See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 13 March 2013
<gavinc> I think everyone else is over in LDP talking about how DELETE works ;)
<PatH> i hear silence...
<PatH> ah, hi.
<tbaker> is irc-only today
<gavinc> scibe: gavinc
<gavinc> scibe yes
<gavinc> I will scibe
<gavinc> sigh
<gavinc> scribe: gavinc
Guus: I promise to keep the meeting short.
<pfps> minutes look fine to me
<Guus> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06
Guus: DST not the same in EU for
another few weeks
... minutes accepted.
<Guus> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06
<Guus> RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06
AZ: I already have most of my review written. Trying to be as complete as possible.
Guus: Keeping action open.
... we'll come back to semantics.
pfps: I don't see how we can move forward with the objection from AZ.
PatH: Apart from the objection, there are sections that haven't been written. HTML linking to fix, now using Respec, should go faster.
<pfps> I don't see that any of the issues that Pat is reporting should stop FPWD publication.
Guus: Shall we start with AZ's last email?
AZ: I said that the current
description of blank node scope should be removed from the
document.
... should go back to the RDF 2004 for blank node
semantics.
... It introduces a number of new concepts that we haven't
talked about.
... Blank node scope has been discussed, but hasn't been agreed
upon.
... Adds other concepts that haven't been discussed.
... ??? ...
... Should introduce issues for all new concepts introduced in
Semantics.
... The main reason is that if it's only kept in the semantics
document, then some people won't see them.
... confident in editors of concepts and semantics ...
... the process is not right, editors shouldn't introduce
concepts
PatH: Two issues. Should ??? be in the spec at all. 2nd issue, which document should it be in. (??? blank node scope)
<AZ> Ok, right, Semantics and Concepts should cross reference, I agree
PatH: Which material goes in which document is a largely editorial choice. Noted that this material should go in RDF Concepts as a NOTE in the semantics document.
pfps: The problem is that there
are outstanding issues that haven't been addressed.
... a number of them are technical.
... Chicken and egg problem. How are we going to get them
addressed appropriately? This is a plee to get the semantics
decided before we worry about semi-colons.
... we're the handmaiden of the people who want to do the
design.
+q to say oh yes there was.
pfps: I don't think there is a better way then to publish this in a FPWD.
PatH: It's a draft after all!
Guus: I was going to propose that.
-q
scribe: it's important that we get a FPWD out.
pfps: I think that we SHOULD a
way forward on RDF graphs sharing blank nodes.
... I don't know if it's THE way we'll end up using, and it
doesn't have to match exactly what's in RDF concepts.
PatH: There shouldn't be a difference of opinion that's unacknowledged between RDF concepts, and RDF semantics.
Guus: I'd like to decide today on
publishing a FPWD.
... what needs to be done to make that possible?
PatH: I think putting a more prominent issue note would be adequate?
AZ: Best we can do, to go forward.
<cgreer> That's exactly the word JSON-LD-SYNTAX uses re blank nodes -- controversial :)
<cygri> ISSUE-43?
<trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Revisit "Suggestion that Qnames should be allowed as values for attributes such as rdf:about" -- closed
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/43
<pfps> Which issue is blank node scope, or should there be a new one?
PROPOSED: to publish Semantics as FPWD marking the section on blank node scope as an ISSUE
<cgreer> +1
<pfps> +1
<Souri> +1
<AndyS> +1
<zwu2> +1
<AZ> AZ: the document can be published on the condition that the part on bnode scope is clearly made distinct
<AZ> +1
<markus> +1
+1
<gkellogg> +1
<Guus> +1 for PatH
PatH: +1
RESOLVED Publish Semantics as FPWD marking the section on blank node scope as an ISSUE
<pchampin> +1
<pfps> unfortunately, I am unlikely to be able to be at the meeting next week
<tbaker> +1
Guus: If we can resolve in the
next two or three weeks we should be on track.
... do we have a series?
<pfps> given that I am happy with the current situation, my participation is probably not necessary
PatH: Did I misread something?
Guus: I don't like series editors.
PatH: Will remove. I thought I was supposed to.
<AZ> As pfps said, we should have a decision on ISSUE 97
<AZ> (related to semantics)
AZ: Would like us to have a decision on ISSUE-97.
ISSUE-97?
<trackbot> ISSUE-97 -- Should the semantics of RDF graphs be dependent on a vocabulary? -- closed
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/97
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html
<AZ> AZ: we should reopen ISSUE 97, make a decision and close it again
gavinc: Can't find proposal.
pfps: Don't have one.
... it's in the email.
Guus: Should have put this on the
agenda.
... no objections on mailing list?
pfps: well... I mean it's a
change, there was chatter. RDF systems don't do what semantics
says.
... SPARQL systems do something else.
... It's NOT a counter example, as SPARQL has an explicit
"scope graph"
... the "scope graph" plugs a hole in the 2004 semantics.
... the change to the semantics is in agreement with the way
SPARQL works.
<AZ> I did
<AZ> (provide the response)
AZ: Consequences of the change are not non-existent.
pfps: I'm unaware of any system that doesn't do the right thing here.
<pfps> PROPOSAL: reoopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs
PROPOSAL: reoopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html
<pfps> +1
<Guus> +1
<AZ> I emmitted claims that it has consequences, but I admit now that the advantages overcome the minor changes
<gkellogg> +1
<AZ> +1
+0 (doesn't really understand)
<pfps> path +1
<Guus> +1 from Pat
<cgreer> +1
<pchampin> +1
<markus> +1
RESOLVED reopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html
ISSUE-107?
<trackbot> ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107
pfps: Attempt to close ISSUE-107 next week?
<AZ> ow, I'm afraid one week will not be enough
Guus: That concludes semantics.
<pfps> I'll put out a message - the idea will be to try to get discussion started - if one week is insufficient then so be ti
<cgreer> scribe: cgreer
gavinc: There are three syntaxes
that are close to FPWD
... I missed wrong production in wrong doc, this will be
changed.
... Otherwise they're ready
<AndyS> FPWD -- go for it!
gavinc: There's an error in TriG,
need to add turtle as reference
... Error in n-quads where I refer to triple rather than
statement... known issues not yet fixed
Guus: We need reviews
<gkellogg> I'll bite
gavinc: I'd hope that reviewers can take all three
andys: I'm happy with them as is
Guus: Without review?
andys: I think they're ready for FPWD level
<PatH> I just posted an updated semantics document version. Hopefully this will pass muster.
Guus: I interpret that statement as a review
WOOT
gavinc: The only one that needs
more attention is n-quads
... n-quads is newer, nobody has seen it yet
andys: my statement was about
n-triples
... but we shouldn't set the barrier too high
gavinc: n-triples has already
been published as well, and reviewed
... this step just extracts it
Guus: agreed to publish all three?
gkellogg: I can postpone review
gavinc: do we intend to take
n-triples and n-quads to recommendation?
... extension says they're both notes
Guus: did we have some other
agreement?
... we can assume they're notes for now
PROPOSED: take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD
<markus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0091.html
thanks
<gkellogg> +1
<AZ> +1
<AndyS> +1
<pfps> +1
<zwu2> +1
<Guus> +1
+1
<pchampin> +1
<gavinc> +1
<tbaker> +1
<markus> +1
<PatH> I have to leave very soon. Guus, let me know if you need any other edits done to get +1
<Souri> +1
<PatH> +1
RESOLVED :take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD according to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0091.html
<PatH> the semantics to fpwd.
gavinc: Eric's not my co-editor now. I need direction.
<PatH> I vote with the majority on all other issues.
<gavinc> subtopic: JSON-LD
<gavinc> ISSUE-105?
<trackbot> ISSUE-105 -- Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation -- closed
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105
<gavinc> gkellogg: The decision from ISSUE-105 is not in Concepts yet.
<gavinc> Guus: Check with editor to see if there an issue or just editorial
<gavinc> markus: we addressed almost all issues sandro raised.
<gavinc> ... should we reserve all @words as keywords.
<gavinc> ... Sandro recommended doing that, we decided not to enforce that in the algorithm
lost audio
<gavinc> ... we decided to simply ignore @terms that aren't defined, just like other undefined terms
<gavinc> ... only two sections that contain normative statements
<AndyS> I found it a bit more complicated - the normative section B refers to the non-norm sections.
<gavinc> ... the stuff about numbers are in the algorithm spec, not the syntax spec.
<gavinc> ... could add more examples with numbers, but we already have a lot of examples
<gavinc> ... there are a few minor things in algorithms that need to be ironed out.
<zwu2> bye
<Guus> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/thins/things/ Found Scribe: gavinc Inferring ScribeNick: gavinc Found Scribe: cgreer Inferring ScribeNick: cgreer Scribes: gavinc, cgreer ScribeNicks: gavinc, cgreer Default Present: +1.408.992.aaaa, Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, pfps, PatH, +081165aabb, AZ, Souri, gkellogg, +1.707.874.aacc, cgreer, AndyS, zwu2, markus, pchampin Present: +1.408.992.aaaa Guus_Schreiber GavinC pfps PatH +081165aabb AZ Souri gkellogg +1.707.874.aacc cgreer AndyS zwu2 markus pchampin WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 13 Mar 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/03/13-rdf-wg-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]