Meetings:Telecon2013.12.18

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 16:33, 18 December 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 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


Admin

  • Chair: Guus Schreiber
  • Scribe: Ted Thibodeau


Minutes of last meeting

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 11 Dec telecon:

   https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-12-11

Review of action items


New publications

FPWDs of Primer, New & Datasets Notes published: http://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/3532


Meetings

Jan-Feb 2014: to be decided.

WG activity plan

Draft PR request: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDF11-PR-Request

Schedule:

  • 18 Dec: PR decision
  • 9 Jan: target publication date
  • end of Feb: Rec


PROPOSED: to Request W3M to extend for 2/3 months

  • WG will meet in a voluntary fashion in Jan-Feb to discuss WG notes et al.


PROPOSED: the RDF WG petition the Director to take JSON-LD to Recommendation immediately after the publication of the Proposed Recommendations for the rest of the RDF 1.1 work.

CR implementations

Implementation reports: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/#Implementation_reports

Only outstanding issue are two tests in Semantics: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0292.html


PROPOSED: the WG decides it has met the CR Exit Criteria for RDF 1.1 Turtle, TriG, NiTriples, and N-Quads (see statistics in PR Request [1])


PROPOSED: the WG decides to rescinded the two tests below as they are not helpful to interoperability, for the reasons outlined in [2]:


PROPOSED: the WG decides it it has met the CR Exit Criteria for RDF 1.1 Semantics (see implementation report)


Should we publish RDF 1.1 Test Cases as WG Note?

  • all test suite links in the Rec documents could point to this document
  • also one link for combined implementation reports? (otherwise Concepts has no link to Implmentation report)

Status of Syntax documents

Turtle

  • ISSUE-119: Spec should reference the test suite
  • Include decision about version naming in Changes section
  • Include link to implementation report in preamble

N-Quads:

  • Include changes section
  • List the following changes:
    • A normative reference to RDF Concepts has been added
    • A section mentioning that text/x-nquads with encoding US-ASCII was in the original work has been added.

N-Triples:

  • List the change: A normative reference to RDF Concepts has been added

Concepts & Semantics

Background: CR comments

ISSUE-148: IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource

Proposal 1 (message with s/identify/denote):

  • Resolve ISSUE-148 by changing the "IRIs have global scope" bullet point in section 1.3 in Concepts to "IRIs have global scope by definition. Thus, two different appearances of an IRI denote the same resource. RDF is based on this principle and violations of it might lead to inconsistencies or interoperability problems."

Proposal 2 (message):

  • Suggested wording: "By design, IRIs have global scope. Thus, two different appearances of an IRI denote the same resource. Violating this principle constitutes an IRI collision [WEBARCH]."

ISSUE-165 datatype map

PROPOSED: the WG resolves to close this issue, with the rationale stated in the last response to the commenter (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Dec/0098.html), noting the objection from the commenter in the Transition Request.

Marking rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral as non-normative?!

PROPOSED: to accept the resolution text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0283.html.

Normative references Concepts <=> Semantics

@@

PR decision

PROPOSED: to request the Director to advance Concepts and Semantics to Proposed Recommendation.

RDF Schema

Draft version of Edited Rec: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-schema/index.html

  • decide whether the sections on rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral should be marked as non-normative

RDF/XML

ED: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-xml/index.html#

Changes required for XMLLiteral: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0203.html

Review Ivan: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0293.html

PROPOSED: to request the Director to advance RDF 1.1 XML Syntax to Proposed Edited Recommendation.


Status of PR request

See PR request page

  • missing: link to Turtle features-at-risk resolution

Open issues (other than CR comments)

See: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/open

AOB

  • Namespace documents
  • Work to be done in Jan/Feb