RDF Working Group Teleconference -- 29 Jan 2014

<trackbot> Date: 29 January 2014

<sandro> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 29 January 2014

<scribe> scribe: yvesr

<pfps> minutes look fine to me

RESOLVED to accept the minutes from the previous meeting

Action items

Guus: let's go through old action items
... Comment on issue 148 - that's done
... My response to Greg Williams fell through the cracks - I didn't have the time to do it
... Should I still do that?

gavinc: Is it the ongoing n-triples / utf-8 issue?
... if so, then they need to deal with it

<pfps> that sounds like a resolution :-)

Guus: I am going to drop my action
... there was two actions on gavinc

gavinc: I am interested in the solution to issue 281
... But now it's a 404 - which I find perfectly acceptable, but it's all gone
... /tr/turtle/tests
... (something about relative URLs and symlinks)
... We broke the web- this is acceptable - we should move on :)

Guus: One action is still open - RDF and RDF namespaces
... Not extremely urgent, but would be nice if fixed in two weeks

pfps: There are two open issues

Guus: There are two issues to do with the Primer
... It would be good to formally close them - but they have nothing to do with the REC documents
... Let's get back to it later
... New publications - we published RDF 1.1 documents on the 9th of January
... and the JSON-LD REC has been published
... Congratulations to all involved!

<gkellogg> ACTION-337?

<trackbot> ACTION-337 -- Gregg Kellogg to Find some test cases for https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-xml/index.html#parsetypeliteralpropertyelt -- due 2013-12-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/337

gkellogg: There is ACTION-337 which needs further work
... Test-cases for creating RDF literals from RDF-XML

manu: I had an action to create test-cases for RDF literals for RDF-XML
... They are available as references in the action item
... I generated test results based on my own processor
... Could someone who implemented that verify what I've done?

Comments on PR transition

Guus: We'll talk about PR process latr
... Quite a lot of discussions on language tags case conflict
... I think there's a very good reason to do nothing
... Is there a good reason to do anything?

<pfps> isn't it the case that lowercasing is correct, in some sense?

Guus: We could create an issue and postpone it

gavinc: I don't think this issue is going away

sandro: We should probably create a wiki page listing all the postponed issues

Guus: I still think we should do nothing in this case
... There's a new comment on N-Triples

gavinc: The @ token is duplicated
... It involves the literal production and the lang tag

Guus: I would be very surprised if we couldn't fix that before REC

sandro: Yes, no problem

ACTION on gavinc to fix the @ token duplication

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

ACTION gavinc to fix the @ token duplication

<trackbot> Created ACTION-338 - Fix the @ token duplication [on Gavin Carothers - due 2014-02-05].

Guus: That should handle that comment
... There was a comment about d-entailment
... Richard already replied
... That RDF Concepts should be read first

PatH: There's one point that Axel is misunderstanding - and the rest is in Concepts
... I'll write a couple of sentences to deal with this misunderstanding

ACTION PatH to respond to Axel on d-entailment

<trackbot> Created ACTION-339 - Respond to axel on d-entailment [on Patrick Hayes - due 2014-02-05].

Guus: The last one was a comment about Turtle

gavinc: The first one is an example using a prefix without declaring it
... It shouldn't do that
... I am not sure about the prefix names comment

Guus: Would you be willing to respond to the commenter?

<gavinc> The specification of prefixed names does not explicitly mention the meaning of ':' (i. e. "current document") if the empty prefix is not declared. That is an important hint for people new to the language. Wording similar to "If the empty prefix ':' is not explicitly declared, it is relative to the current document root."

pfps: I think there's some confusion

gavinc: He might be looking for a feature that Turtle does not have

<gkellogg> I think empty prefix was <#> in N3, was it not?

ACTION gavinc to respond to Lars about his Turtle comments

<trackbot> Created ACTION-340 - Respond to lars about his turtle comments [on Gavin Carothers - due 2014-02-05].

gavinc: in N3, the empty prefix is bound to a default URI, which is not true in Turtle

Guus: A link to the original TriG document is broken
... I would like to add the right link to the REC

ACTION Guus to ask Richard about original TriG link

<trackbot> Created ACTION-341 - Ask richard about original trig link [on Guus Schreiber - due 2014-02-05].

PR process

Guus: Any updates on the AC votes?
... Ivan asked a question about the final shortnames - so that people typing the URL of the old REC would get redirected to the new REC

sandro: That's only for Concepts and Semantics

<PatH> Would that make it impossible to read the old ones?? If so I object to that.

sandro: We don't usually redirect - worth discussing further

<gavinc> PatH, no you'd just need the DIRECT link to the specific version

<ericP> +1 to alert box

<pfps> +1 to alerting the universe about the change

Guus: It also holds for Schema, XML Syntax and Primer

<PatH> +1 to alert box on old one to indicate it is obsolete, but it should be readable.

<gavinc> can someone update http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/ too?

<ericP> it's a good idea

sandro: Why do you want RDF 1.1 as part of the URL?

<ericP> i ownder if we own that doc or if the submitter does

Guus: Can someone change the short name at this point in time?

gavinc: If we can't do the redirects, what will happen to all the already existing 1.1 URLs
... It will need to go one way or another

Guus: Happy either way as long as it is conformant with W3C policy

gkellogg: I don't think the old URLs have any values going forward

<PatH> I am against redirections. It sounds like a tar-pit and its not necessary.

gkellogg: If I wanted to go to RDF-MT, if we add more and more shortnames it will add confusion
... We need a shortname that consistently gets to the latest version

<PatH> The old URLs have a lot of value for checking the history of ideas.

Guus: That suggests redirecting to RDF-MT

<pfps> are we angels dancing on a version 1.1 pin here?

gavinc: There should be a reference in the header of the recommendation to the last version of the old one

Guus: We may need to discuss that with the activity lead

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-primer-20121211/

PatH: I don't think we should do any of these options - each document should have is own URL

sandro: That doesn't preclude a 'latest version' URL

<AZ> Why not do like for OWL 2: old document has a message that links to the new http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/

Guus: And you would expect that to get to the RDF 1.1 version

<sandro> for OWL2 we didn't reuse any names.

<ericP> PatH, the prob is that we have only 2 urls/doc, instead of 3.

PatH: It's perfectly clear there's two version of RDF - RDF '0' and RDF 1.1 - so what's wrong with that?

Guus: I'll bring this up with Ralph

ACTION Guus to discuss short names for RDF 1.1 with Ralph

<trackbot> Created ACTION-342 - Discuss short names for rdf 1.1 with ralph [on Guus Schreiber - due 2014-02-05].

Guus: Target REC dates
... The poll ends on the 9th of February - within one or two weeks after that date we should set a date for REC publication
... I'd like to propose a date now
... 25 of Feb or 27
... It would have been nice to go for the 10th, as it's exactly 10 years after the last version

sandro: It might be possible

Guus: I'd prefer not to do that - there will be a few things to be settled
... What about the 25?

<pfps> fine by me

<markus> +1

Guus: We want to publish the revised Notes at the same time

<ericP> +1, but bummer about missing the 10y aniv

<PatH> So we can say it took MORE than ten years..

Guus: Let's settle for the 25, then

<markus> https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/JSON_LD_Errata

<markus> http://www.w3.org/2014/json-ld-errata

Guus: We have an errata page for JSON-LD

<markus> the second one is the stable one used in the REC

<PatH> On reflection, I withdraw my comments about redirecting short names. Y'all do whatever you think is best :-)

Guus: The idea is that these pages will be wiki pages, so that anyone with a semantic web account can edit that page
... I am happy to do all the admin stuff for the final REC
... But we have plenty of time for that
... Let's move on with the Notes

Notes

Guus: On the Primer we got 4 quite extensive set of comments
... I responded to two of them
... In two weeks we should be able to discuss the revised version
... The idea is that we publish that Note on the 25th - same day as the day the REC go out
... One question - what's currently the main entry point for Linked Data?

http://linkeddata.org/?

(a bit oudated, but in the other case it's the OKFN directory)

(which might be too messy)

Guus: That's all for the primer - let's talk about datasets
... What's left to do on that note?

AZ: There are two issues mentioning the document
... PatH mentioned a couple of rephrasing on that note

ACTION PatH to do an additional review of the dataset note

<trackbot> Created ACTION-343 - Do an additional review of the dataset note [on Patrick Hayes - due 2014-02-05].

Guus: That's all for datasets - Test Cases now

<AZ> Note on dataset semantics http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-datasets/

Guus: There were a couple of disagreements on how stable wiki pages are
... I would like to propose to publish the RDF 1.1 test cases as a WG Note

gkellogg: Pretty much all of the information that was in the wikis and READMEs should be replicated in that document
... So there's just one place for people to look at
... This does *not* include any RDF/XML test cases

Guus: Any particular views on this?

gkellogg: Are the test cases correct still?
... When taking into account the RDF/XML changes?

Guus: I'd like to propose to the WG that we have a version ready for next time

<markus> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf11-testcases/index.html

Guus: We should move forward on publishing test cases as a note
... The other issue is for the test cases involving XML literals in RDF/XML
... Now that these literals are non-normative

<gkellogg> Current location of test cases for RDF/XML: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-xml/tests/

Guus: I propose we should include tests for features that are normative
... And exclude the non-normative ones
... We're going to approve the same tests as before, for the ones concerning features that are still normative
... And we'll publish them as a note when the REC are out

ACTION manu to take care of RDF/XML tests for next week

<trackbot> Created ACTION-344 - Take care of rdf/xml tests for next week [on Manu Sporny - due 2014-02-05].

Guus: Next telecon will be on the 12th of Feb
... Hopefully we have a positive AC vote by then

AOB

Guus: We're adjourned

<Guus> trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

RDF Working Group Teleconference

29 Jan 2014

Attendees

Contents

Action items

Comments on PR transition

PR process

Notes

AOB

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output