Chatlog 2013-03-13

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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
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:
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:
15:07:12 <Guus> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon:
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>
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>
15:30:21 <gavinc>
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
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
15:38:53 <gavinc> ISSUE-107?
15:38:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open
15:38:53 <trackbot>
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>
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
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>
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 trackbot
16:00:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:00:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items