See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 23 October 2013
<Guus> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 23 October 2013
<Guus> scribe: EricP
PROPOSED: to accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-09 as a record of 9 Oct
RESOLUTION: to accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-09 as a record of 9 Oct
<gavinc> +1 (now that the turtle is clear)
<ivan> +1
PROPOSED: to accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-16 as a record of 16 Oct
RESOLUTION: to accept http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-16 as a record of 16 Oct
<PatH> +1
next telecon: 30 Oct
jjc wrote an objection to ISSUE-142
Guus: jjc wrote an objection to
ISSUE-142
... propose we open and postpone a new issue
sandro: title "stronger semantics for datasets?"
Guus: we can archive where we are and leave it, potentially, for a future WG
<PatH> +1 to Guus' plan
<ivan> +1
<AZ> re. next telecon: next week, Northern American will leave daylight saving time, while Europe is still in Summer Time
<sandro> +1
<PatH> I am already enjoying my pension and I'm still here :-(
PROPOSED: open an "stronger semantics for datasets?" issue and postpone
RESOLUTION: open an "stronger semantics for datasets?" issue and postpone
<TallTed> +1
<AZ> +1
<scribe> ACTION: Guus to draft and postpone "stronger semantics for datasets?" issue [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-311 - Draft and postpone "stronger semantics for datasets?" issue [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-10-30].
<sandro> issue-148?
<trackbot> issue-148 -- LC comment: IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/148
<PatH> 148 is an action on Concpets, right?
<sandro> +1 postpone 148 until after CR is published (it's editorial) and close the others
<markus> yes, path
PROPOSED: close ISSUE 145, ISSUE
147, ISSUE 159 without changes from the CR publication as
agreed in email.
... close ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-159 with changes from the
CR publication as agreed in email.
<sandro> +1
+1
<PatH> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<Guus> +1
<gavinc> +1
<zwu2> +1
<ivan> +1
<markus> +1
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-159 with changes from the CR publication as agreed in email.
<AZ> +1
<sandro> PROPOSED: Consider ISSUE-148 non-blocking -- we can publish while leaving it open to handle later, as it is editorial and the commenter agrees with this plan
<sandro> +1
<gkellogg> +1
+1
<AZ> +1
<markus> +1
<PatH> +1
<ivan> +1
<Guus> +1
<zwu2> +1
<TallTed> +1
<sandro> RESOLVED: Consider ISSUE-148 non-blocking -- we can publish while leaving it open to handle later, as it is editorial and the commenter agrees with this plan
<sandro> issue-127?
<trackbot> issue-127 -- Comment: multiple ways to encode string codepoints -- open
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/127
<sandro> PROPOSED: close issue-127 -- we believe we've addressed it, and are timing out on confirmation from commenter
<sandro> +1
<PatH> +1
<TallTed> +1
+1
<AZ> +1
<Guus> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<ivan> +1
<zwu2> +1
<sandro> PROPOSED: close issue-127 -- we believe we've addressed it, and are timing out on confirmation from commenter
<markus> +1
<sandro> RESOLVED: close issue-127 -- we believe we've addressed it, and are timing out on confirmation from commenter
<gavinc> +1
<sandro> guus: Close issue-143, based on verbal confirmation from commenter that he's satisfied
Guus, ISSUE-143 closed after discussion with Paul who is happy with gavin's response
Guus: PatH there are two folks who have proposed changes to your edits
PatH: []s change is a stylistic issue and i want to minimize ambiguity
[closing ISSUE-166 expecting PatH to respond after this call]
<sandro> guus: Commenter (MS) agreed ISSUE-165 and ISSUE-166 do not affect any tests.
<sandro> PROPOSED: Pat sends response to ISSUE-165 as in draft email. We don't really expect this to satisfy commenter, but we can handle this during CR, given it's not a substantive change.
<sandro> +1
Guus: note that the commenter agrees that this doesn't change any tests
<sandro> PROPOSED: Pat sends response to ISSUE-165 as in draft email. We don't really expect this to satisfy commenter, but we can handle this during CR, given it's not a substantive change. Commenter agrees we can handle this during CR.
Guus: a la PatH's response to
148
... perhaps we invite Michael Schneider to a telecon
<sandro> +1
<AZ> What draft email are you referring to?
PatH: i think it might be quicker in email
<AZ> I can't find it in my mails
<scribe> ACTION: PatH to respond to Michael Schneider and invite him to a telecon if the email doesn't resole the issue easily [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-312 - Respond to michael schneider and invite him to a telecon if the email doesn't resole the issue easily [on Patrick Hayes - due 2013-10-30].
<PatH> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0231.html
<AZ> Ok I see it
AZ: why not just send refs to email that we exchanged when we were debating this issue?
Guus: i already did
<sandro> PROPOSED: Pat sends response to ISSUE-165 as in draft email. We don't really expect this to satisfy commenter, but we can handle this during CR, given it's not a substantive change. Commenter agrees we can handle this during CR.
PatH: i can make a direct point which helps alleviate the tension
<sandro> +1
<AZ> +1
+1
<PatH> +1
<Guus> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<ivan> +1
<zwu2> +1
<TallTed> +1
<markus> +1
<sandro> RESOLVED: Pat sends response to ISSUE-165 as in draft email. We don't really expect this to satisfy commenter, but we can handle this during CR, given it's not a substantive change. Commenter agrees we can handle this during CR.
<Souri> +1
Guus: of 20 issue, 18 closed, 2 deferred to after CR, 1 closed over objection
<sandro> PROPOSED: to request the Director to advance five RDF 1.1 documents to CR (rdf11-concepts, rdf11-mt, n-quads, n-triples, triq)
PROPOSED: to request the Director to advance five RDF 1.1 documents to CR
<sandro> +1
<markus> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<TallTed> +1
<ivan> +1
<gavinc> +1
+1
<Guus> +1
<zwu2> +1
<sandro> RESOLVED: to request the Director to advance five RDF 1.1 documents to CR (rdf11-concepts, rdf11-mt, n-quads, n-triples, trig)
<AZ> +1
Guus: we already have a scheduled transition call
sandro: in 1 week and 30 mins
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDF11-CR-Request
sandro: need a week lead before call so need transtion req finalized some time today
Guus: Semantics and Trig are not in CR format yet
sandro: do we have a local bibliography that has nov 5 t for all these docs?
markus: every doc has its own
<markus> the localBiblio part in the ReSpec config
<sandro> +1000 markus
<scribe> ACTION: markus to combine the local bibliographies of the docs to be pub'd (rdf11-concepts, rdf11-mt, n-quads, n-triples, trig) and put result at top level [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-313 - Combine the local bibliographies of the docs to be pub'd (rdf11-concepts, rdf11-mt, n-quads, n-triples, trig) and put result at top level [on Markus Lanthaler - due 2013-10-30].
Guus, webmaster wants to see docs on 1 nov at the latest
Guus: webmaster wants to see docs
on 1 nov at the latest
... so all editors have to pubrules-ify their docs before
then
sandro: the i18n group confirmed that they recieved our response to Turtle i18n comments and those comments apply to Trig, et al
Guus: comments on ntriples and
nquads are catalogued on the comments page for concepts and
semantics
... sandro, are you content with the evidence of public
review?
sandro: considered breaking it out per doc but not worth it
Guus: who will attend the transition call?
[ gavinc, PatH, davidwood, markus ]
<markus> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD-PR-Request
-> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD-PR-Request JSON-LD-PR-Request
-> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD-PR-Request#Formal_Responses_to_All_Issues_Raised issues
markus: we got four issues:
... .. on ISSUE-164, no response yet from Pierre-Antoine.
expect one by transition
<sandro> sandro: let's say "no response yet" instead of "unresponsive", if we haven't given them much time.
markus: .. ISSUE-153: Ryan
Laboucane wasn't happy with bnodes as properties. he's content
with the resolution
... .. ISSUE-163: not sure that Simon Grant will be content
with the resolution
gkellogg: expect he will not be
content
... we've made the changes that we expect to make
Guus: reading the response to
issue-163, he has some suggestions but appears content.
... closing issue-163
markus: ISSUE-162: Michael Pizzo is content that JSON-LD is already more or less aligned with OData and it uses a different OData which just uses app/json
Guus: i propose closing these 4 and change 163's resolution to be a yes [in http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD-PR-Request#Formal_Responses_to_All_Issues_Raised ]
markus, if we get an email, i'll update the issue-162 Commenter Accepted Changes column
markus: if we get an email, i'll update the issue-162 Commenter Accepted Changes column
<markus> http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/
markus: re: passing CR exit
criteria, just link to the http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/
and point to the 6 impls at 100%
... exit criteria were that we needed 2 impls for any given
test but no impl needed to pass all the tests
<sandro> PROPOSED: We believe the json-ld and json-ld-api CR Exit Criteria have been met. We have more than two implements passing each test.
<markus> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<Guus> +1
+1 look at all that green
<sandro> +1
<ivan> +1
<Souri> +1
<TallTed> +1
<gavinc> -0 tests of toRDF are not all valid RDF
<AZ> +1
<sandro> RESOLVED: We believe the json-ld and json-ld-api CR Exit Criteria have been met. We have more than two implements passing each test.
gkellogg: note that one of our tests produces nquads with a bnode in the subject position
<sandro> gkellogg: Gavin point is that one of the test uses invalid n-quads .... but it's not test n-quads, so it's not a huge problem.
gkellogg: we do textual checking of results, but it's not really nquads
<Guus> PROPOSED: to request the Director to advance JSON-LD to PR
<gkellogg> +1
+1
<AZ> +1
<markus> +1
<sandro> +1
<TallTed> +1
<Guus> +1
<ivan> +1
gkellogg: by "JSON-LD", we mean both docs
<Guus> PR request: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD-PR-Request
<zwu2> +1
<Souri> +1
RESOLUTION: to request the Director to advance JSON-LD ( http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api/ ) to PR
<scribe> ACTION: markus to finish the transition request and close the issues, adapt issue text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-314 - Finish the transition request and close the issues, adapt issue text [on Markus Lanthaler - due 2013-10-30].
<zwu2> have to leave for another meeting. bye guys
markus: docs are pubrules-ready
sandro: reading over the CR req, i simplified the exit criteria wording a bit ("each approved test is passed by two or more impls")
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDF11-CR-Request#Implementation_Information
sandro: i also added a paragraph
about why we have no exit criteria for Concepts
... the other four docs had exit criteria so the hole for
Concepts was conspicuous
<sandro> PROPOSED: For Trig, N-Triples and N-Quads: each approved test (in the respective test suite) passed by two or more implementations. AND RDF 1.1 Concepts (like 2004 RDF Concepts) does not have a test suite and is not directly implemented in software.
+1
<Guus> +1
<TallTed> +1
<sandro> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<gavinc> +1
<AZ> +1
<markus> +1
<sandro> RESOLVED: For Trig, N-Triples and N-Quads: each approved test (in the respective test suite) passed by two or more implementations. AND RDF 1.1 Concepts (like 2004 RDF Concepts) does not have a test suite and is not directly implemented in software.
<ivan> NEXT WEEK IS TIMEZONE MESS FOR EUROPEANS!!!
WHEE!
<AndyS> YES
PatH: just sent mail to Michael Schneider
Guus: next week the meetings will be one hour ealier for europeans
<Guus> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/open a new issue/open and postpone a new issue/ Succeeded: s/response/confirmation/ Succeeded: s/closing ISSUE-165/closing ISSUE-166/ Succeeded: s/gkellogg_/gkellogg/ Found Scribe: EricP Inferring ScribeNick: ericP Default Present: Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, gkellogg, TallTed, Sandro, Ivan, EricP, Souri, AZ, PatH, markus, zwu2, ScottB, AndyS Present: Guus_Schreiber GavinC gkellogg TallTed Sandro Ivan EricP Souri AZ PatH markus zwu2 ScottB AndyS Found Date: 23 Oct 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-rdf-wg-minutes.html People with action items: guus markus path[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]