Agenda RDF-WG telecon 20 April 2011
Wednesdays at 11am US Eastern time for 75 minutes 17:00 Paris/Berlin/A'dam; 16:00 London; 16:00 UTC) Telephone US: +1.617.761.6200 SIP: firstname.lastname@example.org UK: +44.203.318.0479 FR: +22.214.171.124.79.03 Zakim code: 73394 IRC channel: #rdf-wg on irc.w3.org on port 6665 Zakim instructions: http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html RRSAgent instructions: http://www.w3.org/2002/03/RRSAgent Scribe list: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Scribes
- Chair: David Wood
- Scribe: Olivier Corby
- Alternate: Andy Seaborne
- PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the FTF1:
- Action item review:
Review the poll regarding location/dates and results:
Attendance: Place your name somewhere on the page so we can confirm attendance:
Graphs Task force
Skolemization of blank nodes: Revisit Steve Harris' proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0357.html
[[ Systems wishing to skolemise bNodes, and expose those skolem constants to external systems (e.g. in query results) SHOULD mint fresh a "fresh" (globally unique) URI for each bNode.
All systems performing skolemisation SHOULD do so in a way that they can recognise the constants once skolemised, and map back to the source bNodes where possible.
Systems which want their skolem constants to be identifiable by other systems SHOULD use the .well-known URI prefix. ]]
...which has received cautious approval on the mailing list.
Sandro's alternative proposal iterated by the Skolemization breakout at FTF1 was:
[[ If systems are going to reveal Skolemized bnodes, without doing damage to the graph, they MUST use a fresh URI (per bnode) and SHOULD follow the form http[s]://[domain]/.well-known/genid/[locally-uniq-id][#] or tag:[domain],[year]/.well-known/genid/[locally-unique-id] (or, someday, genid:...). Such IRIs are considered more disposable. "genid" to be reg'd with IETF. ]]
...but registering genid: at the IETF was determined to be infeasible in the time we have.
- Leftover issues: There is a RDF active issue list left over from the previous RDF WG that has "postponed" issues. We may want to look at these to see if there are anything the new RDF WG would want to pick up. ISSUE-7.
Related email thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/0317.html