IRC log of rdf-wg on 2013-12-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:33:22 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
15:33:22 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/12/18-rdf-wg-irc
15:33:24 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs world
15:33:24 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
15:33:26 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be 73394
15:33:26 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 27 minutes
15:33:27 [trackbot]: Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:33:27 [trackbot]: Date: 18 December 2013
15:35:59 [gavinc]: Hey AndyS, https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/e054e768ca9f/drafts/trig/Overview.html should be everything for TriG
15:50:03 [AndyS]: gavinc - phew!
15:53:55 [gkellogg]: gkellogg has joined #rdf-wg
15:55:07 [gavinc]: Only question editorial I had was do we want to just use PREFIX style examples in TriG?
15:55:52 [cygri]: cygri has joined #rdf-wg
15:57:06 [Guus]: Guus has joined #rdf-wg
15:57:58 [Zakim]: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
15:58:05 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
15:58:15 [AndyS]: zakim, IPcaller is me
15:58:15 [Zakim]: +AndyS; got it
15:58:19 [Zakim]: +Guus_Schreiber
15:58:55 [Zakim]: +GavinC
15:59:06 [Zakim]: +OpenLink_Software
15:59:20 [AndyS]: gavinc - don't mind - don't consider to necessary as I expect @prefix to be around for a while. No big reason to change. Old data, old examples will be around until ...?
15:59:21 [pchampin]: pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
15:59:23 [TallTed]: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:59:23 [Zakim]: +TallTed; got it
15:59:51 [Zakim]: +Sandro
16:00:08 [Zakim]: +??P10
16:00:11 [gkellogg]: zakim, I am ??P10
16:00:11 [Zakim]: +gkellogg; got it
16:00:18 [Arnaud]: Arnaud has joined #rdf-wg
16:00:22 [Guus]: chair: Guus
16:00:47 [Zakim]: +Ivan
16:01:00 [Zakim]: +pfps
16:01:17 [Zakim]: +Arnaud
16:01:18 [AZ]: AZ has joined #rdf-wg
16:01:20 [pfps]: pfps has joined #rdf-wg
16:01:33 [Zakim]: +??P19
16:01:43 [yvesr]: Zakim, ??P19 is me
16:01:45 [Zakim]: +yvesr; got it
16:01:55 [TallTed]: scribenick: TallTed
16:02:38 [Zakim]: +??P26
16:02:45 [Zakim]: +??P28
16:02:55 [cygri]: zakim, ??P26 is me
16:02:55 [Zakim]: +cygri; got it
16:03:02 [AZ]: Zakim, ??P28 is me
16:03:03 [Zakim]: +AZ; got it
16:03:15 [Zakim]: +David_Wood
16:03:37 [TallTed]: PROPOSED: accept the minutes of the 11 Dec telecon, https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-12-11
16:03:43 [pfps]: minutes look fine
16:03:48 [AndyS]: +1
16:04:00 [TallTed]: RESOLVED: accepted the minutes of the 11 Dec telecon
16:04:13 [TallTed]: TOPIC: action items
16:04:16 [Zakim]: +PatH
16:04:18 [AZ]: I can't load the minutes
16:05:18 [pfps]: last week's minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.12.18
16:05:37 [pfps]: Oops, not there!
16:05:43 [TallTed]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.12.11
16:06:02 [pfps]: I just was able to look at the minutes, but they are not loading right now - I claim that they looked OK
16:06:40 [TallTed]: TOPIC: WG activity plan
16:06:54 [lanthaler]: lanthaler has joined #rdf-wg
16:08:05 [TallTed]: Guus: plans in Agenda seem feasible, with 3 month WG extension
16:08:10 [pfps]: +1 to request extension
16:08:15 [davidwood]: +1 to extend
16:08:17 [yvesr]: +1
16:08:24 [PatH]: PatH has joined #rdf-wg
16:08:49 [TallTed]: PROPOSED: to Request W3M to extend for 2/3 months, with voluntary biweekly meetings in that period
16:09:02 [gkellogg]: +1
16:09:03 [TallTed]: sandro: +1
16:09:06 [TallTed]: +1
16:09:08 [pchampin]: +1
16:09:09 [lanthaler]: +1
16:09:10 [Arnaud]: +1
16:09:11 [cygri]: +1
16:09:12 [AZ]: +1
16:09:12 [ivan]: +1
16:09:20 [TallTed]: RESOLVED: Request W3M to extend for 2/3 months, with voluntary biweekly meetings in that period
16:09:34 [PatH]: +1
16:09:54 [TallTed]: PROPOSED: the RDF WG petition the Director to take JSON-LD to Recommendation immediately after the publication of the Proposed Recommendations for the rest of the RDF 1.1 work.
16:10:02 [davidwood]: +1
16:10:04 [pfps]: q+
16:10:06 [gkellogg]: +1
16:10:08 [PatH]: +1
16:10:09 [lanthaler]: +1
16:10:11 [AndyS]: 0
16:10:14 [gavinc]: 0
16:10:23 [pfps]: -1
16:10:23 [Zakim]: +ericP
16:10:35 [davidwood]: q+ re messaging
16:10:52 [pfps]: q-
16:10:52 [cygri]: 0
16:11:00 [Guus]: ack pfps
16:11:08 [yvesr]: +0
16:11:56 [zwu2]: zwu2 has joined #rdf-wg
16:12:38 [Guus]: ack sandro
16:12:40 [manu]: +1
16:12:42 [Zakim]: +zwu2
16:12:48 [TallTed]: ack davidwood
16:12:48 [Zakim]: davidwood, you wanted to discuss messaging
16:13:01 [AZ]: 0
16:13:14 [markus]: markus has joined #rdf-wg
16:13:23 [davidwood]: I prefer to allow JSON-LD to go to REC early. It is messaging to a different community. We wanted to tie JSON-LD to RDF, which which have done. We do not also need to mess up their messaging.
16:13:47 [Zakim]: +??P39
16:13:54 [markus]: zakim, ??P39 is me
16:13:54 [Zakim]: +markus; got it
16:14:52 [davidwood]: PR-REC is a staff decision.
16:15:11 [manu]: zakim, code?
16:15:11 [Zakim]: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu
16:15:27 [Zakim]: +??P33
16:15:43 [manu]: zakim, ??P33 is manu
16:15:43 [Zakim]: +manu; got it
16:15:48 [TallTed]: RESOLVED: the RDF WG petition the Director to take JSON-LD to Recommendation immediately after the publication of the Proposed Recommendations for the rest of the RDF 1.1 work. over objection from pfps
16:15:53 [AZ]: Zakim, who's noisy please?
16:15:56 [pfps]: my concern is that JSON-LD should progress in step with the rest of RDF, as it should closely depend on the core aspects of RDF
16:16:04 [Zakim]: AZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (47%), Guus_Schreiber (42%), TallTed (19%), PatH (9%), manu (5%)
16:16:18 [TallTed]: TOPIC: CR implementations
16:16:58 [Zakim]: -manu
16:17:01 [TallTed]: PROPOSED: the WG decides it has met the CR Exit Criteria for RDF 1.1 Turtle, TriG, NiTriples, and N-Quads (see statistics in PR Request http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/RDF11-PR-Request#CR_Exit_Criteria_Turtle.2C_Trig.2C_N-Triples_and_N-Quads )
16:17:03 [pfps]: +1
16:17:04 [gkellogg]: +1
16:17:08 [ivan]: +1
16:17:10 [gavinc]: +1
16:17:12 [PatH]: +1
16:17:13 [ericP]: +1
16:17:15 [yvesr]: +1
16:17:23 [davidwood]: +1
16:17:25 [AndyS]: +1
16:17:26 [zwu2]: +1
16:17:31 [cygri]: Implementation reports: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/#Implementation_reports
16:17:34 [gavinc]: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/reports/index.html
16:17:41 [gavinc]: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/trig/reports/index.html
16:17:45 [gavinc]: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/reports-nt/index.html
16:17:47 [TallTed]: +1
16:17:54 [gavinc]: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/nquads/reports/index.html
16:17:55 [Zakim]: -cygri
16:17:58 [TallTed]: RESOLVED: the WG decides it has met the CR Exit Criteria for RDF 1.1 Turtle, TriG, NiTriples, and N-Quads (see statistics in PR Request
16:17:59 [AZ]: +1
16:18:39 [TallTed]: PROPOSED: the WG decides to rescinded the two tests below as they are not helpful to interoperability, for the reasons outlined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0305.html -- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/reports/index.html#test_datatypes-intensional-xsd-integer-string-incompatible ; https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/reports/index.html#test_xmlsch-02-whitespace-face
16:18:39 [TallTed]: t-3
16:18:40 [Zakim]: +??P40
16:18:45 [cygri]: zakim, ??P40 is me
16:18:45 [Zakim]: +cygri; got it
16:18:53 [gkellogg]: +1
16:18:55 [PatH]: +q
16:20:06 [TallTed]: PatH: if unimportant, why were they go here at all?
16:20:22 [gavinc]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-xsch-datatypes-20050427/#sec-values-differ ?
16:20:27 [TallTed]: Guus: first one is axiomatic to basic functionality; if you don't have it, you can't operate at all...
16:20:39 [ivan]: ack PatH
16:20:44 [ivan]: ack sandro
16:20:47 [Guus]: ack sandro
16:20:55 [Souri]: Souri has joined #rdf-wg
16:21:35 [Zakim]: +Souri
16:21:37 [PatH]: Yes, exactly.
16:22:10 [ericP]: another take on sandro's point is whether *customers* would care about an implementation which passes those tests
16:22:40 [ivan]: +1
16:22:42 [markus]: +1
16:22:44 [cygri]: +0.5
16:22:44 [gavinc]: +meh
16:22:51 [gavinc]: +0
16:23:07 [ericP]: +1
16:23:10 [AZ]: +1
16:23:15 [zwu2]: +1
16:23:15 [davidwood]: +1
16:23:15 [pfps]: +0.5 with the same concern that Pat had
16:23:17 [TallTed]: +0.5
16:23:17 [Guus]: +1
16:23:21 [PatH]: +1 though I feel rushed here.
16:24:01 [TallTed]: RESOLVED: the WG decides to rescinded the two tests below as they are not helpful to interoperability, for the reasons outlined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0305.html -- https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/reports/index.html#test_datatypes-intensional-xsd-integer-string-incompatible ; https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/reports/index.html#test_xmlsch-02-whitespace-face
16:24:01 [TallTed]: t-3
16:24:42 [PatH]: Andy, the sematnics actually makes some infrences valid that are so obscure that nobody cares about them. Who knew?
16:24:42 [TallTed]: ACTION: gkellogg to update manifest and regenerate implementation report
16:24:43 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-335 - Update manifest and regenerate implementation report [on Gregg Kellogg - due 2013-12-25].
16:25:04 [TallTed]: PROPOSED: the WG decides it it has met the CR Exit Criteria for RDF 1.1 Semantics (see implementation report, https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/reports/index.html )
16:25:36 [PatH]: gavin, it predicts the opposite, ie the subclass is D-inconsistent.
16:25:44 [cygri]: +1
16:25:46 [markus]: +1
16:25:49 [TallTed]: +1
16:25:50 [ivan]: +1
16:25:50 [pfps]: +1
16:25:52 [gavinc]: +1
16:25:54 [AZ]: +1
16:25:54 [gkellogg]: +1
16:25:55 [yvesr]: +1
16:25:55 [Guus]: +1
16:25:56 [zwu2]: +1
16:25:56 [davidwood]: +1
16:25:57 [Souri]: +1
16:26:00 [AndyS]: +0
16:26:00 [PatH]: +1
16:26:05 [TallTed]: RESOLVED: the WG decides it it has met the CR Exit Criteria for RDF 1.1 Semantics (see implementation report, https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/reports/index.html )
16:26:16 [gavinc]: path, yeah that's what I meant
16:26:25 [PatH]: Sorry, see that now.
16:26:33 [TallTed]: Guus: question for the WG. gkellogg produced RDF 1.1 Test Casees, https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf11-testcases/index.html
16:27:04 [TallTed]: ... do we want to publish this as a NOTE, so we can clearly reference it through other docs?
16:27:16 [ivan]: s/Casees/Cases/
16:27:32 [TallTed]: s/gkellogg/markus and gkellogg/
16:27:56 [ivan]: q+
16:28:10 [Guus]: ack ivan
16:28:41 [cygri]: q+
16:29:24 [davidwood]: I don't believe the W3C mercurial repository is stable - the sysreq team is already talking about migrating it.
16:29:36 [Guus]: ack cygri
16:30:31 [PatH]: +1 cygri
16:30:37 [TallTed]: cygri: corresponding doc from 2004 was Rec. downgrade to Note seems reasonable; having it in TR space seems a good thing.
16:31:53 [TallTed]: Guus: we may try to do this in January.
16:31:59 [TallTed]: TOPIC: Status of Syntax documents
16:33:04 [TallTed]: gavinc: all the Agenda-listed things have been done
16:33:31 [gavinc]: ISSUE-119?
16:33:31 [trackbot]: ISSUE-119 -- Spec should reference the test suite -- open
16:33:31 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/119
16:33:50 [markus]: have the syntax documents been updated to mention rdf:langString.. or is that considered to be unnecessary?
16:33:58 [Zakim]: -cygri
16:33:59 [gavinc]: PROPOSE: Resolve ISSUE-119, Turtle has a link to test suite https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html
16:33:59 [ericP]: PROPOSED: close issue-119 given that spec now references test suite in multiple ways
16:34:12 [gkellogg]: =1
16:34:14 [gkellogg]: +1
16:34:16 [gavinc]: +1
16:34:16 [TallTed]: +1
16:34:17 [markus]: +1
16:34:18 [davidwood]: +1
16:34:18 [ericP]: +1
16:34:18 [ivan]: +1
16:34:20 [AndyS]: +1
16:34:21 [Guus]: +1
16:34:21 [Arnaud]: +1
16:34:30 [Souri]: +1
16:34:34 [pfps]: +1
16:34:35 [zwu2]: +1
16:34:36 [TallTed]: RESOLVED: close issue-119, Turtle has a link to test suite https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html
16:34:49 [AZ]: +1
16:34:50 [Zakim]: +??P0
16:34:52 [yvesr]: +1
16:34:54 [cygri]: zakim, ??P0 is me
16:34:54 [Zakim]: +cygri; got it
16:34:58 [AndyS]: markus - they have taken the line of being "syntax" so no. Arguable either way.
16:35:04 [PatH]: Dancing lemmings?
16:35:17 [gavinc]: The literal has a lexical form of the first rule argument, String. If the '^^' iri rule matched, the datatype is iri and the literal has no language tag. If the LANGTAG rule matched, the datatype is rdf:langString and the language tag is LANGTAG. If neither matched, the datatype is xsd:string and the literal has no language tag.
16:36:24 [TallTed]: markus: questions address of rdf:langstring in all syntax docs
16:36:34 [ericP]: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#handle-RDFLiteral
16:36:39 [TallTed]: TOPIC: Concepts & Semantics
16:36:45 [ericP]: If the LANGTAG rule matched, the datatype is rdf:langString and the language tag is LANGTAG.
16:37:00 [TallTed]: issue-148?
16:37:00 [trackbot]: issue-148 -- CR comment: IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource -- open
16:37:00 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/148
16:37:34 [TallTed]: q+
16:38:01 [Guus]: ack Ted
16:38:39 [davidwood]: I am already on record as saying that I consider the existing wording to be adequate, but would accept some minor adjectival adjustments.
16:38:53 [ericP]: -1 to "are expected ot"
16:38:59 [PatH]: where are the alternatives?
16:39:07 [PatH]: OK
16:39:10 [cygri]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.12.18#ISSUE-148:_IRIs_do_.2Anot.2A_always_denote_the_same_resource
16:39:14 [markus]: IRIs have global scope by definition. Thus, two different appearances of an IRI denote the same resource. RDF is based on this principle and violations of it might lead to inconsistencies or interoperability problems.
16:39:14 [TallTed]: option 1 - "IRIs have global scope by definition. Thus, two different appearances of an IRI denote the same resource. RDF is based on this principle and violations of it might lead to inconsistencies or interoperability problems."
16:39:16 [markus]: vs.
16:39:20 [markus]: By design, IRIs have global scope. Thus, two different appearances of an IRI denote the same resource. Violating this principle constitutes an IRI collision [WEBARCH].
16:39:23 [TallTed]: option 2 - "By design, IRIs have global scope. Thus, two different appearances of an IRI denote the same resource. Violating this principle constitutes an IRI collision [WEBARCH]."
16:39:57 [ericP]: pref 1 'cause it's stronger
16:40:02 [pfps]: I don't care - either are fine by me
16:40:08 [cygri]: [WEBARCH] would be: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision
16:40:19 [ericP]: 1
16:40:19 [cygri]: 2
16:40:20 [davidwood]: People lie. People make mistakes. This is RDF 1999.
16:40:22 [markus]: 1
16:40:23 [PatH]: 2
16:40:25 [pfps]: 1.5
16:40:26 [yvesr]: 2
16:40:34 [gavinc]: don't care.
16:40:38 [AZ]: 2
16:40:39 [gkellogg]: 1=2
16:40:39 [zwu2]: 1
16:40:47 [Arnaud]: 2
16:40:53 [TallTed]: 1
16:41:01 [davidwood]: 2
16:41:02 [ivan]: 2
16:41:07 [AndyS]: 2 - preder ref to WEBARCH
16:41:08 [ericP]: 2 has it
16:41:11 [Souri]: 2
16:41:20 [davidwood]: 2
16:41:24 [davidwood]: :)
16:42:31 [PatH]: No need to solicit an objection. They will come.
16:42:40 [TallTed]: PROPOSED: Resolve ISSUE-148 by changing the "IRIs have global scope" bullet point in section 1.3 in Concepts to "By design, IRIs have global scope. Thus, two different appearances of an IRI denote the same resource. Violating this principle constitutes an IRI collision [WEBARCH]." http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision
16:42:45 [TallTed]: ack TallTed
16:42:50 [ivan]: +1
16:43:06 [PatH]: +1 to that remark
16:43:09 [pfps]: +1 and allow normal wordsmithing edits
16:43:12 [davidwood]: +1
16:43:12 [cygri]: +1
16:43:12 [Guus]: +1
16:43:13 [gavinc]: +0
16:43:16 [Souri]: +1
16:43:16 [markus]: +0
16:43:19 [zwu2]: +0
16:43:20 [AndyS]: +0
16:43:21 [PatH]: +1 to the proposal as well.
16:43:23 [Arnaud]: +1
16:43:23 [ericP]: A+1
16:43:23 [AZ]: +1
16:43:24 [TallTed]: +0.1
16:43:25 [gkellogg]: _+1
16:43:38 [TallTed]: RESOLVED: Resolve ISSUE-148 by changing the "IRIs have global scope" bullet point in section 1.3 in Concepts to "By design, IRIs have global scope. Thus, two different appearances of an IRI denote the same resource. Violating this principle constitutes an IRI collision [WEBARCH]." http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision
16:43:47 [PatH]: _+1 ??
16:44:03 [gkellogg]: s/_+1/+1/
16:44:13 [TallTed]: action: Guus to inform commenter of resolution of issue-148
16:44:13 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-336 - Inform commenter of resolution of issue-148 [on Guus Schreiber - due 2013-12-25].
16:44:31 [TallTed]: issue;165?
16:44:34 [TallTed]: issue-165?
16:44:34 [trackbot]: issue-165 -- CR Comment: datatype map -- open
16:44:34 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/165
16:44:45 [TallTed]: PROPOSED: the WG resolves to close this issue, with the rationale stated in the last response to the commenter (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Dec/0098.html), noting the objection from the commenter in the Transition Request.
16:44:59 [pfps]: +1
16:45:05 [cygri]: q+
16:45:10 [AZ]: q+
16:45:42 [cygri]: ack me
16:45:51 [Guus]: ack AZ
16:45:52 [TallTed]: cygri: what are consequences of formal objection at this stage?
16:46:19 [TallTed]: ivan: director must be convinced to over-ride objection
16:46:48 [pfps]: q+
16:47:20 [PatH]: I think "formal objection" =/= "objection" (does that make sense)?
16:47:33 [pfps]: q-
16:48:15 [Guus]: ack pfps
16:48:45 [pfps]: I had thought that WG members could change their mind if new information comes to light, and it seems to me that the information from Michael could be considered to be new information of a sort.
16:48:51 [gavinc]: There is of yet NOT a formal objection
16:49:01 [gavinc]: there is a statement that says there will be one
16:50:11 [pfps]: +1 (again)
16:50:14 [markus]: +1
16:50:15 [AndyS]: +1
16:50:15 [Zakim]: -cygri
16:50:18 [PatH]: +1
16:50:18 [TallTed]: +1
16:50:19 [gkellogg]: +1
16:50:19 [ivan]: +1
16:50:19 [AZ]: -1
16:50:20 [gavinc]: +1
16:50:23 [ericP]: +1+1
16:50:23 [sandro]: +1
16:50:24 [cygri]: +1
16:50:25 [zwu2]: +1
16:50:25 [davidwood]: +1
16:50:29 [Guus]: +1
16:50:30 [yvesr]: +1
16:50:37 [Zakim]: +??P0
16:50:38 [AZ]: (agree to move forward and close the issue, but disagree with the rationale)
16:50:42 [cygri]: zakim, ??P0 is me
16:50:42 [Zakim]: +cygri; got it
16:50:53 [Souri]: +1
16:50:54 [TallTed]: RESOLVED: the WG resolves to close this issue, with the rationale stated in the last response to the commenter (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Dec/0098.html), noting the objection from the commenter in the Transition Request, over objection of AZ
16:51:22 [TallTed]: TOPIC: Marking rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral as non-normative?!
16:52:16 [TallTed]: PROPOSAL: to accept the resolution text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0283.html
16:52:51 [Guus]: q?
16:52:52 [sandro]: q+
16:52:53 [pfps]: I agree with Guus's proposal as being the best way forward giving the current circumstances.
16:53:19 [markus]: q+
16:53:22 [cygri]: q+
16:53:39 [Guus]: ack markus
16:53:43 [ivan]: ack sandro
16:53:45 [sandro]: q-
16:53:53 [TallTed]: sandro: we should be very clear about the decision space we're working in...
16:54:13 [Guus]: ack cyri
16:54:25 [Guus]: ack cygri
16:54:32 [cygri]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0267.html
16:55:09 [TallTed]: scribenick: gavinc
16:56:29 [gavinc]: cygri: I very much want to see the URIs mentioned in this section one way or another. Trying to keep the datatypes normative by peppering notes in the relevant sections.
16:56:52 [gavinc]: markus: The whole thing is about removing a MUST statement?
16:57:34 [gavinc]: cygri: I'd like to see the notes mentioning WHY they have to be normative. Alert the readers to the existence of the datatypes.
16:57:41 [gavinc]: markus: Doesn't have to be the MUST statement in 5.4
16:58:25 [gavinc]: cygri: See email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0267.html showed my preferred way of dealing with it but other ways could work.
16:58:50 [PatH]: Seems to me that this owuld be us saying, whatever the other WG does, we want RDF to treat it as normative.
16:59:50 [ericP]: ack me
17:00:01 [gavinc]: sandro: Try to explain what we actually mean, and leave to the Directors meeting figuring out how to do that
17:00:04 [PatH]: What is the future tense of "normative"?
17:00:09 [ericP]: q+ to ask whether "normative" would require tests
17:00:21 [gavinc]: +q
17:01:18 [gavinc]: ericP: There are no tests, how would that work?
17:01:23 [gavinc]: markus: the features are optional anyway
17:01:37 [Guus]: ack ericP
17:01:38 [Zakim]: ericP, you wanted to ask whether "normative" would require tests
17:01:45 [Guus]: ack gavinc
17:01:58 [ericP]: gavinc: how does everything else that refs DOM4 deal with this?
17:02:05 [ericP]: ... we can't be the first to have this problem
17:02:10 [ericP]: ack me
17:02:55 [PatH]: So, this is what a tar-pit feels like.
17:03:05 [gavinc]: Guus: want to have a resolution on record
17:03:26 [gavinc]: ... can we add to the resolution something about agreeing during transition meeting?
17:03:33 [AZ]: isn't it similar to having OWL 2 become a rec before XSD 1.1 became rec?
17:03:52 [Guus]: PROPOSED: to accept the resolution text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0283.html.
17:03:59 [PatH]: AZ, what did they do?
17:04:05 [ericP]: +1 to delegating to the chairs and editors the resolution of refs to DOM4
17:04:10 [gavinc]: AZ, no this is the left over debris from XHTML2 :P
17:04:34 [cygri]: +1
17:04:46 [sandro]: PROPOSED: to accept the resolution text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0283.html but delegate to the chairs and editors the authority to change on this matter
17:05:00 [sandro]: PROPOSED: to accept the resolution text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0283.html but delegate to the chairs and editors (of RDF Concepts) the authority to change on this matter
17:05:06 [cygri]: +1
17:05:07 [PatH]: +1
17:05:11 [gavinc]: +1
17:05:11 [sandro]: +1
17:05:12 [yvesr]: +1
17:05:12 [davidwood]: +1
17:05:24 [AZ]: +1
17:05:24 [ivan]: +1
17:05:24 [gkellogg]: +1
17:05:25 [TallTed]: +1
17:05:25 [zwu2]: +1
17:05:33 [PatH]: AZ, tnx.
17:05:33 [sandro]: AZ, we do NOT want to do that again. It was a nightmare.
17:05:44 [markus]: -0.5 (I'm not happy with the "implementation-dependent" text)
17:05:44 [Guus]: +1
17:05:56 [davidwood]: It is good to have cyri back just in time for this issue.
17:06:02 [Zakim]: -cygri
17:06:06 [davidwood]: oops :)
17:06:16 [PatH]: FOFL
17:06:17 [sandro]: RESOLVED: to accept the resolution text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0283.html but delegate to the chairs and editors (of RDF Concepts) the authority to change on this matter
17:06:28 [cygri]: .
17:06:54 [gavinc]: Guus: Did we agree on References between Concepts and Semantics?
17:07:05 [gavinc]: markus: Well, no one is complaining loudly anymore
17:07:11 [Zakim]: +??P85
17:07:17 [cygri]: zakim, ??P85 is me
17:07:17 [Zakim]: +cygri; got it
17:07:29 [gavinc]: PROPOSED: Make reference from Concepts to Semantics non-normative
17:07:42 [cygri]: +1
17:07:46 [markus]: +1
17:07:47 [AZ]: +1
17:07:50 [davidwood]: I have no objection
17:07:54 [davidwood]: +1
17:07:56 [gkellogg]: +1
17:08:00 [yvesr]: +1
17:08:01 [gavinc]: +1 Concepts does not require passing the semantics test cases
17:08:03 [AndyS]: 0 (AKA it seems strange to me)
17:08:18 [ivan]: 0
17:08:25 [Arnaud]: 0
17:08:27 [Guus]: )
17:08:29 [PatH]: 0
17:08:30 [zwu2]: 1
17:08:35 [Guus]: 0
17:08:41 [TallTed]: +1
17:08:41 [ericP]: +1
17:08:48 [gavinc]: RESOLVED: Make reference from Concepts to Semantics non-normative
17:09:11 [Guus]: PROPOSED: to accept the resolution text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Dec/0283.html.
17:09:12 [gavinc]: PROPOSED: to request the Director to advance Concepts and Semantics to Proposed Recommendation.
17:09:17 [ericP]: +1
17:09:18 [davidwood]: +1
17:09:19 [markus]: +1
17:09:19 [ivan]: =1
17:09:21 [AndyS]: +1
17:09:22 [ivan]: +1
17:09:23 [Souri]: +1
17:09:23 [gavinc]: +1
17:09:24 [gkellogg]: +1
17:09:26 [TallTed]: +1
17:09:27 [Arnaud]: +1
17:09:31 [cygri]: +1.1
17:09:33 [PatH]: +1
17:09:35 [zwu2]: +1
17:09:42 [sandro]: +1
17:09:46 [yvesr]: +1
17:09:53 [gavinc]: RESOLVED: to request the Director to advance Concepts and Semantics to Proposed Recommendation
17:09:53 [PatH]: Was that two negative votes form Ivan or just a shift wrror?
17:10:09 [PatH]: :)
17:10:26 [gavinc]: Topic: RDF Schema
17:10:33 [gavinc]: Guus: Already voted on it last week
17:11:16 [gavinc]: ... only thing to do is to remove "This section is non-normative." from rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral
17:11:24 [gavinc]: topic: RDF/XML
17:11:35 [gavinc]: Guus: There is an editors draft
17:11:43 [gavinc]: ... it has half of the changes from Ivan's review
17:12:00 [gavinc]: most notable change is to XMLLiteral
17:12:15 [gavinc]: ... gavinc should check if I did it the right way
17:12:28 [gavinc]: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-xml/index.html#parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt
17:12:51 [gkellogg]: q+
17:13:06 [Guus]: ack gkellogg
17:13:36 [ericP]: q+ to ask if these impls are based on the serialize function
17:16:40 [gavinc]: ACTION gkellogg find some test cases for https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-xml/index.html#parseTypeLiteralPropertyElt
17:16:40 [trackbot]: Created ACTION-337 - Find some test cases for https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-xml/index.html#parsetypeliteralpropertyelt [on Gregg Kellogg - due 2013-12-25].
17:16:59 [ericP]: q-
17:17:21 [gavinc]: PROPOSED: to request the Director to advance RDF 1.1 XML Syntax to Proposed Edited Recommendation.
17:17:26 [gkellogg]: +1
17:17:27 [PatH]: +1
17:17:28 [gavinc]: +1
17:17:28 [TallTed]: +1
17:17:28 [AndyS]: +0.9
17:17:28 [yvesr]: +1
17:17:29 [Arnaud]: +1
17:17:29 [AZ]: +1
17:17:29 [ivan]: +1
17:17:32 [zwu2]: +1
17:17:34 [Souri]: +1
17:17:43 [Guus]: +1
17:17:44 [davidwood]: +1
17:17:47 [ericP]: it's ok. i was just wondering if readers of the serialize() spec actually understood the XQuery or XSLT semantics which back it up
17:17:50 [cygri]: +1
17:17:52 [ericP]: +1
17:17:55 [markus]: +0.9 (let it die :-)
17:18:22 [gavinc]: ericP, more likely then understanding infoset node sets and c14n
17:18:29 [ericP]: ack me
17:21:30 [Guus]: PROPOSED: the WG decides to keep the Turtle features at risk: The addition of sparqlPrefix and sparqlBase which allow for using SPARQL style BASE and PREFIX directives in a Turtle document.
17:21:40 [ericP]: http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-29#Turtle
17:22:29 [ericP]: [[
17:22:33 [ericP]: RESOLVED: Allow PREFIX and BASE in Turtle, and thus keep the feature in the document. This is based on the poll results at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/at-sign/results ←
17:22:36 [PatH]: w3c.org is feeling tired.
17:22:36 [ericP]: ]]
17:22:37 [Zakim]: -cygri
17:22:44 [ericP]: ack me
17:22:54 [Zakim]: +??P30
17:23:00 [cygri]: zakim, ??P30 is me
17:23:00 [Zakim]: +cygri; got it
17:23:22 [ericP]: ack me
17:23:35 [PatH]: Seems to have come back up now.
17:24:04 [gavinc]: topic: Open issues (other than CR comments)
17:24:49 [gavinc]: Guus: We did ISSUE-78 in primer. Making clear limitations, etc
17:25:00 [gavinc]: ... marking resolved.
17:25:21 [cygri]: q+
17:25:48 [gavinc]: ... ISSUE-102 on primer now
17:26:31 [gavinc]: cygri: too late to put in Concepts or RDF Schema, putting it in the primmer has limited benefit. Defining the term well formed list would have been good, but we didn't do it.
17:26:34 [ivan]: ack cygri
17:26:38 [gavinc]: ... just close with a No.
17:27:02 [cygri]: PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-102 doing nothing as the WG is out of time.
17:27:04 [pfps]: +1
17:27:09 [gavinc]: +1
17:27:11 [PatH]: +1
17:27:15 [davidwood]: +1
17:27:16 [Arnaud]: +1
17:27:18 [ericP]: +0 (have done no research)
17:27:20 [sandro]: +0 agreed we're out of time; sad we did nothing
17:27:22 [yvesr]: +0
17:27:22 [TallTed]: +0
17:27:23 [zwu2]: +1
17:27:28 [cygri]: +0
17:27:33 [AZ]: +1
17:27:35 [ivan]: 0
17:27:38 [gavinc]: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-102 doing nothing as the WG is out of time
17:27:42 [gkellogg]: +1
17:28:11 [ericP]: ack me
17:28:34 [gavinc]: ericP: if we say TriG is the One
17:28:52 [gavinc]: Guus: Leaving open issue-138
17:29:01 [PatH]: There is a widespread assumption that RDF/XML is priviledged
17:29:10 [pfps]: ... and cursed
17:29:29 [ivan]: rrsagent, draft minutes
17:29:29 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/12/18-rdf-wg-minutes.html ivan
17:29:32 [gavinc]: topic: AOB
17:29:44 [gavinc]: 15 January?
17:29:45 [pfps]: 15 Jan is fine by me
17:29:50 [davidwood]: ok by me
17:29:52 [AZ]: ok
17:29:53 [PatH]: Fine
17:29:56 [gavinc]: okay
17:30:00 [yvesr]: ok
17:30:04 [gavinc]: ... every other week
17:30:05 [Arnaud]: fine with me
17:30:07 [davidwood]: Bi-weekly schedule from 15 Jan
17:30:14 [Arnaud]: good job!
17:30:20 [gavinc]: Guus: Adjourned!
17:30:34 [ericP]: RESOLVED: next meeting 15 Jan, and every other week following
17:30:35 [PatH]: Consensus (n): The state of exhaustion where one no longer cares what is decided.
17:30:38 [Zakim]: -Souri
17:30:39 [Zakim]: -TallTed
17:30:47 [Zakim]: -Arnaud
17:30:48 [Zakim]: -pfps
17:30:48 [Zakim]: -yvesr
17:30:50 [Zakim]: -David_Wood
17:30:51 [Zakim]: -Sandro
17:30:52 [PatH]: Happy holidays, everyone.
17:30:53 [Zakim]: -zwu2
17:30:54 [AndyS]: Bye all!
17:30:54 [Zakim]: -Ivan
17:30:54 [Zakim]: -cygri
17:30:56 [Zakim]: -markus
17:30:58 [Zakim]: -ericP
17:30:58 [Zakim]: -GavinC
17:30:58 [Zakim]: -AZ
17:31:00 [Zakim]: -gkellogg
17:31:04 [AndyS]: ADJOURNED
17:31:09 [Zakim]: -Guus_Schreiber
17:31:10 [Zakim]: -PatH
17:31:14 [Guus]: trackbot, end meeting
17:31:14 [trackbot]: Zakim, list attendees
17:31:14 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been AndyS, Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, TallTed, Sandro, gkellogg, Ivan, pfps, Arnaud, yvesr, cygri, AZ, David_Wood, PatH, ericP, zwu2, markus,
17:31:17 [Zakim]: ... manu, Souri
17:31:17 [Zakim]: -AndyS
17:31:17 [Zakim]: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
17:31:17 [Zakim]: Attendees were AndyS, Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, TallTed, Sandro, gkellogg, Ivan, pfps, Arnaud, yvesr, cygri, AZ, David_Wood, PatH, ericP, zwu2, markus, manu, Souri
17:31:22 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:31:22 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/12/18-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
17:31:23 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, bye
17:31:23 [RRSAgent]: I see 2 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/18-rdf-wg-actions.rdf :
17:31:23 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: gkellogg to update manifest and regenerate implementation report [1]
17:31:23 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/18-rdf-wg-irc#T16-24-42-1
17:31:23 [RRSAgent]: ACTION: Guus to inform commenter of resolution of issue-148 [2]
17:31:23 [RRSAgent]: recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/18-rdf-wg-irc#T16-44-13