13:12:31 RRSAgent has joined #swcg 13:12:31 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/03/09-swcg-irc 13:12:33 RRSAgent, make logs world 13:12:33 Zakim has joined #swcg 13:12:35 Zakim, this will be 7924 13:12:36 Meeting: Semantic Web Coordination Group Teleconference 13:12:36 Date: 09 March 2011 13:12:36 ok, trackbot; I see SW_CG()9:00AM scheduled to start in 48 minutes 13:13:42 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting agenda for 2011-03-09: http://www.w3.org/mid/309A4A89-153C-4BD9-B684-E437A2B276FB@w3.org 13:13:49 -> 309A4A89-153C-4BD9-B684-E437A2B276FB@w3.org agenda call 13:46:22 manu has joined #swcg 13:46:44 LeeF has joined #swcg 13:53:30 TomB has joined #swcg 13:56:04 -> http://www.w3.org/mid/309A4A89-153C-4BD9-B684-E437A2B276FB@w3.org agenda call 13:56:13 Chair: Ivan 13:56:27 Regrets: Scott 13:58:54 zakim, dial ivan-voip 13:58:54 ok, ivan; the call is being made 13:58:55 SW_CG()9:00AM has now started 13:58:56 +Ivan 13:59:37 +mhausenblas 13:59:39 -Ivan 13:59:41 +Ivan 13:59:46 +LeeF 14:00:06 scribenick: LeeF 14:00:29 +davidwood 14:00:53 +Sandro 14:01:29 +??P26 14:01:34 zakim, I am ??P26 14:01:34 +manu; got it 14:02:55 Topic: admin 14:03:13 -> http://www.w3.org/2011/01/12-swcg-minutes.html last meeting minutes 14:03:33 PROPOSED: Accept: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/12-swcg-minutes.html as minutes of the last meeting, thanks to Scott for scribing. 14:03:43 APPROVED: Accept: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/12-swcg-minutes.html as minutes of the last meeting, thanks to Scott for scribing. 14:04:00 next meetingin two weeks - 23 Mar 2011 14:04:05 s/next/ivan: next/ 14:04:22 ivan: one topic for next meeting is about management of FOAF vocabulary by DCMI 14:05:03 ivan: next meeting has time zone craziness 14:05:13 ivan: so the meeting will be 1 hour earlier for non-US people 14:05:35 ivan: the system team has setup tracker for the CG 14:05:53 Guus has joined #swcg 14:06:09 Topic: celebration 14:06:30 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/void/ Void Vocabulary published 14:07:49 Topic: coordination 14:08:03 q+ to announce some other good news - rNews 14:08:09 ivan: we have 4 active WGs now 14:08:17 ... (technology WGs) 14:08:47 + +30889aaaa 14:09:02 zakim, aaaa is Guus 14:09:02 +Guus; got it 14:09:23 +[IPcaller] 14:09:30 ivan: 5th WG to come soon - provenance 14:09:36 zakim, IPcaller is Ian 14:09:36 +Ian; got it 14:10:07 ivan: some coordination issues have come up in the RDF WG 14:10:11 ... we need to agree on how to handle these 14:10:39 ... 1) agree how to handle coordination issues (e.g. something beyond WG A reviews WG B's document) 14:11:10 ... 2) look at specific issues that have com eup 14:11:13 s/com eup/come up 14:11:46 ack 14:11:49 q? 14:11:51 ack manu 14:11:51 manu, you wanted to announce some other good news - rNews 14:11:58 manu: the IPTC just approved RDFa for publishing news 14:12:36 ... we might want to talk about supporting the news industry at some point 14:13:11 q- 14:14:00 ivan: any past experiences to help with coordination? 14:14:18 Guus: it was a lot easier back when it was just RDF and OWL WGs, so we used the CG meetings to agree on how to handle cross-group issues 14:14:28 ... there were members active in both groups who could help coordinate 14:14:49 q+ to propose combining JSON Task Force with RDF Web Apps WG 14:14:54 Ian: it was a one-way street because RDF was already there 14:15:09 ... OWL needed to be consistent with established design of RDF 14:16:24 ivan: should we reinstate meetings to be every week? 14:16:44 ... let's track coordination issues with tracker 14:17:09 ... is this enough? 14:17:27 sandro: example? 14:17:41 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/CG/wiki/Open_Coordination_Issues current issues 14:17:56 ivan: This is all Lee's fault. 14:18:59 sandro: what is the CG's role? 14:19:10 ... the CG can make sure that reviews are done or task forces setup? 14:19:19 ivan: this group facilitates that the issues are settled somewhere and somehow 14:19:25 ... trying to figure out the best way to do that 14:19:31 manu: i don't think we need to meet every week 14:19:36 ... we can discuss many of these issues on the mailing list 14:20:17 +1 to bi-weekly meetings. I doubt I can make weekly meetings. 14:20:39 +1 to bi-weekly 14:20:46 (scribe notes consensus on bi-weekly meeting) 14:20:58 ivan: might be urgency at times... SPARQL is close to last call, e.g. 14:21:07 q+ to discuss the relative number of RDF WG issues related to other WGs. 14:21:14 ivan: for urgent things we can setup ad-hoc meetings 14:21:21 ... i will try to keep this time slot free 14:21:39 ivan: do we need joint task forces between groups? 14:21:43 ack manu 14:21:43 manu, you wanted to propose combining JSON Task Force with RDF Web Apps WG 14:21:48 ack manu 14:22:07 ack davidwood 14:22:07 davidwood, you wanted to discuss the relative number of RDF WG issues related to other WGs. 14:22:24 davidwood: this might look better in a couple of weeks - the RDF WG is churning a lot of new topics right now 14:22:44 ... my approach is to allow a lot of discussion to happen before we take steps to rein in the discussion based on charter 14:23:14 ... hope by the F2F meeting (mid-April) we'll have an idea of how much coordination we need to do with other WGs 14:23:29 q+ 14:23:35 ack LeeF 14:24:05 LeeF: The main reason that I brought this up to Ivan is because the state of the RDF WG is such that it affects SPARQL WG 14:24:38 LeeF: Is this something the RDF WG is going to decide that is in charter and something that they want to pursue? We don't want to send the SPARQL documents to LC and then tie RDF WG's hands. 14:26:07 manu: if we decide on something in this group, how is it implemented? 14:26:22 ... is the assumption that we have a general understanding of how to proceed and then the chairs implement it within their WGs? 14:26:26 q+ 14:26:34 ivan: chairs should go to their respective groups and make the issues clear to them 14:26:48 ack sandro 14:27:18 sandro: the w3c process says that dependencies between groups ask that one group comments on the other group's document after Last Call 14:27:32 ... that's a bit inefficient, so we're trying to shortcut that so there are no surprises / disagreements 14:28:00 ivan: "preempting the formal commenting dance" 14:29:07 subtopic: "Follow your nose" for graphs (SPARQL, RDF) 14:29:57 ivan: is the discussion in the RDF WG on this something that should happen there, or leave this to SPARQL WG? 14:30:25 sandro: the RDF group is giving a group of users that are potentially dissatisfied with how SPARQL handles this a voice 14:30:32 q+ to ask for clarification, given that this is new in SPARQL 14:30:47 ack LeeF 14:30:48 LeeF, you wanted to ask for clarification, given that this is new in SPARQL 14:34:18 LeeF: i think that this isn't a core enough issue for the RDF WG to warrant a formal WG comment - I think that RDF WG members should be encouraged to comment on the SPARQL group's work 14:34:44 ivan: RDF WG members may not even be aware that the document exist 14:37:16 davidwood: don't want to put too much process in the way of finding consensus and closing issues 14:39:03 ivan: what if Lee or Axel write an email to the RDF WG saying "here is the document that is in preparation by the SPARQL WG; here's what it contains; please discuss it there" 14:39:07 good idea to take action in RDF WG to comment on this SPARL document, but which document are we talking about (don't see the URI in the chat) 14:39:14 sandro: that works in this case, but not in the general case 14:39:21 ivan: agree 14:39:43 action: Axel to email the RDF WG regarding the http dataset protocol document 14:39:43 Created ACTION-1 - Email the RDF WG regarding the http dataset protocol document [on Axel Polleres - due 2011-03-16]. 14:40:06 Guus, it's this document: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/ 14:40:14 thanls 14:41:16 subtopic: turtle & sparql syntax 14:41:38 +1 to the basic notion that "Because of X we can't make progress" being the watermark for how we determine whether or not something is a Semantic Web Coordination Issue. 14:41:43 LeeF: SPARQL WG is pretty set here, so I don't think this is a coordination issue until the RDF WG decides that there is some blocking factor that SPARQL needs to look at 14:41:51 ... until then, I don't think this is a coordination issue, just a RDF WG issue 14:43:13 ok, Lee, you will get the floor during the Graphs TF discussion later to talk for a minute about this document 14:43:54 Guus, is this a separate call from the main RDF WG calls? 14:44:18 q+ 14:44:38 ack davidwood 14:45:08 q+ 14:46:18 I agree with David that we should be having wide-ranging discussions on the RDF WG in the beginning - if we can't have those types of discussions there, then there really is no place that we can have them. 14:46:47 We should be able to make heretical statements about RDF in the RDF WG :) 14:47:03 I'd put in a personal note that I think it is useful as a WG to discuss the bounds of discussion -- people otherwise invest a LOT of time into discussions that are eventually going to be deemed out of scope, and that's not really fair to them 14:47:44 I think there's a fine line to walk between unnaturally preventing healthy discussion and making sure that everyone understands that not everything discussed is really in scope 14:47:49 LeeF - yes, agree 14:48:43 ack Guus 14:49:13 Guus++ 14:50:16 ACTION: David to blog about the plans of the RDF WG vis a vis the charter 14:50:16 Created ACTION-2 - Blog about the plans of the RDF WG vis a vis the charter [on David Wood - due 2011-03-16]. 14:50:39 subtopic: blank nodes 14:50:54 ivan: RDF WG discussion of standardizing skolemized blank nodes 14:50:59 ... similar issuein RDB2RDF WG 14:51:03 s/issuein/issue in 14:51:10 ... might be similarities here? 14:51:38 -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/9 RDB2RDF WG Issue at hand 14:51:48 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/track/issues/9 14:52:39 mhausenblas: would like input from outside the WG 14:53:31 q+ to propose to bring the Issue to the attention of the RDF WG 14:53:41 ack Guus 14:53:41 Guus, you wanted to propose to bring the Issue to the attention of the RDF WG 14:53:48 +1 to bring the issue to the RDF WG 14:54:45 It fundamentally affects all other groups... seems that decisions made in RDF WG will affect all of the RDF-based technologies (obviously) - so this seems like a general issue that the RDF WG should discuss 14:54:50 ACTION: Michael to bring the RDB2RDF issue to the attention of the RDF WG 14:54:50 Created ACTION-3 - Bring the RDB2RDF issue to the attention of the RDF WG [on Michael Hausenblas - due 2011-03-16]. 14:57:47 subtopic: JSON and RDF API 14:58:08 manu: wrapping up RDFa core work, about to enter second last call and get Rec documents by June or July 14:58:14 ... that group is focused on publishing RDFa 14:58:21 ... but has also picked up RDF API and RDFa API 14:58:35 ... once we move away from publishing XHTML+RDFa and move to the API, many of the WG members will be less active 14:58:39 ... we'll have 3 people left 14:58:44 ... to work on the APIS 14:58:48 s/APIS/APIs 14:58:57 ... we also have a task force in the RDF WG to work on JSON 14:59:11 ... there is some amount of overlap between the RDF-in-JSON, RDF API, and RDFa API 14:59:17 ... they are designed to fit together 14:59:41 ... it might be best to coordinate those 3 pieces of work into a single working group (lowercase) 14:59:52 ... i.e. into a single group that works 15:01:07 q+ to say we did this before with RDFa 15:01:17 ack Guus 15:01:22 Guus, you wanted to say we did this before with RDFa 15:01:31 Guus: this is how we did the first version of RDFa (XHTML + BP group) 15:01:35 (Note that groups can't just ignore charters, for Patent reasons at least. To go outside of charter, the charter must be amended.) 15:03:08 [I have to leave, speak to some/many of you in an hour] 15:03:18 I also have another call 15:03:35 -Guus 15:04:48 cheers 15:04:52 -manu 15:04:54 -LeeF 15:04:56 -Ian 15:04:57 zakim, drop me 15:04:58 -mhausenblas 15:05:00 -davidwood 15:05:02 Ivan is being disconnected 15:05:04 -Ivan 15:05:14 trackbot, end telcon 15:05:14 Zakim, list attendees 15:05:15 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 15:05:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/03/09-swcg-minutes.html trackbot 15:05:16 As of this point the attendees have been Ivan, mhausenblas, LeeF, davidwood, Sandro, manu, +30889aaaa, Guus, Ian 15:05:16 RRSAgent, bye 15:05:16 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/09-swcg-actions.rdf : 15:05:16 ACTION: Axel to email the RDF WG regarding the http dataset protocol document [1] 15:05:16 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/09-swcg-irc#T14-39-43 15:05:16 ACTION: David to blog about the plans of the RDF WG vis a vis the charter [2] 15:05:16 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/09-swcg-irc#T14-50-16 15:05:16 ACTION: Michael to bring the RDB2RDF issue to the attention of the RDF WG [3] 15:05:16 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/03/09-swcg-irc#T14-54-50 15:05:20 -Sandro 15:05:22 SW_CG()9:00AM has ended 15:05:26 Attendees were Ivan, mhausenblas, LeeF, davidwood, Sandro, manu, +30889aaaa, Guus, Ian