Meeting minutes
<TallTed> all the present, scribe, etc., will need to repeat after the bots arrive
<TallTed> I've invited them
<AndyS> scribe olaf
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: [1]
ora: approval of minutes
… first one is the one from Feb.8
<enrico> https://
ora: any complaints?
… No complaints! Approved!
… The second one is the one from Feb.15
<ora> https://
<AZ> +1 for the minutes of the 8th Feb
<AZ> +1
ora: No comments or worries about Feb.15 minutes, approved as well.
Proposal for next week's discussion
ora: Ideas for next week's discussion?
enrico: I have new version of the semantics
… minimalistic version for option 3
<enrico> Semantics for option 3: https://
enrico: we can discuss them tomorrow in the Sem TF meeting
olaf: RDF concepts PR - (1) what is the name of the predicate (2) triple term in object or object+subject
enrico: I have a basic version for the free version in my semantics doc
enrico: free RDF and best practice / well-formedness condition
ora: we may also discuss naming in general (e.g., names for "triple term" and for "occurrence")
<eBremer> for this nameOf predicate, will we have a short hand like "a" for "rdf:type"?
AndyS: yes, we should sort out the naming sooner than later
… It frees up frequent changes to the documents
ora: Additionally, we can/should do a little status check regarding editors
… so that editors can actually do their work
AndyS: I am good with that.
<niklasl> The shorthand is in the syntax (<< s p o >> => [] <<(s p o)>> and corresponding annotation form).
<niklasl> I meant => [] :nameOf <<(s p o)>>
AndyS: for the SPARQL subgroup, we need to look into the issue of EXISTS
<ora> https://
ora: We only pchampin's stuff as open actions
Review of pull requests, available at https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4
ora: since he is not here, skip to PRs
olaf: 2 PR on SPARQL spec
… last week, after consensus, did a PR for RDf concepts for option 3.
… discussion happening
… descriptive section on in this PR not done. Waiting for formal section to go in.
… please look at w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 78 Proposal to adapt the abstract syntax to option 3 (by hartig) [spec:substantive]
ora: What about the other PRs?
AndyS: These SPARQL PRs are on the test repo
gkellogg: these have approval and can be merged
ora: okay, seems we can merge them
gkellogg: yes, owners should merge them
ora: What about the JSON valuespace?
gkellogg: We decided to defer until we have sufficient intellectual bandwidth
Issue Triage, available at
<ora> https://
gkellogg: they are not critical
AndyS: one of them reported from mailing lists
olaf: I have made a PR for that one
AndyS: regarding "where are triple terms allowed" - for next week's discussion
<niklasl> ... formerly conflated with triple terms ? ;)
<gb> Issue 79 Reconsider bidi tags? (by termontwouter) [wr:open]
<niklasl> Found it!
ora: everyone, pick up issues from this list!
gkellogg: issue 63 is still waiting for some response from the i18n group
ora: I will ping Ellison (?) about that
AndyS: What is the status of punycode these days?
ora: I don't even know what that is.
AndyS: It is a way to encode ... names.
<TallTed> wikipedia says "Punycode is a representation of Unicode with the limited ASCII character subset used for Internet hostnames. Using Punycode, host names containing Unicode characters are transcoded to a subset of ASCII consisting of letters, digits, and hyphens, which is called the letter–digit–hyphen (LDH) subset."
AndyS: put seems to be used only in specs.
… Seems time has moved on.
gkellogg: regarding w3c/
… but we already spent so much time on this
… the comment rejects our proposal
… Given that it is an external comment, it requires to be dealt with in some way.
… Put the proposal is a matter of taste.
… Maybe pchampin can take a look into this because he had some documents about it (with Ivan Herman)
ora: I will take a look into that one as well.
AndyS: His argument is fine but it starts from a different point. We start from a point where lang.tags already exist.
niklasl: I thought the same
… interoperability for people coming from different directions
… we also had very complex language codes in some earlier project
… I have something that might help here
… I would prefer explicit use cases and example that show why this is needed
ora: please dig a little deeper into this as well
niklasl: will do
ora: my suggestion is that everyone takes a look at the issue list prior to meetings
… to see whether there is something that you can pick up
Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
ora: now to 'other business'
ora: I have something, namely about the rechartering
… getting an extension to our charter
… pchampin had something about it but he wasn't in the recent chairs' meeting
… nothing else anyone?
… hope to see many of you tomorrow for the Semantics TF meeting