– DRAFT –
RDF-Star WG biweekly meeting

<pchampin> present

Approval of minutes from the last two meetings:

https://www.w3.org/2024/02/22-rdf-star-minutes.html

https://www.w3.org/2024/02/29-rdf-star-minutes.html

ora: any comments or concerns about the minutes?

<gtw> "(MEETING TITLE)"?

<ktk> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes 2024-02-22

<gkellogg> +1

<niklasl> +1

<eBremer> +1

<tl> +1

<Souri> +1

<enrico> +1

<Dominik_T> +0 (absent)

<ktk> +1

<gtw> +1

<ora> +1

<TallTed> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes 2024-02-22

<ktk> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes 2024-02-29

<gkellogg> +1

<ora> +1

<Dominik_T> +1

<Tpt> +1

<gtw> +1

<ktk> +1

<pchampin> +1

<enrico> +1

<tl> +1

<niklasl> +1

ktk: Pierre-Antoinne please fix title on minutes of 22nd

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes 2024-02-29

Proposal for next week's discussion

ora: any ideas for next week?

enrico: have names been agreed on, for now

ora: yes

<niklasl> Specifically `rdf:reifies`

gregg: there were some concerns about terminology related to reification

andys: we need to have the documents updated to see how things flow

gregg: the Turtle document needs updating

pchampin: my understanding is that we will go ahead with some reification-related vocabulary

pchampin: it might be possible to not have much in concepts

ora: let's proceed with current terminology

andys: concepts doesn't have much on vocabulary so it is understandable that lists are not ther

andys: the stuff related to embedded triples is different

enrico: how about well-formedness?

ora: sound reasonable

ora: for next week - fallout from breakout day and well-formedness

Charter Extension / Rechartering

/lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Mar/0002.html///lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Mar/0002.html

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/pulls

<pchampin> w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter#57

<gb> Pull Request 57 Charter extension 2024-03 (by pchampin)

pchampin: I have made a PR to modify the charter, so far just to push the dates

pchampin: charter extensions are only for six months so a one year extension is a rechartering that needs a vote

pchampin: the recharter could include a one-year extension plus one year for maintenance

ora: asking for a six-month extension seems to be a simpler thing

pchampin: that would be optimistic but the WG could so decide

ora: any thoughts

<tl> so we can have multiple six-months extensions?

andys: I don't know how much effort is required for rechartering. Is there a risk that the charter might be significantly modified?

pchampin: We would decide what to put in the new charter. There is a risk that members could request changes.

ora: is there is a risk that the rechartering would be denied?

andys: my worry is more about concerns that require changes, not about denial

gregg: can we ask for an extension and mention that we might need another?

andys: what is the history here?

tallted: extensions are less acceptable than they used to be

tallted: we should take the advice we have been given, i.e., recharter

pchampin: members have been more stringent, and the team has responded to this

tallted: the AC can always override team decisions so it might be better to go directly to them

gregg: there is no guarantee here but we are now making progress

gregg: my recollection was that the plan was to go into maintenance mode

tallted: living standard might be better than maintenance mode

tallted: living standard allows new features

pchampin: my view is that maintenance mode involves updates to a living standard

ktk: a rechartering allows us to adjust scope of the working group to better correspond to what is needed

<ktk> https://www.w3.org/2022/08/rdf-star-wg-charter/

tallted: some aspects of the work that has already been done could also be documented

pchampin: the charter does mention all the documents

pchampin: I would be careful about changing scope

gregg: there was a WG discussion of the name early on

<ora> STRAWPOLL: re-chartering rather than charter extension?

pfps: the old WG names did not correspond well with the names of the output documents

<pchampin> +1

ora: let's do a straw poll

<gkellogg> +1

0

<Tpt> 0

<AndyS> +0 : either - defer to experts

<ora> 0

<AZ> +0

<enrico> 0

<niklasl> +0

<TallTed> +1 recharter, +0.5 extension

<Souri> 0

<ktk> +0

<tl> +0

<eBremer> +1

<Dominik_T> +0

<gtw> +0

ora: the chairs will discuss this issue

ktk: ... and come up with a proposal

W3C Breakout Day

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star-wg/2024Mar/0002.html

<AndyS> RDF-star , RDF1.2 -- w3c/breakouts-day-2024#21

<gb> Issue 21 RDF-Star and RDF 1.2 (by rdfguy) [session]

ora: who wants to make a presentation?

niklasl: I can put together some slide

ora: I'll put together some slides and niklasl and I can collaborate

<pchampin> https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/rdf-star/calendar/ gives the correct time in your own timezone

ora: the US is switching to summer time this weeken and this changes meeting times for those who aren't switching (yet)

<Souri> +1 I'll be there (9am-10am ET, right?)

<pchampin> I'll do my best, but I'll be in a train

ora: who will be there?

<pchampin> Breakout session: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/0fc23324-8bf1-47b8-b0cf-1f0f31befb09/

Review of open actions, available at

<TallTed> Looks like a glitch in the W3 calendar. Some sub-events show both CUT and "reader's local time". Our sub-event only shows CUT. https://www.w3.org/calendar/breakouts-day-2024/breakout-sessions/

https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/3

ora: we can talk about action items to fix up the vocabulary

gregg: I've been proceeding and have some PRs lined up for this. There are others as well.

gregg: Perhaps we need something for vocabulary extensions.

gregg: Olaf has a PR for concepts.

<pchampin> w3c/rdf-concepts#78

<gb> Pull Request 78 Proposal to adapt the abstract syntax to option 3 (by hartig) [spec:substantive]

ora: looks good for now

gregg: SPARQL documents need to be updated

pfps: it looks like Semantics and Schema are the ones that need to be addressed

ora: there should be something in the What's New note.

gregg: something in RDF/XML seems indicated

souri: we may need distinction between old-style and new-style

<Souri> atomic, new-style, well-formed, ...

ora: anything else

<niklasl> +1 to e.g. atomic reification.

Review of pull requests, available at

<ora> https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/20/views/4

pchampin: I looked at the PRs and I suggest how we represent triple terms in concrete syntax

<pchampin> <( :s :p :o )>

pchampin: the current notation is <<>> - I suggest using <(...)>

<niklasl> <(:s:p:o)> a :ValidURI . # ?

<AndyS> <()> is a valid URI :-)

pchampin: this should be easy to parse and be less confusing

<pchampin> I stand corrected, then

<niklasl> (... rather common in wikipedia...)

andys: parentheses are legal in IRIs so there may be problems

pchampin: so my proposal won't work

niklasl: should we have a discussion

andys: if we go with <<(...)>> for now we can proceed and change afterwards

ora: sparql makes use of every possible ASCII bracket

<Souri> <| ... |> allowed in URIs?

<niklasl> <|:s:p:o|> a :InvalidURI . # hm.

<AndyS> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#appendix-A

ora: mobile phone display

ora: RDF is a model is too new to dispose of right now

<pchampin> w3c/sparql-query#143

<gb> Pull Request 143 RDF is a model, not a format (by TallTed) [spec:editorial]

tallted: I think we can go ahead

ora: agreed

gregg: the concepts one is a gate on other PRs

<gkellogg> w3c/rdf-concepts#78

<gb> Pull Request 78 Proposal to adapt the abstract syntax to option 3 (by hartig) [spec:substantive]

<Souri> Do we have a meeting tomorrow?

gregg: this adds the new way of thinking about embedded triples

andys: there are required changes on this PR

<pchampin> w3c/rdf-concepts#80

<gb> Issue 80 where are triple terms allowed (by pfps) [needs discussion] [spec:substantive]

tallted: the stuff that remains on #78 is covered by #80

<gb> CLOSED Action 80 configure the gb IRC bot to route actions to w3c/rdf-star-wg (on pchampin)

<gb> CLOSED Action 78 investigate hiccups in github actions (on pchampin) due 27 Jul 2023

andys: we need to have this point cleared up but can we proceed with #78 as is

andys: are pfps and tallted OK with this

tallted: fine by me
… but I want a reason

pfps: fine by me

ora: merge #78 so that other work can proceed

<pchampin> +1

<TallTed> to be clear -- fine to merge w3c/rdf-concepts#78 and follow up in w3c/rdf-concepts#80

<gb> Pull Request 78 Proposal to adapt the abstract syntax to option 3 (by hartig) [spec:substantive]