RDF Working Group Teleconference -- 02 Oct 2013

<trackbot> Date: 02 October 2013

<AndyS> I can scribe if someone will produce the minutes afterwards

<ivan> scribenick: AndyS

<ivan> scribe: Andy

<ivan> minutes of last week

<pfps> minutes are even more beautiful than usual

RESOLVED; Accept the minutes https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-09-25

RESOLUTION: Accept the minutes https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-09-25

ACTION-299

<trackbot> ACTION-299 -- Gavin Carothers to Draft response to paul groth -- due 2013-10-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/299

gavinc: pending

<ericP> scribenick: ericP

<AndyS> scribenick: AndyS

ACTION-293?

<trackbot> ACTION-293 -- Gavin Carothers to Update turtle ed to match published turtle cr document -- due 2013-09-18 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/293

<scribe> In progress -- ACTION-293

ACTION-289?

<trackbot> ACTION-289 -- Sandro Hawke to Read http://www.w3.org/mid/20130703143355.ga25039@w3.org and respond to greg willians's comment http://www.w3.org/mid/4d9d27b0-2161-4805-ac3b-ddc9e03cc80e@evilfunhouse.com -- due 2013-09-04 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/289

sandro: err ...

<gavinc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Apr/0062.html

sandro: not yet done

action-281?

<trackbot> action-281 -- Gavin Carothers to Provide sandro text for http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/tests/ to NOT say it's the test suite -- due 2013-07-31 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/281

gavinc: pending

<gavinc> Figure out what to say since http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/tests/ should never have ended up in TR space :(

action-270?

<trackbot> action-270 -- Gavin Carothers to Write resolution text for issue-23 -- due 2013-06-12 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/270

gavinc: pending

<ericP> oops

next meeting, next week

test suite for semantics

pfps: Converted to new format in hg
... and correct WRT new semantics
... commented for significant changes

<PatH> can you post a link to the current state of this?

pfps: not sure what next - something needs to refer to it

ivan: skolemization?

pfps: Optional extra, not needed for test coverage.
... coverage is now better than RDF-2004.
... no tests for new datatypes - consider to be outside semantics

ivan: Open action on antoine - tests ?

ACTION-297?

<trackbot> ACTION-297 -- Antoine Zimmermann to Write semantics tests with help of sandro -- due 2013-09-25 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/297

gregg: negative tests for datasets needed?

path: no entailment relationship in datasets across graphs

<AZ> no we did not say what a dataset means

<gavinc> "RDF datasets may be used to express RDF content. When used in this way, a dataset should be understood to have at least the same content as its default graph. Note however that replacing the default graph of a dataset by a logically equivalent graph will not in general produce a structurally similar dataset, since it may for example disrupt co-occurrences of blank nodes between the default graph and other graphs in the dataset, which may be important for

<gavinc> reasons other than the semantics of the graphs in the dataset."

<gavinc> SHOULD is testable.

<sandro> 2013/06/12-rdf-wg RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-136 adopting Option 2; the formal interpretation (truth conditions) of a datasets is the formal interpretation (truth conditions) of its default graph

gregg: was thinking about entailment in one graph appearing in another in same dataset.

<gkellogg> <> {:a rdfs:subClassOf :b}

<gkellogg> { :foo a :a}

<gkellogg> {:foo a :a, :b}

gregg: that is not expected as an entailment
... will send email.

ivan: status of test suite - is it finished? Looks like yes pending discussion above.

<pfps> where is the wiki page?

gregg: wiki page for how to run the tests is needed.
... submit results to comment list
... needs a semantics expert to manage the comments

<Zakim> AZ, you wanted to say we need a place to describe the manifest vocabulary

Thanks to gregg for his work on tests

AZ: need description of manifests - deref of URIs etc

<pfps> we need someone to say what mechanical steps need to be taken - where does a page need to be created, what needs to link to it?

ivan: need a owner to write the text

path: can write about the semantics part

snadro: see other tests - wiki page and link from official location

s/snardo/sandro/

<pfps> http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2013/TrigTests/

http://www.w3.org/2013/N-TriplesTests/

<gavinc> Eh? http://json-ld.org/test-suite/

<sandro> yes, Gavin?

ivan: process owner needed

sandro: will do the website stuff - need someone for the rest

<pfps> ACTION: pfps to add readme and license to semantics tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/02-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-300 - Add readme and license to semantics tests [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2013-10-09].

<pfps> ACTION: sandro to create landing page for semantics tests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/02-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-301 - Create landing page for semantics tests [on Sandro Hawke - due 2013-10-09].

LC Comments on Concepts, Semantics

ISSUE-146?

<trackbot> ISSUE-146 -- LC comment: procedural comment on LC of Concepts and Semantics -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/146

sandro: didn't do the full range of announcements

<gavinc> "announcement begins a review period that should last at least three weeks but may last longer if the technical report is complex or has significant external dependencies"

<gavinc> THREE WEEKS

<gavinc> not four

<gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr#last-call

ivan: action on Guus or David to send msg to chairs list

<sandro> ACTION: guus to announce all our LC documents to chairs@w3.org and semantic-web@w3.org and other places [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/02-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-302 - Announce all our lc documents to chairs@w3.org and semantic-web@w3.org and other places [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-10-09].

<sandro> ACTION: sandro to tell Jeremy we're doing this. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/02-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-303 - Tell jeremy we're doing this. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2013-10-09].

ivan: sandro please contact JJC

close issue-146

<trackbot> Closed issue-146.

ivan: issue-142

<sandro> issue-142?

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

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

issue-142?

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

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

scribe: long thread

<pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0001.html

ivan: unclear as to current status

pfps: jeremy made a proposal

ivan: large change

pfps: summary para is accurate

<pfps> the important part is the summary

<pfps> the important part is the "summary"

<pfps> the important part of that is "MAY"

ivan: large amount of editorial changes could mean new LC.

<zwu2> :)

<gavinc> +q

path: peter+I disagree with the change suggestion on a technical level.

<pfps> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0007.html

pfps: my response to the RDF-WG list ^^^^^

path: I believe there are possible solutions acceptable to JJC (offlist discussion)

gavinc: don't believe the change makes anything better or worse

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to respond to Gavin

sandro: this issue-136

issue-136?

<trackbot> issue-136 -- How can one indicate which semantics are intended for a Dataset? -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/136

sandro: which has been resolved - docs not caught up.

path: worry is that it seems to add something when it does not i.e. it is confusing
... it is already and intuitive reading

<AZ> +1 ivan

ivan: <chair off> we have this discussion for a long time - wary of changing anything at this stage
... discussion is not best done on the current timescale of the WG.

<PatH> i also agree with Ivan.

<pfps> my message suggests that this issu could be handled by a note that defines an entailment regime, i.e., I agree with Ivan

ivan: a later WG may do more but today we are where we are.
... <chair on>

path: agree with ivan-no-hat

+1 from me as well.

<gkellogg> +0

PROPOSAL: This WG leaves open issues of semantics for datasets and naming graphs for later work by another WG

<AZ> +1

<yvesr> +0.5

PROPOSAL: This WG leaves semantics for datasets and naming graphs undefined and to be addressed by another WG in the future.

<sandro> +1 with much sadness

<ivan> +1

<zwu2> +1 we need a closure for this WG

<sandro> +1 with much sadness

<gkellogg> +1

<AZ> +1

<markus> +0

<davidwood> +1 :/

<PatH> +1

<pfps> +1 except that there could be a note about dataset semantics

<Arnaud> +1, it's a very unfortunate state of affair though

<sandro> ivan: Yes, this is about the Rec Track. We may still do Notes.

RESOLUTION: This WG leaves semantics for datasets and naming graphs undefined and to be addressed by another WG in the future.

<pfps> I don't view this as an unfortunate state of affairs - Named graphs are trying to do much too much - A good solution would have multiple parts

<gavinc> 0

<pfps> ACTION: pfps to send a proposed response to Jeremy to the WG for comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/02-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-304 - Send a proposed response to jeremy to the wg for comments [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2013-10-09].

ivan: on the hour
... d booth comments ....

<sandro> issue-147?

<trackbot> issue-147 -- LC comment: Definition of "Generalized RDF" -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/147

pfps: suggestion for issues-147 - I believe it is in the right place and ED is now done. Adds "except that" text

path: better wording in email (scribe AZ email?)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0024.html

<AZ> my email was http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0011.html

pfps: suggest edit Concepts in hg and tell editors
... other edits already done

ivan: issue-147 is in progress and needs confirmation from David Booth.

issue-149?

<trackbot> issue-149 -- LC comment: Intuitive summary needs to be scoped to interpretations -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/149

path: no proposal for changes - will draft a reply

<scribe> ACTION: path to draft reply to issue-149 and send to WG list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/02-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-305 - Draft reply to issue-149 and send to wg list [on Patrick Hayes - due 2013-10-09].

action-144?

<trackbot> action-144 -- Ted Thibodeau to Investigate what the relationship is, and document it -- due 2012-02-15 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/144

issue-144?

<trackbot> issue-144 -- LC comment: Minor normative error in LC drafts -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/144

pfps: will deal with issue-144

issue-145?

<trackbot> issue-145 -- LC comment: Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/145

issue-148?

<trackbot> issue-148 -- LC comment: IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/148

<AZ> I think 145 is not a major issue

ivan: look at issue-145

path: can handle as editorial if discussion suggests it is needed

<sandro> scribe: sandro

pat: There's a need for something like "identify"
... cf "Social Meaning" debate.
... THere's got to be some way to refer to that.

<AndyS> path: this touches on social meaning

pat: David is very attached to the idea of meaning being formal. I think he takes that too far.
... His view is not standard.

<AndyS> scribenick: sandro

<zwu2> have to go to another meeting. bye

pat: It's a philosophical disagreement, and I think I represent the mainstream.

sandro: Makes sense.

issue-148

<trackbot> issue-148 -- LC comment: IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/148

pat: On that one he's just wrong...

<pfps> intending to add "intending" sounds like a solution here

sandro: THere's a little point to david's proposed text change. Maybe we can include something in that direction

pat: I'll see if I can some up with some kind of wording here, yes.

https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/open

sandro: I beleive we're planning to close all of these and and request CR i fpossible next week

peter: yes, let's be ready next week if we can.
... two weeks from now is ISWC
... ISSUE-23 shouldn't be sitting there like that.

2013/01/16-rdf-wg RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-23; we are indeed defining new formats and new media types for multi-graph.

<gkellogg> issue-23?

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

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

<gavinc> trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

RDF Working Group Teleconference

02 Oct 2013

Attendees

Contents

test suite for semantics

LC Comments on Concepts, Semantics

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output