Meetings:Telecon2012.10.24

Wednesdays at 11am US Eastern time for 75 minutes
  17:00 Paris/Berlin/A'dam; 16:00 London)
Telephone US: +1.617.761.6200
  SIP: zakim@voip.w3.org
 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

Admin

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

Minutes of last meeting

PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 17 Oct telecon:

   http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-10-17

Review of action items

• http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
• http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open

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

JSON-LD

Discussion started with:

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0093.html

Three discussions appear to be going on in the thread:

1. Relationship JSON-LD <=> RDF

• E.g. Peter's questions (in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0107.html)
  1. Is JSON-LD a serialization syntax for all RDF graphs?
  2. Is JSON-LD only a serialization syntax for RDF graphs?
• Answer from Gregg (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0111.html) suggests that the answer is at least the first relationship exists.

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

Graphs

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.

AOB