From RDF Working Group Wiki
Please justify/explain non-obvious edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.
14:59:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg 14:59:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/13-rdf-wg-irc 14:59:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world 14:59:48 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg 14:59:49 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg 14:59:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394 14:59:50 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute 14:59:51 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference 14:59:51 <trackbot> Date: 13 March 2013 15:00:01 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone? 15:00:01 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, pfps 15:00:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, AZ, tbaker, gavinc, davidwood, cygri, SteveH, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, manu1, mischat, trackbot 15:00:05 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:31 <PatH> PatH has joined #rdf-wg 15:00:58 <gavinc> Zakim, this is RDFwg 15:00:58 <Zakim> ok, gavinc; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM 15:01:07 <gavinc> Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.408.992.aaaa, Guus_Schreiber, GavinC 15:01:17 <pfps> zakim, aaaa is me 15:01:17 <Zakim> +pfps; got it 15:01:42 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-wg 15:01:53 <Zakim> +PatH 15:02:13 <Zakim> + +081165aabb 15:02:21 <gavinc> I think everyone else is over in LDP talking about how DELETE works ;) 15:02:25 <AZ> Zakim, aabb is me 15:02:25 <Zakim> +AZ; got it 15:02:30 <PatH> i hear silence... 15:02:42 <PatH> ah, hi. 15:03:19 <cgreer> cgreer has joined #rdf-wg 15:03:40 <Zakim> -PatH 15:03:46 <Zakim> +Souri 15:03:49 <Zakim> +??P10 15:03:55 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P10 15:03:55 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it 15:04:00 <Zakim> + +1.707.874.aacc 15:04:08 <cgreer> zakim, aacc is me 15:04:08 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it 15:04:28 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-wg 15:04:30 <Zakim> +PatH 15:04:38 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg 15:05:11 <tbaker> is irc-only today 15:05:40 <gavinc> scribe: gavinc 15:05:40 <gavinc> chair: Guus 15:05:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller] 15:05:49 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me 15:05:49 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it 15:05:50 <markus> markus has joined #rdf-wg 15:05:53 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg 15:06:22 <gavinc> Guus: I promise to keep the meeting short. 15:06:33 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aadd 15:06:41 <pfps> minutes look fine to me 15:06:44 <Guus> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06 15:06:45 <gavinc> ... DST not the same in EU for another few weeks 15:06:47 <zwu2> zakim, +aadd is me 15:06:47 <Zakim> sorry, zwu2, I do not recognize a party named '+aadd' 15:06:59 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aadd is me 15:06:59 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it 15:06:59 <gavinc> ... minutes accepted. 15:07:00 <Guus> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06 15:07:12 <Guus> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06 15:07:37 <gavinc> topic: Action Items 15:08:00 <gavinc> AZ: I already have most of my review written. Trying to be as complete as possible. 15:08:11 <Zakim> +??P20 15:08:16 <markus> zakim, ??P20 is me 15:08:16 <Zakim> +markus; got it 15:08:17 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdf-wg 15:08:19 <gavinc> Guus: Keeping action open. 15:08:30 <gavinc> ... we'll come back to semantics. 15:08:48 <pfps> q+ 15:08:57 <gavinc> Topic: Semantics 15:09:17 <gavinc> pfps: I don't see how we can move forward with the objection from AZ. 15:09:35 <AZ> q+ 15:09:42 <gavinc> PatH: Apart from the objection, there are sections that haven't been written. HTML linking to fix, now using Respec, should go faster. 15:09:52 <pfps> I don't see that any of the issues that Pat is reporting should stop FPWD publication. 15:10:12 <gavinc> Guus: Shall we start with AZ's last email? 15:10:26 <gavinc> AZ: I said that the current description of blank node scope should be removed from the document. 15:10:43 <gavinc> ... should go back to the RDF 2004 for blank node semantics. 15:10:58 <gavinc> ... It introduces a number of new concepts that we haven't talked about. 15:11:19 <gavinc> ... Blank node scope has been discussed, but hasn't been agreed upon. 15:11:30 <gavinc> ... Adds other concepts that haven't been discussed. 15:12:09 <gavinc> ... ??? ... 15:12:26 <gavinc> ... Should introduce issues for all new concepts introduced in Semantics. 15:12:53 <gavinc> ... The main reason is that if it's only kept in the semantics document, then some people won't see them. 15:13:23 <gavinc> ... confident in editors of concepts and semantics ... 15:14:05 <gavinc> ... the process is not right, editors shouldn't introduce concepts 15:14:59 <gavinc> PatH: Two issues. Should ??? be in the spec at all. 2nd issue, which document should it be in. (??? blank node scope) 15:15:33 <AZ> Ok, right, Semantics and Concepts should cross reference, I agree 15:15:53 <gavinc> ... Which material goes in which document is a largely editorial choice. Noted that this material should go in RDF Concepts as a NOTE in the semantics document. 15:17:16 <gavinc> pfps: The problem is that there are outstanding issues that haven't been addressed. 15:17:27 <gavinc> ... a number of them are technical. 15:17:44 <Zakim> +??P21 15:17:52 <pchampin> zakim, ??P21 is me 15:17:52 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it 15:18:19 <gavinc> ... Chicken and egg problem. How are we going to get them addressed appropriately? This is a plee to get the semantics decided before we worry about semi-colons. 15:18:38 <gavinc> ... we're the handmaiden of the people who want to do the design. 15:19:03 <gavinc> +q to say oh yes there was. 15:19:24 <gavinc> pfps: I don't think there is a better way then to publish this in a FPWD. 15:19:35 <gavinc> PatH: It's a draft after all! 15:19:46 <gavinc> Guus: I was going to propose that. 15:19:49 <gavinc> -q 15:20:01 <gavinc> ... it's important that we get a FPWD out. 15:20:25 <gavinc> pfps: I think that we SHOULD a way forward on RDF graphs sharing blank nodes. 15:20:48 <gavinc> ... I don't know if it's THE way we'll end up using, and it doesn't have to match exactly what's in RDF concepts. 15:21:23 <gavinc> PatH: There shouldn't be a difference of opinion that's unacknowledged between RDF concepts, and RDF semantics. 15:21:56 <gavinc> Guus: I'd like to decide today on publishing a FPWD. 15:22:02 <gavinc> ... what needs to be done to make that possible? 15:22:25 <gavinc> PatH: I think putting a more prominent issue note would be adequate? 15:23:15 <gavinc> AZ: Best we can do, to go forward. 15:24:15 <cgreer> That's exactly the word JSON-LD-SYNTAX uses re blank nodes -- controversial :) 15:24:19 <cygri> ISSUE-43? 15:24:19 <trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Revisit "Suggestion that Qnames should be allowed as values for attributes such as rdf:about" -- closed 15:24:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/43 15:24:38 <pfps> Which issue is blank node scope, or should there be a new one? 15:24:39 <gavinc> PROPOSED: to publish Semantics as FPWD marking the section on blank node scope as an ISSUE 15:24:48 <cgreer> +1 15:24:56 <pfps> +1 15:24:57 <Souri> +1 15:24:58 <AndyS> +1 15:24:58 <zwu2> +1 15:24:59 <AZ> AZ: the document can be published on the condition that the part on bnode scope is clearly made distinct 15:25:00 <AZ> +1 15:25:00 <markus> +1 15:25:01 <gavinc> +1 15:25:07 <gkellogg> +1 15:25:16 <Guus> +1 for PatH 15:25:16 <gavinc> PatH: +1 15:25:43 <gavinc> RESOLVED: Publish Semantics as FPWD marking the section on blank node scope as an ISSUE 15:25:51 <pchampin> +1 15:26:21 <pfps> unfortunately, I am unlikely to be able to be at the meeting next week 15:26:32 <tbaker> +1 15:26:50 <gavinc> Guus: If we can resolve in the next two or three weeks we should be on track. 15:27:08 <gavinc> ... do we have a series? 15:27:14 <pfps> given that I am happy with the current situation, my participation is probably not necessary 15:27:19 <gavinc> PatH: Did I misread something? 15:27:34 <gavinc> Guus: I don't like series editors. 15:27:52 <gavinc> PatH: Will remove. I thought I was supposed to. 15:28:13 <AZ> As pfps said, we should have a decision on ISSUE 97 15:28:17 <AZ> (related to semantics) 15:28:40 <AZ> q+ 15:28:46 <gavinc> q? 15:28:50 <pfps> q- 15:29:04 <Guus> ack AZ 15:29:18 <gavinc> AZ: Would like us to have a decision on ISSUE-97. 15:29:22 <gavinc> ISSUE-97? 15:29:22 <trackbot> ISSUE-97 -- Should the semantics of RDF graphs be dependent on a vocabulary? -- closed 15:29:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/97 15:30:21 <gavinc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html 15:30:45 <AZ> AZ: we should reopen ISSUE 97, make a decision and close it again 15:30:59 <gavinc> gavinc: Can't find proposal. 15:31:03 <gavinc> pfps: Don't have one. 15:31:12 <gavinc> ... it's in the email. 15:31:27 <gavinc> Guus: Should have put this on the agenda. 15:31:53 <gavinc> ... no objections on mailing list? 15:32:24 <gavinc> pfps: well... I mean it's a change, there was chatter. RDF systems don't do what semantics says. 15:32:34 <gavinc> ... SPARQL systems do something else. 15:32:52 <gavinc> ... It's NOT a counter example, as SPARQL has an explicit "scope graph" 15:33:10 <gavinc> ... the "scope graph" plugs a hole in the 2004 semantics. 15:33:25 <AZ> q+ 15:33:27 <gavinc> ... the change to the semantics is in agreement with the way SPARQL works. 15:33:29 <AZ> I did 15:33:37 <AZ> (provide the response) 15:35:00 <gavinc> AZ: Consequences of the change are not non-existent. 15:35:57 <gavinc> pfps: I'm unaware of any system that doesn't do the right thing here. 15:36:36 <pfps> PROPOSAL: reoopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs 15:37:11 <gavinc> PROPOSAL: reoopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html 15:37:12 <pfps> +1 15:37:15 <Guus> +1 15:37:16 <AZ> I emmitted claims that it has consequences, but I admit now that the advantages overcome the minor changes 15:37:16 <gkellogg> +1 15:37:20 <AZ> +1 15:37:23 <gavinc> +0 (doesn't really understand) 15:37:25 <pfps> path +1 15:37:26 <Guus> +1 from Pat 15:37:29 <cgreer> +1 15:37:31 <pchampin> +1 15:37:32 <markus> +1 15:37:57 <gavinc> RESOLVED: reopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html 15:38:53 <gavinc> ISSUE-107? 15:38:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open 15:38:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107 15:39:05 <gavinc> pfps: Attempt to close ISSUE-107 next week? 15:39:27 <AZ> ow, I'm afraid one week will not be enough 15:39:38 <Guus> q? 15:39:45 <Guus> ack AZ 15:39:46 <gavinc> Guus: That concludes semantics. 15:39:48 <pfps> I'll put out a message - the idea will be to try to get discussion started - if one week is insufficient then so be ti 15:40:03 <cgreer> scribe: cgreer 15:40:22 <gavinc> topic: TriG/N-Triples/N-Quads 15:40:36 <cgreer> gavinc: There are three syntaxes that are close to FPWD 15:40:53 <cgreer> ... I missed wrong production in wrong doc, this will be changed. 15:40:58 <cgreer> ... Otherwise they're ready 15:41:09 <AndyS> FPWD -- go for it! 15:41:31 <cgreer> gavinc: There's an error in TriG, need to add turtle as reference 15:41:49 <cgreer> ... Error in n-quads where I refer to triple rather than statement... known issues not yet fixed 15:42:15 <cgreer> Guus: We need reviews 15:42:45 <gkellogg> I'll bite 15:42:47 <cgreer> gavinc: I'd hope that reviewers can take all three 15:43:01 <cgreer> andys: I'm happy with them as is 15:43:16 <cgreer> Guus: Without review? 15:43:30 <cgreer> andys: I think they're ready for FPWD level 15:43:34 <PatH> I just posted an updated semantics document version. Hopefully this will pass muster. 15:43:38 <cgreer> Guus: I interpret that statement as a review 15:43:41 <cgreer> WOOT 15:43:59 <cgreer> gavinc: The only one that needs more attention is n-quads 15:44:20 <cgreer> ... n-quads is newer, nobody has seen it yet 15:44:38 <cgreer> andys: my statement was about n-triples 15:44:48 <cgreer> ... but we shouldn't set the barrier too high 15:45:11 <cgreer> gavinc: n-triples has already been published as well, and reviewed 15:45:17 <cgreer> ... this step just extracts it 15:45:26 <cgreer> Guus: agreed to publish all three? 15:45:35 <cgreer> gkellogg: I can postpone review 15:46:05 <cgreer> gavinc: do we intend to take n-triples and n-quads to recommendation? 15:46:19 <cgreer> ... extension says they're both notes 15:46:26 <cgreer> Guus: did we have some other agreement? 15:46:38 <cgreer> ... we can assume they're notes for now 15:47:03 <cgreer> PROPOSED: take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD 15:48:01 <markus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0091.html 15:48:07 <cgreer> thanks 15:48:15 <gkellogg> +1 15:48:18 <AZ> +1 15:48:21 <AndyS> +1 15:48:21 <pfps> +1 15:48:23 <zwu2> +1 15:48:23 <Guus> +1 15:48:24 <cgreer> +1 15:48:25 <pchampin> +1 15:48:26 <gavinc> +1 15:48:26 <tbaker> +1 15:48:26 <markus> +1 15:48:26 <PatH> I have to leave very soon. Guus, let me know if you need any other edits done to get +1 15:48:38 <Souri> +1 15:48:44 <PatH> +1 15:48:48 <AZ> Zakim, who's noisy? 15:48:53 <cgreer> RESOLVED: take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD according to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0091.html 15:49:00 <Zakim> AZ, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus_Schreiber (47%), AndyS (64%) 15:49:07 <PatH> the semantics to fpwd. 15:50:20 <cgreer> gavinc: Eric's not my co-editor now. I need direction. 15:50:50 <cgreer> topic: Progress on other docs 15:51:10 <PatH> I vote with the majority on all other issues. 15:51:11 <gavinc> subtopic: JSON-LD 15:52:02 <gavinc> scribe: gavinc 15:52:02 <trackbot> ISSUE-105 -- Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation -- closed 15:52:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105 15:52:14 <Zakim> -PatH 15:52:35 <gavinc> gkellogg: The decision from ISSUE-105 is not in Concepts yet. 15:52:59 <gavinc> Guus: Check with editor to see if there an issue or just editorial 15:53:33 <gavinc> markus: we addressed almost all issues sandro raised. 15:53:46 <gavinc> ... should we reserve all @words as keywords. 15:53:59 <Zakim> -cgreer 15:54:21 <gavinc> ... Sandro recommended doing that, we decided not to enforce that in the algorithm 15:54:38 <cgreer> lost audio 15:54:47 <gavinc> ... we decided to simply ignore @terms that aren't defined, just like other undefined terms 15:55:27 <gavinc> ... only two sections that contain normative statements 15:55:39 <AndyS> I found it a bit more complicated - the normative section B refers to the non-norm sections. 15:56:49 <gavinc> ... the stuff about numbers are in the algorithm spec, not the syntax spec. 15:57:03 <gavinc> ... could add more examples with numbers, but we already have a lot of examples 15:57:23 <Guus> q? 15:57:41 <gavinc> ... there are a few minor thins in algorithms that need to be ironed out. 15:58:04 <Souri> s/thins/things/ 16:00:25 <Zakim> -Souri 16:00:26 <Zakim> -pfps 16:00:26 <zwu2> bye 16:00:27 <Zakim> -gkellogg 16:00:31 <Zakim> -Guus_Schreiber 16:00:33 <Zakim> -AndyS 16:00:33 <Zakim> -AZ 16:00:34 <Zakim> -zwu2 16:00:35 <Zakim> -markus 16:00:37 <Zakim> -GavinC 16:00:42 <Guus> trackbot, end meeting 16:00:42 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees 16:00:42 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.408.992.aaaa, Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, pfps, PatH, +081165aabb, AZ, Souri, gkellogg, +1.707.874.aacc, cgreer, AndyS, zwu2, markus, 16:00:45 <Zakim> ... pchampin 16:00:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:00:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/13-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot 16:00:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye 16:00:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items # SPECIAL MARKER FOR CHATSYNC. DO NOT EDIT THIS LINE OR BELOW. SRCLINESUSED=00000281