14:59:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/10-rdf-wg-irc
14:59:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:04 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:06 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
14:59:06 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:59:07 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:59:07 <trackbot> Date: 10 April 2013
14:59:22 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-office
14:59:22 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:59:54 <Guus> trackbot, start meeting
14:59:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
14:59:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:59:59 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:59:59 <trackbot> Date: 10 April 2013
15:00:18 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:26 <AndyS> zakim, who is here?
15:00:26 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS
15:00:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, tbaker, pchampin, FabGandon, AndyS, TallTed, manu, gavinc, Arnaud, davidwood, yvesr, ericP, manu1, mischat, sandro, trackbot
15:00:31 <AndyS> zakim, who is here?
15:00:31 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS
15:00:32 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, tbaker, pchampin, FabGandon, AndyS, TallTed, manu, gavinc, Arnaud, davidwood, yvesr, ericP, manu1, mischat, sandro, trackbot
15:01:14 <cgreer> cgreer has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:16 <Guus> pls volunteer to scribe
15:01:24 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:45 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:09 <markus> markus has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:17 <Arnaud> zakim, mute me
15:02:17 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I don't know what conference this is
15:02:56 <AndyS> zakim, this is 73394
15:02:56 <Zakim> ok, AndyS; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
15:03:06 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, EricP, [IPcaller], pfps, Sandro, ??P9, ??P11, Arnaud, cgreer, ??P18, ??P17
15:03:09 <markus> zakim, code?
15:03:09 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus
15:03:11 <Zakim> -??P9
15:03:16 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
15:03:16 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:03:19 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P18
15:03:19 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
15:03:27 <Zakim> +??P20
15:03:39 <markus> zakim, ??P20 is me
15:03:39 <Zakim> +markus; got it
15:03:47 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
15:03:48 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, EricP, AndyS, pfps, Sandro, ??P11, Arnaud (muted), cgreer, gkellogg, ??P17, markus
15:03:54 <Zakim> +??P21
15:03:59 <AZ> Zakim, ??P17 is me
15:04:00 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
15:04:00 <pchampin> zakim, ??P21 is me
15:04:00 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
15:04:09 <cgreer> scribenick cgreer
15:04:17 <Zakim> +bhyland
15:04:18 <Guus> chair: Guus
15:04:33 <davidwood> Zakim, bhyland is me
15:04:34 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
15:04:50 <cgreer> scribenick: cgreer
15:05:25 <pfps> Minutes are beautiful
15:05:42 <cgreer> RESOLVED: Minutes accepted from April 3 telecon
15:05:56 <cgreer> topic: telecon bridge
15:06:20 <cgreer> sandro: zakim is over capacity at noon
15:06:26 <cgreer> ... running late causes a problem
15:06:45 <cgreer> ... there's a system called calliflower that I propose to use
15:07:24 <cgreer> ... I propose we try it next week.
15:07:31 <Zakim> +??P28
15:07:35 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P28 is me
15:07:35 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
15:07:36 <cgreer> ... I propose we use IRC as normal
15:07:45 <manu> q+
15:07:49 <pfps> so no connection betrween IRC and  the phone?
15:07:50 <cgreer> ... People using the phone won't show up on IRC
15:08:08 <pfps> zakim, who is talking?
15:08:11 <davidwood> So we will lose some IRC/telephone integration
15:08:16 <Arnaud> I think attendance is the biggest loss
15:08:19 <Zakim> pfps, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus_Schreiber (9%), AndyS (16%), Sandro (43%)
15:08:28 <Arnaud> for queue management I don't see why we don't keep using irc
15:08:37 <cgreer> sandro: the current list is generated by phone and IRC -- people only on the phone will have to be notated on IRC
15:09:06 <cgreer> ... it would be easy to automate if turns out to be worthwhile
15:09:21 <cgreer> manu: We could allow use of our system
15:09:23 <Zakim> +??P30
15:09:40 <PatH> PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:09:42 <cgreer> ... If the JSON-LD minutes are acceptable, then we could try out that system.
15:09:55 <cgreer> ... You can call in with voip or regular phone, as the latter costs money
15:10:17 <cgreer> ... it's our service.  We run an Asterisk server
15:10:24 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:10:47 <cgreer> ... it's not as complete as Zakim, but it's open source and people can extend it
15:10:59 <ericP> appreciating manu's generous offer, i think we'd end up hacking the system and so we'd want to use digital bizarre's service only if we were going to adopt asterisk
15:11:09 <ericP> q?
15:11:18 <Zakim> +PatH
15:11:20 <cgreer> ericP: I expect we'd want to hack the system though.
15:11:52 <cgreer> ... this ups the value of w3c setting up an asterisk server.
15:12:00 <cgreer> davidwood: stay tuned for email about next week
15:12:16 <cgreer> ... everyone OK to delegate to chairs about next week's telecon?
15:12:17 <pfps> Go wild!
15:12:18 <Arnaud> +1
15:12:38 <cgreer> guus: Any alternate we choose must not increase admin.
15:12:48 <cgreer> davidwood: I'll take on any additional admin
15:13:14 <Zakim> +GavinC
15:13:18 <davidwood> s/davidwood/XXXX/
15:13:40 <cgreer> topic: action items
15:13:56 <gkellogg> s/XXXX/sandro/
15:14:23 <cgreer> ericP: We can't wrap up test suite until stream of comments has calmed
15:14:39 <cgreer> guus: Gavin has an action.
15:15:27 <cgreer> ericP:  We choose new URL, Gavin tags, then set up proxy.
15:15:29 <gavinc> First I get Grants from the two other contributors, which I will finally have time to do this week!
15:15:34 <gavinc> woohoo!
15:16:05 <cgreer> Action-241: closed
15:16:05 <trackbot> Did you mean to close ACTION-241? If so, please say 'close ACTION-241'.
15:16:13 <cgreer> ACTION-241: Closed
15:16:13 <trackbot> Did you mean to close ACTION-241? If so, please say 'close ACTION-241'.
15:16:18 <cgreer> close ACTION-241
15:16:18 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-241 Review JSON-LD API document.
15:16:34 <gavinc> Thanks Guus for finishing those
15:16:41 <cgreer> topic: Document Publication
15:16:50 <cgreer> guus: There are four new FPWDs
15:17:30 <gavinc> https://github.com/darobin/respec
15:17:31 <cgreer> guus: The respec document has a list where you should put comments, but the list doesn't exist.  respec is generating the wrong HTML
15:17:35 <gavinc> that's respec today?
15:17:48 <cgreer> guus: Who maintains it?  No email address for the comment list
15:18:04 <gavinc> https://github.com/darobin/respec/issues ;)
15:18:21 <gavinc> Magic, you know via Magic
15:18:37 <cgreer> markus: Robin is pretty good with responding from github
15:19:02 <gavinc> Yeah, pubrules is wrong ;)
15:19:21 <cgreer> guus: Leaving in RDFa generates pubrules errors
15:19:30 <cgreer> ericP: Use "1.1" rather than "true" for RDFa
15:19:44 <cgreer> sandro: It may generate errors that the web admin has to resolve
15:19:58 <gavinc> I'm pretty sure that RDFa only works in the XHTML output, not the HTML output
15:19:59 <cgreer> guus: Somebody help with publication wiki page maintenance please
15:20:11 <cgreer> topic: JSON-LD
15:20:40 <cgreer> gkellogg: Markus has prepared JSON-LD 1.0 and JSON-LD-API
15:20:56 <cgreer> ... They pass pubrules, etc, etc
15:21:10 <cgreer> ... We've closed the loops with commenters, no outstanding issues
15:21:35 <markus> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk
15:21:40 <cgreer> ... We've marked a few things 'feature at risk' for those things we want feedback during LC
15:22:02 <cgreer> ... We just want proposal and resolution to publish as LC
15:22:05 <cgreer> ... The end
15:22:19 <manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/WD/json-ld/20130411/index.html
15:22:24 <manu> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/WD/json-ld-api/20130411/index.html
15:22:54 <cgreer> guus: I'd like to go through features at risk
15:23:02 <cgreer> manu: From the top --
15:23:09 <Zakim> + +33.4.92.96.aaaa
15:23:09 <cgreer> ... @base
15:23:32 <cgreer> ... we were trying to cut down on the number of keywords, but we got feedback that it's a useful features
15:23:54 <FabGandon> Zakim, +33.4.92.96.aaaa is me
15:23:54 <Zakim> +FabGandon; got it
15:24:03 <cgreer> ... The interop of blank @base vs. explicit @base is confusing (potentially)
15:24:13 <cgreer> ... The other concern is what the empty string should do
15:24:30 <cgreer> ... Next feature at risk is reverse property
15:24:42 <cgreer> ... Allows one to switch subject and object position
15:24:52 <cgreer> ... Again, concern is use vs confusion
15:25:00 <cgreer> ... Next feature - -blank nodes as properties
15:25:21 <cgreer> ... Compromise in spec now.  We await feedback from implementors
15:25:53 <cgreer> ... Converting list of lists.  The algorithm for this is fairly complex, use is questioned.
15:26:05 <cgreer> gkellogg: We marked this feature as 'at risk' and we've not provided implementation
15:26:19 <cgreer> manu: Next has to do with Web IDL
15:26:35 <cgreer> ... We use web IDL to express the API.  There are rough patches in this standard.
15:26:36 <gkellogg> Also, note RDFa 1.1 does not support lists of lists.
15:27:14 <cgreer> ... If you specify an optional parameter, you cannot mix and match optionality or parameters... you have to overload signatures to express this.
15:27:24 <gkellogg> (Rather, neither have syntactic sugar for lists of lists, they do support explicit rdf:first/rdf:next
15:28:15 <cgreer> ... We ran API against Web IDL test harness.
15:28:37 <cgreer> ... It fails method overloading, but we think the JSON-LD-API is correct nevertheless
15:29:08 <sandro> q?
15:29:08 <cgreer> ... This isn't a technical issue, but how to get around problems in Web IDL and still reference it
15:29:18 <cgreer> manu: Last feature,
15:29:29 <cgreer> ... We're thinking we might change default value of @base
15:29:45 <cgreer> ... to null, so that by default relative IRIs are not expanded
15:29:54 <cgreer> s/expanded/compacted
15:30:09 <cgreer> ... That's it
15:30:21 <manu> q-
15:31:02 <davidwood> +1
15:31:02 <cgreer> sandro: This is important work, not perfect, but I think it's ready for LC
15:31:46 <PatH> +1 sandro
15:32:02 <cgreer> PROPOSED to publish Last Call WDs of the JSON-LD documents
15:32:07 <gkellogg> +1
15:32:11 <PatH> +1
15:32:16 <markus> +1
15:32:27 <sandro> PROPOSED: to publish Last Call WDs of the JSON-LD documents
15:32:46 <sandro> manu: 4 weeks last call
15:32:50 <cgreer> manu: Publication date is 4/11, LC period is for four weeks
15:32:54 <yvesr> +1
15:32:58 <sandro> +1
15:32:59 <manu> +1
15:33:03 <cgreer> +1
15:33:07 <pchampin> +1
15:33:08 <ericP> +1
15:33:12 <Souri> +1
15:33:12 <FabGandon> +1
15:33:13 <Guus> +1
15:33:18 <AZ> +1
15:33:26 <davidwood> +1
15:33:27 <cgreer> RESOLVED: publish Last Call WDs of the JSON-LD documents.
15:33:28 <Arnaud> +1
15:33:39 <davidwood> Whew!
15:33:39 <ericP> congrats!
15:33:57 <sandro> much thanks!
15:34:14 <cgreer> sandro: Question about LC period.  Semtech is in the middle of it.
15:34:30 <cgreer> ... Do we want to be in CR or LC for semtech?
15:34:52 <cgreer> guus: We'd thought of skipping CR --
15:35:09 <cgreer> markus: There's a marker in the spec the we could skip if there are a lot of implementors
15:35:39 <Arnaud> usual rant: there is no such thing as "skipping CR" per se, the question is whether we believe we already qualify to exit CR right away
15:35:43 <cgreer> sandro: LC ends on May 11.  So that would give us three weeks to get to CR for Semtech
15:36:10 <tbaker> +1
15:36:19 <Arnaud> zakim, unmute me
15:36:19 <Zakim> Arnaud was not muted, Arnaud
15:36:31 <Arnaud> q+
15:36:52 <cgreer> manu: We want to make sure we can address any issues during LC
15:37:09 <sandro> sandro: Given all the Features as Risk, let's not skip CR.
15:37:58 <Guus> ack  Arnoud
15:37:58 <cgreer> Arnaud: There's no such thing as skipping CR
15:38:20 <cgreer> ... You have to go to CR technically.  If we meet criteria to exit right away, then we can move through it quick.
15:38:27 <cgreer> sandro: well, you can skip, but we're not going to.
15:38:30 <sandro> 4 Weeks puts us at May 9
15:38:54 <cgreer> guus: Correct date -- May 10 for end of LC
15:38:59 <gavinc> +1
15:39:08 <cgreer> manu: OK we'll update docs
15:39:35 <gkellogg> http://json-ld.org/test-suite/
15:39:43 <gkellogg> http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/
15:39:52 <cgreer> manu: Test suite is in good shape.  Gregg has put together a quick publication of test suite.  Fairly rough but improving.
15:40:18 <Zakim> +Sandro.a
15:40:22 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:40:27 <cgreer> gkellogg: The process is similar to that from turtle, but needs further documentation -- the differentiation of different test types.
15:40:48 <cgreer> ... We don't have any syntax-only tests
15:41:21 <davidwood> Arnaud, regarding skipping a CR, please see http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-advance where it says: "Call for Implementations. Note: The Director may permit the Working Group to skip this step if the entrance criteria for the next step have already been satisfied."
15:41:37 <davidwood> NB: "Call for Implementations" = CR
15:41:40 <cgreer> gkellogg: There are submanifests for JSON-LD tests.  And an umbrella manifest that references them.
15:41:45 <cgreer> ... We don't need to consolidate further
15:42:09 <cgreer> manu: We're going to use RDF-WG tracker for issues, since it folds in email conversations
15:42:16 <Arnaud> david, ok, I stand corrected!
15:42:23 <cgreer> ... Do not use github issue tracker for LC
15:42:26 <gkellogg> SOTD references public-rdf-comments@w3.org
15:42:43 <gavinc> Yeah, it sort of sucks.
15:42:55 <Arnaud> it's just a technicality anyway, the result is the same
15:43:00 <cgreer> manu: For disposition of comments, you need an issue tracker.
15:43:20 <cgreer> ... we create an issue for each comment.  At end of last call we have a good set of issues.
15:43:36 <cgreer> sandro: How do you create a summary?
15:43:39 <cgreer> manu: by hand
15:43:45 <Arnaud> q-
15:43:50 <manu> q-
15:43:55 <manu> q-
15:44:12 <manu> q- manu:,
15:44:15 <cgreer> topic: RDF-JSON
15:44:19 <manu> q- by
15:44:38 <cgreer> guus: We have a note about RDF-JSON.
15:44:47 <cgreer> ... Is this useful to publish as a note?
15:45:03 <cgreer> Arnaud: IBM has been experimenting with JSON-LD and RDF-JSON
15:45:05 <pfps> zakim, mute me
15:45:05 <Zakim> pfps should now be muted
15:45:16 <cgreer> ... Because of the use cases, RDF-JSON is a better fit
15:45:42 <cgreer> ... JSON-LD is designed for JSON developers to access data stores.
15:45:57 <cgreer> ... A different use case is a completely JSON environment, such as using MongoDB.
15:46:06 <cgreer> ... And you want to use RDF within JSON syntax
15:46:12 <AndyS> q+
15:46:17 <cgreer> ... Storing RDF in JSON database
15:46:25 <manu> q+
15:46:37 <cgreer> ... Compacted form doesn't work, you want to store expanded form.
15:47:24 <cgreer> ... Structure of expanded JSON-LD doesn't lend itself to RDF processing out of the box -- this has led us to conclude that RDF-JSON meets other use cases better.
15:47:56 <cgreer> ... This has left us with RDF-JSON listed as ED...  IBM intends to use it with a stable reference.
15:48:13 <cgreer> ... We'd like to have it moved to a WG note as stable reference.
15:48:37 <Guus> q?
15:49:02 <cgreer> ... WG did recognize that different JSON RDF specs are useful for different use cases.
15:49:09 <pchampin> q?
15:49:12 <pchampin> q+
15:49:25 <cgreer> guus: In first F2F we did consider exactly this.
15:49:28 <AndyS> By user usage and requests -- the Talis doc got archived/made safe at http://jena.apache.org/documentation/io/rdf-json.html and implemented.
15:49:42 <cgreer> AndyS: We've seen uptake in use of RDF-JSON.
15:50:05 <cgreer> ... A note would be good.
15:50:20 <cgreer> manu: I'm fine with publication as a note.
15:50:28 <cgreer> ... I want to find out more specifics though.
15:50:32 <cgreer> ... about the IBM case.
15:50:47 <cgreer> ... We thought that JSON-LD was made for this use case.
15:51:09 <Zakim> -GavinC
15:51:11 <cgreer> ... I'm concerned that IBM is making --- well, why is RDF-JSON better for this?
15:51:39 <cgreer> ... It seems like a dump format, but I'd like to hear more.
15:51:43 <AndyS> mailing list please
15:51:46 <gkellogg> q+
15:51:48 <cgreer> Arnaud: OK we can keep this discussion going
15:51:56 <AndyS> ack me
15:51:56 <cgreer> guus: THe RDF-WG list please
15:52:20 <Guus> ack manu
15:52:29 <Guus> ack pchampin
15:52:44 <cgreer> pchampin: I see IBM's reason for not storing JSON-LD.
15:52:54 <cgreer> The argument is about storing, not exchange.
15:53:15 <cgreer> pchampin: Maybe the note should emphasize that exchange and storage are not the same JSON.
15:53:21 <Guus> ack gkellogg
15:53:30 <manu> You don't have to store and exchange the same document in JSON-LD either.
15:53:31 <pchampin> s/are not/do not have to ne/
15:53:50 <cgreer> gkellogg: We discussed one of the advantages of RDF/XML is that you can index by subject.  We'd discuss a feature called subject maps.
15:53:50 <pchampin> s/do not have to ne/do not have to be/
15:54:04 <cgreer> s/discuss/discussed/
15:54:22 <cgreer> gkellogg: We're considering extensions/notes.
15:54:44 <cgreer> ... If you're storing JSON in MongoDB, URIs as keys is problematic.
15:54:55 <cgreer> ... The compact form of JSON-LD has advantages for this.
15:55:14 <cgreer> ... For query purposes, an enhanced triple format is better for indexing/storage.
15:55:52 <cgreer> Resolved: Arnaud is willing to serve as editor for this putative note.
15:55:58 <cgreer> topic: turtle test suite
15:56:22 <cgreer> ericP: We'd hoped to be done, but we keep getting bug reports and comments
15:56:22 <Zakim> -??P11
15:56:41 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/mid/1364751722.5708.24.camel@verne.drobilla.net <d@drobilla.net>'s patches to: upcase \U000b don't \U-ify unnecessary punctuation (e.g. \" or #)
15:56:48 <cgreer> ericP: Traditional ntriples (ascii ntriples) has an issue
15:57:21 <cgreer> ... Verne Drobilla (?) provided a patch to unify them.
15:57:48 <cgreer> AndyS: At some point we're testing RDF not turtle.  This seems to be the same case.
15:58:08 <cgreer> ericP: I'll use my own discretion in order to accept these patches.
15:58:48 <cgreer> guus: I'd prefer you use your own discretion
16:00:06 <cgreer> AndyS: results are invalid if we go around changing tests.
16:00:19 <cgreer> gkellogg: So we must get some communication about location of tests.
16:00:42 <cgreer> ericP: People will have to run tests again after location move.  I'm happy to leave the tests alone.
16:00:48 <cgreer> ... The effort to change is small.
16:01:20 <cgreer> ... Before we publish the test suite, we have to confront the fact that xsd:strings are not xsd:strings.
16:01:35 <cgreer> ... Andy suggested we leave these alone.
16:01:49 <cgreer> ericP: I'll take this to lsit
16:01:53 <cgreer> s/lsit/list/
16:02:11 <Zakim> -PatH
16:02:13 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:02:15 <Zakim> -EricP
16:02:16 <Zakim> -Arnaud
16:02:16 <Zakim> -yvesr
16:02:16 <Zakim> -AZ
16:02:21 <Zakim> -davidwood
16:02:23 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:02:24 <Zakim> -gkellogg
16:02:25 <Zakim> -FabGandon
16:02:25 <Zakim> -pchampin
16:02:25 <Zakim> -markus
16:02:25 <Zakim> -Guus_Schreiber
16:02:33 <cgreer> rrsagent, make records public
16:02:34 <AndyS> XML 1.1 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#NT-Char
16:02:58 <Guus> trackbot, end meeting
16:02:58 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:02:58 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Guus_Schreiber, EricP, pfps, Sandro, Arnaud, cgreer, AndyS, gkellogg, markus, AZ, pchampin, davidwood, yvesr, PatH, GavinC, FabGandon
16:03:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/10-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
16:03:07 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:03:07 <RRSAgent> I see no action items