Meeting minutes
Scribe: Champin, Pierre-Antoine (alternate: Gschwend, Adrian)
<pchampin> I can scribe
Approval of last week's minutes: 1
<pfps> minutes are acceptable - there are a couple of things that could be cleaned up but I don't think they are worth it
<AndyS> LGTM
<ora> proposal: accept last week's minutes
<ora> +1
<gkellogg_> +1
<pchampin> +1
<pfps> +1
<olaf> +1
<AndyS> +1
<Tpt> +1
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: accept last week's minutes
<AZ> +0 (I did not have time to look at them)
Update on W3C TPAC 2023
ora: the tentative TPAC agenda is out; not sure everyone got it or only the chairs
… They are offering us Tuesday (whole day) for our F2F meeting
… does that work for everyone?
… Wednesday is the plenary; in my email I asked for Tuesday or Thursday
<pfps> I expect to call in if remote participation is possible, but I will not be travelling there.
olaf: I'm not familiar with the plenary; what is it?
ora: there are no group meeting on Wednesday, because of the plenary. There are presentations for all the attendees.
gkellogg_: the plenary is followed by breakout sessions (unconference style)
ora: anybody here wanting to attend but who can't make it on Tuesday?
[crickets]
pchampin: TPAC is hybrid, so remote participation will be possible
… There will be a conflict with the DID WG (Tuesday morning) so I will share my time (staff contact of both groups)
… I detected no other conflicts with other RDF-related groups
Update on "First Public Working Draft" (FPWD)
pchampin: Last two docs published
<gkellogg_> tobie/
pchampin: issue about specref - has not caught up with the publications so our PR have errors. Gregg has done the updates but not gone through the pipeline.
… fixed shortly
pfps: All RDF docs refer to RDF+SPARQL but SPARQL docs ref to SPARQL
AndyS: that's just a document thing, not a process error
… I thought that including 11 references was big enough
<TallTed> +1 all 22 docs should cross-link to all 22 docs, whether or not the section collapses
AndyS: If the section collapses, why not include all 22 of them; if its does not, I would prefer to keep it short
pfps: some sections collapse; can we make this one collapse?
gkellogg_: yes, it is possible using the 'details' HTML element
… these lists are managed by files on the 'common' directory
… I have to check if we can put the 'details' tag in these files
pfps: I'm willing to work with someone to improve this
gkellogg_: we can make an experiment on one of the specs
… note that PR preview will not show it (included file) but githack can deal with it
pfps: let's use sparql-entailment for this test
pfps: also, all these links point to the github document rather than TR/; is that what we want?
gkellogg_: it uses the data-cite mechanism, so it should fix itself at some point
<pfps> then all this looks fine by me
Update on Use Case Proposals
pfps: we talked about UCs last week; not too much new
… I think it's time to send an email to various groups to request people to submit UCs
… unless this group thinks it's a bad idea, I plan to send an email to the public WG ML and to the semanticweb ML
ora: I think it is a good idea
pfps: we have not decided how to publish the UCs yes (Note?) so it is unclear how we refer to it
TallTed: I was pointing out that the READMEs in the repo do not mention this doc
pfps: I can make a PR on all repos to add that link to the READMEs
ACTION: pfps: prs to all repos to add link to ucr repository
<ghurlbot> Created action #64
gkellogg_: also, the common files should be updated as well
pfps: some UCs have significant info on them
… the UCR document now points to the CG UCR document, where some of them are
<pfps> Please consider taking up a use case from the community group. To do so add an entry to
<pfps> https://
Update on Semantic TF
enrico: I missed the last meeting, the one before that was cancelled
… we have identified 3 different behaviours
… the plan is to unify them based on different proposals made by Peter, Antoine, and myself
… how they will be syntactically represented is a different story
ora: I hope we also get use-cases to support this
Review of open actions, available at 2
AZ: action #19 about conformance is assigned to ora, but we are working on it together
<ghurlbot> Action 19 work with antoine and others to come up with a proposal for weak and strong compliance (on Antoine-Zimmermann, rdfguy) due 16 Feb 2023
AZ: I sent an email to the ML about it; two ways to deal with conformance
… one option is to define levels of conformance
… another would be to define profiles: full and classic
… where "classic" would be more or less RDF 1.1 (maybe + base direction)
… both option would need some actions on the documents
ora: we came to the conclusion that we need a term to talk about "graphs that do not contain quoted triples"
<pfps> how about graphs formerly known as RDF
ora: we are open to suggestions on that
olaf: I don't really understand the difference between the two options
… what would that mean for systems?
ora: they are not either-or
AZ: if we define two profiles, we need to describe for each profile, what it means to conform
… this is more about how we word the differences than about their effect on complying systems
AndyS: Can spell out these implications in the issue? They were not entirely clear to me.
… We need to find a way to determine what "RDF 1.2" means, without having to ask each time "which one?"
… [discusses "close" profiles, which do not change entailment, vs. "open" profiles, who may change it]
gkellogg_: "classic" might give the wrong impression that this is nothing more than RDF 1.1, while it might contain more things (base direction)
… the name should convey the idea that it is without quoted triples
… Another point: the RCH WG will probably not support quoted triples for canonicalization
<TallTed> I might suggest "RDF 1.2 Simple" (even if they're not necessarily simple to the human eye) vs "RDF 1.2 Complex"
gkellogg_: A way to roundtrip between "full" and "without quoted triples" would be useful
gkellogg_: "simple triple" is already used, and means something else
AndyS: and "simple entailment"
TallTed: how about "basic"?
AndyS: put it on the issue, to give visibility to this discussion
Review of pull requests, available at 3
gkellogg_: w3c/rdf-turtle#27
<ghurlbot> Pull Request 27 Update Turtle grammar for quoted triples and annotations (gkellogg) spec:substantive
gkellogg_: I think this one is ready to do, thanks to AndyS for helping
… I plan to reflect it in Trig; propose to merge this one
ora: sounds to me like we can merge it
… we don't have a PR for TriG, right?
gkellogg_: no, we were experimenting with styling and things
… but the changes should be congruent
ora: where are we on the mobile phone thing?
pchampin: I'm assigning myself this PR to reminid me of taking care of it (consult some a12y expert at W3C)
Tpt: w3c/sparql-query#89
<ghurlbot> Pull Request 89 Upgrades references to XPath from 2.0 to 3.1 (Tpt) spec:substantive
Tpt: also updates on references to XML Schema datatypes
… among other changes is "year 0"
ora: what is the impact on systems?
AndyS: it changes how we refer to years before the common era (-1, -2, -3)
ora: anything else? can we merge w3c/rdf-concepts#44?
<ghurlbot> Pull Request 44 Adds note about limitations of xsd:float and xsd:double (hartig) spec:editorial
olaf: yes, I will merge it after the call
named graphs
AndyS: some issue was raised on rdf-concepts about named graphs
<AndyS> w3c/
AndyS: maybe we could think of a group response?
<pfps> fine by me
ora: I would like us to have a discussion on this before we come up with a group response
gkellogg_: Named graphs are commonly used for many different things
… they have to specified semantics, the world moved on
AndyS: the proposal is to use singleton named graphs to represent quoted triples
ora: there is good and bad in the absence of formal semantics for named graphs
… good because that gave people flexibility in how to use them; bad because there is no uniformity
… shall we add this discussion to next week's agenda?
AndyS: as long as it does not prevent us from making progress on other things