Meeting minutes
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
<ora> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes from 2024-07-18 and 2024-07-25
<gkellogg> +1
<ora> +1
<ktk> +1
<thomas> +1
<AndyS> +1
<gtw> +1
<TallTed> +1
<pfps> +0, could be better
<Souri> +1
RESOLUTION: Approve minutes from 2024-07-18 and 2024-07-25
TPAC 24 3
Ora: We are registered at TPAC.
<pfps> I will listen in, but not be there.
Ora: quick strawpoll, who is planing to attend either remotely or in person
<gkellogg> I'll be there
<AndyS> Will attend - likely remote
<draggett> Will attend remotely
<gtw> I will likely attend.
<TallTed> I'll be remote only ... probably in our meetings, depends on what sessions conflict
I will attend, likely remote
<gkellogg> I will attend in person.
gkellogg: we should doublecheck our slots, there was an overlap with JSON-LD WG
Ora: We have a joint meeting on Tuesday 24 but it looks like the JSON-LD group meeting overlaps with our RDF Star WG on Thursday 26
Ora: We have Tuesday morning and Thursday morning for our meeting
Ora: And a joint meeting with JSON-LD
gkellogg: there are 4 of us that are in both groups
gkellogg: but we could probably leave out the JSON-LD meeting that overlaps with RDF Star on Thursday
Ora: What are we going to do with this meeting? There are likely people joining that are not part of our group. We might want to do explanation and outreach.
… I would like to get clarity on the whole JSON datatype still.
gkellogg: We have to address the concerns from pfps which we have to address.
pfps: IIRC canonicalization is not part of our concern anymore.
… there are other concerns still.
Ora: I hope that we can either fix it or explicitly say it's not our concern.
gkellogg: We can talk about this at TPAC but I think we are in sight of getting done what we are here for and that should be the focus.
<thomas> i will attend on thursday, but not on tuesday
Charter Extension 4
Ora: Where are we with the extension
ktk: The pull request was merged but I'm not sure if it is formally done
draggett: I will try to find out what the status is
gkellogg: I think it needs membership action to get through
ora: I would not have seen an email that would urge the membership to vote
… whatever you could find out draggett would be great
Proposal for next week's discussion
https://
Ora: Enrico proposed some things
AndyS: the other thing we have to get to the bottom to is LPGs
… I don't think we went through that yet and it will recur
thomas: LPG and "unasserted stuff" overlaps
ktk: Topics from enrico: a final vote on singleton properties, and on opaque IRIs
AndyS: for LPG, I don't think we properly articularted what problems we try to solve
… I'm not sure myself what is and isn't the scope
ora: do you have time gtw to articulate some of that
gtw: our goal from Amazon is increasing interop between LPG and RDF Star
… but as Andy said it's not clear where the limit is. Some things might be too far. But I would like to see an increase
<pfps> well, the interop is currently at 100% if you define interop the right way
thomas: I would differentiate between annotations of the statement as an entity on its own right and annotations on individual nodes, especially the property
draggett: I really hope that RDF 1.2 will facilitate semantic interoperability, including LPG
… as a business objective
<Souri> https://
Souri: as I indicated in one of my messages is what exactly are we trying to achieve. We can model LPGs in RDF 1.2 but RDF 1.2 is more powerful so we cannot necessarily model that completely in LGP
ora: I'm happy to see that RDF is more expressive
Souri: we should add the state of the art from the LPG. Make sure that whatever is doable in LGP can be expressed in RDF
fsasaki: What do you mean with annotations on property. Do you mean edges in LPG terminology?
thomas: yes
Ora: candidates for discussion: Resolution on opacity, rule out singleton properties, discuss on where we are going to go with LPG-RDF interop
<AndyS> sounds good
<thomas> +1
<ktk> +1
<Souri> +1
<AndyS> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<fsasaki> +1
<eBremer> +1
Review of pull requests, available at 5
gkellogg: I have 3 open PRs that are IMO ready to merge
pfps: works for me, we can adjust mine after the merge
AndyS: I'm in support of merging the Turtle one (51)
… it makes new starting points better
gkellogg: There is some more work in RDF Turtle but this work should be test case driven.
<AndyS> I've put these into a SPARQL grammar + test cases.
thomas: on naming, how do we call the reified term, is there a conclusion?
… gkellogg did you come to some sort of arrangement?
gkellogg: a reifier is an identifier, that is used for the triple macro. that's what's called a reified triple term.
Issue Triage, available at 6
AndyS: w3c/
<gb> Issue 116 Determine naming syntax for reifiers (by niklasl) [needs discussion]
AndyS: better to close it then
ora: anything else?
gkellogg: number 114, how does it affect RDF Canonicalization. That's the "unstar" mapping that we have not discussed yet
… it might be mapped to classical RDF reification
… The question is is this working or not. It will not roundtrip
thomas: I would like to have the discussion on how the unstar is mapped. Reification is one way but there are other options. I could add to that issue.
ora: please do then
… any low hanging fruits that need discussion?
<thomas> will add to issue 114
AndyS: Canonical mapping to datatypes, I thought we resolved not to have that.
gkellogg: right
gkellogg: RDF/XML and RDFa at one time had a dependency on that and since moved on.
AndyS: we can resolve that.
gkellogg: I will make a note about that
Any Other Business (AOB), time permitting
<thomas> unasserted assertions
<thomas> @tallted unasserted assertions
<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask whether we have enough people next week.
<ktk> s/planning/planing/
<ktk> s/JSON data type/JSON datatype/