IRC log of rdf-wg on 2014-01-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:57:32 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
15:57:32 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:57:34 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:57:34 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
15:57:36 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
15:57:36 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
15:57:37 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:57:37 [trackbot]
Date: 29 January 2014
15:58:24 [Guus]
zakim, who is here?
15:58:24 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, Guus
15:58:25 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, Guus, gkellogg, TallTed, gavinc, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot
15:58:50 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
15:58:58 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:59:44 [pfps]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:59:44 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, pfps
15:59:45 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pfps, AZ, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, gkellogg, TallTed, gavinc, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot
16:00:38 [tbaker]
tbaker has joined #rdf-wg
16:02:13 [Guus]
zakim, who is here~?
16:02:13 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, Guus.
16:02:20 [sandro]
trackbot, start meeting
16:02:20 [pfps]
zakim, who is here?
16:02:20 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, pfps
16:02:21 [Zakim]
On IRC I see tbaker, pfps, AZ, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, gkellogg, TallTed, gavinc, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot
16:02:22 [pchampin]
pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
16:02:22 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
16:02:24 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
16:02:24 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
16:02:25 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
16:02:25 [trackbot]
Date: 29 January 2014
16:02:36 [Guus]
zakim, this is 73394
16:02:36 [Zakim]
ok, Guus; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
16:02:46 [Guus]
zakim, who is here?
16:02:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, pfps, ??P22, Sandro, ??P27, AZ
16:02:48 [Zakim]
On IRC I see pchampin, tbaker, pfps, AZ, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, gkellogg, TallTed, gavinc, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, trackbot
16:02:52 [markus]
markus has joined #rdf-wg
16:03:00 [yvesr]
Zakim, ??P22 is me
16:03:01 [Zakim]
+yvesr; got it
16:03:04 [Zakim]
16:03:09 [gkellogg]
zakim, ??P27 is me
16:03:09 [Zakim]
+gkellogg; got it
16:03:13 [pchampin]
zakim, ??P33 is me
16:03:13 [Zakim]
+pchampin; got it
16:03:55 [Guus]
zakim, pick a scribe
16:03:57 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose yvesr
16:04:10 [yvesr]
scribe: yvesr
16:04:16 [markus]
zakim, code?
16:04:16 [Zakim]
the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, markus
16:04:17 [Guus]
chair: Guus
16:04:25 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.248.aaaa
16:04:32 [Zakim]
+Tom_Baker (was +1.202.248.aaaa)
16:04:58 [Zakim]
16:05:01 [markus]
zakim, ??P39 is me
16:05:01 [Zakim]
+markus; got it
16:05:24 [sandro]
q+ to say something about commonscribe
16:05:37 [pfps]
minutes look fine to me
16:06:01 [Zakim]
16:06:44 [yvesr]
RESOLVED to accept the minutes from the previous meeting
16:07:03 [yvesr]
topic: Action items
16:07:15 [yvesr]
Guus: let's go through old action items
16:07:29 [yvesr]
Guus: Comment on issue 148 - that's done
16:07:54 [yvesr]
Guus: My response to Greg Williams fell through the cracks - I didn't have the time to do it
16:08:15 [yvesr]
... Should I still do that?
16:08:26 [yvesr]
gavinc: Is it the ongoing n-triples / utf-8 issue?
16:08:37 [yvesr]
... if so, then they need to deal with it
16:08:40 [pfps]
that sounds like a resolution :-)
16:08:42 [yvesr]
Guus: I am going to drop my action
16:08:54 [yvesr]
Guus: there was two actions on gavinc
16:08:58 [Zakim]
16:09:05 [yvesr]
gavinc: I am interested in the solution to issue 281
16:09:20 [yvesr]
... But now it's a 404 - which I find perfectly acceptable, but it's all gone
16:09:25 [yvesr]
... /tr/turtle/tests
16:09:42 [PatH]
PatH has joined #rdf-wg
16:10:22 [yvesr]
... (something about relative URLs and symlinks)
16:10:55 [yvesr]
gavinc: We broke the web- this is acceptable - we should move on :)
16:10:58 [pfps]
16:11:12 [sandro]
16:11:14 [pfps]
q+ to note that there are some open issues!
16:11:14 [yvesr]
Guus: One action is still open - RDF and RDF namespaces
16:11:20 [gkellogg]
q+ to ask about ACTION-337
16:11:44 [yvesr]
... Not extremely urgent, but would be nice if fixed in two weeks
16:11:57 [Zakim]
16:11:57 [yvesr]
pfps: There are two open issues
16:12:09 [yvesr]
Guus: There are two issues to do with the Primer
16:12:20 [yvesr]
... It would be good to formally close them - but they have nothing to do with the REC documents
16:12:21 [pfps]
16:12:24 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-wg
16:12:26 [yvesr]
... Let's get back to it later
16:12:40 [yvesr]
Guus: New publications - we published RDF 1.1 documents on the 9th of January
16:12:50 [yvesr]
... and the JSON-LD REC has been published
16:12:55 [yvesr]
... Congratulations to all involved!
16:13:17 [gkellogg]
16:13:17 [trackbot]
ACTION-337 -- Gregg Kellogg to Find some test cases for -- due 2013-12-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW
16:13:17 [trackbot]
16:13:19 [yvesr]
gkellogg: There is ACTION-337 which needs further work
16:13:32 [yvesr]
... Test-cases for creating RDF literals from RDF-XML
16:14:05 [yvesr]
manu: I had an action to create test-cases for RDF literals for RDF-XML
16:14:12 [yvesr]
... They are available as references in the action item
16:14:26 [yvesr]
... I generated test results based on my own processor
16:14:49 [yvesr]
... Could someone who implemented that verify what I've done?
16:15:50 [Zakim]
16:16:10 [yvesr]
topic: Comments on PR transition
16:16:17 [yvesr]
Guus: We'll talk about PR process latr
16:16:26 [yvesr]
Guus: Quite a lot of discussions on language tags case conflict
16:16:32 [yvesr]
... I think there's a very good reason to do nothing
16:16:43 [yvesr]
... Is there a good reason to do anything?
16:17:00 [pfps]
isn't it the case that lowercasing is correct, in some sense?
16:17:01 [yvesr]
Guus: We could create an issue and postpone it
16:17:08 [yvesr]
gavinc: I don't think this issue is going away
16:17:11 [pfps]
16:17:19 [gkellogg]
16:17:35 [yvesr]
sandro: We should probably create a wiki page listing all the options
16:17:45 [yvesr]
s/options/postponed issues
16:18:11 [yvesr]
Guus: I still think we should do nothing in this case
16:18:27 [yvesr]
Guus: There's a new comment on N-Triples
16:18:37 [yvesr]
gavinc: The @ token is duplicated
16:18:48 [yvesr]
... It involves the literal production and the lang tag
16:19:00 [yvesr]
Guus: I would be very surprised if we couldn't fix that before REC
16:19:03 [yvesr]
sandro: Yes, no problem
16:19:26 [yvesr]
ACTION on gavinc to fix the @ token duplication
16:19:26 [trackbot]
Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
16:19:33 [yvesr]
ACTION gavinc to fix the @ token duplication
16:19:33 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-338 - Fix the @ token duplication [on Gavin Carothers - due 2014-02-05].
16:19:54 [yvesr]
Guus: That should handle that comment
16:20:03 [pfps]
16:20:04 [yvesr]
Guus: There was a comment about d-entailment
16:20:11 [yvesr]
... Richard already replied
16:20:17 [pfps]
16:20:27 [yvesr]
... That RDF Concepts should be read first
16:20:41 [yvesr]
PatH: There's one point that Alex is misunderstanding - and the rest is in Concepts
16:20:55 [AZ]
16:21:03 [yvesr]
... I'll write a couple of sentences to deal with this misunderstanding
16:21:15 [yvesr]
ACTION PatH to respond to Axel on d-entailment
16:21:15 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-339 - Respond to axel on d-entailment [on Patrick Hayes - due 2014-02-05].
16:21:33 [yvesr]
Guus: The last one was a comment about Turtle
16:22:10 [yvesr]
gavinc: The first one is an example using a prefix without declaring it
16:22:15 [yvesr]
... It shouldn't do that
16:22:34 [yvesr]
gavinc: I am not sure about the prefix names comment
16:22:47 [yvesr]
Guus: Would you be willing to respond to the commenter?
16:22:54 [gavinc]
The specification of prefixed names does not explicitly mention the meaning of ':' (i. e. "current document") if the empty prefix is not declared. That is an important hint for people new to the language. Wording similar to "If the empty prefix ':' is not explicitly declared, it is relative to the current document root."
16:22:59 [yvesr]
pfps: I think there's some confusion
16:23:05 [gavinc]
16:23:09 [yvesr]
gavinc: He might be looking for a feature that Turtle does not have
16:23:25 [gkellogg]
I think empty prefix was <#> in N3, was it not?
16:23:37 [yvesr]
ACTION gavinc to respond to Lars about his Turtle comments
16:23:37 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-340 - Respond to lars about his turtle comments [on Gavin Carothers - due 2014-02-05].
16:24:13 [yvesr]
gavinc: in N3, the empty prefix is bound to a default URI, which is not true in Turtle
16:24:35 [yvesr]
Guus: A link to the original TriG document is broken
16:24:49 [yvesr]
... I would like to add the right link to the REC
16:25:02 [yvesr]
ACTION Guus to ask Richard about original TriG link
16:25:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-341 - Ask richard about original trig link [on Guus Schreiber - due 2014-02-05].
16:25:49 [yvesr]
topic: PR process
16:26:08 [AZ]
Zakim, who is noisy?
16:26:09 [yvesr]
Guus: Any updates on the AC votes?
16:26:20 [Zakim]
AZ, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus_Schreiber (24%), Sandro (15%), PatH (40%)
16:26:55 [yvesr]
Guus: All the votes for JSON-LD were published on a public mailing list - but nobody complained - did something change in the process?
16:27:34 [gkellogg]
s/Guus: All the votes for JSON-LD were published on a public mailing list - but nobody complained - did something change in the process?//
16:28:17 [yvesr]
Guus: Ivan asked a question about the final shortnames - so that people typing the URL of the old REC would get redirected to the new REC
16:28:38 [yvesr]
sandro: That's only for Concepts and Semantics
16:29:35 [PatH]
Would that make it impossible to read the old ones?? If so I object to that.
16:29:51 [yvesr]
sandro: We don't usually redirect - worth discussing further
16:29:59 [gavinc]
PatH, no you'd just need the DIRECT link to the specific version
16:30:00 [ericP]
+1 to alert box
16:30:14 [pfps]
+1 to alerting the universe about the change
16:30:19 [yvesr]
Guus: It also holds for Schema, XML Syntax and Primer
16:30:21 [PatH]
+1 to alert box on old one to indicate it is obsolete, but it should be readable.
16:30:44 [gavinc]
can someone update too?
16:31:06 [ericP]
it's a good idea
16:31:07 [yvesr]
sandro: Why do you want RDF 1.1 as part of the URL?
16:31:16 [ericP]
i ownder if we own that doc or if the submitter does
16:31:20 [yvesr]
Guus: Can someone change the short name at this point in time?
16:31:40 [yvesr]
gavinc: If we can't do the redirects, what will happen to all the already existing 1.1 URLs
16:31:48 [yvesr]
... It will need to go one way or another
16:31:59 [yvesr]
Guus: Happy either way as long as it is conformant with W3C policy
16:32:41 [yvesr]
gkellogg: I don't think the old URLs have any values going forward
16:32:52 [PatH]
I am against redirections. It sounds like a tar-pit and its not necessary.
16:33:00 [yvesr]
... If I wanted to go to RDF-MT, if we add more and more shortnames it will add confusion
16:33:13 [yvesr]
... We need a shortname that consistently gets to the latest version
16:33:18 [PatH]
The old URLs have a lot of value for checking the history of ideas.
16:33:23 [yvesr]
Guus: That suggests redirecting to RDF-MT
16:33:41 [pfps]
are we angels dancing on a version 1.1 pin here?
16:33:42 [yvesr]
gavinc: There should be a reference in the header of the recommendation to the last version of the old one
16:34:01 [yvesr]
Guus: We may need to discuss that with the activity lead
16:34:43 [sandro]
16:34:45 [yvesr]
PatH: I don't think we should do any of these options - each document should have is own URL
16:35:03 [yvesr]
sandro: That doesn't preclude a 'latest version' URL
16:35:07 [AZ]
Why not do like for OWL 2: old document has a message that links to the new
16:35:14 [yvesr]
Guus: And you would expect that to get to the RDF 1.1 version
16:35:44 [sandro]
for OWL2 we didn't reuse any names.
16:36:08 [ericP]
PatH, the prob is that we have only 2 urls/doc, instead of 3.
16:36:12 [yvesr]
PatH: It's perfectly clear there's two version of RDF - RDF '0' and RDF 1.1 - so what's wrong with that?
16:36:26 [yvesr]
Guus: I'll bring this up with Ralph
16:36:42 [yvesr]
ACTION Guus to discuss short names for RDF 1.1 with Ralph
16:36:42 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-342 - Discuss short names for rdf 1.1 with ralph [on Guus Schreiber - due 2014-02-05].
16:37:01 [yvesr]
Guus: Target REC dates
16:37:28 [yvesr]
... The poll ends on the 9th of February - within one or two weeks after that date we should set a date for REC publication
16:37:36 [yvesr]
... I'd like to propose a date now
16:37:42 [yvesr]
... 25 of Feb or 27
16:38:07 [yvesr]
... It would have been nice to go for the 10th, as it's exactly 10 years after the last version
16:38:20 [yvesr]
sandro: It might be possible
16:38:40 [yvesr]
Guus: I'd prefer not to do that - there will be a few things to be settled
16:38:49 [yvesr]
... What about the 25?
16:38:52 [pfps]
fine by me
16:38:59 [markus]
16:39:14 [yvesr]
Guus: We want to publish the revised Notes at the same time
16:39:16 [ericP]
+1, but bummer about missing the 10y aniv
16:39:24 [PatH]
So we can say it took MORE than ten years..
16:39:24 [yvesr]
Guus: Let's settle for the 25, then
16:39:50 [markus]
16:40:11 [markus]
16:40:21 [yvesr]
Guus: We have an errate page for JSON-LD
16:40:26 [yvesr]
16:40:31 [markus]
the second one is the stable one used in the REC
16:40:34 [PatH]
On reflection, I withdraw my comments about redirecting short names. Y'all do whatever you think is best :-)
16:40:53 [yvesr]
Guus: The idea is that these pages will be wiki pages, so that anyone with a semantic web account can edit that page
16:41:16 [yvesr]
... I am happy to do all the admin stuff for the final REC
16:41:21 [yvesr]
... But we have plenty of time for that
16:41:47 [yvesr]
Guus: Let's move on with the Notes
16:41:51 [yvesr]
topic: Notes
16:42:03 [yvesr]
Guus: On the Primer we got 4 quite extensive set of comments
16:42:08 [yvesr]
... I responded to two of them
16:42:25 [yvesr]
... In two weeks we should be able to discuss the revised version
16:42:40 [yvesr]
... The idea is that we publish that Note on the 25th - same day as the day the REC go out
16:42:59 [yvesr]
Guus: One question - what's currently the main entry point for Linked Data?
16:43:06 [yvesr]
16:43:24 [PatH_]
PatH_ has joined #rdf-wg
16:43:35 [yvesr]
(a bit oudated, but in the other case it's the OKFN directory)
16:43:41 [yvesr]
(which might be too messy)
16:44:15 [yvesr]
Guus: That's all for the primer - let's talk about datasets
16:44:16 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
16:44:28 [yvesr]
Guus: What's left to do on that note?
16:44:40 [yvesr]
AZ: There are two issues mentioning the document
16:44:48 [AndyS]
AndyS has left #rdf-wg
16:44:53 [AndyS]
AndyS has joined #rdf-wg
16:45:22 [yvesr]
... PatH mentioned a couple of rephrasing of that note
16:45:31 [yvesr]
16:45:58 [yvesr]
ACTION PatH to do an additional review of the dataset note
16:45:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-343 - Do an additional review of the dataset note [on Patrick Hayes - due 2014-02-05].
16:46:13 [yvesr]
Guus: That's all for datasets - Test Cases now
16:46:38 [AZ]
Note on dataset semantics
16:46:39 [yvesr]
... There were a couple of disagreements on how stable wiki pages are
16:46:52 [yvesr]
... I would like to propose to publish the RDF 1.1 test cases as a WG Note
16:47:12 [yvesr]
gkellogg: Pretty much all of the information that was in the wikis and READMEs should be replicated in that document
16:47:20 [yvesr]
... So there's just one place for people to look at
16:47:28 [yvesr]
... This does *not* include any RDF/XML test cases
16:47:40 [yvesr]
Guus: Any particular views on this?
16:47:59 [yvesr]
gkellogg: Are the test cases correct still?
16:48:21 [yvesr]
... When taking into account the RDF/XML changes?
16:48:46 [yvesr]
Guus: I'd like to propose to the WG that we have a version ready for next time
16:48:57 [markus]
16:49:11 [yvesr]
Guus: We should move forward on publishing test cases as a note
16:49:25 [yvesr]
Guus: The other issue is for the test cases involving XML literals in RDF/XML
16:49:34 [yvesr]
... Now that these literals are non-normative
16:50:31 [gkellogg]
Current location of test cases for RDF/XML:
16:53:01 [yvesr]
Guus: I propose we should include tests for features that are non normative
16:53:29 [yvesr]
s/non normative/normative
16:53:45 [yvesr]
... And exclude the non-normative ones
16:55:09 [yvesr]
Guus: We're going to approve the same tests as before, for the ones concerning features that are still normative
16:55:18 [yvesr]
... And we'll publish them as a note when the REC are out
16:56:10 [yvesr]
ACTION manu to take care of RDF/XML tests for next week
16:56:10 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-344 - Take care of rdf/xml tests for next week [on Manu Sporny - due 2014-02-05].
16:56:42 [yvesr]
Guus: Next telecon will be on the 12th of Feb
16:56:59 [yvesr]
... Hopefully we have a positive AC vote by then
16:57:05 [yvesr]
topic: AOB
16:58:07 [yvesr]
Guus: We're adjourned
16:58:08 [Zakim]
16:58:08 [Zakim]
16:58:09 [Zakim]
16:58:10 [Zakim]
16:58:11 [Zakim]
16:58:11 [Zakim]
16:58:12 [Zakim]
16:58:12 [Zakim]
16:58:14 [Zakim]
16:58:14 [Zakim]
16:58:15 [Zakim]
16:58:17 [Zakim]
16:58:24 [Guus]
trackbot, end meeting
16:58:24 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:58:25 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Guus_Schreiber, pfps, Sandro, AZ, yvesr, gkellogg, pchampin, markus, GavinC, tbaker, PatH, Souri, ericP
16:58:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:58:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:58:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:58:33 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items