Meeting minutes
Scribe: Taelman, Ruben (alternate: Thibodeau, Ted)
Approval of last week's minutes: 1
<pfps> a generally available cheat sheet would be useful
ora: comments about minutes?
<ktk> pfps: working on it, will publish it
<pfps> last week's minutes look fine
<AZ> looks ok
ora: hearing no objections, resolving this.
RESOLUTION: last week's minutes approved
Review of open actions, available at 2
Repository: w3c/rdf-star-wg
ora: we don't have to spend much time on [open actions]. many completed. also many still open.
gkellogg_: items 35 and 30 look the same.
ora: they are.
<pfps> 35 and 30 are different - 30 was for the first meeting, 35 was to set up a recurring call
<pfps> 30 is done, I don't think 35 is done
gkellogg_: I marked item 38 complete. Does it take this call to close it?
ora: unless there's need to discuss, they can be closed.
TallTed: do we want to put that into the readme (or someplace else)?
ora: wiki page? where did you draft that?
TallTed: within the issue.
ora: can we move it to the wiki?
TallTed: I'll put it into the master readme.
ktk: if you want to close it, you can do that in irc.
<gkellogg_> close #38
<ghurlbot> Closed action #38
ktk: "close #NUMBER"
TallTed: Zakim will get confused by those numbers. They are per-repo.
gkellogg_: you can be more explicit. "close w3c/rdf-star-wg#38"
<ghurlbot> Action 38 [closed] consider moving wiki work from GitHub-hosted to W3-hosted (on gkellogg)
gkellogg_: same way you specify it in other pull requests
<ktk> close #39
ora: do we have to specify them?
<ghurlbot> Closed action #39
gkellogg_: rdf-star-wg is the default repo.
ora: ktk, can you close the remaining ones?
pfps: I'm unclear on status of #35. Please don't close it.
<ghurlbot> Action 35 setup recurring call for discussing the semantics (on pchampin) due 24 Mar 2023
pfps: there is no repeating call for semantics task force.
ora: we have separate calendar for task force.
pfps: I was unaware of different calendar.
… I don't remember seeing how task forces are supposed to set up their meetings.
ora: we'll check. I saw the calendar last week, but don't have a pointer.
<gkellogg_> https://
ktk: can we link calendar in the issue as well?
<AZ> calendar is at: https://
<pfps> OK 35 has actually been done
gkellogg_: there are regular meetings setup.
<ktk> close #35
<ghurlbot> Closed action #35
pfps: #35 is done.
ktk: 30 is done as well.
<ktk> close #30
<ghurlbot> Closed action #30
ora: leave 29 open until TallTed has done his thing.
Review of pull requests, available at 3
Repository: w3c/rdf-star-wg
ora: some of these [PRs] need discussion.
… we merged some this past week. can have discussion on the ones marked as needing it.
ktk: this includes all things from other repos. it should be up to date.
gkellogg_: Is it most efficient to start with ones needing discussion? Or those that we can dispatch quickly?
… there's a number of things in concepts and n-quads listed as "enhancement" not needing discussion. but also not editorial.
ora: we need a review of those which can be done offline.
gkellogg_: they all have reviews/approvals.
… policy was after approvals, editorial thigns can be merged. typically wait a week, but SPARQL group has shortened that under certain circumstances.
… good. these things can slow us down.
… the 3 marked as enhancement are security considerations in concepts and n-quads
… updates that were necessary. all have approvals.
… ABNF grammar. non-normative change in concepts for IRIs.
… has approvals.
… pfps did discuss it last week, but don't think that changed its status.
ora: is it our intention that we leave these open and close them after a grace period?
… somebody may want to add a comment?
… editorials we could close.
gkellogg_: editorials can be closed after the quorum of editors have approved it. not necessarily requiring a week.
… I think enhancements need to stay open through the next meeting.
… if no objections (or otherwise marked), they can be merged after the meeting.
… leaving as approriate those needing discussion as something we can spend [call] time on.
ora: the way I interpret this is we don't actually need to do anything to the ones that don't need discussion [on call]
gkellogg_: we just need to set that policy
ora: since it isn't clear, ktk, you and I can clarify the exact policy. I haven't heard any objections to what was just said.
gkellogg_: I think there was an email that clarified. Open PRs that have not been blocked in meeting can be merged after the meeting.
ora: we should discuss just the ones that need discussion. don't spend time on the others.
gkellogg_: the 3 that are related to the specs that I...
… rdf json datatypes and concepts.
… not adding datatype. adding issue marker that this is soemthing we are considering.
… should not be controversial.
… status of rdf schema should be the same as concepts.
pfps: my contention is that there is no issue yet.
… issue in one of the documents, but WG has not decided to take up issue.
gkellogg_: I think there is.
ACTION: ktk Clarify policy for merging PRs
gkellogg_: there is an issue in rdf concepts. and rdf schema.
<gkellogg_> w3c/
gkellogg_: is it necessary to create issues in the group when there are issues elsewhere?
<gkellogg_> w3c/
pfps: where does this go in the dashboard. unaware that there is a dashboard that would direct WG to take up issues.
gkellogg_: discussed over the last month. automating dashboard that pchampin has done with regard to PRs.
… more efficient to use different repos as long as visible in dashboards.
… rather than making parallel issues.
… nothing has been done to make that happen yet.
… rdf json datatype: two issues in effected repos.
pfps: the WG has not decided to take up this work. so no direction from WG that this should be considered.
gkellogg_: we're considering that there is an issue marker.
pfps: the WG has not decided to take this up as an issue.
gkellogg_: we need to figure out how to move forward.
pfps: there needs to be some process to figure out how these things get born in the WG.
… anybody could create an issue in one of the repos, and that used as cover to add an issue marker into a document.
… or is it supposed to be that markers are only things WG has decided to take up?
ora: we are the WG.
pfps: one of these is marked as editorial. already decided. but we haven't even written the document.
ora: it says "needs discussion".
pfps: only because I put it in.
ora: that is the process working.
pfps: I disagree.
TallTed: I take issue with characterization of puting an issue as "cover". issue is only highlight text in draft document that there is an issue about this segment of the document.
… does not say anything about the status of the issue.
… we are all here of good will. doing our best to act with good intent. do not believe anybody is opening nefarious issues.
… if something happens that is really bad, we will discuss it.
… stop yelling about some process that is not written down.
ora: I think these things could be called two-way doors. nothing bad is going to happen. we have multiple eyeballs on these things.
… we have process for that. if something goes wrong, these are not carved in stone. we can revert them after the fact.
… to me that's process that's working.
… whether that's actually codified somewhere or not, it's moving us forward.
… I appreciate that people do look at these and mark them as needing discussion.
… then we discuss.
pfps: I sent out several messages with proposed processes.
ora: and you are unhappy with the current way we're doing things?
pfps: yes.
… several worries. adding new things to RDF requires effort from WG.
… these need review. can be a lot of work.
… secondly, I worry the WG is going beyond the charter. should be conservative in things beyond the charter.
gkellogg_: I think we need a policy on the ability of editors to add issue markers without getting into the merits.
… which is the point of the marker.
… if a PR adding full support and there was objection, that's fair.
… but adding issue markers is common practice. editorial decision.
… let's decide it's in-bounds. want to move on to discuss c18n.
<pfps> PR rdf-schema#9 is precisely a PR that adds something to documents
<ghurlbot> Pull Request 9 json datatype added (domel) needs discussion
afs: we ought to be able to triage discussion that's going to be adding a new issue.
… raise an issue. discuss it. if there is from editors judgement that there is something WG may take up, add the marker.
… otherwise bottleneck in the telecon.
ora: like a post-it note I put in the draft spec. "need to look into this."
… I can take the note off whenever I want.
… I don't see danger or problem here.
… if you want to add an issue marker, make a PR, mark it as needing discussion.
… when we discuss, it can be merged or rejected.
… issue markers are not substantive changes in spec.
… should think of them as lightweight.
… don't let it stop us from discussing what needs discussing.
<TallTed> +1 issue markers are like post-its
ktk: we had similar discussion in past week. we should make a policy. action item to codify that?
ora: let's make an action item for you and me. we can take it up at our chair's call next week.
ACTION: ktk Create a policy on adding issue markers
gkellogg_: c18n. done for some time. ready to go. related to erratum.
… RCH group depends on it.
… I do think all issues have been discussed.
… the only thing that didn't happen was that it needs discussion on "label"
(?)
… adding section to n-quads. minor changes from what was done in n-triples.
… more changes anticipated.
… that would be the subject of future PRs.
ora: there has been substantial discsion on issues page. see no reason not to move forward.
… anyone need any time to still look at this before it gets merged?
<pfps> I'm happy with the workihg group taking up canonicalization issues. I would like to see a resolution that the working group is going to support this.
ora: hearing no objections.
pfps: I would like to see a resolution that we can point back to that we decided to do this.
… it is a substantial change.
ora: you're saying we should make a resolution that we will work on c18n, then we can merge?
pfps: yes.
ora: any objections to that?
gkellogg_: make a proposed resolution.
<ora> PROPOSAL: the WG will work on c18n
<gkellogg_> +1
<ora> +1
<TallTed> +1
<ktk> +1
<afs> +1
+1
<pfps> +1
<AZ> +1
<doerthe> +1
RESOLUTION: the WG will work on c18n
ora: now we can merge.
… any others to discuss?
pfps: the first one (rdf-schema#8), item 27.
<ghurlbot> Pull Request 8 change range of rdf:predicate + small HTML fixes (domel) needs discussion
pfps: I don't know what to do with this.
… there are reasons to make change and also to not make a change.
… it's a tiny change, but it's unclear the way to go.
… I don't think it can be editorial.
… need to think hard about waht the right thing to do is.
ora: not marked as editorial.
pfps: not marked as anything.
ora: we cannot resolve it today. it needs careful consideration.
… the WG needs to discuss. I would prefer we give it a week for people to read, think.
… people can bring objections/thoughts to next week's meeing.
pfps: I suggest that we try and push this onto an issue discussion.
ora: if it's here next week, and we've had discussion on mailing list, we can just rubber stamp it [at the next call]
… it's in the minutes. let's have a mailing list discussion about it. we can fix it before next week.
pfps: I think that leaves json schema for SPARQL results.
… I put "needs discussion".
… not sure how substantive this change is.
… I worry that even if the schema is informative, if it's incorrect it's a problem.
… we could go to FPWD with something we're not sure is correct as long as we drop something in there to remind us.
ora: I'm find with that.
afs: I don't understand "it could be wrong." that could be true of anything in the spec.
… not sure what is different here. we've had people look at it and test it.
… there's been outside input into the process.
… I'm in favor of going forward with it.
pfps: this is machine interpretable information.
… if outside eyes have looked at it, that's fine with me.
… anything machine interpretable should have outside eyes on it.
… and tests
… if afs thinks it's had enough looks at it, then let's go ahead.
<gkellogg_> A reason to publish it as a draft is to get more eyes on it.
TallTed: FPWD is a heartbeat. Just a thing to show we're doing work. Does not indicate group concensus.
… does not have to mean anything. fine if there are errors.
… getting more eyes on something is something any of us can request of any reviewer.
… part of W3C process is broad review.
… if there's somebody you know who would understand what we're doing and be able to highlight errors, that's great. bring them in.
… do not have to be w3c members.
<pfps> good point, I'll see if I can find someone who can look at the JSON Schema for SPARQL results
ora: new public WD alerts people that something has happened, leading to more eyeballs.
ktk: already have eyeballs.
… invited expert (?) already looked at this.
<pfps> OK, I'm good with this PR
pfps: I'll see if I can find somebody.
ora: I'm willing to give this another week.
pfps: happy with this going through. will get help if necessary.
ora: ok. can merge this then.
ora: aob?
ktk: not enough time for draft process.
… [in this call]
gkellogg_: by the time we pick publication date, hopefully a matter of producing them and adding timestamps.
afs: I asked for this because some broken links. we can't fix them. external changes.
<ktk> right sorry, that was afs, not pierre-antoine that requested this
afs: I wanted to know for FPWD if we have to be absolutely clean for publication.
… in the past, pubrules are an ideal.
gkellogg_: explanation for broken links is fine. has to satisfy director.
… links into our own specs show up as not resolving but it actually works. mechanical issues.
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask whether we can get some indication that our documents are ready to publish, i.e., pass most checks
afs: links into xml schema are broken. new overlay on document "this document has moved". breaks fragment.
pfps: I would like to know as an editor if there's anything I need to do for FPWD.
gkellogg_: I've been running the link checker. will PR for any issues.
5. Define "First Public Working Draft" (FPWD) process:
pfps: if I'm an editor and there's no complaints in queue, I can assume everything is good?
gkellogg_: yes.
afs: I followed instructions from gkellogg_.
pfps: I'll try and report back.
TallTed: we do not have to be squeaky clean for FPWD. not the same as a CR.
ktk: is this now solved? or on next week's agenda again?
afs: need to keep on the agenda. when staff contact is around.
… with so many documents, lots ends up on his plate.
does that work across the entire document? or just the previous occurence?
<TallTed> with the trailing `g`, it should do all occurrences
nice!
<ktk> btw it looks like there were no issues created from the ACTIONS I've added
<ktk> did I forget something?
<TallTed> nope, process still processing
<ktk> ah
<ora> thanks TallTed for all the help with the IRC bots
<ora> (and everything else)