<trackbot> Date: 21 September 2011

<pchampin> +??P22 is me

Admin

<davidwood> Proposed to accept http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-09-14

PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the 14 Sep telecon

davidwood: The meeting was adjourned before the minutes were issued

<mischat> the minutes do state where the telecon adjourned

davidwood: we'll close Guus action

cygri: will do my action later today

FTF planning

<ericP> davidwood, Guus, i'm on a nother call. RDF WG has dibs so you can ping "ericP" in irc and I'll switch focus

<mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F2

davidwood: talks on hotels difficult to find
... we'll have the F2F split in 2 places (EU and US)

<mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F2#Agenda

davidwood: we have to figure out 2 things,
...: manage the timezones
... when London ajourn, we use the time left in Boston to do useful things
... we make progress on the RDF primer

cygri: I was surprised by the strong titles in the agenda
... I wasn't expecting the two would work apart

<gavinc> Issue seems to be that far more people will be in London then in Boston :\

cygri: ther eare advantages in doing that, more stuff gets done,
... but advantages having shared time
... we should maximise shared time

<pchampin> +1 to try to align schedule as much as possible

davidwood: I hope we can get in MIT earlier

<mischat> cygri: i agree too, but iirc yvesr_ and NickH mentioned that there was end time to when we had to get out of their buildings

<gavinc> there are 5 solid confirmations in Boston, and 11 in London

davidwood: and we can't be in BBC late

<LeeF> I'm sorry that my phone has decided to act up, but I wanted to say that I'm not sure that a group editing of the primer will be a good way to edit the primer. I think we might be more successful identifying goals for the updated primer and then enlisting 1 or 2 editors to do the actual updating.

davidwood: the current agenda is (sort of) a worst case scenario

cygri: currently, we'll adjourn in London at 5pm

<mischat> cygri++

cygri: we could shift everything 2 hours backward

<davidwood> Yves Raimond

<davidwood> (BBC)

<mischat> davidwood: to email yvesr_ about how late we can stay at the BBC's london location

<scribe> ACTION: david to mail Yves if we can get to BBC later [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/21-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Mail Yves if we can get to BBC later [on David Wood - due 2011-09-28].

<mischat> davidwood: LeeF had a point above

<mischat> s/davidwood:/davidwood,/

LeeF: we should get consensus on what to put in Primer then assign writing to 2 people

<mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Editors

<mischat> editors doc ^^

davidwood: with neither editors of Primer on the call we can't really decide how to proceed wrt Primer

<LeeF> Great! (i was just confused by what it said in the agenda)
...: we will just suggest updates for Primer at the Boston meeting

cygri: we should spend time on the documents the WG has to update and produce

<davidwood> Changed agenda wording for the RDF Primer task

cygri: a number of documents have not yet been touch in terms of editing

<LeeF> I will attend at MIT - I didn't realize I wasn't already on the list. Sorry!

cygri: it's not clear what's going to happen wrt the JSON document
... we should discuss the JSON doc at the meeting

davidwood: there should be someone reviewing the JSON doc
... and present the review to the group on the ML

cygri: there was a decision at the F2F1 that we have 2 documents
... is there still this consensus?

davidwood: we have 2 actions to do for the F2F:
... 1. whether BBC can be accessible late and;
... 2. review JSON LD

<davidwood> TO DO for the Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/F2F2#Agenda

<mischat> i was wrong about a json-ld review, I was thinking of all the json-ld related chat on the mailing list that is all

davidwood: I'll update the agenda accordingly

Liaison with Provenance WG

davidwood: there was a telecon last Thursday
... there is a mailing list for RDF / Prov liaison

public-rdf-prov@lists.w3.org

<mischat> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-prov/

scribe: anyone interested in Graph TF should take a look and join the discussions

<mischat> and the minutes to the meeting last week http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-09-15

scribe: the Prov WG make good progress but it's not clear exactly there use cases

<davidwood> Discussed http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC

scribe: we (RDF WG) have provenance use cases

<mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-Graphs-UC#Provenance_Use_Cases

scribe: we need an agreement on the g-* terminology

<mischat> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Graph_Terminology

scribe: it must be fixed after the F2F2

<mischat> g-box

scribe: the Prov WG is waiting for our final terminology

<Arnaud> got it, thanks

scribe: and they need their final use cases

Status RDF Dataset proposal

davidwood: Richard, can you answer Sandro's criticism wrt the Dataset proposal?

<davidwood> Sandro's criticism: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-09-14#RDF_Dataset_proposal

davidwood: in the minutes of the last meeting

cygri: the proposal is not based on use cases, but based on SPARQL specs
... these concepts are already implemented in SPARQL graph stores
... this addresses a lot of use cases
... but it's worth looking at it in more details
... we have to define what cannot be addressed by the proposal
... People who think it is not sufficient should point out which use cases are not addressed
... I still think that the proposal is enough for all use cases

davidwood: we are not sure the prov use case we have are use cases for the Prov WG (?)
... we need Sandro to discuss his criticism and he's not here

<pchampin> +1 to Richard

cygri: versioning is related somehow to provenance too

<Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to ask a question to Richard about the dataset proposal

<cygri> ACTION: cygri to respond to Sandro's trust use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/09/21-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Respond to Sandro's trust use case [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2011-09-28].

Pierre-Antoine: in the dataset proposal, things are very specific to queries
... eg, default graph
... should'nt we clear the proposal from this focus (which comes from SPARQL)

cygri: true, default graph comes from SPARQL and may not be necessary
... it's still open to discussion whether to keep it
... but it's good to take what SPARQL has and make as little changes as possible
... if we diverge from SPARQL, we should have a good explanation for it

pchampin: I agree but some things in the Dataset proposal seem strange from RDF pov

<gavinc> The strange thing to me is that there can't be more then one ;)

cygri: pchampin, if something seems weird, please find a cocnrete example to explain the reason

pchampin: I'll do that

davidwood: we may not be able to address the tagged literals issue

<davidwood> mailto:public-rdf-prov@w3.org

davidwood: everyone, please discuss the F2F agenda,

<davidwood> ^^ Please join if you are interested in graphs

<MacTed> what's the link/address by which to join?

davidwood: and join the Prov / RDF ML if intereted in graphs

<gavinc> public-rdf-prov-request@w3.org SUBSCRIBE

<mischat> Subject: subscribe public-rdf-prov-request@w3.org

<gavinc> NOT the mailing list address

<MacTed> -request is key! we don't want 17 "subscribe" messages going to the list...

<MacTed> mailto:public-rdf-prov-request@w3.org?subject=SUBSCRIBE

<MacTed> that will work

zwu2: is it possible to change the schedule a bit to have more overlapping time

<Zakim> cygri, you wanted to mention R2RML last call

<cygri> http://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/

<cygri> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdb-direct-mapping/

cygri: RDB2RDF has turned their docs to last call
... we invite comments, especially open questions,
... 1. whether the mapping language require a specific syntax or should it be just a vocabulary
... 2. how to get to specific parts of URIs
... There are also issues related to Turtle etc wrt punctuation

davidwood: we'll adjourn (early due to lack of participants)
... cygri, please discuss Sandro's criticism and bring this to the list

<gavinc> <People/ID-7> rdf:type <People> .

<pchampin> bye all

<mischat> :)

argh, the scribe was not specified

the generated minutes are not ok

<mischat> should do the trick

<mischat> can you not go in and edit the editable logs and add `scribe: XXXX and scribenick: XXX`

<mischat> AZ: ?

<MacTed> scribenick: AZ

<MacTed> that may be enough...

<gavinc> RRSAgent isn't what we use for Minutes BTW

<MacTed> chair: David Wood

<MacTed> bah.

<MacTed> competing systems that do the same thing... I loves them! :-/

<MacTed> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136  of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

FAILED: s/davidwood:/davidwood,/
Succeeded: s/BC/BBC/
Succeeded: s/a provenance use case/provenance use cases/
Found ScribeNick: AZ
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <AZ> ...
Inferring Scribes: AZ
Default Present: AZ, davidwood, gavinc, Scott_Bauer, Arnaud, pchampin, mischat, cygri, zwu2, LeeF, MacTed
Present: AZ davidwood gavinc Scott_Bauer Arnaud pchampin mischat cygri zwu2 LeeF MacTed
Found Date: 21 Sep 2011
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/09/21-rdf-wg-minutes.html
People with action items: cygri david