– DRAFT –
RDF-star

<jbollema> I can scribe for a bit

I'll scribe

Announcements and newcomers

Knowledge Graph Conference

ora: Got a Q about RDF-star - request for what's going on.

olaf: shorter version of Lotico event

rivettp: There session on GQL and OSI.
… is there unification of work going on?

pchampin: GQL is following a different track.

AndyS: the process is partially responsible of that
… the ISO process makes it hard to share with the public

rivettp: many people at the conference were asking about RDF-star
… the seem to expect it to help a convergence between the two worlds

AndyS: not sure people expect "convergence"

rivettp: [something about data interoperability]

<AndyS> Ditto.

<AndyS> ora: Interesting results of EKGC survey - interoperation a priority

pchampin: very positive for standardization
… least important "no code" tools.

Open actions

<pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction

<AndyS> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/163

<AndyS> PR 167

AndyS: updated SPARQL grammar to allow << ... >> in expressions
… and add corresponding negative test cases
… and a short section describing how to evaluate these expressions (refering to TRIPLE(...))

<gkellogg> +1 to merge

AndyS: ready to merge in a few days

pchampin: other actions?
… semantics PR in-progress

Moving to standard track

<pchampin> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021May/0015.html

pchampin: Summary of email: W3C suggests starting the chartering process soon as possible.
… flow from CG(-like) to WG
… do not give impression that the WG is a rubber stamp
… Q1 : Are we OK with that?

thomas: Who will participate?

(This is a W3C process question not specific to this WG)

pchampin: W3C member organisations nominate individuals.

phcampin: we can help with the charter text
… and we need chairs

ora: WG may have invited experts

<pchampin> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/

gkellogg: IE at chairs' discretion
… not bypass your own W3C member org
… CG stands on its own. We will have a final report.
… (about another WG) ...

jbollema: Do we need two WGs? - one for RDF, one for SPARQL.

AndyS: in the past, some WG have modified other WG's documents
… there is a preference to have less WGs

<AndyS> pchampin: Both would be in scope - will check.

<ora> (Are we not using the queue anymore...?)

<AndyS> gkellog: Charter will list docs in-scope.

<AndyS> ora: Original RDF, RDFS got combined.

<AndyS> ora: There will be a delay - chartering, ramp up, IP review

<thomas> are we talking months?

<AndyS> pchampin: because it will take time, is one reason to start chartering soon. And CG can continue while process proceeds.

<AndyS> thomas - yes

<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to say it's all about the charter

<AndyS> TallTed: Qs: "CG" input can taken at the point of WG-start-up. Wording in charter.

<AndyS> ... concern is this RDF 1.2, fork, RDF 2.

<gatemezing> +1 to TallTed on using the input of this work for the next WG

AndyS: there are RDF systems not supporting bnodes
… we can live with RDF systems not supporting embedded triples.
… The important point is that what we propose does not invalidated existing data.

<james> .. but ... it will invalidate applications

<AndyS> gkellogg: Not so much an either/or -- RDF 1.1 has generalized RDF graph.

<AndyS> ... key is updating docs for abstract syntax or in "generalized" abstraction

<AndyS> ... AZ mentioned quoted graphs

<AndyS> ora: concern what does this do to the wider community

<AndyS> ... we should pay attention to the adoption and presentation

<jbollema> AndyS Would chartering avoid implementers submit implementation reports

<jbollema> hope to make internal implementors experiments public.

<jbollema> hope to make internal implementors experiments public so that we can learn of it.

pchampin: implementation reports might look like we just want to rubber stamp the existing spec

AndyS: this can be turned into something positive
… implementation reports will inform the charter

<AndyS> thomas: who writes the charter?

<AndyS> pchampin: Usually W3C team member who will be team contact. Wide review and revision.

<AndyS> ... general agreement this is the way forward.

STRAWPOLL: let's write a charter draft

<jbollema> +1 for starting on a charter for a WG.

+1

<thomas> +1

<ora> +1

<AndyS> +1

<olaf> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<james> +1

<rivettp> +1

<TallTed> +1

Action: pchampin to create a repo for the charter

<william> +1

STRAWPOLL: have a call next week

<TallTed> +0

+0

<thomas> +0

<james> +0

<gkellogg> +0

<william> +0

<olaf> +0

<AndyS> +0

<rivettp> +1

<jbollema> +1

<william> thanks

<ora> bye

<olaf> bye

<jbollema> bye and thanks