See also: IRC log
<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
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
<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
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.
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
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]