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