From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 10:35, 23 October 2012 by Gschreib (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: Pierre-Antoine Champin
  • Alternate: Richard Cyganik

Minutes of last meeting

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 17 Oct telecon:

Review of action items

Next meeting

  • Mon-Tue 29-30 Oct, Lyon, France, co-located with TPAC.
    • Please see the Agenda and the Objectives.
    • Note: US still in Summer Time, Europe not
  • Next telecon: 05 November 2012


Discussion started with:

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.

Turtle Tests

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


TriG Syntax

Should we capture the following resolutions (implicit in minutes previous telecon):

PROPOSED: The WG makes no normative statement on whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY or MAY NOT turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way.

PROPOSED: The WG will provide in the Primer non-normative suggestions for putting metadata about a TriG document in the document's default graph.