IRC log of rdf-wg on 2013-07-10
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:55:42 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:55:42 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/07/10-rdf-wg-irc
- 14:55:44 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 14:55:44 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:55:46 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be 73394
- 14:55:46 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
- 14:55:47 [trackbot]
- Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
- 14:55:47 [trackbot]
- Date: 10 July 2013
- 14:55:52 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
- 14:55:53 [Zakim]
- +EricP
- 14:58:28 [Zakim]
- +??P0
- 14:58:29 [pfps]
- pfps has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:58:31 [Zakim]
- -EricP
- 14:58:32 [Zakim]
- +EricP
- 14:58:38 [gkellogg]
- zakim, I am ??P0
- 14:58:38 [Zakim]
- +gkellogg; got it
- 14:59:13 [Zakim]
- +[GVoice]
- 14:59:19 [ericP]
- http://w3.org/brief/MzM4
- 14:59:25 [Arnaud1]
- Arnaud1 has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:59:46 [Zakim]
- +davidwood
- 15:00:02 [davidwood]
- Zakim, who is barking?
- 15:00:02 [Zakim]
- I don't understand your question, davidwood.
- 15:00:13 [davidwood]
- Zakim, who is here?
- 15:00:13 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see EricP, gkellogg, [GVoice], davidwood
- 15:00:15 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Arnaud1, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, TallTed, trackbot, davidwood, manu, yvesr, mischat, ericP, sandro
- 15:01:04 [AZ]
- AZ has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:01:07 [Zakim]
- +OpenLink_Software
- 15:01:12 [TallTed]
- Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
- 15:01:12 [Zakim]
- +TallTed; got it
- 15:01:14 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 15:01:15 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 15:01:23 [TallTed]
- TallTed has changed the topic to: RDF-WG -- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/ -- agenda http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.07.10
- 15:02:12 [Arnaud]
- is anyone successfully calling Zakim via SIP?
- 15:02:27 [Arnaud]
- it isn't working for me
- 15:02:28 [Zakim]
- + +081165aaaa
- 15:02:28 [markus]
- markus has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:02:38 [AZ]
- Zakim, aaaa is me
- 15:02:38 [Zakim]
- +AZ; got it
- 15:02:59 [gavinc]
- gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:03:00 [Zakim]
- +Sandro
- 15:03:21 [ericP]
- scribenick: ericP
- 15:03:48 [Zakim]
- + +1.707.861.aabb
- 15:03:49 [davidwood]
- Zakim, who is here?
- 15:03:50 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see EricP, gkellogg, [GVoice], davidwood, TallTed (muted), AZ, Sandro, +1.707.861.aabb
- 15:03:50 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see gavinc, markus, AZ, Arnaud, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, TallTed, trackbot, davidwood, manu, yvesr, mischat, ericP, sandro
- 15:03:56 [gavinc]
- aabb is me
- 15:04:04 [gavinc]
- Zakim, aabb is me
- 15:04:04 [Zakim]
- +gavinc; got it
- 15:04:47 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 15:04:57 [davidwood]
- PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 3 July telecon:
- 15:04:57 [davidwood]
- 15:04:57 [davidwood]
- https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-07-03
- 15:05:04 [Arnaud]
- Zakim, IPCaller is me
- 15:05:04 [Zakim]
- +Arnaud; got it
- 15:05:16 [Zakim]
- +??P15
- 15:05:19 [davidwood]
- RESOLVED to accept the minutes of the 3 July telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-07-03
- 15:05:19 [markus]
- zakim, ??P15 is me
- 15:05:19 [Zakim]
- +markus; got it
- 15:05:28 [ericP]
- PROPOSED: accept https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-07-03 as a record of the last meeting
- 15:05:30 [davidwood]
- Review of action items
- 15:05:30 [davidwood]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview
- 15:05:30 [davidwood]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/open
- 15:06:21 [davidwood]
- ACTION-278?
- 15:06:21 [trackbot]
- ACTION-278 -- Eric Prud'hommeaux to create new grammar for TriG that includes optional graph keywords and make {} optional around the default graph -- due 2013-07-10 -- OPEN
- 15:06:21 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/278
- 15:06:25 [davidwood]
- ACTION-279?
- 15:06:25 [trackbot]
- ACTION-279 -- Sandro Hawke to propose text for TriG feature at risk for both GRAPH keywords and {} being optional around the default graph -- due 2013-07-10 -- OPEN
- 15:06:25 [trackbot]
- http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/279
- 15:06:35 [zwu2]
- zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:06:44 [davidwood]
- close ACTION-278
- 15:06:44 [trackbot]
- Closed ACTION-278 Create new grammar for TriG that includes optional graph keywords and make {} optional around the default graph.
- 15:06:50 [davidwood]
- close ACTION-279
- 15:06:50 [trackbot]
- Closed ACTION-279 Propose text for TriG feature at risk for both GRAPH keywords and {} being optional around the default graph.
- 15:07:25 [davidwood]
- Reminder: The next telecon will be Wednesday, 24 July
- 15:07:30 [davidwood]
- (biweekly)
- 15:07:30 [ericP]
- davidwood: staring bio-weekly schedule so next telecon Wed 24 July
- 15:07:39 [Zakim]
- +AZ.a
- 15:09:17 [pchampin]
- pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:09:28 [pfps]
- where would this paragraph go?
- 15:09:28 [ericP]
- topic: describe relationship between RDF Concepts and RDF Semantics in Concepts
- 15:09:51 [ericP]
- davidwood: do you think it should be verbose?
- 15:10:03 [ericP]
- pfps: not sure where it should go
- 15:10:12 [ericP]
- pfps: previous version didn't include this
- 15:10:26 [ericP]
- ... propose: do nothing
- 15:10:36 [pfps]
- I'm of the opinion that the right thing is to do nothing.
- 15:10:38 [ericP]
- davidwood: we mention semantics in the intro (as a link)
- 15:10:49 [ericP]
- ... then under entailment and consistency
- 15:11:18 [ericP]
- ... markus noted that 1.7 seems out of place. i agree
- 15:11:33 [ericP]
- ... could be fixed if we clarified the relationship between the two documents
- 15:11:56 [Souri]
- Souri has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:12:02 [ericP]
- ... markus, would clarifying the relationshop between the two docs improve 1.7?
- 15:12:13 [ericP]
- markus: i'd like to move this all to semantics
- 15:12:26 [ericP]
- ... it's not relevent to a newcomer and not complete enough
- 15:12:43 [ericP]
- davidwood, but it does include refs which introduces it to readers of concepts
- 15:13:01 [ericP]
- markus: my goal is to simplify Concepts to not scare off new readers
- 15:13:20 [ericP]
- davidwood: first read should be the primer
- 15:13:44 [ericP]
- markus: agreed, but most specs will ref Concepts so folks will read that before reading the Primer
- 15:13:58 [ericP]
- davidwood: pfps, how do you feel about moving 1.7 to Semantics?
- 15:14:09 [TallTed]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 15:14:09 [Zakim]
- TallTed should no longer be muted
- 15:14:11 [ericP]
- pfps: something has to reference Semantics
- 15:14:11 [Arnaud]
- you could put a note in the intro recommending to read the primer first
- 15:14:45 [Arnaud]
- just make sure the primer doesn't send people back to concepts from the get-go :)
- 15:15:03 [ericP]
- q+ to say that I agree with markus that concepts readers should be able to read a data model without the hard stuff
- 15:15:30 [ericP]
- davidwood: [at al,] yes, we should point to the primer but we don't have one
- 15:15:51 [ericP]
- TallTed: if there's an intended order of reading, that should be indicated at the beginning
- 15:16:00 [davidwood]
- q?
- 15:16:04 [davidwood]
- ack ericP
- 15:16:04 [Zakim]
- ericP, you wanted to say that I agree with markus that concepts readers should be able to read a data model without the hard stuff
- 15:16:55 [ericP]
- davidwood: in the beginning of Concepts, we reference these other documents
- 15:17:41 [TallTed]
- Zakim, mute me
- 15:17:41 [Zakim]
- TallTed should now be muted
- 15:17:49 [ericP]
- ... if we move 1.7 to semantics and define entailment and consistency there, Concepts will have few refs to Semantics
- 15:18:10 [AZ]
- Zakim, who's speaking?
- 15:18:15 [ericP]
- ... in that section, we just define some terms.
- 15:18:22 [Zakim]
- AZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [GVoice] (79%), davidwood (68%)
- 15:18:32 [ericP]
- ... should a readers of Concepts understand those terms
- 15:19:39 [ericP]
- pfps: i'm uncomfortable with moving 1.7 from Concepts and into Semantics
- 15:20:20 [ericP]
- markus: are these terms used again in Concepts?
- 15:20:44 [ericP]
- ... i see one later ref to "entailment" in an example
- 15:20:56 [gavinc]
- "Two RDF graphs A and B are equivalent if they make the same claim about the world. A is equivalent to B if and only if A entails B and B entails A." That one's important
- 15:20:59 [ericP]
- ... you could argue that it's basic knowledge for RDF, but...
- 15:22:36 [TallTed]
- Zakim, who's here?
- 15:22:36 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see EricP, gkellogg, [GVoice], davidwood, TallTed (muted), AZ, Sandro, gavinc, Arnaud, markus, AZ.a
- 15:22:38 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Souri, pchampin, zwu2, gavinc, markus, AZ, Arnaud, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, TallTed, trackbot, davidwood, manu, yvesr, mischat, ericP, sandro
- 15:23:41 [markus]
- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#entailment
- 15:25:55 [Zakim]
- +Souri
- 15:26:13 [markus]
- http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#data-model
- 15:26:19 [davidwood]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0126.html
- 15:26:21 [pfps]
- If we are making changes to 1.7, I would make some non-controversial editorial changes. I would also remove the stuff on union and merge (which might be somewhat more controversial). I'll send out a message on this.
- 15:26:53 [pfps]
- Consensus on everything except my worries about JSON numbers.
- 15:27:17 [markus]
- http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#relationship-to-rdf
- 15:27:29 [ericP]
- markus: we discussed an unambiguos mapping from JSON datatypes to RDF datatypes
- 15:27:44 [ericP]
- ... that addressed pfps's concearns
- 15:27:58 [ericP]
- ... i just updated the spec 10 mins ago. everything should be in place
- 15:28:59 [ericP]
- pfps: i'd have been content yesterday
- 15:29:08 [ericP]
- ... this is all painful
- 15:29:40 [ericP]
- ... JSON is a loose spec which does thousands of things with numbers
- 15:29:46 [ericP]
- ... e.g. 32 bit integers
- 15:29:56 [Guus_]
- Guus_ has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:30:15 [ericP]
- sandro: here we're improving JSON by using RDF's [really XML Schema's] precise definitions
- 15:30:49 [ericP]
- pfps: implementations on the ground are likely to use "JSON number"
- 15:31:06 [ericP]
- sandro: JSON-LD steers you away from "number" if you care about round-tripping
- 15:31:50 [ericP]
- pfps: JSON has a notion of a fraction number, e.g. 12.3 has a fractional part of "3"
- 15:32:56 [ericP]
- markus: 1.1E1 is the canonical form of "11"^^xsd:double
- 15:33:04 [markus]
- s/markus/pfps/
- 15:33:08 [ericP]
- ... that ".1" is the fractional part
- 15:34:08 [ericP]
- ... if that part's nailed down, i think JSON-LD provides a consistent and coherent view of the world
- 15:34:26 [ericP]
- ... no idea what the JSON reception would be
- 15:34:59 [gavinc]
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-staykov-hu-json-canonical-form-00#section-2.1.1 btw
- 15:36:27 [markus]
- Peter's quote: ... "without, of course, getting bogged down on things like how many Unicode surrogate characters can dance on the head of a JSON string" :-)
- 15:36:46 [ericP]
- pfps: we talk about unicode codepoints but JSON talks about unicode characters
- 15:38:16 [ericP]
- davidwood: what will the JSON-LD group do with this?
- 15:38:29 [ericP]
- markus: we spend a long time on round-tripping
- 15:39:00 [ericP]
- ... i think the spec is clear anough about it. some corner cases like "1.0" becomes an integer
- 15:39:01 [pfps]
- the point is that the syntax for JSON numbers uses frac and fraction part for the .1 in 1.1E1 so fractional part needs to be distinguished from that
- 15:39:23 [ericP]
- ... but the RDF-to-JSON defaults to using the string representation so you default to clean round-tripping
- 15:39:49 [ericP]
- davidwood: so don't expect many changes between now and REC
- 15:40:23 [Arnaud]
- well, I would still be happy to say something about RDF/JSON
- 15:40:33 [davidwood]
- Zakim, who is here?
- 15:40:33 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see EricP, gkellogg, pfps, davidwood, TallTed (muted), AZ, Sandro, gavinc, Arnaud, markus, AZ.a, Souri
- 15:40:35 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Guus_, Souri, zwu2, gavinc, markus, AZ, Arnaud, pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, gkellogg, TallTed, trackbot, davidwood, manu, yvesr, mischat, ericP, sandro
- 15:40:55 [Arnaud]
- +q to say something about RDF/JSON
- 15:41:03 [davidwood]
- ack Arnaud
- 15:41:03 [Zakim]
- Arnaud, you wanted to say something about RDF/JSON
- 15:41:08 [davidwood]
- q?
- 15:41:11 [pfps]
- By the way, when are Semantics and Concepts going to LC publication?
- 15:41:13 [ericP]
- Topic: RDF/JSON
- 15:41:56 [ericP]
- Arnaud: after reading pierre antoine and andy's comments, i don't think they're serious obstacles
- 15:42:12 [pfps]
- NB: +1
- 15:42:15 [ericP]
- ... before editing the spec, i want to know whether it's likely to proceed
- 15:43:13 [ericP]
- davidwood: gregg proposed an alternative format to JSON-LD, which i don't think this group has time
- 15:43:30 [ericP]
- Arnaud: i discussed this with Gregg at SemTech
- 15:43:49 [ericP]
- ... he said that they have a rep which is essentially similar to RDf/JSON
- 15:44:15 [ericP]
- davidwood: putting RDF/JSON out as a note makes it easy for folks to translate
- 15:44:34 [ericP]
- ... someone can later make that REC-track
- 15:45:15 [ericP]
- gkellogg: we'd need a internal step which creates an ID map when flattening
- 15:45:33 [ericP]
- markus: you can have the same shape, but you need a top-level node
- 15:45:44 [davidwood]
- PROPOSED: The WG will publish RDF/JSON as a Note
- 15:45:56 [Arnaud]
- +1
- 15:45:57 [davidwood]
- +1
- 15:46:28 [davidwood]
- PROPOSED: The WG will pursue publication of RDF/JSON as a Note
- 15:46:35 [Arnaud]
- +1
- 15:46:36 [markus]
- -0.5
- 15:46:36 [Souri]
- +1
- 15:46:36 [gavinc]
- +1
- 15:46:37 [ericP]
- +1
- 15:46:37 [davidwood]
- +1
- 15:46:38 [zwu2]
- +1
- 15:46:39 [gkellogg]
- +0.5
- 15:46:43 [pfps]
- +1
- 15:46:45 [TallTed]
- +0
- 15:46:46 [sandro]
- (to be clear -- this is NOT a decision to publish)
- 15:46:50 [AZ]
- +1
- 15:47:04 [sandro]
- +0.5
- 15:47:18 [ericP]
- markus: i find it confusing that the same WG publishes two competing JSON formats
- 15:47:21 [gavinc]
- Hey! I'm WRITING 4 competing formats :P
- 15:47:38 [sandro]
- (agreed, there's some confusion with JSON-LD -- but Arnaud has promised the document will be clear about it)
- 15:47:42 [ericP]
- davidwood: yeah, but in the first year, we had lots of discussion
- 15:47:51 [Arnaud]
- I already added this to the RDF/JSON draft: "On the other hand, the RDF Working Group decided to put JSON-LD on the Recommendation track (see resolution of May 30, 2012). If you have no specific reason to use this document instead of JSON-LD, you are therefore encouraged to use JSON-LD."
- 15:48:07 [ericP]
- ... the use cases for these two serializations were completely separate. (that's why i'm not concearned)
- 15:48:17 [ericP]
- RESOLVED: The WG will pursue publication of RDF/JSON as a Note
- 15:48:29 [Arnaud]
- I hope this addresses some of Markus's concern which I fully understand
- 15:49:14 [swh]
- swh has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:49:25 [Zakim]
- -pfps
- 15:50:24 [ericP]
- topic: NTriples and NQuads
- 15:50:50 [ericP]
- davidwood: propose to move from persuing a Note to persuing a Rec
- 15:51:13 [davidwood]
- PROPOSED: The WG will pursue N-Triples/N-Quads as a Rec instead of a Note
- 15:51:14 [ericP]
- sandro: i understand this doesn't bind us, just advice to editor
- 15:51:18 [gavinc]
- +∞
- 15:51:21 [gkellogg]
- +1
- 15:51:22 [gavinc]
- +1
- 15:51:28 [davidwood]
- +0.5
- 15:51:28 [TallTed]
- +1
- 15:51:43 [Zakim]
- +[GVoice]
- 15:51:52 [pfps]
- zakim, gvoice is me
- 15:51:52 [Zakim]
- +pfps; got it
- 15:52:08 [AZ]
- +0.5
- 15:52:10 [sandro]
- eric: Does this raise the bar on what an RDF Implementation is?
- 15:52:57 [sandro]
- eric: Is there a presumption that every RECOMMENDED syntax is supported by every system?
- 15:53:10 [markus]
- Arnaud, quick question just out of curiosity: does RDF/JSON serialize all numbers as strings?
- 15:53:17 [sandro]
- eric: Do we have too many syntaxes?
- 15:53:32 [sandro]
- Gavin: Yes, but N-Triples and N-Quads aren't the ones
- 15:54:01 [sandro]
- eric: Yes, but in 2004 N-Triples was specified, but they DIDNT tell the world to expose their data as N-Triples.
- 15:54:04 [swh_]
- swh_ has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:54:45 [sandro]
- davidwood: Eric, this is RESOLVED, and Eric please raise an issue about this
- 15:55:05 [Souri]
- s/persuing/pursuing/
- 15:55:07 [markus]
- +0
- 15:55:12 [sandro]
- eric: you're saying we have another avenue for guidance about syntaxes, not just "Every Recommendation".
- 15:55:41 [sandro]
- davidwood: Now we have all these different syntaxes, so we should make some statement, in Concepts, about what you should comply with.
- 15:55:58 [sandro]
- davidwood: I'd say N-Triples and N-Quads and everything else is optional
- 15:56:00 [sandro]
- ?!?!?!?!
- 15:56:06 [sandro]
- -1 to that
- 15:56:26 [sandro]
- eric; I'd say w3.org/TR is how you know which syntaxes to implement
- 15:56:46 [sandro]
- davidwood: but practically we have so many
- 15:57:08 [ericP]
- sandro: LDP says "you have to use Turtle"
- 15:57:43 [ericP]
- ... you're saying that every government has to expose as NTriples to guarantee interop"
- 15:57:52 [ericP]
- davidwood: i have to think about it
- 15:58:09 [gavinc]
- Simple, name an RDF implementation that DOESN'T implement N-Triples
- 15:58:48 [zwu2]
- N-TRIPLES is really popular
- 15:59:05 [Souri]
- Oracle parses N-Triples and N-Quads
- 15:59:24 [ericP]
- ... if we have a half dozen serialization formats, we can't call an impl that doesn't implement them all "non-compliant"
- 16:00:22 [ericP]
- [discussion of proliferation of NTriples and NQuads]
- 16:01:40 [Arnaud]
- the one advantage of having all these formats is that it should make it clear to anyone that RDF isn't RDF/XML :)
- 16:03:23 [TallTed]
- that's actually a significant advantage :-)
- 16:03:38 [ericP]
- ISSUE: guidance to RDF users and developers about which syntaxes to parse and publish
- 16:03:38 [trackbot]
- Created ISSUE-138 - Guidance to RDF users and developers about which syntaxes to parse and publish; please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/138/edit>.
- 16:04:09 [AZ]
- btw OWL/XML is a REC and OWL implementations do *not* have to support it
- 16:04:23 [sandro]
- scribe: sandro
- 16:04:42 [sandro]
- topic: TriG
- 16:05:07 [ericP]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/01/yacker/uploads/trigS_new?lang=perl
- 16:05:27 [TallTed]
- (except for the part where RDF/XML seems to be the only serialization that includes "RDF" [and not just "R"] in its name)
- 16:05:37 [sandro]
- eric: I created a grammar that takes care of (1) blank nodes as graph identifiers, (2) allow the GRAPH keyword, (3) allow { } to be optional around default graph
- 16:05:53 [sandro]
- eric: I made an LALR(1) grammar for this
- 16:06:19 [gavinc]
- blank nodes as graph identifiers are already in the Grammar in the the current ED
- 16:06:22 [sandro]
- eric: interesting grammatical points.
- 16:06:23 [gkellogg]
- Also LL(1)
- 16:06:47 [sandro]
- eric: Noticed one could do: [ :a :b ] { .... }
- 16:07:12 [gkellogg]
- Also, possibly (1 2) { … }
- 16:07:21 [sandro]
- eric: Andy pushed back, saying this syntac might be used for something else, and exceeds sparql
- 16:07:39 [sandro]
- gavin: Aligning with SPARQL, and then going right past it.....
- 16:09:34 [ericP]
- ASK { { <s> <p> <o> } GRAPH <x> { ... } }
- 16:09:35 [sandro]
- eric: Resolved that it's fine to make GRAPH optional and make { ... } optional
- 16:09:51 [ericP]
- ASK { { <s> <p> <o> { <s2> <p2> <o2> } } GRAPH <x> { ... } }
- 16:10:18 [sandro]
- sandro: ewww!
- 16:10:35 [ericP]
- normal use: ASK { <s> <p> <o> GRAPH <x> { ... } }
- 16:10:48 [sandro]
- sandro: and that's what we'd like in TriG
- 16:11:43 [sandro]
- david: (missed)
- 16:12:30 [sandro]
- eric: { { <s> <p> <o> { <s2> <p2> <o2> } } GRAPH <x> { ... } } turns into { <s> <p> <o>. <s2> <p2> <o2> GRAPH <x> { ... } }
- 16:13:08 [sandro]
- eric: Resolved that it's fine to make GRAPH optional and make { ... } optional
- 16:14:31 [sandro]
- eric: is there a mechanism to survey....?
- 16:15:21 [sandro]
- eric: eg wiki page of implementations
- 16:15:27 [sandro]
- sandro: Sure, let's link to the implementation risk in the At Risk text.
- 16:15:28 [Zakim]
- -Arnaud
- 16:16:12 [sandro]
- gavin: I think we already resolved to add these, last meeting. I was going to normalize against existing trig grammar and include it.
- 16:16:25 [sandro]
- eric: also, optional trailing dot inside curlies
- 16:16:42 [sandro]
- eric: I borrow from SPARQL not TURTLE.
- 16:16:57 [sandro]
- +1
- 16:17:13 [sandro]
- david: We've gotten through our agenda!
- 16:18:52 [sandro]
- sandro: I don't recall us actually resolving 137
- 16:19:03 [sandro]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0138.html
- 16:19:41 [gavinc]
- PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-137 using at risk text proposed by sandro http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0138.html and a grammar based on ericP's changes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0099.html
- 16:19:52 [sandro]
- +1
- 16:19:59 [davidwood]
- +1
- 16:20:00 [gavinc]
- +0.5
- 16:20:01 [gkellogg]
- +1
- 16:20:02 [ericP]
- +1
- 16:20:04 [TallTed]
- +1
- 16:20:24 [zwu2]
- +1
- 16:20:40 [Souri]
- +1
- 16:20:51 [sandro]
- RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-137 using at risk text proposed by sandro http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0138.html and a grammar based on ericP's changes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0099.html
- 16:21:01 [sandro]
- davidwood: AOB?
- 16:21:04 [markus]
- +1
- 16:21:24 [sandro]
- gavin: We'll also be adding Andy's test cases to the TriG test suite.
- 16:22:48 [zwu2]
- bye
- 16:22:53 [Zakim]
- -AZ.a
- 16:23:03 [sandro]
- ADJOURN
- 16:23:04 [Zakim]
- -AZ
- 16:23:09 [Zakim]
- -pfps
- 16:23:25 [Zakim]
- -Souri
- 16:23:28 [markus]
- bye
- 16:23:31 [Zakim]
- -markus
- 16:23:48 [sandro]
- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/0f2466565bc8/trig/tests2/trig-kw-graph-08.trig
- 16:23:54 [sandro]
- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/0f2466565bc8/trig/tests2
- 16:27:13 [Zakim]
- -EricP
- 16:32:20 [sandro]
- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/file/0f2466565bc8/trig/tests2/trig-kw-graph-01.trig
- 16:32:34 [gkellogg]
- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/log/0f2466565bc8/trig/tests2/trig-kw-graph-08.trig
- 16:34:23 [Zakim]
- -gkellogg
- 16:34:27 [Zakim]
- -Sandro
- 16:34:28 [Zakim]
- -gavinc
- 16:34:29 [Zakim]
- -davidwood
- 16:34:29 [Zakim]
- -TallTed
- 16:34:29 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
- 16:34:29 [Zakim]
- Attendees were EricP, gkellogg, davidwood, TallTed, +081165aaaa, AZ, Sandro, +1.707.861.aabb, gavinc, Arnaud, markus, Souri, pfps
- 16:34:35 [gavinc]
- RCS forever!
- 16:37:40 [gavinc]
- davidwood: can you check your ~/.hgrc ?
- 17:26:13 [Arnaud1]
- Arnaud1 has joined #rdf-wg
- 17:56:45 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #rdf-wg
- 18:35:04 [davidwood]
- davidwood has joined #rdf-wg