Meetings:Telecon2012.01.11

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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: zakim@voip.w3.org
  UK: +44.203.318.0479
  FR: +33.4.26.46.79.03
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


Admin

  • Chair: David Wood
  • Scribe: William Waites
  • Alternate: Mischa Tuffield

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 4 Jan telecon:

   http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-01-04

Action item review:

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

Next telecon: 18 Jan 2012


RDFa LC

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.

David's comments

Named Graphs

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):

  1. we are not in a position to constrain the type of the "4th slot"
  2. 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?


More test cases?