From RDF Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Wednesdays at 11am US Eastern time for 75 minutes
  17:00 Paris/Berlin/A'dam; 16:00 London)
Telephone US: +1.617.761.6200
 Zakim code: 73394
IRC channel: #rdf-wg on on port 6665
Zakim instructions:
RRSAgent instructions:
Scribe list:


  • Chair: Guus Schreiber
  • Scribe: Pierre-Antoine Champin
  • Alternate: Richard Cyganik

Minutes of last meeting

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 17 Oct telecon:

Review of action items

Next meeting

  • Mon-Tue 29-30 Oct, Lyon, France, co-located with TPAC.
    • Please see the Agenda and the Objectives.
    • Note: US still in Summer Time, Europe not
  • Next telecon: 05 November 2012


Discussion started with:

Three discussions appear to be going on in the thread:

1. Relationship JSON-LD <=> RDF

2. Description of the JSON-LD&RDF relationship in the documents
  • Concern of Michael (paraphrased): if JSON-LD is providing a serialization for RDF graphs that the RDF WG is going to endorse, then this relationship between JSON-LD and RDF must be clearly specified in a normative document.
  • Efforts of Richard to align JSON-LD and RDF Concepts
  • See JSON-LD Issue 168
  • Discussion point: are the ongoing editing efforts sufficient to address this concern? Actions required?

3. Linked Data & formats
This discussion is interesting but should not be on the critical path of this WG.

Turtle LC

  • Short progress update on status of responses


TriG Syntax

Should we capture the following resolutions (implicit in minutes previous telecon):

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 will provide in the Primer non-normative suggestions for putting metadata about a TriG document in the document's default graph.