15:47:27 RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star 15:47:27 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/03/12-rdf-star-irc 15:47:29 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:47:30 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin 15:47:39 meeting: RDF-star 15:47:42 agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Mar/0030.html 15:47:42 clear agenda 15:47:42 agenda+ Announcements and newcomers 15:47:42 agenda+ Open actions 15:47:42 agenda+ Daylight Saving Time (US) and Summertime (EU) 15:47:42 agenda+ SPARQL-eval test suite 15:47:45 agenda+ Define a URI for the class of embedded triples 15:47:47 agenda+ Open-ended discussions 15:47:56 chair: pchampin 15:56:44 present+ 15:56:48 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star 15:58:16 thomas has joined #rdf-star 15:58:50 TallTed has joined #rdf-star 15:58:53 james has joined #rdf-star 16:00:23 ora has joined #rdf-star 16:01:08 pchampin has changed the topic to: RDF* / RDF-Star CG -- 2021-03-12 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Mar/0030.html 16:01:17 olaf has joined #rdf-star 16:01:48 present+ 16:01:56 present+ 16:02:21 present+ 16:02:24 present+ 16:02:36 present+ 16:02:39 zakim, who is here? 16:02:39 Present: gatemezing, TallTed, gkellogg, thomas, pchampin, olaf, ora, rivettp, AndyS, james 16:02:41 On IRC I see olaf, ora, james, TallTed, thomas, gkellogg, RRSAgent, pchampin, AndyS, agendabot, Zakim, rhiaro 16:03:03 present+ 16:03:43 william has joined #rdf-star 16:04:09 present+ 16:04:30 zakim, pick a scribe 16:04:30 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ora 16:04:53 scribe: ora 16:05:08 rivettp has joined #rdf-star 16:05:16 Topic: Announcements and newcomers 16:05:21 chair: pchampin 16:05:43 q? 16:06:07 Topic: Daylight Saving Time (US) and Summertime (EU) 16:06:22 present+ 16:06:50 pchampin: switch happens at different times in the US and in Europe 16:07:04 phampin: what would be the reference time zone? 16:07:15 s/phampin/pchampin 16:07:57 typical practice for w3 work is Boston/New York, but it won't make a lot of difference for me 16:08:23 US would be an hour later (as it would be noon where it is now 11am) 16:09:07 if we stick to UTC: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=RDF%2A+call&iso=20210319T16&p1=1440&ah=1 16:09:18 gkellogg: W3C uses Boston time 16:10:44 pchampin: using European time, would be noon for Boston, 9 am for SF 16:11:32 pchampin: gkellogg's argument is valid, though, not to interfere with other W3C meetings 16:11:32 this just impacts the next two weeks, correct? 16:11:47 pchampin: yes 16:11:48 q? 16:12:09 gregg has the only argument, so why not take taht? 16:12:25 pchampin: propose to stick with US time 16:12:34 PROPOSED: stick to US time to avoid conflict with other W3C meetings 16:12:40 pchampin: +1 16:12:43 +1 16:12:44 +1 16:12:44 +1 16:12:45 +1 16:12:46 +1 16:12:49 +1 16:12:50 +1 16:13:04 +1 16:13:10 +0 16:13:33 gkellogg: strong push in the US to eliminate DST 16:13:59 pchampin: we will stick with the US time 16:13:59 RESOLVED: stick to US time to avoid conflict with other W3C meetings 16:14:21 pchampin: next week 1 hr earlier for Europeans 16:14:33 q? 16:14:49 Topic: SPARQL-eval test suite 16:14:57 PR: https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/114 16:15:22 andys: no such things as finished test suite 16:15:44 andys: generally good coverage now 16:16:05 andys: syntax tests updated 16:17:33 pchampin: we must reach out to implementors 16:17:41 My implementations pass all the tests. 16:17:51 andys: I would like to merge now 16:18:25 PROPOSED: merge PR 114 befor advertising the test suite to implementers 16:18:31 +1 16:18:32 +1 16:18:34 +1 16:18:37 +1 16:18:40 +1 16:18:42 +1 16:18:43 +1 16:18:48 +1 16:19:14 +1 16:19:20 + 16:19:24 (sorry) 16:19:28 + 16:19:31 +1 16:19:32 RESOLVED: merge PR 114 befor advertising the test suite to implementers 16:19:37 q+ 16:19:38 (numlock was off :-) 16:19:53 ack gkellogg 16:20:32 gkellogg: we might consider publishing an implementation report early 16:21:16 gkellogg: I have tooling to check 16:21:25 example: https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/ 16:21:47 q? 16:21:50 andys: if we get good coverage we should publish 16:22:05 pchampin: sounds like a good idea 16:22:41 pchampin: will add a link to the spec 16:22:50 EARL is common (probably best, probably not only) practice for implementation reports these days. 16:22:50 per-test results are optimal for CR->PR->TR, and probably also for CG->Report->WG 16:23:21 ACTION gkellogg to make a PR for the implementation report 16:23:50 pchampin: we should make an announcement 16:24:34 andys: could someone check the HTML manifest? 16:25:18 gkellogg: to check that the HTML manifest covers all? 16:25:35 andys: yes, the HTML manifest is generated from Turtle 16:26:48 pchampin: set of tests does not prove your implementation 16:27:01 s/pchampin/andys/ 16:27:25 pchampin: we should be careful to avoid any statements about completeness 16:27:33 pchampin: this is work in progress 16:27:48 pchampin: raise awareness on the mailing list 16:27:56 pchampin: any other channels? 16:28:43 andys: give people the chance to look before we go to a wider audience 16:28:47 i do not necessarily intend to exercise the test suite before the report is complete 16:29:33 q? 16:29:48 gkellogg: other groups' impl. reports are not necessarily frozen, late entries are accepted 16:30:10 pchampin: nothing is frozen 16:30:12 q? 16:31:51 pchampin: why not use it early? 16:31:58 q? 16:32:25 pchampin: I will email the list 16:33:18 pchampin: there are discussions on the list about function descriptions, should we discuss? 16:33:45 james: we can use the list 16:33:49 Topic: Define a URI for the class of embedded triples 16:34:48 pchampin: what namespace? 16:35:07 q+ 16:35:17 not ideal to proliferate namespaces 16:35:33 changing an IRI later does not work well 16:35:45 we do not, however, have the authority to change RDF 16:36:28 q? 16:36:35 ack ora 16:36:43 scribe: pchampin 16:37:11 ora: why is proliferation of namespaces bad? 16:37:24 ... easy to create an RDF-star namespace 16:37:37 q+ 16:37:39 q+ 16:38:06 ack AndyS 16:38:07 scribe: ora 16:38:25 andys: how much would go to a new namespace? 16:38:40 q+ 16:39:01 andys: if it is very few things, might not be worth it 16:39:12 ack gkellogg 16:39:34 gkellogg: comes down to the question about the purpose of this CG 16:39:53 gkellogg: if we are creating a new spec, makes sense to have a new namespace 16:40:18 gkellogg: if it is to advise other groups, then maybe not 16:40:35 q+ 16:41:31 gkellogg: if there is going to be a new RDF WG, then our work is considered an experiment 16:41:59 gkellogg: we can invent new IRIs, we just don't have the authority change RDF, etc. 16:42:01 ack thomas 16:42:31 thomas: semantics not stable 16:42:49 thomas: so perhaps not a good idea to use the RDF namespace 16:43:20 thomas: more prudent to use an RDF* namespace 16:43:24 q+ 16:44:20 pchampin: the whole spec is unstable 16:44:38 pchampin: nothing will be fixed until we reach a stable state 16:44:54 thomas: semantics unproven for now 16:45:09 ack ora 16:45:12 scribe: pchampin 16:45:47 ora: the rdf vs.rdfs issue is historical 16:45:59 ... there was 2 different groups 16:46:13 ... retrospectiveley, it was unfortunate 16:46:58 scribe: ora 16:47:10 q? 16:47:14 ack AndyS 16:47:32 andys: missed thomas' point: what is tied to semantics 16:48:30 andys: i am looking at the effect on users 16:48:55 andys: I suggest we say "we propose that..." 16:49:33 q+ 16:49:43 ack ora 16:50:33 gkellogg: RDFa added stuff 16:50:47 ora: RDF namespaces are fixed 16:51:14 gkellogg: any WG is authorized to update namespaces 16:51:28 q+ 16:51:49 gkellogg: CG is input WGs 16:51:53 q? 16:51:57 ack ora 16:52:09 scribe: pchampin 16:52:32 ora: I doubt that it's true that any WG is authorized to change the RDF namespace 16:52:47 gkellogg: we did in the JSON-LD WG, figured this out with Ivan Herman 16:53:17 WGs can change W3 namespaces, *upon approval by W3 Management*, which is not automatic but is typically granted with suitable justification from the WG 16:53:23 ... we did discuss whether the JSON datatype should be in the RDF NS 16:53:32 q+ 16:53:59 q+ 16:54:28 ack ora 16:55:02 ora: feels strange; changing the NS is invalidating the spec 16:55:12 AndyS: this is an addition, not a change 16:55:28 ora: but implementation may enforce the notion that RDF and RDFS namespaces are fixed 16:56:04 TallTed: enforcing something that is not fixed is an implementation error 16:56:18 q+ 16:56:37 scribe: ora 16:56:37 ack gkellogg 16:56:39 q+ 16:56:54 gkellogg: JSON-LD process was to ask for comments from the community first 16:57:08 gkellogg: very little feedback 16:57:24 gkellogg: no evidence of implementations breaking 16:57:44 q? 16:57:46 ack thomas 16:58:08 thomas: what if semantics change? We define a new term/ 16:58:38 gkellogg: RDF 1.1 does not have plain literals 16:58:44 q? 16:58:53 ack william 16:59:15 william: Notation3 CG made the decision to reuse old namespaces 16:59:41 william: we did not want to add namespaces 17:00:05 william: TimBL said to go ahead 17:00:52 STRAWPOLL: put our IRI(s) in the RDF namespace 17:00:58 +1 17:00:59 +1 17:01:00 -1 17:01:00 +1 17:01:01 +1 17:01:02 -1 17:01:04 +1 17:01:05 +0 17:01:05 +0 17:01:09 +0 17:01:24 no consensus 17:01:52 pchampin: polite thing to do is to seek broader feedback 17:02:22 andys: if something is controversial it is a good idea to make sure people pay attention 17:02:48 andys: (anecdote about John McCarthy) 17:03:03 action: ask the SW community about their opinion on the namespace issue 17:03:56 Thanks for today! 17:04:07 olaf has left #rdf-star 17:04:14 lol @ that anecdote 17:04:28 goodbye 17:13:24 pchampin_ has joined #rdf-star 17:35:40 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star 18:43:21 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star 21:05:54 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star 23:50:23 gkellogg has joined #rdf-star