Meeting minutes
<ktk> https://
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://
<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://
<ktk> https://
<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://
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://
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://
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://
ktk: Since PA is not here, we can go to the next one.
Review of pull requests, available at
<ktk> Open pull requests https://
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://
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/
<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 :-)