RDF Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 20 June 2012

Seen
Alex Hall, Andy Seaborne, Antoine Zimmermann, Arnaud Le Hors, Charles Greer, David Wood, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Gavin Carothers, Gregg Kellogg, Ivan Herman, Lee Feigenbaum, Manu Sporny, Pierre-Antoine Champin, Richard Cyganiak, Sandro Hawke, Scott Bauer, Souripriya Das, Steve Harris, Ted Thibodeau, Yves Raimond, Zhe Wu
Chair
David Wood
Scribe
Charles Greer
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions

None.

Topics
14:32:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-rdf-wg-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-rdf-wg-irc

14:32:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:32:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394

14:32:10 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 28 minutes

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 28 minutes

14:32:11 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:32:11 <trackbot> Date: 20 June 2012
14:52:03 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started

(No events recorded for 19 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started

14:52:10 <Zakim> +??P9

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9

14:52:42 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P9 is me

Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P9 is me

14:52:42 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it

14:58:14 <Zakim> +mhausenblas

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: +mhausenblas

14:58:25 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me

Richard Cyganiak: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me

14:58:25 <Zakim> +cygri; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri; got it

14:58:27 <Zakim> + +1.707.318.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.707.318.aaaa

14:58:35 <cgreer> zakim, aaaa is me

Charles Greer: zakim, aaaa is me

14:58:35 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +cgreer; got it

14:59:32 <Zakim> +??P13

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13

14:59:36 <AndyS> zakim, ??P13 is me

Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P13 is me

14:59:36 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it

14:59:38 <cgreer> trackbot-ng, start telecon

Charles Greer: trackbot-ng, start telecon

14:59:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world

14:59:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394

14:59:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute

14:59:43 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:59:43 <trackbot> Date: 20 June 2012
14:59:55 <cgreer> scribenick: cgreer

(Scribe set to Charles Greer)

15:00:15 <cgreer> chair: davidwood
15:00:32 <pchampin> zakim, what is the code?

Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, what is the code?

15:00:32 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), pchampin

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), pchampin

15:01:14 <cgreer> zakim, who is here?

zakim, who is here?

15:01:14 <Zakim> I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted

Zakim IRC Bot: I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted

15:01:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, cygri, cgreer, AndyS, OpenLink_Software, ??P18

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see yvesr, cygri, cgreer, AndyS, OpenLink_Software, ??P18

15:01:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see Arnaud, ScottB, SteveH, pchampin, cgreer, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, danbri, MacTed, AndyS, LeeF, Guus, cygri, gavinc, manu1, davidwood, manu, yvesr, NickH, gkellogg,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Arnaud, ScottB, SteveH, pchampin, cgreer, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, danbri, MacTed, AndyS, LeeF, Guus, cygri, gavinc, manu1, davidwood, manu, yvesr, NickH, gkellogg,

15:01:16 <Zakim> ... sandro, trackbot, ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: ... sandro, trackbot, ericP

15:01:24 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P18 is me

Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P18 is me

15:01:26 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4

15:01:28 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip

Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip

15:01:29 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it

15:01:32 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made

15:01:35 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan

15:01:39 <Zakim> + +1.408.996.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.408.996.aabb

15:01:46 <Zakim> +Tony

Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony

15:01:50 <pchampin> zakim, ??P4 is me

Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P4 is me

15:01:51 <Arnaud> zakim, aab is me

Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, aab is me

15:01:58 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it

15:02:02 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named 'aab'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named 'aab'

15:02:03 <ScottB> Zakim, Tony is temporarily me

Scott Bauer: Zakim, Tony is temporarily me

15:02:03 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

15:02:05 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me

15:02:11 <Zakim> +??P27

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27

15:02:15 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +ScottB; got it

15:02:15 <gkellogg> zakim, ??P27 is me

Gregg Kellogg: zakim, ??P27 is me

15:02:16 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it

15:02:18 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted

15:02:20 <Arnaud> zakim, ??aabb is me

Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, ??aabb is me

15:02:28 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it

15:02:36 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '??aabb'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '??aabb'

15:02:56 <Zakim> +sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro

15:02:59 <Arnaud> zakim, ??bb is me

Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, ??bb is me

15:03:12 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '??bb'

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '??bb'

15:03:16 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.898.aacc

15:03:24 <davidwood> Zakim, aacc is me

David Wood: Zakim, aacc is me

15:03:25 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it

15:03:26 <zwu2> zakim, code?

Zhe Wu: zakim, code?

15:03:27 <Zakim> +EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP

15:03:30 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2

Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2

15:03:40 <Zakim> +??P36

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P36

15:03:58 <cgreer> scribenick: cgreer
15:04:01 <davidwood> Chair: David Wood
15:04:01 <Arnaud> zakim, aabb is me

Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, aabb is me

15:04:01 <AZ> zakim, ??P36 is me

Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, ??P36 is me

15:04:03 <Zakim> +Arnaud; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud; got it

15:04:05 <Zakim> +AZ; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it

15:04:26 <davidwood> Topic: Admin

1. Admin

15:04:31 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.443.212.aadd

15:04:35 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.650.265.aaee

15:04:35 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 Jun telecon:

David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 Jun telecon:

15:04:35 <davidwood>    http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-06-13

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-06-13

15:04:41 <Zakim> +??P37

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P37

15:04:45 <AndyS> +1

Andy Seaborne: +1

15:04:49 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P37

Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P37

15:04:49 <Zakim> +manu1; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it

15:04:54 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aaee is me

Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.650.265.aaee is me

15:04:54 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it

15:04:56 <davidwood> Topic: Action Items

2. Action Items

15:04:57 <cgreer> RESOLVED Accept the minutes of 13 June telecon.

RESOLVED Accept the minutes of 13 June telecon.

15:04:59 <Zakim> + +1.707.861.aaff

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.707.861.aaff

15:05:04 <zwu2> zakim, mute me

Zhe Wu: zakim, mute me

15:05:04 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should now be muted

15:05:05 <davidwood> Review of action items

David Wood: Review of action items

15:05:05 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview

15:05:05 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open

15:05:12 <gavinc> Zakim, aaff is me

Gavin Carothers: Zakim, aaff is me

15:05:12 <Zakim> +gavinc; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +gavinc; got it

15:05:23 <cgreer> davidwood: look at open action items

David Wood: look at open action items

15:05:43 <cgreer> davidwood: Eric youve forgotten about FRBR

David Wood: Eric youve forgotten about FRBR

15:05:59 <cgreer> ericP: FRBR didn't have appropriate use cases

Eric Prud'hommeaux: FRBR didn't have appropriate use cases

15:06:09 <cgreer> davidwood: please send email about that

David Wood: please send email about that

15:06:54 <cgreer> davidwood: guus is going to work on rdf spaces document and identify controversy

David Wood: guus is going to work on rdf spaces document and identify controversy

15:07:17 <cgreer> davidwood: he'll split it into rdf concepts and rdf semantics.  It will hopefully be ready by next wednesday

David Wood: he'll split it into rdf concepts and rdf semantics. It will hopefully be ready by next wednesday

15:07:39 <davidwood> Reminder-- Summer schedule for telecons: 27 Jun, 11 July, 25 July, 8 August, 22 August, 5 September.

David Wood: Reminder-- Summer schedule for telecons: 27 Jun, 11 July, 25 July, 8 August, 22 August, 5 September.

15:07:53 <davidwood> Topic: Turtle Last Call

3. Turtle Last Call

15:07:55 <cgreer> davidwood: We will have meeting next week.  The next will be 11 July.  Summer schedule, plan accordingly.

David Wood: We will have meeting next week. The next will be 11 July. Summer schedule, plan accordingly.

15:07:56 <ivan> regrets for next week, will be on a trip, and then on vacations in July...

Ivan Herman: regrets for next week, will be on a trip, and then on vacations in July...

15:08:15 <AndyS> Regrets for next week

Andy Seaborne: Regrets for next week

15:08:40 <cgreer> ericP: There's still more discussion to have about the grammar, issues around what grammar will communicate decisions best.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: There's still more discussion to have about the grammar, issues around what grammar will communicate decisions best.

15:08:59 <ivan> zakim, mute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me

15:08:59 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted

15:09:30 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aagg

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.553.aagg

15:09:31 <cgreer> ericP: the BNF drops parans where it needs them.  One other issue is text about tokens.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: the BNF drops parans where it needs them. One other issue is text about tokens.

15:09:39 <gkellogg> q+

Gregg Kellogg: q+

15:09:39 <cgreer> davidwood:  how much left?

David Wood: how much left?

15:09:45 <cgreer> ericP: Done by Friday.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Done by Friday.

15:10:11 <cgreer> gavinc: no comments.

Gavin Carothers: no comments.

15:10:40 <cgreer> davidwood: Turtle will be better for this work

David Wood: Turtle will be better for this work

15:11:05 <cgreer> gkellogg: Have been working with LL1, still an open issue: predicate-object list.

Gregg Kellogg: Have been working with LL1, still an open issue: predicate-object list.

15:11:24 <cgreer> ericP: I mocked up an LL grammar.  Greg thinks it's a tool issue.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I mocked up an LL grammar. Greg thinks it's a tool issue.

15:11:55 <cgreer> ericP: I believe this should highlight behavior that Greg's tool should be exhibiting.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I believe this should highlight behavior that Greg's tool should be exhibiting.

15:11:55 <AndyS> predicateObjectList     ::=     verb objectList (';' verb objectList)* ';'?   is ambiguos - I proposed a better way to write it.

Andy Seaborne: predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList (';' verb objectList)* ';'? is ambiguos - I proposed a better way to write it.

15:12:26 <cgreer> gavinc: I don't think this grammar is the only grammar that can parse turtle.  If it turns out to be not LL1 that's not a bug.

Gavin Carothers: I don't think this grammar is the only grammar that can parse turtle. If it turns out to be not LL1 that's not a bug.

15:12:39 <cgreer> gavinc: There are other grammars that can parse Turtle documents.

Gavin Carothers: There are other grammars that can parse Turtle documents.

15:12:45 <Zakim> +Souri

Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri

15:12:59 <cgreer> davidwood: There's more than one way.  Do we know for certain that there is really an LL1 grammar?

David Wood: There's more than one way. Do we know for certain that there is really an LL1 grammar?

15:13:08 <cgreer> gavinc: Yes, it's just not in the specification.

Gavin Carothers: Yes, it's just not in the specification.

15:13:36 <cgreer> gkellogg:  There's an older version, with caveat that it allows multiple semicolons...

Gregg Kellogg: There's an older version, with caveat that it allows multiple semicolons...

15:13:54 <cgreer> gkellogg: I'm successful with a production that allows infinite semicolons.

Gregg Kellogg: I'm successful with a production that allows infinite semicolons.

15:14:05 <ericP> -> http://codepad.org/9TlTfIfd an LL(1) of the form A (B C D)* B?   -- (a single-letter representation of [7])

Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://codepad.org/9TlTfIfd an LL(1) of the form A (B C D)* B? -- (a single-letter representation of [7])

15:14:30 <cgreer> gkellogg: If it's not LL1 grammar, and the group intends to have one, we need to address that.

Gregg Kellogg: If it's not LL1 grammar, and the group intends to have one, we need to address that.

15:14:47 <cgreer> gkellogg: Every other grammar I've used have been parsed with 'this type of parser'

Gregg Kellogg: Every other grammar I've used have been parsed with 'this type of parser'

15:14:56 <cgreer> davidwood: no matter what we come up with, there will be other ways to do it.

David Wood: no matter what we come up with, there will be other ways to do it.

15:15:16 <cgreer> gkellogg: It this grammar is NOT LL1, then we need to see what the intention of the group is.

Gregg Kellogg: It this grammar is NOT LL1, then we need to see what the intention of the group is.

15:15:27 <SteveH> how would you prove that the grammar we publish, and some hypothetical LL(1) grammar were the same?

Steve Harris: how would you prove that the grammar we publish, and some hypothetical LL(1) grammar were the same?

15:15:53 <cgreer> sandro: Some people want LALR, some people want LL1.  It doesn't make sense to provide both.  It would be a bad idea to provide both.

Sandro Hawke: Some people want LALR, some people want LL1. It doesn't make sense to provide both. It would be a bad idea to provide both.

15:16:04 <ericP> q+ to address LL-ness vs. LALR-ness

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to address LL-ness vs. LALR-ness

15:16:05 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+

15:16:10 <cgreer> ?? Is there some preference for LL1?

sandro Is there some preference for LL1?

15:16:11 <pchampin> q

Pierre-Antoine Champin: q

15:16:18 <davidwood> ack gkellogg

David Wood: ack gkellogg

15:16:19 <sandro> s/??/sandro/
15:16:22 <davidwood> ack ericP

David Wood: ack ericP

15:16:22 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to address LL-ness vs. LALR-ness

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to address LL-ness vs. LALR-ness

15:16:56 <cgreer> ericP: Previous versions of SPARQL (neither LL1 nor LALR), but you can turn it into one of these grammars.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Previous versions of SPARQL (neither LL1 nor LALR), but you can turn it into one of these grammars.

15:17:45 <cgreer> ericP: Has checked with peers about state table.  Is the tool generating the state table correctly?  I think not.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Has checked with peers about state table. Is the tool generating the state table correctly? I think not.

15:18:12 <davidwood> ack AndyS

David Wood: ack AndyS

15:18:23 <cgreer> ericP: The difference between LL1 and LALR handling was * and +

Eric Prud'hommeaux: The difference between LALR and LALR handling was * and +

15:18:42 <cgreer> AndyS: Whether it's *+ is not the issue.  There's an ambiguity about semicolon.

Andy Seaborne: Whether it's *+ is not the issue. There's an ambiguity about semicolon.

15:19:05 <cgreer> AndyS: Most LALR also have a pragmatic rule -- longer match over shorter match.

Andy Seaborne: Most LALR also have a pragmatic rule -- longer match over shorter match.

15:19:06 <Zakim> -zwu2

Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2

15:19:16 <sandro> s/LL1/LALR/
15:19:18 <cgreer> AndyS: I'll take action to make a rule.

Andy Seaborne: I'll take action to make a rule.

15:19:20 <gavinc> +1

Gavin Carothers: +1

15:19:31 <gkellogg> +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

15:19:48 <gavinc> [7] predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList (';' verb objectList)* ';'?

Gavin Carothers: [7] predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList (';' verb objectList)* ';'?

15:19:51 <gavinc> The rule in question

Gavin Carothers: The rule in question

15:20:00 <AndyS> ACTION AndyS Draft a rule for predicateObjectList

Andy Seaborne: ACTION AndyS Draft a rule for predicateObjectList

15:20:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-175 - Draft a rule for predicateObjectList [on Andy Seaborne - due 2012-06-27].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-175 - Draft a rule for predicateObjectList [on Andy Seaborne - due 2012-06-27].

15:20:06 <Zakim> + +1.603.438.aahh

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.438.aahh

15:20:12 <gkellogg> my alternate: [7] predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList ( ";" ( verb objectList)? )*

Gregg Kellogg: my alternate: [7] predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList ( ";" ( verb objectList)? )*

15:20:24 <zwu2> zakim, +1.603.438.aahh is me

Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.603.438.aahh is me

15:20:24 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it

15:20:26 <davidwood> q?

David Wood: q?

15:20:42 <cgreer> gavinc: Richard, could you talk about your feedback after call?

Gavin Carothers: Richard, could you talk about your feedback after call?

15:21:01 <cgreer> davidwood: Friday still reasonable?

David Wood: Friday still reasonable?

15:21:09 <cgreer> gavinc: yes...

Gavin Carothers: yes...

15:21:10 <AndyS> gkellog - yes - that is what SPARQL has an accepts many trailing ";" which seems (1) no big deal and (2) better for SPARQL/Turtle compatibility.

Andy Seaborne: gkellog - yes - that is what SPARQL has an accepts many trailing ";" which seems (1) no big deal and (2) better for SPARQL/Turtle compatibility.

15:21:59 <cgreer> ericp: No more convenient expression of this rule.  A reformulation will not make it easier for LALR parser.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: No more convenient expression of this rule. A reformulation will not make it easier for LALR parser.

15:22:26 <cgreer> AndyS: The reason the rule is a problem -- when you have verb-object list there are two branches for ';'

Andy Seaborne: The reason the rule is a problem -- when you have verb-object list there are two branches for ';'

15:22:37 <cgreer> AndyS: Either new object list or end.

Andy Seaborne: Either new object list or end.

15:23:00 <gavinc> I found predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList ( ";" ( verb objectList)? )* to be perfectly fine

Gavin Carothers: I found predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList ( ";" ( verb objectList)? )* to be perfectly fine

15:23:28 <cgreer> ericP: But you don't communicate with BNF.  The ambiguity goes away with pasted grammar.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: But you don't communicate with BNF. The ambiguity goes away with pasted grammar.

15:23:59 <ivan> q?

Ivan Herman: q?

15:24:05 <cgreer> AndyS: I use LL1 tool to generate SPARQL grammar.  I can see why bison would accept it.

Andy Seaborne: I use LL1 tool to generate SPARQL grammar. I can see why bison would accept it.

15:24:43 <cgreer> ericP: I've been working in an LL parser -- perl Parse::RecDescent

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I've been working in an LL parser -- perl Parse::RecDescent

15:24:54 <cgreer> ??: This is not LL1

??: This is not LL1

15:25:07 <cgreer> ericP:  What if I try rewriting it.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: What if I try rewriting it.

15:25:14 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:25:36 <davidwood> ack ivan

David Wood: ack ivan

15:26:15 <gavinc> This document WILL be done by the end of the week.

Gavin Carothers: This document WILL be done by the end of the week.

15:26:15 <cgreer> ivan: Will Eric be gone next week?  What this means is that, if this doc is not done, we won't be done til August.

Ivan Herman: Will Eric be gone next week? What this means is that, if this doc is not done, we won't be done til August.

15:26:34 <cgreer> davidwood: publication freeze?

David Wood: publication freeze?

15:26:37 <AndyS> I withdraw my action.

Andy Seaborne: I withdraw my action.

15:27:19 <cgreer> davidwood: why did you withdraw your action?

David Wood: why did you withdraw your action?

15:27:46 <cgreer> ericP: If you want to supply the rule, I'm happy to have it.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: If you want to supply the rule, I'm happy to have it.

15:28:29 <cgreer> AndyS:  We've given our feedback.

Andy Seaborne: We've given our feedback.

15:28:57 <cgreer> gavinc: I don't mind restoring previous rule.  It allows for multiple semicolons.  Many existing parsers already allow this.  SPARQL also doesn't have a limitation.

Gavin Carothers: I don't mind restoring previous rule. It allows for multiple semicolons. Many existing parsers already allow this. SPARQL also doesn't have a limitation.

15:29:11 <cgreer> gavinc: I see no problem with infinite ';' following this production.

Gavin Carothers: I see no problem with infinite ';' following this production.

15:29:23 <cgreer> ericP: I don't much care either.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I don't much care either.

15:29:51 <cgreer> davidwood: If there's a clean way to do it, great.  We won't hold up LC for this though.

David Wood: If there's a clean way to do it, great. We won't hold up LC for this though.

15:30:21 <cgreer> ericP: There's a debate about -- whether to have rule that states that @base and @prefix are permitted as language tags.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: There's a debate about -- whether to have rule that states that @base and @prefix are permitted as language tags.

15:30:43 <cygri> q+

Richard Cyganiak: q+

15:30:51 <cgreer> gavinc: Other than RIOT, no existing turtle parser allows @base or @prefix as language token.

Gavin Carothers: Other than RIOT, no existing turtle parser allows @base or @prefix as language token.

15:31:30 <cgreer> gavinc: Any parsers that tries to specify this needs to allow for language tags that are not permissible.

Gavin Carothers: Any parsers that tries to specify this needs to allow for language tags that are not permissible.

15:31:32 <davidwood> ack cygri

David Wood: ack cygri

15:32:29 <cgreer> cygri: For 1.1, the reference for language tag has changed.  The current one defines two things.  The generic grammar...

Richard Cyganiak: For 1.1, the reference for language tag has changed. The current one defines two things. The generic grammar...

15:32:35 <gavinc> http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47#section-2.2.9

Gavin Carothers: http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47#section-2.2.9

15:32:43 <cgreer> cygri: and spells out in detail the admissible words and abbreviations.

Richard Cyganiak: and spells out in detail the admissible words and abbreviations.

15:33:16 <cgreer> cygri: So since '@prefix' is not a language it's not a valid language tag.

Richard Cyganiak: So since '@prefix' is not a language it's not a valid language tag.

15:34:11 <cgreer> ivan: We're spending time on very minute corner cases.

Ivan Herman: We're spending time on very minute corner cases.

15:34:14 <manu1> +1 to Ivan!!!

Manu Sporny: +1 to Ivan!!!

15:34:19 <cgreer> ivan: What's simpler to write down and move on?

Ivan Herman: What's simpler to write down and move on?

15:34:24 <SteveH> +1 to ivan

Steve Harris: +1 to ivan

15:35:00 <cgreer> ericP: So if we don't care, there's a simple way to write it.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: So if we don't care, there's a simple way to write it.

15:35:02 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/turtleAwesome?lang=perl&markup=html#prod-turtleAwesome-RDFLiteral

Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/turtleAwesome?lang=perl&markup=html#prod-turtleAwesome-RDFLiteral

15:35:31 <cgreer> ericP: If you want to make it explicit... negative is harder than positive.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: If you want to make it explicit... negative is harder than positive.

15:35:46 <cgreer> ivan: Whatever is simpler.  Let's take first case where we don't care.

Ivan Herman: Whatever is simpler. Let's take first case where we don't care.

15:35:50 <SteveH> or we could say that it's undefined behaviour

Steve Harris: or we could say that it's undefined behaviour

15:36:09 <sandro> +1 not making any statement

Sandro Hawke: +1 not making any statement

15:36:09 <cgreer> ericP: Stating that it can happen is simpler.  This may be simpler than no statement at all.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Stating that it can happen is simpler. This may be simpler than no statement at all.

15:36:32 <cgreer> ivan: Whatever is simpler for editors.

Ivan Herman: Whatever is simpler for editors.

15:36:32 <zwu2> +1 to SteveH

Zhe Wu: +1 to SteveH

15:36:57 <cgreer> davidwood: If we define it we'd need a test case that could break parsers.

Sandro Hawke: If we define it we'd need a test case that could break parsers.

15:37:07 <davidwood> s/davidwood/Sandro/
15:37:07 <cgreer> gavinc: And it would break compatibility with RDF 1.1

Gavin Carothers: And it would break compatibility with RDF 1.1

15:37:25 <gkellogg> suggest that it is specifically disallowed

Gregg Kellogg: suggest that it is specifically disallowed

15:37:25 <cgreer> sandro: I don't see that.

Sandro Hawke: I don't see that.

15:37:39 <cgreer> davidwood: And if it's undefined behavior?

David Wood: And if it's undefined behavior?

15:38:02 <cgreer> ericP:  The production for language tag subsumes @base and @prefix.  Parsers may or may not accept it.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: The production for language tag subsumes @base and @prefix. Parsers may or may not accept it.

15:38:04 <MacTed> is this accurate summary?

Ted Thibodeau: is this accurate summary?

15:38:04 <MacTed> 1. state it can happen.  requires test cases... or statement that resulting behavior is undefined.

Ted Thibodeau: 1. state it can happen. requires test cases... or statement that resulting behavior is undefined.

15:38:04 <MacTed> 2. state it cannot happen.  requires test cases.

Ted Thibodeau: 2. state it cannot happen. requires test cases.

15:38:04 <MacTed> 3. say nothing.

Ted Thibodeau: 3. say nothing.

15:38:46 <MacTed> ignore that, if problem is solved...

Ted Thibodeau: ignore that, if problem is solved...

15:38:46 <SteveH> MacTed, it requires a comment, otherwise people will wonder

Steve Harris: MacTed, it requires a comment, otherwise people will wonder

15:38:48 <LeeF> oh, by the way, +1 to ivan :-)

Lee Feigenbaum: oh, by the way, +1 to ivan :-)

15:39:04 <AndyS> Don't test.

Andy Seaborne: Don't test.

15:39:09 <SteveH> yeah, don't test

Steve Harris: yeah, don't test

15:39:14 <cgreer> ericP: We're not saying whether it can happen.  'Don't Test'

Eric Prud'hommeaux: We're not saying whether it can happen. 'Don't Test'

15:39:15 <gkellogg> +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

15:39:33 <cgreer> davidwood: LC on Turtle LC

David Wood: LC on Turtle LC

15:40:03 <cgreer> ericP:  This simplifies rules we have to adopt from SPARQL.  Lexer is expected to parse longest terminal it can.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: This simplifies rules we have to adopt from SPARQL. Lexer is expected to parse longest terminal it can.

15:40:10 <cygri> @base and @prefix are "reserved for future extensions" or "discouraged" in BCP47

Richard Cyganiak: @base and @prefix are "reserved for future extensions" or "discouraged" in BCP47

15:40:11 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

15:41:13 <davidwood> ack ivan

David Wood: ack ivan

15:41:15 <AndyS> BTW -- RIOT is recursive decent which is how it does @base as a language.

Andy Seaborne: BTW -- RIOT is recursive decent which is how it does @base as a language.

15:41:39 <cgreer> ivan: We seem to have resolution.  Where are we for LC?

Ivan Herman: We seem to have resolution. Where are we for LC?

15:42:05 <cgreer> ericP: We're needing some text about @base and about terminals.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: We're needing some text about @base and about terminals.

15:42:33 <cgreer> gavinc: Only remaining issue is resolving things with Richard.

Gavin Carothers: Only remaining issue is resolving things with Richard.

15:42:41 <cgreer> ivan: Can we vote last call next week?

Ivan Herman: Can we vote last call next week?

15:42:49 <cgreer> gavinc: We will have a document by Friday.

Gavin Carothers: We will have a document by Friday.

15:43:16 <cgreer> gavinc: Confident about agreement with Richard by end of day.

Gavin Carothers: Confident about agreement with Richard by end of day.

15:43:17 <AndyS> As far as I am concerned, publishing with the right language but not-ideal grammar for that language is "editorial" and can grammar change after LC IMHO.

Andy Seaborne: As far as I am concerned, publishing with the right language but not-ideal grammar for that language is "editorial" and can grammar change after LC IMHO.

15:43:37 <manu1> AndyS - especially if we mark it as an issue in the document.

Manu Sporny: AndyS - especially if we mark it as an issue in the document.

15:43:41 <davidwood> q?

David Wood: q?

15:43:46 <davidwood> Topic: JSON-LD

4. JSON-LD

15:43:52 <AndyS> manu - good idea

Andy Seaborne: manu - good idea

15:43:52 <manu1> Actually, the editors should /definitely/ mark the grammar as an issue and say that it could change.

Manu Sporny: Actually, the editors should /definitely/ mark the grammar as an issue and say that it could change.

15:43:54 <cygri> AndyS++

Richard Cyganiak: AndyS++

15:44:06 <gavinc> AndyS++

Gavin Carothers: AndyS++

15:44:18 <manu1> q+ to provide an overview

Manu Sporny: q+ to provide an overview

15:44:29 <manu1> q-

Manu Sporny: q-

15:45:04 <cgreer> manu1: We have four reviews in.  This is good coverage.

Manu Sporny: We have four reviews in. This is good coverage.

15:45:31 <cgreer> manu1: Most reviews have both major and minor issues, but nothing to hold up.

Manu Sporny: Most reviews have both major and minor issues, but nothing to hold up.

15:45:36 <cgreer> FPWD

FPWD

15:46:01 <Zakim> -Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud

15:46:10 <Arnaud> sorry, I have to drop off

Arnaud Le Hors: sorry, I have to drop off

15:46:25 <cgreer> manu1: What issues markers we want to put in, we must decide.  Today, we need to hear from Eric about what issued need to be outlined. (and other reviewers)

Manu Sporny: What issues markers we want to put in, we must decide. Today, we need to hear from Eric about what issued need to be outlined. (and other reviewers)

15:47:03 <cgreer> manu1: We're talking grammar fixes, nothing major.  Then the documents will move into the final CG stamp, handing to this group within next week.

Manu Sporny: We're talking grammar fixes, nothing major. Then the documents will move into the final CG stamp, handing to this group within next week.

15:48:11 <cgreer> manu1: With the IPR-- two issues.  We need to hear what the issue markers are, and then we'll finalize and do IPR.

Manu Sporny: With the IPR-- two issues. We need to hear what the issue markers are, and then we'll finalize and do IPR.

15:48:53 <cgreer> manu1: The w3c form for IPR document is not working.  Once Greg has edited the spec, then the documents will be frozen and we'll get the IPR committments.

Manu Sporny: The w3c form for IPR document is not working. Once Greg has edited the spec, then the documents will be frozen and we'll get the IPR committments.

15:49:19 <cgreer> davidwood: how comfortable that nobody else will have issues?

David Wood: how comfortable that nobody else will have issues?

15:49:42 <cgreer> manu1: Comfortable.  Anyone who opened an issue has been accomodated.

Manu Sporny: Comfortable. Anyone who opened an issue has been accomodated.

15:50:14 <ericP> q+ to say i have two proposals: 1. move 1.3 to SOTD   2. in §3.1 ¶2, add "Issue: the term "object" is used represent both JSON objects and terms in the object position of RDF triples."

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say i have two proposals: 1. move 1.3 to SOTD 2. in §3.1 ¶2, add "Issue: the term "object" is used represent both JSON objects and terms in the object position of RDF triples."

15:50:16 <cgreer> manu1: All the people who have contributed more than a paragraph have committed to IPR preliminarily.

Manu Sporny: All the people who have contributed more than a paragraph have committed to IPR preliminarily.

15:50:33 <davidwood> ack ericp

David Wood: ack ericp

15:50:33 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say i have two proposals: 1. move 1.3 to SOTD   2. in §3.1 ¶2, add "Issue: the term "object" is used represent both JSON objects and terms in the object

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say i have two proposals: 1. move 1.3 to SOTD 2. in §3.1 ¶2, add "Issue: the term "object" is used represent both JSON objects and terms in the object

15:50:36 <Zakim> ... position of RDF triples."

Zakim IRC Bot: ... position of RDF triples."

15:53:15 <cgreer> gkellogg:  Use 'JSON Object' to avoid ambiguity of word 'object'

Gregg Kellogg: Use 'JSON Object' to avoid ambiguity of word 'object'

15:53:51 <cgreer> AndyS: Section 3.1 needs discussion by WG, but that's not a document issue.

Andy Seaborne: Section 3.1 needs discussion by WG, but that's not a document issue.

15:54:13 <Zakim> -SteveH

Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH

15:54:45 <manu1> We are tracking the issues here, btw:

Manu Sporny: We are tracking the issues here, btw:

15:54:47 <manu1> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/135

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/135

15:54:49 <manu1> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/136

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/136

15:54:51 <manu1> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/137

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/137

15:55:37 <cgreer> pchampin: My issues can wait for version of document.  The term 'property' is an issue for me, but there may have been other discussion.  "Property" is not an "edge".

Pierre-Antoine Champin: My issues can wait for version of document. The term 'property' is an issue for me, but there may have been other discussion. "Property" is not an "edge".

15:55:49 <cgreer> pchampin: Property is the lable of the edge, not the edge itself.

Pierre-Antoine Champin: Property is the label of the edge, not the edge itself.

15:55:54 <gkellogg> +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

15:55:57 <cgreer> s/lable/label/
15:56:25 <cygri> cgreer, it's pchampin speaking

Richard Cyganiak: cgreer, it's pchampin speaking

15:57:39 <cgreer> manu1: We needed to position JSON-LD spec so as not to be explicitly linked to RDFa.

Manu Sporny: We needed to position JSON-LD spec so as not to be explicitly linked to RDFa.

15:57:39 <AZ> s/AZ/pchampin/
15:58:02 <davidwood> q?

David Wood: q?

15:58:47 <pchampin> q+

Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+

15:58:56 <manu1> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#rdf

Manu Sporny: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#rdf

15:59:08 <cgreer> davidwood: We do need to make the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD more clear.  However, this doesn't need to affect your activities.

David Wood: We do need to make the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD more clear. However, this doesn't need to affect your activities.

15:59:33 <cgreer> manu1: We did agree to put a section on RDF in the spec.

Manu Sporny: We did agree to put a section on RDF in the spec.

15:59:54 <cgreer> davidwood: We need something up front in the introduction.  Even if it's a short paragraph with links.

David Wood: We need something up front in the introduction. Even if it's a short paragraph with links.

16:00:04 <MacTed> q+

Ted Thibodeau: q+

16:00:05 <cgreer> manu1: We thought this would scare people away.

Manu Sporny: We thought this would scare people away.

16:00:10 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me

16:00:12 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted

16:00:22 <davidwood> ack pchampin

David Wood: ack pchampin

16:00:29 <cgreer> davidwood: I'm sure we can manage a sentence or two that wouldn't be scary to web developers.

David Wood: I'm sure we can manage a sentence or two that wouldn't be scary to web developers.

16:00:54 <cgreer> zakim, who is speaking?

zakim, who is speaking?

16:01:00 <sandro> sentence that talk about "compatibility" might work.

Sandro Hawke: sentence that talk about "compatibility" might work.

16:01:02 <manu1> AndyS - both Semantic Web /and/ RDF scares people away (because they associate RDF with RDF/XML)

Manu Sporny: AndyS - both Semantic Web /and/ RDF scares people away (because they associate RDF with RDF/XML)

16:01:11 <Zakim> cgreer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: LeeF (48%), pchampin (100%), MacTed (60%), gkellogg (9%), EricP (4%)

Zakim IRC Bot: cgreer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: LeeF (48%), pchampin (100%), MacTed (60%), gkellogg (9%), EricP (4%)

16:01:20 <ericP> clarification-- we're not discussing a prerequisite for FPWD, right?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: clarification-- we're not discussing a prerequisite for FPWD, right?

16:01:22 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+

16:01:25 <zwu2> come on, it is OWL Full that is scary

Zhe Wu: come on, it is OWL Full that is scary

16:01:35 <pchampin> ack me

Pierre-Antoine Champin: ack me

16:01:36 <cgreer> pchampin: We can figure out some non-scary way to mention RDF.

Pierre-Antoine Champin: We can figure out some non-scary way to mention RDF.

16:02:31 <cgreer> davidwood: There was similar discussion about Turtle, and Dave B. made objection, Turtle will be better for the argument.  RDF WG will have to mention RDF somewhere beyond the appendix.

David Wood: There was similar discussion about Turtle, and Dave B. made objection, Turtle will be better for the argument. RDF WG will have to mention RDF somewhere beyond the appendix.

16:03:01 <cgreer> manu1: I'm concerned more about marketing of the spec.  We want it adopted as quietly as possible

Manu Sporny: I'm concerned more about marketing of the spec. We want it adopted as quietly as possible

16:03:32 <davidwood> ack MacTed

David Wood: ack MacTed

16:04:09 <cgreer> MacTed: This is not a blocker for FPWD.  Bait-and-switch doesn't do what we want.

Ted Thibodeau: This is not a blocker for FPWD. Bait-and-switch doesn't do what we want.

16:04:32 <cgreer> davidwood: I said, just one or two sentences.

David Wood: I said, just one or two sentences.

16:04:51 <cgreer> MacTed: But if it's not part of the FPWD process, we can not hold it up for this.

Ted Thibodeau: But if it's not part of the FPWD process, we can not hold it up for this.

16:04:51 <davidwood> ack ivan

David Wood: ack ivan

16:04:55 <pchampin> +1 to discuss the language later

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 to discuss the language later

16:05:09 <gavinc> Err.. it's going to say RDF in the STOD... yeah, what Ivan is saying :D

Gavin Carothers: Err.. it's going to say RDF in the STOD... yeah, what Ivan is saying :D

16:05:22 <cgreer> ivan: So the point is -- if you look at the document status.  The RDF-WG will be right at the top of the document.

Ivan Herman: So the point is -- if you look at the document status. The RDF-WG will be right at the top of the document.

16:05:34 <gavinc> at the top of document it WILL say "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as an Editor's Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome."

Gavin Carothers: at the top of document it WILL say "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as an Editor's Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome."

16:05:38 <sandro> ehhh -- NO ONE EVER reads the SOTD.  :-)

Sandro Hawke: ehhh -- NO ONE EVER reads the SOTD. :-)

16:05:46 <cgreer> ivan:  A warning to Manu that this will happen.

Ivan Herman: A warning to Manu that this will happen.

16:05:54 <davidwood> From the current Turtle ED:  "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as an Editor's Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome."

David Wood: From the current Turtle ED: "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as an Editor's Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome."

16:06:26 <davidwood> I do *not* think that the Abstract needs to state, as the Turtle ED does, with "The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a general-purpose language for representing information in the Web."

David Wood: I do *not* think that the Abstract needs to state, as the Turtle ED does, with "The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a general-purpose language for representing information in the Web."

16:06:30 <cgreer> ivan: It's not completely hidden.  If you want to add in the SOTD, that might be the best place to add RDF terminology.

Ivan Herman: It's not completely hidden. If you want to add in the SOTD, that might be the best place to add RDF terminology.

16:06:50 <cgreer> manu1: Can we let this go for now?  It should not affect FPWD.

Manu Sporny: Can we let this go for now? It should not affect FPWD.

16:06:59 <cgreer> davidwood: We can leave to editors.

David Wood: We can leave to editors.

16:07:04 <sandro> the SOTD could downplay it even more, like:  "This document was published by the W3C JSON LD Task Force, under the supervision of the RDF Working Group, "

Sandro Hawke: the SOTD could downplay it even more, like: "This document was published by the W3C JSON LD Task Force, under the supervision of the RDF Working Group, "

16:07:26 <sandro> or "with approval by the ... "

Sandro Hawke: or "with approval by the ... "

16:07:37 <ericP> i propose we add "we got you, sucka" after B.1

Eric Prud'hommeaux: i propose we add "we got you, sucka" after B.1

16:07:49 <cygri> lol @ericP

Richard Cyganiak: lol @ericP

16:08:01 <manu1> ISSUE: Mention RDF in the JSON-LD Syntax Introduction.

ISSUE: Mention RDF in the JSON-LD Syntax Introduction.

16:08:01 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-92 - Mention RDF in the JSON-LD Syntax Introduction. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/92/edit .

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-92 - Mention RDF in the JSON-LD Syntax Introduction. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/92/edit .

16:08:23 <ericP> "suckas" if we're feeling particularly cocky

Eric Prud'hommeaux: "suckas" if we're feeling particularly cocky

16:08:24 <sandro> If you talk about RDF Compatibility as one of the advantages of JSON-LD, I don't think it'll bug anyone.

Sandro Hawke: If you talk about RDF Compatibility as one of the advantages of JSON-LD, I don't think it'll bug anyone.

16:08:47 <cgreer> manu1: We'll get these edits done and have document by Wednesday.

Manu Sporny: We'll get these edits done and have document by Wednesday.

16:09:17 <cgreer> davidwood: We need to close the issue, but it doesn't have to be a big issue.

David Wood: We need to close the issue, but it doesn't have to be a big issue.

16:10:49 <cgreer> manu1: It's important for RDF community to understand how people are adopting RDF.  There are fringe communities, anti-RDF, who come around.

Manu Sporny: It's important for RDF community to understand how people are adopting RDF. There are fringe communities, anti-RDF, who come around.

16:11:04 <gavinc> hey, danbri, your anti RDF? ;)

Gavin Carothers: hey, danbri, your anti RDF? ;)

16:11:15 <manu1> no, not danbri!

Manu Sporny: no, not danbri!

16:11:28 <manu1>  /other/ people at Google :)

Manu Sporny: /other/ people at Google :)

16:12:02 <cgreer> :)

:)

16:12:04 <manu1> What is Linked Data? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x_xzT5eF5Q&feature=g-upl

Manu Sporny: What is Linked Data? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x_xzT5eF5Q&feature=g-upl

16:12:10 <ericP> q+ to ask if there are folks who have a way to evaluate these trade-offs

Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask if there are folks who have a way to evaluate these trade-offs

16:12:15 <manu1> What is JSON-LD? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioCbTo3C-4&feature=g-upl

Manu Sporny: What is JSON-LD? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioCbTo3C-4&feature=g-upl

16:12:19 <davidwood> ack ericP

David Wood: ack ericP

16:12:19 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if there are folks who have a way to evaluate these trade-offs

Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask if there are folks who have a way to evaluate these trade-offs

16:12:31 <cgreer> MacTed: There are people who build things similar to RDF, then come around realize it's really got something to bring to the table.

Ted Thibodeau: There are people who build things similar to RDF, then come around realize it's really got something to bring to the table.

16:12:48 <cgreer> ericP: Who is good at such marketing?

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Who is good at such marketing?

16:13:05 <cgreer> manu1: The HTML5 people.  They're great at marketing, speaking, telling people how easy it is.

Manu Sporny: The HTML5 people. They're great at marketing, speaking, telling people how easy it is.

16:13:18 <davidwood> Topic: RDF Spaces and Datasets

5. RDF Spaces and Datasets

16:13:26 <davidwood> Deferred until next week

David Wood: Deferred until next week

16:13:33 <davidwood> Topic: AOB

6. AOB

16:13:44 <gavinc> I think we have Deferred Graphs not Named Graphs

Gavin Carothers: I think we have Deferred Graphs not Named Graphs

16:13:56 <gavinc> Deferred too

Gavin Carothers: Deferred too

16:14:05 <gavinc> No, we won't talk about Turtle

Gavin Carothers: No, we won't talk about Turtle

16:14:08 <zwu2> bye

Zhe Wu: bye

16:14:08 <Zakim> -yvesr

Zakim IRC Bot: -yvesr

16:14:16 <Zakim> -Souri

Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri

16:14:17 <AZ> bye

Antoine Zimmermann: bye

16:14:18 <Zakim> -gkellogg

Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg

16:14:19 <Zakim> -AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ

16:14:19 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan

16:14:21 <Zakim> -zwu2

Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2

16:14:23 <cgreer> rssagent, generate minutes

rssagent, generate minutes

16:14:23 <Zakim> -manu1

Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1

16:14:24 <Zakim> -ScottB

Zakim IRC Bot: -ScottB

16:14:24 <Zakim> -pchampin

Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin

16:14:25 <Zakim> -davidwood

Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood

16:14:26 <Zakim> -EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP

16:14:27 <Zakim> -AlexHall

Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall

16:14:29 <Zakim> -LeeF

Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF

16:14:32 <Zakim> -sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro

16:14:34 <Zakim> -MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed

16:14:36 <Zakim> -gavinc

Zakim IRC Bot: -gavinc

16:14:38 <Zakim> -cgreer

Zakim IRC Bot: -cgreer

16:14:41 <MacTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes

Ted Thibodeau: RRSAgent, draft minutes

16:14:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-rdf-wg-minutes.html MacTed

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-rdf-wg-minutes.html MacTed

16:14:42 <cygri> gavinc?

Richard Cyganiak: gavinc?

16:15:09 <Zakim> -AndyS

Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS

16:15:12 <Zakim> -cygri

Zakim IRC Bot: -cygri

16:15:18 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended

16:15:22 <Zakim> Attendees were yvesr, cygri, +1.707.318.aaaa, cgreer, AndyS, SteveH, Ivan, +1.408.996.aabb, pchampin, ScottB, MacTed, gkellogg, sandro, +1.540.898.aacc, davidwood, EricP, Arnaud,

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were yvesr, cygri, +1.707.318.aaaa, cgreer, AndyS, SteveH, Ivan, +1.408.996.aabb, pchampin, ScottB, MacTed, gkellogg, sandro, +1.540.898.aacc, davidwood, EricP, Arnaud,

16:15:24 <Zakim> ... AZ, +1.443.212.aadd, manu1, zwu2, +1.707.861.aaff, gavinc, AlexHall, +1.617.553.aagg, LeeF, Souri

Zakim IRC Bot: ... AZ, +1.443.212.aadd, manu1, zwu2, +1.707.861.aaff, gavinc, AlexHall, +1.617.553.aagg, LeeF, Souri

16:17:11 <cgreer> rssagent, draft minutes

rssagent, draft minutes

16:17:30 <manu1> davidwood: Note, the reason I mentioned those two videos is that I stay away from mentioning RDF until a very small section of the JSON-LD intro... and then, only at the very end.

David Wood: Note, the reason I mentioned those two videos is that I stay away from mentioning RDF until a very small section of the JSON-LD intro... and then, only at the very end. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

16:18:24 <manu1> davidwood: To flip the question on its head - instead of asking "Why doesn't the Introduction say anything about RDF?"... why not ask "What does putting RDF in the Introduction buy us?"

David Wood: To flip the question on its head - instead of asking "Why doesn't the Introduction say anything about RDF?"... why not ask "What does putting RDF in the Introduction buy us?" [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ]

16:19:34 <manu1> ... because, I don't think it buys us bigger market share... I think that the people that use RDF will (in time) know that JSON-LD supports RDF.

Manu Sporny: ... because, I don't think it buys us bigger market share... I think that the people that use RDF will (in time) know that JSON-LD supports RDF.

16:20:32 <manu1> That is - we're not trying to sell to RDF people - they already know how great RDF is... we're trying to sell to people that are using JSON and want to be able to express Linked Data in it.

Manu Sporny: That is - we're not trying to sell to RDF people - they already know how great RDF is... we're trying to sell to people that are using JSON and want to be able to express Linked Data in it.

16:21:39 <davidwood> manu1, We need to publish a document from the RDF WG.  The introduction will say so, like in the Turtle ED above that I pasted in.  If the intro makes it clear that the document is from the RDF WG (which the publication rules require) and the appendix is present, that satisfies me.  What more do you want to argue about??

David Wood: manu1, We need to publish a document from the RDF WG. The introduction will say so, like in the Turtle ED above that I pasted in. If the intro makes it clear that the document is from the RDF WG (which the publication rules require) and the appendix is present, that satisfies me. What more do you want to argue about??

16:22:24 <davidwood> I think you are making a much bigger deal out of this than it needs to be.

David Wood: I think you are making a much bigger deal out of this than it needs to be.

16:22:26 <sandro> repeat -- pubrules doesn;t stop us from framing it differently -- eg that it was Approved by the RDF WG.

Sandro Hawke: repeat -- pubrules doesn;t stop us from framing it differently -- eg that it was Approved by the RDF WG.

16:23:03 <sandro> Basically, we just have to *MENTION* the RDF WG in the SOTD.

Sandro Hawke: Basically, we just have to *MENTION* the RDF WG in the SOTD.

16:23:44 <sandro> (of course we don't want to be deceptive.  But the fact is, the RDF WG did *not* develop this spec.)

Sandro Hawke: (of course we don't want to be deceptive. But the fact is, the RDF WG did *not* develop this spec.)

16:23:51 <davidwood> I propose a paragraph in the Introduction that says up front, "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as a First Published Working Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome."

David Wood: I propose a paragraph in the Introduction that says up front, "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as a First Published Working Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome."

16:24:13 <sandro> that sounds like sotd not intro text

Sandro Hawke: that sounds like sotd not intro text

16:24:19 <davidwood> I didn't say that the document was *developed* by the RDF WG, but *published*.

David Wood: I didn't say that the document was *developed* by the RDF WG, but *published*.

16:24:56 <sandro> sure, but we dont even need to say that.

Sandro Hawke: sure, but we dont even need to say that.

16:25:14 <sandro> Anyway, Manu, I'm mostly with you on this, I think.

Sandro Hawke: Anyway, Manu, I'm mostly with you on this, I think.



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#2) generated 2012-06-20 21:51:01 UTC by 'cgreer2', comments: "Misattributed Manu's point to Pierre-Antoine"