Meetings:Telecon2012.05.16

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 15:11, 16 May 2012 by Sandro (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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
  SIP: zakim@voip.w3.org
 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: Guus Schreiber
  • Scribe: Peter F Patel-Schneider
  • Alternate: Jeremy Carroll

Minutes of last meeting

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 9 May telecon:

   http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-09


Review of action items

Next meeting

  • Next telecon: 23 May 2012

Turtle LC decision

Turtle editor's draft:

 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html

Message from Gavin about remaining issues:

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0331.html

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: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#

Issues related to RDF Concepts pending review:

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

Note: there was follow-up discussion on ISSUE-13 (but this is leaning towards consensus): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0198.html

HTML datatype proposal (ISSUE-63)

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0222.html

Proposal to resolve two XSD datatype issues

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0221.html

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:

 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-spaces/index.html#

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

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0372.html

Issue resolutions

Straw poll on issue resolutions proposed by Richard:

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0290.html


ISSUE-5 Graph literals http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/5

  • 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/28

  • Proposed resolution: no
  • PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- they are useful, but we can provide the same functionality with datasets.

ISSUE-29 Do we support SPARQL's notion of "default graph"? http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/29

  • 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/30

  • 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 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/33

  • 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.

AOB