– DRAFT –
RDF-Star WG biweekly meeting

<ktk> https://www.w3.org/2024/01/25-rdf-star-minutes.html

ora: We need to approve 2 sets of minutes.

<pfps> minutes look fine to me

Approval of minutes from the last two meetings:

<ktk> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes 2024-01-25 https://www.w3.org/2024/01/25-rdf-star-minutes.html

<pfps> +1

<gkellogg> 0

+0

<tl> +1

<ktk> +1

<AndyS> +1

<niklasl> +1

<ora> +0

<fsasaki> +1

<eBremer> +1

<TallTed> +1

<AZ> +0

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes 2024-01-25 https://www.w3.org/2024/01/25-rdf-star-minutes.html

<ktk> https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-rdf-star-minutes.html

<pfps> also look fine to me

<ktk> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes 2024-02-01

<AZ> +1

<niklasl> +1

<ora> +1

+0

<ktk> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<TallTed> +1

<tl> +1

<eBremer> +1

<AndyS> +1

<pfps> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes 2024-02-01 https://www.w3.org/2024/02/01-rdf-star-minutes.html

Proposal for next week's discussion

ora: Where are we with respect to getting towards a consensus on what we will do in the remainder of this group?
… I feel we made a lot of progress in the last few meetings.

AndyS: I wrote out implications of approach 2 and 3.
… It was in a long e-mail.

<niklasl> Andy's long email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Feb/0005.html

pfps: We need to make a choice between option 2 and 3.

ora: Could we have one final discussion about this next week, and vote on those two?

pfps: Minutes of this week should clarify we will make this decision, as it's substantive.

gkellogg: We need a resolution on this to make it clear.

ora: We need a good link for people to read the options.

AndyS: PA's summary could be linked.

tl: Option 1 is still on the table.

<AndyS> PA's summary doc: https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg/blob/main/docs/seeking-consensus-2024-01.html

ora: Maybe Thomas can argue next week why it's still on the table.

ora: Most other people have converged to option 2 or 3.
… We should be able to decide by the end of next meeting.

tl: I will prepare this.

ktk: I can set the agenda tomorrow for next week, so people are aware.

ora: AZ also voted for option 1.
… Let's put it to rest next week.

<ora> PROPOSAL: Next week we decide between options 1, 2 and 3

<ora> +1

<gkellogg> +1

+1

<niklasl> +1

<pfps> +1

<eBremer> +1

<AndyS> +1

<gtw> +1

<AZ> +0

<ktk> +1

<doerthe> +1

<tl> +0

<TallTed> +1

<fsasaki> +1

RESOLUTION: Next week we decide between options 1, 2, and 3

Charter extension / rechartering

ktk: This topic came up 2 weeks ago.
… I remember hearing if you're not nearly done by January, it is not realistic to end by the charter deadline August.

ora: It's safe to start the rechartering.
… It doesn't need to be a big deal.
… We will need to vote on it.

ora: ktk and I will pick up the topic of rechartering in the next chairs meeting.

AndyS: Do we need to add living standard option to the rechartering at this point?

gkellogg: We want to include the SPARQL SEPs for example.
… Some things feel left unfinished (e.g. lists).

ora: I don't know, but we need to check.

pfps: Also check if the maintenance group can fix errors in specs.
… Maybe we can not fix all of them in this group.

gkellogg: JSON-LD has been in maintenance mode for some time and has been doing substantive work on the specs, but hasn't released updates on that. There is a complicated process. But I believe it could. But don't think it will until RDF 1.2 is done due to dependencies.

gkellogg: I believe the JSON-LD maintenance group is chartered to do that. Phillipe might now.

<ktk> Open actions: https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3

ktk: Since PA is not here, we can go to the next one.

Review of pull requests, available at

<ktk> Open pull requests https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4

AndyS: 134 is from Olaf, can go in, everyone has agreed.

ora: Don't think we'll discuss mobile phones one now.

gkellogg: The 2 for Turtle are just corrections to examples.

<TallTed> +1 merge turtle/53 and turtle/54

gkellogg: They have been open long enough.

ora: What about 35?

AndyS: That's just a correction by what's already there.
… I'll merge that one.

Tpt: Some PRs for new spec tests for things in previous SPARQL spec versions that were not properly tested.

AndyS: These follow the CG merging approach, as it's not related to this WG.

AndyS: The whitespace PR is based on PA's consensus document.

ora: I see no reason to not merge those.

ora: Anything else?

Issue Triage, available at

<ktk> Issue Triage: https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/5

gkellogg: There are 9 issues that have proposed-closing tag for some time.

pfps: I went through most of the issues 2 weeks ago, and some of them are from that.

ora: Anyone disagree with closing them?

ora: Let's close then.

pfps: At the bottom of the list are issues that I was not sure about how to categorize. Could someone look at them?

ora: What about the use case issues?

pfps: Every use case is an issue. Not sure what to do about them. We can consider them inert for now.
… There is also no real harm in closing them. I'll look at them.

AndyS: It may be useful to exclude the rdf-test ones, as they are unrelated.

Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting

ora: AOB?

pfps: SPARQL errors: we should look at the list to see if we can knock some of those off.

AndyS: I think we will find more time if the reification issue is resolved.

AndyS: The main one is EXISTS and should be taken care off.

pfps: Is there an issue specific to that one?

AndyS: Yes, but I don't know which one.
… It's 75.

<AndyS> w3c/sparql-query#130

<gb> Issue 130 Criteria for evaluating errata changes for EXISTS (by afs) [spec:bug]

ora: AOOB?

AndyS: Semantics TF tomorrow?

ora: Olaf and Suri are at the Daghstuhl.

ora: I hope to see you tomorrow at the semantics meeting.
… We can adjourn.

<ora> TallTed, thanks for handling all the minutes minutiae [sp?]

<TallTed> every little bit helps :-)