Chatlog 2013-03-06

See panel, original RRSAgent log or preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain non-obvious edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

15:56:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
15:56:13 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/06-rdf-wg-irc
15:56:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
15:56:15 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
15:56:17 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
15:56:17 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
15:56:18 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:56:18 <trackbot> Date: 06 March 2013
15:57:38 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:57:41 <AndyS> zakim, this is 73394
15:57:41 <Zakim> AndyS, I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be 73394".
15:57:43 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
15:57:52 <Zakim> +Guus_Schreiber
15:58:04 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:58:13 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me
15:58:13 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:58:46 <Zakim> + +1.408.992.aaaa
15:58:51 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:59:01 <pfps> zakim, aaaa is me
15:59:01 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
15:59:36 <Zakim> +GavinC
15:59:36 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/ -- current agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.06
15:59:55 <Guus> any volunteers for scribing?
16:00:16 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
16:00:26 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
16:00:26 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, AndyS, pfps, Sandro, GavinC, OpenLink_Software
16:00:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, gkellogg, TallTed, gavinc, markus, sandro, AndyS, ivan, yvesr_, ericP, Arnaud, manu1, manu, mischat, trackbot
16:00:56 <Zakim> +Arnaud
16:01:11 <Zakim> +??P0
16:01:17 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P0
16:01:17 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
16:01:20 <Zakim> +??P5
16:01:54 <Guus> chair: Guus
16:02:04 <yvesr_> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:04 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, AndyS, pfps, Sandro, GavinC, TallTed (muted), Arnaud, gkellogg, ??P5
16:02:11 <cygri> cygri has joined #rdf-wg
16:02:14 <yvesr_> Zakim, ??P5 is me
16:02:14 <Zakim> +yvesr_; got it
16:02:27 <Zakim> +cygri
16:02:37 <Guus> zakim, pick a scibe
16:02:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'pick a scibe', Guus
16:02:48 <Guus> zakim, pick a scribe
16:02:48 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose cygri
16:03:07 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
16:03:23 <AZ> AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:03:24 <ericP> [GVoice] is me
16:03:28 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
16:03:28 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
16:03:58 <cygri> scribe: cygri
16:04:08 <Zakim> +??P34
16:04:11 <markus> zakim, ??P34 is me
16:04:11 <Zakim> +markus; got it
16:04:14 <cgreer> cgreer has joined #rdf-wg
16:04:23 <Guus> zaki, who is here?
16:04:23 <cygri> chair: Guus
16:04:30 <cygri> agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.03.06
16:04:48 <pfps> did someone upload the most recent Semantics document for Pat?
16:04:49 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:04:49 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:04:51 <Zakim> +Ivan
16:04:55 <Zakim> + +081165aabb
16:05:07 <Zakim> + +1.707.874.aacc
16:05:12 <AZ> Zakim, aabb is me
16:05:12 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
16:05:17 <cgreer> zakim, aacc is me
16:05:18 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it
16:05:26 <cygri> topic: Admin
16:05:45 <cygri> guus: For the next three weeks, telecons will be one hour earlier for people in europe
16:06:05 <ivan> zakim, mute me
16:06:05 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
16:06:11 <cygri> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of the 27 February telecon:
16:06:14 <pfps> minutesa re fine
16:06:20 <cygri>    http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-27
16:06:43 <cygri> RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of the 27 February telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-02-27
16:06:50 <cygri> guus: Review of action items
16:08:28 <cygri> Guus: I did my three actions by putting various things on the agenda
16:08:36 <cygri> topic: Turtle
16:08:56 <cygri> gavinc: Regarding the test suite, we got a patch on the comments mailing list
16:09:15 <cygri> ... I'm looking into combining Eric's test suite with the one from Gregg and Andy
16:09:23 <cygri> ... also, additional tests for more coverage were submitted
16:09:40 <AndyS> q+
16:09:42 <ericP> q+ to discuss sandro's proposal for ordering the tests
16:09:52 <cygri> ... also a proposal to change the test suite to make it easier to check results
16:09:57 <cygri> ... we plan to do all of these things
16:09:58 <Guus> ack AndyS
16:10:28 <cygri> AndyS: We've already asked people to run the tests. No we change them again. What about the process?
16:11:02 <cygri> ... Secondly, there is no right order of triples in the files. Concerned about putting too much emphasis on testing line by line
16:11:22 <cygri> gavinc: I'm not too concerned about the process. We did not announce availability of a test suite.
16:11:30 <Guus> ack ericP
16:11:30 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to discuss sandro's proposal for ordering the tests
16:12:18 <cygri> ericP: Regarding ordering of statements, there is indeed no mandated order. One could argue for the order implied by the algebra
16:12:23 <cygri> ... Dave Beckett's proposed change is very useful for readers.
16:12:58 <cygri> ... So I'm sympathetic to his request, despite agreeing in general that the test suite should depend on graph isomorphism and not order
16:13:13 <Guus> q+ to state
16:13:42 <cygri> ... Sandro proposed to put the atomic tests before the other tests, to make it clearer why a parser fails the tests
16:14:54 <cygri> guus: Concerned about timeline. Want to publish ASAP.
16:15:17 <cygri> gavinc: The test suite was supposed to be published with the PR. Some implementers are complaining why it wasn't.
16:15:25 <cygri> ... so would get it out immediately
16:15:57 <cygri> ericP: I appreciate the difficulty of having a moving target for implementers, but this is also where we get help from the community to get the test suite into good shape
16:16:16 <AndyS> q+
16:16:17 <cygri> guus: Decision on March 20 for the test suite needed to go to PR?
16:16:33 <Guus> ack Guus
16:16:33 <Zakim> Guus, you wanted to state
16:16:49 <cygri> gavinc: What is the process for updating the document to add link to the test suite, point out changes?
16:17:01 <cygri> guus: Sandro said that already
16:17:13 <cygri> sandro: We can't change the published document
16:17:29 <cygri> ... but can change our web page
16:17:48 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
16:17:48 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
16:17:51 <cygri> ericP: We could also republish the document, with editorial changes
16:17:52 <ivan> q+
16:17:56 <cygri> sandro: I suppose we could
16:18:22 <cygri> ... never heard of anyone doing this, but why not
16:18:32 <gkellogg> ReSpec actually has a way to show the test suite location in the head of the document.
16:18:47 <cygri> ivan: The document points to the wiki. The wiki has the details. We don't need to change the document.
16:18:57 <cygri> gavinc: There's also an error in the list of changes.
16:19:08 <cygri> guus: We can fix that for PR publication.
16:19:26 <cygri> ... So we should change the wiki page now, and fix the list of changes when going to PR.
16:19:47 <cygri> gavinc: Where is this link to the test suite in the document? I don't see it in the status section.
16:20:17 <cygri> ivan: In the CR request wiki page
16:20:30 <ericP> gavinc, what's inaccurate in the changes since last doc?
16:20:36 <cygri> ... And that can be fixed, it's just a group-internal document.
16:20:38 <ericP> s/doc/publication/
16:21:17 <gavinc> ericP, "Renaming for STRING_* productions to STRING_LITERAL_QUOTE style names rather than numbers " "Local part of prefix names can now include ":" " "Turtle in HTML ", were all in Last Call
16:21:18 <cygri> guus: Gavin, can we get everything complete in two weeks?
16:21:20 <AndyS> CR ends March 26th
16:21:20 <cygri> gavinc: Yes.
16:21:23 <AndyS> q-
16:21:54 <ivan> q-
16:22:00 <Guus> ack ivan
16:22:28 <gavinc> " The Candidate Recommendation period ends 26 March 2013"
16:22:37 <cygri> [discussion of when exactly CR ends]
16:23:12 <Guus> The minimal duration for this CR period is until 26 March, 2013.
16:23:13 <cygri> guus: It should have said that it ends no earlier than 26 March (?)
16:23:43 <cygri> ericP: My mistake.
16:23:55 <cygri> ... In my defense, I did it from a plane.
16:24:06 <cygri> guus: We didn't spot it.
16:24:42 <cygri> sandro: We have lots of ways to reach out to the community.
16:25:18 <gkellogg> q+
16:25:30 <ivan> zakim, mute me
16:25:30 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
16:25:35 <cygri> ericP: We should decide what the structure will be regarding EARL reports. Do we keep separate syntax and semantic tests, or unify them so that each test has a "parse" and "graph match" result (?)
16:26:13 <cygri> AndyS: Rather than asking people to do two things on each test, why not just keep them separate?
16:26:34 <cygri> sandro: Being able to parse, but not correctly handle, is not worth reporting.
16:27:09 <cygri> gkellogg: The way EARL works, we can't have it report that the test was both parsed and processed.
16:27:22 <gkellogg> q-
16:27:33 <cygri> gavinc: We have positivie and negative syntax tests, and evaluation tests.
16:28:02 <cygri> ericP: We said before that there is no reason that a semantics test isn't also a syntax test.
16:28:17 <Guus> q?
16:28:19 <cygri> sandro: Sure, but there is no reason to formalize that.
16:28:49 <cygri> [scribe missed some discussion]
16:29:10 <cygri> sandro: Do we require every implementer to submit EARL? Or is it fine if they just say "I passed all tests"
16:30:23 <sandro> +1 andy: the test suite might change, so "passed all the tests" isn't good enough
16:30:25 <cygri> AndyS: Concerned about people just saying they passed the tests if we are changing the test
16:30:37 <cygri> ... Rigorous testing is black and white
16:30:44 <cygri> sandro: I find that compelling.
16:31:02 <cygri> topic: Semantics
16:31:23 <cygri> guus: Peter was asking whether ED URL is the right version
16:31:36 <cygri> Peter: Pat got the latest version up.
16:32:05 <cygri> pfps: I think it's okay for FPWD
16:32:18 <ivan> q+
16:32:23 <cygri> ... It's not yet done, has pointers to things that still need to be done
16:32:39 <cygri> ... So none of the issues should need to delay FPWD
16:32:50 <cygri> ... One issue, as far as I know
16:33:00 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
16:33:00 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted
16:33:04 <cygri> ... Antoine noted correctly that the WG decided something
16:33:41 <cygri> ... The term "vocabulary" is overloaded
16:33:58 <cygri> ... Pat changed the technical definition, and Antoine thinks it's a significant change
16:34:09 <AZ> it does not change the world, but it changes something
16:34:09 <cygri> ... My impression is that it's a technical issue internal to the semantics
16:35:03 <AZ> e.g., {<s> <p> <o>} would entail  {<a> rdf:type rdfs:Resource}
16:35:05 <cygri> ... I think Antoine is technically correct, but it doesn't matter, at least not to implementations
16:35:14 <AZ> q+
16:35:46 <cygri> q+
16:36:08 <cygri> ... Also, blank node scope. It's a hot potato being passed back and forth between semantics and concepts
16:36:19 <cygri> ... Pat passed it back to concepts, but concepts doesn't have it yet
16:36:39 <cygri> ... Can be sorted out after FPWD
16:39:17 <cygri> cygri: I can review the document, saying if I see any issues with moving to FPWD. I will have more detailed comments too, but this can wait
16:39:40 <cygri> AZ: If we want to change the way interpretations are defined, then it needs a collective WG resolution.
16:40:12 <cygri> ... And Semantics used blank node scope, which Concepts doesn't define yet.
16:40:19 <AZ> q-
16:40:20 <ivan> q-
16:40:26 <cygri> ... No other critical issues.
16:40:41 <cygri> guus: Then I can put decision about Semantics FPWD on next week's agenda
16:40:41 <Guus> q?
16:40:44 <cygri> ack me
16:41:10 <cygri> ... Thanks to Pat and Peter for moving this forward so quickly
16:41:13 <cygri> Topic: Concepts
16:41:35 <cygri> We have open issue on scope of blank nodes
16:41:40 <cygri> ISSUE-107?
16:41:40 <trackbot> ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open
16:41:40 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107
16:42:00 <markus> scribe: markus
16:42:01 <yvesr> i can do
16:42:27 <markus> cygri: the issue has been open for a while... we had some concrete proposals
16:43:03 <markus> ... now that we have a semantics draft that relies on this makes the issue more pressing
16:43:22 <markus> ... it is a joint issue between the 2 documents
16:43:35 <markus> ... we need to ensure to keep them consistent
16:44:17 <markus> ... I'm quite busy at the moment so I can't spend much time on concepts at the moment
16:44:30 <markus> ... this won't change in the next 2 weeks
16:45:25 <markus> We are under time pressure.. according our schedule we should publish it in two weeks
16:46:01 <markus> cygri: Given that semantics is just going to FPWD concepts isn't that late
16:46:37 <markus> ... the docs have tight dependencies.. the sooner we go LC with concepts the bigger the risk for semantics if we need to change something
16:46:45 <pfps> q+
16:46:49 <ivan> q+
16:47:00 <ivan> zakim, unmute me
16:47:00 <Zakim> Ivan was not muted, ivan
16:47:03 <markus> ... they should probably be updated in lock step and ideally should go to LC at the same time
16:47:39 <markus> guus: I will put it back on the agenda in two weeks, is that OK?
16:47:42 <markus> cygri: sure
16:47:50 <cygri> scribe: cygri
16:47:57 <cygri> guus: I will put it on the agenda for March 20
16:47:58 <pfps> q-
16:48:07 <cygri> q?
16:48:14 <Guus> ack ivan
16:48:30 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #rdf-wg
16:48:53 <cygri> ivan: As an FPWD, I would be okay with publishing the Semantics today
16:49:18 <cygri> q+
16:49:37 <cygri> FPWD has administrative work attached etc
16:49:44 <AndyS> +1 to publish ASAP for FPWD.  (?? Just add a list of items to discuss in the status.)
16:50:12 <cygri> ... not necessary to solve all the technical issues
16:50:13 <cygri> q-
16:50:20 <cygri> ivan: I'd be happy making a decision this week
16:50:28 <cygri> guus: I prefer to have two reviews.
16:50:31 <pfps> I've already said that I think that the current document is fine for a FPWD.  However, for a FPWD I think we need reviews.
16:50:56 <pfps> I think that a message should go out to the WG that a vote on FPWD is on for next week for semantics.
16:50:58 <ivan> zakim, mute me
16:50:58 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted
16:51:27 <cygri> topic: JSON-LD
16:51:54 <cygri> guus: There was an extensive (to say the least) review from Sandro
16:52:07 <cygri> ... Can we get a 2nd review?
16:52:45 <cygri> sandro: Should that review happen before or after my comments are addressed?
16:53:15 <cygri> ... Depends on whether the editors want a 2nd opinion on some of the changes
16:53:35 <cgreer> I'll step up, do my best
16:54:22 <cygri> gkellogg: We will discuss Sandro's comments in our next call on Tuesday.
16:54:43 <cygri> sandro: I think JSON-LD is great, the design is solid and I have no concerns about it. My comments are mostly editorial.
16:54:57 <cygri> ... Some issues about how conformance is stated and forward compatibility.
16:55:22 <cygri> ... The main editorial question is regarding editorial division between this document and the API document.
16:55:27 <gkellogg> q+
16:55:38 <cygri> ... I want this document to be complete as an RDF syntax.
16:55:49 <cygri> ... Have a complete mapping to RDF in this document.
16:56:08 <Guus> ack gkellogg
16:56:22 <cygri> gkellogg: I liked your suggestion to have a brief summary of the RDF transformation algorithm
16:57:10 <cygri> ... Others have commented on explaining the relationship to RDF in the main JSON-LD document
16:58:02 <Guus> ACTION cgreer to review the JSON-LD syntax document, after Sandro's review has been taken into account
16:58:02 <trackbot> Error finding 'cgreer'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/users>.
16:58:40 <cygri> ACTION: Charles to review the JSON-LD syntax document, after member:Sandro's review has been taken into account
16:58:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Review the JSON-LD syntax document, after member:Sandro's review has been taken into account [on Charles Greer - due 2013-03-13].
16:59:35 <cygri> guus: We'd like to adjourn now to avoid top-of-the-hour traffic jam on the bridge
16:59:39 <Arnaud> regrets for next week, will be chairing the ldp f2f2
16:59:56 <Zakim> -pfps
17:00:02 <Zakim> -Ivan
# SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC.  DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW.  SRCLINESUSED=00000253