IRC log of rdf-wg on 2013-08-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:33 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:33 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/08/21-rdf-wg-irc
14:59:38 [davidwood]
Zakim, this will be RDF
14:59:38 [Zakim]
ok, davidwood, I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM already started
14:59:45 [davidwood]
Chair: David Wood
15:00:22 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.992.aaaa
15:00:24 [Zakim]
- +1.408.992.aaaa
15:00:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.992.aaaa
15:00:29 [davidwood]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.08.21#Admin
15:00:38 [pfps]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:00:38 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
15:00:45 [Zakim]
+ +081165aabb
15:00:51 [davidwood]
Zakim, who is here
15:00:51 [Zakim]
davidwood, you need to end that query with '?'
15:00:56 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software
15:00:59 [davidwood]
Zakim, who is here?
15:01:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bhyland1, pfps, +081165aabb, OpenLink_Software
15:01:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, AZ, gkellogg, AndyS, pfps, TallTed, ivan, manu, gavinc, davidwood, trackbot, yvesr, sandro, ericP
15:01:05 [Zakim]
- +081165aabb
15:01:05 [TallTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:01:06 [Zakim]
+TallTed; got it
15:01:06 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:01:07 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:01:07 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
15:01:07 [davidwood]
Zakim, bhyland is me
15:01:07 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:01:07 [Zakim]
+davidwood; got it
15:01:09 [Zakim]
+Ivan
15:01:25 [Zakim]
+Sandro
15:01:30 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:01:30 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:01:31 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:01:39 [AndyS]
zakim, ipcaller is me
15:01:40 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
15:02:01 [Zakim]
+??P13
15:02:03 [Zakim]
+??P14
15:02:11 [sandro]
zakim, drop P13
15:02:11 [Zakim]
sorry, sandro, I do not see a party named 'P13'
15:02:14 [sandro]
zakim, drop ??P13
15:02:14 [Zakim]
??P13 is being disconnected
15:02:14 [TallTed]
TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/ -- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.08.21
15:02:15 [Zakim]
-??P13
15:02:33 [yvesr]
Zakim, ??P14 is me
15:02:33 [Zakim]
+yvesr; got it
15:02:48 [Zakim]
+ +081165aacc
15:03:02 [AZ]
Zakim, aacc is me
15:03:02 [Zakim]
+AZ; got it
15:03:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.415.686.aadd
15:03:42 [gkellogg]
zakim, aadd is me
15:03:42 [Zakim]
+gkellogg; got it
15:03:48 [davidwood]
Zakim, who is here?
15:03:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see davidwood, pfps, TallTed (muted), Ivan (muted), Sandro, AndyS, yvesr, AZ, gkellogg
15:03:50 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Zakim, AZ, gkellogg, AndyS, pfps, TallTed, ivan, manu, gavinc, davidwood, trackbot, yvesr, sandro, ericP
15:04:46 [TallTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:04:46 [Zakim]
TallTed should no longer be muted
15:04:57 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:04:57 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
15:05:19 [pfps]
scribenick: pfps
15:06:01 [Zakim]
+gavinc
15:06:13 [markus]
markus has joined #rdf-wg
15:06:22 [Zakim]
+Souri
15:06:36 [davidwood]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 07 August telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-08-07
15:06:42 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:06:55 [pfps]
agendum: admin
15:07:07 [pfps]
david: accept minutes from last time
15:07:16 [davidwood]
RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 07 August telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-08-07
15:07:20 [pfps]
david: no objections -> minutes acceptes
15:07:29 [davidwood]
Review of action items
15:07:29 [davidwood]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
15:07:29 [davidwood]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
15:07:46 [AndyS]
ACTION-282 is done
15:07:51 [gavinc]
I claim that EricP did ACTION-280
15:08:34 [pfps]
david: second editor for trig
15:08:53 [pfps]
andy: I will if it helps
15:08:54 [davidwood]
CLOSE ACTION-282
15:08:54 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-282.
15:09:32 [davidwood]
CLOSE ACTION-280
15:09:32 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-280.
15:09:43 [pfps]
greg: so far 9 conforming Turtle implementation
15:09:46 [AndyS]
Excellent news on the implementation reports.
15:09:53 [pfps]
david: primer still in progress
15:09:54 [gkellogg]
s/greg/gkellogg/
15:10:51 [pfps]
david: next meeting *next* week
15:12:16 [pfps]
david: I won't be available next week
15:12:27 [pfps]
sandro: I can chair if needed
15:12:59 [davidwood]
Request for Review: ITS 2.0
15:12:59 [davidwood]
15:12:59 [davidwood]
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Aug/0000.html
15:12:59 [davidwood]
15:13:01 [pfps]
agendum: request for review of ITS 2.0
15:13:15 [ivan]
q+
15:13:59 [pfps]
david: they want some some review from us re converting markup into RDF
15:14:20 [pfps]
topic: request for review
15:14:34 [gavinc]
Section in question, http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#conversion-to-nif
15:14:47 [pfps]
david: I'm not sure what we would say except "hurray" and check to see if they have done anything bad
15:14:59 [ivan]
I am happy to say hurray
15:15:14 [ivan]
ack ivan
15:15:30 [pfps]
ivan: I can take a look at the document
15:16:05 [pfps]
action: ivan review ITS 2.0 document
15:16:05 [trackbot]
'ivan' is an ambiguous username. Please try a different identifier, such as family name or username (e.g., ivan, imikhail).
15:17:27 [davidwood]
Topic: JSON-LD
15:17:37 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:17:37 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:17:40 [davidwood]
PROPOSED to publish JSON-LD as CR: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Aug/0060.html
15:18:03 [Zakim]
+EricP
15:18:10 [pfps]
sandro: we need to agree on exit criteria
15:18:11 [AndyS]
q+ to ask about testing (minor, clarification)
15:18:34 [gkellogg]
q+
15:18:40 [davidwood]
ack AndyS
15:18:40 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to ask about testing (minor, clarification)
15:18:41 [pfps]
sandro: the standard criteria should be acceptable, but there should be a resolution
15:18:42 [Zakim]
+??P20
15:18:51 [lanthaler]
zakim, ??P20 is me
15:18:51 [Zakim]
+lanthaler; got it
15:19:11 [markus]
zakim, ??P20 is me
15:19:11 [Zakim]
I already had ??P20 as lanthaler, markus
15:19:21 [pfps]
andy: for the RDF tests, isomorphism appears to be the right standard
15:19:28 [davidwood]
ack gkellogg
15:19:40 [pfps]
gregg: this was discussed yesterday
15:20:06 [pfps]
gregg: for testing to-RDF isomorphism is OK, but the output is n-quads
15:20:13 [gkellogg]
http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/
15:20:24 [pfps]
andy: so n-quads isomorphism is what to use
15:20:38 [ivan]
q+
15:20:43 [pfps]
gregg: here is an EARLy report
15:21:07 [ivan]
q-
15:21:14 [pfps]
gregg: pretty broad conformance over six implementations
15:21:32 [gavinc]
+q to ask if 3 of those aren't translations of the same implementation?
15:21:46 [davidwood]
ack gavinc
15:21:46 [Zakim]
gavinc, you wanted to ask if 3 of those aren't translations of the same implementation?
15:21:52 [pfps]
gregg: this indicates that CR exit critera have already been met, but there are other groups that may be waiting for CR to actually to the testing
15:22:20 [markus]
I think on yesterday's call we agreed on a minimum CR duration of 2 weeks
15:22:30 [pfps]
gavin: are three of the implementations machine translations?
15:22:46 [pfps]
gregg: no, they are separate, but the Java one is the primary
15:22:54 [gavinc]
s/Java/Javascript
15:22:58 [AndyS]
s/java/javascript/
15:23:59 [davidwood]
q?
15:23:59 [pfps]
david: sandro can you craft a proposal for exit criteria?
15:24:38 [pfps]
gregg: the tests are all via the API
15:25:06 [Zakim]
-EricP
15:25:27 [pfps]
sandro: are any of the proposed tests contential
15:25:49 [pfps]
gregg: to RDF-100 had some discussion yesterday because it was generating relative-IRIs
15:26:07 [gavinc]
+q to ask about dataset tests
15:26:11 [pfps]
gregg: we dropped it so that the results are all legal generalized RDF
15:26:36 [davidwood]
ack gavinc
15:26:36 [Zakim]
gavinc, you wanted to ask about dataset tests
15:27:30 [pfps]
gavin: are there tests around datasets that contain more than one graph? the bugs I've in seen in are in this area
15:27:38 [Zakim]
+EricP
15:28:08 [pfps]
gregg: I don't know - we will be discussing this next week on the JSON-LD call
15:28:17 [AZ_]
AZ_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:28:33 [AndyS]
Don't need test suite to go to CR.
15:28:47 [pfps]
gavin: how can we approve exit criteria without a full set of tests?
15:29:08 [sandro]
PROPOSED: The Exit Critera for JSON-LD shall be that at least two implementations pass each approved test in the test suite. We approve the tests as they stands today, but intend to add more. We may also make corrections if bugs are found. The test are all on JSON-LD-API but we consider them to cover both JSON-LD documents.
15:30:23 [sandro]
gregg: we need more tests. we only have only one test on error condititions.
15:30:24 [gavinc]
We DO need more tests. There are no tests for datasets, only single named graphs
15:30:48 [markus]
q+
15:30:49 [pfps]
gregg: more tests are needed, e.g., test variations on native types, dataset tests
15:31:01 [pfps]
gregg: should we approve the current tests?
15:31:12 [pfps]
sandro: let's approve now and add later
15:31:37 [pfps]
sandro: there are about two weeks before CR can be announced, so the tests should be finalized by then
15:31:39 [ericP]
of course you never know when a test suite is *really* done
15:32:02 [pfps]
david: do we need one resolution or two?
15:32:11 [davidwood]
ack markus
15:32:12 [pfps]
sandro: either
15:32:22 [markus]
The exit criteria I put in the spec is: "Before this specification exits Candidate Recommendation, two or more independent implementations must pass each test, although no single implementation must pass each test. The working group will decide when the test suite is of sufficient quality to test interoperability and will produce an implementation report (hosted together with the test suite)."
15:32:33 [pfps]
markus: are we trying to define the exit criteria
15:32:49 [pfps]
sandro: yes
15:32:56 [Zakim]
-EricP
15:33:07 [pfps]
sandro: the exit criteria usually go in the transition request, not the document
15:33:33 [pfps]
david: let's resolve on the wording from the document
15:33:45 [sandro]
PROPOSED: (as in spec draft) Before this specification exits Candidate Recommendation, two or more independent implementations must pass each test, although no single implementation must pass each test. The working group will decide when the test suite is of sufficient quality to test interoperability and will produce an implementation report (hosted together with the test suite).
15:33:49 [sandro]
+1
15:33:52 [markus]
+1
15:33:55 [davidwood]
+1
15:33:55 [gkellogg]
+1
15:33:57 [pfps]
+1
15:33:59 [yvesr]
+1
15:34:03 [TallTed]
+1
15:34:05 [AndyS]
+1
15:34:06 [ivan]
+1
15:34:09 [AZ_]
+1
15:34:12 [gavinc]
+1
15:34:16 [Souri]
+1
15:34:35 [pfps]
zakim, who is talking?
15:34:41 [sandro]
RESOLVED: (as in spec draft) Before this specification exits Candidate Recommendation, two or more independent implementations must pass each test, although no single implementation must pass each test. The working group will decide when the test suite is of sufficient quality to test interoperability and will produce an implementation report (hosted together with the test suite).
15:34:46 [Zakim]
pfps, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (53%), AndyS (19%), Sandro (15%)
15:35:30 [gkellogg]
JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms and API
15:35:38 [davidwood]
PROPOSED: Publish both JSON-LD 1.0 and JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms and API as CR.
15:35:49 [ivan]
+1
15:35:49 [gkellogg]
+1
15:35:51 [markus]
+1
15:35:52 [sandro]
+1
15:35:52 [gavinc]
+1
15:35:55 [AndyS]
+1
15:35:56 [davidwood]
+1
15:36:00 [TallTed]
+1
15:36:04 [Souri]
+1
15:36:05 [AZ_]
+1
15:36:23 [yvesr]
+1
15:36:25 [sandro]
PROPOSED: The test are all on JSON-LD-API but we consider them to cover both JSON-LD documents.
15:36:27 [davidwood]
RESOLVED: Publish both JSON-LD 1.0 and JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms and API as CR.
15:36:50 [pfps]
sandro: there should be some comment that the JSON-LD tests cover both documents
15:36:58 [davidwood]
PROPOSED: The test are all on JSON-LD-API but we consider them to cover both JSON-LD documents.
15:37:02 [sandro]
gregg: Implementing all the processing algorithms effectively tests all the normative requirements of the JSON-LD documents.
15:37:04 [sandro]
+1
15:37:35 [sandro]
PROPOSED: The test are all on JSON-LD Processing Algorithms, but we consider them to cover both JSON-LD documents in their entirety.
15:37:37 [pfps]
+1
15:37:41 [sandro]
+1
15:37:41 [gkellogg]
+1
15:37:43 [davidwood]
+1
15:37:43 [markus]
+1
15:38:05 [gavinc]
+1
15:38:18 [pfps]
sandro: are there actual API tests?
15:38:24 [pfps]
gregg: yes
15:38:43 [sandro]
gregg: We should be careful that the API tests are in the report, since they aren't in the EARL.
15:39:11 [sandro]
gregg: That part is intended for JS impls, but my (Ruby) one doesn't do the API with Promises.
15:39:27 [ivan]
+1
15:39:28 [Souri]
+1
15:39:33 [pfps]
david: I don't see any issues here
15:39:34 [davidwood]
RESOLVED: The test are all on JSON-LD Processing Algorithms, but we consider them to cover both JSON-LD documents in their entirety.
15:39:34 [TallTed]
+1
15:39:35 [gkellogg]
Need to make sure IDL tests are included with the test manifests and in the EARL report
15:40:04 [pfps]
markus: how long for CR?
15:40:46 [pfps]
sandro: let's just ask for a short time and end whenever
15:41:01 [pfps]
markus: we were thinking of two weeks and extend if necessary
15:41:10 [Zakim]
-Ivan
15:41:22 [pfps]
sandro: two weeks seems a little short - three weeks might be more normal
15:41:35 [pfps]
sandro: two weeks might raise some flage
15:41:38 [pfps]
markus: ok
15:42:16 [pfps]
andy: groups that are waiting for start of CR might want longer
15:43:10 [davidwood]
From http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs : "The Working Group is not required to show that a technical report has two independent and interoperable implementations as part of a request to the Director to announce a Call for Implementations. However, the Working Group should include a report of present and expected implementations as part of the request."
15:43:19 [pfps]
markus: we might send out an informal communication to get these people to start
15:43:28 [gavinc]
"must specify the deadline for comments, which must be at least four weeks after publication, and should be longer for complex documents."
15:44:43 [pfps]
david: minimal duration of implementation period is required
15:44:56 [pfps]
sandro: should be at least three weeks
15:44:57 [davidwood]
"The announcement must indicate a minimal duration, before which the Working Group must not request ahttp://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr; this minimal duration is designed to allow time for comment."
15:45:07 [davidwood]
There is no definition of minimal.
15:45:13 [gavinc]
yep, and the newest draft process document https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html does define, and that's 4 weeks
15:45:27 [markus]
gavinc, that's not CR
15:45:33 [pfps]
david: let's try for three
15:45:52 [gavinc]
markus nope, since CR is gone :D
15:46:06 [pfps]
sandro: resolving on three weeks would be helful
15:46:22 [pfps]
s/hellful/helpful/
15:46:29 [markus]
gavinc, oh sorry, didn't realize you pasted a different link
15:46:40 [davidwood]
PROPOSED: The WG will request a duration of three (3) weeks for the JSON-LD implemention period.
15:46:46 [gkellogg]
+1
15:46:48 [davidwood]
+1
15:46:50 [yvesr]
+1
15:46:57 [gavinc]
+1
15:47:00 [pfps]
+1 (are you sure that you needed the (3)?)
15:47:00 [markus]
+1
15:47:05 [TallTed]
+1
15:47:13 [sandro]
+1
15:48:28 [davidwood]
RESOLVED: The WG will request a duration of three (3) weeks for the JSON-LD implementation period.
15:48:33 [pfps]
sandro: we may be able to publish the documents on the day that the CR request is approved
15:48:55 [Souri]
+1
15:49:13 [davidwood]
Topic: TriG / N-Triples / N-Quads
15:49:20 [pfps]
topic: lions and tigers and bears
15:49:50 [pfps]
david: progress in TriG document
15:50:04 [pfps]
david: please accept Andy's help
15:50:13 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:50:13 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:50:14 [Zakim]
+Ivan
15:50:20 [pfps]
david: Andy will join Gavin as the second editor of the TriG document
15:51:25 [pfps]
gavin: the end result for TriG is that two things need to be added - optional "graph" and {}
15:51:28 [gkellogg]
q+
15:51:45 [pfps]
gavin: there were a number of other grammars for other things
15:51:46 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
15:51:46 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
15:51:48 [davidwood]
ack gkellogg
15:52:36 [pfps]
gregg: allowing a blank node as a graph name was an issue - what syntax is allowed - easiest is blank node label
15:52:53 [pfps]
andy: either labelled or []
15:53:05 [pfps]
gavin: a bit strange
15:53:19 [pfps]
andy: yes, a corner case, but graphs can be discovered
15:54:02 [pfps]
andy: graph name syntax has to be just for a blank node - nothing else
15:54:33 [pfps]
gavin: I'll put together the result into the document
15:54:50 [davidwood]
The editors will record this corner case in the document.
15:54:51 [sandro]
editors will include [ ] for blank node graph labels
15:55:00 [pfps]
gavin: that covers everything I can think of
15:55:01 [Zakim]
+EricP
15:55:07 [pfps]
david: N-TRIPLES
15:55:17 [davidwood]
PROPOSED to publish N-Triples as LCWD
15:55:58 [davidwood]
q?
15:56:39 [pfps]
gavin: comment from Andy re whitespace as a token, the situation has gone back and forth
15:57:22 [AndyS]
<s><p><o>. is legal TTL but not NT. Some may find it odd.
15:57:30 [pfps]
andy: want the two to be the same
15:57:46 [AndyS]
<s> <p> <o> . needed in NT.
15:57:47 [pfps]
gavin: can't allow NL in the middle of triples
15:58:01 [pfps]
david: date in document is next week
15:58:07 [pfps]
gavin: that can be changed easily
15:58:25 [ivan]
+1
15:58:29 [gkellogg]
+1
15:58:29 [davidwood]
+1
15:58:30 [TallTed]
+1
15:58:31 [gavinc]
+1
15:58:32 [AndyS]
go for it
15:58:34 [AndyS]
+1
15:58:42 [Souri]
+1
15:58:45 [markus]
+1
15:58:53 [yvesr]
+1
15:58:53 [sandro]
+1
15:58:54 [AZ_]
+1
15:59:06 [davidwood]
RESOLVED to publish N-Triples as LCWD.
15:59:56 [pfps]
david: try for LC of N-Triples next week
16:00:04 [pfps]
topic: semantics and concepts
16:00:17 [pfps]
s/Triples/Quads/
16:00:36 [davidwood]
ISSUE-140?
16:00:36 [trackbot]
ISSUE-140 -- RDF Dataset Comparison (Ivan Herman) -- open
16:00:36 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/140
16:01:51 [pfps]
andy: also need to consider blank nodes shared between the graphs - need to move the isomorphism to the outside
16:01:52 [ivan]
q+
16:02:26 [pfps]
andy: graph isomorphism is OK, just need to fix this one
16:02:49 [ivan]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Aug/0022.html Pat's definition
16:03:59 [pfps]
andy: this message has the right change
16:04:06 [AZ_]
+1 to Pat's definition
16:04:46 [Zakim]
-Souri
16:04:51 [pfps]
david: let's accept Pat's definition
16:05:18 [ivan]
q-
16:05:21 [Zakim]
-EricP
16:05:28 [pfps]
pfps: looks good to me
16:05:31 [ivan]
zakim unmute me
16:05:37 [ivan]
zakim, unmute me
16:05:37 [Zakim]
Ivan should no longer be muted
16:06:49 [davidwood]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-140 by accepting Pat's suggested change documented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Aug/0022.html
16:06:53 [pfps]
+1
16:07:02 [AZ_]
+1
16:07:04 [gavinc]
+1
16:07:05 [AndyS]
+1
16:07:12 [davidwood]
+1
16:07:17 [ivan]
+1
16:07:17 [gkellogg]
+1
16:07:24 [TallTed]
+1
16:07:38 [yvesr]
+1
16:07:56 [markus]
+1
16:08:22 [davidwood]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-140 by accepting Pat's suggested change documented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Aug/0022.html
16:09:08 [gavinc]
Grad students!
16:09:57 [davidwood]
ACTION: davidwood to apply the resolution to ISSUE-140 in Concepts
16:09:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-283 - Apply the resolution to issue-140 in concepts [on David Wood - due 2013-08-28].
16:10:13 [ivan]
zakim, mute me
16:10:13 [Zakim]
Ivan should now be muted
16:10:18 [pfps]
david: comments from Jeremy ...
16:10:31 [davidwood]
Comments Jeremy Carroll
16:10:31 [davidwood]
rdfs:Graph ? comment and Issue 35: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0021.html
16:10:31 [davidwood]
owl:imports, graph names and Issue 38: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0022.html
16:10:31 [davidwood]
Turn into issues
16:11:46 [davidwood]
ISSUE-35?
16:11:46 [trackbot]
ISSUE-35 -- Should there be an rdf:Graph construct, or something like that? -- closed
16:11:46 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/35
16:12:26 [pfps]
andy: I think that the modeling in his example is somewhat dubious
16:12:36 [pfps]
david: is there a resolution on ISSUE-35?
16:13:37 [pfps]
pfps: I'm unsure just what Jeremy wants
16:13:55 [pfps]
david: there is nothing prohibiting making graph names denote graphs
16:14:22 [ivan]
q+
16:14:30 [pfps]
pfps: Jeremy wants there to be a way to require graph names denoting graphs
16:14:47 [pfps]
david: that proposal has been before the working group and has not been approved
16:15:13 [davidwood]
ack ivan
16:15:42 [pfps]
ivan: there was a plan to have something like this
16:16:16 [pfps]
ivan: ... in a note
16:16:33 [pfps]
sandro: correct, but I was hoping ...
16:17:43 [pfps]
david: we need to reply to Jeremy and at least say that a similar proposal was rejected and that nothing prohibits this
16:17:50 [AZ_]
and there's a plan to make a note on dataset-semantics, which I have to finish (ED at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-dataset/index.html#)
16:18:00 [pfps]
sandro: and could ask what the minimum is here
16:18:17 [pfps]
david: and there is a note possibly in progress
16:18:17 [markus]
+q
16:18:25 [davidwood]
ack markus
16:18:34 [pfps]
sandro: jeremy knows this already
16:19:12 [pfps]
markus: are we planning to added rdf:bounddataset to note
16:19:31 [pfps]
sandro: that would be in there
16:19:49 [pfps]
david: a non-arbitrary deadline for the WG would be mid-Nov
16:20:02 [AZ_]
q+
16:20:06 [pfps]
sandro: Jeremy might object to proceeeding unless the note exists
16:20:37 [pfps]
david: sandro please respond with history and say that a note on the issue will appear later and whether he is OK with that
16:20:43 [pfps]
Topic: AOB
16:20:47 [AZ_]
q-
16:20:53 [pfps]
Adjourn
16:20:56 [Zakim]
-Ivan
16:21:36 [pfps]
AZ: the note on dataset semantics is in progress since January and should be ready by September
16:21:52 [pfps]
david: please try to finish soon - discussion may take some time
16:22:29 [gavinc]
bye!
16:22:35 [Zakim]
-gavinc
16:22:39 [pfps]
AZ: would be nice if peter or pat could take a look at it
16:22:41 [Zakim]
-Sandro
16:22:41 [yvesr]
bye
16:22:42 [Zakim]
-davidwood
16:22:43 [AndyS]
ADJOURNED
16:22:43 [Zakim]
-AZ
16:22:45 [Zakim]
-TallTed
16:22:46 [Zakim]
-gkellogg
16:22:47 [Zakim]
-lanthaler
16:22:52 [Zakim]
-AndyS
16:24:59 [davidwood]
pfps, please see the directions at the top of http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Scribes
16:41:57 [sandro]
pfps, thanks.
16:42:02 [sandro]
looking at it.
16:43:34 [manu]
RRSAgent: make logs public
16:43:56 [sandro]
pfps, there's a bug where some scribe errors produce that instead of a proper error message.
16:44:20 [sandro]
this line
16:44:22 [sandro]
15:02:14 Topic: Administrivia
16:44:24 [sandro]
should have been
16:44:34 [sandro]
15:02:14 <pfps> Topic: Administrivia
16:45:33 [sandro]
I just fixed it by manually going to https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-08-21?edit=1
16:54:30 [Zakim]
-pfps
16:59:30 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, yvesr, in SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
16:59:32 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
16:59:32 [Zakim]
Attendees were bhyland1, +1.408.992.aaaa, pfps, +081165aabb, TallTed, davidwood, Ivan, Sandro, AndyS, yvesr, +081165aacc, AZ, +1.415.686.aadd, gkellogg, gavinc, Souri, EricP,
16:59:33 [Zakim]
... lanthaler
18:32:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rdf-wg
20:05:33 [gkellogg_]
gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-wg
20:20:34 [gkellogg_]
gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-wg
22:04:50 [gkellogg_]
gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-wg