14:57:40 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/24-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/10/24-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:57:42 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:57:44 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:57:44 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes ←
14:57:45 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:57:45 <trackbot> Date: 24 October 2012
14:58:24 <AndyS> zakim, this is 73394
Andy Seaborne: zakim, this is 73394 ←
14:58:24 <Zakim> ok, AndyS; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, AndyS; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←
14:58:33 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:58:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see +31.20.598.aaaa, ??P1, ??P9
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +31.20.598.aaaa, ??P1, ??P9 ←
14:58:43 <AndyS> zakim, ??P9 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P9 is me ←
14:58:44 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
14:58:51 <yvesr_> Zakim, ??P1 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P1 is me ←
14:58:51 <Zakim> +yvesr_; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +yvesr_; got it ←
14:58:56 <Guus> zakim, +31.20 is me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, +31.20 is me ←
14:58:56 <Zakim> +Guus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus; got it ←
14:58:58 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P1 is me
Yves Raimond: Zakim, ??P1 is me ←
14:58:58 <Zakim> I already had ??P1 as yvesr_, yvesr
Zakim IRC Bot: I already had ??P1 as yvesr_, yvesr ←
14:59:09 <Guus> zakim, this if rdf
Guus Schreiber: zakim, this if rdf ←
14:59:09 <Zakim> I don't understand 'this if rdf', Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'this if rdf', Guus ←
14:59:14 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
14:59:18 <Guus> zakim, this is rdf
Guus Schreiber: zakim, this is rdf ←
14:59:18 <Zakim> Guus, this was already SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: Guus, this was already SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←
14:59:20 <Zakim> ok, Guus; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, Guus; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←
14:59:24 <gkellogg> zakim, ??P3 is me
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, ??P3 is me ←
14:59:24 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
14:59:34 <Zakim> +GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: +GavinC ←
15:01:08 <Zakim> +??P15
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P15 ←
15:01:13 <manu> zakim, I am ??P15
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P15 ←
15:01:13 <Zakim> +manu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu; got it ←
15:01:51 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:02:00 <Zakim> +MHausenblas
Zakim IRC Bot: +MHausenblas ←
15:02:02 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
Richard Cyganiak: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me ←
15:02:02 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri; got it ←
15:02:11 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.898.aabb ←
15:02:21 <davidwood> Zakim, aabb is me
David Wood: Zakim, aabb is me ←
15:02:21 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it ←
15:02:24 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
15:02:32 <mlnt> zakim, I am ??P16
Markus Lanthaler: zakim, I am ??P16 ←
15:02:32 <Zakim> +mlnt; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +mlnt; got it ←
15:03:23 <Zakim> +??P13
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P13 ←
15:03:35 <AZ> Zakim, ??P13 is me
Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, ??P13 is me ←
15:03:35 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←
15:04:06 <Guus> zakim, pick a scribe
Guus Schreiber: zakim, pick a scribe ←
15:04:06 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gkellogg ←
15:04:20 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:04:26 <cygri> scribe: cygri
(Scribe set to Richard Cyganiak)
15:04:33 <Guus> chair: Guus
15:05:19 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
15:05:20 <cygri> topic: Admin
15:05:32 <manu> zakim, who is on the call?
Manu Sporny: zakim, who is on the call? ←
15:05:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, yvesr_, AndyS, gkellogg, GavinC, manu, Ivan, cygri, davidwood, mlnt, AZ, Sandro, EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Guus, yvesr_, AndyS, gkellogg, GavinC, manu, Ivan, cygri, davidwood, mlnt, AZ, Sandro, EricP ←
15:05:33 <cygri> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 17 Oct telecon
PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 17 Oct telecon ←
15:05:39 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-17
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-17 ←
15:05:52 <cygri> RESOLUTION: Accept the minutes of the 17 Oct telecon
RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of the 17 Oct telecon ←
15:05:58 <cygri> subtopic: Review of action items
15:06:24 <cygri> guus: I sent the long overdue response to PROV-WG
Guus Schreiber: I sent the long overdue response to PROV-WG ←
15:07:08 <cygri> ... response from PROV-WG: request for clarification of our schedule for finishing the multigraph syntax
... response from PROV-WG: request for clarification of our schedule for finishing the multigraph syntax ←
15:07:27 <cygri> ivan: I'll be on both WG's F2F meetings, so can pass on that information
Ivan Herman: I'll be on both WG's F2F meetings, so can pass on that information ←
15:07:34 <Zakim> + +1.617.553.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.617.553.aacc ←
15:07:41 <cygri> guus: gavinc claims victory on ACTION-189
Guus Schreiber: gavinc claims victory on ACTION-189 ←
15:07:43 <cygri> ... close it
... close it ←
15:07:53 <cygri> ACTION-188?
15:07:53 <trackbot> ACTION-188 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to respond to i18n for issue 183 -- due 2012-10-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-188 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to respond to i18n for ISSUE-183 -- due 2012-10-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW ←
15:07:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/188
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/188 ←
15:08:09 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:08:17 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:08:17 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
15:08:17 <cygri> ericP: I have done it, but cygri disagreed with my response
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I have done it, but cygri disagreed with my response ←
15:08:19 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:08:19 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
15:08:29 <cygri> guus: The action is done anyway
Guus Schreiber: The action is done anyway ←
15:09:05 <cygri> ACTION-184?
15:09:05 <trackbot> ACTION-184 -- Richard Cyganiak to review http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/09/12/last-call-constraints-of-the-provenance-data-model/ by 2 Oct -- due 2012-09-26 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-184 -- Richard Cyganiak to review http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/09/12/last-call-constraints-of-the-provenance-data-model/ by 2 Oct -- due 2012-09-26 -- OPEN ←
15:09:05 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/184
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/184 ←
15:09:10 <cygri> ACTION-185?
15:09:10 <trackbot> ACTION-185 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to review http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/09/12/last-call-constraints-of-the-provenance-data-model/ by 2 Oct -- due 2012-09-26 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-185 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to review http://www.w3.org/blog/SW/2012/09/12/last-call-constraints-of-the-provenance-data-model/ by 2 Oct -- due 2012-09-26 -- OPEN ←
15:09:10 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/185
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/185 ←
15:09:34 <cygri> ericP: I'm not sure if it's still useful to review PROV-C
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I'm not sure if it's still useful to review PROV-C ←
15:09:44 <cygri> ivan: I believe it's overcome by events
Ivan Herman: I believe it's overcome by events ←
15:09:51 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
15:10:00 <cygri> ... you can still of course sent in personal comments
... you can still of course sent in personal comments ←
15:10:24 <AZ> for the record, I sent my personal comments on PROV-CONSTRAINTS, but I don't see anything to say on behalf of RDF WG
Antoine Zimmermann: for the record, I sent my personal comments on PROV-CONSTRAINTS, but I don't see anything to say on behalf of RDF WG ←
15:10:38 <cygri> cygri: same for my action re PROV-C
Richard Cyganiak: same for my action re PROV-C ←
15:10:56 <cygri> subtopic: Next meeting
15:11:07 <cygri> guus: F2F on Monday+Tuesday
Guus Schreiber: F2F on Monday+Tuesday ←
15:11:28 <cygri> ... plans for meeting on Sunday evening?
... plans for meeting on Sunday evening? ←
15:11:32 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.650.265.aadd ←
15:11:49 <cygri> ivan: The area around TPAC is pretty desolate at night
Ivan Herman: The area around TPAC is pretty desolate at night ←
15:11:50 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aadd is me
Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.650.265.aadd is me ←
15:11:50 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it ←
15:12:13 <AZ> but public transport brings you quickly to the center
Antoine Zimmermann: but public transport brings you quickly to the center ←
15:12:14 <cygri> davidwood: we could meet in the Hilton lobby
David Wood: we could meet in the Hilton lobby ←
15:13:07 <cygri> guus: Next week, summer time stops in Europe but not yet in the U.S.
Guus Schreiber: Next week, summer time stops in Europe but not yet in the U.S. ←
15:13:19 <cygri> ... so, difference between the time zones is one hour less
... so, difference between the time zones is one hour less ←
15:13:35 <gavinc> Reminder on Timezones: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=RDF+WG+F2F&iso=20121029T0915&p1=333&ah=8
Gavin Carothers: Reminder on Timezones: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=RDF+WG+F2F&iso=20121029T0915&p1=333&ah=8 ←
15:14:40 <cygri> topic: JSON-LD
15:15:11 <manu> q+ to suggest a different order
Manu Sporny: q+ to suggest a different order ←
15:15:23 <cygri> guus: let's start with the discussion of the phrase Linked Data and how it relates to different formats
Guus Schreiber: let's start with the discussion of the phrase Linked Data and how it relates to different formats ←
15:15:32 <cygri> ... especially Dan's message was interesting
... especially Dan's message was interesting ←
15:15:45 <cygri> ... in my view, while interesting, this is not on the critical path of this WG
... in my view, while interesting, this is not on the critical path of this WG ←
15:15:54 <cygri> ... I think we should not spend time on it
... I think we should not spend time on it ←
15:16:09 <cygri> ericP: Did it come up because JSON-LD references LD?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Did it come up because JSON-LD references LD? ←
15:16:10 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
15:16:34 <cygri> guus: it also had to do with the question whether the link to RDF is mandatory for something to be linked data
Guus Schreiber: it also had to do with the question whether the link to RDF is mandatory for something to be linked data ←
15:16:57 <cygri> ... Dan's message was that it's a good slogan
... Dan's message was that it's a good slogan ←
15:17:11 <gavinc> +q to wonder why that community isn't here, and if perhaps that's part of the issue
Gavin Carothers: +q to wonder why that community isn't here, and if perhaps that's part of the issue ←
15:17:24 <cygri> manu: The JSON-LD spec used to say normatively what is and isn't LD, but this was removed
Manu Sporny: The JSON-LD spec used to say normatively what is and isn't LD, but this was removed ←
15:17:25 <ivan> ack manu
Ivan Herman: ack manu ←
15:17:25 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest a different order
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to suggest a different order ←
15:17:40 <cygri> ... so now it just talks informatively and generally about linked data (in the introduction)
... so now it just talks informatively and generally about linked data (in the introduction) ←
15:17:42 <ericP> +1 to permathreads
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to permathreads ←
15:17:56 <cygri> ... this approach has largely been agreed in the JSON-LD group and also here in this group
... this approach has largely been agreed in the JSON-LD group and also here in this group ←
15:18:06 <cygri> ... we want to avoid these permathreads
... we want to avoid these permathreads ←
15:18:15 <cygri> ... we have more important things to discuss
... we have more important things to discuss ←
15:18:19 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:18:27 <cygri> ... and what we have in the JSON-LD spec doesn't require this discussion at all
... and what we have in the JSON-LD spec doesn't require this discussion at all ←
15:18:29 <ivan> ack cygri
Ivan Herman: ack cygri ←
15:18:33 <manu> cygri: +1 to what Manu said.
Richard Cyganiak: +1 to what Manu said. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:18:39 <ericP> cygri: plus one 2 manu
Richard Cyganiak: plus one 2 manu [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
15:18:42 <Guus> ack gavinc
Guus Schreiber: ack gavinc ←
15:18:42 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to wonder why that community isn't here, and if perhaps that's part of the issue
Zakim IRC Bot: gavinc, you wanted to wonder why that community isn't here, and if perhaps that's part of the issue ←
15:19:02 <cygri> gavinc: Every time JSON-LD comes up, it is said that the people in this WG are not the target community
Gavin Carothers: Every time JSON-LD comes up, it is said that the people in this WG are not the target community ←
15:19:13 <manu> q+ about "wrong community"
Manu Sporny: q+ about "wrong community" ←
15:19:20 <manu> ack about
Manu Sporny: ack about ←
15:19:21 <cygri> ... I am somewhat worried about doing this work in RDF-WG if it's the wrong community
... I am somewhat worried about doing this work in RDF-WG if it's the wrong community ←
15:19:26 <manu> ack "wrong, community"
Manu Sporny: ack "wrong, community" ←
15:19:33 <manu> ack
Manu Sporny: ack ←
15:19:45 <AndyS> I see section 3.1 is still there.
Andy Seaborne: I see section 3.1 is still there. ←
15:19:52 <manu> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
15:20:04 <cygri> guus: next topics are: what's the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD? and how should that be expressed in the documents?
Guus Schreiber: next topics are: what's the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD? and how should that be expressed in the documents? ←
15:20:19 <cygri> ... there were messages from Peter
... there were messages from Peter ←
15:20:44 <cygri> ... gkellogg said: "Is JSON-LD a serialization syntax for all RDF graphs? Yes"
... gkellogg said: "Is JSON-LD a serialization syntax for all RDF graphs? Yes" ←
15:20:57 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
15:21:53 <cygri> manu: Let's identify exactly what we are talking about. There have been strong comments from mhausenblas and pfps saying that the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD has to be normatively specified
Manu Sporny: Let's identify exactly what we are talking about. There have been strong comments from mhausenblas and pfps saying that the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD has to be normatively specified ←
15:22:06 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
15:22:21 <cygri> guus: Let's first clarify what the relationship is, between talking about how to express it in the docs
Guus Schreiber: Let's first clarify what the relationship is, between talking about how to express it in the docs ←
15:22:40 <cygri> ... Are we in agreement regarding: "Is JSON-LD a serialization syntax for all RDF graphs?"
... Are we in agreement regarding: "Is JSON-LD a serialization syntax for all RDF graphs?" ←
15:23:00 <cygri> ivan: The answer is: clearly true
Ivan Herman: The answer is: clearly true ←
15:23:10 <cygri> manu: Yes, this was a design requirement
Manu Sporny: Yes, this was a design requirement ←
15:23:17 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:23:26 <MacTed> ack
Ted Thibodeau: ack ←
15:23:36 <davidwood> q?
David Wood: q? ←
15:23:39 <ivan> ack manu
Ivan Herman: ack manu ←
15:23:41 <cygri> guus: So JSON-LD is a serialization syntax for all RDF graphs
Guus Schreiber: So JSON-LD is a serialization syntax for all RDF graphs ←
15:23:46 <ivan> ack "wrong, community"
Ivan Herman: ack "wrong, community" ←
15:24:09 <Guus> ack manu
Guus Schreiber: ack manu ←
15:24:10 <davidwood> ack 'wrong, community'
David Wood: ack 'wrong, community' ←
15:24:11 <ivan> ack cygri
Ivan Herman: ack cygri ←
15:24:25 <davidwood> ack wrong, community
David Wood: ack wrong, community ←
15:24:25 <gkellogg> q-
Gregg Kellogg: q- ←
15:24:29 <Guus> ack "wrong
Guus Schreiber: ack "wrong ←
15:24:31 <yvesr> ack \"wrong, community\"
Yves Raimond: ack \"wrong, community\" ←
15:24:31 <MacTed> q- "wrong community"
Ted Thibodeau: q- "wrong community" ←
15:24:39 <ivan> zakim, help
Ivan Herman: zakim, help ←
15:24:39 <Zakim> Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help.
Zakim IRC Bot: Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help. ←
15:24:41 <gavinc> queue=
Gavin Carothers: queue= ←
15:24:41 <Zakim> Some of the commands I know are:
Zakim IRC Bot: Some of the commands I know are: ←
15:24:41 <Zakim> xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx
Zakim IRC Bot: xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx ←
15:24:41 <Zakim> if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted
Zakim IRC Bot: if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted ←
15:24:42 <Zakim> xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx
Zakim IRC Bot: xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx ←
15:24:42 <Zakim> I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx
Zakim IRC Bot: I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx ←
15:24:42 <Zakim> xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group
Zakim IRC Bot: xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group ←
15:24:42 <Zakim> xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx
Zakim IRC Bot: xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx ←
15:24:42 <Zakim> who's here? - lists the participants on the phone
Zakim IRC Bot: who's here? - lists the participants on the phone ←
15:24:42 <Zakim> who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted
Zakim IRC Bot: who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted ←
15:24:42 <Zakim> mute xxx - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#)
Zakim IRC Bot: mute xxx - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#) ←
15:24:42 <Zakim> unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61#
Zakim IRC Bot: unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61# ←
15:24:43 <manu> cygri: Let's talk about the second point - is JSON-LD only a serialization syntax for an RDF Graph - not quite, somewhat similar to the situation with RDFa
Richard Cyganiak: Let's talk about the second point - is JSON-LD only a serialization syntax for an RDF Graph - not quite, somewhat similar to the situation with RDFa [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:24:45 <Zakim> is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present
Zakim IRC Bot: is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present ←
15:24:45 <Zakim> list conferences - reports the active conferences
Zakim IRC Bot: list conferences - reports the active conferences ←
15:24:45 <Zakim> this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx
Zakim IRC Bot: this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx ←
15:24:45 <Zakim> excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel
Zakim IRC Bot: excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel ←
15:24:45 <Zakim> I last learned something new on $Date: 2012/10/24 16:20:46 $
Zakim IRC Bot: I last learned something new on $Date: 2012/10/24 16:20:46 $ ←
15:24:51 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:24:58 <patH> Yes, but not exactly = no
Patrick Hayes: Yes, but not exactly = no ←
15:25:03 <Arnaud> sorry for being late
Arnaud Le Hors: sorry for being late ←
15:25:41 <manu> cygri: In RDFa it's clear that you have an HTML document, RDFa says that you can recover some of the HTML document as structured data in RDF. In JSON-LD, it's not quite as extreme - in an HTML document, you have lots of other content, but it is effectively the same thing - you can extract information.
Richard Cyganiak: In RDFa it's clear that you have an HTML document, RDFa says that you can recover some of the HTML document as structured data in RDF. In JSON-LD, it's not quite as extreme - in an HTML document, you have lots of other content, but it is effectively the same thing - you can extract information. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:26:09 <manu> cygri: There are things that you can pick up from the JSON document and translate to RDF.
Richard Cyganiak: There are things that you can pick up from the JSON document and translate to RDF. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:26:14 <cygri> guus: so this is in line with gkellogg's response
Guus Schreiber: so this is in line with gkellogg's response ←
15:26:25 <cygri> ... there are some things that don't survive transformation to RDF
... there are some things that don't survive transformation to RDF ←
15:26:33 <cygri> ... so "Is JSON-LD only a serialization syntax for RDF graphs?" is not strictly true
... so "Is JSON-LD only a serialization syntax for RDF graphs?" is not strictly true ←
15:26:46 <cygri> manu: And not completely false either
Manu Sporny: And not completely false either ←
15:27:00 <cygri> ... there are limited cases where it's not true
... there are limited cases where it's not true ←
15:27:17 <Zakim> + +1.603.897.aaee
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.897.aaee ←
15:27:28 <gavinc> the delta of bnodes as predicates isn't really that small, is it?
Gavin Carothers: the delta of bnodes as predicates isn't really that small, is it? ←
15:27:29 <cygri> guus: So, any RDF graph is JSON-LD, but there is a certain, small, delta of things that can be expressed in JSON-LD but not in RDF
Guus Schreiber: So, any RDF graph is JSON-LD, but there is a certain, small, delta of things that can be expressed in JSON-LD but not in RDF ←
15:27:33 <patH> I think it is fine for any non-RDF format to be able to represent stuff outside RDF
Patrick Hayes: I think it is fine for any non-RDF format to be able to represent stuff outside RDF ←
15:27:36 <AndyS> bnodes as predicates?
Andy Seaborne: bnodes as predicates? ←
15:27:39 <cygri> zakim, aaee is Souri
zakim, aaee is Souri ←
15:27:39 <Zakim> +Souri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri; got it ←
15:27:42 <ivan> zakim, aaee is Souri
Ivan Herman: zakim, aaee is Souri ←
15:27:42 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named 'aaee' ←
15:27:55 <ivan> +1 to patH
Ivan Herman: +1 to patH ←
15:28:31 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
15:28:46 <cygri> guus: The concern of mhausenblas was: If JSON-LD provides an RDF serialization, then the relationship with RDF has to be normatively specified
Guus Schreiber: The concern of mhausenblas was: If JSON-LD provides an RDF serialization, then the relationship with RDF has to be normatively specified ←
15:29:08 <manu> q+
Manu Sporny: q+ ←
15:29:14 <cygri> ... cygri has made some efforts to align both already; I note there's issue 168
... cygri has made some efforts to align both already; I note there's ISSUE-168 ←
15:29:19 <ivan> ack cygri
Ivan Herman: ack cygri ←
15:29:22 <mlnt> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/168
Markus Lanthaler: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/168 ←
15:29:34 <patH> +1 to mhausenblas
Patrick Hayes: +1 to mhausenblas ←
15:30:02 <cygri> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#json-ld-data-model
http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#json-ld-data-model ←
15:30:05 <manu> cygri: I'd like to talk about next steps that we talked about in the JSON-LD call. I'm trying to make the JSON-LD data model very clear. If we look at the JSON-LD spec, there is a section 3.1.
Richard Cyganiak: I'd like to talk about next steps that we talked about in the JSON-LD call. I'm trying to make the JSON-LD data model very clear. If we look at the JSON-LD spec, there is a section 3.1. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:30:32 <cygri> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/174
https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/174 ←
15:30:37 <manu> cygri: That has a short description of the data model - one point I raised was that it leaves a number of questions open. There are some details that are not spelled out (for whatever reason). I raised an issue against the JSON-LD spec (above).
Richard Cyganiak: That has a short description of the data model - one point I raised was that it leaves a number of questions open. There are some details that are not spelled out (for whatever reason). I raised an issue against the JSON-LD spec (above). [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:31:18 <manu> cygri: I spelled out all of the minor points that are left ambiguous. There is a long discussion there where the designers of JSON-LD responded to that. Based on that, I think we're pretty close to a point where we can say that in all detail, what the JSON-LD data model is.
Richard Cyganiak: I spelled out all of the minor points that are left ambiguous. There is a long discussion there where the designers of JSON-LD responded to that. Based on that, I think we're pretty close to a point where we can say that in all detail, what the JSON-LD data model is. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:31:56 <manu> cygri: Once we have done that, it'll be very easy to say exactly how it maps to the RDF data model. We can point out the small delta between the two data models. I have taken an action to write an appendix to the JSON-LD spec that will spell it out in detail.
Richard Cyganiak: Once we have done that, it'll be very easy to say exactly how it maps to the RDF data model. We can point out the small delta between the two data models. I have taken an action to write an appendix to the JSON-LD spec that will spell it out in detail. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:32:18 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:32:45 <ivan> q?
Ivan Herman: q? ←
15:32:55 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:33:00 <manu> cygri: The plan is that this would be a normative appendix that would spell out these differences. Section 3.1 uses slightly different terminology from RDF Concepts, sometimes a different name or slightly different definition, but there is an appendix that makes these differences really clear and explicit. This will provide a normative distinction between JSON-LD and RDF. That's how we're...
Richard Cyganiak: The plan is that this would be a normative appendix that would spell out these differences. Section 3.1 uses slightly different terminology from RDF Concepts, sometimes a different name or slightly different definition, but there is an appendix that makes these differences really clear and explicit. This will provide a normative distinction between JSON-LD and RDF. That's how we're... [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:33:02 <manu> ...addressing the issue.
Manu Sporny: ...addressing the issue. ←
15:33:23 <manu> cygri: With my RDF Concepts editor's hat on, I'd be satisfied if the Appendix is normative and the JSON-LD data model is spelled out in sufficient detail.
Richard Cyganiak: With my RDF Concepts editor's hat on, I'd be satisfied if the Appendix is normative and the JSON-LD data model is spelled out in sufficient detail. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:34:25 <cygri> manu: Yes, this is what we agreed on the JSON-LD call yesterday. Broad agreement in the group to align closely with RDF, while ensuring that the document is understandable to those without enough time to study RDF deeply
Manu Sporny: Yes, this is what we agreed on the JSON-LD call yesterday. Broad agreement in the group to align closely with RDF, while ensuring that the document is understandable to those without enough time to study RDF deeply ←
15:34:35 <cygri> ... we've taken a number of actions to make sure that this alignment is happening
... we've taken a number of actions to make sure that this alignment is happening ←
15:34:49 <cygri> ... we believe that's enough to address mhausenblas' and pfps' concerns
... we believe that's enough to address mhausenblas' and pfps' concerns ←
15:35:23 <cygri> ... I'd like to know if anyone disagrees, and how these concerns could be alleviated
... I'd like to know if anyone disagrees, and how these concerns could be alleviated ←
15:35:27 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:35:33 <Guus> ack manu
Guus Schreiber: ack manu ←
15:35:34 <cygri> guus: mhausenblas and pfps are not here
Guus Schreiber: mhausenblas and pfps are not here ←
15:35:51 <cygri> ivan: I don't have problems with the plan you have outlined
Ivan Herman: I don't have problems with the plan you have outlined ←
15:36:11 <cygri> ... is the agreement to use the same term with the same definition wherever possible?
... is the agreement to use the same term with the same definition wherever possible? ←
15:36:23 <patH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
15:36:23 <cygri> ... I understand the image issue and that you don't want to mention RDF
... I understand the image issue and that you don't want to mention RDF ←
15:36:34 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
15:36:40 <cygri> ... nevertheless, wherever possible, there should be not just a mapping but the same term should be used
... nevertheless, wherever possible, there should be not just a mapping but the same term should be used ←
15:36:41 <manu> q+ to respond to 'use the same terms'
Manu Sporny: q+ to respond to 'use the same terms' ←
15:37:15 <cygri> ... maybe the background and reasons can be given somewhere, why it was necessary to define JSON-LD graphs
... maybe the background and reasons can be given somewhere, why it was necessary to define JSON-LD graphs ←
15:37:20 <Guus> ack patH
Guus Schreiber: ack patH ←
15:37:22 <cygri> ... apart from the image issue
... apart from the image issue ←
15:37:29 <yvesr> +1, I'd like to understand what the issues are, and whether it's somehting that needs to be taken into account in RDF
Yves Raimond: +1, I'd like to understand what the issues are, and whether it's somehting that needs to be taken into account in RDF ←
15:37:41 <cygri> PatH: Agree that same terminology should be used
Patrick Hayes: Agree that same terminology should be used ←
15:37:56 <cygri> ... I can see why you'd like to protect the audience from reading the RDF docs
... I can see why you'd like to protect the audience from reading the RDF docs ←
15:38:07 <cygri> ... But it's important that they know that they're using RDF
... But it's important that they know that they're using RDF ←
15:38:28 <cygri> ... When things are not called the same there's a risk that things evolve in different directions
... When things are not called the same there's a risk that things evolve in different directions ←
15:38:47 <Guus> ack mamnu
Guus Schreiber: ack mamnu ←
15:38:50 <cygri> ... If you could overcome the RDF shock problem, that would give security against such danger
... If you could overcome the RDF shock problem, that would give security against such danger ←
15:38:58 <Guus> ack manu
Guus Schreiber: ack manu ←
15:38:58 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to respond to 'use the same terms'
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to respond to 'use the same terms' ←
15:39:10 <cygri> manu: We try not to duplicate when we don't have to. That's not necessarily an easy thing
Manu Sporny: We try not to duplicate when we don't have to. That's not necessarily an easy thing ←
15:39:19 <cygri> ... There would be two extremes, we aim for neither
... There would be two extremes, we aim for neither ←
15:39:30 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:39:31 <cygri> ... One: Defer to RDF concepts for everything. Not good for the audience
... One: Defer to RDF concepts for everything. Not good for the audience ←
15:39:43 <davidwood> q+ to suggest the sections just need to be informative
David Wood: q+ to suggest the sections just need to be informative ←
15:39:47 <cygri> ... Two: Don't mention RDF at all. We don't want that either because people should be able to dig deeper
... Two: Don't mention RDF at all. We don't want that either because people should be able to dig deeper ←
15:40:01 <cygri> ... Trying to find a middle ground. That's difficult as we need to delve into the details
... Trying to find a middle ground. That's difficult as we need to delve into the details ←
15:40:25 <gkellogg> RDF Concepts uses property too, in relation to predicate
Gregg Kellogg: RDF Concepts uses property too, in relation to predicate ←
15:40:26 <cygri> ... For example, we preferred term “property” over “predicate” as that term is more commonly understood
... For example, we preferred term “property” over “predicate” as that term is more commonly understood ←
15:40:41 <cygri> ... so we try to pick the web developer view
... so we try to pick the web developer view ←
15:40:51 <Guus> "property" is not completely inconsistent with RDF, I would say
Guus Schreiber: "property" is not completely inconsistent with RDF, I would say ←
15:40:59 <cygri> ... try to avoid forcing people to have to go to the RDF Concepts document
... try to avoid forcing people to have to go to the RDF Concepts document ←
15:41:16 <cygri> ... So we're trying to align terminology, but it doesn't always work out that way
... So we're trying to align terminology, but it doesn't always work out that way ←
15:41:26 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:41:48 <cygri> ... We appreciate input from this group regarding terminology. We don't want to define a parallel data model
... We appreciate input from this group regarding terminology. We don't want to define a parallel data model ←
15:41:53 <gavinc> It's not "some people" use property to mean something in Javascript btw, it's the ECMA Script spec itself
Gavin Carothers: It's not "some people" use property to mean something in Javascript btw, it's the ECMA Script spec itself ←
15:41:53 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
15:41:56 <patH> q
Patrick Hayes: q ←
15:42:05 <patH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
15:42:31 <cygri> ivan: I'm fine with the direction. We can't do anything useful here really until the text from Richard is available and the description of the data model is considered final
Ivan Herman: I'm fine with the direction. We can't do anything useful here really until the text from Richard is available and the description of the data model is considered final ←
15:42:38 <Guus> ack davidwood
Guus Schreiber: ack davidwood ←
15:42:38 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to suggest the sections just need to be informative
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to suggest the sections just need to be informative ←
15:42:43 <cygri> ... The direction seems fine and I wish you good luck
... The direction seems fine and I wish you good luck ←
15:43:08 <cygri> davidwood: Some reasonable concerns have been raised that the JSON-LD documents should not redefine what has already been defined elsewhere
David Wood: Some reasonable concerns have been raised that the JSON-LD documents should not redefine what has already been defined elsewhere ←
15:43:34 <cygri> ... We have a good mechanism for that. Just mark those sections informative.
... We have a good mechanism for that. Just mark those sections informative. ←
15:43:54 <cygri> ... Then we can simply note that this is the JSON-LD spec speaking to its readership
... Then we can simply note that this is the JSON-LD spec speaking to its readership ←
15:43:58 <manu> q+ to say that some parts can't be informative
Manu Sporny: q+ to say that some parts can't be informative ←
15:44:05 <cygri> ... This might be all we need to do here
... This might be all we need to do here ←
15:44:23 <cygri> guus: It might be useful to go through the terminology delta at the F2F
Guus Schreiber: It might be useful to go through the terminology delta at the F2F ←
15:44:54 <manu> cygri: I think we need to look at the data models and where there is a difference between them... regardless of the words that are used.
Richard Cyganiak: I think we need to look at the data models and where there is a difference between them... regardless of the words that are used. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:45:01 <patH> q-
Patrick Hayes: q- ←
15:45:24 <manu> cygri: As far as I understand, in a JSON-LD graph, you can have a free-floating node. You can just have an IRI that exists as an independent node. You can't have a node that doesn't at least have one statement.
Richard Cyganiak: As far as I understand, in a JSON-LD graph, you can have a free-floating node. You can just have an IRI that exists as an independent node. You can't have a node that doesn't at least have one statement. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:45:40 <manu> cygri: That's one of these subtle differences. Is there a reasonable technical reason that we have these differences?
Richard Cyganiak: That's one of these subtle differences. Is there a reasonable technical reason that we have these differences? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:45:51 <gkellogg> How about <rdf:Description about="foo"/> ?
Gregg Kellogg: How about <rdf:Description about="foo"/> ? ←
15:46:13 <AndyS> Alt view - in RDF all nodes exist always.
Andy Seaborne: Alt view - in RDF all nodes exist always. ←
15:46:16 <manu> cygri: If there is a reason we have it, wouldn't it be more dangerous to lean too heavily on RDF Concepts that could create more confusion than just saying that they're two indepdendent data models.
Richard Cyganiak: If there is a reason we have it, wouldn't it be more dangerous to lean too heavily on RDF Concepts that could create more confusion than just saying that they're two indepdendent data models. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:46:36 <patH> manu, two points. (1) where there are genuine technical overloadings of meaning then of course you might need to use different terms, and "property" might be one. (2) Richard is rewriting RDF Concepts to keep it as brief and snappy as possible, so i tmight serve to be a barrier against the dreaded model theory for your readers.
Patrick Hayes: manu, two points. (1) where there are genuine technical overloadings of meaning then of course you might need to use different terms, and "property" might be one. (2) Richard is rewriting RDF Concepts to keep it as brief and snappy as possible, so i tmight serve to be a barrier against the dreaded model theory for your readers. ←
15:46:43 <manu> cygri: I think it will be useful to go through the differences in the data model, discuss what they are and how the mapping to RDF happens.
Richard Cyganiak: I think it will be useful to go through the differences in the data model, discuss what they are and how the mapping to RDF happens. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:47:08 <cygri> guus: I think this would be one of the most useful things to do at the F2F, might solve many of the issues
Guus Schreiber: I think this would be one of the most useful things to do at the F2F, might solve many of the issues ←
15:47:33 <Guus> ack patH
Guus Schreiber: ack patH ←
15:48:00 <Guus> ack manu
Guus Schreiber: ack manu ←
15:48:00 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to say that some parts can't be informative
Zakim IRC Bot: manu, you wanted to say that some parts can't be informative ←
15:48:42 <patH> +1 to speaker
Patrick Hayes: +1 to speaker ←
15:48:49 <cygri> manu: I think it's useful to discuss the delta, but am afraid of getting into long debates of the JSON-LD data model. It doesn't help if the RDF-WG talks in detail about the JSON-LD data model as this won't have a clear result
Manu Sporny: I think it's useful to discuss the delta, but am afraid of getting into long debates of the JSON-LD data model. It doesn't help if the RDF-WG talks in detail about the JSON-LD data model as this won't have a clear result ←
15:49:11 <cygri> guus: The discussion can be limited. Some discussion might be necessary to get the endorsement of this group
Guus Schreiber: The discussion can be limited. Some discussion might be necessary to get the endorsement of this group ←
15:49:26 <gkellogg> +1 to path
Gregg Kellogg: +1 to path ←
15:49:34 <cygri> PatH: RDF-WG shouldn't get into minute details of the JSON-LD data model. Waste of time
Patrick Hayes: RDF-WG shouldn't get into minute details of the JSON-LD data model. Waste of time ←
15:49:35 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
15:49:57 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
15:50:16 <cygri> manu: Not saying we shouldn't discuss it. Just avoid getting bogged down in details
Manu Sporny: Not saying we shouldn't discuss it. Just avoid getting bogged down in details ←
15:51:07 <cygri> manu: can we have some resolutions to capture the agreement we seem to have?
Manu Sporny: can we have some resolutions to capture the agreement we seem to have? ←
15:51:41 <manu> PROPOSED PROPOSAL: JSON-LD MUST provide a serialization syntax for all RDF graphs.
Manu Sporny: PROPOSED PROPOSAL: JSON-LD MUST provide a serialization syntax for all RDF graphs. ←
15:51:43 <manu> PROPOSED PROPOSAL: Add a normative section to the JSON-LD Syntax specification outlining how the JSON-LD data model aligns with the RDF data model described in RDF Concepts.
Manu Sporny: PROPOSED PROPOSAL: Add a normative section to the JSON-LD Syntax specification outlining how the JSON-LD data model aligns with the RDF data model described in RDF Concepts. ←
15:51:45 <manu> PROPOSED PROPOSAL: If necessary, add precision to the JSON-LD data model such that it is crystal clear as to how the JSON-LD data model maps to the RDF data model.
Manu Sporny: PROPOSED PROPOSAL: If necessary, add precision to the JSON-LD data model such that it is crystal clear as to how the JSON-LD data model maps to the RDF data model. ←
15:52:21 <manu> cygri: We shouldn't do resolutions on statements of fact... we should do it on things we intend to do.
Richard Cyganiak: We shouldn't do resolutions on statements of fact... we should do it on things we intend to do. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:53:44 <patH> Should JSON-LD provide a way to recognize whether a given serialization is or is not legal RDF (other than translating it into RDF nad back again, that is) ?? NOt sure how to word this.
Patrick Hayes: Should JSON-LD provide a way to recognize whether a given serialization is or is not legal RDF (other than translating it into RDF nad back again, that is) ?? NOt sure how to word this. ←
15:54:10 <gavinc> patH: No, down that road lies insanity
Patrick Hayes: No, down that road lies insanity [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
15:54:19 <manu> patH, We plan to put a conformance section in the spec... which might do what you want.
Manu Sporny: patH, We plan to put a conformance section in the spec... which might do what you want. ←
15:54:38 <MacTed> PROPOSED PROPOSAL revision: JSON-LD syntax MUST support serialization of (any?) all RDF graphs.
Ted Thibodeau: PROPOSED PROPOSAL revision: JSON-LD syntax MUST support serialization of (any?) all RDF graphs. ←
15:54:45 <patH> Avoid "crystal" in a resolution.
Patrick Hayes: Avoid "crystal" in a resolution. ←
15:54:53 <cygri> guus: not sure about spending telecon time on the exact phrasing
Guus Schreiber: not sure about spending telecon time on the exact phrasing ←
15:55:17 <cygri> PROPOSAL: JSON-LD syntax MUST support serialization of all RDF graphs.
PROPOSED: JSON-LD syntax MUST support serialization of all RDF graphs. ←
15:55:19 <patH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:55:20 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:55:21 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:55:21 <cygri> +1
+1 ←
15:55:21 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:55:21 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:55:23 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:55:24 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:55:24 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:55:26 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
15:55:26 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:55:26 <zwu2> +1
15:55:28 <mlnt> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
15:55:36 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
15:56:05 <gavinc> +1 with fingers in ears around datasets
Gavin Carothers: +1 with fingers in ears around datasets ←
15:56:07 <LeeF> +1
Lee Feigenbaum: +1 ←
15:56:26 <cygri> RESOLUTION: JSON-LD syntax MUST support serialization of all RDF graphs.
RESOLVED: JSON-LD syntax MUST support serialization of all RDF graphs. ←
15:57:32 <AZ> RDF Graphs are sets of triples only
Antoine Zimmermann: RDF Graphs are sets of triples only ←
15:58:13 <cygri> gkellogg: the intention is that JSON-LD serializes RDF datasets too, like TriG
Gregg Kellogg: the intention is that JSON-LD serializes RDF datasets too, like TriG ←
15:58:21 <cygri> guus: let's not try to get resolution on that now
Guus Schreiber: let's not try to get resolution on that now ←
15:58:24 <zwu2> have to leave for another meeting. bye.
Zhe Wu: have to leave for another meeting. bye. ←
15:58:25 <AndyS> Does JSON-LD allow bnodes for graphs?
Andy Seaborne: Does JSON-LD allow bnodes for graphs? ←
15:58:30 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
15:58:35 <gavinc> AndyS: Yes.
Andy Seaborne: Yes. [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
15:58:48 <manu> PROPOSAL: Add a normative section to the JSON-LD Syntax specification outlining how the JSON-LD data model aligns with the RDF data model described in RDF Concepts.
PROPOSED: Add a normative section to the JSON-LD Syntax specification outlining how the JSON-LD data model aligns with the RDF data model described in RDF Concepts. ←
15:59:06 <patH> outlining//stating
Patrick Hayes: outlining//stating ←
15:59:13 <AndyS> Suggest simply ban them - not as a syntax issue.
Andy Seaborne: Suggest simply ban them - not as a syntax issue. ←
15:59:14 <manu> PROPOSAL: Add a normative section to the JSON-LD Syntax specification stating how the JSON-LD data model aligns with the RDF data model described in RDF Concepts.
PROPOSED: Add a normative section to the JSON-LD Syntax specification stating how the JSON-LD data model aligns with the RDF data model described in RDF Concepts. ←
15:59:27 <patH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:59:30 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:59:31 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:59:31 <Arnaud> why stating and not defining?
Arnaud Le Hors: why stating and not defining? ←
15:59:32 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:59:32 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:59:32 <AndyS> +0
Andy Seaborne: +0 ←
15:59:39 <cygri> +1
+1 ←
15:59:40 <yvesr> +1
Yves Raimond: +1 ←
15:59:42 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:59:49 <MacTed> +1
Ted Thibodeau: +1 ←
15:59:55 <mlnt> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
15:59:56 <Arnaud> ok
Arnaud Le Hors: ok ←
16:00:04 <gavinc> +0 prefer removal of 3.1
Gavin Carothers: +0 prefer removal of 3.1 ←
16:00:05 <Arnaud> +1
Arnaud Le Hors: +1 ←
16:00:12 <cygri> cygri: a normative statement is a definition, isn't it?
Richard Cyganiak: a normative statement is a definition, isn't it? ←
16:00:31 <patH> Arnaud, stating requires unambiguous and clear but not the exact form.
Patrick Hayes: Arnaud, stating requires unambiguous and clear but not the exact form. ←
16:00:32 <mlnt> 3.1 is the "JSON-LD Data Model" section
Markus Lanthaler: 3.1 is the "JSON-LD Data Model" section ←
16:00:45 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
16:00:48 <cygri> gavinc: I still think the separate terms are a mistake, but it's editorial discretion
Gavin Carothers: I still think the separate terms are a mistake, but it's editorial discretion ←
16:01:07 <cygri> RESOLUTION: Add a normative section to the JSON-LD Syntax specification stating (=defining) how the JSON-LD data model aligns with the RDF data model described in RDF Concepts.
RESOLVED: Add a normative section to the JSON-LD Syntax specification stating (=defining) how the JSON-LD data model aligns with the RDF data model described in RDF Concepts. ←
16:01:10 <gkellogg> 3.1 could be informative
Gregg Kellogg: 3.1 could be informative ←
16:01:39 <mlnt> AndyS, the drafts don't sync automatically to w3.org.. the most recent are always at json-ld.org
Markus Lanthaler: AndyS, the drafts don't sync automatically to w3.org.. the most recent are always at json-ld.org ←
16:01:48 <gavinc> gkellogg: indeed, and I wouldn't mind a reusable into to RDF modelish that could be used in intros to Turtle, TriG, as well
Gregg Kellogg: indeed, and I wouldn't mind a reusable into to RDF modelish that could be used in intros to Turtle, TriG, as well [ Scribe Assist by Gavin Carothers ] ←
16:01:54 <patH> :-)
Patrick Hayes: :-) ←
16:01:54 <gavinc> intro
Gavin Carothers: intro ←
16:02:17 <cygri> topic: Turtle LC
16:02:24 <cygri> ericP: no replies from i18n group yet
Eric Prud'hommeaux: no replies from i18n group yet ←
16:02:41 <cygri> guus: Can you send a reminder?
Guus Schreiber: Can you send a reminder? ←
16:03:46 <cygri> ... to make a resolution regarding LC at the F2F, we need all responses to the LC comments
... to make a resolution regarding LC at the F2F, we need all responses to the LC comments ←
16:04:01 <cygri> guus: I think the other outstanding response is from Tim
Guus Schreiber: I think the other outstanding response is from Tim ←
16:04:02 <patH> David, we are all pedantic *in our own way*
Patrick Hayes: David, we are all pedantic *in our own way* ←
16:04:21 <cygri> ericP: I talked to him, he grumbled but said “whatever”. Just need to get him to write that down
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I talked to him, he grumbled but said “whatever”. Just need to get him to write that down ←
16:04:28 <patH> :-)
Patrick Hayes: :-) ←
16:04:38 <cygri> ... this was about reverse properties in Turtle
... this was about reverse properties in Turtle ←
16:05:03 <cygri> topic: Graphs
16:05:36 <cygri> guus: We had three proposals last week, and resolved one. Do we want to continue with the other two?
Guus Schreiber: We had three proposals last week, and resolved one. Do we want to continue with the other two? ←
16:06:21 <cygri> ... I think this captured the outcome of last week's discussion: The WG makes no normative statement on whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY or MAY NOT turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way.
... I think this captured the outcome of last week's discussion: The WG makes no normative statement on whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY or MAY NOT turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way. ←
16:07:00 <cygri> ... is this a correct formulation? and is it useful to capture this as a resolution?
... is this a correct formulation? and is it useful to capture this as a resolution? ←
16:07:13 <mlnt> :-)
Markus Lanthaler: :-) ←
16:07:37 <cygri> PatH: Did we decide this?
Patrick Hayes: Did we decide this? ←
16:07:44 <AndyS> As long as it is not "the same" dataset. i.e. when written out.
Andy Seaborne: As long as it is not "the same" dataset. i.e. when written out. ←
16:07:52 <cygri> guus: I tried to summarize the consensus of last week
Guus Schreiber: I tried to summarize the consensus of last week ←
16:08:07 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
16:08:12 <gavinc> +meh
Gavin Carothers: +meh ←
16:08:38 <cygri> davidwood: As I recall, we couldn't quite get consensus last week
David Wood: As I recall, we couldn't quite get consensus last week ←
16:08:39 <gavinc> I don't think it that proposal says anything
Gavin Carothers: I don't think it that proposal says anything ←
16:08:43 <gavinc> so sure, I agree with it
Gavin Carothers: so sure, I agree with it ←
16:08:55 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:08:55 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
16:09:02 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
16:09:07 <cygri> davidwood: wondering if such a resolution is useful
David Wood: wondering if such a resolution is useful ←
16:09:12 <MacTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
16:09:14 <cygri> gkellogg: I see no value in such a statement
Gregg Kellogg: I see no value in such a statement ←
16:09:16 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
16:09:22 <ivan> ack gkellogg
Ivan Herman: ack gkellogg ←
16:09:47 <ivan> ack MacTed
Ivan Herman: ack MacTed ←
16:09:49 <cygri> MacTed: I agree with Gavin, the statement says nothing
Ted Thibodeau: I agree with Gavin, the statement says nothing ←
16:09:57 <cygri> ... it's an open issue that we didn't get agreement on yet
... it's an open issue that we didn't get agreement on yet ←
16:10:08 <patH> I think Guus wants a resolution handy to stop further discussion, Think of it as a Chair's light-saber.
Patrick Hayes: I think Guus wants a resolution handy to stop further discussion, Think of it as a Chair's light-saber. ←
16:10:16 <davidwood> Fundamentally, this is a question of interoperability. No implementor will care whether their own interpretation of the spec is "correct" until they try to interoperate with others.
David Wood: Fundamentally, this is a question of interoperability. No implementor will care whether their own interpretation of the spec is "correct" until they try to interoperate with others. ←
16:10:59 <ericP> "MIGHT"?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: "MIGHT"? ←
16:11:18 <AndyS> Test - is it visible in some way?
Andy Seaborne: Test - is it visible in some way? ←
16:11:21 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
16:11:23 <cygri> cygri: might not be worth making a resolution on this
Richard Cyganiak: might not be worth making a resolution on this ←
16:11:37 <patH> Write the 'may or may not' in lower case.
Patrick Hayes: Write the 'may or may not' in lower case. ←
16:11:48 <cygri> ivan: One value of having it recorded: It doesn't affect the document, but it affects us
Ivan Herman: One value of having it recorded: It doesn't affect the document, but it affects us ←
16:11:52 <gkellogg> how about a note in the document?
Gregg Kellogg: how about a note in the document? ←
16:12:05 <gavinc> OPTIONALLY OPTIONAL
Gavin Carothers: OPTIONALLY OPTIONAL ←
16:12:15 <cygri> ... so unless some really new information comes up, chairs can shut down discussion on this particualr issue
... so unless some really new information comes up, chairs can shut down discussion on this particualr issue ←
16:12:38 <cygri> PROPOSED: The WG makes no normative statement on whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY or MAY NOT turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way.
PROPOSED: The WG makes no normative statement on whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents MAY or MAY NOT turn the TriG default graph into a named graph with a name chosen in an implementation-dependent way. ←
16:12:38 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
16:12:38 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
16:12:39 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
16:12:47 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
16:13:01 <cygri> PatH: suggest decapitalizing the MAY / NOT
Patrick Hayes: suggest decapitalizing the MAY / NOT ←
16:13:23 <MacTed> PROPOSED: The WG makes no normative statement on how implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents handle the TriG default graph.
PROPOSED: The WG makes no normative statement on how implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents handle the TriG default graph. ←
16:14:12 <yvesr> in that case, why do we need to have a default graph in trig?
Yves Raimond: in that case, why do we need to have a default graph in trig? ←
16:14:19 <Arnaud> I like cygri's idea
Arnaud Le Hors: I like cygri's idea ←
16:14:24 <cygri> cygri: maybe phrase it as a positive instead of negative?
Richard Cyganiak: maybe phrase it as a positive instead of negative? ←
16:14:36 <ivan> ack cygri
Ivan Herman: ack cygri ←
16:14:39 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
16:14:42 <ivan> ack AndyS
Ivan Herman: ack AndyS ←
16:14:46 <Guus> ack AndyS
Guus Schreiber: ack AndyS ←
16:14:58 <patH> I didnt hear that properly
Patrick Hayes: I didnt hear that properly ←
16:15:29 <MacTed> cygri's suggestion comes down to "continue the discussion until we figure out whether MAY or MAY NOT is what we'll say"
Ted Thibodeau: cygri's suggestion comes down to "continue the discussion until we figure out whether MAY or MAY NOT is what we'll say" ←
16:15:35 <cygri> AndyS: I'm worried that this permits giving a name to the default graph and ...? (scribe fail)
Andy Seaborne: I'm worried that this permits giving a name to the default graph and ...? (scribe fail) ←
16:16:03 <davidwood> PROPOSED: The RDF WG recognises that implementations may have more than one local interpretation of a TriG default graph and makes no normative statement on how implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents handle the TriG default graph.
PROPOSED: The RDF WG recognises that implementations may have more than one local interpretation of a TriG default graph and makes no normative statement on how implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents handle the TriG default graph. ←
16:16:12 <Arnaud> how about something like: whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents turn the TriG default graph into a named graph is implementation dependent?
Arnaud Le Hors: how about something like: whether implementations that parse and store information from TriG documents turn the TriG default graph into a named graph is implementation dependent? ←
16:16:33 <patH> Nice try, Guus.
Patrick Hayes: Nice try, Guus. ←
16:16:35 <AndyS> depends if a SPARQL query is changed.
Andy Seaborne: depends if a SPARQL query is changed. ←
16:16:41 <cygri> guus: Let's postpone it
Guus Schreiber: Let's postpone it ←
16:16:45 <cygri> ... thanks for joining!
... thanks for joining! ←
16:16:54 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
16:16:56 <Zakim> -manu
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu ←
16:16:57 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
16:16:58 <cygri> ... see some of you next week!
... see some of you next week! ←
16:16:58 <Zakim> -Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri ←
16:16:58 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:17:00 <Zakim> -yvesr_
Zakim IRC Bot: -yvesr_ ←
16:17:00 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
16:17:02 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:17:08 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
16:17:10 <Zakim> -mlnt
Zakim IRC Bot: -mlnt ←
16:17:11 <patH> Hey, where are details of how to call in?
Patrick Hayes: Hey, where are details of how to call in? ←
16:17:13 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
16:17:15 <cygri> RRSAgent, make logs public
RRSAgent, make logs public ←
16:17:27 <gavinc> Indeed, can we get the remote details?
Gavin Carothers: Indeed, can we get the remote details? ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#1) generated 2012-10-24 16:20:44 UTC by 'rcygania2', comments: 'Removed unrecognized caller \xe2\x80\x9csandro.a\xe2\x80\x9d, otherwise unmodified'