<trackbot> Date: 23 October 2013

<Guus> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 23 October 2013

<Guus> scribe: EricP

PROPOSED: to accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-09 as a record of 9 Oct

RESOLUTION: to accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-09 as a record of 9 Oct

<gavinc> +1 (now that the turtle is clear)

<ivan> +1

PROPOSED: to accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-16 as a record of 16 Oct

RESOLUTION: to accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-16 as a record of 16 Oct

<PatH> +1

next telecon: 30 Oct

LC Comments on Concepts, Semantics, TriG, N-Triples, N-Quads

jjc wrote an objection to ISSUE-142

Guus: jjc wrote an objection to ISSUE-142
... propose we open and postpone a new issue

sandro: title "stronger semantics for datasets?"

Guus: we can archive where we are and leave it, potentially, for a future WG

<PatH> +1 to Guus' plan

<ivan> +1

<AZ> re. next telecon: next week, Northern American will leave daylight saving time, while Europe is still in Summer Time

<sandro> +1

<PatH> I am already enjoying my pension and I'm still here :-(

PROPOSED: open an "stronger semantics for datasets?" issue and postpone

RESOLUTION: open an "stronger semantics for datasets?" issue and postpone

<TallTed> +1

<AZ> +1

<scribe> ACTION: Guus to draft and postpone "stronger semantics for datasets?" issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-311 - Draft and postpone "stronger semantics for datasets?" issue [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-10-30].

<sandro> 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

<PatH> 148 is an action on Concpets, right?

<sandro> +1 postpone 148 until after CR is published (it's editorial) and close the others

<markus> yes, path

PROPOSED: close ISSUE 145, ISSUE 147, ISSUE 159 without changes from the CR publication as agreed in email.
... close ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-159 with changes from the CR publication as agreed in email.

<sandro> +1

+1

<PatH> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<Guus> +1

<gavinc> +1

<zwu2> +1

<ivan> +1

<markus> +1

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-159 with changes from the CR publication as agreed in email.

<AZ> +1

<sandro> PROPOSED: Consider ISSUE-148 non-blocking -- we can publish while leaving it open to handle later, as it is editorial and the commenter agrees with this plan

<sandro> +1

<gkellogg> +1

+1

<AZ> +1

<markus> +1

<PatH> +1

<ivan> +1

<Guus> +1

<zwu2> +1

<TallTed> +1

<sandro> RESOLVED: Consider ISSUE-148 non-blocking -- we can publish while leaving it open to handle later, as it is editorial and the commenter agrees with this plan

<sandro> issue-127?

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

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

<sandro> PROPOSED: close issue-127 -- we believe we've addressed it, and are timing out on confirmation from commenter

<sandro> +1

<PatH> +1

<TallTed> +1

+1

<AZ> +1

<Guus> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<ivan> +1

<zwu2> +1

<sandro> PROPOSED: close issue-127 -- we believe we've addressed it, and are timing out on confirmation from commenter

<markus> +1

<sandro> RESOLVED: close issue-127 -- we believe we've addressed it, and are timing out on confirmation from commenter

<gavinc> +1

<sandro> guus: Close issue-143, based on verbal confirmation from commenter that he's satisfied

Guus, ISSUE-143 closed after discussion with Paul who is happy with gavin's response

Guus: PatH there are two folks who have proposed changes to your edits

PatH: []s change is a stylistic issue and i want to minimize ambiguity

[closing ISSUE-166 expecting PatH to respond after this call]

<sandro> guus: Commenter (MS) agreed ISSUE-165 and ISSUE-166 do not affect any tests.

<sandro> PROPOSED: Pat sends response to ISSUE-165 as in draft email. We don't really expect this to satisfy commenter, but we can handle this during CR, given it's not a substantive change.

<sandro> +1

Guus: note that the commenter agrees that this doesn't change any tests

<sandro> PROPOSED: Pat sends response to ISSUE-165 as in draft email. We don't really expect this to satisfy commenter, but we can handle this during CR, given it's not a substantive change. Commenter agrees we can handle this during CR.

Guus: a la PatH's response to 148
... perhaps we invite Michael Schneider to a telecon

<sandro> +1

<AZ> What draft email are you referring to?

PatH: i think it might be quicker in email

<AZ> I can't find it in my mails

<scribe> ACTION: PatH to respond to Michael Schneider and invite him to a telecon if the email doesn't resole the issue easily [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-312 - Respond to michael schneider and invite him to a telecon if the email doesn't resole the issue easily [on Patrick Hayes - due 2013-10-30].

<PatH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0231.html

<AZ> Ok I see it

AZ: why not just send refs to email that we exchanged when we were debating this issue?

Guus: i already did

<sandro> PROPOSED: Pat sends response to ISSUE-165 as in draft email. We don't really expect this to satisfy commenter, but we can handle this during CR, given it's not a substantive change. Commenter agrees we can handle this during CR.

PatH: i can make a direct point which helps alleviate the tension

<sandro> +1

<AZ> +1

+1

<PatH> +1

<Guus> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<ivan> +1

<zwu2> +1

<TallTed> +1

<markus> +1

<sandro> RESOLVED: Pat sends response to ISSUE-165 as in draft email. We don't really expect this to satisfy commenter, but we can handle this during CR, given it's not a substantive change. Commenter agrees we can handle this during CR.

<Souri> +1

Guus: of 20 issue, 18 closed, 2 deferred to after CR, 1 closed over objection

<sandro> PROPOSED: to request the Director to advance five RDF 1.1 documents to CR (rdf11-concepts, rdf11-mt, n-quads, n-triples, triq)

PROPOSED: to request the Director to advance five RDF 1.1 documents to CR

<sandro> +1

<markus> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<TallTed> +1

<ivan> +1

<gavinc> +1

+1

<Guus> +1

<zwu2> +1

<sandro> RESOLVED: to request the Director to advance five RDF 1.1 documents to CR (rdf11-concepts, rdf11-mt, n-quads, n-triples, trig)

<AZ> +1

Guus: we already have a scheduled transition call

sandro: in 1 week and 30 mins

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDF11-CR-Request

sandro: need a week lead before call so need transtion req finalized some time today

Guus: Semantics and Trig are not in CR format yet

sandro: do we have a local bibliography that has nov 5 t for all these docs?

markus: every doc has its own

<markus> the localBiblio part in the ReSpec config

<sandro> +1000 markus

<scribe> ACTION: markus to combine the local bibliographies of the docs to be pub'd (rdf11-concepts, rdf11-mt, n-quads, n-triples, trig) and put result at top level [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-313 - Combine the local bibliographies of the docs to be pub'd (rdf11-concepts, rdf11-mt, n-quads, n-triples, trig) and put result at top level [on Markus Lanthaler - due 2013-10-30].

Guus, webmaster wants to see docs on 1 nov at the latest

Guus: webmaster wants to see docs on 1 nov at the latest
... so all editors have to pubrules-ify their docs before then

sandro: the i18n group confirmed that they recieved our response to Turtle i18n comments and those comments apply to Trig, et al

Guus: comments on ntriples and nquads are catalogued on the comments page for concepts and semantics
... sandro, are you content with the evidence of public review?

sandro: considered breaking it out per doc but not worth it

Guus: who will attend the transition call?

[ gavinc, PatH, davidwood, markus ]

JSON-LD

<markus> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD-PR-Request

-> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD-PR-Request JSON-LD-PR-Request

-> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD-PR-Request#Formal_Responses_to_All_Issues_Raised issues

markus: we got four issues:
... .. on ISSUE-164, no response yet from Pierre-Antoine. expect one by transition

<sandro> sandro: let's say "no response yet" instead of "unresponsive", if we haven't given them much time.

markus: .. ISSUE-153: Ryan Laboucane wasn't happy with bnodes as properties. he's content with the resolution
... .. ISSUE-163: not sure that Simon Grant will be content with the resolution

gkellogg: expect he will not be content
... we've made the changes that we expect to make

Guus: reading the response to issue-163, he has some suggestions but appears content.
... closing issue-163

markus: ISSUE-162: Michael Pizzo is content that JSON-LD is already more or less aligned with OData and it uses a different OData which just uses app/json

Guus: i propose closing these 4 and change 163's resolution to be a yes [in http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD-PR-Request#Formal_Responses_to_All_Issues_Raised ]

markus, if we get an email, i'll update the issue-162 Commenter Accepted Changes column

markus: if we get an email, i'll update the issue-162 Commenter Accepted Changes column

<markus> http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/

markus: re: passing CR exit criteria, just link to the http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/ and point to the 6 impls at 100%
... exit criteria were that we needed 2 impls for any given test but no impl needed to pass all the tests

<sandro> PROPOSED: We believe the json-ld and json-ld-api CR Exit Criteria have been met. We have more than two implements passing each test.

<markus> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<Guus> +1

+1 look at all that green

<sandro> +1

<ivan> +1

<Souri> +1

<TallTed> +1

<gavinc> -0 tests of toRDF are not all valid RDF

<AZ> +1

<sandro> RESOLVED: We believe the json-ld and json-ld-api CR Exit Criteria have been met. We have more than two implements passing each test.

gkellogg: note that one of our tests produces nquads with a bnode in the subject position

<sandro> gkellogg: Gavin point is that one of the test uses invalid n-quads .... but it's not test n-quads, so it's not a huge problem.

gkellogg: we do textual checking of results, but it's not really nquads

<Guus> PROPOSED: to request the Director to advance JSON-LD to PR

<gkellogg> +1

+1

<AZ> +1

<markus> +1

<sandro> +1

<TallTed> +1

<Guus> +1

<ivan> +1

gkellogg: by "JSON-LD", we mean both docs

<Guus> PR request: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD-PR-Request

<zwu2> +1

<Souri> +1

RESOLUTION: to request the Director to advance JSON-LD ( http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api/ ) to PR

<scribe> ACTION: markus to finish the transition request and close the issues, adapt issue text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-314 - Finish the transition request and close the issues, adapt issue text [on Markus Lanthaler - due 2013-10-30].

<zwu2> have to leave for another meeting. bye guys

markus: docs are pubrules-ready

sandro: reading over the CR req, i simplified the exit criteria wording a bit ("each approved test is passed by two or more impls")

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDF11-CR-Request#Implementation_Information

sandro: i also added a paragraph about why we have no exit criteria for Concepts
... the other four docs had exit criteria so the hole for Concepts was conspicuous

<sandro> PROPOSED: For Trig, N-Triples and N-Quads: each approved test (in the respective test suite) passed by two or more implementations. AND RDF 1.1 Concepts (like 2004 RDF Concepts) does not have a test suite and is not directly implemented in software.

+1

<Guus> +1

<TallTed> +1

<sandro> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<gavinc> +1

<AZ> +1

<markus> +1

<sandro> RESOLVED: For Trig, N-Triples and N-Quads: each approved test (in the respective test suite) passed by two or more implementations. AND RDF 1.1 Concepts (like 2004 RDF Concepts) does not have a test suite and is not directly implemented in software.

<ivan> NEXT WEEK IS TIMEZONE MESS FOR EUROPEANS!!!

WHEE!

<AndyS> YES

PatH: just sent mail to Michael Schneider

Guus: next week the meetings will be one hour ealier for europeans

<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/open a new issue/open and postpone a new issue/
Succeeded: s/response/confirmation/
Succeeded: s/closing ISSUE-165/closing ISSUE-166/
Succeeded: s/gkellogg_/gkellogg/
Found Scribe: EricP
Inferring ScribeNick: ericP
Default Present: Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, gkellogg, TallTed, Sandro, Ivan, EricP, Souri, AZ, PatH, markus, zwu2, ScottB, AndyS
Present: Guus_Schreiber GavinC gkellogg TallTed Sandro Ivan EricP Souri AZ PatH markus zwu2 ScottB AndyS
Found Date: 23 Oct 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html
People with action items: guus markus path