14:59:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/08-rdf-wg-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/05/08-rdf-wg-irc ←
14:59:23 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, make logs world ←
14:59:25 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 73394
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, this will be 73394 ←
14:59:25 <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 ←
14:59:26 <trackbot> Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:59:27 <trackbot> Date: 08 May 2013
15:00:26 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:00:26 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS ←
15:00:28 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, gavinc, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, pfps, AndyS, markus, TallTed, SteveH, ivan, davidwood, cygri, manu1, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, manu, ericP, mischat
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, gavinc, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, pfps, AndyS, markus, TallTed, SteveH, ivan, davidwood, cygri, manu1, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, manu, ericP, mischat ←
15:00:46 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:00:46 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AndyS ←
15:00:48 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, gavinc, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, pfps, AndyS, markus, TallTed, SteveH, ivan, davidwood, cygri, manu1, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, manu, ericP, mischat
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see RRSAgent, gavinc, gkellogg, tbaker, Guus, pfps, AndyS, markus, TallTed, SteveH, ivan, davidwood, cygri, manu1, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, manu, ericP, mischat ←
15:01:10 <AndyS> zakim, this is 73394
Andy Seaborne: zakim, this is 73394 ←
15:01:10 <Zakim> ok, AndyS; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, AndyS; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM ←
15:01:18 <AndyS> zakim, who is on the phone?
Andy Seaborne: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
15:01:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, +1.408.992.aaaa, GavinC, [IPcaller], [GVoice]
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P0, +1.408.992.aaaa, GavinC, [IPcaller], [GVoice] ←
15:01:22 <Zakim> +??P8
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P8 ←
15:01:28 <AndyS> zakim, IPCaller is me
Andy Seaborne: zakim, IPCaller is me ←
15:01:28 <Zakim> +Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: +Ivan ←
15:01:28 <Zakim> +AndyS; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +AndyS; got it ←
15:01:31 <gkellogg> zakim, I am ??P8
Gregg Kellogg: zakim, I am ??P8 ←
15:01:31 <Zakim> +gkellogg; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +gkellogg; got it ←
15:01:45 <ericP> Zakim, [GVoice] is me
Eric Prud'hommeaux: Zakim, [GVoice] is me ←
15:01:45 <Zakim> +ericP; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +ericP; got it ←
15:01:45 <Guus> zakim, ?P0 is me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, ?P0 is me ←
15:01:46 <Zakim> sorry, Guus, I do not recognize a party named '?P0'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Guus, I do not recognize a party named '?P0' ←
15:02:09 <Zakim> +Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: +Sandro ←
15:02:14 <Guus> zakim, ??P0 is me
Guus Schreiber: zakim, ??P0 is me ←
15:02:14 <Zakim> +Guus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Guus; got it ←
15:03:00 <gkellogg> scribe: gkellogg
(Scribe set to Gregg Kellogg)
15:03:08 <Zakim> +??P10
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P10 ←
15:03:11 <manu> zakim, I am ??p10
Manu Sporny: zakim, I am ??p10 ←
15:03:11 <Zakim> +manu; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +manu; got it ←
15:03:33 <Zakim> + +1.540.898.aabb
Zakim IRC Bot: + +1.540.898.aabb ←
15:03:41 <Guus> chair: Guus
15:03:44 <davidwood> Zakim, aabb is me
David Wood: Zakim, aabb is me ←
15:03:44 <Zakim> +davidwood; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +davidwood; got it ←
15:03:56 <markus> zakim, code?
Markus Lanthaler: zakim, code? ←
15:03:56 <Zakim> the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus ←
15:04:23 <Zakim> +??P16
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P16 ←
15:04:30 <SteveH> Zakim, ??P16 is me
Steve Harris: Zakim, ??P16 is me ←
15:04:32 <Zakim> +SteveH; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +SteveH; got it ←
15:04:33 <Zakim> +??P18
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P18 ←
15:04:36 <markus> zakim, ??P18 is me
Markus Lanthaler: zakim, ??P18 is me ←
15:04:36 <Zakim> +markus; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +markus; got it ←
15:04:39 <gkellogg> guus: propose to resolve the minutes
Guus Schreiber: propose to resolve the minutes ←
15:04:59 <gkellogg> RESOLVED accept minutes
RESOLVED accept minutes ←
15:05:13 <Zakim> +Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: +Souri ←
15:05:31 <gkellogg> topic: Action items
15:05:35 <Zakim> +Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: +Arnaud ←
15:05:55 <gkellogg> guus: david and path claim completion of 3 open action items.
Guus Schreiber: david and path claim completion of 3 open action items. ←
15:06:04 <pfps> I went through some of the old action items on Semantics and noted that they were done during the editing process.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I went through some of the old action items on Semantics and noted that they were done during the editing process. ←
15:06:29 <Zakim> +OpenLink_Software
Zakim IRC Bot: +OpenLink_Software ←
15:06:34 <pfps> I think that there may be a couple more actions that are actually done, but that can be handled next week
Peter Patel-Schneider: I think that there may be a couple more actions that are actually done, but that can be handled next week ←
15:06:37 <gkellogg> topic: JSON-LD
15:06:42 <TallTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me ←
15:06:42 <Zakim> +TallTed; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +TallTed; got it ←
15:06:45 <TallTed> Zakim, mute me
Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←
15:06:45 <Zakim> TallTed should now be muted
Zakim IRC Bot: TallTed should now be muted ←
15:06:47 <davidwood> close ACTION-166
David Wood: close ACTION-166 ←
15:06:48 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-166 Remove list of XSD datatypes and related discussion from RDF Semantics (and reference the list in RDF Concepts instead, if appropriate).
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-166 Remove list of XSD datatypes and related discussion from RDF Semantics (and reference the list in RDF Concepts instead, if appropriate). ←
15:06:54 <davidwood> close ACTION-170
David Wood: close ACTION-170 ←
15:06:54 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-170 Implement ISSUE-13 resolution (make rdf:XMLLiteral optional and interpret it only under D-Entailment).
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-170 Implement ISSUE-13 resolution (make rdf:XMLLiteral optional and interpret it only under D-Entailment). ←
15:07:00 <gkellogg> guus: first item on planning for 2nd LC for JSON-LD API
Guus Schreiber: first item on planning for 2nd LC for JSON-LD API ←
15:07:05 <davidwood> close ACTION-257
David Wood: close ACTION-257 ←
15:07:05 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-257 Add resolution of issue-107 to RDF Concepts.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-257 Add resolution of ISSUE-107 to RDF Concepts. ←
15:07:09 <davidwood> close ACTION-258
David Wood: close ACTION-258 ←
15:07:09 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-258 Update RDF Concepts to reflect issue-109.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-258 Update RDF Concepts to reflect ISSUE-109. ←
15:07:12 <davidwood> close ACTION-259
David Wood: close ACTION-259 ←
15:07:12 <trackbot> Closed ACTION-259 Modify RDF Concepts in respect to ISSUE-126, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Apr/0118.html.
Trackbot IRC Bot: Closed ACTION-259 Modify RDF Concepts in respect to ISSUE-126, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Apr/0118.html. ←
15:07:23 <gkellogg> manu: at this point, we're coming out of LC for JSON-LD syntax and API. The group has addressed all issues, but needs to respond to commenters. There are a couple of things which will cause the API to do a 2nd LC. We had to change the API to use a futures-based API, as will be used by browser implementers. The question is, how to push the other document forward.
Manu Sporny: at this point, we're coming out of LC for JSON-LD syntax and API. The group has addressed all issues, but needs to respond to commenters. There are a couple of things which will cause the API to do a 2nd LC. We had to change the API to use a futures-based API, as will be used by browser implementers. The question is, how to push the other document forward. ←
15:08:35 <Zakim> +PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: +PatH ←
15:09:02 <gkellogg> manu: There are two proposals: we publish a 2nd LC for the API and keep syntax in limbo until API again comes out of LC, then proceed directly to PR. We already have the CR requirements covered. We'll have 5 interoperable implementations by the end of next week. The first proposal is that we take JSON-LD-API through 2nd LC. The second is to push JSON-LD syntax to CR phase, but go through 2nd LC for API, then have them both go straight to PR. question for group, what do they want to do? The question for group, what do they want to do? The benefit for the second proposal is that we would have one document at CR.
Manu Sporny: There are two proposals: we publish a 2nd LC for the API and keep syntax in limbo until API again comes out of LC, then proceed directly to PR. We already have the CR requirements covered. We'll have 5 interoperable implementations by the end of next week. The first proposal is that we take JSON-LD-API through 2nd LC. The second is to push JSON-LD syntax to CR phase, but go through 2nd LC for API, then have them both go straight to PR. question for group, what do they want to do? The question for group, what do they want to do? The benefit for the second proposal is that we would have one document at CR. ←
15:10:51 <gkellogg> guus: I think 2nd LC can be quick.
Guus Schreiber: I think 2nd LC can be quick. ←
15:11:06 <gkellogg> ivan: I think the fact that the 2 documents belong together is also an important message. I would be in favor of keeping them in sync, which implies the 1st proposal.
Ivan Herman: I think the fact that the 2 documents belong together is also an important message. I would be in favor of keeping them in sync, which implies the 1st proposal. ←
15:11:39 <gkellogg> manu: the other thing, does the group feel we need CR, given that criteria are already covered?
Manu Sporny: the other thing, does the group feel we need CR, given that criteria are already covered? ←
15:11:47 <gkellogg> guus: I've personally never done that.
Guus Schreiber: I've personally never done that. ←
15:11:57 <gavinc> Yes, there should be more feedback from the community as a whole.
Gavin Carothers: Yes, there should be more feedback from the community as a whole. ←
15:12:04 <gkellogg> ivan: it's possible.
Ivan Herman: it's possible. ←
15:12:12 <gkellogg> sandro: SPARQL did this, and it wasn't a problem.
Sandro Hawke: SPARQL did this, and it wasn't a problem. ←
15:12:30 <gkellogg> ericP: you do this when you already have the implementation report before CR transition request.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: you do this when you already have the implementation report before CR transition request. ←
15:12:57 <gkellogg> sandro: and you don't think the community needs more outreach, before their told it's too late.
Sandro Hawke: and you don't think the community needs more outreach, before their told it's too late. ←
15:12:59 <manu> http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/
Manu Sporny: http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/ ←
15:13:05 <gkellogg> manu: we do have an implementation report.
Manu Sporny: we do have an implementation report. ←
15:13:19 <markus> wouldn't moving syntax to CR give a heads up to people!?
Markus Lanthaler: wouldn't moving syntax to CR give a heads up to people!? ←
15:13:32 <gkellogg> ericp: LC is "we think we're done, let us know". CR is "last chance for people to contribute practical implementation experience". If you don't feel the community will be disenfranchised, then go ahead to PR.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: LC is "we think we're done, let us know". CR is "last chance for people to contribute practical implementation experience". If you don't feel the community will be disenfranchised, then go ahead to PR. ←
15:14:11 <gkellogg> manu: Andys might be interested in doing an implementation. Does anyone in this group need more time.
Manu Sporny: Andys might be interested in doing an implementation. Does anyone in this group need more time. ←
15:14:40 <gkellogg> sandro: JSON-LD won't be real until it's implemented in all major frameworks. If Jena doesn't do JSON-LD, then no one will take it seriously. To be a mainstream implementation, it needs to be implemented by all the major implementations.
Sandro Hawke: JSON-LD won't be real until it's implemented in all major frameworks. If Jena doesn't do JSON-LD, then no one will take it seriously. To be a mainstream implementation, it needs to be implemented by all the major implementations. ←
15:15:22 <gkellogg> manu: one of the editors wanted a CR anyway.
Manu Sporny: one of the editors wanted a CR anyway. ←
15:15:41 <markus> q+
Markus Lanthaler: q+ ←
15:15:41 <gkellogg> sandro: it would be nice if when going to REC if it's been implemented by all the major systems.
Sandro Hawke: it would be nice if when going to REC if it's been implemented by all the major systems. ←
15:15:49 <gkellogg> guus: time-wise, it's not a problem. I have a slight preference for a short CR period.
Guus Schreiber: time-wise, it's not a problem. I have a slight preference for a short CR period. ←
15:16:17 <gkellogg> markus: 2nd LC is just because the browser API changed, otherwise, we wouldn't need it.
Markus Lanthaler: 2nd LC is just because the browser API changed, otherwise, we wouldn't need it. ←
15:16:18 <Guus> ack markus
Guus Schreiber: ack markus ←
15:16:44 <gkellogg> markus: my question is if it wouldn't help to move syntax to CR, as this might signal to the community that it is more mature.
Markus Lanthaler: my question is if it wouldn't help to move syntax to CR, as this might signal to the community that it is more mature. ←
15:17:01 <gkellogg> sandro: moving to CR requires a director's meeting, so I'm hesitant to do 2 different meetings for related documents.
Sandro Hawke: moving to CR requires a director's meeting, so I'm hesitant to do 2 different meetings for related documents. ←
15:17:03 <ivan> +1 to Sandro
Ivan Herman: +1 to Sandro ←
15:17:51 <gkellogg> manu: the proposal is then to take API to LC2, and do 3-week LC2, and after that, take both syntax and API into CR (around June-4) short CR period (3 weeks), and go into PR.
Manu Sporny: the proposal is then to take API to LC2, and do 3-week LC2, and after that, take both syntax and API into CR (around June-4) short CR period (3 weeks), and go into PR. ←
15:18:55 <gkellogg> manu: propose to publish LC2 on May-14 with a 3-week LC period, bringing us out on June-4.
Manu Sporny: propose to publish LC2 on May-14 with a 3-week LC period, bringing us out on June-4. ←
15:19:40 <gavinc> 2013-06-04 :P
Gavin Carothers: 2013-06-04 :P ←
15:19:48 <manu> PROPOSAL: Publish JSON-LD 1.0 API as a Second Last Call document on May 14th 2013 with a 3 week Last Call period.
PROPOSED: Publish JSON-LD 1.0 API as a Second Last Call document on May 14th 2013 with a 3 week Last Call period. ←
15:19:52 <gkellogg> manu: that would be may-14 entry and June-3 exit.
Manu Sporny: that would be may-14 entry and June-3 exit. ←
15:20:06 <manu> +1
Manu Sporny: +1 ←
15:20:07 <gkellogg> +1
+1 ←
15:20:08 <pfps> +1
15:20:10 <ericP> +1
Eric Prud'hommeaux: +1 ←
15:20:11 <ivan> +1
Ivan Herman: +1 ←
15:20:11 <markus> +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1 ←
15:20:16 <Guus> +1
Guus Schreiber: +1 ←
15:20:18 <gavinc> +1
Gavin Carothers: +1 ←
15:20:18 <Souri_> +1
Souripriya Das: +1 ←
15:20:25 <PatH> +1
Patrick Hayes: +1 ←
15:20:28 <markus> what about syntax? do we need to re-publish it as well?
Markus Lanthaler: what about syntax? do we need to re-publish it as well? ←
15:20:39 <gkellogg> RESOLVED: Publish JSON-LD 1.0 API as a Second Last Call document on May 14th 2013 with a 3 week Last Call period.
RESOLVED: Publish JSON-LD 1.0 API as a Second Last Call document on May 14th 2013 with a 3 week Last Call period. ←
15:20:44 <tbaker> +1
Thomas Baker: +1 ←
15:20:51 <gkellogg> manu: still need to do formal responses.
Manu Sporny: still need to do formal responses. ←
15:21:07 <gkellogg> guus: make sure that it's on record to have them agree or live with it. This is one the road to being REC very soon, good work.
Guus Schreiber: make sure that it's on record to have them agree or live with it. This is one the road to being REC very soon, good work. ←
15:21:29 <Arnaud> belated +1
Arnaud Le Hors: belated +1 ←
15:22:01 <gkellogg> topic: LC of concepts and semantics.
15:22:02 <markus> what about syntax? do we need to re-publish it as well?
Markus Lanthaler: what about syntax? do we need to re-publish it as well? ←
15:22:08 <markus> that was my question :-)
Markus Lanthaler: that was my question :-) ←
15:22:12 <manu> markus: Nope, we don't need to re-publish it.
Markus Lanthaler: Nope, we don't need to re-publish it. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:22:15 <gkellogg> guus: there were several small editorial things.
Guus Schreiber: there were several small editorial things. ←
15:22:25 <manu> markus: It'll just stay in limbo until JSON-LD 1.0 API comes out of LC2.
Markus Lanthaler: It'll just stay in limbo until JSON-LD 1.0 API comes out of LC2. [ Scribe Assist by Manu Sporny ] ←
15:22:29 <markus> so we leave it there with a text saying that the last call ends this week?
Markus Lanthaler: so we leave it there with a text saying that the last call ends this week? ←
15:22:35 <manu> yep
Manu Sporny: yep ←
15:22:39 <gkellogg> PatH: I thought we had agreed to take out talk about datatype maps.
Patrick Hayes: I thought we had agreed to take out talk about datatype maps. ←
15:22:54 <gkellogg> david: I didn't address ISSUE-118, I'm in the middle of doing that now. I'm fine with ISSUE-118, but have a question about references for defining vocabularies.
David Wood: I didn't address ISSUE-118, I'm in the middle of doing that now. I'm fine with ISSUE-118, but have a question about references for defining vocabularies. ←
15:23:00 <markus> ok
Markus Lanthaler: ok ←
15:23:44 <gkellogg> david: I looked back at other places where we use reference without defining it. If we only use "reference" in the definition of a vocabulary, then we have a meaningless definition in the document. It's just in relationship to a vocabulary that you want to take it out?
David Wood: I looked back at other places where we use reference without defining it. If we only use "reference" in the definition of a vocabulary, then we have a meaningless definition in the document. It's just in relationship to a vocabulary that you want to take it out? ←
15:24:26 <gkellogg> PatH: yes, just in that case.
Patrick Hayes: yes, just in that case. ←
15:24:41 <sandro> q+
Sandro Hawke: q+ ←
15:24:44 <Zakim> -manu
Zakim IRC Bot: -manu ←
15:24:54 <gkellogg> david: I'll make changes and check in shortly.
David Wood: I'll make changes and check in shortly. ←
15:24:55 <pfps> It is perfectly fine for me to create an RDF vocabulary that doesn't have clearly defined referents.
Peter Patel-Schneider: It is perfectly fine for me to create an RDF vocabulary that doesn't have clearly defined referents. ←
15:25:09 <gkellogg> guus: second point, description of entailment regimes.
Guus Schreiber: second point, description of entailment regimes. ←
15:25:51 <pfps> The ter Horst "semantics" is a completely different kettle of fish, what is being discussed is to have a set of entailment rules.
Peter Patel-Schneider: The ter Horst "semantics" is a completely different kettle of fish, what is being discussed is to have a set of entailment rules. ←
15:25:53 <pfps> q+
15:25:54 <gkellogg> PatH: I've been looking at how to include the entailment rules in a more elegant way; I think AZ's point is a good one, put the rules in a table when they're mentioned. I'm in the process of doing that now, major surgery on the text, but not on the content. that will take a few more days.
Patrick Hayes: I've been looking at how to include the entailment rules in a more elegant way; I think AZ's point is a good one, put the rules in a table when they're mentioned. I'm in the process of doing that now, major surgery on the text, but not on the content. that will take a few more days. ←
15:26:28 <gkellogg> guus: what about ivan's point of including the ter Horst work?
Guus Schreiber: what about ivan's point of including the ter Horst work? ←
15:26:33 <pfps> By the way, there has to be some new stuff in the rules because of datatypes.
Peter Patel-Schneider: By the way, there has to be some new stuff in the rules because of datatypes. ←
15:27:08 <gkellogg> PatH: you need the generalization to get it to work. You allow the rules to apply to a more general syntax, which allows literals in subject position, and BNodes in predicte position.
Patrick Hayes: you need the generalization to get it to work. You allow the rules to apply to a more general syntax, which allows literals in subject position, and BNodes in predicte position. ←
15:27:15 <sandro> q+ sandro2 to ask about copyright on terHorst
Sandro Hawke: q+ sandro2 to ask about copyright on terHorst ←
15:27:17 <pfps> You don't really need the ter Horst generalization to make a full set of rules - however, it would make the rules harder to state.
Peter Patel-Schneider: You don't really need the ter Horst generalization to make a full set of rules - however, it would make the rules harder to state. ←
15:27:21 <gkellogg> … The cases you miss without that are pretty obscure. We can then add a section at the end that uses the non-legal RDF bits separate. The actual statement of the rules when you remark that they apply to the same general syntax. It might be good to wait until I have it done so that people can read it. The proposal is that rules are stated in line as tables when introduced. A later section discusses completeness and necessary generalizations that are required.
… The cases you miss without that are pretty obscure. We can then add a section at the end that uses the non-legal RDF bits separate. The actual statement of the rules when you remark that they apply to the same general syntax. It might be good to wait until I have it done so that people can read it. The proposal is that rules are stated in line as tables when introduced. A later section discusses completeness and necessary generalizations that are required. ←
15:29:36 <Guus> ack pfps
Guus Schreiber: ack pfps ←
15:29:53 <gkellogg> pfps: I appreciate putting the rules inline has an appeal to it, but I'm not in favor of it, as they're non-normative, but in the middle of normative sections. putting the incomplete rules back in is just inviting back in a min-firestorm amongst the 5 people who care :)
Peter Patel-Schneider: I appreciate putting the rules inline has an appeal to it, but I'm not in favor of it, as they're non-normative, but in the middle of normative sections. putting the incomplete rules back in is just inviting back in a min-firestorm amongst the 5 people who care :) ←
15:30:34 <SteveH> leaving them out could be controversial too though…
Steve Harris: leaving them out could be controversial too though… ←
15:30:49 <gkellogg> PatH: I was going to suggest taking the ter Horst rules.
Patrick Hayes: I was going to suggest taking the ter Horst rules. ←
15:30:59 <AndyS> The rules are what many (other!) people go to first.
Andy Seaborne: The rules are what many (other!) people go to first. ←
15:31:04 <gkellogg> pfps: making them an appendix would be fine, as they're non-normative, and can be linked to. There are also going to more rules because of datatypes.
Peter Patel-Schneider: making them an appendix would be fine, as they're non-normative, and can be linked to. There are also going to more rules because of datatypes. ←
15:31:37 <gkellogg> PatH: yes, and we have to be clear to not dis-claim completeness WRT datatypes.
Patrick Hayes: yes, and we have to be clear to not dis-claim completeness WRT datatypes. ←
15:31:58 <gkellogg> pfps: we can change appendices later in the game, but normative stuff is more difficult.
Peter Patel-Schneider: we can change appendices later in the game, but normative stuff is more difficult. ←
15:32:07 <gkellogg> guus: I'm happy to leave it to both of you to sort this out.
Guus Schreiber: I'm happy to leave it to both of you to sort this out. ←
15:32:42 <gkellogg> pfps: PatH's write that we should wait until there's something close to being too beeing before continuing.
Peter Patel-Schneider: PatH's write that we should wait until there's something close to being too beeing before continuing. ←
15:33:09 <gkellogg> sandro: I was unhappy with one of PatH's changes, but I think it's okay.
Sandro Hawke: I was unhappy with one of PatH's changes, but I think it's okay. ←
15:33:29 <gkellogg> david: I have some uncommitted changes, and I've taken out the offending paragraph. I'm considering that a document of length zero might have some value :)
David Wood: I have some uncommitted changes, and I've taken out the offending paragraph. I'm considering that a document of length zero might have some value :) ←
15:33:57 <gkellogg> sandro: I think the document is great.
Sandro Hawke: I think the document is great. ←
15:34:07 <gkellogg> david: cygri did most of the heavy lifting.
David Wood: cygri did most of the heavy lifting. ←
15:34:29 <Guus> ack davidwood
Guus Schreiber: ack davidwood ←
15:34:29 <Zakim> davidwood, you wanted to ask PatH a question about datatype maps
Zakim IRC Bot: davidwood, you wanted to ask PatH a question about datatype maps ←
15:34:42 <gkellogg> david: WRT datatype map, I want to be sure I understand PatH's proposal. You're proposing to replace 5.4 with a new section on datatype IRIs. We have a bunch of places in the document where we refer back to datatype maps. I think we can replace most of those references with something like referenced to defined datatype IRIs when defined.
David Wood: WRT datatype map, I want to be sure I understand PatH's proposal. You're proposing to replace 5.4 with a new section on datatype IRIs. We have a bunch of places in the document where we refer back to datatype maps. I think we can replace most of those references with something like referenced to defined datatype IRIs when defined. ←
15:35:40 <gkellogg> PatH: the datatype IRI then denotes the datatype.
Patrick Hayes: the datatype IRI then denotes the datatype. ←
15:36:10 <gkellogg> guus: language tags, which started from a proposal of AndyS.
Guus Schreiber: language tags, which started from a proposal of AndyS. ←
15:36:39 <gkellogg> AndyS: the trouble with language tags is that there is a semi-canonical representation which RDF doesn't follow. This means that parsing with string tools can be tricky. It's an abstract concept, and there are many ways to deal with it. The odd thing is that they're hard-baked into RDF somewhat like XML Literals, rather than dealing with an abstract value space.
Andy Seaborne: the trouble with language tags is that there is a semi-canonical representation which RDF doesn't follow. This means that parsing with string tools can be tricky. It's an abstract concept, and there are many ways to deal with it. The odd thing is that they're hard-baked into RDF somewhat like XML Literals, rather than dealing with an abstract value space. ←
15:37:39 <ericP> q+ to say i'd like to encourage round-tripping
Eric Prud'hommeaux: q+ to say i'd like to encourage round-tripping ←
15:37:42 <pfps> q+
15:37:54 <Guus> ack ericP
Guus Schreiber: ack ericP ←
15:37:54 <Zakim> ericP, you wanted to say i'd like to encourage round-tripping
Zakim IRC Bot: ericP, you wanted to say i'd like to encourage round-tripping ←
15:38:09 <gkellogg> ericP: the current text (old) said they were lower case for the purposes of comparison. for UI reasons, there's an argument for preserving case because the RFC says you should use the registered tags for regions and something else. I we lowercase them, then we're changing the recommended representation. I'd like to see something that does case-folding and preserves the representation.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: the current text (old) said they were lower case for the purposes of comparison. for UI reasons, there's an argument for preserving case because the RFC says you should use the registered tags for regions and something else. I we lowercase them, then we're changing the recommended representation. I'd like to see something that does case-folding and preserves the representation. ←
15:39:32 <Guus> ack pfps
Guus Schreiber: ack pfps ←
15:39:52 <gkellogg> pfps: I believe I agree with AndyS after having an argument with myself. I originally thought the old design was the best, but it seems to me that the discussion should be changed that language tags are equal if they're equal according to the language tag document.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I believe I agree with AndyS after having an argument with myself. I originally thought the old design was the best, but it seems to me that the discussion should be changed that language tags are equal if they're equal according to the language tag document. ←
15:40:27 <gavinc> There is less utility in not changing when implementations ignored the recommendation ;)
Gavin Carothers: There is less utility in not changing when implementations ignored the recommendation ;) ←
15:40:29 <AndyS> q+ to ask (rhetorically) what real system do.
Andy Seaborne: q+ to ask (rhetorically) what real system do. ←
15:40:34 <Guus> ack PatH
Guus Schreiber: ack PatH ←
15:40:41 <gkellogg> … We could say that implementations can lower-case everything and use string equality.
… We could say that implementations can lower-case everything and use string equality. ←
15:41:06 <gkellogg> PatH: what about a language tag in RDF syntax that's completely legal, such as @27.1?
Patrick Hayes: what about a language tag in RDF syntax that's completely legal, such as @27.1? ←
15:41:23 <gkellogg> sandro: that should be a syntax error.
Sandro Hawke: that should be a syntax error. ←
15:41:26 <ericP> "abcd"@1234
Eric Prud'hommeaux: "abcd"@1234 ←
15:41:27 <gavinc> No.
Gavin Carothers: No. ←
15:41:37 <gkellogg> PatH: this means that RDF parse needs to check the space?
Patrick Hayes: this means that RDF parse needs to check the space? ←
15:41:40 <pfps> As far as semantics is concerned there is no issue.
Peter Patel-Schneider: As far as semantics is concerned there is no issue. ←
15:42:00 <gkellogg> … There'a an argument that the abstract syntax should not be sensitive.
… There'a an argument that the abstract syntax should not be sensitive. ←
15:42:08 <AndyS> I have come across ""@419es in freebase
Andy Seaborne: I have come across ""@419es in freebase ←
15:42:15 <gkellogg> sandro: if we changed this, then Turtle couldn't serialize every RDF graph.
Sandro Hawke: if we changed this, then Turtle couldn't serialize every RDF graph. ←
15:42:21 <ericP> -> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#grammar-production-LANGTAG Turtle language tag constraints
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#grammar-production-LANGTAG Turtle language tag constraints ←
15:42:28 <ericP> '@' [a-zA-Z]+ ('-' [a-zA-Z0-9]+)*
Eric Prud'hommeaux: '@' [a-zA-Z]+ ('-' [a-zA-Z0-9]+)* ←
15:42:55 <AndyS> RFC3066 rule (old RFC) -- BCP47 is more complicated.
Andy Seaborne: RFC3066 rule (old RFC) -- BCP47 is more complicated. ←
15:43:01 <gkellogg> PatH: we can add some thing to indicate that a badly formed language tag is non-conforming.
Patrick Hayes: we can add some thing to indicate that a badly formed language tag is non-conforming. ←
15:43:22 <gkellogg> sandro: the only issue is what defines "badly formed"? ericP's regexp is okay.
Sandro Hawke: the only issue is what defines "badly formed"? ericP's regexp is okay. ←
15:43:26 <AndyS> RFC5646 = BCP47
Andy Seaborne: RFC5646 = BCP47 ←
15:43:39 <gkellogg> gavinc: the RFC says you can use the old rules, which is what Turtle uses.
Gavin Carothers: the RFC says you can use the old rules, which is what Turtle uses. ←
15:43:49 <Guus> ACTION davidwood to add text to Concepts that bad language tag is a syntax error
Guus Schreiber: ACTION davidwood to add text to Concepts that bad language tag is a syntax error ←
15:43:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-262 - Add text to Concepts that bad language tag is a syntax error [on David Wood - due 2013-05-15].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-262 - Add text to Concepts that bad language tag is a syntax error [on David Wood - due 2013-05-15]. ←
15:44:08 <gkellogg> sandro: is it okay for people not to read BCP47?
Sandro Hawke: is it okay for people not to read BCP47? ←
15:44:15 <gkellogg> gavinc: meh
Gavin Carothers: meh ←
15:44:19 <AndyS> RFC 3066 is 8*ALPHA (- 8*ALPHA)*
Andy Seaborne: RFC 3066 is 8*ALPHA (- 8*ALPHA)* ←
15:44:32 <gkellogg> david: I proposed to include both the regexp and the reference.
David Wood: I proposed to include both the regexp and the reference. ←
15:44:34 <AndyS> not unlimited length
Andy Seaborne: not unlimited length ←
15:44:48 <PatH> I will have to leave the meeting early today, sorry.
Patrick Hayes: I will have to leave the meeting early today, sorry. ←
15:44:58 <gavinc> AndyS, meh ;)
Gavin Carothers: AndyS, meh ;) ←
15:45:00 <ericP> and, unlike Turtle, prohibits [0-9]
Eric Prud'hommeaux: and, unlike Turtle, prohibits [0-9] ←
15:45:21 <ericP> (which turtle permits on subtypes)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: (which turtle permits on subtypes) ←
15:45:42 <gkellogg> ericP: I'm not sure that I have consensus that we should down-case everything. We should say the comparison is case-insensitive, but we don't have to downcase everything. the commenter was okay with this.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: I'm not sure that I have consensus that we should down-case everything. We should say the comparison is case-insensitive, but we don't have to downcase everything. the commenter was okay with this. ←
15:46:15 <AndyS> ack me
Andy Seaborne: ack me ←
15:46:15 <Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask (rhetorically) what real system do.
Zakim IRC Bot: AndyS, you wanted to ask (rhetorically) what rule system do. ←
15:46:28 <Guus> ack AndyS
Guus Schreiber: ack AndyS ←
15:46:57 <gkellogg> AndyS: what do rule-systems do? If they're storing language tags as presented, then you'll get two terms, and we should reflect on that, as N-Triples has changed it's role somewhat. will users want what the put in to come out again. It's a fairly permanent meme
Andy Seaborne: what do real systems do? If they're storing language tags that differ only in case as presented, then you'll get two terms, and we should reflect on that, as N-Triples has changed it's role somewhat. will users want what the put in to come out again. It's a fairly permanent meme ←
15:47:25 <gavinc> <http://example.org/> <http://example.org/> "cool"@en .
Gavin Carothers: <http://example.org/> <http://example.org/> "cool"@en . ←
15:47:26 <gkellogg> s/real/rule/
15:47:26 <gavinc> <http://example.org/> <http://example.org/> "cool"@EN .
Gavin Carothers: <http://example.org/> <http://example.org/> "cool"@EN . ←
15:47:28 <gavinc> rapper responded with Parsing returned 2 triples
Gavin Carothers: rapper responded with Parsing returned 2 triples ←
15:47:34 <pfps> was that a disjointness claim?
Peter Patel-Schneider: was that a disjointness claim? ←
15:47:42 <Guus> ack pfps
Guus Schreiber: ack pfps ←
15:47:43 <ericP> from SWObjects: { <s> <p> "o"@en, "o"@EN } -> { <s> <p> "o"@en } by route of the first parsed winning
Eric Prud'hommeaux: from SWObjects: { <s> <p> "o"@en, "o"@EN } -> { <s> <p> "o"@en } by route of the first parsed winning ←
15:47:52 <PatH> I can imagine an applicaiton that stores tags in UC for its own reasons being very upset by forced normalization. Suggest we use principle of minimal intervention.
Patrick Hayes: I can imagine an applicaiton that stores tags in UC for its own reasons being very upset by forced normalization. Suggest we use principle of minimal intervention. ←
15:48:15 <gavinc> I don't care about RDF 2004 ;) I care about current implementations.
Gavin Carothers: I don't care about RDF 2004 ;) I care about current implementations. ←
15:48:19 <gkellogg> pfps: according to RDF 2004, literals which differ only in language tag are the same literal.
Peter Patel-Schneider: according to RDF 2004, literals which differ only in the case of the language tag are the same literal. ←
15:48:21 <ivan> s/rule-systems/real systems/
15:48:22 <gavinc> That DID change.
Gavin Carothers: That DID change. ←
15:48:30 <AndyS> Jena stores two, so not equals, but tests sameValueAs
Andy Seaborne: Jena stores two, so not equals, but tests sameValueAs ←
15:48:32 <gkellogg> … If that changes, then many other things have to change
… If that changes, then many other things have to change ←
15:48:46 <gavinc> -1 to SHOULD lowercase
Gavin Carothers: -1 to SHOULD lowercase ←
15:48:51 <gkellogg> sandro: another path is to say you SHOULD put things in lowercase.
Sandro Hawke: another path is to say you SHOULD put things in lowercase. ←
15:49:00 <pfps> s/differ only in/differ only in the case of the/
15:49:07 <gkellogg> ericp: you're aware that BCP recommends just the opposite.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: you're aware that BCP recommends just the opposite. ←
15:49:22 <SteveH> we can't guarantee to maintain the case, FWIW
Steve Harris: we can't guarantee to maintain the case, FWIW ←
15:49:25 <gkellogg> sandro: us guaranteeing to maintain the case is a real implementation burden.
Sandro Hawke: us guaranteeing to maintain the case is a real implementation burden. ←
15:49:29 <PatH> the triple x:a x:b "foo"@en . x:a x:b "foo"@EN . is one or two triples?
Patrick Hayes: the triple x:a x:b "foo"@en . x:a x:b "foo"@EN . is one or two triples? ←
15:49:46 <gkellogg> gavinc: in a look around, Jena, Rapper, and most others keep all the forms. they just store how it was entered.
Gavin Carothers: in a look around, Jena, Rapper, and most others keep all the forms. they just store how it was entered. ←
15:50:18 <gkellogg> sandro: so they can't just do a byte-compare. You can no longer have a hash of the triple. (you lower-case to hash it).
Sandro Hawke: so they can't just do a byte-compare. You can no longer have a hash of the triple. (you lower-case to hash it). ←
15:50:54 <SteveH> lower case when you hash it isn't sufficient
Steve Harris: lower case when you hash it isn't sufficient ←
15:50:56 <gkellogg> AndyS: you can compare two different types, when they come in and when queried.
Andy Seaborne: you can compare two different types, when they come in and when queried. ←
15:51:03 <ericP> -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Mar/0039 CR comments "Language Tag Case Conflict" from Hong Sun
Eric Prud'hommeaux: -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Mar/0039 CR comments "Language Tag Case Conflict" from Hong Sun ←
15:51:08 <Guus> ack pfps
Guus Schreiber: ack pfps ←
15:51:25 <gkellogg> pfps: looking at what systems do… If I stick two language tag triples into Jena, do I get back out 1 or 2 triples. This is a spec violation.
Peter Patel-Schneider: looking at what systems do… If I stick two language tag triples into Jena, do I get back out 1 or 2 triples. This is a spec violation. ←
15:51:39 <gavinc> Yes, they are violating the spec ;)
Gavin Carothers: Yes, they are violating the spec ;) ←
15:52:00 <PatH> Please don't say "value"
Patrick Hayes: Please don't say "value" ←
15:52:01 <pfps> s/language tags/language tags that differ only in case/
15:52:07 <gkellogg> sandro: the cleanest way is to treat it as with other values, difference between literal equality and value equality.
Sandro Hawke: the cleanest way is to treat it as with other values, difference between literal equality and value equality. ←
15:52:32 <PatH> q+
Patrick Hayes: q+ ←
15:52:36 <gkellogg> AndyS: we have to talk about the value space of RDFLangString anyway, so there's a place to talk about it.
Andy Seaborne: we have to talk about the value space of RDFLangString anyway, so there's a place to talk about it. ←
15:52:41 <Guus> ack PatH
Guus Schreiber: ack PatH ←
15:53:12 <gkellogg> PatH: If language tagged strings really were a datatype, then we could handle this neatly by creating a special datatype, but oh well...
Patrick Hayes: If language tagged strings really were a datatype, then we could handle this neatly by creating a special datatype, but oh well... ←
15:53:38 <gkellogg> AndyS: it's just about defining the value space.
Andy Seaborne: it's just about defining the value space. ←
15:53:40 <gavinc> Why not?
Gavin Carothers: Why not? ←
15:53:50 <gkellogg> PatH: we're not allowed to do this. I'll take a look, though.
Patrick Hayes: we're not allowed to do this. I'll take a look, though. ←
15:53:53 <gavinc> Why can't we say that?
Gavin Carothers: Why can't we say that? ←
15:54:24 <gkellogg> ericP: would it just be easier to say that they're compared case-insensitively. It's ASCII, so it's pretty simple.
Eric Prud'hommeaux: would it just be easier to say that they're compared case-insensitively. It's ASCII, so it's pretty simple. ←
15:54:26 <SteveH> we can't guarantee to maintain the case, FWIW
Steve Harris: we can't guarantee to maintain the case, FWIW ←
15:54:27 <sandro> SteveH, if casefolding isn't enough, please speak up
Sandro Hawke: SteveH, if casefolding isn't enough, please speak up ←
15:54:53 <SteveH> I don't think we're the only ones
Steve Harris: I don't think we're the only ones ←
15:54:55 <PatH> I have to leave...
Patrick Hayes: I have to leave... ←
15:55:06 <gkellogg> AndyS: some systems will choose to do that, and the first one wins.
Andy Seaborne: some systems will choose to do that, and the first one wins. ←
15:55:12 <Zakim> -PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: -PatH ←
15:55:20 <sandro> so changing the case is like skolemizing -- it's a fairly harmless bit of graph-changing.
Sandro Hawke: so changing the case is like skolemizing -- it's a fairly harmless bit of graph-changing. ←
15:55:21 <gkellogg> … I don't think we can change what systems really do.
… I don't think we can change what systems really do. ←
15:55:29 <gkellogg> guus: leave further discussion to the list.
Guus Schreiber: leave further discussion to the list. ←
15:55:32 <gavinc> anyway, if you MEAN to do language comparing http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/#func-langMatches ;)
Gavin Carothers: anyway, if you MEAN to do language comparing http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/#func-langMatches ;) ←
15:55:47 <SteveH> I also recognise that users might expect it to be preserved
Steve Harris: I also recognise that users might expect it to be preserved ←
15:55:55 <gkellogg> … I'd like to see if we can get reviewers for concepts and semantics.
… I'd like to see if we can get reviewers for concepts and semantics. ←
15:55:56 <AndyS> "… I don't think we will change what systems actually do."
Andy Seaborne: "… I don't think we will change what systems actually do." ←
15:56:13 <ericP> gavinc, langMatches includes subsumption reasoning
Eric Prud'hommeaux: gavinc, langMatches includes subsumption reasoning ←
15:56:19 <gkellogg> … We need reviews for both of them. I'm happy to review concepts.
… We need reviews for both of them. I'm happy to review concepts. ←
15:56:25 <gkellogg> pfps: I'll review concepts.
Peter Patel-Schneider: I'll review concepts. ←
15:56:39 <gavinc> ericP, yes. That was my pont.
Gavin Carothers: ericP, yes. That was my pont. ←
15:56:41 <gkellogg> ivan: when are the reviews?
Ivan Herman: when are the reviews? ←
15:56:42 <ericP> e.g. langMatches("en-us", "en") => true (or maybe reversed parms, i can't remmeber)
Eric Prud'hommeaux: e.g. langMatches("en-us", "en") => true (or maybe reversed parms, i can't remmeber) ←
15:56:45 <ericP> gotcha
Eric Prud'hommeaux: gotcha ←
15:56:46 <AndyS> All these use models are reasonable.
Andy Seaborne: All these use models are reasonable. ←
15:56:54 <gkellogg> guus: reviews in two weeks?
Guus Schreiber: reviews in two weeks? ←
15:57:06 <gkellogg> pfps: version might be available in a week.
Peter Patel-Schneider: version might be available in a week. ←
15:57:15 <gkellogg> guus: by end of next week.
Guus Schreiber: by end of next week. ←
15:57:37 <gkellogg> ivan: I can look at semantics the week after.
Ivan Herman: I can look at semantics the week after. ←
15:57:53 <gkellogg> guus: we should ask AZ.
Guus Schreiber: we should ask AZ. ←
15:58:35 <gkellogg> guus: it would be good to have an LC package, and I think it makes sense to include TriG. Then to have semantics, concepts and TriG.
Guus Schreiber: it would be good to have an LC package, and I think it makes sense to include TriG. Then to have semantics, concepts and TriG. ←
15:58:41 <gavinc> Yay!
Gavin Carothers: Yay! ←
15:58:50 <gkellogg> sandro: I'm anxious about TriG, and I think we'll have some feedback. I did a rough presentation on LDP, and trying to write up coherent feedback.
Sandro Hawke: I'm anxious about TriG, and I think we'll have some feedback. I did a rough presentation on LDP, and trying to write up coherent feedback. ←
15:59:15 <sandro> (from LDP)
Sandro Hawke: (from LDP) ←
15:59:24 <gavinc> I guess that means I have to write how to parse it ;)
Gavin Carothers: I guess that means I have to write how to parse it ;) ←
15:59:44 <gkellogg> sandro: I think we can use the syntax as long as we don't change it, and we shouldn't need to.
Sandro Hawke: I think we can use the syntax as long as we don't change it, and we shouldn't need to. ←
16:00:11 <Zakim> -Souri
Zakim IRC Bot: -Souri ←
16:00:12 <Zakim> -GavinC
Zakim IRC Bot: -GavinC ←
16:00:13 <AndyS> bye all
Andy Seaborne: bye all ←
16:00:13 <gkellogg> guus: we're getting close to finalizing the work.
Guus Schreiber: we're getting close to finalizing the work. ←
16:00:15 <Zakim> -SteveH
Zakim IRC Bot: -SteveH ←
16:00:17 <Zakim> -Ivan
Zakim IRC Bot: -Ivan ←
16:00:18 <Zakim> -TallTed
Zakim IRC Bot: -TallTed ←
16:00:18 <Zakim> -Arnaud
Zakim IRC Bot: -Arnaud ←
16:00:19 <Zakim> -Sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←
16:00:19 <Zakim> - +1.408.992.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.408.992.aaaa ←
16:00:21 <Zakim> -gkellogg
Zakim IRC Bot: -gkellogg ←
16:00:22 <Zakim> -markus
Zakim IRC Bot: -markus ←
16:00:22 <Zakim> -davidwood
Zakim IRC Bot: -davidwood ←
16:00:23 <Zakim> -AndyS
Zakim IRC Bot: -AndyS ←
16:00:23 <Zakim> -ericP
Zakim IRC Bot: -ericP ←
16:00:25 <Zakim> -Guus
Zakim IRC Bot: -Guus ←
16:00:25 <Zakim> SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has ended ←
16:00:25 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.408.992.aaaa, GavinC, Ivan, AndyS, gkellogg, ericP, Sandro, Guus, manu, +1.540.898.aabb, davidwood, SteveH, markus, Souri, Arnaud, TallTed, PatH
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +1.408.992.aaaa, GavinC, Ivan, AndyS, gkellogg, ericP, Sandro, Guus, manu, +1.540.898.aabb, davidwood, SteveH, markus, Souri, Arnaud, TallTed, PatH ←
16:00:45 <Guus> trackbot, end meeting
Guus Schreiber: trackbot, end meeting ←
16:00:45 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
Trackbot IRC Bot: Zakim, list attendees ←
16:00:45 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is ←
16:00:53 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, please draft minutes ←
16:00:53 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/08-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/05/08-rdf-wg-minutes.html trackbot ←
16:00:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
Trackbot IRC Bot: RRSAgent, bye ←
16:00:54 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I see no action items ←
Formatted by CommonScribe