Meeting minutes
Scribe: Thibodeau, Ted (alternate: Haudebourg, Timothée)
Approval of last week's minutes: 1
<pfps> minutes look fine to me
<ora> proposal: Approve last week's minutes
<gkellogg> +1
<ktk> +1
<ora> +1
<pchampin> +0
<gtw> +1
<TallTed> +1
<pfps> +1
<Tpt> +1
<AndyS> +1
<niklasl> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve last week's minutes
Update on Use Cases
<pfps> The UCR summary wiki page is https://
pfps: has been working through the UCR stack, back-and-forth with submitters. Would like more use cases, and for some of the CG use cases to be shepherded by others
… would like to schedule time on a future call to review UCR in depth
ora: notes the large number of regrets for recent meetings, perhaps we should take a break for summer?
niklasl: volunteers to help with existing use cases, and has some others to submit when in better shape
pfps: welcomes even rough submissions
Update on Semantic TF
[ lacking enrico, postponing Semantic TF update]
Review of open actions, available at 2
ora: still working on proposal wording for w3c/
pchampin: is keeping w3c/
… created w3c/
… IPR changes may delay that progress a bit
gkellogg: on w3c/
… on test suites, we had discussed join ownership with JSON-LD WG, to make issues & PRs show up on each other's dashboards
… on https://
ora: related to short names, had some challenge getting to SPARQL 1.1, was prompted for W3C credentials, seemed like transient fluke
pchampin: gkellogg noticed that some github actions related to adding PRs and Issues to dashboard were misbehaving
ACTION: pchampin to investigate hiccups in github actions
<gb> Created action #78
<pchampin> https://
<gkellogg> Github can be flakey, sometimes.
pchampin: TPAC organizers have requested lightning talks, and pushed for a 10 minute presentation on our 18 documents
<pchampin> champin.net/2023/rdf-star-wds.svg
<pchampin> champin.net/2023/rdf-star-wds.svg#concepts
pchampin: will share a script for approval, and then produce a video for TPAC
AndyS: w3c/
gkellogg: historically, tests have not been considered substantive, have been treated as immune from IPR considerations
… we should investigate that for this project
ora: pchampin should be able to get that info
[group] we might want to set up a place for tests that suggest spec changes
Review of pull requests, available at 3
AndyS: meta-item, a PR I looked at today had diff which was unrelated to the PR
… preview was fine
<pchampin> sometimes documents included by respec behave strangely with preview and diff, but this sounds like a different issue...
gkellogg: there are hack-y ways to do this, if needed
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to discuss mobile display
<pchampin> https://
pfps: What's required to push the mobile phone display issue?
pchampin: recollection was that we would rather try to fix dominic's issue, rather than try to solve all mobile issues
pfps: can't resolve it by just closing this PR because most documents have a CSS change, one doc does not
ktk: I suggest we revert all these changes, so all docs are in same state, and then review screenshots of specific issues toward resolving those, rather than trying to solve all theoretical issues
… I suggest each such problem be raised its own issue and carried to its resolution
pfps: currently, variations on CSS change have been applied to most if not all docs other than rdf-semantics, which mess with display in narrow window on large screen, not just with display on narrow screen
… variations of result depend on whether viewing at w3.org, github.io, etc., even though the content is ostensibly the same
gkellogg: CSS varies rather a lot across our 20 documents, regardless of how much they may have matched in the past
… most docs look OK to me. aside from one odd table in one doc
TallTed: I see two options: dig into each document and make them "good" (for some definition of "good")
… or copy the content of each document under some boilerplate CSS (a lot of work)
ora: my take is that someday, we'll need to fix this ... if not now, when?
… will individual editors take this on for their set? will other people volunteer for just this cleanup?
AndyS: the SPARQL docs probably need to be considered separately, because they have a lot of special formatting that doesn't play well with ReSpec, orthogonally to the mobile screens issue
… hoped to push CSS later in the process than the substantive content
gkellogg: dominic spent quite some time on this, but there is still far to go
… agrees that substantive content is far more important. CSS could be pushed past CR.
ora: concurs with focusing on content rather than CSS
gkellogg: by and large, the RDF docs aren't bad
AndyS: SPARQL docs have nested styling, and a lot of troublesome color coding
AndyS: the media-type language issues should be quickly handled
gkellogg: privacy considerations seem to be pretty well baked in w3c/
ora: how about BNF change?
gkellogg: still working on N-triples https://
ora: will poke I18n
Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
ora: should we have a summer break?
TallTed: we can take a poll among ourselves
AndyS: wonders about semantics TF in particular
… and approvals of document changes
<pfps> semantics is at least partly waiting for approved test cases
ora: will be away fourth week of August. knows others will be away at least part of August.
[group] can take it as it comes