IRC log of rdf-wg on 2013-04-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:02 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/04/10-rdf-wg-irc
14:59:04 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:04 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:06 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
14:59:06 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:59:07 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:59:07 [trackbot]
Date: 10 April 2013
14:59:22 [ericP]
Zakim, please dial ericP-office
14:59:22 [Zakim]
ok, ericP; the call is being made
14:59:54 [Guus]
trackbot, start meeting
14:59:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:58 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
14:59:58 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:59:59 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:59:59 [trackbot]
Date: 10 April 2013
15:00:18 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:26 [AndyS]
zakim, who is here?
15:00:26 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS
15:00:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, tbaker, pchampin, FabGandon, AndyS, TallTed, manu, gavinc, Arnaud, davidwood, yvesr, ericP, manu1, mischat, sandro, trackbot
15:00:31 [AndyS]
zakim, who is here?
15:00:31 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS
15:00:32 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, tbaker, pchampin, FabGandon, AndyS, TallTed, manu, gavinc, Arnaud, davidwood, yvesr, ericP, manu1, mischat, sandro, trackbot
15:01:14 [cgreer]
cgreer has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:16 [Guus]
pls volunteer to scribe
15:01:24 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:45 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:09 [markus]
markus has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:17 [Arnaud]
zakim, mute me
15:02:17 [Zakim]
sorry, Arnaud, I don't know what conference this is
15:02:56 [AndyS]
zakim, this is 73394
15:02:56 [Zakim]
ok, AndyS; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
15:03:06 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, EricP, [IPcaller], pfps, Sandro, ??P9, ??P11, Arnaud, cgreer, ??P18, ??P17
15:03:09 [markus]
zakim, code?
15:03:09 [Zakim]
the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus
15:03:11 [Zakim]
-??P9
15:03:16 [AndyS]
zakim, IPCaller is me
15:03:16 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
15:03:19 [gkellogg]
zakim, I am ??P18
15:03:19 [Zakim]
+gkellogg; got it
15:03:27 [Zakim]
+??P20
15:03:39 [markus]
zakim, ??P20 is me
15:03:39 [Zakim]
+markus; got it
15:03:47 [manu]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:03:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, EricP, AndyS, pfps, Sandro, ??P11, Arnaud (muted), cgreer, gkellogg, ??P17, markus
15:03:54 [Zakim]
+??P21
15:03:59 [AZ]
Zakim, ??P17 is me
15:04:00 [Zakim]
+AZ; got it
15:04:00 [pchampin]
zakim, ??P21 is me
15:04:00 [Zakim]
+pchampin; got it
15:04:09 [cgreer]
scribenick cgreer
15:04:17 [Zakim]
+bhyland
15:04:18 [Guus]
chair: Guus
15:04:33 [davidwood]
Zakim, bhyland is me
15:04:34 [Zakim]
+davidwood; got it
15:04:50 [cgreer]
scribenick: cgreer
15:05:25 [pfps]
Minutes are beautiful
15:05:42 [cgreer]
RESOLVED: Minutes accepted from April 3 telecon
15:05:56 [cgreer]
topic: telecon bridge
15:06:20 [cgreer]
sandro: zakim is over capacity at noon
15:06:26 [cgreer]
... running late causes a problem
15:06:45 [cgreer]
... there's a system called calliflower that I propose to use
15:07:24 [cgreer]
... I propose we try it next week.
15:07:31 [Zakim]
+??P28
15:07:35 [yvesr]
Zakim, ??P28 is me
15:07:35 [Zakim]
+yvesr; got it
15:07:36 [cgreer]
... I propose we use IRC as normal
15:07:45 [manu]
q+
15:07:49 [pfps]
so no connection betrween IRC and the phone?
15:07:50 [cgreer]
... People using the phone won't show up on IRC
15:08:08 [pfps]
zakim, who is talking?
15:08:11 [davidwood]
So we will lose some IRC/telephone integration
15:08:16 [Arnaud]
I think attendance is the biggest loss
15:08:19 [Zakim]
pfps, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus_Schreiber (9%), AndyS (16%), Sandro (43%)
15:08:28 [Arnaud]
for queue management I don't see why we don't keep using irc
15:08:37 [cgreer]
sandro: the current list is generated by phone and IRC -- people only on the phone will have to be notated on IRC
15:09:06 [cgreer]
... it would be easy to automate if turns out to be worthwhile
15:09:21 [cgreer]
manu: We could allow use of our system
15:09:23 [Zakim]
+??P30
15:09:40 [PatH]
PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:09:42 [cgreer]
... If the JSON-LD minutes are acceptable, then we could try out that system.
15:09:55 [cgreer]
... You can call in with voip or regular phone, as the latter costs money
15:10:17 [cgreer]
... it's our service. We run an Asterisk server
15:10:24 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:10:47 [cgreer]
... it's not as complete as Zakim, but it's open source and people can extend it
15:10:59 [ericP]
appreciating manu's generous offer, i think we'd end up hacking the system and so we'd want to use digital bizarre's service only if we were going to adopt asterisk
15:11:09 [ericP]
q?
15:11:18 [Zakim]
+PatH
15:11:20 [cgreer]
ericP: I expect we'd want to hack the system though.
15:11:52 [cgreer]
... this ups the value of w3c setting up an asterisk server.
15:12:00 [cgreer]
davidwood: stay tuned for email about next week
15:12:16 [cgreer]
... everyone OK to delegate to chairs about next week's telecon?
15:12:17 [pfps]
Go wild!
15:12:18 [Arnaud]
+1
15:12:38 [cgreer]
guus: Any alternate we choose must not increase admin.
15:12:48 [cgreer]
davidwood: I'll take on any additional admin
15:13:14 [Zakim]
+GavinC
15:13:18 [davidwood]
s/davidwood/XXXX/
15:13:40 [cgreer]
topic: action items
15:13:56 [gkellogg]
s/XXXX/sandro/
15:14:23 [cgreer]
ericP: We can't wrap up test suite until stream of comments has calmed
15:14:39 [cgreer]
guus: Gavin has an action.
15:15:27 [cgreer]
ericP: We choose new URL, Gavin tags, then set up proxy.
15:15:29 [gavinc]
First I get Grants from the two other contributors, which I will finally have time to do this week!
15:15:34 [gavinc]
woohoo!
15:16:05 [cgreer]
Action-241: closed
15:16:05 [trackbot]
Did you mean to close ACTION-241? If so, please say 'close ACTION-241'.
15:16:13 [cgreer]
ACTION-241: Closed
15:16:13 [trackbot]
Did you mean to close ACTION-241? If so, please say 'close ACTION-241'.
15:16:18 [cgreer]
close ACTION-241
15:16:18 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-241 Review JSON-LD API document.
15:16:34 [gavinc]
Thanks Guus for finishing those
15:16:41 [cgreer]
topic: Document Publication
15:16:50 [cgreer]
guus: There are four new FPWDs
15:17:30 [gavinc]
https://github.com/darobin/respec
15:17:31 [cgreer]
guus: The respec document has a list where you should put comments, but the list doesn't exist. respec is generating the wrong HTML
15:17:35 [gavinc]
that's respec today?
15:17:48 [cgreer]
guus: Who maintains it? No email address for the comment list
15:18:04 [gavinc]
https://github.com/darobin/respec/issues ;)
15:18:21 [gavinc]
Magic, you know via Magic
15:18:37 [cgreer]
markus: Robin is pretty good with responding from github
15:19:02 [gavinc]
Yeah, pubrules is wrong ;)
15:19:21 [cgreer]
guus: Leaving in RDFa generates pubrules errors
15:19:30 [cgreer]
ericP: Use "1.1" rather than "true" for RDFa
15:19:44 [cgreer]
sandro: It may generate errors that the web admin has to resolve
15:19:58 [gavinc]
I'm pretty sure that RDFa only works in the XHTML output, not the HTML output
15:19:59 [cgreer]
guus: Somebody help with publication wiki page maintenance please
15:20:11 [cgreer]
topic: JSON-LD
15:20:40 [cgreer]
gkellogg: Markus has prepared JSON-LD 1.0 and JSON-LD-API
15:20:56 [cgreer]
... They pass pubrules, etc, etc
15:21:10 [cgreer]
... We've closed the loops with commenters, no outstanding issues
15:21:35 [markus]
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk
15:21:40 [cgreer]
... We've marked a few things 'feature at risk' for those things we want feedback during LC
15:22:02 [cgreer]
... We just want proposal and resolution to publish as LC
15:22:05 [cgreer]
... The end
15:22:19 [manu]
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/WD/json-ld/20130411/index.html
15:22:24 [manu]
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/WD/json-ld-api/20130411/index.html
15:22:54 [cgreer]
guus: I'd like to go through features at risk
15:23:02 [cgreer]
manu: From the top --
15:23:09 [Zakim]
+ +33.4.92.96.aaaa
15:23:09 [cgreer]
... @base
15:23:32 [cgreer]
... we were trying to cut down on the number of keywords, but we got feedback that it's a useful features
15:23:54 [FabGandon]
Zakim, +33.4.92.96.aaaa is me
15:23:54 [Zakim]
+FabGandon; got it
15:24:03 [cgreer]
... The interop of blank @base vs. explicit @base is confusing (potentially)
15:24:13 [cgreer]
... The other concern is what the empty string should do
15:24:30 [cgreer]
... Next feature at risk is reverse property
15:24:42 [cgreer]
... Allows one to switch subject and object position
15:24:52 [cgreer]
... Again, concern is use vs confusion
15:25:00 [cgreer]
... Next feature - -blank nodes as properties
15:25:21 [cgreer]
... Compromise in spec now. We await feedback from implementors
15:25:53 [cgreer]
... Converting list of lists. The algorithm for this is fairly complex, use is questioned.
15:26:05 [cgreer]
gkellogg: We marked this feature as 'at risk' and we've not provided implementation
15:26:19 [cgreer]
manu: Next has to do with Web IDL
15:26:35 [cgreer]
... We use web IDL to express the API. There are rough patches in this standard.
15:26:36 [gkellogg]
Also, note RDFa 1.1 does not support lists of lists.
15:27:14 [cgreer]
... If you specify an optional parameter, you cannot mix and match optionality or parameters... you have to overload signatures to express this.
15:27:24 [gkellogg]
(Rather, neither have syntactic sugar for lists of lists, they do support explicit rdf:first/rdf:next
15:28:15 [cgreer]
... We ran API against Web IDL test harness.
15:28:37 [cgreer]
... It fails method overloading, but we think the JSON-LD-API is correct nevertheless
15:29:08 [sandro]
q?
15:29:08 [cgreer]
... This isn't a technical issue, but how to get around problems in Web IDL and still reference it
15:29:18 [cgreer]
manu: Last feature,
15:29:29 [cgreer]
... We're thinking we might change default value of @base
15:29:45 [cgreer]
... to null, so that by default relative IRIs are not expanded
15:29:54 [cgreer]
s/expanded/compacted
15:30:09 [cgreer]
... That's it
15:30:21 [manu]
q-
15:31:02 [davidwood]
+1
15:31:02 [cgreer]
sandro: This is important work, not perfect, but I think it's ready for LC
15:31:46 [PatH]
+1 sandro
15:32:02 [cgreer]
PROPOSED to publish Last Call WDs of the JSON-LD documents
15:32:07 [gkellogg]
+1
15:32:11 [PatH]
+1
15:32:16 [markus]
+1
15:32:27 [sandro]
PROPOSED: to publish Last Call WDs of the JSON-LD documents
15:32:46 [sandro]
manu: 4 weeks last call
15:32:50 [cgreer]
manu: Publication date is 4/11, LC period is for four weeks
15:32:54 [yvesr]
+1
15:32:58 [sandro]
+1
15:32:59 [manu]
+1
15:33:03 [cgreer]
+1
15:33:07 [pchampin]
+1
15:33:08 [ericP]
+1
15:33:12 [Souri]
+1
15:33:12 [FabGandon]
+1
15:33:13 [Guus]
+1
15:33:18 [AZ]
+1
15:33:26 [davidwood]
+1
15:33:27 [cgreer]
RESOLVED: publish Last Call WDs of the JSON-LD documents.
15:33:28 [Arnaud]
+1
15:33:39 [davidwood]
Whew!
15:33:39 [ericP]
congrats!
15:33:57 [sandro]
much thanks!
15:34:14 [cgreer]
sandro: Question about LC period. Semtech is in the middle of it.
15:34:30 [cgreer]
... Do we want to be in CR or LC for semtech?
15:34:52 [cgreer]
guus: We'd thought of skipping CR --
15:35:09 [cgreer]
markus: There's a marker in the spec the we could skip if there are a lot of implementors
15:35:39 [Arnaud]
usual rant: there is no such thing as "skipping CR" per se, the question is whether we believe we already qualify to exit CR right away
15:35:43 [cgreer]
sandro: LC ends on May 11. So that would give us three weeks to get to CR for Semtech
15:36:10 [tbaker]
+1
15:36:19 [Arnaud]
zakim, unmute me
15:36:19 [Zakim]
Arnaud was not muted, Arnaud
15:36:31 [Arnaud]
q+
15:36:52 [cgreer]
manu: We want to make sure we can address any issues during LC
15:37:09 [sandro]
sandro: Given all the Features as Risk, let's not skip CR.
15:37:58 [Guus]
ack Arnoud
15:37:58 [cgreer]
Arnaud: There's no such thing as skipping CR
15:38:20 [cgreer]
... You have to go to CR technically. If we meet criteria to exit right away, then we can move through it quick.
15:38:27 [cgreer]
sandro: well, you can skip, but we're not going to.
15:38:30 [sandro]
4 Weeks puts us at May 9
15:38:54 [cgreer]
guus: Correct date -- May 10 for end of LC
15:38:59 [gavinc]
+1
15:39:08 [cgreer]
manu: OK we'll update docs
15:39:35 [gkellogg]
http://json-ld.org/test-suite/
15:39:43 [gkellogg]
http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/
15:39:52 [cgreer]
manu: Test suite is in good shape. Gregg has put together a quick publication of test suite. Fairly rough but improving.
15:40:18 [Zakim]
+Sandro.a
15:40:22 [Zakim]
-Sandro
15:40:27 [cgreer]
gkellogg: The process is similar to that from turtle, but needs further documentation -- the differentiation of different test types.
15:40:48 [cgreer]
... We don't have any syntax-only tests
15:41:21 [davidwood]
Arnaud, regarding skipping a CR, please see http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-advance where it says: "Call for Implementations. Note: The Director may permit the Working Group to skip this step if the entrance criteria for the next step have already been satisfied."
15:41:37 [davidwood]
NB: "Call for Implementations" = CR
15:41:40 [cgreer]
gkellogg: There are submanifests for JSON-LD tests. And an umbrella manifest that references them.
15:41:45 [cgreer]
... We don't need to consolidate further
15:42:09 [cgreer]
manu: We're going to use RDF-WG tracker for issues, since it folds in email conversations
15:42:16 [Arnaud]
david, ok, I stand corrected!
15:42:23 [cgreer]
... Do not use github issue tracker for LC
15:42:26 [gkellogg]
SOTD references public-rdf-comments@w3.org
15:42:43 [gavinc]
Yeah, it sort of sucks.
15:42:55 [Arnaud]
it's just a technicality anyway, the result is the same
15:43:00 [cgreer]
manu: For disposition of comments, you need an issue tracker.
15:43:20 [cgreer]
... we create an issue for each comment. At end of last call we have a good set of issues.
15:43:36 [cgreer]
sandro: How do you create a summary?
15:43:39 [cgreer]
manu: by hand
15:43:45 [Arnaud]
q-
15:43:50 [manu]
q-
15:43:55 [manu]
q-
15:44:12 [manu]
q- manu:,
15:44:15 [cgreer]
topic: RDF-JSON
15:44:19 [manu]
q- by
15:44:38 [cgreer]
guus: We have a note about RDF-JSON.
15:44:47 [cgreer]
... Is this useful to publish as a note?
15:45:03 [cgreer]
Arnaud: IBM has been experimenting with JSON-LD and RDF-JSON
15:45:05 [pfps]
zakim, mute me
15:45:05 [Zakim]
pfps should now be muted
15:45:16 [cgreer]
... Because of the use cases, RDF-JSON is a better fit
15:45:42 [cgreer]
... JSON-LD is designed for JSON developers to access data stores.
15:45:57 [cgreer]
... A different use case is a completely JSON environment, such as using MongoDB.
15:46:06 [cgreer]
... And you want to use RDF within JSON syntax
15:46:12 [AndyS]
q+
15:46:17 [cgreer]
... Storing RDF in JSON database
15:46:25 [manu]
q+
15:46:37 [cgreer]
... Compacted form doesn't work, you want to store expanded form.
15:47:24 [cgreer]
... Structure of expanded JSON-LD doesn't lend itself to RDF processing out of the box -- this has led us to conclude that RDF-JSON meets other use cases better.
15:47:56 [cgreer]
... This has left us with RDF-JSON listed as ED... IBM intends to use it with a stable reference.
15:48:13 [cgreer]
... We'd like to have it moved to a WG note as stable reference.
15:48:37 [Guus]
q?
15:49:02 [cgreer]
... WG did recognize that different JSON RDF specs are useful for different use cases.
15:49:09 [pchampin]
q?
15:49:12 [pchampin]
q+
15:49:25 [cgreer]
guus: In first F2F we did consider exactly this.
15:49:28 [AndyS]
By user usage and requests -- the Talis doc got archived/made safe at http://jena.apache.org/documentation/io/rdf-json.html and implemented.
15:49:42 [cgreer]
AndyS: We've seen uptake in use of RDF-JSON.
15:50:05 [cgreer]
... A note would be good.
15:50:20 [cgreer]
manu: I'm fine with publication as a note.
15:50:28 [cgreer]
... I want to find out more specifics though.
15:50:32 [cgreer]
... about the IBM case.
15:50:47 [cgreer]
... We thought that JSON-LD was made for this use case.
15:51:09 [Zakim]
-GavinC
15:51:11 [cgreer]
... I'm concerned that IBM is making --- well, why is RDF-JSON better for this?
15:51:39 [cgreer]
... It seems like a dump format, but I'd like to hear more.
15:51:43 [AndyS]
mailing list please
15:51:46 [gkellogg]
q+
15:51:48 [cgreer]
Arnaud: OK we can keep this discussion going
15:51:56 [AndyS]
ack me
15:51:56 [cgreer]
guus: THe RDF-WG list please
15:52:20 [Guus]
ack manu
15:52:29 [Guus]
ack pchampin
15:52:44 [cgreer]
pchampin: I see IBM's reason for not storing JSON-LD.
15:52:54 [cgreer]
The argument is about storing, not exchange.
15:53:15 [cgreer]
pchampin: Maybe the note should emphasize that exchange and storage are not the same JSON.
15:53:21 [Guus]
ack gkellogg
15:53:30 [manu]
You don't have to store and exchange the same document in JSON-LD either.
15:53:31 [pchampin]
s/are not/do not have to ne/
15:53:50 [cgreer]
gkellogg: We discussed one of the advantages of RDF/XML is that you can index by subject. We'd discuss a feature called subject maps.
15:53:50 [pchampin]
s/do not have to ne/do not have to be/
15:54:04 [cgreer]
s/discuss/discussed/
15:54:22 [cgreer]
gkellogg: We're considering extensions/notes.
15:54:44 [cgreer]
... If you're storing JSON in MongoDB, URIs as keys is problematic.
15:54:55 [cgreer]
... The compact form of JSON-LD has advantages for this.
15:55:14 [cgreer]
... For query purposes, an enhanced triple format is better for indexing/storage.
15:55:52 [cgreer]
Resolved: Arnaud is willing to serve as editor for this putative note.
15:55:58 [cgreer]
topic: turtle test suite
15:56:22 [cgreer]
ericP: We'd hoped to be done, but we keep getting bug reports and comments
15:56:22 [Zakim]
-??P11
15:56:41 [ericP]
-> http://www.w3.org/mid/1364751722.5708.24.camel@verne.drobilla.net <d@drobilla.net>'s patches to: upcase \U000b don't \U-ify unnecessary punctuation (e.g. \" or #)
15:56:48 [cgreer]
ericP: Traditional ntriples (ascii ntriples) has an issue
15:57:21 [cgreer]
... Verne Drobilla (?) provided a patch to unify them.
15:57:48 [cgreer]
AndyS: At some point we're testing RDF not turtle. This seems to be the same case.
15:58:08 [cgreer]
ericP: I'll use my own discretion in order to accept these patches.
15:58:48 [cgreer]
guus: I'd prefer you use your own discretion
16:00:06 [cgreer]
AndyS: results are invalid if we go around changing tests.
16:00:19 [cgreer]
gkellogg: So we must get some communication about location of tests.
16:00:42 [cgreer]
ericP: People will have to run tests again after location move. I'm happy to leave the tests alone.
16:00:48 [cgreer]
... The effort to change is small.
16:01:20 [cgreer]
... Before we publish the test suite, we have to confront the fact that xsd:strings are not xsd:strings.
16:01:35 [cgreer]
... Andy suggested we leave these alone.
16:01:49 [cgreer]
ericP: I'll take this to lsit
16:01:53 [cgreer]
s/lsit/list/
16:02:11 [Zakim]
-PatH
16:02:13 [Zakim]
-Sandro
16:02:15 [Zakim]
-EricP
16:02:16 [Zakim]
-Arnaud
16:02:16 [Zakim]
-yvesr
16:02:16 [Zakim]
-AZ
16:02:21 [Zakim]
-davidwood
16:02:23 [Zakim]
-AndyS
16:02:24 [Zakim]
-gkellogg
16:02:25 [Zakim]
-FabGandon
16:02:25 [Zakim]
-pchampin
16:02:25 [Zakim]
-markus
16:02:25 [Zakim]
-Guus_Schreiber
16:02:33 [cgreer]
rrsagent, make records public
16:02:34 [AndyS]
XML 1.1 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#NT-Char
16:02:58 [Guus]
trackbot, end meeting
16:02:58 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:02:58 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Guus_Schreiber, EricP, pfps, Sandro, Arnaud, cgreer, AndyS, gkellogg, markus, AZ, pchampin, davidwood, yvesr, PatH, GavinC, FabGandon
16:03:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:06 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/04/10-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
16:03:07 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:03:07 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items