Meeting minutes
<pfps> look fine to me
ora: we go through the minutes of the last two meeting. Any observations?
<AndyS> LGTM
<ora> PROPOSAL: Accept minutes of 2024-10-24
<pfps> +1
<niklasl> +1
<ora> +1
<Dominik_T> +1
<Souri> +1
<doerthe> +1
<TallTed> +1
<AndyS> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<gtw> +1
<tl> +1
<eBremer> +1
<william_vw> +1
<olaf> +1
<AZ3> +1
<pchampin> +1
<enrico> +1
<Tpt> +1
<james> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of 2024-10-24
<ora> PROPOSAL: Accept minutes of 2024-10-31
<pfps> +1
<ora> 0
<niklasl> +1
<Tpt> +1
<enrico> +1
<olaf> +1
<william_vw> +1
<gkellogg> +1
<TallTed> +1
0
<Dominik_T> +1
<tl> +1
<james> +1
<pchampin> 0
<AndyS> +1
<gtw> +1
<AZ3> +1
<eBremer> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of 2024-10-31
Approval of minutes from the last two meetings: 1 , 2
Meeting next week: ISWC
<pfps> nice save
ora: are you attending ISWC, should we have a meeting?
<pfps> +1 to having a meeting
ora: I will be absent, but ktk could chair
… so we have a meeting
pchampin: could you report to the group after attending ISWC?
<pfps> ora: can your slides be shared with the group?
ora: I will have RDF-star as part of my keynote, I will report
<pfps> yeah, yeah
ora: I can share the slides when they are ready and the talk will be recorded
Prioritization of next week's topics 3
gkellogg: did you finish item 3?
ora: working on that. chairs are still working out SPARQL exists
ora: not sure whether this can be discussed, pa?
pchampin: we have to sort out whether is is part of the charter
james: I am against the change of the charter
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to ask whether wg members actually have a say in the charter
pchampin: the question is whether that addresses an editorial errata or not, most likely a substantial errata
… but that is not strictly not in the charter
pfps: are there formal objections to charters possible?
pchampin: technically yes
pchampin: there was a vote about our new charter, it is approved. But some people suggested to go further. That is now the discussion
TallTed: formal objections are not possible for votes on charters
… but that is something we do not need to discuss within our group
<tl> s/"objections"/"formal objections"
ora: can we get the team's view on that?
pchampin: I already did. Bottomline: either we continue with the new charter which was voted on or
AndyS: Apache voted in favour of the new charter including the changes
… the editorial changes, maybe a missunderstanding?
ora: we will pick that up and clarify under which charter we continue
ora: to go back to the issues, SPARQL EXISTS is on hold
… any suggestions which issues we want to discuss next week?
<enrico> https://
enrico: in the Semantic Task Force we discussed that we should take a position on our "alternative baseline", available at: https://
ora: can we make that the first thing to discuss next week? any objections?
ora: homework for everybody, read the updated baseline proposal
ora: then this will be one of the topics we do next week
… any other suggestions?
AndyS: maybe we should discuss ill-typed literals?
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to say it is time to finish ill-typed literal
ora: let's discuss then
pfps: I would like to have a resolution on that topic, because we keep discussing that topic
… I will prepare a proposal
ora: if possible, could you send it beforehand? just to keep the discussion short
ora: should we discuss rdfs:states as third topic
tl: I expect us to not get there in time.
… my idea was to introduce it for the annotation syntax. There was not majority for it. There is also the question whether we want a property rdfs:states without supporting syntactic sugar
<pfps> +1 to considering the json in the list
<Zakim> pfps, you wanted to plead for brevity
gkellogg: regarding rdf:JSON issue, we could close it
<enrico> I beieve that tl asks for a vote on https://
pfps: I would like to emphasize that we should try to go for more proposals and less discussion
… if people want to get things changed, they should write proposals
… because then we can vote
ora: we now have topics, of course we can discuss more
… anything else we should move forward?
Review of open actions, available at 4
ora: anything on your side pchampin?
pchampin: not sure how our current position is on the un-star mapping, if we want it, I can work on it
ora: we will have a discussion what we do on that
pchampin: problem with issue ? is that we only have a mailing list as contact
TallTed: is the mailing list even maintained afterwards?
(I need help scribing on that one, please)
ora: I suggest we use the mailing list address for now and pchampin could further follow up
:)
<gtw> last email to that list was in February of this year.
<TallTed> https://
pchampin: I will
<TallTed> tho the lack of response to https://
gkellogg: we discussed changing our name, we decided before that we do that after finishing the work, but I think it could be too late
ora: I wonder whether we could establish a more permanent e-mail address like rdf-issues or similar
gkellogg: maybe we can merge the three open media type updates, one is causing a respec problem
… this has no error message, we should wait till this is solved
Review of pull requests, available at 5
gkellogg: I would wait till next week to wait for respec
ora: section for definition of triple terms, what is the state AndyS?
AndyS: This is about section order, content doesn't change, some extra about triple terms
ora: can we merge? no objection, we do
AndyS: we additionally have a request for symmetric RDF, which means that we allow all terms in subject position we allow in object position, that has not much practical consequences
ora: objections to merge? no
AndyS: other merge is moving ?? to semantics
<gtw> sorry for the audio issues. hoping for some clarification on expected behavior of invalid codepoint escapes.
<gtw> there's the bigger issue Gregg is discussing on difference between Turtle and SPARQL, but I think fixing that would be a breaking change we probably can't(?) make.
<gtw> I think splitting is OK, but orthogonal to the discussion on expected behavior of error cases.
<TallTed> should get a "push to 2.0" or similar
AndyS: I suggest to split (issue fill in) into two
<TallTed> *maybe* could be a switchable thing? or a "compliance with the 1.x specs requires this security hole be open; we hope it will be closed/closable for 2.x specs"
<gtw> TallTed: yes, bug again, orthogonal issue to what I was aiming for with this PR.
enrico: suggestion for STF, should we go through the baseline together?