14:57:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:57:19 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/07/16-rdf-star-irc
14:57:21 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:57:22 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
14:57:26 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star
14:57:29 <pchampin> chair: pchampin
14:57:32 <pchampin> regrets: william
14:57:50 <pchampin> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Jul/0009.html
14:57:50 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:57:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
14:57:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Open actions
14:57:50 <agendabot> agenda+ Renaming 'embedded' to 'quoted'
14:57:50 <agendabot> agenda+ WG draft charter
14:57:52 <agendabot> agenda+ Open-ended discussions
14:59:22 <pchampin> Previous meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-07-02.html
14:59:22 <pchampin> Next meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-09-03.html
14:59:28 <jay-gray> i am remote and would like to dial in; but can't find the telno previously used
14:59:55 <pchampin> let me check
15:00:14 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
15:00:53 <ora> ora has joined #rdf-star
15:01:26 <pchampin> I can't can't find them :-/
15:01:33 <ora> present+
15:02:00 <james> james has joined #rdf-star
15:02:17 <pchampin> US : +1 646 558 8656 or +1 669 900 6833
15:02:22 <AndyS> present+
15:02:27 <pchampin> present+
15:02:36 <james> present+
15:02:48 <jay-gray> ty
15:03:29 <gkellogg> present+
15:03:40 <rivettp> rivettp has joined #rdf-star
15:03:41 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdf-star
15:03:51 <rivettp> present+
15:06:14 <pchampin> zakim, pick a scribe
15:06:14 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose james
15:06:48 <pchampin> scribe: james
15:06:59 <pchampin> zakim, move to agendum 1
15:06:59 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:07:14 <james> pchampin: announcements?
15:07:15 <pchampin> q?
15:07:30 <pchampin> zakim, close this item
15:07:30 <Zakim> agendum 1 closed
15:07:31 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:07:31 <Zakim> 2. Open actions [from agendabot]
15:07:34 <pchampin> zakim, move to agendum 2
15:07:34 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:07:54 <james> pchampin: next item is open actions...
15:07:54 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction
15:08:20 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/193
15:08:38 <james> ... the "quoted triple terminology shift" is addressed in a pull request. let us discuss it.
15:08:39 <pchampin> q?
15:08:56 <pchampin> zakim, move to agendum 3
15:08:56 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Renaming 'embedded' to 'quoted' -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:09:50 <james> pchampin: discussion of renaming... greg pull request addresses the spec and the grammars
15:10:00 <james> q+
15:10:33 <james> greg: initiated pull request is pretty much andy's work. my text is a mechanical translation.
15:10:44 <james> ... andy can talk abut substance.
15:10:46 <pchampin> ack james
15:10:49 <pchampin> scribe+
15:11:13 <pchampin> james: I agree with the change,
15:11:48 <pchampin> ... but I would like to go on the record: "quoting" is not the right operation here.
15:13:37 <pchampin> ... Cf. the notion of quoting in LISP is blocking the process of interpreting.
15:14:01 <pchampin> ... Here, it does not prohibit processing, but simply changes it (ref. opacity vs. transparency).
15:14:33 <pchampin> ora: the difference is only there because you define the process to be 'interpretation'.
15:15:09 <pchampin> ... For me the process is "asserting", and so this makes sense.
15:15:17 <pchampin> <pchampin> +1 to what ora says
15:15:45 <pchampin> james: maybe you should include this explanation in the text
15:16:22 <pchampin> ora: I will look at the text and change it to that effect
15:16:28 <james> scribe+
15:16:30 <pchampin> scribe-
15:16:46 <pchampin> ?
15:16:48 <pchampin> q?
15:17:01 <james> pchampin: other comments?
15:17:32 <james> ... : i reached out to olaf, as i felt he should be able to comment on it.
15:17:49 <james> ... : he said he was ok with the renaming
15:18:48 <james> ... : reviews the pull request and had concerns with lexical things.
15:19:20 <james> ... : also feel the sectionon annotation syntax is redundant, confusing where it is.
15:19:39 <pchampin> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/192.html#annotation-syntax
15:19:45 <james> ... : and does not add much to the text from the overview.
15:20:20 <james> ... : reactions?
15:20:33 <pchampin> q?
15:20:38 <james> AndyS: i will look. have yet to have time
15:21:04 <james> pchampin: ok. we can move forward?
15:21:37 <jay-gray> good with me
15:21:37 <james> poll for merging once editors are satisfied...
15:21:47 <james> +1
15:22:02 <TallTed> Section title where this falls is "2. Concepts and Abstract Syntax".  Annotation Syntax is definitely a Concept of RDF-star.
15:22:06 <pchampin> s/poll/STRAWPOLL:/
15:22:16 <pchampin> +1
15:22:19 <rivettp> +1
15:22:19 <TallTed> +1 for merge
15:22:21 <ora> +1
15:22:22 <AndyS> +1
15:22:23 <gkellogg> +1
15:22:55 <jay-gray> +1
15:23:47 <james> pchampin: i note your point.
15:24:16 <pchampin> q?
15:24:23 <james> ... serves as a valid counter-argument to removing the section
15:25:11 <james> AndyS: it needs some kind of mention, because people tend to engage the syntax in preference to the abstract data model
15:26:07 <james> pchampin: agree that the explicit mention is justified. also find other redundancy between overview and other sections. just have to ensure that it does not confuse.
15:26:43 <TallTed> q+
15:27:11 <james> AndyS: found it difficult to change the overview. mentioning twice is better than neglecting them. as long as nothing is wrong it suffices.
15:27:36 <pchampin> ack TallTed
15:27:41 <james> ... : important is to get to the point where ne need to fiddle, but inprinciple "are done"
15:28:25 <james> TallTed: usual pattern to review a document is as stand-alone, but for this document it needs to be redundant because no one reads everything.
15:28:39 <james> ... : people are tolerant because they do not read eveyrthing
15:29:21 <pchampin> q?
15:29:27 <james> pchampin: agree. only concern is that for the few who read everything, might be confused by reapperance
15:29:36 <james> pchampin: next, charter
15:29:42 <pchampin> zakim, open next agendum
15:29:42 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:29:48 <pchampin> zakim, open agendum 4
15:29:48 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- WG draft charter -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:30:14 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star-wg-charter/issues/1
15:30:41 <pchampin> q?
15:30:49 <james> pchampin: insufficient time to address the issue since last week. from discussion, most members are more favorable to a single large working group
15:31:05 <pchampin> q?
15:31:07 <james> pchampin: any objections or continue with that assumption?
15:31:54 <ora> q+
15:31:56 <james> pchampin: no objection. my first concern was that it would appear overambitious to those who must validate the charter.
15:32:03 <pchampin> ack ora
15:32:08 <james> ... proposals to address this?
15:32:43 <james> ora: need to define scope so that there are very few additions and are addressing the ramifications so that the scope is clear
15:32:59 <AndyS> +1 to ora's comments
15:33:08 <james> pchampin: i tried to achieve that in the draft. aware that there is a long wish list for "future" rdf.
15:33:19 <jay-gray> consistent with Andy's point about syntax, as an "application developer" we see the world thru the query language. for that reason we support a broader focus. harmony with SPARQL is important to us
15:33:23 <james> ora: must be clear that this isnot to be the "fix it all" group
15:33:46 <TallTed> "RDF 1.2, not RDF 2.0"
15:33:53 <james> pchampin: not sure whether we discussed it last week: make it possible for recommendations to be open to new features.
15:34:18 <james> ... : it can authorize new features without the entire draft process.
15:34:29 <AndyS> q+
15:35:03 <james> ... : the current draft opens that possibility. this would be way to deflect desire to add new things directly to the immediate scope
15:35:22 <james> ... : that also has an impact on the specification's stability.
15:35:27 <pchampin> ack AndyS
15:36:10 <james> AndyS: related to w3c process changes. on new features. makes one nervous. are the features large or small.
15:36:44 <james> ... : if it is a small fix, that is not a concern, but how big is a "small"  addition?
15:37:36 <james> ... : another w3c variant is that working groups need not close. this makes it possible for a group to go dormant but return to effect errata in order to keep the documentup to date.
15:37:37 <pchampin> q?
15:37:52 <TallTed> "RDF 1.2, not RDF 2.0; with (re)alignment of all existing RDF serializations to this RDF 1.2; and SPARQL 1.2 (which bumps the SPARQL 1.2 now under discussion to make SPARQL 1.3 or higher)"
15:37:58 <james> pchampin: "maintenance" group status. json-ld is a precedent
15:38:23 <james> AndyS: is there a chair who chair announce "time for maintenance"?
15:39:54 <james> pchampin: it is comfortable to know that the possibility exists, but an effort is involved to engage the process.
15:41:08 <james> pchampin: if we say we are an "rdf-star" group, just attending to that one thing, but go into maintenance mode, it might be tricky to argue for that state
15:41:45 <pchampin> q?
15:42:06 <james> ... : may be difficult to distinguish "too big", but there are criteria, like backward compatibility
15:43:15 <james> TallTed: difficult to argue for "new feature", because there is no way to turn it an and off. for rdf-star the translation to rdf is not clearly defined
15:43:51 <james> pchampin: thinking about "new features" as pertaining to rdf-star itself
15:44:12 <AndyS> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#revised-rec-features
15:44:16 <james> pchampin: rdf-star itself is too large to be a "new feature"
15:45:18 <james> ... : this additional process would pertain to the rdf-star specification itself.
15:45:40 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#allow-new-features
15:45:48 <james> AndyS: does this pertain to just "at risk" features? this is not clear
15:46:10 <james> pchampin: notes the relevant section of the process
15:47:19 <james> AndyS: (discussion about process which requires the document to follow the details...)
15:47:57 <james> pchampin: the goal is to mimic the "evergreen" standard, but that may make more sense for html than rdf
15:48:19 <james> AndyS: the process is just to rigid to handle editorial corrections
15:48:35 <james> pchampin: the maintenance option would be the proper solution for such a thing.
15:49:02 <james> AndyS: it is not changing content or examples. it is errata
15:49:22 <james> TallTed:  namespace example is just terrate
15:49:52 <james> AndyS: we need more input from outside
15:50:00 <pchampin> ACTION: pchampin to find out what are the limitations of "new feature" in the new W3C process
15:50:15 <pchampin> q?
15:50:37 <pchampin> topic: AOB
15:51:08 <TallTed> s/terrate/errata
15:51:19 <pchampin> q?
15:52:05 <james> pchampin: next meeting september third
15:52:15 <AndyS> Have a good summer everyone!
15:52:17 <jay-gray> bfn
15:52:23 <ora> bye
15:52:57 <AndyS> zakim, end meeting
15:52:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ora, AndyS, pchampin, james, gkellogg, rivettp
15:52:59 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:52:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/07/16-rdf-star-minutes.html Zakim
15:53:02 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, AndyS; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:53:06 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rdf-star
15:53:21 <AndyS> rrsagent, please excuse us
15:53:21 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2021/07/16-rdf-star-actions.rdf :
15:53:21 <RRSAgent> ACTION: pchampin to find out what are the limitations of "new feature" in the new W3C process [1]
15:53:21 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2021/07/16-rdf-star-irc#T15-50-00