14:14:14 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:14:14 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/03-rdf-wg-irc 14:14:16 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:14:16 Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 14:14:18 Zakim, this will be 73394 14:14:18 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 46 minutes 14:14:19 Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 14:14:19 Date: 03 April 2013 14:15:02 ivan has changed the topic to: RDF WG -- current agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.04.03 14:25:54 Regrets: Guus, DavidW, AndyS 14:42:55 Guus has joined #rdf-wg 14:52:38 Ugh, it seems my update today is: No I haven't had time to send the Grant requests or setup something to deploy to 2013/turtle-testsuite/ 14:57:55 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started 14:58:02 +GavinC 14:58:58 +Sandro 14:59:20 +Ivan 14:59:28 Chair: Ivan 14:59:29 +??P4 14:59:47 AZ has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:00 pfps has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:15 Zakim: ??P4 is me 15:00:17 +cgreer 15:00:23 Zakim, ??P4 is me 15:00:23 +yvesr; got it 15:00:26 cgreer has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:42 +OpenLink_Software 15:00:50 ivan, sorry, a bit slow today :) 15:00:52 + +1.908.251.aaaa 15:00:52 +??P8 15:00:56 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:00:56 +TallTed; got it 15:00:57 zakim, I am ??P8 15:00:58 Zakim, mute me 15:00:58 +gkellogg; got it 15:00:58 TallTed should now be muted 15:01:02 zakim, aaaa is me 15:01:02 +pfps; got it 15:01:06 +??P13 15:01:16 zakim, I am ??P13 15:01:16 +manu; got it 15:01:17 +??P14 15:01:26 Zakim, ??P14 is me 15:01:26 +AZ; got it 15:01:30 zakim, who is here? 15:01:30 On the phone I see GavinC, Sandro, Ivan, yvesr, cgreer, TallTed (muted), pfps, gkellogg, manu, AZ 15:01:32 On IRC I see cgreer, pfps, AZ, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, TallTed, SteveH, ivan, Arnaud, gavinc, gkellogg, manu, yvesr, ericP, manu1, davidwood, mischat, sandro, trackbot 15:02:17 +??P20 15:02:19 waiting for HCLS call to finish 15:02:24 Zakim, ??P20 is me 15:02:25 +SteveH; got it 15:03:53 zakim, pick a victim 15:03:53 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose SteveH 15:04:06 sorry, I'm not on a speakerphone, so typing is not easy 15:04:17 zakim, pick a victim 15:04:17 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose GavinC 15:04:26 zakim, pick a victim 15:04:26 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose yvesr 15:04:31 yep 15:04:36 scribe: yvesr 15:04:45 +cygri 15:04:56 cygri has joined #rdf-wg 15:05:00 can we start up the scribe list again? it is much easier to scribe if one knows in advance 15:05:01 ivan: We are back in schedule for the TZ, until October 15:05:28 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-27 minutes of last meeting 15:05:34 minutes are fine 15:05:39 markus has joined #rdf-wg 15:05:50 zakim, code? 15:05:50 the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus 15:06:01 +??P25 15:06:10 RESOLVED: Minutes from the 2013-03-27 are accepted 15:06:25 zakim, ??P25 is me 15:06:25 +markus; got it 15:06:38 ivan: there are a number of actions to review 15:06:48 Souri has joined #rdf-wg 15:06:48 ACTION-222? 15:06:48 ACTION-222 -- Richard Cyganiak to work with PatH to make sure there is no duplicated content between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics -- due 2013-01-23 -- OPEN 15:06:48 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/222 15:06:52 ivan: 221 and 222 are the same action, on cygri and path 15:07:15 +Souri 15:07:20 cygri: this is not something that needs to be addressed at this point 15:07:24 zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 15:07:28 +Guus_Schreiber 15:07:29 ... i'd rather leave it open at the moment 15:07:30 In my opinion Concepts and Semantics are not totally aligned, but there are no serious issues. 15:07:51 pfps, I agree. Needs a careful review. 15:07:56 ACTION-226? 15:07:56 ACTION-226 -- Richard Cyganiak to implement ISSUE-111 resolution -- due 2013-02-13 -- OPEN 15:07:56 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/226 15:08:01 ivan: there is another action on cygri's name - ACTION-226 15:08:12 ACTION-227? 15:08:12 ACTION-227 -- Richard Cyganiak to present concrete wording for ISSUE-105 -- due 2013-02-13 -- OPEN 15:08:12 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/227 15:08:23 cygri: ACTION-226 is not done 15:08:29 +zwu2 15:08:37 ... as is ACTION-227 15:08:51 ivan: ACTION-332 was on sandro 15:08:57 Issue is now mine. 15:09:02 sandro: my understanding is that we can close it 15:09:07 trackbot: CLOSE ISSUE-332 15:09:08 Error closing ISSUE-332 - the response from Tracker was missing data. Please contact sysreq with the details of what happened. 15:09:28 s/332/232 15:09:36 yvesr - it's action, not issue 15:09:41 close action-232 15:09:41 Closed ACTION-232 Learn about the w3c test suite license. 15:10:02 action-233? 15:10:02 ACTION-233 -- Gavin Carothers to publish the consolidated test suite -- due 2013-03-06 -- OPEN 15:10:02 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/233 15:10:16 ivan: is ACTION-233 more than publishing the consolidated test suite? 15:10:17 tbaker has joined #rdf-wg 15:10:29 pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 15:10:33 ivan: we have 3 actions all on the JSON-LD review 15:10:52 close action-240 15:10:52 Closed ACTION-240 Review JSON-LD API document. 15:10:54 ivan: i believe 3 have been done 15:10:56 +EricP 15:11:00 +??P32 15:11:20 zakim, ??P32 is me 15:11:20 +pchampin; got it 15:11:26 ACTION-239? 15:11:26 ACTION-239 -- Richard Cyganiak to review Semantics draft regarding move to FPWD -- due 2013-03-13 -- OPEN 15:11:26 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/239 15:11:26 action-241? 15:11:26 ACTION-241 -- Zhe Wu to review JSON-LD API document -- due 2013-03-27 -- OPEN 15:11:27 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/241 15:11:52 close action-239 15:11:52 Closed ACTION-239 Review Semantics draft regarding move to FPWD. 15:12:13 close action-238 15:12:13 Closed ACTION-238 Review the JSON-LD syntax document, after Sandro's review has been taken into account. 15:12:29 action-235? 15:12:29 ACTION-235 -- Antoine Zimmermann to review RDF 1.1 Semantics -- due 2013-03-06 -- CLOSED 15:12:29 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/235 15:12:32 action-236? 15:12:32 ACTION-236 -- Guus Schreiber to put spec of scope bnodes in Concepts on agenda for 6 Mar -- due 2013-03-06 -- CLOSED 15:12:32 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/236 15:12:35 zakim, mute me 15:12:35 pfps should now be muted 15:12:50 Non NON NFC 15:13:00 NFC only IRIs 15:13:19 gavinc: the job was to delete the non-non nfc test from the test suite 15:13:44 gavinc: i added an approval status to all of the tests, make them all approved, and added a rejected column for that one 15:13:55 s/gavinc/ericP 15:14:11 ericP: i expect there will be some pushback 15:14:15 close action-246 15:14:15 Closed ACTION-246 Remove #localName_with_PN_CHARS_BASE_character_boundaries. 15:14:24 action-245? 15:14:24 ACTION-245 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to (with Sandro) to copy or proxy Turtletests2013 to http://www.w3.org/2013/Turtletests/..., updating all base or ttl references to http://example/base/ to be http://www.w3.org/2013/Turtletests/ -- due 2013-04-03 -- OPEN 15:14:25 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/245 15:14:28 ... as people need to look up approved tests before running them 15:14:32 That's dependent on me finishing 15:14:52 ericP: has the license issue been sorted? 15:14:55 gavinc: no, not yet 15:15:04 action-225? 15:15:04 ACTION-225 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to update extension request with Turtle publication dates -- due 2013-01-30 -- OPEN 15:15:04 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/225 15:15:30 close action-225 15:15:30 Closed ACTION-225 Update extension request with Turtle publication dates. 15:15:39 ericP: it is overtaken by events - it was for the CR publication 15:16:01 ericP: about ACTION-245, I am still getting comments from the list on tests 15:16:08 ... we made a decision last week to approve the tests 15:16:19 ... some of the corrections I am seeing from the comments list are corrections 15:16:27 We had invalid Test case N-Triples as well 15:16:50 ... escaping, case, etc. - should we normalise what to do with escaped characters? 15:17:04 gavinc: we did resolve that - there is only one way to represent each character in n-triples 15:17:20 gavinc: there are a couple of edge-cases 15:17:39 gavinc: if we get further comments, we'll need to reapprove the test suite 15:18:03 Topic: JSON-LD 15:18:04 ivan: next topic is JSON-LD 15:18:22 ivan: We have 3 reviews, could we get an overview of them? 15:18:32 manu: Markus has been dealing with the comments 15:18:42 manu: We do have one thing the RDF WG probably wants to look at 15:18:45 -EricP 15:18:49 markus: most of the feedbacks are editorial 15:18:59 markus: sandro replied he's happy with the changes 15:19:08 markus: one comment was about the algorithm - they are too long 15:19:14 markus: but we decided not to change them 15:19:27 markus: it was agreed the decision was accepted 15:19:37 +Philippe 15:19:49 Zakim, who is speaking? 15:20:01 yvesr, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: markus (3%), zwu2 (99%) 15:20:24 zwu2: It would be nice to modularise the algorithm description - it is very long 15:20:36 zwu2: I understand it is a big effort, so I am willing to let it pass 15:21:04 manu: We did start out with a fairly modularised way of explaining the algorithm 15:21:28 manu: when implementers were reading the spec, they were very confused, as you needed to jump between different points of the spec 15:22:00 manu: implementators seem to prefer the non-modularized versions 15:22:03 yay :D 15:22:11 manu: as they are much easiers to read 15:22:18 s/implementators/implementers 15:22:48 manu: the algorithm are long and verbose for a reason 15:22:57 manu: we want to be clear about what they're doing 15:23:07 ivan: I think we can move on with this 15:23:32 markus: the only other issue which hasn't been addressed is the data round-tripping section 15:23:51 ... where we specify how e.g. json true and false are converted to RDF 15:23:59 q+ to ask about lists-of-lists 15:24:02 ... sandro raised some concerns about that 15:24:18 ivan: what about the third review from charles? 15:24:35 manu: it was mostly editorial comments 15:24:51 ivan: so we only need to discuss sandro's comment 15:25:08 ack sandro 15:25:08 sandro, you wanted to ask about lists-of-lists 15:25:14 markus: yes, i think that's right - we would be OK to go to LC 15:25:44 manu: we agreed to add At Risk for the list-of-lists thing 15:25:48 gkellogg: marking the algorithms as 'at-risk' but it would cause a bit of a mess 15:26:03 s/the algorithms/the list-of-lists 15:26:26 markus: it's worth to say that list-of-lists are supported 15:26:43 ... but there isn't a simple way to express that in short-form in JSON-LD 15:26:57 sandro: I missed the fact you could use first/rest 15:27:07 ... If you can, then I can live with it 15:27:18 ... I am certainly happy with the at-risk solution 15:27:27 Here's the list of the features at risk: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk 15:27:36 ivan: so the only other issue is the round-tripping? 15:27:41 manu: yes 15:28:09 sandro: I sent this in an email just before the meeting started 15:28:32 sandro: If you have an RDF graph if you have things like doubles in it, which can be expressed in JSON 15:28:47 sandro: there are situations where you can export to JSON and back again 15:28:53 ... and not end up with the same graph 15:29:01 sandro: e.g. when the literal is not in canonical form 15:29:18 sandro: or when using doubles 15:29:21 for the agena: see my admin message about the 4 FPWDs 15:29:40 sandro: you could keep it in expanded type in JSON-LD rather than native type 15:29:58 ... which would ensure you end up with the same graph 15:30:04 q+ 15:30:05 sandro: the question is, do we care? 15:30:14 ack manu 15:30:43 manu: the guidance we give in the JSON-LD API spec is that if accuracy of numbers are important, use a string to express them 15:30:59 ... and type it with xsd:double 15:31:15 ... if you use JSON native types, then you will have rounding issues 15:31:39 that flag is in fromRDF, not for native JSON-LD 15:31:41 ... if the 'use native type' flag is off, then no rounding issues 15:31:48 iirc, XML Schema requires preservation of 18 digits on doubles 15:31:51 may need to include something like -- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms716298%28v=vs.85%29.aspx 15:31:58 manu: The other advice we give in the spec is how to express the canonical lexical form 15:32:06 which data types convert cleanly, which have issues such as were just flagged 15:32:08 ... there is an interoperability issue some of us are concerned about 15:32:14 ... captured in the test suite 15:32:30 JSON has interop issues with large numbers ;) It's sadly not a JSON-LD issue 15:32:41 ... The guidance we tell people is that you must use the string format when you convert a string literal with an xsd:double datatype 15:32:42 q? 15:33:09 +1 sounds very reasonable! 15:33:12 explicit example is the numeric conversions page, here -- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms714147%28v=vs.85%29.aspx 15:33:14 manu: Do we want to do something else in the JSON-LD API spec? 15:33:16 q? 15:33:41 q+ 15:33:44 sandro: I don't like the API flag - I don't think people are going to know how to use them 15:33:52 ... It depends on the data 15:33:56 manu: It depends on the application 15:34:03 q+ 15:34:18 Zakim, unmute me 15:34:18 TallTed should no longer be muted 15:34:36 ack gavinc 15:34:37 manu: We tried to make the documentation very clear around rounding errors introduced by native JSON datatypes 15:34:39 castToNativeType? 15:34:52 gavinc: JSON and JS do not specify the exact behavior of numbers 15:35:09 ... they are plenty of incompatible JSON implementations in terms of numbers 15:35:18 ack TallTed 15:35:41 TallTed: It would be worth introducing a table of conversions in the spec 15:36:03 ... What are the status messages you get back when errors are introduced? 15:36:23 manu: We would have to make one table per implementation - which would be very hard 15:36:35 s/per implementation/per javascript implementation 15:36:42 gkellogg: it's also all the JSON processors 15:36:42 q? 15:36:49 TallTed: so basically JSON doesn't preserve data? 15:36:57 markus: It's just not specified 15:37:04 or python! until you run out of memory bit! 15:37:09 q+ 15:37:28 manu: lots of people use JSON to exchange data and it doesn't seem to have caused any issues 15:37:37 ack pchampin 15:37:41 pchampin: I see two things about the useNativeDatatype flag 15:37:49 ... the first one is that you may have rounding problems 15:38:04 ... the second one is that even without it, you end up in an interoperability issue 15:38:17 ... it should be said in the specification 15:38:38 ... that round-tripping is not possible in this case 15:38:40 q? 15:38:44 q+ 15:38:46 q+ 15:38:51 q- 15:38:58 ack sandro 15:39:01 pchampin: If you care about round tripping, this flag should be set to off 15:39:07 Zakim, mute me 15:39:07 TallTed should now be muted 15:39:26 sandro: I know JS requires IEEE 24 bits, I didn't realise people implemented JSON at a lower level than JS 15:39:30 pchampin: if I care about round tripping preserving the lexical values of literals, this flag should be set to off 15:39:41 +1 sandro 15:39:49 ... If you care about data integrity - this flag should be set to off 15:40:19 ivan: So if this is closed, where are we exactly wrt JSON-LD to LC? 15:40:29 markus: That's the only remaining change we need to make 15:40:39 WebIDL 15:40:47 ivan: the LC shows the design is done 15:41:08 ivan: Let's discuss that later, but can we plan that next week we vote for LC? 15:41:10 markus: sure 15:41:14 agreed 15:41:36 ACTION: WG to resolve on LC status on 10/04/2013 15:41:36 Error finding 'WG'. You can review and register nicknames at . 15:41:44 So, we're going to shoot for a LC of JSON-LD and JSON-LD API for April 19th 2013... 15:41:48 zakim, unmute me 15:41:48 pfps should no longer be muted 15:41:56 Topic: redefinition of blank nodes 15:41:57 ACTION: davidwood to resolve with WG on LC status of JSON-LD on 10/04/2013 15:41:57 Created ACTION-249 - Resolve with WG on LC status of JSON-LD on 10/04/2013 [on David Wood - due 2013-04-10]. 15:42:02 (just to be clear about what the JSON-LD editors and CG are going to shoot for) 15:42:04 issue-107? 15:42:04 ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open 15:42:04 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107 15:42:11 ivan, are we going to talk about Guus' report of not publishing as planned? 15:43:13 pfps: I went through both concepts and semantics, they describe the current situation quite well already 15:43:18 ... they only need tiny changes 15:43:47 ... What it doesn't have is an explanation of what the change is 15:43:54 ... It needs to be added to concepts or primer 15:44:38 ivan: It would be good to have an explicit action on cygri and path to check whether it's fine with them 15:45:17 ACTION: cygri to review pfps's proposal on ISSUE-107 15:45:18 Created ACTION-250 - Review pfps's proposal on ISSUE-107 [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2013-04-10]. 15:45:35 cygri: Happy to take the action, however I don't see how that would close the issue 15:46:46 topic: Update on publications 15:47:15 ivan: The plan is to publish the first public working draft tomorrow 15:47:58 sandro: They need to be using the latest version of respec 15:48:11 pfps: I don't know what exactly is required 15:48:12 if Peter can do the links, that would be great 15:48:33 pfps: I can fix up the links, but not sure how to rebase respec 15:49:15 sandro: We shouldn't have a local copy of respec 15:49:24 we should point to the new version, the https version 15:49:42 i'll unmute myself 15:49:50 zakim, unmute me 15:49:50 pfps was not muted, pfps 15:49:51 q+ 15:49:58 zakim, mute me 15:49:58 pfps should now be muted 15:50:30 ack guus 15:50:44 Guus: We need to point to the new respec version - what I didn't realise is that it's nice for editing, but difficult for editing 15:50:59 s/difficult for editing/difficult for publishing 15:51:06 Where is the THE ReSPEC? 15:51:30 https://github.com/darobin/respec ? 15:51:46 The right version is: http://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common 15:52:03 here's the ReSpec script to convert to html on the command line: https://github.com/darobin/respec/blob/develop/tools/respec2html.js 15:52:18 gavinc: the XHTML processor for respec uses divs instead of sections, the HTML one uses sections 15:52:51 We should be using the version in w3c space: https://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common 15:53:09 That's what the EARL report uses 15:53:11 someone has to tell me where the references database is 15:53:29 Guus: in our repository i created a draft repository with all the documents 15:53:44 ericP: We need to do the same across all our different specs 15:53:58 s/ericP/sandro 15:54:21 OK 15:54:23 +1 guus saved-from-respec goes in to pub//Overview.html 15:54:31 Guus: if pfps fixes the links, I can fix the references 15:54:33 https://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common 15:55:02 Guus: I may be able to do it tonight, or next Tuesday 15:55:04 I'll work on the links today 15:55:14 zakim, mute me 15:55:14 Guus_Schreiber should now be muted 15:55:15 Topic: dependecies 15:55:31 s/dependecies/dependencies 15:55:40 ivan: We have a bunch of dependencies when we go to CR 15:55:49 ... JSON-LD depends on the concepts document 15:56:03 ... It already depends on the not-yet-existing Schema document 15:56:18 ... Concepts on DOM4 and HTML5 15:56:25 s/on/depends on/ 15:56:38 ... We have the WebID dependency on the JSON-LD API 15:56:46 q+ to ask if we can refer but shortname to our internal specs 1 version behind the doc being published 15:56:58 ... Hopefully we can avoid putting documents on hold because of that 15:57:03 ack ericP 15:57:04 ericP, you wanted to ask if we can refer but shortname to our internal specs 1 version behind the doc being published 15:57:05 q+ 15:57:06 were are is our respec publications DB? 15:57:13 ericP: What we try to avoid is to point to first drafts, which can change 15:57:26 ... But we can point to version of documents that are one step behind us 15:57:38 ivan: But HTML5 won't become a PR before 2014 15:57:55 ... So if we depend on it, we can't go to REC with RDF Concepts before then 15:58:17 ack cygri 15:58:17 ivan: JSON-LD would like to go to REC quickly, and we might have to wait for Concepts before we do that 15:58:36 cygri: About the DOM4 dependency, there are a couple of options 15:58:55 ... When we moved the DOM3 ref to DOM4, we could change that back 15:58:56 DOM3 is WRONG :P 15:59:00 ... And still refer to DOM3 15:59:13 ... We might have to do some explanation there 15:59:35 ... When we reference the HTML5 parsing algorithm, we might need to describe the output in terms of DOM3 15:59:41 ... So we might need to be careful 15:59:46 q? 15:59:49 ... But that might be the easiest way 16:00:09 gavinc: We can refer to DOM3, but every implementers is going to run into bugs 16:00:24 ericP: Are we confident DOM4 is backward-compatible? 16:00:29 ivan: Nobody knows 16:00:36 ericP: The WG should have a pretty good idea 16:00:42 Reality ;) http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ 16:00:57 ivan: For the time being all the evolution of DOM4 is happening in the WhatWG 16:01:36 ivan: Maybe a possibility is to have a normative ref to DOM3, and a note pointing at DOM4 elsewhere in the doc 16:01:50 ... Not sure how to do that exactly, but there might be some wording that could work 16:02:54 ericP: What's the trick to point people to what they need to read to actually implement it? 16:03:04 -manu 16:03:48 ericP: If I support HTML literals, I will have to read that spec on the WhatWG 16:04:48 ericP: We could move that out of the doc, and push them as notes, but no one would really care 16:05:10 ivan: Could we push it in a non-normative section? 16:05:56 ericP: we should really explain what to do with HTML literals - if we don't then it needs to be pushed somewhere else 16:07:14 ericP: We're saying that the processing of XHTML literals has changed - where is the example data showing what's changed? 16:07:56 -Guus_Schreiber 16:08:36 ACTION: cygri to investigate dependencies in concepts and semantics 16:08:36 Created ACTION-251 - Investigate dependencies in concepts and semantics [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2013-04-10]. 16:08:47 ACTION-251? 16:08:48 ACTION-251 -- Richard Cyganiak to investigate dependencies in concepts and semantics -- due 2013-04-10 -- OPEN 16:08:48 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/251 16:09:06 ivan: Another dependency is WebIDL from JSON-LD 16:09:15