Difference between revisions of "Meetings:Telecon2013.06.19"
(Created page with " Wednesdays at 11am US Eastern time for 60 minutes 17:00 Paris/Berlin/A'dam; 16:00 London Telephone US: +1.617.761.6200 SIP: email@example.com Zakim code: 73394 IRC ch…")
Revision as of 09:17, 18 June 2013
Wednesdays at 11am US Eastern time for 60 minutes 17:00 Paris/Berlin/A'dam; 16:00 London Telephone US: +1.617.761.6200 SIP: firstname.lastname@example.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 12 June telecon:
Review of action items
LC Drafts of Concepts and Semantics
- Concepts: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html
- Semantics: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html
On ISSUE-131, Sandro suggests: PROPOSED: We'll add some text to rdf-concepts saying systems MAY support blank node graph names and that communication between systems that do and don't can be aided by using Skolemization (and this closes ISSUE-131).
On ISSUE-136 Sandro suggests: PROPOSED: The formal meaning of an RDF Dataset is no less than the formal meaning of its default graph. This revises an earlier decision that datasets in general have no formal semantics, in order to allow for the use of specific dataset semantics to be signalled within a dataset. This feature to be added to rdf-concepts and rdf-mt, marked AT RISK for LC, since it hasn't been discussed much yet.
PROPOSED: Publish rdf-concepts as a Last Call Working Draft (after incorporating any changes agreed on during this meeting)
PROPOSED: Publish rdf-mt as a Last Call Working Draft (after incorporating any changes agreed on during this meeting)
Admin on LC prep:
- Status of reviews.
- Status of TriG, NT, NQ
- ISSUE-23 resolution?
On ISSUE-23, Sandro suggests: PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23 without general comment. We have been deciding on a case-by-case basis (YES for Turtle/TriG, NO for JSON-LD) and we expect to continue to do so.
Thread on rdf-comments: