14:55:51 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:55:51 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/04/23-rdf-star-irc
14:55:54 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:55:55 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
14:55:57 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star
14:56:03 <pchampin> chair: pchampin
14:56:32 <pchampin> date: 23 April 2021
14:56:37 <thomas> thomas has joined #rdf-star
14:57:18 <pchampin> regrest: James Anderson, Olaf Hartg, William Van Woensel
14:57:44 <pchampin> Previous meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-04-09.html
14:57:55 <pchampin> Next meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-04-30.html
14:58:19 <pchampin> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Apr/0005.html
14:58:19 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:58:19 <agendabot> agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
14:58:19 <agendabot> agenda+ Open actions
14:58:19 <agendabot> agenda+ Old or new media-types for RDF-star
14:58:19 <agendabot> agenda+ Attracting more implementation reports
14:58:22 <agendabot> agenda+ Open-ended discussions
15:00:13 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:01:21 <pchampin> present+
15:01:23 <TallTed> present+
15:01:36 <thomas> present+
15:01:48 <TallTed> s/regrest:/regrets:/
15:02:43 <gkellogg> present+
15:03:59 <pchampin> scribe: gkellogg
15:04:08 <pchampin> zakim, next agendabot
15:04:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next agendabot', pchampin
15:04:12 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:04:12 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:04:24 <pchampin> q?
15:05:14 <gkellogg> pchampin: Not too much feedback from the tweets and anouncements of the updated draft.
15:05:30 <pchampin> q?
15:05:32 <AndyS> present+
15:05:44 <pchampin> zakim, next agendabot
15:05:44 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next agendabot', pchampin
15:05:49 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:05:49 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:06:08 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction
15:06:19 <gkellogg> pchampin: No open actions at the moment
15:07:06 <gkellogg> gkellogg: I had an action to reorganize the concrete syntaxes, which is done.
15:07:20 <pchampin> q?
15:07:22 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:07:22 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Old or new media-types for RDF-star -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:08:18 <gkellogg> Open PR #149 - splitting manifets
15:08:59 <gkellogg> andys: not really technical, just organizational
15:09:21 <gkellogg> pchampin: I want to discuss the media-type issue.
15:09:33 <james> james has joined #rdf-star
15:09:33 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/43
15:09:43 <james> present+
15:09:53 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/43#issuecomment-814772066
15:11:05 <gkellogg> … We need to answer two separat equestions.
15:11:51 <gkellogg> … first, if we had the authority to update existing media types, would we want to update them with rdf-star features, or would it be better to have a new separate media type.
15:12:41 <gkellogg> … If we think the right way is to update existing media types, would we want to create an interim media type?
15:12:50 <pchampin> q?
15:13:26 <gkellogg> james: Or, do we want to be in a position to flagrantly abuse the exising media types.
15:13:57 <gkellogg> … There’s nothing in the process that permits us to do it, but nothing to stop us.
15:14:35 <gkellogg> pchampin: I’ve been assuming that our answer to the first question is “yes”
15:14:58 <gkellogg> james: If it gets to be a TR, it has the authority to claim the space. Until then, it can’t.
15:15:28 <gkellogg> … My answer to the first question is that if there were a WG that produced a TR, it would be appropriate.
15:15:49 <gkellogg> pchampin: Some people might disagree.
15:16:18 <pchampin> STRAWPOLL: do we consider that eventually, text/turtle (and other media-type covered by our CG-spec) should be update to include RDF-star features?
15:16:22 <gkellogg> +1
15:16:24 <pchampin> +1
15:16:25 <AndyS> +1
15:16:44 <james> +1
15:16:53 <pchampin> eventually meaning "by a WG having this authority"
15:17:10 <TallTed> "text/star-turtle"... except that Turtle is not a viable fallback, because Turtle-star is not a subset of Turtle
15:17:10 <TallTed> text/turtle was unfortunately written not to include a version declaration, and adding one now would break existing tools as much as including Turtle-star data in text/turtle
15:17:34 <TallTed> -0.8
15:17:56 <TallTed> q+
15:18:01 <AndyS> q+
15:18:19 <pchampin> ack TallTed
15:18:26 <gkellogg> gkellogg: Groups abuse media types all the time, whill in progress.
15:18:57 <gkellogg> TallTed: The problem starts with groups that don’t have a statement about dispersing datatypes.
15:19:13 <gkellogg> … Putting turtle-star into text/turtle will break things.
15:19:40 <gkellogg> … THe only good answer is to presume there will be a new mediatype and act that way.
15:20:12 <gkellogg> … You build it in the spec and send it in for registration.
15:20:32 <gkellogg> … The only good thing is to register a new media type.
15:20:44 <pchampin> q?
15:20:47 <pchampin> ack AndyS
15:20:51 <james> q+
15:20:57 <TallTed> s/star-turtle/star+turtle/
15:21:26 <gkellogg> AndyS: Postel’s law on production and consumption.
15:21:59 <gkellogg> … Note that text/turtle was not done by the WG, but precedes that. so what came out as Turtle is different than the originally proposed registration.
15:22:34 <gkellogg> … Registrations can be changed, which might not be what expected, but it happens.
15:22:44 <gkellogg> … PREFIX/@prefix, charset, ...
15:23:09 <gkellogg> … THere are people who extend sparql, and still use the regular media type.
15:23:17 <gkellogg> q?
15:23:23 <thomas> q+
15:23:51 <gkellogg> AndyS: Is there a use case where an updated processor would not want to receive turtle-star data?
15:24:45 <gkellogg> … On the discussions, this has been posed, but noone’s described a use case.
15:24:55 <gkellogg> … Whatever we do, there are going to be pain points.
15:25:46 <pchampin> ack james
15:26:20 <gkellogg> james: I agree with Andy that it’s possible to change things. THis requires the authority to change the document which defined it.
15:26:30 <gkellogg> AndyS: The only thing we can do is propose changes.
15:26:47 <gkellogg> … The entire document has no standing in process.
15:27:27 <gkellogg> james: When there was a transition from SPARLQ 1.0 to 1.1, the language changed. There weren’t any requests to distinguish between them.
15:27:41 <gkellogg> AndyS: There was never a discussion of changing the mime-type.
15:27:48 <thomas> q-
15:28:04 <gkellogg> q+
15:28:55 <gkellogg> james: Going back to the question about breaking things. it’s concieveable that we could have proposed enodings which conform to text/turtle, but we didn't.
15:29:12 <gkellogg> … We might want to say why we didn’t chose to conform with the existing syntax.
15:29:47 <gkellogg> pchampin: We could have encoded RDF-star in something which is still valid Turtle. (proposition)
15:30:25 <gkellogg> james: The group decided that the turtle-star encoding has advantages that overweigh this. That should be mentioned somewhere.
15:31:17 <gkellogg> … Why didn’t we just use the reification vocabulary?
15:31:23 <TallTed> Eric Prud'hommeaux, the contact person for text/turtle, is in this group (regularly comments on github, though he doesn't often if ever join calls) -- https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/turtle
15:31:23 <TallTed> and he has failed to update that doc from pointing to https://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2008/SUBM-turtle-20080114/ to http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2011/SUBM-turtle-20110328/ nor to http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-turtle-20140225/
15:31:57 <gkellogg> pchampin: Given that Turtle has no “extension-points”, that could have been the place to do it.
15:32:23 <gkellogg> … We might have considered that theoretically.
15:32:32 <pchampin> q?
15:32:53 <pchampin> q+ thomas
15:32:57 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
15:34:31 <pchampin> ack thomas
15:34:45 <gkellogg> gkellogg: It’s IANA’s fault. We should have sn IANA section to describe proposed changes and our rationalle.
15:35:06 <gkellogg> thomas: One thought was to base everything in reification.
15:35:07 <AndyS> Reasons against (one use per triple) reification: (1) too many triples (this is in RDF-star section 2.1) (2) partial ("broken") reifications.
15:35:30 <gkellogg> pchampin: I think that Peter’’s preferred way was to not have a different abstract syntax.
15:36:04 <gkellogg> thomas: The thought was to express the semantics of RDF-star through reification.
15:36:37 <gkellogg> pchampin: I think he would have preferred RDF-star to be another language which is logically equivalent to using reification.
15:36:44 <AndyS> Also (and is in sec 2.1) - query in SPARQL is cumbersome -- obv can be solved by extending SPARQL syntax only ... which is where the original <<>> came from in DAWG days.
15:37:42 <gkellogg> pchampin: We broke turtle with << >>.
15:38:10 <gkellogg> thomas: We could have formulated it in a way that a standard turtle processor could have understood it.
15:38:22 <pchampin> q?
15:38:26 <gkellogg> pchampin: I really don’t see a way to do that, but we maybe didn’t spend enough time on that.
15:38:50 <gkellogg> thomas: I think we should go for x- mime types to make it clear that this is a proposal.
15:39:07 <gkellogg> pchampin: That’s the second question.
15:39:48 <gkellogg> … There is a (small) majority that agreed to extend the existing languages.
15:40:07 <gkellogg> … In the mean-time, what do we suggest people do?
15:41:17 <pchampin> STRAWPOLL: assuming we recommend to update text/turtle (and other mimetypes), do we recommend people to use the original original mimetype for RDF-star content?
15:41:23 <pchampin> +1
15:41:24 <TallTed> straw poll doesn't need to be yes/no question.  can be options (1) (2) (3)
15:41:26 <thomas> -1
15:41:35 <james> +0
15:41:35 <gkellogg> +1 but with caution
15:41:41 <TallTed> -0.9
15:41:44 <AndyS> +1
15:42:02 <gkellogg> q+
15:42:42 <TallTed> I'm not a full block, but strongly against.  I think this question needs to reach a broader audience -- at least all of RDF-DEV CG, beyond rdf-star-cg
15:42:49 <gkellogg> pchampin: It’s fair that we have an IANA section to propose extending the types. It’s what do we do in the mean time?
15:42:57 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
15:43:20 <pchampin> pchampin: there is no good solution, we need to caution people on the use of these format in production systems
15:43:33 <pchampin> s/pchampin:/gkellogg:/
15:43:58 <pchampin> ... while the profile parameter is not normatively ok, it could be a good option
15:44:25 <thomas> q+
15:44:51 <james> q+
15:45:04 <pchampin> ... we need to stay away from creating a new text/x-... mimetype; it has been shown to be an anti-pattern
15:45:07 <pchampin> ack thomas
15:45:16 <gkellogg> scribe: gkellogg
15:45:43 <gkellogg> thomas: How is it not an anti-pattern to publish text/turtle that it’s turtle?
15:45:54 <pchampin> q?
15:45:57 <pchampin> ack james
15:45:57 <gkellogg> AndyS: There are two sides to that.
15:46:51 <gkellogg> james: what has the expeirence been with using wild headers? (I.e., that aren’t registered? If a server understool something like X-EXTENSION: turtle-star,
15:47:07 <gkellogg> … A server that understands that would serve it one way, and if it didn’t it would ignore it.
15:47:36 <gkellogg> … Servers would ignore an unregistered header.
15:47:57 <gkellogg> AndyS: That would cover the case of clients who are aware of it but don’t want it.
15:48:21 <gkellogg> … When we went through RDF/SPARQL 1.1, I don’t remember there being particular difficulties.
15:48:35 <TallTed> text/star-turtle would be legal albeit potentially confusing ... text/turtle-star likewise
15:48:36 <TallTed> text/star+turtle fails because Turtle-star is not subset of Turtle
15:48:36 <TallTed> *is* legal to do Link: rel=alt from ttl-star to ttl (or vice-versa)
15:48:36 <TallTed> or use con-neg preference values ... which requires the different media type
15:49:30 <gkellogg> AndyS: What if you do ACCEPT: */*? If it’s absent, is is presumed?
15:49:46 <gkellogg> TallTed: If you don’t specified, it is assumed.
15:49:57 <gkellogg> … It’s a tool-specific choice.
15:50:37 <gkellogg> pchampin: I need to think about a special header. It might mitigate the problem in the mean time.
15:51:11 <gkellogg> … I think I understand how to make a PR that covers these ideas.
15:51:14 <pchampin> q?
15:51:35 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:51:35 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Attracting more implementation reports -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:52:10 <gkellogg> pchampin: We’d like to have more implementation reports. Any idea how to encourage people to submit them?
15:52:51 <pchampin> q?
15:52:55 <gkellogg> … At the beginning of the work I created a small python script to test some implementations against semantics test suites? Is it appropriate for me to submit a response for someone else?
15:53:22 <gkellogg> AndyS: You’d get into trouble. If you say it doesn’t pass, then you’re open.
15:53:40 <james> q+
15:53:45 <AndyS> RFC 2616: not in 7231: "If no Accept header field is present, then it is assumed that the client accepts all media types."
15:55:33 <gkellogg> TallTed: It’s legitimate to run the test suite against any tool, but putting it in the report is a problem.
15:56:34 <TallTed> ( mentioning @ericprud [ in regards to text/turtle IANA reg, discussed above ] to trigger his eyes on this log when it goes into github )
15:57:06 <pchampin> q?
15:57:40 <pchampin> ack james
15:58:12 <gkellogg> james: There was a researcher at INRIA who made an effort to establish a mechanism for uniformly testing SPARQL endpoints.
15:58:24 <gkellogg> … she didn’t have much success for a variety of reasons.
15:58:58 <gkellogg> … You have authority, but if you want acceptance, you need support.
15:59:20 <gkellogg> … If the tool has a community license, you can run it, but not say what the results were.
15:59:47 <gkellogg> TallTed: It’s also legitimate to warn about licensing considerations.
16:00:32 <gkellogg> gkellogg: How do we get people who have expressed support to actually report?
16:00:55 <gkellogg> AndyS: It hasn’t been published long, and it may take some time.
16:01:24 <gkellogg> TallTed: It’s also legitimat to run the test and submit the results to the implementor and ask “what’s up?”
16:01:46 <gkellogg> pchampin: The polite thing is to give it back to then and ask them to submit something.
16:02:58 <gkellogg> gkellogg: It’s never too late to submit an implementation report.
16:03:04 <gkellogg> pchampin: I hope to have one for Rust soon.
16:03:46 <gkellogg> zakim, end meeting
16:03:46 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been pchampin, TallTed, thomas, gkellogg, AndyS, james
16:03:48 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/04/23-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
16:03:51 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, gkellogg; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:03:55 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
16:04:06 <gkellogg> rssagent, you are excused
16:04:44 <gkellogg> RSSAgent goodbye
16:05:19 <gkellogg> rrsagent, bye
16:05:19 <RRSAgent> I see no action items