14:54:30 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:54:30 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-rdf-wg-irc 14:54:32 RRSAgent, make logs world 14:54:32 Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 14:54:34 Zakim, this will be 73394 14:54:34 ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 14:54:35 Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 14:54:35 Date: 05 June 2013 14:54:55 SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started 14:55:04 +GavinC 14:55:27 davidwood has joined #rdf-wg 14:56:30 +pfps 14:56:59 gkellogg has joined #rdf-wg 14:57:07 tbaker has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:14 +matthias_samwald 14:58:16 -matthias_samwald 14:58:16 tbaker has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:42 pfps has joined #rdf-wg 14:58:47 +[IPcaller] 14:58:53 zakim, IPCaller is me 14:58:53 +AndyS; got it 14:59:24 +Guus 14:59:35 zakim, who is here? 14:59:35 On the phone I see GavinC, pfps, AndyS, Guus 14:59:36 On IRC I see pfps, tbaker, gkellogg, davidwood, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, markus, TallTed, AndyS, SteveH, Arnaud, gavinc, manu1, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat 14:59:38 +Sandro 14:59:50 Suggestion - could plan for TriG, NQ, NT LC's today? Process, not technical discussion. 15:01:11 +gkellogg 15:02:06 +Arnaud 15:02:32 +??P39 15:02:33 +davidwood 15:02:34 zakim, ??P39 is me 15:02:35 +markus; got it 15:02:43 +OpenLink_Software 15:02:50 Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me 15:02:50 +TallTed; got it 15:02:51 Zakim, mute me 15:02:51 TallTed should now be muted 15:02:55 We've gone so far through that it would be nice to be RECified for NT, NQ. Also - advance TriG to LC 15:03:00 2012/10/30-rdf-wg RESOLVED: We'll do N-Triples and N-Quads in one REC-track documents, title to be decided 15:03:44 2013/03/13-rdf-wg RESOLVED: take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD according to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0091.html 15:05:22 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:05:22 On the phone I see GavinC, pfps, AndyS, Guus, Sandro, gkellogg, Arnaud, markus, davidwood, TallTed (muted) 15:05:33 nickscribe: AndyS 15:05:40 scribe: Andy Seaborne 15:05:50 cheir: Guus 15:05:53 agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.05 15:05:56 chair: Guus 15:05:58 chair: Guus 15:07:04 (pre meeting discussion - we need to track down the resolved status of NT and NQ docs) 15:07:08 miinutes look good 15:07:17 s/miinutes/minutes 15:07:28 RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-29 15:07:45 q+ 15:07:52 +q to ask who is sending messages to comments about the PREFIX/BASE resolution 15:08:54 Guus: open actions - http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/open 15:09:22 Guus: open actions - http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open 15:09:38 Semantics needs a tiny bit of work on references, including action 219 - I'll try to get these done 15:10:04 Guus: process discussions for TriG, NT, NQ 15:10:16 ... keep semantics discussions short 15:10:28 topic: LC for concepts and semantics 15:10:43 Guus: issue-131 15:11:14 ... Sandro options 1-6 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0025.html 15:11:14 fine by me 15:12:23 STRAWPOLL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0025.html 15:12:24 6 options - there are only 5 in the email 15:13:07 s/email/issue/ 15:13:23 we are talking about the six "D" issues in the email 15:13:38 options are -- D1 to D6 in email of 4 June 15:14:01 sandro: extension approach, not required core 15:14:38 ... on bound semantics 15:14:52 q+ 15:15:18 ack pfps 15:15:21 ack me 15:15:28 ack gavinc 15:15:28 gavinc, you wanted to ask who is sending messages to comments about the PREFIX/BASE resolution 15:15:29 ack gavinc 15:16:40 sandro: was going to present a design - didn't think it would fly in the WG after private review 15:16:54 ... want to address issue-131 at the same time. 15:17:06 +1 +1 +0 -0 -0 -1 15:17:18 this is all a *change* to the way RDF works - who is going to make sure that it all fits together? 15:17:25 D1: +1, D2: +0.9, D3: +0.4, D4: +0.3, D5: +0, D6: -1 15:17:34 D1 -1; D2 -1; D3 -0.5; D4 -0.4; D5 0; D6 -2 (as this would violate the way RDF extensions work) 15:17:50 D1: +1, D2: +0.5, D3: 0, D4: -0.8, D5: -1 (can't really see how this is different to D6), D6: -1 15:17:51 +1 +1 +1 +1 +0 −0.5 (chair hat off) 15:17:55 D1: -1 D2: -0.9 D3: +1 D4: +0 D5: -0 D6: -0 15:18:20 D3, D4, D5 +1 D6: -1 D1, D2 hard to say due to details. 15:18:41 pfps: worried that a technical fault emerges just after REC declared. 15:18:52 D1 +1, D2 +0.7, D3 +0.5, D4 +0.3, D5 +0, D6 -1 15:19:13 ... don't like D6 15:20:54 I want to see the other usages (e.g. label=location) documented, (inc with the issues of the approach) 15:21:11 I am also concerned that one technical choice (in docs) does not prove to be the only one. 15:21:38 THere is no support for D6! Lets stop talking about it :P 15:22:00 sandro: I want to make sure we don't ACCIDENTALLY end up in D6. 15:22:02 the question is whether there is *some* way to add graphs into the RDF semantics, this is related to D6 15:22:48 Guus: including people not on call, D3 looks like the leader. 15:23:25 D1 is to add a *particular* way to add graphs to the RDF semantics, which could have problems 15:23:42 exactly, there is at this point not enough time to do D1 15:24:04 guus: will set up WBS and resolve next week. 15:24:09 the speed required to approve D1 is very problematics 15:24:47 pfps, D1 says "We include *something* like bound semantics [1] and blank-node-graph-names in rdf-concepts" 15:25:20 ACTION: Guus: set up WBS on bound semantics 15:25:20 Created ACTION-269 - Set up WBS on bound semantics [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-06-12]. 15:25:38 Yes, but markus we don't have a design, implementations, or consensus after trying for 2 years. 15:25:47 +1 to gavin 15:26:37 Topic: raised issues 15:26:38 my belief is that issue-120 has been determined, as "yes" 15:26:59 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/raised 15:27:39 gavinc, agreed but this strawpoll was to see if there's consensus to do something at all 15:27:55 semantics now firmly defines union (new) and merge (no change) 15:28:21 issue-122 is left to surface syntaxes 15:28:34 guus: close issue 122 sugegsted but Pat raised an issue with the issue. 15:28:56 ... to do with bnode labels on graphs 15:29:02 pfps: how? 15:29:17 davidwood: process? 15:29:44 122... I'm assuming that's now TriGs issue? :\ 15:30:04 guus: assumption is that these raised issues are dropped 15:30:04 issue-127? 15:30:04 ISSUE-127 -- Comment: multiple ways to encode string codepoints -- raised 15:30:04 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/127 15:30:07 issue 127 appears to be related to surface syntaxes 15:30:26 Guus: issue-127 - not about semantics or concepts 15:31:04 Topic: Open issues on semantics and concepts 15:31:26 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/open (time varying link :-) 15:31:38 Guus: issue-23 - 15:31:42 issue-23? 15:31:42 ISSUE-23 -- Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types? -- open 15:31:42 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23 15:32:31 gavin: resolved by leaving to each syntax 15:32:47 guus: please offer to write resolution text ... 15:32:56 gavinc: Ok - I'll do it. 15:33:19 issue-102? 15:33:19 ISSUE-102 -- Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs? -- open 15:33:19 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/102 15:33:22 i vote "no" for issue-102 15:33:23 action: gavinc: Write resolution text for issue-23 15:33:23 Error finding 'gavinc'. You can review and register nicknames at . 15:33:56 ACTION: gavin: write resolution text for issue-23 15:33:56 Created ACTION-270 - Write resolution text for issue-23 [on Gavin Carothers - due 2013-06-12]. 15:34:28 pfps: make a primer issue for 102 15:34:47 sandro: informative section of concepts? schema? 15:35:41 sandro: advanced people to read this - they may skip primer. 15:36:04 .. does the WG agree with the statement of issue-102 15:36:53 AndyS: two audiences? data publishers, and implementers. 15:37:16 q+ to say that there has never been a requirement that implementations store triples. 15:37:20 sandro: people who are constructing triple patterns need to be aware of this. 15:37:31 s/need/probably should/ 15:37:41 :-) 15:37:45 guus: suggest move to primer 15:38:19 davidwood: could drop? We don't usually talk about impls. 15:38:55 sandro: old RDF spec had wellformed lists is mapped to Turtle and JSON-LD lists. ?? in RDFS? 15:39:38 guus: no relation to concepts or semantics so not an issue for them 15:39:48 ... next issues 112 113 15:40:04 ... previous comments from the list 15:40:20 ... needs checking 15:40:26 ISSUE-112? 15:40:26 ISSUE-112 -- Media types and assertions -- open 15:40:26 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/112 15:40:30 ISSUE-113? 15:40:30 ISSUE-113 -- RDF Keys -- open 15:40:30 http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/113 15:40:33 issue 112 refers to an email from 9 years ago! 15:40:37 guus: volunteers? 15:40:50 ... 15:41:42 I can sent a message to Mark Baker 15:41:42 ... we don't think they affect semantics and concepts 15:41:51 ... assume not relevant 15:42:28 q? 15:42:29 Guus: That leaves open issue 131 15:42:31 ack me 15:42:31 davidwood, you wanted to say that there has never been a requirement that implementations store triples. 15:42:46 ... and the WBS poll on bound datasets 15:42:54 guus: process 15:42:58 ... 4 reviewers 15:43:04 ... semantics 15:43:12 ... ivan has done an initial review 15:43:51 ... antoine to do another 15:44:06 pfps: no significant items in ivans review 15:46:12 hmm. this indicates that semantics / concepts need to be changed to move from "can't" to "doesn't necessarily" 15:46:42 guus: concepts 15:46:53 .. reviewers Guus and PFPS. 15:47:08 pfps: previous review was done 15:47:40 davidwood: no matters arising from pfps review 15:48:11 guus: in two weeks can we have LC drafts for concepts and semantics? 15:48:44 two weeks should be feasible if there are no required technical changes, and the editors produce changes that are acceptable to the reviewers 15:48:50 pfps: resolving to ivan - OK - other small changes then good to go. Some editor overhead to respond to changes. 15:49:28 davidwood: much the same - need to check recent edits - but ex issue 131 - looks OK for that timescale 15:49:43 guus: 2 weeks ideal, latest 3 weeks. Is there time? 15:49:54 I'll do some work on the edits today or tomorrow 15:50:12 davidwood: had factored in some time next week 15:50:26 guus: option - features at risk 15:51:07 sandro: feature at risk - issue-131 and related - relative IRIs unclear as to proposal in detail. 15:51:20 topic: Turtle process 15:51:49 guus: test suite, feature at risk resolved. 15:52:18 gavinc: need someone to write to the external commenters 15:52:31 guus: suggest Eric is asked 15:52:39 gavinc: fine 15:53:35 action: guus: Ask EricP to respond to the feature at risk commenters re PREFIX 15:53:35 Created ACTION-271 - Ask EricP to respond to the feature at risk commenters re PREFIX [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-06-12]. 15:54:11 gavinc: exact details on the PREFIX impl - some people say they will go further. 15:54:45 ... and trailing dot on PREFIX 15:55:39 andys: I implement the feature at risk. 15:56:14 gavinc: grammar not quite right (WS betweet @ and word) 15:56:37 ... trailing DOT in SPARQL unliked by AndyS 15:56:57 ... unclear about case sensitivity of @prefix 15:57:57 zakim, who is talking? 15:58:08 Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (20%), Sandro (30%), gkellogg (9%) 15:58:46 -Guus 15:59:00 gregg: fine with no DOT version if no negative tests for it. 15:59:10 gavin: NONE of the negative syntax text are Normative. 15:59:25 gavinc: negative tests are not really as normative because its outside the grammar 15:59:29 +Guus 15:59:44 gregg: so remove them from test results? 15:59:53 andy: I have a "strict" flag 16:00:04 base