Meeting minutes
<ktk> TallTed: tnx for preparing
<ktk> p+
<TallTed> I wonder if we shouldn't include/inject the TF meetings into the previous/next meeting statements?
<pchampin> TallTed, good point
Approval of minutes from the last two metings:
https://www.w3.org/2024/01/11-rdf-star-minutes.html
ktk: two meeting minutes to approve.
<pfps> minutes look fine
<ktk> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes 2024-01-11
<pchampin> +1
<niklasl> +1
<pfps> +1
<ktk> +1
<tl> +1
+1
<TallTed> +1
<eBremer_> +1
<ktk> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes 2024-01-11
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes 2024-01-11
https://www.w3.org/2024/01/18-rdf-star-minutes.html
ktk: gkellogg sent regrets. PA can you add that?
<pfps> these minutes look fine also
ktk: otherwise looks fine.
<ktk> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes 2024-01-18
<pchampin> +1
<tl> +1
<niklasl> +1
+1
<ktk> +1
<pfps> +1
<Tpt> +1
<eBremer_> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<TallTed> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes 2024-01-18
Proposal for next week's discussion
ktk: another long meeting next week. impression from the list - most discussed topics are the syntactic sugar proposal.
… big part of discussion is well-formed or not-well-formed.
… any comments?
AndyS: two weeks ago we had proposal about what subject was. some things weren't carrieid forward from meeting. need to be clearer.
… if it's just which is the largest volume on the mailing list, i can see how you came to conclusion.
… as pchampin's summary makeks clear, there are other things in-flight.
… suggest how we work across proposals.
… defining which issues we wish to address.
… presuming which issues the WG is seeing as will-address or not.
<TallTed> pchampin, chairs -- please correct `meting` to `meeting` in agendas, going forward
ktk: can you point to the one from pchampin ?
<niklasl> https://
AndyS: titled "Summary of the Options"
pchampin: I probably sent to the CG mailing list.
ktk: could you post to the main list again?
pchampin: yes
<pchampin> https://
AndyS: I've done the same thing with mine.
… (atomic reification write-up.)
ktk: any feedback to AndyS?
AndyS: two of proposals are not involving well-formed directly.
ktk: your proposal is to go through this and try to see how much concensus we can find?
AndyS: I think we have to do it. Otherwise only talking about one area. Implicitly would be saying other areas are not of interest.
ktk: ok. good proposal. any other comments?
pchampin: apologies for confusion. goal of this email was to try and have a sensitive view on how approaches differ.
<AndyS> "Atomic reification" https://
pchampin: last friday there was confusion about what we were meant to discuss.
… goal is to provide something concrete.
… tried my best to collate different sources with links.
… also to have everythign in once place. easy to compare.
TallTed: AndyS you sent yours to the WG list, too?
AndyS: I'm about to.
ktk: let's take this as base for discussion.
Review of open actions, available at
ktk: we have open actions
pchampin: I checked that every issue and PR ends up in the dashboard.
… this is proven complete.
Review of pull requests, available at
ktk: olaf is not here.
… no update on JSON PR.
… what is "minicore" AndyS?
… #102
<gb> Pull Request 102 Create miniCore.md (by rat10)
pfps: he should be able to create the document. not sure why this is still sitting there.
pchampin: we're just editors. only editors have the merge privilige.
AndyS: is that related to the wiki as well?
pchampin: wiki permissions are different.
… I can change permissions. Give merge permissions to all participants.
… given use we have for docs folder, probably would make sense.
ktk: only for this repo?
pchampin: yes.
ktk: no problem with that.
pchampin: in the mean time, I can merge PRs.
tl: I don't know if approach makes sense. it was 2 weeks ago.
… we should try to organize discussion around repo.
… I got a lot of editoral comments.
… I think I'm going to start writing mails again. Didn't have feeling that this worked out.
… I don't care if this gets merged into docs folder. It's already outdated.
tl: you can merge it or leave it.
pfps: w3c/rdf-semantics#45 or 3 on the list out of 5. that's a technical change to semantics.
… could go in except that when I look at it, TallTed has requested changes. I can't see what the changes are.
<gb> Pull Request 45 add entailment rule for datatypes (by pfps) [spec:bug] [test:needs tests]
pfps: try to do it sometime and take yourself off. I can merge even without that, but would prefer to wait for you.
TallTed: it's waiting for approval after changes.
Issue Triage, available at
ktk: last time we said we wanted to add one flag. not sure much happened.
… any comments on any issues?
AndyS: I think it's difficult to have discussion until we decide what it's based upon.
pfps: ok taking off need for discussion for now.
… I'll remove the label.
pfps: one thing related to triage. I did the w3c/rdf-semantics#45 PR. it has an associated issue.
<gb> Pull Request 45 add entailment rule for datatypes (by pfps) [spec:bug] [test:needs tests]
pfps: how are we going to do tests?
… I put a needstest label on the issue which will stay open.
pchampin: That's probably on me. I don't think this label exists at the moment.
pfps: it's test:needstest.
Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
pchampin: we talked about changing the permissions on the rdf WG repo.
… do we need a fuller decision? or do I just add an action?
… how do we make a decision on that?
ktk: we can do a proposal.
AndyS: or chair's discretion.
pfps: chair's discretion sounds good.
pchampin: realized we are roughly at 75% of our chartered time. need to start thinking about rechartering.
… another item in our discussion at some point. not too controversial.
… will discuss with chairs and come back to the group.
ktk: when is the official end?
… august?
pchampin: something like that.
<niklasl> https://
niklasl: motivating examples (pchampin suggested a couple of weeks ago)
… I could add them to the wiki. Not sure if they are relevant anymore.
… A lot of use-cases. Perhaps that's good enough.
ktk: details for TPAC are set this year. might make sense to meet again.
… in the US.
… Anaheim, CA. Sept 23–27, 2024.
<pchampin> https://
ktk: probably a different combination than last year being more US-focused.
… I might consider it.
pchampin: I will probably go.
pfps: I expect meeting will be across a very big parking lot from disneyland.
TallTed: meeting should be on teacups.
TallTed: good if people can review open issues.
… that are unlabeled.
… add some labeling. we can do triage next time.
pfps: I was looking at those. Some are from outside the WG. Not sure what to do about them.
TallTed: we have to reply to them in some way (addressed this way, not going to address, etc.).
<Zakim> pchampin, you wanted to suggest we should assign them to WG participants
pchampin: good point. issues from people outside WG. one thing we could do is assign to group participants.
… look at your issues. might be something we want to consider having asignees for.
pchampin: of course, it's probably no quick way to filter issues by who they are from.
pfps: only 102. not a long time to go through them.
ktk: long meeting next week.