RDF-star WG

<AZ> Hello, Zakim!

<AZ> present

present

Adryan: ora had some topic from the last session that was not concluded

choosing the time for recurring meeting

ktk: no conclusive date for the meeting agreed upon on the Doodle

<gtw> what timezone is this screenshare showing?

gkellogs: can do it on Thursday 5pm UTC

AndyS: might be able to do it also

ktk: that might be the best slot then.

<pchampin> STRAWPOLL: keep this slot (12pm EST) as the recurring slot

<pchampin> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<ora> +1

<AZ> +0.5

<gtw> +1

<ktk> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<Enrico1> +1

+1

<AZ> 12pm EST

<AZ> (for the moment)

<AndyS> +1

ora: that decided then.
… : what about the holidays?

<pchampin> will be on holiday the 22nd and the 29th

ora: we have to cancel the 29th

pchampin: can't make any promise for the 22nd

<gkellogg> https://greggkellogg.net/rdf11-wg/

ktk: greg created the git repo

<gkellogg> https://greggkellogg.net/rdf11-wg/rdf-turtle/

recycling the old specs

gkellogg: found all the spec for RDF 1.1 except for N-triples
… : all of them have been converted to ReSpec

<gkellogg> https://greggkellogg.net/rdf11-wg/sparql-update/

gkellogg: : can be used as a basis

<ora> Gregg is our hero.

<gtw> :)

<ora> ty

<ktk> ora: can you do queue handling, forgot how

<ora> OK

<Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to talk about the "untouched" specs

AndyS: Worked from the online TR SPARQL 1.1 update, converted it to ReSpec

pchampin: we need to update even the specs that are untouched by RDF-star, as we want a consistent set of specs

ora: what would all these new spec be called? once we have done the update

AndyS: the charter says to should be 1.2

gkellogg: the next step (if we decide 1.2) is to define the short name for each spec and create a repo for each

gkellogg: we can chose to not do multiple repos
… : that's for this group to decide

pchampin: we need to make this decision. I think we settled for one repo per spec last time.

gkellogg: If you create an empty repo I can move the content of my repo there

ora: If updating a lot of documents, we need to manage expectations
… : we need to communicate about it

<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about WG issues mgt

AndyS: will communicate with SPARQL CG about it

AndyS: where would the general RDF-star related issues would go?

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/

AndyS: Should we put a notice to redirect from the community WG repo to the right repo?

pchampin: maybe the RDF-star task force should dessolve itself, it create some confusion

<pchampin> "First Public Working Draft"

gkellogg: we are expected to give a FPWD time soon
… : then there is the publishing process when we'll have a FPWD

ora: would it be reasonable to have FPWD as is plus some overview doc?

Souri: unsure why we should rush to the FPWD
… : need to be take our time

pchampin: the FPWG does not need to have any level of maturity
… : in favor of publishing what we have so far

pchampin: I must check but think we could even have an empty doc

ora: any time limit?

pchampin: the only imposed deadline is the candidate recommandation

<gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/2022/08/rdf-star-wg-charter/#timeline

<Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to mention the charter has expected times: https://www.w3.org/2022/08/rdf-star-wg-charter/

gkellogg: common process is now we setup a publishing workflow
… : so that any merge to the repo publishes a new draft

<ora> +1 for frequent publishing

gkellogg: : better with frequent revisions

gkellogg: we can also post on the W3C blog to communicate on what we are doing

ora: I now reiterate my request that we all think of what is missing in the spec for the next meeting

Enrico: I'd like to have a fondamental conversation on what you are trying to acheive if that counts

ora: bring all the issues now so we can decide how to organize

<Souri> I agree fully with Ora that big things need to be discussed as early as possible.

ora: ask why Neo4J is not participating