W3C

- DRAFT -

RDF Working Group Teleconference

05 Jun 2013

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
GavinC, pfps, matthias_samwald, AndyS, Guus, Sandro, gkellogg, Arnaud, davidwood, markus, TallTed
Regrets
Chair
Guus
Scribe
Andy Seaborne

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 05 June 2013

Suggestion - could plan for TriG, NQ, NT LC's today? Process, not technical discussion.

We've gone so far through that it would be nice to be RECified for NT, NQ. Also - advance TriG to LC

<sandro> 2012/10/30-rdf-wg RESOLVED: We'll do N-Triples and N-Quads in one REC-track documents, title to be decided

<sandro> 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

nickscribe: AndyS

<scribe> scribe: Andy Seaborne

<Guus> cheir: Guus

<scribe> chair: Guus

(pre meeting discussion - we need to track down the resolved status of NT and NQ docs)

<pfps> minutes look good

RESOLUTION: Accept the minutes of https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-29

<gavinc> +q to ask who is sending messages to comments about the PREFIX/BASE resolution

Guus: open actions - http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/open
... open actions - http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open

<pfps> Semantics needs a tiny bit of work on references, including action 219 - I'll try to get these done

Guus: process discussions for TriG, NT, NQ
... keep semantics discussions short

LC for concepts and semantics

Guus: issue-131
... Sandro options 1-6 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0025.html

<pfps> fine by me

<sandro> STRAWPOLL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0025.html

<pfps> 6 options - there are only 5 in the issue

<pfps> we are talking about the six "D" issues in the email

options are -- D1 to D6 in email of 4 June

sandro: extension approach, not required core
... on bound semantics

<Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to ask who is sending messages to comments about the PREFIX/BASE resolution

sandro: was going to present a design - didn't think it would fly in the WG after private review
... want to address issue-131 at the same time.

<sandro> +1 +1 +0 -0 -0 -1

<pfps> this is all a *change* to the way RDF works - who is going to make sure that it all fits together?

<gkellogg> D1: +1, D2: +0.9, D3: +0.4, D4: +0.3, D5: +0, D6: -1

<pfps> D1 -1; D2 -1; D3 -0.5; D4 -0.4; D5 0; D6 -2 (as this would violate the way RDF extensions work)

<markus> D1: +1, D2: +0.5, D3: 0, D4: -0.8, D5: -1 (can't really see how this is different to D6), D6: -1

<davidwood> +1 +1 +1 +1 +0 −0.5 (chair hat off)

<gavinc> D1: -1 D2: -0.9 D3: +1 D4: +0 D5: -0 D6: -0

D3, D4, D5 +1 D6: -1 D1, D2 hard to say due to details.

pfps: worried that a technical fault emerges just after REC declared.

<TallTed> D1 +1, D2 +0.7, D3 +0.5, D4 +0.3, D5 +0, D6 -1

pfps: don't like D6

I want to see the other usages (e.g. label=location) documented, (inc with the issues of the approach)

I am also concerned that one technical choice (in docs) does not prove to be the only one.

<gavinc> THere is no support for D6! Lets stop talking about it :P

<sandro> sandro: I want to make sure we don't ACCIDENTALLY end up in D6.

<pfps> the question is whether there is *some* way to add graphs into the RDF semantics, this is related to D6

Guus: including people not on call, D3 looks like the leader.

<pfps> D1 is to add a *particular* way to add graphs to the RDF semantics, which could have problems

<gavinc> exactly, there is at this point not enough time to do D1

guus: will set up WBS and resolve next week.

<pfps> the speed required to approve D1 is very problematics

<markus> pfps, D1 says "We include *something* like bound semantics [1] and blank-node-graph-names in rdf-concepts"

<scribe> ACTION: Guus: set up WBS on bound semantics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-269 - Set up WBS on bound semantics [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-06-12].

<gavinc> Yes, but markus we don't have a design, implementations, or consensus after trying for 2 years.

<pfps> +1 to gavin

raised issues

<pfps> my belief is that issue-120 has been determined, as "yes"

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/raised

<markus> gavinc, agreed but this strawpoll was to see if there's consensus to do something at all

<pfps> semantics now firmly defines union (new) and merge (no change)

<pfps> issue-122 is left to surface syntaxes

guus: close issue 122 sugegsted but Pat raised an issue with the issue.
... to do with bnode labels on graphs

pfps: how?

davidwood: process?

<gavinc> 122... I'm assuming that's now TriGs issue? :\

guus: assumption is that these raised issues are dropped

<sandro> issue-127?

<trackbot> ISSUE-127 -- Comment: multiple ways to encode string codepoints -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/127

<pfps> issue 127 appears to be related to surface syntaxes

Guus: issue-127 - not about semantics or concepts

Open issues on semantics and concepts

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/open (time varying link :-)

Guus: issue-23 -

issue-23?

<trackbot> ISSUE-23 -- Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23

gavin: resolved by leaving to each syntax

guus: please offer to write resolution text ...

gavinc: Ok - I'll do it.

<sandro> issue-102?

<trackbot> ISSUE-102 -- Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs? -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/102

<pfps> i vote "no" for issue-102

<scribe> ACTION: gavinc: Write resolution text for issue-23 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Error finding 'gavinc'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/users>.

<gavinc> ACTION: gavin: write resolution text for issue-23 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-270 - Write resolution text for issue-23 [on Gavin Carothers - due 2013-06-12].

pfps: make a primer issue for 102

sandro: informative section of concepts? schema?
... advanced people to read this - they may skip primer.
... does the WG agree with the statement of issue-102

AndyS: two audiences? data publishers, and implementers.

sandro: people who are constructing triple patterns probably should to be aware of this.

<sandro> :-)

guus: suggest move to primer

davidwood: could drop? We don't usually talk about impls.

sandro: old RDF spec had wellformed lists is mapped to Turtle and JSON-LD lists. ?? in RDFS?

guus: no relation to concepts or semantics so not an issue for them
... next issues 112 113
... previous comments from the list
... needs checking

ISSUE-112?

<trackbot> ISSUE-112 -- Media types and assertions -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/112

ISSUE-113?

<trackbot> ISSUE-113 -- RDF Keys -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/113

<pfps> issue 112 refers to an email from 9 years ago!

guus: volunteers?
...

<pfps> I can sent a message to Mark Baker

guus: we don't think they affect semantics and concepts
... assume not relevant
... That leaves open issue 131

<Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to say that there has never been a requirement that implementations store triples.

Guus: and the WBS poll on bound datasets
... process
... 4 reviewers
... semantics
... ivan has done an initial review
... antoine to do another

pfps: no significant items in ivans review

<pfps> hmm. this indicates that semantics / concepts need to be changed to move from "can't" to "doesn't necessarily"

guus: concepts
... reviewers Guus and PFPS.

pfps: previous review was done

davidwood: no matters arising from pfps review

guus: in two weeks can we have LC drafts for concepts and semantics?

<pfps> two weeks should be feasible if there are no required technical changes, and the editors produce changes that are acceptable to the reviewers

pfps: resolving to ivan - OK - other small changes then good to go. Some editor overhead to respond to changes.

davidwood: much the same - need to check recent edits - but ex issue 131 - looks OK for that timescale

guus: 2 weeks ideal, latest 3 weeks. Is there time?

<pfps> I'll do some work on the edits today or tomorrow

davidwood: had factored in some time next week

guus: option - features at risk

sandro: feature at risk - issue-131 and related - relative IRIs unclear as to proposal in detail.

Turtle process

guus: test suite, feature at risk resolved.

gavinc: need someone to write to the external commenters

guus: suggest Eric is asked

gavinc: fine

<scribe> ACTION: guus: Ask EricP to respond to the feature at risk commenters re PREFIX [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-271 - Ask EricP to respond to the feature at risk commenters re PREFIX [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-06-12].

gavinc: exact details on the PREFIX impl - some people say they will go further.
... and trailing dot on PREFIX

andys: I implement the feature at risk.

gavinc: grammar not quite right (WS betweet @ and word)
... trailing DOT in SPARQL unliked by AndyS
... unclear about case sensitivity of @prefix

gregg: fine with no DOT version if no negative tests for it.

<sandro> gavin: NONE of the negative syntax text are Normative.

gavinc: negative tests are not really as normative because its outside the grammar

<sandro> gregg: so remove them from test results?

<sandro> andy: I have a "strict" flag

<gavinc> base <http://one.example/> <subject> <predicate> <object>

sandro: concensus on case insensitive of @prefix?

gavinc: maybe
... issue around "a"

<sandro> PROPOSE: make @prefix and @base case insenstive

<sandro> (hearing consensus)

sandro: what about all case insensitive, remove neg tests on PREFIX-DOT

gavinc: say for compatibilty write trad forms.

guus: next week status of TriG, NT, NQ

gavinc: test - NT, NQ to REC?

ADJOURNED

<Guus> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: gavin: write resolution text for issue-23 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: gavinc: Write resolution text for issue-23 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: guus: Ask EricP to respond to the feature at risk commenters re PREFIX [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Guus: set up WBS on bound semantics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2013/06/05 16:05:52 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/miinutes/minutes/
Succeeded: s/email/issue/
Succeeded: s/need/probably should/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: AndyS
Found Scribe: Andy Seaborne
Default Present: GavinC, pfps, matthias_samwald, AndyS, Guus, Sandro, gkellogg, Arnaud, davidwood, markus, TallTed
Present: GavinC pfps matthias_samwald AndyS Guus Sandro gkellogg Arnaud davidwood markus TallTed
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.05
Found Date: 05 Jun 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/06/05-rdf-wg-minutes.html
People with action items: ask ericp gavin gavinc guus

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]