07:55:20 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 07:55:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc 07:55:32 zakim, dial Rhone_4 07:55:32 sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is 07:55:40 zakim, this will be rdf 07:55:40 ok, sandro; I see SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM scheduled to start 115 minutes ago 07:56:22 zakim, dial Rhone_4 07:56:22 ok, sandro; the call is being made 07:56:23 SW_RDFWG(TPACF2F)2:00AM has now started 07:56:25 +Rhone_4 08:31:58 gkellogg, manu1 you're asleep, I imagine. 08:31:59 but we're on the phone. 08:32:28 ivan has joined #rdf-wg 08:34:51 Arnaud has joined #rdf-wg 08:40:23 cygri has joined #rdf-wg 08:41:19 RRSAgent, pointer? 08:41:19 See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc#T08-41-19 08:41:22 AZ has joined #rdf-wg 08:41:25 scribe: eric 08:41:38 Guus has joined #rdf-wg 08:41:47 davidwood has joined #rdf-wg 08:42:04 pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 08:42:05 FabGandon has joined #rdf-wg 08:42:23 meeting: RDF WG F2F3 08:42:31 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/FTF3#Day_1 08:42:35 chair: David, Guus 08:42:46 SteveS has joined #rdf-wg 08:42:57 RRSAgent, make record public 08:47:34 topic: intros: 08:47:50 ericP: W3C, HCLS RDF geekery 08:48:05 sandro: RDF geekery, eGov 08:48:22 FabGandon: expertise in KR 08:48:32 cygri: DERI gallway ireland 08:48:42 ... databases, RDF sparql 08:49:00 Arnaud: standards guy at IBM, ex W3C staff 08:49:00 s/gallway/galway/ 08:49:18 pchampin: univ lyon (500m away) 08:49:25 ivan: w3c 08:50:00 FabGandon: ac rep of INRIA, was in this group until falling into an administrative black hole 08:50:35 SteveS: IBM rational, member of LDP, using Rdf for tool integration 08:51:09 eve raymond: BBC, linked data for media industry 08:51:39 s/eve raymond/yves raimond 08:51:45 Guest: Steve Speicher 08:51:53 @@1: yarcdata, eureka (rdf triple store), observer 08:52:23 davidwood: selling RDF for food 08:52:48 Guus: prof of computer science in web and media at univ amsterdam 08:52:56 ... working in cultural heritage 08:53:24 s/@@1/Shoaib Mufti/ 08:53:50 Guest: Shaoib Mufti 08:55:34 topic: objectives 08:56:17 davidwood: agenda organized around deliverable documents 08:56:25 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F3-objectives deliverable documents 08:56:59 davidwood: Concepts, Turtle, JSON-LD are close 08:57:35 Guus, JSON-LD not strictly in the critical path (for charter extension) 08:57:39 Guus: JSON-LD not strictly in the critical path (for charter extension) 08:58:07 sandro: we need to be done with anything controversial 08:59:26 ivan: good if we have core docs at LC (Concepts) or CR (Turtle) 09:00:04 davidwood: some of these docs don't require much update: XML and schema 09:00:09 ... get to primer later 09:00:38 ivan: the primer is a note in many WGs 09:01:00 sandro: though it's already a REC in RDF. 09:06:49 s/@@1/Shoaib Mufti/ 09:07:21 pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 09:07:27 cygri: we should discuss a document or sections in other docs about upgrading from RDF 1.0 09:08:13 ... should address the fear that the change that 1.0->1.1 breaks stuff 09:10:00 sandro: do we have any reason to believe that danbri will edit RDF Schema? (given that he's changed jobs since volunteering) 09:10:36 davidwood: no, so we need a second 09:13:20 topic: Primer 09:14:13 cygri: re: evolution text, we can point out what's new and talk about what you have to do 'cause simple literals don't exist any more 09:14:36 AndyS has joined #rdf-wg 09:15:07 ivan: only non-additive change is the simple literal 09:15:35 ... until now, if i asked for the datatype for a simple literal, i got back nothing 09:15:41 see http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/ 09:15:52 cygri: impact is low, but you might have to adapt some application code 09:16:07 ... spelling that out is worth doing 09:16:22 ... e.g. if you use an RDF lib or store, here's what changes for you 09:16:36 ... .. if you edit another spec, here's what changes for you 09:16:57 ... only a paragraph or a few bullet points, but needs to be included 09:17:18 sandro: OWL created a "New Features and Rationale" 09:17:28 ... would be smaller for us. 09:17:56 yvesr: does it have to be a REC? 09:17:59 sandro: no no 09:18:34 davidwood: cygri's point about how in a couple years, folks won't care makes sense. should be a sepparate doc 09:19:33 cygri: i can do it with another 09:20:24 davidwood: editors of the Concepts doc (cygri and davidwood) should edit New Features 09:20:51 PROSOAL: New Note: "RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide" 09:20:56 RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide 09:21:08 s/PROSOAL/PROPOSAL/ 09:21:13 +1 09:21:15 +1 09:21:15 +1 09:21:16 +1 09:21:17 +1 09:21:20 +1 09:21:21 +1 09:21:22 +1 09:21:36 RESOLVED: new Note: "RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration" 09:22:15 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/101 09:22:53 close issue-101 09:22:53 ISSUE-101 Will RDF-WG produce a “What's New in RDF 1.1” document or migration guide? closed 09:23:58 ACTION: davidwood to draft “What's New in RDF 1.1” document 09:23:58 Could not create new action - action title not proper UTF-8 09:24:08 ACTION: davidwood to draft "What's New in RDF 1.1" document 09:24:08 Created ACTION-193 - Draft "What's New in RDF 1.1" document [on David Wood - due 2012-11-05]. 09:25:35 topic: Primer 09:26:38 Guus: thinking about this from the persecptive of the TOC 09:27:44 [syntax discussion] 09:28:32 ivan: could use the OWL Primer trick for multiple syntaxes 09:28:50 Guus: should be done with the Turtle first 09:29:18 ... RDFa and JSON-LD are good candidates. RDF/XML? 09:29:26 davidwood: RDF/XML will still be a REC 09:30:54 ACTION: Guus to add to RDF Primary and ISSUE about multi-language representation 09:30:54 Created ACTION-194 - Add to RDF Primary and ISSUE about multi-language representation [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-11-05]. 09:31:19 cygri: TOC looks similar to the RDF Concepts' TOC 09:31:40 ... RDF Concepts exposes the RDF data model 09:31:41 q+ 09:32:30 ... should RDF Concepts have the introductory material? 09:32:50 ... for the Primer to be as effective as possible, it should have lots of examples 09:33:16 ... the RDF Concepts intro doesn't do that; just gives an overview of the terminology 09:34:02 mlnt has joined #rdf-wg 09:34:17 [Guus shows the introductory text in Primer] 09:34:52 [general agreement that this intro is more basic than the intro in RDF Concepts] 09:35:43 ivan: being a visual type, i'd like to see images with discussions of graphs 09:36:00 Guus: will discuss embedding SVG with cygri 09:38:22 ... aiming for minimal examples which demonstrate graphs 09:38:27 [general approval] 09:39:22 typo in the first sentence of section 2.1: indetified -> identified 09:41:31 guest: Tim Berners-Lee 09:41:32 shh has joined #rdf-wg 09:41:44 davidwood: developers' eyes glaze over at the "subject, predicate, object" text. 09:41:46 ... using the text "two things and a relationship between them" seems to work 09:42:43 timbl: the graph eludes people, while turtle looks like a language to them 09:43:30 cygri: per yvesr, would like to point at the use case. 09:44:44 Guus: avoiding syntax, discuss the basic concepts: iri, literal, and unfortunately the blank node 09:46:48 did we just skip vocabularies? 09:47:44 pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 09:48:39 ... what can we show with basic graphs? 09:48:49 cygri: graph equivalence and basic entailment 09:51:28 cygri: if we look at datasets out there, Dublic Core is everywhere 09:53:22 ... might be a good guide to use examples of vocabs that folks will encounter in practice 09:53:50 ... skos is the 3rd most popular (after DC and FOAF) 09:55:11 Guus: i'd like to introduce in 6 or 7 printed pages 09:55:34 ... rest in appendeces 09:59:47 ... focusing on common vocabularies 09:59:49 davidwood: i find folks frequently have to invent vocabularies. 10:00:13 yvesr: a way to structure the vocabulary section around use-cases would be to use DC and FOAF for people and artworks they made and create a new property using RDF Schema for 'is displayed in', to stitch two vocabularies together 10:00:13 ... would like "of course, use others if available, but easy to invent as well" 10:00:30 sandro: it's like programmers using libraries 10:00:41 cygri: will it mention e.g. SPARQL? 10:01:16 ivan: there's no SPARQL primer 10:01:22 SPARQL 1.1 Overview http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-overview-20120501/ 10:01:37 ericP: top section of SPARQL serves as a primer 10:02:02 sandro: I think there should be a tiny sparql example, like the first in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#basicpatterns 10:02:11 ... and then it links to more 10:03:07 Guus: remind me to point at http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/ 10:03:38 sandro: we should have every document published before asking for the charter extension 10:05:27 Guus: i need to make a statement about whether you refer to a page or a person 10:06:12 ivan: use hash IRIs and avoid indirection 10:06:43 sandro: "We use IRIs (which are basically the same as URLs) to refer to both Web Pages and things that are not Web Pages, like People and Places" 10:09:04 ACTION: Guus to provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan 10:09:04 Created ACTION-195 - Provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-11-05]. 10:09:29 ACTION: Guus to provide Primer document for review - due 3 Jan 10:09:29 Created ACTION-196 - provide Primer document for review [on Guus Schreiber - due 2012-01-03]. 10:09:38 drop action 4 10:09:56 DROP ACTION-195 10:10:31 close action-195 10:10:31 ACTION-195 Provide Primer document for review -- due 3 Jan closed 10:27:57 shh has joined #rdf-wg 10:33:09 scribe: Arnaud 10:33:26 topic: RDF/XML 10:34:19 SteveS has joined #rdf-wg 10:34:49 ACTION: Fabien to provide a new WD for the WG to review by Nov 21st telecon 10:34:49 Created ACTION-197 - Provide a new WD for the WG to review by Nov 21st telecon [on Fabien Gandon - due 2012-11-05]. 10:36:04 davidwood: we will do the minimum 10:36:54 The WG would like to vote on moving RDF/XML to FPWD on 28 Nov. 10:36:56 FabGandon: I think there are 2 issues I need to look at but agree we should keep it to a minimum, WG has a lot more important things to do 10:37:05 ack ivan 10:37:13 q? 10:37:37 ivan: we should aim at an edited recommendation which is easier to do 10:38:04 ... allows to skip several steps 10:38:28 cygri: need to understand what it means for existing implementations 10:38:44 ivan: don't see any change in the concepts that would impact RDF/XML 10:39:29 paul-huawei has joined #rdf-wg 10:39:41 cygri: syntax hasn't changed but the change on literals may have an impact 10:40:10 paul-huawei has left #rdf-wg 10:40:17 ... this requires more thoughts 10:40:44 ivan: yes, you're right. the section on mapping needs to change and this won't be just editorial 10:41:00 ... so we can't go the EPR route 10:41:22 s/EPR/PER/ 10:41:27 q? 10:42:04 q+ 10:42:47 sandro: if we go to CR we'll need people to implement it, is it going to be hard to get this? 10:43:17 ivan: rdflib has already implemented it 10:43:59 davidwood: we should decide whether rdf/xml will be extended to support html5 datatype 10:44:32 PROPOSED: We we update RDF/XML to include special syntactic support for our new HTML datatype 10:44:38 -0 10:44:46 ivan: except it's impossible to do 10:45:06 cygri: we could do it for a subset: xhtml 10:45:13 -0.9 10:45:27 ... don't see much benefits in doing this 10:45:27 cygri: It would only work for XHTML, and for that you can use XMLLiteral 10:45:30 ivan: I agree 10:46:18 +1 include examples of HTML using CDATA 10:46:18 sandro: should we have something editorial explaining how to use cdata for this? 10:46:34 ivan: probably a good idea 10:47:01 davidwood: do we want to have a paragraph on this in rdf/xml? 10:47:07 ivan: leave it to the editor 10:47:37 fabgandon: will add it to the list and present it to the WG for review 10:47:58 topic: RDF 1.1 Primer 10:48:30 guus: talking about datatypes, need to put some examples 10:48:47 ... string, decimal, integer, boolean, datetime 10:48:56 q+ 10:48:56 shh has joined #rdf-wg 10:48:57 ... 5 key ones people typically use 10:49:05 ... is that a good approach? 10:49:14 q- 10:49:17 sandro: would add double 10:49:59 q+ 10:50:04 davidwood: ldp has a different list 10:50:49 sandro: ldp's list is based on what programing languages use 10:51:39 cygri: warn against drafting a list that gives the impression of being a recommended list, implying the rest is not recommended 10:51:43 guus: agree 10:52:21 ivan: wouldn't mention xsd:string, and keep it to plain literals 10:52:53 guus: could have a background note saying you can skip this 10:53:40 davidwood: wouldn't do more than this 10:55:33 18:30 doors open 10:56:52 topic: rdf 1.1 schema 10:57:12 davidwood: unlikely Dan will edit this spec, we need a new editor 10:58:37 arnaud: would be happy to help but have no background on what needs to be done so not sure I'm qualified 10:59:23 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-schema/index.html 11:00:30 RESOLVED to mark rdf:Alt and rdf:Bag as archaic using the language at: 11:00:30 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/ArchaicFeatures 11:00:46 issue-77? 11:00:46 ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open 11:00:46 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77 11:01:12 ivan: don't think there is a major work that needs to be done 11:02:00 PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action (due to XMP and RSS 1.0) 11:02:42 +1 11:03:04 cygri: would like us to try to do better 11:03:43 won't we have a formal objection from Adobe? 11:04:10 sandro: If they were to make a new version of XMP that did not to be backward compatible, THEN they should not use ______ 11:04:42 davidwood: not sure they care, they haven't touched XMP in years 11:04:57 ivan: it's not just adobe, a lot of other people use it 11:05:28 sandro: steve harris still thinks there is nothing better than seq 11:06:09 eric: Having two broken solutions is worse than having one broken one 11:06:28 ivan: don't think we can decide on making it archaic 11:07:12 ivan: we should provide guidance in the primer 11:07:19 ... that's the place to do that 11:07:24 PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action (due to XMP and RSS 1.0). Instead, add guidance on avoiding Seq in the Primer. 11:07:31 sandro: would like to have it in the spec 11:09:06 cygri: tempted to say that we should talk about this is in concepts 11:09:32 ... but that would be odd because it currently doesn't talk about vocabulary at all 11:10:35 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab 11:10:35 ivan: maybe the schema spec is the right place 11:11:59 cygri: we should have an issue for well formed lists 11:12:17 my "well-formed list" proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0135.html 11:12:21 davidwood: so the options are: primer, schema, or possibly concepts? 11:12:39 (which Steve Harris didnt like) 11:13:04 ... don't see a way to put in concepts without a syntax which is ugly 11:13:14 Not in Concepts 11:13:28 cygri: yes, agree we should have somewhere but not in my spec! :-) 11:14:29 ivan: my feeling is that schema is probably the best place 11:14:59 q+ to ask about status of term "property" in Schema, Concepts, and Primer 11:15:08 ack ivan 11:15:17 ack sandro 11:15:19 q- 11:15:30 ack Guus 11:15:30 Guus, you wanted to ask about status of term "property" in Schema, Concepts, and Primer 11:16:46 guus: have trouble writing data model in primer because predicate is talked about in different places 11:17:01 ... property vs predicate 11:17:26 ... is it useful to make the distinction in primer? it's very important for schema 11:18:32 cygri: schema is a language for definiing and describing properties and classes 11:18:43 shh has joined #rdf-wg 11:18:49 ... even if rdf schema didn't exist you would still have properties 11:19:18 sandro: if we could do it all over again, it would be easier for user to call the middle slot property name 11:19:52 is there an actual entailment that says :s :p :o => :p a rdf:Property? 11:19:52 cygri: agree 11:20:19 guus: alternative suggestion is to just drop the term predicate 11:21:20 cygri: you could only talk about predicates later in the document 11:21:47 ivan has left #rdf-wg 11:21:47 ... just not use the terms subject predicate object 11:23:28 Issue: Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs? 11:23:28 Created ISSUE-102 - Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/102/edit . 11:24:00 ISSUE-77? 11:24:00 ISSUE-77 -- Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) -- open 11:24:00 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/77 11:24:14 ivan has joined #rdf-wg 11:24:54 sandro: would like to propose we agree to pick one single preferred solution for future developments 11:25:11 davidwood: steve would say seq 11:26:09 davidwood: don't think that works, we have different communities that like either 11:26:32 ivan: sparql could have done it but didn't 11:27:01 davidwood: ldp trying to work around this by defining a sort predicate 11:27:21 ... this suggests that ordering is important 11:28:11 eric: this is hard to solve and that's why sparql didn't do it 11:29:51 ivan: there is no clear choice between the two 11:30:19 ... ldp's solution is not rdf core 11:30:29 sandro: we could introduce one 11:30:40 cygri: not a good idea at this point in the process 11:30:57 PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-77 taking no action. 11:31:08 +1 11:31:13 +1 11:31:17 -0.99 11:31:18 +0 11:31:37 +0.99 11:31:42 +1 11:31:45 +1 11:31:54 0 11:31:54 0 11:31:56 +0.001 11:32:15 sandro: this is one of the hardest point in rdf 11:32:31 ... this is the best opportunity to steer the community 11:33:01 yvesr: what's your preference? 11:33:08 sandro: slight preference for list 11:33:15 davidwood: I use seq! 11:33:32 s/seq/list/ 11:34:21 http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#Functions_and_Predicates_on_RIF_Lists 11:34:35 ... quite happy with sandro's proposal to say xmp is fine the way it is but if you were to do another version there is a better way 11:34:50 ivan: don't think we'll get consensus 11:35:09 sandro: steve didn't object 11:35:40 sandro: the best thing for the community is to specify one 11:36:14 ... could live with anything, saying to use something else than seq would be a good start 11:36:38 PROPOSED: Close issue-77 marking SEQ as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs) 11:36:42 proposal: tentatively mark seq as archaic and see whether steve objects 11:36:53 ivan: ok but need to ask steve 11:36:53 q+ to say I was planning to use an example of the () collction notation of Turtle in the Primer 11:37:02 ack Guus 11:37:02 Guus, you wanted to say I was planning to use an example of the () collction notation of Turtle in the Primer 11:37:09 +0.5 11:37:13 +1 11:37:31 +0 11:37:47 +1 (and will take an action to ask Steve H and the Adobe AC rep) 11:37:51 +1 provided we cross-check with possible oppenents 11:37:53 +0.5 11:37:58 +1 11:39:26 RESOLVED: Close issue-77 marking SEQ as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs) 11:39:27 RESOLVED: Close issue-77 marking SEQ as Archaic (saying folks shouldn't use it for new vocabs) 11:40:47 close issue-77 11:40:47 ISSUE-77 Should we mark rdf:Seq as archaic (cf ISSUE-24) closed 11:40:53 ACTION: Arnaud to check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?) 11:40:53 Created ACTION-198 - Check with Dan what he wants to do with regard to editorship (remain editor, leave it to Arnaud, remain co-editor?) [on Arnaud Le Hors - due 2012-11-05]. 11:41:09 break for lunch 11:41:21 come back at 1:30pm 11:41:29 FabGandon has left #rdf-wg 11:54:47 ScottB has joined #rdf-wg 11:57:24 +Tony 12:01:51 Zakim, Tony is temporarily me 12:01:51 +ScottB; got it 12:39:53 gavinc has joined #rdf-wg 12:40:55 SteveS has joined #rdf-wg 12:43:26 Zakim, who is on the call? 12:43:26 On the phone I see Rhone_4, ScottB 12:44:49 scribe: sandro 12:44:53 topic: RDF Concepts 12:45:00 RRSAgent, pointer? 12:45:00 See http://www.w3.org/2012/10/29-rdf-wg-irc#T12-45-00 12:45:48 cygri: we did the bulk of the work quite some time ago. the document is in pretty good shape, with some open issues marked. 12:46:04 ... biggest was RDF Datasets, which has become easier because we scaled down our goals. 12:46:26 ... most of the rest is editorial. explanations. whether text should be in one spec or another. 12:46:32 ... going throught the issues 12:46:42 ... Defn of RDF Datasets? 12:46:59 ... HashURIs / trig -- how do fragments work? 12:48:11 .... High Level Issues: Datasets, Fragments in multigraph syntax, Relationship between Semantics and Concepts documnets, and stuff in Primer vs Concepts. 12:48:35 subtopic: Relationship between Concepts and Primer 12:48:42 cygri: Section 1. 12:50:19 ... gives a background what the datamodel is useful for, rather than just starting with concepts 12:50:25 ... and gives context. 12:51:01 ... There's a lot of additional terminology, used all the time in RDF, but is nowhere defined. "Resource". "denote". ... 12:51:11 ... namespace, namespace IRI, etc 12:51:28 ... this is all "informative". 12:51:50 ... Does *not* give examples. That would make it bigger, and something different. 12:52:17 ... Is it okay that intro tackles these things? 12:52:42 q? 12:52:46 q+ 12:53:17 sandro: I think it's fine to have example to help the sophisticated reader understand this stuff 12:53:32 davidwood: what about syntax? 12:54:21 ack ivan 12:54:24 sandro: I think it's fine to use Turtle. Assume on the first reading they wont know/care about what Turtle means formally. 12:54:26 q+ 12:54:35 davidwood: And they'll have read Primer first. 12:54:46 ivan: I agree the Intro should be part of the document, yes. 12:55:01 ivan: Examples -- I don't know. Probably yes, 12:55:02 q+ to say: yes 12:55:21 ivan: But yes, keep Intro 12:55:29 ack Arnaud 12:55:37 Arnaud: I don't know how far we can go with graphic represetnation in examples. 12:56:07 .. if you can stick to diagrams, that's great 12:56:21 davidwood: namespace IRI 12:57:00 cygri: Examples should cover the stuff that's hard to visualize or grasp. That would help. 12:57:19 .. I'm a little bit afraid that... 12:57:40 .. we should make clear the difference between Primer and Concepts Introduction. 12:58:08 .. There's a danger if this gets to helpful, with diagrams, that people will skip the Primer. 12:58:33 q? 12:58:50 ivan: it's a judgement call. the RDFa spec has something of a tutorial style in it, with lots of examples. And we also have a primer. A lot of people still use the primer. 12:58:54 q? 12:59:08 ack Guus 12:59:08 Guus, you wanted to say: yes 12:59:26 Guus: This section is short, so I don't see a problem. You give some definitions/references, like IRIs, that belong here. 12:59:49 ack Guus 12:59:56 ... I can see your concern about examples; I think the idea of diagrams. 13:01:32 davidwood: Except for 1.4 (namespace IRIs) it seems like I have to read the primer first. 1.4 should stay in Concepts in order to make Concepts able to stand on its own. (Primer isn't normative.) 13:01:32