Difference between revisions of "Meetings:Telecon2012.10.24"

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(JSON-LD)
(JSON-LD)
Line 47: Line 47:
  
 
Three discussions appear to be going on in the thread:
 
Three discussions appear to be going on in the thread:
 +
  
 
; 1. Relationship JSON-LD <=> RDF
 
; 1. Relationship JSON-LD <=> RDF

Revision as of 10:02, 23 October 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: 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: Pierre-Antoine Champin
  • Alternate: Richard Cyganik


Minutes of last meeting

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 17 Oct telecon:

   http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-17

Review of action items

Next meeting

  • Next meeting: TPAC FTF, Lyon, 29-30 Oct
    • Note: US still in Summer Time, Europe not
  • Next telecon: 05 November 2012


Next FTF

Mon-Tue 29-30 Oct, Lyon, France, co-located with TPAC.

Please see the Agenda and the Objectives.

JSON-LD

Discussion started with:

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0093.html

Three discussions appear to be going on in the thread:


1. Relationship JSON-LD <=> RDF


2. Description of the JSON-LD&RDF relationsip in the documents
  • Concern of Michael (paraphrased): if JSON-LD is providing a serialization for RDF graphs that the RDF WG is going to endorse, then this relationship between JSON-LD and RDF must be clearly specified in a normative document.
  • Efforts of Richard to align JSON-LD and RDF Concepts
  • See JSON-LD Issue 168
  • Discussion point: are the ongoing editing efforts sufficient to address this concern? Actions required?


3. Linked Data & foormats
This discussion is interesting but should not be on the critical path of this WG.

Provenance Constraints Review

Progress on LC reviews (actions 184+185)

What are we going to tell the Provenance WG? Use RDF datasets and serialize via either TriG or JSON-LD? We are late and should respond soon.

Turtle Tests

Andy's seed of test cases and Andy's announcement


Graphs

TriG Syntax

Discuss whether in our dataset syntax, triples of the dataset's default graph MUST or MAY be surrounded by curly braces.

Related question: How can a human tell a Turtle document from a TriG document?

PROPOSED: In TriG, triples of the dataset's default graph [MUST|MAY] be surrounded by curly braces.

PROPOSED: Implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way.

PROPOSED: The WG suggests it's a good practice to put metadata about a TriG document in the document's default graph.

AOB