W3C

– DRAFT –
RDF-Star WG biweekly meeting

02 May 2024

Attendees

Present
AndyS, AZ, doerthe, Dominik_T, eBremer, fsasaki, gtw, ktk, niklasl, olaf, ora, pfps, rubensworks, Souri, TallTed, tl
Regrets
enrico
Chair
ora
Scribe
eBremer

Meeting minutes

Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2

Approval of the minutes

ora: any concerns?

<pfps> both minutes look fine by me

<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes

<ora> +1

<AndyS> +1

<ktk> +1

<olaf> +1

<rubensworks> +1

<niklasl> +1

<TallTed> +1

<tl> +1

<pfps> +1

<gtw> +1

<fsasaki> +1

RESOLUTION: Approve minutes

Meeting/no meeting on Ascension day

Meeting/no meeting on Ascension day

<pfps> My understanding of Catholic mythology is a bit lacking. What date is "Asenscion day"?

ora: the idea is to cancel next weeks meetings

<ora> PROPOSAL: Cancel next week's meeting

<TallTed> a little firehose for the curious... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_the_Ascension

<ora> +1

<niklasl> +1

<olaf> +1

<ktk> +1

<tl> +0

<gtw> +0

<doerthe> +1

<fsasaki> +0

<TallTed> +0

<rubensworks> +1

<pfps> 0

<AndyS> 0

<pfps> not even new years?

<pfps> and boxing day?

Adrian: topic on calendar and if I dont hear anything by monday I would propose to cancel it then

RESOLUTION: Cancel next week's meeting provided nobody contacts Adrian by Monday

TPAC: Deadline until May 20th

TPAC: Deadline until May 20th

Adrian: deadline May 20th

ora: TPAC in California

<gtw> TPAC date?

ora: we can have remote participation

<gtw> https://www.w3.org/events/tpac/2024/

<AndyS> TPAC -- 23-27 Sept

ora: end of september.... i think we should do it. what do other people think?

ora: provided W3C gives charter extension

<TallTed> I'll be remote only, but in favor of the extended session

<niklasl> I'd strive to attend at least virtually (in spite of timezone diff)

Ora: I will try to be there in person

<Souri> +1 may be remote, not sure

<olaf> I wouldn't be able to attend. We have an EU project meeting at the same time.

<AndyS> Will attend - remote or local TBD

<ora> PROPOSAL: Register for TPAC

<tl> will probably attend, probably remote

<ora> +1

<gtw> +1

<ktk> +1

<tl> +1

<olaf> +0

<AndyS> +1

<Souri> +1

<fsasaki> +0

<doerthe> +0

<rubensworks> +0

<niklasl> +1

ora: Let's do it

RESOLUTION: Register for TPAC

<TallTed> +1

Proposal for next week's discussion

Proposal for next week's discussion

AndyS: 2 morning slots instead of full day...

<eBremer> s/slows/slots

ora: we may not have meeting but if someone wants to lead that meeting....

ora: have focused meeting two weeks from now?

<tl> +1

<Souri> +1

<niklasl> We could keep the cycle if we have two consecutive focused meetings?

<ora> PROPOSAL: Shift meetings and have a focused meeting two weeks from now

<niklasl> +1

<ktk> +1

<TallTed> +1

<gtw> +1

<doerthe> +1

<olaf> +1

<fsasaki> +1

<rubensworks> +1

<AndyS> +1

RESOLUTION: Shift meetings and have a focused meeting two weeks from now

ora: we should think of a topic
… one possible discuss two profiles Enrico submitted
… any other ideas?

TL: discuss singleton properties

ora: we could throw that into the mix for sure
… singleton properties have come up in the RDF community before
… has not gone anywhere

TL: Okay

Ora: let's talk about it
… the topic for the meeting in 2 weeks would be profiles
… and possibly singleton properties

RESOLUTION: Topic for next meeting: profiles + (potentially) singleton properties

Review of open actions

Review of open actions, available at 3

<tl> my proposal is to discuss a combination of RDF-star triple terms as the syntax and singleton properties as the semantics. but let's wait how the discussion on the mailinglist evolves

Review of pull requests, available at 4

Ora: and thomas, yes, what you put in chat is fine

<niklasl> +1

Ora: What are we gonna do about the json thing?

pfps: there are substantive problems in the proposal...
… and they have not been addressed...
… they're unresolved questions....
… i would say get rid of RDF:json

Ora: interesting idea of course
… JSONLD folks took a very practical approach....

gtw: they were the ones who defines it
… thats seems like makes for moving it a non-starter

pfps: we have no obligation to talk about it...
… there are firm definitions of what it takes to be a RDF data type...

AndyS: it's already been published into the RDF name space, so I think we'll have to keep it

Ora: does anyone know if this has cause problems?

<AndyS> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#the-rdf-json-datatype

pfps: not the right question to ask

<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to wonder whether it would be sufficient to enumerate the issues we see as unresolvable writ large, and therefore are to be handled thus-and-so

pfps: can there ever be any problems that would cause security things to break

TallTed: that becomes something to put into security considerations...

pfps: there are a bunch of unspecified things

TallTed: log issues with those other specs on particulars. this is a large issue as its written for us
… I dont think we should be expected to find all the problems in the other specs...

pfps: The question is whether jcs has an internal error

TallTed: they have a strong errata handling mechanism in IETF

pfps: I can try poking them informally...

Ora: I have friend who was in IETF if yours doesnt work

Ora: if we cant get anyone to fix their documents, what is the best way for us to resolve this?
… we just put some nasty language in our spec

TallTed: It doesn't have to be nasty...

ora: prudent course of action is to try to influence the others without killing ourselves

AndyS: ...security issue. The obligation is to report it

Ora: we absolutely should report...

AndyS: making a external claim on someone elses matarial that there is a security issue is a very serious step to take

TallTed: If we're restating things. then we have a stronger obligation to figure out why a should is a should and not a must
… because there are legitimate reasons to do that
… we can make a judgment call as to whether we want to make it a requirement a must in our spec for doing this thing

ora: lets see what happens when Peter pokes the IETF people

TallTed: it is also legit to make that an open issue on what we're doing and put it out for wider community input

<doerthe> I will read

<AZ> once PR 48 of rdf-semantics is merged, we can close issue 46

ora: out of time
… no time for the issues

<eBremer> s/not no/

Summary of resolutions

  1. Approve minutes
  2. Cancel next week's meeting provided nobody contacts Adrian by Monday
  3. Register for TPAC
  4. Shift meetings and have a focused meeting two weeks from now
  5. Topic for next meeting: profiles + (potentially) singleton properties
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 221 (Fri Jul 21 14:01:30 2023 UTC).

Diagnostics

Succeeded: s/regerts+ enrico//

Succeeded: s/cncerns/concerns

Succeeded: s/contact's/contacts

Succeeded: s/slows/slots/

Failed: s/slows/slots

Succeeded: s/ITF/IETF/

Succeeded: s/cakk/call/

Failed: s/not no/

Succeeded: s/not/no/

Maybe present: Adrian

All speakers: Adrian, AndyS, gtw, ora, pfps, TallTed, TL

Active on IRC: AndyS, AZ, doerthe, Dominik_T, eBremer, fsasaki, gtw, ktk, niklasl, olaf, ora, pfps, rubensworks, Souri, TallTed, tl