From RDF Working Group Wiki
Agenda RDF-WG telecon 11 Jan 2012
Wednesdays at 11am US Eastern time for 75 minutes 17:00 Paris/Berlin/A'dam; 16:00 London) Telephone US: +1.617.761.6200 SIP: email@example.com UK: +44.203.318.0479 FR: +18.104.22.168.79.03 Zakim code: 73394 IRC channel: #rdf-wg on irc.w3.org on port 6665 Zakim instructions: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html RRSAgent instructions: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent Scribe list: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Scribes
- Chair: David Wood
- Scribe: William Waites
- Alternate: Mischa Tuffield
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 4 Jan telecon:
Action item review:
Next telecon: 18 Jan 2012
Review by RDF-WG, See message from Manu
Guus to briefly review his comments on RDFa Primer. David and Charles to briefly review their comments on RDFa Core.
Issue: should/must the 4th slot be an IRI?
See thread starting with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Nov/0116.html
Two alternative points of view (see minutes 30 Nov):
- we are not in a position to constrain the type of the "4th slot"
- we are standardizing graph identifiers, so they better be identifiers (= IRI)
Todo: list arguments in favor/against these positions (e.g. #1 breaks TriG).
Sandro wanted Pat's comment on scoping.
Pat's comments: "2c: if we allow bnodes in the 4th position, then please lets make a firm decision what their intended scope is going to be, and that they cannot also occur in other positions in the same graph store. But I vote to not allow bnodes in 4th position in any case."
IRI names for both graph containers and graphs?
Leave this ambiguous? See Pat's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Dec/0189.html
- Are names for a graph (as opposed to a graph container) needed? Potential use case: signing a graph.
- Can we handle ambiguity of IRI names?