Meetings:Telecon2013.10.09

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
  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


Admin

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

Minutes of last meeting

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 9 Oct telecon:

   https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-02

Review of action items

Meetings

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 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/c1f078332a11/rdf-mt/tests/manifest-az.ttl that should be discussed.

LC Comments on Concepts, Semantics

See http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Concepts_and_Semantics_Last_Call_Comments for current status of all comments on Concepts and Semantics.

ISSUE-142

Jeremy Carroll: rdf:Graph ?

ISSUE-145

David Booth: Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful

Status: response sent, waiting for commenter

ISSUE-147

David Booth: Definition of "Generalized RDF", editorial changes in editor's draft at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-generalized-rdf implementing http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0008.html

Status: proposed response, no WG consensus yet

ISSUE-148

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

Status: Response sent, waiting for commenter

ISSUE-149

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

ISSUE-150

Jeremy Carroll: references and acknowledgements

Status: WG response to be formulated

ISSUE-151

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.

Turtle

Checking prep status for PR:

  • disposition of comments

ISSUE-119

Peter Ansell: Spec should reference the test suite

Status: response sent, issue not closed yet

ISSUE-152

Joe Rockmore: reified statements in Turtle

Status: no response formulated

Dataset Semantics

Antoine's draft:

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Sep/0109.html

AOB