RDF Working Group Teleconference -- 12 Feb 2014

<trackbot> Date: 12 February 2014

<gavinc> Guus, you have a copy of agenda that isn't on the wiki (which is down)?

<davidwood> Oh, joy

<Guus> it's slow but I can see it

<yvesr> Guus, just pushed the new diagrams to the primer

<yvesr> (still a few things to sort out but getting there)

<gavinc> 'cause it's FINALLY raining

scribenick pfps

<AndyS> c

Admin

<Guus> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 29 Jan telecon:

<ericP> +1

RESOLUTION: to accept the minutes of the 29 Jan telecon:

<sandro> trackbot, pointer?

<trackbot> Sorry, sandro, I don't understand 'trackbot, pointer?'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.

Guus: action items
... Item 337 gregg is done?

Gregg: yes

<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

Guus: Items 338, 339, 340, 341, 342 all done
... open actions
... action 98 done?

Sandro: underway

Guus: review of dataset note unknown
... rdf/xml tests done

Gregg: decided not to add them because they are not normative

Guus: OK

REC documentss

Guus: there are static versions of all the documents available
... changes had to be made to fix up some formatting issues
... comments
... turtle syntax errors all addressed
... when was the error introduced?

<AndyS> Turtle syntax error is in affects TriG as well.

Eric: information from the director is that if we test the change and send email to implementators and public that we will be OK
... we need to get back no complaints to be OK
... this is for both Turtle and TRIG
... Gregg you have the list of implementors

Gregg: are we actually changing the tests

<sandro> eric: we'll have to send mail to all the turtle and trig implementors, providing them the test case, and asking if they have a problem with this.

Eric: no, we would add a test that would be likely to break an implementation of either CR or PR

Gregg: can we add a test?

Eric: not really, we just need the implementors to say that they are willing to make any changes necessary

<sandro> eric: The Director wants implementors to have a chance to say no. Mail them the test and explain the situation, and hope they'll say "I already do this" or "i'll make this change soon". It should go into a post-rec test suite.

Eric: the change should go into any after-REC test suite

gregg: the RDFa test suite has has after-REC test suite

Guus: the fallback is to not make change

andy: so the PR makes something illegal that something actually accepts

eric: there are implementations that need to change

guus: the PR grammar is too restrictive

eric: yes

<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to clarify the effect on impls (bad syntax -> good, but they prob accepted it anyway)

guus: timing?

eric: if we sent email today ...

guus: we want an answer next week, so ask for it then

eric: OK

<Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to ask what we would do if people object either way

david: what would we do if there are objections both way?

guus: then we make no change

sandro: if we make no change then we should add a note saying that there is this divergence from SPARQL

guus: I can't expect anyone to complain

pfps: :-)

eric: i'll send out the email now

<ericP> <s> <p> """ ""\u0061 """ .

eric: that was the test
... the character after an internal quote can't be a \u escape

sandro: there are a number of tests needed

<sandro> """""""".

eric: yes

<sandro> """""\n""".

eric: I'll send internal email first saying that this was an unintentional error

<scribe> ACTION: eric to send email on Turtle unintentional error recovery [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/12-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-345 - Send email on turtle unintentional error recovery [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2014-02-19].

<sandro> Oh, right.

<sandro> """""\n""" is okay, right?

<sandro> being the same as "\"\"\n"

<ericP> yup

guus: propose to advance 8 documents to REC

<Guus> PROPOSED: to ask the Director to advance eight P(E)Rs to REC

<davidwood> +1

andy: what about the turtle change

<gkellogg> +1

<Arnaud> +1

guus: either way we go forward

eric: we should go forward either way

<AZ> +1 for 7 documents, -1 for Semantics, considering my formal objection before

<TallTed> +1

sandro: there is nothing more to do because this is the same as the last one

guus: in any case the WG is not very involved

<Guus> clarification: REC with Turtle change as discussed

<ericP> +1

<yvesr> +1

<gavinc> +1

<markus> +1

<Arnaud> +1

<sandro> +1

RESOLUTION: to ask the Director to advance eight P(E)Rs to REC, over Antoine's objection

guus: short names
... we keep rdf11- for the three short names that have existing versions (concepts, mt, primer)
... the page for the old version will give pointers to the different versions
... this is not really our concern, in any case
... there is an errata page and this is linked to from the drafts
... I'll also include the link in the notes

<scribe> ACTION: guus to add pointer to errata page from notes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/12-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-346 - Add pointer to errata page from notes [on Guus Schreiber - due 2014-02-19].

<markus> shall we remove the dot in rdf1.1 in "http://www.w3.org/2014/rdf1.1-errata"?

ted: I can't get to that page

guus: the page says do not link to this page but to the various documents

ted: a bit like a WikiPedia disambiguation page

guus: ivan set it up

sandro: I don't know how to fix it

WG notes

guus: no comments on notes?

david: no comments

guus: the "What's New" document has had no comments

<Guus> PROPOSED: republish as WG Note on 25 Feb without changes.

PROPOSED: republish What's New as WG Note on 25 Feb without changes.

<davidwood> +1

<Arnaud> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<Guus> +1

<sandro> +1

<yvesr> +1

<AZ> +1

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: republish What's New as WG Note on 25 Feb without changes.

<markus> +1

guus: I'll do the static version

<davidwood> Thanks, Guus

Guus: primer - several very constructive comments
... there are a few minor issues still outstanding, but no problems forseen
... there are a few editorial issues, mostly having to do with the figures
... Sandro did a rewrite of the semantics section

Markus: JSON LD earlier

Guus: yes, Yves is doing that

PROPOSED: to publish as Primer WG Note on 25 Feb with editorial changes

<gavinc> +1

<AZ> +1

<pchampin> +1

<davidwood> +1

<tbaker> +1

<markus> +1

<yvesr> +1

<Guus> +1

<sandro> +1

<TallTed> +1

<gkellogg> +1

RESOLUTION: to publish Primer as WG Note on 25 Feb with editorial changes

<Arnaud> belated +1

Guus: Datasets WG note
... no second review yet
... Antoinne, are changed required

Antoinne: there are two very minor notes, which could just be removed
... Pat was concerned with issues of style, not content
... If Pat gets his review in in a couple of days I can make changes and be ready for 19 Feb

<AZ> S/Antoinne/Antoine/

<scribe> ACTION: AZ to send Pat an email to get him to review Datasets, and make any changes for 19 Feb [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/02/12-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-347 - Send pat an email to get him to review datasets, and make any changes for 19 feb [on Antoine Zimmermann - due 2014-02-19].

Guus: Test Cases

Gregg: right now the test suite points to wiki pages
... we propose to copy the existing test suites to a permanent location
... the implementation reports are also in hg
... we propose to move the implementation reports to a permanent location
... ... and fix up all the pointers

Guus: any discussion?

Sandro: sounds fine by me

Guus: Gregg will need staff help for this

Gregg: what about 2013/2014

Sandro: there is no problem either way

Gregg: they will all use 2013

Guus: Sandro can you do the staff work required?

Sandro: yes

Gregg: RDF/XML references the 2004 test cases
... I propose to update it to the 2013 versions

PROPOSED: to publish RDF 1.1 Test Cases as WG Note

<markus> +1

<pchampin> +1

<TallTed> +1

<AZ> +1

<tbaker> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<gavinc> +1

<Guus> +1

<AndyS> +1

RESOLUTION: to publish RDF 1.1 Test Cases as WG Note

Open Issues

Guus: last telecon is next week
... currently two open issues
... ISSUE-78
... there is wording in Primer and there is the datasets note

<AZ> In the dataset note, there is http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-datasets/#named-graph-are-in-a-particular-relationship-with-what-the-graph-name-dereferences-to

Guus: is that sufficient?

Guus: silence is golden

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-78 as being addressed in Primer and Datasets notes

<AZ> +1

<tbaker> +1

<Guus> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<markus> +1

<TallTed> +1

<gavinc> +meh

<Arnaud> +1

<sandro> +1

RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-78 as being addressed in Primer and Datasets notes

<AndyS> +1+1

Guus: ISSUE-138

<davidwood> Belated +1

Guus: guidance on which syntaxes to use

Guus; the primer describes the syntaxes and gives some guidance

Guus: ... but does not have a complete guidance section
... that's as good as it gets

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-138 as being addressed in Primer

Sandro: I was waiting for an ack on primer - I have a couple of editorial comments

Guus: there was a message on 3 Feb

Sandro: I was waiting for an "it's all done"

<TallTed> :-)

Guus: it's all done

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-138 as being partially addressed in Primer

<AZ> +1

<TallTed> +1

<Guus> +1

<davidwood> +1

<markus> +1

<AndyS> +1

<gavinc> +1

<tbaker> +1

<sandro> issue-138?

<trackbot> issue-138 -- Guidance to RDF users and developers about which syntaxes to parse and publish -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/138

<sandro> +1 ASSUMING CHANGES ARE DONE AS REQUESTED

<Arnaud> 0 - seems weird to close admitting it is only partially addressed

RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-138 as being partially addressed in Primer, with a few editorial changes

pfps: the WG can't completely solve all problems

Namespace

Namespace Document

Namespace Documents

Guus: we can informally discuss this and make decisions next week

Sandro: no decisions for us to make here

Guus: fine, then we can do this informally and close now

scribing will now be at best intermittent

Sandro: we can do some magic to make everything work out right
... but the magic is hard and there is no consensus to how to get everything to work out

<gavinc> JSON-LD + Mustache is very evil for this sort of thing :D

<gkellogg> <div lang="en">description of that term in HTML English</div>

<markus> right, but you have several of those.. so there's no fall back as with plain literals

<sandro> eric: skos:definition

<tbaker> <rdfs:comment>The subject is an instance of a class.</rdfs:comment>

<ericP> skos:definition "A coded value specifying how often doses are administered."

<ericP> skos:definition "Total of all doses of this agent in a given period of time."

<ericP> skos:example "national number", "registry identifier", "sponsor protocol number".

<gavinc> dc:description "The Resource Description Framework (Rdf) is a structure for describing and interchanging metadata on the Web-anything from library catalogs and worldwide directories to bioinformatics, Mozilla internal data structures, and knowledge bases for artificial intelligence projects. Rdf provides a consistent framework and syntax for describing and querying data, making it possible to share website descriptions more easily. Rdf's capabilities, however,

<gavinc> have long been shrouded by its reputation for complexity and a difficult family of specifications. Practical Rdf breaks through this reputation with immediate and solvable problems to help you understand, master, and implement Rdf solutions. Practical Rdf explains Rdf from the ground up, providing real-world examples and descriptions of how the technology is being used in applications like Mozilla, Foaf, and Chandler, as well as infrastructure you can use to

<gavinc> build your own applications. This book cuts to the heart of the W3C's often obscure specifications, giving you tools to apply Rdf successfully in your own projects. The first part of the book focuses on the Rdf specifications. After an introduction to Rdf, the book covers the Rdf specification documents themselves, including Rdf Semantics and Concepts and Abstract Model specifications, Rdf constructs, and the Rdf Schema. The second section focuses on

<gavinc> programming language support, and the tools and utilities that allow developers to review, edit, parse, store, and manipulate Rdf/Xml. Subsequent sections focus on Rdf's data roots, programming and framework support, and practical implementation and use of Rdf and Rdf/Xml. If you want to know how to apply Rdf to information processing, Practical Rdf is for you. Whether your interests lie in large-scale information aggregation and analysis or in smaller-scale

<gavinc> projects like weblog syndication, this book will provide you with a solid foundation for working with Rdf."

<markus> sandro, just looked at your mail.. you use rdfs:isDefinedBy on properties/classes to point to the spec.. shouldn't that point to the vocabulary/ontology?

<TallTed> +1 for length progression rdfs:label -> rdfs:comment -> dc:description

<TallTed> skos:definition feels more formal than dc:description to me...

<sandro> good question, markus

<tbaker> +1 for dc:description

<gavinc> "This property may be used to indicate an RDF vocabulary in which a resource is described."

<tbaker> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/contributor> rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>

<TallTed> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby

<TallTed> An RDF property to exactly match the describedby relationship type introduced in http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking and formally defined in appendix D of the same document, i.e. the relationship A 'describedby' B asserts that resource B provides a description of resource A. There are no constraints on the format or representation of either A or B, neither are there any further constraints on either resource.

<tbaker> +1 rationale should be documented if a new BP property is coined

<TallTed> maaaaayyyyybe http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/states_and_properties#aria-describedby

<gavinc> TallTed: NOT aria ;)

<ericP> +1 to not listing vapid meta-meta-meta triples

<ericP> use a small typeface?

<ericP> +1 to not including "schema"

<tbaker> http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/skos.html

<sandro> "RDF Concepts Vocabulary"

<ericP> +1 to ASN1

<ericP> and OBO

<pchampin> GTG guys, sorry; bye

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

RDF Working Group Teleconference

12 Feb 2014

Attendees

Contents

Admin

REC documentss

WG notes

Open Issues

Namespace

Namespace Document

Namespace Documents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output