iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
Link to original content: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-13
14:59:46 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/13-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/03/13-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:59:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:59:50 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:59:50 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute ←
14:59:51 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:59:51 <trackbot> Date: 13 March 2013
15:00:01 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:00:01 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, pfps ←
15:00:02 <Zakim> On IRC I see pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, AZ, tbaker, gavinc, davidwood, cygri, SteveH, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, manu1, mischat, trackbot
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see pfps, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, AZ, tbaker, gavinc, davidwood, cygri, SteveH, yvesr, manu, sandro, ericP, manu1, mischat, trackbot ←
15:00:58 <gavinc> Zakim, this is RDFwg
Gavin Carothers: Zakim, this is RDFwg ←
15:00:58 <Zakim> ok, gavinc; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, gavinc; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←
15:01:07 <gavinc> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Gavin Carothers: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:01:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.408.992.aaaa, Guus_Schreiber, GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +1.408.992.aaaa, Guus_Schreiber, GavinC ←
15:01:17 <pfps> zakim, aaaa is me
Peter Patel-Schneider: zakim, aaaa is me ←
15:01:17 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pfps; got it ←
15:01:53 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
15:02:13 <Zakim> + +081165aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +081165aabb ←
15:02:21 <gavinc> I think everyone else is over in LDP talking about how DELETE works ;)
Gavin Carothers: I think everyone else is over in LDP talking about how DELETE works ;) ←
15:02:25 <AZ> Zakim, aabb is me
Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, aabb is me ←
15:02:25 <Zakim> +AZ; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AZ; got it ←
15:02:30 <PatH> i hear silence...
Patrick Hayes: i hear silence... ←
15:02:42 <PatH> ah, hi.
Patrick Hayes: ah, hi. ←
15:03:40 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
15:03:46 <Zakim> +Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri ←
15:03:49 <Zakim> +??P10
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P10 ←
15:03:55 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P10
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P10 ←
15:03:55 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
15:04:00 <Zakim> + +1.707.874.aacc
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.707.874.aacc ←
15:04:08 <cgreer> zakim, aacc is me
Charles Greer: zakim, aacc is me ←
15:04:08 <Zakim> +cgreer; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +cgreer; got it ←
15:04:30 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
15:05:11 <tbaker> is irc-only today
Thomas Baker: is irc-only today ←
15:05:40 <gavinc> scribe: gavinc
(Scribe set to Gavin Carothers)
15:05:40 <gavinc> chair: Guus
15:05:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
15:05:49 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
15:05:49 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:06:22 <gavinc> Guus: I promise to keep the meeting short.
Guus Schreiber: I promise to keep the meeting short. ←
15:06:33 <Zakim> + +1.650.265.aadd
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.650.265.aadd ←
15:06:41 <pfps> minutes look fine to me
Peter Patel-Schneider: minutes look fine to me ←
15:06:44 <Guus> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06
Guus Schreiber: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06 ←
15:06:45 <gavinc> ... DST not the same in EU for another few weeks
... DST not the same in EU for another few weeks ←
15:06:47 <zwu2> zakim, +aadd is me
15:06:47 <Zakim> sorry, zwu2, I do not recognize a party named '+aadd'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, zwu2, I do not recognize a party named '+aadd' ←
15:06:59 <zwu2> zakim, +1.650.265.aadd is me
Zhe Wu: zakim, +1.650.265.aadd is me ←
15:06:59 <Zakim> +zwu2; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +zwu2; got it ←
15:06:59 <gavinc> ... minutes accepted.
... minutes accepted. ←
15:07:00 <Guus> PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06
Guus Schreiber: PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06 ←
15:07:12 <Guus> RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06
RESOLVED: to accept the minutes of the 06 March telecon: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2013-03-06 ←
15:07:37 <gavinc> topic: Action Items
15:08:00 <gavinc> AZ: I already have most of my review written. Trying to be as complete as possible.
Antoine Zimmermann: I already have most of my review written. Trying to be as complete as possible. ←
15:08:11 <Zakim> +??P20
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P20 ←
15:08:16 <markus> zakim, ??P20 is me
Markus Lanthaler: zakim, ??P20 is me ←
15:08:16 <Zakim> +markus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +markus; got it ←
15:08:19 <gavinc> Guus: Keeping action open.
Guus Schreiber: Keeping action open. ←
15:08:30 <gavinc> ... we'll come back to semantics.
... we'll come back to semantics. ←
15:08:48 <pfps> q+
15:08:57 <gavinc> Topic: Semantics
15:09:17 <gavinc> pfps: I don't see how we can move forward with the objection from AZ.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't see how we can move forward with the objection from AZ. ←
15:09:35 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
15:09:42 <gavinc> PatH: Apart from the objection, there are sections that haven't been written. HTML linking to fix, now using Respec, should go faster.
Patrick Hayes: Apart from the objection, there are sections that haven't been written. HTML linking to fix, now using Respec, should go faster. ←
15:09:52 <pfps> I don't see that any of the issues that Pat is reporting should stop FPWD publication.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't see that any of the issues that Pat is reporting should stop FPWD publication. ←
15:10:12 <gavinc> Guus: Shall we start with AZ's last email?
Guus Schreiber: Shall we start with AZ's last email? ←
15:10:26 <gavinc> AZ: I said that the current description of blank node scope should be removed from the document.
Antoine Zimmermann: I said that the current description of blank node scope should be removed from the document. ←
15:10:43 <gavinc> ... should go back to the RDF 2004 for blank node semantics.
... should go back to the RDF 2004 for blank node semantics. ←
15:10:58 <gavinc> ... It introduces a number of new concepts that we haven't talked about.
... It introduces a number of new concepts that we haven't talked about. ←
15:11:19 <gavinc> ... Blank node scope has been discussed, but hasn't been agreed upon.
... Blank node scope has been discussed, but hasn't been agreed upon. ←
15:11:30 <gavinc> ... Adds other concepts that haven't been discussed.
... Adds other concepts that haven't been discussed. ←
15:12:09 <gavinc> ... ??? ...
... ??? ... ←
15:12:26 <gavinc> ... Should introduce issues for all new concepts introduced in Semantics.
... Should introduce issues for all new concepts introduced in Semantics. ←
15:12:53 <gavinc> ... The main reason is that if it's only kept in the semantics document, then some people won't see them.
... The main reason is that if it's only kept in the semantics document, then some people won't see them. ←
15:13:23 <gavinc> ... confident in editors of concepts and semantics ...
... confident in editors of concepts and semantics ... ←
15:14:05 <gavinc> ... the process is not right, editors shouldn't introduce concepts
... the process is not right, editors shouldn't introduce concepts ←
15:14:59 <gavinc> PatH: Two issues. Should ??? be in the spec at all. 2nd issue, which document should it be in. (??? blank node scope)
Patrick Hayes: Two issues. Should ??? be in the spec at all. 2nd issue, which document should it be in. (??? blank node scope) ←
15:15:33 <AZ> Ok, right, Semantics and Concepts should cross reference, I agree
Antoine Zimmermann: Ok, right, Semantics and Concepts should cross reference, I agree ←
15:15:53 <gavinc> ... Which material goes in which document is a largely editorial choice. Noted that this material should go in RDF Concepts as a NOTE in the semantics document.
... Which material goes in which document is a largely editorial choice. Noted that this material should go in RDF Concepts as a NOTE in the semantics document. ←
15:17:16 <gavinc> pfps: The problem is that there are outstanding issues that haven't been addressed.
Peter Patel-Schneider: The problem is that there are outstanding issues that haven't been addressed. ←
15:17:27 <gavinc> ... a number of them are technical.
... a number of them are technical. ←
15:17:44 <Zakim> +??P21
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P21 ←
15:17:52 <pchampin> zakim, ??P21 is me
Pierre-Antoine Champin: zakim, ??P21 is me ←
15:17:52 <Zakim> +pchampin; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +pchampin; got it ←
15:18:19 <gavinc> ... Chicken and egg problem. How are we going to get them addressed appropriately? This is a plee to get the semantics decided before we worry about semi-colons.
... Chicken and egg problem. How are we going to get them addressed appropriately? This is a plee to get the semantics decided before we worry about semi-colons. ←
15:18:38 <gavinc> ... we're the handmaiden of the people who want to do the design.
... we're the handmaiden of the people who want to do the design. ←
15:19:03 <gavinc> +q to say oh yes there was.
+q to say oh yes there was. ←
15:19:24 <gavinc> pfps: I don't think there is a better way then to publish this in a FPWD.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I don't think there is a better way then to publish this in a FPWD. ←
15:19:35 <gavinc> PatH: It's a draft after all!
Patrick Hayes: It's a draft after all! ←
15:19:46 <gavinc> Guus: I was going to propose that.
Guus Schreiber: I was going to propose that. ←
15:19:49 <gavinc> -q
-q ←
15:20:01 <gavinc> ... it's important that we get a FPWD out.
... it's important that we get a FPWD out. ←
15:20:25 <gavinc> pfps: I think that we SHOULD a way forward on RDF graphs sharing blank nodes.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that we SHOULD a way forward on RDF graphs sharing blank nodes. ←
15:20:48 <gavinc> ... I don't know if it's THE way we'll end up using, and it doesn't have to match exactly what's in RDF concepts.
... I don't know if it's THE way we'll end up using, and it doesn't have to match exactly what's in RDF concepts. ←
15:21:23 <gavinc> PatH: There shouldn't be a difference of opinion that's unacknowledged between RDF concepts, and RDF semantics.
Patrick Hayes: There shouldn't be a difference of opinion that's unacknowledged between RDF concepts, and RDF semantics. ←
15:21:56 <gavinc> Guus: I'd like to decide today on publishing a FPWD.
Guus Schreiber: I'd like to decide today on publishing a FPWD. ←
15:22:02 <gavinc> ... what needs to be done to make that possible?
... what needs to be done to make that possible? ←
15:22:25 <gavinc> PatH: I think putting a more prominent issue note would be adequate?
Patrick Hayes: I think putting a more prominent issue note would be adequate? ←
15:23:15 <gavinc> AZ: Best we can do, to go forward.
Antoine Zimmermann: Best we can do, to go forward. ←
15:24:15 <cgreer> That's exactly the word JSON-LD-SYNTAX uses re blank nodes -- controversial :)
Charles Greer: That's exactly the word JSON-LD-SYNTAX uses re blank nodes -- controversial :) ←
15:24:19 <cygri> ISSUE-43?
15:24:19 <trackbot> ISSUE-43 -- Revisit "Suggestion that Qnames should be allowed as values for attributes such as rdf:about" -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-43 -- Revisit "Suggestion that Qnames should be allowed as values for attributes such as rdf:about" -- closed ←
15:24:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/43
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/43 ←
15:24:38 <pfps> Which issue is blank node scope, or should there be a new one?
Peter Patel-Schneider: Which issue is blank node scope, or should there be a new one? ←
15:24:39 <gavinc> PROPOSED: to publish Semantics as FPWD marking the section on blank node scope as an ISSUE
PROPOSED: to publish Semantics as FPWD marking the section on blank node scope as an ISSUE ←
15:24:48 <cgreer> +1
Charles Greer: +1 ←
15:24:56 <pfps> +1
15:24:57 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
15:24:58 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
15:24:58 <zwu2> +1
15:24:59 <AZ> AZ: the document can be published on the condition that the part on bnode scope is clearly made distinct
Antoine Zimmermann: the document can be published on the condition that the part on bnode scope is clearly made distinct [ Scribe Assist by Antoine Zimmermann ] ←
15:25:00 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:25:00 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
15:25:01 <gavinc> +1
+1 ←
15:25:07 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:25:16 <Guus> +1 for PatH
Guus Schreiber: +1 for PatH ←
15:25:16 <gavinc> PatH: +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:25:43 <gavinc> RESOLVED: Publish Semantics as FPWD marking the section on blank node scope as an ISSUE
RESOLVED: Publish Semantics as FPWD marking the section on blank node scope as an ISSUE ←
15:25:51 <pchampin> +1
15:26:21 <pfps> unfortunately, I am unlikely to be able to be at the meeting next week
Peter Patel-Schneider: unfortunately, I am unlikely to be able to be at the meeting next week ←
15:26:32 <tbaker> +1
Thomas Baker: +1 ←
15:26:50 <gavinc> Guus: If we can resolve in the next two or three weeks we should be on track.
Guus Schreiber: If we can resolve in the next two or three weeks we should be on track. ←
15:27:08 <gavinc> ... do we have a series?
... do we have a series? ←
15:27:14 <pfps> given that I am happy with the current situation, my participation is probably not necessary
Peter Patel-Schneider: given that I am happy with the current situation, my participation is probably not necessary ←
15:27:19 <gavinc> PatH: Did I misread something?
Patrick Hayes: Did I misread something? ←
15:27:34 <gavinc> Guus: I don't like series editors.
Guus Schreiber: I don't like series editors. ←
15:27:52 <gavinc> PatH: Will remove. I thought I was supposed to.
Patrick Hayes: Will remove. I thought I was supposed to. ←
15:28:13 <AZ> As pfps said, we should have a decision on ISSUE 97
Antoine Zimmermann: As pfps said, we should have a decision on ISSUE-97 ←
15:28:17 <AZ> (related to semantics)
Antoine Zimmermann: (related to semantics) ←
15:28:40 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
15:28:46 <gavinc> q?
q? ←
15:28:50 <pfps> q-
15:29:04 <Guus> ack AZ
Guus Schreiber: ack AZ ←
15:29:18 <gavinc> AZ: Would like us to have a decision on ISSUE-97.
Antoine Zimmermann: Would like us to have a decision on ISSUE-97. ←
15:29:22 <gavinc> ISSUE-97?
15:29:22 <trackbot> ISSUE-97 -- Should the semantics of RDF graphs be dependent on a vocabulary? -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-97 -- Should the semantics of RDF graphs be dependent on a vocabulary? -- closed ←
15:29:22 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/97
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/97 ←
15:30:21 <gavinc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html ←
15:30:45 <AZ> AZ: we should reopen ISSUE 97, make a decision and close it again
Antoine Zimmermann: we should reopen ISSUE-97, make a decision and close it again [ Scribe Assist by Antoine Zimmermann ] ←
15:30:59 <gavinc> gavinc: Can't find proposal.
Gavin Carothers: Can't find proposal. ←
15:31:03 <gavinc> pfps: Don't have one.
Peter Patel-Schneider: Don't have one. ←
15:31:12 <gavinc> ... it's in the email.
... it's in the email. ←
15:31:27 <gavinc> Guus: Should have put this on the agenda.
Guus Schreiber: Should have put this on the agenda. ←
15:31:53 <gavinc> ... no objections on mailing list?
... no objections on mailing list? ←
15:32:24 <gavinc> pfps: well... I mean it's a change, there was chatter. RDF systems don't do what semantics says.
Peter Patel-Schneider: well... I mean it's a change, there was chatter. RDF systems don't do what semantics says. ←
15:32:34 <gavinc> ... SPARQL systems do something else.
... SPARQL systems do something else. ←
15:32:52 <gavinc> ... It's NOT a counter example, as SPARQL has an explicit "scope graph"
... It's NOT a counter example, as SPARQL has an explicit "scope graph" ←
15:33:10 <gavinc> ... the "scope graph" plugs a hole in the 2004 semantics.
... the "scope graph" plugs a hole in the 2004 semantics. ←
15:33:25 <AZ> q+
Antoine Zimmermann: q+ ←
15:33:27 <gavinc> ... the change to the semantics is in agreement with the way SPARQL works.
... the change to the semantics is in agreement with the way SPARQL works. ←
15:33:29 <AZ> I did
Antoine Zimmermann: I did ←
15:33:37 <AZ> (provide the response)
Antoine Zimmermann: (provide the response) ←
15:35:00 <gavinc> AZ: Consequences of the change are not non-existent.
Antoine Zimmermann: Consequences of the change are not non-existent. ←
15:35:57 <gavinc> pfps: I'm unaware of any system that doesn't do the right thing here.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'm unaware of any system that doesn't do the right thing here. ←
15:36:36 <pfps> PROPOSAL: reoopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs
PROPOSED: reoopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs ←
15:37:11 <gavinc> PROPOSAL: reoopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html
PROPOSED: reoopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html ←
15:37:12 <pfps> +1
15:37:15 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
15:37:16 <AZ> I emmitted claims that it has consequences, but I admit now that the advantages overcome the minor changes
Antoine Zimmermann: I emmitted claims that it has consequences, but I admit now that the advantages overcome the minor changes ←
15:37:16 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:37:20 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:37:23 <gavinc> +0 (doesn't really understand)
+0 (doesn't really understand) ←
15:37:25 <pfps> path +1
Peter Patel-Schneider: path +1 ←
15:37:26 <Guus> +1 from Pat
Guus Schreiber: +1 from Pat ←
15:37:29 <cgreer> +1
Charles Greer: +1 ←
15:37:31 <pchampin> +1
15:37:32 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
15:37:57 <gavinc> RESOLVED: reopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html
RESOLVED: reopen and close ISSUE-97 to make RDF interpretations interpret all IRIs as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0041.html ←
15:38:53 <gavinc> ISSUE-107?
15:38:53 <trackbot> ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-107 -- Revised definition of blank nodes -- open ←
15:38:53 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/107 ←
15:39:05 <gavinc> pfps: Attempt to close ISSUE-107 next week?
Peter Patel-Schneider: Attempt to close ISSUE-107 next week? ←
15:39:27 <AZ> ow, I'm afraid one week will not be enough
Antoine Zimmermann: ow, I'm afraid one week will not be enough ←
15:39:38 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:39:45 <Guus> ack AZ
Guus Schreiber: ack AZ ←
15:39:46 <gavinc> Guus: That concludes semantics.
Guus Schreiber: That concludes semantics. ←
15:39:48 <pfps> I'll put out a message - the idea will be to try to get discussion started - if one week is insufficient then so be ti
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'll put out a message - the idea will be to try to get discussion started - if one week is insufficient then so be ti ←
15:40:03 <cgreer> scribe: cgreer
(Scribe set to Charles Greer)
15:40:22 <gavinc> topic: TriG/N-Triples/N-Quads
15:40:36 <cgreer> gavinc: There are three syntaxes that are close to FPWD
Gavin Carothers: There are three syntaxes that are close to FPWD ←
15:40:53 <cgreer> ... I missed wrong production in wrong doc, this will be changed.
... I missed wrong production in wrong doc, this will be changed. ←
15:40:58 <cgreer> ... Otherwise they're ready
... Otherwise they're ready ←
15:41:09 <AndyS> FPWD -- go for it!
Andy Seaborne: FPWD -- go for it! ←
15:41:31 <cgreer> gavinc: There's an error in TriG, need to add turtle as reference
Gavin Carothers: There's an error in TriG, need to add turtle as reference ←
15:41:49 <cgreer> ... Error in n-quads where I refer to triple rather than statement... known issues not yet fixed
... Error in n-quads where I refer to triple rather than statement... known issues not yet fixed ←
15:42:15 <cgreer> Guus: We need reviews
Guus Schreiber: We need reviews ←
15:42:45 <gkellogg> I'll bite
Gregg Kellogg: I'll bite ←
15:42:47 <cgreer> gavinc: I'd hope that reviewers can take all three
Gavin Carothers: I'd hope that reviewers can take all three ←
15:43:01 <cgreer> andys: I'm happy with them as is
Andy Seaborne: I'm happy with them as is ←
15:43:16 <cgreer> Guus: Without review?
Guus Schreiber: Without review? ←
15:43:30 <cgreer> andys: I think they're ready for FPWD level
Andy Seaborne: I think they're ready for FPWD level ←
15:43:34 <PatH> I just posted an updated semantics document version. Hopefully this will pass muster.
Patrick Hayes: I just posted an updated semantics document version. Hopefully this will pass muster. ←
15:43:38 <cgreer> Guus: I interpret that statement as a review
Guus Schreiber: I interpret that statement as a review ←
15:43:41 <cgreer> WOOT
WOOT ←
15:43:59 <cgreer> gavinc: The only one that needs more attention is n-quads
Gavin Carothers: The only one that needs more attention is n-quads ←
15:44:20 <cgreer> ... n-quads is newer, nobody has seen it yet
... n-quads is newer, nobody has seen it yet ←
15:44:38 <cgreer> andys: my statement was about n-triples
Andy Seaborne: my statement was about n-triples ←
15:44:48 <cgreer> ... but we shouldn't set the barrier too high
... but we shouldn't set the barrier too high ←
15:45:11 <cgreer> gavinc: n-triples has already been published as well, and reviewed
Gavin Carothers: n-triples has already been published as well, and reviewed ←
15:45:17 <cgreer> ... this step just extracts it
... this step just extracts it ←
15:45:26 <cgreer> Guus: agreed to publish all three?
Guus Schreiber: agreed to publish all three? ←
15:45:35 <cgreer> gkellogg: I can postpone review
Gregg Kellogg: I can postpone review ←
15:46:05 <cgreer> gavinc: do we intend to take n-triples and n-quads to recommendation?
Gavin Carothers: do we intend to take n-triples and n-quads to recommendation? ←
15:46:19 <cgreer> ... extension says they're both notes
... extension says they're both notes ←
15:46:26 <cgreer> Guus: did we have some other agreement?
Guus Schreiber: did we have some other agreement? ←
15:46:38 <cgreer> ... we can assume they're notes for now
... we can assume they're notes for now ←
15:47:03 <cgreer> PROPOSED: take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD
PROPOSED: take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD ←
15:48:01 <markus> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0091.html
Markus Lanthaler: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0091.html ←
15:48:07 <cgreer> thanks
thanks ←
15:48:15 <gkellogg> +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1 ←
15:48:18 <AZ> +1
Antoine Zimmermann: +1 ←
15:48:21 <AndyS> +1
Andy Seaborne: +1 ←
15:48:21 <pfps> +1
15:48:23 <zwu2> +1
15:48:23 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
15:48:24 <cgreer> +1
+1 ←
15:48:25 <pchampin> +1
15:48:26 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
15:48:26 <tbaker> +1
Thomas Baker: +1 ←
15:48:26 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
15:48:26 <PatH> I have to leave very soon. Guus, let me know if you need any other edits done to get +1
Patrick Hayes: I have to leave very soon. Guus, let me know if you need any other edits done to get +1 ←
15:48:38 <Souri> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
15:48:44 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:48:48 <AZ> Zakim, who's noisy?
Antoine Zimmermann: Zakim, who's noisy? ←
15:48:53 <cgreer> RESOLVED: take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD according to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0091.html
RESOLVED: take TriG, n-triples and n-quads to FPWD according to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Mar/0091.html ←
15:49:00 <Zakim> AZ, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus_Schreiber (47%), AndyS (64%)
Zakim IRC Bot: AZ, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus_Schreiber (47%), AndyS (64%) ←
15:49:07 <PatH> the semantics to fpwd.
Patrick Hayes: the semantics to fpwd. ←
15:50:20 <cgreer> gavinc: Eric's not my co-editor now. I need direction.
Gavin Carothers: Eric's not my co-editor now. I need direction. ←
15:50:50 <cgreer> topic: Progress on other docs
15:51:10 <PatH> I vote with the majority on all other issues.
Patrick Hayes: I vote with the majority on all other issues. ←
15:51:11 <gavinc> subtopic: JSON-LD
15:52:02 <gavinc> scribe: gavinc
(Scribe set to Gavin Carothers)
15:52:02 <trackbot> ISSUE-105 -- Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation -- closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-105 -- Graphs, datasets, authoritative representations, and content negotiation -- closed ←
15:52:02 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/105 ←
15:52:14 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
15:52:35 <gavinc> gkellogg: The decision from ISSUE-105 is not in Concepts yet.
Gregg Kellogg: The decision from ISSUE-105 is not in Concepts yet. ←
15:52:59 <gavinc> Guus: Check with editor to see if there an issue or just editorial
Guus Schreiber: Check with editor to see if there an issue or just editorial ←
15:53:33 <gavinc> markus: we addressed almost all issues sandro raised.
Markus Lanthaler: we addressed almost all issues sandro raised. ←
15:53:46 <gavinc> ... should we reserve all @words as keywords.
... should we reserve all @words as keywords. ←
15:53:59 <Zakim> -cgreer
Zakim IRC Bot: -cgreer ←
15:54:21 <gavinc> ... Sandro recommended doing that, we decided not to enforce that in the algorithm
... Sandro recommended doing that, we decided not to enforce that in the algorithm ←
15:54:38 <cgreer> lost audio
Charles Greer: lost audio ←
15:54:47 <gavinc> ... we decided to simply ignore @terms that aren't defined, just like other undefined terms
... we decided to simply ignore @terms that aren't defined, just like other undefined terms ←
15:55:27 <gavinc> ... only two sections that contain normative statements
... only two sections that contain normative statements ←
15:55:39 <AndyS> I found it a bit more complicated - the normative section B refers to the non-norm sections.
Andy Seaborne: I found it a bit more complicated - the normative section B refers to the non-norm sections. ←
15:56:49 <gavinc> ... the stuff about numbers are in the algorithm spec, not the syntax spec.
... the stuff about numbers are in the algorithm spec, not the syntax spec. ←
15:57:03 <gavinc> ... could add more examples with numbers, but we already have a lot of examples
... could add more examples with numbers, but we already have a lot of examples ←
15:57:23 <Guus> q?
Guus Schreiber: q? ←
15:57:41 <gavinc> ... there are a few minor thins in algorithms that need to be ironed out.
... there are a few minor things in algorithms that need to be ironed out. ←
15:58:04 <Souri> s/thins/things/
16:00:25 <Zakim> -Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri ←
16:00:26 <Zakim> -pfps
Zakim IRC Bot: -pfps ←
16:00:26 <zwu2> bye
16:00:27 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
16:00:31 <Zakim> -Guus_Schreiber
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus_Schreiber ←
16:00:33 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
16:00:33 <Zakim> -AZ
Zakim IRC Bot: -AZ ←
16:00:34 <Zakim> -zwu2
Zakim IRC Bot: -zwu2 ←
16:00:35 <Zakim> -markus
Zakim IRC Bot: -markus ←
16:00:37 <Zakim> -GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: -GavinC ←
16:00:42 <Guus> trackbot, end meeting
Guus Schreiber: trackbot, end meeting ←
16:00:42 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
16:00:42 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.408.992.aaaa, Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, pfps, PatH, +081165aabb, AZ, Souri, gkellogg, +1.707.874.aacc, cgreer, AndyS, zwu2, markus,
Zakim IRC Bot: As of this point the attendees have been +1.408.992.aaaa, Guus_Schreiber, GavinC, pfps, PatH, +081165aabb, AZ, Souri, gkellogg, +1.707.874.aacc, cgreer, AndyS, zwu2, markus, ←
16:00:45 <Zakim> ... pchampin
Zakim IRC Bot: ... pchampin ←
16:00:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
16:00:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/13-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/03/13-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot ←
16:00:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
16:00:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#3) generated 2013-03-20 15:09:58 UTC by 'gcarothe', comments: None