Difference between revisions of "Meetings:Telecon2013.02.27"

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 32: Line 32:
* Handling of CR comments
* Handling of CR comments
** Draft wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments
** OWL wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments
* Implementation report & test suite
* Implementation report & test suite

Revision as of 12:33, 26 February 2013

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


  • Chair: Guus Schreiber
  • Scribe: <please volunteer>

Minutes of last meeting

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 20 February telecon:


Review of action items



Editor's draft:

  • Should we allow blank nodes to be used as graph names? That is, allow a graph name to be both (IRI, graph), and (blank node, graph).

NB: JSON-LD has a preference to allow blank nodes as graph names.

From Manu: PROPOSAL: Allow blank nodes to be used as graph names. Specifically, allow associating (IRI, graph) and (blank node, graph) when naming graphs.

  • Do blank node identifiers, when used as graph names, denote graphs?

From Manu: PREFERENCE POLL: Blank nodes, when used as graph names, denote the graph that they are paired with.

  • ISSUE-109: What's the consequence of a literal being ill-typed?

Review of WG status

Open issues: