14:51:58 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/12-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/06/12-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:52:07 <davidwood> Zakim, this will be rdf
David Wood: Zakim, this will be rdf ←
14:52:07 <Zakim> ok, davidwood; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, davidwood; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes ←
14:52:18 <davidwood> chair: David Wood
14:54:38 <Guus> trackbot, start meeting
Guus Schreiber: trackbot, start meeting ←
14:54:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:54:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:54:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes ←
14:54:43 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:54:43 <trackbot> Date: 12 June 2013
14:55:11 <Guus> chair: davidwood
14:56:13 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started ←
14:57:06 <Guus> zakim, mute me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, mute me ←
14:57:06 <Zakim> sorry, Guus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Guus, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
14:57:17 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
14:57:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
14:57:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see pchampin, Guus, RRSAgent, Zakim, gavinc, ivan, AndyS, TallTed, SteveH, manu1, Arnaud, davidwood, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see pchampin, Guus, RRSAgent, Zakim, gavinc, ivan, AndyS, TallTed, SteveH, manu1, Arnaud, davidwood, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat ←
14:58:54 <yvesr> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Yves Raimond: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:58:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
14:59:28 <gavinc> Zakim, this is rdfwg
Gavin Carothers: Zakim, this is rdfwg ←
14:59:28 <Zakim> gavinc, this was already SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: gavinc, this was already SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←
14:59:29 <Zakim> ok, gavinc; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, gavinc; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←
14:59:54 <gavinc> Zakim, who is here?
Gavin Carothers: Zakim, who is here? ←
14:59:54 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
14:59:55 <Zakim> On IRC I see gkellogg, pchampin, Guus, RRSAgent, Zakim, gavinc, ivan, AndyS, TallTed, SteveH, manu1, Arnaud, davidwood, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see gkellogg, pchampin, Guus, RRSAgent, Zakim, gavinc, ivan, AndyS, TallTed, SteveH, manu1, Arnaud, davidwood, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat ←
15:00:49 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
15:00:49 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
15:01:08 <ivan> hi
Ivan Herman: hi ←
15:01:08 <Guus> hi
Guus Schreiber: hi ←
15:01:20 <ivan> I am (barely) here
Ivan Herman: I am (barely) here ←
15:02:01 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:02:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see no one
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see no one ←
15:02:21 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPcaller is me ←
15:02:21 <Zakim> sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, AndyS, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller' ←
15:03:03 <Arnaud> Arnaud has changed the topic to: RDF WG -- current agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.12
Arnaud Le Hors: Arnaud has changed the topic to: RDF WG -- current agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.12 ←
15:05:27 <davidwood> Zakim, pick a scribe
David Wood: Zakim, pick a scribe ←
15:05:27 <Zakim> I don't see anyone present, davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't see anyone present, davidwood ←
15:07:54 <AndyS> scribenick: AndyS
(Scribe set to Andy Seaborne)
15:08:00 <AndyS> scribe: Andy Seaborne
15:08:08 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 5 June telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-05
David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 5 June telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-05 ←
15:08:12 <AndyS> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.12
15:08:22 <pfps> minutes look fine
Peter Patel-Schneider: minutes look fine ←
15:08:25 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
15:08:26 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ivan, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you ←
15:08:35 <gavinc> topics are not nested correctly, however I don't -really- care
Gavin Carothers: topics are not nested correctly, however I don't -really- care ←
15:08:35 <davidwood> RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 5 June telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-05
David Wood: RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 5 June telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-05 ←
15:08:46 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview ←
15:09:06 <pfps> actually I added that reference
Peter Patel-Schneider: actually I added that reference ←
15:09:31 <sandro> action-245?
15:09:31 <trackbot> ACTION-245 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to (with Sandro) to copy or proxy Turtletests2013 to http://www.w3.org/2013/Turtletests/..., updating all base or ttl references to http://example/base/ to be http://www.w3.org/2013/Turtletests/ -- due 2013-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-245 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to (with Sandro) to copy or proxy Turtletests2013 to http://www.w3.org/2013/Turtletests/..., updating all base or ttl references to http://example/base/ to be http://www.w3.org/2013/Turtletests/ -- due 2013-04-03 -- PENDINGREVIEW ←
15:09:32 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/
Gavin Carothers: http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/ ←
15:09:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/245
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/245 ←
15:09:43 <AndyS> action-265?
15:09:43 <trackbot> ACTION-265 -- David Wood to implement the langString resolution in rdf-concepts AND ENJOY IT -- due 2013-05-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-265 -- David Wood to implement the langString resolution in rdf-concepts AND ENJOY IT -- due 2013-05-29 -- PENDINGREVIEW ←
15:09:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/265
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/265 ←
15:09:55 <davidwood> ACTION-219?
15:09:55 <trackbot> ACTION-219 -- Patrick Hayes to informatively reference "XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL" -- due 2012-12-26 -- CLOSED
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-219 -- Patrick Hayes to informatively reference "XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL" -- due 2012-12-26 -- CLOSED ←
15:09:55 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/219
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/219 ←
15:10:09 <davidwood> ACTION-267?
15:10:09 <trackbot> ACTION-267 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to update http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Test_Suite http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle-CR-Request#Implementation_Information http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Main_Page to point to http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/ -- due 2013-06-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-267 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to update http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Test_Suite http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle-CR-Request#Implementation_Information http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Main_Page to point to http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/ -- due 2013-06-05 -- PENDINGREVIEW ←
15:10:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/267
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/267 ←
15:10:35 <pfps> fine by me
Peter Patel-Schneider: fine by me ←
15:12:01 <gavinc> http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/README
Gavin Carothers: http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/README ←
15:12:18 <AndyS> (I see wiki pt to hg (after refresh))
(I see wiki pt to hg (after refresh)) ←
15:12:30 <gavinc> Isn't there apache magic to include the readme in the directory page?
Gavin Carothers: Isn't there apache magic to include the readme in the directory page? ←
15:13:07 <gavinc> Yeah, it's being served as text/plain ASCII and is UTF-8 ;)
Gavin Carothers: Yeah, it's being served as text/plain ASCII and is UTF-8 ;) ←
15:13:15 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/README has some unresolvable characters
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/README has some unresolvable characters ←
15:15:00 <AndyS> davidwood: open action items
David Wood: open action items ←
15:15:19 <AndyS> guus: drop poll action ... overtaken by events
Guus Schreiber: drop poll action ... overtaken by events ←
15:15:25 <gavinc> Sandro did mine
Gavin Carothers: Sandro did mine ←
15:16:19 <davidwood> ACTION-203?
15:16:20 <trackbot> ACTION-203 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to identify an editor for a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets -- due 2012-11-06 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-203 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to identify an editor for a NOTE: Practical Use Cases of RDF Datasets -- due 2012-11-06 -- OPEN ←
15:16:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/203
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/203 ←
15:16:25 <davidwood> ^^ Sandro
David Wood: ^^ Sandro ←
15:17:01 <davidwood> Topic: LC Drafts of Concepts and Semantics
15:17:19 <davidwood> PROPOSED: We'll add some text to rdf-concepts saying systems MAY support blank node graph names and that communication between systems that do and don't can be aided by using Skolemization (and this closes ISSUE-131).
PROPOSED: We'll add some text to rdf-concepts saying systems MAY support blank node graph names and that communication between systems that do and don't can be aided by using Skolemization (and this closes ISSUE-131). ←
15:17:21 <AndyS> davidwood: sandro proposal on issue 131:
David Wood: sandro proposal on ISSUE-131: ←
15:17:57 <AndyS> davidwood: invitation to discuss
David Wood: invitation to discuss ←
15:18:27 <AndyS> sandro: have not let cygri know
Sandro Hawke: have not let cygri know ←
15:18:46 <PatH> ignore this test line
Patrick Hayes: ignore this test line ←
15:18:53 <AndyS> ... SteveH may also have an option
... SteveH may also have an option ←
15:19:14 <zwu2> MAY sounds acceptable
Zhe Wu: MAY sounds acceptable ←
15:19:14 <AndyS> davidwood: systems != syntax formats
David Wood: systems != syntax formats ←
15:19:37 <AndyS> ivan: this postpones discussion on formats
Ivan Herman: this postpones discussion on formats ←
15:19:37 <pfps> q+
15:19:56 <AndyS> sandro: JSON-LD - no change.
Sandro Hawke: JSON-LD - no change. ←
15:20:09 <davidwood> ack pfps
David Wood: ack pfps ←
15:20:10 <zwu2> q+
15:20:38 <AndyS> pfps: are we backing away from blank nodes for graph names?
Peter Patel-Schneider: are we backing away from blank nodes for graph names? ←
15:21:15 <AndyS> sandro: we are backing way from the current doc defn of RDF dataset.
Sandro Hawke: we are backing way from the current doc defn of RDF dataset. ←
15:21:52 <AndyS> pfps: if we can not requiring bnode for graphs, concepts should not mention it.
Peter Patel-Schneider: if we can not requiring bnode for graphs, concepts should not mention it. ←
15:22:15 <AndyS> ... if defn is IRIs, concepts, semantics should stick just to that.
... if defn is IRIs, concepts, semantics should stick just to that. ←
15:23:06 <AndyS> ... middle ground of "MAY" is distasteful.
... middle ground of "MAY" is distasteful. ←
15:23:06 <zwu2> q-
15:23:33 <AndyS> ... because it is inappropriate for concepts to go beyond defn.
... because it is inappropriate for concepts to go beyond defn. ←
15:23:35 <gavinc> Violate the spec! It's a classic way of getting what you want ;)
Gavin Carothers: Violate the spec! It's a classic way of getting what you want ;) ←
15:23:43 <SteveH> davidwood, I don't think I have anything to add - seems unnecessary, but also mostly harmless
Steve Harris: davidwood, I don't think I have anything to add - seems unnecessary, but also mostly harmless ←
15:23:56 <AndyS> ... prefer particular syntaxes to go "beyond RDF"
... prefer particular syntaxes to go "beyond RDF" ←
15:23:59 <davidwood> SteveH, thanks.
David Wood: SteveH, thanks. ←
15:24:22 <PatH> Can some one repost the link to the text please?
Patrick Hayes: Can some one repost the link to the text please? ←
15:24:44 <AndyS> sandro: systesm have done this for a long time (script -- which??)
Sandro Hawke: systesm have done this for a long time (script -- which??) ←
15:24:47 <gavinc> PROPOSED: We'll add some text to rdf-concepts saying systems MAY support blank node graph names and that communication between systems that do and don't can be aided by using Skolemization (and this closes ISSUE-131).
PROPOSED: We'll add some text to rdf-concepts saying systems MAY support blank node graph names and that communication between systems that do and don't can be aided by using Skolemization (and this closes ISSUE-131). ←
15:24:49 <PatH> noisy keyboard
Patrick Hayes: noisy keyboard ←
15:25:01 <davidwood> PatH, http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.12#LC_Drafts_of_Concepts_and_Semantics
David Wood: PatH, http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.12#LC_Drafts_of_Concepts_and_Semantics ←
15:25:31 <AndyS> pfps: acceptable to me is bNodes for graph names and then say systems may not implement that feature.
Peter Patel-Schneider: acceptable to me is bNodes for graph names and then say systems may not implement that feature. ←
15:25:33 <sandro> peter: Graph names can be blank nodes, and we put in concepts that surface syntaxes and systems MAY disallow blank node graph names (and use skolemization)
Peter Patel-Schneider: Graph names can be blank nodes, and we put in concepts that surface syntaxes and systems MAY disallow blank node graph names (and use skolemization) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:26:06 <AndyS> zwu2: Would Oracle's current be compliant or not?
Zhe Wu: Would Oracle's current be compliant or not? ←
15:26:19 <AndyS> pfps: yes
Peter Patel-Schneider: yes ←
15:26:24 <Guus> yes
Guus Schreiber: yes ←
15:27:14 <AndyS> pfps: already have RDF/XML can't represent all RDF graphs.
Peter Patel-Schneider: already have RDF/XML can't represent all RDF graphs. ←
15:27:33 <AndyS> davidwood: is skolemization an acceptable approach?
David Wood: is skolemization an acceptable approach? ←
15:27:37 <sandro> david: A system that uses skolemization is still conformant
David Wood: A system that uses skolemization is still conformant [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:28:04 <AndyS> zwu2: so use generated URIs for graph names.
Zhe Wu: so use generated URIs for graph names. ←
15:28:31 <gavinc> Eh? Web Browsers can create URLs.
Gavin Carothers: Eh? Web Browsers can create URLs. ←
15:28:37 <AndyS> q+ to ask about skolemization assumption on existing systems
q+ to ask about skolemization assumption on existing systems ←
15:28:53 <pfps> clients *can* skolemize all they want, they just can't make the skolems dereference
Peter Patel-Schneider: clients *can* skolemize all they want, they just can't make the skolems dereference ←
15:29:05 <AndyS> sandro: theoretical impossible to generate ?? on browsers.
Sandro Hawke: theoretical impossible to generate ?? on browsers. ←
15:29:11 <gavinc> pfps, yes, that
Gavin Carothers: pfps, yes, that ←
15:29:20 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:29:33 <PatH> q+ to say that skolemize is defined for graphs, not datasets.
Patrick Hayes: q+ to say that skolemize is defined for graphs, not datasets. ←
15:29:44 <AndyS> andys: (raises eyebrow at that claim)
Andy Seaborne: (raises eyebrow at that claim) ←
15:30:20 <pfps> it's theoretically impossible to generate deferenceable IRIs if you don't have control of some dereferencing process
Peter Patel-Schneider: it's theoretically impossible to generate deferenceable IRIs if you don't have control of some dereferencing process ←
15:30:34 <gavinc> New syntax example, JSON-LD
Gavin Carothers: New syntax example, JSON-LD ←
15:30:52 <AndyS> sandro: current syntaxes don't allow bnodes for graph names - want to change TriG to allow that - JSOn-LD already does.
Sandro Hawke: current syntaxes don't allow bnodes for graph names - want to change TriG to allow that - JSOn-LD already does. ←
15:30:53 <davidwood> ack AndyS
David Wood: ack AndyS ←
15:30:53 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about skolemization assumption on existing systems
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to ask about skolemization assumption on existing systems ←
15:31:17 <sandro> sandro: eg Oracle will have to Skolemize somewhere between JSON-LD parsing and the Database
Sandro Hawke: eg Oracle will have to Skolemize somewhere between JSON-LD parsing and the Database [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:32:23 <sandro> andy: or through, EG, the Jena API
Andy Seaborne: or through, EG, the Jena API [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:33:04 <AndyS> zwu2; why does a web client not able to generate an IRI? eg UUID.
zwu2; why does a web client not able to generate an IRI? eg UUID. ←
15:33:38 <AndyS> sandro: web browsers do not provide a robust random number
Sandro Hawke: web browsers do not provide a robust random number ←
15:34:13 <AndyS> ... current problem with browser - may change in the future
... current problem with browser - may change in the future ←
15:34:33 <davidwood> ack PatH
David Wood: ack PatH ←
15:34:33 <Zakim> PatH, you wanted to say that skolemize is defined for graphs, not datasets.
Zakim IRC Bot: PatH, you wanted to say that skolemize is defined for graphs, not datasets. ←
15:35:43 <AndyS> PatH: strictly skolemization of datasets is different and needs defining.
Patrick Hayes: strictly skolemization of datasets is different and needs defining. ←
15:35:58 <AndyS> sandro: UUIDs are not good for RDF.
Sandro Hawke: UUIDs are not good for RDF. ←
15:36:25 <AndyS> sandro: good looking IRI (scribe --> tag: ?)
Sandro Hawke: good looking IRI (scribe --> tag: ?) ←
15:36:46 <AndyS> sandro: pfps proposal is OK and I prefer.
Sandro Hawke: pfps proposal is OK and I prefer. ←
15:37:06 <pfps> graph names can be IRIs, surface syntaxes and systems *MAY* not handle them
Peter Patel-Schneider: graph names can be IRIs, surface syntaxes and systems *MAY* not handle them ←
15:38:13 <pfps> graph names can be IRIs, surface syntaxes may require IRIs, systems may skolemize them
Peter Patel-Schneider: graph names can be IRIs, surface syntaxes may require IRIs, systems may skolemize them ←
15:38:14 <PatH> Big echo suddsuddensuddenly
Patrick Hayes: Big echo suddsuddensuddenly ←
15:38:43 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:38:50 <pfps> oops, wrong way around
Peter Patel-Schneider: oops, wrong way around ←
15:39:05 <gkellogg> Question is, is it appropriate to use a Skolum ID where a BNode is otherwise inappropriate?
Gregg Kellogg: Question is, is it appropriate to use a Skolum ID where a BNode is otherwise inappropriate? ←
15:39:30 <pfps> graph names can be blank nodes, surface syntaxes may require IRIs for graph names, systems may skolemize blank nodes on input or output
Peter Patel-Schneider: graph names can be blank nodes, surface syntaxes may require IRIs for graph names, systems may skolemize blank nodes on input or output ←
15:40:10 <sandro> PROPOSED: RDF Datasets include blank nodes for graph names; include a note that systems MAY use Skolemization to provide this functionality -- they don't need to STORE blank nodes in this role, just consume them, and they MAY produce them
PROPOSED: RDF Datasets include blank nodes for graph names; include a note that systems MAY use Skolemization to provide this functionality -- they don't need to STORE blank nodes in this role, just consume them, and they MAY produce them ←
15:41:28 <markus> q+
Markus Lanthaler: q+ ←
15:41:36 <gkellogg> There are no existing serializations which can represent BNodes in these positions
Gregg Kellogg: There are no existing serializations which can represent BNodes in these positions ←
15:41:48 <gkellogg> (Other than JSON-LD)
Gregg Kellogg: (Other than JSON-LD) ←
15:41:53 <markus> q-
Markus Lanthaler: q- ←
15:42:45 <markus> was about to say the same that gregg just said. how can existing systems be "conformant" to something that didn't exist before?
Markus Lanthaler: was about to say the same that gregg just said. how can existing systems be "conformant" to something that didn't exist before? ←
15:42:48 <pfps> the original proposal had dataset not having blank nodes as graph names, my counter is to have datasets allow blank nodes as graph names
Peter Patel-Schneider: the original proposal had dataset not having blank nodes as graph names, my counter is to have datasets allow blank nodes as graph names ←
15:43:07 <PatH> Becasue the new stuff is optional?
Patrick Hayes: Becasue the new stuff is optional? ←
15:43:33 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:43:36 <pfps> this has the benefit that JSON-LD *is* RDF, which means that they JSON-LD documents *must* define in terms of RDF!
Peter Patel-Schneider: this has the benefit that JSON-LD *is* RDF, which means that they JSON-LD documents *must* define in terms of RDF! ←
15:44:24 <PatH> No, json also allows bnodes in property position.
Patrick Hayes: No, json also allows bnodes in property position. ←
15:44:40 <sandro> Zero or more named graphs. Each named graph is a pair consisting of an IRI (the graph name), and an RDF graph. Graph names are unique within an RDF dataset.
Sandro Hawke: Zero or more named graphs. Each named graph is a pair consisting of an IRI (the graph name), and an RDF graph. Graph names are unique within an RDF dataset. ←
15:44:41 <PatH> But we *could* go there...
Patrick Hayes: But we *could* go there... ←
15:45:16 <sandro> Change to: Zero or more named graphs. Each named graph is a pair consisting of a the graph name (and IRI or a blank node) , and an RDF graph. Graph names are unique within an RDF dataset.
Sandro Hawke: Change to: Zero or more named graphs. Each named graph is a pair consisting of a the graph name (and IRI or a blank node) , and an RDF graph. Graph names are unique within an RDF dataset. ←
15:45:24 <pfps> i'm getting less and less enamored of JSON-LD
Peter Patel-Schneider: i'm getting less and less enamored of JSON-LD ←
15:46:41 <sandro> andy: Allow systems that dont do this to be conformant by invoking the general rule that you can reject anything
Andy Seaborne: Allow systems that dont do this to be conformant by invoking the general rule that you can reject anything [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:49:02 <AndyS> andys: state that the definition has changed and note systems may provide the old form.
Andy Seaborne: state that the definition has changed and note systems may provide the old form. ←
15:49:11 <sandro> PROPOSED: We change the definition of RDF Datasets to allow blank node graph names. We note that earlier definitions of datasets did not include blank node graph names, and Skolemizaiton may be useful in providing compatiblity
PROPOSED: We change the definition of RDF Datasets to allow blank node graph names. We note that earlier definitions of datasets did not include blank node graph names, and Skolemizaiton may be useful in providing compatiblity ←
15:49:22 <PatH> We need to say that two dofferent datasets cannot share a blank node. Bnodes are unique to the dataset.
Patrick Hayes: We need to say that two dofferent datasets cannot share a blank node. Bnodes are unique to the dataset. ←
15:49:49 <pfps> at some point there will have to be some WG discussion of Antoine's comments on Semantics
Peter Patel-Schneider: at some point there will have to be some WG discussion of Antoine's comments on Semantics ←
15:50:10 <sandro> sandro: in a pure mathematical sense, I don't tink that's true Pat.
Sandro Hawke: in a pure mathematical sense, I don't tink that's true Pat. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:50:39 <PatH> OK, withdraw that.
Patrick Hayes: OK, withdraw that. ←
15:50:39 <sandro> PROPOSED: We change the definition of RDF Datasets to allow blank node graph names. We note (in rdf-concepts) that earlier definitions of datasets did not include blank node graph names, and Skolemizaiton may be useful in providing compatiblity. This closes issue-131
PROPOSED: We change the definition of RDF Datasets to allow blank node graph names. We note (in rdf-concepts) that earlier definitions of datasets did not include blank node graph names, and Skolemizaiton may be useful in providing compatiblity. This closes ISSUE-131 ←
15:50:44 <AndyS> issue-131?
15:50:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-131 -- How can one create an RDF dataset without being a web server? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-131 -- How can one create an RDF dataset without being a web server? -- open ←
15:50:44 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/131
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/131 ←
15:50:50 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:50:54 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
15:50:54 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:50:57 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:50:59 <pfps> +1, but the previous objectors may still object
Peter Patel-Schneider: +1, but the previous objectors may still object ←
15:51:00 <zwu2> 0
15:51:01 <AndyS> 0
0 ←
15:51:02 <cgreer> +1
Charles Greer: +1 ←
15:51:10 <gavinc> 0
Gavin Carothers: 0 ←
15:51:16 <Souri> 0
Souripriya Das: 0 ←
15:51:20 <Arnaud1> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
15:51:28 <PatH> I just now read Antoine's email, will respond to it later today. It needs a detailed response.
Patrick Hayes: I just now read Antoine's email, will respond to it later today. It needs a detailed response. ←
15:51:35 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:51:40 <yvesr> 0
Yves Raimond: 0 ←
15:52:00 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:52:08 <gavinc> In 6 months there won't be a working group :P
Gavin Carothers: In 6 months there won't be a working group :P ←
15:52:12 <PatH> consensus by attenuation.
Patrick Hayes: consensus by attenuation. ←
15:52:15 <yvesr> actually, revising to +0.5
Yves Raimond: actually, revising to +0.5 ←
15:52:19 <pfps> the only changes to Semantics are localized in the section on RDF Datasets
Peter Patel-Schneider: the only changes to Semantics are localized in the section on RDF Datasets ←
15:52:38 <sandro> eric: +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:52:43 <PatH> NOt clear we need any changes to Sematnics.
Patrick Hayes: NOt clear we need any changes to Sematnics. ←
15:52:52 <sandro> RESOLVED: We change the definition of RDF Datasets to allow blank node graph names. We note (in rdf-concepts) that earlier definitions of datasets did not include blank node graph names, and Skolemizaiton may be useful in providing compatiblity. This closes issue-131
RESOLVED: We change the definition of RDF Datasets to allow blank node graph names. We note (in rdf-concepts) that earlier definitions of datasets did not include blank node graph names, and Skolemizaiton may be useful in providing compatiblity. This closes ISSUE-131 ←
15:53:08 <davidwood> On ISSUE-136 Sandro suggests: PROPOSED: The formal meaning of an RDF Dataset is no less than the formal meaning of its default graph. This revises an earlier decision that datasets in general have no formal semantics, in order to allow for the use of specific dataset semantics to be signalled within a dataset. This feature to be added to rdf-concepts and rdf-mt, marked AT RISK for LC, since it hasn't been discussed much yet.
David Wood: On ISSUE-136 Sandro suggests: PROPOSED: The formal meaning of an RDF Dataset is no less than the formal meaning of its default graph. This revises an earlier decision that datasets in general have no formal semantics, in order to allow for the use of specific dataset semantics to be signalled within a dataset. This feature to be added to rdf-concepts and rdf-mt, marked AT RISK for LC, since it hasn't been discussed much yet. ←
15:53:16 <sandro> topic: issue-136
15:53:29 <AndyS> issue-136?
15:53:29 <trackbot> ISSUE-136 -- How can one indicate which semantics are intended for a Dataset? -- raised
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-136 -- How can one indicate which semantics are intended for a Dataset? -- raised ←
15:53:29 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/136
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/136 ←
15:54:56 <AndyS> This was only raised less than 24hrs ago.
This was only raised less than 24hrs ago. ←
15:55:17 <AndyS> sandro: default graph is the truth condition of the dataset
Sandro Hawke: default graph is the truth condition of the dataset ←
15:56:50 <AndyS> ivan: don't understand the terminology
Ivan Herman: don't understand the terminology ←
15:57:15 <AndyS> andys: anyone can object at any time - W3C process does not place a limit.
Andy Seaborne: anyone can object at any time - W3C process does not place a limit. ←
15:57:18 <pfps> Option 2 amounts to saying that the formal interpretation of a dataset is the interpretation of its default graph
Peter Patel-Schneider: Option 2 amounts to saying that the formal interpretation of a dataset is the interpretation of its default graph ←
15:57:36 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-137 adopting Option 2; the truth condition of datasets are the truth conditions of its default graph
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-137 adopting Option 2; the truth condition of datasets are the truth conditions of its default graph ←
15:57:42 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:57:55 <markus> gotta run.. I'm late already
Markus Lanthaler: gotta run.. I'm late already ←
15:57:59 <PatH> Yes, exactly. So datasets actually do have a semantics now, and we say what it is.
Patrick Hayes: Yes, exactly. So datasets actually do have a semantics now, and we say what it is. ←
15:58:09 <markus> I'm +1 to the proposal that has just been posted by Sandro
Markus Lanthaler: I'm +1 to the proposal that has just been posted by Sandro ←
15:58:12 <gavinc> The truth condition of a dataset who's default graph is the union/merge/whatever of it's named graph is now amazing ;)
Gavin Carothers: The truth condition of a dataset who's default graph is the union/merge/whatever of it's named graph is now amazing ;) ←
15:58:26 <davidwood> Thanks, markus
David Wood: Thanks, markus ←
15:58:30 <pfps> this is the cleanest way of proceeding - Option 3 requires looking inside the graph and pulling out parts, which we have never done
Peter Patel-Schneider: this is the cleanest way of proceeding - Option 3 requires looking inside the graph and pulling out parts, which we have never done ←
15:59:31 <AndyS> q+
q+ ←
15:59:44 <sandro> pfps: so it's a semantic-preserving operation, when you do the json-ld thing of using th defaule graph
Peter Patel-Schneider: so it's a semantic-preserving operation, when you do the json-ld thing of using th defaule graph [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:00:00 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:00:06 <davidwood> ack AndyS
David Wood: ack AndyS ←
16:01:36 <sandro> andy: what about simple entailment turning IRIs into blank nodes in a dataset?
Andy Seaborne: what about simple entailment turning IRIs into blank nodes in a dataset? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:01:36 <AndyS> ack me
ack me ←
16:01:37 <sandro> pat: I think it's harmless here.
Patrick Hayes: I think it's harmless here. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:01:52 <sandro> AndyS: I'm not convinced. There may need to be stronger conditions.
Andy Seaborne: I'm not convinced. There may need to be stronger conditions. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:02:05 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-137 adopting Option 2; the formal interpretation of a datasets is the formal interpretation of its default graph
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-137 adopting Option 2; the formal interpretation of a datasets is the formal interpretation of its default graph ←
16:02:24 <pfps> +1
16:02:25 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-137 adopting Option 2; the formal interpretation (truth conditions) of a datasets is the formal interpretation (truth conditions) of its default graph
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-137 adopting Option 2; the formal interpretation (truth conditions) of a datasets is the formal interpretation (truth conditions) of its default graph ←
16:02:28 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:02:30 <gavinc> 0
Gavin Carothers: 0 ←
16:02:31 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
16:02:36 <pfps> Ivan: this is editorial
Ivan Herman: this is editorial [ Scribe Assist by Peter Patel-Schneider ] ←
16:02:38 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
16:02:40 <zwu2> +1
16:02:41 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:02:44 <sandro> issue-137?
16:02:44 <trackbot> ISSUE-137 does not exist.
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-137 does not exist. ←
16:02:51 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
16:02:52 <sandro> we mean 136
Sandro Hawke: we mean 136 ←
16:03:00 <davidwood> 0
David Wood: 0 ←
16:03:26 <Arnaud1> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
16:03:27 <sandro> 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
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 ←
16:03:27 <Guus> +0
Guus Schreiber: +0 ←
16:03:30 <pchampin> +1
16:03:35 <sandro> eric: +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:03:40 <Souri> 0
Souripriya Das: 0 ←
16:04:06 <sandro> scribe: sandro
(Scribe set to Sandro Hawke)
16:04:10 <sandro> topic: Publications
16:04:32 <sandro> davidwood: We can't proceed on rdf-mt because of Antoine's comments, and rdf-concepts needs editorial changes I haven't done yet
David Wood: We can't proceed on rdf-mt because of Antoine's comments, and rdf-concepts needs editorial changes I haven't done yet ←
16:04:42 <sandro> davidwood: I propose we advance them next week
David Wood: I propose we advance them next week ←
16:04:54 <sandro> pfps: Antoine's changes are too big for that.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Antoine's changes are too big for that. ←
16:05:23 <sandro> pfps: Then we need to say over-ride Antoine's
Peter Patel-Schneider: Then we need to say over-ride Antoine's ←
16:06:02 <sandro> sandro: I'm waiting to see a rebuttal to Antoine's persepctive
Sandro Hawke: I'm waiting to see a rebuttal to Antoine's persepctive ←
16:06:59 <sandro> ACTION: pfps to send email describing the differences between Antoine's view and the current draft (eg you don't know what the datatype interpretation is)
ACTION: pfps to send email describing the differences between Antoine's view and the current draft (eg you don't know what the datatype interpretation is) ←
16:06:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-272 - Send email describing the differences between Antoine's view and the current draft (eg you don't know what the datatype interpretation is) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2013-06-19].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-272 - Send email describing the differences between Antoine's view and the current draft (eg you don't know what the datatype interpretation is) [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2013-06-19]. ←
16:07:32 <sandro> pfps: I sympathize with his position, where you want everything to refer, or you don't know what things mean.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I sympathize with his position, where you want everything to refer, or you don't know what things mean. ←
16:07:50 <sandro> davidwood: Isn't this the big philosophical leap of RDF in general?
David Wood: Isn't this the big philosophical leap of RDF in general? ←
16:08:20 <sandro> pfps: Not quite. THere's a difference between not exactly knowing, and not knowing what something refers to
Peter Patel-Schneider: Not quite. THere's a difference between not exactly knowing, and not knowing what something refers to ←
16:08:54 <sandro> pfps: eg we know who brad pitt is, without really *knowing* brad pitt
Peter Patel-Schneider: eg we know who brad pitt is, without really *knowing* brad pitt ←
16:09:03 <sandro> pat: I'll also reply to Antoine
Patrick Hayes: I'll also reply to Antoine ←
16:09:21 <sandro> davidwood: cf the Polymorphic Nature of Null
David Wood: cf the Polymorphic Nature of Null ←
16:09:28 <sandro> pfps: Null is even worse.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Null is even worse. ←
16:09:41 <sandro> pfps: You could be talking about THREE different things with Null.
Peter Patel-Schneider: You could be talking about THREE different things with Null. ←
16:10:14 <sandro> topic: ISSUE-23
16:10:17 <davidwood> On ISSUE-23, Sandro suggests: PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23 without general comment. We have been deciding on a case-by-case basis (YES for Turtle/TriG, NO for JSON-LD) and we expect to continue to do so.
David Wood: On ISSUE-23, Sandro suggests: PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23 without general comment. We have been deciding on a case-by-case basis (YES for Turtle/TriG, NO for JSON-LD) and we expect to continue to do so. ←
16:10:32 <pfps> +2
16:10:32 <davidwood> ISSUE-23?
16:10:32 <trackbot> ISSUE-23 -- Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types? -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-23 -- Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types? -- open ←
16:10:32 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/23 ←
16:10:36 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23 without general comment. We have been deciding on a case-by-case basis (YES for Turtle/TriG, NO for JSON-LD) and we expect to continue to do so.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23 without general comment. We have been deciding on a case-by-case basis (YES for Turtle/TriG, NO for JSON-LD) and we expect to continue to do so. ←
16:10:45 <pfps> +2
16:10:58 <sandro> +1
+1 ←
16:10:59 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
16:10:59 <cgreer> +1
Charles Greer: +1 ←
16:11:01 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
16:11:01 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
16:11:03 <gavinc> +∞
Gavin Carothers: +∞ ←
16:11:04 <pchampin> +1
16:11:05 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
16:11:09 <PatH> 0
Patrick Hayes: 0 ←
16:11:11 <zwu2> +1
16:11:16 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
16:11:31 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
16:11:40 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-23 without general comment. We have been deciding on a case-by-case basis (YES for Turtle/TriG, NO for JSON-LD) and we expect to continue to do so.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-23 without general comment. We have been deciding on a case-by-case basis (YES for Turtle/TriG, NO for JSON-LD) and we expect to continue to do so. ←
16:12:38 <sandro> topic: Rec Track Status of TriG, N-Quads, N-Triples
16:13:30 <sandro> sandro: WG decide rec-track, then leadership figured we didn't have time
Sandro Hawke: WG decide rec-track, then leadership figured we didn't have time ←
16:13:50 <sandro> davidwood: Sorry I failed to close the loop on these
David Wood: Sorry I failed to close the loop on these ←
16:14:01 <sandro> gavin: We've had some comments on this.
Gavin Carothers: We've had some comments on this. ←
16:14:26 <sandro> davidwood: We should probably make this a WG decision
David Wood: We should probably make this a WG decision ←
16:14:55 <sandro> s/TriG, /
16:14:57 <sandro> s/TriG, //
16:15:06 <Guus> q+
Guus Schreiber: q+ ←
16:15:11 <sandro> we're just talking about N-Quads and N-Triples
we're just talking about N-Quads and N-Triples ←
16:16:00 <sandro> gavin: So N-Triples was in a Recommendation, but it wasn't itself Recommended.
Gavin Carothers: So N-Triples was in a Recommendation, but it wasn't itself Recommended. ←
16:16:04 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Rdf-extension.html says that TriG will be a Rec, but NT and NQ will be notes. That's what we want to do.
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Rdf-extension.html says that TriG will be a Rec, but NT and NQ will be notes. That's what we want to do. ←
16:16:16 <sandro> guus: Now it's upgraded, even though it's not in a Recommendation any more.
Guus Schreiber: Now it's upgraded, even though it's not in a Recommendation any more. ←
16:16:41 <sandro> guus: It used to be an Appendix that said don't use this.
Guus Schreiber: It used to be an Appendix that said don't use this. ←
16:16:44 <sandro> gavin: We've had comments that it's weird.
Gavin Carothers: We've had comments that it's weird. ←
16:17:36 <sandro> gavin: ... from when N-Triples was part of Turtle Doc. Greg Williams and David Robillard say 'it's weird'
Gavin Carothers: ... from when N-Triples was part of Turtle Doc. Greg Williams and David Robillard say 'it's weird' ←
16:18:04 <sandro> davidwood: We're very close to out of time
David Wood: We're very close to out of time ←
16:18:27 <sandro> guus: We COULD bring this back to the rec track. The question is whether we should take on this work now.
Guus Schreiber: We COULD bring this back to the rec track. The question is whether we should take on this work now. ←
16:19:26 <gkellogg> We have a test suite for N-Triples, we don't for TriG!
Gregg Kellogg: We have a test suite for N-Triples, we don't for TriG! ←
16:19:32 <sandro> sandro: My take is this is mostly up to Gavin, if he's really up to doing all the work.
Sandro Hawke: My take is this is mostly up to Gavin, if he's really up to doing all the work. ←
16:20:04 <Arnaud> while I understand Gavin's frustration I think it is unwise to underestimate what it would take to add any spec to the Rec track at this point
Arnaud Le Hors: while I understand Gavin's frustration I think it is unwise to underestimate what it would take to add any spec to the Rec track at this point ←
16:20:10 <sandro> gavin: TriG is late because we told it to wait for Datasets; that's not my fault.
Gavin Carothers: TriG is late because we told it to wait for Datasets; that's not my fault. ←
16:20:14 <gkellogg> Pointer to test suite for TriG?
Gregg Kellogg: Pointer to test suite for TriG? ←
16:20:38 <sandro> gavin: It's hard to take these things to Rec Track. but N-Triples is very widely used. Not having it be a Rec feels very strange.
Gavin Carothers: It's hard to take these things to Rec Track. but N-Triples is very widely used. Not having it be a Rec feels very strange. ←
16:20:55 <sandro> gavin: No test suite for TriG yet.
Gavin Carothers: No test suite for TriG yet. ←
16:21:26 <sandro> davidwood: Gavin, how would you like to proceed.
David Wood: Gavin, how would you like to proceed. ←
16:21:52 <sandro> gavin: I'd like to take the N-* syntaxes to Rec. It will be easier than TriG.
Gavin Carothers: I'd like to take the N-* syntaxes to Rec. It will be easier than TriG. ←
16:22:21 <sandro> gavin: There's a very real chance that TriG wont make it, but N-Quads will.
Gavin Carothers: There's a very real chance that TriG wont make it, but N-Quads will. ←
16:22:37 <sandro> davidwood: Last Call by end of june, Gavin?
David Wood: Last Call by end of june, Gavin? ←
16:22:56 <sandro> Guus: TriG is our first priority
Guus Schreiber: TriG is our first priority ←
16:23:41 <sandro> gavin: I see no way that TriG will make it out of LC and to PR in six months. That's a fantasy at this point.
Gavin Carothers: I see no way that TriG will make it out of LC and to PR in six months. That's a fantasy at this point. ←
16:24:05 <sandro> gavin: No TriG implementations work the same as they used to; no TriG implementations work today -- we can't get this done in six months
Gavin Carothers: No TriG implementations work the same as they used to; no TriG implementations work today -- we can't get this done in six months ←
16:24:36 <gkellogg> I have one I think is reasonably complete.
Gregg Kellogg: I have one I think is reasonably complete. ←
16:24:56 <sandro> sandro: We *could* do two implemantions in a week
Sandro Hawke: We *could* do two implemantions in a week ←
16:25:37 <sandro> ivan: Let's go on optimistically. We can drop TriG to note later.
Ivan Herman: Let's go on optimistically. We can drop TriG to note later. ←
16:25:46 <sandro> sandro: Right -- so don't drop N-Quad yet.
Sandro Hawke: Right -- so don't drop N-Quad yet. ←
16:26:03 <sandro> gavin: Yes, -- which ever goes to PR first, or both (or JSON-LD) wins.
Gavin Carothers: Yes, -- which ever goes to PR first, or both (or JSON-LD) wins. ←
16:26:15 <sandro> davidwood: We're over time.
David Wood: We're over time. ←
16:26:18 <zwu2> bye
16:26:31 <sandro> davidwood: We'll try to get rdf-concepts and rdf-mt to last call by next week.
David Wood: We'll try to get rdf-concepts and rdf-mt to last call by next week. ←
16:26:35 <Arnaud> regrets for next week (LDP F2F)
Arnaud Le Hors: regrets for next week (LDP F2F) ←
16:26:55 <sandro> ADJOURNED
ADJOURNED ←
17:42:32 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
(No events recorded for 75 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended ←
17:42:33 <Zakim> Attendees were
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were ←
Formatted by CommonScribe