edit

RDF Working Group Teleconference

Minutes of 09 October 2013

Seen
Andy Seaborne, Antoine Zimmermann, Arnaud Le Hors, David Wood, Eric Prud'hommeaux, Gregg Kellogg, Ivan Herman, Markus Lanthaler, Patrick Hayes, Peter Patel-Schneider, Sandro Hawke, Souripriya Das, Ted Thibodeau, Zhe Wu
Scribe
Gregg Kellogg
IRC Log
Original
Resolutions
  1. Accept the minutes of the 9 Oct telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-02 link
Topics
15:00:47 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/09-rdf-wg-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/10/09-rdf-wg-irc ←

15:00:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world

Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←

15:00:51 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394

Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←

15:00:51 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now ←

15:00:52 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:00:52 <trackbot> Date: 09 October 2013
15:01:40 <TallTed> Zakim, this is rdf

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, this is rdf ←

15:01:40 <Zakim> ok, TallTed; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, TallTed; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←

15:01:43 <TallTed> Zakim, who's here?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←

15:01:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see [GVoice], OpenLink_Software

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see [GVoice], OpenLink_Software ←

15:01:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, ivan, gkellogg, AndyS, TallTed, davidwood, yvesr, manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, ivan, gkellogg, AndyS, TallTed, davidwood, yvesr, manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP ←

15:01:52 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←

15:01:53 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←

15:01:53 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←

15:01:53 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←

15:02:02 <Zakim> +Danny

Zakim IRC Bot: +Danny ←

15:02:28 <pfps> zakim, who is here?

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is here? ←

15:02:28 <Zakim> On the phone I see [GVoice], TallTed (muted), Danny

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see [GVoice], TallTed (muted), Danny ←

15:02:29 <Zakim> On IRC I see Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, ivan, gkellogg, AndyS, TallTed, davidwood, yvesr, manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, ivan, gkellogg, AndyS, TallTed, davidwood, yvesr, manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP ←

15:02:35 <Zakim> +Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←

15:02:40 <pfps> zakim, gvoice is me

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, gvoice is me ←

15:02:40 <Zakim> +pfps; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps; got it ←

15:02:45 <Zakim> +Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←

15:02:53 <Zakim> +PatH

Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←

15:03:00 <ivan> zakim, mute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←

15:03:00 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←

15:03:15 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←

15:03:19 <AndyS> zakim, IPcaller is me

Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPcaller is me ←

15:03:19 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←

15:03:45 <Zakim> -pfps

Zakim IRC Bot: -pfps ←

15:03:55 <pfps> zakim, who is here?

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is here? ←

15:03:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see TallTed (muted), Danny, Arnaud, Ivan (muted), PatH, AndyS

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see TallTed (muted), Danny, Arnaud, Ivan (muted), PatH, AndyS ←

15:03:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see PatH, Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, ivan, gkellogg, AndyS, TallTed, davidwood, yvesr, manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see PatH, Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, ivan, gkellogg, AndyS, TallTed, davidwood, yvesr, manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP ←

15:04:15 <Zakim> + +1.415.686.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.415.686.aaaa ←

15:04:19 <gkellogg> zakim, I am aaaa

Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am aaaa ←

15:04:19 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←

15:04:30 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aabb

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.898.aabb ←

15:04:31 <Zakim> +EricM

Zakim IRC Bot: +EricM ←

15:04:37 <davidwood> Zakim, I am aabb

David Wood: Zakim, I am aabb ←

15:04:37 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it ←

15:05:06 <gkellogg> scribe: gkellogg

(Scribe set to Gregg Kellogg)

15:05:24 <gkellogg> scribenick: gkellogg
15:06:00 <davidwood> Zakim, who is here?

David Wood: Zakim, who is here? ←

15:06:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see TallTed (muted), Danny, Arnaud, Ivan (muted), PatH, AndyS, gkellogg, davidwood, EricM

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see TallTed (muted), Danny, Arnaud, Ivan (muted), PatH, AndyS, gkellogg, davidwood, EricM ←

15:06:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see markus, PatH, Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, ivan, gkellogg, AndyS, TallTed, davidwood, yvesr, manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see markus, PatH, Arnaud, Zakim, RRSAgent, pfps, ivan, gkellogg, AndyS, TallTed, davidwood, yvesr, manu, trackbot, sandro, ericP ←

15:06:10 <pfps> zakim, who is talking?

Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is talking? ←

15:06:17 <Zakim> +??P28

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P28 ←

15:06:18 <markus> zakim, ??P28 is me

Markus Lanthaler: zakim, ??P28 is me ←

15:06:18 <Zakim> +markus; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +markus; got it ←

15:06:19 <davidwood> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 9 Oct telecon:

David Wood: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 9 Oct telecon: ←

15:06:19 <davidwood>

David Wood: ←

15:06:19 <davidwood>    https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-02

David Wood: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-02 ←

15:06:22 <Zakim> pfps, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (18%)

Zakim IRC Bot: pfps, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: davidwood (18%) ←

15:06:24 <sandro> zakim, EricM is temporarily Sandro

Sandro Hawke: zakim, EricM is temporarily Sandro ←

15:06:24 <Zakim> +Sandro; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro; got it ←

15:07:33 <davidwood> RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of the 9 Oct telecon:  https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-02

RESOLVED: Accept the minutes of the 9 Oct telecon: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-02 ←

15:07:53 <davidwood> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview

David Wood: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/pendingreview ←

15:08:00 <gkellogg> topic: open action items

1. open action items

15:08:31 <pfps> I changed the status of a number of items that appear to be done

Peter Patel-Schneider: I changed the status of a number of items that appear to be done ←

15:10:06 <gkellogg> davidwood: guus has an agenda item about public responses. His preferences would be that editors send an ack of receipt and create an issue for it.

David Wood: guus has an agenda item about public responses. His preferences would be that editors send an ack of receipt and create an issue for it. ←

15:10:23 <gkellogg> … Other members of the group should not comment on public-rdf-comments until we've had a chance to discuss it.

… Other members of the group should not comment on public-rdf-comments until we've had a chance to discuss it. ←

15:10:53 <gkellogg> … (either email or on telecon). We should agree if anyone other than editors will make a response.

… (either email or on telecon). We should agree if anyone other than editors will make a response. ←

15:11:18 <sandro> pfps, are you going to be able to get on the phone soon?

Sandro Hawke: pfps, are you going to be able to get on the phone soon? ←

15:11:23 <davidwood> pfps, do you want us to wait to discuss the test suite for Semantics?  Will you be able to join by phone later?

David Wood: pfps, do you want us to wait to discuss the test suite for Semantics? Will you be able to join by phone later? ←

15:11:32 <PatH> peter, can we do the sematnics test suite or does it need phone input?

Patrick Hayes: peter, can we do the sematnics test suite or does it need phone input? ←

15:12:08 <pfps> let's wait for a bit

Peter Patel-Schneider: let's wait for a bit ←

15:12:12 <davidwood> ok

David Wood: ok ←

15:12:23 <gkellogg> topic: Turtle

2. Turtle

15:12:33 <sandro> pfps, we're moving on for now, hoping you'll join us soon.

Sandro Hawke: pfps, we're moving on for now, hoping you'll join us soon. ←

15:12:54 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-mobile

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, please dial ericP-mobile ←

15:12:54 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ericP; the call is being made ←

15:12:55 <Zakim> +EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←

15:13:03 <gkellogg> davidwood: issue-119, spec should reference the test suite

David Wood: ISSUE-119, spec should reference the test suite ←

15:14:14 <gkellogg> action: ericp to update Turtle ED to reference the test suite.

ACTION: ericp to update Turtle ED to reference the test suite. ←

15:14:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-306 - Update turtle ed to reference the test suite. [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-10-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-306 - Update turtle ed to reference the test suite. [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-10-16]. ←

15:14:31 <gkellogg> ericp: I had to do some stuff by hand to the publication, so that needs to be copied back.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I had to do some stuff by hand to the publication, so that needs to be copied back. ←

15:14:32 <Zakim> + +81.16.5.aacc

Zakim IRC Bot: + +81.16.5.aacc ←

15:14:43 <gkellogg> action-152?

ACTION-152? ←

15:14:43 <trackbot> action-152 -- Gavin Carothers to Create new issue for :'s in the local part of prefix names -- due 2012-03-21 -- CLOSED

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-152 -- Gavin Carothers to Create new issue for :'s in the local part of prefix names -- due 2012-03-21 -- CLOSED ←

15:14:43 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/152

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/152 ←

15:14:44 <AZ> Zakim, aacc is me

Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, aacc is me ←

15:14:44 <Zakim> +AZ; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←

15:15:00 <Zakim> -AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←

15:15:12 <gkellogg> ericp: We're not inventing much, and there's no current candidate for how to do this reification.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: We're not inventing much, and there's no current candidate for how to do this reification. ←

15:15:31 <gkellogg> … Did it disappear?

… Did it disappear? ←

15:15:33 <Zakim> +AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ ←

15:15:36 <gkellogg> sandro: I don't think so.

Sandro Hawke: I don't think so. ←

15:15:59 <Zakim> +Souri

Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri ←

15:16:18 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-reifying     2.17 Reifying Statements: rdf:ID

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-reifying 2.17 Reifying Statements: rdf:ID ←

15:16:19 <gkellogg> ericp: I prepose we say that there's no existing proposal for this; we're largely sticking with Turtle from before we got docs. There's no plan to do something about this, very sorry.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I prepose we say that there's no existing proposal for this; we're largely sticking with Turtle from before we got docs. There's no plan to do something about this, very sorry. ←

15:16:35 <gkellogg> davidwood: fine with ericp giving a response.

David Wood: fine with ericp giving a response. ←

15:16:50 <gkellogg> ericp: not that WG has provided a standard for datasets and "named graphs"

Eric Prud'hommeaux: not that WG has provided a standard for datasets and "named graphs" ←

15:16:57 <gkellogg> davidwood: point him to TriG

David Wood: point him to TriG ←

15:17:19 <gkellogg> action: ericp to respond to Joe Rockmore relating to issue-152 and close if okay

ACTION: ericp to respond to Joe Rockmore relating to ISSUE-152 and close if okay ←

15:17:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-307 - Respond to joe rockmore relating to issue-152 and close if okay [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-10-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-307 - Respond to joe rockmore relating to ISSUE-152 and close if okay [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-10-16]. ←

15:17:44 <gkellogg> eric: another substantial issue which none addressed.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: another substantial issue which none addressed. ←

15:18:02 <gkellogg> … There was a question from Jan ???; is there any versioning on Turtle.

… There was a question from Jan ???; is there any versioning on Turtle. ←

15:18:06 <Zakim> + +1.619.663.aadd

Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.619.663.aadd ←

15:18:16 <gkellogg> … Can I say that there is no proposal for versioning turtle.

… Can I say that there is no proposal for versioning turtle. ←

15:18:17 <zwu2> zakim, +1.619.663.aadd is me

Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.619.663.aadd is me ←

15:18:17 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it ←

15:18:37 <gkellogg> … It would help people if using accept headers to use new or old turtle.

… It would help people if using accept headers to use new or old turtle. ←

15:18:56 <gkellogg> … It's possible that adding a media-type parameter would keep us from having to do another LC

… It's possible that adding a media-type parameter would keep us from having to do another LC ←

15:19:04 <gkellogg> davidwood: it would be nice to do something.

David Wood: it would be nice to do something. ←

15:19:16 <gkellogg> ericp: it would help people trying to make the transformation.

Eric Prud'hommeaux: it would help people trying to make the transformation. ←

15:19:28 <AndyS> q+

Andy Seaborne: q+ ←

15:19:35 <Zakim> +[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←

15:19:36 <gkellogg> action: ericp to write up proposal for adding a parameter to the media type registration, if it doesn't require a new LC

ACTION: ericp to write up proposal for adding a parameter to the media type registration, if it doesn't require a new LC ←

15:19:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-308 - Write up proposal for adding a parameter to the media type registration, if it doesn't require a new lc [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-10-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-308 - Write up proposal for adding a parameter to the media type registration, if it doesn't require a new lc [on Eric Prud'hommeaux - due 2013-10-16]. ←

15:19:49 <ericP> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Apr/0057.html

Eric Prud'hommeaux: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Apr/0057.html ←

15:19:52 <AndyS> media type games do not work.

Andy Seaborne: media type games do not work. ←

15:19:57 <Zakim> -[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[GVoice] ←

15:20:09 <gkellogg> ericp: I think it's comment 33 in the CR LC comments

Eric Prud'hommeaux: I think it's comment 33 in the CR LC comments ←

15:20:12 <ericP> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments

Eric Prud'hommeaux: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments ←

15:20:40 <Zakim> -EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←

15:21:07 <gkellogg> topic: JSON-LD

3. JSON-LD

15:21:08 <AndyS> This is a substantive change to TTL if the MIME type registration changes IMO

Andy Seaborne: This is a substantive change to TTL if the MIME type registration changes IMO ←

15:21:09 <ericP> issue: media type parameter for Turtle

ISSUE: media type parameter for Turtle ←

15:21:10 <trackbot> Error creating an ISSUE: an internal error occurred.  Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Error creating an ISSUE: an internal error occurred. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened. ←

15:21:20 <ericP> issue: media type parameter for Turtle

ISSUE: media type parameter for Turtle ←

15:21:20 <trackbot> Error creating an ISSUE: an internal error occurred.  Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Error creating an ISSUE: an internal error occurred. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened. ←

15:21:37 <gkellogg> davidwood: what's the implication of semantics and comments not being in CR for JSON-LD PR transition?

David Wood: what's the implication of semantics and comments not being in CR for JSON-LD PR transition? ←

15:22:01 <ericP> issue: media type parameter for Turtle

ISSUE: media type parameter for Turtle ←

15:22:02 <trackbot> Error creating an ISSUE: an internal error occurred.  Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Error creating an ISSUE: an internal error occurred. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened. ←

15:22:03 <gkellogg> … Right now, JSON-LD and JSON-LD-API point to Concepts LC with informative semantics, schema and turtle.

… Right now, JSON-LD and JSON-LD-API point to Concepts LC with informative semantics, schema and turtle. ←

15:22:15 <gkellogg> … JSON-LD-API has norm to semantics and inform to Turtle.

… JSON-LD-API has norm to semantics and inform to Turtle. ←

15:22:18 <AndyS> q-

Andy Seaborne: q- ←

15:22:29 <gkellogg> … I thought we could leave a norm ref to an LC doc

… I thought we could leave a norm ref to an LC doc ←

15:22:42 <ericP> action: beat the tracker into submission and create an issue for a version media type parameter in Turtle

ACTION: beat the tracker into submission and create an issue for a version media type parameter in Turtle ←

15:22:42 <trackbot> Error finding 'beat'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/users>.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Error finding 'beat'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/users>. ←

15:22:46 <gkellogg> sandro: The normal rule is you can only go back one level, a PR can only  point to a CR, not LC.

Sandro Hawke: The normal rule is you can only go back one level, a PR can only point to a CR, not LC. ←

15:23:00 <gkellogg> … Although, we've been moving more to "how stable is this material"

… Although, we've been moving more to "how stable is this material" ←

15:23:02 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

15:23:10 <gkellogg> … We'd be asking for a waver on the rules to do this.

… We'd be asking for a waver on the rules to do this. ←

15:23:13 <ivan> zakim, unmute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me ←

15:23:13 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should no longer be muted ←

15:23:16 <Zakim> +[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←

15:23:23 <gkellogg> … I think JSON-LD isn't ready due to another dependency problem.

… I think JSON-LD isn't ready due to another dependency problem. ←

15:23:40 <gkellogg> … Even if we could go to PR, do we want the REC to point to something other than the other REC?

… Even if we could go to PR, do we want the REC to point to something other than the other REC? ←

15:24:15 <gkellogg> sandro: we can't make a change to the rec after publication.

Sandro Hawke: we can't make a change to the rec after publication. ←

15:24:18 <PatH> ivan?

Patrick Hayes: ivan? ←

15:24:29 <davidwood> ack ivan

David Wood: ack ivan ←

15:24:30 <gkellogg> davidwood: we've done with LC for semantics and concepts, we just need to clean up

David Wood: we've done with LC for semantics and concepts, we just need to clean up ←

15:24:55 <gkellogg> ivan: the issue is when we publish REC for JSON-LD, the clean way to do it is to publish them all together.

Ivan Herman: the issue is when we publish REC for JSON-LD, the clean way to do it is to publish them all together. ←

15:25:15 <gkellogg> … Anything else will lead to long discussions. I think we're only talking about 1-2 weeks.

… Anything else will lead to long discussions. I think we're only talking about 1-2 weeks. ←

15:25:30 <gkellogg> … An edited document needs to go through same AC voting.

… An edited document needs to go through same AC voting. ←

15:25:49 <gkellogg> sandro: we're talking about 2 months; they want to go no, and the rest are in December

Sandro Hawke: we're talking about 2 months; they want to go no, and the rest are in December ←

15:27:16 <gkellogg> ivan: I don't see this as being solvable. Going to CR now, providing we get the other docs in as well.. The publication of the REC would wait a few months, but in some sense, it looks more ridiculous if we publish a REC in Dec and an edited version a few months later.

Ivan Herman: I don't see this as being solvable. Going to CR now, providing we get the other docs in as well.. The publication of the REC would wait a few months, but in some sense, it looks more ridiculous if we publish a REC in Dec and an edited version a few months later. ←

15:27:30 <gkellogg> sandro: not sure the world can tell the difference between PR/CR and REC

Sandro Hawke: not sure the world can tell the difference between PR/CR and REC ←

15:27:44 <gkellogg> … I also don't think JSON-LD is ready because of Promises.

… I also don't think JSON-LD is ready because of Promises. ←

15:27:54 <PatH> pfps, we are talking baout JSON publication being delayed by references to RDF.

Patrick Hayes: pfps, we are talking baout JSON publication being delayed by references to RDF. ←

15:28:03 <gkellogg> ivan: I believe the dependencies go to a non-normative section.

Ivan Herman: I believe the dependencies go to a non-normative section. ←

15:28:26 <gkellogg> … In this sense, we may have to go through a second LC until Promises is resolved.

… In this sense, we may have to go through a second LC until Promises is resolved. ←

15:28:36 <gkellogg> davidwood: the shortest path is to move concepts and semantics to CR

David Wood: the shortest path is to move concepts and semantics to CR ←

15:28:56 <ivan> zakim, mute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, mute me ←

15:28:56 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←

15:29:20 <gkellogg> … If we can get concepts & semantics to CR we can push JSON-LD docs to PR

… If we can get concepts & semantics to CR we can push JSON-LD docs to PR ←

15:29:27 <davidwood> Topic: LC Comments on Concepts, Semantics

4. LC Comments on Concepts, Semantics

15:29:27 <gkellogg> topic: Concepts and Semantics

5. Concepts and Semantics

15:29:35 <PatH> pfps, not yet.

Patrick Hayes: pfps, not yet. ←

15:29:49 <davidwood> ISSUE-142?

David Wood: ISSUE-142? ←

15:29:49 <trackbot> ISSUE-142 -- LC comment: rdfs:Graph ? comment -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-142 -- LC comment: rdfs:Graph ? comment -- open ←

15:29:49 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/142

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/142 ←

15:29:51 <gkellogg> davidwood: we're now looking at issue-142

David Wood: we're now looking at ISSUE-142 ←

15:30:42 <gkellogg> pfps: I believe we discussed last week and declined it.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I believe we discussed last week and declined it. ←

15:30:46 <ivan> because nobody answered

Ivan Herman: because nobody answered ←

15:30:49 <ivan> :-)

Ivan Herman: :-) ←

15:30:53 <gkellogg> sandro: someone was supposed to reply to him

Sandro Hawke: someone was supposed to reply to him ←

15:30:55 <ivan> zakim, unmute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me ←

15:30:55 <Zakim> Ivan should no longer be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should no longer be muted ←

15:31:05 <PatH> I dont think a formal reply was sent (?)

Patrick Hayes: I dont think a formal reply was sent (?) ←

15:31:44 <gkellogg> ivan: I think pfps is right, we forced through a resolution to close it, but we stopped there and didn't give an action to send a reply back to Jeremy

Ivan Herman: I think pfps is right, we forced through a resolution to close it, but we stopped there and didn't give an action to send a reply back to Jeremy ←

15:31:59 <gkellogg> path: I agreed with pfps

Patrick Hayes: I agreed with pfps ←

15:32:17 <gkellogg> ivan: we agreed that the REC will not touch anything around datasets anymore

Ivan Herman: we agreed that the REC will not touch anything around datasets anymore ←

15:33:11 <AndyS> action-304?

Andy Seaborne: ACTION-304? ←

15:33:11 <trackbot> action-304 -- Peter Patel-Schneider to Send a proposed response to jeremy to the wg for comments -- due 2013-10-09 -- CLOSED

Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-304 -- Peter Patel-Schneider to Send a proposed response to jeremy to the wg for comments -- due 2013-10-09 -- CLOSED ←

15:33:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/304

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/304 ←

15:33:18 <gkellogg> sandro: pfps took the action on this, and action-304 on pfps to send to WG

Sandro Hawke: pfps took the action on this, and ACTION-304 on pfps to send to WG ←

15:33:36 <gkellogg> pfps: that's been done (I think)

Peter Patel-Schneider: that's been done (I think) ←

15:33:59 <AndyS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0097.html

Andy Seaborne: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0097.html ←

15:34:09 <gkellogg> path: the email thread ended with everyone agreeing, but no-one doing anything

Patrick Hayes: the email thread ended with everyone agreeing, but no-one doing anything ←

15:35:26 <gkellogg> sandro: meta-comment, please put "-" between "issue" and number so tracker can pick them up.

Sandro Hawke: meta-comment, please put "-" between "issue" and number so tracker can pick them up. ←

15:35:57 <gkellogg> pfps: Jeremy's comment in issue-38, and who to track in issue-142

Peter Patel-Schneider: Jeremy's comment in ISSUE-38, and who to track in ISSUE-142 ←

15:36:16 <gkellogg> path: issue-142 quotes from Jeremy's comments, but doesn't mention OWL.

Patrick Hayes: ISSUE-142 quotes from Jeremy's comments, but doesn't mention OWL. ←

15:36:31 <gkellogg> davidwood: what I see in Jeremy's comments was issue-35

David Wood: what I see in Jeremy's comments was ISSUE-35 ←

15:36:45 <gkellogg> sandro: I believe he said that one was supplanting the other.

Sandro Hawke: I believe he said that one was supplanting the other. ←

15:36:56 <gkellogg> pfps: then something is messed up with ???

Peter Patel-Schneider: then something is messed up with ??? ←

15:36:59 <davidwood> Looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Concepts_and_Semantics_Last_Call_Comments

David Wood: Looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Concepts_and_Semantics_Last_Call_Comments ←

15:36:59 <markus> I think this response is for ISSUE-151: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/151

Markus Lanthaler: I think this response is for ISSUE-151: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/151 ←

15:37:31 <gkellogg> davidwood: the LC Comments say that pfps proposed to issue-38, which relates to issue-151.

David Wood: the LC Comments say that pfps proposed to ISSUE-38, which relates to ISSUE-151. ←

15:37:32 <AZ> ISSUE-38 and ISSUE-35 are very similar

Antoine Zimmermann: ISSUE-38 and ISSUE-35 are very similar ←

15:37:57 <gkellogg> path: at some level, they're the same issue.

Patrick Hayes: at some level, they're the same issue. ←

15:38:10 <gkellogg> sandro: I think in our reply we can address several at once.

Sandro Hawke: I think in our reply we can address several at once. ←

15:38:23 <AZ> ISSUE-35 is about rdfs:Graph while ISSUE-38 is more generally about any vocabulary that would allow to talk about graphs

Antoine Zimmermann: ISSUE-35 is about rdfs:Graph while ISSUE-38 is more generally about any vocabulary that would allow to talk about graphs ←

15:39:01 <gkellogg> davidwood: how about combining issue-35, issue-38, issue-142, and issue-151

David Wood: how about combining ISSUE-35, ISSUE-38, ISSUE-142, and ISSUE-151 ←

15:39:29 <gkellogg> pfps: I would like to excise the "owl:imports" issue from the other bits. If we don't, it will continue to infect every other issue.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I would like to excise the "owl:imports" issue from the other bits. If we don't, it will continue to infect every other issue. ←

15:39:51 <gkellogg> … I'd like to get a clean break on "owl:imports" and say that the WG isn't going to touch that.

… I'd like to get a clean break on "owl:imports" and say that the WG isn't going to touch that. ←

15:40:20 <gkellogg> sandro: I don't think that's the specific issue, just an example. You need to say how it works with RDF

Sandro Hawke: I don't think that's the specific issue, just an example. You need to say how it works with RDF ←

15:40:45 <gkellogg> davidwood: The proposed response is that it's out of scope for this WG

David Wood: The proposed response is that it's out of scope for this WG ←

15:40:58 <gkellogg> sandro: it's not, "owl:imports" is specifically, but the issue it raises isn't

Sandro Hawke: it's not, "owl:imports" is specifically, but the issue it raises isn't ←

15:41:16 <davidwood> Peter's proposed response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0097.html

David Wood: Peter's proposed response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0097.html ←

15:41:49 <gkellogg> sandro: I agree with this response, but it disagrees with pfps

Sandro Hawke: I agree with what davidw is saying, but it disagrees with pfps ←

15:42:02 <Zakim> -[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[GVoice] ←

15:42:07 <pfps> That's my message!

Peter Patel-Schneider: That's my message! ←

15:42:15 <davidwood> Further, if you look at the top two lines of http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Concepts_and_Semantics_Last_Call_Comments I think you will agree that that the response column entries are swapped.

David Wood: Further, if you look at the top two lines of http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Concepts_and_Semantics_Last_Call_Comments I think you will agree that that the response column entries are swapped. ←

15:42:45 <sandro> s/this response/what davidw is saying/
15:43:00 <gkellogg> davidwood: pfps' proposed response to Jeremy says that the practice ...

David Wood: pfps' proposed response to Jeremy says that the practice ... ←

15:43:03 <Zakim> +[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←

15:43:16 <gkellogg> … The WG won't be addressing this, and it should be raised against OWL.

… The WG won't be addressing this, and it should be raised against OWL. ←

15:43:52 <gkellogg> … sandro and I said the response is insufficient, as Jeremy is just using this as an example to illustrate his point on graph naming. We need to respond to that, and not on "owl:imports" specifically.

… sandro and I said the response is insufficient, as Jeremy is just using this as an example to illustrate his point on graph naming. We need to respond to that, and not on "owl:imports" specifically. ←

15:44:29 <gkellogg> pfps: if we're doing "owl:imports" and graph names in issue-38, then I think it is about "owl:imports".

Peter Patel-Schneider: if we're doing "owl:imports" and graph names in ISSUE-38, then I think it is about "owl:imports". ←

15:44:47 <gkellogg> … How can this not be about "owl:imports"

… How can this not be about "owl:imports" ←

15:45:02 <gkellogg> path: because the only relevant point is that "owl:imports" references a graph.

Patrick Hayes: because the only relevant point is that "owl:imports" references a graph. ←

15:45:21 <gkellogg> sandro: he's not saying that "owl:imports" doesn't work, but it doesn't work when you put it in a dataset

Sandro Hawke: he's not saying that "owl:imports" doesn't work, but it doesn't work when you put it in a dataset ←

15:45:43 <gkellogg> … Datasets are a new thing, and we should say how existing stuff, like "owl:imports", works with the new stuff we're creating.

… Datasets are a new thing, and we should say how existing stuff, like "owl:imports", works with the new stuff we're creating. ←

15:46:00 <gkellogg> davidwood: Jeremy's saying that the new stuff breaks "owl:imports"

David Wood: Jeremy's saying that the new stuff breaks "owl:imports" ←

15:46:30 <AndyS> In "owl:imports" it refers to a g-box.

Andy Seaborne: In "owl:imports" it refers to a g-box. ←

15:46:38 <AZ> "owl:imports" does not force the imported thing to denote a graph at all

Antoine Zimmermann: "owl:imports" does not force the imported thing to denote a graph at all ←

15:46:38 <gkellogg> path: it's not that it breaks "owl:imports", it breaks the presumption that "owl:imports" <foo> that <foo> references a graph.

Patrick Hayes: it's not that it breaks "owl:imports", it breaks the presumption that "owl:imports" <foo> that <foo> references a graph. ←

15:46:46 <ivan> q+

Ivan Herman: q+ ←

15:46:54 <gkellogg> pfps: "owl:imports" doesn't work that way, it's very delicate.

Peter Patel-Schneider: "owl:imports" doesn't work that way, it's very delicate. ←

15:46:59 <ivan> zakim, unmute me

Ivan Herman: zakim, unmute me ←

15:46:59 <Zakim> Ivan was not muted, ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan was not muted, ivan ←

15:47:19 <AZ> +1 pfps

Antoine Zimmermann: +1 pfps ←

15:47:25 <gkellogg> … Whatever the common practice is seems to be working, but it has nothing to do with RDF per-say, but with the OWL layer on top of RDF.

… Whatever the common practice is seems to be working, but it has nothing to do with RDF per-say, but with the OWL layer on top of RDF. ←

15:47:43 <gkellogg> … The RDF WG does nothing to prevent this from working, and shouldn't do anything else about it.

… The RDF WG does nothing to prevent this from working, and shouldn't do anything else about it. ←

15:47:47 <davidwood> ack ivan

David Wood: ack ivan ←

15:48:22 <gkellogg> ivan: we are arguing over what a reaction might be. Let's send the response back to Jeremy; strictly speaking pfps is right.

Ivan Herman: we are arguing over what a reaction might be. Let's send the response back to Jeremy; strictly speaking pfps is right. ←

15:48:49 <gkellogg> … I expect that Jeremy will respond by saying that the real issue is about datasets; Let's not put words into Jeremy's mouth.

… I expect that Jeremy will respond by saying that the real issue is about datasets; Let's not put words into Jeremy's mouth. ←

15:49:13 <gkellogg> sandro: can we handle the other issue first, so it's clear we're not going to do anything about datasets (issue-142)

Sandro Hawke: can we handle the other issue first, so it's clear we're not going to do anything about datasets (ISSUE-142) ←

15:49:29 <ivan> zakim, mute ivan

Ivan Herman: zakim, mute ivan ←

15:49:29 <Zakim> Ivan should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: Ivan should now be muted ←

15:49:34 <pfps> somehow the issues got conflated, which may have been my mistake somewhere

Peter Patel-Schneider: somehow the issues got conflated, which may have been my mistake somewhere ←

15:49:50 <gkellogg> davidwood: we should respond to issue-35 and issue-142 first

David Wood: we should respond to ISSUE-35 and ISSUE-142 first ←

15:50:08 <gkellogg> … Do you have a proposed response for issue-35?

… Do you have a proposed response for ISSUE-35? ←

15:50:17 <gkellogg> pfps: I may have mixed up the issues.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I may have mixed up the issues. ←

15:51:03 <pfps> will do

Peter Patel-Schneider: will do ←

15:51:13 <gkellogg> davidwood: would you take a look at the issues and make sure they're referenced on the summary page?

David Wood: would you take a look at the issues and make sure they're referenced on the summary page? ←

15:51:33 <davidwood> ISSUE-147

David Wood: ISSUE-147 ←

15:51:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-147 -- LC comment: Definition of "Generalized RDF" -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-147 -- LC comment: Definition of "Generalized RDF" -- open ←

15:51:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/147

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/147 ←

15:52:02 <pfps> q+

Peter Patel-Schneider: q+ ←

15:52:22 <gkellogg> sandro: is the connects on issue-147 reflected in the ED? If so, we can send a response to say we accepted your wording.

Sandro Hawke: is the connects on ISSUE-147 reflected in the ED? If so, we can send a response to say we accepted your wording. ←

15:52:41 <gkellogg> davidwood: I think he wanted to move the definition to semantics.

David Wood: I think he wanted to move the definition to semantics. ←

15:53:02 <gkellogg> path: we decided to not move it to semantics, but there was some wording from AZ that I think we should use on Concepts.

Patrick Hayes: we decided to not move it to semantics, but there was some wording from AZ that I think we should use on Concepts. ←

15:53:17 <gkellogg> … This avoids the main objection of david booth's

… This avoids the main objection of david booth's ←

15:53:31 <pfps> so someone has to make the change to concepts and send out the message - my proposed response is now in concepts but Pat didn't like that

Peter Patel-Schneider: so someone has to make the change to concepts and send out the message - my proposed response is now in concepts but Pat didn't like that ←

15:53:52 <gkellogg> … The advantage of this wording is that it avoids david's objection. One should not say that a generalized triple/graph is a triple/graph

… The advantage of this wording is that it avoids david's objection. One should not say that a generalized triple/graph is a triple/graph ←

15:54:09 <gkellogg> … In general, it's appropriate to be in concepts, and not semantics

… In general, it's appropriate to be in concepts, and not semantics ←

15:54:24 <gkellogg> davidwood: in section 7 of concepts, there's a note.

David Wood: in section 7 of concepts, there's a note. ←

15:54:37 <pfps> the latest version of concepts has my proposed wording

Peter Patel-Schneider: the latest version of concepts has my proposed wording ←

15:54:39 <gkellogg> … This says that use is non-standard and may result in interoperability problems.

… This says that use is non-standard and may result in interoperability problems. ←

15:55:08 <gkellogg> … That note was put in place based on david's phraseology. This issue is a separate request to move to semantics.

… That note was put in place based on david's phraseology. This issue is a separate request to move to semantics. ←

15:55:20 <Zakim> -[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[GVoice] ←

15:55:23 <gkellogg> path: I agree we shouldn't do this.

Patrick Hayes: I agree we shouldn't do this. ←

15:55:55 <gkellogg> … He also doesn't like the wording, which is still in the concepts draft. I think we can better phrase this, as suggested by AZ and modified by me in email.

… He also doesn't like the wording, which is still in the concepts draft. I think we can better phrase this, as suggested by AZ and modified by me in email. ←

15:56:07 <Zakim> +[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←

15:56:25 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0030.html

Sandro Hawke: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0030.html ←

15:57:14 <pfps> That wording is fine by me.

Peter Patel-Schneider: That wording is fine by me. ←

15:57:18 <gkellogg> issue: davidwood to make an editorial change to concepts in answer to issue-147

ISSUE: davidwood to make an editorial change to concepts in answer to ISSUE-147 ←

15:57:18 <trackbot> Error creating an ISSUE: an internal error occurred.  Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Error creating an ISSUE: an internal error occurred. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened. ←

15:57:47 <gkellogg> issue: davidwood to make an editorial change to concepts in answer to action-147

ISSUE: davidwood to make an editorial change to concepts in answer to ACTION-147 ←

15:57:47 <trackbot> Error creating an ISSUE: an internal error occurred.  Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Error creating an ISSUE: an internal error occurred. Please mail <sysreq@w3.org> with details about what happened. ←

15:58:27 <gkellogg> close issue-157

close ISSUE-157 ←

15:58:27 <trackbot> Closed issue-157.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ISSUE-157. ←

15:58:36 <PatH> "the error is in the message" - Marshall McLuhan

Patrick Hayes: "the error is in the message" - Marshall McLuhan ←

15:58:57 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←

15:58:57 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2013/10/09-rdf-wg-irc#T15-58-57

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2013/10/09-rdf-wg-irc#T15-58-57 ←

15:59:25 <gkellogg> action: davidwood to make an editorial change to concepts in answer to issue-147

ACTION: davidwood to make an editorial change to concepts in answer to ISSUE-147 ←

15:59:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-309 - Make an editorial change to concepts in answer to issue-147 [on David Wood - due 2013-10-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-309 - Make an editorial change to concepts in answer to ISSUE-147 [on David Wood - due 2013-10-16]. ←

15:59:35 <gkellogg> close issue-158

close ISSUE-158 ←

15:59:35 <trackbot> Closed issue-158.

Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ISSUE-158. ←

16:00:08 <gkellogg> issue-148?

ISSUE-148? ←

16:00:08 <trackbot> issue-148 -- LC comment: IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-148 -- LC comment: IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource -- open ←

16:00:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/148

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/148 ←

16:00:25 <Zakim> -[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[GVoice] ←

16:00:35 <gkellogg> issue-149?

ISSUE-149? ←

16:00:35 <trackbot> issue-149 -- LC comment: Intuitive summary needs to be scoped to interpretations -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-149 -- LC comment: Intuitive summary needs to be scoped to interpretations -- open ←

16:00:35 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/149

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/149 ←

16:01:01 <gkellogg> path: my preferred response to issue-149 is to simply delete the section.

Patrick Hayes: my preferred response to ISSUE-149 is to simply delete the section. ←

16:01:19 <Zakim> +[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: +[GVoice] ←

16:01:25 <gkellogg> … It's a short 2-3 paragraphs with an intuitive understanding that's causing more problems than it's solving.

… It's a short 2-3 paragraphs with an intuitive understanding that's causing more problems than it's solving. ←

16:01:51 <Zakim> -Arnaud

Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←

16:02:01 <pfps> I think that David's response is acceptable.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that David's response is acceptable. ←

16:02:08 <Zakim> -AndyS

Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←

16:02:22 <gkellogg> pfps: I would prefer putting in davids ???

Peter Patel-Schneider: I would prefer putting in davids ??? ←

16:02:50 <gkellogg> davidwood: I think he'd' prefer putting in david woods suggestion rather than just removing.

David Wood: I think he'd' prefer putting in david woods suggestion rather than just removing. ←

16:02:56 <pfps> I'm happy with David's response, but if Pat wants to rip out the section, then let's try that.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm happy with David's response, but if Pat wants to rip out the section, then let's try that. ←

16:03:04 <gkellogg> path: I would rather not do that. There's a long history to this.

Patrick Hayes: I would rather not do that. There's a long history to this. ←

16:03:34 <markus> +1

Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←

16:03:34 <gkellogg> … I think putting this in could cause more problems than it solves

… I think putting this in could cause more problems than it solves ←

16:03:39 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1 ←

16:03:55 <gkellogg> davidwood: it's for path and pfps to work out as editors

David Wood: it's for path and pfps to work out as editors ←

16:04:07 <gkellogg> pfps: question is, who to respond?

Peter Patel-Schneider: question is, who to respond? ←

16:04:19 <gkellogg> path: my response would be that we just remove the section.

Patrick Hayes: my response would be that we just remove the section. ←

16:04:44 <gkellogg> pfps: my proposed response could be changed to respond

Peter Patel-Schneider: my proposed response could be changed to respond ←

16:05:13 <gkellogg> action: pfps to respond to David booth on issue-149

ACTION: pfps to respond to David booth on ISSUE-149 ←

16:05:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-310 - Respond to David booth on issue-149 [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2013-10-16].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-310 - Respond to David booth on ISSUE-149 [on Peter Patel-Schneider - due 2013-10-16]. ←

16:06:31 <pfps> I think that all we need is direction from the chairs as to who to ask

Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that all we need is direction from the chairs as to who to ack ←

16:06:35 <pfps> s/ask/ack/
16:06:36 <gkellogg> issue-150?

ISSUE-150? ←

16:06:36 <trackbot> issue-150 -- LC Comment: references and acknowledgements -- open

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-150 -- LC Comment: references and acknowledgements -- open ←

16:06:36 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/150

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/150 ←

16:07:57 <gkellogg> davidwood: removal of editors was a ReSpec problem that would be addressed, but I haven't figured it out yet.

David Wood: removal of editors was a ReSpec problem that would be addressed, but I haven't figured it out yet. ←

16:07:57 <ivan> I believe this was a 'private' response, that was not added to tracker...

Ivan Herman: I believe this was a 'private' response, that was not added to tracker... ←

16:08:44 <markus> respec supports this

Markus Lanthaler: respec supports this ←

16:08:49 <gkellogg> sandro: if you think it's a problem, sent to spec-prod

Sandro Hawke: if you think it's a problem, sent to spec-prod ←

16:09:00 <gkellogg> davidwood: it used to flow through, and doesn't any more.

David Wood: it used to flow through, and doesn't any more. ←

16:09:10 <gkellogg> sandro: spec-prod@w3.org

Sandro Hawke: spec-prod@w3.org ←

16:09:18 <gkellogg> … Or look through archives.

… Or look through archives. ←

16:09:50 <markus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Sep/0052.html

Markus Lanthaler: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Sep/0052.html ←

16:10:00 <gkellogg> pfps: quick update on test suite

Peter Patel-Schneider: quick update on test suite ←

16:10:05 <gkellogg> topic: semantics test-suite

6. semantics test-suite

16:10:14 <gkellogg> pfps: I've got my part done, but waiting for landing page.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I've got my part done, but waiting for landing page. ←

16:10:35 <gkellogg> … AZ has a set of "torture tests", but it might be good to try to run them through an existing implementation first.

… AZ has a set of "torture tests", but it might be good to try to run them through an existing implementation first. ←

16:10:48 <markus> that explains how to fix your respec issue

Markus Lanthaler: that explains how to fix your respec issue ←

16:10:58 <gkellogg> path: is it the intention that all RDF engines should pass this, or is it just a collection of "hard problems"

Patrick Hayes: is it the intention that all RDF engines should pass this, or is it just a collection of "hard problems" ←

16:11:21 <gkellogg> sandro: everything that claims to be an RDF simple-entailment reasoner needs to pass, but do we define this?

Sandro Hawke: everything that claims to be an RDF simple-entailment reasoner needs to pass, but do we define this? ←

16:11:44 <gkellogg> path: some of AZ's tests were rather obscure. An engine that couldn't handle them would still be useful.

Patrick Hayes: some of AZ's tests were rather obscure. An engine that couldn't handle them would still be useful. ←

16:12:12 <ericP> Zakim, please dial ericP-mobile

Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, please dial ericP-mobile ←

16:12:12 <Zakim> ok, ericP; the call is being made

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ericP; the call is being made ←

16:12:14 <Zakim> +EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: +EricP ←

16:12:23 <gkellogg> … They depend on very arcane properties of different datatypes. For example, two datatypes that only have one item in their intersection, which can force classes to be singletons.

… They depend on very arcane properties of different datatypes. For example, two datatypes that only have one item in their intersection, which can force classes to be singletons. ←

16:12:38 <gkellogg> … This is clever, but maybe not to useful for an actual implentation

… This is clever, but maybe not to useful for an actual implentation ←

16:13:00 <gkellogg> AZ: We did this in 2004 someplace.

Antoine Zimmermann: We did this in 2004 someplace. ←

16:13:13 <gkellogg> sandro: it was in RDF tests, which we're not bringing forward.

Sandro Hawke: it was in RDF tests, which we're not bringing forward. ←

16:13:21 <gkellogg> AZ: we need chair guidance for how to proceed

Sandro Hawke: we need chair guidance for how to proceed ←

16:13:36 <AZ> s/AZ/sandro/
16:13:39 <gkellogg> sandro: this comes back to cygri's point about semantics being optional, but we didn't get consensus.

Sandro Hawke: this comes back to cygri's point about semantics being optional, but we didn't get consensus. ←

16:14:30 <zwu2> has to go to another meeting. Bye guys.

Zhe Wu: has to go to another meeting. Bye guys. ←

16:14:43 <Zakim> -zwu2

Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←

16:14:46 <gkellogg> sandro: most systems which handle RDF don't think of themselves as entailment- or consistency-checkers

Sandro Hawke: most systems which handle RDF don't think of themselves as entailment- or consistency-checkers ←

16:15:05 <gkellogg> … There could be some code which would be different if semantics was different

… There could be some code which would be different if semantics was different ←

16:15:17 <gkellogg> … Nothing about value-spaces of datatypes.

… Nothing about value-spaces of datatypes. ←

16:15:33 <gkellogg> pfps: there should be code which at least looks up the class hierarchy.

Peter Patel-Schneider: there should be code which at least looks up the class hierarchy. ←

16:15:44 <gkellogg> path: I don't think you'd expect RDF reasoners to do that.

Patrick Hayes: I don't think you'd expect RDF reasoners to do that. ←

16:15:55 <Zakim> -AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←

16:16:05 <pfps> the first RDF working group was before we were born

Peter Patel-Schneider: the first RDF working group was before we were born ←

16:16:29 <gkellogg> sandro: that was on RDFS, not RDF, right?

Sandro Hawke: that was on RDFS, not RDF, right? ←

16:16:33 <gkellogg> pfps: yes.

Peter Patel-Schneider: yes. ←

16:16:47 <gkellogg> sandro: for non-RDFS, simple entailment ...

Sandro Hawke: for non-RDFS, simple entailment ... ←

16:17:05 <PatH> datatypes are now in basic RDF, not an extension to RDFS

Patrick Hayes: datatypes are now in basic RDF, not an extension to RDFS ←

16:17:11 <gkellogg> pfps: the tricky ones from AZ were RDFS and positivie/negative integer, which intersect on a singleton

Peter Patel-Schneider: the tricky ones from AZ were RDFS and positivie/negative integer, which intersect on a singleton ←

16:17:53 <gkellogg> path: in addition, you take that singleton and say some very strange things, like an rdf:Property is a subclass of it

Patrick Hayes: in addition, you take that singleton and say some very strange things, like an rdf:Property is a subclass of it ←

16:18:15 <gkellogg> sandro: you're assuming there's a conformance clause?

Sandro Hawke: you're assuming there's a conformance clause? ←

16:18:35 <gkellogg> path: I'm worried that people will take the test suite and fail it and be upset, which they shouldn't be

Patrick Hayes: I'm worried that people will take the test suite and fail it and be upset, which they shouldn't be ←

16:18:48 <gkellogg> … We include datatypes in basic RDF now.

… We include datatypes in basic RDF now. ←

16:19:05 <gkellogg> sandro: my point is that most implementations that claim to be RDF but not RDFS don't do such reasoning.

Sandro Hawke: my point is that most implementations that claim to be RDF but not RDFS don't do such reasoning. ←

16:19:19 <gkellogg> … I think RDF-Concepts defines such a system.

… I think RDF-Concepts defines such a system. ←

16:19:30 <gkellogg> davidwood: yes it does, but not say anything about that.

David Wood: yes it does, but not say anything about that. ←

16:19:56 <Zakim> +??P27

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P27 ←

16:20:05 <AZ> Zakim, ??P27

Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, ??P27 ←

16:20:05 <Zakim> I don't understand '??P27', AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand '??P27', AZ ←

16:20:07 <AZ> Zakim, ??P27 is me

Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, ??P27 is me ←

16:20:07 <Zakim> +AZ; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←

16:20:11 <gkellogg> … In relation to blank-nodes, we talk about systems for implementing skolemization, but don't define what that is.

… In relation to blank-nodes, we talk about systems for implementing skolemization, but don't define what that is. ←

16:20:32 <gkellogg> sandro: I think Pat has something in mind, and it makes sense to define what such a system must do.

Sandro Hawke: I think Pat has something in mind, and it makes sense to define what such a system must do. ←

16:20:45 <gkellogg> path: why are we publishing test cases? What's the point?

Patrick Hayes: why are we publishing test cases? What's the point? ←

16:20:59 <gkellogg> sandro: it only makes sense if we think people are implementing something here.

Sandro Hawke: it only makes sense if we think people are implementing something here. ←

16:21:10 <pfps> I updated them because someone thought that it was a good thing to do.

Peter Patel-Schneider: I updated them because someone thought that it was a good thing to do. ←

16:21:11 <gkellogg> davidwood: we're running out of time today.

David Wood: we're running out of time today. ←

16:21:55 <Zakim> -davidwood

Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood ←

16:21:56 <Zakim> -Souri

Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri ←

16:21:57 <Zakim> -gkellogg

Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←

16:22:00 <Zakim> -Ivan

Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←

16:22:06 <Zakim> -AZ

Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←

16:23:04 <Zakim> -markus

Zakim IRC Bot: -markus ←

16:24:28 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-conformance/#Tool_Conformance

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-conformance/#Tool_Conformance ←

16:47:32 <Zakim> -Sandro

(No events recorded for 23 minutes)

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←

16:47:34 <Zakim> -[GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: -[GVoice] ←

16:47:37 <Zakim> -EricP

Zakim IRC Bot: -EricP ←

16:47:38 <Zakim> -PatH

Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←

16:47:47 <Zakim> -TallTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←

16:52:47 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, Danny, in SW_RDFWG()11:00AM

Zakim IRC Bot: disconnecting the lone participant, Danny, in SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←

16:52:49 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended ←

16:52:49 <Zakim> Attendees were TallTed, Danny, Arnaud, pfps, Ivan, PatH, AndyS, +1.415.686.aaaa, gkellogg, +1.540.898.aabb, davidwood, markus, Sandro, EricP, +81.16.5.aacc, AZ, Souri, zwu2,

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were TallTed, Danny, Arnaud, pfps, Ivan, PatH, AndyS, +1.415.686.aaaa, gkellogg, +1.540.898.aabb, davidwood, markus, Sandro, EricP, +81.16.5.aacc, AZ, Souri, zwu2, ←

16:52:50 <Zakim> ... [GVoice]

Zakim IRC Bot: ... [GVoice] ←



Formatted by CommonScribe