From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 17:46, 8 October 2013 by Gschreib (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wednesdays at 11am US Eastern time for 90 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:


  • Chair: David Wood
  • Scribe: <please volunteer>

Minutes of last meeting

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 9 Oct telecon:

Review of action items


Next telecon: 16 Oct

Public responses and raising issues

  • Clarify responsibility for sending acknowledgment of receipt and raising an issue
  • Still some spurious responses by WG members on public comments list

Test suite for Semantics

Short status review

pfps: The basic set of tests should be ready to go. Antoine has a set of proposed tests at that should be discussed.

LC Comments on Concepts, Semantics

See for current status of all comments on Concepts and Semantics.


Jeremy Carroll: rdf:Graph ?


David Booth: Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful

Status: response sent, waiting for commenter


David Booth: Definition of "Generalized RDF", editorial changes in editor's draft at implementing

Status: proposed response, no WG consensus yet


David Booth: IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource

Status: Response sent, waiting for commenter


David Booth: Intuitive summary needs to be scoped to interpretations

Status: draft response formulated, no WG consensus yet

Actual Status: response sent, and rejected; second response in progress


Jeremy Carroll: references and acknowledgements

Status: WG response to be formulated


Jeremy Carroll: owl:imports and graph names and issue 38

Status: draft response formulated, no WG consensus yet

JSON-LD References

Gregg Kellogg:

We'll want to spend a little time on understanding the implications of Concepts and Semantics not being in CR for JSON-LD to publish with a normative reference to CR. JSON-LD is just about ready for a transition to PR.

The CR version of JSON-LD has a normative reference to LC RDF11-CONCEPTS of 23 July 2013, and informative references to 2004 RDF-SCHEMA, 23 July RDF11-MT and 19 Feb TURTLE.

The CR version of JSON-LD-API has a normative reference to 2004 RDF-MT and an informative reference to the TURTLE CR of 19 Feb 2013.


Checking prep status for PR:

  • disposition of comments


Peter Ansell: Spec should reference the test suite

Status: response sent, issue not closed yet


Joe Rockmore: reified statements in Turtle

Status: no response formulated

Dataset Semantics

Antoine's draft: