IRC log of rdf-wg on 2013-10-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:41:45 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:41:45 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-rdf-wg-irc
14:41:47 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs world
14:41:47 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:41:49 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be 73394
14:41:49 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 19 minutes
14:41:50 [trackbot]: Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:41:50 [trackbot]: Date: 16 October 2013
14:45:29 [Guus]: Guus has joined #rdf-wg
14:48:36 [AndyS]: AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:28 [Zakim]: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
14:58:29 [Zakim]: +[GVoice]
14:58:52 [pfps]: pfps has joined #rdf-wg
14:59:20 [pfps]: zakim, this will be rdf-wg
14:59:20 [Zakim]: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, pfps
14:59:46 [pfps]: zakim, this is RDF-WG
14:59:46 [Zakim]: sorry, pfps, I do not see a conference named 'RDF-WG' in progress or scheduled at this time
14:59:48 [Guus]: trackbot, start meeting
14:59:50 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:52 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be 73394
14:59:53 [trackbot]: Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:59:53 [trackbot]: Date: 16 October 2013
14:59:53 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
15:00:02 [pfps]: zakim, who is here?
15:00:03 [Zakim]: I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted
15:00:04 [Zakim]: On the phone I see [GVoice], Guus_Schreiber, [IPcaller]
15:00:04 [Zakim]: On IRC I see pfps, AndyS, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, gavinc, gkellogg, TallTed, ivan, trackbot, davidwood, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP
15:00:11 [pfps]: zakim, gvoice is me
15:00:11 [Zakim]: +pfps; got it
15:00:15 [AndyS]: zakim, ipcaller is me
15:00:15 [Zakim]: +AndyS; got it
15:00:23 [Zakim]: +??P9
15:00:27 [Zakim]: +GavinC
15:00:32 [yvesr]: Zakim, ??P9 is me
15:00:34 [Zakim]: +yvesr; got it
15:00:36 [Zakim]: +Sandro
15:01:00 [Zakim]: +EricP
15:01:08 [ivan]: zakim, code?
15:01:08 [Zakim]: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan
15:01:21 [gavinc]: issue-156?
15:01:21 [trackbot]: issue-156 -- Media type parameter for turtle -- open
15:01:21 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/156
15:01:37 [Zakim]: +OpenLink_Software
15:01:39 [Zakim]: +Ivan
15:01:45 [ivan]: zakim, mute me
15:01:45 [Zakim]: Ivan should now be muted
15:01:47 [AZ]: AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:01:57 [TallTed]: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:01:57 [Zakim]: +TallTed; got it
15:01:59 [TallTed]: Zakim, mute me
15:01:59 [Zakim]: TallTed should now be muted
15:02:31 [Zakim]: -pfps
15:02:38 [markus]: markus has joined #rdf-wg
15:03:02 [Zakim]: +AZ
15:03:22 [Zakim]: +??P20
15:03:28 [markus]: zakim, ??P20 is me
15:03:28 [Zakim]: +markus; got it
15:03:35 [AZ]: Zakim, who is here
15:03:35 [Zakim]: AZ, you need to end that query with '?'
15:03:35 [Guus]: chair: Guus
15:03:40 [AZ]: Zakim, who is here?
15:03:40 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, AndyS, yvesr, GavinC, Sandro, EricP, TallTed (muted), Ivan (muted), AZ, markus
15:03:42 [Zakim]: On IRC I see markus, AZ, AndyS, Guus, Zakim, RRSAgent, gavinc, gkellogg, TallTed, ivan, trackbot, davidwood, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP
15:03:45 [Guus]: zakim, pick a scribe
15:03:45 [Zakim]: Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Sandro
15:04:02 [Zakim]: +[GVoice]
15:04:42 [pfps]: pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:04:46 [pfps]: zakim, gvoice is me
15:04:47 [Zakim]: +pfps; got it
15:04:51 [AndyS]: zakim who is making noise?
15:04:58 [AndyS]: zakim, who is making noise?
15:05:09 [Zakim]: AndyS, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AZ (4%)
15:05:30 [AZ]: weird, I've muted my phone
15:05:40 [ericP]: mute it harder
15:05:50 [ericP]: see?
15:06:56 [gavinc]: -1 to accepting minutes
15:07:28 [Zakim]: +David_Wood
15:07:31 [AndyS]: issue-156?
15:07:31 [trackbot]: issue-156 -- Media type parameter for turtle -- open
15:07:31 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/156
15:07:50 [AZ]: q+ to mention problem with ACTION 309
15:08:13 [sandro]: guus: we'll return to the munutes later
15:08:32 [AndyS]: action-309?
15:08:32 [trackbot]: action-309 -- David Wood to Make an editorial change to concepts in answer to issue-147 -- due 2013-10-16 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:08:32 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/309
15:09:58 [sandro]: davidwood: Sorry, AZ, I didn't realized I'd missed some of your text -- I'll fix that.
15:11:01 [pfps]: q+
15:11:10 [sandro]: RRSAgent, pointer?
15:11:10 [RRSAgent]: See http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-rdf-wg-irc#T15-11-10
15:12:12 [AZ]: q-
15:12:14 [AndyS]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDF_1.1_Concepts_and_Abstract_Syntax_Last_Call_Comments
15:12:39 [sandro]: pfps: nanocomments comment - is that just about trig?
15:12:49 [sandro]: gavinc: It's more than trig
15:13:11 [sandro]: gavin: I got lost in email thread with jeremy this week, on this
15:13:34 [sandro]: guus: I'd like the CR decision next week, and I don't think Paul meant this as a formal comment.
15:14:08 [sandro]: gavin: I'll reply later today, saying Trig says it's okay, and formal meaning is application dependent.
15:14:21 [sandro]: issue-150
15:14:21 [trackbot]: issue-150 -- LC Comment: references and acknowledgements -- open
15:14:21 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/150
15:14:26 [sandro]: guus: purely editorial
15:14:45 [sandro]: issue-142
15:14:45 [trackbot]: issue-142 -- LC comment: rdfs:Graph ? comment -- open
15:14:45 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/142
15:14:57 [sandro]: guus: discussed extensively. close over objection.
15:15:01 [ivan]: +1
15:15:04 [pfps]: fine by me to close 142 even over objection
15:15:05 [AndyS]: +1
15:15:08 [davidwood]: +1
15:15:11 [yvesr]: +1
15:15:11 [gavinc]: +1 (expecting FO)
15:15:12 [AZ]: I agree too
15:15:15 [ericP]: +1
15:15:20 [sandro]: PROPOSED: Close issue-142 over Jeremy's (planned) formal objection
15:15:21 [markus]: +0
15:15:23 [sandro]: +1
15:15:26 [AZ]: +1
15:15:31 [sandro]: guus: I don't see any more progress on this.
15:15:32 [TallTed]: +1
15:15:46 [sandro]: sandro: I agree
15:15:49 [sandro]: pfps: I agree
15:16:13 [sandro]: RESOLVED: Close issue-142 over Jeremy's (planned) formal objection
15:16:44 [sandro]: close issue-142
15:16:45 [trackbot]: Closed issue-142.
15:16:57 [markus]: there's everything here
15:16:59 [markus]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDF_1.1_Concepts_and_Abstract_Syntax_Last_Call_Comments
15:17:32 [sandro]: issue-145
15:17:32 [trackbot]: issue-145 -- LC comment: Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful -- open
15:17:32 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/145
15:17:48 [sandro]: guus: I'll ping commenter for response
15:17:56 [pfps]: next week is ISWC, so some people (me included) may not be on the call
15:19:13 [gavinc]: No comments, except for the typos
15:19:23 [sandro]: sandro: hopefully decisions can be handled by proxy then.
15:19:29 [sandro]: issue-127
15:19:29 [trackbot]: issue-127 -- Comment: multiple ways to encode string codepoints -- open
15:19:29 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/127
15:19:50 [sandro]: guus: Did we respond to this.
15:19:59 [sandro]: gavin: I'll write a formal response to him, today.
15:20:12 [gavinc]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0019.html
15:20:25 [sandro]: guus: A lot of things need to be done this week, in order to avoid cascading increases in workload
15:21:46 [Guus]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-trig-20130919/#grammar-ebnf
15:21:48 [sandro]: guus: There's an oops on TriG -- it didn't mention the Features At Risk in the SOTF.
15:21:56 [sandro]: s/SOTF/SOTD/
15:22:20 [sandro]: guus: Maybe we can decides on the Features At Risk before CR? We don't need to .
15:22:37 [AndyS]: Include them.
15:22:46 [davidwood]: +1
15:22:58 [gavinc]: Include them
15:23:04 [ivan]: q+
15:23:08 [sandro]: guus: First F.A.R -- the GRAPH keyword. Quick check can we remove the At Risk flag and just keep the feature?
15:23:10 [sandro]: +1
15:23:14 [ivan]: zakim, unmute me
15:23:15 [Zakim]: Ivan should no longer be muted
15:23:30 [pfps]: q-
15:23:33 [Guus]: ack pfps
15:23:40 [Guus]: ack ivan
15:23:51 [sandro]: PROPOSED: Remove "AT RISK" designation for "GRAPH Keyword" in TriG, keeping the feature
15:24:16 [ivan]: +1
15:24:18 [ericP]: +1
15:24:19 [sandro]: +1
15:24:19 [gavinc]: +1
15:24:21 [pfps]: +1
15:24:21 [AndyS]: +1
15:24:22 [davidwood]: +1
15:24:23 [ivan]: zakim, mute me
15:24:23 [Zakim]: Ivan should now be muted
15:24:28 [AZ]: +1
15:24:29 [markus]: +1
15:24:30 [Guus]: +1
15:24:43 [sandro]: RESOLVED: Remove "AT RISK" designation for "GRAPH Keyword" in TriG, keeping the feature
15:25:03 [sandro]: PROPOSED: Remove "AT RISK" designation for "Unenclosed Triples" in TriG, keeping the feature
15:25:32 [davidwood]: +1
15:25:33 [ericP]: +1
15:25:34 [ivan]: +1
15:25:35 [sandro]: +1
15:25:36 [AndyS]: Keep feature
15:25:36 [Guus]: +1
15:25:37 [yvesr]: +1
15:25:40 [AZ]: +1
15:25:49 [markus]: +1
15:25:50 [gavinc]: +1 and make "with the same semantics" TRUE
15:26:40 [AndyS]: q+
15:27:13 [Guus]: ack AndyS
15:28:21 [sandro]: RESOLVED: Remove "AT RISK" designation for "Unenclosed Triples" in TriG, keeping the feature
15:28:41 [Arnaud]: Arnaud has joined #rdf-wg
15:29:17 [Zakim]: +Arnaud
15:30:48 [sandro]: topic: Test suites for Trig, N-Triples, N-Quads
15:30:56 [sandro]: gavin: They exist, linked from drafts
15:30:57 [AndyS]: http://www.w3.org/2013/TurtleTests/
15:31:10 [AndyS]: http://www.w3.org/2013/TrigTests/
15:31:30 [gavinc]: http://www.w3.org/2013/N-TriplesTests/
15:31:36 [AndyS]: http://www.w3.org/2013/N-TriplesTests/ http://www.w3.org/2013/N-QuadsTests/
15:31:42 [gavinc]: http://www.w3.org/2013/N-QuadsTests/
15:31:47 [AndyS]: all exist (I just checked!)
15:32:06 [AndyS]: Some say "under development"
15:32:25 [PatH]: PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:32:38 [AndyS]: Says: "Draft. The test suite is under development at ..."
15:33:12 [Zakim]: +PatH
15:33:20 [PatH]: Sorry Im late.
15:33:35 [sandro]: sandro: So I should change them to say: the test suites are _here_
15:33:41 [sandro]: guus: did we resolve to accept them?
15:33:44 [sandro]: andy: I believe so
15:33:49 [sandro]: topic: Semantic Test Suite
15:34:09 [AndyS]: picky - include a hg commit id in URL, not "default"
15:34:14 [pfps]: sandro's action is to set up a landing page for Semantics
15:34:22 [sandro]: sandro: I didn't set up the landing page for that yet. Unclear what we're saying about it.
15:35:03 [sandro]: pfps: Tests from last time have all been caried forward and should all be correct.
15:35:29 [sandro]: .. AZ proposed some new tests, and they're in the test suite
15:35:38 [sandro]: .. I looked at all tests and believe they're correct
15:35:51 [sandro]: .. but the manifest pointed at the wrong files, so I fixed those
15:36:16 [sandro]: .. Conformance Clause Missing
15:36:37 [PatH]: SOme of the tests are fine, a few seem too obscure.
15:36:40 [sandro]: sandro: What about AZ's tests being too difficult?
15:37:01 [sandro]: pfps: SOME of AZ's tests are non-exceptional, they talk about things like the new ways ill-formed literals are treated.
15:37:04 [AZ]: q+
15:37:23 [sandro]: guus: Assuming we're going to CR next week, how's our test suite for that?
15:37:26 [pfps]: some of AZs test are for the new datatypes
15:37:35 [sandro]: Publication in 2 week
15:37:58 [PatH]: AZ on queue?
15:37:59 [ivan]: zakim, unmute me
15:37:59 [Zakim]: Ivan should no longer be muted
15:39:00 [sandro]: az: Just thinking maybe the Conformance might be parameterized by the ER the reasoner claims to support. An "RDF Entailment" reason, then doesn't need to pass RDFS tests.
15:39:24 [sandro]: .. if you don't support xsd:nonPositiveInteger then you don't have to pass those tests.
15:39:43 [sandro]: sandro: I think that's the general direction to go
15:39:52 [markus]: notes that RDF Semantics doesn't define any conformance classes/products...
15:40:25 [PatH]: We apparently need to combine conformance language and completeness language in a nice way. BUt this is rather delicate.
15:40:55 [sandro]: sandro: Awkward that we don't say anything about conformance in rdf-mt
15:41:35 [pfps]: I have to leave sometime after noon
15:41:37 [sandro]: guus: any objection to going to :15 ?
15:41:53 [sandro]: sandro: I thought that was our schedule.
15:41:56 [sandro]: topic: Process
15:43:27 [markus]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.10.16#CR_transition_process_for_Concepts_.2B_Semantics_.2B_TriG_.2B_N-Triples_.2B_N-Quads
15:43:33 [Guus]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.10.16#CR_transition_process_for_Concepts_.2B_Semantics_.2B_TriG_.2B_N-Triples_.2B_N-Quads
15:43:49 [sandro]: guus: (reads timeline from agenda)
15:44:51 [sandro]: guus: Key thing -- EDITORS get drafts available before next telecon!
15:45:01 [sandro]: guus: With all editorial changes made
15:45:45 [pfps]: the ack could be in an ack section at the end if necessary
15:46:11 [gavinc]: http://www.w3.org/mid/45B205A4-6704-4F50-B0B6-A197B894D4CD@3roundstones.com respec issue
15:46:55 [markus]: respec stuff: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Sep/0052.html
15:47:09 [sandro]: pfps: for semantics, all the necessary edits have been done ..... except for one msg waiting from David Booth
15:47:10 [davidwood]: markus, thanks.
15:47:40 [sandro]: guus: trig?
15:48:47 [sandro]: sandro: We're thinking we'll do a CR of Trig in sync with the other docs
15:49:03 [sandro]: guus: pfps pat - need a Changes section
15:49:05 [sandro]: pfps: Done
15:49:11 [sandro]: davidwood: Done for Concepts
15:49:56 [sandro]: guus: And N-Triples and N-Quads?
15:49:59 [sandro]: gavi: Yep.
15:50:40 [sandro]: gavin: I'm promising to have CR drafts available for next Tuesday, and have all comments address. (Even if paul groth's comment isn't exactly about TriG)
15:50:43 [ivan]: q+
15:50:53 [sandro]: guus: Can everyone live with this timeline?
15:50:58 [PatH]: Seems OK to me.
15:51:01 [ivan]: ack ivan
15:51:01 [sandro]: q- az
15:51:07 [Guus]: ack AZ
15:51:11 [Guus]: ack ivan
15:51:36 [sandro]: ivan: 7th of november absolute latest date, but 5th would be better.
15:51:58 [sandro]: sandro: Sounds like it all works, if nthing gets bumped.
15:52:07 [sandro]: PLANNED PUBLICATION DATE: 5 NOVEMBER.
15:52:23 [sandro]: guus: Next week -- CR Exit Criteria.
15:52:40 [sandro]: sandro: No peter next week, lets do it now.
15:53:25 [sandro]: sandro: We should be able to find two people who want to pass any good test
15:54:12 [sandro]: sandro: pfps are you passing all the tests you think should be approved tests
15:54:18 [sandro]: pfps: not nearly, since they're not OWL DL
15:54:59 [sandro]: pat: people/software
15:55:56 [sandro]: sandro: Anyone know about bglimm's interest in this?
15:56:38 [sandro]: sandro: ANything in Jena?
15:57:31 [sandro]: PROPOSED: CR Exit for Semantic will be to have at least two implementations passing each approve test.
15:57:51 [sandro]: +1
15:57:58 [Guus]: +1
15:58:07 [yvesr]: +1
15:58:17 [ivan]: q+
15:58:25 [AZ]: +1
15:58:31 [sandro]: sandro: And you don't run the tests that don't apply to your kind of reasoner
15:59:06 [gavinc]: +1
16:00:05 [sandro]: ivan:We could leave out the 2004 tests?
16:00:08 [Arnaud]: +1
16:00:17 [sandro]: pfps: It's a burden if you're running them by hand.
16:00:55 [sandro]: PROPOSED: CR Exit for Semantics will be to have at least two implementations passing each approved new (RDF 1.1 only) test.
16:01:01 [davidwood]: +1
16:01:02 [ivan]: +1
16:01:03 [sandro]: +1
16:01:04 [Arnaud]: +1
16:01:05 [AndyS]: +1
16:01:06 [AZ]: +1
16:01:15 [sandro]: RESOLVED: CR Exit for Semantics will be to have at least two implementations passing each approved new (RDF 1.1 only) test.
16:01:17 [Arnaud]: sorry, I've got to drop
16:01:27 [Zakim]: -Arnaud
16:01:46 [ivan]: +1 to sandro
16:02:03 [sandro]: PROPOSED: CR of 3 weeks (the minimum)
16:02:08 [ivan]: +1
16:02:09 [sandro]: +1
16:02:12 [Guus]: +1
16:02:14 [PatH]: +1
16:02:19 [sandro]: RESOLVED: CR of 3 weeks (the minimum)
16:02:25 [AZ]: +1
16:03:01 [sandro]: guus: I'll be producing draft transition request, and ask for checks from all editors.
16:03:10 [sandro]: topic: JSON-LD
16:03:26 [sandro]: markus: Resolve features AT RISK for JSON-LD.
16:04:29 [sandro]: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk
16:05:34 [sandro]: sandro has left #rdf-wg
16:06:09 [sandro]: sandro has joined #rdf-wg
16:06:18 [sandro]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0167.html
16:08:40 [sandro]: markus: On Promises the proposal is to make API non-normative and reference (copy of) git hub page -- assuming Director is okay with this process.
16:08:49 [sandro]: markus: Any disagreement on any of those?
16:09:02 [gavinc]: -0.5 to ignoring URL spec for URLs
16:09:02 [sandro]: guus: Any discussion?
16:09:55 [markus]: zakim, who is making noise?
16:10:06 [Zakim]: markus, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AZ (9%), Sandro (70%), David_Wood (14%)
16:10:14 [davidwood]: Zakim, mute me
16:10:15 [Zakim]: David_Wood should now be muted
16:10:24 [sandro]: PROPOSED: To handle Promised depency, we make the json-ls-api be non-normative. We do not believe this needs another Last Call, given the AT RISK flag and the comments recieved.
16:10:32 [Zakim]: -yvesr
16:10:42 [sandro]: PROPOSED: To handle Promises dependency, we make the json-ls-api be non-normative. We do not believe this needs another Last Call, given the AT RISK flag and the comments recieved.
16:10:46 [sandro]: +1
16:11:01 [ivan]: +1
16:11:02 [davidwood]: +1
16:11:02 [TallTed]: +1
16:11:02 [Guus]: +1
16:11:06 [markus]: +1
16:11:07 [PatH]: +0
16:11:14 [gavinc]: +1
16:11:36 [sandro]: RESOLVED: To handle Promises dependency, we make the json-ls-api be non-normative. We do not believe this needs another Last Call, given the AT RISK flag and the comments received.
16:11:41 [sandro]: PROPOSED: Resolve all AT RISK flags in JSON-LD documents as per recommendation of JSON LD Task Force, shown in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0167.html
16:11:47 [davidwood]: +1
16:11:50 [PatH]: +0
16:11:51 [Guus]: +1
16:11:53 [markus]: +1
16:11:53 [Zakim]: -AndyS
16:11:54 [sandro]: +1
16:12:09 [PatH]: Oh what the hell +1
16:12:10 [ivan]: +1
16:12:13 [TallTed]: +1
16:12:18 [gavinc]: -0
16:12:29 [sandro]: RESOLVED: Resolve all AT RISK flags in JSON-LD documents as per recommendation of JSON LD Task Force, shown in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0167.html
16:13:21 [Arnaud]: hmm
16:13:30 [Arnaud]: I just got another timeout
16:14:54 [ivan]: q+
16:15:17 [sandro]: guus: We'll plan to request PR for json-ld next week, with publication on 5 November
16:15:36 [Zakim]: -pfps
16:16:24 [sandro]: ADJOURN!
16:17:18 [davidwood]: Thanks, everyone.
16:17:25 [PatH]: Bye
16:17:26 [Zakim]: -EricP
16:17:30 [Zakim]: -PatH
16:17:31 [Zakim]: -Ivan
16:17:33 [Zakim]: -TallTed
16:17:34 [Zakim]: -David_Wood
16:17:36 [Zakim]: -AZ
16:17:39 [Zakim]: -markus
16:17:40 [sandro]: guus: Next time -- we'll talk about Primer (lots of progress), Schema, and do the other decisions we talked about
16:17:40 [Zakim]: -Sandro
16:17:45 [Zakim]: -GavinC
16:17:58 [Guus]: trackbot, end meeting
16:17:58 [trackbot]: Zakim, list attendees
16:17:58 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been Guus_Schreiber, pfps, AndyS, GavinC, yvesr, Sandro, EricP, Ivan, TallTed, AZ, markus, David_Wood, Arnaud, PatH
16:18:06 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:18:06 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/10/16-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
16:18:07 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, bye
16:18:07 [RRSAgent]: I see no action items