14:54:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
14:54:25 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/10/15-rdf-star-irc
14:54:27 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:54:28 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
14:54:32 <pchampin> meeting: RDF-star
14:54:36 <pchampin> chair: pchampin
14:54:48 <pchampin> date: 15 Oct. 2021
14:54:55 <pchampin> Previous meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-10-01.html
14:54:55 <pchampin> Next meeting: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-10-29.html
14:55:02 <pchampin> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2021Oct/0000.html
14:55:02 <agendabot> clear agenda
14:55:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
14:55:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Open actions
14:55:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Pending Pull-Requests
14:55:02 <agendabot> agenda+ Issues we may defer to the future WG
14:55:04 <agendabot> agenda+ Open-ended discussions
14:57:03 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rdf-star
15:00:19 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rdf-star
15:00:20 <olaf> olaf has joined #rdf-star
15:00:34 <Fabio_Vitali> Fabio_Vitali has joined #rdf-star
15:00:39 <Fabio_Vitali> hello
15:01:19 <rivettp> rivettp has joined #rdf-star
15:01:24 <rivettp> present+
15:01:41 <gkellogg> present+
15:02:02 <Fabio_Vitali> present+
15:02:03 <pchampin> present+
15:02:48 <olaf> present+
15:03:35 <AndyS> present+
15:03:40 <TallTed> present+
15:05:50 <Doerthe> Doerthe has joined #rdf-star
15:06:10 <pchampin> scribe: olaf
15:06:17 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:06:17 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:06:31 <pchampin> q?
15:06:40 <olaf> pchampin: no newcomers
15:06:44 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:06:44 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, pchampin
15:06:48 <olaf> ... no announcements?
15:06:55 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:06:55 <Zakim> agendum 1 was just opened, pchampin
15:07:02 <pchampin> zakim, close agendum 1
15:07:02 <Zakim> agendum 1, Announcements and newcomers, closed
15:07:03 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:07:03 <Zakim> 2. Open actions [from agendabot]
15:07:14 <Doerthe> present+
15:07:15 <pchampin> zakim, next agendabot
15:07:15 <Zakim> I don't understand 'next agendabot', pchampin
15:07:19 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:07:19 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:07:31 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aaction
15:07:47 <olaf> pchampin:
15:08:19 <olaf> the open actions are in PRs to be discussed later in this meeting
15:08:22 <pchampin> q?
15:08:34 <olaf> pchampin: hence, skip to the next point
15:08:38 <pchampin> zakim, close agendum 2
15:08:38 <Zakim> agendum 2, Open actions, closed
15:08:39 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:08:39 <Zakim> 3. Pending Pull-Requests [from agendabot]
15:08:43 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:08:43 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Pending Pull-Requests -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:09:06 <olaf> ... four PRs grouped in one points
15:09:18 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/205
15:09:46 <olaf> ... Gislan not here
15:09:58 <olaf> ... any updates on PR 205?
15:10:20 <olaf> AndyS: That PR was raised against the wrong branch
15:10:22 <pchampin> s/Gislan/Ghislain/
15:10:31 <olaf> ... one massively squashed commit
15:11:02 <olaf> ... at least one comment on the other version of the PR
15:11:12 <olaf> ... closed that version
15:11:29 <olaf> ... something in the checking was not working
15:12:02 <olaf> gkellogg: no the check is okay
15:12:20 <olaf> ... might have been something in the JSON manifest
15:12:42 <olaf> AndyS: something was not committed
15:13:17 <olaf> gkellogg: some issue in terms of equality of the manifests in the different formats
15:13:37 <olaf> pchampin: will ping Ghislain
15:13:52 <olaf> ... the manifests should be isomorphic
15:14:24 <olaf> AndyS: two checks now, haven't there been three earlier?
15:14:41 <olaf> ... let's take this offline
15:15:03 <pchampin> q?
15:15:10 <olaf> pchampin: That PR has been lingering a while
15:15:21 <pchampin> subtopic: figure in §1.3
15:15:30 <olaf> ... next subtopic: figure in Sec.1.3
15:15:38 <olaf> ... two proposals made
15:15:55 <olaf> ... unfortunately, the second one is not rendered properly in the preview
15:16:02 <pchampin> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/213.html#structure
15:16:06 <olaf> ... which might explain why everyone favored the other one
15:16:47 <olaf> ... PR 213 tried to capture the links between the bubbles by means of words
15:16:59 <olaf> ... with eclipses
15:17:07 <pchampin> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/214.html#structure
15:17:17 <olaf> ... simply uses HTML tables
15:17:28 <olaf> ... PR 214 has an SVG in the background
15:17:45 <olaf> ... which is not visible in the preview
15:17:53 <olaf> ... but in a local clone
15:18:05 <rivettp> are you able to show the diagrams via Zoom?
15:18:10 <olaf> ... i.e., HTML table with SVG in the background
15:18:24 <Fabio_Vitali> I see no star
15:18:27 <olaf> ... somewhat hacky
15:18:53 <TallTed> I prefer the first, even knowing about the background lines.  I would like it even better if 5 could be a bit lower than 4 & 6, to naturally sketch more of an arc from 3 to 7.
15:19:10 <Fabio_Vitali> Ah I see
15:19:15 <pchampin> q?
15:19:15 <olaf> ... a similar figure may also be added as background in the first proposal
15:19:45 <Fabio_Vitali> I think that in 213 the top bubble (the subject) is too close to the second layer, and seems part of it. Raising it just a little bit could help, I think
15:19:47 <AndyS> q+
15:20:16 <pchampin> ack AndyS
15:20:24 <olaf> ... perhaps we use 213 if everyone is okay with it - there are more important topics
15:20:43 <TallTed> s/I prefer the first, even knowing about the background lines/I prefer the first (213), even knowing about the background lines (on 214)/
15:20:46 <olaf> AndyS: the one with SVG look good
15:21:06 <olaf> ... (just checked it locally)
15:21:21 <olaf> ... screensharing now
15:22:08 <olaf> TallTed: still prefer 213
15:23:11 <olaf> pchampin: agreed, the grouping in 214 is subjective
15:23:24 <pchampin> q?
15:23:43 <olaf> ... any strong preference anyone?
15:23:50 <pchampin> q?
15:23:59 <TallTed> strong 213, lines could help, moving box 3 to the next lower tr would improve things
15:24:07 <pchampin> q?
15:24:08 <olaf> ... otherwise will try to merge the results
15:24:15 <TallTed> s/box 3/box 5/
15:24:18 <olaf> ... no objection
15:24:33 <pchampin> subtopic: RDF vocabulary
15:24:34 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/pull/215 (RDF vocabulary)
15:24:43 <olaf> ... next PR is about the RDF vocab section
15:24:50 <olaf> ... posted recently
15:25:16 <olaf> ... let's not talk about it too much now, because few people may have had the time to look at it in detail
15:25:53 <olaf> ... idea of that PR: moving things around (no new content) but making some things normative
15:26:19 <pchampin> q?
15:26:36 <olaf> ... substantive changes is the semantics of TEPs to also cover rdf-star:Triple
15:26:40 <gkellogg> q+
15:26:45 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
15:27:14 <olaf> gkellogg: use of TEPs refers to the range of such a TEP, right?
15:27:34 <olaf> pchampin: no, it can be used for both, subject and object
15:28:21 <olaf> ... there might be corner case in which one would want a TEP that applies only to either the subjects or the objects but not both
15:29:01 <olaf> ... we could add something for that but that would make everything more complex (more vocab needed)
15:29:07 <pchampin> q?
15:29:15 <Fabio_Vitali> TEP?
15:29:23 <pchampin> Transparency-Enabling Property
15:29:25 <olaf> gkellogg: okay, but the design trade-off should be captured as a note
15:29:27 <Fabio_Vitali> thanks
15:29:56 <olaf> q+
15:30:03 <pchampin> scribe+
15:30:04 <pchampin> ack olaf
15:30:48 <pchampin> olaf: I wouldn't go for seperating domain-wise TEPS and range-wise TEPs
15:30:55 <pchampin> ... this is too much added complexity.
15:31:20 <pchampin> ... I discussed the use-case for TEPs with somebody,
15:31:45 <pchampin> ... and it was not obvious what happened in the examples
15:32:00 <AndyS> q+
15:32:03 <pchampin> ... (the added leading zero in the literals).
15:32:11 <pchampin> ... Using different IRIs instead would make the difference more visible.
15:32:38 <pchampin> ack AndyS
15:32:50 <olaf> scribe+
15:32:55 <pchampin> scribe-
15:33:08 <olaf> AndyS: agree that D-entailment is not so suitable for this example
15:33:35 <olaf> ... would have prefered the text to be non-normative
15:34:00 <Fabio_Vitali> from the outside, I can tell that the Linköping is clear in what it entails, but less so on the rationale (why is this needed?) Superman's example is clearer on the rationale
15:34:29 <olaf> ... mixing the discussion of TEPs with the other vocabulary parts is not a good idea
15:35:08 <olaf> ... because TEPs is something that people may disagree with, which is not so much the case for the other vocab terms
15:36:01 <olaf> ... put the TEP part into a separate (sub)section
15:36:22 <olaf> pchampin: yes we could do that
15:37:14 <olaf> ... last time we kinda agreed to move the semantics of the TEP vocab into a normative section
15:38:07 <olaf> AndyS: Triple, Graph, and Source are minimal; TEP does not fit into a minimal subset of such a vocab
15:38:44 <olaf> pchampin: we have many issues related to the vocabulary
15:40:13 <olaf> ... some should be considered as: no agreement
15:40:33 <pchampin> q?
15:40:47 <olaf> ... the one for the service descriptions are still needed and should be added
15:40:56 <gkellogg> Perhaps "Conceptual Vocabulary" and "Entailment-enabling Vocabulary"
15:41:12 <AndyS> +1
15:41:43 <olaf> ... regarding the TEP, agreed that it is more controversial than the aforementioned minimal set and, thus, should be presented somewhat separate from the minimal set
15:42:07 <olaf> ... rdf-star:Triple is also entailment-enabling
15:42:30 <olaf> ... Graph and Source are not
15:42:45 <pchampin> q?
15:42:55 <olaf> ... prefer to keep the vocab semantics in one part
15:43:13 <pchampin> q?
15:43:14 <olaf> ... hence, split the vocab section
15:43:27 <pchampin> zakim, next agendum
15:43:27 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Issues we may defer to the future WG -- taken up [from agendabot]
15:43:44 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Aproposed-later
15:44:07 <olaf> pchampin: have marked some issues as "for later"
15:44:42 <olaf> ... should we discuss these issues?
15:45:03 <olaf> AndyS: 199 is out of scope - Vladimir agreed
15:45:33 <olaf> pchampin: so, we can close it? ...or mark as "discussion"
15:45:58 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/170
15:46:07 <olaf> ... 170 could be closed
15:46:22 <olaf> ... because the problem has been addressed by means of the TEPs
15:46:40 <pchampin> q?
15:46:53 <olaf> ... we shouldn't try to do more here but, instead, leave that to the WG
15:46:56 <olaf> +1
15:47:14 <pchampin> PROPOSAL: close #170 as addressed by the section on TEPs
15:47:17 <gkellogg> +1
15:47:17 <pchampin> +1
15:47:36 <olaf> +1
15:47:46 <AndyS> +1
15:47:50 <TallTed> +0.9
15:47:55 <Doerthe> +1
15:48:03 <rivettp> +1
15:48:34 <olaf> TallTed: reason for +0.9 is lack of consideration
15:49:20 <fabio> fabio has joined #rdf-star
15:49:23 <olaf> Fabio_Vitali: +1
15:49:28 <pchampin> RESOLVED: close #170 as addressed by the section on TEPs
15:50:14 <olaf> pchampin: issue about RDF/XML interpretation as RDF-star ...
15:51:14 <olaf> ... proposal was to reinterpret the ID in RDF/XML for RDF-star
15:51:40 <pchampin> q?
15:51:42 <olaf> ... don't think it should be added to the report
15:51:44 <olaf> +1
15:52:46 <pchampin> q?
15:52:52 <olaf> AndyS: if we were going there (rather not!), it should actually be more general -- RDF reification to RDF-star
15:53:05 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-star/issues/104
15:53:09 <olaf> pchampin: there was also an issue from James
15:53:40 <olaf> ... wants complete grammars for all media types touched by the report
15:53:42 <gkellogg> q+
15:53:57 <pchampin> ack gkellogg
15:54:06 <olaf> ... I would rather not do that
15:54:17 <AndyS> +1 to pchampin.
15:54:29 <olaf> gkellogg: yes agree, including it in the report would be burdensome
15:55:08 <olaf> ... however, we may include extra EBNF grammar files and link to them from the report
15:55:29 <olaf> pchampin: good idea, and that should address James' concern
15:55:41 <olaf> ... Greg, do you have such files already?
15:55:51 <olaf> s/Greg/Gregg
15:55:52 <fabio> yes
15:56:36 <olaf> gkellogg: give me an action
15:57:10 <olaf> AndyS: at such late stage, make these EBNF files non-normative
15:57:15 <pchampin> action gkellog to create a PR with text version of the EBNF grammars
15:57:23 <olaf> ... EBNF does not include parser actions
15:57:34 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:57:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/15-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:57:42 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:57:52 <pchampin> ACTION: gkellog to create a PR with text version of the EBNF grammars
15:58:05 <gkellogg> s/gkellogg/gkellogg/
15:58:12 <pchampin> s/gkellog/gkellogg/
15:58:35 <olaf> pchampin: will fix the minutes ;-)
15:59:12 <olaf> ... What should be done for the future WG?
15:59:18 <pchampin> q?
15:59:36 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
15:59:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/15-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
15:59:49 <olaf> ... thanks everyone for today
15:59:51 <fabio> Thank you
15:59:52 <AndyS> Thanks!
15:59:53 <fabio> bye
15:59:56 <olaf> ... talk again in two weeks
15:59:59 <Doerthe> bye
16:00:01 <olaf> Bye
16:00:12 <olaf> olaf has left #rdf-star
16:00:36 <TallTed> s/ACTION: gkellog to create a PR with text version of the EBNF grammars//
16:00:43 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:00:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/15-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:03:18 <TallTed> s/ACTION: gkellog to create a PR with text version of the EBNF grammars/ /
16:03:24 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:03:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/10/15-rdf-star-minutes.html TallTed
16:11:10 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:34:28 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:44:08 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:02:14 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:19:15 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:29:46 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:52:09 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
17:54:20 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:22:03 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
18:57:54 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:05:52 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
19:48:09 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:07:22 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:41:04 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
20:57:58 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:12:46 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:27:27 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
21:49:37 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:07:33 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:41:49 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
22:56:45 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:13:35 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
23:47:25 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rdf-star