From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 21:50, 20 June 2012 by Cgreer2
Please justify/explain non-obvious edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:32:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:32:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-rdf-wg-irc 14:32:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:32:08 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 14:32:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394 14:32:10 <Zakim> 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 14:52:10 <Zakim> +??P9 14:52:42 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P9 is me 14:52:42 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it 14:55:41 <cgreer> cgreer has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:14 <Zakim> +mhausenblas 14:58:25 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me 14:58:25 <Zakim> +cygri; got it 14:58:27 <Zakim> + +1.707.318.aaaa 14:58:35 <cgreer> zakim, aaaa is me 14:58:35 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it 14:58:45 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 14:59:04 <SteveH__> SteveH__ has joined #rdf-wg 14:59:32 <Zakim> +??P13 14:59:36 <AndyS> zakim, ??P13 is me 14:59:36 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 14:59:38 <cgreer> trackbot-ng, start telecon 14:59:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:59:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394 14:59:42 <Zakim> 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 15:00:02 <ScottB> ScottB has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:15 <cgreer> chair: davidwood 15:00:24 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:32 <pchampin> zakim, what is the code? 15:00:32 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:email@example.com), pchampin 15:01:14 <cgreer> zakim, who is here? 15:01:14 <Zakim> I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted 15:01:15 <Zakim> 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, 15:01:16 <Zakim> ... sandro, trackbot, ericP 15:01:24 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P18 is me 15:01:26 <Zakim> +??P4 15:01:28 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip 15:01:29 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it 15:01:32 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made 15:01:35 <Zakim> +Ivan 15:01:39 <Zakim> + +1.408.996.aabb 15:01:46 <Zakim> +Tony 15:01:50 <pchampin> zakim, ??P4 is me 15:01:51 <Arnaud> zakim, aab is me 15:01:58 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it 15:01:59 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg 15:02:02 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named 'aab' 15:02:03 <ScottB> Zakim, Tony is temporarily me 15:02:03 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:02:05 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me 15:02:11 <Zakim> +??P27 15:02:15 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it 15:02:15 <gkellogg> zakim, ??P27 is me 15:02:16 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it 15:02:18 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted 15:02:20 <Arnaud> zakim, ??aabb is me 15:02:28 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it 15:02:36 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '??aabb' 15:02:56 <Zakim> +sandro 15:02:59 <Arnaud> zakim, ??bb is me 15:03:12 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '??bb' 15:03:16 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aacc 15:03:19 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 15:03:24 <davidwood> Zakim, aacc is me 15:03:25 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it 15:03:26 <zwu2> zakim, code? 15:03:27 <Zakim> +EricP 15:03:30 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:firstname.lastname@example.org), zwu2 15:03:40 <Zakim> +??P36 15:03:58 <cgreer> scribenick: cgreer 15:04:01 <davidwood> Chair: David Wood 15:04:01 <Arnaud> zakim, aabb is me 15:04:01 <AZ> zakim, ??P36 is me 15:04:03 <Zakim> +Arnaud; got it 15:04:05 <Zakim> +AZ; got it 15:04:26 <davidwood> Topic: Admin 15:04:31 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aadd 15:04:35 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aaee 15:04:35 <davidwood> 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 15:04:41 <Zakim> +??P37 15:04:45 <AndyS> +1 15:04:49 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P37 15:04:49 <Zakim> +manu1; got it 15:04:54 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aaee is me 15:04:54 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it 15:04:56 <davidwood> Topic: Action Items 15:04:57 <cgreer> RESOLVED Accept the minutes of 13 June telecon. 15:04:59 <Zakim> + +1.707.861.aaff 15:05:04 <zwu2> zakim, mute me 15:05:04 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted 15:05:05 <davidwood> Review of action items 15:05:05 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview 15:05:05 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open 15:05:06 <AlexHall> AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg 15:05:12 <gavinc> Zakim, aaff is me 15:05:12 <Zakim> +gavinc; got it 15:05:23 <cgreer> davidwood: look at open action items 15:05:43 <cgreer> davidwood: Eric youve forgotten about FRBR 15:05:59 <cgreer> ericP: FRBR didn't have appropriate use cases 15:06:09 <cgreer> davidwood: please send email about that 15:06:54 <cgreer> davidwood: 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 15:07:39 <davidwood> 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 15:07:55 <cgreer> davidwood: 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... 15:08:15 <AndyS> 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. 15:08:59 <ivan> zakim, mute me 15:08:59 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted 15:09:30 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aagg 15:09:31 <cgreer> ericP: the BNF drops parans where it needs them. One other issue is text about tokens. 15:09:39 <gkellogg> q+ 15:09:39 <cgreer> davidwood: how much left? 15:09:45 <cgreer> ericP: Done by Friday. 15:10:11 <cgreer> gavinc: no comments. 15:10:40 <cgreer> davidwood: Turtle will be better for this work 15:11:05 <cgreer> gkellogg: 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. 15:11:55 <cgreer> ericP: 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. 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. 15:12:39 <cgreer> gavinc: There are other grammars that can parse Turtle documents. 15:12:45 <Zakim> +Souri 15:12:59 <cgreer> davidwood: There's more than one way. Do we know for certain that there is really an LL1 grammar? 15:13:01 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg 15:13:08 <cgreer> gavinc: 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... 15:13:54 <cgreer> gkellogg: 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 ) 15:14:30 <cgreer> gkellogg: 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' 15:14:56 <cgreer> davidwood: 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. 15:15:27 <SteveH> 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. 15:16:04 <ericP> q+ to address LL-ness vs. LALR-ness 15:16:05 <AndyS> q+ 15:16:10 <cgreer> ?? Is there some preference for LL1? 15:16:11 <pchampin> q 15:16:18 <davidwood> ack gkellogg 15:16:19 <sandro> s/??/sandro/ 15:16:22 <davidwood> ack ericP 15:16:22 <Zakim> 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. 15:17:45 <cgreer> ericP: Has checked with peers about state table. Is the tool generating the state table correctly? I think not. 15:18:12 <davidwood> ack AndyS 15:18:23 <cgreer> ericP: The difference between LL1 and LALR handling was * and + 15:18:42 <cgreer> AndyS: 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. 15:19:06 <Zakim> -zwu2 15:19:16 <sandro> s/LL1/LALR/ 15:19:18 <cgreer> AndyS: I'll take action to make a rule. 15:19:20 <gavinc> +1 15:19:31 <gkellogg> +1 15:19:48 <gavinc>  predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList (';' verb objectList)* ';'? 15:19:51 <gavinc> The rule in question 15:20:00 <AndyS> 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]. 15:20:06 <Zakim> + +1.603.438.aahh 15:20:12 <gkellogg> my alternate:  predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList ( ";" ( verb objectList)? )* 15:20:24 <zwu2> zakim, +1.603.438.aahh is me 15:20:24 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it 15:20:26 <davidwood> q? 15:20:42 <cgreer> gavinc: Richard, could you talk about your feedback after call? 15:21:01 <cgreer> davidwood: Friday still reasonable? 15:21:09 <cgreer> gavinc: 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. 15:21:59 <cgreer> ericp: 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 ';' 15:22:37 <cgreer> AndyS: Either new object list or end. 15:23:00 <gavinc> 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. 15:23:59 <ivan> q? 15:24:05 <cgreer> AndyS: 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 15:24:54 <cgreer> ??: This is not LL1 15:25:07 <cgreer> ericP: What if I try rewriting it. 15:25:14 <ivan> q+ 15:25:36 <davidwood> ack ivan 15:26:15 <gavinc> 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. 15:26:34 <cgreer> davidwood: publication freeze? 15:26:37 <AndyS> I withdraw my action. 15:27:19 <cgreer> davidwood: why did you withdraw your action? 15:27:46 <cgreer> ericP: If you want to supply the rule, I'm happy to have it. 15:28:29 <cgreer> AndyS: 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. 15:29:11 <cgreer> gavinc: I see no problem with infinite ';' following this production. 15:29:23 <cgreer> ericP: 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. 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. 15:30:43 <cygri> q+ 15:30:51 <cgreer> gavinc: 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. 15:31:32 <davidwood> 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... 15:32:35 <gavinc> 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. 15:33:16 <cgreer> cygri: 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. 15:34:14 <manu1> +1 to Ivan!!! 15:34:19 <cgreer> ivan: What's simpler to write down and move on? 15:34:24 <SteveH> +1 to ivan 15:35:00 <cgreer> ericP: 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 15:35:31 <cgreer> ericP: 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. 15:35:50 <SteveH> or we could say that it's undefined behaviour 15:36:09 <sandro> +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. 15:36:32 <cgreer> ivan: Whatever is simpler for editors. 15:36:32 <zwu2> +1 to SteveH 15:36:57 <cgreer> davidwood: 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 15:37:25 <gkellogg> suggest that it is specifically disallowed 15:37:25 <cgreer> sandro: I don't see that. 15:37:39 <cgreer> davidwood: 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. 15:38:04 <MacTed> is this accurate summary? 15:38:04 <MacTed> 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. 15:38:04 <MacTed> 3. say nothing. 15:38:46 <MacTed> ignore that, if problem is solved... 15:38:46 <SteveH> MacTed, it requires a comment, otherwise people will wonder 15:38:48 <LeeF> oh, by the way, +1 to ivan :-) 15:39:04 <AndyS> Don't test. 15:39:09 <SteveH> yeah, don't test 15:39:14 <cgreer> ericP: We're not saying whether it can happen. 'Don't Test' 15:39:15 <gkellogg> +1 15:39:33 <cgreer> davidwood: 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. 15:40:10 <cygri> @base and @prefix are "reserved for future extensions" or "discouraged" in BCP47 15:40:11 <ivan> q+ 15:41:13 <davidwood> ack ivan 15:41:15 <AndyS> 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? 15:42:05 <cgreer> ericP: We're needing some text about @base and about terminals. 15:42:33 <cgreer> gavinc: Only remaining issue is resolving things with Richard. 15:42:41 <cgreer> ivan: Can we vote last call next week? 15:42:49 <cgreer> gavinc: We will have a document by Friday. 15:43:16 <cgreer> gavinc: 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. 15:43:37 <manu1> AndyS - especially if we mark it as an issue in the document. 15:43:41 <davidwood> q? 15:43:46 <davidwood> Topic: JSON-LD 15:43:52 <AndyS> manu - good idea 15:43:52 <manu1> Actually, the editors should /definitely/ mark the grammar as an issue and say that it could change. 15:43:54 <cygri> AndyS++ 15:44:06 <gavinc> AndyS++ 15:44:18 <manu1> q+ to provide an overview 15:44:29 <manu1> q- 15:45:04 <cgreer> manu1: 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. 15:45:36 <cgreer> FPWD 15:46:01 <Zakim> -Arnaud 15:46:10 <Arnaud> 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) 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. 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. 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. 15:49:19 <cgreer> davidwood: how comfortable that nobody else will have issues? 15:49:42 <cgreer> manu1: 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." 15:50:16 <cgreer> manu1: All the people who have contributed more than a paragraph have committed to IPR preliminarily. 15:50:33 <davidwood> 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 15:50:36 <Zakim> ... position of RDF triples." 15:53:15 <cgreer> gkellogg: 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. 15:54:13 <Zakim> -SteveH 15:54:45 <manu1> We are tracking the issues here, btw: 15:54:47 <manu1> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/135 15:54:49 <manu1> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/136 15:54:51 <manu1> 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". 15:55:49 <cgreer> pchampin: Property is the lable of the edge, not the edge itself. 15:55:54 <gkellogg> +1 15:55:57 <cgreer> s/lable/label/ 15:56:25 <cygri> 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. 15:57:39 <AZ> s/AZ/pchampin/ 15:58:02 <davidwood> q? 15:58:47 <pchampin> q+ 15:58:56 <manu1> 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. 15:59:33 <cgreer> manu1: 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. 16:00:04 <MacTed> q+ 16:00:05 <cgreer> manu1: We thought this would scare people away. 16:00:10 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me 16:00:12 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted 16:00:22 <davidwood> 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. 16:00:54 <cgreer> zakim, who is speaking? 16:01:00 <sandro> 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) 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%) 16:01:20 <ericP> clarification-- we're not discussing a prerequisite for FPWD, right? 16:01:22 <ivan> q+ 16:01:25 <zwu2> come on, it is OWL Full that is scary 16:01:35 <pchampin> ack me 16:01:36 <cgreer> pchampin: 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. 16:03:01 <cgreer> manu1: I'm concerned more about marketing of the spec. We want it adopted as quietly as possible 16:03:32 <davidwood> ack MacTed 16:04:09 <cgreer> MacTed: 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. 16:04:51 <cgreer> MacTed: But if it's not part of the FPWD process, we can not hold it up for this. 16:04:51 <davidwood> ack ivan 16:04:55 <pchampin> +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 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. 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 email@example.com (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome." 16:05:38 <sandro> ehhh -- NO ONE EVER reads the SOTD. :-) 16:05:46 <cgreer> ivan: 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 firstname.lastname@example.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." 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. 16:06:50 <cgreer> manu1: Can we let this go for now? It should not affect FPWD. 16:06:59 <cgreer> davidwood: 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, " 16:07:26 <sandro> or "with approval by the ... " 16:07:37 <ericP> i propose we add "we got you, sucka" after B.1 16:07:49 <cygri> lol @ericP 16:08:01 <manu1> 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 . 16:08:23 <ericP> "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. 16:08:47 <cgreer> manu1: 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. 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. 16:11:04 <gavinc> hey, danbri, your anti RDF? ;) 16:11:15 <manu1> no, not danbri! 16:11:28 <manu1> /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 16:12:10 <ericP> 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 16:12:19 <davidwood> ack ericP 16:12:19 <Zakim> 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. 16:12:48 <cgreer> ericP: 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. 16:13:18 <davidwood> Topic: RDF Spaces and Datasets 16:13:26 <davidwood> Deferred until next week 16:13:33 <davidwood> Topic: AOB 16:13:44 <gavinc> I think we have Deferred Graphs not Named Graphs 16:13:56 <gavinc> Deferred too 16:14:05 <gavinc> No, we won't talk about Turtle 16:14:08 <zwu2> bye 16:14:08 <Zakim> -yvesr 16:14:16 <Zakim> -Souri 16:14:17 <AZ> bye 16:14:18 <Zakim> -gkellogg 16:14:19 <Zakim> -AZ 16:14:19 <Zakim> -Ivan 16:14:21 <Zakim> -zwu2 16:14:23 <cgreer> rssagent, generate minutes 16:14:23 <Zakim> -manu1 16:14:24 <Zakim> -ScottB 16:14:24 <Zakim> -pchampin 16:14:25 <Zakim> -davidwood 16:14:26 <Zakim> -EricP 16:14:27 <Zakim> -AlexHall 16:14:29 <Zakim> -LeeF 16:14:32 <Zakim> -sandro 16:14:34 <Zakim> -MacTed 16:14:36 <Zakim> -gavinc 16:14:38 <Zakim> -cgreer 16:14:41 <MacTed> 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 16:14:42 <cygri> gavinc? 16:15:00 <AlexHall> AlexHall has left #rdf-wg 16:15:09 <Zakim> -AndyS 16:15:12 <Zakim> -cygri 16:15:18 <Zakim> 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, 16:15:24 <Zakim> ... 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 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. 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?" 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. 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. 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?? 16:22:24 <davidwood> 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. 16:23:03 <sandro> 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.) 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 email@example.com (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome." 16:24:13 <sandro> 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*. 16:24:56 <sandro> sure, but we dont even need to say that. 16:25:14 <sandro> Anyway, Manu, I'm mostly with you on this, I think. # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000412