Re: Agenda for 12 June 2013

[if you're going to go into details on any of these, please change the 
subject]

On 06/09/2013 09:25 PM, David Wood wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The agenda for Wed's telecon is available at:
>    http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.06.12
>
> Please note that we expect to add a resolution suggestion to ISSUE-23 and a poll for ISSUE-131 in the next two days, so they may be added to the agenda.  I'll send a note to the list if the agenda gets updated and will ensure we have 24 hours notice.  Apologies for any inconvenience.
>

I was expecting to see:

    PROPOSED: Publish rdf-concepts as a Last Call Working Draft (after
    incorporating any changes agreed on during this meeting)

    PROPOSED: Publish rdf-mt as a First Public and Last Call Working
    Draft (after incorporating any changes agreed on during this meeting)

I'd like to know ASAP so I know whether to (somehow) find time to read 
them before then.

Obviously in order to get there we need to resolve some other issues.   
Specifically:

On ISSUE-23, I suggest:

    PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-23 without general comment.  We have been
    deciding on a case-by-case basis (YES for Turtle/TriG, NO for
    JSON-LD) and we expect to continue to do so.

On ISSUE-131, I suggest:

    PROPOSED: We'll add some text to rdf-concepts saying systems MAY
    support blank node graph names and that communication between
    systems that do and don't can be aided by using Skolemization (and
    this closes ISSUE-131).

On the matter of "minimal semantics for datasets" (shall I raise/open 
this as an issue?) I suggest:

    PROPOSED: The formal meaning of an RDF Dataset is no less than the
    formal meaning of its default graph.   This revises an earlier
    decision that datasets in general have no formal semantics, in order
    to allow for the use of specific dataset semantics to be signaled
    within a dataset.   This feature to be added to rdf-concepts and
    rdf-mt, marked AT RISK for LC, since it hasn't been discussed much yet.

I'm not up to speed on ISSUE-118, so I don't know what to propose for that.

Thoughts, comments?   (again, if it's a substantial comment on any of 
these, please change the subject line.)

         - Sandro