From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 16:25, 11 January 2012 by Dwood4 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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
  UK: +44.203.318.0479
  FR: +
Zakim code: 73394
IRC channel: #rdf-wg on on port 6665
Zakim instructions:
RRSAgent instructions:
Scribe list:


  • 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.

David's comments

Named Graphs

Issue: should/must the 4th slot be an IRI?

See thread starting with

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:

  • 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?