IRC log of rdf-star on 2022-02-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:47:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-star
15:47:56 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:47:58 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:47:59 [Zakim]
please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), pchampin
15:48:05 [pchampin]
meeting: RDF-star
15:53:09 [pchampin]
Previous meeting:
15:53:15 [pchampin]
chair: pchampin
15:53:26 [pchampin]
15:53:26 [agendabot]
clear agenda
15:53:26 [agendabot]
agenda+ Announcements and newcomers
15:53:26 [agendabot]
agenda+ Next call
15:53:26 [agendabot]
agenda+ Open actions
15:53:26 [agendabot]
agenda+ WG chartering
15:53:28 [agendabot]
agenda+ Open-ended discussions
16:00:27 [AndyS]
16:01:25 [doerthe]
doerthe has joined #rdf-star
16:01:53 [olaf]
olaf has joined #rdf-star
16:02:26 [pchampin]
16:02:33 [olaf]
16:04:10 [ora]
ora has joined #rdf-star
16:04:27 [ora]
16:04:29 [william]
william has joined #rdf-star
16:05:01 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-star
16:05:05 [doerthe]
16:05:24 [gkellogg]
16:05:34 [fabio_vitali]
fabio_vitali has joined #rdf-star
16:05:54 [pchampin]
zakim, pick a scribe
16:05:54 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gatemezing
16:06:11 [pchampin]
zakim, pick a scribe
16:06:11 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose pchampin
16:06:18 [pchampin]
zakim, pick a scribe
16:06:18 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose gatemezing
16:06:40 [pchampin]
zakim, next agendum
16:06:40 [Zakim]
agendum 1 -- Announcements and newcomers -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:06:57 [olaf]
pchampin: no newcomers
16:07:03 [pchampin]
16:07:28 [olaf]
... blog post has been published
16:07:38 [olaf]
... feedback on the CG mailing list
16:07:52 [olaf]
... additionally, there was a question by Pat Hayes
16:08:07 [olaf]
... who asked for a pointer to the RDF-star semantics
16:08:22 [olaf]
... which means that we may get some feedback in the future from him
16:09:48 [TallTed]
TallTed has joined #rdf-star
16:11:12 [pchampin]
16:11:26 [pchampin]
zakim, open next item
16:11:26 [Zakim]
agendum 2 -- Next call -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:11:52 [olaf]
pchampin: how to deal with our biweekly schedule?
16:12:27 [TallTed]
16:12:42 [fabio_vitali]
16:12:45 [olaf]
16:12:51 [pchampin]
16:12:52 [pchampin]
ack olaf
16:13:12 [AndyS]
No opinion. No problem with either.
16:13:15 [pchampin]
olaf: I don't have a strong feeling. I still have weekly meeting in my agenda, deleting entries when appropriate.
16:13:37 [pchampin]
ora: I have a conflict in 2 weeks time.
16:14:07 [olaf]
pchampin: next 2 weeks not convenient
16:14:13 [pchampin]
16:14:26 [olaf]
... most of the work/discussion related to the charter can be done offline
16:15:33 [olaf]
gkellogg: next meeting on March 4, now
16:15:49 [olaf]
william: that would not work for me
16:16:13 [olaf]
pchampin: using the other weeks is not working pete rivett
16:16:32 [pchampin]
PROPOSED: wait 3 weeks until next call, then resume biweekly
16:16:40 [olaf]
s/working/working for
16:17:28 [TallTed]
16:17:33 [pchampin]
ack TallTed
16:17:56 [olaf]
TallTed: I will keep weekly open
16:18:12 [olaf]
... because the biweekly meetings hopped to other weeks
16:18:43 [olaf]
... therefore, better to keep the weekly meeting open
16:20:13 [olaf]
gkellogg: idea can be to keep it scheduled weekly, with the option to either keep the weekly meeting short or even cancel on demand
16:20:36 [pchampin]
PROPOSED: wait 3 weeks until next call, then resume to weekly (expecting regular cancellation)
16:20:47 [olaf]
16:20:50 [pchampin]
16:20:52 [TallTed]
16:21:13 [fabio_vitali]
16:21:22 [doerthe]
16:21:22 [william]
16:21:40 [ora]
16:21:45 [AndyS]
16:21:46 [gkellogg]
16:21:52 [pchampin]
RESOLVED: wait 3 weeks until next call, then resume to weekly (expecting regular cancellation)
16:21:56 [pchampin]
16:22:00 [pchampin]
zakim, next item
16:22:00 [Zakim]
agendum 3 -- Open actions -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:22:14 [olaf]
pchampin: quite a bunch of open actions
16:22:22 [pchampin]
16:22:45 [olaf]
... ping DanB about publishing the rep√ľort on the CG Web page
16:22:54 [olaf]
... pinged him again today
16:23:01 [olaf]
... he was/is on vacation
16:23:02 [pchampin]
16:23:13 [olaf]
16:23:20 [pchampin]
ack olaf
16:23:22 [pchampin]
16:23:36 [pchampin]
olaf: reach out to Cambridge Semantics (Anzo) action
16:23:49 [TallTed]
I suggest reviewing issues in "least recently updated" order. Typically allows closing (or reviving) the most stale.
16:23:49 [pchampin]
... I contacted them but they have not responded yet
16:24:09 [pchampin]
... can send a reminder
16:24:35 [pchampin]
16:24:45 [olaf]
16:24:51 [pchampin]
ack olaf
16:25:11 [pchampin]
olaf: we decided to leave this open until we get their report
16:25:31 [pchampin]
... Ontotext promised a report ; Stargod needs to discuss this in the company
16:25:42 [AndyS]
16:25:54 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
16:26:04 [pchampin]
16:26:35 [olaf]
AndyS: with the charter coming up, we can send a reminder saying that we are going to do this
16:26:47 [pchampin]
16:26:54 [pchampin]
16:27:07 [pchampin]
16:27:11 [pchampin]
AWS blog
16:27:27 [olaf]
ora: working on the blog post, not done yet
16:27:37 [olaf]
... too many distractions
16:27:46 [pchampin]
16:27:46 [pchampin]
16:28:03 [olaf]
pchampin: was left open until we have an impl. report
16:28:10 [olaf]
... which will be coming
16:28:13 [pchampin]
16:28:17 [pchampin]
CG blog posts
16:28:26 [olaf]
pchampin: also more a reminder
16:28:57 [olaf]
... scope of the blog post was reduced because the post was already big enough
16:29:05 [pchampin]
16:29:27 [olaf]
AndyS: there is a new PR
16:29:33 [olaf]
... it can be merged
16:29:41 [pchampin]
16:29:52 [olaf]
... There are some tests for annotation syntax in SPARQL-star
16:30:02 [olaf]
... but these have been wrong
16:30:23 [olaf]
... the PR fixes tem
16:30:27 [olaf]
16:30:40 [pchampin]
16:30:47 [pchampin]
16:30:56 [olaf]
pchampin: there was another PR
16:31:01 [olaf]
... it was merged
16:31:37 [olaf]
... it was about relative links in the report, which ended up broken when the final report was published under a different address
16:31:46 [pchampin]
16:32:05 [pchampin]
16:32:12 [olaf]
pchampin: now to open actions on the charter
16:32:27 [pchampin]
16:32:31 [olaf]
gkellogg: title of the issue is not comprehensive
16:32:56 [olaf]
... should be about any other related serialization formats
16:33:16 [olaf]
pchampin: made a PR, several weeks ago, approved by gkellogg
16:33:30 [pchampin]
16:33:46 [pchampin]
16:33:51 [pchampin]
address RDF/XML conditionnaly
16:34:02 [olaf]
pchampin: same for this issue about RDF/XML, a PR is available for this one as well
16:34:26 [pchampin]
16:34:31 [olaf]
... idea is to be flexible in the charter about what we do about RDF/XML
16:34:31 [AndyS]
q+ to ask about overall tempo
16:34:47 [pchampin]
zakim, open next item
16:34:47 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, pchampin
16:34:57 [AndyS]
16:34:58 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
16:35:05 [pchampin]
zakim, open next item
16:35:05 [Zakim]
agendum 4 -- WG chartering -- taken up [from agendabot]
16:35:29 [olaf]
AndyS: Wonder how we can get some tempo going?
16:36:08 [olaf]
... there is a 7-point list about the chartering, we are currently at step 1 or 2?
16:36:24 [olaf]
pchampin: link to that list?
16:36:25 [AndyS]
16:37:30 [olaf]
AndyS: there are some external steps there
16:37:39 [olaf]
... do we need a complete draft of the charter for them?
16:37:47 [olaf]
pchampin: no
16:38:06 [olaf]
... the W3C strategy team is aware of this ongoing work on RDF-star
16:38:22 [olaf]
... part of point 3 has been done already
16:38:54 [olaf]
... have to check with Ivan about community input
16:39:43 [olaf]
pchampin: blocking issue has been that there is some boring work on the charter
16:39:52 [olaf]
... include all the missing docs from the SPARQL WG
16:40:37 [olaf]
... these should be mentioned in the charter because these will need to point to the updated RECs
16:41:07 [olaf]
... it would be efficient if someone could take this action
16:41:14 [olaf]
AndyS: I can take care of it
16:41:24 [pchampin]
ACTION: AndyS to add missing SPARQL documents in the charter proposal
16:41:26 [olaf]
... and then we can ping the AC
16:42:17 [olaf]
pchampin: In the meantime, everyone here, please take a look at the draft, in particular the part about Turtle
16:42:41 [gkellogg]
16:42:43 [olaf]
AndyS: better to first email the AC before reaching out to the wider community
16:43:18 [olaf]
pchampin: next call of the strategy team is next Tuesday
16:43:28 [olaf]
... notify them in that meeting
16:43:46 [olaf]
... and ensure that it is okay to send to the AC
16:43:46 [pchampin]
16:43:50 [pchampin]
ack gkellogg
16:44:01 [olaf]
gkellogg: Did we decide to merge the open PR?
16:44:03 [olaf]
pchampin: yes
16:44:10 [olaf]
... will do right after this call
16:44:13 [AndyS]
16:44:16 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
16:44:42 [olaf]
AndyS: having seen all the discussion on the mailing list,
16:45:43 [olaf]
... wonder if a use case / primer-style doc an early deliverable of the WG?
16:45:56 [olaf]
... not REC track, just a Note
16:46:49 [olaf]
... as a possible way to get these discussions more focused
16:47:08 [olaf]
pchampin: indeed, currently the charter only lists the REC track docs
16:47:42 [olaf]
... good idea to explicitly list the RDF Primer as an early deliverable
16:47:46 [pchampin]
16:48:04 [fabio_vitali]
good for me
16:48:05 [olaf]
... as a way to converge the discussions towards a common goal
16:48:20 [pchampin]
ACTION: pchampin to add an explicit item about RDF primer in the charter
16:48:44 [AndyS]
q+ to ask about another thing
16:48:56 [pchampin]
ack AndyS
16:48:56 [Zakim]
AndyS, you wanted to ask about another thing
16:49:07 [olaf]
AndyS: licensing?
16:49:34 [olaf]
... It is possible to put all specs under a permissive license
16:51:12 [olaf]
ora: forking of specs was a long runing nightmare
16:52:31 [olaf]
pchampin: the new software and document license as mentioned by the charter is considered as permissive
16:53:20 [pchampin]
16:53:25 [olaf]
... will ask the question at the strategy team meeting
16:53:45 [olaf]
... Question of the chairs is still open.
16:54:37 [ora]
16:54:39 [olaf]
... not sure what is the common way to contact/attract potential chairs
16:54:42 [pchampin]
ack ora
16:55:06 [olaf]
ora: all WGs in which I was, there was no demoncratic process for choosing the chair
16:55:16 [olaf]
... the decision came from W3C
16:55:37 [olaf]
AndyS: more effective to approach people in private
16:56:26 [olaf]
pchampin: question then is, who is in the position to have this discussion?
16:56:46 [fabio_vitali]
one should first have a feeling if there are willing candidates. Then one should have a feeling if there are TWO or more willing candidates. If we have 0, we have a problem. If there are TWO or more, we have a problem. Otherwise, we do not have a problem.
16:56:52 [olaf]
.. ora you mention yourself as an option
16:57:18 [olaf]
ora: yes, still on the table but needs to be confirmed internally
16:57:33 [olaf]
gkellogg: strong preference for having two chairs
16:59:01 [olaf]
... one chair should come from industry
16:59:11 [olaf]
... to get larger by-in from vendors
16:59:47 [olaf]
pchampin: with ora we hae someone from industry
16:59:55 [olaf]
17:00:04 [olaf]
... which means more flexibility on the second name
17:00:52 [olaf]
... We actively need to work on this question. The RDF-star mailing list is probably a too wide forum to have this discussion
17:00:53 [olaf]
17:01:05 [pchampin]
ack olaf
17:01:08 [pchampin]
17:05:17 [pchampin]
17:05:40 [fabio_vitali]
thank you
17:05:52 [AndyS]
Thank you
17:06:08 [olaf]
olaf has left #rdf-star
19:26:43 [pchampin]
pchampin has joined #rdf-star