14:56:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:56:13 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/01-rdf-wg-irc
14:56:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:56:15 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:56:17 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
14:56:17 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
14:56:18 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:56:18 <trackbot> Date: 01 May 2013
14:58:14 <markus> markus has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:52 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:55 <TallTed> Zakim, this is 73394
14:59:55 <Zakim> ok, TallTed; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
14:59:59 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
14:59:59 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, Sandro, OpenLink_Software
15:00:00 <Zakim> On IRC I see gkellogg, markus, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, gavinc, Guus, TallTed, SteveH, ivan, manu1, yvesr, manu, ericP, mischat, sandro, trackbot
15:00:08 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:00:08 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
15:00:09 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:00:09 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:01:14 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:01:18 <Zakim> +pfps
15:01:23 <Zakim> +??P25
15:01:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:01:32 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
15:01:32 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
15:01:35 <yvesr> Zakim, ??P25 is me
15:01:35 <Zakim> +yvesr; got it
15:01:36 <pfps> pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:46 <cgreer> cgreer has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:01 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
15:02:01 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, Sandro, TallTed (muted), Ivan, pfps, yvesr, AndyS
15:02:03 <Zakim> On IRC I see cgreer, pfps, gkellogg, markus, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, gavinc, Guus, TallTed, SteveH, ivan, manu1, yvesr, manu, ericP, mischat, sandro, trackbot
15:02:14 <Zakim> +??P27
15:02:27 <gkellogg> zakim, ??P27 is me
15:02:27 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
15:02:30 <Zakim> +??P28
15:02:39 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P28 is me
15:02:40 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
15:02:42 <Souri> Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:02:59 <Zakim> +cgreer
15:03:08 <Zakim> +Souri
15:03:10 <Zakim> +EricP
15:03:17 <PatH> PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:36 <cgreer> scrbenick cgreer
15:03:46 <Guus> chair: Guus
15:03:48 <cgreer> scribenick cgreer
15:04:01 <ivan> scribenick: cgreer
15:04:10 <Zakim> +PatH
15:04:21 <cgreer> thx
15:04:32 <tbaker> tbaker has joined #rdf-wg
15:05:04 <cgreer> topic: admin
15:05:24 <cgreer> propsed: accept minutes of 24 April telecon
15:05:32 <cgreer> s/propsed/proposed
15:05:38 <TallTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:05:38 <Zakim> TallTed should no longer be muted
15:05:54 <cgreer> TallTed: The links in the minutes absorb trailing punctuation
15:06:06 <cgreer> ... the URI poster is somehow messed up
15:06:27 <TallTed> s/TallTed:/pfps:/
15:06:32 <cgreer> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 24 April telecon
15:06:38 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
15:06:38 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
15:06:45 <cgreer> subtopic: action items
15:07:49 <cgreer> subtopic: Etiquette for responding on public-comments list
15:07:50 <Zakim> +??P34
15:07:56 <markus> zakim, ??P34 is me
15:07:56 <Zakim> +markus; got it
15:08:04 <cgreer> Guus: We must be polite and take comments seriously
15:08:13 <sandro> +1
15:08:25 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:08:25 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, Sandro, TallTed (muted), Ivan, pfps, yvesr, AndyS, gkellogg, SteveH, cgreer, Souri, EricP, PatH, markus
15:08:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see tbaker, PatH, Souri, cgreer, pfps, gkellogg, markus, Zakim, RRSAgent, AndyS, gavinc, Guus, TallTed, SteveH, ivan, manu1, yvesr, manu, ericP, mischat, sandro, trackbot
15:08:28 <cgreer> ... we've got a lot of documents going out and keep this in our mind at this time
15:08:49 <cgreer> ... so keep in mind difference between public list and internal one
15:09:00 <PatH> q+
15:09:19 <cgreer> ericP: Apropos of comments, I've been tracking them in the wiki, just on turtle.
15:09:22 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments turtle comments
15:09:56 <cgreer> ... I'm looking for people to close issues.  The protocol is to put your name under the owner.
15:10:14 <cgreer> ... If you're taking ownership of comments, record owner and resolution please
15:11:21 <cgreer> PatH: I was wondering if there's been any behavior to prompt this comment
15:11:30 <zwu2> zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
15:11:50 <cgreer> Guus: About RDF/JSON is what I was mainly referring to, but we'll discuss that when Manu is present.
15:11:56 <Zakim> -PatH
15:12:07 <Zakim> +zwu2
15:12:23 <cgreer> topic: Issues related to Concepts and Semantics
15:12:34 <Zakim> +PatH
15:12:44 <cgreer> subtopic: issue 118 Simplifying datatype semantics
15:13:01 <PatH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0012.html
15:13:52 <cgreer> PatH: The text here basically tries to avoid a semantic-y taint
15:14:02 <cgreer> ... It instead speaks of IRIs and referents
15:14:23 <cgreer> ivan: Perfectly answers my comments
15:14:24 <pfps> q+
15:14:36 <Guus> ack PatH
15:14:36 <PatH> q-
15:14:40 <cgreer> pfps: I'm trying to look up 'rigid identifier'
15:14:40 <Guus> ack pfps
15:14:45 <cgreer> ... It's not in semantics yet.
15:14:51 <cgreer> PatH: Right, but it's in the proposed text
15:15:50 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
15:15:51 <cgreer> pfps: My concern -- if somebody uses an IRI for a datatype, it seems as though that 'fixes it for everyone'
15:16:03 <cgreer> ... The change would be 'implementations that recognize datatype X'...
15:16:31 <cgreer> PatH: I'll adapt, get rid of 'rigid identifier'
15:16:45 <cgreer> ... It's a red flag anyhow
15:16:56 <Zakim> +??P36
15:17:03 <pchampin> zakim, ??P36 is me
15:17:03 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
15:17:56 <cgreer> PatH: I'll prepare something to vote on now
15:18:19 <cgreer> subtopic: RDF Merge in Semantics
15:19:13 <cgreer>  See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Apr/0139.html
15:19:29 <Zakim> -EricP
15:19:34 <Zakim> +[GVoice]
15:19:35 <cgreer> pfps: AZ has a point that other specs use 'merge' so it has to stick around in addition to 'union'
15:20:03 <cgreer> pfps: That's OK.   You keep the term around for those circumstances where you need to cope with blank nodes
15:20:50 <pfps> PROPOSED: add wording to Semantics to again define the merge of two RDF graphs
15:21:49 <sandro> pat: it was an editorial mistake which I will correct.   no need for group decision
15:21:51 <sandro> guus: fine.
15:22:38 <cgreer> action to PatH: add wording to Semantics to again define the merge of two RDF graphs
15:22:38 <trackbot> Error finding 'to'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/users>.
15:22:48 <Guus> ACTION PatH: add wording to Semantics to again define the merge of two RDF graphs
15:22:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-261 - Add wording to Semantics to again define the merge of two RDF graphs [on Patrick Hayes - due 2013-05-08].
15:23:26 <cgreer> topic: Turtle
15:24:00 <cgreer> gavinc: one of the possible outcomes of the problem is to remove XML and HTML from concepts.
15:24:09 <cgreer> ... the issue is DOM requirements
15:24:14 <yvesr> Zakim, who is noisy?
15:24:15 <ivan> zakim, who is noisy?
15:24:25 <Zakim> yvesr, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ericP (29%), GavinC (33%), Guus_Schreiber (18%)
15:24:37 <Zakim> ivan, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: GavinC (83%), PatH (3%), Guus_Schreiber (21%)
15:24:51 <cgreer> gavinc: The HTML fragment parsing as it stands produces an HTML document.
15:25:07 <cgreer> ... There's a spec in progress for a fragment, but it's part of Web Components
15:25:11 <cgreer> ... and it's still a WD
15:25:24 <cgreer> ... for XML, we're referencing DOM4, not DOM3
15:25:41 <cgreer> ... the question of 'can we reference DOM4' is resolved, but what about fragment parsing part of HTML
15:26:00 <cgreer> sure it makes sense
15:26:12 <cgreer> Guus: What do we need to fix?
15:26:31 <cgreer> gavinc: The DOM4 vs. 3 is resolved.  The HTML issue is a little more complex
15:26:34 <ivan> q+
15:26:42 <cgreer> ... The fragment parsing for HTML just ain't stable
15:26:56 <Guus> ack ivan
15:27:05 <cgreer> ivan: Why do you say referencing DOM4 is OK?
15:27:09 <cgreer> ... This is also a WD
15:27:22 <cgreer> ... I'm wondering whether we need DOM4.
15:27:34 <cgreer> gavinc: THere are comparison methods in DOM3, but they are not implemented
15:27:39 <gkellogg> You could reference the WHATWG version of DOM4.
15:27:57 <markus> was just about to propose the same :-)
15:28:02 <cgreer> gavinc: What's specified in DOM4, although it's a WD, there are implementations at least
15:28:05 <sandro> q?
15:28:07 <sandro> q+
15:28:35 <cgreer> ivan: We still don't know whether or not we can reference DOM4.  The other issue though...
15:28:39 <Guus> ack sandro
15:28:46 <cgreer> ... perhaps we can say that HTML datatype is not normative
15:29:00 <cgreer> gavinc: That gets around process problem, but doesn't help implementors
15:29:19 <cgreer> ... I want to just make sure that implementors get HTML datatypes right
15:29:34 <cgreer> sandro: Let's put aside procedural problems.
15:30:01 <cgreer> ... So this comes up if somebody's writing an RDF system and somebody wants to match HTML datatypes, even if representations are different
15:30:09 <cgreer> ... worst case is that they cannot do value comparisons
15:30:22 <cgreer> gavinc: Either that or people expect HTML that you can actually use
15:30:31 <cgreer> ivan: Or equality in SPARQL, but it doesn't happen
15:30:36 <gkellogg> <P>foo == <p>foo</p>
15:30:48 <cgreer> sandro: Because you're expecting normative ops, attribute order, whitespace, etc.
15:31:08 <cgreer> gavinc: Or all-closed elements vs non-closing ones.
15:31:25 <cgreer> sandro: As a programmer, I'd be happy if it matched, but we're not used to that as of yet
15:31:43 <cgreer> gavinc: every web browser will do the right thing here
15:32:03 <cgreer> ... This does happen a lot
15:32:12 <cgreer> sandro: But are you comparing HTML literals really?
15:32:27 <cgreer> gavinc: But output HTML we expect to look the same, as an effect of parsing
15:32:44 <cgreer> sandro: We can disagree about how important this is, but that people can get by without this
15:32:55 <cgreer> gavinc: Value vs. literal for HTML (and XML)
15:33:11 <PatH> revized wording for issue 118 is now here, suitable for voting if voting is required:   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0014.html  . Just sayin.
15:33:12 <cgreer> sandro: Is this the only thing wrt HTML?
15:33:22 <cgreer> gavinc: Yes, that's it
15:33:40 <cgreer> sandro: I'd be comfortable with our declaring that the HTML datatype value process is still not fully determined
15:34:01 <cgreer> ... and until that's settled, the datatype is a flag
15:34:09 <cgreer> .. to expect further work in this area
15:34:23 <cgreer> gavinc: And to point to where value processing is being worked out
15:34:46 <cgreer> ... we want people to implement this, but also to point out that it's not final yet
15:35:05 <cgreer> sandro: Is it also a question about non-HTML syntax?
15:35:17 <cgreer> ... like a literal that's '<' but HTML datatyle
15:35:25 <cgreer> gavinc: That's an ill-typed literal
15:35:34 <AndyS> Suggest we avoid test cases if we're outsourcing to DOM4/whatever for final definition as small details may change after we're finished..
15:35:40 <cgreer> ... you have to be able to parse at least
15:35:41 <markus> wondering whether it wouldn't be better to rename rdf:HTML to rdf:HTML5...
15:35:51 <ericP> <p class="C" style="color:red;"/> == <p style="color:red;"  class="C"/>
15:35:54 <ericP> <p class="C" style="color:red;"/> == <p style="color:red;"  class="C"/>?
15:36:09 <ericP> can we count on trivial equivalence?
15:36:12 <gavinc> yeah, stuff like that ericP
15:36:22 <cgreer> sandro: I'm proposing that we look for an older HTML that is meaningful for this?
15:36:23 <Guus> q?
15:36:41 <cgreer> gavinc: There's no standard anywhere about HTML fragments
15:36:57 <cgreer> ivan: And we can't refer to an older one.
15:37:14 <cgreer> gavinc: older HTMLs also didn't deal with fragment parsing
15:37:28 <cgreer> sandro: My point is that we don't specify which HTML
15:37:39 <markus> good point
15:37:45 <yvesr> +1
15:37:58 <PatH> q+
15:38:27 <cgreer> PatH: This does seem as though we're doing something too wishy-washy with THML
15:38:30 <cgreer> s/THML/HTML
15:38:59 <cgreer> gavinc: the idea is to dodge the lexical-value mapping for HTML
15:39:05 <cgreer> PatH: Which violates our spec
15:39:14 <cgreer> ivan: I don't see another choice.
15:39:26 <markus> q+
15:39:31 <cgreer> ... We could wait a couple of years to finalize RDF but that's not an option either
15:39:32 <Guus> ack PatH
15:39:34 <sandro> PROPOSAL: we're specifying rdf:HTML deferring the semantics (lexical-to-value mapping) to whatever is latest/greatest HTML standard.   This only comes up for people trying to do D-Entailment on rdf:HTML literals --- determining equality of value, and checking for ill-typed.
15:39:54 <cgreer> sandro: This is so complex .. the basic idea has been stable, but little bits keep changing
15:40:06 <cgreer> PatH: But we didn't have HTML before.
15:40:17 <Guus> ack markus
15:40:20 <cgreer> ivan: Now we have HTML which is not XML.  It's much more common now
15:40:31 <cgreer> markus: Why do we need to normalize HTML at all?
15:40:41 <gavinc> Not normalizing! Just parsing
15:40:44 <cgreer> ... we could just use string comparison
15:40:54 <cgreer> ... isn't that viable?
15:41:15 <cgreer> ivan: In practice that would be difficult.
15:41:39 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
15:41:40 <cgreer> ... same issue in XML.  XML literals rely on XML tools
15:41:50 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
15:41:52 <cgreer> ... and the tools can produce a different literal
15:41:57 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
15:42:07 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: markus (83%)
15:42:13 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
15:42:13 <cgreer> markus: but you can't have interoperability in this case.
15:42:20 <gavinc> eh, 3 or 4 months ;)
15:42:23 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: PatH (14%), Ivan (35%), markus (54%)
15:42:27 <cgreer> ivan: out hope is that in two years HTML5 WG will finalize
15:42:28 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
15:42:38 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: PatH (5%), Guus_Schreiber (9%), markus (60%)
15:42:45 <cgreer> markus: Then HTML6 will come
15:42:56 <cgreer> gavinc: To be clear we're talking about fragment parsing algorithm, not HTML5
15:43:11 <cgreer> ... this is weirder than you think it is
15:43:16 <pfps> q+
15:43:18 <PatH> we are tslking about this: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-html
15:43:30 <cgreer> sandro: How about two data types.  HTML-String and parsed-HTML-string
15:43:35 <Guus> ack pfps
15:43:37 <cgreer> ... we can't define the latter yet
15:43:53 <cgreer> pfps: I've seen a solution to this in Schema-datatypes
15:44:02 <cgreer> ... to be compliant you can either use XML 1.0 or XML 1.1
15:44:12 <gkellogg> q+
15:44:13 <cgreer> ... which was written when 1.1 was in flux
15:44:32 <cgreer> sandro: It's a bit analogous to our dependency on Unicode
15:44:46 <cgreer> ericP: But the contract with Unicode is that there will be no new punctuation
15:44:55 <cgreer> gavinc: and HTML's main goal is backwards compat
15:45:07 <Guus> ack gkellogg
15:45:24 <cgreer> ericP: HTML doesnt provide for forward compat
15:45:50 <cgreer> gkellogg: Perhaps we can require that implemenations provide equality based on string comparison, but have an option to change in future
15:46:01 <cgreer> sandro: The question is what if we do use D-entailment
15:46:11 <gavinc> Yeah, we WANT people to do lexical-to-value mapping
15:46:19 <cgreer> ... we want people not to have to remember the string
15:46:26 <cgreer> ... the string is gone if you parse
15:46:39 <cgreer> ... sounds like we need two datatypes, the second one will change
15:46:50 <cgreer> gavinc: The one that doesn't map to a value doesn't have a datatype
15:47:13 <cgreer> PatH: It's its own value space
15:47:20 <cgreer> sandro: The value space is 'string'
15:47:28 <cgreer> gavinc: This reads funny.  lexical space and value space are the same
15:47:34 <cgreer> sandro: yep it's string with a flag
15:47:58 <cgreer> gavinc: I'm amused
15:48:12 <cgreer> sandro: I need to know about the flag.
15:48:22 <cgreer> gavinc: Would then HTML entities be equivalient to same string?
15:48:31 <cgreer> ... would seem to be no
15:48:56 <cgreer> ivan: I'd me more comfortable keeping what we have now, plus a little hand waving
15:49:31 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:    (1)    two html datatypes, parsed and unparsed;    (2) one html datatype, semantics not set yet,    (3) something else
15:49:43 <sandro> 1 2
15:50:04 <ivan> 2
15:50:05 <PatH> tnx ivan
15:50:05 <Guus> pref 2, can live with 1
15:50:05 <cgreer> I prefer 2
15:50:05 <gavinc> 2 (lexical to value mapping to be defined later)
15:50:05 <gkellogg> 2
15:50:06 <AndyS> 2
15:50:06 <pchampin> 2
15:50:08 <ericP> live with 1, prefer 2
15:50:08 <yvesr> 2
15:50:10 <SteveH> 2
15:50:12 <zwu2> 2
15:50:20 <TallTed> prefer 2, OK with 1
15:50:27 <markus> 1 2 (would prefer to just have unparsed)
15:50:33 <PatH> 3
15:50:34 <Souri> 2
15:50:59 <gavinc> +1 PatH
15:51:03 <cgreer> PatH: 'something else' is that we should be explicit about defining but that it's changeable
15:51:11 <cgreer> ivan: That's what I meant by 2
15:51:31 <cgreer> ... we make it clear that it's a soft target
15:51:34 <sandro> PROPOSAL: we'll specifying rdf:HTML by deferring the semantics (lexical-to-value mapping) to whatever is latest/greatest HTML standard.   This only comes up for people trying to do D-Entailment on rdf:HTML literals --- determining equality of value, and checking for ill-typed.
15:52:37 <sandro> +1
15:52:40 <ivan> +1
15:52:44 <yvesr> +1
15:52:46 <PatH> +1
15:52:48 <zwu2> +0
15:52:48 <cgreer> +1
15:52:48 <gavinc> +1
15:52:49 <TallTed> +1
15:52:53 <sandro> guus: it's editorial how much of this we say this now.
15:52:56 <Souri> +1
15:53:31 <sandro> RESOLVED: close issue-63:  we'll specifying rdf:HTML by deferring the semantics (lexical-to-value mapping) to whatever is latest/greatest HTML standard.   This only comes up for people trying to do D-Entailment on rdf:HTML literals --- determining equality of value, and checking for ill-typed.
15:53:53 <sandro> (or it was already closed, but tag this as related to issue-63)
15:54:21 <PatH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0014.html
15:54:23 <cgreer> subtopic: back to issue 118
15:54:36 <ivan> q+
15:55:22 <Guus> PROPSED: to resolve ISSUE-118 according to Pat's proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0014.html
15:55:47 <cgreer> hahah
15:55:47 <ericP> what's the interpretation of { <s> <p> """<script type="text/turtle"><s><p2><o2></script>"""rdf:HTMLLiteral . } ?
15:55:50 <ivan> +1
15:55:51 <pfps> +1
15:55:52 <ericP> 8.3
15:55:53 <PatH> +1
15:55:53 <gkellogg> +1
15:55:56 <TallTed> s/PROPSED/PROPOSED/
15:55:57 <TallTed> +1
15:55:58 <zwu2> +1
15:56:00 <sandro> +1
15:56:00 <pchampin> +1
15:56:04 <yvesr> +1
15:56:05 <markus> +1
15:56:09 <cgreer> +1
15:56:22 <Guus> RESOLVED: to resolve ISSUE-118 according to Pat's proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0014.html [17:55] <cgreer> hahah
15:57:05 <cgreer> Guus: We're done with concepts and semantics.
15:57:06 <PatH> woot
15:57:34 <sandro> eric, that graph means that s has a p which is the html text "<script type="text/turtle"><s><p2><o2></script>".
15:57:37 <cgreer> Guus: Two minuts for JSON-LD and Turtle
15:57:41 <cgreer> s/minuts/minutes/
15:57:57 <cgreer> Guus: How about that turtle test suite?
15:58:03 <cgreer> gavinc: blocked by feature at risk
15:58:11 <cgreer> ericP: Also 0 in literals
15:58:20 <cgreer> gavinc: That's fine in test cases
15:58:34 <cgreer> ... we should datatype them something else if they're not strings
15:59:01 <cgreer> gavinc: I started the action for feature at risk.
15:59:03 <sandro> +1 have some test cases on  "\0"^^<example.org/something>
15:59:20 <cgreer> ... lots of 'meh' on prefixes
15:59:26 <cgreer> ... and some who don't like it
15:59:38 <cgreer> Guus: please complete action by next week
15:59:47 <cgreer> sandro: is everything on comments page?
15:59:53 <markus> just realized that JSON-LD LC ends next week
15:59:57 <cgreer> gavinc: yes, no positive ones, just two negative ones.
16:00:10 <PatH> gotta run.  bye.
16:00:14 <Zakim> -PatH
16:00:20 <cgreer> ... strongest argument is that we've not changed turtle except this
16:00:28 <cgreer> sandro: but that's not true
16:00:28 <ericP> i would characterize DBooth's response to those comments as positive
16:00:34 <cgreer> Guus: but we are done for this week.
16:00:47 <Zakim> -Ivan
16:00:49 <Zakim> -gkellogg
16:00:49 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:00:50 <Zakim> -yvesr
16:00:50 <Zakim> -TallTed
16:00:51 <Zakim> -markus
16:00:53 <Zakim> -ericP
16:00:54 <Zakim> -cgreer
16:00:54 <Zakim> -SteveH
16:00:54 <Zakim> -zwu2
16:00:57 <Zakim> -GavinC
16:00:57 <Zakim> -Souri
16:01:00 <Zakim> -AndyS
16:01:07 <Zakim> -pchampin
16:01:09 <Guus> trackbot, end meeting
16:01:09 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:01:09 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, Sandro, TallTed, Ivan, pfps, AndyS, yvesr, gkellogg, SteveH, cgreer, Souri, EricP, PatH, markus, zwu2, pchampin
16:01:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/01-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
16:01:18 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:01:18 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/01-rdf-wg-actions.rdf :
16:01:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: PatH to add wording to Semantics to again define the merge of two RDF graphs [1]
16:01:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/05/01-rdf-wg-irc#T15-22-48