See also: IRC log
<ivan> Agenda call
<ivan> scribenick: mscottm
<ivan> scribe: Scott
<ivan> Last meeting's minutes
last meeting minutes are ok to be accepted
Happy New Year to all
<ivan> RDFa new charter
<ivan> RDFa diff
<manu> RDFa WG charter: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdfa-wg-charter.html
Continuing discussion from december: a need for javascript support in RDFa
RDF working group is continuing, RDFa working on RDFa API, extending the timeline a little bit
Would like feedback on 1) we would need another co-chair
<waiting for suggestions..?>
<danbri> so this is a general RDF API? or just .js?
<manu> good question, danbri - that's one of the things we need to discuss.
<anonymous> suggests that a name might be suggested in the coming week.
The other thing Ivan wants feedback on was mentioned by danbri above: general RDF API or just .js
One possibility is to influence several programming languages by creating RDF API's for each of them
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to discuss current design direction
vs. keep it in javascript
manu: it isn't much of an issue to implement in python and ruby, although C and C++ are trickier
would we expect Jena to take up the API?
we already have enough legacy support issues with vendors
this all seems to indicate that we shouldn't try to make a generic API
please look at the current charter to see if that message comes through.
<danbri> (re APIs, draft text "There is scope for cross-language collaboration on APIs, eg. Python and Ruby are very similar environments. Rather than attempt a design-by-committee API to work identically in all languages, instead we will encourage community collaboration on adapting the Javascript API to the idioms and constraints of different languages.")
[somebody leaving] look at the provenance stuff
Paul Groth [introduction]: work at the VU Amsterdam, intensively on provenance on the web in the incubator group
<TomB> But http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter.html works...!
<danbri> re fast/lite WG ... basically no WG launches without people saying "this one'll be quick and easy"
<manu> Our company is dealing with provenance issues right now... we're using graph literals to talk provenance.
<manu> Not necessarily on board with "Named Graphs"
<manu> What about Graph Literals? http://webr3.org/blog/semantic-web/rdf-named-graphs-vs-graph-literals/
<manu> No, we shouldn't be talking about Quad stores.
<manu> We talk about Graph Literals in the RDF API: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/
<manu> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdf-api/#graph-literals
<danbri> (portions of the graph is another nameable graph?)
<manu> GraphLiterals should be allowed in RDF subject/object position ( end of rant :P )
Luc: summarizes efforts leading up to the WG charter for provenance
Authors of Provenir, PML, etc. will likely all be part of working group
The provenance working group would not add anything to the RDF model - there is room for coordination between RDF and Provenance
Ivan: Only RDF issue that the XG identified as necessary is named graphs - correct?
Paul: Yes, we need named graphs
as a way to point at things
... You can do something with RDF as it stands now
... but it would be nice to have something official
Scott: <check in on what is meant by named graphs, points out that some people mean different things>
Paul: named graphs are the parts of a graph that we want to describe, can do some things with quad stores but don't want to specify implementation
Luc: not sure about <company
X> participating in the WG
... There was an 'interest in having standards appear'.
Ivan: Tom, do you have industrial partners that might be interested?
Tom: Not unless you consider OCLC to be an industrial partner.
<Luc> can we also add that NASA has expressed strong interest in the WG and will implement the standard in one of theirprojects
Scott: What level of NASA (Ames Research for example)?
Luc: Sandro?
Sandro: It's coming from the
upper echelons.
... NASA is in the process of joining.
Luc: You had some interest from Google?
Sandro and Ivan have some contacts there, might be interested. We'll see.
general question of where is the "bar" for WG going through: enough if we have OCLC, NASA, and IBM?
<scribe is temporarily gagged>
<IanH> Have to go -- another meeting starting.
<IanH> Bye.
Bye.
questions: What now? How much further do we have to go?
Ivan: We send out for public
comments. At some point, Sandro and Ivan take it to management,
once approved, it goes to vote in approx. 4 weeks
... We will look at whether we have to create a new mailing
list.
Lee: SPARQL, looking to finish. A bit too much work. Some remaining notes to finish.
Manu: RDF, RDFa API
Ivan: notes that there will be a new draft from RDB2RDF
Scott: HCLS IG is large. Lots of progress. A few publications just going out, a few more on the way. Expect to see about 2 more notes.