IRC log of rdf-wg on 2013-06-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:54:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:54:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:54:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:54:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:54:34 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
14:54:34 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
14:54:35 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:54:35 [trackbot]
Date: 05 June 2013
14:54:55 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
14:55:04 [Zakim]
14:55:27 [davidwood]
davidwood has joined #rdf-wg
14:56:30 [Zakim]
14:56:59 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-wg
14:57:07 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:14 [Zakim]
14:58:16 [Zakim]
14:58:16 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:42 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:47 [Zakim]
14:58:53 [AndyS]
zakim, IPCaller is me
14:58:53 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
14:59:24 [Zakim]
14:59:35 [Guus]
zakim, who is here?
14:59:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see GavinC, pfps, AndyS, Guus
14:59:36 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, tbaker, gkellogg, davidwood, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, markus, TallTed, AndyS, SteveH, Arnaud, gavinc, manu1, manu, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, ericP, mischat
14:59:38 [Zakim]
14:59:50 [AndyS]
Suggestion - could plan for TriG, NQ, NT LC's today? Process, not technical discussion.
15:01:11 [Zakim]
15:02:06 [Zakim]
15:02:32 [Zakim]
15:02:33 [Zakim]
15:02:34 [markus]
zakim, ??P39 is me
15:02:35 [Zakim]
+markus; got it
15:02:43 [Zakim]
15:02:50 [TallTed]
Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:02:50 [Zakim]
+TallTed; got it
15:02:51 [TallTed]
Zakim, mute me
15:02:51 [Zakim]
TallTed should now be muted
15:02:55 [AndyS]
We've gone so far through that it would be nice to be RECified for NT, NQ. Also - advance TriG to LC
15:03:00 [sandro]
2012/10/30-rdf-wg RESOLVED: We'll do N-Triples and N-Quads in one REC-track documents, title to be decided
15:03:44 [sandro]
2013/03/13-rdf-wg RESOLVED: take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD according to
15:05:22 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see GavinC, pfps, AndyS, Guus, Sandro, gkellogg, Arnaud, markus, davidwood, TallTed (muted)
15:05:33 [AndyS]
nickscribe: AndyS
15:05:40 [AndyS]
scribe: Andy Seaborne
15:05:50 [Guus]
cheir: Guus
15:05:53 [AndyS]
15:05:56 [Guus]
chair: Guus
15:05:58 [AndyS]
chair: Guus
15:07:04 [AndyS]
(pre meeting discussion - we need to track down the resolved status of NT and NQ docs)
15:07:08 [pfps]
miinutes look good
15:07:17 [pfps]
15:07:28 [AndyS]
RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of
15:07:45 [pfps]
15:07:52 [gavinc]
+q to ask who is sending messages to comments about the PREFIX/BASE resolution
15:08:54 [AndyS]
Guus: open actions -
15:09:22 [AndyS]
Guus: open actions -
15:09:38 [pfps]
Semantics needs a tiny bit of work on references, including action 219 - I'll try to get these done
15:10:04 [AndyS]
Guus: process discussions for TriG, NT, NQ
15:10:16 [AndyS]
... keep semantics discussions short
15:10:28 [AndyS]
topic: LC for concepts and semantics
15:10:43 [AndyS]
Guus: issue-131
15:11:14 [AndyS]
... Sandro options 1-6 in
15:11:14 [pfps]
fine by me
15:12:23 [sandro]
15:12:24 [pfps]
6 options - there are only 5 in the email
15:13:07 [pfps]
15:13:23 [pfps]
we are talking about the six "D" issues in the email
15:13:38 [AndyS]
options are -- D1 to D6 in email of 4 June
15:14:01 [AndyS]
sandro: extension approach, not required core
15:14:38 [AndyS]
... on bound semantics
15:14:52 [AndyS]
15:15:18 [Guus]
ack pfps
15:15:21 [AndyS]
ack me
15:15:28 [davidwood]
ack gavinc
15:15:28 [Zakim]
gavinc, you wanted to ask who is sending messages to comments about the PREFIX/BASE resolution
15:15:29 [Guus]
ack gavinc
15:16:40 [AndyS]
sandro: was going to present a design - didn't think it would fly in the WG after private review
15:16:54 [AndyS]
... want to address issue-131 at the same time.
15:17:06 [sandro]
+1 +1 +0 -0 -0 -1
15:17:18 [pfps]
this is all a *change* to the way RDF works - who is going to make sure that it all fits together?
15:17:25 [gkellogg]
D1: +1, D2: +0.9, D3: +0.4, D4: +0.3, D5: +0, D6: -1
15:17:34 [pfps]
D1 -1; D2 -1; D3 -0.5; D4 -0.4; D5 0; D6 -2 (as this would violate the way RDF extensions work)
15:17:50 [markus]
D1: +1, D2: +0.5, D3: 0, D4: -0.8, D5: -1 (can't really see how this is different to D6), D6: -1
15:17:51 [davidwood]
+1 +1 +1 +1 +0 −0.5 (chair hat off)
15:17:55 [gavinc]
D1: -1 D2: -0.9 D3: +1 D4: +0 D5: -0 D6: -0
15:18:20 [AndyS]
D3, D4, D5 +1 D6: -1 D1, D2 hard to say due to details.
15:18:41 [AndyS]
pfps: worried that a technical fault emerges just after REC declared.
15:18:52 [TallTed]
D1 +1, D2 +0.7, D3 +0.5, D4 +0.3, D5 +0, D6 -1
15:19:13 [AndyS]
... don't like D6
15:20:54 [AndyS]
I want to see the other usages (e.g. label=location) documented, (inc with the issues of the approach)
15:21:11 [AndyS]
I am also concerned that one technical choice (in docs) does not prove to be the only one.
15:21:38 [gavinc]
THere is no support for D6! Lets stop talking about it :P
15:22:00 [sandro]
sandro: I want to make sure we don't ACCIDENTALLY end up in D6.
15:22:02 [pfps]
the question is whether there is *some* way to add graphs into the RDF semantics, this is related to D6
15:22:48 [AndyS]
Guus: including people not on call, D3 looks like the leader.
15:23:25 [pfps]
D1 is to add a *particular* way to add graphs to the RDF semantics, which could have problems
15:23:42 [gavinc]
exactly, there is at this point not enough time to do D1
15:24:04 [AndyS]
guus: will set up WBS and resolve next week.
15:24:09 [pfps]
the speed required to approve D1 is very problematics
15:24:47 [markus]
pfps, D1 says "We include *something* like bound semantics [1] and blank-node-graph-names in rdf-concepts"
15:25:20 [AndyS]
ACTION: Guus: set up WBS on bound semantics
15:25:20 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-269 - Set up WBS on bound semantics [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-06-12].
15:25:38 [gavinc]
Yes, but markus we don't have a design, implementations, or consensus after trying for 2 years.
15:25:47 [pfps]
+1 to gavin
15:26:37 [AndyS]
Topic: raised issues
15:26:38 [pfps]
my belief is that issue-120 has been determined, as "yes"
15:26:59 [AndyS]
15:27:39 [markus]
gavinc, agreed but this strawpoll was to see if there's consensus to do something at all
15:27:55 [pfps]
semantics now firmly defines union (new) and merge (no change)
15:28:21 [pfps]
issue-122 is left to surface syntaxes
15:28:34 [AndyS]
guus: close issue 122 sugegsted but Pat raised an issue with the issue.
15:28:56 [AndyS]
... to do with bnode labels on graphs
15:29:02 [AndyS]
pfps: how?
15:29:17 [AndyS]
davidwood: process?
15:29:44 [gavinc]
122... I'm assuming that's now TriGs issue? :\
15:30:04 [AndyS]
guus: assumption is that these raised issues are dropped
15:30:04 [sandro]
15:30:04 [trackbot]
ISSUE-127 -- Comment: multiple ways to encode string codepoints -- raised
15:30:04 [trackbot]
15:30:07 [pfps]
issue 127 appears to be related to surface syntaxes
15:30:26 [AndyS]
Guus: issue-127 - not about semantics or concepts
15:31:04 [AndyS]
Topic: Open issues on semantics and concepts
15:31:26 [AndyS] (time varying link :-)
15:31:38 [AndyS]
Guus: issue-23 -
15:31:42 [AndyS]
15:31:42 [trackbot]
ISSUE-23 -- Does going from single-graph to multi-graph require new format and new media types? -- open
15:31:42 [trackbot]
15:32:31 [AndyS]
gavin: resolved by leaving to each syntax
15:32:47 [AndyS]
guus: please offer to write resolution text ...
15:32:56 [AndyS]
gavinc: Ok - I'll do it.
15:33:19 [sandro]
15:33:19 [trackbot]
ISSUE-102 -- Shall we highlight Turtle's list structures as "Well-Formed Lists" in one of our Recs? -- open
15:33:19 [trackbot]
15:33:22 [pfps]
i vote "no" for issue-102
15:33:23 [AndyS]
action: gavinc: Write resolution text for issue-23
15:33:23 [trackbot]
Error finding 'gavinc'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
15:33:56 [gavinc]
ACTION: gavin: write resolution text for issue-23
15:33:56 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-270 - Write resolution text for issue-23 [on Gavin Carothers - due 2013-06-12].
15:34:28 [AndyS]
pfps: make a primer issue for 102
15:34:47 [AndyS]
sandro: informative section of concepts? schema?
15:35:41 [AndyS]
sandro: advanced people to read this - they may skip primer.
15:36:04 [AndyS]
.. does the WG agree with the statement of issue-102
15:36:53 [AndyS]
AndyS: two audiences? data publishers, and implementers.
15:37:16 [davidwood]
q+ to say that there has never been a requirement that implementations store triples.
15:37:20 [AndyS]
sandro: people who are constructing triple patterns need to be aware of this.
15:37:31 [sandro]
s/need/probably should/
15:37:41 [sandro]
15:37:45 [AndyS]
guus: suggest move to primer
15:38:19 [AndyS]
davidwood: could drop? We don't usually talk about impls.
15:38:55 [AndyS]
sandro: old RDF spec had wellformed lists is mapped to Turtle and JSON-LD lists. ?? in RDFS?
15:39:38 [AndyS]
guus: no relation to concepts or semantics so not an issue for them
15:39:48 [AndyS]
... next issues 112 113
15:40:04 [AndyS]
... previous comments from the list
15:40:20 [AndyS]
... needs checking
15:40:26 [AndyS]
15:40:26 [trackbot]
ISSUE-112 -- Media types and assertions -- open
15:40:26 [trackbot]
15:40:30 [AndyS]
15:40:30 [trackbot]
ISSUE-113 -- RDF Keys -- open
15:40:30 [trackbot]
15:40:33 [pfps]
issue 112 refers to an email from 9 years ago!
15:40:37 [AndyS]
guus: volunteers?
15:40:50 [AndyS]
15:41:42 [pfps]
I can sent a message to Mark Baker
15:41:42 [AndyS]
... we don't think they affect semantics and concepts
15:41:51 [AndyS]
... assume not relevant
15:42:28 [davidwood]
15:42:29 [AndyS]
Guus: That leaves open issue 131
15:42:31 [davidwood]
ack me
15:42:31 [Zakim]
davidwood, you wanted to say that there has never been a requirement that implementations store triples.
15:42:46 [AndyS]
... and the WBS poll on bound datasets
15:42:54 [AndyS]
guus: process
15:42:58 [AndyS]
... 4 reviewers
15:43:04 [AndyS]
... semantics
15:43:12 [AndyS]
... ivan has done an initial review
15:43:51 [AndyS]
... antoine to do another
15:44:06 [AndyS]
pfps: no significant items in ivans review
15:46:12 [pfps]
hmm. this indicates that semantics / concepts need to be changed to move from "can't" to "doesn't necessarily"
15:46:42 [AndyS]
guus: concepts
15:46:53 [AndyS]
.. reviewers Guus and PFPS.
15:47:08 [AndyS]
pfps: previous review was done
15:47:40 [AndyS]
davidwood: no matters arising from pfps review
15:48:11 [AndyS]
guus: in two weeks can we have LC drafts for concepts and semantics?
15:48:44 [pfps]
two weeks should be feasible if there are no required technical changes, and the editors produce changes that are acceptable to the reviewers
15:48:50 [AndyS]
pfps: resolving to ivan - OK - other small changes then good to go. Some editor overhead to respond to changes.
15:49:28 [AndyS]
davidwood: much the same - need to check recent edits - but ex issue 131 - looks OK for that timescale
15:49:43 [AndyS]
guus: 2 weeks ideal, latest 3 weeks. Is there time?
15:49:54 [pfps]
I'll do some work on the edits today or tomorrow
15:50:12 [AndyS]
davidwood: had factored in some time next week
15:50:26 [AndyS]
guus: option - features at risk
15:51:07 [AndyS]
sandro: feature at risk - issue-131 and related - relative IRIs unclear as to proposal in detail.
15:51:20 [AndyS]
topic: Turtle process
15:51:49 [AndyS]
guus: test suite, feature at risk resolved.
15:52:18 [AndyS]
gavinc: need someone to write to the external commenters
15:52:31 [AndyS]
guus: suggest Eric is asked
15:52:39 [AndyS]
gavinc: fine
15:53:35 [AndyS]
action: guus: Ask EricP to respond to the feature at risk commenters re PREFIX
15:53:35 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-271 - Ask EricP to respond to the feature at risk commenters re PREFIX [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-06-12].
15:54:11 [AndyS]
gavinc: exact details on the PREFIX impl - some people say they will go further.
15:54:45 [AndyS]
... and trailing dot on PREFIX
15:55:39 [AndyS]
andys: I implement the feature at risk.
15:56:14 [AndyS]
gavinc: grammar not quite right (WS betweet @ and word)
15:56:37 [AndyS]
... trailing DOT in SPARQL unliked by AndyS
15:56:57 [AndyS]
... unclear about case sensitivity of @prefix
15:57:57 [Guus]
zakim, who is talking?
15:58:08 [Zakim]
Guus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (20%), Sandro (30%), gkellogg (9%)
15:58:46 [Zakim]
15:59:00 [AndyS]
gregg: fine with no DOT version if no negative tests for it.
15:59:10 [sandro]
gavin: NONE of the negative syntax text are Normative.
15:59:25 [AndyS]
gavinc: negative tests are not really as normative because its outside the grammar
15:59:29 [Zakim]
15:59:44 [sandro]
gregg: so remove them from test results?
15:59:53 [sandro]
andy: I have a "strict" flag
16:00:04 [gavinc]
base <http://one.example/> <subject> <predicate> <object>
16:01:13 [AndyS]
sandro: concensus on case insensitive of @prefix?
16:01:18 [AndyS]
gavinc: maybe
16:01:38 [AndyS]
... issue around "a"
16:01:40 [sandro]
PROPOSE: make @prefix and @base case insenstive
16:01:59 [sandro]
(hearing consensus)
16:03:27 [AndyS]
sandro: what about all case insensitive, remove neg tests on PREFIX-DOT
16:04:08 [AndyS]
gavinc: say for compatibilty write trad forms.
16:04:21 [AndyS]
guus: next week status of TriG, NT, NQ
16:04:56 [AndyS]
gavinc: test - NT, NQ to REC?
16:05:23 [Zakim]
16:05:26 [Zakim]
16:05:29 [AndyS]
16:05:38 [Guus]
trackbot, end meeting
16:05:38 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:05:38 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been GavinC, pfps, matthias_samwald, AndyS, Guus, Sandro, gkellogg, Arnaud, davidwood, markus, TallTed
16:05:46 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:05:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:05:47 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:05:47 [RRSAgent]
I see 4 open action items saved in :
16:05:47 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: Guus: set up WBS on bound semantics [1]
16:05:47 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:05:47 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gavinc: Write resolution text for issue-23 [2]
16:05:47 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:05:47 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: gavin: write resolution text for issue-23 [3]
16:05:47 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:05:47 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: guus: Ask EricP to respond to the feature at risk commenters re PREFIX [4]
16:05:47 [RRSAgent]
recorded in
16:05:54 [Zakim]