14:15:27 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/30-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/30-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:15:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:15:31 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:15:31 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 45 minutes
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 45 minutes ←
14:15:32 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:15:32 <trackbot> Date: 30 May 2012
14:51:59 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
(No events recorded for 36 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started ←
14:52:06 <Zakim> +Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus ←
14:58:17 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Ivan Herman: zakim, dial ivan-voip ←
14:58:17 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ivan; the call is being made ←
14:58:18 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
14:58:49 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
14:58:56 <AndyS> zakim, ??P3 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P3 is me ←
14:58:56 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
14:59:10 <Zakim> +bhyland
Zakim IRC Bot: +bhyland ←
14:59:42 <davidwood> Zakim, who is talking?
David Wood: Zakim, who is talking? ←
14:59:52 <davidwood> Zakim, bhyland is me
David Wood: Zakim, bhyland is me ←
14:59:52 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it ←
14:59:54 <Zakim> davidwood, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (56%)
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AndyS (56%) ←
14:59:57 <Zakim> +??P6
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P6 ←
15:00:02 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P6
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P6 ←
15:00:02 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
15:00:11 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:00:50 <Zakim> +[IBM]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IBM] ←
15:00:54 <manu1> zakim, code?
Manu Sporny: zakim, code? ←
15:00:54 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), manu1 ←
15:01:05 <pfps> zakim, [IBM] is temporarily me
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, [IBM] is temporarily me ←
15:01:05 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps; got it ←
15:01:08 <Zakim> +??P10
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P10 ←
15:01:11 <Zakim> +??P8
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8 ←
15:01:15 <manu1> zakim, I am ??P10
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??P10 ←
15:01:15 <Zakim> +Tom_Baker (was ??P8)
Zakim IRC Bot: +Tom_Baker (was ??P8) ←
15:01:16 <Zakim> +manu1; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu1; got it ←
15:01:41 <Zakim> +mhausenblas
Zakim IRC Bot: +mhausenblas ←
15:01:43 <cygri> zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me
Richard Cyganiak: zakim, mhausenblas is temporarily me ←
15:01:43 <Zakim> +cygri; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cygri; got it ←
15:03:02 <Zakim> +??P17
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P17 ←
15:03:06 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
15:03:21 <AZ> zakim, ??P17 is me
Antoine Zimmermann: zakim, ??P17 is me ←
15:03:21 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←
15:03:25 <Zakim> +??P3
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P3 ←
15:03:31 <AndyS> zakim, ??P3 is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, ??P3 is me ←
15:03:31 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:04:17 <Zakim> + +1.443.212.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.443.212.aaaa ←
15:04:21 <manu1> scribenick: manu1
(Scribe set to Manu Sporny)
15:04:25 <AlexHall> zakim, aaaa is me
Alex Hall: zakim, aaaa is me ←
15:04:25 <Zakim> +AlexHall; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AlexHall; got it ←
15:04:53 <manu1> Topic: Minutes from Last Meeting
15:05:08 <cygri> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-23
Richard Cyganiak: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-23 ←
15:05:10 <manu1> Guus: Here they are: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-23
Guus Schreiber: Here they are: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-05-23 ←
15:05:27 <manu1> PROPOSAL: Accept the minutes of the 23 May telecon.
PROPOSED: Accept the minutes of the 23 May telecon. ←
15:05:46 <Zakim> +gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: +gavinc ←
15:05:58 <manu1> Sandro: Errors in the minutes... should fix those before we accept them.
David Wood: Errors in the minutes... should fix those before we accept them. ←
15:06:04 <zwu2> zakim, code?
15:06:04 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), zwu2 ←
15:06:34 <pfps> The only problem with the minutes appears to be a confusion about who Tony is.
Peter Patel-Schneider: The only problem with the minutes appears to be a confusion about who Tony is. ←
15:06:44 <manu1> s/Sandro: Errors in the minutes/davidwood: Errors in the minutes/
15:06:56 <manu1> Guus: These are not big issues in the minutes, happy to take an action to fix them.
Guus Schreiber: These are not big issues in the minutes, happy to take an action to fix them. ←
15:07:00 <cygri> +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
15:07:11 <manu1> RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of the 23 May telecon.
RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of the 23 May telecon. ←
15:07:12 <pfps> +1
15:07:12 <Zakim> +zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2 ←
15:07:17 <zwu2> zakim, mute me
15:07:17 <Zakim> zwu2 should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: zwu2 should now be muted ←
15:07:24 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:07:24 <manu1> No objections for resolving minutes.
No objections for resolving minutes. ←
15:07:32 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:07:32 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MacTed; got it ←
15:07:33 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:07:33 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←
15:07:40 <manu1> Guus looking at action items to see if we can get rid of anything...
Guus looking at action items to see if we can get rid of anything... ←
15:08:08 <manu1> davidwood: I went through all the folks that attended telecons, only pulled scribes who showed up in 2012.
David Wood: I went through all the folks that attended telecons, only pulled scribes who showed up in 2012. ←
15:08:29 <manu1> Guus: Welcome Gregg Kellogg!
Guus Schreiber: Welcome Gregg Kellogg! ←
15:08:41 <cygri> welcome gkellogg!
Richard Cyganiak: welcome gkellogg! ←
15:09:04 <manu1> Guus: Virtual round of applause for Peter, who just became an IEEE Fellow!
Guus Schreiber: Virtual round of applause for Peter, who just became an IEEE Fellow! ←
15:09:08 <manu1> *clapping*
*clapping* ←
15:09:32 <manu1> Guus: Richard, claiming victory on your two actions? 173 174?
Guus Schreiber: Richard, claiming victory on your two actions? 173 174? ←
15:09:50 <manu1> Richard: Yes, conformance section for TURTLE is good. Second action - wrote mail to Yves, but didn't get a response yet.
Richard Cyganiak: Yes, conformance section for TURTLE is good. Second action - wrote mail to Yves, but didn't get a response yet. ←
15:09:58 <manu1> Guus: Yes, but you did the action... so that's good.
Guus Schreiber: Yes, but you did the action... so that's good. ←
15:10:54 <manu1> Topic: Next Meeting
15:11:14 <manu1> Guus: Next week is SemTech 2012 - I'm not available for chairing. Let's skip next week.
Guus Schreiber: Next week is SemTech 2012 - I'm not available for chairing. Let's skip next week. ←
15:11:18 <manu1> DavidWood: I concur.
David Wood: I concur. ←
15:11:37 <manu1> No objections... resolved that next telecon is June 13th 2012.
No objections... resolved that next telecon is June 13th 2012. ←
15:11:56 <manu1> Topic: Turtle Last Call
15:12:02 <manu1> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html ←
15:12:09 <manu1> Guus: Is there additional action on this needed?
Guus Schreiber: Is there additional action on this needed? ←
15:12:12 <Zakim> +??P29
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P29 ←
15:12:13 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
15:12:14 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, Ivan, davidwood, gkellogg, Sandro, pfps, manu1, Tom_Baker, cygri, AZ, AndyS, AlexHall, gavinc, zwu2 (muted), MacTed (muted), ??P29
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Guus, Ivan, davidwood, gkellogg, Sandro, pfps, manu1, Tom_Baker, cygri, AZ, AndyS, AlexHall, gavinc, zwu2 (muted), MacTed (muted), ??P29 ←
15:12:14 <Zakim> On IRC I see zwu2, AlexHall, AZ, pfps, pchampin, tbaker, cygri, Guus, gavinc, Zakim, RRSAgent, swh, AndyS, MacTed, mischat, LeeF, ivan, davidwood, gkellogg, manu1, trackbot, NickH,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zwu2, AlexHall, AZ, pfps, pchampin, tbaker, cygri, Guus, gavinc, Zakim, RRSAgent, swh, AndyS, MacTed, mischat, LeeF, ivan, davidwood, gkellogg, manu1, trackbot, NickH, ←
15:12:15 <Zakim> ... manu, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... manu, sandro, ericP ←
15:12:20 <pchampin> zakim, ??P29 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P29 is me ←
15:12:20 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:12:37 <manu1> gavinc: Nothing to raise as an issue, it's not quite done.
Gavin Carothers: Nothing to raise as an issue, it's not quite done. ←
15:13:05 <manu1> Guus: You get one more week since SemTech 2012 is next week. We'll schedule TURTLE LC decision until June 13th 2012. But nothing to discuss now, right?
Guus Schreiber: You get one more week since SemTech 2012 is next week. We'll schedule TURTLE LC decision until June 13th 2012. But nothing to discuss now, right? ←
15:13:10 <pchampin> q+ about reviewing turtle
Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+ about reviewing turtle ←
15:13:16 <pchampin> q+ to ask about reviewing turtle
Pierre-Antoine Champin: q+ to ask about reviewing turtle ←
15:13:25 <manu1> Gavin: There is a recurring discussion on should we have the Turtle family of languages?
Gavin Carothers: There is a recurring discussion on should we have the Turtle family of languages? ←
15:14:20 <manu1> pchampin: I have a pending action to review the Turtle document - I've been told to wait until some mods are done. I may have missed something, but I haven't been prompted to review yet. Should I do it before next meeting?
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I have a pending action to review the Turtle document - I've been told to wait until some mods are done. I may have missed something, but I haven't been prompted to review yet. Should I do it before next meeting? ←
15:14:32 <manu1> Guus: I think the documents have plenty of review - you could do a check at this point.
Guus Schreiber: I think the documents have plenty of review - you could do a check at this point. ←
15:14:47 <manu1> Guus: Editor's are doing final editorial changes now.
Guus Schreiber: Editor's are doing final editorial changes now. ←
15:14:58 <manu1> pchampin: Sorry I missed the opportunity, I will do a check on the documents.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: Sorry I missed the opportunity, I will do a check on the documents. ←
15:15:25 <manu1> Guus: Ok, we're fine to go ahead then, Gavin.
Guus Schreiber: Ok, we're fine to go ahead then, Gavin. ←
15:15:35 <manu1> Topic: JSON-LD
15:15:42 <manu1> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2012May/0070.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2012May/0070.html ←
15:15:46 <Zakim> +??P31
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P31 ←
15:15:57 <swh> Zakim, ??P31 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P31 is me ←
15:15:57 <Zakim> +swh; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +swh; got it ←
15:16:12 <manu1> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0635.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0635.html ←
15:16:28 <cygri> scribenick: cygri
(Scribe set to Richard Cyganiak)
15:16:50 <cygri> manu: proposal to publish JSON-LD as FPWD is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0635.html
Manu Sporny: proposal to publish JSON-LD as FPWD is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0635.html ←
15:17:10 <cygri> ... some RDF-WG members joined the previous JSON-LD call to discuss some issues
... some RDF-WG members joined the previous JSON-LD call to discuss some issues ←
15:17:36 <cygri> ... such as, what spec should the to/from-RDF-algorithm go, should the API spec go to W3C or not, should experimental stuff go in or not
... such as, what spec should the to/from-RDF-algorithm go, should the API spec go to W3C or not, should experimental stuff go in or not ←
15:17:48 <cygri> ... i feel we got consensus
... i feel we got consensus ←
15:18:01 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
15:18:07 <cygri> ... i'd like to summarize main points
... i'd like to summarize main points ←
15:19:05 <cygri> ... 1. should JSON-LD terminology be made more in line with RDF concepts? we think yes where it makes sense, but there are some minor corner cases where we feel our terminology is more appropriate. this shouldn't block FPWD
... 1. should JSON-LD terminology be made more in line with RDF concepts? we think yes where it makes sense, but there are some minor corner cases where we feel our terminology is more appropriate. this shouldn't block FPWD ←
15:19:20 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
15:19:27 <gavinc> Yes.
Gavin Carothers: Yes. ←
15:19:27 <Zakim> +EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←
15:19:33 <gavinc> It should be in the document
Gavin Carothers: It should be in the document ←
15:19:39 <gavinc> So that the public knows
Gavin Carothers: So that the public knows ←
15:19:42 <cygri> EricP: is it worth noting that in the document?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: is it worth noting that in the document? ←
15:20:00 <gavinc> <p class="issue"></p>
Gavin Carothers: <p class="issue"></p> ←
15:20:34 <cygri> manu: we have it documented it in various places, minutes etc
Manu Sporny: we have it documented it in various places, minutes etc ←
15:20:48 <cygri> ericP: an issue marker in the doc would be great
Eric Prud'hommeaux: an issue marker in the doc would be great ←
15:20:53 <manu1> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/127
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/127 ←
15:21:29 <cygri> davidwood: also note that rdf-concepts is still a somewhat moving target
David Wood: also note that rdf-concepts is still a somewhat moving target ←
15:21:57 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
15:22:10 <cygri> manu: 2. we think the RDF-WG should also publish the JSON-LD API spec because it has the algorithms for converting to and from RDF
Manu Sporny: 2. we think the RDF-WG should also publish the JSON-LD API spec because it has the algorithms for converting to and from RDF ←
15:22:21 <cygri> ... these algorithms are in the JSON-LD API spec at the moment
... these algorithms are in the JSON-LD API spec at the moment ←
15:22:27 <Guus> zakim, who is here?
Guus Schreiber: zakim, who is here? ←
15:22:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see Guus, Ivan, davidwood, gkellogg, Sandro, pfps, manu1, Tom_Baker, cygri, AZ, AndyS, AlexHall, gavinc, MacTed (muted), pchampin, swh, EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Guus, Ivan, davidwood, gkellogg, Sandro, pfps, manu1, Tom_Baker, cygri, AZ, AndyS, AlexHall, gavinc, MacTed (muted), pchampin, swh, EricP ←
15:22:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see zwu2, AlexHall, AZ, pfps, pchampin, tbaker, cygri, Guus, gavinc, Zakim, RRSAgent, swh, AndyS, MacTed, mischat, LeeF, ivan, davidwood, gkellogg, manu1, trackbot, NickH,
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see zwu2, AlexHall, AZ, pfps, pchampin, tbaker, cygri, Guus, gavinc, Zakim, RRSAgent, swh, AndyS, MacTed, mischat, LeeF, ivan, davidwood, gkellogg, manu1, trackbot, NickH, ←
15:22:30 <Zakim> ... manu, sandro, ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: ... manu, sandro, ericP ←
15:22:40 <cygri> ... we could have lifted the algorithms from the spec, but this would be weird editorially
... we could have lifted the algorithms from the spec, but this would be weird editorially ←
15:22:53 <Zakim> + +1.603.438.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.603.438.aabb ←
15:23:12 <zwu2> zakim, +1.603.438.aabb is me
Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.603.438.aabb is me ←
15:23:12 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it ←
15:23:22 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:23:28 <Guus> ack pchampin
Guus Schreiber: ack pchampin ←
15:23:28 <Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to ask about reviewing turtle
Zakim IRC Bot: pchampin, you wanted to ask about reviewing turtle ←
15:23:35 <cygri> ... another option would be to have the conversion algorithm in its own separate document, but concluded that the API spec is fine as it is; just remove some experimental bits
... another option would be to have the conversion algorithm in its own separate document, but concluded that the API spec is fine as it is; just remove some experimental bits ←
15:23:58 <ericP> i added a comment at the botton of <https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/127#issuecomment-6012736> saying "In a prominent place in the FPWD, document the intention to align with the RDF model and terminology. This will calm the RDF community and reduce the comments requesting something you already plan to do."
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i added a comment at the botton of <https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/127#issuecomment-6012736> saying "In a prominent place in the FPWD, document the intention to align with the RDF model and terminology. This will calm the RDF community and reduce the comments requesting something you already plan to do." ←
15:24:01 <cygri> ... an open question is: can the RDF-WG publish an API spec for JSON-LD, charter-wise?
... an open question is: can the RDF-WG publish an API spec for JSON-LD, charter-wise? ←
15:24:21 <cygri> ... we think yes because it supports the syntax spec; they go together and complement one another
... we think yes because it supports the syntax spec; they go together and complement one another ←
15:24:39 <PatH> Sorry Im late, and IRC only.
Patrick Hayes: Sorry Im late, and IRC only. ←
15:24:45 <cygri> ... so baring objections from W3C members we think it should be ok
... so baring objections from W3C members we think it should be ok ←
15:25:33 <cygri> manu: 3. having established that RDF-WG *can* publish JSON-LD API, *should* it do it?
Manu Sporny: 3. having established that RDF-WG *can* publish JSON-LD API, *should* it do it? ←
15:25:48 <cygri> ... we need to pull some bits out of the spec
... we need to pull some bits out of the spec ←
15:25:58 <cygri> ... graph normalization is already moved into its own separate document
... graph normalization is already moved into its own separate document ←
15:26:06 <cygri> ... and we'll also remove framing
... and we'll also remove framing ←
15:26:20 <cygri> ... because these are experimental features; the rest is stable enough for FPWD
... because these are experimental features; the rest is stable enough for FPWD ←
15:27:03 <cygri> ... so in summary we think RDF-WG should publish JSON-LD API as this pulls in the normative conversion, and is a useful spec
... so in summary we think RDF-WG should publish JSON-LD API as this pulls in the normative conversion, and is a useful spec ←
15:27:23 <cygri> 4. should we move the to/from-RDF stuff into separate document?
4. should we move the to/from-RDF stuff into separate document? ←
15:27:30 <cygri> manu: 4. should we move the to/from-RDF stuff into separate document?
Manu Sporny: 4. should we move the to/from-RDF stuff into separate document? ←
15:27:33 <cygri> ... no, no need to
... no, no need to ←
15:27:55 <cygri> manu: 5. how to do the handover of JSON-LD specs from the community group to RDF-WG
Manu Sporny: 5. how to do the handover of JSON-LD specs from the community group to RDF-WG ←
15:28:03 <cygri> ... there's W3C process for that
... there's W3C process for that ←
15:28:15 <cygri> ... so a hand-off can be done once RDF-WG has made a decision
... so a hand-off can be done once RDF-WG has made a decision ←
15:28:37 <gavinc> +q assignment of editors for JSON-LD in the WG
Gavin Carothers: +q assignment of editors for JSON-LD in the WG ←
15:28:39 <cygri> ... once the hand-off is done, RDF-WG is in charge of the docs and the CG can't change it any more
... once the hand-off is done, RDF-WG is in charge of the docs and the CG can't change it any more ←
15:28:45 <gavinc> +q to ask about assignment of editors for JSON-LD in the WG
Gavin Carothers: +q to ask about assignment of editors for JSON-LD in the WG ←
15:28:50 <cygri> ... this entails copyright and patent stuff etc
... this entails copyright and patent stuff etc ←
15:28:52 <AndyS> q+ to ask about handoff point @LC? @CR?
Andy Seaborne: q+ to ask about handoff point @LC? @CR? ←
15:29:30 <cygri> manu: so the proposal is that RDF-WG publish JSON-LD syntax spec *and* stripped-down version of JSON-LD API spec with framing and normalization removed, as FPWD
Manu Sporny: so the proposal is that RDF-WG publish JSON-LD syntax spec *and* stripped-down version of JSON-LD API spec with framing and normalization removed, as FPWD ←
15:29:33 <davidwood> q+ to ask about number of implementations
David Wood: q+ to ask about number of implementations ←
15:29:44 <Guus> ack gavinc
Guus Schreiber: ack gavinc ←
15:29:44 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to ask about assignment of editors for JSON-LD in the WG
Zakim IRC Bot: gavinc, you wanted to ask about assignment of editors for JSON-LD in the WG ←
15:29:52 <Guus> ack AndyS
Guus Schreiber: ack AndyS ←
15:29:52 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about handoff point @LC? @CR?
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to ask about handoff point @LC? @CR? ←
15:29:56 <cygri> AndyS: what state would documents be in after the hand-off?
Andy Seaborne: what state would documents be in after the hand-off? ←
15:30:24 <cygri> manu: FPWD. the community group says "we are done with these documents", and the WG pulls them in as FPWDs
Manu Sporny: FPWD. the community group says "we are done with these documents", and the WG pulls them in as FPWDs ←
15:30:38 <cygri> ... it's up to the WG to decide how quickly the docs can go to LC
... it's up to the WG to decide how quickly the docs can go to LC ←
15:31:00 <cygri> guus: whether they are rec track is still a separate decision
Guus Schreiber: whether they are rec track is still a separate decision ←
15:31:57 <cygri> manu: the CG would have an issue handing off the documents if RDF-WG doesn't take them to REC. CG would likely try to find another venue in that case
Manu Sporny: the CG would have an issue handing off the documents if RDF-WG doesn't take them to REC. CG would likely try to find another venue in that case ←
15:32:13 <cygri> AndyS: hoping that CG would continue to be involved all the way to REC
Andy Seaborne: hoping that CG would continue to be involved all the way to REC ←
15:32:19 <Guus> ack davidwood
Guus Schreiber: ack davidwood ←
15:32:19 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to ask about number of implementations
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to ask about number of implementations ←
15:32:26 <gavinc> +q to ask about assignment of editors for JSON-LD in the WG
Gavin Carothers: +q to ask about assignment of editors for JSON-LD in the WG ←
15:32:36 <cygri> manu: yes that's the plan. that's why gkellogg is joining and the other editors will become invited experts
Manu Sporny: yes that's the plan. that's why gkellogg is joining and the other editors will become invited experts ←
15:32:47 <gkellogg> Immplementations link here: http://json-ld.org/
Gregg Kellogg: Immplementations link here: http://json-ld.org/ ←
15:32:51 <cygri> manu: there are (numerous implementations)
Manu Sporny: there are (numerous implementations) ←
15:33:07 <cygri> ... six implementationsj
... six implementationsj ←
15:33:19 <cygri> ericP: i might have written a parser too. i forget.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i might have written a parser too. i forget. ←
15:33:38 <cygri> ivan: i have JSON-LD output in my RDFa impl
Ivan Herman: i have JSON-LD output in my RDFa impl ←
15:33:39 <Guus> ack gavinc
Guus Schreiber: ack gavinc ←
15:33:39 <Zakim> gavinc, you wanted to ask about assignment of editors for JSON-LD in the WG
Zakim IRC Bot: gavinc, you wanted to ask about assignment of editors for JSON-LD in the WG ←
15:34:23 <cygri> gavinc: do we get editors assigned to the JSON-LD docs before FPWD?
Gavin Carothers: do we get editors assigned to the JSON-LD docs before FPWD? ←
15:34:56 <cygri> manu: when the group decides to take the docs on as rec track work, the current editors will join RDF-WG
Manu Sporny: when the group decides to take the docs on as rec track work, the current editors will join RDF-WG ←
15:35:24 <ericP> +1 to rec track
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to rec track ←
15:35:33 <pchampin> +1 to rec track
Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 to rec track ←
15:35:36 <cygri> guus: opinions on taking JSON-LD on rec track?
Guus Schreiber: opinions on taking JSON-LD on rec track? ←
15:35:37 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:35:39 <manu1> +1 to rec track (fwiw)
Manu Sporny: +1 to rec track (fwiw) ←
15:35:43 <cygri> ... JSOn syntax in the charter
... JSOn syntax in the charter ←
15:35:44 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:35:56 <sandro> +0.5 I'm nervous about the lack of breadth of input
Sandro Hawke: +0.5 I'm nervous about the lack of breadth of input ←
15:36:01 <gavinc> +0 (TQ non opinion) +1 (LexMachina opinion which I can't have until July)
Gavin Carothers: +0 (TQ non opinion) +1 (LexMachina opinion which I can't have until July) ←
15:36:04 <ericP> q?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q? ←
15:36:04 <cygri> davidwood: what was the plan re the RDF algorithm, can't recall
David Wood: what was the plan re the RDF algorithm, can't recall ←
15:36:33 <PatH> Gavin is a quantum superposition.
Patrick Hayes: Gavin is a quantum superposition. ←
15:36:50 <AndyS> 0 (I can't promise my time to it so don't feel I can +1) -- moral +1 to JSON-LD/RDF core parts
Andy Seaborne: 0 (I can't promise my time to it so don't feel I can +1) -- moral +1 to JSON-LD/RDF core parts ←
15:36:52 <cygri> ivan: we talked about possibly publishing the JSON-LD group's graph normalization algorithm separately as a note
Ivan Herman: we talked about possibly publishing the JSON-LD group's graph normalization algorithm separately as a note ←
15:36:54 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:37:04 <zwu2> +0
15:37:31 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:38:18 <manu1> q+ to explain the breadth of review.
Manu Sporny: q+ to explain the breadth of review. ←
15:38:19 <cygri> sandro: JSON-LD is the product of a small group of people. it's in our charter, so the world was put on notice, but i think not all people who are concerned about this are involved
Sandro Hawke: JSON-LD is the product of a small group of people. it's in our charter, so the world was put on notice, but i think not all people who are concerned about this are involved ←
15:38:22 <gavinc> FPWD will need a lot of review
Gavin Carothers: FPWD will need a lot of review ←
15:38:34 <gkellogg> q+
Gregg Kellogg: q+ ←
15:38:36 <cygri> ... if we don't get the right people involved in reviewing, it would be a problem
... if we don't get the right people involved in reviewing, it would be a problem ←
15:38:54 <cygri> ... don't want it to go to rec just because a few people like it and the rest don't pay attention
... don't want it to go to rec just because a few people like it and the rest don't pay attention ←
15:39:43 <cygri> ... can we get enough people who know what a good json api looks like to review this?
... can we get enough people who know what a good json api looks like to review this? ←
15:40:02 <cygri> manu: to be clear, there were four editors, but the spec has been passed by a number of other communities
Manu Sporny: to be clear, there were four editors, but the spec has been passed by a number of other communities ←
15:40:33 <Guus> q+
Guus Schreiber: q+ ←
15:40:34 <cygri> ... markus has a list of users
... markus has a list of users ←
15:40:39 <Guus> ack manu1
Guus Schreiber: ack manu1 ←
15:40:39 <Zakim> manu1, you wanted to explain the breadth of review.
Zakim IRC Bot: manu1, you wanted to explain the breadth of review. ←
15:41:17 <cygri> ... you could say that for any spec. there's not just the people who show up to the telcos
... you could say that for any spec. there's not just the people who show up to the telcos ←
15:41:30 <cygri> ... it has had more review than ppl in RDF-WG may think
... it has had more review than ppl in RDF-WG may think ←
15:41:54 <cygri> guus: it would be good if that was visible from the documents
Guus Schreiber: it would be good if that was visible from the documents ←
15:42:01 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
15:42:17 <cygri> sandro: that could be mentioned in the status section of the document
Sandro Hawke: that could be mentioned in the status section of the document ←
15:42:32 <sandro> best to start maintinaing an Implement Report page.
Sandro Hawke: best to start maintinaing an Implement Report page. ←
15:42:37 <Guus> ack gkellogg
Guus Schreiber: ack gkellogg ←
15:42:39 <sandro> best to start maintinaing an Implementation Report page.
Sandro Hawke: best to start maintinaing an Implementation Report page. ←
15:42:54 <cygri> gkellogg: dbpedia has json-ld format output for example
Gregg Kellogg: dbpedia has json-ld format output for example ←
15:43:02 <manu1> Sandro, implementations are listed on the front page of http://json-ld.org/
Manu Sporny: Sandro, implementations are listed on the front page of http://json-ld.org/ ←
15:43:16 <cygri> ... comparing rdfa and json-ld, they have received similar amount of input
... comparing rdfa and json-ld, they have received similar amount of input ←
15:43:27 <gkellogg> http://www.slideshare.net/lanthaler/jsonld-for-restful-services
Gregg Kellogg: http://www.slideshare.net/lanthaler/jsonld-for-restful-services ←
15:43:33 <cygri> ... btw i'm giving a talk at semtech on json-ld
... btw i'm giving a talk at semtech on json-ld ←
15:43:41 <cygri> ... it includes list of implementations
... it includes list of implementations ←
15:44:06 <PatH> Richard, got a link to that talk? Slides?
Patrick Hayes: Richard, got a link to that talk? Slides? ←
15:44:22 <cygri> PatH, http://www.slideshare.net/lanthaler/jsonld-for-restful-services
PatH, http://www.slideshare.net/lanthaler/jsonld-for-restful-services ←
15:44:25 <PatH> Ta.
Patrick Hayes: Ta. ←
15:44:51 <cygri> guus: it's important to get public comments on this entire issue
Guus Schreiber: it's important to get public comments on this entire issue ←
15:45:38 <Guus> ack Guus
Guus Schreiber: ack Guus ←
15:45:46 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
15:46:00 <manu1> cygri: Guus, you said that you might want to be able to tell if it's gotten more public feedback?
Richard Cyganiak: Guus, you said that you might want to be able to tell if it's gotten more public feedback? [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:46:34 <manu1> cygri: Sandro already mentioned that it might go into the status of the document section - even though this is a FPWD, it already has an 18-month history elsewhere.
Richard Cyganiak: Sandro already mentioned that it might go into the status of the document section - even though this is a FPWD, it already has an 18-month history elsewhere. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:46:45 <manu1> cygri: We should state this clearly in the status section.
Richard Cyganiak: We should state this clearly in the status section. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:47:01 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:47:07 <cygri> manu: we have a number of document cleanup issues, i'll add it there
Manu Sporny: we have a number of document cleanup issues, i'll add it there ←
15:47:59 <cygri> PROPOSAL: RDF-WG to publish JSON-LD syntax spec, and stripped-down version of JSON-LD API spec with framing and normalization removed, as FPWD, with intention to go on recommendation track
PROPOSED: RDF-WG to publish JSON-LD syntax spec, and stripped-down version of JSON-LD API spec with framing and normalization removed, as FPWD, with intention to go on recommendation track ←
15:48:10 <manu1> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:48:11 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:48:12 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:48:13 <pfps> +1
15:48:16 <cygri> cygri: +1
Richard Cyganiak: +1 ←
15:48:19 <zwu2> +0
15:48:21 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
15:48:21 <AlexHall> +1
15:48:21 <pchampin> +1
15:48:23 <davidwood> +1
David Wood: +1 ←
15:48:27 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
15:48:29 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:48:32 <gavinc> +0 (TQ) +1 (LexMachina non Member)
Gavin Carothers: +0 (TQ) +1 (LexMachina non Member) ←
15:48:36 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:48:52 <cygri> RESOLVED: RDF-WG to publish JSON-LD syntax spec, and stripped-down version of JSON-LD API spec with framing and normalization removed, as FPWD, with intention to go on recommendation track
RESOLVED: RDF-WG to publish JSON-LD syntax spec, and stripped-down version of JSON-LD API spec with framing and normalization removed, as FPWD, with intention to go on recommendation track ←
15:48:59 <tbaker> +0
Thomas Baker: +0 ←
15:49:21 <cygri> guus: i think this will be very useful output for this group
Guus Schreiber: i think this will be very useful output for this group ←
15:49:30 <cygri> manu: we will go back and apply all the changes we said
Manu Sporny: we will go back and apply all the changes we said ←
15:49:37 <cygri> ... we'll get the CG to sign off on those documents
... we'll get the CG to sign off on those documents ←
15:49:49 <cygri> ... and then put them into W3C FPWD format and give them to the group
... and then put them into W3C FPWD format and give them to the group ←
15:50:17 <cygri> guus: then there'll be a two-week review period before FPWD
Guus Schreiber: then there'll be a two-week review period before FPWD ←
15:50:30 <cygri> manu: i guess we should pull the trigger and get started on the transition
Manu Sporny: i guess we should pull the trigger and get started on the transition ←
15:50:31 <ivan> q+
Ivan Herman: q+ ←
15:51:04 <cygri> ivan: the documents should physically move into the WG's hg repository
Ivan Herman: the documents should physically move into the WG's hg repository ←
15:51:42 <cygri> guus: manu, you and gkellogg are WG members now. is markus the other critical person?
Guus Schreiber: manu, you and gkellogg are WG members now. is markus the other critical person? ←
15:51:55 <gkellogg> I'd suggest niklasl as well.
Gregg Kellogg: I'd suggest niklasl as well. ←
15:52:10 <cygri> manu: yes; our CEO has also worked on a lot of the algorithms but may not be necessary to make him WG member
Manu Sporny: yes; our CEO has also worked on a lot of the algorithms but may not be necessary to make him WG member ←
15:52:35 <cygri> gkellogg: niklasl is very vocal and has given good input too
Gregg Kellogg: niklasl is very vocal and has given good input too ←
15:52:52 <cygri> guus: does markus work for a W3C member?
Guus Schreiber: does markus work for a W3C member? ←
15:53:04 <cygri> ... needs to be worked out
... needs to be worked out ←
15:53:33 <cygri> ... manu, are you familiar with our hg repository?
... manu, are you familiar with our hg repository? ←
15:53:56 <cygri> manu: there are some technical issues there but we'll iron those out
Manu Sporny: there are some technical issues there but we'll iron those out ←
15:54:14 <cygri> q+
q+ ←
15:54:22 <Guus> ack ivan
Guus Schreiber: ack ivan ←
15:54:30 <Guus> ack gygri
Guus Schreiber: ack gygri ←
15:54:48 <ericP> i'm not convinced that it's worth making manu copy this across
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i'm not convinced that it's worth making manu copy this across ←
15:54:54 <ericP> (and keep it in sync)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (and keep it in sync) ←
15:54:55 <manu1> cygri: I don't think it makes much sense to move it to W3C - as long as it's in a public repo, you can make your own copy and modify it.
Richard Cyganiak: I don't think it makes much sense to move it to W3C - as long as it's in a public repo, you can make your own copy and modify it. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:55:21 <manu1> cygri: I don't have an objection with moving into mercurial repository - it's a process point, not a point of making sure everyone has adequate access - that's already true with github.
Richard Cyganiak: I don't have an objection with moving into mercurial repository - it's a process point, not a point of making sure everyone has adequate access - that's already true with github. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:55:40 <AndyS> On IP and copyright front, surely move to W3C is cleaner.
Andy Seaborne: On IP and copyright front, surely move to W3C is cleaner. ←
15:55:44 <cygri> guus: it's good for clarity if everyting is in the same place
Guus Schreiber: it's good for clarity if everyting is in the same place ←
15:55:59 <AndyS> (its work though :-()
Andy Seaborne: (its work though :-() ←
15:56:00 <manu1> +1 to AndyS - that's the strongest point, imho.
Manu Sporny: +1 to AndyS - that's the strongest point, imho. ←
15:56:12 <pchampin> I guess the changes on mercurial could be mirrored on github if we want
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I guess the changes on mercurial could be mirrored on github if we want ←
15:56:16 <cygri> guus: thanks manu and gregg for bringing this to the WG
Guus Schreiber: thanks manu and gregg for bringing this to the WG ←
15:56:27 <cygri> ... are there potential reviewers?
... are there potential reviewers? ←
15:56:42 <manu1> scribenick: manu1
(Scribe set to Manu Sporny)
15:56:48 <cygri> ... timeframe second part of june, early july
Richard Cyganiak: ... timeframe second part of june, early july ←
15:56:53 <manu1> EricP: I'd want to do a review.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I'd want to do a review. ←
15:57:00 <manu1> AndyS: I'd be interested...
Andy Seaborne: I'd be interested... ←
15:57:07 <manu1> pchampin: I'd be interested in reviewing.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I'd be interested if time at the time in reviewing. ←
15:57:24 <manu1> Guus: We have 3 reviewers, that's good news.
Guus Schreiber: We have 3 reviewers, that's good news. ←
15:57:26 <Zakim> +LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeeF ←
15:57:36 <AndyS> s/interested/interested if time at the time/
15:57:56 <manu1> Topic: RDF spaces draft
15:58:27 <manu1> Guus: Should we discuss this document yet?
Guus Schreiber: Should we discuss this document yet? ←
15:58:36 <manu1> Sandro: Probably a good as time as any to discuss it...
Sandro Hawke: Probably a good as time as any to discuss it... ←
15:58:52 <manu1> Sandro: We may want to look at some of the other issues that we may have consensus on.
Sandro Hawke: We may want to look at some of the other issues that we may have consensus on. ←
15:58:52 <cygri> q+
Richard Cyganiak: q+ ←
15:59:06 <manu1> Guus: Given the time, I'd prefer to do this on June 13th.
Guus Schreiber: Given the time, I'd prefer to do this on June 13th. ←
15:59:26 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
15:59:33 <manu1> Richard: I think it might be useful to look at where we are from a high-level POV regarding the Graphs discussion. We have made some progress consolidating this fluid design space a bit.
Richard Cyganiak: I think it might be useful to look at where we are from a high-level POV regarding the Graphs discussion. We have made some progress consolidating this fluid design space a bit. ←
15:59:58 <sandro> all the GRAPHS issues http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/1
Sandro Hawke: all the GRAPHS issues http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/1 ←
15:59:59 <manu1> Richard: There are 3 open questions that can be treated separately - one of them is the terminology question - should we call this Graph Containers, Spaces, Stateful Resources, etc.
Richard Cyganiak: There are 3 open questions that can be treated separately - one of them is the terminology question - should we call this Graph Containers, Spaces, Stateful Resources, etc. ←
16:00:11 <ericP> +1 to graph space container resources
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 to graph space container resources ←
16:00:16 <Guus> +1 on the consensus on basic structure
Guus Schreiber: +1 on the consensus on basic structure ←
16:00:18 <PatH> I suggest putting terminology last.
Patrick Hayes: I suggest putting terminology last. ←
16:00:19 <manu1> Richard: Despite a lot of disagreement, we seem to be talking about the same basic structure - it's mostly a matter of finding terms/definitions.
Richard Cyganiak: Despite a lot of disagreement, we seem to be talking about the same basic structure - it's mostly a matter of finding terms/definitions. ←
16:00:28 <Guus> +1 to Pat
Guus Schreiber: +1 to Pat ←
16:00:54 <manu1> Richard: The second thing is the semantics - what we need to define about it to give it formal semantics - the good news is that we have a couple of proposals on the table.
Richard Cyganiak: The second thing is the semantics - what we need to define about it to give it formal semantics - the good news is that we have a couple of proposals on the table. ←
16:01:08 <manu1> Richard: There are a number of sketches on how to do this... we may be able to work out what the options are from those.
Richard Cyganiak: There are a number of sketches on how to do this... we may be able to work out what the options are from those. ←
16:01:21 <PatH> I don't see the convergence of ideas that Richard apparently sees. NOt yet, anyway.
Patrick Hayes: I don't see the convergence of ideas that Richard apparently sees. NOt yet, anyway. ←
16:01:23 <MacTed> ericP - I think you meant "stateful graph data space container resources"
Ted Thibodeau: ericP - I think you meant "stateful graph data space container resources" ←
16:02:03 <manu1> Richard: The third part is the syntax - seems like there are quite a number of open questions there - still lots of things to be talked about. We should clarify the open questions - the decisions that need to be made. N-Quads, TRiG, etc. We can treat these questions separately. Not everyone is interested in each of those discussions - we can have them in parallel.
Richard Cyganiak: The third part is the syntax - seems like there are quite a number of open questions there - still lots of things to be talked about. We should clarify the open questions - the decisions that need to be made. N-Quads, TRiG, etc. We can treat these questions separately. Not everyone is interested in each of those discussions - we can have them in parallel. ←
16:02:10 <manu1> Guus: In the third part, you really meant syntax?
Guus Schreiber: In the third part, you really meant syntax? ←
16:02:26 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
16:02:38 <LeeF> There are significant proposals for combining Turtle + TriG
Lee Feigenbaum: There are significant proposals for combining Turtle + TriG ←
16:02:40 <manu1> Guus: We never really seem to want a new syntax - proposals for adding a few RDF Classes or properties - not addition of new syntax, no?
Guus Schreiber: We never really seem to want a new syntax - proposals for adding a few RDF Classes or properties - not addition of new syntax, no? ←
16:02:40 <LeeF> that sort of thing
Lee Feigenbaum: that sort of thing ←
16:02:50 <gavinc> There are very large number of details ;)
Gavin Carothers: There are very large number of details ;) ←
16:02:53 <PatH> +1 to separation of semantics and syntax.
Patrick Hayes: +1 to separation of semantics and syntax. ←
16:03:03 <sandro> q-
Sandro Hawke: q- ←
16:03:09 <manu1> Richard: There is a question on whether N-Quads or TRiG should just be an extra feature for Turtle - not radical new proposals, but still questions that need to be answered.
Richard Cyganiak: There is a question on whether N-Quads or TRiG should just be an extra feature for Turtle - not radical new proposals, but still questions that need to be answered. ←
16:03:18 <Guus> ack sandro
Guus Schreiber: ack sandro ←
16:03:50 <manu1> Sandro: The most pointed concern is that TRiG is disjoint from Turtle - I think it's important to make curly braces optional, not a trivial syntax point at all.
Sandro Hawke: The most pointed concern is that TRiG is disjoint from Turtle - I think it's important to make curly braces optional, not a trivial syntax point at all. ←
16:04:33 <manu1> Sandro: We made some progress with g-* terminology - maybe we should use that?
Sandro Hawke: We made some progress with g-* terminology - maybe we should use that? ←
16:05:24 <sandro> graph, graphState, containsGraph
Sandro Hawke: graph, graphState, containsGraph ←
16:05:29 <manu1> Guus: We should keep to placeholder terminology...
Guus Schreiber: We should keep to placeholder terminology... ←
16:05:29 <sandro> containTriples
Sandro Hawke: containTriples ←
16:05:37 <sandro> g-rel
Sandro Hawke: g-rel ←
16:05:44 <cygri> g-rel +1
Richard Cyganiak: g-rel +1 ←
16:05:59 <cygri> also useful: g-pair
Richard Cyganiak: also useful: g-pair ←
16:06:00 <MacTed> g-rel, g-rev ? but which is which?
Ted Thibodeau: g-rel, g-rev ? but which is which? ←
16:06:02 <manu1> Discussion about terminology
Discussion about terminology ←
16:06:19 <PatH> Might be best to avoid the "contain" metaphor. We could just say hasGraph, hasTriples, etc..
Patrick Hayes: Might be best to avoid the "contain" metaphor. We could just say hasGraph, hasTriples, etc.. ←
16:06:21 <zwu2> go to jump to another meeting.
Zhe Wu: go to jump to another meeting. ←
16:06:27 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, unmute me ←
16:06:27 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should no longer be muted ←
16:06:28 <zwu2> bye guys
16:06:29 <tbaker> +1 g-relation
Thomas Baker: +1 g-relation ←
16:06:35 <AndyS> Is there one fixed relationship? Major decision.
Andy Seaborne: Is there one fixed relationship? Major decision. ←
16:06:50 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
16:06:56 <Zakim> -pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: -pfps ←
16:06:57 <manu1> Sandro: We want to get this temporary terminology correct so we don't get confused about it.
Sandro Hawke: We want to get this temporary terminology correct so we don't get confused about it. ←
16:07:09 <sandro> I like g-contains
Sandro Hawke: I like g-contains ←
16:07:12 <pchampin> was about to propose g-state
Pierre-Antoine Champin: was about to propose g-state ←
16:07:19 <ericP> gbox2gstate
Eric Prud'hommeaux: gbox2gstate ←
16:07:19 <cygri> then g-state
Richard Cyganiak: then g-state ←
16:07:26 <ericP> gbox2gbox
Eric Prud'hommeaux: gbox2gbox ←
16:07:33 <AndyS> q+
Andy Seaborne: q+ ←
16:07:36 <ericP> gbox2gsnap rather
Eric Prud'hommeaux: gbox2gsnap rather ←
16:07:39 <PatH> Reading this on IRC, I am g-confused.
Patrick Hayes: Reading this on IRC, I am g-confused. ←
16:07:56 <manu1> Sandro: We are talking about the relationship between a gBox and a gSnap....
Sandro Hawke: We are talking about the relationship between a gBox and a gSnap.... ←
16:08:03 <PatH> Ah, OK.
Patrick Hayes: Ah, OK. ←
16:08:31 <manu1> Andy: This gets back to trying to sort out semantics... we are going down a particular route here - there is another level of indirection here.
Andy Seaborne: This gets back to trying to sort out semantics... we are going down a particular route here - there is another level of indirection here. ←
16:08:33 <PatH> Its really between a gBox and a gSnap *and a time*.
Patrick Hayes: Its really between a gBox and a gSnap *and a time*. ←
16:08:47 <cygri> PatH +1
Richard Cyganiak: PatH +1 ←
16:08:48 <manu1> Andy: The various different ways and use cases we've seen say that we're constraining this.
Andy Seaborne: The various different ways and use cases we've seen say that we're constraining this. ←
16:09:01 <PatH> Or more generally a particular set of circumstances defining an access event.
Patrick Hayes: Or more generally a particular set of circumstances defining an access event. ←
16:09:02 <manu1> Sandro: Sounds like we don't even have consensus about this point.
Sandro Hawke: Sounds like we don't even have consensus about this point. ←
16:09:26 <ericP> i agree that there is a description of the use in addition to the mapping from gbox to gsnap
Eric Prud'hommeaux: i agree that there is a description of the use in addition to the mapping from gbox to gsnap ←
16:09:38 <cygri> q+ to say this is why i tried to argue against g-box
Richard Cyganiak: q+ to say this is why i tried to argue against g-box ←
16:09:49 <manu1> Andy: The relationship between the URI and the graph has at one point... two steps... degree of flexibility for use cases. If we were flexible, that's what a gBox is... by going down to terminology now, we might be covering up an important discussion.
Andy Seaborne: The relationship between the URI and the graph has at one point... two steps... degree of flexibility for use cases. If we were flexible, that's what a gBox is... by going down to terminology now, we might be covering up an important discussion. ←
16:09:56 <manu1> Sandro: Are you suggesting we can't have a placeholder?
Sandro Hawke: Are you suggesting we can't have a placeholder? ←
16:10:04 <manu1> Andy: Depends on what that placeholder is doing.
Andy Seaborne: Depends on what that placeholder is doing. ←
16:10:25 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
16:10:32 <Guus> ack AndyS
Guus Schreiber: ack AndyS ←
16:10:32 <manu1> Sandro: Placeholder for the name between the gBox and gSnap - what it has to do with the Web is not clear.
Sandro Hawke: Placeholder for the name between the gBox and gSnap - what it has to do with the Web is not clear. ←
16:11:18 <Guus> q+
Guus Schreiber: q+ ←
16:11:20 <manu1> Richard: This thing that we're talking about right now - is there really just one relationship - or does a different use case have a different relationship. This container metaphor with gBox is not such a good idea - it's stifling, makes it hard to think about this in terms that are sufficiently flexible.
Richard Cyganiak: This thing that we're talking about right now - is there really just one relationship - or does a different use case have a different relationship. This container metaphor with gBox is not such a good idea - it's stifling, makes it hard to think about this in terms that are sufficiently flexible. ←
16:11:24 <Guus> ack cygri
Guus Schreiber: ack cygri ←
16:11:24 <Zakim> cygri, you wanted to say this is why i tried to argue against g-box
Zakim IRC Bot: cygri, you wanted to say this is why i tried to argue against g-box ←
16:12:21 <manu1> Richard: I propose we say: Yes, there is only a single relationship - but we should put very little constraints on what could be a gBox. If any resource can be a gBox, then it's okay to have a single relationship to the gSnap because the flexibility is already in the fact that the graph IRI can be used to name anything.
Richard Cyganiak: I propose we say: Yes, there is only a single relationship - but we should put very little constraints on what could be a gBox. If any resource can be a gBox, then it's okay to have a single relationship to the gSnap because the flexibility is already in the fact that the graph IRI can be used to name anything. ←
16:12:29 <MacTed> saying "anything can be a gbox" seems like saying "anything can be a milk carton"... and that's not the case
Ted Thibodeau: saying "anything can be a gbox" seems like saying "anything can be a milk carton"... and that's not the case ←
16:12:38 <Guus> +1 to take this flexible view on what g-box stands for
Guus Schreiber: +1 to take this flexible view on what g-box stands for ←
16:12:46 <manu1> Richard: I think a single relationship is enough - if we don't take the gBox too literally, something very wide - then we're good (maybe)
Richard Cyganiak: I think a single relationship is enough - if we don't take the gBox too literally, something very wide - then we're good (maybe) ←
16:13:18 <pchampin> q+
16:13:21 <manu1> Guus: I agree fully with the "flexible" point of view - taking all of this flexibility into account when trying to explain it, makes it more complex to outsiders. gBox may not always be the right metaphor.
Guus Schreiber: I agree fully with the "flexible" point of view - taking all of this flexibility into account when trying to explain it, makes it more complex to outsiders. gBox may not always be the right metaphor. ←
16:13:31 <Guus> ack Guus
Guus Schreiber: ack Guus ←
16:14:19 <Guus> Suggest to go for g-relation, could be multiple
Guus Schreiber: Suggest to go for g-relation, could be multiple ←
16:14:29 <manu1> pchampin: I'm not sure I understand your point, Richard. If a gBox is restrained to be something very specific - a placeholder containing one graph at one point in time, when that might be okay. If you want to say that it's more flexible, there can be many possible relations between gBox to gSNap. I'd have exactly the opposite reasoning that you proposed.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I'm not sure I understand your point, Richard. If a gBox is restrained to be something very specific - a placeholder containing one graph at one point in time, when that might be okay. If you want to say that it's more flexible, there can be many possible relations between gBox to gSNap. I'd have exactly the opposite reasoning that you proposed. ←
16:14:30 <Guus> because of simplicity
Guus Schreiber: because of simplicity ←
16:15:02 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
16:15:04 <manu1> Richard: The flexibility is needed because one of the things that we need to be able to express in this abstract syntax is SPARQL. We can already associated an IRI with a graph - there are no constraints on the graph name.
Richard Cyganiak: The flexibility is needed because one of the things that we need to be able to express in this abstract syntax is SPARQL. We can already associated an IRI with a graph - there are no constraints on the graph name. ←
16:15:12 <manu1> q+ to discuss JSON-LD named graphs and what IRI identifies.
q+ to discuss JSON-LD named graphs and what IRI identifies. ←
16:15:29 <manu1> Richard: This flexibility needs to be in the model as well.
Richard Cyganiak: This flexibility needs to be in the model as well. ←
16:15:50 <manu1> Richard: This may be better done in written form than in discussion.
Richard Cyganiak: This may be better done in written form than in discussion. ←
16:16:05 <MacTed> q+
Ted Thibodeau: q+ ←
16:16:10 <manu1> pchampin: You consider the URI as a part of the gBox... but I don't consider the URI as a part of the gBox.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: You consider the URI as a part of the gBox... but I don't consider the URI as a part of the gBox. ←
16:16:30 <PatH> We can get into g-box metaphysics and never get back out. Semantic lesson is, it doesnt matter unless it affects a truthvalue of some triple.
Patrick Hayes: We can get into g-box metaphysics and never get back out. Semantic lesson is, it doesnt matter unless it affects a truthvalue of some triple. ←
16:17:02 <sandro> q+ to talk about the person-as-graph-name use case
Sandro Hawke: q+ to talk about the person-as-graph-name use case ←
16:17:02 <manu1> Richard: as long as we don't take a strong stance on what the IRI denotes, we're good. If we say the IRI denotes a gBox, then that sounds fine, but it's difficult to see how an IRI can denote a person.
Richard Cyganiak: as long as we don't take a strong stance on what the IRI denotes, we're good. If we say the IRI denotes a gBox, then that sounds fine, but it's difficult to see how an IRI can denote a person. ←
16:17:23 <pchampin> thanks Richard, it makes more sense to me now
Pierre-Antoine Champin: thanks Richard, it makes more sense to me now ←
16:17:26 <manu1> Sandro: can we adjourn the meeting and graph people stay on and chat.
Sandro Hawke: can we adjourn the meeting and graph people stay on and chat. ←
16:17:40 <manu1> Guus: We don't have a placeholder name for the relationship.
Guus Schreiber: We don't have a placeholder name for the relationship. ←
16:18:11 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:18:11 <manu1> Guus: meeting adjourned.
Guus Schreiber: meeting adjourned. ←
16:18:18 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
16:18:20 <Zakim> -swh
Zakim IRC Bot: -swh ←
16:18:22 <Zakim> -gavinc
Zakim IRC Bot: -gavinc ←
16:18:23 <Zakim> -AlexHall
Zakim IRC Bot: -AlexHall ←
16:18:24 <MacTed> q+ to suggest that SPARQL is actually (quantumly?)addressing gSnaps, not gBoxes, even if the gSnap is not persistent
Ted Thibodeau: q+ to suggest that SPARQL is actually (quantumly?)addressing gSnaps, not gBoxes, even if the gSnap is transient and not properly named\ ←
16:18:26 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
16:18:27 <PatH> I like the metaphor of a "source" or "emitter" of RDF rather than a container. For example, a human being can emit RDF from time to time. No problem with that.
Patrick Hayes: I like the metaphor of a "source" or "emitter" of RDF rather than a container. For example, a human being can emit RDF from time to time. No problem with that. ←
16:18:27 <Zakim> -LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeeF ←
16:18:46 <PatH> Oh, sorry, is everyone leaving?
Patrick Hayes: Oh, sorry, is everyone leaving? ←
16:18:53 <PatH> Bye guys.
Patrick Hayes: Bye guys. ←
16:18:57 <Guus> not yet, Pat
Guus Schreiber: not yet, Pat ←
16:19:00 <PatH> OK
Patrick Hayes: OK ←
16:19:13 <davidwood> We are staying after to discuss graphs...
David Wood: We are staying after to discuss graphs... ←
16:19:49 <manu1> Sandro: Richard, I think maybe that an interesting point is what we should do about folks who want to use URI of a person as the graph label in SPARQL. We agree that people do that, and the question is whether that is a reasonable thing to do or we say that is forbidden.
Sandro Hawke: Richard, I think maybe that an interesting point is what we should do about folks who want to use URI of a person as the graph label in SPARQL. We agree that people do that, and the question is whether that is a reasonable thing to do or we say that is forbidden. ←
16:20:09 <manu1> Sandro: I don't think we can forbid this... I think I'm more towards saying it's not okay... if you do that, you should keep that to yourself.
Sandro Hawke: I don't think we can forbid this... I think I'm more towards saying it's not okay... if you do that, you should keep that to yourself. ←
16:21:03 <manu1> Richard: I agree that the most important thing is that it works well for the Webby case - where yo uhave a URI, you dereference, you have triples and that's the graph that is associated with the URI.
Richard Cyganiak: I agree that the most important thing is that it works well for the Webby case - where yo uhave a URI, you dereference, you have triples and that's the graph that is associated with the URI. ←
16:21:13 <MacTed> s/even if the gSnap is not persistent/even if the gSnap is transient and not properly named\/denoted\/endowed-with-URI/
16:21:30 <manu1> Richard: I'm perfectly happy with saying that you shouldn't use the gRelation pattern.
Richard Cyganiak: I'm perfectly happy with saying that you shouldn't use the gRelation pattern. ←
16:21:52 <Zakim> -davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood ←
16:22:05 <manu1> Richard: if you find a dataset out there in the wild, then if you don't have any additional evidence to the contrary, then you should assume that's the type of relationship that's in there.
Richard Cyganiak: if you find a dataset out there in the wild, then if you don't have any additional evidence to the contrary, then you should assume that's the type of relationship that's in there. ←
16:22:16 <pchampin> I'm still interested, but I have to go too; sorry
Pierre-Antoine Champin: I'm still interested, but I have to go too; sorry ←
16:22:26 <manu1> Richard: We really don't have to forbid anything at all - we don't want to make it illegal... you can do it and nothing breaks.
Richard Cyganiak: We really don't have to forbid anything at all - we don't want to make it illegal... you can do it and nothing breaks. ←
16:22:32 <Zakim> -pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: -pchampin ←
16:22:46 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
16:22:47 <PatH> FWIW, semantics never makes anything illegal :-)
Patrick Hayes: FWIW, semantics never makes anything illegal :-) ←
16:22:51 <sandro> ack pchampin
Sandro Hawke: ack pchampin ←
16:22:53 <sandro> ack sandro
Sandro Hawke: ack sandro ←
16:22:53 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to talk about the person-as-graph-name use case
Zakim IRC Bot: sandro, you wanted to talk about the person-as-graph-name use case ←
16:22:53 <manu1> Richard: The main question is the terminology that we use - how well does it work with the corner cases that we're using?
Richard Cyganiak: The main question is the terminology that we use - how well does it work with the corner cases that we're using? ←
16:22:54 <Guus> I need to leave, but wonder where we give the advice how to give an identifier to a person
Guus Schreiber: I need to leave, but wonder where we give the advice how to give an identifier to a person ←
16:23:03 <manu1> Richard: Does it help or does it hurt - the terminology?
Richard Cyganiak: Does it help or does it hurt - the terminology? ←
16:23:16 <manu1> Richard: The most important thing is that it works well for the Web case... we shouldn't say "MUST NOT".
Richard Cyganiak: The most important thing is that it works well for the Web case... we shouldn't say "MUST NOT". ←
16:23:28 <manu1> Sandro: Are you okay with saying SHOULD NOT?
Sandro Hawke: Are you okay with saying SHOULD NOT? ←
16:23:35 <sandro> ("in public")
Sandro Hawke: ("in public") ←
16:23:40 <Zakim> -Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus ←
16:23:57 <manu1> Richard: if you publish a dataset on the Web that has dereferenceable graph names as URIs, then you should do the Webby thing.
Richard Cyganiak: if you publish a dataset on the Web that has dereferenceable graph names as URIs, then you should do the Webby thing. ←
16:24:00 <sandro> cygri: If you publish a dataset on the web that has deref URIs as graph names then you should do the webby thing
Richard Cyganiak: If you publish a dataset on the web that has deref URIs as graph names then you should do the webby thing [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:24:13 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
16:24:32 <sandro> q+ to say it's not just deref URIs.
Sandro Hawke: q+ to say it's not just deref URIs. ←
16:24:43 <MacTed> "signing graphs" means "signing gSnaps" -- it *has* to.
Ted Thibodeau: "signing graphs" means "signing gSnaps" -- it *has* to. ←
16:24:49 <MacTed> not gBoxes.
Ted Thibodeau: not gBoxes. ←
16:24:51 <PatH> Issue is not what publishers do, but what others do downstream with those RDF sources.
Patrick Hayes: Issue is not what publishers do, but what others do downstream with those RDF sources. ←
16:25:06 <sandro> yes MacTed (or g-text)
Sandro Hawke: yes MacTed (or g-text) ←
16:25:07 <ericP> manu1: we use named graphs for signatures in RDFa and JSON-LD. It's problematic when the language (RDFa) doesn't support named graphs, but still has to express a signature on a named graph.
Manu Sporny: we use named graphs for signatures in RDFa and JSON-LD. It's problematic when the language (RDFa) doesn't support named graphs, but still has to express a signature on a named graph. [ Scribe Assist by Eric Prud'hommeaux ] ←
16:25:31 <ericP> ... we haven't said that it e.g. MUST include a hash, timestamp, etc.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... we haven't said that it e.g. MUST include a hash, timestamp, etc. ←
16:25:55 <PatH> A publishes some RDF with a Webby IRI this:one, then B creates a dataset with that RDF associated with a uri that:one which denotes a human being. NOt A's fault.
Patrick Hayes: A publishes some RDF with a Webby IRI this:one, then B creates a dataset with that RDF associated with a uri that:one which denotes a human being. NOt A's fault. ←
16:26:34 <PatH> And C says this:one owl:sameAs that:one
Patrick Hayes: And C says this:one owl:sameAs that:one ←
16:26:36 <AndyS> +1 toPatH
Andy Seaborne: +1 toPatH ←
16:26:43 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
16:27:37 <ericP> ... we use a subject identifier as a graph identifier in signing, we don't see a way around this while staying flexible
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... we use a subject identifier as a graph identifier in signing, we don't see a way around this while staying flexible ←
16:28:23 <ericP> ... because RDFa will not have graph support for a long time, this group should not limit how RDFa users can use graphs
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... because RDFa will not have graph support for a long time, this group should not limit how RDFa users can use graphs ←
16:28:27 <PatH> MacTed, couldnt we have a notion of a 'locked' (fixed) g-box? And then sign that? Then there only has to be one kind of thing (g-boxes) but some of them have a special status.
Patrick Hayes: MacTed, couldnt we have a notion of a 'locked' (fixed) g-box? And then sign that? Then there only has to be one kind of thing (g-boxes) but some of them have a special status. ←
16:29:25 <ericP> ... <asset1> { <asset1> :price $22; }. <asset1> signatureValue "OGQzNGVkMzVmMmQ3ODIyOWM32MzQzNmExMgoYzI4ZDY3NjI4NTIyZTk=". <-- The second statement applies to the graph, and is not data in the graph.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: ... <asset1> { <asset1> :price $22; }. <asset1> signatureValue "OGQzNGVkMzVmMmQ3ODIyOWM32MzQzNmExMgoYzI4ZDY3NjI4NTIyZTk=". <-- The second statement applies to the graph, and is not data in the graph. ←
16:29:35 <MacTed> PatH - the 'locked' g-box *is* a g-snap
Ted Thibodeau: PatH - the 'locked' g-box *is* a g-snap ←
16:29:54 <MacTed> so a g-snap *might* be a subclass of g-box...
Ted Thibodeau: so a g-snap *might* be a subclass of g-box... ←
16:30:11 <PatH> No, its not. Sematnically its a lot easier if we keep one category, even if they have several subclasses.
Patrick Hayes: No, its not. Sematnically its a lot easier if we keep one category, even if they have several subclasses. ←
16:30:24 <manu1> "@type": "GraphSignature2011",
"@type": "GraphSignature2011", ←
16:30:26 <manu1> "creator": "http://manu.sporny.org/webid#key-5",
"creator": "http://manu.sporny.org/webid#key-5", ←
16:30:28 <manu1> "signatureValue": "OGQzNGVkMzVmMmQ3ODIyOWM32MzQzNmExMgoYzI4ZDY3NjI4NTIyZTk="
"signatureValue": "OGQzNGVkMzVmMmQ3ODIyOWM32MzQzNmExMgoYzI4ZDY3NjI4NTIyZTk=" ←
16:30:56 <manu1> <asset1> sec:signature [ ... ];
<asset1> sec:signature [ ... ]; ←
16:31:15 <PatH> g-snap is what you get out of the g-box, in all cases. When the box is 'locked', its the same snap every time. Guaranteed.
Patrick Hayes: g-snap is what you get out of the g-box, in all cases. When the box is 'locked', its the same snap every time. Guaranteed. ←
16:31:30 <ericP> what if you're selling a signature?
Eric Prud'hommeaux: what if you're selling a signature? ←
16:32:06 <MacTed> PatH - gBoxMutable, gBoxImmutable ?
Ted Thibodeau: PatH - gBoxMutable, gBoxImmutable ? ←
16:32:27 <PatH> The old named-graphs paper had a lot of ideas about secure signing in it, might be worth checking it out.
Patrick Hayes: The old named-graphs paper had a lot of ideas about secure signing in it, might be worth checking it out. ←
16:32:44 <PatH> Bizer & Carroll did it.
Patrick Hayes: Bizer & Carroll did it. ←
16:32:54 <PatH> MacTed, yes exactly.
Patrick Hayes: MacTed, yes exactly. ←
16:35:18 <MacTed> with gBoxMutable, gSnap-time1 may differ from gSnap-time2
Ted Thibodeau: with gBoxMutable, gSnap-time1 may differ from gSnap-time2 ←
16:35:18 <MacTed> with gBoxImmutable, gSnap-time1 will always be (equal? equivalent? identical modulo ordering?) to gSnap-time2
Ted Thibodeau: with gBoxImmutable, gSnap-time1 will always be (equal? equivalent? identical modulo ordering?) to gSnap-time2 ←
16:35:32 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
16:35:32 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, manu1, cygri, AZ, AndyS, MacTed, EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Sandro, manu1, cygri, AZ, AndyS, MacTed, EricP ←
16:36:43 <Zakim> -EricP
Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←
16:37:08 <PatH> I have to leave very soon.
Patrick Hayes: I have to leave very soon. ←
16:37:39 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
16:37:45 <AndyS> sounds like ETL in disguise
Andy Seaborne: sounds like ETL in disguise ←
16:39:36 <manu1> Richard: Maybe we don't need to take a position on whether or something is a gBox - we could just say resources could have state.
Richard Cyganiak: Maybe we don't need to take a position on whether or something is a gBox - we could just say resources could have state. ←
16:40:03 <manu1> Richard: What kind of thing could have state - could have content - our model of the Web/World - anything can have an associated graph state.
Richard Cyganiak: What kind of thing could have state - could have content - our model of the Web/World - anything can have an associated graph state. ←
16:40:23 <manu1> Sandro: I pretty much agree with that - how do we explain that to the rest of the world - maybe no terminology would be best.
Sandro Hawke: I pretty much agree with that - how do we explain that to the rest of the world - maybe no terminology would be best. ←
16:40:29 <MacTed> "resources can have state" -- essentially rephrases "context lenses" through which to view a resource...
Ted Thibodeau: "resources can have state" -- essentially rephrases "context lenses" through which to view a resource... ←
16:40:44 <Zakim> -manu1
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu1 ←
16:40:46 <Zakim> -cygri
Zakim IRC Bot: -cygri ←
16:40:48 <Zakim> -MacTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←
16:40:48 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:40:49 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
16:40:51 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
16:40:51 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended ←
16:40:51 <Zakim> Attendees were Guus, Ivan, AndyS, davidwood, gkellogg, Sandro, pfps, Tom_Baker, manu1, cygri, AZ, +1.443.212.aaaa, AlexHall, gavinc, zwu2, MacTed, pchampin, swh, EricP, LeeF
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were Guus, Ivan, AndyS, davidwood, gkellogg, Sandro, pfps, Tom_Baker, manu1, cygri, AZ, +1.443.212.aaaa, AlexHall, gavinc, zwu2, MacTed, pchampin, swh, EricP, LeeF ←
Formatted by CommonScribe