Meeting minutes
<pchampin> date: 29 Oct. 2021
<fabio_vitali> Hello
Announcements and newcomers
<fabio_vitali> MUCH better
<fabio_vitali> Thank you
pchampin: asking for anouncements
… quick one: we'll have our next call in 2 weeks, so take care about the the time changing in Europe
… It will be at the usual local time for everyone
Open actions
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: Asking for any other comments. None. So let's move on
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: Starting with easy ones see issue #211
… made some few changes, added links to blocks.
pchampin: no objection to close it. So it's closed.
<pchampin> https://
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: marked one on the occurence vocab
<AndyS> Link without trailing colon: https://
pchampin: s/https://
pchampin: RDF-Triples are unique. There is a section in the report targeting occurences, as well as the vocab section
<AndyS> +1 esp as a likely discussion in the WG so there is only so much that can be done by this team.
gatemezing: good question about the semantics of "proposed-later"
<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to ask what "proposed-later" label means
TallTed: What is the proposed-later label means?
pchampin: This is a temporary label to be submitted to the group as "later"
olaf: Agreed on not adding this discussion on the report
gatemezing: no objection as well
<pchampin> PROPOSAL: mark issue 169 as 'later' (defer to future WG)
<pchampin> +1
+1
<TallTed> +0
<AndyS> +1
<fabio_vitali> +1
<olaf> +1
<Doerthe> +1
<ora> +1
<rivettp> +1
Resolution: mark issue 169 as 'later' (defer to future WG)
pchampin: I'll keep my action open and make the change right now.
pchampin: We have open actions in concrete grammars, moving entailment regimes will be handle in the next agendum
Pending Pull-Requests
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: list of 3 PRs at https://
<fabio_vitali> you guys are too fast for me
<pchampin> https://
gatemezing: PR is good for me. Up to you to decide.
<olaf> Fabio, too fast in what sense?
pchampin: saw TallTed idea to avoid having the generated files in the repo.
<fabio_vitali> @olaf: it takes three-four seconds for me to click on the link, read the topic and try to form an opinion, and you are already discussing the next one
<fabio_vitali> not complaining, just noting
pchampin: Please fabio_vitali do not hesitate to stop the chairs when they go faster
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: Turn to TEPs (Transparency Enabling Properties)
<fabio_vitali> Stupid questions: why the plural? Why are there properties instead of a single one?
pchampin: we have now a formal semantics, included IRIs for TPEs,
<fabio_vitali> Stupid question: why the plural? Why are there properties instead of a single one?
<fabio_vitali> thank you
pchampin: proposed to finish the discussion on-line and merge if there is a consensus
pchampin: olaf is suggesting to change the orders of some sections https://
<pchampin> https://
olaf: It's not a strong opinion
olaf proposal: reorder subsubsections as follow: referential opacity, alternatives to ref opacity, TEPs
pchampin: I hear olaf as if he is far from his phone?!
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: the idea is to have this PR in the html document in the appendices
… once the technical issue is solved, this would be nice to have in the report
… this PR is also good to be merged
pchampin: Chartering of the WG will take time anyway
WG chartering
<pchampin> https://
pchampin: The repo for the charter is on github
… the new W3C WG will chartered a family of RDF and SPARQL documents
… there is still open questions regarding additional features w.r.t. W3C process to avoid all rounds of the normal process,
… making it lighter even if it can raised issues on stability and implementations
<rivettp> has anyone given any thought to including SHACL in the scope of the "family"?
pchampin: one of the question not yet adressed is that probably I will be the W3C point contact
… so I could not continue as chair if that happens
… We need to identify potential chair(s) to be involved in the charter
pchampin: including SHACL? the maturity of the REC, the timing problem and even logistic issues
AndyS: Agreed not including SHACL
<Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to suggest listing SHACL-star (and possibly other things not yet discussed) as an optional stretch goal
AndyS: but it manages to handle it, that's great
TallTed: Listing it at least in the draft, even if it is not tackle could be fair
pchampin: Not putting it as requirement, but indeed include it
AndyS: suggested to propose to write something around that in the document. Thanks AndyS !
pchampin: This remind me the JSON-LD CG vs RDF WG
TallTed: The difference here is that SHACL exists compare to the situation some years ago with JSON-LD (not existing at the time)
ora: anybody working on R2RML-star?
<ora> R2RML
<olaf> RML-star
<pchampin> s/xxxxxs/R2RML-star/
<olaf> "RML-star: A Declarative Mapping Language for RDF-star Generation" by Thomas Delva, Julián Arenas-Guerrero, Ana Iglesias-Molina, Oscar Corcho, David Chaves-Fraga, Anastasia Dimou
<olaf> http://
<ora> :-)
<TallTed> s|s/xxxxxx/R2RML-star/| |
<TallTed> s|/R2RML-star/|/RML-star/|