IRC log of rdf-wg on 2011-08-24

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:13:35 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:13:35 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/24-rdf-wg-irc
14:13:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:13:37 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:13:39 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
14:13:39 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 47 minutes
14:13:40 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:13:40 [trackbot]
Date: 24 August 2011
14:13:51 [ivan]
Chair: ivan
14:51:12 [ivan]
Regrets: Pierre-Antoine Champain, Antoine Zimmerman, David Wood, Guus Schreiber
14:55:35 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
14:55:42 [Zakim]
+gavinc
14:55:52 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
14:55:52 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
14:55:54 [Zakim]
+Ivan
14:58:54 [manu1]
zakim, code?
14:58:54 [Zakim]
the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu1
14:59:04 [Zakim]
+??P2
14:59:10 [manu1]
zakim, I am ??P2
14:59:10 [Zakim]
+manu1; got it
14:59:31 [Zakim]
+tomayac
15:00:10 [Zakim]
+ +44.207.923.aaaa
15:00:38 [ivan]
zakim, aaaa is Yves
15:00:38 [Zakim]
+Yves; got it
15:00:42 [Scott_Bauer]
Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:03 [ivan]
scribenick: tomayac
15:01:08 [moustaki]
moustaki has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:10 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:16 [moustaki]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see gavinc, Ivan, manu1, tomayac, Yves
15:01:17 [SteveH_]
SteveH_ has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:20 [iand]
iand has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:43 [ivan]
-> Last meeting's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-08-17
15:01:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.443.212.aabb
15:01:53 [ivan]
Topic: Admin
15:02:02 [AlexHall]
zakim, aabb is me
15:02:02 [Zakim]
+AlexHall; got it
15:02:11 [SteveH_]
Zakim, what's the code?
15:02:11 [Zakim]
the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), SteveH_
15:02:20 [Zakim]
+OpenLink_Software
15:02:28 [MacTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:02:28 [Zakim]
+MacTed; got it
15:02:30 [yvesr]
Zakim, Yves is me
15:02:30 [Zakim]
+yvesr; got it
15:02:31 [Zakim]
+??P12
15:02:33 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:02:33 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:02:36 [yvesr]
Zakim, mute me
15:02:36 [Zakim]
yvesr should now be muted
15:02:39 [Zakim]
+??P13
15:02:44 [SteveH_]
Zakim, ??p13 is me
15:02:44 [Zakim]
+SteveH_; got it
15:03:00 [Zakim]
+Scott_Bauer
15:03:01 [iand]
zakim, +??p12 is me
15:03:01 [Zakim]
sorry, iand, I do not recognize a party named '+??p12'
15:03:02 [Zakim]
-Scott_Bauer
15:03:06 [iand]
zakim, +??P12 is me
15:03:06 [Zakim]
sorry, iand, I do not recognize a party named '+??P12'
15:03:08 [SteveH]
Zakim, SteveH_ is me
15:03:08 [Zakim]
+SteveH; got it
15:03:14 [iand]
zakim, ??P12 is me
15:03:14 [Zakim]
+iand; got it
15:03:17 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
15:03:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see gavinc, Ivan, manu1, tomayac, yvesr (muted), AlexHall, MacTed (muted), iand, SteveH
15:03:19 [Zakim]
On IRC I see iand, SteveH, AlexHall, yvesr, Scott_Bauer, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, tomayac, manu1, gavinc, ericP, sandro, trackbot, NickH, manu
15:03:38 [Zakim]
+Scott_Bauer
15:03:42 [ivan]
Last meeting's minutes: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-08-17
15:03:57 [ivan]
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 17 Aug telecon
15:04:14 [tomayac]
Topic: Accept Minutes from August 17
15:04:39 [tomayac]
issues with many red boxes. ericP was the scribe
15:05:00 [tomayac]
ivan: seems to have been a problem with the script. sandro takes care of that.
15:05:21 [tomayac]
ivan: maybe keep the minutes open, ask ericP, sandro to review.
15:05:24 [Zakim]
+LeeF
15:05:47 [tomayac]
PROPOSED keep the minutes open and ask sandro and ericP to review them
15:05:47 [ivan]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
15:06:10 [tomayac]
ivan: most actions on people who are absent
15:06:10 [ivan]
ACTION-74?
15:06:10 [trackbot]
ACTION-74 -- Manu Sporny to send JSON discussion preparation message to public-rdf-wd -- due 2011-08-24 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:06:10 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/74
15:06:24 [manu1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0060.html
15:06:27 [tomayac]
manu: action-74 has been done
15:06:54 [ivan]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
15:06:56 [tomayac]
ivan: for the other actions, we have to wait for people to come back
15:07:02 [PatH]
PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:07:07 [ivan]
ACTION-69?
15:07:07 [trackbot]
ACTION-69 -- Gavin Carothers to update Turtle issue list to reflect current status -- due 2011-07-27 -- OPEN
15:07:07 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/69
15:07:09 [tomayac]
ivan: one action on gavin
15:07:20 [tomayac]
gavin: action on me is done
15:07:26 [PatH]
I will be on IRC but probably not on the phone for this telecon.
15:07:31 [tomayac]
ivan: action-69 closed
15:07:38 [tomayac]
ivan: action-78 closed
15:07:50 [tomayac]
ivan: one action on pat. pat on irc.
15:08:06 [tomayac]
ivan: i will take care of open actions to be closed
15:08:12 [ivan]
Topic: F2F
15:08:15 [Zakim]
+ +44.164.235.aacc
15:08:18 [tomayac]
ivan: f2f
15:08:28 [NickH]
Zakim, +44.164.235.aacc is me
15:08:28 [Zakim]
+NickH; got it
15:08:28 [tomayac]
Topic: F2F
15:08:45 [tomayac]
ivan: pending issue for the f2f counterpart
15:08:56 [yvesr]
Zakim, unmute me
15:08:56 [Zakim]
yvesr should no longer be muted
15:09:02 [tomayac]
ivan: people interested in a bbc-hosted site
15:09:09 [tomayac]
ivan: offer still valid?
15:09:22 [tomayac]
yves: pending manager approval
15:09:28 [PatH]
I have a very old action which I confess I no longer can remember what exactly it actions me to do. Maybe someone with a better memory can jog me off-line in due course.
15:09:32 [tomayac]
ivan: where is that?
15:09:48 [tomayac]
yves: says location
15:10:13 [tomayac]
ivan: hoping this will work out
15:10:15 [gavinc]
Not exactly cheap in Boston either. :( Gone up since I was last there
15:10:27 [tomayac]
ivan: anything else on that, yves?
15:10:42 [tomayac]
ivan: will be organized by PERSON
15:10:55 [ivan]
s/PERSON/Olivier Thereaud/
15:10:56 [PatH]
or persons unknown?
15:11:07 [yvesr]
Thereaux
15:11:25 [ivan]
Topic: JSON work progress & planning
15:11:32 [yvesr]
Zakim, mute me
15:11:34 [Zakim]
yvesr should now be muted
15:11:39 [tomayac]
ivan: unsure where to start
15:11:50 [tomayac]
ivan: w/o going into the details
15:12:02 [tomayac]
ivan: manu and ian, just say a view words on the documents
15:12:28 [tomayac]
ian: based on the talis format
15:12:37 [tomayac]
ian: put up a working draft
15:12:43 [tomayac]
ian: came out of the f2f
15:12:54 [tomayac]
ian: draft is an overview of the format
15:12:57 [Zakim]
+EricP
15:13:06 [PatH]
to be, or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind of man to take up arms against a sea of hackers, and by opposing RDF them, or...
15:13:34 [tomayac]
ivan: to have an idea, beyond the spec, do you have an idea of # of implementations and adopters, ian?
15:13:41 [tomayac]
ian: at least half a dozen
15:13:53 [manu1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0060.html
15:13:54 [tomayac]
manu: wrote a quick email
15:14:13 [tomayac]
manu: based on initial set of feature of digital bazaar
15:14:20 [tomayac]
manu: about 90% feature-complete
15:14:36 [tomayac]
manu: continuing on public-linked-json@
15:14:50 [tomayac]
manu: including non-typical semwebbers
15:15:07 [tomayac]
manu: editorially 70-80% feature-complete
15:15:25 [tomayac]
manu: four interoperable implementations, javascript, python, php, c++
15:15:31 [tomayac]
manu: erlang in the works
15:15:38 [tomayac]
manu: people seem to like it
15:15:47 [tomayac]
manu: implemented in seevl.net by apassant
15:16:08 [tomayac]
ivan: let's start w/ the knife fight
15:16:23 [tomayac]
ivan: calling thomas
15:16:45 [ivan]
scribenick: manu1
15:17:07 [manu1]
Thomas: I sent an e-mail to the mailing list - JSON Emergency Brake - a bit controversial
15:17:26 [manu1]
Thomas: I made sure to check w/ all parties involved before sending it out...
15:17:32 [ivan]
-> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0131.html Thomas' email
15:17:33 [mischat]
mischat has joined #rdf-wg
15:17:42 [manu1]
Thomas: Tried not to offend anyone...
15:18:31 [manu1]
Thomas: I was co-editor of JSON spec. Ian comes up w/ first commit for RDF/JSON - then we could iterate over it.
15:19:35 [manu1]
Thomas: I was involved in public-linked-json list - paid attention as a listener... in-between two specs... overall, I felt that what we see in RDF/JSON is something that comes from the RDF camp - it doesn't really feel like JSON at all. We need to pull the emergency brake and stop the work on RDF/JSON and focus on JSON-LD.
15:20:06 [manu1]
Thomas: From the POV of a JavaScript developer, it doesn't feel like native JSON. It's a culture clash...
15:20:30 [manu1]
Thomas: JSON-LD is relatively easily mapped to triples. So, why do we have both?
15:20:39 [ivan]
q?
15:21:01 [iand]
q+ to say I am agnostic
15:21:05 [manu1]
Thomas: RDF/JSON feels like NTriples in JSON.
15:21:20 [PatH]
Is there any RDF that CANT be represented in JSON-LD?
15:21:20 [manu1]
q+ to say that I feel pretty strongly about JSON-LD
15:21:25 [ivan]
scribenick: tomayac
15:21:32 [ivan]
ack iand
15:21:32 [Zakim]
iand, you wanted to say I am agnostic
15:21:33 [LeeF]
It's definitely not a matter of "should be used for". More a matter of "is used for"
15:21:45 [tomayac]
ian: i am agnostic
15:21:58 [tomayac]
ian: it's not ideomatic json
15:22:10 [ivan]
q?
15:22:26 [ivan]
ack manu1
15:22:26 [Zakim]
manu1, you wanted to say that I feel pretty strongly about JSON-LD
15:22:33 [tomayac]
ian: just a convenience format, mostly out of talis' needs
15:22:38 [gavinc]
+q to say that TopQuadrant's position has changed
15:22:42 [tomayac]
manu: not so agnostic, feel strongly about json-ld
15:23:00 [tomayac]
manu: main concern i have, we could do a lot for linked data adoption
15:23:17 [tomayac]
manu: i feel that json-ld is targeted at an audience we don't cover yet
15:23:27 [tomayac]
manu: they don't want to go into the sparql, triple world
15:23:33 [PatH]
question: JSON-LD maps to triples, but can it encode any RDF at all? Or is some part of RDF missing? What would it take to extend json-ld to cover all of RDF?
15:23:38 [tomayac]
manu: they want linked data, but don#t want to do much to get it
15:23:54 [tomayac]
manu: data exchange format for rdf people
15:24:00 [gavinc]
PatH, I think rather JSON-LD can encode things that RDF -can't-.
15:24:12 [PatH]
Maube , gavin, but what about the other way?
15:24:16 [tomayac]
manu: you already have ntriples, rdf/xml, turtle, etc.
15:24:21 [LeeF]
And yet despite those, people use RDF/JSON (or similar)
15:24:35 [LeeF]
This is a standardization group.
15:24:35 [tomayac]
manu: creating ntriples in json doesn't solve any problems imho
15:24:58 [iand]
wasn't this all sketched out in a table by sandro?
15:25:02 [tomayac]
manu: i feel that it doesn't necessarily grow the number of linked data
15:25:16 [LeeF]
iand, yes, though i'm not sure the table was ever accepted by everyone :)
15:25:17 [tomayac]
manu: json-ld attempts to move the existing json already oth there to a new level
15:25:30 [tomayac]
manu: in order to get far more meaning
15:25:42 [tomayac]
manu: converned of the use cases
15:25:55 [tomayac]
manu: we have two technologies to tackle those
15:26:08 [tomayac]
manu: it's like the microdata, rdfa thing again
15:26:22 [tomayac]
manu: ivan, you didn't want this comparison
15:26:29 [tomayac]
manu: heavy overlap of use cases
15:26:33 [PatH]
I see a future here where json-ld seduces a lot of people into useiing RDF wihtout realizing they are using it. Which is great, but then what happens when they wake up and smell the RDF coffee: are they stranded by the limitations of json-ld, or can they move smpoothly intobeing real semweb people without having to learn a whole new set of tools?
15:26:44 [tomayac]
manu: concerned that two last calls are published
15:26:50 [ivan]
q?
15:26:53 [tomayac]
manu: people might get very confused
15:27:03 [tomayac]
manu: hoping we avoid that
15:27:15 [tomayac]
manu: no one talked about microdata two years ago
15:27:19 [gavinc]
PatH, I don't think there is any RDF that can't be expressed in JSON-LD
15:27:37 [ivan]
ack gavinc
15:27:37 [Zakim]
gavinc, you wanted to say that TopQuadrant's position has changed
15:27:44 [PatH]
OK, great. Then I vote that we adopt json-ld
15:27:45 [iand]
actually I see it differently, people may be seduced by having a nice JSON format so they write systems to consume it, but why do they need RDF at all?
15:27:57 [tomayac]
gavin: our position has changed a bit
15:28:10 [tomayac]
gavin: we spent some time using and looking at json-ld
15:28:13 [PatH]
Well, that is their problem. If they don;t need it, fine. BUt I supsect that many of them will, and those are the ones I care about.
15:28:24 [tomayac]
gavin: we haven't implemented rdf/json
15:28:40 [iand]
i think it's a mistake to hide the rdf model from developers because it's non-intuitive for many OO developers
15:28:46 [tomayac]
gavin: unlikely we will implement rdf/json, we see limited value, different from the opinion we had a couple of months ago
15:29:06 [tomayac]
ivan: on path's question
15:29:08 [PatH]
If nobody is going to implement it, its dead in the water.
15:29:17 [ivan]
s/path's/pat's/
15:29:19 [tomayac]
manu: answering path's question
15:29:26 [gavinc]
I will say that TQ isn't everyone ;)
15:29:29 [NickH]
RDF/XML = RDF for XML developers
15:29:29 [NickH]
JSON-LD = RDF for JSON developers
15:29:31 [tomayac]
manu: no rdf that can't be expressed in json-ld
15:29:32 [NickH]
?
15:29:35 [ivan]
s/path's/pat's/
15:29:35 [iand]
manu1: does it have graph support?
15:29:36 [gavinc]
And there are implementations of RDF/JSON
15:29:42 [NickH]
Worried that JSON-LD hides the triples too much
15:29:47 [tomayac]
manu: working on lists
15:29:48 [gavinc]
RDF/XML is NOT RDF for XML developers, take that back! ;)
15:29:58 [tomayac]
ivan: does it have graph support?
15:30:07 [tomayac]
manu: what do you mean?
15:30:08 [PatH]
Hey, rdf?XML hides the triples very effectively.
15:30:15 [PatH]
rdf/xml
15:30:15 [LeeF]
s/manu1:/manu1,/
15:30:19 [tomayac]
ian: (clarifies)
15:30:20 [NickH]
PatH: yes!
15:30:36 [tomayac]
manu: we can do graph literals, and we could support graph identifiers
15:30:46 [ericP]
<g1> { <s1> <p1> <o1> } <g2> { <s2> <p2> <o2> } vs. <s1> <p1> { <s2> <p2> <o2> }
15:30:52 [ericP]
i read graph literals as the latter
15:30:57 [PatH]
what about blank nodes? I dont see how to get them into json-ld from a quick read.
15:31:30 [Zakim]
+tomayac.a
15:31:50 [PatH]
I guess that is meta-scribing.
15:32:03 [tomayac]
ivan: what about blank nodes
15:32:08 [tomayac]
manu: full blank node support
15:32:18 [PatH]
OK, great. I'm a believer.
15:32:22 [tomayac]
manu: people wanted us to describe the full process w/o calling rdf
15:32:35 [tomayac]
manu: we were able to not reinvent rdf
15:32:44 [NickH]
Does JSON-LD have any relation to RDFa profiles?
15:32:46 [tomayac]
manu: we say unlabeled node instead of blank node
15:33:07 [ericP]
"unlabeled node" is even consistent with the RDF concepts
15:33:08 [tomayac]
manu: blank node support is there, and it made the normalization algorithm a nitemare
15:33:26 [ericP]
q?
15:33:38 [MacTed]
q+
15:33:40 [tomayac]
nickh: does json-ld have any relation to rdfa profiles?
15:33:44 [MacTed]
Zakim, unmute me
15:33:44 [Zakim]
MacTed should no longer be muted
15:33:46 [tomayac]
nickh: it seems very similar
15:34:03 [tomayac]
nickh: we don't want to make the same error as w/ rdf/xml w/ hiding triples
15:34:17 [tomayac]
manu: the only relation to rdfa profiles is the @context
15:34:34 [manu1]
"@context": "http://example.org/mycontext"
15:34:39 [tomayac]
manu: in @context you can define the context
15:34:58 [tomayac]
manu: meant to be put inline, but would be nice to be able to just declare it somewhere
15:35:00 [ivan]
q+
15:35:13 [tomayac]
manu: it can be a separate document
15:35:34 [tomayac]
manu: same format as inline, just as a separate document
15:35:43 [tomayac]
manu: it's a simple key/value map
15:35:51 [tomayac]
manu: it has also type coercion rules
15:36:04 [tomayac]
manu: we don't want to make the rdf/xml error of hiding triples
15:36:09 [tomayac]
manu: we do this error
15:36:13 [tomayac]
manu: we hide triples
15:36:27 [tomayac]
manu: we wanted to present developers objects, not triples
15:36:40 [ivan]
ack MacTed
15:36:44 [MacTed]
RDF/JSON is limited to RDF. JSON-LD allows for other Linked Data models/implementations -- *with* full support for RDF.
15:36:44 [MacTed]
RDF is limited to HTTP IRIs. JSON-LD allows for non-HTTP IRIs, among other things.
15:36:45 [tomayac]
manu: triples can be easily and losslessly extracted, though
15:37:05 [tomayac]
macted: json-ld seems to be a json superset
15:37:47 [ivan]
q?
15:37:48 [MacTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:37:48 [Zakim]
MacTed should now be muted
15:37:51 [tomayac]
macted: believe that json-ld won't break any rdf
15:37:54 [ivan]
ack me
15:38:08 [NickH]
Can you parse something similar to Talis JSON as JSON-LD?
15:38:10 [tomayac]
ivan: i don't know whether we need to go into too much technical details
15:38:19 [tomayac]
ivan: rdfa has moved away from profiles
15:38:20 [iand]
NickH: not really
15:38:34 [tomayac]
ivan: a little amazed that json-ld still uses profiles
15:38:41 [iand]
q+ to ask about datatypes
15:38:45 [NickH]
ok, thanks
15:38:47 [ivan]
ack iand
15:38:47 [Zakim]
iand, you wanted to ask about datatypes
15:38:51 [tomayac]
manu: we do it, as web devs are a different crowd than rdf people
15:39:38 [gavinc]
+q to mention that the RDF WG may NOT be the best place to finish developing JSON-LD
15:40:02 [iand]
my question was can json-ld represent properties that have multiple values with different datatypes
15:40:04 [gavinc]
iand: Can you have properties with values with different datatypes?
15:40:17 [manu1]
"foo:bar": [{"@iri": "http://example.org"}, {"@literal": "foo"}, {"@literal": "foo", "@datatype": "xsd:bar"}]
15:40:31 [tomayac]
manu: responding to ian's question via code sample
15:40:54 [tomayac]
ian: parsing the json, yes, question answered
15:41:00 [tomayac]
ivan: how do we move forward?
15:41:10 [tomayac]
ivan: my understanding from the amsterdam f2f
15:41:29 [tomayac]
ivan: we were moving towards rdf/json as low level exchange format
15:41:39 [tomayac]
ivan: and json-ld in an incubator mode
15:41:49 [tomayac]
ivan: at some time look at json-ld again
15:41:58 [PatH]
FWIW, my only gripe with the -ld document so far is some minor wording changes (mostly avoiding the word 'define' in various places).
15:42:24 [manu1]
PatH, the language is rough and needs to be cleaned up...
15:42:25 [tomayac]
ivan: has the incubator mode of json-ld come to a stage where we can look at it again
15:42:45 [tomayac]
tomayac: +1 on having a look at it again
15:42:47 [gavinc]
+1 to looking at JSON-LD again
15:42:48 [manu1]
+1 to look at JSON-LD again.
15:42:49 [iand]
happy for WG to look at json-ld again
15:42:51 [iand]
+1
15:42:52 [MacTed]
+1
15:42:52 [LeeF]
-1
15:42:56 [NickH]
+1 to look at JSON-LD again.
15:43:06 [tomayac]
ivan: leef, can you explain?
15:43:06 [PatH]
+1
15:43:12 [gavinc]
q?
15:43:18 [tomayac]
leef: i don't think this wg is the right group
15:43:21 [manu1]
q+ to discuss the right group
15:43:34 [yvesr]
+1
15:43:36 [tomayac]
leef: it should be addressed more by a web apps-ish group
15:43:41 [ivan]
ack gavinc
15:43:41 [Zakim]
gavinc, you wanted to mention that the RDF WG may NOT be the best place to finish developing JSON-LD
15:43:43 [tomayac]
leef: just look up the old minutes
15:43:51 [tomayac]
gavin: sharing lee's concern
15:43:52 [PatH]
I dont see 'look at' as meaning 'take control of'.
15:44:06 [PatH]
So I understand lee's concern but thinkit is misplaced.
15:44:09 [LeeF]
PatH, I agree - the part I didn't add is that we have limited time & resources in the group
15:44:24 [PatH]
probably me on IRC.
15:44:35 [ivan]
q?
15:44:36 [tomayac]
gavin: i don't think we have the right people to finsih json-ld
15:44:40 [ivan]
ack manu1
15:44:40 [Zakim]
manu1, you wanted to discuss the right group
15:44:44 [ivan]
q+
15:44:48 [tomayac]
manu: sharing the same concerns of gavin
15:44:53 [NickH]
yes, I agree that this might not be the right group of people
15:45:01 [tomayac]
manu: everyone in this group is fantastic and has a strong history in rdf
15:45:12 [LeeF]
Exactly. Couldn't agree more with what Manu just said
15:45:17 [yvesr]
manu1, the BBC does, I would think
15:45:25 [tomayac]
manu: but i don't think enough people in this wg use javascript and json enough in their daily lives
15:45:31 [SteveH]
we use loads of JSON and Javascript
15:45:44 [LeeF]
We use loads of JSON and JavaScript too, but not in the way that JSON-LD views the world
15:45:44 [SteveH]
a bit of a simplistic generalisation
15:45:45 [tomayac]
manu: the people on public-linked-json@ are the right people imho
15:45:51 [iand]
we should also look (briefly) at the microdata json serialization which has some overlap
15:45:54 [gavinc]
I did/do, but it's not exactly a TopQuadrant strong point at the moment.
15:46:01 [ivan]
q?
15:46:05 [ivan]
ack ivan
15:46:06 [PatH]
Who is in charge of json-ld right now? Can we simply advise them in a friendly way?
15:46:18 [tomayac]
ivan: putting on the official hat
15:46:30 [tomayac]
ivan: we do not have a group that could take the place
15:46:31 [manu1]
PatH - I'm the current editor and am running the calls, at the moment.
15:46:36 [PatH]
suits you, Ivan.
15:46:47 [tomayac]
ivan: the rdf group is still the closest one that could standardize this
15:47:00 [tomayac]
ivan: spinning off a separate wg would slow down the process
15:47:27 [LeeF]
q+
15:47:43 [tomayac]
ivan: also what tomayac said: if this work is going in the right direction, then publishing rdf/json is a strange message to send out
15:47:52 [iand]
q+
15:47:59 [ivan]
ack LeeF
15:48:01 [tomayac]
ivan: we need to avoid any kind of message that could be misunderstood
15:48:19 [SteveH]
+1 to LeeF
15:48:20 [tomayac]
leef: not sure if it's practicable: but maybe this group should do either
15:48:26 [manu1]
+1 to what Lee said - this group has enough on its plate.
15:48:26 [PatH]
Is the issue that the intended audience would distrust the spec if it was emitted by this group? NOthing we can do about that if so. OR is it that we are less than ideally qualified to s=write this? If that is the issue, I suggest that we trust manu and make comments on drafts without being obstructive.
15:48:32 [tomayac]
leef: we're busy w/ the core stuff
15:48:57 [tomayac]
leef: speaking for myself, we should not publish either
15:48:58 [ivan]
ack iand
15:49:08 [tomayac]
ivan: not worried about the charter, quick remark
15:49:24 [PatH]
I think that something needs to be given the W3C imprimateur. That matters to a lot of people out there.
15:49:35 [gavinc]
In other words, can we write a JSON-LD-Triples ;)
15:49:35 [LeeF]
PatH, I think the issue is the second. (At least, that's (one of) my concern)
15:50:03 [LeeF]
PatH, I think it matters less to the people who are the core audience of JSON-LD, but that's purely speculation on my part
15:50:17 [PatH]
Well, then, I dont see that as an issue. Y'all trust me to write the model theory, I m happy to trust manu to write the JSON stuff.
15:50:39 [PatH]
OR whoever feels they know what they are talking about :-)
15:50:55 [gavinc]
I just want to make sure we can get more feedback from other JSON developers
15:51:01 [iand]
my question was: is there a profile of JSON-LD that subsumes what the purpose of RDF/JSON is, i.e. a regular structure that requires no parsing on client
15:51:23 [PatH]
Yes, we always need that pre-publiish-last-call-comments stuff to go on, might take a little longer for this one.
15:51:24 [tomayac]
manu: there is a structure that is an array of objects
15:51:30 [NickH]
iand, a bit like N-Triples couple be a subset of Turtle but can be parsed faster?
15:51:38 [ivan]
q?
15:51:44 [tomayac]
manu: you can write it in such a way that it's only one level deep, normalization takes care of that
15:51:53 [iand]
yes, like ntriples/turtle
15:52:05 [tomayac]
manu: flat structure, ends up looking very much like turtle
15:52:10 [tomayac]
ivan: 5 more minutes
15:52:14 [gavinc]
15 more minutes
15:52:23 [tomayac]
ivan: not appropriate to decide something now
15:52:26 [PatH]
just as long as it uses UTF-8...
15:52:31 [iand]
manu: would you be able to send an example to the wg list?
15:53:18 [tomayac]
ivan: my feeling is that on one hand json-ld might be more appropriate to happen in a separate community group that could be merged into a separate wg
15:53:36 [tomayac]
ivan: the second thing is we might suspend rdf/json work
15:53:45 [tomayac]
ivan: maybe even completely stop it
15:54:01 [tomayac]
ivan: rdf/json might be subsumed by json-ld
15:54:15 [tomayac]
ivan: this wg might focus on graphs etc.
15:54:19 [iand]
+1 to ivan
15:54:22 [manu1]
+1 to ivan
15:54:22 [gavinc]
+1
15:54:25 [tomayac]
ivan: only my opinion, or others agree?
15:54:28 [NickH]
+1
15:54:30 [MacTed]
+1
15:54:40 [tomayac]
ivan: proposing to stop the json discussion
15:54:40 [PatH]
not sure what we are voting on
15:54:55 [tomayac]
ivan: reporting to the chairs, the discussion should go on via email
15:54:59 [PatH]
+1
15:55:22 [LeeF]
PatH, did you just vote affirmatively for an explicitly unknown question? :)
15:55:23 [tomayac]
ivan: two more minutes to go
15:55:35 [PatH]
I thought my question was answered...
15:55:46 [LeeF]
ah ok, i missed that :D
15:55:48 [tomayac]
ivan: ntriple issue and utf8
15:55:48 [PatH]
OK, put the knives awy now, guys.
15:56:11 [gavinc]
+q did the chairs/staff get the the comments from last week and emails about opening up the mailing list?
15:56:20 [gavinc]
+q to ask if the chairs/staff get the the comments from last week and emails about opening up the mailing list?
15:56:29 [tomayac]
ivan: proposes to adjourn the meeting
15:56:40 [PatH]
OK, bye all.
15:56:45 [tomayac]
ivan: ideally in one week we could have a final decision on the json issue
15:56:52 [tomayac]
ivan: meeting adjourned
15:56:56 [tomayac]
leef: last question
15:57:06 [tomayac]
leef: what was up w/ the mailing list?
15:57:25 [tomayac]
leef: (explains) people from rdf-comments@ could not subscribe / post
15:57:43 [tomayac]
leef: they are not wg members, but expected they could subscribe
15:58:17 [tomayac]
ivan: this structure is not so unusual to have two mailing lists, also on other wgs
15:58:20 [gavinc]
s/leef/gavinc
15:58:26 [tomayac]
ivan: by desing
15:58:42 [tomayac]
ivan: we can rediscussed, but w/o the chairs, can't comment
15:58:53 [tomayac]
s/desing/design/
15:58:59 [tomayac]
ivan: no strong feeling about it
15:59:13 [tomayac]
ivan: if the majority decides to change it, we change it
15:59:20 [tomayac]
ivan: adjounred, second time
15:59:30 [iand]
bye all
15:59:31 [Zakim]
-MacTed
15:59:33 [yvesr]
bye!
15:59:35 [Zakim]
-yvesr
15:59:39 [Zakim]
-manu1
15:59:42 [Zakim]
-Ivan
15:59:45 [Zakim]
-AlexHall
15:59:45 [Scott_Bauer]
Scott_Bauer has joined #rdf-wg
15:59:47 [AlexHall]
AlexHall has left #rdf-wg
15:59:47 [Zakim]
-NickH
15:59:51 [Zakim]
-tomayac.a
15:59:55 [Zakim]
-gavinc
15:59:57 [Zakim]
-Scott_Bauer
16:00:01 [Zakim]
-iand
16:00:10 [Zakim]
-LeeF
16:00:20 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
16:00:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see tomayac, SteveH, EricP
16:00:21 [Zakim]
On IRC I see mischat, iand, SteveH, yvesr, Zakim, RRSAgent, MacTed, LeeF, ivan, tomayac, manu1, gavinc, ericP, sandro, trackbot, NickH, manu
16:00:29 [Zakim]
-SteveH
16:00:35 [ivan]
trackbot, end telcon
16:00:35 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:00:35 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been gavinc, Ivan, manu1, tomayac, +44.207.923.aaaa, +1.443.212.aabb, AlexHall, MacTed, yvesr, Scott_Bauer, SteveH, iand, LeeF, NickH, EricP
16:00:36 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:00:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/24-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
16:00:37 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:00:37 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items