Meeting minutes
TPAC preparation
ora: sent his first draft of tpac presentation
ora: slides are in the wiki for permanent record
ora: Niklas will explain all the details
Niklas: will let know for sure before
ora: move more towards a deliberate way of working
ora: anyone have anything else to say on tpac
tl: is it possible to say when we will discuss each topic
ora: decide now when we will discuss each topic
gregg: will discuss json-ld star
… sent out slides already
pchampin: tpac is a hybrid event
… encouraged to use the zoom rooms
… have had two hybrid tpacs since covid
ora: please send email to use dedicated zoom room
pchampin: calendars do not contain an agenda yet
tl: arguing for rdf states
… not sure if tpac is the right time to jump into this discussion
… but doesnt want to keep pushing it into the future
ora: how do people feel about this?
… doesnt see why tpac cant be one of these times for this
tl: would work for him
Future Modus Operandi Proposal
tallted: future discussion in these meetings will be based on specific issues, and I wouild suggest we would well be served by taking that policy for tpac agena tiems as well
adrian: move to issue based tracking
… can prioritize these issues
… start this next week at tpac
… time to go into issue-mode now
ora: anybody have thoughts on this?
tallted: github issues have markdown to make things clear, but you cannot use markdown if you respond via email...go through github instead of email
ora: good suggestion
ora: any other thoughts on this?
andys: i think it is a good idea
… and if they dont fit directly on one of the specs...suggest putting them on sparql-query repo..
ora: I believe this was our taking all along.
ora: what do we call it? prioritization of the backlog?
adrian: keep the admin vs. the more in-depth
… we never did get to the end of the triage because we always had other stuff
adrian: cant always go through everything so to limit time...
… or something like that
pchampin: maybe we could install a rule of keeping some time for the audience button for the sparql parts..
… maybe try to keep some time for the rdf and some time for sparql
ora: 2 kinds of things...the things we will be discussing and then the issues we simply triage to specific people..
tallted: doing this triage...should be set with a fixed rotation...
… then proceed through until we finish it, and then start again
adrian: you propose we pick up where we left off rather that start at the top?
tallted: correct
andys: something thats going to be quite necessary as is just triaging some issue and just throwing them away.
… weve got alot of issues. Many of them are very small.
… the chairs are going to have to take control...
ora: since we have time, should we try to do a little triaging
adrian: probably a good idea
<ktk> https://
ora: look at long triage list
ora: best way to reorder this?
adrian: first add labels to those which have none
<niklasl> The label:"discuss-f2f"
gregg: several tags we dont really use
ora: go through list and least pick the ones that seem like good candidates
adrian: propose we filter on each discussion. now go though them...
gregg: we havent thouroughly discussed what we want to accomplish with unstar
andys: next week, draw up a list of conditions for the unstar operation ...
<william_vw> I have been bugging pchampin about this as well :-)
gregg: we have a whats new in rdf deliverable...
<william_vw> AndyS +1
andyS: need to start pushing the details and make sure we got deep agreement on topics. not just we think we have agreed...
niklas: concise presentation about there are things that need to be discussed before this can be easy to write...
tl: I think it will come up with rdf states
<TallTed> side comment -- every time I *hear* rdf:states (different from seeing it on the page), it makes me think solid/liquid/gas or the like. Language is troublesome.
<william_vw> TallTed I agree - it sometimes makes me think of state machines...
niklas: something needs to be the primer...
andys: the primer wouldnt be able to go into such depth....
gregg: new shapes group starting up...
<AndyS> https://
<gkellogg> Consider w3c/
<gb> Issue 26 shape languages and validation features (by phtyson) [needs discussion]
tallted: have the effect of it being a living standard...not formally described in w3c practice..
pchampin: ted is right...the term living standard not part of the w3c process
<AndyS> Classes of changes: https://
pchampin: living standard not an official term in w3c
gregg: there is html class that indicates this document may change...