29 concern. 15:28:39 manu1: is worried about that when the JSON CG thinks they are finished, they are going to have changes imposed by the RDF WG 15:29:01 and manu1: thinks that moving specs between groups won't be a fruitful activity 15:30:12 http://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/ ;) 15:30:20 davidwood: thinks we should clean up issue two before we press on 15:30:31 we are falling into a black hole of premature optimization. This standard will be obsolete within a year. 15:30:33 ivan: doesn't think we need to recharter 15:30:52 q+ to ask what's the status of "make a Note on current practice stuff like Linked Data API" in issue/2 ? 15:31:00 ack AndyS 15:31:00 AndyS, you wanted to ask what's the status of "make a Note on current practice stuff like Linked Data API" in issue/2 ? 15:31:10 davidwood: proposes that we vote, to remove "moving JSON from the rec" 15:31:39 AndyS: is asking about the "note current practice stuff like Linked Data API" ? 15:31:49 davidwood: thinks that the issue there is that we don't have an editor 15:32:14 q+ 15:32:35 +??P0 15:32:56 davidwood: proposed that we make no resolution to "to move RDF JSON to rec" 15:33:00 q+ to ask if we are going to advance it as a NOTE in the meantime or just pause work on it? 15:33:06 Zakim, ??P0 is me 15:33:06 +yvesr; got it 15:33:09 ack AndyS 15:33:09 AndyS, you wanted to ask if we are going to advance it as a NOTE in the meantime or just pause work on it? 15:33:13 davidwood: i.e. we remove that statement from the resolution, so that we can push on 15:33:40 AndyS: what do you mean by "not move to rec" ? 15:33:54 +aharon 15:34:06 davidwood: is proposing that we do no work on the RDF JSON, i.e. we hold off on all work, until we know what we are going to do in terms of RDF and JSON 15:34:06 yvesr, we are just fixing peace in the middle east. 15:34:48 davidwood: just clarified that by "not moving to rec", does not mean "writing a note" it means "holding off work on the JSON RDF stuff for now" 15:35:07 Proposed to remove the words "make a REC on something like Talis RDF/JSON" from the resolution to ISSUE-2 15:35:14 +1 15:35:16 +1 15:35:17 +1 15:35:18 +1 15:35:19 +1 15:35:20 +1 15:35:20 +1 15:35:20 +1 15:35:22 +1 15:35:24 +1 15:35:24 +1 (TQ) 15:35:28 +1 15:35:33 +1 15:36:04 +1 15:36:15 the proposal is resolved. We are going to remove the words "make a REC on something like Talis RDF/JSON" 15:36:23 q+ to ask about JSON-LD Community Group 15:36:24 davidwood, will fix up the issue on the wiki 15:36:30 Zakim, mute me 15:36:31 gavinc should now be muted 15:36:54 davidwood: has updated issue2 15:37:01 ISSUE-76 Empty Lexical Space Disagreement 15:37:01 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/76 15:37:39 zakim, unmute me 15:37:39 PatH should no longer be muted 15:37:42 davidwood: can PatH summarise issue 76 15:37:51 q- 15:38:30 PatH: the intent for an empty lexical, so that any class name can be delivered as a datatype 15:39:12 PatH: this causes problems, because an empty lexical returned will never be a suitable answer to a useful question 15:39:51 davidwood: Richard seemed to suggest that if we modified Concepts we would have to touch XSD 15:41:03 davidwood: given that xsd is normative, we can't be changing that 15:41:28 PatH: believes that this discussion has yet to come up before in the RDF world nor in the XSD world 15:41:41 Pat wrote: 3. No literal can denote any value in the value space of ex:empty. 15:42:17 Antoine wrote: Point 3 is not correct. For instance, owl:real has an empty lexical space (as pointed out by Andy) and yet, there are plenty of literals that can denote a real number. "2"^^xsd:integer, "1.2"^^xsd:decimal, "1/3"^^owl:rational all denote elements of the value space of owl:real. 15:42:59 PatH: should have been more clear, you can't have a literal with that datatype 15:44:47 PatH: if we really want to allow empty lexical spaces, pat can update the semantic docs, but there would be a running thread of "assuming not an empty lexical space" 15:45:04 q+ 15:45:11 AndyS: asks where in the Semantics document would be need to be updates 15:45:31 PatH: said that he would go through the Semantics documents to see what needs changing 15:47:01 PatH: if we believes this is bug, he can make the changes to semantics, and will update the text 15:47:10 q? 15:47:26 PatH: notes that there is a conflict with the semantics and concepts. 15:47:40 davidwood: this that the core documents should agree is the salient point here 15:48:12 davidwood: doesn't believe that the resolution of this issue relies on the resolution of issue-12 15:48:27 davidwood: asked PatH whether he would need to wait for a resolution on issue12 15:48:33 PatH: said no 15:48:36 ack ivan 15:49:31 PatH: taking a step backwards on the language-tag issues, 2 or 3 solutions which have been put forward. And ivan feels that the various solutions are a matter of taste 15:50:10 ivan: i thinks that we should put up a poll, where by the solutions are described in full, and then post poll, we should go with the solution the WG voted for 15:50:53 PatH: thinks we are talking about different things, we are still talking about the disagreement between RDF semantics and concept. 15:51:02 ivan: acknowledges this. 15:51:15 davidwood: asked PatH to work out the details with peter 15:51:40 resolution PatH has agreed to make the changes to the RDF Semantics and is happy to confirm the details with peter 15:51:40 RESOLVED ISSUE-76: Pat Hayes (RDF Semantics editor) has agreed to make this change to RDF Semantics and will confirm the details with Peter. 15:52:00 e 15:52:12 zakim, mute me 15:52:12 PatH should now be muted 15:52:13 ISSUE-12 language-tagged literals 15:52:15 davidwood: onto language tag literals now … 15:52:38 ivan: proposed to setup a poll, with the 2-3 alternatives made explicit, and then the working group can move forward 15:52:57 ivan: doesn't think that the proposals are all the same from an end-user point of view 15:53:17 davidwood: thinks we have a summary of options, done by PatH on the 18th 15:53:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0066.html 15:53:31 I will draft an email summarizing, for each alternative, what the pain points of that one are. There are some more alternatives now. 15:53:41 sandro: asked how he can find both PatH's and Pierre-A's summary 15:54:05 yes, and more uptodate 15:54:20 PatH: said he would draft an email summarising for each alternative, a more up-to-date summary 15:54:25 Antoine's summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0181.html 15:54:36 ivan: thinks that a poll is the way forward 15:54:38 i agree about the poll. 15:54:58 its my old action re-opened :-) 15:55:04 SteveH has joined #rdf-wg 15:55:22 I will try to be objective, but good idea. 15:55:35 glad i am muted, guys. 15:55:47 fofl here 15:56:04 sandro: voices concerns about PatH's biased coming through too strongly in his summary, and would like that someone which doesn't agree with Pat would also chip in 15:56:15 yes. 15:56:26 will do 15:56:45 sandro: would like pierreA and PatH to work together to to produce the summary, as per sandro's suggestion 15:57:13 I have to leave in few minutes. 15:57:27 action PatH to work with pierreA to produce a summary of options re: language tags 15:57:28 Created ACTION-80 - Work with pierreA to produce a summary of options re: language tags [on Patrick Hayes - due 2011-09-07]. 15:57:44 action ivan to set up a poll when PatH and Pierre are done with action 80 15:57:44 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - ivan 15:57:44 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ivan, imikhail) 15:58:32 action ivanh to set up a poll when PatH and Pierre are done with action 80 15:58:32 Sorry, couldn't find user - ivanh 15:58:55 action ivanherman to set up a poll when PatH and Pierre are done with action 80 15:58:55 Sorry, couldn't find user - ivanherman 15:59:00 does case matter? 15:59:26 action ivanh to set up a poll when PatH and Pierre are done with action 80 15:59:26 Sorry, couldn't find user - ivanh 15:59:41 :-) 16:00:05 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/81 16:00:23 hey, I have to leave. If i get any more actions, send me an email. 16:00:34 davidwood: now we are ending on triples 16:00:35 zakim, unmute me 16:00:35 gavinc should no longer be muted 16:00:44 N-Triples 16:00:46 davidwood: been thinking about Lee's position on triples 16:00:53 -PatH 16:00:58 Topic: N-Triples 16:01:34 davidwood: from a big vendor perspective, oracles perspective is valid, they don't want to break running code, and they don't want to confuse users 16:01:40 s/Lee/zhe 16:01:42 thanks 16:01:43 it is me (Zhe) ivan 16:01:55 hey :) 16:02:11 davidwood: wants to move forward re: aligning RDF and internationalisation 16:02:55 q+ 16:02:56 a fairly clear proposal on this from Richard -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0170.html 16:02:56 davidwood: it seems to davidwood the best way to move forward to create a UTF-8 version of ntriples ? 16:03:01 zakim, unmute me 16:03:01 zwu2 should no longer be muted 16:03:05 q+ 16:03:07 davidwood: does this sound like a good idea to people ? 16:03:14 ack zwu 16:04:16 zwu2: oracle are chatting internally about internationalisation and ntriples. and how this can go forward 16:04:46 zwu2: believes that an ascii ntriples, uft8 triples, and turtle should suffice 16:04:52 ack ivan 16:05:07 davidwood: the down side to what zwu2 said is that we would have more docs 16:05:08 Having more formats isn't a great situation to be in 16:05:13 there are quite a lot already 16:05:49 ivan: so we wouldn't have multiple documents, it just would be a note in the turtle doc 16:05:55 q+ 16:05:57 +q to mention that N-Triples is NOT well specified at the moment, and has no specific media type. 16:06:48 something like: N-Triple, Turtle, Turtle/N-Triple (N-Triple subset of Turtle that also allows UTF-8) 16:06:57 this note, would be fine with oracle, but leaving ntriples as ascii would be great, they don't object to having another utf8 ntriples format 16:07:03 NickH, +1 16:07:24 Zwu: Oracle does not object to creating a new version of ntriples with UTF-8 encoding, as long as ASCII-encoded ntriples remains an option. 16:07:26 as long as the ascii encode triples remains an option 16:07:41 ack mischat 16:07:41 That is possible via "application/n-triples;charset=ascii" 16:07:44 zwu2: oracle wants to ensure that existing software doesn't better 16:07:46 break 16:07:46 not sure that "remains an option" captures "has a distinct name", which i think they require 16:07:46 do we have to standardise ascii N-Triple at all then? 16:08:25 zwu2, maybe stupid question - but does oracle actually support ntriples escaping, currently? 16:08:38 yes yvesr 16:08:39 q+ 16:08:45 ack gavinc 16:08:45 gavinc, you wanted to mention that N-Triples is NOT well specified at the moment, and has no specific media type. 16:08:49 mischat, it is easier to make an N-Triples parser than a Turtle parser - very useful to specifiy a subset 16:08:52 manu1, i suspect it more about whether you can write UTF-8 N-Triples and act surprised when Oracle's tools don't swallow it 16:09:46 gavinc: according the grammar, almost all of the test cases, they don't adhere to the grammar 16:10:11 yeah, almost a branding issue 16:10:19 gavinc: doesn't think that people are using ntriples as specified 16:10:51 i'd say it's useful to have a label which unambiguously advertises to your capabilities to your users 16:11:20 and what about just versioning the spec? 16:11:33 gavinc: states that the "ntriples" mutli-encoding spec could state how each of the encoding could be used 16:11:55 yvesr, prob is that v1 doesn't have a version identifier 16:11:57 q+ to suggest two levels of conformance - ASCII and UTF-8. 16:12:06 EricP : isn't that label ";charset=ascii"? What about "text/turtle;charset=ascii" 16:12:09 davidwood: notes that there is a difference between a standard and a vendor specific serialisation 16:12:16 ericP, we could refer to it using its date (like rdf 2004)? 16:12:22 AndyS, that's pretty compelling 16:12:43 davidwood++ 16:13:05 davidwood: we are chartered to standardising turtle, and we have the chance to align ntriples with current internationalisation efforts 16:13:11 write "ASCII Turtle" on the box and "Accept: text/turle;charset=ascii" 16:14:32 zhe, over what interface does Oracle accept N-Triples documents? is it even HTTP? 16:14:44 gavinc: doesn't think that we need two specs, we can state that ntriples can be used either with ascii or utf8 16:14:49 even if it doesn't get standardised people will produce and parse N-Triples as utf8, rightly or wrongly 16:15:20 ack ivan 16:15:41 zwu2: oracles wants to be able to say that they support a standard. 2 levels of affordances to the ntriples serialisations. 16:15:59 q- 16:16:00 I am happy with the choices: N-Triple (classic - unchanged), Turtle, Turtle/N-Triple (N-Triple subset of Turtle that also allows UTF-8) 16:16:00 ivan: would we have a mime type for utf8 ntriples 16:16:02 N-Triples Prime at the moment 16:16:14 I am happy with the choices: N-Triple (classic - unchanged), Turtle, Turtle/N-Triple (N-Triple subset of Turtle that also allows UTF-8) 16:16:17 q+ to make one final note about JSON-LD CG and RDF WG. 16:16:26 ivan: 2 media types: one for turtle and one for ntriples 16:17:06 ivan: the question would be, would we define a third mime type for triples ascii? 16:17:31 +1 agree to Ivan 16:17:45 gavinc: ntriples is not recommended as a transfer medium 16:18:04 (cough) N-Triples does have a media type - it's text/plain (sec 3). 16:18:14 Zakim, unmute me 16:18:14 MacTed should no longer be muted 16:18:17 exactly 16:18:25 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0170.html 16:18:30 it intentionally did not have one 16:18:36 MacTed: richard's very clear proposal ^^ 16:20:16