From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 15:10, 16 May 2012 by Sandro (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Wednesdays at 11am US Eastern time for 75 minutes
  17:00 Paris/Berlin/A'dam; 16:00 London)
Telephone US: +1.617.761.6200
 Zakim code: 73394
IRC channel: #rdf-wg on on port 6665
Zakim instructions:
RRSAgent instructions:
Scribe list:


  • Chair: Guus Schreiber
  • Scribe: Peter F Patel-Schneider
  • Alternate: Jeremy Carroll

Minutes of last meeting

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 9 May telecon:

Review of action items

Next meeting

  • Next telecon: 23 May 2012

Turtle LC decision

Turtle editor's draft:

Message from Gavin about remaining issues:

Decision points (order from Gavin's message):

  1. No consensus yet about allowing uppercase keywords. Should we mark this as "feature at risk"? Can we add a feature that is at risk of being added? I suggest we definitely want community feedback on this, one way or another.
  2. We seem to have consensus on ISSUE 19: +1.
  3. Everybody seems to be able to live with Gavin's -1. Still mark as feature at risk?

PROPOSAL to publish the current Turtle editor's draft (taking into account the outcome of the discussion above, and with editorial discretion) as Last Call Working Draft.

RDF Concepts WD

Editor's draft:

Issues related to RDF Concepts pending review:

Note: there was follow-up discussion on ISSUE-13 (but this is leaning towards consensus):

HTML datatype proposal (ISSUE-63)

Proposal to resolve two XSD datatype issues

Are we ready for a PROPOSAL to publish RDF Concepts as revised WD?

Named Graphs

RDF spaces draft

Sandro's document on spaces and datasets:

Suggestion to briefly discuss Guus' take on consensus about this document (pls ignore subject line of this message):

Issue resolutions

Straw poll on issue resolutions proposed by Richard:

ISSUE-5 Graph literals

  • Proposed resolution: no.
  • PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-5 ("Should we define Graph Literal datatypes?"), saying No, we should not.

ISSUE-28 Syntactic nesting of g-texts

  • Proposed resolution: no
  • PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not.

ISSUE-29 Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"?

  • Proposed resolution: yes
  • PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-29 (Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"?'), Yes, we do.

ISSUE-30 Relation RDF Datasets with multiple graphs

  • Proposed resolution: they are isomorphic
  • Chair remark: likely to require at least some rephrasing
  • PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-30 ("How does SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset relate our notion of multiple graphs?"), saying we will use SPARQL's notion of RDF dataset as much of the foundation of our handling of multiple graphs.

ISSUE-33 Mechanism to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples

  • Proposed resolution: no
  • Chair remark: likely to require at least some rephrasing c.q. more detailed phrasing
  • PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-33 ("Do we provide a way to refer to sub-graphs and/or individual triples?"), with the understanding that datasets can be used to refer to sub-graphs and individual triples.

Suggestion to resolve the above and not resolve ISSUE-22 (empty graphs) yet.