<trackbot> Date: 03 July 2013

<scribe> scribe: gavinc

Admin

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 26 June telecon

<pfps> minutes are fine

Guss: No objections.

Guus: No objections.

RESOLUTION: accept the minutes of the 26 June telecon

subtopic: Actions

Guus: 9 pending review actions

<pfps> I marked some old actions as pending review

Guus: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview claiming victory on all 9 unless there are objections?
... Skipping other actions

subtopic: Summer telecon schedule

davidwood: Was hoping that we'd get documents to LC before starting bi-weekly

<AndyS> +1 to DavidWood

Guus: Yes, assuming everything goes to plan

+1 to davidwood

<ericP> davidwood proposes that if we don't go to LC today, that we meet bi-hourly

LC Drafts of Concepts and Semantics

Guus: Thanks to davidwood and pfps

davidwood: Markus did a review. I think I've addressed all of his concerns, except for one. Wanted to move a group of mathy sections into semantics, didn't do that.

<pfps> there are also independent reasons to keep several of these sections in Concepts

davidwood: propose to go into last call as the documents stand, and peter and I can talk about moving some of the sections between the documents as I contend that editorial

markus: Yeah, we can sort it out later.

davidwood: Did move isomorphic out of headers per AndyS. I think your right markus to try and work that out.

subtopic: Semantics

PatH: Semantics is ready to go. There will be some tweaks to it.
... links to some of the terms in concepts will need to be added

pfps: Haven't had any significant changes in a few weeks

<davidwood> ISSUE-113?

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

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

<davidwood> ISSUE-118?

<trackbot> ISSUE-118 -- Simplifying datatype semantics -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/118

davidwood: pfps, issue 118 and 113 need to be closed before Semantics/Concepts before LC?

pfps: Yes.

<davidwood> Peter's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0037.html

davidwood: The mailing list seems to show consensus

Guus: Happy to resolve these two issues.

-1 to opening an issue around the lists stuff from JSON-LD

Guus: No discusion on LC Concepts and Semantics

ISSUE-113?

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

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

pfps: We need to close the at least issue-118

davidwood: We haven't done anything releated to keys, but we have done things related to this issue.

<pfps> yes, OWL-2 has keys

sandro: OWL-2 has keys.

<davidwood> The RDF Keys message complains about the need for context (datasets) and quads (datasets).

<pfps> yes

ISSUE-118?

<trackbot> ISSUE-118 -- Simplifying datatype semantics -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/118

<davidwood> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-113 saying that this WG's work on datasets and OWL-2's introduction of keys addresses the reported concern.

<davidwood> +1

<AZ> +1

<Guus> +1

<Arnaud> +1

+1

<AndyS> +1

<markus> +1

<pfps> +1

<zwu2> 0

sandro: +1

<yvesr> +0.8

<davidwood> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-113 saying that this WG's work on datasets and OWL-2's introduction of keys addresses the reported concern.

<pchampin> +1

<PatH> +1

<pfps> Proposed: Close ISSUE-118 (datatypes) as specified in Semantics (datatype maps have been removed)

<AZ> +1

<PatH> +1

+1

<pfps> +1

<davidwood> +1

<Guus> +1

sandro: +1

<markus> +1

<yvesr> +1

<davidwood> RESOLVED:  Close ISSUE-118 (datatypes) as specified in Semantics (datatype maps have been removed)

<Guus> PROPOSED: Publish rdf11-concepts as a Last Call Working Draft https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html

<pfps> +1

+1

<davidwood> +1

<PatH> +1

<Guus> _1

<yvesr> +1

<markus> +1

<AZ> +1

<zwu2> +1

<Arnaud> +1

<pchampin> +1

<Guus> +1

<markus> (the JSON-LD ref. should be fixed before publication)

RESOLUTION: Publish rdf11-concepts as a Last Call Working Draft https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html

<PatH> +1

<pfps> +1

<Guus> PROPOSED: Publish rdf11-mt as a Last Call Working Draft https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html

<pfps> +1

<davidwood> +1

+1

<AZ> +1

<pchampin> +1

<Guus> +1

<markus> +1

<PatH> +1

<Arnaud> +1

<yvesr> +1

<zwu2> +1

RESOLUTION: Publish rdf11-mt as a Last Call Working Draft https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html

<AndyS> +1

subtopic: Publication Process

Guus: Requires a number of steps, these are recorded on the wiki

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Tips_on_publishing_ReSpec-based_documents

sandro: Need to check what version of respec your using.
... there is now a command line version of all those steps
... little tricky to get to work

davidwood: Is there any documentation on this?

Guus: Link is now to global respec, not our local one.

+q

sandro: I'm still on vaction.

<markus> Concepts still uses an outdated version of ReSpec

Guus: It's simple enough

<PatH> Peter, do you want to do this or should I?

-q

<markus> Just sent a mail to the list

sandro: there is a command line if you don't want to do the steps on the website

Guus: I've done it for 4 documents and done it in detail

davidwood: when I screw it up, I'll yell for help

+q

-1

-q

Guus: Need the editors to tell me when it's ready.

<pfps> I'll take a look at Semantics and see what needs to be done.

Guus: and put the documents in drafts/<short-name>/Overview.html
... will ask web master to publish these at the same time.
... david and pfps will notify guus when they are ready to publish.
... last call period?
... What kind of period do we propose?

<davidwood> 8 weeks?

PatH: Really need to be that long?

<PatH> Kill that damn fly

<pfps> google voice gets into this strange problem when it has communication delays

sandro: min is 4 week, but can't count weeks in August, first week of September seems best.

<davidwood> pfps, did you have something to say or was it just google voice?

<pfps> we have other stuff that is yet to be done, so there is really no reason to compress too much

<PatH> I miht be at risk for the second week in september.

Guus: I think we should do first week of September.... 6th September?

sandro: We still need to do outreach to make sure people hear about it before vactions

<PatH> OK

PROPOSED: LC period ends 2013-09-06

<AZ> +1

<markus> +1

<PatH> +1

+1

<davidwood> +1

<yvesr> +1

<Arnaud> +1

RESOLUTION: LC period for Concepts and Semantics ends 2013-09-06

Guus: davidwood and I take an action to do out reach

ACTION on Guus to write blog post and do out reach on publication of Concepts and Semantics

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

ACTION Guus to write blog post and do out reach on publication of Concepts and Semantics

<trackbot> Created ACTION-277 - Write blog post and do out reach on publication of Concepts and Semantics [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-07-10].

TriG

Guus: Trailing-dot discussion, this has reached concensus.

subtopic: ISSUE-137

ISSUE-137?

<trackbot> ISSUE-137 -- Should TriG be a subset of SPARQL Quad Pattern? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/137

sandro: So my perspective preparing for semtech, noticed how close TriG and SPARQL are. There are two bits that are not the same, and I couldn't really think of how to explain why they are diffrent
... the two are GRAPH keywords, and requiring {} around the default graph

Guus: First one is the GRAPH keyword.

+q

<PatH> FWIW, the advantages of Sandro's suggestions are obvious. Are there any technical arguments against them? Technical, not procedural.

+q

<AndyS> Obvious? Break existing practice?

-q

Guus: Propose adding them as features at Risk

sandro: I hope we'll see comments on them

AndyS: I can we be so dismisive of parser writters. We don't have any examples of {} not around default graph, we don't understand the results of these.
... I don't care about the GRAPH keyword. But I don't like the issue which includes opinion

<Arnaud> I would say that's a feature! :)

<PatH> One could say, its a good idea to raise issues like this before there are any serious implementations.

<PatH> I presume that making the { } optional would just make life harder for everyone (??)

<pchampin> making both GRAPH and {} (for default graph) optional may make things harder,

<pchampin> ... as a leading URI could be either a graph label or a subject in the default graph

<AndyS> What is the proposal for the grammar? LL(2) ?

ACTION Eric to create new grammar for TriG that includes optional graph keywords and make {} optional around the default graph

<trackbot> Created ACTION-278 - Create new grammar for TriG that includes optional graph keywords and make {} optional around the default graph [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-07-10].

<AndyS> and aligns to Turtle.

ACTION sandro to propose text for TriG feature at risk for both GRAPH keywords and {} being optional around the default graph

<trackbot> Created ACTION-279 - Propose text for TriG feature at risk for both GRAPH keywords and {} being optional around the default graph [on Sandro Hawke - due 2013-07-10].

ericP, please use the trig.bnf file that exists in hg

<ericP> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments#c13

ericP: I looked at all the comments on the test suite and CR comments, there are no test comments that haven't been tracked and only one that hasn't been responded too
... Found some more non unicode characters and fixed those as well

<PatH> pfps: does shift-ctrl-alt-s not work?

<ericP> PROPOSED: accept all tests in http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/

<PatH> pfps: suggest emailing Robin Berjeron

<ericP> +1

<Guus> +1

+1

<davidwood> +1

<PatH> +1

<pfps> +1 (what the heck)

sandro: +1

<zwu2> +1

<AZ> +1

<ericP> RESOLVED: accept all tests in http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/

<PatH> That sounds like something that should not be done in public.

<ericP> ACTION: gavinc to contact rdf-wg-comments, semantic-web and submitters of test results at the bottom of http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments#Implementations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/03-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action01]

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

<ericP> ACTION: gavin to contact rdf-wg-comments, semantic-web and submitters of test results at the bottom of http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments#Implementations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/07/03-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-280 - Contact rdf-wg-comments, semantic-web and submitters of test results at the bottom of http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments#Implementations [on Gavin Carothers - due 2013-07-10].

markus: JSON-LD text was updated to say JSON-LD is based on RDF

Guus: waiting for agreement on consesus from pfps and JSON-LD subgroub

<pfps> consider that a flag has been raised

Guus: Thanks, and ajorned. Next Week N-Triples/N-Quads, and JSON-LD and RDF-JSON

<pchampin> bye

<Guus> trackbot, end meeting

<markus> bye

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/two issues/at least issue-118/
Found Scribe: gavinc
Inferring ScribeNick: gavinc
Default Present: Guus_Schreiber, +1.540.898.aaaa, GavinC, davidwood, yvesr, AndyS, pfps, Arnaud, Sandro, EricP, markus, PatH, +1.619.663.aabb, AZ
Present: Guus_Schreiber +1.540.898.aaaa GavinC davidwood yvesr AndyS pfps Arnaud Sandro EricP markus PatH +1.619.663.aabb AZ
Found Date: 03 Jul 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/07/03-rdf-wg-minutes.html
People with action items: gavin gavinc