Difference between revisions of "Meetings:Telecon2012.01.04"
(→Agenda RDF-WG telecon 04 Jan 2012)
m (→Status comments received: fixed typo)
|Line 45:||Line 45:|
Revision as of 16:00, 4 January 2012
Agenda RDF-WG telecon 04 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: +188.8.131.52.79.03 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: Guus Schreiber
- Scribe: Souripriya Das
- Alternate: Thomas Steiner
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 21 Dec telecon:
Action item review:
Next telecon: 11 Jan 2012
Review by RDF-WG, See message from Manu:
Status comments received
RDF-ISSUE-82 (TriG repeated graph iris)
How should repeated graph IRI labels be handled in TriG [RDF Turtle] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/82
See thread starting with:
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).
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?