<trackbot> Date: 16 October 2013

<Guus> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 16 October 2013

<gavinc> issue-156?

<trackbot> issue-156 -- Media type parameter for turtle -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/156

<AndyS> zakim who is making noise?

<AZ> weird, I've muted my phone

<ericP> mute it harder

<ericP> see?

<gavinc> -1 to accepting minutes

<AndyS> issue-156?

<trackbot> issue-156 -- Media type parameter for turtle -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/156

guus: we'll return to the munutes later

<AndyS> action-309?

<trackbot> action-309 -- David Wood to Make an editorial change to concepts in answer to issue-147 -- due 2013-10-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/309

davidwood: Sorry, AZ, I didn't realized I'd missed some of your text -- I'll fix that.

<AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDF_1.1_Concepts_and_Abstract_Syntax_Last_Call_Comments

pfps: nanocomments comment - is that just about trig?

gavinc: It's more than trig

gavin: I got lost in email thread with jeremy this week, on this

guus: I'd like the CR decision next week, and I don't think Paul meant this as a formal comment.

gavin: I'll reply later today, saying Trig says it's okay, and formal meaning is application dependent.

issue-150

<trackbot> issue-150 -- LC Comment: references and acknowledgements -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/150

guus: purely editorial

issue-142

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

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

guus: discussed extensively. close over objection.

<ivan> +1

<pfps> fine by me to close 142 even over objection

<AndyS> +1

<davidwood> +1

<yvesr> +1

<gavinc> +1 (expecting FO)

<AZ> I agree too

<ericP> +1

PROPOSED: Close issue-142 over Jeremy's (planned) formal objection

<markus> +0

+1

<AZ> +1

guus: I don't see any more progress on this.

<TallTed> +1

sandro: I agree

pfps: I agree

RESOLUTION: Close issue-142 over Jeremy's (planned) formal objection

close issue-142

<trackbot> Closed issue-142.

<markus> there's everything here

<markus> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDF_1.1_Concepts_and_Abstract_Syntax_Last_Call_Comments

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

guus: I'll ping commenter for response

<pfps> next week is ISWC, so some people (me included) may not be on the call

<gavinc> No comments, except for the typos

sandro: hopefully decisions can be handled by proxy then.

issue-127

<trackbot> issue-127 -- Comment: multiple ways to encode string codepoints -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/127

guus: Did we respond to this.

gavin: I'll write a formal response to him, today.

<gavinc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0019.html

guus: A lot of things need to be done this week, in order to avoid cascading increases in workload

<Guus> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-trig-20130919/#grammar-ebnf

guus: There's an oops on TriG -- it didn't mention the Features At Risk in the SOTD.
... Maybe we can decides on the Features At Risk before CR? We don't need to .

<AndyS> Include them.

<davidwood> +1

<gavinc> Include them

guus: First F.A.R -- the GRAPH keyword. Quick check can we remove the At Risk flag and just keep the feature?

+1

PROPOSED: Remove "AT RISK" designation for "GRAPH Keyword" in TriG, keeping the feature

<ivan> +1

<ericP> +1

+1

<gavinc> +1

<pfps> +1

<AndyS> +1

<davidwood> +1

<AZ> +1

<markus> +1

<Guus> +1

RESOLUTION: Remove "AT RISK" designation for "GRAPH Keyword" in TriG, keeping the feature

PROPOSED: Remove "AT RISK" designation for "Unenclosed Triples" in TriG, keeping the feature

<davidwood> +1

<ericP> +1

<ivan> +1

+1

<AndyS> Keep feature

<Guus> +1

<yvesr> +1

<AZ> +1

<markus> +1

<gavinc> +1 and make "with the same semantics" TRUE

RESOLUTION: Remove "AT RISK" designation for "Unenclosed Triples" in TriG, keeping the feature

Test suites for Trig, N-Triples, N-Quads

gavin: They exist, linked from drafts

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

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

<gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2013/N-TriplesTests/

<AndyS> http://www.w3.org/2013/N-TriplesTests/ http://www.w3.org/2013/N-QuadsTests/

<gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2013/N-QuadsTests/

<AndyS> all exist (I just checked!)

<AndyS> Some say "under development"

<AndyS> Says: "Draft. The test suite is under development at ..."

<PatH> Sorry Im late.

sandro: So I should change them to say: the test suites are _here_

guus: did we resolve to accept them?

andy: I believe so

Semantic Test Suite

<AndyS> picky - include a hg commit id in URL, not "default"

<pfps> sandro's action is to set up a landing page for Semantics

sandro: I didn't set up the landing page for that yet. Unclear what we're saying about it.

pfps: Tests from last time have all been caried forward and should all be correct.
... AZ proposed some new tests, and they're in the test suite
... I looked at all tests and believe they're correct
... but the manifest pointed at the wrong files, so I fixed those
... Conformance Clause Missing

<PatH> SOme of the tests are fine, a few seem too obscure.

sandro: What about AZ's tests being too difficult?

pfps: SOME of AZ's tests are non-exceptional, they talk about things like the new ways ill-formed literals are treated.

guus: Assuming we're going to CR next week, how's our test suite for that?

<pfps> some of AZs test are for the new datatypes

Publication in 2 week

<PatH> AZ on queue?

az: Just thinking maybe the Conformance might be parameterized by the ER the reasoner claims to support. An "RDF Entailment" reason, then doesn't need to pass RDFS tests.
... if you don't support xsd:nonPositiveInteger then you don't have to pass those tests.

sandro: I think that's the general direction to go

<markus> notes that RDF Semantics doesn't define any conformance classes/products...

<PatH> We apparently need to combine conformance language and completeness language in a nice way. BUt this is rather delicate.

sandro: Awkward that we don't say anything about conformance in rdf-mt

<pfps> I have to leave sometime after noon

guus: any objection to going to :15 ?

sandro: I thought that was our schedule.

Process

<markus> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.10.16#CR_transition_process_for_Concepts_.2B_Semantics_.2B_TriG_.2B_N-Triples_.2B_N-Quads

<Guus> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.10.16#CR_transition_process_for_Concepts_.2B_Semantics_.2B_TriG_.2B_N-Triples_.2B_N-Quads

guus: (reads timeline from agenda)
... Key thing -- EDITORS get drafts available before next telecon!
... With all editorial changes made

<pfps> the ack could be in an ack section at the end if necessary

<gavinc> http://www.w3.org/mid/45B205A4-6704-4F50-B0B6-A197B894D4CD@3roundstones.com respec issue

<markus> respec stuff: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Sep/0052.html

pfps: for semantics, all the necessary edits have been done ..... except for one msg waiting from David Booth

<davidwood> markus, thanks.

guus: trig?

sandro: We're thinking we'll do a CR of Trig in sync with the other docs

guus: pfps pat - need a Changes section

pfps: Done

davidwood: Done for Concepts

guus: And N-Triples and N-Quads?

gavi: Yep.

gavin: I'm promising to have CR drafts available for next Tuesday, and have all comments address. (Even if paul groth's comment isn't exactly about TriG)

guus: Can everyone live with this timeline?

<PatH> Seems OK to me.

ivan: 7th of november absolute latest date, but 5th would be better.

sandro: Sounds like it all works, if nthing gets bumped.

PLANNED PUBLICATION DATE: 5 NOVEMBER.

guus: Next week -- CR Exit Criteria.

sandro: No peter next week, lets do it now.
... We should be able to find two people who want to pass any good test
... pfps are you passing all the tests you think should be approved tests

pfps: not nearly, since they're not OWL DL

pat: people/software

sandro: Anyone know about bglimm's interest in this?
... ANything in Jena?

PROPOSED: CR Exit for Semantic will be to have at least two implementations passing each approve test.

+1

<Guus> +1

<yvesr> +1

<AZ> +1

sandro: And you don't run the tests that don't apply to your kind of reasoner

<gavinc> +1

ivan: We could leave out the 2004 tests?

<Arnaud> +1

pfps: It's a burden if you're running them by hand.

PROPOSED: CR Exit for Semantics will be to have at least two implementations passing each approved new (RDF 1.1 only) test.

<davidwood> +1

<ivan> +1

+1

<Arnaud> +1

<AndyS> +1

<AZ> +1

RESOLUTION: CR Exit for Semantics will be to have at least two implementations passing each approved new (RDF 1.1 only) test.

<Arnaud> sorry, I've got to drop

<ivan> +1 to sandro

PROPOSED: CR of 3 weeks (the minimum)

<ivan> +1

+1

<Guus> +1

<PatH> +1

RESOLUTION: CR of 3 weeks (the minimum)

<AZ> +1

guus: I'll be producing draft transition request, and ask for checks from all editors.

JSON-LD

markus: Resolve features AT RISK for JSON-LD.

https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0167.html

markus: On Promises the proposal is to make API non-normative and reference (copy of) git hub page -- assuming Director is okay with this process.
... Any disagreement on any of those?

<gavinc> -0.5 to ignoring URL spec for URLs

guus: Any discussion?

PROPOSED: To handle Promised depency, we make the json-ls-api be non-normative. We do not believe this needs another Last Call, given the AT RISK flag and the comments recieved.
... To handle Promises dependency, we make the json-ls-api be non-normative. We do not believe this needs another Last Call, given the AT RISK flag and the comments recieved.

+1

<ivan> +1

<davidwood> +1

<TallTed> +1

<Guus> +1

<markus> +1

<PatH> +0

<gavinc> +1

RESOLUTION: To handle Promises dependency, we make the json-ls-api be non-normative. We do not believe this needs another Last Call, given the AT RISK flag and the comments received.

PROPOSED: Resolve all AT RISK flags in JSON-LD documents as per recommendation of JSON LD Task Force, shown in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0167.html

<davidwood> +1

<PatH> +0

<Guus> +1

<markus> +1

+1

<PatH> Oh what the hell +1

<ivan> +1

<TallTed> +1

<gavinc> -0

RESOLUTION: Resolve all AT RISK flags in JSON-LD documents as per recommendation of JSON LD Task Force, shown in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0167.html

<Arnaud> hmm

<Arnaud> I just got another timeout

guus: We'll plan to request PR for json-ld next week, with publication on 5 November

ADJOURN!

<davidwood> Thanks, everyone.

<PatH> Bye

guus: Next time -- we'll talk about Primer (lots of progress), Schema, and do the other decisions we talked about

<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/SOTF/SOTD/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: sandro
Inferring Scribes: sandro
Default Present: Guus_Schreiber, pfps, AndyS, GavinC, yvesr, Sandro, EricP, Ivan, TallTed, AZ, markus, David_Wood, Arnaud, PatH
Present: Guus_Schreiber pfps AndyS GavinC yvesr Sandro EricP Ivan TallTed AZ markus David_Wood Arnaud PatH
Found Date: 16 Oct 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-rdf-wg-minutes.html
People with action items: