RDF Working Group Teleconference -- 25 Sep 2013

<trackbot> Date: 25 September 2013

scribenick pfps

Administration

Minutes of last meeting

RESOLUTION: accept minutes of last meeting

Action Item Review

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

<gavinc> CLOSE ACTION-294

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-294.

<AndyS> can close action 263

Guus: next meeting is next week

<gavinc> ends at 2:00 AM on

<gavinc> Sunday, November 3

<gavinc> https://www.google.com/search?q=DST

<gavinc> Yay semantic search ;)

<AndyS> Close ACTION-263

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-263.

<gavinc> Yes, a range of time zone files are wrong :P

TRIG

Guus: LCWD of Trig is published

<AndyS> http://www.w3.org/TR/trig/

Guus: end of comments 11 October

<AndyS> The Last Call period ends 11 October 2013. All comments are welcome.

Guus: all rec-track documents are at least in last call

Test suite for Semantics

Guus: no action on writing the test suite

pfps: what is required to make to the changes to bring the test suite up to date

sandro: I don't know

<ivan> For DST: I am sorry, it was the other way round: Europe changes on the 27th of October, and the US changes on the 3rd of November, see http://www.timeanddate.com/time/dst/2013.html

<gavinc> gkellogg has done all the Syntax ones ;)

guus: andy and gavin have done test suites so they know the new format

gkellogg: there are input and output documents of arbitrary format, described in a description document

greg: changing the documents from RDF/XML to turtle or trig might be a good idea

<gavinc> given that there are no semantics for datasets, testing them using data sets sounds... odd

sandro: turtle might be better, as that doesn't require doing anything with datasets

gavinc: entering the old test suite into Mercurial might be a good first step

sandro: I could do a copy into Mercurial from the current CVS situation

<AndyS> Current test suites (lang, RDF 2004) name input and output so TriG not needed.

<ericP> what do we test in semantics that we don't test in turtle?

sandro: there was a thread on what changes need to be made to semantics tests

<scribe> ACTION: sandro to put semantics tests into mercurial [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/25-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-298 - Put semantics tests into mercurial [on Sandro Hawke - due 2013-10-02].

guus: tests should be put into good shape soon

LC Comments on Concepts, Semantics

guus: issue 142 - sandro you have an action

sandro: the conversation on 142 is ongoing on www-archive

<gkellogg> issue-142?

<trackbot> issue-142 -- rdfs:Graph ? comment -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/142

guus: what happens if there is no agreement - there might be a formal objection

sandro: yes

guus: we can go forward to CR with an objection

sandro: but in the past there has been agreement on the situation, just disagreement on direction
... right now there might not be agreement on situation

<gavinc> +q

<ericP> issue-142 discussion on www-archive

sandro: may need to just say that there is no possibility for short-term progress

ivan: this situation may become problematic

sandro: but the worst outcome would be to require more discussion
... comment from paul groth may be related

eric: jeremy wants a change, paul may just need clarification

gavin: i have a response in hand saying that paul's example is acceptable but just needs application-specific processing

guus: that's the situation

sandro: it might be useful to tell paul more about the situation

<scribe> ACTION: gavin to draft response to paul groth [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/09/25-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-299 - Draft response to paul groth [on Gavin Carothers - due 2013-10-02].

guus: by mid-October all LC issues on Concepts and Semantics need to be resolved

pfps: a WG response by 2 October would be better

sandro: guus - can you send a message about the timing issues

pfps: what about jeremy's other comment

sandro: I think that that is part of the same issue

guus: I'll try to express urgency for everything

Dataset Semantics

guus: two messages - one from antoine, one from sandro

az: the dataset semantics document has a lot of options
... peter commented that there are many other options, this has the options that have been discussed
... i have to respond to peter's comments - no comments from pat yet

guus: there is more time to work on notes than rec-track documents, so this is not so time critical
... sandro - what should be done with your message on dataset semantics?

sandro: when I wrote it I thought that it might be part of a note

guus: part of antoine's note?

sandro: not really

az: I haven't completely read sandro's proposal
... I think that it is more about handling datasets that appear on the web, my note is not concerned about this, but could be expanded to there

sandro: my note is more about containers, and less about web access

guus: the message is about how to view datasets
... if this is to be (part of) a note then the wg has to make a decision
... antoine, what should next be done for your note - incorporate comments?

az: yes

guus: then there needs to be a formal review
... the test suite has more importance

az: agreed

Turtle

guus: any process on comments

gavinc: no progress, should be done this week

Datatype Semantics

guus: message from pat on change to datatype semantics

<gavinc> I guess us north bay folks sound alike?

guus: pushback from peter
... priority is test suite and getting comments sorted out

AOB

guus: adjourned

<Arnaud> well, belated regrets

<Guus> trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

RDF Working Group Teleconference

25 Sep 2013

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output