None.
14:32:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:32:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:32:10 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:32:10 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 28 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 28 minutes ←
14:32:11 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:32:11 <trackbot> Date: 20 June 2012
14:52:03 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 19 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started ←
14:52:10 <Zakim> +??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P9 ←
14:52:42 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P9 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P9 is me ←
14:52:42 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr; got it ←
14:58:14 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: +mhausenblas ←
14:58:25 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
Richard Cyganiak: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me ←
14:58:25 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri; got it ←
14:58:27 <Zakim> + +1.707.318.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.707.318.aaaa ←
14:58:35 <cgreer> zakim, aaaa is me
Charles Greer: zakim, aaaa is me ←
14:58:35 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cgreer; got it ←
14:59:32 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
14:59:36 <AndyS> zakim, ??P13 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P13 is me ←
14:59:36 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
14:59:38 <cgreer> trackbot-ng, start telecon
Charles Greer: trackbot-ng, start telecon ←
14:59:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:59:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:59:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute ←
14:59:43 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:59:43 <trackbot> Date: 20 June 2012
14:59:55 <cgreer> scribenick: cgreer
(Scribe set to Charles Greer)
15:00:15 <cgreer> chair: davidwood
15:00:32 <pchampin> zakim, what is the code?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, what is the code? ←
15:00:32 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), pchampin ←
15:01:14 <cgreer> zakim, who is here?
zakim, who is here? ←
15:01:14 <Zakim> I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted
Zakim IRC Bot: I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted ←
15:01:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see yvesr, cygri, cgreer, AndyS, OpenLink_Software, ??P18
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see yvesr, cygri, cgreer, AndyS, OpenLink_Software, ??P18 ←
15:01:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see Arnaud, ScottB, SteveH, pchampin, cgreer, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, danbri, MacTed, AndyS, LeeF, Guus, cygri, gavinc, manu1, davidwood, manu, yvesr, NickH, gkellogg,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Arnaud, ScottB, SteveH, pchampin, cgreer, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, danbri, MacTed, AndyS, LeeF, Guus, cygri, gavinc, manu1, davidwood, manu, yvesr, NickH, gkellogg, ←
15:01:16 <Zakim> ... sandro, trackbot, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... sandro, trackbot, ericP ←
15:01:24 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P18 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P18 is me ←
15:01:26 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
15:01:28 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
15:01:29 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
15:01:32 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
15:01:35 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:01:39 <Zakim> + +1.408.996.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.408.996.aabb ←
15:01:46 <Zakim> +Tony
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tony ←
15:01:50 <pchampin> zakim, ??P4 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P4 is me ←
15:01:51 <Arnaud> zakim, aab is me
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, aab is me ←
15:01:58 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:02:02 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named 'aab'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named 'aab' ←
15:02:03 <ScottB> Zakim, Tony is temporarily me
Scott Bauer: Zakim, Tony is temporarily me ←
15:02:03 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:02:05 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:02:11 <Zakim> +??P27
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27 ←
15:02:15 <Zakim> +ScottB; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ScottB; got it ←
15:02:15 <gkellogg> zakim, ??P27 is me
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, ??P27 is me ←
15:02:16 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
15:02:18 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
15:02:20 <Arnaud> zakim, ??aabb is me
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, ??aabb is me ←
15:02:28 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
15:02:36 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '??aabb'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '??aabb' ←
15:02:56 <Zakim> +sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +sandro ←
15:02:59 <Arnaud> zakim, ??bb is me
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, ??bb is me ←
15:03:12 <Zakim> sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '??bb'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '??bb' ←
15:03:16 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.898.aacc ←
15:03:24 <davidwood> Zakim, aacc is me
David Wood: Zakim, aacc is me ←
15:03:25 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it ←
15:03:26 <zwu2> zakim, code?
15:03:27 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
15:03:30 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2 ←
15:03:40 <Zakim> +??P36
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P36 ←
15:03:58 <cgreer> scribenick: cgreer
15:04:01 <davidwood> Chair: David Wood
15:04:01 <Arnaud> zakim, aabb is me
Arnaud Le Hors: zakim, aabb is me ←
15:04:01 <AZ> zakim, ??P36 is me
Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, ??P36 is me ←
15:04:03 <Zakim> +Arnaud; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud; got it ←
15:04:05 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:04:26 <davidwood> Topic: Admin
15:04:31 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.443.212.aadd ←
15:04:35 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.650.265.aaee ←
15:04:35 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 Jun telecon:
David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 13 Jun telecon: ←
15:04:35 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-06-13
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-06-13 ←
15:04:41 <Zakim> +??P37
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P37 ←
15:04:45 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
15:04:49 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P37
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P37 ←
15:04:49 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
15:04:54 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aaee is me
Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.650.265.aaee is me ←
15:04:54 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it ←
15:04:56 <davidwood> Topic: Action Items
15:04:57 <cgreer> RESOLVED Accept the minutes of 13 June telecon.
RESOLVED Accept the minutes of 13 June telecon. ←
15:04:59 <Zakim> + +1.707.861.aaff
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.707.861.aaff ←
15:05:04 <zwu2> zakim, mute me
15:05:04 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should now be muted ←
15:05:05 <davidwood> Review of action items
David Wood: Review of action items ←
15:05:05 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview ←
15:05:05 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open ←
15:05:12 <gavinc> Zakim, aaff is me
Gavin Carothers: Zakim, aaff is me ←
15:05:12 <Zakim> +gavinc; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gavinc; got it ←
15:05:23 <cgreer> davidwood: look at open action items
David Wood: look at open action items ←
15:05:43 <cgreer> davidwood: Eric youve forgotten about FRBR
David Wood: Eric youve forgotten about FRBR ←
15:05:59 <cgreer> ericP: FRBR didn't have appropriate use cases
Eric Prud'hommeaux: FRBR didn't have appropriate use cases ←
15:06:09 <cgreer> davidwood: please send email about that
David Wood: please send email about that ←
15:06:54 <cgreer> davidwood: guus is going to work on rdf spaces document and identify controversy
David Wood: guus is going to work on rdf spaces document and identify controversy ←
15:07:17 <cgreer> davidwood: he'll split it into rdf concepts and rdf semantics. It will hopefully be ready by next wednesday
David Wood: he'll split it into rdf concepts and rdf semantics. It will hopefully be ready by next wednesday ←
15:07:39 <davidwood> Reminder-- Summer schedule for telecons: 27 Jun, 11 July, 25 July, 8 August, 22 August, 5 September.
David Wood: Reminder-- Summer schedule for telecons: 27 Jun, 11 July, 25 July, 8 August, 22 August, 5 September. ←
15:07:53 <davidwood> Topic: Turtle Last Call
15:07:55 <cgreer> davidwood: We will have meeting next week. The next will be 11 July. Summer schedule, plan accordingly.
David Wood: We will have meeting next week. The next will be 11 July. Summer schedule, plan accordingly. ←
15:07:56 <ivan> regrets for next week, will be on a trip, and then on vacations in July...
Ivan Herman: regrets for next week, will be on a trip, and then on vacations in July... ←
15:08:15 <AndyS> Regrets for next week
Andy Seaborne: Regrets for next week ←
15:08:40 <cgreer> ericP: There's still more discussion to have about the grammar, issues around what grammar will communicate decisions best.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: There's still more discussion to have about the grammar, issues around what grammar will communicate decisions best. ←
15:08:59 <ivan> zakim, mute me
Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←
15:08:59 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←
15:09:30 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aagg
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.553.aagg ←
15:09:31 <cgreer> ericP: the BNF drops parans where it needs them. One other issue is text about tokens.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the BNF drops parans where it needs them. One other issue is text about tokens. ←
15:09:39 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
15:09:39 <cgreer> davidwood: how much left?
David Wood: how much left? ←
15:09:45 <cgreer> ericP: Done by Friday.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Done by Friday. ←
15:10:11 <cgreer> gavinc: no comments.
Gavin Carothers: no comments. ←
15:10:40 <cgreer> davidwood: Turtle will be better for this work
David Wood: Turtle will be better for this work ←
15:11:05 <cgreer> gkellogg: Have been working with LL1, still an open issue: predicate-object list.
Gregg Kellogg: Have been working with LL1, still an open issue: predicate-object list. ←
15:11:24 <cgreer> ericP: I mocked up an LL grammar. Greg thinks it's a tool issue.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I mocked up an LL grammar. Greg thinks it's a tool issue. ←
15:11:55 <cgreer> ericP: I believe this should highlight behavior that Greg's tool should be exhibiting.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I believe this should highlight behavior that Greg's tool should be exhibiting. ←
15:11:55 <AndyS> predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList (';' verb objectList)* ';'? is ambiguos - I proposed a better way to write it.
Andy Seaborne: predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList (';' verb objectList)* ';'? is ambiguos - I proposed a better way to write it. ←
15:12:26 <cgreer> gavinc: I don't think this grammar is the only grammar that can parse turtle. If it turns out to be not LL1 that's not a bug.
Gavin Carothers: I don't think this grammar is the only grammar that can parse turtle. If it turns out to be not LL1 that's not a bug. ←
15:12:39 <cgreer> gavinc: There are other grammars that can parse Turtle documents.
Gavin Carothers: There are other grammars that can parse Turtle documents. ←
15:12:45 <Zakim> +Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri ←
15:12:59 <cgreer> davidwood: There's more than one way. Do we know for certain that there is really an LL1 grammar?
David Wood: There's more than one way. Do we know for certain that there is really an LL1 grammar? ←
15:13:08 <cgreer> gavinc: Yes, it's just not in the specification.
Gavin Carothers: Yes, it's just not in the specification. ←
15:13:36 <cgreer> gkellogg: There's an older version, with caveat that it allows multiple semicolons...
Gregg Kellogg: There's an older version, with caveat that it allows multiple semicolons... ←
15:13:54 <cgreer> gkellogg: I'm successful with a production that allows infinite semicolons.
Gregg Kellogg: I'm successful with a production that allows infinite semicolons. ←
15:14:05 <ericP> -> http://codepad.org/9TlTfIfd an LL(1) of the form A (B C D)* B? -- (a single-letter representation of [7])
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://codepad.org/9TlTfIfd an LL(1) of the form A (B C D)* B? -- (a single-letter representation of [7]) ←
15:14:30 <cgreer> gkellogg: If it's not LL1 grammar, and the group intends to have one, we need to address that.
Gregg Kellogg: If it's not LL1 grammar, and the group intends to have one, we need to address that. ←
15:14:47 <cgreer> gkellogg: Every other grammar I've used have been parsed with 'this type of parser'
Gregg Kellogg: Every other grammar I've used have been parsed with 'this type of parser' ←
15:14:56 <cgreer> davidwood: no matter what we come up with, there will be other ways to do it.
David Wood: no matter what we come up with, there will be other ways to do it. ←
15:15:16 <cgreer> gkellogg: It this grammar is NOT LL1, then we need to see what the intention of the group is.
Gregg Kellogg: It this grammar is NOT LL1, then we need to see what the intention of the group is. ←
15:15:27 <SteveH> how would you prove that the grammar we publish, and some hypothetical LL(1) grammar were the same?
Steve Harris: how would you prove that the grammar we publish, and some hypothetical LL(1) grammar were the same? ←
15:15:53 <cgreer> sandro: Some people want LALR, some people want LL1. It doesn't make sense to provide both. It would be a bad idea to provide both.
Sandro Hawke: Some people want LALR, some people want LL1. It doesn't make sense to provide both. It would be a bad idea to provide both. ←
15:16:04 <ericP> q+ to address LL-ness vs. LALR-ness
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to address LL-ness vs. LALR-ness ←
15:16:05 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
15:16:10 <cgreer> ?? Is there some preference for LL1?
sandro Is there some preference for LL1? ←
15:16:11 <pchampin> q
15:16:18 <davidwood> ack gkellogg
David Wood: ack gkellogg ←
15:16:19 <sandro> s/??/sandro/
15:16:22 <davidwood> ack ericP
David Wood: ack ericP ←
15:16:22 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to address LL-ness vs. LALR-ness
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to address LL-ness vs. LALR-ness ←
15:16:56 <cgreer> ericP: Previous versions of SPARQL (neither LL1 nor LALR), but you can turn it into one of these grammars.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Previous versions of SPARQL (neither LL1 nor LALR), but you can turn it into one of these grammars. ←
15:17:45 <cgreer> ericP: Has checked with peers about state table. Is the tool generating the state table correctly? I think not.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Has checked with peers about state table. Is the tool generating the state table correctly? I think not. ←
15:18:12 <davidwood> ack AndyS
David Wood: ack AndyS ←
15:18:23 <cgreer> ericP: The difference between LL1 and LALR handling was * and +
Eric Prud'hommeaux: The difference between LALR and LALR handling was * and + ←
15:18:42 <cgreer> AndyS: Whether it's *+ is not the issue. There's an ambiguity about semicolon.
Andy Seaborne: Whether it's *+ is not the issue. There's an ambiguity about semicolon. ←
15:19:05 <cgreer> AndyS: Most LALR also have a pragmatic rule -- longer match over shorter match.
Andy Seaborne: Most LALR also have a pragmatic rule -- longer match over shorter match. ←
15:19:06 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
15:19:16 <sandro> s/LL1/LALR/
15:19:18 <cgreer> AndyS: I'll take action to make a rule.
Andy Seaborne: I'll take action to make a rule. ←
15:19:20 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
15:19:31 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:19:48 <gavinc> [7] predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList (';' verb objectList)* ';'?
Gavin Carothers: [7] predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList (';' verb objectList)* ';'? ←
15:19:51 <gavinc> The rule in question
Gavin Carothers: The rule in question ←
15:20:00 <AndyS> ACTION AndyS Draft a rule for predicateObjectList
Andy Seaborne: ACTION AndyS Draft a rule for predicateObjectList ←
15:20:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-175 - Draft a rule for predicateObjectList [on Andy Seaborne - due 2012-06-27].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-175 - Draft a rule for predicateObjectList [on Andy Seaborne - due 2012-06-27]. ←
15:20:06 <Zakim> + +1.603.438.aahh
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.438.aahh ←
15:20:12 <gkellogg> my alternate: [7] predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList ( ";" ( verb objectList)? )*
Gregg Kellogg: my alternate: [7] predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList ( ";" ( verb objectList)? )* ←
15:20:24 <zwu2> zakim, +1.603.438.aahh is me
Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.603.438.aahh is me ←
15:20:24 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it ←
15:20:26 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:20:42 <cgreer> gavinc: Richard, could you talk about your feedback after call?
Gavin Carothers: Richard, could you talk about your feedback after call? ←
15:21:01 <cgreer> davidwood: Friday still reasonable?
David Wood: Friday still reasonable? ←
15:21:09 <cgreer> gavinc: yes...
Gavin Carothers: yes... ←
15:21:10 <AndyS> gkellog - yes - that is what SPARQL has an accepts many trailing ";" which seems (1) no big deal and (2) better for SPARQL/Turtle compatibility.
Andy Seaborne: gkellog - yes - that is what SPARQL has an accepts many trailing ";" which seems (1) no big deal and (2) better for SPARQL/Turtle compatibility. ←
15:21:59 <cgreer> ericp: No more convenient expression of this rule. A reformulation will not make it easier for LALR parser.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: No more convenient expression of this rule. A reformulation will not make it easier for LALR parser. ←
15:22:26 <cgreer> AndyS: The reason the rule is a problem -- when you have verb-object list there are two branches for ';'
Andy Seaborne: The reason the rule is a problem -- when you have verb-object list there are two branches for ';' ←
15:22:37 <cgreer> AndyS: Either new object list or end.
Andy Seaborne: Either new object list or end. ←
15:23:00 <gavinc> I found predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList ( ";" ( verb objectList)? )* to be perfectly fine
Gavin Carothers: I found predicateObjectList ::= verb objectList ( ";" ( verb objectList)? )* to be perfectly fine ←
15:23:28 <cgreer> ericP: But you don't communicate with BNF. The ambiguity goes away with pasted grammar.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: But you don't communicate with BNF. The ambiguity goes away with pasted grammar. ←
15:23:59 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
15:24:05 <cgreer> AndyS: I use LL1 tool to generate SPARQL grammar. I can see why bison would accept it.
Andy Seaborne: I use LL1 tool to generate SPARQL grammar. I can see why bison would accept it. ←
15:24:43 <cgreer> ericP: I've been working in an LL parser -- perl Parse::RecDescent
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I've been working in an LL parser -- perl Parse::RecDescent ←
15:24:54 <cgreer> ??: This is not LL1
??: This is not LL1 ←
15:25:07 <cgreer> ericP: What if I try rewriting it.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: What if I try rewriting it. ←
15:25:14 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:25:36 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:26:15 <gavinc> This document WILL be done by the end of the week.
Gavin Carothers: This document WILL be done by the end of the week. ←
15:26:15 <cgreer> ivan: Will Eric be gone next week? What this means is that, if this doc is not done, we won't be done til August.
Ivan Herman: Will Eric be gone next week? What this means is that, if this doc is not done, we won't be done til August. ←
15:26:34 <cgreer> davidwood: publication freeze?
David Wood: publication freeze? ←
15:26:37 <AndyS> I withdraw my action.
Andy Seaborne: I withdraw my action. ←
15:27:19 <cgreer> davidwood: why did you withdraw your action?
David Wood: why did you withdraw your action? ←
15:27:46 <cgreer> ericP: If you want to supply the rule, I'm happy to have it.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: If you want to supply the rule, I'm happy to have it. ←
15:28:29 <cgreer> AndyS: We've given our feedback.
Andy Seaborne: We've given our feedback. ←
15:28:57 <cgreer> gavinc: I don't mind restoring previous rule. It allows for multiple semicolons. Many existing parsers already allow this. SPARQL also doesn't have a limitation.
Gavin Carothers: I don't mind restoring previous rule. It allows for multiple semicolons. Many existing parsers already allow this. SPARQL also doesn't have a limitation. ←
15:29:11 <cgreer> gavinc: I see no problem with infinite ';' following this production.
Gavin Carothers: I see no problem with infinite ';' following this production. ←
15:29:23 <cgreer> ericP: I don't much care either.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I don't much care either. ←
15:29:51 <cgreer> davidwood: If there's a clean way to do it, great. We won't hold up LC for this though.
David Wood: If there's a clean way to do it, great. We won't hold up LC for this though. ←
15:30:21 <cgreer> ericP: There's a debate about -- whether to have rule that states that @base and @prefix are permitted as language tags.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: There's a debate about -- whether to have rule that states that @base and @prefix are permitted as language tags. ←
15:30:43 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:30:51 <cgreer> gavinc: Other than RIOT, no existing turtle parser allows @base or @prefix as language token.
Gavin Carothers: Other than RIOT, no existing turtle parser allows @base or @prefix as language token. ←
15:31:30 <cgreer> gavinc: Any parsers that tries to specify this needs to allow for language tags that are not permissible.
Gavin Carothers: Any parsers that tries to specify this needs to allow for language tags that are not permissible. ←
15:31:32 <davidwood> ack cygri
David Wood: ack cygri ←
15:32:29 <cgreer> cygri: For 1.1, the reference for language tag has changed. The current one defines two things. The generic grammar...
Richard Cyganiak: For 1.1, the reference for language tag has changed. The current one defines two things. The generic grammar... ←
15:32:35 <gavinc> http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47#section-2.2.9
Gavin Carothers: http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47#section-2.2.9 ←
15:32:43 <cgreer> cygri: and spells out in detail the admissible words and abbreviations.
Richard Cyganiak: and spells out in detail the admissible words and abbreviations. ←
15:33:16 <cgreer> cygri: So since '@prefix' is not a language it's not a valid language tag.
Richard Cyganiak: So since '@prefix' is not a language it's not a valid language tag. ←
15:34:11 <cgreer> ivan: We're spending time on very minute corner cases.
Ivan Herman: We're spending time on very minute corner cases. ←
15:34:14 <manu1> +1 to Ivan!!!
Manu Sporny: +1 to Ivan!!! ←
15:34:19 <cgreer> ivan: What's simpler to write down and move on?
Ivan Herman: What's simpler to write down and move on? ←
15:34:24 <SteveH> +1 to ivan
Steve Harris: +1 to ivan ←
15:35:00 <cgreer> ericP: So if we don't care, there's a simple way to write it.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: So if we don't care, there's a simple way to write it. ←
15:35:02 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/turtleAwesome?lang=perl&markup=html#prod-turtleAwesome-RDFLiteral
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/turtleAwesome?lang=perl&markup=html#prod-turtleAwesome-RDFLiteral ←
15:35:31 <cgreer> ericP: If you want to make it explicit... negative is harder than positive.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: If you want to make it explicit... negative is harder than positive. ←
15:35:46 <cgreer> ivan: Whatever is simpler. Let's take first case where we don't care.
Ivan Herman: Whatever is simpler. Let's take first case where we don't care. ←
15:35:50 <SteveH> or we could say that it's undefined behaviour
Steve Harris: or we could say that it's undefined behaviour ←
15:36:09 <sandro> +1 not making any statement
Sandro Hawke: +1 not making any statement ←
15:36:09 <cgreer> ericP: Stating that it can happen is simpler. This may be simpler than no statement at all.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Stating that it can happen is simpler. This may be simpler than no statement at all. ←
15:36:32 <cgreer> ivan: Whatever is simpler for editors.
Ivan Herman: Whatever is simpler for editors. ←
15:36:32 <zwu2> +1 to SteveH
15:36:57 <cgreer> davidwood: If we define it we'd need a test case that could break parsers.
Sandro Hawke: If we define it we'd need a test case that could break parsers. ←
15:37:07 <davidwood> s/davidwood/Sandro/
15:37:07 <cgreer> gavinc: And it would break compatibility with RDF 1.1
Gavin Carothers: And it would break compatibility with RDF 1.1 ←
15:37:25 <gkellogg> suggest that it is specifically disallowed
Gregg Kellogg: suggest that it is specifically disallowed ←
15:37:25 <cgreer> sandro: I don't see that.
Sandro Hawke: I don't see that. ←
15:37:39 <cgreer> davidwood: And if it's undefined behavior?
David Wood: And if it's undefined behavior? ←
15:38:02 <cgreer> ericP: The production for language tag subsumes @base and @prefix. Parsers may or may not accept it.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: The production for language tag subsumes @base and @prefix. Parsers may or may not accept it. ←
15:38:04 <MacTed> is this accurate summary?
Ted Thibodeau: is this accurate summary? ←
15:38:04 <MacTed> 1. state it can happen. requires test cases... or statement that resulting behavior is undefined.
Ted Thibodeau: 1. state it can happen. requires test cases... or statement that resulting behavior is undefined. ←
15:38:04 <MacTed> 2. state it cannot happen. requires test cases.
Ted Thibodeau: 2. state it cannot happen. requires test cases. ←
15:38:04 <MacTed> 3. say nothing.
Ted Thibodeau: 3. say nothing. ←
15:38:46 <MacTed> ignore that, if problem is solved...
Ted Thibodeau: ignore that, if problem is solved... ←
15:38:46 <SteveH> MacTed, it requires a comment, otherwise people will wonder
Steve Harris: MacTed, it requires a comment, otherwise people will wonder ←
15:38:48 <LeeF> oh, by the way, +1 to ivan :-)
Lee Feigenbaum: oh, by the way, +1 to ivan :-) ←
15:39:04 <AndyS> Don't test.
Andy Seaborne: Don't test. ←
15:39:09 <SteveH> yeah, don't test
Steve Harris: yeah, don't test ←
15:39:14 <cgreer> ericP: We're not saying whether it can happen. 'Don't Test'
Eric Prud'hommeaux: We're not saying whether it can happen. 'Don't Test' ←
15:39:15 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:39:33 <cgreer> davidwood: LC on Turtle LC
David Wood: LC on Turtle LC ←
15:40:03 <cgreer> ericP: This simplifies rules we have to adopt from SPARQL. Lexer is expected to parse longest terminal it can.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: This simplifies rules we have to adopt from SPARQL. Lexer is expected to parse longest terminal it can. ←
15:40:10 <cygri> @base and @prefix are "reserved for future extensions" or "discouraged" in BCP47
Richard Cyganiak: @base and @prefix are "reserved for future extensions" or "discouraged" in BCP47 ←
15:40:11 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:41:13 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
15:41:15 <AndyS> BTW -- RIOT is recursive decent which is how it does @base as a language.
Andy Seaborne: BTW -- RIOT is recursive decent which is how it does @base as a language. ←
15:41:39 <cgreer> ivan: We seem to have resolution. Where are we for LC?
Ivan Herman: We seem to have resolution. Where are we for LC? ←
15:42:05 <cgreer> ericP: We're needing some text about @base and about terminals.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: We're needing some text about @base and about terminals. ←
15:42:33 <cgreer> gavinc: Only remaining issue is resolving things with Richard.
Gavin Carothers: Only remaining issue is resolving things with Richard. ←
15:42:41 <cgreer> ivan: Can we vote last call next week?
Ivan Herman: Can we vote last call next week? ←
15:42:49 <cgreer> gavinc: We will have a document by Friday.
Gavin Carothers: We will have a document by Friday. ←
15:43:16 <cgreer> gavinc: Confident about agreement with Richard by end of day.
Gavin Carothers: Confident about agreement with Richard by end of day. ←
15:43:17 <AndyS> As far as I am concerned, publishing with the right language but not-ideal grammar for that language is "editorial" and can grammar change after LC IMHO.
Andy Seaborne: As far as I am concerned, publishing with the right language but not-ideal grammar for that language is "editorial" and can grammar change after LC IMHO. ←
15:43:37 <manu1> AndyS - especially if we mark it as an issue in the document.
Manu Sporny: AndyS - especially if we mark it as an issue in the document. ←
15:43:41 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:43:46 <davidwood> Topic: JSON-LD
15:43:52 <AndyS> manu - good idea
Andy Seaborne: manu - good idea ←
15:43:52 <manu1> Actually, the editors should /definitely/ mark the grammar as an issue and say that it could change.
Manu Sporny: Actually, the editors should /definitely/ mark the grammar as an issue and say that it could change. ←
15:43:54 <cygri> AndyS++
Richard Cyganiak: AndyS++ ←
15:44:06 <gavinc> AndyS++
Gavin Carothers: AndyS++ ←
15:44:18 <manu1> q+ to provide an overview
Manu Sporny: q+ to provide an overview ←
15:44:29 <manu1> q-
Manu Sporny: q- ←
15:45:04 <cgreer> manu1: We have four reviews in. This is good coverage.
Manu Sporny: We have four reviews in. This is good coverage. ←
15:45:31 <cgreer> manu1: Most reviews have both major and minor issues, but nothing to hold up.
Manu Sporny: Most reviews have both major and minor issues, but nothing to hold up. ←
15:45:36 <cgreer> FPWD
FPWD ←
15:46:01 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
15:46:10 <Arnaud> sorry, I have to drop off
Arnaud Le Hors: sorry, I have to drop off ←
15:46:25 <cgreer> manu1: What issues markers we want to put in, we must decide. Today, we need to hear from Eric about what issued need to be outlined. (and other reviewers)
Manu Sporny: What issues markers we want to put in, we must decide. Today, we need to hear from Eric about what issued need to be outlined. (and other reviewers) ←
15:47:03 <cgreer> manu1: We're talking grammar fixes, nothing major. Then the documents will move into the final CG stamp, handing to this group within next week.
Manu Sporny: We're talking grammar fixes, nothing major. Then the documents will move into the final CG stamp, handing to this group within next week. ←
15:48:11 <cgreer> manu1: With the IPR-- two issues. We need to hear what the issue markers are, and then we'll finalize and do IPR.
Manu Sporny: With the IPR-- two issues. We need to hear what the issue markers are, and then we'll finalize and do IPR. ←
15:48:53 <cgreer> manu1: The w3c form for IPR document is not working. Once Greg has edited the spec, then the documents will be frozen and we'll get the IPR committments.
Manu Sporny: The w3c form for IPR document is not working. Once Greg has edited the spec, then the documents will be frozen and we'll get the IPR committments. ←
15:49:19 <cgreer> davidwood: how comfortable that nobody else will have issues?
David Wood: how comfortable that nobody else will have issues? ←
15:49:42 <cgreer> manu1: Comfortable. Anyone who opened an issue has been accomodated.
Manu Sporny: Comfortable. Anyone who opened an issue has been accomodated. ←
15:50:14 <ericP> q+ to say i have two proposals: 1. move 1.3 to SOTD 2. in §3.1 ¶2, add "Issue: the term "object" is used represent both JSON objects and terms in the object position of RDF triples."
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say i have two proposals: 1. move 1.3 to SOTD 2. in §3.1 ¶2, add "Issue: the term "object" is used represent both JSON objects and terms in the object position of RDF triples." ←
15:50:16 <cgreer> manu1: All the people who have contributed more than a paragraph have committed to IPR preliminarily.
Manu Sporny: All the people who have contributed more than a paragraph have committed to IPR preliminarily. ←
15:50:33 <davidwood> ack ericp
David Wood: ack ericp ←
15:50:33 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say i have two proposals: 1. move 1.3 to SOTD 2. in §3.1 ¶2, add "Issue: the term "object" is used represent both JSON objects and terms in the object
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say i have two proposals: 1. move 1.3 to SOTD 2. in §3.1 ¶2, add "Issue: the term "object" is used represent both JSON objects and terms in the object ←
15:50:36 <Zakim> ... position of RDF triples."
Zakim IRC Bot: ... position of RDF triples." ←
15:53:15 <cgreer> gkellogg: Use 'JSON Object' to avoid ambiguity of word 'object'
Gregg Kellogg: Use 'JSON Object' to avoid ambiguity of word 'object' ←
15:53:51 <cgreer> AndyS: Section 3.1 needs discussion by WG, but that's not a document issue.
Andy Seaborne: Section 3.1 needs discussion by WG, but that's not a document issue. ←
15:54:13 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
15:54:45 <manu1> We are tracking the issues here, btw:
Manu Sporny: We are tracking the issues here, btw: ←
15:54:47 <manu1> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/135
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/135 ←
15:54:49 <manu1> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/136
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/136 ←
15:54:51 <manu1> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/137
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/137 ←
15:55:37 <cgreer> pchampin: My issues can wait for version of document. The term 'property' is an issue for me, but there may have been other discussion. "Property" is not an "edge".
Pierre-Antoine Champin: My issues can wait for version of document. The term 'property' is an issue for me, but there may have been other discussion. "Property" is not an "edge". ←
15:55:49 <cgreer> pchampin: Property is the lable of the edge, not the edge itself.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: Property is the label of the edge, not the edge itself. ←
15:55:54 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:55:57 <cgreer> s/lable/label/
15:56:25 <cygri> cgreer, it's pchampin speaking
Richard Cyganiak: cgreer, it's pchampin speaking ←
15:57:39 <cgreer> manu1: We needed to position JSON-LD spec so as not to be explicitly linked to RDFa.
Manu Sporny: We needed to position JSON-LD spec so as not to be explicitly linked to RDFa. ←
15:57:39 <AZ> s/AZ/pchampin/
15:58:02 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:58:47 <pchampin> q+
15:58:56 <manu1> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#rdf
Manu Sporny: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#rdf ←
15:59:08 <cgreer> davidwood: We do need to make the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD more clear. However, this doesn't need to affect your activities.
David Wood: We do need to make the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD more clear. However, this doesn't need to affect your activities. ←
15:59:33 <cgreer> manu1: We did agree to put a section on RDF in the spec.
Manu Sporny: We did agree to put a section on RDF in the spec. ←
15:59:54 <cgreer> davidwood: We need something up front in the introduction. Even if it's a short paragraph with links.
David Wood: We need something up front in the introduction. Even if it's a short paragraph with links. ←
16:00:04 <MacTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
16:00:05 <cgreer> manu1: We thought this would scare people away.
Manu Sporny: We thought this would scare people away. ←
16:00:10 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:00:12 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
16:00:22 <davidwood> ack pchampin
David Wood: ack pchampin ←
16:00:29 <cgreer> davidwood: I'm sure we can manage a sentence or two that wouldn't be scary to web developers.
David Wood: I'm sure we can manage a sentence or two that wouldn't be scary to web developers. ←
16:00:54 <cgreer> zakim, who is speaking?
zakim, who is speaking? ←
16:01:00 <sandro> sentence that talk about "compatibility" might work.
Sandro Hawke: sentence that talk about "compatibility" might work. ←
16:01:02 <manu1> AndyS - both Semantic Web /and/ RDF scares people away (because they associate RDF with RDF/XML)
Manu Sporny: AndyS - both Semantic Web /and/ RDF scares people away (because they associate RDF with RDF/XML) ←
16:01:11 <Zakim> cgreer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: LeeF (48%), pchampin (100%), MacTed (60%), gkellogg (9%), EricP (4%)
Zakim IRC Bot: cgreer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: LeeF (48%), pchampin (100%), MacTed (60%), gkellogg (9%), EricP (4%) ←
16:01:20 <ericP> clarification-- we're not discussing a prerequisite for FPWD, right?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: clarification-- we're not discussing a prerequisite for FPWD, right? ←
16:01:22 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:01:25 <zwu2> come on, it is OWL Full that is scary
Zhe Wu: come on, it is OWL Full that is scary ←
16:01:35 <pchampin> ack me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: ack me ←
16:01:36 <cgreer> pchampin: We can figure out some non-scary way to mention RDF.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: We can figure out some non-scary way to mention RDF. ←
16:02:31 <cgreer> davidwood: There was similar discussion about Turtle, and Dave B. made objection, Turtle will be better for the argument. RDF WG will have to mention RDF somewhere beyond the appendix.
David Wood: There was similar discussion about Turtle, and Dave B. made objection, Turtle will be better for the argument. RDF WG will have to mention RDF somewhere beyond the appendix. ←
16:03:01 <cgreer> manu1: I'm concerned more about marketing of the spec. We want it adopted as quietly as possible
Manu Sporny: I'm concerned more about marketing of the spec. We want it adopted as quietly as possible ←
16:03:32 <davidwood> ack MacTed
David Wood: ack MacTed ←
16:04:09 <cgreer> MacTed: This is not a blocker for FPWD. Bait-and-switch doesn't do what we want.
Ted Thibodeau: This is not a blocker for FPWD. Bait-and-switch doesn't do what we want. ←
16:04:32 <cgreer> davidwood: I said, just one or two sentences.
David Wood: I said, just one or two sentences. ←
16:04:51 <cgreer> MacTed: But if it's not part of the FPWD process, we can not hold it up for this.
Ted Thibodeau: But if it's not part of the FPWD process, we can not hold it up for this. ←
16:04:51 <davidwood> ack ivan
David Wood: ack ivan ←
16:04:55 <pchampin> +1 to discuss the language later
Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 to discuss the language later ←
16:05:09 <gavinc> Err.. it's going to say RDF in the STOD... yeah, what Ivan is saying :D
Gavin Carothers: Err.. it's going to say RDF in the STOD... yeah, what Ivan is saying :D ←
16:05:22 <cgreer> ivan: So the point is -- if you look at the document status. The RDF-WG will be right at the top of the document.
Ivan Herman: So the point is -- if you look at the document status. The RDF-WG will be right at the top of the document. ←
16:05:34 <gavinc> at the top of document it WILL say "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as an Editor's Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome."
Gavin Carothers: at the top of document it WILL say "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as an Editor's Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome." ←
16:05:38 <sandro> ehhh -- NO ONE EVER reads the SOTD. :-)
Sandro Hawke: ehhh -- NO ONE EVER reads the SOTD. :-) ←
16:05:46 <cgreer> ivan: A warning to Manu that this will happen.
Ivan Herman: A warning to Manu that this will happen. ←
16:05:54 <davidwood> From the current Turtle ED: "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as an Editor's Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome."
David Wood: From the current Turtle ED: "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as an Editor's Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome." ←
16:06:26 <davidwood> I do *not* think that the Abstract needs to state, as the Turtle ED does, with "The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a general-purpose language for representing information in the Web."
David Wood: I do *not* think that the Abstract needs to state, as the Turtle ED does, with "The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a general-purpose language for representing information in the Web." ←
16:06:30 <cgreer> ivan: It's not completely hidden. If you want to add in the SOTD, that might be the best place to add RDF terminology.
Ivan Herman: It's not completely hidden. If you want to add in the SOTD, that might be the best place to add RDF terminology. ←
16:06:50 <cgreer> manu1: Can we let this go for now? It should not affect FPWD.
Manu Sporny: Can we let this go for now? It should not affect FPWD. ←
16:06:59 <cgreer> davidwood: We can leave to editors.
David Wood: We can leave to editors. ←
16:07:04 <sandro> the SOTD could downplay it even more, like: "This document was published by the W3C JSON LD Task Force, under the supervision of the RDF Working Group, "
Sandro Hawke: the SOTD could downplay it even more, like: "This document was published by the W3C JSON LD Task Force, under the supervision of the RDF Working Group, " ←
16:07:26 <sandro> or "with approval by the ... "
Sandro Hawke: or "with approval by the ... " ←
16:07:37 <ericP> i propose we add "we got you, sucka" after B.1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i propose we add "we got you, sucka" after B.1 ←
16:07:49 <cygri> lol @ericP
Richard Cyganiak: lol @ericP ←
16:08:01 <manu1> ISSUE: Mention RDF in the JSON-LD Syntax Introduction.
ISSUE: Mention RDF in the JSON-LD Syntax Introduction. ←
16:08:01 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-92 - Mention RDF in the JSON-LD Syntax Introduction. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/92/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-92 - Mention RDF in the JSON-LD Syntax Introduction. ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/92/edit . ←
16:08:23 <ericP> "suckas" if we're feeling particularly cocky
Eric Prud'hommeaux: "suckas" if we're feeling particularly cocky ←
16:08:24 <sandro> If you talk about RDF Compatibility as one of the advantages of JSON-LD, I don't think it'll bug anyone.
Sandro Hawke: If you talk about RDF Compatibility as one of the advantages of JSON-LD, I don't think it'll bug anyone. ←
16:08:47 <cgreer> manu1: We'll get these edits done and have document by Wednesday.
Manu Sporny: We'll get these edits done and have document by Wednesday. ←
16:09:17 <cgreer> davidwood: We need to close the issue, but it doesn't have to be a big issue.
David Wood: We need to close the issue, but it doesn't have to be a big issue. ←
16:10:49 <cgreer> manu1: It's important for RDF community to understand how people are adopting RDF. There are fringe communities, anti-RDF, who come around.
Manu Sporny: It's important for RDF community to understand how people are adopting RDF. There are fringe communities, anti-RDF, who come around. ←
16:11:04 <gavinc> hey, danbri, your anti RDF? ;)
Gavin Carothers: hey, danbri, your anti RDF? ;) ←
16:11:15 <manu1> no, not danbri!
Manu Sporny: no, not danbri! ←
16:11:28 <manu1> /other/ people at Google :)
Manu Sporny: /other/ people at Google :) ←
16:12:02 <cgreer> :)
:) ←
16:12:04 <manu1> What is Linked Data? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x_xzT5eF5Q&feature=g-upl
Manu Sporny: What is Linked Data? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x_xzT5eF5Q&feature=g-upl ←
16:12:10 <ericP> q+ to ask if there are folks who have a way to evaluate these trade-offs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to ask if there are folks who have a way to evaluate these trade-offs ←
16:12:15 <manu1> What is JSON-LD? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioCbTo3C-4&feature=g-upl
Manu Sporny: What is JSON-LD? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioCbTo3C-4&feature=g-upl ←
16:12:19 <davidwood> ack ericP
David Wood: ack ericP ←
16:12:19 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to ask if there are folks who have a way to evaluate these trade-offs
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to ask if there are folks who have a way to evaluate these trade-offs ←
16:12:31 <cgreer> MacTed: There are people who build things similar to RDF, then come around realize it's really got something to bring to the table.
Ted Thibodeau: There are people who build things similar to RDF, then come around realize it's really got something to bring to the table. ←
16:12:48 <cgreer> ericP: Who is good at such marketing?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Who is good at such marketing? ←
16:13:05 <cgreer> manu1: The HTML5 people. They're great at marketing, speaking, telling people how easy it is.
Manu Sporny: The HTML5 people. They're great at marketing, speaking, telling people how easy it is. ←
16:13:18 <davidwood> Topic: RDF Spaces and Datasets
16:13:26 <davidwood> Deferred until next week
David Wood: Deferred until next week ←
16:13:33 <davidwood> Topic: AOB
16:13:44 <gavinc> I think we have Deferred Graphs not Named Graphs
Gavin Carothers: I think we have Deferred Graphs not Named Graphs ←
16:13:56 <gavinc> Deferred too
Gavin Carothers: Deferred too ←
16:14:05 <gavinc> No, we won't talk about Turtle
Gavin Carothers: No, we won't talk about Turtle ←
16:14:08 <zwu2> bye
16:14:08 <Zakim> -yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: -yvesr ←
16:14:16 <Zakim> -Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri ←
16:14:17 <AZ> bye
Antoine Zimmermann: bye ←
16:14:18 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
16:14:19 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
16:14:19 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:14:21 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
16:14:23 <cgreer> rssagent, generate minutes
rssagent, generate minutes ←
16:14:23 <Zakim> -manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1 ←
16:14:24 <Zakim> -ScottB
Zakim IRC Bot: -ScottB ←
16:14:24 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
16:14:25 <Zakim> -davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood ←
16:14:26 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
16:14:27 <Zakim> -AlexHall
Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall ←
16:14:29 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
16:14:32 <Zakim> -sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -sandro ←
16:14:34 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
16:14:36 <Zakim> -gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -gavinc ←
16:14:38 <Zakim> -cgreer
Zakim IRC Bot: -cgreer ←
16:14:41 <MacTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
Ted Thibodeau: RRSAgent, draft minutes ←
16:14:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-rdf-wg-minutes.html MacTed
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/06/20-rdf-wg-minutes.html MacTed ←
16:14:42 <cygri> gavinc?
Richard Cyganiak: gavinc? ←
16:15:09 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
16:15:12 <Zakim> -cygri
Zakim IRC Bot: -cygri ←
16:15:18 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended ←
16:15:22 <Zakim> Attendees were yvesr, cygri, +1.707.318.aaaa, cgreer, AndyS, SteveH, Ivan, +1.408.996.aabb, pchampin, ScottB, MacTed, gkellogg, sandro, +1.540.898.aacc, davidwood, EricP, Arnaud,
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were yvesr, cygri, +1.707.318.aaaa, cgreer, AndyS, SteveH, Ivan, +1.408.996.aabb, pchampin, ScottB, MacTed, gkellogg, sandro, +1.540.898.aacc, davidwood, EricP, Arnaud, ←
16:15:24 <Zakim> ... AZ, +1.443.212.aadd, manu1, zwu2, +1.707.861.aaff, gavinc, AlexHall, +1.617.553.aagg, LeeF, Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: ... AZ, +1.443.212.aadd, manu1, zwu2, +1.707.861.aaff, gavinc, AlexHall, +1.617.553.aagg, LeeF, Souri ←
16:17:11 <cgreer> rssagent, draft minutes
rssagent, draft minutes ←
16:17:30 <manu1> davidwood: Note, the reason I mentioned those two videos is that I stay away from mentioning RDF until a very small section of the JSON-LD intro... and then, only at the very end.
David Wood: Note, the reason I mentioned those two videos is that I stay away from mentioning RDF until a very small section of the JSON-LD intro... and then, only at the very end. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:18:24 <manu1> davidwood: To flip the question on its head - instead of asking "Why doesn't the Introduction say anything about RDF?"... why not ask "What does putting RDF in the Introduction buy us?"
David Wood: To flip the question on its head - instead of asking "Why doesn't the Introduction say anything about RDF?"... why not ask "What does putting RDF in the Introduction buy us?" [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
16:19:34 <manu1> ... because, I don't think it buys us bigger market share... I think that the people that use RDF will (in time) know that JSON-LD supports RDF.
Manu Sporny: ... because, I don't think it buys us bigger market share... I think that the people that use RDF will (in time) know that JSON-LD supports RDF. ←
16:20:32 <manu1> That is - we're not trying to sell to RDF people - they already know how great RDF is... we're trying to sell to people that are using JSON and want to be able to express Linked Data in it.
Manu Sporny: That is - we're not trying to sell to RDF people - they already know how great RDF is... we're trying to sell to people that are using JSON and want to be able to express Linked Data in it. ←
16:21:39 <davidwood> manu1, We need to publish a document from the RDF WG. The introduction will say so, like in the Turtle ED above that I pasted in. If the intro makes it clear that the document is from the RDF WG (which the publication rules require) and the appendix is present, that satisfies me. What more do you want to argue about??
David Wood: manu1, We need to publish a document from the RDF WG. The introduction will say so, like in the Turtle ED above that I pasted in. If the intro makes it clear that the document is from the RDF WG (which the publication rules require) and the appendix is present, that satisfies me. What more do you want to argue about?? ←
16:22:24 <davidwood> I think you are making a much bigger deal out of this than it needs to be.
David Wood: I think you are making a much bigger deal out of this than it needs to be. ←
16:22:26 <sandro> repeat -- pubrules doesn;t stop us from framing it differently -- eg that it was Approved by the RDF WG.
Sandro Hawke: repeat -- pubrules doesn;t stop us from framing it differently -- eg that it was Approved by the RDF WG. ←
16:23:03 <sandro> Basically, we just have to *MENTION* the RDF WG in the SOTD.
Sandro Hawke: Basically, we just have to *MENTION* the RDF WG in the SOTD. ←
16:23:44 <sandro> (of course we don't want to be deceptive. But the fact is, the RDF WG did *not* develop this spec.)
Sandro Hawke: (of course we don't want to be deceptive. But the fact is, the RDF WG did *not* develop this spec.) ←
16:23:51 <davidwood> I propose a paragraph in the Introduction that says up front, "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as a First Published Working Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome."
David Wood: I propose a paragraph in the Introduction that says up front, "This document was published by the RDF Working Group as a First Published Working Draft. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-rdf-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome." ←
16:24:13 <sandro> that sounds like sotd not intro text
Sandro Hawke: that sounds like sotd not intro text ←
16:24:19 <davidwood> I didn't say that the document was *developed* by the RDF WG, but *published*.
David Wood: I didn't say that the document was *developed* by the RDF WG, but *published*. ←
16:24:56 <sandro> sure, but we dont even need to say that.
Sandro Hawke: sure, but we dont even need to say that. ←
16:25:14 <sandro> Anyway, Manu, I'm mostly with you on this, I think.
Sandro Hawke: Anyway, Manu, I'm mostly with you on this, I think. ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#2) generated 2012-06-20 21:51:01 UTC by 'cgreer2', comments: "Misattributed Manu's point to Pierre-Antoine"