<trackbot> Date: 13 March 2013

<gavinc> I think everyone else is over in LDP talking about how DELETE works ;)

<PatH> i hear silence...

<PatH> ah, hi.

<tbaker> is irc-only today

<gavinc> scibe: gavinc

<gavinc> scibe yes

<gavinc> I will scibe

<gavinc> sigh

<gavinc> scribe: gavinc

Guus: I promise to keep the meeting short.

<pfps> minutes look fine to me

<Guus> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06

Guus: DST not the same in EU for another few weeks
... minutes accepted.

<Guus> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06

<Guus> RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06

Action Items

AZ: I already have most of my review written. Trying to be as complete as possible.

Guus: Keeping action open.
... we'll come back to semantics.

Semantics

pfps: I don't see how we can move forward with the objection from AZ.

PatH: Apart from the objection, there are sections that haven't been written. HTML linking to fix, now using Respec, should go faster.

<pfps> I don't see that any of the issues that Pat is reporting should stop FPWD publication.

Guus: Shall we start with AZ's last email?

AZ: I said that the current description of blank node scope should be removed from the document.
... should go back to the RDF 2004 for blank node semantics.
... It introduces a number of new concepts that we haven't talked about.
... Blank node scope has been discussed, but hasn't been agreed upon.
... Adds other concepts that haven't been discussed.
... ??? ...
... Should introduce issues for all new concepts introduced in Semantics.
... The main reason is that if it's only kept in the semantics document, then some people won't see them.
... confident in editors of concepts and semantics ...
... the process is not right, editors shouldn't introduce concepts

PatH: Two issues. Should ??? be in the spec at all. 2nd issue, which document should it be in. (??? blank node scope)

<AZ> Ok, right, Semantics and Concepts should cross reference, I agree

PatH: 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.

pfps: The problem is that there are outstanding issues that haven't been addressed.
... a number of them are technical.
... 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.
... we're the handmaiden of the people who want to do the design.

+q to say oh yes there was.

pfps: I don't think there is a better way then to publish this in a FPWD.

PatH: It's a draft after all!

Guus: I was going to propose that.

-q

scribe: it's important that we get a FPWD out.

pfps: I think that we SHOULD a way forward on RDF graphs sharing blank nodes.
... 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.

PatH: There shouldn't be a difference of opinion that's unacknowledged between RDF concepts, and RDF semantics.

Guus: I'd like to decide today on publishing a FPWD.
... what needs to be done to make that possible?

PatH: I think putting a more prominent issue note would be adequate?

AZ: Best we can do, to go forward.

<cgreer> That's exactly the word JSON-LD-SYNTAX uses re blank nodes -- controversial :)

<cygri> ISSUE-43?

<trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Revisit "Suggestion that Qnames should be allowed as values for attributes such as rdf:about" -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/43

<pfps> Which issue is blank node scope, or should there be a new one?

PROPOSED: to publish Semantics as FPWD marking the section on blank node scope as an ISSUE

<cgreer> +1

<pfps> +1

<Souri> +1

<AndyS> +1

<zwu2> +1

<AZ> AZ: the document can be published on the condition that the part on bnode scope is clearly made distinct

<AZ> +1

<markus> +1

+1

<gkellogg> +1

<Guus> +1 for PatH

PatH: +1

RESOLVED Publish Semantics as FPWD marking the section on blank node scope as an ISSUE

<pchampin> +1

<pfps> unfortunately, I am unlikely to be able to be at the meeting next week

<tbaker> +1

Guus: If we can resolve in the next two or three weeks we should be on track.
... do we have a series?

<pfps> given that I am happy with the current situation, my participation is probably not necessary

PatH: Did I misread something?

Guus: I don't like series editors.

PatH: Will remove. I thought I was supposed to.

<AZ> As pfps said, we should have a decision on ISSUE 97

<AZ> (related to semantics)

AZ: Would like us to have a decision on ISSUE-97.

ISSUE-97?

<trackbot> ISSUE-97 -- Should the semantics of RDF graphs be dependent on a vocabulary? -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/97

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html

<AZ> AZ: we should reopen ISSUE 97, make a decision and close it again

gavinc: Can't find proposal.

pfps: Don't have one.
... it's in the email.

Guus: Should have put this on the agenda.
... no objections on mailing list?

pfps: well... I mean it's a change, there was chatter. RDF systems don't do what semantics says.
... SPARQL systems do something else.
... It's NOT a counter example, as SPARQL has an explicit "scope graph"
... the "scope graph" plugs a hole in the 2004 semantics.
... the change to the semantics is in agreement with the way SPARQL works.

<AZ> I did

<AZ> (provide the response)

AZ: Consequences of the change are not non-existent.

pfps: I'm unaware of any system that doesn't do the right thing here.

<pfps> PROPOSAL: reoopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs

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

<pfps> +1

<Guus> +1

<AZ> I emmitted claims that it has consequences, but I admit now that the advantages overcome the minor changes

<gkellogg> +1

<AZ> +1

+0 (doesn't really understand)

<pfps> path +1

<Guus> +1 from Pat

<cgreer> +1

<pchampin> +1

<markus> +1

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

ISSUE-107?

<trackbot> ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107

pfps: Attempt to close ISSUE-107 next week?

<AZ> ow, I'm afraid one week will not be enough

Guus: That concludes semantics.

<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

<cgreer> scribe: cgreer

TriG/N-Triples/N-Quads (aka SEMICOLONS AGAIN)

TriG etc

gavinc: There are three syntaxes that are close to FPWD
... I missed wrong production in wrong doc, this will be changed.
... Otherwise they're ready

<AndyS> FPWD -- go for it!

gavinc: There's an error in TriG, need to add turtle as reference
... Error in n-quads where I refer to triple rather than statement... known issues not yet fixed

Guus: We need reviews

<gkellogg> I'll bite

gavinc: I'd hope that reviewers can take all three

andys: I'm happy with them as is

Guus: Without review?

andys: I think they're ready for FPWD level

<PatH> I just posted an updated semantics document version. Hopefully this will pass muster.

Guus: I interpret that statement as a review

WOOT

gavinc: The only one that needs more attention is n-quads
... n-quads is newer, nobody has seen it yet

andys: my statement was about n-triples
... but we shouldn't set the barrier too high

gavinc: n-triples has already been published as well, and reviewed
... this step just extracts it

Guus: agreed to publish all three?

gkellogg: I can postpone review

gavinc: do we intend to take n-triples and n-quads to recommendation?
... extension says they're both notes

Guus: did we have some other agreement?
... we can assume they're notes for now

PROPOSED: take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD

<markus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0091.html

thanks

<gkellogg> +1

<AZ> +1

<AndyS> +1

<pfps> +1

<zwu2> +1

<Guus> +1

+1

<pchampin> +1

<gavinc> +1

<tbaker> +1

<markus> +1

<PatH> I have to leave very soon. Guus, let me know if you need any other edits done to get +1

<Souri> +1

<PatH> +1

RESOLVED :take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD according to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0091.html

<PatH> the semantics to fpwd.

gavinc: Eric's not my co-editor now. I need direction.

Progress on other docs

<PatH> I vote with the majority on all other issues.

<gavinc> subtopic: JSON-LD

<gavinc> ISSUE-105?

<trackbot> ISSUE-105 -- Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation -- closed

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105

<gavinc> gkellogg: The decision from ISSUE-105 is not in Concepts yet.

<gavinc> Guus: Check with editor to see if there an issue or just editorial

<gavinc> markus: we addressed almost all issues sandro raised.

<gavinc> ... should we reserve all @words as keywords.

<gavinc> ... Sandro recommended doing that, we decided not to enforce that in the algorithm

lost audio

<gavinc> ... we decided to simply ignore @terms that aren't defined, just like other undefined terms

<gavinc> ... only two sections that contain normative statements

<AndyS> I found it a bit more complicated - the normative section B refers to the non-norm sections.

<gavinc> ... the stuff about numbers are in the algorithm spec, not the syntax spec.

<gavinc> ... could add more examples with numbers, but we already have a lot of examples

<gavinc> ... there are a few minor things in algorithms that need to be ironed out.

<zwu2> bye

<Guus> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/thins/things/
Found Scribe: gavinc
Inferring ScribeNick: gavinc
Found Scribe: cgreer
Inferring ScribeNick: cgreer
Scribes: gavinc, cgreer
ScribeNicks: gavinc, cgreer
Default Present: +1.408.992.aaaa, Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, pfps, PatH, +081165aabb, AZ, Souri, gkellogg, +1.707.874.aacc, cgreer, AndyS, zwu2, markus, pchampin
Present: +1.408.992.aaaa Guus_Schreiber GavinC pfps PatH +081165aabb AZ Souri gkellogg +1.707.874.aacc cgreer AndyS zwu2 markus pchampin

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 13 Mar 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/03/13-rdf-wg-minutes.html
People with action items: